The Issue The main issue in this case is whether the Town of Marineland's Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinance 2005-1 on August 18, 2005,1 are "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3194(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005).2 Another issue is whether Petitioners have standing.3
Findings Of Fact Background The Town of Marineland is unique. Its history is not only interesting but helpful to an understanding of why the Plan Amendments may or may not be "in compliance," and also why Petitioners may or may not have standing. Marineland originated as the Marine Studios, which was created so that oceanic life would exhibit natural behavior that could be filmed for feature Hollywood films. The Marineland Attraction (Attraction) followed, and the new word "Oceanarium" was coined. The Attraction was the first marine theme park and served as the model for those that followed. The Town of Marineland was created in 1940 essentially to provide support services for the Attraction. Eventually, the Attraction's founding members died, and the property was sold to a group of St. Augustine investors, with the new entity being called Marineland, Inc. The investors looked at the property as a real estate investment, and the 1992/2005 Plan reflects this vision, calling for a community of 1500 persons and 600 dwelling units. The Town and the Attraction remained interdependent, with the Attraction being the entity that generated revenue and provided for most of the financial needs of the Town. As the face of Florida tourism changed during the 1970's and 1980's, fewer and fewer people came to Marineland, opting instead for the high profile attractions in the Orlando area. Rather than being a profit center for the investors that allowed them leisure to develop the rest of the land at their convenience, the Attraction became a money sink and required the investors to put money in each year to keep the facility going. This was an untenable situation in the long run and ultimately Marineland, Inc., sold its holdings to Marineland Ocean Resort (MOR), which split off another entity, the Marineland Foundation, to manage the Attraction. The Marineland Foundation operated under the umbrella of the Town of Marineland and not specifically as part of MOR. As this was happening, the Town of Marineland found itself having to be self-sufficient for the first time in 55 years. It needed to assume all the trappings of a municipal government and deal with matters that had previously been handled in whole or part by Marineland, Inc. During all these changes various attorneys examined different aspects of the Town's operation and found certain deficiencies. The most serious for land use planning was that the Town had not followed through after adoption of the 1992/2005 Plan and adopted any sort of land development regulations (LDRs). Simultaneously, MOR was considering how to develop the land it had bought. Its model was timeshares, and it considered turning the two oceanfront hotels into timeshare units, building an additional oceanfront timeshare hotel, selling timeshare campground slots, selling timeshare marine slips, and building timeshare units along the riverfront in the maritime hammock. Since the town had no LDRs, MOR would have had a free hand to build anything it pleased. To remedy this deficiency as quickly as possible the Town passed: Ordinance 97-1, which adopted the Flagler County development code provisions for signage, storm water and drainage, wetlands, tree protection, road construction and coastal construction; Ordinance 97-2 to adopt various standard codes relating to amusement devices, buildings, fire prevention, gas, grading, housing, mechanical, plumbing and swimming pools; and Ordinance 97-3 establishing zoning districts and providing for zoning regulations. Ordinance 97- 3 allowed for medium-density housing at four units per acre in the disturbed and cleared areas and at two units per acre in the the partially-disturbed maritime hammock. The intention was to prevent the rest of the maritime hammock, a rapidly disappearing environment throughout Florida and an environment of special concern, from being cleared for river-view timeshare units along the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). The Town wished to balance the need to preserve important lands with the need to rebuild the town and regain lost population. It was not clear from the evidence how many units of residential development would be allowed under Ordinance 97-3, but it would be less that under the 1992/2005 Plan or under the Plan Amendments. Shortly after these ordinances were passed, MOR, which had been struggling financially and unable to realize any of its development plans, filed for bankruptcy and sale of their holdings. Its attorneys expressed great concern about the effect of the town ordinances on the pending bankruptcy and sale, and pointed out that when MOR filed, the court froze the status quo, preventing the Town from amending the 1992/2005 Plan's future land use map (FLUM) to reflect Ordinance 97-3. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) was successful in purchasing the MOR holdings from the bankruptcy proceedings. The result was a substantial reshaping of the land ownership within the Town. Approximately 90 acres of the most vulnerable lands were purchased from TPL with grant money from Florida Communities Trust (FCT)and set aside for conservation. The University of Florida's Whitney Marine Lab purchased additional land to double its holdings, and Jacoby Development, Inc. purchased about 40 acres of the disturbed lands for development. Concurrent with these activities, DCA awarded two planning grants to the Town under the Remarkable Coastal Place Program. The purpose of the grants was to enable the Town to take advantage of state experts in various aspects of community planning who could help the Town reorganize itself, recover its lost population, and rebuild itself from the ground up. It became apparent during this work that the Town would need a new comprehensive plan, not simply an update to the existing plan, in order to reflect the different structure of land ownership and to support the vision that the stakeholders had created during the planning process of a sustainable community that would be a center of science, education, recreation, and ecotourism. This was begun while state expertise was still available to the town, and once again incorporation of Ordinances 97-1, 97-2, and 97-3 into the existing comprehensive plan and FLUM was put on the back burner, since a new set of LDRs would have to be written to support the new comprehensive plan work in progress. Existing Uses The Town's existing land uses are distributed into two major categories: those found within and those found outside the River-to-Sea Preserve. The Preserve Approximately 89 acres of the total 151+ acres of the Town is off-limits to development through protection in the River-to-Sea Preserve. The River-to-Sea Preserve is undeveloped and vegetated with maritime hammock, coastal strand, beaches, dunes, and approximately eight acres of salt marsh within the Town's boundaries. The land has experienced significant disturbance in some areas. However, the majority of the site consists of native forested and non-forested vegetative communities. Lands covered with coastal scrub growth dominated by saw palmetto are located along the barrier dunes and to some extent to the west along the southern border of the Town but mostly seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line regulated by Florida Department of Environmental Protection. This is a rapidly-disappearing community, and some sites harbor numerous endangered species. For that reason, it is one of three which has been designated by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) as a "Rare and Unique Upland Community" within Florida. Development to the south of the Town has left these scrublands as an isolated remnant of the former community. The Preserve protects approximately seven acres of the coastal scrub community located in the Town. The Preserve protects three-fourths (32.6 acres) of the coastal hammock community located in the Town. The coastal hammock community also has been designated as a "Rare and Unique Upland Community" by the FFWCC. This community provides valuable cover and feeding areas for migratory songbirds in fall and spring as they migrate down the Atlantic Coast. Running the length of the Town along the Atlantic Ocean are 8.9 acres of beach area, an area of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean low water line to the primary dune system. The north and south ends of the beach are in the Preserve. Outside the Preserve Development in the Town, outside the Preserve, includes the existing Oceanarium facilities, the Whitney Lab, and the presently closed marina facility. Approximately 2.2 acres in the northeastern portion of the Town between A1A and the Atlantic Ocean contain the two original Oceanarium tanks of Marineland and has been included in The National Register of Historic Places. The Marine Park of Flagler has purchased the MOR property and intends to revitalize these areas. The Whitney Lab consists of the Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience and the Marine Education Building, all operated by the University of Florida. These facilities occupy approximately 10 acres and are used for educational and research purposes. The Whitney Lab has broken ground on a new Center for Marine Studies and has plans for a Center for Marine Animal Health. The marina facility is located in the northwestern part of the Town adjacent to the ICW. It is 3.4 acres in size. The marina has been closed due to the deteriorating facilities. There is a plan to redevelop the Marina as a "Clean Marina." A smaller (0.74 acre) parcel is located adjacent to the Preserve on the west side of A1A and is the location of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTMNERR) Administrative Offices, classroom, lab, and research facilities. Besides the beach, undeveloped urban lands outside the Preserve consist primarily of an approximately 47-acre, privately-owned parcel located in the center of the Town west of A1A. It is surrounded on three sides by already-developed areas within the Town. It includes approximately 10.3 acres of the Temperate Hardwood Hammock. Adjacent Lands The Flagler County/St. Johns County line passes through the northern tip of the Town so that the Town is primarily located in Flagler County. Flagler County is a fast-growing county having five incorporated municipalities. Land to the north of the Town, located in St. Johns County, consists of undeveloped coastal scrub and dune, saltwater marshes, and single-family houses along the barrier dune and in the vicinity of Summer Haven, a small unincorporated community located on the south side of the Matanzas Inlet. To the south, in Flagler County, there are large areas of coastal scrub and temperate hammock. A residential development called Matanzas Shores is being constructed. This development was permitted by Flagler County after Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review by the RPC. Immediately to the south of this development is the Washington Oaks Gardens State Park. To the west of the Town are saltwater marshes associated with Pellicer Creek, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), and the Matanzas River, which is part of the ICW. Pine flatwoods and temperate hammock are on the mainland shore. The Princes Place Preserve, Faver Dykes State Park, and St. Johns River Water Management District lands along Pellicer Creek serve as a 19,000-acre buffer between the ICW and the U.S. 1/I-95 corridor to the west. Two islands located in the Matanzas River estuary have been purchased through the FCT program and are owned by the Town. The southern island is located directly across from the Marineland marina on the west bank of the ICW and on the Flagler/St. Johns County boundary. The north island is on the west side of the ICW just south of the Matanzas Inlet in St. Johns County. The Florida Park Service will manage the islands. Although owned by the Town, these islands have not been annexed into the Town boundaries. It is the intent of the Town to annex these islands and incorporate them into long-term research, education and protection. Density8 On several fronts, Petitioners take issue with the density of development allowed by the Plan Amendments. They point to the designation of the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), as well as data and analysis concerning erosion, topography (ground elevations), hurricane frequency and severity (or intensity), hurricane evacuation and shelter concerns, and effects on the sensitive environment of the Town and vicinity. CHHA In accordance with the law at the time, the Town's 1992/2005 Plan designated the CHHA to be seaward of the Town's coastal dune. In compliance with Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6., which required (and still requires) coastal management elements of plans to contain one or more specific objectives which "[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas," the Town's 1992/2005 Plan included Coastal/Conservation Element (C/CE) Objective E.1.6, which provided: Marineland shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted high-hazard areas and shall ensure that building and development activities outside high-hazard areas are carried out in a manner which minimizes the danger to life and property from hurricanes. Development within Coastal High-Hazard Areas shall be restricted and public funding for facilities with[in] Coastal High-Hazard Areas shall be curtailed. Marineland shall provide a timely review of the hazard mitigation and evacuation implications of applications for rezoning, zoning variances or subdivision approvals for all new development in areas subject to coastal flooding. In addition, the Town's 1992/2005 Plan did not allow residential (or any other) development in the designated CHHA. In 1993 the Florida Legislature amended the definition of the CHHA mean the Category 1 hurricane evacuation zone. See Section 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. See also Rule 9J-5.003(17) (defining the CHHA to mean the evacuation zone for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study). Rule 9J-5.002(8) requires a local government to "address" rule changes in the next cycle of amendments. Since the entire Town is in the evacuation zone for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study, the Plan Amendments designate the entire Town as the CHHA. The Plan Amendments allow residential development west of the ocean dune in what is now the CHHA. The Plan Amendments also replace Objective E.1.6 with a new C/CE Objective E.1.6, Hazard Mitigation, which requires the Town to "ensure that building and development activities areas [sic] are carried out in a manner which minimizes the danger to life and property" and "provide a timely review of the hazard mitigation and evacuation implications of applications for rezoning, zoning variances or subdivision approvals for all new development in areas subject to coastal flooding." A series of policies follow the new objective. The question under these circumstances is whether the Plan Amendments adequately address the change in CHHA definition and comply with Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. As the following findings explain, it is found that they do. Petitioners contend that they do not and that the Town was required to keep the 1992/2005 C/CE Objective E.1.6, which arguably would prohibit any residential development in the Town. This also would be the result if Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(b)6. were construed to require the Town to direct all population away from the CHHA. At least some Petitioners candidly would prefer that result, and Petitioners make a seemingly half-hearted initial argument that allowing any residential development in the Town (i.e., in the CHHA) would be inappropriate and not "in compliance." But it is clear that such a result is not mandated by the statute or rules. To the contrary, DCA interprets the statutes and rules as not even requiring a re-evaluation or "down-planning" of land uses (in particular, a reduction in residential densities) allowed under an existing comprehensive plan when a local government "addresses" the change in definition of the CHHA by increasing its size. DCA has not required such a re- evaluation anywhere in the State. Rather, DCA interprets the statutes and rules to prohibit the local government from increasing density in the CHHA above the density authorized by its existing comprehensive plan. In this case, the Town not only has designated the new CHHA but also has conducted a re-evaluation and revised its comprehensive plan. Under the rather unusual circumstances here, where the CHHA covers the entire Town, changing residential densities in various parts of the Town is not significant in determining whether population concentrations are directed away from the CHHA. Rather, what is important is the total residential development allowed in the Town as a whole. The Town contends, along with DCA and Centex, that the Plan Amendments reduce residential density in the Town. Petitioners, on the other hand, contend first of all that the density allowed by the Plan Amendments cannot be compared to the 1992/2005 Plan because the existing plan did not establish residential density standards, as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes ("[e]ach future land use category must be defined in terms of uses included, and must include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities"). Instead, Petitioners contend that the 1992/2005 Plan was written in terms of "vague and standardless" design criteria and a policy direction for the Town to adopt LDRs consistent with the design criteria. Primarily for that reason, Petitioners contended that the density allowed by the Plan Amendments had to be compared to the residential density established by Ordinance 97-3 to determine whether the Plan Amendments increased residential density. Regardless of the way it was written, the 1992/2005 Plan was found to be "in compliance." In addition, while the policies in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the 1992/2005 Plan were written in terms of average gross acre lot sizes, maximum lot coverage, and maximum floor area ratios characteristic of design criteria, it is nonetheless possible to calculate (albeit not without difficulty and with room for minor differences in results depending on the approach taken and assumptions made) the residential density allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. The adopted FLUM depicted the various residential land use categories, as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a)("[t]he proposed distribution, location, and extent of the various categories of land use shall be shown on a land use map or map series"), and a summary of the total allowable residential land uses was included in data and analysis that accompanied the 1992/2005 Plan,9 making it possible to calculate residential density. Contrary to Petitioners' argument, it is not necessary to use Ordinance 97-3 to determine the residential density allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan, and there is no other plausible reason, or any precedent, for using land development regulations in that manner. As represented in the data and analysis summary for purposes of calculating the land requirements for housing, the 1992/2005 Plan allowed a maximum of 427 residential dwelling units on 37.7 acres, including apartments above retail uses, which are not depicted on the FLUM but are allowed under Housing Element (HE) Policy C.1.1.2 to provide affordable housing. This maximum of 427 assumed 98 apartments above retail uses although more arguably would be allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. In addition, the 1992/2005 Plan's HE Policy C.1.1.1 allowed "out-buildings" as "ancillary structures to the rear of lots containing single family dwellings." Like the apartments over retail, these dwelling units are not depicted on the FLUM but are allowed as of right and theoretically could result in 176 additional dwelling units on a total of 37.6 acres. To arrive at the residential density allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan, DCA's expert added 12 of the approximately 12-20 dwelling units not shown in the summary but mentioned in the data and analysis of the 1992/2005 Plan as being either existing or allowed on the Whitney Lab's 5.4 acres, bringing the total theoretical maximum under the 1992/2005 Plan to 615 residential units on 43 of the Town's 151 acres, at various densities ranging from 2.2 units per acre at the Whitney Lab to 28.8 units per acre for apartments above retail uses, for an average residential density of 14.3 units per acre.10 Centex's expert took a different tack. First, for the apartments over retail uses, he assumed two units per retail use, for a total of 198 units (while also pointing out that there was no cap on these units in the 1992/2005 Plan). Second, he did not include any units for the Whitney Lab because they were not grounded in Plan policies. Using this approach, he arrived at a total of 704 residential units allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. While he maintained the validity of that calculation, he pointed out that eliminating the units (both residential units and associated "out- buildings") allowed on land now included in the River-to-Sea Preserve would lower the total to 611 units. The Town's expert did not count apartments above retail uses or the units at the Whitney Lab and arrived at a total of approximately 421-425 dwelling units allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. When he eliminated the units (residential units with associated "out-buildings") allowed on land now included in the River-to-Sea Preserve, he decreased his total to 275 units. The reason for the differences in his calculation was not clear from the record. Turning to the Plan Amendments, although more typical residential density standards are used, the experts still disagree on exactly what residential density the Plan Amendments allow and achieve. Most development under the Plan Amendments will occur in the Sustainable Mixed Use (SMU) future land use category, which allows a maximum of 241 residential units, a maximum of 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, and accessory residential units for affordable housing. Centex's expert determined that, under the Plan Amendments, the maximum theoretical number of dwelling units that could be developed in the Town, including the SMU category, is 565 units. It is not reasonable to conclude that 565 dwelling units would actually be developed, because this number includes 241 affordable accessory units, one for each residential unit. However, the Town concluded there is only a need for 39 such units. Centex's expert found that 13 of the 39 affordable housing units needed in the Town will be provided in FLUM categories other than SMU--namely, Institution Research (the Whitney Lab) and Conservation. It is more reasonable to expect that only the remaining 26 accessory units needed to address affordable housing will be developed in the SMU category to meet the 39-unit affordable housing need, instead of 241, and that 350 units actually will be built under the Plan Amendments. In his analysis, DCA's expert did not count any affordable housing units in the SMU category in reaching the conclusion that a 315 residential units are allowed under the Plan Amendments. Adding the theoretical maximum of 241, his total maximum theoretical number of residential units would be 553. The record is not clear as to why his numbers differ somewhat from the Centex expert's. The Town's expert somehow arrived at the conclusion that the Plan Amendments allow a total of 279 residential units. Like the DCA expert, he apparently did not count affordable housing units in the SMU category. The reason for other differences in his calculation are not clear from the record. It may be that he did not count residential units in the Tourist/Commercial category, while the others counted 35 units because there is a possibility that 35 condominium units could be developed there instead of 70 hotel rooms. Differences may also involve how he assessed and counted the possibility for residential units in the Institutional Research and Conservation categories. Despite these computational differences, it is clear that the Plan Amendments allow fewer residential units in the Town than the 1992/2005 Plan did, even assuming no residential development under the 1992/2005 Plan in what became the River- to-Sea Preserve. The density allowed under the Plan Amendments is comparable to densities authorized by comprehensive plans north and south of the Town, as well as the actual development that has occurred and is occurring in those areas. Since the entire Town is within the new CHHA, the Plan Amendments can be said to result in a reduction in population concentration within the CHHA by comparison to the 1992/2005 Plan. This also is reflected in the population projections on which the two plans were based. The 1992/2005 Plan was based on a projected total 2005 population of 1,551 people, including 900 permanent and 651 seasonal. The Plan Amendments are based on a projected 2015 population of 630, including 386 permanent residents and 244 seasonal residents and university students living in dormitories at the Whitney Lab. While reluctantly conceding that some residential growth in the Town (i.e., in the CHHA) is appropriate, Petitioners contend that growth must be limited to what is allowed under Ordinance 97-3 because any more growth than that would increase residential density in the CHHA. They argue that Ordinance 97-3 should be the benchmark because the 1992/2005 Plan did not establish residential density but instead relied on Ordinance 97-3 to do so. However, as reflected above, this argument was not supported by the evidence. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, while the Plan Amendments do not include an objective that parrots the words in Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6.--"[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high- hazard areas"--they do have goals, objectives, and policies which do so, as well adequately address the new CHHA definition. Data and Analysis Under the proposed findings in the section of their PRO entitled "Data and Analysis," Petitioners argue that there was a: "Failure to prove need for proposed density." The basis for the argument appears to be that: "[n]o professional methodology was utilized"; that the Town's population estimate was based on the "desires of the stakeholders," i.e., the "property owner investors"; and that the "desire of the stakeholders was for 'approximately 241 dwelling units,' not the at least 565 dwelling units authorized by the Amendments." Petitioners' PRO, at ¶61. But Petitioners did not prove that no professional methodology was used or that the population estimate was based solely on the "desires of the stakeholders." In addition, while the Plan Amendments state that the visioning effort undertaken by the Town for developing the Town's Master Plan under Florida's Remarkable Coastal Place program identified "approximately 241 dwelling units . . . as a target for meeting the permanent residential population of the Town," it also stated that "approximately 315 dwelling units were identified as a target for meeting the sustainability goal of the Town." Joint Exhibit 2, pp. A-14, C-11. Finally, there is no requirement that data and analysis "prove need for proposed density," but only that they support allocations of land for various uses. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. ("future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth"). Accommodating need for affordable housing on the same land allocated for other residential and commercial development does not run afoul of this data and analysis requirement. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(2)(c). No witness for Petitioners opined that the population projection for the Plan Amendments was not supported by data and analysis. To the contrary, several witnesses for the other parties opined that the data and analyses supporting the Plan Amendments were surprisingly comprehensive for a local government the size of the Town and were more than adequate. Land Use Suitability Petitioners' PRO contends: "The data and analysis concerning Town erosion, the low elevation of the Town, increased hurricane frequency and severity, inadequacy of hurricane evacuation time and shelter capacity, the adverse impacts of the land use designations on shellfish beds, estuarine nursery areas, the Tropical Hardwood Hammock, the designation of domestic waste water treatment and discharge facilities in the River to Sea Preserve, and water pollution resulting from foreseeable flooding establishes that the density of the Amendments is unsuitable for the Town land." Petitioners' PRO, ¶63. Erosion and Elevation It is clear that the Town of Marineland, due to its location and low elevation (generally 5-6 feet NGVD west of A1A), has been, is, and will continue to be vulnerable to beach erosion and flood damage from a major hurricane. Several hundred years ago, there was a navigable tidal pass north of the Town. The pass closed naturally through sand and sediment accretion but in recent years the area has been suffering significant erosion, resulting in State Road A1A having to be rerouted and access to homes along the old A1A being severely limited. In 1999, when Hurricane Floyd was 100-150 miles east of the Town in the Atlantic Ocean, significant erosion occurred within the Town, including the waters and sand of the Atlantic Ocean overtopping A1A in the north end of the Town, along with flooding the Town. As a result, the Town was a declared a disaster zone, and FEMA awarded two separate redevelopment grants. The Town's shoreline has been critically eroded, but is stable at this time. Notwithstanding these characteristics of the Town, which contribute to its designation as a CHHA, and as previously discussed, the evidence is clear that the Town is not considered unsuitable for development. To the contrary, the development allowed by the Plan Amendments is considered acceptable. Petitioners also cite evidence that sea level is expected by some to rise approximately 20 inches in the next 100 years. But no qualified witness opined that, for planning purposes, the Town should be considered unsuitable for development for that reason. Hurricane Frequency and Intensity Petitioners also contend that the Town is unsuitable for development in light of data and analysis concerning hurricane frequency and intensity. Indeed, there is persuasive evidence that hurricane frequency and intensity is cyclical and that in about 1995 a period of heightened hurricane frequency and intensity that usually lasts 10-20 years probably began. The evidence was clear that DCA does not consider the frequency and intensity of hurricanes to be relevant data and analysis in evaluating whether comprehensive plan development density and intensity are "in compliance." Rather, this is considered to be a matter to be addressed by the Legislature. So far, there has been no legislation to either further enlarge the CHHA or further restrict development in the CHHA.11 Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter Study Petitioners allege that the Town did not undertake adequate hurricane evacuation planning in connection with the Plan Amendments. Specifically, their PRO cites Section 163.3178(2)(d), Florida Statutes, which requires a comprehensive plan's coastal management element to include: "A component which outlines principles for hazard mitigation and protection of human life against the effects of natural disaster, including population evacuation, which take into consideration the capability to safely evacuate the density of coastal population proposed in the future land use plan element in the event of an impending natural disaster." They also cite Rule 9J-5.012(2), which addresses the requirement that the coastal element be based on the following data and analysis, among others: (e) The following natural disaster planning concerns shall be inventoried or analyzed: 1. Hurricane evacuation planning based on the hurricane evacuation plan contained in the local peacetime emergency plan shall be analyzed and shall consider the hurricane vulnerability zone, the number of persons requiring evacuation, the number of persons requiring public hurricane shelter, the number of hurricane shelter spaces available, evacuation routes, transportation and hazard constraints on the evacuation routes, and evacuation times. The projected impact of the anticipated population density proposed in the future land use element and any special needs of the elderly, handicapped, hospitalized, or other special needs of the existing and anticipated populations on the above items shall be estimated. The analysis shall also consider measures that the local government could adopt to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times. They point out that Rule 9J-5.003(57) defines Hurricane Vulnerability Zone (HVZ) as "the areas delineated by the regional or local hurricane evacuation plan as requiring evacuation" and that it also requires the HVZ to "include areas requiring evacuation in the event of a 100-year storm or Category 3 storm event." Finally, they cite Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(b)7., which requires one or more specific Coastal Element objectives which: “Maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times.” The evidence was that these planning requirements were met. There are no mandatory state, regional, or local evacuation clearance times. The 1992/2005 Plan included C/CE Objective E.1.5., which provided: "The time period required to complete the evacuation of people from flooding of vulnerable coastal areas prior to the arrival of sustained gale force winds shall be maintained at less than 12 hours." The Plan Amendments replaced that objective with C/CE E.1.5., which now provides: "Evacuation clearance time should be maintained or reduced to less than 12 hours." This complies with Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)7. The Plan Amendments were based on appropriate data and analysis. Because the entire Town is in the CHHA, the Town population must evacuate in a Category 1 and all higher storm categories. Evacuation routes for the Town are S.R. A1A north to S.R. 206 in St. Johns County, and S.R. A1A south to Palm Coast Parkway in Flagler County. The best and most current evidence, based on a 2005 update to the RPC's 1998 Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study, indicates that evacuation clearance times for St. Johns County are estimated to be 11 hours for Category 1 hurricanes, 14 for Category 2 hurricanes, 16 hours for Category 3 hurricanes, and 16.75 hours for Category 4 through 5 hurricanes; evacuation clearance times for Flagler County are estimated to be 7.75 hours for Category 1 and 2 hurricanes and 12 hours for Category 3 through 5 hurricanes. The Flagler clearance times are lower than those estimated in a 1998 version of the study, even though based on a higher population, primarily because the widening of the Palm Coast Parkway to four-lanes has been completed. The evidence does not demonstrate that the evacuation clearance times in St. Johns County increased under the 2005 Study. Clearance times are based on the worst bottleneck in a county, where traffic is metered to derive the actual clearance times. Evacuation of Town residents under the Plan Amendments will not impact the bottlenecks in either St. Johns County or Flagler County. For that reason, evacuation of Town population would be expected to be take less time than the clearance times calculated for those counties in the RPC's 2005 study; conversely, evacuation of Town residents under the Plan Amendments will have no effect on the overall clearance times in either St. Johns County or Flagler County. Assuming a maximum additional population (resulting from the addition of 829 dwelling units) under the Plan Amendments, 652 cars would be added to an evacuation during high tourist occupancy season (which includes the summer tourist season, which generally corresponds to hurricane season). This would increase traffic during the worst theoretical hour of the Town's evacuation (i.e., during which 30 percent of the Town's traffic would try to enter the evacuation road network) by 8.7 percent heading north from the Town on A1A and by 13 percent heading south of the Town on A1A. Based on a comparison of maximum theoretical densities under the 1992/2005 Plan and under the Plan Amendments, the number of evacuating vehicles added to the road network is reduced under the Plan Amendments. By comparison, assuming a maximum additional population (resulting from the addition of 565 dwelling units) under the 1992/2005 Plan, 922 cars would be added to an evacuation during high tourist occupancy season. This would increase traffic during the worst theoretical hour of the Town's evacuation by 12.3 percent heading north from the Town on A1A and by 18.4 percent heading south of the Town on A1A. Likewise, based on a comparison of maximum densities under the 1992/2005 Plan and the Plan Amendments, the Plan Amendments result in a reduced demand for shelter space. Obviously, since the entire Town is in the CHHA and must evacuate in a Category 1 and all higher storm categories, there is no requirement for the Town itself to provide hurricane shelter. Similar to most Florida counties, St. Johns and Flagler Counties have deficits in shelter space that are expected to increase as the population increases. According to DCA's Division of Emergency Management (DEM), in 2004 Flagler County had hurricane shelter spaces for 4,267 persons and a deficiency of 2,401 shelter spaces. This deficiency is expected to almost double (be 4,020) by 2008. According to DCA's DEM, in 2004 St. Johns County had hurricane shelter capacity for 7,320 persons, and a hurricane shelter demand of 9,829 people, resulting in a deficiency of 2,509 spaces. In 2009, the St. Johns County shelter demand is projected to be 11,564, “leaving an anticipated shelter deficit of 4,244.” However, the evidence was not clear that the shelters to which Town residents would be assigned are either over capacity or under capacity. In addition, it was not clear that future development would not include the construction of facilities that may serve as shelters. Finally, there was no clear evidence why these anticipated shelter deficits should restrict development in either county, or in the Town, so as to make the Plan Amendments not "in compliance." Natural Resources Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" because of effects on various natural resources in the Town and vicinity, including shellfish harvesting areas, important estuarine nursery for juvenile fish and invertebrates, and the Town's high-quality oak hammock area (also referred to as a maritime hammock, a coastal temperate hammock, or a tropical hardwood hammock.) Petitioners' main argument regarding adverse effects on shellfish harvesting and nursery areas was that flooding during hurricane events will cause household chemicals and other pollutants stored inappropriately at ground level to be released into the environment, probably at a time when juvenile fish are present in the estuarine nursery areas. But there also was persuasive evidence that chemicals released during these kinds of flood events would be substantially diluted by the massive volume of water associated with them, which would greatly reduces any deleterious effects on nursery and shellfish areas. Through C/CE Policies E.1.3.4 and E.1.3.5 in the Plan Amendments, the Town has chosen to impose OFW standards that substantially exceed those that would otherwise be imposed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. OFW standards prohibit degradation of water below ambient conditions and typically require the design of stormwater systems that provide 1.5 times the level of treatment that otherwise would be provided for stormwater. There was evidence that shellfish harvesting has declined in the waters of the GTMNEER to the north of the Town over the recent past as the land near these waters has been developed. The evidence was not comprehensive as to the reason(s) for the decline, but poorer water quality generally is thought to be the primary cause. Some shellfish harvesting areas still are productive, including some near the Town where Mr. Cubbedge has an oyster and clam lease. Petitioners presented no testimony related to the temperate hardwood hammock. Centex's expert in environmental analysis observed that portions of the hammock areas have been altered or disturbed and that the higher-quality areas have been placed in the River-to-Sea Preserve where they are protected from development. Much of the natural vegetative communities in the Town are within the Conservation future land use category and not subject to development. To protect 10.3 acres of oak hammock located on land that is subject to development, the Plan Amendments impose a Maritime Hammock Overlay. In addition to otherwise applicable density and intensity standards, development within the Overlay is subject to numerous restrictions on adverse impacts on natural vegetation. Amendment FLUE Policies A.1.8.3. and A.1.8.4. allow only 50 percent of single-family and multi- family parcels to be cleared of trees, understory, and groundcover, and only 25 percent of the tree canopy to be removed. Petitioners also argue that the designation of the "Public Facilities" future land use category in the River-to- Sea Preserve in Amendment Policy A.1.4.2 is unsupported by data and analysis and "fairs [sic] to show the extend [sic] of the category as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat., and it does not estimate the gross acreage of the category as required by Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c)." Actually, the statute cited requires the FLUE to designate the "extent of the uses of land," and the rule requires an "analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including: . . . 2. The estimated gross acreage needed by category . . . ." There was no testimony or other adequate evidence to support these arguments, and it was not proven that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" for any of these reasons. Conclusion It was not proven that data and analysis concerning the above matters establish that the density of the Plan Amendments is unsuitable for the Town land. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Similar to the Amended Petition and Petitioners' Statement of Position in the Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners' PRO lists numerous objectives and policies in the Plan Amendments and contends that they are not "in compliance" because they do not provide meaningful and predictable standards. One expert called by Petitioners (Ms. Owen) testified in general that the Plan Amendments contain objectives and policies "which do not contain meaningful and predictable standards" or "that are not measurable or provide any standards or specificity." (T. 359). She also initially testified that the Plan Amendments (at her request) incorporated into data and analysis OFW water quality standards for discharges into the ICW but that "their goals, objectives and policies, as drafted, do not provide specific enough standards to be able to measure that"; later, she conceded that C/CE Policy E.3.5 incorporated OFW water quality standards. Another expert for Petitioners (Mr. Johnson) testified, "I think there's not enough detail in these policies and standards by which somebody could measurably allow growth to occur and measurably predict that it's not going to have an effect, a negative effect, on the environment." Otherwise, Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the objectives and policies in the Plan Amendments do not provide meaningful or predictable standards, and they put on no expert testimony that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance" for that reason. Meanwhile, experts for the Town (Mr. Brown), Centex (Dr. Pennock), and DCA (Dr. Addai-Mensa) testified in general terms that the Plan Amendments were "in compliance." Another expert for Centex (Dr. Dennis) testified specifically that incorporation of the OFW standards in the C/CE and other goals, objectives, and policies were adequate to protect the waters of the ICW and its natural resources and the River-to- Sea Preserve even with the development allowed by the Plan Amendments. Rule 9J-5.005(6) provides in pertinent part: "Goals, objectives and policies shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. This chapter does not mandate the creation, limitation, or elimination of regulatory authority for other agencies nor does it authorize the adoption or require the repeal of any rules, criteria, or standards of any local, regional, or state agency." Rule 9J-5.003 sets out definitions, including: (52) "Goal" means the long-term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed. (82) "Objective" means a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. (90) "Policy" means the way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal. Properly understood, these Rules require that an objective's "intermediate end" be specific and measurable in the sense that it can be determined when the "intermediate end" is reached. They do not mean that objectives must eliminate all possibility ambiguity or be amenable to quantitative measurement. They only require that objectives provide "meaningful guidance" and be enforceable in that sense. All of the objectives and policies listed by Petitioners have been reviewed. The evidence does not prove beyond fair debate that any of the listed objectives and policies are inconsistent with the cited Rule provisions, properly understood. Petitioners complain that several of the listed objectives and policies require the adoption of LDRs without including meaningful and predictable standards. In some cases, the objectives and policies themselves provide meaningful and predictable standards. But it is not necessary for comprehensive standards to be included in each such objective or policy. Rather, when required, meaningful and predictable standards to guide the LDR adoption process can be placed elsewhere in the comprehensive plan, as is often the case with the Plan Amendments. (In addition, not all plan directions to adopt LDRs are required by statutory and rule mandatory criteria, and it is possible that all of them may not be required to include meaningful and predictable standards if superfluous.) As they did elsewhere in their PRO, Petitioners contend that FLUE Policy A.1.4.2 does not "state what is the areal extent of the 'Public Facilities' land use category as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. or estimate the gross acreage of the 'Public Facilities' land use category as required by Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c)." They also characterize the alleged failing as a lack of meaningful and predictable standards. But as previously mentioned, the Plan Amendments are not inconsistent with that statute and rule. See Finding 73, supra. Petitioners also argue that a listed objective and several listed policies fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards because they do not contain a percentage distribution of mixed uses.12 Actually, these are two different issues. As already indicated, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the objectives and policies fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards. As for the separate issue of percentage distribution of mixed uses, Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c) provides: Mixed use categories of land use are encouraged. If used, policies for the implementation of such mixed uses shall be included in the comprehensive plan, including the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, and the density or intensity of each use. (Emphasis added.) Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the objective and policies in the Plan Amendments do not meet the requirements of this Rule, and they put on no expert testimony that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance" for that reason. Meanwhile, as already mentioned, experts for the Town (Mr. Brown), Centex (Dr. Pennock), and DCA (Dr. Addai-Mensa) testified in general terms that the Plan Amendments were "in compliance." On the evidence presented, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments do not contain policies with "[an]other objective measurement" of the distribution among the mix of uses in the SMU, General Commercial, and Tourist Commercial land use categories established in FLUE Policy A.1.4.2. H. Petitioners' Other Issues The Amended Petition and Prehearing Stipulation raised other issues that were not included in Petitioners' PRO. Some of these were addressed in the parts of Centex's PRO, which the Town and DCA joined, including financial feasibility, planning timeframes, and deletion of a policy requiring habitats of listed species to be designated Conservation. To the extent that these other issues have not been abandoned by Petitioners, it is found that they were not proven. Petitioners' Standing All of the Petitioners submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the Town during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments on March 31, 2005, and ending with their adoption on August 18, 2006. None of the Petitioners own property or reside in the Town or own real property abutting real property in the Town. The Hamilton Brothers Brothers George William (Bill) Hamilton, III, and Patrick S. Hamilton live in Crescent Beach, which is four to five miles north of the Town in St. Johns County. Together (along with their wives), they own and operate Homecomers, Inc., which does business as Southern Realty of St. Augustine and Crescent Beach (Southern Realty), and as Southern Horticulture, which is located in Crescent Beach or St. Augustine (the evidence was not clear which). Patrick operates the real estate brokerage, which has offices in St. Augustine and in Crescent Beach, and Bill operates the retail garden and landscaping business. The brothers also own part of Coastal Outdoor Center, which is located in Crescent Beach at S.R. 206 and features kayak tours of the Matanzas River, mostly south to Pellicer Creek. The Hamilton family also has oyster and clam leases in St. Johns County. It appears that the vast majority of the brothers' business activities are conducted in St. Johns County north of the Town. However, over the years, some limited business has been conducted in the Town. In 1993 Patrick Hamilton twice brokered the sale of land from Marineland, Inc., one parcel to an private individual and the other to the Whitney Lab. In 1995 he procured a contract for the sale of Marineland, Inc. (and, with it, essentially the entire Town) for a fish farm operation for approximately $10 million; when the contract was breached, Southern Realty got part of the forfeited $100,000 binder. In 1998 Hamilton was authorized by MOR to sell its holdings in the Town for a ten percent commission. Hamilton was successful in efforts to arrange for it to be purchased by FCT and the Trust for Public Lands (TPL) through the bankruptcy court in Jacksonville, and some of the land was immediately resold at a profit to Mr. Jacoby. When Hamilton pursued payment of Southern Realty's brokerage commission through the bankruptcy court, he learned that TPL had indemnified MOR for the brokerage commission. At that point, Southern agreed to accept an $18,000 fee from TPL and drop its bankruptcy claim for ten percent on the overall purchase. In 2002, Hamilton paid for and prepared grant applications for the Town's purchase of two islands that were outside the Town's municipal boundaries but which the Town intends to annex. In September 2004 he wrote an offer on behalf of a trustee of the Whitney Lab to purchase a small parcel of land TPL still owned in the Town and donate it to the Lab. However, no contract was reached, and Southern Realty received no commission. In 2005 Phil Cubbedge asked Hamilton to represent him in the sale of his oyster and clam lease to Centex but then backed out when Centex proposed to deal directly with Cubbedge without Southern Realty's involvement. Southern Horticulture used to do business with the Marineland Attraction but has not done any business in the Town in nine years, since the Attraction went into receivership and did not pay a Southern Horticulture bill in full. The Town never has required the Hamiltons or their businesses to obtain and maintain an occupational license, and none was obtained prior to 2004. In 2004 and 2005 Southern Realty applied and paid for and obtained an occupational license to "engage in the business of real estate." This was done in response to a finding in the Recommended Order in a previous administrative challenge to St. Johns County plan amendments by FWF and FOM that neither had an occupational license in the County. On several occasions over the years, the Hamilton brothers have engaged in various civic activities pertaining to the Town. Most of these activities have been Patrick's. These have included: participation on the management advisory group for the GTMNERR and efforts in the early to mid-1990s to have its Administrative Office established in the Town; efforts in 2000 or 2001 related to the designation of A1A as a scenic highway in St. Johns County, with a segment being in the Town; subsequent work to persuade the Florida Department of Transportation to construct a bike path along A1A in St. Johns County; advocacy related to the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan; service on the Board of Trustees of the Whitney Lab; and financial contributions to and fund-raising for the Whitney Lab. The brothers do these things out of a sense of civic duty and for the good of the community and their vision for it. However, they also believe these activities provide a benefit for their business, particularly the real estate and outfitting businesses. It is found, based primarily on the activities of Southern Realty, that the Hamilton brothers own or operate a business within the Town. Florida Wildlife Federation FWF is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with approximately 50,000 members and supporters. No FWF members reside or own property in the Town, and FWF does not have an office in the Town. One member (Mr. Cubbedge) has an oyster and clam lease in the Town. Cubbedge, the Hamilton brothers, and Dr. Michael Greenberg, who works and has his office at the Whitney Lab in the Town, are the only members who have a connection to the Town, according to the evidence. In April 2004, FWF established a regional office in St. Johns County outside the Town for the primary purpose of reviewing comprehensive plan amendments, focusing on natural resource protection. FWF monitors growth management and habitat protection during the development stages of the Town, focusing on the draft of the goals, objectives and policies for the comprehensive plan. In furtherance of this effort, FWF’s planning advocate (Ms. Owen) has attended and participated in meetings of the Remarkable Coastal Place work group stakeholder meetings, where they reviewed drafts of comprehensive plan amendments; has talked with elected officials to educate them on FWF (and FOM) concerns; and has attended meetings of and made presentations to the South Anastasia Community Association, a civic organization that holds its meetings in the Town. Through the Post Office and its website, FWF publishes a newsletter with information about FWF’s activities in the state, including fundraising. No evidence was presented that the newsletter is distributed in the Town. FWF’s regional office held a fundraiser in St. Augustine in February 2006 to raise money to pay attorney’s fees and expert witness fees for this proceeding. The Town never has required FWF to obtain and maintain an occupational license, and none was obtained prior to 2004. In 2004 and 2005 FWF applied and paid for and obtained an occupational license "to engage in the business of monitoring growth management and habitat protection." As with Southern Realty, this was done in response to a finding in the Recommended Order in a previous administrative challenge to St. Johns County plan amendments by FWF and FOM that neither had an occupational license in the County. Based on the evidence, it is found that FWF owns or operates a business within the Town. Friends of Matanzas FOM is a not-for-profit Florida corporation established in 2001 to preserve and protect the estuary and its watershed, and to maintain the rural beach community, particularly on South Anastasia Island and in southern St. Johns County to Marineland. FOM has 34-44 members. No FOM members reside in the Town, but at least two of them--its current president, Dr. Greenberg, and Maureen Welsh--work at the Whitney Lab. The Hamilton brothers also are members. FOM itself does not have an office in the Town. However, Dr. Greenberg is its president, and he may keep some FOM records and documents in his office at the Whitney Lab. There was no evidence that FOM ever has had a Town occupational license, or that the Town ever has required it to have one. In part (if not primarily) through the activities of the Hamilton brothers, FOM has been involved in: efforts in the mid-1990s to have the Administrative Office of GTMNERR established in the Town; efforts, including production of a video in 2000 or 2001, related to the designation of A1A in St. Johns County, including within the Town, as a scenic highway; and work to persuade the Florida Department of Transportation to construct a bike path along A1A in St. Johns County, including within the Town. There also was evidence that FOM holds annual meetings in the Town. Based on the evidence, it is found that FOM does not own or operate a business within the Town.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that DCA enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2006.
The Issue Whether an amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan which was adopted by ordinance number 92-029 has rendered the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance", within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is a state agency charged pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), with responsibility for, among other things, the review of comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. The Respondent, St. Lucie County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the local government charged with the responsibility pursuant to the Act for developing a comprehensive plan for future development in the unincorporated areas of the County and the approval of amendments to the County's comprehensive plan. The Intervenors, Brian Charboneau and Kathy Charboneau, are the owners of a parcel of real property located in the County, which is the subject of the comprehensive plan amendment that is the subject of this proceeding. The parties stipulated that the Intervenors have standing to participate in this proceeding. General Description of the County. The County is a generally rectangular-shaped area located on the southeastern coast of Florida. The County is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by Okeechobee County, on the north by Indian River County and on the south by Martin County. Geographically, the County consists of approximately 600 square miles, or approximately 384,000 acres. Approximately 513 square miles, or approximately 328,320 acres, of the County are unincorporated and subject to land use planning by the County. The significant man-made features of the County include Interstate 95, the Florida Turnpike, State Highway 70 and the Fort Pierce International Airport. The airport is operated by the County. There are two incorporated areas within the County: Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The majority of urban development within the County is located within these municipalities and consists mainly of detached, single-family residential dwellings and multifamily units. The estimated permanent population projected in the Plan for the County in 1990 was approximately 151,700. Including seasonal population, the estimated population for the County for 1990 was approximately 182,400. The majority of the County's land area is used for citrus production. The majority of the agricultural land use in the County is located within the County's unincorporated area, to the west of Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike, which both run generally north and south through the County. As a result of recent cold weather in areas of Florida north of the County, citrus production in the County has increased in recent years by approximately 35,500 acres between 1978 and 1992. Major natural divisions of the County are the Atlantic Coastal Ridge (including barrier islands), the Eastern Valley and the Osceola Plain. Adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan. On January 9, 1990, the County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Plan applies to, and governs growth within, the unincorporated area of the County. The Plan excludes areas within the municipalities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. (Unless otherwise specified, any further reference to the County constitutes a reference to only the unincorporated areas of the County subject to the Plan.) The Plan was based, in part, on an earlier comprehensive plan adopted by the County in 1975 pursuant to the former Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. The goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and the Future Land Use Map of the Plan were adopted by the County by ordinance. Data and analysis submitted by the County to the Department with the Plan was not adopted by the County by ordinance. The Department reviewed the Plan and on March 21, 1990, filed a Statement of Intent to find the Plan not "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. A notice of the Department's determination was published in a local newspaper. The Department determined that the Plan was not "in compliance", in part, because of a conclusion that the Plan allocated twice as much land area to residential land use categories as data concerning the expected population of the County for the year 2015 justified. The Department, therefore, concluded that the Plan was not based on data and analysis, and did not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County and the Department entered into settlement negotiations which resulted in the execution of a Stipulated Settlement Agreement in October of 1990 disposing of the Department's objections to the Plan. Pursuant to the agreement, the Department agreed that it would find the Plan "in compliance" if the County adopted certain remedial amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The terms of the agreement were subsequently carried out. See DCA exhibit 4. The remedial amendments were adopted in part due to the Department's concern about the the proliferation of urban sprawl. This concern was addressed through the remedial amendments by adding certain development controls and requiring clustering of residential development on lands classified agricultural. The remedial amendments also included Policy 1.1.2.4 and Policy 1.1.2.5. Policy 1.1.2.4 is quoted, infra, in finding of fact 123. Policy 1.1.2.5 provides: Provide adequate buffering and/or setbacks between agriculture and non-agricultural uses to protect such agricultural uses from adverse impacts associated with enforcement of nonagricultural development or creation of nuisances by agricultural operations. DCA exhibit 4. The remedial amendments also include Objective 1.1.5 and related policies governing development within the Urban Service Area. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map of the Plan reflect a long-term planning period of twenty-five years, ending with the year 2015. In the Introduction of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan (DCA exhibit 1 and St. Lucie County exhibit 1), there is a general description of the Future Land Use Element: The Future Land Use Element has been divided into a series of sections which analyze the existing patterns of development within the community, portray future patterns of develop- ment and recognize unique or special areas within the community that should be considered in future land use determinations. Integral to the success of the Comprehensive Plan are the Goals, Objectives, and Policies which will be used to direct the location and intensity of development for the variety of uses necessary for a healthy and diversified community. Page 1-1, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan includes the following "major development philosophy": Over the years, the County has been requested to approve development proposals that would permit the encroachment of urban uses in areas previously used for agricultural purposes. Many of these areas are outside of what may be considered the communities existing urban form or pattern. As discussed later in this element, the cost of providing the necessary community services to these development sites is becoming an increasing community concern. . . . Page 1-6, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan goes on to recognize the importance of citrus production: The major use of land within the unincorporated areas of the County is agriculture. Well over 60 percent of the County is presently used for the production of citrus, cash crops or ranching activities. These agricultural activities account for St. Lucie County being ranked among the top citrus producers in the State of Florida, contributing substantially to the local and regional economy. Page 1-11, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Sixteen general categories of future land use are identified and defined in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan: Agriculture: 5 and 2.5. Residential: Estate, Suburban, Urban, Medium, High. Residential/Conservation. Conservation-Public. Commercial. Industrial. Public Facilities. Transportation/Utilities. Historic. Mixed Use. Special District. The density of development for the residential categories established in the Plan are 1 unit per acre for Estate, 2 units per acre for Suburban, 5 units per acre for Urban, 9 units per acre for Medium and 15 units per acre for High. The density for residential use of the agriculture categories established in the Plan are 1 unit per 2.5 acres for Agriculture-2.5 and 1 unit per 5 acres for Agriculture-5. Population estimates contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan are based upon estimates of population of the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The Plan indicates that the County has determined that the University's "high" projections appear to reflect more accurate population projections for the County. The projections concerning population contained in the Future Land Use Element and in this Recommended Order are based upon those "high" projections. Based upon the Plan's data and analysis projections, it is estimated that the permanent population of the entire County was 135,715 in 1988 and 318,650 in 2015. With the seasonal population added, based largely on agriculture related increases in population, the population was estimated at 154,141 in 1988 and 382,380 in 2015. Thus, the estimated increase in the population for the entire County from 1988 to 2015 is 182,935 permanent residents and 219,522 permanent and seasonal residents. In the County alone, the permanent population is estimated to be 54,226 in 1988. For the year 2015, the estimated permanent population is 93,045. With the seasonal population added, the population for 1988 is estimated at 65,119 and 111,654 for the year 2015. Therefore, the estimated total increase in population for the year 2015 is 38,779 permanent residents and 46,535 permanent and seasonal residents. For the year 1988, the Future Land Use Element of the Plan includes an estimate that the existing acreage being used for residential purposes was 16,900 acres. The Plan's Housing Element includes an estimate of only 12,369 acres of residential land use in 1988. To determine projected residential land use needs for the year 2015, the Future Land Use Element provides the following: For the purpose of determining the future land use needs in the community, a ratio has been established which is based upon current (1988) development conditions. This ratio was determined by dividing the seasonal population of the County in 1988 by the estimated amount of land consumed by broad land use category type. . . . Page 1-22, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Actually, the ratio was determined by dividing the permanent population of the County in 1988, and not the seasonal population, by the estimated amount of land being used for residential purposes. The ratio of population in 1988 to residential acreage use in 1988 results in an estimate of the historical, minimum amount of residential acreage used in the County per 1,000 residents. Thus, it is concluded in the Plan that 312 acres (16,900 acres in residential use in 1988 divided by 54,226 permanent residents in 1988), or .312 acres per person have been used historically for residential purposes. Based upon the estimate of land in residential use in 1988 contained in the Housing Element of the Plan, the ratio is .228 (12,369 acres in 1988/54,226 1988 population). Applying the historical ratio of permanent residents per acre of residential acreage of .312 to the projected seasonal population in the year 2015 of 111,654, the Future Land Use Element of the Plan estimates that the total residential acreage needed by the year 2015 will be 34,836 acres: 111,654 x .312 = 34,836. The estimated total residential acreage needed in the year 2015 based upon the estimated residential acreage in 1988 contained in the Plan's Housing Element is 25,457 acres: 111,654 x .228 = 25,457. If the historical ratio of permanent residents per acre of residential acreage of .312 is applied to the projected increase in permanent population by the year 2015 of 38,779, the additional residential acreage needed by the year 2015 will only be 12,099 acres. Based upon this analysis, there will be a need for a total of 28,999 acres of residential land for permanent residents by the year 2015 (16,900 1988 acres + 12,099 projected need). Using the Plan's Housing Element ratio of .228 and the projected increase in permanent population results in a conclusion that there will be a need for an additional 8,841 acres of residential land. Based upon the projected population growth in permanent and seasonal residents for the year 2015 (46,535 increase in seasonal population) and applying the Plan's historical ratio of residential acres per 1,000 people (.312), the projected additional acreage needed for residential use by the year 2015 is 14,518 acres. Based upon this analysis, there will be a need for a total of 31,418 acres of residential land for the seasonal population by the year 2015 (16,900 1988 acres + 14,518 projected need). Applying the Plan's historical ratio of residential acres per 1,000 people to determine projected additional residential acreage need and using the projection of acreage in residential use in 1988 contained in the Housing Element, there is a need for only 26,887 total acres of residential land (12,369 1988 acres + 14,518 projected need). In the Plan, the County applied the historical residential ratio of .312, which is based upon 1988 permanent population, to the total projected 2015 permanent and seasonal population of 111,535 and concluded that there is a need for a total of 34,836 acres for residential use in 2015. This amounts to a total of 17,936 additional acres (34,836 - 16,900). Based upon the calculations contained in findings of fact 33 through 37, the Plan's projection of additional residential acreage is incorrectly high. Whether the Plan's higher estimate of need is used does not, however, appreciably affect the following determinations. Therefore, for purposes of this Recommended Order, the Plan's incorrect estimate of additional residential acreage needed will be used. The Future Land Use Map of the Plan reflects the County's conclusion that there are approximately 70,989 acres of land in the County available for residential use, not including potential residential development of land designated for agricultural use of one dwelling per 2.5 acres or per 5 acres, and excluding land involved in three amendments to the Plan, including the subject amendment. The 70,989 acres includes acreage already in residential use in 1988 (16,900 acres) and vacant acreage available for residential use through the year 2015. It is estimated in the Plan that there are 2.34 people per dwelling unit in the County. The remedial amendments to the Plan the County agreed to adopt did not remove any of the 70,989 acres of land allocated on the Future Land Use Map for residential use, modify densities, or modify the agricultural classifications of the Future Land Use Map. The Plan designates a portion of the County as an Urban Service Area. The Urban Service Area is depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Plan. The Urban Service Area is generally described, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . . This area represents the preferred regions for development at urban intensities. The area indicated is the most likely to have centralized water and wastewater services provided by either a municipal utility or a privately operated regional enterprise. The intent of the urban service area designation is to restrict the negative impacts of a sprawling low density development pattern and the fiscal burden that pattern of development has on the ability of the community to meet its service needs. The Urban Service Area is not designed to be a permanent or static limitation on growth. Rather, it is intended to indicate the areas of the County that can reasonably be expected to be provided with necessary community services during the fiscal planning periods of this plan [to 2015]. . . . . Page 1-40, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The western boundary of the Urban Service Area runs generally north and south along the western boundary of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The eastern boundary is the Atlantic Ocean. Future Land Use Objective 1.1.4 and Policies 1.1.4.1 through 1.1.5.9 deal with the Urban Service Area. Objective 1.1.4 of the Future Land Use Objective provides: In coordination with the other elements of this plan, future development shall be directed to areas where the provision of urban and community services/facilities can be ensured. Page 1-59, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. In pertinent part, the Policies related to Objective 1.1.4 provide the following: Policy 1.1.4.1 Encourage the location of urban land use intensities, through the development of density bonus and incentive programs in the Land Development Regulations, to those areas that lie within the defined urban service boundary before encouraging/supporting the conversion of property in the agricultural and suburban areas to higher intensity urban uses, but still keeping all development authorizations in line with the adopted levels of service within this plan. Policy 1.1.4.2 Require that new development be designed and planned in a manner which does not place an unanticipated economic burden upon the ser- vices and facilities of St. Lucie County. Policy 1.1.4.3 Encourage the use of cluster housing and planned unit development techniques to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas, through the incorporation of the following into the County's Land Development Regulations: The establishment of minimum acreage requirements necessary to support a viable mixed use community providing sufficient design flexibility to allow innovation and creativity in all forms of planned unit developments; The establishment of minimum open space ratios of 30 percent or greater in all planned unit developments including within the PUD documents assurances on the part of the developer that such areas will remain as open space to protect existing native habitat, to provide for minimum setback needs from adjacent uses, and to provide active and passive recreational as well as visual amenities. The establishment of minimum open space standards; The establishment of provisions ensuring the long term preservation of remaining open spaces; The establishment of a mixed use district combining residential, commercial, recreational, educational, and other income producing uses providing significant functional and physical integration among uses; The establishment of minimum standards for the provision of on-site shopping, job opportunities and internal trip capture; and, The establishment of specific requirements to provide efficient, centralized infrastructure (potable water and sanitary sewer). Include specific restrictions on the use of septic tanks, individual wells, and package plants in planned unit developments. Policy 1.1.4.4 Provide for the calculation of gross residential density on lands that lie above the mean high water elevation. Provide for the ability to transfer/cluster of residential density from wetland and other sensitive or unique environmental habitats to upland areas on contiguous property. Pages, 1-59 through 1-62, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Plan indicates that the Urban Service Area is likely to have centralized water and wastewater services provided. There is no firm commitment in the Plan, however, to provide central water and sewer services for development within the Urban Service Area. Policy 1.1.5.1 of the Plan provides that urban development activities are restricted to the Urban Service Area. The Policy also provides that "urban development activities" include "any residential development activity in excess of two units to the gross acre . . ." for purposes of the Policy. The densities of Policy 1.1.5.1 for residential development are more dense than what is generally considered as an "urban density". The land located outside of the Urban Service Area is classified almost exclusively as Agriculture-2.5 or Agriculture-5. There are a few areas which abut the Urban Service Area boundary line which are classified for residential use, including a few small parcels which were in existence prior to adoption of the Plan. The Plan does not indicate the current or future existence of urban development within the Urban Service Area. A wide range of development densities and intensities are provided for in the Plan for the Urban Service Area. With regard to development in the Urban Service Area, the Plan provides, in part, the following: It is the position of St. Lucie County that in order to permit the mechanics of the free market system to operate openly, there must be a choice in where to locate future development. Offering the possibility of various development areas, when located within the defined urban service area, is not supportive of a pattern of urban sprawl. Page 1-24, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Amendments to the Plan. Since the determination that the Plan was "in compliance", the Plan has been amended three times, including the subject amendment. One amendment amended the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 2.1 acres of land from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Furlong Amendment"). Another amendment amended the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 9.57 acres of land from Residential Urban to Commercial (hereinafter referred to as the "Hayes Amendment"). Finally, the subject amendment amends the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 164 acres of land owned by the Intervenors from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Charboneau Amendment"). The Charboneau Amendment. On September 22, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners of the County adopted Ordinance No. 92-029 approving the Charboneau Amendment. The Charboneau Amendment, as adopted by the County, is effective only if it is ultimately determined that the amendment is "in compliance". After review of the Charboneau Amendment, the Department determined that it was not "in compliance". This determination was reflected in a notice which the Department caused to be published and in the Department's Statement of Intent of November 11, 1992. The Charboneau Amendment modifies the future land use classification of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate. Agriculture-2.5 allows residential use of the property of no more than one unit per 2.5 acres. Residential Estate would allow residential development of the property of one unit per acre. The Charboneau Property and the Surrounding Area. The subject parcel consists of approximately 164 acres of land (hereinafter referred to as the "Charboneau Property"). The Charboneau Property is generally rectangular shaped with several parcels of land in the southern portion of the parcel which are not included in the Charboneau Amendment. Those "out parcels" retain their future land use designation of Agriculture-2.5 in the Plan and on the Future Land Use Map. The Charboneau Property represents approximately five one-hundredths of one percent of the 328,230 acres of unincorporated land in the County. The northeastern portion of the Charboneau Property consists of cleared land used for grazing a small number of cattle. The remainder of the property is not being actively used for agriculture or other purposes and is covered by pine flatwood and palmettos. The Charboneau Property is located in approximately the geographic center of the County. It is outside, but on the fringe, of the major development areas of the County. The Charboneau Property is bounded generally on the east by Gentile Road, a two-lane dirt road running north from State Road 70. State Road 70, also known as Okeechobee Boulevard, is located to the south of the Charboneau Property. State Road 70 is a major east-west arterial road. It connects the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 area, which are located within the Urban Service Area to the east of the Charboneau Property, with Fort Pierce. Access to the Charboneau Property is off Gentile Road. The Charboneau Property is located to the west and outside of the Urban Service Area designated by the Plan. Prior to the adoption of the Charboneau Amendment, the parcel of property generally contiguous to the eastern boundary of the Charboneau Property was also located outside the Urban Service Area. The boundary of the Urban Service Area had been located contiguous to the eastern boundary of the adjacent parcel. The adjacent parcel and the Charboneau Property are separated by Gentile Road. In conjunction with the adoption and transmittal to the Department of the Charboneau Amendment, the Board of County Commissioners of the County initiated, directed and ratified a relocation of the Urban Service Area boundary approximately 1,000 feet to the west. This placed the Urban Service Area boundary at Gentile Road. This modification in the Urban Service Area was consistent with the Plan, which allows a modification of the boundary of the Urban Service Area of up to 1,500 feet without plan amendment. As a consequence of the modification of the Urban Service Area, most of the eastern boundary of the Charboneau Property is contiguous to, but still outside, the Urban Service Area. On the northern boundary of the Charboneau Property is a canal. The canal is approximately thirty feet wide, although the width of the water in the canal is less. The canal is approximately six feet deep. To the north and northeast of the canal are citrus groves in active agricultural production. The property (hereinafter referred to as the "Coca- Cola Property"), is owned by Coca-Cola. The Coca-Cola Property is classified as Agriculture-2.5 in the Plan. Except for certain small pockets of property which border on the Charboneau Property which are described, infra, the property to the north, northwest and west of the Charboneau Property are used predominantly for citrus. Most of this property consists of large tracts of corporate-owned land. To the north of the Coca-Cola Property are also large tracts of property owned by government agencies. To the northeast of the Coca-Cola Property is a tract owned by the University of Florida which is used for citrus research. To the northwest of the Coca-Cola Property is a tract owned by the United States Department of Agriculture. The County also operates a livestock farm in the area. To the northwest of the Charboneau Property and to the west of the portion of the Coca-Cola Property abutting the northern boundary of the Charboneau Property is a parcel of property known as Fort Pierce Gardens. Fort Pierce Gardens is a residential subdivision which apparently was not subject to the requirements of the Plan because of its existence prior to adoption of the Plan. The future land use classification of Fort Pierce Gardens is Agriculture- 2.5. The lots in Fort Pierce Gardens range in size from one acre to five acres. There are a few houses already constructed and a few more houses under construction in Fort Pierce Gardens. Development of Fort Pierce Gardens is less than half complete. Adjacent to the western boundary of the Charboneau Property is a tract known as Pine Hollow Subdivision. Pine Hollow Subdivision is a residential subdivision which apparently was not subject to the requirements of the Plan because of its existence prior to adoption of the Plan. It is approximately the same size as the Charboneau Property. The future land use classification of the parcel is Agriculture-2.5. Pine Hollow Subdivision consists of 110 platted lots that are being developed in phases. The first phase consists of thirty lots which are still under development. A County maintained road has been constructed in phase one. Development of the other phases has not begun. The remaining portion of the tract has three rough-cut dirt roads. The subdivision is less complete than Fort Pierce Gardens. Lots in Pine Hollow Subdivision are slightly larger than one acre. Homes in the subdivision will use wells and septic tanks. To the west of Pine Hollow Subdivision and Fort Pierce Gardens is a large area of land used for citrus. These lands are designated Agriculture-2.5 and Agriculture-5. To the south and southwest of the Charboneau Property is a parcel of property with an airstrip which has been used by crop-dusting airplanes. The airstrip is oriented in a southeast-to-northwest direction. The airstrip and the parcel of land to the south of the Charboneau Property and north of State Road 70 is designated Agriculture-2.5 on the future land use map. The airstrip is not currently being used for crop-dusting aircraft. Improvements have recently been made to the airstrip, however, which evidence an intent to use the airstrip in the future for crop dusting activities. Hearsay evidence corroborates this finding. The land to the south of the Charboneau Property and south of State Road 70 is in use for citrus production. The parcel between the Charboneau Property and State Road 70 is named Walsh Farms. The property to the south and southeast of State Road 70, while currently used for citrus production, is designated Residential Suburban on the Future Land Use Map, allowing development of two dwelling units per acre. This property is, however, located inside the Urban Service Area. To the east of Gentile Road is a parcel of property approximately the same size, north to south, and about half the size, east to west, as the Charboneau Property. This parcel has been developed as what was characterized as rural ranchette. There are approximately eighteen large lots of four to five acres up to ten to twenty acres. The lots in the parcel (hereinafter referred to as the "Ranchette Property"), have single-family homes constructed on them and the lots also have some citrus and horses. The evidence, however, failed to prove that the Ranchette Property was being used for commercial agricultural purposes. The parcel is designated Agriculture-2.5 on the Future Land Use Map. One parcel of approximately 2.5 acres located within the Ranchette Property was the subject of the Furlong Amendment. To the immediate east of the Ranchette Property, bounded on the south by State Road 70 and on the east, in part, by the Florida Turnpike, is an area designated as Residential Suburban on the Future Land Use Map. The area, which lies within the Urban Service Area, is largely undeveloped at this time except for a development known as Hidden Pines. Hidden Pines is a vested subdivision. Hidden Pines consists of lots of approximately one acre. The homes on these lots are served by wells and septic tanks. The subdivision is nearly completely built-out. Approximately 1.3 miles to the east of the Charboneau Property is the center of an area immediately to the north of where the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 cross. From this point, the Florida Turnpike travels to the northwest, and closest to the Charboneau Property, from the crossing with Interstate 95. Interstate 95 travels to the northeast, and furthermost from the Charboneau Property, from the crossing. Immediately to the north of the crossing State Road 70 intersects the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 in a generally east-west direction. The western boundary of this area is approximately two-thirds of a mile from the southeast corner of the Charboneau Property. There is an interchange of the Florida Turnpike immediately to the north of the crossing and just to the south of State Road 70. There is also an interchange of Interstate 95 to the north of the crossing at State Road 70. State Road 70 becomes a six-lane arterial road to the east of the Florida Turnpike. There are no level of service deficiencies on this portion of State Road 70. The area within and immediately outside the area north of the crossing, west of Interstate 95 and east of the Florida Turnpike, is designated as the Okeechobee Road/I-95 Mixed Use Activity Area. The area may be used for varied, compatible commercial uses and residential use up to fifteen dwelling units per acre. The Mixed Use Activity Area is currently being developed. There are hotels, motels, gas stations, restaurants and an outlet mall already in existence in the area. Another outlet mall is being constructed. Reynolds Industrial Park, consisting of approximately 200 acres, is being developed. To the northeast of the Charboneau Property and the Coca-Cola Property to the east of Gentile Road is an area designated Residential Estate. This area is within the Urban Service Area and currently is undeveloped. Part of the property is used for citrus production. In summary, the area to the west of the Urban Service Area, including the Charboneau Property, is designated for agricultural uses except for Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow Subdivision. Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow Subdivision are isolated islands of development within an area actively used for agriculture purposes. Insufficient Data and Analysis to Justify an Increase in Residential Acreage by the Designation of the Charboneau Property As Residential Estate. In the Department's Statement of Intent, it was concluded that the Charboneau Amendment is not "in compliance" based upon the lack of data and analysis to support the conversion of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture- 2.5 to Residential Estate with a designated density of one dwelling per acre. Currently, the Agriculture-2.5 classification of the Plan allows one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres, or a total of approximately 65 residential units on the Charboneau Property. The Plan, however, requires that any non-agricultural development of over twenty units within an Agriculture-2.5 classification must maintain open space of at least 80 percent of the project site in order to retain some viable agricultural use of the property. Residential Estate does not require clustering of units or open space. A total of approximately 163 residential units, one per acre with no open space, or a maximum of an additional 98 residential units can be constructed on the Charboneau Property if the Charboneau Amendment is approved. When the Charboneau Amendment was submitted to the Department for review, the County failed to provide any data or analysis in support of a potential increase in residential units of 98 units or the change in classification of the appropriate use of the Charboneau Property from agricultural to residential. For example, no analysis of the number of acres in the County which are available for development at one unit per acre was performed by the County. The data and analysis of the Plan and, in particular, the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map, allocate a total of 54,089 acres for new residential development in the County through the year 2015 to accommodate the need for residential property for projected increases in population (70,989 total acres available - 16,900 acres in use in 1988). If the acreage used for residential purposes in 1988 evidenced by the Housing Element is used, the Plan allocates a total of 58,620 acres for new residential development (70,989 total acres available - 12,369 acres in use in 1988). Based upon the Plan, there is a need for only 17,936 additional acres of residential property to accommodate projected population increases through the year 2015. See finding of fact 38. With 54,089 acres available for residential development through the year 2015 pursuant to the Plan and a need for only 17,936 additional acres, there are 3.01 times the number of acres of land designated pursuant to the Plan to accommodate need projected under the Plan. If the Housing Element historical ratio of use is used, there are only 13,088 acres of residential property needed to accommodate projected population increases through the year 2015. With 58,620 acres available for residential development through the year 2015 pursuant to the Plan and a need for only 13,088 additional acres, there are 4.47 times the number of acres of land designated pursuant to the Plan to accommodate need projected under the Plan. Applying the historical ratio of residential use to only the projected additional permanent population indicates a need for an additional 12,099 acres for residential use by the year 2015. Finding of fact 35. This projection represents 4.47 times the number of acres needed for projected new residential growth based upon existing ratios of residential land use (54,089 projected acres/12,099 projected need). Applying the historical ratio of residential use based upon the Housing Element of the Plan to only the projected additional permanent population indicates a need for an additional 8,841 acres for residential uses by the year 2015. Finding of Fact 35. This projection represents 6.63 times the number of acres needed for projected new residential growth based upon existing ratios of residential land use (58,620 projected acres/8,841 projected need). Although approved by the Department, the evidence in this case proved that the Plan contains a designation of sufficient land in the County through the year 2015 to more than adequately meet the reasonably anticipated need for residential property. In fact, the Plan over-allocates land well in excess of any reasonable expectation of the amount of property needed to meet such needs. Even based upon the Plan's projections, the County has allocated more than 3 times the land needed to meet the County's own projections for the need for residential land for the year 2015. While the existing provisions of the Plan are not subject to review, when asked to consider an amendment providing for an increase in residential property, the existence of excessive residential property should not be ignored. In this case, to ignore the realities of the excessive allocation of land for residential purposes in the County contained in the Plan and approve the classification of additional property as residential, would simply exacerbate an already existing excessive allocation. The conclusion that there is excessive land available for residential purposes already contained in the Plan is supported by the population per unit in the County of 2.34. If it is assumed that the 54,089 acres of land available for residential development in the County are developed at a low density of one unit per acre, there will be adequate residential land available for an additional 126,568 people: 54,089 acres, or 54,089 units, x 2.34 people per unit = 126,568 people. Based upon a projected permanent and seasonal population increase by the year 2015 of 46,535 people, there is available for residential use 2.71 times the acreage available to meet future residential needs. In light of the fact that residential property may be developed at much higher densities pursuant to the Plan, assuming development of one unit per acre is conservative, and the number of people that may be accommodated is much higher than 126,568 people. Although not reflected in the Plan, there has been a removal of some property classified as residential property from residential use since the adoption of the Plan. The County has acquired 94 single-family homes on 100 acres designated for Residential Estate use. The 100 acres are located to the east of the Ft. Pierce International Airport and were acquired for noise abatement purposes. The homes on the property have been demolished. An additional 90 homes on land classified Residential Urban will also be acquired and demolished. The State of Florida, through the Conservation and Recreation Lands Program, Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, has also acquired property known as the Avalon tract. The property is located on Hutchinson Island, in the northeast corner of the County. This property had been designated Residential Urban and could have contained approximately 450 units. Even with the removal of the property near the airport and the Avalon tract from the residential property inventory, the Plan contains an excessive allocation of property for residential needs through the year 2015. Based upon the foregoing, data and analysis has not been submitted by the County to justify an increase in residential property or property which may be developed at an increased density. There is already an over-allocation of property for residential land use and, even with the reductions of property near the airport and the Avalon tract, the addition of the Charboneau Property will only result in a Plan with greater over-allocation of land for residential purposes or increased densities. Proliferation of Urban Sprawl. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(b)7, Florida Administrative Code, comprehensive plans are required to discourage the proliferation of "urban sprawl". The ill effects of urban sprawl include inequitable distribution of the costs of development and of providing services, inefficient use of land, unnecessary destruction of natural resources, loss of agricultural lands and increased commuting costs and the resulting pollution. In November 1989, the Department published a Technical Memorandum which describes the Department's policy concerning the definition of "urban sprawl". The Department's policy has been further refined and is reflected in proposed amendments to Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, proposed Rule 9J-5.003(140) and 9J-5.006(6), Florida Administrative Code, are consistent with, and represent, the Department's policy concerning urban sprawl. The Department's policy concerning the definition of "urban sprawl", as set out in the proposed rules and as contained in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum, is consistent with the definition of "urban sprawl" most commonly employed by professional planners. The Department's proposed rules concerning urban sprawl do not have the effect of law. They have not yet been finally adopted. The proposed rules have not been relied upon, however, by the Department or the undersigned as "law" in this case. The proposed rules concerning urban sprawl have only been relied on as an expression of the Department's policy. The Department's policy concerning urban sprawl, as evidenced in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum, and as modified by the Department's proposed rules, is reasonable. The Department's definition of "urban sprawl" contained in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum is: . . . scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density single- dimensional development. The Department's definition of "urban sprawl" as evidenced by the proposed rules is as follows: (140) "Urban sprawl" means urban development or uses which are located in rural areas or areas of interspersed rural and generally low- intensity urban uses, and which are characterized by: The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; or The creation of areas of urban develop- ment or uses which are not functionally related to adjacent land uses; or The creation of areas of urban develop- ment or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities and the use of areas within which public services are being provided. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patters: (1) leapfrog or scattered development; (2) ribbon or strip commercial or other development; and (3) large expanses of predominantly low intensity and single-use development. Page 21, DCA exhibit 18. There are several indicators as to when a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The indicators, which are memorialized in the Department's proposed amendment to Rule 9J-5.006(6)(g), Florida Administrative Code, are whether a plan amendment: Promotes or allows substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low intensity or single use developments in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes or allows significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are suitable for development but can be expected to remain undeveloped for the balance of the planing period. Promotes or allows urban development to occur in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments but which are bordered on either side by rural land uses, typically following highways or surface water shorelines such as rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Fails to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, endangered or threatened species habitat or habitat of species of special concern, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails to protect agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture. This includes active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant unique and prime farm- lands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Increases disproportionately the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, storm- water management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation bet- ween rural and urban uses. Fails to promote and support infill development and the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Pages 38-40, DCA exhibit 18 Pursuant to the settlement agreement between the County and the Department which led to the determination that the Plan was in compliance, objectives and polices were added by the County to the Plan to insure that the Plan discouraged the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Plan, by directing that development primarily take place within the Urban Service Area, evidences an intent on the part of the County to discourage urban sprawl. See page 1-40 of St. Lucie County exhibit 1 and finding of fact 43. Applying the indicators of urban sprawl to the Charboneau Amendment leads to the conclusion that the Charboneau Amendment does not discourage urban sprawl: The Charboneau Amendment allows the development of 164 acres of land as a low-density, single-use development of one dwelling unit per acre despite the lack of need for any additional residential development in the County. It allows urban development in rural areas at a significant distance from existing urban areas while leapfrogging over less dense and undeveloped land within the Urban Service Area more suitable for such development. It allows urban development in an area that is primarily used for agricultural purposes and, consequently, fails to protect agricultural areas. It fails to maximize the use of existing or future public facilities and services by allowing urban development outside of the Urban Service Area. At some time in the future, the residents of the Charboneau Property can reasonably be expected to expect public facilities and services. It will increase disproportionately the costs in time, money and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services because the Charboneau Property is located outside the Urban Service Area. It fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. It fails to promote and support infill development and redevelopment. The Charboneau Amendment does not, by itself, create urban sprawl. No development of the Charboneau Property will occur simply because the Charboneau Amendment is found to be "in compliance" until development orders are issued by the County. These facts do not, however, support the suggestion that the Plan will not fail to discourage urban sprawl as a result of the Charboneau Amendment. The Charboneau Amendment, even though contrary to Objective 1.1.2 and the Policies thereunder which discourage urban sprawl, if found in compliance, will cause the Plan to contain provisions which not only fail to discourage urban sprawl. It will cause the Plan to include provisions which encourage urban sprawl. Inconsistency with Objective 1.1.2 of the Plan. Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires that comprehensive plan elements be consistent with each other and that future conditions maps reflect the goals, objectives and policies of the plan elements. The Department has alleged, and proved, that the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan and, therefore, creates an inconsistency within the Future Land Use element. Objective 1.1.2 of the Plan provides the following: Provide in the land development regulations provisions for a compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban service boundary and promote retention of agricultural activities, preserve natural resources and maintain native vegetative habitats. Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Plan provides the following: The County shall include in its land development regulations a site assessment process to evaluate the potential conversion of existing or designated agricultural land uses to non- agricultural land uses in a rational and orderly manner. such provision shall require as a condition to such conversion that the Board of County Commissioners affirmatively find that the proposed non-agricultural use: is compatible with adjacent land uses; maintains the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands; contains soils suitable for urban use as defined by the St. Lucie County soil survey; is suitable with existing site-specific land characteristics; is consistent with comprehensive develop- ment plans; will have available the necessary infrastructure concurrent with the anticipated demands for development; and, will avoid the extension of the urban services boundary to create any enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Policy 1.1.2.4 was added to the Plan as part of the settlement entered into between the Department and the County during the review of the Plan. Based upon data contained in the Plan, there were approximately 211,428 acres out of a total of 330,402.7 acres in the County in 1988 devoted to agricultural use. This amounts to approximately 63.9 percent agricultural use. The area outside the Urban Service Area is: . . . recognized for first being appropriate for the production of citrus, cash crops, or ranching activities. . . . Based upon the entire area to the west of the Urban Service Area, including the Charboneau Property and the property surrounding the Charboneau Property, the conversion of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate would create an incompatible use of the Charboneau property. This conclusion is reinforced by consideration of the general impact of the conversion of agriculture lands to non-agriculture lands throughout the State of Florida. Of the State's 10.9 million acres of land, approximately 150,000 to 200,000 acres of farm land are lost to other uses yearly. Contributing to this problem is the fact that, as one parcel is converted to non-agricultural uses, the adjacent property values increase and farmers become discouraged. This impact contributes to the premature conversion of agricultural land. To reduce the impact on adjacent agricultural lands caused by the conversion of agricultural land, a clear demarcation between rural and urban land uses should be designated. The Urban Service Area of the Plan serves this purpose in the County Although the evidence failed to prove that agricultural lands adjacent to the Charboneau Property will no longer be used for agricultural purposes upon the conversion of the Charboneau Property or that such a phenomenon has occurred in the County in the past, concern over such impacts are evidenced and recognized by Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4. of the Plan. The Charboneau Amendment ignores these concerns. It is, therefore, concluded that the Charboneau Amendment will detract from the continued viability of property outside the Urban Service Area for agricultural uses. Policy 1.1.2.4 requires that a development "maintain the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands." The Charboneau Amendment, even if the domino impact of the conversion of other acreage from agricultural uses may not occur, does not maintain such viability. The Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 because it allows the conversion of agricultural property in an agricultural area (with two parcels of existing, inconsistent uses), outside the Urban Service Area and at a density that is considered an urban density: The conversion of the Charboneau Property to urban uses is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The conversion of the Charboneau Property to urban uses does not maintain the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands. The Charboneau Property contains soils that are approximately equally suited for agricultural purposes or residential purposes. Wells and septic tanks are used on subdivisions in the area and similar soils exist in areas being used for the cultivation of citrus. The Charboneau Amendment is consistent with other portions of Policy 1.1.2.4. While Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Plan specifically only require that the County adopt land development regulations to govern the conversion of agricultural lands, the Objective and Policy also contain substantive provisions which must be contained in those regulations. Therefore, even though the Charboneau Amendment may not specifically impact the County's compliance with the requirement that it "adopt land development regulations," the substance of the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the Objective and the Policy of the Plan and would create an inconsistency in the Plan if found to be "in compliance." Inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. The State Comprehensive Plan is contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Goals and Policies of the State Comprehensive Plan are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Goal 16 of the State Comprehensive Plan and Policies 1 and 2 of Goal 16 are as follows: (16) LAND USE.-- Goal.--In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. . . . . Policies.-- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. Section 187.201(16), Florida Statutes. Converting the Charboneau Property to a non-agricultural classification outside the Urban Service Area is inconsistent with Policy 1 of Goal 16. The existence of the inconsistent uses of Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow, which were allowed because of their existence before the effective date of the Plan, does not justify further exceptions in the area outside the Urban Service Area designated for rural land uses. The existence of a nonconforming use does not justify further nonconforming uses. Inconsistency with the Treasure Coast Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council has adopted a Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Regional Plan"). The Regional Plan was adopted pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, to provide regional planning objectives for St. Lucie, Indian River, Martin and Palm Beach Counties. In its Statement of Intent, the Department has alleged that the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Regional Plan Policy 16.1.2.2. Goal 16.1.2 of the Regional Plan provides, in part, the following: Land use within the Region shall be consistent with State, regional, and local Future Land Use Maps. . . . Goal 16.1.2 of the Regional Plan goes on to provide for a Regional Future Land Use Map and defines the land use categories to be included in the regional map. Policy 16.1.2.2 of the Regional Plan provides the following policy statement concerning Goal 16.1.2: Future land use maps of government comprehen- sive plans shall be based upon surveys, and data regarding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth, the projected population, the character of undeveloped land, the availability of public services, the ability of government to provide adequate levels of service, and the need for redevelopment. The provisions of Policy 16.1.2.2 are also contained in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. As found in more detail, supra, the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 16.1.2.2 because of a lack of data necessary to support an increase in residential land or increased density in the County and because it fails to promote redevelopment by infill or revitalization within the Urban Service Area.
The Issue The issues in this case are (1) whether the City of Panama City's (the City) Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 04-20S adopted by Ordinance No. 1985 (the Plan Amendment) is "in compliance," as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and (2) whether the petition challenging the Plan Amendment should be dismissed as untimely.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Robert E. Moore owns a home and resides at 1310 Kristanna Drive, Panama City, Florida. The northwestern property line of Mr. Moore's home is adjacent to the northeastern corner of the Property. JE 7; PE 98-B at RM.2 There is an approximate 100-foot-wide Bay County maintained canal or drainage ditch (canal) that forms the northern boundary of the Property, see Endnote 1 and PE 50 at 7, which runs in an east-to-west direction at the northern portion of his home. This canal eventually leads to North Bay to the west.3 Goose Bayou is located south of the Property. Mr. Moore taught respiratory care at Gulf Coast Community College for approximately 23 years and is retired. His residence was affected by a hurricane which passed through the area in September 2004. He noticed water appearing half-way up his driveway, which is not on the canal. He is concerned with the placement of additional homes in this area in light of his experience with the water level after the recent storm event. (Generally, Mr. Moore stated that there is a two- foot difference between low and high tide in this area. T 133, 137.) Mr. Moore, as well as the other Petitioners, made oral and written comments to the City Commission during the Plan Amendment adoption hearings. See City's Unilateral Pre-Hearing Stipulation at 5, paragraph E.4.; T 213. The St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association (RMA) was established in 1986 and is a citizen's organization devoted to the preservation of the quality of St. Andrews Bay and its surrounding ecosystems. T 194. (St. Andrews Bay is a larger body of water which includes North and West Bay and Goose Bayou. See generally JE 12, Map 1.) The RMA has approximately 100 members. The RMA uses, but does not own, an office on the Panama City Marine Institute campus located within the City. The RMA occasionally conducts seminars or conferences and offers several programs for citizens, e.g., sea turtle nest watch, a water sampling program (Baywatch), and a sea grass watch program. The RMA meets every month except during the summer. T 195-196. The RMA opposes the Plan Amendment, in part, because of concerns with the effect of development on what Ms. Shaffer characterized as the "pine islands." Linda Anne Yori owns and resides in a house at 908 Ashwood Circle, Panama City, Florida, which is "just off Kristanna" Drive and to the east. See PE 98-C at the blue X. She teaches middle school science at a local public school. She has observed the Property, and generally described the Property, and vacant property to the north, as "upland hammock with salt marsh." T 209. In general, Ms. Yori opposes the Plan Amendment because she "believe[d] the environmental impact would be too great." Mary Rose Smith owns and resides in a house on Ashwood Circle, Panama City, Florida, two houses away from Ms. Yori's residence. Ms. Smith regularly jogs throughout the neighborhood. She believed that there are approximately 400 homes in Candlewick Acres and six vacant lots remaining. T 214- 215. As a result of recent hurricanes in the area, she observed flooding approximately half-a-mile upland along Kristanna Drive from the west-end to the east (half a mile to the turn off to Ashwood). PE 98-D at the blue 1/2 designation and blue line. While she cannot say for certain where the water came from, she believed the water "came from the bay or the bayou." T 220. The Bay County Audubon Society (BCAS) conducts membership and board meetings within the City limits and also owns a piece of property in the City. BCAS has approximately 400 members. Members live within the City. BCAS is concerned with the environment and with "the density of the proposed development" and "access to the pine islands." T 409-411. The City is the local government unit responsible for approving the Plan Amendment at issue in this proceeding. § 163.3187(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The Application, Review, and Adoption of the Plan Amendment On or about May 11, 2004, James H. Slonina, P.E., the president of Panhandle Engineering, Inc., filed an application on behalf of Robert H. and Barbara B. Hansman, requesting the City to annex "approximately 9.9 acres including lots, paved roadways and bridged drives" and further requested a land use designation to allow proposed residential development." The Property, see Endnote 1, is designated on a Bay County parcel map. A flood zone map is also included, but lacks clarity. The Property is vacant. JE 13. The purpose of the annexation and request for land use designation "is to accommodate the development of a 13+/- lot single-family residential waterfront development adjacent to North Shore Subdivisions." The application also stated: To support the residential home sites, there are adequate adjacent public roadways and utilities. Due to the unique physical configuration of the property, traditional RLD lot standards may not [sic] applicable. While we would prefer to pursue an RLD-1 designation, the application is submitted contingent upon confirmation of an appropriate land use designation and an approval of the proposed project. If another course of action is available, which would allow for the development of 13+/- single-family residential lots on 9.9 acres, please advise. JE 13. (It is represented throughout this record that the land use designation is requested for approximately 6.8 acres rather that approximately 9.9 acres. See, e.g., JE 7 at 1; JE 11 at 12-13.) The application was reviewed, in part, by Mr. Thomasson. JE 7. The staff report4 dated July 30, 2004, stated that the request is to amend the City's FLUM from Conservation (as previously designated by Bay County) to RLD with a Zoning District classification of RLD-1. (The staff report referred to several permitted uses under RLD-1. JE 7 at 2. The permitted uses for RLD-1 are those contained in the City's "Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code (LDRC)" at section 4-6.1.2.a. JE 4 at IV:8-9. However, the propriety of the RLD-1 Zoning District classification for the Property is not at issue in this proceeding. T 266.) The staff report also stated that the Property "is currently zoned conservation, abuts property to the North that is designated conservation Land Use category in the County and is just North of an existing Special Conservation Treatment Zone," which is indicated on a map on page 1 of the staff report. JE 7 at 1. The staff report stated that "[w]ater and sewer infrastructure and other urban services are available to this property." See T 286-287, 301-303, 307-308; JE 7 at 1. Under the background section, it is stated that "[t]he property has been seen as environmentally significant and has been the object of an effort to purchase for perpetual protection by a local land trust organization. It is adjacent to an existing development to the East." Id. The Plan provides that an RLD land use district "is intended to provide areas for the preservation of development of low-density neighborhoods consisting of single-family dwelling units on individual lots" with a density of "[n]o more than five dwelling units per acre." The allowed intensity is "[n]o more than 40% lot coverage as determined by dividing the impervious areas by the gross area of the site or lot." JE 3 at 1-2. The staff report contained findings of fact with citations to the Plan, including the Future Land Use Element, the Coastal Management Element, and the Conservation Element. References to the LDRC are also provided. See also T 285-311, 315-317, 320-321; JE 7 at 2-3. Thereafter, specific findings are made: Staff finds that this property, as a part of the St. Andrews estuary, serves as a breeding, nursery, feeding and refuge are for numerous marine creatures, birds and upland wildlife. The three pine and oak hammacks [sic] are a few of a rare estuarian resource. The marsh throughout the area serves as home for seagrass and other marine organisms that are integral with the biodiversity of the estuary. There also exists a [sic] archaeological sites [sic] consisting of an ancient Indian midden that has already been classified by the Director of the Florida State Division of Historical Resources as deservant [sic] of mitigation and potentially eligible for the National Historic Registry (see attached documentation). The site overall has a biotic community of nearly 90% of it [sic] total area. Staff findings are that this proposed Land Use Amendment is inconsistent with the above listed mandates of the Comp Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed Land Use is inconsistent with the LDR Code, in that it is not in harmony with the Comp Plan (Subsection 2-5.5.6.e. above), as well as the requirements of the environmental protection standards of Section 5-5. This decision hinges on the whether the City intends to enforce it's [sic] environmental protection standards of the Comp Plan and the LDR Code and if the site is seen as environmentally significant. JE 7 at 4 (italics in original). Ultimately, staff recommended approval only with the following conditions: 1.) that the fullness of the subject property be designated as a Conservation Special Treatment Zone [CSTZ][5] and that the pine and oak hammacks [sic](as referred to as "Pine Islands" in the Bay County Comp Plan) are prohibited from being developed; and 2.) that the area of the subject property that is beyond the mean high tide of the mainland portion, which specifically means the marshes/wetlands and the oak and pine hammacks [sic], shall be placed in a conservation easement and dedicated to either the City, or a third-party land trust or conservancy. JE 7 at 4. (Mr. Hammons, the City Manager, disagreed with the staff report, in part, because there was no data to support several findings. T 119-124.) On August 9, 2004, the Planning Board of Panama City met in regular session to consider the application. The request was to approve a small scale land use amendment to the FLUM of the Plan from Conservation (under the Bay County Comprehensive Plan) to RLD with a zoning classification of RLD-1 for the Property. JE 11 at 2. But see Finding of Fact 15. Mr. Fred Webb and Dr. Frasier Bingham were present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Webb advised that the Bingham's and the Webb's owned the property which consisted of approximately 6.5 acres of uplands. But see Finding of Fact 29 regarding the ownership of the Property. In part, Mr. Webb stated that the grass beds would not be impacted and that there was no legitimate environmental complaint. Dr. Bingham stated that he is an ecologist, specializing in shallow water ecology. JE 11 at 3. He said his family had purchased the upland property in 1948 and the submerged land in the 1960s. Beginning in 1991, Dr. Bingham stated he tried to get the government to purchase the property, but to no avail. He also recounted attempts to obtain permits from DEP and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). See, e.g., PE 60, 63-64.6 He believed that the bridge problem, identified by the Corps had been solved. JE 11 at 3 and 13. (There is no persuasive evidence in this record that the Corps has approved any permits for development of the Property.) Mr. Webb stated that all maintenance to the bridges and other utilities would be the responsibility of the association (for the developed Property) and not the City and that the City would only be responsible for police and fire. Id. at 4. Mr. Thomasson addressed the Planning Board. JE 11 at The staff report previously mentioned is incorporated in the minutes. Staff felt that the CSTZ designation would be the most appropriate designation due to the environmental issues and that the RLD-1 designation would be the least intense land use available under the Plan. Board member Pritchard inquired whether the application was incomplete "as it doesn't address the environmental issues." Mr. Thomasson stated the applicant did not believe there would be any environmental impact, while staff believed the property to be environmentally significant. JE 11 at 8. Dr. Bingham again addressed the Planning Board to refute the staff's findings of fact. Dr. Bingham said that "the wetlands would not be impacted, the grass beds would not be impacted, and the stormwater runoff already goes into the grass beds, which are, in his opinion, fine grass beds" and that "that 13 houses would not have any significant impact." He indicated that soils were not at issue and that the "property is sandy, not special." Id. at 9. Mr. Webb indicated that "they had evaluated the environmental aspects and added the raised bridges, swales, etc." JE 11 at 9. Numerous individuals spoke in opposition to the request. Apparently, by a show of hands "a large majority of those present were in opposition to the request." JE 11 at 12. It appears that two persons spoke in favor of the request. Id. at 9-11. Mr. Webb confirmed that the application requested approval of the land use designation and annexation for 6.8 acres. JE 11 at 12. He also advised that a limited liability corporation owned the 6.8 acres, while there are different owners of other parcels. Mr. Webb indicated that "only the uplands on the islands were being annexed," although "he was not sure the properties were 'islands' in legal terms." Id. at 13. Mr. Webb indicated that he was willing to indemnify the City against any legal expenses arising from this request. Id. The requested land use change was approved by a vote of three to two. Id. at 14. On September 28, 2004, the City Commission considered Ordinance No. 1985 pertaining to the requested land use designation change and Ordinance No. 1995 pertaining to the annexation of the Property. These Ordinances were read by title only as a first reading. JE 10 at 293-294. During this meeting, the minutes (JE 10) reflect that Mr. Webb stated that they would only be developing the upland islands and proposed to use bridges, which he says "the environmental regulatory community has considered to have almost no environmental impact. He said that the addition of thirteen single family residential homes to an area that has seven hundred homes will not materially affect level of service." JE 10 at 289. Several of the people who appeared before the Planning Board also appeared opposing the application for annexation and land use designation change. JE 10 at 290. Mr. Martin Jacobson, Planning and Zoning Manager for Bay County filed a formal letter of objection to the annexation. Id. Mr. Fred Beauchemin opposed the annexation and responded to eleven items which were discussed by Mr. Webb and Dr. Bingham during the Planning Board meeting, including representations of impacts to grass beds, wildlife resources, and soils. JE 10 at 290-292. Mr. Webb continued to feel that there would not be any destruction of the marshes. Id. at 292. Dr. Bingham again noted that he is a shallow water marine ecologist and felt that he was informed about the environmental situation on the Property. Id. at 293. After brief discussion by some of the Commissioners, Ordinance Nos. 1985 and 1995 were approved by a vote of three to two. JE 10 at 293-294. By a letter dated November 9, 2004, Daniel Shaw, A.I.C.P., memorialized the October 5, 2004, Bay County Commission's unanimous decision to contest the potential annexation of and land use change to the Property, referring to several provisions of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. T 228; PE 69. Mr. Shaw opined that "[c]learly, development proposed for the annexed Pine Islands violates the County's Comprehensive Plan." PE 69 at 2. He further stated: What's more the proposed annexation also violates the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Policy 5-5.2, 5-5.3 related to preservation of Environmentally Significant Resources would prohibit the proposed development. The property is a part of the St. Andrews estuary, and serves as a breeding/refuge area for numerous marine creatures, birds and wildlife. The three pine and oak hammocks are a truly rare estuarine resource for Bay County and for the State of Florida. The marshlands contain valuable sea grass beds and are home to numerous marine creatures, which are integral to the biodiversity of the estuary. Finally, the property contains valuable archeological sites, consisting of ancient Indian middens that are classified by the State Division of Historical resources, and potentially eligible for the National Historic Register. I would concur with staff's memorandum of August 9, 2004, which cites numerous other examples of where the development would violate the City's plan. PE 69 at 2 (emphasis in original). Mr. Shaw also stated that the Property is located in the coastal high hazard area, within a "V" zone for flood regulations.7 He stated that "[t]hese designations argue for prohibiting development for public safety and infrastructure investment purposes." Again, Mr. Shaw stated that Bay County opposed the potential annexation and subsequent land use reclassification. PE 69 at 3. Mr. Shaw also testified during the final hearing and reaffirmed his prior position. T 232-245. Mr. Shaw stated that the Property, prior to annexation by the City, was designated Conservation under the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, which allows for limited residential use and the preservation of pine islands (an outright prohibition).8 He was not qualified, however, to make a determination whether any portion of the Property is a pine island. T 247. Mr. Shaw thinks that Bay County allows up to 15 units per acre in the coastal high hazard area. T 254. On November 9, 2004, the City Commission met and considered a final reading of Ordinance Nos. 1985 and 1995. Several people appeared opposing both ordinances including Mr. Moore, Ms. Smith, Ms. Yori, and others. JE 8 at 3-14; JE 9 at 3-5. Mr. Webb again addressed the City Commission and stated, in part, that "nothing in the marsh would be touched." He also indicated that he would fully indemnify the City in the event of a lawsuit. JE 8 at 14-21; JE 9 at 5. Dr. Bingham also addressed the Commission. JE 8 at He stated that he has designed an environmentally friendly community of 13 home sites. He indicated that he had a Ph.D. in shallow water marine ecology and attended Florida State University and the University of Miami. He said that he was thoroughly familiar with the Panama City area and had worked with a large list of groups as an ecologist. He reiterated that the homes sites will take up 6.8 acres and will be entirely uplands and no marshes or swamps. He said that he is trying to use one fifth of the property that he owns and "there are no wetlands involved in this particular operation that will be damaged." JE 8 at 23. He also indicated that there will be raised bridges constructed on the Property, and according to him, were suggested by the Corps. Id. After brief comments by several Commissioners, the Commission approved the annexation and land use designation change by a vote of three to two. JE 8 at 26-27, 30-31. Toward the end of the November 9, 2004, hearing, the City Attorney, Rowlett Bryant, advised that the minutes of the September 28, 2004, Commission meeting would be included with the minutes of the November 9, 2004, public hearing. In other words, the November 9, 2004, Commission meeting was the public hearing held on the application for the annexation and the land use designation change. JE 8 at 27-30. Mr. Bryant also noted that the Ordinance No. 1985, related to the land use designation, would be RLD-1 and that the prior reference to Special Treatment Conservation Zone in the title of Ordinance No. 1985, considered on September 28, 2004, was a recommendation of staff and was deleted from Ordinance No. 1985, which was approved by the City Commission on November 9, 2004. JE 8 at 31-32. Ordinance No. 1985, in fact, changed the land use designation of the Property (approximately 6.8 acres) "from Conservation (a Bay County Land Use designation) to Residential- Low Density-1 as described in Small Scale Amendment 04-S20." JE 1 at 2. However, Petitioners and the City agree that "[t]he city assigned a future land use map designation to the parcel of Residential Low Density in Ordinance No. 1985." See T 11, lines 10-23; Petitioners' Prehearing Stipulation at 2, IV.2. Data and Analysis As more fully discussed in the Conclusions of Law, "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth; the projected population of the area; the character of undeveloped land; the availability of public services; the need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non-conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community; the capability of uses on lands adjacent to or closely approximate to military installations; and, in rural communities, the need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy." § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2) provides for "land use analysis requirements" and requires, in part, that the future land use element "be based upon the following analyses which support the comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection 9J-5.005(2) F.A.C." Subsection 9J-5.006(2)(b) requires "[a]n analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability for use, including where available: 1. Gross vacant or undeveloped land area, as indicated in paragraph (1)(b); 2. Soils; 3. Topography; 4. Natural resources; and 5. Historic resources." Further, "all goals, objectives, policies, standards, finding and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2)(a)(emphasis added). "Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such as the United States Census, State Data Center, State University System of Florida, regional planning councils, water management districts, or existing technical studies. The data shall be the best available existing data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2)(c). Petitioners question whether the record contains relevant and appropriate data, which was existing and available on or before November 9, 2004, to support the Plan Amendment. Petitioners further question whether the analysis of that data is adequate. The application, JE 13, requested approval of annexation of and a change in the land use designation for, as amended, approximately 6.8 acres. Aside from identifying the parcel in question, in relation to Goose Bayou and the subdivision to the east, the application does not contain adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment. Mr. Slonina, a professional engineer and expert in civil engineering, testified during the final hearing as to the due diligence he and his firm performed in support of filing the application with the City. T 424. Mr. Slonina has been on the Property many times. T 456. As part of the due diligence, Mr. Slonina analyzed the area proposed for development on the Property, which are the upland areas, and, in part, stated that these areas are primarily free draining sands and have fairly high percolation rates. T 425, 453. He also characterized upland areas as fairly clean sands and satisfactory for development in this area based on his experience. He also examined the upland and wetland soils to determine suitability for a "post and beam timbered bridge system" that would be pile supported over the wetlands bridging upland areas. He opined that the soils on the uplands were nothing unique and were suitable for low density residential and suitable to support the bridge system he described. T 428, 442, 458-459. See also P 50, Attachment A. Regarding utilities which might be available to the Property, during the due diligence phase, he identified, from utility maps, the location of the closest water and sewer which could serve the Property, adjacent to the Property to the east. He also analyzed the ability of fire protection to be provided to the Property and concluded that it was feasible. T 428-432, 460-461. See also JE 7 at 1 regarding "utility and other urban services availability" and P 50 at 14-16 for a discussion of "utilities." Mr. Slonina also opined that a stormwater system could reasonably be designed for the Property and that it was feasible to design a stormwater system that would capture stormwater runoff before it went into the bayou. T 432-435. Mr. Slonina examined flood zone information and determined that the Property was "very typical" and that the flood zone information available would not preclude residential development on the Property. T 434-435, 450. But see Endnote 7. From a traffic concurrency standpoint, he examined traffic engineering data on trip generation for 13 single-family homes and determined that there was adequate capacity for that additional loading on "the only roadway that connects to the [P]roperty." His traffic impact analysis was limited "through the residential streets." T 435-436, 439-441. Mark O. Friedemann, is the executive vice-president at the Phoenix Environmental Group, Inc., an environmental consulting firm. T 466. Mr. Friedemann was retained on or about January 7, 2005, by the City's counsel for the purpose of "doing a basic assessment of the property and whether it was suitable for some type of development, residential in particular." T 474-475. Prior to conducting a survey of the Property, aerial photographs, data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, and various maps were reviewed. Id. Mr. Friedemann and an assistant conducted a field survey of the Property on January 12, 2005. They collected basic water quality data, observed wildlife, conducted several soil observations pits, looked for scat, and examined the vegetative community on the Property. T 476. For the purpose of the survey, the Property was divided into areas 1 through 4, which are labeled on CE 5, Figure 2. T 478. These upland areas were the major focus of the assessment along with the interior (wetland/marsh) areas. T 478, 565. CE 5 at 2, Figure 2. Mr. Friedemann and his assistant arrived on the Property at approximately 9:00 am on January 12, 2005, during low tide. They left the Property as the tide was starting to return. T 517, 532, 548. Area one is a rectangular portion of the Property, which runs north to south and forms most of the eastern boundary of the Property and is adjacent to Candlewick Acres. Area two is another upland area which is in the northwest portion of the Property and west of area one. Area three is in the southwest portion of the Property and southwest of area two. Area four is a small upland portion, which is almost due south of area one in the southeastern portion of the Property. CE 5 at 2, Figure 2; see also Endnote 6. Mr. Friedemann accessed area two from area one by walking along a path/spoil pile, which runs east to west and forms part of the northern boundary of the Property (the approximately 100 foot canal is north of and adjacent to the path/spoil pile). He walked to area three by stepping across a small rivulet of no more than a foot in width. He walked to area four from area three, stepping over another small tidal- influenced rivulet that passed between areas three and four. He approached area one from area four walking across "a rather high area." Mr. Friedemann "did not get the impression that area two was surrounded" by wetlands, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. T 479-481, 500, 517, 556-557. He stated that area three would be surrounded, but was unsure about area four. T 556-559. Some of the areas photographed would be potentially inundated during high tide. T 521-525. Mr. Friedemann's report also contained, in part: water quality data taken on January 12, 2005; and a list of species seen on the same date; a recent undated aerial of the Property and surrounding area, downloaded from the DEP website, which was also magnified; and several aerials (dated 1953, 1962, 1967, 1974, 1978, and 1986) of the Property including the surrounding areas. Mr. Friedemann opined, based on his review of aerials, that there may have been a timber operation ongoing on the Property in the past although he would not hazard a guess. T 540. The report also included several photographs taken of the four areas, during the site visit on January 12, 2005. CE 5 at x-xxii. Although he did not "review any set of plans," or have any opinion regarding any specific development proposal, Mr. Friedemann opined that based on his observations in the field, "there is a viable project that could be built on this parcel."9 T 482, 501-502, 511, 520. Mr. Friedemann provided an analysis of the Property by and through his testimony regarding photographs taken of the Property during his site visit. From a biological or ecological perspective, he did not observe anything on the Property which would preclude residential development. He further opined that what he observed was not unique in the panhandle of Florida. T 501-502. Mr. Friedemann did not conduct a wetland delineation of the Property. T 556. However, the record contains an infrared Conceptual Site Plan dated October 22, 2002, indicating vacant land to the north of the Property, and residential areas to the east of the Property and east of the vacant parcels to the north. This particular site plan provided for the approximate wetland boundaries of the Property identified as south parcel (4). PE 98-D and PE 50 at Exhibit 1. Mr. Friedemann indicated that he had not observed the Property during a hurricane, during periods of high wind, or during periods of a combination of high wind and high tide. He agreed that the tides in the United States can be lower during the winter than they are during the spring and that the highest tides may be experienced during the spring called neap tides. T 532-533. Mr. Friedemann was also referred to a December 30, 2004, document apparently prepared by Panhandle Engineering, Inc., sheet number 2 of 4, CE 16, which delineated 13 lots. T 533. See Endnote 6. (City Exhibit 16 was admitted into evidence as an authentic document; however, there was no testimony regarding the preparation of this document. T 535-537.) Comparing sheet 2 of 4 with Figure two of CE 5, area two is depicted as being surrounded by rush marsh and connected to area one and area three by drawn-in bridges. Compare PE 50, Attachment E, Sheet 1 of 2, dated July 31, 1998, depicting the Property with 13 lots configured, interspersed with a "conservation area" designation and Attachment A, Figure 4., Project Base Map, depicting upland areas on the Property, interspersed with a "marsh" designation with PE 98-D south parcel (4) and "approximate wetland boundary. See also Endnote Mr. Friedemann stated that the indication of rush marsh on sheet number 2 of 4 did not comport with his observations of the Property during his site visit. He was unaware of this drawing. T 534-538. Gail Easley, A.I.C.P., an expert in urban and regional planning, opined that the Plan Amendment was consistent with various provisions of the City's Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the West Florida Regional Strategic Policy Plan. She also opined the Plan Amendment was supported by data and analysis regarding the suitability of the Property for the RLD land use designation. In support, Ms. Easley stated in part: Understanding that the amendment is not really permitting the use, but understanding that the amendment establishes the uses that are allowed as I testified earlier, the suitability data that is available in addition to the data and analysis here in the Comprehensive Plan includes the information from Panhandle Engineering about, more specifically about the availability of facilities and services and the suitability of soils for use of residential low density, as well as the analysis contained in Mr. Friedemann's report regarding environmental issues and the suitability of this site for residential low density. So I found plenty of evaluation of suitability. T 586. See also T 610-611. Ms. Easley also opined that the Plan Amendment does not threaten coastal and natural resources in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006, 9J-5.012, and 9J- 5.013, and Sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, because she considered the data and analysis in the Plan, "as well as the suitability and capability [sic] analysis that were submitted by Panhandle Engineering and Mr. Friedemann demonstrated that there was not a violation of these provisions." T 617. Ms. Easley also stated that there was adequate data to support a need for residential (RLD) development on the Property. See, e.g., T 584-585, 621-622, 629-630, 632-634. See also JE 3 at Future Land Use Data, 1-1 - 1-10. During cross-examination, Ms. Easley was asked to identify the particular Panhandle Engineering report which she reviewed to support her opinion. The report is not in evidence. However, Ms. Easley stated: "It was a report that they prepared that addressed issues of suitability of the site with regard to the availability of water, the availability of sewer, the capacity for water and sewer, soil conditions on the site, and traffic situations on the site. I'm sorry, I do not recall the date of that particular suitability analysis, but it was prepared by Panhandle Engineering, and I reviewed it as a part of my analysis." T 626. Ms. Easley was also asked to provide the source of her data and analysis about environmental conditions on the site and she replied: "Two places, there is information in the City's data and analysis with regard to the vacant land analysis, as well as general environmental conditions in or around the City, I reviewed that data and analysis that I mentioned earlier. I also saw information specific to this parcel from Mr. Friedemann's report." T 627. Ms. Easley indicated that there was no specific data and analysis contained in the City's Plan about the Property, although the Plan referenced areas adjacent to the City. T 628. Ms. Easley reiterated that natural resources are considered during the plan amendment process. It also occurs during permitting. T 642. She again stated: "The suitability analysis was contained in two different reports. As I testified earlier, Mr. Slonina's report from Panhandle Engineering addressed soils and soil suitability. And Mr. Friedemann's report looked at other kinds of environmental issues. I reviewed both of those reports and determined that suitability analysis had been preformed to support the plan amendment." T 643. According to Ms. Easley, if there were environmental reasons creating an inconsistency with Rule 9J-5, then such reasons could serve as a basis for denial. T 643. (Ms. Easley also opined that a land use change to the FLUM "is an assignment of a land use category and the associated density and intensity, it is not a development activity." See T 587, 651.) Mark Llewellyn, P.E., is the president of Genesis Group. In October 2002, Genesis Group completed a planning and engineering analysis (Genesis Report)10 for Chandler and Associates, who, in turn, had a contract with the DEP to prepare an appraisal report for the Goose Bayou Marsh Property.11 The Goose Bayou Marsh Property included four parcels, including the south parcel (4), which is the Property in question, two north parcels (2 and 3), and the middle parcel (1), which is north and northeast of and adjacent (the west one- third) to the Property. All the parcels are vacant. See PE 98- D, which also appears at PE 50, Exhibit 1. Mr. Llewellyn identified three peninsular islands on the Property (south parcel 4)(PE 98-D at the blue X's), which roughly correspond with areas one and two in Mr. Friedemann's report at CE 5 at 2, Figure 2. T 160-161. See also Endnote 6. The two eastern peninsular islands (area one) are connected to the upland to the east, Candlewick Acres. The third peninsular island, located in the northwest corner of the Property, can be accessed, according to Mr. Llewellyn, by a berm or other geographical feature to the north of the Property and south of the drainage canal. Id. See also T 397. There is one larger upland island and a smaller upland island toward the southwest and southern portions of the Property, which appear to be surrounded by wetlands, waters of the state, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. T 160-164. Each peninsular island and upland island is less than 20 acres. Mr. Llewellyn's analysis is consistent with the approximate wetland boundaries identified in the Conceptual Site Plan, PE 98-D. Mr. Llewellyn opined that the Property could be developed as a single-family development without having an impact on the Property if it is designed and maintained properly. T 157, 172. See also Endnote 6. The Genesis Report provided an analysis of the four parcels. Apparently the south parcel (4), the Property, contained approximately 16.2 acres as follows: wetlands 9.8+/- acres; upland islands 3.5+/- acres; peninsula uplands 2.9+/- acres; or 6.4+/- acres of total uplands. T 163; PE 50 at 12. Parcels 1-4 are analyzed in light of several factors, including but not limited, to the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan. The following is an analysis of the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan as applied to the north parcels (2 and 3): The Bay County Comprehensive Management Plan identifies the North Parcel's Future Land Use Designation as Conservation. The purpose of this land use is to identify public and private lands held for conservation of natural features. Allowable uses for this designation are natural resource protection, flood control, wildlife habitat protection, passive of recreation, silviculture and residential densities up to 2DU/acre. Commercial development is prohibited for properties with this land use designation. Additionally, the upland islands located on these parcels fit the definition for "Pine Islands" as defined in the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. A Pine Island is defined as a small upland area generally 20 acres or less, usually characterized by typical pine flatwood vegetation, which are surrounded by waters of the State, wetlands, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. The Bay County Comprehensive Plan prohibits development on any "Pine Island". This means that it will be extremely difficult to develop the upland areas located on this parcel. PE 50 at 2. See also PE 50 at 2 (II.B.) and 13 (IV.B.) regarding the Panama City Future Land Use. (The Genesis Report was prepared approximately two years prior to the City's annexation of the Property. The City did not annex the vacant land to the north (parcels 1-3), which is part of the subject of the Genesis Report.) Regarding the analysis of parcels 1, and 4, the Property, and referring to the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan, it is noted that "[t]he same issues apply to this parcel." PE 50 at 7 and 13. The Genesis Report discussed wetlands on the Property: The wetlands within the property consist of estuarine salt marshes, which are connected to Goose Bayou and West Bay. According to an environmental assessment prepared by Biological Research Associates (BRA) the marshes are tidally influenced and dominated by black rush. Other species include seaside goldenrod, seashore dropseed grass, sea purslane, glasswort, salt grass, marsh hay cord grass, sea lavender, Chinese tallow, saw grass, cork wood, and saltbrush. Additionally, the salt marsh is habitat for two listed bird species; the snowy egret and the little blue heron (see Attachment A). As previously stated, a wetland delineation has been completed for this parcel and accepted by FDEP and ACOE. PE 50 at 13. The Genesis Report also provided a brief discussion of flood plain and cultural resource considerations, and also provided an analysis of site planning and engineering, including access, utilities, owner site plan/lot lay out, and probable development costs. PE 50 at 13-15. Regarding south parcel 4, the Property, the Genesis Report concluded, in part, that "[t]his parcel has limited development potential." A cost estimate is provided. It is also concluded that water and sewer could be provided without incurring significant increases in development costs. "Development of the upland islands would require bridges, which significantly increases the development cost. There is no guarantee that the development within the wetlands would be permitted at this time." PE 50 at 16. The Genesis Report also included a report prepared by Biological Research Associates, which appears as Attachment A to PE 50. Mark Andrew Barth, vice president/senior ecologist for Biological Research Associates, was one of the two signatories to a section of the Genesis Report and also testified during the final hearing. T 175; PE 50, Attachment A. He reiterated that they prepared a preliminary environmental assessment for a proposed acquisition by a State agency. T 176, 180. (While unclear, it appears that his study area included the approximate western one-third of the Property, see, e.g., T 189; PE 50, Attachment A, Figures 1, 3-4, although other portions of the Property were studied. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 93.) Referring to PE 98-C and the Property (outlined in black) and the vacant land to the north outlined in red, Mr. Barth testified that they are "mainly comprised of salt marsh and scattered pine dominated islands." According to Mr. Barth, the term "pine islands," "describes isolated upland patches within the salt marsh." T 177. The salt marshes consist of vegetation that extends beyond the water level usually in very shallow water. T 178. The Property is part of an estuary system, Goose Bayou, for example. Id. See also T 381; JE 12 at IV-14-16 and Map 1. The salt marsh is inundated by saline or marine water as opposed to fresh water. T 178. One of the most significant features of an estuary system "is providing nursery grounds and habitat for marine and estuarine fish and wildlife." T 179. Mr. Barth considered the Property, south parcel 4, PE 98-D, to be environmentally sensitive in light of the combination of estuarine and upland areas which are undisturbed. T 185-186. Mr. Barth did not have enough information to assess specific impacts to the surrounding salt marsh and water in light of a proposed development on the Property. He felt it depended on the type of development. T 182. "Middens" have been found on the south side of the Property, in and around area 3 (CE 5 at 2, Figure 2). See, e.g., T 558-559; PE 50, Genesis Report at 13 and Attachment A at 6-7 and Attachment E, Figure 4, Project Base Map and Figure 5, PBY139 Base Map. Ultimate Findings of Fact Regarding Adequacy of Data and Analysis Ultimately, whether the Plan Amendment is based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis is a close question. This is particularly true here where critical portions of Mr. Friedemann's analysis are based on information, e.g., Mr. Friedemann's photographs, collection of water quality samples, and observations of the Property (species seen and terrain), which post-dated the City's adoption of the Plan Amendment on November 9, 2004. As a result, his analysis of this information has been disregarded, notwithstanding the lack of an objection to the admissibility of his report, CE 5. See Conclusions of Law 110-114. (Mr. Friedemann also provided several aerials of the Property and surrounding area which pre-date the date of adoption of the Plan Amendment and have been considered along with his analysis of this data.) Also, to the extent that Ms. Easley relied on Mr. Friedemann's report (CE 5) and the post- adoption information collected by Mr. Friedemann and his analysis of that information, her opinions have also been disregarded. Nevertheless, Petitioners have the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment is not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis, which Petitioners have not done. Accordingly, based on a review of the entire record in this proceeding, it is ultimately concluded that the Plan Amendment is based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis, except as otherwise stated herein. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.006(2), and 9J-5.012-.013. Consistency with the City's Plan, the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the City's Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the City's Plan: Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.1.10; Coastal Management Element Goal 1, Objective 5.1, and Policies 5.1.1 and 5.1.3.3, and Goal 3; and Conservation Element Goal 1, Policies 6.6.2, 6.6.2.3, and 6.6.2.4. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the LDRC: subsections 2- 5.5.6, 5-5.1, 5-5.2, 5-5.3, and 5-5.6.3.e. Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, and the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation on the Property to RLD. The Plan Amendment is not a development order. See Strand v. Escambia County, Case No. 03-2980GM, 2003 WL 23012209, at *4 (DOAH Dec. 23, 2003; DCA Jan. 28, 2004), aff'd, 894 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). It does not authorize any development to occur on the Property. Further, a special treatment zone, as used in the City's Plan, is not a FLUM land use district. Based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the various Plan provisions at issue, the Plan Amendment does not alter or interfere with the City's ability to maintain the quality of coastal resources; restrict the City's ability to maintain regulatory or management techniques intended to protect coastal wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitat, and living marine resources, for example, or prohibit the construction of docks, piers, wharves, or similar structures; interfere with the City's ability to provide for or have available adequate areas for public waterfront access or to provide the circumstances necessary for the conservation, protection, and use of natural resources; or interfere with the City's ability to enforce guidelines in its LDRCs related to, for example, the protection and conservation of the natural functions of existing soils, wetlands, marine resources, estuarine shoreline, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, or flood zones. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with cited portions of the City's Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Further, the Plan Amendment need not be consistent with the City's LDRCs because it is not the subject of "in compliance" review.12
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 concluding that the Plan Amendment, adopted by the City of Panama City in Ordinance No. 1985, is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 6th day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether comprehensive plan future land use map amendment (FLUMA) 07-L25, adopted by Marion County Ordinance 07-31 on November 20, 2007, which changed the FLUM designation on 378 acres of Urban Reserve and on 17.83 acres of Rural Land to Medium Density Residential, is "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The parcel that is the subject of the FLUMA at issue (the Property) is approximately 395.83 acres in size. The existing FLUM designation for 378 acres of the Property is Urban Reserve, and the remaining 17.3 acres are designated as Rural Land. Both designations allow a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. The FLUMA would change the designation of the entire parcel to Medium Density Residential (MDR). MDR generally allows up to four dwelling units per acre. However, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 12.5.k, which also was adopted as part of County Ordinance 07-31, limits the maximum density on the Property to two dwelling units per acre. FLUE Policy 12.5.k also requires: that development on the Property "be served by central potable water and central sanitary sewer services available concurrent with development" and be a Planned Unit Development "to address site design, buffering, and access issues"; and that NW 90th Avenue be reconstructed from U.S. Highway 27 north to the north-eastern corner of the Property and that all traffic facility improvements needed at the NW 90th Avenue/U.S. 27 intersection, including signalization if approved by the Florida Department of Transportation, be constructed prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the Property. Finally, with respect to the 17.3 acres formerly designated as Rural Land, FLUE Policy 12.5.k defers compliance with the County's Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program until application for assignment of a zoning classification for the land. Petitioners' Challenge Intervenors own the Property. Petitioners own property nearby in Marion County. Intervenors and Petitioners commented on the proposed FLUMA between transmittal to DCA and adoption by the County. Petitioners contend: The FLUMA is not consistent with the stormwater drainage, retention, and management policies contained in Policies 1.1.a. and 1.1.d. of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Comprehensive Plan. MDR is not suitable or compatible with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity, as required by FLUE Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of County Commissioners failed to evaluate the FLUMA's impact on “the need for the change” as provided in FLUE Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The FLUMA fails to take into account its impact on “water quality and quantity, the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands, and the potential for flooding,” as required by Section 187.201(15)(b)6., Florida Statutes. The FLUMA is not consistent with Transportation Policy 1.0 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states: "Marion County shall create and maintain transportation facilities that operate in a safe and efficient manner within an established level of service." The FLUMA is not consistent with the State's Comprehensive Plan in that it does not "ensure that new development is compatible with existing local and regional water supplies," as required by Section 187.201(7)(b)5., Florida Statutes. The FLUMA does not direct development away from areas without sediment cover that is adequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer and does not prohibit non-residential uses within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature, in violation of FLUE Policy 4.2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The FLUMA does not comply with Section 187.201(7), Florida Statutes, concerning the protection of surface and ground water quality in the State. Recharge Sub-Element Policy 1.1.a. and d. Policy 1.1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan provides in part: The County’s land development regulations shall implement the following guidelines for stormwater management consistent with accepted engineering practices by October 1, 2007: Stormwater retention/detention basin depth will be consistent with the water management district's storm water requirements for Karst Sensitive Areas so that sufficient filtration of bacteria and other pollutants will occur. Avoidance of basin collapse due to excessive hydrostatic pressure in Karst Sensitive Areas shall be given special consideration. * * * d. Require the use of swales and drainage easements, particularly for single family residential development in Karst Sensitive Areas. These are requirements for land development regulations (LDRs); they do not apply to comprehensive plan amendments. In any event, the evidence did not prove that the site is unsuitable for the density allowed under the adopted FLUMA due to karst features. The admissible evidence presented by Petitioners regarding stormwater management in karst topography generally related to flooding problems on the property contiguous to the Property, and to a karst feature referred to as the “63rd Street Sinkhole,” which is located in the general vicinity of the Property. Fay Baird, an expert hydrologist called by Petitioners, testified that the 63rd Street Sinkhole allows stormwater run- off to enter the upper aquifer. Ms. Baird testified generally of the problems and concerns regarding development and stormwater management systems in karst topography. She testified that the Property should be properly inventoried, that specific karst features should be identified, and that any stormwater system designed or developed should take into account karst features to protect against groundwater contamination and flooding. She testified that she had not been on the Property, had not seen or reviewed core borings or other data to determine the depth and nature of the sub-surface, and was not in a position to provide opinions as to whether or not a particular stormwater management system would or could adequately protect against her concerns. Intervenors’ expert, Richard Busche, testified that a stormwater management plan like the one recommended by Ms. Baird was being developed. Compatibility under FLUE Policy 12.3 FLUE Policy 12.3 provides in pertinent part: Before approval of a future land use amendment, the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed future land use is suitable, and the County will review, and make a determination that the proposed land use is compatible with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity . . . . Petitioners argued that the proposed MDR development of the Property is incompatible with surrounding agricultural uses. Actually, the Property is surrounded by a mixture of agricultural and residential uses, including residential subdivisions, a golf course, and scattered large-lot residential and equestrian uses. The properties immediately to the south and east of the Property are developed residential properties and are designated MDR. Before the FLUMA, most of the Property was designated Urban Reserve under the County's Comprehensive Plan. Such land "provides for expansion of an Urban Area in a timely manner." FLUE Policies 1.24.B and 2.18. "For an Urban Reserve Area to be designated an Urban Area, it must be compact and contiguous to an existing Urban Area, and central water and sewer must be provided concurrent with development within the expanded area." FLUE Policy 2.18. The Property is compact and is contiguous to existing Urban Area designated MDR. This indicates that the County already has planned for timely conversion of the Urban Reserve land on the Property to urban uses, including MDR. It also means that the County already has determined that at least certain urban uses, including MDR, are compatible with adjacent agricultural uses. The Property is in the receiving area under the County's Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Program in FLUE Objectives 13.0 and 13.01 and the policies under those objectives. This means that the County already has determined that residential density can be transferred to the Property from the Farmland Preservation sending areas to increase residential density up to one dwelling unit per acre. See FLUE Policy 13.6. This would constitute Low Density Residential, which is an urban use under the County's Comprehensive Plan. See FLUE Policy 1.24.A. By establishing the Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Programs, the County already has determined that Low Density Residential is compatible with adjacent Rural Land. In addition, Low Density Residential clearly is compatible with MDR. Although not raised in the Petition, Petitioners argued that the Urban Reserve and Farmland Preservation eastern boundary was improperly moved west to NW 90th Avenue. However, that change was made prior to the adoption of Ordinance 07-31 and the FLUMA at issue in this case and is not a proper subject of this proceeding. Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3 FLUE Policy 13.2 provides: The Transfer of Development Rights program shall be the required method for increasing density within receiving areas, unless, through the normal Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle, an applicant can both justify and demonstrate a need for a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment. FLUE Policy 12.3 provides: Before approval of a future land use amendment, . . . the County . . . shall evaluate its impact on: The need for the change; The availability of facilities and services; The future land use balance; and The prevention of urban sprawl as defined by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence proved that the County interprets FLUE Policy 12.3 to require need and future land use balance to be assessed within the planning districts it has established. There is no need for additional MDR in the County's Planning District 5, where the Property is located. To accommodate the projected population increase in Planning District 5 by 2010, which is the planning horizon for the County’s Comprehensive Plan, an additional 644 dwelling units are needed. There are 1,893 vacant acres of MDR available in Planning District 5. At four units per acre allowed in MDR, the County has an available supply of 7,572 MDR dwelling units in Planning District 5. In the absence of a need in Planning District 5, the County relied on a need demonstration prepared for the Intervenors by Fishkind and Associates.6 Besides being a County-wide analysis instead of a planning district analysis, the Fishkind analysis assumed a planning horizon of 2015, rather than the 2010 horizon established in the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the Fishkind analysis applied an allocation factor to the total projected need for residential use, most of which already is supplied, resulting in a projection of residential far in excess of the incremental need for additional residential land by 2015, much less by 2010. The result of the Fishkind approach was to allocate enough land for residential use to meet the County-wide projected incremental need for additional residential land use for approximately 45 years, which is five times the calculated incremental need for 2015. Even assuming that a County-wide demonstration of need complied with Marion County's Comprehensive Plan, this is much too high an allocation ratio to use to meet the incremental need projected for a 2015 plan, much less for a 2010 plan. The expert for Intervenors, Stanley Geberer, defended the Fishkind analysis in part by stating that it was comparable to demonstrations of need accepted by DCA in other cases. However, there was no evidence that the facts of those other cases were comparable to the facts of this case. Mr. Geberer also asserted that holding the County to its 2010 planning horizon would make it impossible for the County to plan for the future. However, nothing prevents the County from revising its Comprehensive Plan to plan comprehensively for a longer timeframe. There was no evidence of any other circumstances that would demonstrate a need for the FLUMA at issue in this case. State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(15)(b)6. Petitioners did not prove that the FLUMA fails to take into account its impact on "water quality and quantity, the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands, and the potential for flooding." To the contrary, the evidence was that those items were taken into account as part of the FLUMA. (However, as to the FLUMA's impact on the availability of land to meet demands, see "Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3," supra.) Transportation Element Objective 1.0 Transportation Element Objective 1.0 provides: Marion County shall create and maintain transportation facilities that operate in an efficient and safe manner within established levels of service. Petitioners presented no expert testimony or admissible evidence that the FLUMA will change established levels of service or result in transportation facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. Intervenors presented the testimony of Jonathan Thigpen, an expert traffic engineer, who prepared and submitted to the County a Traffic Impact Study and testified that the FLUMA would not change established levels of service or result in transportation facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. The ultimate need for transportation improvement, such as turn lanes and traffic lights to mitigate the impacts of development under the FLUMA, will be determined at later stages of development. Petitioners suggested that the FLUMA will result in delays caused by additional traffic, frustrate drivers waiting to turn east on U.S. 27, and induce large numbers of them to seek an alternative route to the north through agricultural areas, some of which have inadequate slag roads. However, Petitioners failed to prove that this result is likely. State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(7)(b)5 Petitioners presented no evidence that the designation of MDR on the Property is incompatible with existing local and regional water supplies. The evidence was that adequate local and regional water supplies exist. Even if they did not exist, the consequence would be less development than the maximum allowed by the FLUMA. FLUE Policy 4.2 FLUE Policy 4.2 provides in pertinent part: In order to minimize the adverse impacts of development on recharge quality and quantity in high recharge Karst sensitive and springs protection areas, design standards for all development shall be required and defined in the LDRs to address, at a minimum, the following: * * * f. Directing development away from areas with sediment cover that is inadequate to protect the Floridian [sic] Aquifer. * * * h. Prohibiting nonresidential uses within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other Karst feature. This policy sets forth requirements for the content of LDRs, not FLUMAs. Petitioners presented no evidence that sediment cover on the Property is inadequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer or that any non-residential uses would be constructed within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature under the FLUMA. Marion County has adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan to protect springs and karst features.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department determine the FLUMA at issue in this case to be not "in compliance" and take further action as required by Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2009.
The Issue Whether an amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Roger Thornberry, Georgette Lundquist, Steven Brodkin, Ruby Daniels, Rosalie Prestarri, and James Giedman, reside in and own property within Lee County. Petitioners submitted oral and written comments to Lee County concerning the challenged Plan Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendment. Respondent, Lee County (the County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and maintain a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes (2015). Intervenors, RH Venture II, LLC; RH Venture III, LLC; and Greenpointe Communities, LLC (Greenpointe), are the owners and developers of the property which is subject to the Plan Amendment. Intervenors are the applicants for the Plan Amendment. The Lee County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) allocates future land uses based on community plans for 22 distinct communities within the County. The Fort Myers Shores planning community is located in eastern Lee County. Within Fort Myers Shores is a sub-community planning area known as Caloosahatchee Shores, which is located south of the Caloosahatchee River, east of Interstate 75 (I-75), and west of Hickey’s Creek. The southern boundary of Caloosahatchee Shores is the Orange River and State Road 82. Caloosahatchee Shores contains a mixture of future land use designations. The majority of the land is designated Suburban, Sub-Outlying Suburban, Rural, or Urban Community. The subject property is located in Caloosahatchee Shores within an existing 1,978-acre mixed-use golf community known as River Hall. Most of the existing development in River Hall was completed between 2004 and 2009 by the original developer, Landmar Group, which was then owned by Crescent Resources. Crescent Resources declared bankruptcy in 2009. Those portions of River Hall subject to the Plan Amendment were acquired by Greenpointe in 2010. The property subject to the Plan Amendment is approximately 585 acres of non-contiguous land within the existing mixed-use development. All of the property subject to the Plan Amendment is located within the Rural future land use category. The Plan Amendment changes the future land use category of the subject property from Rural to Sub-Outlying Suburban.2/ The density of development allowed in Rural is one dwelling unit per acre and the density of development allowed in Sub-Outlying Suburban is two units per acre. In 2001, the Lee County Board of County Commissioners (Lee County Commission) adopted procedures to encourage community planning aimed at specific neighborhood interests within the County. A coalition of property owners in Caloosahatchee Shores developed the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Plan (Community Plan) between 2001 and 2003. The Community Plan was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan in 2003 and is codified as Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Goal 21 and its implementing objectives and policies. FLUE Goal 21 reads as follows: GOAL 21: CALOOSAHATCHEE SHORES: To protect the existing character, natural resources and quality of life in Caloosahatchee Shores, while promoting new development, redevelopment and maintaining a more rural identity for the neighborhoods east of I-75 by establishing minimum aesthetic requirements, planning the location and intensity of future commercial and residential uses, and providing incentives for redevelopment, mixed use development and pedestrian safe environments. This Goal and subsequent objectives and policies apply to the Caloosahatchee Shores boundaries as depicted on Map 1, page 2 of 8 in the Appendix. The Community Plan was amended in 2007 and again in 2009. Policy 21.1.5 was added to the Community Plan in 2009, and reads as follows: POLICY 21.1.5: One important aspect of the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Plan goal is to retain its’ [sic] rural character and rural land use where it currently exists. Therefore no land use map amendments to the remaining rural lands category will be permitted after May 15, 2009, unless a finding of overriding public necessity is made by three members of the Board of County Commissioners. It is undisputed that the Plan Amendment removes land from the Rural land use category. It is undisputed that the Lee County Commission did not make a finding of an “overriding public necessity” when it adopted the Plan Amendment. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 21.1.5 because the Lee County Commission did not make the requisite finding of an “overriding public necessity” to remove property from the Rural land use category.3/ Respondent and Intervenors argue that Policy 21.1.5 does not apply to the Plan Amendment because the existing development on the property subject to the Plan Amendment is not rural in either character or land use. Respondent and Intervenors introduced abundant evidence to establish that the property subject to the Plan Amendment is suburban development served by the full spectrum of urban services and devoid of any of the trappings of rural development, such as large-lot residential and agricultural uses. Respondent and Intervenors advocate an interpretation of Policy 21.1.5 which requires a finding of “overriding public necessity” only if a plan amendment removes property that exhibits rural character or rural land use from the Rural land use category. The County offered the testimony of Brandon Dunn, one of its principal planners. Mr. Dunn characterized the Policy as an “if/then statement”: if property in the Rural land use category (subject to a plan amendment) exhibits rural character and rural land use, then a finding of “overriding public necessity” is required. Under Mr. Dunn’s analysis, Policy 21.1.5 does not apply to the Plan Amendment because River Hall is a suburban community. Intervenors’ planning expert, Dr. David Depew, testified that the first sentence narrows the application of the second. Dr. Depew testified that the first sentence indicates “we aren’t talking about the category per se.”4/ Under Dr. Depew’s reading, the second sentence only applies to plan amendments which exhibit rural character or rural land use, rather than all plan amendments removing property from the Rural land use category. Neither Mr. Dunn’s nor Dr. Depew’s opinion is persuasive.5/ The interpretation advanced by both Respondent and Intervenors adds language to the second sentence of Policy 21.1.5 limiting its application to only those plan amendments which exhibit rural character and rural land use. The plain language of Policy 21.1.5 contains no such limitation. The policy directs the County to make a finding of an “overriding public necessity” as a prerequisite to removing land from the Rural land use category in Caloosahatchee Shores. The first sentence of Policy 21.1.5 does not constitute a limitation on the directive for a finding of an “overriding public necessity.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the Lee County Plan Amendment, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2015.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the petitions of Sierra Club, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Background Hillsborough County adopted its comprehensive plan on July 12, 1989. The County adopted Plan Amendments 90-I, 90-II, and 91-I on August 6, 1990, December 18, 1990, and August 28, 1991, respectively. The plan as so amended is referred to as the Plan. 3/ The Plan is the subject of these cases. The Plan is accompanied by data and analysis. The data and analysis of greatest significance are contained in the two- volume compilation of the Plan and other portions of Sierra Club Exhibit 1, which is the Plan and supporting data and analysis. Sierra Club Exhibit 1, which was prepared by Hillsborough County, includes background documents organized by elements, as well as oversized maps. Unless indicated to the contrary, the oversized maps are approximately 24" by 21" and are drawn on a scale of 1"= 2 miles. Many of the oversized maps bear numbers. Reference to such oversized maps shall be as follows: "Oversized Map [number]." Data and analysis from Sierra Club Exhibit 1 shall be referred to as "Data and Analysis." The Plan consists largely of goals, objectives, and policies. In addition to such operative provisions, Hillsborough County also adopted, as part of the operative provisions of the Plan, other sections contained in the two- volume compilation of the Plan. For example, each element of the Plan relevant to the present cases includes operative provisions under sections entitled, "Implementation" and "Definitions." Other important operative provisions are sections entitled "Land Use Plan Categories" and "Legal Status of the Plan" in the Future Land Use Element and "Costs and Revisions by Type of Public Facility," "Programs to Ensure Implementation," and "Requirements for Capital Improvements Implementation" in the Capital Improvements Element. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) filed a petition on September 20, 1989, alleging that the original plan was not in compliance with the growth management law. This petition initiated DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM. Various parties challenging the plan intervened in DOAH Case No. 89- 5157GM. The Sierra Club, Inc. (Sierra Club) filed its petition to intervene on December 8, 1989. The petition incorporates the allegations of DCA and alleges additional grounds for a determination of noncompliance. As a result of the execution of a settlement agreement, DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM was abated. After Hillsborough County adopted settlement amendments on August 6, 1990, DCA determined that the plan amendments were in compliance. On or about September 21, 1990, DCA issued a Notice of Intent, which was published on or about September 23. On October 12, 1990, Sierra Club filed a petition challenging the plan amendments adopted in connection with the settlement agreement. This petition initiated DOAH Case No. 90- 6639GM. The allegations are the same as those raised by Sierra Club in DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM in its Second Amended Petition- in-Intervention, which was filed October 17, 1990. By Order entered October 30, 1990, DOAH Case Nos. 89- 5157GM and 90- 6639GM were consolidated for hearing. On April 15, 1991, Big Bend Area Group, Inc. (Big Bend) filed a petition to intervene to challenge the plan. A Second Amended Motion for Leave to Intervene was granted. Despite the allegations of noncompliance, Big Bend's proposed recommended order requests that the Plan be determined to be in compliance. Sierra Club and Big Bend each has members who reside in Hillsborough County. Each party submitted the required oral or written objections during the relevant review and adoption period. The County conducted the required hearings, gave adequate notice of the hearings, and otherwise substantially complied with the requirements of public participation. Data and Analysis General Hillsborough County is located on the Gulf Coast. The western boundary of the County abuts Tampa Bay and Pinellas County. Pasco County and a small part of Polk County are to the north, Polk County is to the east, and Manatee County is to the south. The only incorporated municipalities in Hillsborough County are Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City. Tampa is at the north end of Tampa Bay and extends through the westcentral part of the County almost to the Pasco County line. Temple Terrace abuts the northeast boundary of Tampa. About 14 miles east of Tampa is Plant City, which is in the northeast part of Hillsborough County. The two cities are linked by Interstate (I-) 4, which runs from Daytona Beach to Tampa. In Tampa, I-4 intersects with I-275, which crosses upper Tampa Bay, runs south through Pinellas County, and spans the mouth of Tampa Bay before entering Manatee County. I-75 also runs through Hillsborough County. From the Pasco County line, where I-275 divides and proceeds southwest into downtown Tampa, I-75 runs generally due south. The path of I-75 lies just east of downtown, where the road turns southwest at a point north of the Little Manatee River. From there, I-75 parallels the shoreline of Tampa Bay until entering Manatee County. Other important roads in Hillsborough County include SR 60, which runs east-west through the center of the County and connects Tampa and Clearwater. US 301 runs along the Hillsborough River in the northeast part of the County, and then turns due south midway between Temple Terrace on the west and Lake Thonotosassa on the east. At this point, US 301 crosses I- 75 and runs due south, recrossing I-75 about three miles north of the Alafia River and just south of SR 60. US 41 runs due south from the Pasco County line into the center of Tampa and then turns east, before continuing south, parallel to the shoreline, varying from one-half to three miles inland from Tampa Bay. Natural Resources General The Data and Analysis accompanying the Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element (CARE) describe the County's natural resources, past land use practices, and planning challenges: Hillsborough County, by virtue of its subtropical climate and variable hydrology and geology, supports a rich and diverse complement of natural resources. The County borders the largest estuary in the State, Tampa Bay . . .. The County is underlain by the Floridan aquifer, the largest and highest quality potable water aquifer in the State, as well as by some of the richest phosphate deposits in the world. The karst topography of the County has created a mosaic of solution sinks and depressions which contain a wide variety of wetland flora and fauna, while the higher well-drained elevations support rare xeric hammocks and scrub habitat. Over the past century, however, development has slowly destroyed and degraded the rich natural resources of the County. The unregulated filling of wetlands, discharge of pollutants, mining of phosphate deposits, clearing of forests, dredging of bay bottoms, channelizing of streams and rivers, and overpumping of groundwater supplies has irretrievably destroyed or altered much of the original natural resource base. Environmental legislation passed at the federal, state, regional and local levels over the past two decades has done much to stem the tide of this destruction; however, advance planning and further safeguards will be needed to ensure the preservation and conservation of the County's remaining natural resources for future generations. Hillsborough County is experiencing a high rate of population growth. Between 1970 and 1980, Hillsborough County's population grew from an estimated 490,265 to 646,939, an increase of 32 percent This population size ranked fourth among counties in the state. . . . Future population projections for Hillsborough County . . . generally show that the population of Hillsborough County may continue to increase, if the high estimate occurs, or may level off if the lower estimate proves more accurate. . . . Hillsborough County's population is concentrated primarily within the cities of Tampa and Temple Terrace. However, during the five year period of 1980 through 1985, the majority of the population growth for the County has taken place away from these areas. Population has decreased in portions of the City of Tampa and increased in the previously less populated portions of the County. The Future Land Use Element of the [Plan] identifies the major center of future growth as the I-75 corridor. If the upper population projections are realized over the next 15 years, directed growth into this area will threaten the integrity of many of the County's most valuable natural resources, including the three major river corridors, areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential, and sensitive estuarine wetlands. The [CARE] is needed to identify these potential problems and to set forth a plan and policy direction for ensuring environmental protection and orderly economic growth under all projected population scenarios. CARE, pages 2-3. Acknowledging the environmental degradation that has resulted from land use planning that has traditionally ignored natural features of the land and water systems, the Data and Analysis state: In past decades, land use decisions were based primarily upon socio-economic and demographic factors, with little considera- tion given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land. As a result, urban land uses were often allowed to replace or permanently alter environmentally sensitive lands and natural systems. With a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions if the natural attributes and functions of the environment are to be maintained for future generations. Policies and regulations that appropriately preserve or conserve valuable natural resources while allowing for orderly economic growth are needed. CARE, page 73. 2. Tampa Bay Estuarine System The Tampa Bay estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water having a free connection with the Gulf of Mexico and within which sea water is measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage. ... [T]he Tampa Bay estuary is a zone of transition between fresh and salt water with unique and valuable ecological characteristics. Coastal Management and Port (Coastal) Element, page 13. The estuarine system includes tidal freshwater habitats as well as mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass meadows along the shallow bottom and estuarine fringe. The functions of the estuarine system are described as follows: Because of their unique physical and chemical properties, estuaries are among the most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems in the world. Tidal wetland vegetation at the headwaters of estuaries trap silt and absorb excess nutrients resulting from land drainage, thus buffering the coastal ecosystem somewhat from upland sources of pollution. Tidal wetland vegetation also protects upland areas by stabilizing coastal sediments and preventing erosion from storm events. The real importance of estuarine plant communities such as mangrove forests, salt marshes, and seagrass beds lies in the vital functions they perform in the aquatic ecosystem. First and foremost is their role in converting sunlight and nutrients into food usable by marine animals, thus forming the base of the aquatic food chain. . . . Although relatively little of this plant material is eaten directly by higher animals, it is broken down into detritus by micro- organisms and consumed by small crustaceans and other animals which are, in turn, eaten by larger fishes and so on up the food web . . . . In addition to serving as a food source, estuarine wetland vegetation provides shelter and nursery areas for the young of many economically important species such as shrimp, seatrout, mullet, and red drum (redfish). . . . [I]t is estimated that nearly 98% of the most economically important fisheries species taken along the Gulf of Mexico coast are directly dependent upon estuarine habitat during some portion of their life cycle. . . . Coastal Element, pages 13-14. Florida's largest open water estuary, Tampa Bay covers about 400 square miles. Coastal Element Figure 6 depicts the Tampa Bay estuary, including its subdivisions. Old Tampa Bay separates Tampa and Pinellas County and forms the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County. Hillsborough Bay extends from Tampa to Apollo Beach and forms the shoreline of central Hillsborough County, as well as the northern part of south Hillsborough County. The Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers empty into Hillsborough Bay, which joins McKay Bay at Tampa. Middle Tampa Bay, which forms the shoreline of most of south Hillsborough, runs from the southern ends of Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay down to the southern ends of Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. The Little Manatee River empties into Middle Tampa Bay. A variety of nonfish wildlife is dependent upon the waters of Tampa Bay. In addition to the 100-200 bottlenose dolphin in Tampa Bay, as many as 55 West Indian manatees reside in the bay in the winter, congregating around industrial thermal discharges. The largest group--42--was found at the mouth of the Alafia River, which is the only designated State Manatee Sanctuary in Tampa Bay. About one-third of the laughing gull population in the southeastern United States breeds in the Tampa Bay region, as does nearly one-third of the brown pelicans in Florida. McKay Bay is an important feeding area for a variety of birds. General water quality in Tampa Bay is "good to excellent," but is "declining" in Old Tampa Bay and "undesirable" in Hillsborough Bay, including McKay Bay. Coastal Element, page 15. Both Hillsborough Bay and Old Tampa Bay receive little tidal flushing due to natural conditions, so they are not "particularly well suited for the discharge of municipal and industrial wastes, and . . . the continued flow of freshwater to Tampa Bay, especially Hillsborough Bay, is essential to maintain good circulation and flushing." Coastal Element, page 19. The water quality in Middle Tampa Bay ranges from "fair to good," but is periodically influenced by water from Hillsborough Bay. Water quality in and near the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is "excellent or good," except for occasional "fair to poor" conditions due to seasonal discharges from the Little Manatee River or periodically "poor" conditions due to malfunctioning septic tanks near Cockroach Bay. Coastal Element, page 15. "One of the most pristine biologically productive areas remaining in Tampa Bay," Cockroach Bay is part of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, which is shown in Coastal Element Figure 17. Coastal Element, page 48. The only aquatic preserve in Hillsborough County, Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve runs from submerged lands along the Little Manatee River upstream to US 301. From the mouth of the Little Manatee River, the preserve runs along the Tampa Bay shoreline past Cockroach Bay, which is about three miles south of the mouth of the Little Manatee River, to the Manatee County line. Noting that the Governor and Cabinet approved the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan in 1987, the Data and Analysis acknowledge that "[s]uccessful implementation of this plan depends upon the cooperation of Hillsborough County." Coastal Element, page 48. The decline of water quality in Tampa Bay has had a predictably devastating effect upon commercially valuable fish in the area. "[O]nce the State's most productive and diverse estuarine system" with a diversity and abundance of marine life [in the 1960's] not exceeded by any other estuary between the Chesapeake Bay and the Laguna Madre of Texas, . . . [t]he productivity of Tampa Bay in terms of commercially valuable fisheries has . . . declined dramatically in recent decades due to man's influence on the Bay. Coastal Element, page 21. According to Coastal Element Figure 15, shellfish landings in Tampa Bay have declined from 20 million pounds in the mid 1950's to early 1960's to two million pounds in 1978. Finfish landings have declined from a high of 4.5 million pounds in 1964 to 1.75 million pounds in 1978. Five economically important shellfish species occur in Tampa Bay: bait shrimp, stone crab, blue crab, oysters, and quahog clams. By the mid 1950's, degraded water quality had eliminated from the estuary the bay scallop, which had formerly flourished in these estuarine waters. By 1970, degraded water quality "essentially eliminated" commercial harvesting of oysters, which had accounted for 500,000 pounds annually at the turn of last century. Coastal Element, page 22. Poor water quality has left bait shrimp and stone crabs as the only remaining commercially viable shellfish left in Tampa Bay. Areas approved for shellfishing are restricted to lower Tampa Bay where better flushing takes place. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is conditionally approved, but "has been closed periodically due to coliform contamination from nearby septic systems and is being considered for permanent closure by the Florida Department of Natural Resources." Coastal Element, page 22. The majority of the recreational fish landings in Tampa Bay consist of spotted seatrout, red drum, and snook. These fish are also declining in numbers. Many species of birds in Tampa Bay have suffered population declines due in part to red tides, parasite outbreaks, dredge and fill operations, pesticide use, and oil spills. However, the reddish egret and roseate spoonbill have recently returned to Tampa Bay. Accompanying the decline in animal species has been a decline in estuarine plant species, such as seagrass meadows. The "catastrophic loss of seagrasses in Tampa Bay," which is attributable primarily to water quality degradation, is taking place at accelerating rates. About 81% of the seagrass meadows, which once covered 76,500 acres of Tampa Bay bottom, have been lost. Coastal Element, page 20. Tampa Bay is undergoing eutrophication. The process of eutrophication, or increasing concentrations of nutrients, has already led to algal blooms, noxious odors, decreases in water clarity, declines in dissolved oxygen, and periodic fish kills. Excessive nutrient levels have resulted in phytoplankton blooms in the water column and excessive epiphytic growth of macroalgae on the leaves of seagrasses, leaving insufficient sunlight for the growth and reproduction of seagrasses that help trap nutrients. The destruction of seagrasses is further hastened by widespread increases in water column turbidity caused by harbor- and channel-deepening projects, which, with boat prop dredging, also destroy seagrass. The loss of critical nutrient-trapping vegetation has simultaneously taken place in wetlands and upland adjacent to Tampa Bay, such as in the destruction of as much as 44% of the original emergent wetlands, which comprise salt marshes and mangrove forests. In the process of development, these wetlands have been dredged and filled, thereby removing the intertidal substrata necessary for these vegetative communities. Likewise, the loss of freshwater wetlands along rivers and streams has deprived the estuarine system of useful organic matter and filtration. Dredging and filling activities have dramatically changed the features of the Tampa Bay estuarine system. The extent of the system itself has been reduced by 3.6%, or 13.15 square miles, primarily by filling shallow tidal wetlands for the development of causeways, residences, power plants, and port facilities. Port development is responsible for about 60% of the reduction of the estuary due to the construction of channels, filled sites, and disposal sites for dredged materials. Dredge and fill projects routinely permitted in the 1950's and 1960's are no longer permitted. But expansion and maintenance of the Port of Tampa will generate annually about one million cubic yards of dredged material from the channel and port. Present disposal sites may be exhausted in 25 years, and the Data and Analysis recommend that the dredged material be considered for wetlands mitigation and restoration. The primary factors contributing to the eutrophic degradation of the water quality of Tampa Bay are, in addition to dredging and filling, the discharge of inadequately treated domestic and industrial wastewater and inadequately treated urban and agricultural runoff. In 1980, point sources contributed 2.35 and 3.58 million pounds of phosphorous and nitrogen, respectively, to Tampa Bay. The Alafia River carried 75% of the water contributed by permitted point discharges because the Alafia absorbs discharges from extensive phosphate mining operations in Polk County. Not surprisingly, the highest concentrations of organic carbon and nitrogen and total phosphate are in the sediments at the mouth of the Alafia River. But domestic wastewater treatment plants discharging directly into Tampa Bay accounted for 78% and 84% of the annual phosphorous and nitrogen loadings, respectively. The degraded water quality in Old Tampa Bay and especially Hillsborough Bay is due largely to sewage and industrial wastes. Old Tampa Bay continues to suffer from the discharge of inadequately treated domestic waste. However, the water quality in Hillsborough Bay improved substantially after over $100 million was spent to upgrade Tampa's Hookers Point sewage treatment facility in 1979 from primary to advanced or tertiary treatment. Only one of the six County regional wastewater treatment facilities fails to meet advanced water treatment standards, but "numerous subregional and interim plants" fail to meet these standards. Coastal Element, page 24. According to the Data and Analysis, passage of the Grizzle-Figg bill in 1986 "currently requires that all sewage treatment plants discharging into Tampa Bay attain advanced wastewater treatment standards." Coastal Element, page 24. Upon compliance with the Grizzle-Figg law, nutrient loadings into Tampa Bay will decrease and "a net reduction . . . is possible as interim package plants are ultimately phased out or upgraded." Id. Regarding wastewater discharges generally, including industrial wastewater, a major reduction in nutrient loadings since 1980 has been realized from the use of alternative effluent disposal methods (such as spray irrigation and deep-well injection), municipal and industrial water reuse, upgrading of treatment capabilities, and phosphate land reclamation projects. Nutrient loadings from stormwater runoff will "most likely be a more intractable problem" than inadequately treated domestic wastewater. Coastal Element, page 24. Runoff from streets, parking lots, and lawns may contribute up to 25% of the biochemical oxygen demand, 35% of the suspended solids, and 15% of the nitrogen loading. Referring to state rules regulating stormwater, 4/ the Data and Analysis anticipate that the state- imposed standards on stormwater runoff will become more stringent, so there should not be significant increases in stormwater nutrient loadings into the bay. However: little can be done to reduce current loading rates, as retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities is most likely economically prohibitive. Retrofitting will probably only occur on a piecemeal basis as redevelopment occurs in previously urbanized areas. Coastal Element, page 24. Unsound land use practices introducing high levels of nutrients into Tampa Bay exacerbate background conditions that predate either all or recent development activity. The Data and Analysis caution that "there may always be a significant reservoir of nitrogen and phosphorous in Bay sediments to contribute to water quality problems in upper Tampa Bay." Coastal Element, page 16. The Data and Analysis explain: even with advanced wastewater treatment and improved stormwater management, localized pockets of polluted sediments in the Bay may still release excessive nutrients into the water column and cause water quality problems. The ultimate solution to this problem may involve the removal of excessively enriched sediments by dredging or the capping of polluted sediments with clean fill material. Coastal Element, page 24. Other unsound land use practices, such as the diversion of river flows and structural drainage improvements, greatly impact Tampa Bay in another respect not directly related to the eutrophication process. The Tampa Bay estuary and its dependent fish and shellfish rely upon the freshwater flow into the bay. Areas of the estuary with the lowest salinity, as well as low- salinity tidal marshes, are often the most productive nursery habitat for many marine and estuary species. The timing of the freshwater infusions are naturally correlated to the spawning periods of the fish. The salinity regimes of Tampa Bay may be disturbed by upstream demands for freshwater and the alternating excessive and insufficient flows of freshwater due to structural drainage improvements that hasten the natural drainage of uplands immediately following major storm events, leaving less water to drain slowly to the bay during relatively drier periods. Reviewing "numerous studies" that, for the past 30 years, "have documented the deterioration of water quality and habitat values of the estuary," the Data and Analysis attribute the environmental degradation of Tampa Bay to: direct habitat destruction from dredging and filling, and the hardening of shorelines for coastal development; degradation of water quality and eutrophication resulting from the discharge of municipal and industrial effluents, and stormwater runoff; and the reduction of natural freshwater inputs due to the impoundment and withdrawals from rivers and streams. Coastal Element, page 48. Concluding that "piecemeal urbanization" around Tampa Bay has resulted in its "broadscale environmental degradation," the Data and Analysis warn: "Without proper management and the proper balance between public and private uses, Tampa Bay could become a major liability rather than the area's main asset." Coastal Element, page 48. The Data and Analysis advise that the protection and restoration of the Tampa Bay estuary requires a "comprehensive, coordinated and holistic management approach." Id. 3. Rivers Covering 1072 square miles, Hillsborough County comprises five physiographic provinces, which reflect topography and soils. The physiographic provinces are Coastal Swamps, Gulf Coast Lowlands, Zephyrhills Gap, Polk Upland, and a small portion of the DeSoto Plain. Elevations range from sea level in the Coastal Swamps and Gulf Coast Lowlands, which separate the Polk Upland from the Tampa Bay estuary, to 160 feet above sea level in the Polk Upland at the Polk County line. CARE Figure 4 displays the topographic contours of Hillsborough County. The County's major rivers and drainage features are, from north to south, the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers. Each of these rivers empties into Tampa Bay. The three major river basins together with six smaller basins transport, on average, more than 1.2 billion gallons per day of freshwater into Tampa Bay. This is almost 80% of the freshwater flow into the bay. CARE Figure 11 shows the major rivers and drainage basins in Hillsborough County. A fourth river, the Palm River, once drained lands between the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers. Emptying into McKay Bay, the Palm River was "completely channelized and controlled" by 1970 and is now known as the Tampa Bypass Canal. Coastal Element, page 18. The Hillsborough River begins in the Green Swamp and flows southwest through Tampa and into the bay. Traveling nearly 54 miles, the river is supplied by many artesian springs, which supply the river with water from the Floridan aquifer. The natural drainage basin of the river is 690 square miles, including 120 square miles in Hillsborough County. The upper Hillsborough River is a Class I water, which means that it is suitable as a source of potable water. The lower Hillsborough River is a Class III waterbody, which means that it is suitable for propagation of fish and wildlife. The part of the river passing through the Hillsborough River State Park in the northeast area of the County is also designated as an Outstanding Florida Water. Two dams span the Hillsborough River. The upper dam is just north and east of I-75 near Fletcher Avenue. This dam, which is under the jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, is used for flood-control purposes. The lower dam is at 30th Street in Tampa and is operated by the City of Tampa to form a reservoir from which potable water is taken. Flow of the river ranges from 9.5 billion gallons per day during the wet season to under 30 million gallons per day at the end of the spring dry season. The average flow into Tampa's reservoir is 368 million gallons per day. Of the 55.5 linear miles of shoreline (both banks) along the Hillsborough River in the unincorporated County, 17.6 miles are private and 37.9 miles are public. The predominant land uses are rural, agricultural, and conservation. The riverbanks are in their native state with no seawalls and few boat docks or ramps, except for canoe access. The Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers originate in the Polk Upland and receive water from widely branching tributaries. The Alafia River begins in Polk County and runs west to Gibsonton and into the bay at a point about five miles south of Tampa. The Alafia drains a 420 square mile drainage basin. The average flow at the mouth of the river is million gallons per day. In general, the water quality of the Alafia River is "poor." CARE, page 13. A Class III waterbody, the river's entire corridor is rural or suburban, and much of its original floodplain wetlands are still intact. Phosphate mining has damaged the quality of the river's headwaters. The Little Manatee River begins in southeast Hillsborough County and flows west by Ruskin and into the bay at a point about ten miles south of Gibsonton. The Little Manatee River drains about 225 square miles. The average flow of the Little Manatee River is over 150 million gallons per day. Florida Power and Light pumps water from the river to supply an off-stream reservoir for cooling a thermonuclear power plant. The water quality of the Little Manatee River is "generally good." CARE, page 14. The river, which is a Class III waterbody, is designated an Outstanding Florida Water for its western two-thirds, with the portion of the river west of US 301 designated as an aquatic preserve. The river is more pristine than the other County rivers due to its "relatively unimpacted floodplains, swamps and tributaries." Id. However, the river is threatened by phosphate mining in its upper reaches. Rich deposits of phosphate matrix lie near the surface along the river's bed, and the easy extraction makes these areas extremely attractive for future mining. Id. In contrast to the well-developed stream systems of northeast, central, and southern Hillsborough County, northwest Hillsborough County has relatively few such streams. Rain in this area rapidly infiltrates the surficial soils through shallow creeks and solution features. The Data and Analysis concede that "surface water quality in Hillsborough County has been degraded due to a variety of unregulated water uses and adjacent land uses." CARE, page 54. The most prominent sources of water pollution have been discharges of wastewater, mining operations, and urban and agricultural runoff. The Data and Analysis recommend "[b]etter compliance with existing point and non-point source and stormwater regulations" and the consideration of "more stringent regulations for septic tank discharges." Id. 4. Floodplains and Drainage Over 30% of Hillsborough County is within the 100 year floodplain. The floodplains, which have been mapped throughout the County by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are depicted on Oversized Map 9. Major portions of the 100 year floodplain cover the coastal high hazard area 5/ and the Hillsborough River valley in northeast Hillsborough County. Floodplains cover perhaps a quarter of northwest Hillsborough County, including an extensive area north of Tampa where I-275 and I-75 join at the Pasco County line. Considerable floodplains encompass the corridors of the Alafia River and its major tributary and the Little Manatee River, all of which extend into phosphate mining areas of east- central and southeast Hillsborough County. The County has adopted a flood-control ordinance. But this ordinance "does not provide the County with a comprehensive flood plain management program . . . for maintaining wildlife habitat protection, aquifer recharge protection and water quality benefits." CARE, page 20. The Data and Analysis discuss the floodplains and their functions: Lands that are naturally subject to flooding serve valuable functions in the regional hydrologic and ecological system. Flood- prone lands provide temporary natural storage of runoff from upland areas and overflow from water bodies. By temporarily detaining surface water, flood-prone lands help to regulate the timing, velocity and levels of flood discharges and enable the recharge of groundwater resources. In addition, flood- prone lands help to maintain water quality and provide habitat that is vital to the sustenance of fish and wildlife populations. Those lands that are most frequently flooded, i.e., wetlands, are the most important in terms of providing these functions, but less frequently flooded areas are also important for handling more severe floods and providing other natural benefits. The maintenance of natural storage is extremely important for regional water management. . . . During times of abundant rainfall, . . . rivers and lakes overflow their normal banks and occupy the floodplain. The floodplain provides storage for this additional water. Even a greater volume of water is stored in areas outside of the floodplain of established lakes and rivers. Cypress heads, swamps, marshes and isolated topographic depressions provide a large portion of the natural storage in this area. . . . By temporarily storing and retarding the flow of flood waters, flood-prone lands also help to regulate the velocity and timing of flood discharges. Runoff in southwest Florida is usually intercepted by wetlands or topographic depressions. When these areas are full, the overflow moves slowly through shallow swales and linear depressions toward streams and water bodies. Obstructions to flow such as logs, rocks, trees, undergrowth and meanders in the watercourse reduce the rate of flow and thereby help to minimize the level and velocity of downstream flooding. Flood-prone areas are also important sites for groundwater recharge. The water table aquifer is directly dependent on the levels of water in such low-lying areas as cypress heads, sinkholes, swales and floodplains. When these areas are flooded, they may help recharge the water table aquifer. Then, during dry periods, the water table aquifer may provide part or all of the base flow to rivers and streams. Water stored in the water table also serves to recharge the Floridan aquifer by percolating downward through breaches in impermeable layers. ... Another important benefit of natural flood- prone lands is in the maintenance of water quality. Water tends to travel slowly across flooded lands, giving suspended sediments time to settle and thereby clarifying water before it enters or returns to a watercourse or water body. . . . The stems, leaves and branches of plants in flooded areas, together with flooded soils, provide an enormous surface area for biological and chemical processes. Micro- organisms on these surfaces initiate complex chemical reactions involving nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals and other pollutants. The roots of indigenous plants also absorb and remove nutrients from the water. Flood-prone lands, particularly wetlands, thus act like a giant biological filter. . . . Flood-prone lands also play a regional ecological role that depends upon periodic inundation. Wetlands and bottomland hardwood forest are the most biologically diverse and productive areas in Florida, other than estuaries. They support a wide variety of plants, which provide vital habitat for . . . game and fur-bearing animals . . . and for such endangered and threatened species, such as the wood stork. Much of the food for game fish comes from wetlands and floodplains along the shores of rivers and lakes. Juvenile fish, in particular, tend to hide and feed in these areas. There would be drastic reductions in the number of species, the number of fish per acre and the pounds of fish per acre if these areas were eliminated. Periodic inundation, alternating with periods of relative dryness, is vital to the maintenance of these ecological systems. Flood-prone lands tend to have rich, organic soils with a high capacity to retain water. The micro-organisms and plant communities associated with these soils support a complex food chain. High water tables and regular flooding are necessary to maintain organic soils. Regular flooding is needed to bring additional rich sediments into flooded areas and make them accessible to foraging fish. In addition, flood water transports out of flooded lands a load of detritus, nutrients, minerals and sediments that is vital to maintaining the productivity of estuarine systems. CARE, pages 14-15. Describing the consequences of poor land use planning in floodplains, the Data and Analysis continue: Improperly designed and executed land development interferes with the natural functions described above. Water resources and related land resources can thereby be degraded and unnecessary expense, loss of property, personal injury and loss of life can result. Building in flood-prone areas is particularly unwise. When floods recur, which is inevitable, considerable damage to houses, roads, utilities and other structures results. . . . Roadbeds are often weakened, undermined or washed away by flood waters. Electrical, telephone, and cable television lines are seldom designed to be submerged. Flood waters can enter sewage lines, causing them to overflow and contaminate an area or overload the capacity of treatment facilities. . . . . . . The storage and detention capacity of a watershed can also be reduced by drainage improvements, such as clearing and straightening natural watercourses, constructing new channels, and creating impervious surfaces. . . . * * * Reducing the capacity of a watershed to detain and store flood waters has several harmful effects on water and related resources, in addition to those associated with increased flooding. Variations in the flow of rivers and streams become more accentuated. Flood discharges peak more quickly and at higher elevations, but less water flows during dry periods and they extend for longer periods of time. The effects of both drought and flood are thus enhanced. Consumptive water suppliers, riverine aquatic life and estuarine processes, all of which depend on natural flow, may be disrupted. Recharge of groundwater is reduced by draining surface water from recharge areas or by covering them with impervious surfaces. The total amount of runoff discharged is thus increased and the amount of water stored in aquifers and available for consumptive use or to maintain streams flows is correspondingly diminished. Development of natural storage and detention areas also tends to cause degradation of water quality. Wetlands, vegetated swales and floodplain forests act as giant biological filters. If these filters are destroyed or bypassed, pollutants are discharged directly into open water systems. CARE, pages 15-16. As typified by its flood-control ordinance, the County has traditionally pursued the structural approach to floodplain management and drainage generally. This approach consists of building systems of channels, dams, levees, and other structures to hold back flood waters or rapidly carry them elsewhere. However, the Data and Analysis identify serious shortcomings in the structural approach to floodplain management and drainage. In addition to problems involving cost and relocating flood damage, the structural approach substantially degrades other values and functions of flood-prone lands and natural watercourses. Water quality protection, groundwater recharge, maintenance of base flows, estuarine salinity regulation, detrital production and export, fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural resource functions are frequently impaired by the construction of structural works. CARE, page 17. The Data and Analysis set forth a number of guidelines for a comprehensive floodplain management program "to prevent flood damage and minimize interference with the beneficial functioning of flood-prone lands." CARE, page 17. The first guideline to floodplain management is to avoid building in areas likely to be damaged by flooding. The Data and Analysis recommend the use of the ten year floodplain for this purpose. The second guideline to floodplain management is to avoid interfering with the beneficial functions of floodprone lands, which are "storage, conveyance, groundwater recharge, maintenance of minimum flows and levels, water quality maintenance and habitat for fish and wildlife." CARE, page 18. In a discussion not limited to the ten year floodplain, the Data and Analysis advise: Buildings, fill, roads and other structures that displace or obstruct the flow of surface waters should not be located in flood-prone areas. In addition, these areas should generally not be drained and their natural vegetation should be maintained. Id. With respect to the environmental benefits inherent in the second guideline, the Data and Analysis discuss each of the functions separately. For storage functions, the Data and Analysis note that floodwaters are stored by floodplains contiguous to water bodies and wetlands considerably removed from water bodies, but connected to them by cypress strands, marshy sloughs, and the underground water table. Thus, "[i]n order to preserve storage, it is necessary to prevent building in these storage areas, diverting [building] instead to upland sites." CARE, page 18. For conveyance functions, the Data and Analysis observe that obstructions, such as buildings and roads, to the flow of floodwater cause flooding upstream of the obstruction. Thus, "[i]n order to preserve the conveyance capacity of flood-prone lands it is necessary to restrict building in these areas." CARE, page 18-19. For groundwater recharge functions, the Data and Analysis relate recharge to storage and conveyance. If water that would otherwise percolate downward into groundwater is blocked by impervious surfaces, removed by drainage works, or displaced by fill, the water contributes to increased flooding downstream. "Filling of flood-prone lands or drainage of them should therefore be restricted." CARE, page 19. For minimum flows and levels, the Data and Analysis recognize that the management of maximum flows--i.e., floodwaters--"is integrally related to minimum flows." By increasing floodwater flows, such as by reducing natural storage and conveyance through structural flood control, "there will be less water in storage in wetlands and groundwater to supply minimum flows." The reduction of minimum flows and levels adversely impacts "navigation, recreation, water supply, dilution of pollutants, estuarine systems and fish and wildlife." CARE, page 19. For water quality, the Data and Analysis acknowledge the "major role" of frequently flooded lands in water quality. Pollutants are removed from storage waters when they are stored in natural floodplains or wetlands. "Cleaning, filling or draining these areas will cause degradation of water quality and should be restricted." CARE, page 19. For fish and wildlife habitat, the Data and Analysis note the importance of floodprone lands as habitat. Maintenance of this function "frequently depends on maintenance of the natural hydrologic regime or is consistent with maintenance of the area's hydrologic values." CARE, page 19. The third guideline to floodplain management is to avoid alterations of the natural rate, quantity, and pattern of surface waters. Applicable to both "flood-prone lands and more upland sites," this guideline advises that the "rate, volume, timing and location of discharge of surface water should generally not be altered from predevelopment conditions." In this case, surface water includes floodwater. CARE, page 19. Acknowledging the increasing stress upon wetlands and floodplains from "increased growth pressure in the more marginally developable portions of the County," the Data and Analysis advise that: [w]here wetland or floodplain encroachment is unavoidable, a scientifically defensible and effective compensatory mechanism is needed to ensure than no net loss of wetland acreage occurs. Where feasible, previously altered wetlands should be restored or recreated to increase overall viable wetland acreage. CARE, page 56. The Data and Analysis set a level of service standard for stormwater, but only in terms of existing, structural stormwater management facilities, such as channels, canals, and ditches. The standard relates to the quantity but not quality of stormwater runoff. The stormwater level of service standard thus illustrates the traditional structural approach to drainage that ignores water quality, groundwater recharge, base flow, salinity requirements, detrital food supplies, and habitat values. Dealing strictly with how fast and how much floodwater can be conveyed, ultimately to Tampa Bay, the stormwater standard describes the rainfall event that a particular stormwater facility, such as a ditch, can accommodate without causing floodwaters to rise above a specified level. The selected rainfall event is expressed in terms of frequency and duration, such as the 10 year/24 hour duration storm event. The level of flooding is expressed by degree. Level A, which is the most restrictive, means "no significant street flooding." Level B is "no major residential yard flooding." Acknowledging that the level of service standard for stormwater facilities "consists primarily of attempting to minimize and alleviate flooding . . . in developed areas . . .," the Introduction to the Stormwater Management (Stormwater) Element promises: the overall [Stormwater Management] Program will be expanded to include not only the quantity aspects, but the quality aspects of stormwater runoff. Stormwater Element, page 18. The Data and Analysis likewise agree that the qualitative aspect of stormwater runoff must be addressed: Much attention has, in recent years, been focused on the quality aspects of stormwater management regulations relative to the establishment of regulations and corresponding design criteria for new development. The application of these regulations must continue in order to minimize the potential for "new" water quality degradation, and the design criteria must be refined to increase the effectiveness of treatment systems as technology advances. However, existing water quality problems may not be correctable without the effective maintenance of existing stormwater treatment systems, and perhaps more importantly, without the retrofitting of older public and private stormwater management systems with stormwater management technologies. . . . The use of wetlands should be promoted as a natural means of providing stormwater treatment, and the direct discharge of untreated stormwater runoff to the Florida Aquifer must be minimized. Stormwater Element, page 20. 5. Soils The soils in Hillsborough County are depicted in CARE Figure 9 and Oversized Map 10. In addition to mine pits and dumps, which are located south and east of Plant City, the maps show that the County soils are poorly drained to very poorly drained, moderately well drained to poorly drained, and well drained. The largest area of well-drained soils lies east of I-75 from US 301, which is south of the Hillsborough River, to just north of the Alafia River. The two other areas of well- drained soils are an area east of Tampa and south of Temple Terrace and the Little Manatee River valley upstream to US 301. The soils surrounding the Alafia River and its major tributaries are predominantly poorly and very poorly drained, as are the soils at the upper end of the Little Manatee River. The entire coastal fringe of the County abutting the east side of Tampa Bay is also poorly and very poorly drained for a distance of about one mile inland, as is the coastal fringe between Tampa and Pinellas County. Other poor to very poorly drained areas include several areas of northwest Hillsborough County, an area in north-central Hillsborough County where I-75 and I-275 join, the Hillsborough River corridor, and an L-shaped area straddling Big Bend Road between I-75 and US 301. Except in extreme cases, such as wetland soils, soil limitations can generally be alleviated for development purposes. Moderate limitations require more extensive alterations to the soils than do minor limitations. "Severe limitations may require the removal of the natural material and replacement with a more suitable soil type." CARE, page 7. However: [t]he use of septic systems for the treatment and disposal of sewage effluent may . . . be significantly limited by site specific soil conditions. The location of septic systems in improper soils may result in several undesirable effects. If the soils have wetness and poor permeability then the discharged effluent will not percolate properly and may runoff into, and contaminate, adjacent surface waters. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve has been closed to shellfishing numerous times in recent years due to improperly sited and maintained septic tanks in the Ruskin area. CARE, page 7. Conversely, "[i]n areas of excessively well-drained sand, septic effluent can migrate too rapidly for purification processes to occur, and carry contaminants into the groundwater supply." CARE, page 8. The surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifers are all subject to contamination by this means. 6. Geology Southeast Hillsborough County contains significant phosphate deposits. This area is the northwest extent of the Central Florida Phosphate District, which is located in Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, and Hardee Counties. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 show that phosphate mines are located in southeast Hillsborough County, at the headwaters of the Little Manatee River and a major tributary of the Alafia River. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 show another phosphate mining area in eastcentral Hillsborough County adjacent to the headwaters of the Alafia River or another of its major tributaries. Providing "hundreds" of jobs in the Tampa Bay area in mining, shipping, marketing, and processing, the phosphate industry produces a "net capital inflow to Hillsborough County," although the text fails to identify what cost items associated with phosphate mining are netted. CARE, page 8. CARE Table 2 indicates that there are five major phosphate mining operations in the County involving 26,326 mineable acres and 5772 mined acres. Due to current market conditions, the only active mine accounts for 2510 mineable acres, 2890 mined acres, and 6933 total acres. The Data and Analysis warn: "phosphate mining severely complicates land use considerations in the central and southeast portions of the County. Large areas of known deposits are held by private companies for future mining." Id. In addition to the space demanded by clay settling ponds, which may consume a one square mile area for a single mine, a typically mining operation involves the "complete disruption" of up to 400 acres annually. The disruption involves the "on-site natural vegetation, drainage, and soil characteristics." Id. Mining may also result in the drawdown of groundwater supplies in the vicinity. Phosphate mining exposes the leach zone, which contains the greatest concentration of uranium. This process increases the risk that the radioactive material will enter the air or water. Heavy water demands in the mining process involve the removal of water from the surficial aquifer and return of used water, possibly with excessive radionuclides, to the Floridan aquifer. After the strip mining operations are completed: Reclamation and restoration of mined lands is extremely important for long-term land use planning in Hillsborough County. The vast acreages of mined trenches and slime ponds are virtually useless for long time periods unless effective reclamation measures are implemented. CARE, page 9. Recent reclamation techniques include surface contouring, use of original topsoil and vegetation types, and restoration of original drainage patterns. The Florida Department of Natural Resources and Hillsborough County both impose reclamation requirements. Noting the economic benefits bestowed on the Tampa Bay region from phosphate mining, the Data and Analysis nevertheless observe: the relatively unregulated mining industry of the past was also responsible for significant environmental damage, including the destruction of wetlands and floodplains, and the siltation and eutrophication of rivers and streams. In addition, large tracts of land have been committed to the maintenance of clay settling ponds and non-productive reclamation areas. Improved State and local regulation of the phosphate industry in recent years has reduced operational impacts on the environment. However, more effective and productive methods of reclamation, and greater enforcement of reclamation requirements, may be needed. CARE, page 63. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 depict the location of numerous sand mines and shell mines, as well as one peat mine. Limestone deposits in the northeast part of Hillsborough County are near the surface and may be the subject of future limestone mining for use as road base, fill, concrete, and asphalt. Another mineral present in commercially significant quantities is sand. In areas underlain by limestone deposits, sinkholes may form, especially in northern and eastern Hillsborough County. The collapse of the limestone formation, which results in the sinkhole, is associated with reduced water tables. "Sinkhole areas are generally unsuitable for development." CARE, page 6. CARE Figure 8 depicts areas of observed and potential sinkhole development. 7. Groundwater The three aquifer systems present in most of Hillsborough County are the surficial, intermediate, and Floridan. The Floridan aquifer is the most productive freshwater aquifer system in Hillsborough County. The surficial aquifer runs through most of Hillsborough County. The water table in the County generally follows the topography, and groundwater flow is west and south. The average depth to the water table is five feet. Fluctuating seasonally less than five feet, the water table is lowest in April or May and highest in September. The surficial aquifer supplies the least amount of water in the County. An intermediate aquifer system forms from the Alafia River basin south in the County. The top of the intermediate aquifer is near sea level, and the intermediate aquifer system thickens to about 200 feet near the Manatee County line. The water quality in the intermediate aquifer is generally good and is primarily used for domestic water supply in extreme south Hillsborough County. The aquifer is most productive in the east and south part of the County, although the phosphate mines in southeast Hillsborough County use the intermediate aquifer as the injection zone for dewatering surficial deposits. The most suitable areas for groundwater development are the extreme northeast and southeast areas of the County. The Floridan aquifer is the major source of groundwater in the County. About 175 million gallons per day of the total 178.2 million gallons per day of groundwater withdrawals in Hillsborough County are taken from the Floridan aquifer. The top of the aquifer ranges from near land surface in the north part of the County to about 200 feet below sea level in the south part of the County. The aquifer thickness ranges from less than 1000 feet in the north part of the County to more than 1200 feet in the south part of the County. The water of the Floridan aquifer is more mineralized than the water of the surficial or intermediate aquifer. Concentrations of chloride exceed 250 mg/l near the coast, but are less than 25 mg/l in east and southeast Hillsborough County. Of the total groundwater withdrawn in the County, about 58%, or 103.3 million gallons per day, is devoted to agriculture. Other uses include 43.7 million gallons per day for public supply, 21.2 million gallons per day for industrial use, and 6.5 million gallons per day for rural use. 8. Aquifer Recharge Aquifer recharge is the "replenishment of water in an aquifer system." CARE, page 23. Hillsborough County contains no areas of high natural aquifer recharge. Areas of high natural aquifer recharge, where annual recharge rates range from 10-20 inches per year, are rare in Florida, representing only about 15% of the entire state. In terms of natural recharge rates, the County contains areas characterized by very low and very low to moderate recharge. The areas of very low to moderate recharge, in which the annual recharge rate is from 2-10 inches, are depicted in CARE Figure 14 and cover the northwest corner of the County, smaller areas in the northcentral and northeast areas of the County, and a large area in northeast Hillsborough County. The large recharge area in the northeast part of the County corresponds to the 100 year floodplain associated with the Hillsborough River basin; this is the largest contiguous 100 year floodplain in the County. Despite the absence of high natural recharge areas, the County contains areas highly susceptible to contamination of the Floridan aquifer. CARE Figure 15 shows three highly susceptible areas. One of these areas is the north half of northwest Hillsborough County. This area contains wellfields located along Gunn Highway and SR 597. The easternmost extent of this area is just east of the intersection of I-275 and I-75. Most of the highly susceptible areas in the northwest part of the County are in areas of very low to moderate natural groundwater recharge. Another area highly susceptible to contamination of the Floridan aquifer is in northeast Hillsborough County, north of I-4 and mostly east of US 301. This area includes two mining areas, but neither is a phosphate mine. The third area of high susceptibility to contamination of the Floridan aquifer runs from an area between Lake Thonotosassa and Plant City southwest through the parcels designated Light Industrial north of Gibsonton. Although similar contamination maps for the surficial and intermediate aquifer systems were not included, the surficial aquifer is highly susceptible to contamination due largely to its proximity to the surface, and the intermediate aquifer is less susceptible to contamination. The Data and Analysis warn that "[d]evelopment in areas of high recharge/contamination potential may . . . pose unacceptable threats to the long-term water quantity and quality within the aquifer system." CARE, page 58. Potable water supplies are also threatened by "the proliferation of improperly sited, constructed and maintained septic tanks." Id. CARE Figure 16 displays potential sources of contamination of the groundwater and surface water. The only potential source of contamination in the recharge area associated with the Hillsborough River basin is an active landfill situated at the southern edge of the recharge area, just southeast of Lake Thonotosassa. However, three active landfills and seven sewage treatment plants have been situated in the large recharge area in the northwest corner of the County, although these ten sites are southwest of existing public supply wells. 9. Sanitary Sewer An unnumbered oversized map entitled Hillsborough County Wastewater Element shows existing and proposed wastewater service areas and collection lines; the projected facilities are shown as of 1994 and 2010. Oversized Map 3, which is entitled Potable Water and Wastewater Facilities, also shows existing and proposed wastewater service areas as of 1994 and 2010. Sanitary Sewerage (Sewer) Element Figure 1 depicts the same information on a smaller scale, although the earlier year of projection is 1995, not 1994. Another unnumbered oversized map accompanying the Plan shows the location of domestic wastewater treatment plants, but the date of the map is omitted. In terms of the existing collection and conveyance system, Sewer Element Figure 1 depicts a central sewer system considerably more proposed than existing in the area south of the Alafia River. No sewer lines exist south of the Alafia River except for a one-mile segment along Big Bend Road east of US and west of Balm-Riverview Road; a little more than a half-mile segment on the peninsula extending from Apollo Beach; a half- mile segment southeast of the preceding segment, about midway between the shoreline and US 41; and roughly five miles of lines along SR 674 between I-75 and just east of US 301. In contrast to the seven miles of existing sewer lines described in the preceding paragraph, Sewer Element Figure 1 indicates that the area south of the Alafia River is proposed to receive another 30 miles of lines by 1994 and another 30 miles of lines by 2010. In other words, the County intends to expand the central sewer system by almost tenfold over 20 years in the area south of the Alafia River. Four to six sewage treatment plants are operating close to the Alafia River, and two such plants are operating close to the Little Manatee River. In addition, two sewage treatment plants and an active landfill are also operating between the two rivers, located west of US 41 and east of the shore of Tampa Bay. The Data and Analysis report that one of the assumptions in the Sewer Element is that all regional and subregional wastewater treatment plants will use advanced wastewater treatment except the Van Dyke plant, which uses secondary wastewater treatment. The Data and Analysis also indicate that, as sewer connections are made, interim and private wastewater plants will be phased out. The Data and Analysis recognize the risk that septic tanks pose to potable water supplies: "As more and more quantities of potable water are needed to supply the County and as urbanization of previously rural areas occurs, the possible dangers due to septic tanks systems contaminating potable water supplies increases." Sewer Element, page 14. As noted below, the Plan distinguishes among Urban, Suburban, and Rural general service levels. 6/ For sanitary sewer, Rural services means "there would most likely be no service connection to an area treatment plant." Sewer Element, page 3. For sanitary sewer, Urban or Suburban service means "there would most likely be current or planned service connection to an area treatment plant." Sewer Element, page 4. Only in "intense urban areas" can the Plan assure "there would be service connection to an area treatment plant." Id. Sewer Element Table 1 discloses that the design capacity of wastewater treatment plants--both publicly and privately owned--is 42.163 million gallons per day with 46% of the capacity in the northwest service area, 42% of the capacity in the central service area, and 12% of the capacity in the south service area. The Data and Analysis indicate that the County has embarked on an "vigorous construction program aimed at meeting the existing commitments within its service areas and providing capacity capable of accommodating growth through 1995." Sewer Element, page 5. However, the construction of treatment facilities has proceeded faster than the construction of collection and transmission lines. 9. Potable Water Oversized Map 3 shows the location of existing water lines, proposed water lines through 1994, proposed water lines through 2010, and water service area boundaries. Potable Water Element Figure 1 depicts on a smaller scale the same information, plus the location of the water service area boundaries in 1995 and 2010. In general, water lines cover a considerable portion of the northwest and central parts of Hillsborough County, appearing in all parts of the County to serve all land that is both designated Suburban Density Residential and contiguous to areas designated for greater densities. Again, as in the case of central sewer, the part of Hillsborough County south of the Alafia River is not as well served. Twelve miles of line run along US 301, south from the Alafia River to SR 674. About seven miles of line run west on SR 674 to a point about two miles east of the mouth of the Little Manatee River. About five miles of line cover the Ruskin area directly northeast of the previously described terminus, and one mile of line proceeds south toward the Little Manatee River. Closer to Tampa Bay, about seven miles of water line run along US 41 south from the Alafia River to a point a couple of miles south of Big Bend Road, stopping about three and one- half miles north of the nearest existing line in Ruskin. About eight miles of line run just south of, and parallel to, the Alafia River. Another five miles of water line run from the Alafia River south, along the scenic corridor (evidently a railroad line to be converted into a two- lane road, at least part of which may be known as the Jim Selvey Highway) running parallel to, and about one mile west of, the boundary between Rural and Suburban designations between SR 640 and the line extending east of the end of Big Bend Road. 7/ Oversized Map 3 discloses that the County can provide central water service to relatively little of the area south of the Alafia River within the Urban and Suburban areas. As is the case with central sewer, the County's plans for new central water service project the majority of construction activity toward the end of the 20-year period. Although starting with considerably more water line mileage--about 47 miles--than sewer line mileage south of the Alafia River, the County plans only about eight new miles in this area by 1994, but over 90 new miles by 2010. For potable water service, a Rural service area "would most likely be served by a system of private wells." Potable Water Element, page 3. Urban or Suburban service means "there would most likely be current or planned service connecting to this area." Potable Water Element, page 4. Again, as in the case of sewer service, a guarantee of central water service applies only to intensive urban service, where "there would be service connecting to this area." Id. After detailed analysis, the Data and Analysis conclude that the County will require 235-318 million gallons per day of water in 2000. Responsibility in coordinating water supplies in the Tampa Bay area has been assigned to the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA). According to CARE Figure 19, Hillsborough County will run short of potable water by the early 1990's and need water supplies from the WCRWSA. CARE, page 28. Due to assumptions of increased water usage in Pasco and Pinellas Counties, "there is concern that the 'safe yield' limit of regional groundwater aquifers may be approached in the foreseeable future." Id. The Data and Analysis report that additional water for the fast-growing southcentral area will come from a "planned" wellfield in northeast Brandon. Potable Water Element, page 9. CARE Figure 18 shows the location of major public supply reservoirs and water wells of more than 100,000 gallons per day. Oversized Map 18, which is dated February, 1990, depicts a 200-foot radius for each major public supply well. The greatest concentration of public supply water wells is in northwest Hillsborough County, especially the northern half of this area. Based on rough projections, the Data and Analysis warn that there is a "need to develop and communicate accurate water supply and safe yield projections to ensure sound water use planning. In addition, [there is a] need to immediately conserve existing water supplies and to develop new supplies." Id. In the meantime, potential water sources are threatened by development: The quantity and quality of groundwater resources may also be adversely impacted by land development. Because of the dry, well- drained soils, many of the most important aquifer recharge areas in the County are considered to be the most desirable sites for development. However, the increase in impervious surface cover associated with land development may, in theory, reduce the amount of water available to recharge groundwater aquifers by increasing the amount of surface runoff and evaporation. In addition, pollution discharges to groundwater, including septic drainfields, leaking underground storage tanks, etc., percolate rapidly through the topsoil and into the underlying rock in such areas, and may pose a significant contamination threat to existing and future water supplies. CARE, page 28. Water conservation will help extend existing potable water supplies. Residential water use may be reduced by 15% to 70% by conservation measures. Agricultural water use may be reduced by better irrigation practices, reducing losses to seepage, and using the lowest quality water necessary. Only 33 of the 267 wastewater treatment plants in the County presently use direct wastewater reuse options. The Data and Analysis recommend the exploration of this option. With respect to potable water sources, the Data and Analysis also consider desalinization. About 70 such plants currently operate in Florida. The reverse osmosis method of desalinization appears to be a particularly viable alternative for Hillsborough County. Noting the inevitability of new demands for potable water from population growth, the Data and Analysis warn that "significant increases in impervious surfaces may actually decrease the recharge potential and the available water supply below historically reliable levels." CARE, page 61. Excessive groundwater withdrawals in Hillsborough County have historically dewatered wetlands and surface waters; excessive groundwater withdrawals in other coastal areas in Florida have historically resulted in saltwater intrusion. Thus, the Data and Analysis recommend the establishment of "'safe yield' groundwater withdrawal limitations." Id. Until the development of more sophisticated means, the Data and Analysis recommend the use of the "Water Budget Concept" to estimate probable limits on potable water supply and demand. Id. 10. Natural Habitats Because of the size, location, and estuarine shoreline of Hillsborough County, representatives of over half of the major plant communities in Florida are found in the County. The 14 major plant communities found in Hillsborough County are: pine flatwoods, dry prairies, sand pine scrub, sandhills, xeric hammocks, mesic hammocks, hardwood swamps, cypress swamps, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, coastal marshes, mangrove swamps, coastal strand, and marine grassbeds. With the exception of marine grassbeds, these habitats are depicted on the multicolor fold-out map entitled "Natural Systems and Land Use Cover Inventory," which is identified as CARE Figure 20 in the Plan. Coastal Figure 11 depicts the established extent of seagrass meadows in Tampa Bay. Coastal Figure 14 shows the location in Tampa Bay of different classes of waters. The waters adjacent to the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County are Class II waters that are closed to shellfish harvesting. The waters from about a mile south of Apollo Beach to Manatee County are also Class II waters with shellfish harvesting approved in the area of Cockroach Bay. The remaining waters are Class III. Coastal Figure 13 depicts the location of emergent wetlands along the fringe of Tampa Bay. Concentrations of emergent wetlands are notable south of Apollo Beach and upstream varying distances along the fringes of the three major rivers and the former Palm River. Emergent wetlands also fringe the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County. Most of the County's natural habitat has been lost to urban, agricultural, and industrial development, which has altered over half of the original freshwater wetlands and over three-quarters of the uplands. The trend of habitat destruction, though abated by wetland protection laws, continues to apply to the upland habitats of xeric and mesic hammocks. Supplementing CARE Figure 20 are Oversized Map 8, which depicts "major natural systems" based on CARE Figure 20, and CARE Table 11, which indicates where, by specific habitat, each of the endangered, threatened, or special-concern plant or animal species may be expected to occur. The Data and Analysis acknowledge that the rapidly growing human population and its associated urbanization has resulted in a substantial loss of natural wildlife habitat, especially in the coastal portions of the County, while the cumulative impacts of development continue to divide and isolate large contiguous natural areas. . . . As a result of habitat destruction and alteration, the natural populations of many wildlife species have declined dramatically. . . . comprehensive wildlife protection and management program is needed to inventory populations of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern, and to inventory significant and essential wildlife habitat and protect those areas in the future. Coastal Element, page 68. The pine flatwoods habitat is characterized by long- leaf pines on drier sites and slash pine on wetter sites. Despite overlap between the understories of the two types of pine flatwoods communities, saw palmetto predominates in slash pine flatwoods and wiregrass predominates in long-leaf pine flatwoods. Pine flatwoods depend on fire to eliminate hardwood competition. Longleaf pine flatwoods are more susceptible to lack of water than are slash pine flatwoods. In the absence of fire, the pine flatwoods community is replaced by a mixed hardwood and pine forest. Various species that are endangered, threatened, or of special concern are associated with the pine flatwoods habitat. These species include the Florida golden aster, eastern indigo snake, short-tailed snake, gopher tortoise, gopher frog, Florida pine snake, peregrine falcon, Southern bald eagle, Southeastern American kestrel, red-cockaded woodpecker, scrub jay, and Sherman's fox squirrel. Originally, 70% of Hillsborough County was vegetated by pine flatwoods, but now only 5% of the County is pine flatwoods. The level surface, thick understory, and poorly drained soils of the pine flatwoods tend to retain and slowly release surface water, so the pine flatwoods enhance surface water quality and reduce downstream flooding. Dry prairies are treeless plains, often hosting scattered bayheads, cypress ponds, freshwater marshes, and wet prairies. Dry prairies resemble pine flatwoods without the overstory and perform similar functions in terms of surface water drainage. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species using dry prairies include those using the pine flatwoods plus the Florida sandhill crane and burrowing owl. Sand pine scrub is found mostly on relict dunes or other marine features found along present and former shorelines. Sand pine forms the overstory, and scrubby oaks compose a thick, often clumped understory. Large areas of bare sand are present in the habitat of the sand pine scrub, which requires fires to release the pine seeds. Without fires, the sand pine scrub habitat evolves into a xeric oak scrub habitat. The rare sand pine scrub community hosts many of the endangered, threatened, or special-concern species found in the pine flatwoods habitat. Supporting the highest number of such species, the sand pine scrub habitat's extremely dry environment sustains highly specialized plants and animals that could survive nowhere else. The unique adaptations of species to the sand pine scrub environment generates much scientific research of this unusual habitat, which is easily disturbed by human activities. The rapid percolation typical of the deep sandy soils of the sand pine scrub makes the community an important aquifer recharge area that is also vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Featuring more organic material in its sandy soils, the sandhill community, like the sand pine scrub community, is uncommon in Hillsborough County. Longleaf pines form the overstory of the sandhill habitat, unless, due to fire suppression and logging, xeric oaks, like turkey oak and bluejack oak, have been permitted to grow sufficiently to form the overstory. In the absence of the pines, the community is known as the xeric oak scrub. Longleaf pines require frequent fires to control hardwood competition, as does wiregrass, which, when present, prevents the germination of hardwood seeds and serves to convey fires over large areas. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species of the sandhill habitat are similar to those of the pine flatwoods. The plant and animal species using the sandhill habitat are, like those using the sand pine scrub habitat, adapted to high temperatures and drought. These plant and animal species are often found nowhere else but in the sandhills, which, like the sand pine scrub community, allows rapid percolation of water. The well-drained soils render the area useful for natural recharge of the aquifer, but also vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Xeric hammocks feature live oaks in well-drained, deep sand. Providing habitat for many of the species using the pine flatwoods, the xeric hammock canopy provides a microclimate of cooler, moister conditions and supplies good natural recharge to the aquifer. Mesic hammocks are the climax community of the area and contain a wide diversity of plant species. Trees include the Southern Magnolia, laurel oak, American holly, dogwood, pignut hickory, and live oak. Endangered, threatened, or special- concern species using the habitat are Auricled Spleenwort, Eastern indigo snake, peregrine falcon, Southern bald eagle, Southeastern American kestrel, and Sherman's fox squirrel. Not dependent upon fire, mesic hammocks efficiently use solar heat and recycle nutrients. Mesic hammocks are adaptable to development if native vegetation, including groundcover, is retained. Hardwood swamps, which are also known as floodplain swamps, riverine swamps, and hydric hammocks, border rivers and lake basins where the ground is saturated or submerged during part of the year. The wettest part of these swamp forests features bald cypress or black gum trees. In higher areas, the trees typically include sweet gum, red maple, water oak, American elm, water hickory, and laurel oak. Hardwood swamps rely upon periodic flooding, absent which other communities will replace the hardwood swamps. Endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with hardwood swamps are the American alligator, Suwanee cooter, peregrine falcon, wood stork, Southern bald eagle, little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and limpkin. "The hardwood swamp is extremely important for water quality and quantity enhancement." CARE, page 38. The hardwood swamp also retains and slowly releases floodwaters, which, among other things, allows suspended material to settle out. The swamp vegetation then removes excess nutrients and produces detritus for downstream swamps, such as estuaries. Cypress swamps are found along river or lake margins or interspersed through pine flatwoods or dry prairies. Bald cypress is the dominant tree along lakes and streams, and pond cypress occurs in cypress heads or domes. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with cypress swamps are the same as those associated with hardwood swamps. Especially when found in pine flatwoods or dry prairies, cypress swamps are important to wildlife because of their cooler, wetter environment. Cypress domes function as natural retention ponds. Cypress swamps along rivers and lakes absorb nutrients and store floodwaters. Freshwater marshes and wet prairies are herbaceous plant communities on sites where the soil is saturated or covered with water for at least one month during the growing season. Wet prairies contain shallower water, more grasses, and fewer tall emergents than do marshes. Fire recycles nutrients back into the soil and removes older, less productive plant growth. Flooding also reduces competition. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species are the same as those using the cypress swamps except that the freshwater marshes and wet prairies host the Florida sandhill crane and roseate spoonbill, but not the limpkin. Freshwater marshes and wet prairies are the most important vegetative communities functioning as a natural filter for rivers and lakes. The ability to retain water allows freshwater marshes and wet prairies to moderate the severity of floods and droughts. But the freshwater marshes and wet prairies have suffered most from agricultural and urban development. Wet prairies in particular are susceptible to damage from recreation vehicle use, horseback riding, and foot traffic. Among the many species using freshwater marshes and wet prairies as habitat, the sandhill crane depends on this community for nesting habitat. Coastal marshes are located on low-energy shorelines and are interspersed with mangroves. Coastal marshes may be found along tidal rivers. Tides contribute to the high productivity of the coastal marshes, as tidal waters provide food to, and remove waste from, the organisms found in the coastal marshes. Endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with coastal marshes are the American alligator, peregrine falcon, wood stork, Southern bald eagle, redish egret, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and roseate spoonbill. With the mangrove swamp, the coastal marsh is the "key to the extremely high levels of biological productivity found in estuaries such as Tampa Bay." CARE, page 40. Marsh grasses convert sunlight and nutrients into plant tissue, which decomposes once the plant dies and becomes available to a number of detritus-feeding organisms. These organisms are themselves food for large animals. Coastal marshes also serve as nurseries for young fish, stabilize shorelines, filter out nutrients, and trap sediments. Mangrove swamps also occur along low-energy shorelines. The mangrove community "provides much of the driving force behind the productivity of bordering estuaries." CARE, page 41. Leaves from the mangroves fall into the water, supplying food to organisms as large as mullet. Mangrove swamps host the same animals as do coastal marshes except for the absence of alligators and presence of brown pelicans. The environmental values of the mangrove swamps are the same as the values of coastal marshes. The coastal strand includes beaches and coastal dunes. Prime examples of this type of habitat in Hillsborough County are Egmont Key and the larger islands in Cockroach Bay and at the mouth of the Little Manatee River. Marine grassbeds are found in estuaries and consist of vast meadows of different types of seagrasses. Having evolved from terrestrial forms, seagrasses contain roots, stems, leaves, and flowers and are able to grow in soft, sandy, or muddy sediments. Species of seagrasses found in Tampa Bay are limited to a water depth of about six feet, which is the average depth through which light can presently penetrate. Fast-growing seagrasses trap material from the land, absorb nutrients, and convey animal and plant products to the open sea. 11. Coastal Area The County's "most significant surface water resource" is Tampa Bay. CARE, page 10. In northwest Hillsborough County, the coastal area, which is also known as the coastal zone, consists of a strip of land about five miles wide running from the shoreline between Tampa and the Pinellas County line in the northwest part of the County. The coastal area for central and south Hillsborough County encompasses a band of land of about similar width running from the Tampa line south along US 301 across the Alafia River, then south from the Alafia River along I-75 to the Little Manatee River, where the boundary runs west to US 41, and then south along US 41 to the Manatee County line. Coastal Figure 16 locates coastal marine resources in and adjacent to Tampa Bay. Two locations of wading birds are in the northwest part of Hillsborough County. The only resources depicted between Tampa and the Alafia River are shorebirds in the Bay. At the Alafia River are wading birds, shorebirds, and pelicans. Wading birds and shorebirds are located in the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, as are manatee and oyster beds. The Data and Analysis describe the different land use planning challenges in the coastal area: coastal land issues are unique primarily due to the intense competing and often incompatible use demands, serious environmental constraints or impacts and the limited supply of shoreline lands. Coastal Element, page 3. The intent of the Plan is that coastal land use should be dominated by those uses which can only take place in or near the shoreline. This concept, by which water- dependent and water-related uses receive priority, stems from logic furthered by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act .. .. Coastal Element, page 2. According to Coastal Element Table 2, the coastal area comprises 20,946 acres of developed land and 54,011 acres of undeveloped land. The developed land includes 12,343 acres of residential (75% single family detached), 4638 acres of community facilities (75% utilities and recreation/open space), 2095 acres of commercial (equal amounts of heavy and light commercial), and 1870 acres of industrial. The undeveloped land includes 24,388 acres of natural land (including 16,533 acres of woodlands and wetlands), 29,025 acres of agriculture, and 598 acres of mines (consisting of 299 acres of active mines, 75 acres of reclaimed mines, and 224 acres of unreclaimed mines). Many of the residential uses in the coastal area are on floodprone lands or land formed from dredge and fill operations. Many of these residential areas are in the unincorporated areas of Town and Country, Clair Mel City, Apollo Beach, and Bahia Beach. The problems common to these areas are periodic flooding, cumulative adverse impacts to wetlands, soil erosion, non-functioning septic systems, high potential for surface water pollution, potential for salt water intrusion, and reduced public access to the shoreline. Coastal Element, page 4. Most commercial development in the coastal area is of the neighborhood, rather than regional, variety. Commercial uses have generally followed rather than preceded residential development in the coastal area. However, in the Hillsborough Avenue/Memorial Highway area, which is in the coastal area between Tampa and Pinellas County, extensive commercial activity serves Town and County and the area off SR 580 (Hillsborough Avenue) toward Pinellas County. Much of the County's heavy industry is located in the coastal area due to proximity to the port. Agriculture is treated as undeveloped land, although only one-third of agricultural uses are merely fenced pastureland. In any event, "urban growth is steadily displacing [agricultural and vacant land] uses forcing agricultural activities to move to more inland parts of the County." Coastal Element, page 5. The largest uses within the category of community facilities in the coastal area are electric power generating and transmission facilities. The next largest is recreation/open space. Both of these uses are water dependent. The coastal natural areas provide vital shoreline habitat and protect against storm surge. The Data and Analysis warn: Displacement of these natural areas by continued urban development will result in a net reduction of water quality within Tampa Bay and tidal rivers and creeks, loss of vital wildlife habitat, a diminished sense of open space, and the exposure of property and human life to the dangers of storm surge. Coastal Element, page 6. In discussing potential conflicts in potential shoreline land uses, the Data and Analysis note that more coastal areas that are vacant, recreational, or agricultural have been designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Low Density Residential, Recreation and Open Space, or Natural Preservation. The development of the coastal area has resulted in the elimination of natural shoreline vegetative communities such as mangroves and wetlands. The Data and Analysis acknowledge the "urgency to more effectively manage coastal zone natural resources and direct urban development into areas more appropriate for such growth." Coastal Element, page 7. The Data and Analysis also note that stormwater runoff into Tampa Bay and its tributaries may constitute the "greatest impact to marine habitat." Id. According to the Data and Analysis, the main uses that are neither water-dependent nor water-related are commercial and industrial uses that "could function just as well inland as in a coastal location" and "intense urban residential." Coastal Element, page 9. The Data and Analysis endorse the trend toward displacing agricultural uses in the Apollo Beach/Ruskin area west of I-75 between the Alafia River and the Manatee County line. The Data and Analysis approve of the increased concentration of development closer to the amenities of the coastal area without using the coastal zone for non-water-dependent uses. Oversized Maps 11 and 12 respectively show the location of archaeological sites and historic resources. Oversized Map 11 indicates by Florida Master Site File number the location of at least 200 archaeological sites. Due to the presence of numerous archaeological sites in the coastal area, the County "needs to establish a method to protect, preserve, and restore its historic resources." Coastal Element, page 13. Because the County has not adopted a local preservation ordinance, the Data and Analysis admit that "historic resource management efforts are not clearly defined." Coastal Element, page 60. However, the Data and Analysis indicate that provisions in the Future Land Use Element and Coastal Element will preserve the historic resources in the coastal area. 12. Coastal High Hazard Area and Hurricane Planning The entire Tampa Bay region: has been identified by the National Weather Service as one of the most hurricane- vulnerable areas of the United States, with the potential for large scale loss of life. Coastal Element, page 37. The vulnerability of the County and its residents to hurricanes is due to geography and land use. The proximity of large numbers of persons near Tampa Bay and residing in low- lying areas or mobile homes increases the risk of loss of life and property. The hurricane vulnerability analysis is based on the 100 year storm event or Category 3 hurricane, which produces winds of 111-130 miles per hour and storm surge of 12-18 feet above normal. The Data and Analysis define the hurricane vulnerability zone as the area from which persons must be evacuated in the event of a Category 3 hurricane. The Data and Analysis also identify the coastal high hazard area, which is the area from which persons must be evacuated in the event of the less intense Category 1 hurricane. The coastal high hazard area is also the velocity zone shown on maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Coastal Element Figure 18 depicts the coastal high hazard area as a strip of land fringing Tampa Bay. The northwest section of the coastal high hazard area between Pinellas County and Tampa is nearly one mile wide. The width of the coastal high hazard area from Tampa to Manatee County ranges from nonexistent to about 1.5 miles, and even more at the Little Manatee River, but averages about one mile. The Data and Analysis recognize the special planning issues that apply to the coastal high hazard area: The issue with respect to development in the coastal high hazard area is the protection of residents and the public expenditure of funds for areas that are subject to severe flooding from storm surge and rainfall and structure damage as a result of high winds. In addition to limiting development, the permitted development shall be designed to mitigate problems associated with stormwater runoff, wastewater treatment, and septic tanks. Coastal Element, page 61. Dealing with the provision of infrastructure in the coastal area, the Data and Analysis ask, but do not answer, the following questions: Does the provision of infrastructure encourage development of coastal areas? Should all citizens be required to bear the burden of increased public infrastructure cost in coastal areas? As development and redevelopment pressures continue in the coastal areas these questions and others must be answered. Coastal Element, page 64. Analysis of the County's hurricane preparedness requires consideration of the availability of shelters. The County has 46 primary shelters that, at the applicable ratio of 20 square feet per shelter resident, can accommodate about 59,000 persons. Unfortunately, about 60,000 of the 175,000 evacuees sought shelter space during Hurricane Elena, which, during the Labor Day weekend of 1985, came within 80 miles from the mouth of Tampa Bay. In any event, there is sufficient shelter space through 1995. Although secondary shelter space may be sufficient for awhile, the County will need more shelter space by 2000. Present estimated clearance times for hurricane evacuation range from 11-16 hours, depending upon the storm and evacuation conditions. After evaluating pre-landfall hazards, such as the inundation of low-lying evacuation routes, the clearance times are increased by 10 hours, so the range is 21-26 hours. Persons with special needs, which could enlarge the time needed for evacuation, have been encouraged to register with the County. The Data and Analysis inventory the hospitals and nursing homes whose occupants would need to evacuate in the event of a hurricane. Six of the 21 nursing homes and four of the 17 hospitals would be vulnerable to storm surge in a Category 3 storm. Tampa General, which is a County-operated facility, is subject to storm surge in a Category 1 storm, and the Data and Analysis warn that expansion plans should be carefully reviewed. Finding that clearance times of 11 and 16 hours are "acceptable," the Data and Analysis caution that the clearance times may increase as population increases in the Tampa Bay region. Options to be considered include exploration of vertical evacuation, discouragement of evacuation by nonvulnerable residents, expansion of road capacity, and imposition of the requirement that mobile home parks construct on-site shelter space. A variety of public infrastructure is contained in the coastal high hazard area. These public facilities include roads, bridges, and causeways; sanitary sewer facilities; potable water facilities; and shoreline protection structures. Private facilities include electric generating units and substations. The County does not own a sanitary sewer plant in the coastal high hazard area. But the County uses about 12% of the capacity of Tampa's Hookers Point plant, which is in the coastal high hazard area. The County owns three potable water facilities in the coastal high hazard area. A pump station and two elevated storage tanks are in the Apollo Beach area. In view of the vulnerability of parts of the County to a hurricane: government is responsible for ensuring that human life is protected and property damage is minimized in food-prone and coastal high hazard areas; that land use and development patterns are consistent with the vulnerable nature of the coastal high hazard and inland flood-prone areas; and that natural systems and vegetation that serve to reduce the impacts of severe weather are protected and preserved. In order to accomplish these ends, Hillsborough County must consider available options to reduce or limit exposure in the [coastal high hazard area]; develop guidelines/procedures for development in the [coastal high hazard area]; propose alternatives to reduce clearance times or reduce deficit public shelter space; and develop methods to redirect population concentrations away from the [coastal high hazard area]. Coastal Element, page 42. The Data and Analysis consider the question of post- hurricane redevelopment, which has not been an issue in the County since 1921, which marked the last time that a hurricane made landfall in Hillsborough County. After addressing the extent to which public funds might be available to assist in rebuilding infrastructure, the Data and Analysis confront the underlying issue whether infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area should be rebuilt in place or relocated outside the coastal high hazard area. The Data and Analysis conclude: A decision-making framework needs to be established by the County in order to determine if the infrastructure or facilities should be relocated, have structural modifications or be replaced. Coastal Element, page 45. The Data and Analysis recommend that decisions concerning redeveloping infrastructure be guided by the following factors: costs, environmental impacts, mitigative impacts, growth management consistency, impacts on the public, timeliness, legal issues, availability of funds, and necessity of infrastructure. 13. Air Quality The air quality in the Tampa urban area "is among the state's most polluted," but "severe conditions are often localized and short lived, due to prevailing winds and the area's non-confining topography." CARE, page 46. However, the Data and Analysis admit that "[a]ir quality in the Tampa Bay region . . . is degraded and in need of improvement relative to certain air pollutants." CARE, page 51. Of the six pollutants for which federal and state attainment standards exist, Hillsborough County is classified as non-attainment for ozone, for which automobile exhausts are indirectly responsible, and particulate matter. But point sources, especially power plants, are also responsible for air pollution. Since the mid 1970's, all criteria pollutants except ozone have decreased in the County. The Data and Analysis recommend "more stringent regulations and better compliance with existing regulations." CARE, page 52. Urban Sprawl Planning Strategy The Data and Analysis disclose that the County has adopted two major planning strategies. The Plan creates nodes and corridors and provides a range of lifestyles from the Urban to the Suburban to the Rural. The specific details of these planning strategies are found in the operative provisions of the Plan, which are set forth in the following section. However, the Data and Analysis offer a brief overview of the County's two major planning strategies. A node is a "focal point within the context of a larger, contiguous area surrounding it. It is an area of concentrated activity that attracts people from outside its boundaries for purposes of interaction within that area." Future Land Use Element (FLUE), page 8. The Data and Analysis explain that the Plan contains four types of nodes: high intensity nodes, which are for high intensity commercial uses, high density residential uses, and high concentration of government centers; mixed use regional nodes, which are for regional shopping centers, major office and employment areas, and sports and recreational complexes; community center nodes, which are focal points for surrounding neighborhoods; and neighborhood nodes, which are smaller scale community centers. Once nodes become established, "corridors" are intended to connect two or more nodes. Presently, the road network is the sole type of corridor. But mass transit may one day offer an alternative type of corridor. As part of the second major planning strategy, the Plan offers residents a variety of lifestyle options, primarily by varying residential densities. Population growth in Hillsborough County has historically radiated out from the central business district of Tampa. The emergence of nodes outside Tampa has altered this development pattern. The Plan's treatment of rural areas reflects the philosophy that "[r]ural areas need not be treated only as undeveloped lands waiting to become urban." FLUE, page 9. The Data and Analysis report that the Plan seeks to preserve the pastoral nature of the rural lifestyle by ensuring the availability of large lots for residential development. The size of the lots is in part driven by the absence of central water and sewer, so that individual wells and septic tanks will necessarily serve most rural development. In addition to providing small scale commercial uses at appropriate locations, the Data and Analysis recognize that the Plan must also ensure the preservation of unstructured open space, as well as competing rural uses, such as agriculture, that may not harmonize completely with adjacent residential development. The Data and Analysis describe the suburban residential option as part of a "gradual transition of land uses from very rural to more suburban blending into the urban environment." FLUE, page 10. Suburban areas would be accompanied by greater intensities of commercial uses and more extensive public facilities, as compared to the commercial uses and public facilities serving rural areas. The Data and Analysis describe densities of two or three dwelling units per acre on outlying suburban areas, gradually increasing to two to six dwelling units per acre on suburban areas closer to urban areas, and finally attaining even higher densities adjacent to the urban areas. Open space remains "quite important" for suburban areas and could be attained partially through clustering dwelling units. Id. The urban areas facilitate the provision of "very specialized public and private services that could not be justified anywhere else." FLUE, page 11. The Data and Analysis state: If the urban areas are permitted to increase their concentrations, it will lessen some of the development pressures in other areas of the County. One distinct advantage of intense urban development is that the potential, negative impacts of development upon the natural environment can be controlled more effectively. Additionally, the provision of public facilities is much more cost effective in the intense urban areas. Id. The Data and Analysis recognize the role of planning to ensure the attainment of the planning goals of the County: Hillsborough County has and will continue to experience a high population growth rate. Residential, commercial and industrial land development is expanding rapidly, and the County has been unable to keep pace with the demand for public facilities. The rapid rate of development has had many adverse impacts upon the environment, transportation, public facilities, historic resources and community design. . . . An overall, general guide to development outlining basic considerations during the development process is needed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Hillsborough County. FLUE, page 12. The Data and Analysis recognize that "much of the newer residential development is designed as enclaves with little or no functional linkages to the surrounding areas." FLUE, page 22. Addressing the linkage of residential to commercial uses, the Data and Analysis add: Commercial development has followed the sprawl of residential development into the County. Commercial strip development has been allowed to proceed relatively unchecked along the major arterials in the County creating undue congestion and safety hazards. A strong need was identified to develop a logical and functional method to determine the location and amount of future commercial development without interrupting the market system. FLUE, page 25. The Data and Analysis also address industrial and public facility land uses. The identification of specific areas for industrial development "will create a desirable development pattern that effectively maximizes the use of the land." FLUE, page 28. And the requirement that public facilities be available to serve new development "will create greater concentrations of land uses in the future." FLUE, page 27. 2. Existing Land Uses The Data and Analysis set forth the existing land uses by type and acreage. Using a total acreage for the County of 605,282 acres, the table of existing land uses by acreage, which is at page XVIII-B of the FLUE background document, divides developed land into four general categories: residential, commercial, industrial, and community facilities. Residential existing land uses total 73,104 acres. The total includes 55,546 acres of single family detached with an average density of 1.7 dwelling units per acre, 9709 acres of mobile home with an average density of 1.3 dwelling units per acre, 3643 acres of mobile home park with an average density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre, and 3006 acres of single family attached and multifamily with an average density of just under 12 dwelling units per acre. Commercial existing land uses total 8143 acres, consisting of 3613 acres of light commercial, 3029 acres of heavy commercial, 770 acres of transient lodging, and 731 acres of business and professional offices. Industrial existing land uses total 4122 acres, consisting of 1889 acres of heavy industrial, 1178 acres of warehouse and distribution, and 1055 acres of light industrial. Community facilities existing land uses, which consist of utilities, schools, and recreation/open space, total 19,439 acres, including 7981 acres of recreation/open space and 5200 acres of utilities. The remaining 500,474 acres in the County are divided into Natural, Agriculture, and Mining existing land uses. Natural existing land uses total 182,082 acres, consisting of 133,939 acres of woodlands and wetlands, 26,745 acres of vacant land in urban areas, and 21,398 acres of water. Agriculture existing land uses total 292,129 acres, including 104,870 acres of fenced pastureland, 103,773 acres of general agriculture, 40,600 acres of groves or orchards, and 38,867 acres of row crops. Mining existing land uses total 26,263 acres, consisting of 10,551 acres of active mines, 8655 acres of unreclaimed mined out areas, 6717 acres of reclaimed mines, and 340 acres of resource extraction. The County has prepared or obtained numerous existing land use maps (ELUM), either as small-scale maps contained in the two-volume compilation or as Oversized Maps. Most of the ELUM's have been described above. The ELUM's depict the Tampa Bay estuarine system including beaches and shores; rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, and harbors; wetlands; minerals, soils, and sinkholes; natural systems and land use cover; areas of natural aquifer recharge and potential groundwater contamination; and various public facilities. ELUM's not previously described include Oversized Map 6, which is dated September, 1988, and is entitled Major Health and Education Facilities. Another Oversized Map dated February 1, 1988, shows the same types of facilities. Existing land uses are shown by a variety of maps. CARE Figure 20, which is the color map showing vegetative cover, provides some information as to the location of disturbed and undisturbed natural areas. Coastal Figure 1 shows existing land uses, but only for the coastal area. Those parts of the coastal high hazard area shown as vacant or agricultural or that otherwise received designations allowing higher densities or intensities are identified in Paragraphs 772 et seq. Most detailed is Oversized Map 2, which is the 1985 Generalized Land Use map. Oversized Map 2 shows the location of existing land uses by the following categories: agricultural and vacant, low density residential, medium and high density residential, commercial, industrial, major public, mining, and natural. As noted above, existing, major public supply wells are depicted on CARE Figure 18 and Oversized Map 18. The latter map also depicts 200-foot radii for "well protection areas." Oversized Map 18 also appears to depicts planned water wells, such as a cluster of four wells northeast of Brandon, which were omitted from CARE Figure 18. Other wells are also depicted on Oversized Map 18, but not CARE Figure 18, which thus appears to have been limited to existing wells. 3. Future Land Uses Under Plan The Data and Analysis accompanying the FLUE acknowledge that "[t]here are very few compact centers where commercial and residential uses interact positively in unincorporated Hillsborough County." FLUE, page 7. The projected population for unincorporated Hillsborough County in 2010 is 932,800, according to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. About 458,236 persons were projected to be residing, in 2010, in housing units existing in 1988. By land use category, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, the County has 283,195 vacant acres on which residential development is permitted under the Plan. The following table sets forth, by category, the vacant acreage, permitted maximum density (expressed as a ratio of dwelling units per gross acre), and population capacity. 8/ Land Use Category Density Vacant Acres Pop. Capacity Agricultural/Mining 1:20 66,122 9,092 Agricultural 1:10 20,162 5,545 Rural Agricultural 1:5 65,115 35,813 Rural Estate 1:2.5 8,617 9,479 Rural Residential 1:1 18,533 50,968 Rural Residential Plan 1:5 7,325 4,029 Low Sub. Density Resid. 2:1 14,388 79,134 Low Sub. Density Resid. Plan 1:5 20,326 11,179 Suburban Density Resid. 4:1 24,667 271,337 Low Density Residential 6:1 10,625 175,313 Low Medium Density Resid. 9:1 945 16,755 Medium Density Residential 12:1 1,290 30,496 High Density Residential 20:1 765 30,141 Urban Level 1 12:1 17,850 421,974 Urban Level 2 20:1 4,495 177,103 Urban Level 3 50:1 1,760 173,360 TOTALS 283,195 1,501,718 Dividing the total population capacity of 1,501,718 persons by the projected population of 932,800, the Plan has overallocated density by a factor of 1.61. Nonresidential uses for which the Plan allocates land include industrial and commercial uses. The industrial uses and respective acreages in the Plan are Light Industrial (12,789), Light Industrial--Planned (746), and Heavy Industrial (4721). The commercial uses and respective acreages in the Plan are Community Commercial (5538), Regional Commercial (678), Community Office (294), and Research Corporate Park (1411). The industrial uses cover a total of 18,256 acres, or 3.04% of the total of 600,409 acres in Hillsborough County. The commercial uses cover a total of 7921 acres, or a little more than 1% of the total acreage in the County. If the acreage designated as Urban Level 1, 2, and 3 is treated as commercial, then the total commercial acreage equals 8.79% of the County. The remaining categories on the Future Land Use Map and respective acreages are: Natural Preservation--23,313 acres; Environmentally Sensitive Areas--81,880 acres; Water--6026 acres; Recreation/Open Space--2310 acres; and Public/Semi- Public--4142 acres. Excluding the Public/Semi-Public category, the remaining four categories, which by varying degrees involve open space, constitute 113,526 acres, or about 19% of the County. In addition to the matter of density allocations, the use of land involves the places where the County has chosen to locate its densities. CARE Figure 2 shows the location of the population in 1985. For unincorporated Hillsborough County, only about 45,000 persons lived south of the Alafia River with about two-thirds living west of I-75. Roughly 150,000 persons lived in northwest Hillsborough County, and another 150,000 persons lived in central Hillsborough County between the Alafia River and I-4. The remaining (as shown on Figure 2) 50,000 persons lived east of I-75 and north of I-4 in northcentral and northeast Hillsborough County. Oversized Map 14 shows areas of density changes effected by the Plan and revisions to a pre-1985 Act plan applicable to I-75 and south Hillsborough County that took place shortly before the adoption of the Plan and were incorporated into the Plan. Oversized Map 14 discloses large areas of density increases in the following locations, among others: the part of the coastal high hazard area between Cockroach Bay and the mouth of the Little Manatee River; an area immediately across US 41 from the previously described area and bounded by the Little Manatee River on the north and I-75 on the east; almost the entire I-75 corridor that is designated nearly exclusively Urban Level 1 and Urban Level 3; a large expanse of land designated mostly Low Suburban Density Residential Planned along the railroad right-of-way that is to be converted into a two-lane road, at least part of which is to be known as the Jim Selvey Highway; an area of Medium Density Residential just north of the mouth of the Little Manatee River near Ruskin; the northcentral area from I-75 and I-275 to the Hillsborough River; and relatively large portions of the north and west halves of northwest Hillsborough County, including almost the entire northwest corner of the County to Gunn Highway (east of Keystone Lake). Oversized Map 13 is the Vacant Land Suitability Analysis, which shows the location of critical lands or soils with very severe limitations, presumably with reference to the location of predominantly vacant lands. The range of soils with very severe limitations includes the entire coastal high hazard area, much of the corridors of the Little Manatee and Alafia Rivers, the Hillsborough River valley, several areas of about 1.5 square miles each in northwest Hillsborough County, much of the land north of the northernmost extent of Tampa and just east of I-275, and an L-shaped area east of I-75 and straddling Big Bend Road, as well as area just to the south of the L-shaped area. Lands of varying degrees of sensitivity are located throughout the areas of very severely limited soils. Locations of the two most critical classes of land are widely distributed among the phosphate mining area in southeast Hillsborough County and along the major southern tributary of the Alafia River, near Cockroach Bay and the mouth of the Little Manatee River, at the southeast and northwest ends of the coastal high hazard area of northwest Hillsborough County, just east of I-275 and I-75, in the Hillsborough River valley, and along the Alafia River and its northern tributary. Locations of the two less critical classes of land, but nevertheless sensitive or very sensitive, include areas along Big Bend Road at I-75, east of I-75 north of Big Bend Road, and in the northwest corner and northern half of northwest Hillsborough County. 4. Use of Public Facilities Under Plan Acknowledging that high population growth has contributed to many of Hillsborough County's problems, such as "infrastructure inadequacies," the Data and Analysis concede: The extension of public facilities has lagged behind the unincorporated County's rapid growth. One of the consequences of growth outpacing the provision of services and facilities is the development of outlying large lot residential with onsite water and sewer facilities (septic tanks, wells). The historic lack of services has continued to strain the county's fiscal ability to respond to these needs, and there will be a greater need for more intensive functional planning and action by county government. FLUE, pages 6-7. Part of the difficulty in matching population growth with public facilities has been due to historic land use patterns. The Data and Analysis note: There are very few compact centers where commercial and residential uses interact positively in unincorporated Hillsborough County. Threshold population densities needed to support many services do not exist in most parts of the County. The cost of providing services such as water, sewer, roads, mass transit, schools, fire and police protection are much higher per capita in low density areas than in more urban areas. Concentration of new development in areas with adequate levels of service for public facilities will create a more effective and efficient utilization of man-made and natural resources and encourage the full use and immediate expansion of existing public facilities while protecting large areas of the natural environment from encroachment. The concentration of new development in areas with adequate levels of service will also fulfill the requirement of subsection 9J-5.006(3)(b)7 to discourage urban sprawl. FLUE, page 7. Protection of Natural Resources Under Plan The Data and Analysis link effective land use planning with the protection of the County's natural resources and preservation of County residents' quality of life: . . . growth will continue to challenge and threaten the natural environment as daily development decisions confront the long-range need to preserve and protect irreplaceable natural environmental systems. Unplanned, rapid population growth will degrade the unincorporated county's environment. Development will encroach upon valuable wellfields and wildlife habitat and may further pollute the County's freshwater aquifers. One of the County's major needs is to assure the protection and viability of green open spaces and environmentally significant areas, which are crucial to the community's quality of life and economic health. The unincorporated County's potential to maintain and improve the quality of life for its residents will be contingent upon its ability to adequately serve existing and future demands for services. FLUE, page 7. 6. Protection of Agriculture Under Plan The Data and Analysis contain a position paper concerning agricultural issues. The paper reports that agriculture is the County's single largest industry, and Hillsborough County is the third largest agricultural county in the state. According to the position paper, the trend in agriculture in Hillsborough County has been toward increased productivity through improved technology and transition to the production of more profitable commodities. The position paper argues that the viability of agriculture is not dependent upon the maintenance of low residential densities to discourage the conversion of agricultural land to residential uses. Advocating reliance upon free-market forces to maintain the competitiveness between agricultural and residential uses, the position paper concedes that a density of one dwelling unit per five acres is "not low enough to discourage sale of the property for five acre ranchettes[, which] promote high consumption of land for housing and remove the land for agricultural production." FLUE Background Document, page XLVII. Plan Provisions The FLUM The subject cases present two problems regarding the FLUM. The first problem is to identify what constitutes the FLUM. The second problem is to determine the significance of one of the major designations on the FLUM: Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In its proposed recommended order, the County asserts that the FLUM consists of a series of maps. 9/ This assertion is groundless. Neither the Plan nor the adoption ordinance provides any basis whatsoever for finding that the FLUM comprises all of the maps and figures contained in Sierra Club Exhibit A local government must adopt operative provisions, such as a FLUM or goals, objectives, or policies. Hillsborough County did not adopt all of the Oversized Maps or the maps and figures in the two-volume compilation of the Plan. Hillsborough County adopted the Plan in Ordinance No. 89-28. The ordinance delineates the scope of the operative provisions of the Plan by noting that the Data and Analysis, or "background information," are not part of the operative provisions of the Plan: Material identified as background information in the Table of Contents for each Element, including data, analysis, surveys and studies, shall not be deemed a part of the Comprehensive Plan as provided in Subsection 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes. The Plan clearly includes among its operative provisions a FLUM. Several provisions describe the role of the FLUM and, in so doing, help identify what the County adopted as the FLUM. In the Introduction to the FLUE, the Data and Analysis state: "The policies of [the FLUE] are presented in written form, and they are graphically represented on the Future Land Use Map." FLUE, page 5. The Data and Analysis elaborate: The [FLUE] consists of two parts: Goals, Objectives and Policies; and a Future Land Use Map (Land Use Graphic), a copy of which is attached, and incorporated hereby by reference. FLUE, page 11. Operative provisions of the Plan likewise recognize the FLUM and its role as part of the operative provisions of the Plan. For instance, the Plan Implementation section of the FLUE begins: The primary tool of implementation for the [FLUE] are the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Plan Categories. These are followed by other implementation tools that further define the intent of the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Plan Categories. They include: locational criteria for neighborhood commercial uses; criteria for development within designated scenic corridors; and density credits. The Future Land Use Map is a graphic illustration of the county's policy governing the determination of its pattern of development in the unincorporated areas of Hillsborough County through the year 2010. The map is adopted for use as an integral part of the [FLUE]. It depicts, using colors, patterns, and symbols, the locations of certain land uses and man-made features and the general boundaries of major natural features. The Future Land Use Map shall be used to make an initial determination regarding the permissible locations for various land uses and the maximum possible levels of residential densities and/or non-residential intensities, subject to any special density provisions and exceptions of the [FLUE] text. Additionally, each regulation or regulatory decision and each development proposal shall comply with all applicable provisions within the . . . Plan. FLUE, page 54. The Legal Status of the Plan section of the FLUE adds: The Future Land Use Map is an integral part of this [FLUE], and it shall be used to determine the permissible locations for various land uses and the maximum possible levels of residential densities and/or non- residential intensities. The goals, objectives and policies of this [FLUE] shall provide guidance in making these determinations. FLUE, page 129. The FLUM at least includes a multicolor map entitled 2010 Land Use Plan Map. The multicolor map depicts the location of various future land uses, man-made features, and natural resources. The importance of the multicolor map is underscored by its relatively large scale of 1" = 1 mile. The only maps drawn on such a large scale are a black and white copy of the multicolor map and a green map, which is discussed below. The Oversized Maps discussed in this recommended order are drawn to a scale of 1" = 2 miles. The question remains, however, whether the FLUM includes maps or figures in addition to the multicolor map. The FLUE defines the FLUM as: The graphic aid intended to depict the spatial distribution of various uses of the land in the County by land use category, subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and the exceptions and provisions of the [FLUE] text and applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 137. Consistent with the discussion of the FLUM contained in the Plan Implementation section of the FLUE, the multicolor map is the only map that depicts future land uses by colors, patterns, and symbols. No other map uses colors except for CARE Figure 20, which is the Natural Systems and Land Use Cover Inventory. CARE Figure 20 is obviously an ELUM with no designation of future land uses. With the exception of the green map discussed below, no other map uses any color whatsoever. The above-cited Plan references to the FLUM are in the singular. The FLUM is identified in the singular throughout the Data and Analysis set forth in the two-volume compilation of the Plan. See, e.g., FLUE pages 55, 56, 69, 70, 75, 94, and 137. 10/ With one exception, operative provisions of the Plan also refer to the FLUM in the singular. See, e.g., FLUE Policies A-3.2, B- 6.2, B- 6.7, B-7.9, and C-31 and Coastal Policy 7.1. But see CARE Policy 19.8, which requires the County to identify "Resource Protection Areas" on the Future Land Use Map "series." DCA referred to a single FLUM when DCA issued the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) concerning the Plan as first transmitted. The County prepared detailed responses to the objections, recommendations, and comments. Three responses refer at length to the FLUM and refer to it in the singular, rather than as a map series. Hillsborough County Exhibit 35, responses 4, 8, and 26. Response 29 to the ORC answers the objection that the FLUM (in the singular) omits existing and planned waterwells, the cones of influence for such waterwells, and wetlands. The response states: Cones of influence have not been identified for Hillsborough County. Objective 5 of the [CARE] and its subsequent policies outline the County's strategy with regard to protecting its wellfields. Because of the multitude of wetlands in Hillsborough County and the lack of exact mapping capability, the "E" area on the land use plan map is indicative of major areas of hydric soils (per USDA Soil Conservation Services, Soil Suitability Atlas for Hillsborough County, Florida) of a scale to be seen on the map. Actual wetlands must be delineated by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County prior to site development. Minerals and Soils are indicated on Figures 9 and 10 of the [CARE] of the Plan. The rest of the parameters will all be included on the revised existing land use map. Despite the confusion in the last two sentences of the response between the nature of ELUM's and FLUM's, the response is consistent in its presumption of a single FLUM, rather than a map series. Until the commencement of Plan litigation, 11/ the County did not consider the FLUM to be more than the multicolor map. Repeatedly, the County had opportunities--outside of the Plan and adoption ordinance--to identify the FLUM. Repeatedly, the County did not confer the FLUM status upon any map other than the multicolor map. Oversized Map 18 is an important example of the Plan identifying a map, but not adopting it as part of the FLUM. Describing Oversized Map 18, CARE Policy 5.8 states: By 1993, the County shall have developed and implemented a comprehensive wellfield protection program, which includes but is not limited to the determination and mapping of zones of contribution (also known as cones of influence) surrounding public wellfields and the adoption and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance which protects these areas. In the interim, the County shall use the best available information to identify these areas. See map 18, Interim Wellfield Protection Areas . . .. CARE Policy 5.8 assigns Oversized Map 18 to the Data and Analysis, rather than the operative part of the Plan. The County's intent to relegate Oversized Map 18 to the Data and Analysis is restated in the March 14, 1990, cover letter from the County Planning Director transmitting the settlement amendments to DCA. The letter states: "The documents are incorporated by reference for background for informational purposes only." Oversized Map 18 is the first of the listed documents. The Plan deals similarly with other maps and figures; as better information becomes available, the graphic aids that are part of the Data and Analysis may change--without the requirement of a Plan amendment. For example, CARE Policy 5.2 mentions the DRASTIC maps, which indicate areas susceptible to groundwater contamination. In language similar to CARE Policy 5.8, Policy 5.2 states that the County will use the "best available information" concerning groundwater contamination areas and then mentions the graphic aid. Another possible FLUM is a black-and-white map with green and dotted green areas on a scale of 1" = 1 mile. The green colors are overlaid on a black-and-white version of the multicolor map. The green map contains a special legend for the green areas. The solid green areas depict "Environmentally Sensitive Areas." The dotted green areas depict "Environmentally Sensitive Areas Which Are Potentially Significant Wildlife Habitat." Notwithstanding the many references to the FLUM in the singular, the Plan anticipates the possible amendment of the FLUM or the addition of an overlay to show the location of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. CARE Policy 14.2 states: By 1991, the County shall identify and map natural plant communities which are determined to provide significant wildlife habitat in Hillsborough County. The natural systems and land use cover inventory map ([CARE] Figure 20), produced by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, shall serve as the basis for this effort. Areas of significant wildlife habitat shall be indicated as environmentally sensitive areas on the Future Land Use Map or map overlay. The green map may be the map or overlay promised by CARE Policy 14.2. 12/ However, for purposes of these cases, the green map is not part of the FLUM. The green map had not been adopted by August 1, 1991, or even by the time of the final hearing. Transcript, pages 1095 and 1105; County's Proposed Recommended Order, Paragraph 180. In view of the considerable confusion surrounding the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, as explained below, it would be unfair to overlook this fact and treat the green map as part of the operative provisions of the Plan. Because of the clear understanding that the Plan included only amendments through August 1, 1991, the parties presumably did not take the opportunity to litigate the significance of the designations contained on the green map. Even though the County did not adopt the green map as part of the FLUM, for the purpose of these cases, it remains necessary to consider the effect of the Environmentally Significant Areas designation. The designation is found on the multicolor map (i.e., the FLUM) as well as the green map. Also, the green map is an important part of the Data and Analysis. The problem is to determine what does it mean for an area to bear the designation of Environmentally Significant Areas. Part of the confusion surrounding the Environmentally Significant Areas designation is due to its dual nature as an overlay, like Scenic Corridors, and underlying designation, like Suburban Density Residential or Light Industrial. An overlay typically depicts an area that, notwithstanding its underlying designation, is subject to special land use conditions in the Plan. Any underlying designation may and usually is subject to other provisions of a comprehensive plan, but an overlay ensures that these conditions are not overlooked and may elevate them in importance. The Environmentally Significant Areas designation on the multicolor map is never an overlay. For each area on the multicolor map designated Environmentally Significant Areas, there is no other designation. For this reason alone, the Environmentally Significant Areas designation itself should regulate land uses in some meaningful fashion; otherwise, areas so designated would lack generally applicable guidelines concerning permissible densities and intensities. However, according to the County Planning Director, the Environmentally Significant Areas does not regulate land uses. The Planning Director prepared a cover letter dated September 4, 1991, to DCA accompanying the first round of Plan amendments in 1991. The letter explains why the County was amending the Plan to redesignate certain County-owned, environmentally sensitive land from Environmentally Significant Areas to Natural Preservation. The letter states: We still recommend that these areas be changed to Natural/Preservation, since the "E" [Environmentally Significant Areas] designation is an identification only land use category to indicate that environmentally sensitive lands may be located on site. However, that category in and of itself does not regulate land uses on a site. The Natural/Preservation category is very restrictive and does not permit development on a site. Sierra Club Exhibit 1. From the letter, it appears that the County's intent was to use the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation merely to indicate the general location of critical natural resources, rather than to assign specific densities and intensities. In other words, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation was to be merely an overlay showing some of the natural resources required by Chapter 9J-5 to be shown on the FLUM. If any land use restrictions applied to land with an Environmentally Sensitive Areas overlay, the Planning Director's letter implies that the restrictions were not imposed by textual Plan provisions defining land uses under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation. Under this interpretation, land use restrictions could be imposed by textual Plan provisions that, although never mentioning Environmentally Sensitive Areas, govern natural resources included within such areas, such as wetlands, wildlife habitat, or sand pine scrub habitat. Clearly, the Planning Director is correct in writing that one purpose of the Environmentally Significant Areas designation is to indicate the location of environmentally sensitive lands. The real question is whether the Planning Director is correct in his assertion that the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is merely locational and not regulatory. This would mean that all of the land designated Environmentally Significant Areas on the multicolor map bears only a designation indicative of the location of certain natural resources, but lacks an effective, generalized land use designation. The Plan defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas; in fact, it does so twice. The CARE defines "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" as: Lands which, by virtue of some qualifying environmental characteristic (e.g. wildlife habitat) are regulated by either the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, or any other governmental agency empowered by law for such regulation. These include Conservation and Preservation Areas as defined in the [CARE]. CARE, page 97. The CARE defines "Conservation Areas" as: Environmentally sensitive areas which include the following: --Natural shorelines (other than those included in preservation areas); --Class III Waters; --Freshwater marshes and wet prairies; --Sand-pine scrub; --Hardwood swamps; --Cypress swamps; --Significant wildlife habitat. CARE, page 96. The CARE defines "Preservation Areas" as: Environmentally sensitive areas which include the following: --Aquatic preserves; --Essential wildlife habitat; --Class I and II Waters: --Marine grassbeds; --Coastal strand; --Coastal marshes; --Mangrove swamps; and --State wilderness areas. CARE, page 99. "Significant wildlife habitat" is "[c]ontiguous stands of natural plant communities which have the potential to support healthy and diverse populations of wildlife and which have been identified on the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission natural systems and land use cover inventory map." CARE, page 100. "Essential Wildlife Habitat" is "[l]and or water bodies which, through the provision of breeding or feeding habitat, are necessary to the survival of endangered or threatened species, or species of special concern." CARE, page 97. The FLUE defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas as: This land use category is used to designate those major, privately owned lands which are environmentally sensitive. These areas include Conservation Areas and Preservation Areas, as defined in the [CARE]. Development in these areas may be is [sic] restricted by federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations. Development projects will be evaluated for compliance with the [CARE] and [Coastal Element]. The Environmentally Sensitive Area designations on the Future Land Use Plan map are very generalized, and include primarily wetland areas. The designations are not exhaustive of all sites. On-site evaluation will be necessary for specific project review. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the [FLUE], [CARE], and [Coastal Element], applicable development regulations, and established locational criteria for specific land use. FLUE, page 136-37. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE 13/ does not repeat the typographical error in the preceding Plan provision, in which the Plan warns that development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas "may be is" restricted by federal, state, or local law. The definition of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation in the Land Use Plan Categories section omits the "is," implying more strongly that some development may take place on Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE, page 126. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE equates in two respects the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation with the Natural Preservation, Scenic Corridors, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations. In each of these five designations, residential densities and commercial or industrial intensities (expressed as maximum floor area ratios) are "not applicable." For the Natural Preservation, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations, the "not applicable" statement reflects the fact that residential, commercial, and industrial uses are prohibited by the land use designation in question. However, for the Scenic Corridors designation, which operates more as an overlay, the Plan provides no such prohibition, instead requiring special attention to aesthetic features of development in these areas. Thus, the "not applicable" language applicable to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not answer the question whether the designation is regulatory or merely locational and, if the former, what land uses are thereby regulated and how. The question whether the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation operates as a locational overlay, as suggested by the Planning Director's letter of September 4, 1991, seems to be answered by the Table of Residential Densities in the Implementation section of the FLUE. For the Scenic Corridor designation, the Table of Residential Densities indicates that the maximum residential density allowed is, instead of a ratio, "Overlay--Scaled to Area." But for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the Table of Residential Densities states that "no residential uses [are] allowed" for Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE, page 62. The Table of Residential Densities gives the same response for the Natural Preservation, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations. The failure of the Table of Residential Densities to assign any residential density to Environmentally Sensitive Areas is not inadvertent. The Data and Analysis indicate that, in calculating density allocations, the vast acreage designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas was not given any residential density. In the FLUE Background Document at page XXVIII, a table listing all of the FLUM designations shows no density for the 81,880 acres of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which account for 13.64% of acreage of the County and is the second largest designation following 89,267 acres designated Agricultural/Rural. The density allocation table preceding page XXX contains no entry for Environmentally Sensitive Areas, although much if not all of the area so designated is vacant (or as the County classifies land, vacant or agricultural). The omission of residential uses in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as contained in the Table of Residential Densities, suggests that the designation carries a regulatory force beyond the locational character identified by the Planning Director in his letter of September 4, 1991. Natural resources included within the definition of Environmentally Sensitive Areas are wetlands, sand pine scrub, wildlife habitat essential for the breeding or nesting of endangered, threatened, or special-concern species, and contiguous stands of natural plant communities with the potential to support healthy and diverse communities of wildlife. Some of these natural resources are not themselves unconditionally protected by textual Plan provisions. But if the Environmentally Sensitive Areas containing these natural resources are not assigned any residential uses, as the Table of Residential Densities implies, then the designation itself must preclude the conversion of these sensitive areas to residential uses. On the other hand, the textual Plan provisions contemplate some development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas because of various provisions requiring compensatory replacement following the loss of the natural resources to development. Despite implying that development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas may be permitted, as long as it complies with Plan provisions, the Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE states that the typical use of areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas is "Conservation." Although not the same typical use as that set forth for Natural Preservation areas, which are limited to "Open space or passive nature parks," the definition of "Conservation Uses" is restrictive: Activities within land areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources of environmental quality and includes areas designated for such purposes as flood control, protection of quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, floodplain management, fisheries management, or protection of vegetative communities or wildlife habitat. FLUE, page 135. At times in the Plan, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation appears to be merely locational. At times, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation appears to be regulatory. In the latter case, portions of the Plan suggest that the designation prohibits development, and portions of the Plan suggest only that the designation, standing alone, carries with it some degree of protection from development. FLUE Policy A-8.2 says as much: "Development shall be required to protect the Conservation and Preservation areas " But even if the Plan were interpreted to impose a regulatory functional upon the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the failure of the Plan to specify clearly the land use restrictions generally applicable to the designation leaves open to doubt the land uses permitted on over 13% of Hillsborough County. And if some residential development were permitted in areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, then the density allocation ratios have been calculated without regard to the density-bearing capacity of over 13% of the County. The FLUE definition of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which states that development "may be is" restricted in such areas, may represent a unique, though inadvertent, disclosure of the County's ambivalence toward the degree of protection to extend to Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Perhaps in the belief that land use restrictions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas would emanate from federal, state, regional, or even other local governmental entities, 14/ the County has left to speculation the meaning of the critically important Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation. The only clear significance of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is the role of areas bearing such a designation in calculating residential densities or commercial or industrial intensities. The acreage on which residential densities are calculated does not generally include Conservation or Preservation Areas or water bodies. (As noted above, Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation "include[s]" Conservation and Preservation Areas.) But the calculation of gross residential density may include acreage consisting of certain man-made waterbodies and certain Conservation and Preservation Areas. The qualification for Conservation and Preservation Areas is that the maximum area of such land (or wetland) is 25% of the total residential acreage. FLUE, pages 64-66. A similar provision applies for the calculation of floor area ratios or gross nonresidential intensity. FLUE, pages 67- 68. Illustrations in the FLUE apply the density formula described in the preceding paragraph. For example, if the proposed project consists of 80 acres, including 20 acres of land (or wetland) designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the total acreage upon which residential densities could be calculated would be 75 acres. This result is reached by starting with the 60 acres of proposed residential use that are not designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Twenty-five percent of 60 acres is 15 acres, which is the maximum acreage designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas that is eligible to be included in the calculation of gross residential density. The designation given the 60 acres would allow a density, such as 4:1, which, when applied to 75 acres, yields 300 dwelling units. The implied presumption of the density formula--stated nowhere in the Plan--is that areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas acquire their actual land use restrictions, in terms of densities or intensities, from the adjoining lands. The intent of the density credit allowed for areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas is to protect the subject natural resources. FLUE Policy A-8.4 provides for density credits for development that is "sensitive to, preserves and maintains the integrity of wetlands [and] significant wildlife habitat." Again, though, the degree and type of protection are unclear. The density formula may be interpreted to prohibit inferentially any disturbance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In other words, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas acreage used in calculating the density bonus or perhaps the entire Environmentally Sensitive Areas acreage (even if some acreage were excluded from the calculation due to the 25% limitation) could not be disturbed by development. However, another interpretation is possible. The density formula, which is mandatorily imposed on all proposed projects containing Environmentally Sensitive Areas, does not, by its terms, prescribe where the resulting development is to be located. In the example above, the density formula effectively reduced the density of a project by 20 dwelling units (80 acres X 4 vs. 75 acres X 4). But the formula does not explicitly prohibit the location of some of the 300 permitted units in areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 15/ If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not prohibit development, some degree of protection would be theoretically possible by reducing the actual density occupying the parcel containing Environmentally Sensitive Areas while still not actually prohibiting the location of dwelling units on all Environmentally Sensitive Areas. It is difficult to infer from the density formula whether the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is intended to prohibit the development of areas so designated or, if not, to what extent the designation restricts development of such areas. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not regulate land uses so as to prohibit the development of areas so designated, the formula provides some protection to Environmentally Sensitive Areas by increasing the chance that such areas may be less densely populated, but also supplies the basis on which densities or intensities for areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas are to be inferred. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation regulates land uses so as to prohibit the development of areas so designated, the formula can be interpreted as providing some compensation by allowing the use of some of the foregone development rights in adjoining areas under common ownership that are not designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The question whether the density formula, as well as the closely related intensity formula, prohibit the development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas can be approached by considering another density formula. The upland forest density credit incentive, which is identified in FLUE Policy A-8.3, is described in detail in the Implementation section of the FLUE. The failure of the density formula, as well as the intensity formula, to prohibit the disturbance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas stands in contrast to the protection extended by the upland forest density credit incentive. The upland forest density credit incentive provides a bonus of 25% more density than otherwise allowed by a specific designation to the extent of the upland forest 16/ acreage preserved by the project. In other words, a 100-acre parcel designated at 1:1 might include 25 acres of upland forests within the single residential designation covering the entire 100 acres. If the proposed project preserved the 25 acres of upland forest from development, the 25 dwelling units attributable to the 25 acres are increased to 31.25 dwelling units and raise the total number of dwelling units to 106.25. Unlike the density and intensity formulas, the upland forest density credit incentive requires the landowner to record a conservation easement for the 25 acres of upland forest, so that this land may never be developed. FLUE, pages 71-73. The different approaches of the density and intensity formulas, on the one hand, and the upland forest density credit incentive, on the other hand, may arise partly from the fact that the latter formula is an incentive for which a landowner may qualify voluntarily. Upland forests would generally not be preserved by the Plan in the absence of the utilization of the upland forest density credit incentive. Regardless of their effect in preserving Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the density and intensity formulas are not optional; they are imposed whenever a proposed development contains Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Part of the discussion of the upland forest density incentive credit may shed some light on the meaning of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, especially as it concerns the density and intensity formulas. The upland forest density incentive credit repeatedly refers to the density formula as involving wetlands or the protection of wetlands. Although wetlands make up a substantial part of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, numerous uplands also qualify as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Qualifying uplands include significant and essential wildlife habitat, as well as sand pine scrub (which is also included as an upland forest). Possibly the County incorrectly assumed that the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation was limited to wetlands, or perhaps the designation was so limited in an earlier draft of the Plan. In either event, the County may have assumed that federal, state, regional, and other local restrictions against disturbing wetlands would effectively prevent the development of such Environmentally Sensitive Areas, or at least clearly regulate the extent to which such areas could be disturbed. As noted above, however, the Plan itself must supply such regulation through a generalized land use designation. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is poorly integrated into the Plan. Plan provisions, including the density and intensity formulas, repeatedly address "wetlands" or "Conservation" or "Preservation" Areas, rather than Environmentally Sensitive Areas. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation were not intended to regulate land uses and prohibit all development, but were merely locational as indicated by the Planning Director, then the Plan is deficient in failing to assign a regulatory land use designation to over 80,000 acres, or 13.64%, of the County. For these vast areas, in any event, the Plan provides no direct, and arguably not even any indirect, guidance as to what densities or intensities are permitted on Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from the Plan concerning that Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is that it is, at least, locational. The designation shows where Conservation and Preservation Areas are located. The designation also serves to provide some protection to Environmentally Sensitive Areas through the density and intensity formulas. However, it may not be reasonably concluded that the density and intensity formulas prohibit the destruction of Environmentally Sensitive Areas by development. Nor can it be reasonably concluded that other provisions of the Plan preserve Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as such, from destruction or alteration by development. The full extent of the meaning of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is lost in ambiguity. The FLUM does not identify existing and future potable water wellfields. The FLUM fails even to show the location of existing major public supply wellfields, as depicted in CARE Figure 18 and Oversized Map 18. The FLUM does not identify cones of influence for the existing wellfields to the extent known. Figures 32 and 33 of Sierra Club Exhibit 12 pertain to four wellfields located entirely in Hillsborough County and two wellfields located partly in the County. For these wellfields, which are located in the northern part of the County, Figures 32 and 33 respectively portray a wide-ranging decline in water table elevations and potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer due to wellfield pumpage. This information corresponds to drawdown depth of the source from which each wellfield draws its water. Even if these data sources are rejected in favor of the much more limited 200-foot protection zones outlined in Oversized Map 18, the County has failed to adopt Oversized Map 18 as part of the FLUM, as described in the preceding section. The FLUM does not identify historic resources or historically significant properties meriting protection. Oversized Maps 11 and 12 depict respectively Archaeological Sites and Historic Resources. However, these maps are not part of the FLUM. The FLUM does not depict the 100 year floodplain. Oversized Map 9 depicts the 100 year floodplain, massive amounts of which lie outside the future land use designations of Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Natural Preservation. But Oversized Map 9 is not part of the FLUM. The FLUM does not depict the minerals and soils of the County, except to the extent that minerals are contained in a general land use designation. CARE Figure 9 depicts soils and mine pits. Oversized Maps 8 and 10 also depict soils and mine lands. However, these maps are not part of the FLUM. The FLUM depicts wetlands. The designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the FLUM (i.e., the multicolor map) includes wetlands. The FLUM depicts public facilities under the category of Major Public/Semi-Public and Electric Power Generating Facilities. The former category shows the location of, among other things, "churches, hospitals, schools, clubs and utility and transportation facilities." FLUE, page 122. The Plan Natural Resources CARE Objective 2 is: By 1995, the water quality of natural surface water bodies in Hillsborough County which do not meet or exceed state water quality standards for their designated use shall be improved or restored. CARE Policy 2.1 provides: The County shall not support the reclassification of any surface water body within County boundaries to acknowledge lower water quality conditions, unless necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. Where economically feasible, the County shall support the reclassification of surface water bodies to accommodate higher standards, where it can be demonstrated that improved water quality conditions will prevail in the future. The CARE defines "economically feasible" as follows: "Where the benefit to the public outweighs the cost of the action, and is within the County's capability to fund." CARE, page 96. CARE Policy 2.2 addresses the problem of wastewater discharges: The County shall require that all domestic wastewater treatment plans discharging effluent into Tampa Bay or its tributaries provide advanced wastewater treatment, or if specific alternative criteria developed by the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program can only be met by removing a surface water discharge, such a program shall be implemented, where economically feasible and in accordance with Policy 2.3 below. CARE Policy 2.3 requires the County to "continue to develop and promote environmentally acceptable effluent disposal alternatives to surface water discharge, including, but not limited to, reuse for irrigation and industrial purposes." Dealing with the problem of short-term solutions to sewage disposal, CARE Policy 2.4 states: To reduce the need for interim domestic wastewater treatment plants, the County shall plan for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities to serve areas designated for higher densities in the . . . Plan. CARE Policy 2.6 provides that, "where economically feasible," the County "shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to developed areas where persistent water quality problems are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic treatment systems." CARE Policy 2.7 further addresses the issue of septic tanks by providing that, by 1990, the County shall "request or initiate" agreements with third parties to develop "scientifically defensible siting criteria, performance standards, and density limitations for septic systems, to ensure protection of surface water quality." The policy adds that the County shall "request . . . special criteria and standards . . . for those septic systems to be located in areas adjacent to Class I and Class II Waters and Outstanding Florida Waters." The policy concludes with the promise that, within one year after the development of the criteria and standards, the County "shall amend appropriate development regulations" accordingly. CARE Policy 2.8 provides in part: Where economically and environmentally feasible, [a nutrient monitoring and control program for agriculture to be developed after 1995] shall require the implementation of Best Management Practices for controlling nutrient loadings, including retrofitting if needed to meet specific alternative criteria as established by the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program. The CARE defines "environmentally feasible" as follows: "Where the physical conditions or the necessity to protect natural resources do not preclude the action." CARE, page 97. CARE Policy 2.10 states: By 1991, the County shall require that existing developments planned for expansion, modification or replacement provide or support stormwater treatment improvements within the affected drainage basin where treatment facilities are lacking. Where economically and environmentally feasible, the County shall require retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities in urbanized areas lacking such facilities. CARE Objective 3 is "no net loss of wetland acreage." The objective requires the County to "seek to achieve a measurable annual increase in restored wetland acreage," which shall be achieved by 1995 "through the restoration of degraded natural wetlands, until all economically and environmentally feasible wetland restoration is accomplished." CARE Policy 3.1 states that the County shall "continue to conserve and protect wetlands from detrimental physical and hydrological alteration and shall continue to allow wetland encroachment only as a last resort when reasonable use of the property is otherwise unavailable." CARE Policy 3.2 provides in part: Channelization or hardening (e.g., paving, piping) of natural streamcourses shall be prohibited except in cases of overriding public interest. The CARE defines "overriding public interest" as: "Actions required by local, state, or federal government, necessary for the promotion of public safety, health or general welfare." CARE, page 99. CARE Policy 3.6 is for the County to continue to promote through the development review process the use of desirable native wetland habitat species for the creation of wetland habitat and for biologically enhancing filtration and treatment of pollutants in newly constructed stormwater retention and detention ponds. CARE Objective 4 is: The County shall continue to prevent net loss of 100-year floodplain storage volume in Hillsborough County. By 1995, the County shall protect and conserve natural wildlife habitat attributes where they exist within the 100-year floodplains of major rivers and streams. CARE Policy 4.1 is for the County to amend its floodplain management regulations to "protect natural floodwater assimilating capacity [and] also protect fish and wildlife attributes where they exist within the 100-year floodplains of riverine systems." CARE Objective 5 is for the County to ensure compliance with state groundwater standards. CARE Policy 5.2 provides that, until the Southwest Florida Water Management District maps high aquifer recharge/contamination potential areas at a sufficient resolution, the County shall consider the best available hydrogeological information (e.g. SWFWMD DRASTIC maps), and may require the collection of site specific hydrogeologic data, such as soils borings and differences in head between the upper aquifers, when assessing the impacts of proposed land use changes and developments in areas of suspected high aquifer recharge/contamination potential. When required, this information shall be used in the determination of land use decisions, on a case-by-case basis. CARE Policy 5.5 refers to the high resolution mapping of recharge/contamination areas, as well as a study that the County will request the Southwest Florida Water Management District to conduct as to the effect of impervious surfaces on recharge. The policy states that, within one year after these tasks are completed: The County shall develop a comprehensive set of land use development regulations and performance standards for development activities proposed within areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential. Such regulations and performance standards may include, but not be limited to, control of land use type and densities, impervious surface limitations, and discharge to groundwater controls. CARE Policy 5.8 focuses on a wellfield protection program, which shall be "developed and implemented" by 1993. The task shall include the "determination and mapping of zones of contribution (also known as cones of influence) surrounding public wellfields and the adoption and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance which protects these areas." In the meantime, CARE Policy 5.8 requires the County to use the best available information to identify these areas [cones of influence]. See map 18, Interim Wellfield Protection Areas for Public Water Supply Wells in Unincorporated Hillsborough County, Florida (Zones of Contribution Map). The County shall also adopt and implement an interim ordinance which sets forth a procedure, using the best available information, for reviewing development proposals which might adversely impact the zones of contribution surrounding public wellfields. CARE Policy 5.9 states: Through the land development review process, the County shall continue to regulate activities which would breach the confining layers of the Floridan aquifer by prohibiting land excavations that would breach the confining layers. CARE Policy 5.11 is identical to CARE Policy 2.7 except that CARE Policy 5.11 deals with groundwater pollution, rather than surface water pollution, and CARE Policy 5.11 provides that the County shall request the development of special septic-tank siting criteria and standards for areas of "demonstrated high recharge/contamination potential." CARE Policy 5.13 is for the County to "increase requested assistance" from the Southwest Florida Water Management District to ensure that excessive consumptive use of groundwater or excessive drainage does not "significantly lower water tables or surface water levels, reduce base flows, or increase current levels of saltwater intrusion." CARE Policy 5.15 prohibits the County from supporting the use of deep-well injection of effluent or waste disposal "except where it can be demonstrated that the capacity for receiving injection is sufficiently large and that such disposal will have no adverse effect upon existing or potential potable water aquifers." CARE Objective 6 is for the County to meet future water needs through the "conservation, reuse, and enhancement of groundwater and surface water supplies, and shall prevent significant environmental degradation due to excessive groundwater withdrawals." CARE Policy 6.1 is for the County to request that the Southwest Florida Water Management District and WCRWSA develop a regional water budget to calculate more accurately water supplies and demands. CARE Policy 6.2 is for the County, by 1992, to "adopt and implement a Water Reuse Ordinance which maximizes the use of treated sewage effluent for residential and recreational irrigation purposes, where such reuse can be demonstrated to be environmentally acceptable and no threat to public health." CARE Policy 6.4 is: The County shall require the use of the lowest quality water reasonably and feasibly available, which is safe for public health and the environment and suitable to a given use, in order to reduce the unnecessary use of potable water. CARE Policy 6.8 is for the County, by 1992, to develop, in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, a water conservation program, including enforcement of specific building code requirements for water saving devices. CARE Policy 6.9 is for the County, by 1992, to evaluate the implementation of a user fee rate for potable water in order to discourage nonessential uses of potable water. CARE Policy 6.10 requires that the County, "through the land development review process, restrict the substantial lowering of the water table to meet stormwater treatment or storage requirements." CARE 6.11 requires that the County, "through the land development review process, . . . promote the use of xeriscape landscaping and low-volume irrigation " CARE Policy 6.12 is for the County, by 1995, to develop legal and financial mechanisms "to purchase, to the extent reasonably feasible, development or mineral rights, easements and partial or complete title to lands necessary to safeguard the public water supply." Suggested mechanisms include the transfer of development rights and tax benefits. CARE Policy 6.13 addresses groundwater recharge and stormwater management: By 1992, a program to improve groundwater recharge through the use of private and public stormwater management facilities will be developed and implemented. This program may require, among other things, that predevelopment groundwater recharge volumes and rates be maintained on site after development, if the site is located in an area of known or identified average annual aquifer recharge potential of at least two surface inches of water; and will include restrictions on the lowering of groundwater levels to meet stormwater management regulations. In the interim, where practical, and where feasible from a water quality standpoint, new development will be encouraged to consider retention of stormwater rather than stormwater detention in these areas. CARE Objective 7 is for the County to "continue to provide opportunity for and require the prudent operation of mining activities " CARE Policy 7.1 requires "sequential land use" in mineral-rich areas. The CARE defines "sequential land use" as "[a] practice whereby lands overlaying valuable mineral resources are protected from intensive urban development until such minerals can be mined, and that land reclaimed for a viable economic use." CARE Policy 7.2 requires the "phasing of mineral extraction to ensure that limited land areas are affected by excavation and settling ponds at one time and that reclamation occurs in the most effective manner." CARE Policy 8.1 requires the County, by 1991, to "identify environmentally sensitive areas which are not capable of being effectively restored following mineral extraction." CARE Policy 8.2 provides: The County shall restrict mining in areas which are ecologically unsuitable for the extraction of minerals, as identified in the natural systems and land use cover inventory, unless it can be demonstrated that such areas can be effectively restored utilizing the best available technology. CARE Policy 8.3 states: The County shall continue to prohibit mineral extraction within the 25-year floodplain, and shall restrict mining activities in the 100- year floodplain, of rivers and streams. CARE Policy 8.4 is: By 1992, the County shall prohibit mineral extraction in essential wildlife habitats which are documented, in accordance with the terms of Objective 14 and related policies thereunder, to support threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern, and from which such species cannot be effectively relocated. CARE Policies 8.5 and 8.6 require the use of the best available technology in restoring natural land forms and vegetative communities and minimizing natural resource impacts. CARE Policy 8.8 provides that the County shall continue to require proof of "long-term financial responsibility for the reclamation of mined lands." CARE Objective 9 requires the County to "protect the public health, safety and welfare from the adverse impacts of mining activities." CARE Policy 9.1 is for the continued requirement of "appropriate setbacks" between mining and adjacent land uses. CARE Objective 10 is for the County to "continue to regulate the location and operation of land excavation to minimize negative impacts on surrounding properties, ensure that land excavations are appropriately reclaimed, and encourage the productive reuse of such areas." CARE Policy 10.1 is for the County to "continue to prohibit land excavation activities which adversely impact surface or groundwater levels on surrounding property." CARE Policy 10.2 states that the County "shall require reclamation and reuse plans to ensure environmentally acceptable and economically viable reuses of land excavations." CARE Policy 10.3 demands that the County, by 1993, require the "preparation of wetland/lake management plans for the reclamation of land excavation projects to be reclaimed as lakes to ensure that such areas become viable and productive aquatic systems." CARE Policy 10.4 is for the County to "encourage" recreational development of reclaimed land excavations. CARE Policy 10.6 states that the County shall require setbacks between land excavations and adjacent land uses to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. CARE Policy 10.7 provides that, by 1992, the County shall prohibit land excavations in "essential wildlife habitats documented in accordance with the provisions of Objective 14 as supporting endangered, threatened, [or special- concern] species and from which such species cannot be effectively relocated." CARE Objective 11 is that the County shall "continue to require soil conservation and protection during land alteration and development activities." CARE Policy 11.1 provides that, during the land development review process, the County shall "recommend" the appropriate use of soils and shall require site-specific analyses when the use appears to be incompatible with the soils. CARE Policy 11.3 states that, during the land development review process, the County shall "continue to evaluate and utilize, where appropriate, soil capability analyses for flood hazard, stability, permeability, and other relevant soil characteristics when permitting new development." CARE Objective 14 is for the County to "protect significant wildlife habitat, and . . . prevent any further net loss of essential wildlife habitat . . .." CARE Policy 14.1 promises the initiation of the development and implementation of a wildlife and wildlife habitat protection and management program. CARE Policy 14.3 requires the County, by 1993, in consultation with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, to "identify and map areas of essential wildlife habitat." CARE Policy 14.5 compels the County, by 1991, to develop and implement a program to "conserve and protect significant wildlife habitat from development activities." The program may include transfers of development rights, clustering and setback requirements, conservation easements, leaseback operations, fee simple purchases, land or mitigation banking, and tax incentives. CARE Policy 14.6 states: By 1992, the County shall restrict development activities which adversely affect areas identified and mapped as essential wildlife habitat. Where development activities are proposed in such areas the County may require site-specific wildlife surveys and other field documentation, as needed, to assess potential impacts. CARE Policy 14.7 provides: During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall consider the effects of development on significant wildlife habitat, to protect wildlife corridors from fragmentation. Where necessary to prevent fragmentation of wildlife corridors, the County shall require the preservation of wildlife corridors within developments. CARE Objective 15 states: Populations of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern occurring within Hillsborough County shall be maintained. Where feasible and appropriate, the abundance and distribution of populations of such species shall be increased. CARE Policy 15.1 is for the County, by 1991, to consult with and consider the recommendations of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in determining whether to issue development orders and, if so, what conditions to impose where development would impact endangered, threatened, or special- concern species. Conditions "shall ensure the maintenance and, where environmentally and economically feasible, increase the abundance and distribution of populations of such species." CARE Objective 16 is to "continue existing programs to minimize the spread of exotic nuisance species" and implement management plans for newly acquired natural preserve lands to reduce by 90% the extent of exotic nuisance plants. The objective requires the County to "conserve and use and continue to require the conservation and use of native plant species in the developed landscape." The objective adds that the County shall "continue to protect Conservation and Preservation Areas." CARE Policy 16.2 is for the County to "continue to require the use of native plant species in the landscaping of new development projects." Respectively addressing Conservation and Preservation Areas, CARE Policies 16.5 and 16.6 provide that, "except in cases of overriding public interest," the County shall, in the land use planning and development review processes, "protect [Conservation/Preservation] Areas from activities that would significantly damage the natural integrity, character, or ecological balance of said areas." CARE Objective 17 states: By 1995, the acreage of publicly owned or otherwise protected (through private ownership) natural preserve lands in the County shall be increased by at least 15,000 acres (which is approximately 50% more than 1988 acreage). The County shall seek to continue increasing the acreage of natural preserve lands and to ensure their protection and proper use. CARE Policy 17.1 is for the County, by 1990, to seek public approval by referendum to continue to levy an ad valorem tax for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. CARE Policy 17.6 requires the County to provide multiple-use opportunities for County-owned natural reserve lands so as to protect and conserve natural resources. CARE Policy 17.8 requires the County, during the land use planning and development review processes, to "restrict incompatible development activities adjacent to publicly owned or managed natural preserves." CARE Objective 18 provides: The County shall seek to measurably improve the management of all natural preserves within County boundaries by implementing the following policies[.] CARE Policy 18.2 is for the County to initiate with the Florida Department of Natural Resources an agreement "to ensure that the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is maintained in its essentially natural condition and protected from development that would adversely affect the environmental integrity of the Preserve." CARE Policy 18.3 is for the County to "establish a scientifically defensible protective buffer zone between the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and adjacent upland land uses to prevent degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetative habitats." CARE Policy 18.8 requires the County to "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to "fully implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan " CARE Objective 19 states: The County shall continue to amend land development regulations which ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment under all projected growth scenarios. CARE Policy 19.1 is for the County, by 1991, to initiate agreements with the Southwest Florida Water Management District or appropriate university to scientifically determine environmentally safe construction setback and buffer distances from wetlands, floodplains and water bodies (e.g. SJRWMD Wekiva River study). Within one year after completion of this study, the County shall use the results of the study to amend the County's Land Alteration and Landscaping Ordinance and Zoning Code, if such setbacks and buffer distances are determined to be warranted by the study. Until such study is completed and used to amend County ordinances, all current setbacks shall remain in effect. CARE Policy 19.2 states: By 1992, the County shall develop a comprehensive program, which may include tax incentives and transfer of development rights, to encourage the clustering of development away from environmentally sensitive areas, essential wildlife habitat or economically important agricultural or mineral resources. CARE Policy 19.3 provides: During the development review process, the County shall promote the preservation of representative examples of upland native plant communities by encouraging the use of the upland forest density credit incentive provision of the [FLUE]. CARE Policy 19.4 states that the County will consider developing a review process to provide incentives for planned unit developments that provide environmental benefits beyond what are required by law. CARE Policy 19.5 provides that the County will review its land development regulations to "better address the cumulative impact [of development] on the environment." CARE Policy 19.6 is: The County shall continue to encourage infilling and growth within identified and environmentally acceptable "activity centers," and shall discourage urban sprawl. CARE Policy 19.7 is for the County, in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, to consider adopting appropriate modifications to current land development regulations which will reduce the removal of natural upland vegetation caused by site filling and will maintain natural drainage patterns and water table levels, where feasible. CARE Policy 19.8 states: The County shall identify Resource Protection Areas on the Future Land Use Map series. Specific policy directives which provide for special protective measures for all Resource Protection Areas, except Lake Thonotosassa, are located in one or more of the following elements: [CARE], Coastal . . ., and [FLUE]. See the definition of Resource Protection areas for both general and specific policy references. Policies which provide for special protective measures specially for Lake Thonotosassa shall be developed and included in the [Plan] after completion and approval of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan for Lake Thonotosassa by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The CARE defines "Resource Protection Areas" as: Land or water bodies which are ecologically or economically significant natural resources for which special protective measures have been, or need to be established. Resource Protection Areas include the following [in each case, general citations to applicable elements of the Plan have been omitted]: --Hillsborough River and major tributaries; --Alafia River and major tributaries; --Little Manatee River and major tributaries; --Tampa Bay and associated tidal wetlands; --Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve; --Lake Thonotosassa; --Significant and essential wildlife habitat; --Areas of high aquifer recharge/ contamination potential; --Public potable water wellfields and their cones of influence; --Areas of major phosphate deposits. CARE, pages 99-100. Goal A of the Stormwater Element is to "[m]inimize the hazards of flooding attributable to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 1 is to "[e]valuate the storage and discharge characteristics of existing stormwater conveyance, detention and retention systems, and identify existing and potential future flooding concerns." Stormwater Element Policy 1.1 is to complete, by 1996, a comprehensive stormwater management master plan. Stormwater Element Objective 2 is to "[d]evelop and implement programs to control flooding attributable to, and to maximize the usefulness of, stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Policy 2.8 states: Total flood volume compensation will continue to be required for new developments which encroach into and displace 100-year flood storage or floodplain areas. Further, by [fiscal year 19]91, a program to control encroachment within 100-year flood conveyance areas will be developed and implemented. Stormwater Element Policy 2.10 provides that, by 1992, the County shall develop and implement a program to "improve groundwater recharge through the use of private and public stormwater management facilities." Stormwater Element Policy 2.11 states that new development will continue to be encouraged, through application of existing local regulations, to maintain, with minimal disturbance to natural characteristics, those streams, lakes wetlands, and estuaries for which stormwater conveyance and/or attenuation potential is significant. Stormwater Element Policy 2.15 provides: The use of detention facilities will be the preferred alternative to improving conveyance to alleviate flooding problems, where physically and environmentally practical and economically feasible. All flood control projects will seek to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, impacts to wetland habitat, water quality and groundwater recharge functions. Where impacts are unavoidable, the projects will include measures to compensate for these lost functions. Goal B of the Stormwater Element is to "[m]inimize the degradation of water quality attributed to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 4 is to "[i]dentify and evaluate the sources of water quality degradation which are related to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 5 is to "[i]mplement programs that will maintain or improve the quality of stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Policy 5.1 is to develop and begin to implement, by 1995, a program "to improve, "where economically feasible, the problem areas identified" in stormwater data- collection projects. The County will then require the use of Best Management Practices for "minimizing contributions of poor quality stormwater runoff to both groundwater and surface water bodies." Stormwater Element Policy 5.5 provides for the use of wetlands for stormwater treatment when effective pretreatment can ensure that the use of the wetlands will maintain or restore their long-term natural viability. Stormwater Element Policy 5.6 states that new stormwater management facilities may not discharge untreated stormwater runoff into the Floridan aquifer and that existing facilities that do so discharge into the Floridan aquifer will be modified where "economically feasible and physically practical." The goal of the Sewer Element is to "[p]rotect the [public] health, safety and welfare" and "protect and conserve the natural resources of Hillsborough County." Sewer Element Policy 1.1 is: Wastewater treatment facilities, prior to discharging to surface waters or natural wetlands, shall meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards. "Advanced Waste Treatment" is defined in the Sewer Element as "defined in Chapter 403.086, Florida Statutes or as amended in the future." Sewer Element, page 26. Sewer Element Policy 1.2 requires that "[w]astewater treatment facilities, prior to discharging to a managed artificial wetland or an irrigation system, shall meet or exceed Advanced Secondary Treatment Standards." "Advanced Secondary Treatment Standards" are defined as "[s]econdary waste treatment plus deep-bed dual media filtration." Sewer Element Objective 2 is to "[p]rotect and conserve the potable water resources, both groundwater and surface water, of Hillsborough County and continue to utilize and expand, where viable, existing recovered water reuse systems." Sewer Element Policy 2.1 requires later phases of developments with recovered water systems to use such systems. Sewer Element Policy 2.3 requires that, by 1992, the County implement by ordinance "mandatory recovered water reuse." Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility of existing and future sources of wastewater adversely impacting groundwater, surface waters and quality of life." Sewer Element Policy 7.1 is to "[c]ontinue to require that septic tank systems connect to the County system where a County system is available unless undue hardship is proven." Sewer Element Policy 7.2 is to "re-examine the maximum allowable density for septic tank systems within various areas of Hillsborough County" not later than one year following completion of a study presently underway pursuant to the Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983. In the same timeframe, Sewer Element Policy 7.3 requires that the County develop a "program to identify existing septic tank systems . . . that have a high potential for contaminating groundwater or the aquifer." The first goal of the FLUE is to: Ensure that the character and location of land uses optimizes the combined potentials for economic benefit and the enjoyment and the protection of natural resources while minimizing the threat to health, safety and welfare posed by hazards, nuisances, incompatible land uses, and environmental degradation. FLUE Objective A-1 is: Development orders shall not be issued unless development is compatible with the physical conditions of the land, including, but not limited to, topographical and soil conditions, and development mitigates those adverse impacts that it creates upon the physical conditions of the land that may affect the health, safety and/or welfare of the people who live and work within those particular areas. FLUE Policy A-1.2 states that "[s]oil capability analyses for flood hazards, stability, permeability and other relevant soil characteristics shall be considered when planning for new development." FLUE Policy A-1.3 adds: "Development shall be prohibited in areas where the on-site sewage disposal facilities would be located on soils unsuitable for such uses, unless the soils on the site can be altered to meet state and local environmental land use regulations." FLUE Policy A-1.4 provides that development within areas designated as "volume or peak sensitive" shall be subject to "higher performance standards to mitigate stormwater runoff." The Plan defines "Peak Sensitive Lands" as "[l]and that is prone to flooding because the outfall is inadequate to handle the water flow." FLUE, page 142. The Plan defines "Volume Sensitive Lands" as: Lands that drain into areas that do not have a positive outfall. Positive outfall is the condition when the natural or man-made stormwater conveyance system that drains the land is functioning adequately. This includes man-made swales, waterways or other means of conveyance systems. This does not include sheet flow. FLUE, page 147. FLUE Policy A-1.5 requires: "All development within the 100 year floodplain shall be in strict conformance with all development regulations that have jurisdiction development regulations." Certain future land use designations bear directly upon the natural resources of the County. Other future land use designations, although affecting natural resources, will be addressed in the following sections concerning urban sprawl and the coastal high hazard area. Three designations are especially important in protecting natural resources. They are Natural Preservation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Major Recreation and Open Space. The Natural Preservation designation is used to designate major publicly owned or managed lands for primarily conservation purposes. Typically, these lands are environmentally unique, irreplaceable or valued ecological resources. Some of these lands may be suitable for compatible recreational use. FLUE, page 142. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Natural Preservation designation as follows: To recognize public lands of significant environmental importance set aside for primarily conservation purposes. No residential is permitted except for county facilities determined necessary to serve as a caretaker of the recreational or environmental property. All other development is prohibited in these areas except for compatible recreational development. Educational uses shall be limited to those which utilize the natural amenities found on the site, i.e., the study of flora [or] fauna . . .. FLUE, page 125. FLUE Policy A-3.1 promises that the County will study the possibility of adopting land development regulations providing for a transfer of development rights from land that is under consideration for Natural Preservation designation, as well as land under a Rural designation that is in long-term agricultural use. FLUE Policy A-3.2 prohibits, in Natural Preservation designations, any "new development [or] expansion [or] replacement of existing development[,] unless development is undertaken by federal, State or local government in the public interest, and the impacts are mitigated." The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation has been discussed at length in the preceding section. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation as follows: To designate those privately owned lands that are environmentally sensitive and classified as Conservation or Preservation Areas as defined in the [CARE]. Development in these areas may be restricted by federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations. Development projects will be evaluated for compliance with the [CARE] and Coastal [Element]. The use of Environmentally Sensitive Areas for residential density credits is described in the [FLUE]. The Environmentally Sensitive Area designations on the Land Use Plan Map are very generalized and may not be exhaustive of all sites. On- site evaluation will be necessary for specific project review. FLUE, page 126. The Major Recreation and Open Space designation is used to designate, geographically on the Future Land Use Plan Map and/or textually in the [FLUE], those major existing park, recreation, and/or open space facilities available for public use, including those which may be privately owned, and for which the primary purpose is not conservation. This land use category is not intended for use in designating those lands used for calculating densities for residential projects as described in the "Density Credits" provision in the "Implementation Section["] of the [FLUE] or in designating those similarly used lands that are accessory to non-residential projects. This future land use plan classification is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies and the exceptions and provisions of the [FLUE], each of the other elements in the [Plan], and to all applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 143. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Recreation and Open Space designation as follows: To designate major existing parks and recreational facilities (regional, district, or community level), for which the primary purpose is not conservation. A more complete mapping of existing and proposed or needed parks is a function of the Recreation and Open Space Element. No residential is permitted except for county facilities determined necessary to serve as an employee serving the function of a caretaker of the property. FLUE, page 123. FLUE Policy A-3.4 states that "[r]ecreational development must be compatible with and sensitive to the surrounding natural systems." Numerous provisions in the FLUE address natural resources, without referring to the Natural Preservation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Major Recreation and Open Space designations. FLUE Objective A-8 provides: Development must mitigate the adverse impacts upon the natural, environmental systems as described and required within the [CARE] and [Coastal Element]. FLUE Policy A-8.1 states: "The natural environment shall be protected, in part, by encouraging future population growth into existing urbanized areas." FLUE Policies A-8.2, A- 8.3, and A-8.4, which have been discussed above, provide for the protection of Conservation and Preservation Areas and describe the upland forest density credit incentive and density formulas regarding Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE Policies A-8.5 and A-8.6 promise protection, "by a system of performance standards" left undefined in the Plan, for areas with "high potential for groundwater contamination" and "high aquifer recharge," respectively. FLUE Policy A-8.8 is to [r]equire that the littoral zones and photic zones of man-made stormwater management systems be designed to provide physical and chemical filtration of stormwater consistent with adopted levels in the [Plan] and subsequently adopted development regulations, [as well as] provide for wildlife habitat (primarily wading birds). FLUE Policy A-8.9 offers the use of publicly owned land designated as Major Public/Semi-Public for "appropriate multiple uses, such as parks, stormwater management systems and preservation of natural habitats." FLUE Policy A-8.10 is to "[e]ncourage the use of pervious pavement" through land development regulations. FLUE Policy A-8.11 requires the County to identify, during the rezoning process, any land that has been identified for possible acquisition by the Environmental Land Acquisition and Protection Program. FLUE Policy A-8.12 states the County "shall protect significant wildlife habitat." FLUE Policy A-8.13 provides that the County will "[p]reserve wetlands by discouraging the use of mitigation, dredge and fill and similar development activities by revising the development regulations to strictly limit such practices." FLUE Objective B-9 is to "[p]rotect environmentally sensitive areas from degradation or damage from agricultural activities by establishing regulatory activities." FLUE Policy B-9.2 is to "[e]stablish protective controls, which could include animal 'density' limits[,] on those grazing lands having environmentally sensitive areas subject to damage or degradation from over-grazing by pre- identified grazing species." FLUE Objective B-10 is to "[p]rotect the water supply needed by agriculture through regulatory mechanisms." FLUE Policy B-10.1 is to "[r]equire adoption or conversion to water conservation techniques that are beneficial for aquifer recharge and the maintenance of near normal water tables." FLUE Policy B-10.2 is to establish a phased-in program of water conservation. Addressing the County's rivers, the second goal of the FLUE, which appears at the beginning of the River Resources section, is: To make the rivers of Hillsborough County cleaner, safer and more attractive, protect the natural functions and wildlife habitats in the river corridors and promote the economic and recreational benefits provided by these water bodies. FLUE Objective C-1 is, by 1995, to "maintain or improve the quality of water in [County] rivers where the water quality does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for [their] designated use." FLUE Policy C-1.1 states: The developer of any project along the rivers shall provide stormwater management systems which filter out pollutants before the stormwater enters the rivers, in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the Southwest Florida Water Management District rules including the exemption provisions of these rules. New drainage outfalls along the rivers shall be designed with stormwater treatment facilities rather than discharging stormwater directly into the rivers. Where environmentally feasible, the stormwater discharge from a detention pond shall flow into the rivers through a vegetated swale. FLUE Policy C-1.2 "[p]rohibit[s] discharges of raw sewage to the rivers and tributaries." FLUE Policy C-1.3 "[p]rohibit[s] any solid waste landfills and hazardous material facilities in unincorporated Hillsborough County that may adversely affect the rivers and tributaries." FLUE Objective C-2 is: By 1990, the County will require the preservation of natural shorelines and reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization. . . . FLUE Policy C-2.1 states: "Shore alteration which would harden riverbanks shall be prohibited, except in cases of overriding public interest." FLUE Policy C-2.2 requires the improvement of publicly owned or controlled lands by the "restoration of vegetated riverbanks." FLUE Policy C-2.3 requires the conservation and preservation of natural riverbanks and natural levees, except in cases of overriding public interest. FLUE Objective C-4 provides that, by 1992, the County will "establish standards for development in river corridors." FLUE Policy C-4.1 prohibits the construction of new overhead utilities within 250 feet of the rivers unless underground placement is environmentally or technically unsound. FLUE Objective C-5 provides that, by 1991, the County will "require the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats and archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-5.4 requires the County to "restrict development activities in the river corridors which would adversely affect significant and essential wildlife habitat, in accordance with the terms of Objective 14 and related policies thereunder of the [CARE]." FLUE Policy C-6.1 prohibits the removal, within 100 feet of the rivers, of healthy, native trees of five inches diameter at breast height unless "reasonable property utilization is not possible without tree removal or in cases of overriding public interest." The third, fourth, and fifth goals in the FLUE pertain to the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers, respectively. The third goal in the FLUE is "[t]o make the Hillsborough River cleaner, safer and more attractive." FLUE Objective C-7 is, by 1995, to "improve the quality of water in the river where it does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for its designated use, and protect this major source of drinking water." FLUE Policy C-7.2 states: The construction, reconstruction, extension, or alteration of any privy, cesspool, septic tank, drain field, or other sewage disposal device within . . . 200 feet, measured from the mean annual flood line, of the Hillsborough River and its tributaries from the Pasco County line, to the city limits of the City of Tampa, shall be prohibited. This policy shall not prohibit recommended maintenance of existing septic systems if no alternative means of sewerage treatment is available. FLUE Policy C-7.3 is to "[p]revent further destruction of desirable natural vegetative buffers along the Hillsborough River and its tributaries." FLUE Policy C-7.4 is to: Prevent potential contamination by effluent disposal from a wastewater treatment plant within the drainage basin by requiring advanced treatment and viral reduction of all sewage in the drainage basin which is part of an effluent disposal program. FLUE Objective C-8 is, by 1990, to "reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization." FLUE Policy C-9.1 provides: "New marinas shall be prohibited on the upper Hillsborough River." "To prevent riverbank erosion, protect wildlife habitat, and ensure public safety," FLUE Policy C-9.6 requires that the part of the Hillsborough River north of 56th Street be posted with "idle speed, no wake" signs. FLUE Objective C-10 is, by 1992, to "establish standards for development in the river corridor." FLUE Policy C- 10.2 states: "No additional areas shall be designated with industrial land use plan categories within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-10.3 requires the County to establish a new future land use designation or zoning classification to be known as "Riverfront." Land use guidelines that "should be addressed" in the new classification include performance standards precluding uses that pollute the river or eliminate visual access by the public, lowering densities for vacant private parcels along the upper river, and prohibiting heavy activities such as parking lots, truck service roads, loading docks, warehouses, manufacturing plants, ship building and repair, and dredging equipment operators. FLUE Objective C-11 is, by 1992, to "implement construction and placement standards for ramps, docks, and seawalls." FLUE Objective C-12 is, by 1994, to "manage the Hillsborough River as an important community asset and provide appropriate public access to this valuable natural amenity." FLUE Objective C-13 is, by 1991, to "preserve and enhance wildlife habitats and preserve archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-13.1 states: "Draining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks[,] shall be prohibited within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Objective C-14 states: By 1990, preserve the rural character of the Upper Hillsborough River by discouraging additional development except for those sites improved or developed that are dedicated to passive recreational pursuits within the river corridor. . . . FLUE Policy C-14.1 states: "The upper Hillsborough River shall be managed as a wildlife habitat corridor to provide an area for wildlife passage." FLUE Policy C-14.3 prohibits in the upper Hillsborough River "additional boat docks and ramps," but not canoe launches. FLUE Policy C-14.4 prohibits, within 500 feet of the upper Hillsborough River and its tributaries, parking lots and service roads. The fourth goal in the FLUE addresses the Alafia River. The goal is: "To preserve, protect and promote the Alafia River and its natural resources and recreational benefits." FLUE Objective C-15 is: By 1995, to maintain water quality, and improve water quality where it does not meet or exceed State water quality standards for its designated use, thereby protecting and improving the habitat for marine life. . . . FLUE Objective C-16 is: "By 1991, preserve and restore natural vegetation, and wildlife habitats and preserve archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-16.1 states: Draining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks, which comprise the riverine swamp system shall be prohibited within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-16.2 provides: Encourage the reclamation of mined lands along the Alafia River with native vegetation and encourage public acquisition for wildlife corridors, where appropriate. FLUE Objective C-17 is, by 1991, to "protect terrestrial and marine wildlife and their habitats." FLUE Policy C-17.1 requires the County to post reduced speed signs in areas of known manatee habitation. FLUE Objective C-18 is, by 1995, to "minimize river use conflict and mitigate public nuisances that adversely affect inhabitants along the river." FLUE Policy C-18.1 recognizes the river as important for canoeing as well as other recreational pursuits. FLUE Objective C-19 is, by 1990, to "preserve the natural shoreline and prevent further channelization." FLUE Policy C-19.1 "[p]rohibit[s] backfilling of waterfront properties or extension of these lots through artificial means." FLUE Objective C-20 is, by 1992, to "establish standards for development within the river corridor." FLUE Policy C-20.3 states: Septic tank and drainfield installation shall be prohibited within 200 feet of the Alafia River and its tributaries except in such cases where the 200-foot criterion cannot be met because of lot size. In such cases, placement and construction of such facilities shall be in accordance with State law and shall prevent adverse impact to water quality. FLUE Policy C-20.4 states: "No additional heavy industrial land use designations shall be located within 500 feet of the river." The fifth goal in the FLUE pertains to the Little Manatee River. The goal is: "To recognize and maintain this unique water resource which provides economic and recreational opportunities as well as vital wildlife habitat." FLUE Objective C-21 states: By 1995, water quality in each appropriate water classification found in the Little Manatee River will be maintained or improved where it does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for its designated use. ... FLUE Policy C-21.1, which generally prohibits the installation of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Little Manatee River and its tributaries, is otherwise identical to FLUE Policy C-20.3, which applies to the Alafia River. FLUE Objective C-22 is, by 1991, to "preserve wildlife habitats and archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-22.1 provides that the County shall "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to "fully implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan." FLUE Policy C-22.2 prohibits "[d]raining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks, . . . within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-22.3 states that, until scientifically defensible setbacks and buffers are determined: clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 feet of the Environmental Protection Commission wetland jurisdictional line or within 100 feet of the mean and ordinary high water line, whichever is greater, shall be restricted in urban and suburban land use categories. FLUE Policy C-22.4 is to protect manatees by "posting reduced speed signs in areas of known manatee habitation." FLUE Objective C-23 is, by 1990, to: minimize urban encroachment upon the river bank by encouraging the establishment of a "green" river corridor. River corridor preservation can best be achieved through protection of the shoreline, and associated wetlands and uplands. . . . FLUE Policy C-23.1 states: "No heavy industrial land use designations shall be located within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-23.2 provides: "The Little Manatee River shall be recognized as providing important wildlife habitat and managed as a corridor for wildlife passage." FLUE Policy C-23.3 states: "The Little Manatee River shall be recognized as an important recreational resource." FLUE Policy C-23.4 adds: Recreation facilities in the Little Manatee River corridor shall be designed to minimize impacts upon essential and significant wildlife habitat. This is to be achieved by encouraging passive river corridor use, such as hiking, picnicking, nature study, photography, fishing, and canoeing. FLUE Policy C-23.5 prohibits parking lots and service roads within 500 feet of the Little Manatee River and its tributaries east of US 41. FLUE Objective C-24 is, by 1990, to "develop additional policies and strategies addressing the uniqueness and proper protection and use of the Little Manatee River." FLUE Policy C-24.2 states: "Appropriate provisions from the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan shall be considered for incorporation as policies in this plan." Policy C-24.3 promises the evaluation of the need for establishing a new land use category or zoning overlay "to ensure proper protection and use of the Little Manatee River and associated natural resources." FLUE Objective C-30 provides: Regulations and performance standards shall be developed to ensure that water quality and quantity, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitats, rivers and creeks are protected from degradation by development. FLUE Policy C-30.2 states that the County "shall require the location and design of public roads and bridges within stream riverine corridors to minimize impacts adverse to wildlife habitats and vegetative communities." FLUE Policy C-30.4 provides: Designate as River Corridor Overlay Districts, riverine corridors within the Urban Level land use categories, which meet the following criteria in addition to the policies related to River Corridor Overlay Districts under the "River Resources" section within the [FLUE]. The qualifying criteria are that the water must be of Class III standards, the water body must provide "ecological benefits," most of the part of the water body proposed for designation must have a natural shore, and a 25 year floodplain map for the part of the water body proposed for designation must be available for public inspection. FLUE Policy C-30.6 provides: Restrict clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 feet of the Environmental Protection Commission wetland jurisdictional line of rivers and creeks designated as River Corridor Overlay Districts or within 100 feet of the mean and ordinary high water line of such rivers and creeks, whichever is greater. If no beneficial use of the property is possible without clearing or filling within this area, impose conditions which will mitigate the adverse impact of these activities on wildlife habitat, native vegetation and natural stormwater filtration systems. FLUE Policy C-30.7 is to "[e]ncourage the use of stilted structures rather than fill to meet flood elevation construction requirements within the River Corridor Overlay District." FLUE Policy C-30.8 is to "[r]estrict hardened shores (seawalls) within the River Corridor Overlay district to areas threatened by severe erosion." The Coastal Element addresses natural resources in the coastal area of the County. Coastal Element Policy 1.3 requires the County to reduce the need for interim wastewater treatment plants by planning for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities to serve areas designated for higher densities. Coastal Element Policy 1.4 provides that the County shall "continue to develop and use environmentally acceptable effluent disposal alternatives to surface water discharge to Tampa Bay and its tributaries, including but not limited to reuse for irrigation and industrial purposes." Coastal Element Policy 1.7 states: Where economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to coastal areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic treatment systems. Coastal Element Policy 1.11 provides: By 1991, the County shall require that existing developments planned for expansion, modification or replacement in the coastal area provide or support stormwater treatment improvements within the affected drainage basin where treatment facilities are lacking. Where economically and environmentally feasible, the County shall require retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities in urbanized coastal areas lacking such facilities. Coastal Element Policy 1.12 states: Where economically and environmentally feasible and consistent with the Surface Water Improvement Management Plan for Tampa Bay, the County shall consider dredging and removal of polluted estuarine sediments, and clean filling deep dredged areas, as a means of improving adjacent estuarine water quality. 2. Coastal High Hazard Area and Hazard Mitigation The only FLUE provision addressing the coastal area and coastal hazards is FLUE Policy A-1.6, which promises: Performance standards for new developments shall be established within coastal areas, as identified in the [Coastal Element], in order to protect the population in the coastal areas, and to minimize property damage in the event of a hurricane. Capital Improvements Element (CIE) 1.D.2 provides that the levels of service for public facilities, as set forth in the CIE, are subject to overriding conditions and limitations contained in the Coastal Element. In addition, CIE Objective 5 states: "The County shall protect the coastline and avoid loss of life and property in coastal areas by minimizing land development and public facilities in coastal areas. [Rule] 9J- 5.016(3)(b)2." CIE Policy 5.A states: "Publicly funded infrastructure shall not be constructed within the coastal high hazard area unless the expenditure is for: 5.A.1: Restoration or enhancement of natural resources or public access; 5.A.2: Land application of treated effluent disposal (irrigation) on public and private open spaces; 5.A.3: Flood-proofing water and sanitary sewer facilities; 5.A.4: The development or improvement of public roads and bridges which are on the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization long range plan or the facility will serve a crucial need by ameliorating the evacuation time of residents of the County; 5.A.5: Reconstruction of seawalls that are essential to the protection of only existing public facilities or infrastructure; 5.A.6: A public facility of overriding public concern as determined by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners; 5.A.7: The retrofitting of stormwater management facilities for water quality enhancement of stormwater runoff; or 5.A.8: Port facilities. Coastal Element Policy 6.1 defines the coastal high hazard area as the part of the County included in the Federal Emergency Management Agency V Zone and the area requiring evacuation during a Category 1 hurricane event. A Category 1 hurricane is characterized by winds of 74-95 miles per hour, which will cause damage primarily to foliage and unanchored mobile homes; storm surge 6-8 feet above normal; and inundation of low-lying coastal roads. Coastal Element, page 85. Coastal Element Objective 6 is to: Restrict development of residential population centers in the coastal high hazard area and require all development to meet standards established for the coastal area. Coastal Element Policy 6.2 requires that "[n]ew development within the coastal high hazard area shall be subject to a formal site plan review process." The process shall require owner-supplied data as to the impact of the proposed development upon existing infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area, evacuation clearance times, and shelter space. Coastal Element Policy 6.3 states that new development or "substantial expansions" of existing uses, except for government facilities, shall be approved through "a planned unit development process" if the development consists of commercial or industrial development on more than five acres of land or residential development exceeding the requirements of a "minor subdivision," as defined in the land development regulations. Policy 6.3 adds that developments within the coastal high hazard area and the I-75 corridor shall be subject to the more restrictive requirements. Coastal Element Policy 6.5 prohibits the development of "manufactured home communities" in the coastal high hazard area unless they meet the standards of the Southern Standard Building Code. Coastal Element Policy 6.6 is that, by 1994, the County shall, by land development regulations, require the underground installation of all utility lines in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 is that, except for cases of "undue hardship," "[t]he use of septic tanks for new development shall be prohibited in the coastal high hazard area." Coastal Element Objective 7 is to ensure the "orderly development and use" of the Port of Tampa by giving "priority to locating water-dependent and water-related land uses along the shoreline of the coastal area." Coastal Element Policy 7.1 provides that the County, by 1993, will amend the "Future Land Use Element and Map" to create a new future land use designation for "marine-related land uses." The designation will include criteria for siting water-dependent and water-related land uses. Coastal Element Policy 7.5 prohibits the development of new sites for heavy industrial uses along the shoreline of the coastal area unless the uses are "water-dependent or water- related or unless an overriding public interest is demonstrated." Coastal Element Objective 10 is: "Limit public expenditures for infrastructure and facilities in the coastal high hazard area." Coastal Element Policy 10.3 provides: "Wastewater treatment facilities shall not be constructed within the coastal high hazard area unless the expenditure meets the criteria of Policy 10.2." Coastal Element Policy 10.2 is the same as CIE Policy 5.A. Coastal Element Policy 13.1 states: "Interim wastewater treatment plants shall not be permitted in the coastal high hazard area except where the County service will be available within five (5) years." Coastal Element Policy 13.2 provides that the County will not assume jurisdiction for maintaining roadways in the coastal high hazard area unless the roadway is on the future Traffic Circulation Map. Coastal Element Policy 13.3 states that, by the 1993 hurricane season, the County shall complete an inventory of existing infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area and develop a program to relocate or retrofit such facilities where feasible and as replacement becomes necessary. Coastal Element Policy 13.4 is that the County "shall ensure" that future development and redevelopment within the coastal high hazard area is "consistent with coastal resource protection and will not increase clearance times along evacuation routes." Coastal Element Policy 13.6 is that the County shall not approve any "new solid waste or hazardous waste management sites" in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 12.2 is that the County, by the 1992 hurricane season: shall prepare a post-disaster redevelopment plan which will address long-term development, repair, and redevelopment activities, and which will include measures to restrict and eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 12.5 provides that, by the 1992 hurricane season, the County "shall adopt a redevelopment decision-making matrix for deciding whether public infrastructure should be rebuilt, relocated, or structurally modified." Coastal Element Objective 11 provides: Through the year 2010 the County shall maintain the clearance times identified in the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 1988 Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Study. Any proposed development shall not increase these clearance times. Coastal Element Policy 11.2 adopts a level of service standard of 20 square feet per person for shelter space. Coastal Element Policy 11.5 states that, by 1991, the development review process shall consider the effect of a proposed development in the hurricane vulnerability zone, which includes the coastal high hazard area, on evacuation clearance times and the number of persons requiring shelter. Coastal Element Policy 11.7 provides that each new mobile home park "not located" in the hurricane vulnerability zone shall include a building for use as a hurricane shelter. 3. Urban Sprawl FLUE Policy A-2.1 states: "Development shall not exceed the densities and intensities established within the [Plan]." According to the Implementation section of the FLUE, "[i]t is the intent of the [FLUE] to permit the maximum densities allowed within each land use plan category." FLUE, page 55. Many of the future land use categories of the Plan and their densities are set forth at Paragraph 219 above. The remaining categories and any permitted residential densities (expressed as dwelling units per gross acre) are: Community Commercial (20:1); Commercial--Office (20:1); Regional Commercial (20:1); Electrical Power Generating Facility (1:5); Scenic Corridor Overlay; Research/Corporate Park; Light Industrial; Light Industrial-- Planned; Heavy Industrial; Natural Preservation; Major Recreation and Open Space; Major Public/Semi-Public; and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (uses described in preceding section). The Land Use Plan section of the FLUE discusses each of the future land use designations in terms of service level, typical uses, density (applicable to residential uses only), maximum floor area (applicable to commercial, office, and industrial uses only), and intent of designation. The densities have been set forth above. Six designations fall exclusively under the Rural service level. These are Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, Rural Residential, and Rural Residential Planned. The typical uses of Agricultural/Mining include: farms, ranches, feed lots, residential uses, rural scale neighborhood commercial uses, offices, industrial uses related to agricultural uses, and mining related activities. Non-residential uses shall meet established locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 98. The maximum floor area for Agricultural/Mining is: Rural scale neighborhood commercial, office or industrial up to 40,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, 17/ whichever is less intense. Actual space footage limit is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, page 98. The intent of Agricultural/Mining is: To designate either those areas of long term agricultural character, or those areas currently involved in agricultural productivity, or other rural uses. This category will also permit residential, rural scale neighborhood commercial, office, and industrial uses in those areas meeting established locational criteria. As long as no subdivision of land is involved, group quarters, temporary housing, rehabilitation centers and residential uses for agricultural/rural related activities can be exempt from the density limitations subject to the [FLUE] and applicable development regulations. In addition, mining activities and commercial and industrial uses directly related to or serving the local mining activities may be permitted in appropriate locations, in conformance with adopted [land development] regulations. Commercial and office above 5000 sq. ft.[,] multi-purpose projects and multi-use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 98. The typical uses, maximum floor area, and intent of Agricultural and Agricultural/Rural are the same as those stated for Agricultural/Mining. Densities are the main difference among the Agricultural/Mining (1:20), Agricultural (1:10), and Agricultural/Rural (1:5) designations. In addition to allowing a density of 1:2.5, the Rural Estate category differs in other respects from the other categories classified as rural in terms of service level. Typical uses for Rural Estate add "multi-purpose projects" and omit "feed lots," "industrial uses related to agricultural uses," and "mining related activities." Maximum floor area substitutes "multi-purpose projects" for "industrial." The intent of Rural Estate is: To designate areas that are best suited for agricultural development, usually defined as located on Short-Term Agricultural Lands, and for compatible rural residential uses. Other uses including rural scale neighborhood commercial, office and multi-purpose projects may be permitted when complying with the [FLUE] and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for specific land use. Commercial and office above 5000 sq. ft., multi-purpose projects and multi-use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 101. The typical uses and intent of Rural/Residential and Rural/Residential Planned are the same as those stated for Rural Estate, except the Rural/Residential Planned also allows community commercial uses and clustered mixed use. A planned zoning district is required for the Rural/Residential Planned designation if the proposed commercial or office use is over 3000 square feet. The densities are different among the three designations. The Rural/Residential allows 1:1. Rural/Residential Planned allows the same density if the project is a Planned Village Concept on at least 160 acres; otherwise, the allowable density is 1:5. The maximum density for Rural/Residential Planned is allowable only if clustering and mixed uses are proposed. The concepts of mixed use and clustering specified for the Rural/Residential Planned are explained as follows: Mixed use . . . must demonstrate integration, scale, diversity and internal relationships of uses on site as well as provide shopping and job opportunities, significant internal trip capture and appropriately scaled residential uses. Land development regulations shall specify the thresholds for shopping, job creation and trip capture rates for developments appropriate to the scale of the project. Clustering . . . will be demonstrated through higher than typical residential net densities. Land development regulations shall provide thresholds for net densities required relative to project size and location, and will be used to determine allowable gross density. FLUE, page 103. The Suburban service level contains two designations: Low Suburban Density Residential and Low Suburban Density Residential Planned. The typical uses of Low Suburban Density Residential are: Residential, suburban scale neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects. Non-residential uses shall meet locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 104. The typical uses of Low Suburban Density Residential Planned are the same except they include suburban scale community commercial and clustered mixed use projects. The maximum floor area of Low Suburban Density Residential is: Suburban scale neighborhood commercial, office, or multi-purpose projects limited to 110,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, whichever is less intense. Actual space footage limit is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, page 104. The maximum floor area of Low Suburban Density Residential Planned is the same except the floor area ratio is .5, which governs certain mixed use projects: Mixed use projects utilizing the Planned Village Concept are not limited by square footages but may develop up to .5 FAR. Square footages will be limited by the scale and relationship within the project. In addition, mixed use projects utilizing the Planned Village Concept shall not be limited by the locational criteria found elsewhere for neighborhood commercial uses. Mixed use projects shall demonstrate internal relationships and pedestrian integration among uses. FLUE, page 105. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential designation is: To designate areas that are best suited for non-urban density residential development requiring a limited level of urban services, including in appropriate locations lots large enough to safely accommodate private wells and septic tanks or a combination of septic tanks and public water. Some areas, because of environmental or soil conditions, would be appropriate for only public water and sewer in this designation. In addition, suburban level neighborhood commercial, office and multi-purpose projects serving the non-urban areas may be permitted, subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for such land use. Commercial and office uses above 3000 sq. ft. and all multi-purpose and mixed use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 104. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned appears erroneous, as it repeats the intent of the Rural/Residential Planned designation, including "rural residential uses" and "rural scale" commercial uses. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned should probably state: "non-urban density residential development requiring a limited level of urban services" and the "suburban scale" commercial uses, which is the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential. The Implementation section of the FLUE probably should have stated the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation is the same as the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential designation except to add "suburban level community commercial, clustered mixed use, and multi-purpose projects." The densities for Low Suburban Density Residential and Low Suburban Density Residential Planned are both 2:1. However, this density is applicable to the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned only if the proposed project is a Planned Village Concept on at least 160 acres. Otherwise, the density for Low Suburban Density Residential Planned is 1:5. The Low Suburban Density Residential Planned density contains the same description of mixed use and clustering as is found in the Rural/Residential Planned designation. There are 14 designations exclusively within the Urban service level. The two lowest densities, among categories that are predominantly residential, are Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential, which are, respectively, 4:1 and 6:1. Each density contains the following condition: This maximum residential density is provided only as a limit for application in situations which represent an ideal set of circumstances with regard to the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses, existing and/or approved, and with regard to the adequacy and availability of public facilities. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. The typical uses for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential are identical: Residential, urban scale neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose and mixed use projects. Non-residential uses shall meet established locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. Disregarding another apparent typographical error, 18/ the maximum floor area for each designation is identical: Urban scale neighborhood commercial, office, multi-purpose or mixed use projects limited to 175,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, whichever is less intense. Actual square footage limitation is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. Disregarding two more likely typographical errors, 19/ the intent for each designation is also identical, except for the bracketed notation that applies only to Low Urban Density Residential: To designate areas that are suitable for low density residential development. In addition, urban scale neighborhood commercial, office, multi-purpose and mixed use projects serving the area may be permitted subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for specific land use. Multi-purpose, mixed use projects and any development above 3.0 [5.0] dwelling units per gross acre on a site larger than 10 acres shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. The next three designations in the Urban service level are Low/Medium Density Urban Residential, Medium Density Urban Residential, and High Density Urban Residential, which provide densities, respectively, of 9:1, 12:1, and 20:1. 20/ Each density is subject to the condition quoted above for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential concerning ideally suited circumstances. Ignoring one typographical error in the case of the High Density Urban Residential designation, 21/ the typical uses for each of the three designations are also identical, except for a minor distinction in language, with those stated for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential. The maximum floor areas for each of the three designations are identical to those stated for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential except that the floor area ratio for High Density Urban Residential is 0.75, not 0.25. The intent of each of the three designations is the same as the intent of the Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential designations with a minor change in language. The only differences are that the primary intent in each case is to designate an area suitable for the type of residential development suggested by the category's name, such as low-medium density. Also, a planned zoning district is required for each of the three designations if the proposed development is denser than 8:1 for Low/Medium Density Urban Residential, 10:1 for Medium Density Urban Residential, and 16:1 for High Density Urban Residential. The last three designations exclusively within the Urban service classification that are projected to contain significant residential uses are Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3 with respective densities of 12:1, 20:1, and 50:1. Each density contains the following condition: The maximum residential density is provided only as a limit for application in situations in which all Goals, Objectives, and Policies and applicable development regulations are being complied with, especially those regarding compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses, existing and/or approved, and with regard to the adequacy and availability of public facilities. FLUE, pages 111, 112, and 113. The typical uses for Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3 are identical: Mixed use development. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 111, 112, and 113. The maximum floor area ratios are 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 for Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The intent of the Urban Level 1 designation is: The UL1 category may be located within three miles of I-75, bounded at the limits of the urban level category by existing or proposed arterial roads. This category of land use shall serve as a transitional area which emphasizes compatibility with adjacent plan categories. The UL1 area shall be more suburban in intensity and density of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities become available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for commercial uses shall be prohibited. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 111. The intent of the Urban Level 2 designation is: The UL2 category shall be compatible with adjacent urban land use categories such as UL1, UL3, research corporate park, and medium density residential. The UL2 areas shall be urban in intensity and density of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities are made available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for nonresidential uses to arterials shall be prohibited. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 112. The intent of the Urban Level 3 designation is: The UL3 category shall form a regional activity center which incorporates internal road systems, building clustering and mixing of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities are made available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for nonresidential uses to arterials shall be prohibited. The UL3 category should be surrounded by other urban level plan categories and be located at high level transit lines. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 113. Three commercial designations in the Urban service classification that are not expected to contain substantial residential development are Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Regional Commercial. Each of these designations carries a density of 20:1 and contains a condition similar to that contained in Urban Level 1, 2, and 3 regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses and availability of adequate public facilities. The typical uses of Community Commercial are: Sale of convenience goods and personal services, general merchandising, furniture, sales restaurants, bars, offices, hotels, motels, banks, theaters, auto sales, compatible residential uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 114. The maximum floor area of the Community Commercial is 300,000 square feet or .35 FAR, whichever is less intense. The intent of Community Commercial is: To designate areas typically located within low density residential, low-medium density residential, medium density residential and/ or high density residential land use categories in order to provide a variety of commercial and office uses to serve large areas and which are oriented to auto traffic. Neighborhood commercial and office activities will be allowed provided they meet the applicable development regulations. Due to potential intensity of activities, planned grouping [is] strongly encouraged. Compatible residential development up to 20.0 dwelling units per gross acre, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments may be permitted in this category in appropriate locations according to applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 114. The typical uses of Commercial Office are: Community Commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 115. The maximum floor area of Commercial Office is: General--0.75 FAR up to a maximum of 600,000 square feet, however, the commercial component cannot exceed 300,000 square feet, subject to applicable land development regulations. FLUE, page 115. The intent of Commercial Office is: "To recognize existing commercial and office centers and provide for future development opportunities." FLUE, page 115. The typical uses of Regional Commercial are: Shopping malls to include one or more major department stores. Community Commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 116. The maximum floor area of Regional Commercial is "1.0 FAR, subject to applicable land development regulations." FLUE, page 116. The intent of Regional Commercial is: "To recognize existing regional commercial centers and provide for future development opportunities." Id. The three remaining designations exclusively in the Urban service level do not permit any residential uses. They are Research/Corporate Park, Light Industrial, and Light Industrial Planned. The typical uses of Research/Corporate Park are: Research and development activities, related educational facilities, electronic components production, light restricted manufacturing and warehousing, offices, corporate headquarters, and related uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, recreational facilities, and rural scale retail establishments. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. or 20% of the project's land area. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 117. The maximum floor area of Research/Corporate Park is "1.0 FAR." The intent of Research/Corporate Park is: To provide opportunity for research and high technology and similar manufacturing and light warehousing uses to serve Hillsborough County and the Tampa Bay region. Development in this category has integrated internal and external design requirements including heavy buffering and landscaping, high visibility linear footage on arterials, interstates, and expressways, and locations adjacent to employment markets. Research/Corporate Parks will be permitted to be developed throughout the county provided they meet the requirements of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element, and applicable development regulations. Proposed developments at locations not shown on the Land Use Plan Map may be considered through the Plan amendment process. Support neighborhood commercial uses may be permitted for up to 20% of the total land area. The development of the neighborhood commercial uses shall be integrated and appropriately scaled to other project uses. All development in this category shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 117. The typical uses for Light Industrial and Light Industrial Planned are: Food products storage, furniture or apparel manufacturing (except plastics or fiberglass), packaging plants, wholesaling, storage of nonhazardous materials, offices, research/corporate parks as the predominant uses and subordinate uses or services such as hotels, motels, restaurants, rural scale retail establishments, and recreational facilities. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 118 and 119. The maximum floor area of Light Industrial and Light Industrial Planned is ".5 FAR." FLUE, pages 118 and 119. The intent of Light Industrial is: This land use category is used to designate, geographically on the Land Use Plan Map and/ or textually in the Land Use Element, those areas in the County potentially suitable for industrial activities that create a minimal degree of impact to the surrounding environment, particularly in terms of non- objection[able] levels of noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and land use category descriptions related to industrial activities. [Convenience] commercial uses shall be limited to same criteria of size and location as rural scale neighborhood commercial. Any industrial development above a .4 FAR shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 118. The intent of Light Industrial Planned restates the first sentence of the intent of the Light Industrial and adds: This land use plan category will be used in high volume transportation corridors that have high visibility where impacts to adjacent development need to be minimized. The adjacent use compatibility issues are a major concern, and new development and substantial expansion of existing uses shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 119. The remaining seven designations are in a service level identified as "Urban or Rural." Two of them involve industrial uses. They are Heavy Industrial and Electric Power Generating Facility. The Heavy Industrial designation allows no residential uses. The typical uses of Heavy Industrial are: Phosphate and other chemical plants, plastics and fiberglass products processing, port related uses, storage of hazardous materials and liquids, offices, existing electric generating plants and expansions thereof, and related uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, establishments, recreational facilities and rural scale retail establishments. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. maximum. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 120. The maximum floor area of Heavy Industrial is: .5 FAR. FAR's not to be applied to processing, storage and other uses characterized by outdoor storage. FLUE, page 120. The intent of Heavy Industrial is the same as the intent of the Light Industrial except that, in the case of Heavy Industrial, the activities "may have objectionable accompanying effects such as noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor." FLUE, page 120. The Electric Power Generating Facility designation allows a residential density of 1:5. The typical uses are: "All new Electrical Power Generating Facilities and related uses and all uses allowed in the Agricultural/Rural (A/R) land use plan classification." FLUE, page 121. The maximum floor area of the Electrical Power Generating Facility is: 0.5 FAR. FAR's not to be applied to processing, storage and other uses characterized by outdoor storage. Development permitted in this designation is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the [Plan], applicable development regulations and established locational criteria for specific land uses. FLUE, page 121. The intent of Electrical Power Generating Facility is: This land use category is used to designate geographically on the Future Land Use Map and textually in the [FLUE] those areas that are potentially suitable for the construction and operation of future electric power generating facilities consistent with the infrastructure needs of the population and subject to the requirements of the [Plan] and all other Federal, State and Local Laws, policies and permits. The uses authorized in the Agricultural/Rural (A/R) land use plan category are also authorized. New development of uses associated with an electrical power generating facility shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process. An application to rezone land for an Electrical Power Generating Facility may only be filed after submission of an application to the State under the Power Plant Siting Act. If the Siting Board denies the Siting, then the zoning shall revert to the underlying Zoning in existence at the time of application. FLUE, page 121. The five remaining designations are Major Public/Semi- Public, Major Recreation and Open Space, Scenic Corridor, Natural Preservation, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The typical uses of Major Public/Semi-Public, which is intended to "recognize major existing and programmed public facilities," are "[m]ajor government-owned facilities and other public uses [and] semi-public uses generally available for public use, [such as] churches, hospitals, schools, clubs and utility and transportation facilities." However, "[t]he Land Use Plan Map only shows major existing facilities." FLUE, page 122. The typical uses of Major Recreation and Open Space are "[m]ajor parks and recreational facilities which are publicly or privately owned and operated for recreational uses and are available to the public." However, the designation shows only "major existing parks and recreational facilities" as the Recreation and Open Space Element contains maps of "existing and proposed or needed parks." FLUE, page 123. The intent of the Scenic Corridor is to create a designation "applied to road corridors . . . determined to have scenic qualities of local or countywide significance." FLUE, page 124. In addition to preserving or enhancing the aesthetic appearance of roads through buffering, landscaping, and control of nonresidential uses, the Scenic Corridor designation is intended to preserve or expand a system of roadways that will begin to form a boulevard system to connect different communities within unincorporated Hillsborough County. The boulevard system will also form a system of connections between parks and recreational areas of the county. FLUE, page 92. The typical uses of Natural Preservation are "[o]pen space or passive nature parks." The intent of the designation is to "recognize public lands of significant environmental importance set aside for primarily conservation purposes." The Natural Preservation designation excludes other uses except residential sufficient for a caretaker, "compatible recreational development," and limited educational uses. FLUE, page 125. FLUE Policy A-3.2 states: No new development nor expansion nor replacement of existing development shall be permitted within areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as Natural Preservation Areas, unless development is undertaken by federal, State or local government in the public interest, and the impacts are mitigated. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation has been discussed above. 22/ The Implementation section of the FLUE describes the locational criteria and development standards for Rural-, Suburban-, and Urban-scale neighborhood commercial uses, which may be approved in various land use categories. Different development standards also apply for community commercial uses. The development standards for neighborhood commercial uses require, among other things, a location within a commercial node at the intersection of least one collector or higher planned roadway and maximum square footage based on a matrix focusing on land use designation and roadway classification. FLUE, pages 75- 76. Additional requirements are imposed based on whether the use is Urban-, Suburban-, or Rural-scale. The relationship of the land use categories to the FLUM is explained in the Implementation section: The land use plan categories shown on the Future Land Use Map are named according to their predominant land use or maximum level of intensity intended for that category of land use. Other uses may be permitted in any land use category as described within the individual plan category descriptions. Specific locations for other such uses are not shown graphically because to do so would predetermine locations of individual uses, particularly neighborhood-related uses, at a level of detail beyond the scope of the Future Land Use Map. All uses shall be reviewed for conformance with all applicable provisions contained within the [Plan] and with applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 55. Various policies pertain to designated densities in the Plan and FLUM. FLUE Policy A-3.3 states: "Gradual transitions of intensities and between different land uses shall be encouraged." FLUE Policy A-3.1 provides in part: "Land development regulations shall be studied to determine whether to include provisions for the transfer of development rights which ... provide for the transfer of development rights to receiving zones where infill is indicated." The Implementation section of the FLUE provides a density credit for certain in-fill development. FLUE, page 69. The Implementation section also contains various density and intensity bonuses for the development of affordable housing. FLUE, pages 73a-73b. FLUE Policy B-3.6 pursues infilling by treating as a single dwelling unit "an accessory residential unit associated with an owner occupied single family residence." Several provisions in the FLUE concern the provision of public facilities. FLUE Objective A-5 is: All new development and redevelopment shall be serviced with potable water, sewerage, stormwater management facilities, solid waste disposal and parks that meet or exceed the adopted levels of service established by Hillsborough County. FLUE Policy A-5.2 establishes the concurrency requirement as follows: The public facilities that are needed to serve future development shall be provided by the applicant seeking a development permit and/or the County, in a timely manner that is concurrent with the impacts of development as defined in the [CIE]. FLUE Objective C-29 provides: Public facilities and services that meet or exceed existing or established County levels of service shall be provided in advance of, or concurrent with, the impacts of development. FLUE Policy C-29.1 is to: Ensure that public facilities operating at adopted levels of service are available when Certificates of Occupancy are issued by: Anticipating development and planning the Capital Improvements Program accordingly; Requiring conditions on development approvals that phase development with the availability of facilities; Allowing developers to improve or provide public facilities at their own expense; Entering into public-private partnerships, when appropriate, to provide public facilities. CIE Policy 3.C states: The Board of County Commissioners find that the impacts of development on public facilities within Hillsborough County occur at the same time as development authorized by a final development order as defined in Policy 1.A.3.a. The County shall determine, prior to the issuance of final development orders, whether or not there is sufficient capacity of Category A and Category B 23/ public facilities to meet the standards for Levels of Service for existing population and the proposed development concurrent with the proposed development. For the purpose of this policy, "concurrent with" shall be defined as follows: 3.C.1: No final development order shall be issued by the County after January 31, 1990, unless there shall be sufficient capacity of Category A and Category B public facilities to meet the standards for Levels of Service for the existing population and for the proposed development according to the following deadlines: a: Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity for the following public facilities: 3.C.1.a.(1): Potable water. 3.C.1.a.(2): Sanitary sewer. 3.C.1.a.(3): Solid waste. 3.C.1.a.(4): Stormwater management. 3.C.1.b: Prior to the completion of the same County fiscal year as the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity for arterial and collector roads. 3.C.1.c: For parks and recreation facilities, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity or within a year of the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity if the necessary facilities are the subject of a binding executed contract or are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement which requires the commencement of actual construction of the facilities within one (1) year of the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity. CIE Policy 3.C.2 states that a favorable capacity determination, following mandatory review of a development order, remains valid for two years. CIE Policy 3.C.4 indicates that the levels of service determinations shall be applied on a County-wide basis for solid waste disposal and regional parks. Levels of service determinations for facilities involving arterial and collector roads and mass transit shall be made by "[a]djoining sites and areas affected by the project based on individual analysis of the proposed development." Levels of service determinations for stormwater management systems shall be by major drainage basin. Levels of service determinations for district or neighborhood parks shall be by the relevant planning area. Levels of service determinations for potable water systems and sanitary sewer systems shall be by treatment plant service area, except that individual transmission (water) or collection (sewer) system limitations shall not result in closing the entire area to development if plant capacity remains. CIE Policy 1.C.1.a adopts level of service standards for all County arterial and collector roads by listing road segments and maximum volume-to- capacity ratios. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b adopts level of service standards for stormwater management systems, which include "significant canals, channels, ditches, pipeline/culvert enclosures of open systems, and appurtenant structures at crossings/control points." CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(1) sets the adopted level of service for any existing system as the existing level of service until the system is physically upgraded and the Plan is amended to reflect the upgrade. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(2) states that the ultimate level of service for major stormwater conveyance systems is generally the 25 year/24-hour duration storm at flood level B except the more rigorous flood level A applies to new development and a less rigorous five year storm event applies for systems discharging into Tampa's stormwater conveyance system, which is designed to meet the demands of only the five year storm event. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(6) sets stormwater level of service standards based on flood capacity for other stormwater systems--i.e., sewer/swales and detention ponds/lakes/storage areas. CIE Policy 1.C.1.c sets the potable water level of service standard at 140 gallons daily per person. CIE Policy 1.C.1.d sets the sewage level of service standard at 100 gallons daily per person plus 23.8% for nonresidential sewage. CIE Policies 1.C.1.f-1.C.2 set level of service standards for solid waste, parks and recreation facilities, mass transit, and non-County maintained public facilities. FLUE Policy A-5.3 addresses the concurrency monitoring system: Areas that have excess and deficient capacities for public facilities in unincorporated Hillsborough County shall be identified, and this information shall be updated no less than once a year. Development will be encouraged in areas with excess capacities for public facilities, and discouraged in areas with deficient capacities for public facilities unless these facilities can be provided concurrently with development and consistent with the [Plan], County Regulations and adopted levels of service for public facilities. The monitoring and enforcement aspects of the concurrency management system are detailed in the CIE's Implementation section, which is part of the adopted Plan. The Implementation section assures: "no final development order shall be issued which results in a reduction in the Levels of Service below the standard adopted in Policy 1.C.1 for Category A public facilities and Policy 1.C.2 for Category B public facilities." CIE, page 25. The concurrency determination is based on a monitoring program that calls for, among other things, annual reports on the capacity and actual levels of service of public facilities for which concurrency is required. The monitoring program requires a separate record of the cumulative impacts of all development orders approved year-to-date. CIE, page 27. FLUE Policy A-5.6 states: Public facilities and utilities shall be located to consider: (a) maximizing the efficiency of services provided; (b) minimizing their cost; and (c) minimizing their impacts upon the natural environment. FLUE Policy A-5.7 identifies procedures, such as development phasing and utility oversizing, "so that the location and timing of new development can be closely coordinated with local government's ability to provide public facilities." FLUE Policy A-5.8 adds that the County shall promote partnerships among governmental and private entities "to identify and build needed public facilities among the partners in proportion to the benefits accruing to each of them." Specifically addressing transportation facilities, FLUE Objective A-6 states: All new development and redevelopment shall be serviced with roads that meet or exceed the adopted levels of service established by Hillsborough County. FLUE Policy A-6.1 is to: Coordinate land use and transportation plans to provide for locally adopted levels of service consistent with the Transportation and Capital Improvements Elements . . .. FLUE Objective A-7 is: The concept plan is the overall, conceptual basis for the long range, Comprehensive Plan, and all plan amendments must be consistent with, and further the intent of the concept plan, which advocates nodal clusters of growth connected by corridors that efficiently move goods and people between each of the nodes. FLUE Policy A-7.3 states: The development of a variety of employment centers shall be encouraged at adopted locations, as defined by the concept plan and applicable development regulations, to provide employment opportunities throughout existing and planned development areas. The Implementation section of the FLUE describes the concept plan involving nodal development. The purpose of the nodal activity centers is to "begin to form an urban structure that encourages the cohesiveness of the neighborhood unit while facilitating the connection and interdependence of the region as a whole." FLUE, page 57. The Implementation section describes four types of nodes. The most intense is the high intensity node, which is limited to the Central Business District of Tampa. The next most intense is the mixed use regional node, which designates existing and future regional shopping centers, major office and employment areas, higher education institutions, and professional sports and recreation complexes. The mixed use regional nodes include the West Shore Business District, Urban Level 3 Regional Activity Center in the I-75 corridor west of Brandon, University of South Florida area, and Tampa Palms at CR 581 and I-75. Less intense than the mixed use regional node is the community center node, which "will designate and emphasize a focal point for surrounding neighborhoods that will include a variety of public facilities and services including commercial and office development." FLUE, page 57. The community center nodes include numerous named areas. Least intense is the neighborhood node, which designates areas "appropriate for some higher intensity residential development with the density tied to a relationship with the scale of existing surrounding development." FLUE, page 58. There are numerous existing and potential neighborhood nodes. FLUE Policy A-7.6 states: Scattered, unplanned, low density development without provisions for facilities and services at levels adopted in the [Plan] in locations not consistent with the overall concepts of the [Plan] shall be prohibited. To qualify for densities in excess of 1:5 in areas designated Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned, FLUE Policy A-7.7 requires residential development to conform to the requirements contained in the FLUE Implementation section, such as clustering, on-site job opportunities, internal trip capture, and shopping opportunities. FLUE Policy A-7.8 explains that the clustering and mixed use requirements imposed upon development in areas designated Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned are intended: to prevent urban sprawl, provide for the efficient provision of infrastructure, and preservation of open space and the environment. Clustering and Mixed Use shall be encouraged in the other suburban and rural plans categories. FLUE Policy A-7.10 states that developments in areas designated as Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned and involving at least 160 acres, if proceeding under the Planned Village concept, "shall be served by a central wastewater system (i.e. franchise, interim plant, community plant, county/municipal regional or sub-regional service, or other privately owned central systems)." Housing Element Objective 1.3 states: By 1992, establish guidelines for locating low and moderate income housing accessible to employment centers, mass transit systems, shopping and cultural, educational, medical and recreational facilities. Housing Element Policy 1.3.5 provides: By 1992, proactive public land investment initiatives along with incentives for private developments shall be explored, and implemented which include but are not limited to the following: disposition of surplus public land with developer incentives, public land assembly, disposition, and developer incentives in a comprehensive redevelopment framework and/or neighborhood rehabilitation plans; supplementary public initiatives to support private land assembly and affordable housing development; and the creation of a public-private partnership corporation to undertake land investment and facilitate private development of affordable housing in desirable locations. Housing Element Policy 1.3.6 states: "The County shall pursue federal and state funding sources for infrastructure improvements and for the construction or rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing." FLUE Objective B-4 addresses the locational criteria by which commercial uses will be permitted under the Plan. The objective states: Locational criteria for neighborhood serving commercial uses shall be implemented to scale development consistent with the character of the areas and to the availability of public facilities and the market. FLUE Policy B-4.1 states that the amount of neighborhood-serving commercial uses permitted in an area shall be consistent with the table adopted in the Implementation Section of the [FLUE] relating to land use density and the functional classification of the road network. FLUE Policy B-4.6 is: "Scattered, unplanned commercial development shall be discouraged, and commercial concentration shall be encouraged." FLUE Policy B-4.7 adds: "Commercial development should be designed to decrease the need for motorized vehicle trips by designing convenient, safe, non- motorized access." FLUE Policy B-4.8 provides: The expansion of existing strip commercial areas shall be prohibited, except in accordance with infill provisions in existing neighborhood commercial areas, and office or higher density residential development shall be considered as a viable alternative when in accordance with applicable development regulations. FLUE Policy B-5.1 addresses the redevelopment of commercial areas: "The redevelopment or revitalization of rundown strip commercial areas shall be encouraged through incentives such as the use of residential density credits for infill development that could include mixed use development." Further refining the guidelines for commercial redevelopment, FLUE Policy B-5.3 states: The redevelopment of appropriate commercial areas to include residential and/or office development that will reduce the number of transportation trips by increasing a project's internal capture rate shall be encouraged through incentives such as the use of residential density credits for infill development. FLUE Objective B-6 promises ongoing studies to identify the areas suitable for different types of industrial uses. FLUE Policy B-6.2 states that light industrial uses-- specifically, research and development--shall be encouraged to locate within the I-75 corridor, adjacent to the Tampa International Airport, and within the I-4 corridor. FLUE Policy B-6.5 provides: Expansion or new development of non- industrially designated land uses in industrially designated areas shall be prohibited unless the use is determined to be an accessory and complementary use to the industrial area. Applicable development regulations shall contain standards and/or criteria for location and intensity of these types of non-industrial uses. The intent is to ensure the availability of lands for industrial development, and to ensure that such subordinate uses will be in conjunction with the surrounding industrial area, as long as the industrial uses in the area are the predominant uses. FLUE Policy B-6.7 states: "Future industrial development shall be concentrated within industrial and mixed use areas as defined on the Future Land Use Map." Addressing agriculture, FLUE Objective B-7 states: Hillsborough County shall take active measures to foster the economic viability of agricultural activities by recognizing and providing for [their] unique characteristics in land use planning and land development regulations. FLUE Policy B-7.1 is to "[p]romote the development and maintenance of Plant City and Ruskin as agricultural market centers that strengthen the agricultural economy, encouraging agricultural uses within and around both communities." FLUE Policy B-7.2 is to "[a]llow agriculture as a viable use both prior and subsequent to the mining of land designated or approved for mining purposes." FLUE Policy B-7.5 warns: Anyone seeking the maximum long-term protection for long-term agricultural activities either should locate these activities on land in the Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate and Rural Residential designated land use categories or should seek having these designations placed on their current location. FLUE Policy B-7.6 advises: "Anyone seeking to farm until it is more feasible to develop the property non- agriculturally should locate and remain in non-rural designated areas." FLUE Policy B-7.7 guarantees, for areas designated Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, and Agricultural/Rural, that minimum acreages needed for viable agriculture will remain after clustering is approved. FLUE Policy B-7.9 is to defer charging an on-going agriculturally used property designated Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, or Rural Residential for public water or sewer tie-ins until actual connections are made or the designation is changed to a non- rural land use category. FLUE Objective B-8 deals with the question of compatibility between agricultural and nonagricultural uses in areas designated other than Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, and Rural Residential. FLUE Policy B-8.4 is to "[d]iscourage the location of new non- agricultural uses adjacent to pre-existing agricultural uses in rural land use categories." FLUE Objective C-25 addresses the need for "urban level densities" to encourage single and mixed uses in the I-75 corridor. FLUE Policy C-25.2 is to: "Encourage provision of affordable housing within mixed use developments through public and private sector initiatives." FLUE Policy C-25.3 is to limit the maximum density to 8:1 in the Urban Level 1 area between Tampa and the Pasco county line. FLUE Policy C-25.5 is to encourage access to urban level development on county arterials rather than state highways. FLUE Objective C-27 states: Employment centers shall be planned throughout the I-75 corridor, and residential opportunities shall be permitted in each of the plan categories within the I-75 corridor in order to promote opportunities for all segments of the population to live and work within the corridor, regardless of age, sex, race and income. FLUE Policy C-27.2 is to: "Encourage the provision and integration of low and moderate income housing dispersed throughout the urban level categories." FLUE Objective C-28 states: "Mass transit opportunities shall be expanded within the I-75 corridor." FLUE Objective C-31 is: By 1991, the County shall pursue the Regional Activity Center designation for the area within the I-75 corridor defined as that area consisting of the Urban Level 3 land use plan category on the Future Land Use Plan Map. FLUE Policy C-31.2 is for the County to develop incentives for development to locate within the Regional Activity Center. Suggested incentives are transferable development rights, increased densities and intensities, priority public facility funding, and special taxing districts. FLUE Objectives C-32 and C-33 establish corridors for I-4 and North Dale Mabry, respectively. In the I-4 corridor, light industrial uses are encouraged. In the North Dale Mabry corridor, clustered commercial, such as shopping centers, are encouraged over "scattered unplanned commercial development." 4. Funding and Financial Feasibility 615. CIE Objective 2 is: Provide needed public facilities that are within the ability of the County to fund the facilities. . . from County revenues, development's proportionate share contributions, and grants or gift[s] from other sources. [Rule] 9J-5.016(3)(b)5. CIE Policy 2.A states: The estimated costs of all needed capital improvements shall not exceed conservative estimates of revenues from sources that are available to the County pursuant to current statutes, and which have not been rejected by referendum, if a referendum is required to enact a source of revenue. [Rule] 9J- 5.016(3)(c)1.f. CIE Policy 2.B provides: "Existing and future development shall both pay for the costs of needed public facilities." CIE Policy 2.B.1.a states: Existing development shall pay for some or all of the capital improvements that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, some or all of the replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities, and may pay a portion of the cost of capital improvements needed by future development. CIE Policy 2.B.1.b adds: "Existing development's payments may take the form of user fees, special assessments and taxes." Addressing future development, CIE Policy 2.B.2.a provides: The County will allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents so that current residents will not subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new development. CIE Policy 2.B.2.b states: Future development's payments may take the form of, but are not limited to, voluntary contributions for the benefit of any public facility, impact fees, capacity fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, and future payments of user fees, special assessments and taxes. Future development shall not pay impact fees for the portion of any capital improvement that reduces or eliminates existing deficiencies. The Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements contained in the CIE discloses planned capital expenditures, as they were known in June and July, 1989. The Five-Year Schedule indicates that, for the five-year period ending with fiscal year end 1994, the following capital costs are projected by public facility type: roads--$273,668,000; parks--$28,611,000; water--$10,798,000; sewer--$55,848,000; stormwater-- $29,345,000; and solid waste--$16,250,000. The total of these capital expenditures is $414,520,000. For each project, the Five-Year Schedule describes the general funding source. The CIE contains a section entitled Costs and Revenues by Type of Public Facility, which is an adopted part of the Plan. The Costs and Revenues section, which was prepared in December, 1990, states: The [CIE] is 100% financed by revenue sources that are available to the County under current law, therefore the Element is financially feasible, as required by the Florida Administrative Code. There is no "unfunded" portion of the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The Costs and Revenues section identifies each of the public facilities for which concurrency is required, the total expenditures planned for each public facility for the five-year capital planning period, and general sources of revenue by facility type. The costs and revenues by public facility type are: roads--$193,684,000; parks--$17,865,000; water-- $9,265,000; sewer--$76,179,000; drainage--$25,000,000; and solid waste--$16,250,000. The total of these capital expenditures is $362,097,000. Evidently, budget cutbacks took place in the 18 months between the adoption of the Five Year Schedule in mid 1989 and the adoption of the Costs and Revenues section in December, 1990. 5. Transportation Level of Service Standards Transportation Element Policy 1.1.1 sets minimum peak hour level of service standards for County roads, subject to lower standards for certain roads listed in CIE Policy 1.C.1.a. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 sets minimum peak hour level of service standards for State roads, subject to lower standards for certain roads listed in Transportation Element Table 2. 24/ Transportation Element Tables 1 and 2 show that 58 of the 147 state road segments in Hillsborough County are operating below the level of service standards generally adopted in Policy 1.1.4. These standards are D for all Urban state roads except for minor arterials, which are E, and C for all Rural state roads except for minor arterials, which are D. Table 1 shows that, by 1995, an additional 33 state road segments will be operating below the generally adopted level of service standard. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 concludes: "No development orders will be issued that would further reduce the current level of service on those roads listed in Table 2 of this element except where the development is vested under law." Transportation Element Figure 4 shows the location of all roads operating at level of service F. None is south of the Alafia River. The impaired roads are entirely in northwest and northcentral Hillsborough County. Among the road segments operating below the generally applicable level of service standards for state roads are four of the 11 segments of SR 574 (Buffalo/King), 10 of the 15 segments of SR 597 (Dale Mabry Highway), four of the five segments of SR 580 (Hillsborough Ave.), seven of the 10 segments of I- 275, seven of the eight segments of I-4, and four of the five segments of US 41 (Nebraska Ave. portion only). Much less impacted state road segments include I- 75, which has no segment operating below its adopted level of service standards; US 301, which has two of nine segments operating below its adopted level of service standards; and US 41 (southern sections), which has no segment operating below its adopted level of service standards. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 states that state roads operating below adopted level of service standards are "backlogged" or "constrained" and shall have a level of service standard established by the volume-to-capacity ratio listed for each road on Table 2. The Data and Analysis discuss the transportation problems confronting Hillsborough County. Many of the impaired road segments are scheduled for capital improvements in the Florida Department of Transportation five year work program. One key exception is Dale Mabry Highway, which will remain at level of service F even after planned work is completed. Transportation Element, page 24. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.7 promises that, within one year after adoption of the Plan, the County will enter into an agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation to identify actions that the County will take to "maintain the existing average operating conditions" on backlogged or constrained state roads. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.14 provides that Hillsborough County will, by 1990, initiate studies to identify State and County road corridors not capable of undergoing further capacity-increasing improvements and are thus suitable for designation as constrained corridors. 6. Vested Rights and Developments of Regional Impact The Legal Status of the Plan, which is part of the FLUE, addresses vested rights. The Legal Status section requires the County to develop an administrative process by which vested rights can be determined. The Legal Status section preconditions a finding of vested rights upon the following: That the person owned the parcel proposed for development at the date of the adoption of this [Plan], or the person had a contract or option to purchase the parcel on such date, or that it would be inequitable, unjust or fundamentally unfair to deny an application for vested rights where the person acquired ownership prior to February 1, 1990; and That there was a valid, unexpired act of any agency or authority of Hillsborough County government upon which the person reasonably relied in good faith; and That the person, in reliance upon this act of government, has made a substantial change in position or had incurred extensive obligations or expenses; and That it would be inequitable, unjust or fundamentally unfair to destroy the rights acquired by the person. In making this determination, the County may consider a number of factors, including but not limited to consideration of whether actual construction has commenced and whether the expense or obligation incurred is unique to the development previously approved and is not reasonably usable for a development permitted by the [Plan] and land development regulations. FLUE, page 128. Ensuing provisions of the Legal Status section identify various vested rights based on whether a development is exempted from concurrency. The Legal Status section also addresses certain development orders under developments of regional impact (DRI). Between the Plan adoption date and February 1, 1990, the County will approve buildout of not more than a "limited stage" of the total proposed DRI. Generally, the buildout approval will be limited to the part of the proposed development that has received Site Development Approval within two years following the expiration of the development order's initial appeal period. The Legal Status section authorizes the approval of additional development stages beyond the two-year limit if the development application had been received by the County prior to the Plan adoption date, the developer made substantial expenditures before Plan adoption in conducting a transportation analysis, and the transportation analysis focused on impacts occurring beyond the two-year limit. Development activity following the approved initial stage shall be subject to the Plan, including the concurrency requirements. The Legal Status section also recognizes the practice of "pipelining." The Legal Status section states: "While 'pipelining' will remain a permitted transportation mitigation option, the Board of County Commissioners will closely scrutinize its use." FLUE, page 129. Miscellaneous Intergovernmental Coordination Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) Objective 1 states: By 1990, Hillsborough County shall establish new and review existing coordination mechanisms that will evaluate and address its comprehensive plan and programs and their effects on the comprehensive plans developed for the adjacent local governments, school board, and other units of local government providing services but not having regulatory authority over use of land and the State, by an annual county-wide forum sponsored by The Planning Commission. Assistance for this effort shall be requested from regional and state agencies by The Planning Commission, as needed. ICE Objective 3 requires the County, by 1991, "to address through coordination mechanisms the impact of development proposed in the [Plan] upon development in adjacent jurisdictions, the region and the state." Dual Planning Timeframes The Plan contains dual planning timeframes. Overall, the Plan contains a 20-year planning timeframe. However, shorter planning periods are addressed, such as the five-year period covered in the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. Regional Plan Provisions The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has adopted a regional plan known as the Future of the Region: A Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region dated July 1, 1987 (Regional Plan). The Regional Plan, which applies to unincorporated Hillsborough County, is divided into goals and policies. Regional Goal 8.1 is: "By 1990, there will be an ample supply of water to meet all projected reasonable and beneficial uses in the Tampa Bay region." Policy 8.1.4 states: "Land use planning and development decisions shall consider the impact on surface and groundwater quality." Regional Goal 8.5 is: "By 1991, the region will increase the protection of major public water supplies and wellfields." Policy 8.5.1 states: "Prime groundwater recharge areas and cones of influence of existing and future major public water supplies and well fields shall be identified and mapped." Regional Goal 8.7 is: "By 1991, new developments in the region will be required to use the best management practices and/or procedures to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff." Policy 8.7.1 requires the development of programs to ensure water reclamation and reuse with respect to wastewater and stormwater. Regional Goal 8.8 is: "By 1995, existing developments will be required to make measurable progress toward meeting stormwater standards." Policy 8.8.1 provides: "Local governments should upgrade or retrofit drainage systems in urbanized areas to include stormwater treatment for water quality." Policy 8.8.4 requires that agricultural runoff "shall be handled with Best Management Practices to minimize its impact upon receiving waters." Regional Goal 8.9 is: "By 1995, there shall be an increase in the effectiveness of programs protecting or enhancing the ecological function of natural systems (aquatic, wetland and terrestrial systems)." Policy 8.9.1 is to develop regional and local programs "to identify, protect and conserve the natural character and function of area lakes, streams, estuaries, wetlands, floodplain areas, and upland areas." Policy 8.9.2 directs that local government comprehensive plans shall incorporate the following: a) adoption of criteria for work in lake, riverine and wetland systems which will protect water quality, wildlife habitat and natural hydrological functioning of these areas; b) conservation of valuable upland habitat and wetland systems; c) preservation of habitat for endangered and threatened species; d) establish ecological minimum flow criteria and hydroperiod for surface waters; e) utilization of biological treatment methods and natural areas, such as wetlands, for stormwater treatment in areas of development/redevelopment to the maximum feasible extent. Regional Goal 8.10 is: "By 1991, land use practices will reduce the disruption of natural floodplain functions." Policy 8.10.1 states: "Regulations should be developed to promote appropriate land use practices compatible with floodplain areas and provide for performance standards for these land uses." Regional Goal 9.1 is: "By 1990, coastal zone areas will have increased vegetation, enhanced beach systems and improved environmental quality." Policy 9.1.2 provides: "The protection of coastal vegetative communities, coastal wildlife habitats, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development shall be required." Regional Goal 9.3 is: "By 1995, aquatic preserves in the Tampa Bay region will be more productive than 1985 levels and have a significant improvement in quality over 1985 measurements." Policy 9.3.3 requires buffer zones or other appropriate protection "between pristine aquatic preserves and adjacent upland uses to prevent degradation of water quality, shoreline and marine habitats." Regional Goal 9.4 is: "By 1991, all marine resources will be protected from contamination from human-induced processes." Policy 9.4.1 states: To protect sensitive marine resources from immediate and near future degradation resulting from improper development practices and recreational misuse, priority shall be given to water dependent uses or other types of shoreline development such as marina, light industry, ports and shoreline compatible commerce. Policy 9.4.2 states that the exploration and development of mineral resources "shall only proceed in an ecologically sound manner which does not threaten marine, aquatic, and estuarine resources." Policy 9.4.5 provides: "Dredging or spoiling of undisturbed bay bottom shall be prohibited. " Regional Goal 9.5 is: "By 1995, there will be at least a 5 percent increase in productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources." Policy 9.5.1 states: "Long-term productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources shall be increased and restored through estuary and intertidal protection." Regional Goal 9.6 is: "By 1990, coastal area will be protected by local government controls and other building regulations that will enhance the character and function of barrier islands and other environmentally sensitive areas." Policy 9.6.1 states: "Land and water uses shall be compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources." Policy 9.6.2 provides: "The use of government funds to subsidize development should be prohibited in high-hazard coastal areas." Policy 9.6.3 is to identify coastal high hazard areas "where the expenditure of public funds to subsidize development shall be prohibited." Policy 9.6.4 states: "The use of public funds to rebuild public facilities damaged by hurricanes or other storms shall be limited to facilities essential only for public health and safety." Regional Goal 10.1 is: "By 1995, the Tampa Bay region's conservation areas will have increased environmental quality and functional characteristics that provide suitable habitat to all wildlife and flora indigenous to the region." Policy 10.1.1 states: "Protect the habitats and plant communities that tend to be least in abundance and most productive or unique." Policy 10.2.2 states: The hydrologic continuity and water quality of identified isolated wetlands shall be protected. Development activities or other land disturbances in the drainage area of the wetlands shall minimize alterations to the surface or subsurface flow of water into and from the wetland and shall not cause impairment of the water quality or the plant and wildlife habitat value of the wetland. Policy 10.2.3 requires "water users, such as agriculture and mining," to prepare mitigation plans "to minimize unavoidable impacts to nearby wetlands." Policy 10.2.4 requires: Mitigation measures shall be developed to provide water quality benefits and plant and animal habitat equivalent to the wetland destroyed or altered. Newly created wetlands should include at least 1:1 mitigation using the same type or more productive vegetation with at least an 80-85 percent natural cover rate, over a 2 to 5 year period. Regional Goal 10.3 is: "By 1993, regional preservation areas will be protected by regulations or practices from further development and will be preserved and/or restored to their natural state." Policy 10.3.1 states, in part: "Preservation areas, such as marine grass beds . . . and other vital or critical natural systems, shall be protected from any further development except in cases of overriding public interest." Policy 10.3.3 provides: "Unique upland communities and habitats in identified preservation areas should be protected from development that would significantly alter their character. Preservation and restoration of these communities shall be required." Regional Goal 10.4 is: "By 1991, development in the 100 year floodplains should be strictly regulated." Policy 10.4.1 allows new channelization only as a "last resort" in flood protection for existing development. Policy 10.4.4 prohibits channelization solely to create new lands for development. Policy 10.4.2 prohibits locating new development in river floodways (i.e., the area of highest velocity during flow) except in cases of overriding public interest. Policy 10.4.3 requires that new development in the flood fringe (i.e., the area of the floodplain outside the floodway) meet flood hazard construction requirements. Regional Goal 10.5 is: "By 1991, new or rebuilt development within the 25 year floodplain will not contribute adverse water quality impacts from stormwater runoff." Policy 10.5.2 states: "Development along all river floodplains shall be low density with adequate setbacks to maintain existing areas of natural habitat." Regional Goal 10.6 is that, by 1995, there shall be "measurable indications" of greater commitment from local governments and private parties to "conserve, protect, and enhance" populations and habitats of endangered, threatened, and special-concern species. Policy 10.6.1 recommends the adoption of incentives to encourage the preservation of native habitats. Policy 10.6.2 states: Identified areas that contain viable populations of, or suitable habitats for, species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern . . . shall be classified as environmentally sensitive, preservation, or conservation areas with future development limited to land uses compatible with the listed species. Regional Goal 10.8 is: "By 1991, there will be marked changes in land rearrangement and vegetation clearing practices that do not degrade the region's natural drainage and percolation patterns." Policy 10.8.1 requires the use of buffer zones between agricultural lands and water bodies. Regional Goal 10.9 is: "By 1995, the region's forested and woodland areas will not have decreased in size by more than 3 percent, or have any less characteristics than present in 1988." Policy 10.9.1 requires the addition to local government comprehensive plans of forest preservation plans for significant woodlands or forests. Policy 10.9.2 states that the forest preservation strategy shall consist of mapping of forests and woodlands, identifying those forest or woodland areas that are wetlands or habitat protection areas, and providing incentives for the conversion of other land uses to forested conditions. Policy 10.9.3 states that wildlife corridors should be maintained. Regional Goal 16.8 is: "As an ongoing goal, all dredge and fill activities shall be carried out only when necessary and in a manner least harmful to the surrounding environment." Policy 16.8.1 provides: Any project including unavoidable destruction of habitat shall mitigate all lost wetland habitat on a 1:1 in-kind basis, at minimum. Mitigation shall include monitoring with assurance of an 80-85% natural cover area after 2-5 years. Policy 16.8.2 states: "Unique and irreplaceable natural resources shall be protected from adverse effects." This policy is intended to apply to dredge and fill projects, as is clear from the standard by which compliance is to be measured, which is the "amount of dredging or filling within unique and irreplaceable natural resources." Regional Goal 13.6 is: "By 1995, groundwater contamination due to inappropriately located or improperly used septic tanks shall be eliminated." Policy 13.6.2 provides: "Permitting process criteria for septic tanks and their fields shall take into consideration adverse impacts on water quality and aquatic resources." Policy 13.6.4 requires a survey locating "septic tanks associated with all commercial and industrial activities" and an "evaluation . . . concerning potential adverse effects on groundwater resources, water supply wells, and ground water recharge potential." Regional Goal 13.9 is: "By 1995, water quality will be improved by the control of point and non-point discharges into surface waters." Policy 13.9.2 states: "Domestic sewage and industrial discharges shall be required to achieve best practical technological standards and to implement reuse systems to minimize pollution discharge." Regional Goal 13.10 is: "By 1995, the number of project-specific 'package plants' shall be reduced from 1988 levels." Encouraging private cost- sharing in the construction of regional wastewater facilities and the development of requirements for connecting package-plant systems to regional systems when available, Policy 13.10.1 also provides: When necessary, project-specific "package plants" shall be allowed but only where a detailed hydrogeological analysis of the site determines low potential for groundwater contamination from hazardous wastes or other pollutants. Regional Goal 14.4 is: "By 1991, mining practices will be designed to fully protect the natural environment from the adverse effects of resource extraction." Policy 14.4.1 states: "There shall be no mining in areas which are geographically or hydrologically unsuitable for the extraction of minerals or in areas which are crucial to the provision of essential public services." Policy 14.4.2 provides: "There shall be no mining in the 25-year floodplain." Policy 14.4.3 states: The mining of environmentally sensitive areas shall be avoided unless it can be demonstrated that technology associated with reclamation and restoration can restore those areas. Mining and reclamation procedures shall minimize permanent changes in natural systems and the permanent loss of environmental resources. The best available technology and practices shall be used to re-establish the land forms, land uses, and natural vegetation associations that existed prior to mining of the land to the extent feasible and desirable. Policy 14.4.4 provides that the portion of mining areas that contain endangered or threatened wildlife species shall be protected. Policy 14.4.5 states that mining and processing shall be conducted so as to "protect, manage and more efficiently utilize water resources." Regional Goal 16.1 is for ten percent of DRI's to be located in designated regional activity centers between 1986 and 1990. Regional Goal 16.2 is: "As an ongoing goal, new urban development, including in-fill, will occur on land which has the capacity to accommodate growth in terms of environmental and infrastructural impacts." Policy 16.2.1 states: "Contiguous development and the orderly extension and expansion of public facilities are necessary." Policy 16.2.2 encourages the location of higher density developments within existing urban areas where public facilities are available. Regional Goal 16.5 is: By 1991, the integrity and quality of life will be maintained in existing residential areas and will be required of new residential developments through the continued revision and adoption of local government comprehensive plans, environmental and land use regulations. Policy 16.5.1 provides that residential areas shall be located and designed to protect from "natural and manmade hazards such as flooding, excessive traffic, subsidence, noxious odors and noise." Policy 16.5.2 states: "Residential land uses shall be encouraged in a manner which is compatible with the type and scale of surrounding land uses." Policy 16.5.4 encourages local governments to locate high density residential areas near regional activity centers and reduce densities elsewhere to "facilitate the restriction of urban sprawl [and] use of mass transit." Policy 16.5.5 encourages mixed use developments with buffering of residential areas. Policy 16.5.6 recommends the location of shopping facilities, recreation areas, schools, and parks within high density residential areas. Regional Goal 16.6 is: By 1991, commercial development, compatible with environmental and economic resources, will occur in a planned and orderly fashion through the continued revision and adoption of local government comprehensive plans, environmental and land use regulations. Policy 16.6.1 states: Commercial land uses shall be located in a manner which ensures compatibility with the type and scale of surrounding land uses and where existing or programmed public facilities will not be overburdened. Policy 16.6.2 is to locate regional commercial areas in planned centers to ensure compatibility and "efficiency of economic and natural resources." Policy 16.6.3 "strongly discourage[s]" strip commercial development, which "compounds traffic and land use conflicts." Regional Goal 16.7 is the same as Regional Goal 16.6, except that Goal 16.7 applies to industrial uses. Policy 16.7.1 is to locate industrial areas near adequate transportation for materials, labor, and products. Policy 16.7.5 encourages the redevelopment of urbanized industrial locations near major transportation facilities, such as ports and airports. Regional Goal 22.1 is: "By 1991, the Tampa Bay region shall balance the needs of agricultural and nonagricultural land uses." Policy 22.1.1 encourages the "preservation and utilization of agriculture land for agriculture uses." Policy 22.1.3 provides: "The recognition of agriculture as a form of land use and a category on land use plan maps, not simply as a holding zone, is encouraged, where appropriate." Policy 22.1.6 recommends: "Agriculture should be recognized as a major contributor to the region's economic base, and should be retained where possible to maintain the diversification of the region's economy." Regional Goal 22.2 is: "By 1991, agricultural practices will be implemented to reduce the amount of pesticides and other agriculturally based pollutants in surface waters, groundwater and sediments." Policy 17.1.1 states: To relieve pressure on existing public facilities, programs such as temporary density bonuses, special zoning designations and public acquisition of tax-delinquent property should be developed to encourage infilling of vacant urban lands. Policy 17.1.5 provides: "Capital improvements programs should maximize the development of existing systems before allocating funds to support public facilities in undeveloped areas." Regional Goal 17.2 is: "By 1991, the planning of public facilities will serve as a proactive growth management tool." Policy 17.2.1 requires that the location of public facilities "shall be used to guide urban development" and the "rate of private development should be commensurate with a reasonable rate of expansion of public and semi-public facilities." Policy 17.2.2 recommends the advance acquisition of sites for potential public and semi-public facilities. Regional Goal 19.1 is: As an ongoing goal, planning for and maintenance of an integrated transportation system including highway, air, mass transit, rail, water, and pipeline systems, which efficiently services the need for movement of all people and goods within the region and between the region and outside world[,] will continue to be implemented. Policy 19.1.2 is to reduce dependency upon the private automobile by providing an adequate mass transit system. Policy 19.1.3 states: "The transportation system should promote the efficient use of energy resources and improvement of the region's air quality." Policy 19.8.8 states: An operational Level of Service (LOS) D peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in urbanized areas. An operational LOS C peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in rural areas. However, Policy 19.8.9 provides: An operation Level of Service (LOS) E peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in Special Transportation areas as agreed upon by the FDOT, the appropriate MPO, the regional planning council, and the local government. Policy 19.8.14 states: Pipelining shall be an acceptable and sufficient DRI transportation impact mitigation for existing and future DRIs provided that all the following provisions are met: Project approvals shall be phased and shall not exceed five years. Subsequent approvals shall be subject to further analysis and additional pipeline mitigation. Roadway improvement to be pipelined shall: be selected from the list of existing or proposed regional transportation facilities substantially affected by the development identified by the [regional planning council] during the DRI review. preferably be consistent with MPO and FDOT long-range plans. receive concurrence from the local government and [regional planning council] with review and comment by MPO and FDOT. The developer fair share pipeline contribution shall be equalto or exceed an amount calculated pursuant to DCA pipeline transportation policy. The developer shall receive credit against impact fees, pursuant to law. Local government, based upon traffic analysis or studies, and/or long range planning, may authorize alternative pipelining approaches and conditions, to those established in subparagraph 1 above, provided that such variations are technically appropriate and that the basis for, and the conditions of, such variations are specifically set forth in the Development Order. Regional Goal 11.1 is: "By 1995, land use-related airborne contaminants will be reduced within the region by a measurable percentage." Policy 11.1.1 is for each local government to develop procedures to assess air quality impacts from non-DRI development, such as strip shopping centers, that have a cumulative impact on traffic flow. Policy 11.1.4 is to "[i]nitiate control measures where construction, mining and other activities where heavy vehicular traffic and/or meteorological conditions result in significant air pollution." Regional Goal 11.2 is: "By 1992, the regional will maintain ambient sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, ozone, and total suspended particulate levels that are equal to or better than the state and federal standards." Regional Goal 11.6 is: "By 1992, transportation related air quality impacts that adversely impact ambient air quality will be reduced." Policy 11.6.1 states that the metropolitan planning organizations and others entities involved in transportation planning "shall give priority to traffic flow improvements that reduce air pollution, particularly in areas that exceed ambient standards." Regional Goal 12.3 is: "As an ongoing goal, the most energy efficient and economically feasible means shall be utilized in construction, operation and maintenance of the region's transportation system." Policy 12.3.1 recommends consideration of incentives such as development or expansion of mass transit, "park and ride" programs, and public awareness of mass transit options. Regional Goal 20.2 is: "By 1990, the region's governments shall increase their efficiency and effectiveness." State Plan Provisions The state comprehensive plan is set forth at Sections 187.201 et seq., Florida Statutes. Section 187.201(8)(b)12 states: "Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." Section 187.201(10)(b)5 provides: "Promote the use of agricultural practices which are compatible with the protection of wildlife and natural systems." Section 187.201(23) states the goal of agricultural policies as follows: Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Section 187.201(16) states the goal of land use policies as follows: In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Section 187.201(18)(b)1 and 3 provides: Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. Allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents. Section 187.201(16)(b)2 states: "Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats." Section 187.201(20)(b)2 provides: "Coordinate transportation investments in major travel corridors to enhance system efficiency and minimize adverse environmental impacts." Section 187.201(20)(b)9 states: "Ensure that the transportation system provides Florida's citizens and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions." Section 187.201(11) states the following goal: "Florida shall reduce its energy requirements through enhanced conservation and efficiency measures in all end-use sectors, while at the same time promoting an increased use of renewable energy resources." Section 187.201(11)(b)2 adds: "Ensure that developments and transportation systems are consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality." Section 187.201(12)(b)4 provides: "Ensure energy efficiency in transportation design and planning and increase the availability of more efficient modes of transportation." Section 187.201(12)(b)5 states: "Reduce the need for new power plants by encouraging end-use efficiency, reducing peak demand, and using cost-effective alternatives." Section 187.201(5)(b)4 states: "Reduce the cost of housing construction by eliminating unnecessary regulatory practices which add to the cost of housing." Section 187.201(21)(b)4 and 12 provides: "Eliminate regulatory activities that are not tied to specific public and natural resource protection needs" and "Discourage undue expansion of state government and make every effort to streamline state government in a cost effective-manner. Ultimate Findings of Fact Minimum Criteria of Data and Analysis Sufficiency of Data and Analysis (Issues 1-9) As to Issue 1, the ELUM's show existing and planned water wells, their cones of influence, historic resources, floodplains, wetlands, minerals, and soils. The ELUM's show many important existing public facilities, such as roads, potable water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, and schools. The depiction of power line rights of way and power generating facilities is less clear, although major public and industrial uses are indicated. As to Issues 2 and 3, the Data and Analysis describe at length the fisheries, wildlife, marine habitats, and vegetative communities that are found in Hillsborough County. The text and CARE Table 11 identify endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with each habitat. As to Issue 3, for each of the vegetative communities or habitats found in Hillsborough County, the Data and Analysis identify various uses, known pollution problems, and potential for conservation, use, or protection. As to Issue 4, the Data and Analysis discuss the suitability of soils for septic tanks. The discussion notes the problems associated with the placement of septic tanks on poorly drained soils, as well as excessively drained soils. The Data and Analysis identify the parts of the County with such soils, especially the poorly drained coastal soils of the coastal high hazard area. As to Issues 4 and 5, the Data and Analysis acknowledge that septic tank failures have adversely affected the water quality of Cockroach Bay. The discussion of the impact of septic tanks in other parts of the Tampa Bay estuary is less specific geographically. But the Data and Analysis generally recognize the role of inadequately treated domestic wastewater and inadequately treated stormwater runoff in the eutrophication of Tampa Bay. As to Issue 6, the Data and Analysis consider the potential for conservation, use, and protection of all surface waters in Hillsborough County, including Tampa Bay. As to Issue 7, the Data and Analysis identify and analyze existing and future water needs and sources and natural groundwater recharge areas. Although Hillsborough County contains no areas of prime recharge to the Floridan aquifer nor of high natural recharge to any aquifer, the Data and Analysis identify locations of very low to moderate natural aquifer recharge and areas of high susceptibility to groundwater contamination. As to Issue 8, the Data and Analysis contain land use suitability analyses in which various land uses are correlated to natural features, including natural resources. Oversized Map 13 locates very severely limited soils and critical and sensitive lands in relation to vacant lands. Other ELUM's more specifically locate and analyze vacant lands, floodplains, wetlands, historic resources, minerals, soils, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, estuarine systems, recharge areas, areas highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination, water wells, vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources appropriately considered in analyzing potential land uses for vacant land. The Data and Analysis textually analyze the suitability of various types of land for different land uses. In some cases, the analysis is incomplete, such as with respect to suitable land uses within the cones of influence of water wells or adjacent to wellfields. Even for such resources, however, the Data and Analysis support the inference that activities involving considerable water consumption or wastewater production, like traditional phosphate mining operations, should not be located in close proximity to water wellfields. The Data and Analysis explicitly identify the risk to groundwater posed by impervious surfaces and groundwater contamination such as from septic drainfields and leaking underground storage tanks. Thus, suitable land uses may at least be inferred with respect to areas of natural moderate aquifer recharge or artificially high aquifer recharge due to wellfield drawdowns. As to Issue 9, Coastal Element Figure 18 identifies the coastal high hazard area in Hillsborough County. 2. Supporting Data and Analysis (Issues 10-14) As to Issue 10, the failure of the Plan to require retrofitting of existing, deficient stormwater management systems is supported by the Data and Analysis. In the first place, the Plan addresses retrofitting to a significant extent. Coastal Element Policy 13.3, which deals with all infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area, commits the County to preparing, by the 1993 hurricane season, a program to relocate or retrofit public facilities where feasible. Where economically and environmentally feasible, CARE Policy 2.10 and Coastal Element Policy 1.11 provide for the retrofitting of urbanized areas lacking stormwater management facilities. CARE Policy 2.8 contains similar provisions regarding agricultural runoff. The Plan provisions cited in the preceding paragraph are supported by the Data and Analysis. Existing stormwater problems are sufficiently serious that the Data and Analysis question whether water quality problems can be corrected without retrofitting stormwater management systems. Stormwater Element, page 20. However, the Data and Analysis recognize that economic reality may limit retrofitting to redevelopment. The failure of the Plan to require retrofitting of stormwater systems generally is supported by the Data and Analysis, at least in the absence of stronger evidence that, without retrofitting in unincorporated Hillsborough County, the water quality problems in Tampa Bay cannot be effectively addressed. The other part of Issue 10 concerns the failure of the Plan to set a stormwater level of service standard in terms of water quality. This part of Issue 10 addresses the means by which the performance of stormwater management systems will be evaluated, regardless whether the systems are installed at the time of development or redevelopment. The failure of the Plan in this regard is dramatic. First, the Plan provides for a stormwater level of service standard strictly in terms of flood control. The stormwater level of service standard, which is stated in CIE Policy 1.C.1.b, defines storm events and their duration and then specifies the extent to which the stormwater facilities may flood in such events. Other Plan provisions address aspects of stormwater management other than mere flood control--even mentioning water quality. But these provisions lack the measurable and enforceable performance standards characteristic of level of service standards. 25/ The Data and Analysis offer no support for the Plan's preoccupation, when setting a level of service standard, with stormwater solely in terms of flood control, to the exclusion of other factors that affect the quality of receiving waters, such as runoff rate, quality, and hydroperiods. To the contrary, the stormwater level of service standard in the Plan is repugnant to the Data and Analysis. The Data and Analysis clearly identify the role of inadequately treated stormwater runoff in the eutrophication of Tampa Bay. One quarter of the biological oxygen demand and 35% of the suspended solids discharged into the bay are attributable to stormwater runoff. Important gains have been made in reducing the nutrient loading of the bay by inadequately treated domestic and industrial wastewater, such as through the enhancement of treatment levels at wastewater treatment plants or the implementation of wastewater reuse programs. But the Data and Analysis concede that nutrient loading from stormwater runoff will remain a more intractable program. Coastal Element, page 24. The problem is exacerbated by inadequate compliance with existing stormwater regulations. CARE, page 54. For areas within the substantial floodplains of Hillsborough County, and even to a certain extent for areas outside the floodplains, the stormwater issue is best approached from the perspective of floodplain management. The natural drainage of floodplains regulates the timing, velocity, and levels of flood discharges, as well as water quality through the processes of sediment detention and chemical filtration. CARE, pages 14-15. Stormwater management systems using only a structural approach to effect flood control destroy the natural drainage function of the floodplain. Structural improvements include such projects as channelizing natural watercourses (like the Palm River) and constructing new channels, dams, levees, and other structures to hold back floodwaters or rapidly convey them elsewhere. Consequently, flood discharges tend to peak more quickly. By increasing maximum flow, the flood-control structures decrease filtration, groundwater recharge, habitat maintenance, detrital production and export, maintenance of base flow (as minimum flows during later dry periods cannot draw upon water previously stored in the unaltered floodplains), and estuarine salinity regulation. CARE, pages 15-17. In short, the Data and Analysis disclose that a stormwater management program whose performance is evaluated exclusively in terms of flood control, such as that contained in the Plan, has systemic environmental implications whose economic costs are probably incalculable. The Data and Analysis identify the obvious planning considerations that underlie the establishment of a viable stormwater level of service standard. The third guideline for floodplain management is to avoid alterations to the natural rate, quality, and pattern of surface waters. Expressly applying the guideline to floodplains and "more upland sites," the Data and Analysis advise that the "rate, volume, timing and location of discharge of surface water should generally not be altered from predevelopment conditions." CARE, page 19. See also Stormwater Element, page 20. Yet, the best that the County offers, after acknowledging its preoccupation with flood control in setting the stormwater level of service standard, is to promise that a stormwater management program--deferred to land development regulations--will eventually address stormwater runoff in terms of quality, not merely quantity. Stormwater Element, page 43. As to the part of Issue 10 addressing the level of service standard, the Plan's stormwater standard is, to the exclusion of fair debate, not supported by the Data and Analysis because it fails to require that, for new development, redevelopment, and expansions of existing development, as "development" is defined in the Plan, postdevelopment stormwater urban and agricultural runoff shall be the same as (or, where appropriate, better than) predevelopment runoff in terms of volume, quality, rate, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. If the Plan fails to amend its stormwater level of service standard in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph, many future land use designations, in addition to those discussed below, are, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsuitable and lack support from the Data and Analysis. The permitted densities and intensities, especially in the 100 year floodplain, will contribute dramatically to the degradation of natural drainage patterns in the County and ultimately to the degradation of Tampa Bay. Absent modification of the stormwater level of service standard to address urban and agricultural runoff in terms of volume, quality, rate, hydroperiod, and drainage basin, the Data and Analysis would not support Plan provisions that allowed any development, as that term is defined in the Plan, in the 100 year floodplain if such development's urban or agricultural runoff altered predevelopment drainage conditions in terms of its rate, volume, quality, timing, or location of discharge. As to Issues 11-14, assuming that the Plan is amended to broaden the scope of the stormwater level of service standard in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph, the Plan is generally supported by the land use suitability analysis. However, there are 11 exceptions. First, in terms of urban sprawl, the overall densities in the Plan are supported by the Data and Analysis, at least to the extent that there is no indication of urban sprawl. The density allocation ratio of 1.61:1 is not an especially strong indicator of sprawl in this case. 26/ Several factors are important in evaluating a density allocation ratio, such as whether historic buildouts have been considered (not in this case) and the duration of the planning timeframe (20 years). Probably the most important consideration, though, is the location of the residential uses. A density allocation ratio of 3:1 generated by 100,000 acres of 1:1 residential is far more suggestive of inefficient use of land than the same ratio generated by 5000 acres of 20:1 residential in an existing or planned mixed use urban area, assuming the provision of adequate public facilities, protection of natural resources, and protection of agriculture. The Plan's two planning strategies involve the concentration of density in the I-75 corridor, with decreasing densities radiating outward, and the development of nodes where suitably scaled commercial uses are located in close proximity to residential uses. These two strategies have been effectively implemented in the Plan to counter urban sprawl. There is no plausible evidence in the record that the allocated intensities or acreage, in terms of commercial or industrial uses, are indicative of urban sprawl. As the Data and Analysis note, commercial development has historically followed residential development, not preceded it. An underallocation of commercial and industrial future land uses arguably invites sprawl by interfering with the development of functionally related land uses. There is no place for commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational land uses once residential development has consumed the entire landscape, with respect to which adequate commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses have not been timely reserved. In addition, allocation ratios for commercial and industrial uses are problematic, regardless whether expressed in acreage, which is necessarily a very gross measure of the intensity that is eventually built out, or floor area ratios, which are more precise but much more difficult to predict based on designated acreages of vacant land. Therefore, the overallocation of commercial and industrial uses does not serve as a useful beginning point for analysis, at least in the absence of proof of historic overbuilding with resulting disruption in the efficient use of land or public facilities or loss of natural resources or agriculture. As noted above, the key factor with respect to commercial and industrial uses is location. Through various devices, the Plan effectively pursues mixed land use patterns that will encourage the location of residential, commercial, and industrial, as well as institutional and recreational, uses in a functionally related manner. Notwithstanding the finding that the Plan designations are supported by the Data and Analysis in terms of urban sprawl, the Data and Analysis do not support specific designations involving considerable acreage, even assuming that the stormwater level of service standard will be broadened to include the above- cited factors in addition to flood control. The Data and Analysis recount the consequences of years of land use decisions based "primarily on socio-economic and demographic factors, with little consideration given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land." But the Data and Analysis promise that, "[w]ith a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions . . .." CARE, page 73. For the 11 areas described below, socio-economic and demographic factors have again outweighed the natural carrying capacity of the land. The 11 areas have received unsuitable designations for which the Data and Analysis offer no or inadequate support. For each of these areas, the Plan has assigned designations whose excessive densities and/or intensities generally jeopardize important natural resources or life and property in the coastal high hazard area. A future land use is suitable if the designation is supported by the Data and Analysis. For the vast majority of areas, the Data and Analysis would support designations assigning a range of densities and/or intensities. The question whether a designation is supported by the Data and Analysis requires consideration of, among other factors, the nature of the density or intensity inherent in the designation of the subject area, the data and analysis concerning the nature of the natural resources affected by the subject designation (including off-site resources), the data and analysis concerning when and what type of public facilities will be available to service the subject area, the data and analysis indicating how the designated uses may impact natural resources, and operative Plan provisions that may or may not offer protection to the natural resources in question. 27/ The Plan assigns unsuitable designations to five areas in northwest and north Hillsborough County. The Data and Analysis fail to support two of these designations to the exclusion of fair debate and three of the designations by a mere preponderance of the evidence. One relatively small area whose designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis is designated Low Suburban Density Residential (2:1) at the southeast end of Keystone Lake. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Low Suburban Density Residential on the FLUM. This area is immediately north and west of Gunn Highway at Van Dyke Road. Shown as largely agricultural or vacant on Oversized Map 2, the area received an increase in density in the Plan, according to Oversized Map 14. The only area designated at a Suburban density in the northwest corner of northwest Hillsborough County, the area is the site of one or more major public supply water wells. By contrast, areas containing groups of wells just south of Keystone Lake and at the extreme northwest corner of the County are designated Natural Preservation, as is an area at the southwest corner of SR 597 and Van Dyke Road, about four miles east of the area in question. The area designated Low Suburban Density Residential occupies an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge and is very susceptible to groundwater contamination. The subject area is included in the 1995 central water service area, but excluded from even the 2010 central sewer service area, according to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1. The absence of effective Plan provisions protecting wellfields, cones of influence, and recharge areas further undermines the Low Suburban Density Residential designation of an area in such close proximity to a major public supply water well and in an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge. The increased density for this area threatens a major wellfield with encroaching development, as predicted in the Data and Analysis. FLUE, page 7. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support the density and intensity assigned by the Plan to two, much larger areas in the northern half of northwest Hillsborough County. The extent of the subject areas corresponds to the areas whose densities were increased, according to Oversized Map 14 (excluding only the above-described Low Suburban Density Residential area). The western area of the two is a contiguous block surrounding Keystone Lake and proceeding east and west of the major public supply water wells about 1-2 miles south of Keystone Lake. This area extends to the northwest corner of Hillsborough County, except for the very corner, which is Natural Preservation. The eastern area is a contiguous block almost entirely west of SR 597, but crossing SR 597 at the southeast corner. This area abuts Pasco County on the north and an area of density decrease on the south. These two areas of increased density and intensity surround (or in some cases slightly encroach upon) the four largest collections of major public supply water wells in northwest Hillsborough County, as shown on Oversized Map Representing perhaps half of such collections of major public supply water wells in the entire County, these wells represent a very important source of potable water, especially for a County in which demand is now exceeding supply. The two areas in question are in areas of relatively good natural aquifer recharge and areas of high vulnerability to groundwater contamination. The Plan supplies no performance standards for activities that may introduce contaminants into the portion of the aquifer from which a major public supply water well draws. As the Data and Analysis note, increasing areas of impervious surface may reduce recharge and groundwater supplies. A considerable amount of the eastern area lies in the 100 year floodplain, which runs throughout both areas. The eastern area also includes a significant section of soils with very severe limitations, according to Oversized Map 13 and CARE Figure 9. The green map indicates two overlay areas of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. One of these areas is in the southwest corner of the eastern area, and the other covers the part of the eastern area designated Regional Commercial. The western area contains numerous sites described by Oversized Map 13 as Very Sensitive Lands and most of one significant section of soils with very severe limitations, according to Oversized Map 13 and CARE Figure 9. According to CARE Figure 20, the western area contains significant amounts of dry prairie and cypress swamps. According to the green map, the western areas's potentially significant wildlife habitat takes the form of two narrow corridors running east-west, although the northern one may have been excluded from the area receiving increased density. As noted above, contiguous wildlife corridors receive firm protection under the Plan. The designations are completely different for the two areas. The western area contains entirely Rural Residential (1:1) and Rural Estate Residential (1:2.5), except for small areas of Environmentally Significant Areas. The more densely designated eastern area contains mostly Low Suburban Density Residential (2:1) and smaller, but significant, amounts of Suburban Density Residential (4:1). Each of these areas would, under the Plan, host commercial uses scaled to their respective Rural and Suburban densities. But the southeast corner of the eastern area is designated Regional Commercial (20:1) and contains major natural systems according to Oversized Map 8. The natural systems appear to be dry prairie and cypress swamps on CARE Figure 20. According to Oversized Map 2, this corner is agricultural or vacant with natural area in its center. The unsuitability of the designations given both the eastern and western areas is about equal. Although the western area received less density, according to Sewer Element Figure 1, the western area is almost entirely outside the area that will be served by central sewer, even by 2010. Most of the western area will be served by central water by 2010, with a substantial area to be served by 1995, according to Potable Water Element Figure 1. By contrast, the eastern area already has some central sewer lines and what little area will not be within the 1995 central sewer boundary will be included in the 2010 boundary. The situation is identical with respect to central water. The unsuitability of the designations of the eastern and western areas is unaffected by the fact, as shown by Oversized Map 15, that the Plan brought portions of these areas into conformance with existing zoning. Zoning conforms to Plan designations. The Plan provides, where appropriate, for vested rights. The remedy for nonconforming zoning is to recognize vested rights, not to increase densities and intensities over wide areas to an extent not supported by the Data and Analysis. The key fact is that, for both the western and eastern areas, the Plan has designated excessive densities and intensities in areas containing sensitive and much-needed groundwater resources. And while increasing these densities and intensities, the County has not, at the same time, adopted effective Plan provisions ensuring the protection of wellfields, their cones of influence, natural recharge areas, and the natural functions of floodplains from the adverse impacts of development. Another area whose designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis is an area of about 2.5 square miles designated Urban Level 1 Limited (8:1) immediately east of I-275 and I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Urban Level 1 Limited on the FLUM. The 2.5 square mile area is the only Urban Level designation that is not contiguous to the Urban Level designations constituting the I-75 corridor, except for a small Urban Level-1 "island" surrounded by Natural Preservation. 28/ The 2.5 square mile area designated Urban Level 1 Limited is separated from the remainder of the I-75 corridor by several miles of area designated Natural Preservation. Nor is the 2.5 square mile area bounded by existing or proposed arterial roads, as is required of Urban Level 1 areas. According to Oversized Map 4, the only arterial or higher roads in or near the 2.5 square mile area are I-75 on the west boundary (to which access is limited) and an arterial on the east boundary. There are no roads on the north and south boundaries, nor will there be by 2010, according to Oversized Map 4. Almost the entire 2.5 square mile area is overlaid with Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to the green map. The northern half of the 2.5 square mile area is in the 100 year floodplain. The eastern and western thirds of the area consist of very poorly drained soils. The northern two-thirds of the area occupy an area of very low to moderate recharge, which is the highest recharge in Hillsborough County. Most of the western half of the area is in the area most susceptible to groundwater contamination. The eastern third appears to be entirely dry prairie and cypress swamps, through which a major tributary of the Hillsborough River runs. Oversized Map 8 shows nearly the entire parcel (less a small area at the western end) to be part of major natural systems. Oversized Map 2 shows that the 2.5 square mile areas is entirely agricultural or vacant. Despite this unusual confluence of natural features, the 2.5 square mile area, which is permanently separated from Tampa by a Natural Preserve protecting the Hillsborough River, received a density increase in connection with the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. The 2.5 square mile area is entirely omitted from even the 2010 central water and sewer service areas, according to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1. The failure of Plan provisions to ensure the protection of the natural functions of floodplains and recharge areas exacerbates the unsuitability of the Urban designation for the 2.5 square mile area. The meaning of Urban Level 1 Limited is explained by FLUE Policy C-25.3, which limits the density in the 2.5 square mile area to 8:1. But even this "reduced" density fails to indicate that this remote area will undergo development suitable for the unusual range of natural resources present in the area. The circumstances suggest that the Urban Level 1 Limited designation cannot facilitate the development in this remote area of the kind of viable mixed uses for which Urban designations are intended. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support the density assigned by the Plan to a much larger L-shaped area designated Suburban Density Residential (4:1) extending from the 2.5 square mile area to just across CR 579. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Suburban Density Residential on the FLUM. The Suburban Density Residential L-shaped area, which is about 12 square miles, contains three major public supply water wells at its southeast corner. The green map overlays more than three quarters of the 12 square mile area with Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. The 12 square mile area abuts the above- described 2.5 square mile area on the northwest, Tampa on the southwest and nearly all of the south, Pasco County and Agricultural/Rural (1:5) on the north, and Agriculture (1:10) on the east. According to CARE Figure 20, the portions of the 12 square mile area overlaid with the designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat are dry prairie and cypress swamps, as is almost two- thirds of the land south of the subject area under the jurisdiction of the City of Tampa. According to CARE Figure 14, the western half of the 12 square mile area is in an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge, but only a very small part of the subject area is in an area of high vulnerability to groundwater contamination. However, a large collection of major public supply water wells is in the Natural Preservation area just south of the extension of Tampa abutting the south boundary of the 12 square mile area. The closest wells are about one mile south of the southern boundary of the 12 square mile area. According to Oversized Map 13, the only part of the 12 square mile parcel with poor soils is the extreme northwest corner. Oversized Map 2 shows that the entire 12 square mile area that is not shown as natural areas is agricultural or vacant, as is the area of Tampa immediately south of the subject area. According to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1, the 12 square mile area is not scheduled to receive central water or sewer by 2010. The remaining areas whose designations are not supported by the Data and Analysis are in the vicinity of the coastal high hazard area in south Hillsborough County and in the Urban designations and one Light Industrial designation along the I-75 corridor south of the Alafia River. The Plan assigns designations to two areas in or near the coastal high hazard area that, to the exclusion of fair debate, are not supported by the Data and Analysis. The Plan also assigns designations to four areas in (or adjoining, in the case of the Light Industrial area) the I-75 corridor south of the Alafia River that are not supported by the Data and Analysis to the exclusion of fair debate, in one area, and by a mere preponderance of the evidence in the other three areas. The coastal high hazard area begins at the Manatee County line and runs along US 41. At a point due east of Cockroach Bay, the line turns toward the bay and continues to run in a more northerly direction until it approaches the Little Manatee River. At this point, the coastal high hazard line follows the winding river to the east, then south, crossing US 41 before proceeding again north. The line runs along US 41 until, at the north end of Ruskin, the line cuts again toward the bay. After running north again for about one mile, the line returns to US 41, then proceeds west of US 41, in a north-northeasterly direction, until it almost intersects the bay at Apollo Beach. North of Apollo Beach, the line mostly follows US 41 to the Alafia River at Gibsonton. Oversized Map 14 discloses density increases in part of the coastal high hazard area between Cockroach Bay and the Little Manatee River. Initiated by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan, an irregularly shaped area about three square miles west of US 41 received a density increase. The Plan then increased the density of a smaller portion of the eastern end of the three square mile area. The extent of the subject area, which is only partly in the coastal high hazard area, corresponds to the area whose density was increased, according to Oversized Map 14, and that is presently designated, in the FLUM, as Low Suburban Density Residential Planned (2:1 if certain clustering and mixed use requirements are met; otherwise 1:5). Oversized Map 2 shows that the entire area so designated is entirely agricultural or vacant, except for a shell mine, three small, isolated areas of low density residential, and some small commercial uses along US 41. The density increase for the portion of the three square mile area lying in the coastal high hazard area is clearly unsupported by the Data and Analysis, which acknowledge the need to reduce, not raise, densities in this critical area in order to save lives and property. However, much of the three square mile area is outside of the coastal high hazard area and the unsuitability of the designation lies in the assigned density, not in the increase of density. About a third of the three square mile area is in the 100 year floodplain. Relatively little of it contains major natural systems or Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to Oversized Map 8 and the green map. And none of the area is subject to recharge or significantly vulnerable to groundwater contamination. However, the three square mile area is bordered on three sides by three critical resources that remain in relatively pristine condition: Cockroach Bay, the Little Manatee River, and the portion of Tampa Bay connecting the river and Cockroach Bay. The entire shoreline along the three square mile area joins Hillsborough County's only aquatic preserve. Coastal Figure 11 indicates that the coast from just south of Apollo Beach to the Manatee County line, and especially from the Little Manatee River to Cockroach Bay, is the only location where seagrass meadows remain along the waters of unincorporated Hillsborough County, except for a smaller expanse of interspersed meadows along the shore of northwest Hillsborough County. These are also Class II waters. CARE Figure 9 shows that the western half of the three square mile area is dominated by very poorly drained soils. The Data and Analysis note that area septic tank failures have contributed to the pollution of Cockroach Bay and possible loss of the last shoreline location in the County at which shellfish harvesting is approved, although only conditionally. Significantly, in view of the poorly drained soils and history of septic tank failures, Sewer Element Figure 1 shows no existing or proposed sewer lines for the three square mile area, which inexplicably is nonetheless included in the 2010 central sewer service area. The area is due to receive central water lines by 2010. Given the critical and fragile nature of the area of Cockroach Bay and the Little Manatee River, as described by the Data and Analysis, the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation, which, with the I-75 and South County plan amendments, represented an increased density for the three square mile area, is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, supported by the Data and Analysis. The failure of the Plan to direct population concentrations away from the coastal high hazard area and ensure the protection of the natural functions of the 100 year floodplain exacerbates the unsuitability of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation for the three square mile area. Just north of the Little Manatee River at Ruskin, Oversized Map 14 discloses another area of density increase, again initiated by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. This area is designated Medium Density Residential (12:1) and extends two miles east-west by an average of one-half mile north-south. The southwest corner of the one square mile area abuts a portion of the Little Manatee River, and nearly the entire south boundary of the area abuts a tributary of the Little Manatee River. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Medium Density Residential on the FLUM. The entire square mile area lies west of US 41 and in the coastal high hazard area. The designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis for this reason alone. According to Oversized Map 2, the southern half of the square mile area is already in low and medium density residential, except for the western end that is agricultural or vacant. However, most of the northern half is agricultural or vacant. According to Oversized Map 13, the entire square mile area contains soils with very severe limitations and some critical lands. The entire area occupies the 100 year floodplain. And the area is not due to receive central sewer until 1995 or central water at all, although it is in the 1995 central water service area. Even absent the fact that the square mile area is in the coastal high hazard area, the Medium Density Residential designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The remaining four areas in the County whose designations are unsupported by the Data and Analysis are in the I-75 corridor, except for one of the areas that extends into an adjoining Light Industrial area. Nearly the entire contiguous corridor received higher densities as a result of the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. However, the four areas in question all lie south of the Alafia River. The first area is about 3.25 square miles at the southernmost end of the I-75 corridor, south of SR 674. Triangularly shaped, this area, which is Urban Level 1 (12:1), is bounded on the east and north by I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Urban Level 1 south of SR 674 and I-75. The southern boundary of the triangular area represents an anomaly for the I-75 corridor; it abuts Rural Residential (1:1). Except for the portion of the north end of the I-75 corridor surrounding a Rural Residential "island" and the northernmost end of the I-75 corridor, which abuts the vast Natural Preservation area of the Hillsborough River valley, no other part of the I-75 corridor abuts land that is not designated at least Suburban. Contrary to the requirements for Urban Level 1 designations, the triangular area is not bound by existing or proposed arterials. The triangular area also abuts a Natural Preservation area at its southeast corner. The Little Manatee River is less than one-half mile from the southern boundary of the subject area. The southernmost mile of the subject area encompasses tributaries of the Little Manatee River. The northern half of the subject area adjoins Suburban Density Residential (4:1) and Low Medium Density Residential (9:1) on the east and Low Urban Density Residential (6:1) and Urban Level-2 (20:1) across I-75 on the west. The northern point of the subject area is in the vicinity of the I-75/SR 674 interchange. The triangular area is free from major natural systems or Environmentally Significant Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to Oversized Map 5 and the green map. However, most of the southernmost mile of the subject area is within the 100 year floodplain. Oversized Map 2 reports that the subject area is predominantly agricultural or vacant, although it has interspersed, isolated low density and some medium density residential uses, mostly in the northeast portion. The triangular area is not scheduled for any central sewer lines until after 1995, and then the line will be limited to about one-half mile south of SR 674 along I-75. The area will be better served, by 2010, by central water. Given the Plan's failure to protect adequately floodplains and the proximity of the Little Manatee River, the evidence shows, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the Urban Level-1 designation of the southernmost mile of the triangular area is not supported by the Data and Analysis. The designation given to the remainder of the triangular area is not unsupported by the Data and Analysis. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support predominantly Urban Level 1 densities and intensities in two areas in the vicinity of I-75 and Big Bend Road. One of the areas in question is a Z-shaped linear area that largely tracks, but is not limited to, a strip of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The strip begins at US 301 and a proposed westerly extension of SR 672. The area, which is limited to the Urban I-75 corridor, proceeds in a west- northwesterly direction to just east of I-75, runs north along the east side of I-75 to a point about one mile south of the Alafia River, and, now becoming Bullfrog Creek, turns west and crosses I-75 until it leaves the I-75 Urban Level corridor. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the areas in the vicinity of the Z-shaped area that are within any of the three following categories: the 100 year floodplain according to Oversized Map 9, Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the FLUM, or Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the green map. The lower half of the Z-shaped area occupies very severely limited soils. The upper half contains critical and very sensitive lands. According to Oversized Map 14, almost the entire Z-shaped area received increased densities due to the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, existing uses of considerable portions of the Z-shaped area are natural areas and agricultural or vacant. CARE Figure 20 indicates that Bullfrog Creek is largely open water until it turns south just east of I-75, at which point a series of hardwood swamps extend through the remainder of the Z-shaped area to the south. The Z-shaped area, which runs about eight miles, has long been recognized as environmentally sensitive and generally unsuitable for development. 29/ The narrow band of Environmentally Sensitive Areas is afforded uncertain protection under the Plan. Moreover, the Urban Level 1 designation extends to portions of the Z-shaped area that are in the 100 year floodplain and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to the green map. In the absence of stronger Plan provisions protecting the 100 year floodplain, as well as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Urban Level 1 designation given the Z-shaped area is, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The unsuitability of the designation is underscored by the operation of the density and intensity formulas, which would allow even more intense and dense uses in close proximity, even assuming that development were prohibited in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas themselves. Two other areas bearing unsuitable designations are also in the vicinity of Big Bend Road and I-75. Unlike the remainder of the contiguous I-75 corridor, these areas mark significant expanses of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. One area runs from the southeast corner of the interchange along I-75 south past a proposed extension of Balm-Picnic Road or SR 672, where the area expands to an area of about one mile north-south by two miles east-west, with the western end crossing I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area shown on the green map as Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. The subject area is designated exclusively Urban Level 1 except for a small area designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The upper portion of the subject area overlaps the part of the Z- shaped area running north-south just south of Big Bend Road. According to CARE Figure 20, the remainder of the narrower part of the subject area is wetlands. The wider portion of the subject area is predominantly dry prairie. According to Oversized Map 14, the entire subject area received increased density in the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, the existing uses of the entire subject area are natural areas and agricultural or vacant. The Urban Level-1 designation given the subject area is, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The allowable densities and intensities contradict the acknowledgement in the Data and Analysis of the need to protect these natural resources and frustrate other Plan provisions that extend some protection to these natural resources. The other area extends northwest of the intersection of Big Bend Road and I-75. The subject area runs about 1.5 miles north of the intersection, then widens to the west to encompass a portion of the Light Industrial designation between the I-75 corridor on the east and, on the west, Tampa Bay and the large Heavy Industrial area north of Apollo Beach. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area shown on the green map as Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. Except for the Light Industrial designation, the entire subject area is designated Urban Level 1 with a small area of Urban Level 2. According to CARE Figure 20, almost all of the subject area is wetlands, possibly with some pine flatwoods. Part of the subject area received a density increase by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, the existing uses of all of the subject area are natural area and agricultural or vacant, with a narrow corridor of major public area. The Urban Level 1 and 2 designations assigned to the subject area are, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis for the same reasons set forth with respect to the preceding area. General Minimum Criteria Public Participation (Issue 15) As to Issue 15, the County adopted the Plan, including all amendments, in a manner consistent with the requirements of public participation. Contents of FLUM and Plan (Issues 16-36) FLUM (Issue 16) As to Issue 16, the FLUM depicts minerals in the Agricultural/Mining designation and various public uses in the Major Public/Semi-Public designation. Regardless of the ambiguity surrounding the significance of the designation, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designated on the FLUM (i.e., the multicolor map) adequately show the location of wetlands. However, to the exclusion of fair debate, the FLUM is not consistent with the criterion of the depiction of existing and planned waterwells, cones of influence, historic resources or historically significant properties meriting protection, floodplains, or soils. All of these resources are depicted on ELUM's, but the County elected not to include these resources on the FLUM as part of the operative provisions of its Plan. Plan Provisions Regarding Natural Resources (Issues 17-22) As to Issue 17, the Plan contains objectives coordinating future land uses with topography, soils, and the availability of public facilities. Regarding topography and soils, FLUE Objective A-1 prohibits the issuance of development orders unless the development is "compatible with the physical conditions of the land, including, but not limited to, topographical and soil conditions . . .." FLUE Objective A-8 requires development to mitigate adverse impacts to natural systems. Regarding topography, FLUE Objective 4 is to protect the 100 year floodplain's storage volume. Somewhat vaguely, CARE Objective 19 is to amend land development regulations to "ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment " Regarding the stormwater management aspects of topography, Stormwater Element Objective 4 is to identify and evaluate the sources of water quality degradation attributable to stormwater runoff. Stormwater Objective 5 is to maintain or improve the quality of stormwater runoff. Regarding soils, CARE Objective 11 requires soil conservation during land alteration and development activities. Although not objectives, two policies address the suitability of soils. CARE Policy 11.1 provides that, during the land development review process, the County shall "recommend" the appropriate use of soils and shall require site-specific analyses when land uses appear incompatible with soils. CARE Policy 11.3 states that, during the land development process, the County shall use soil capability analyses for flood hazard, stability, permeability, and other soil characteristics. Regarding mining, CARE Objective 7 requires the "prudent operation" of mining activities. CARE Objective 9 is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the adverse impacts of mining. CARE Objective 10 requires the County to regulate the location and operation of land excavation to minimize negative impacts on surrounding land uses and ensure the reclamation and productive reuse of excavated lands. Regarding public facilities, FLUE Objective A-5 is that all development and redevelopment shall be serviced at the adopted level of service standards by all public facilities for which concurrency is required. FLUE Objective C-29 requires that the needed public facilities be provided concurrent with the impacts of development. Although there are several instances where specific land use designations are unsuitable in terms of, among other factors, topography, soils, and the provision of public facilities, the Plan contains sufficient provisions to attain consistency with the criterion of an objective coordinating future land uses with topography, soils, and public facilities. As to Issue 18, numerous Plan provisions address numerous natural resources, as well as water sources. The rules cited in Issue 18 require one or more objectives ensuring the protection of natural resources, such as Tampa Bay and its tributaries, and one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting water sources. 30/ For the purpose of Issue 18, natural resources have been identified as Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, rivers (primarily the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers), surface waters generally, floodplains, wetlands, rare upland habitats, and wildlife habitat. Findings concerning soils are set forth above. The water sources have been divided into the following categories: wellfields and cones of influence, aquifer recharge, groundwater, water conservation, and septic tanks. Obviously, wellfields, cones of influence, and aquifer recharge areas are natural resources, and floodplains, wetlands, and the Hillsborough River (whose surface waters are an important potable water source) are related to water sources. There is thus considerable overlap in the following discussion of these categories. Regarding surface water generally, including Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, and the rivers, CARE Objective 2 promises that the water quality of natural surface water bodies shall be improved or restored if they do not at least meet state water quality standards. Unfortunately, CARE Objective 2 is not operative until 1995. If the objective had assured compliance with water quality standards, a deferred date of 1995 would have been suitable because the entire improvement cannot take place instantaneously. However, the intermediate end of CARE Objective 2 is much more modest; the water quality of substandard water bodies must only be improved. And the improvement--any improvement--is not required until 1995. The main threats to Tampa Bay also apply to surface water quality generally: inadequately treated wastewater and inadequately treated stormwater. The Plan does not generally ensure the protection of surface water through the objectives and relevant policies concerning stormwater. Stormwater Objective 5 is to implement programs to maintain or improve stormwater. The natural resources in question are not protected by maintaining the water quality of stormwater; they are not even protected by improving the water quality of stormwater absent a measurable goal. The failure of the stormwater objectives is exacerbated by the Plan's failure to set stormwater level of service standards in terms other than flood control. The Plan addresses to a much greater extent the protection of surface water through the objectives and relevant policies concerning wastewater. Sewer Element Objective 1 is for all wastewater treatment facilities to produce effluent of sufficiently high quality to meet or exceed all regulatory standards. Sewer Element Policy 1.1 requires that all wastewater discharged into surface waters or wetlands meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards. Sewer Element Objective 2 promises to assist in the wastewater problem by continuing to require the use and expansion of existing recovered water reuse systems. Sewer Element Objective 4 requires that central sewer facilities be provided to remedy current deficiencies in the system and to meet projected demands, based on the sewer level of service standard. Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility" that existing and future wastewater adversely impacts surface waters. The objective is not especially amenable to measurement. Sewer Element Policy 7.1 is useful, though, because it requires that septic tank users hook up to the County system when it becomes available, except in cases of undue hardship. Sewer Element Policy 4.8 also prohibits septic tanks in the coastal high hazard area except in cases of undue hardship. CARE Policy 2.6 promises better wastewater treatment in areas where septic tanks fail, at least where economically feasible. And CARE Policy 2.4 indicates that the County plans to supply regional wastewater treatment in the more densely populated areas. However, other policies under Sewer Element Objective 7 are less effective. Sewer Element Policy 7.2 promises that, within one year after the completion of a pending septic tank study, the County will reexamine the maximum usable density for septic tanks. Sewer Element Policy 7.3 promises, in the same timeframe, a program to identify existing septic tank systems with a high potential for contaminating groundwater. Regarding Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Objective 3 is to "maintain, and enhance where environmentally and economically feasible, the abundance and diversity of living marine resources in Tampa Bay." FLUE Objective C-30 requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that "water quality and quantity" are protected from degradation from development. CARE Objective 19 promises that the County shall continue to amend its land development regulations to "ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment." In addition to relegating the regulatory mechanism to land development regulations, CARE Objective 19 does not state a specific, measurable, intermediate end that can be achieved. Coastal Element Policy 2.1 is to conserve and protect tidal wetlands from detrimental physical and hydrological alteration and prohibit unmitigated encroachment into tidal wetlands. Coastal Element Policy 2.2 prohibits channelization or hardening of natural coastal shorelines and tidal creeks except in cases of overriding public interest. Coastal Element Policy 2.6 prohibits development activities on submerged lands containing significant seagrass habitat and seeks the restoration of seagrass coverage. Coastal Element Policy 2.7 requires land developments within the coastal area to preserve those portions of native upland plant communities necessary to provide an effective buffer for coastal wetlands. Coastal Element Policy 2.9 is to review and "restrict as appropriate" proposed development adjacent to the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to ensure that water quality, shoreline, or estuarine habitat degradation does not occur due to development. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 prohibits the use of septic tanks for new development in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 7.4 forbids the development of water- related uses by dredging and filling wetlands or the natural shoreline. CARE Policy 19.8 requires the County to identify Resource Protection Areas on the FLUM. Resource Protection Areas include Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, the three main rivers, significant and essential wildlife habitat, areas of high aquifer recharge/groundwater contamination potential, public supply wellfields and their cones of influence, and areas containing major phosphate deposits. CARE, pages 99-100. For Tampa Bay, the CARE definition of Resource Protection Areas refers the reader to the Coastal Element. Coastal Element Objective 1 is identical to CARE Objective 2. Coastal Element Objective 1 addresses only the water quality of those parts of Tampa Bay and its tributaries not meeting state standards. By 1995, these waters will be improved or restored. In addition to failing to address the protection of those parts of Tampa Bay meeting or exceeding state standards, this objective promises only, as to substandard waters, that some improvement is to take place starting in 1995. As is the case with surface waters generally, the Plan contains various provisions adequately addressing wastewater. CARE Policy 2.2 and Coastal Element Policy 1.2 require Advanced Wastewater Treatment for all surface water discharge from all domestic wastewater treatment plants discharging into Tampa Bay or any of its tributaries. Coastal Element Policy 1.4 is to continue to develop and use effluent-disposal alternatives, such as reused water for agricultural and industrial uses, rather than surface water discharge into Tampa Bay and its tributaries. Coastal Element Policy 1.7 provides that, where it is economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment in areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic tank systems. Again, the Plan offers less protection to Tampa Bay from inadequately treated stormwater runoff. However, addressing another source of excessive nutrients in Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Policy 1.12 provides for the dredging and removal of polluted estuarine sediments and their replacement with clean fill, where economically and environmentally feasible. Regarding the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers, numerous goals, objectives, and policies in the FLUE provide protection for these resources. FLUE Goal 3 is to make the Hillsborough River cleaner. FLUE Objective C-7 is to protect the Hillsborough River as a major source of drinking water. Somewhat less effective are FLUE Objectives C-10 and C-12. Objective C-10 requires the County, by 1992, to establish development standards for the river corridor. Objective C-12 requires the County, by 1994, to manage the Hillsborough River as an important community asset. FLUE Policy C-9.1 prohibits new marinas in the upper Hillsborough River. FLUE Objective C-14 is to discourage additional development on the upper Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-14.1 requires the County to manage the upper Hillsborough River as a wildlife corridor. FLUE Objective C-13 requires the County to preserve and enhance wildlife habitats associated with the Hillsborough River. Because of the Hillsborough River's status as a source of surface potable water, it receives additional protection from CARE Objective 6, which requires the conservation, reuse, and enhancement of surface water supplies. Various policies add to the protection extended the Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-7.2 prohibits new septic tanks within 200 feet of the Hillsborough River, although, unlike similar provisions concerning the Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers, this prohibition is not extended to tributaries. FLUE Policy C-7.4 requires Advanced Wastewater Treatment for wastewater treatment discharging anywhere in the Hillsborough River drainage basin. FLUE Policy C-7.3 prevents further destruction of the natural vegetative buffers along the Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-10.2 prohibits the designation of new industrial land uses within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-13.1 prohibits the alteration of wetlands within 500 feet of the river. Regarding the Alafia River, FLUE Goal 4 is to preserve, protect, and promote the Alafia River and its natural resources and recreational benefits. FLUE Objective C-15 requires the County to maintain the water quality of this already impaired waterbody, but only by 1995. FLUE Objectives C-16 and C-17 require the County, by 1991, to preserve and restore native vegetation and wildlife habitats and protect wildlife, presumably along the Alafia River. FLUE Policy C-16.1 prohibits the alteration of wetlands within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-16.2 requires the County to "encourage" the reclamation of mined lands along the river with native vegetation. FLUE Objective C-20 requires the County, by 1992, to establish development standards for the corridor of the Alafia River. FLUE Policy C-20.4 prohibits the designation of "heavy" industrial land uses within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-20.3 prohibits the location of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Alafia River or its tributaries, except when required due to lot size and adverse impacts can be prevented. Regarding the Little Manatee River, FLUE Goal 5 is to recognize and maintain the river as a unique water resource, which provides vital wildlife habitat. As in the case of FLUE Objective C-15 regarding the Alafia River, FLUE Objective C-21 defers until 1995 the objective of maintaining or improving water quality where it does not meet state standards. FLUE Objective C-22 is to preserve wildlife habitats, presumably in association with the Little Manatee River. FLUE Objective C-23 is, by 1990, to establish a green river corridor for the river, although whatever protection is to be afforded by these provisions, if adopted in the Plan, appears already to be included in the Plan, given that the deadline in Objective C-23 had already passed by the time of the final hearing. The same is true for FLUE Objective C- 24, which is, by 1990, to develop additional policies addressing the uniqueness of the Little Manatee River. FLUE Policy C-21.1 prohibits the installation of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Little Manatee River unless required due to lot size and adverse impacts to the water can be prevented. FLUE Policy C-22.2 prohibits alteration of the wetlands within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-23.1 prohibits the designation of "heavy" industrial within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-22.3 only "restricts" the clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 or 100 feet of the river in Urban or Suburban designations. However, FLUE Policy C-23.2 is to manage the Little Manatee River as a wildlife corridor. Various Plan provisions apply to rivers generally. Some of these provisions restate objectives or policies adopted for one of the three major rivers. For instance, FLUE Objective C-1 is, by 1995, to maintain or improve the water quality of rivers not meeting state standards. FLUE Objective C-4 is, by 1992, to set standards for development in river corridors. Other provisions provide additional protection. FLUE Objective C-2 is to preserve natural shorelines and reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization. FLUE Objective C-30 requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that rivers are protected from degradation from development. FLUE Policy C-30.6 is to "restrict" the clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 or 100 feet of rivers. FLUE Policy C-6.1 generally prohibits the removal, within 100 feet of rivers, of any trees of at least five inches diameter at breast height. FLUE Policy C-1.3 prohibits the siting of solid waste or hazardous landfills that would adversely affect any river. Significantly, FLUE Policy C- 1.1 requires that development along the rivers install stormwater management systems to filter pollutants, although the extent of filtration is not specified. Regarding Cockroach Bay, the Plan offers some protection because, as an aquatic preserve, the bay is an Environmentally Sensitive Area. However, regardless of the extent of protection afforded by this designation to land- based areas, it is relatively unimportant as a regulatory mechanism over a water preserve, except to the extent that the designation is extended over adjacent land areas. Much of the land around the bay is designated Natural Preservation, which is afforded effective protection, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which is not. However, as noted above, Coastal Element Objective 3 requires the County at least to maintain the abundance and diversity of living marine resources in Tampa Bay. Underscoring the relationship between Cockroach Bay and Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Policy 3.1 is for the County to resist proposals to close permanently the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to shellfishing and to improve water quality to maintain the viability of shellfishing by implementing Coastal Objective 1 and its policies. However, as noted above, Coastal Objective 1 addresses only waters not meeting state standards and requires only that, by 1995, these water be improved. Cockroach Bay may receive some protection from FLUE Objective C-30, which requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that water quality and quantity are protected from degradation from development. In somewhat vague terms, CARE Objective 18 is for the County to "seek to measurably improve" the management of natural preserves, which include Cockroach Bay. Rather than exercise its jurisdiction, however, the County, in CARE Policy 18.2, promises only to initiate an agreement with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to ensure that Cockroach Bay is maintained in its natural condition. Equally ineffective, CARE Policy 18.3 is for the County, at no specified time, to establish a scientifically defensible buffer zone to prevent degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetative habitats in Cockroach Bay. CARE Policy 18.8, FLUE Policy C-22.1, and Coastal Element Policy 4.5 promise that the County will "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Regarding floodplains, CARE Objective 4 is no "net loss of 100-year floodplain storage volume." CARE Policy 4.1 promises, by 1995, land development regulations to "not only protect natural floodwater assimilating capacity but also protect fish and wildlife attributes where they exist within the 100 year floodplains of riverine systems." CARE Policy 4.2 explains that the County shall prohibit "unmitigated" encroachment into the 100 year floodplain. CARE Policy 8.3 "prohibit[s]" mining in the 25 year floodplain and "restrict[s]" mining in the 100 year floodplain. Although still in terms of storage volume of the floodplain, Stormwater Element Policy 2.8 promises, by 1991, a "program to control encroachment into the 100 year floodplain." Regarding wetlands, CARE Objective 3 is "no net loss of wetland acreage." The objective states further that the County shall seek to achieve a "measurable annual increase in restored wetland acreage." CARE Policy 3.1 requires the County to continue to "conserve and protect" wetlands from "detrimental physical and hydrological alteration" and "allow wetland encroachment only as a last resort when reasonable use of the property is otherwise unavailable." CARE Objective 16 is to continue to protect and conserve Conservation and Preservation Areas, which include a variety of wetland habitats. Regarding rare upland habitats, CARE Objective 16 offers some protection, as sand pine scrub is a Conservation Area and significant and essential wildlife habitat are, respectively, Conservation and Preservation Areas. CARE Policies 16.5 and 16.6 are to protect Conservation and Preservation Areas, respectively, from activities that would "significantly damage the natural integrity, character or ecological balance of said areas, except in cases of overriding public interest." CARE Objective 17 is to increase the amount of acreage designated as Natural Preservation by 15,000 acres by 1995. Also, the upland forest density credit incentive assists in promoting the preservation of rare upland habitats. Despite the ambiguity surrounding the types of land uses allowed by the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the Plan protects the wetlands and rare upland habitats. Regarding wildlife habitat, CARE Objective 14 is to "prevent any further net loss of essential wildlife habitat" and to "protect significant wildlife habitat." CARE Objective 15 is to maintain existing populations of endangered, threatened, and special-concern species and, where "feasible and appropriate," to increase the "abundance and distribution" of such species. FLUE Objective C-5 is, by 1991, to "require the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats." CARE Objective 4 is, by 1995, to protect wildlife habitat in the 100 year floodplain. CARE Policy 14.7 is to require the preservation of wildlife corridors within developments when necessary to prevent fragmentation. CARE Policies 8.4 and 10.7 prohibit mining and land excavation, respectively, in essential wildlife habitats unless relocation of the affected species is feasible. On balance, despite the noted shortcomings, the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources. Regarding the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of existing and planned water sources, the resources and functions generally involve wellfields and their cones of influence, aquifers and recharge, groundwater contamination, water conservation and reuse, and wastewater discharges including septic tanks. Regarding wellfields and their cones of influence, the Plan fails to include an objective providing for the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of these water sources. CARE Policy 5.8 promises wellfield protection by 1993, and even then only through land development regulations. In the meantime, CARE Policy 5.8 provides for an interim land development regulation establishing a procedure for reviewing the impact of land development proposals on cones of influence. The policy fails even to suggest any standards to guide this procedural ordinance. The Plan contains no objectives addressing aquifers and their recharge. Stormwater Element Policy 5.6 prohibits new discharge of untreated stormwater to the Floridan aquifer, and existing stormwater facilities so discharging into the Floridan aquifer will be modified if economically feasible and physically practical. The remaining policies are largely ineffective in protecting natural aquifer recharge function. CARE Policy 6.13 suggests that, by 1992, a program will be implemented to improve groundwater recharge through stormwater management, and the program "may require" that predevelopment groundwater recharge volumes and rates be maintained postdevelopment. CARE Policy 5.2 notes the need for additional information regarding areas of relatively high natural recharge and allows the County to require developers to provide site-specific hydrogeological information. But the policy does not suggest what standards would be applied in making ensuing land use decisions on what it concedes is a "case-by-case" basis. CARE Policy 5.5 promises that, within a year after the completion of high-resolution mapping of areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential, the County will develop land development regulations and performance standards that "may include" such strategies as "control of land use types and densities, impervious surface limitations, and discharge to groundwater controls." Whatever regulation may eventually be imposed has no guidance from the Plan and will be relegated to the land development regulations. Similarly lacking regulatory provisions, Sewer Element Policy 7.3 promises that, within a year after completion of a pending study, the County will develop a "program" to identify areas with septic tanks with the potential to contaminate groundwater. CARE Policy 5.9 at least prohibits activities that would breach the confining beds of the Floridan aquifer. 31/ Though lacking as to the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of the recharge process, the Plan addresses more adequately groundwater. CARE Objective 6 is to conserve, reuse, and enhance groundwater and prevent excessive withdrawals from groundwater. CARE Objective 5 is to ensure compliance with state groundwater standards. Like CARE Policy 2.7, which applies to surface water protection, CARE Policy 5.11 says that the County will ask other agencies to develop septic tank siting criteria and then will add the criteria to County land development regulations. CARE Policy 5.15 indicates that the County will not support deep well injection of effluent unless the process will have no adverse effect upon existing or potential potable water aquifers. More effective, Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility of existing and future sources of wastewater adversely impacting groundwater." Also, Sewer Element Policy 7.1 requires septic tank users to connect to central sewer when it becomes available, in the absence of undue hardship. And FLUE Policy A-1.3 prohibits development dependent upon on-site sewage disposal systems, if the soils are unsuitable, unless the soils can be altered to comply with state law. Regarding water conservation, Sewer Element Objective 2 is to "protect and conserve the potable water resources, both groundwater and surface water" and expand recovered water reuse systems. As noted above, CARE Objective 6 requires the "conservation, reuse, and enhancement of groundwater and surface water supplies" to meet potable water demands. CARE Policies 6.2 and 6.4 require the use of recovered water under certain circumstances. FLUE Objective B-10 is to protect the agricultural water supply through regulations. As compared to whether the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources, the question is closer as to whether the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting water sources. The Hillsborough River is adequately protected. Groundwater is directly addressed, although aquifer recharge receives little direct attention. Wellfields and cones of influence are not directly addressed. However, on balance, the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources. As to Issue 19, however, the Plan is, to the exclusion of fair debate, not consistent with the criterion of one or more policies addressing implementation activities to protect water quality by restricting activities known to affect adversely the quality and quantity of identified water sources, including cones of influence, water recharge areas, and water wells. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Plan does not address in any detail water wells, cones of influence, or water recharge areas. Although the Plan is nevertheless able to attain consistency with a criterion of an objective to protect, conserve, and appropriately use water sources, the Plan's relevant provisions are too vague to attain consistency with a criterion of policies to restrict activities affecting adversely cones of influence, water wells, and aquifer recharge areas. As to Issues 20-21, the Plan contains policies addressing implementation activities restricting activities known to affect adversely the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife and protecting native vegetative communities. It is unnecessary to consider the extent to which the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation protects native vegetative communities and the habitat that some of these communities provide to endangered and threatened species. Other Plan provisions, including the density and intensity formulas and the upland forest density credit incentive, offer sufficient protection to these vegetative communities for the Plan to attain consistency with the criteria requiring specific policies. Coastal Hazards (Issues 22-23) As to Issue 22, the Plan is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, consistent with the criterion of an objective directing population concentrations away from coastal high hazard areas. Coastal Element Objective 6 is to "[r]estrict development of residential population centers" in the coastal high hazard area. CARE Objective 5 is to avoid loss of life and property by "minimizing land development" in coastal areas. As used in the Plan, "restrict" does not mean "prohibit." 32/ Restrict appears to mean merely regulate. And without standards to guide regulation, an objective to restrict, or minimize, is vague and undefined. The meaning of the criterion is clear and its importance is indisputable for one of the most hurricane vulnerable regions in the United States. Obviously, the County itself does not interpret Plan language to "restrict" and "minimize" development as synonymous with the criterion to "direct population concentrations away from." Allowing higher densities in the coastal high hazard area and new intense uses in vacant or agricultural areas within the coastal high hazard area, the Plan reflects the County's reasonable interpretation of Coastal Element Objective 6. The language of Objective 6 and the apparent interpretation of the language by the County mean that the County is required only to attempt to restrain the rate of growth in intensity and density in the coastal high hazard area. This is not tantamount to directing population concentrations away from this hazardous area. Plan provisions to maintain hurricane evacuation times may not direct population concentrations from the coastal high hazard area because evacuation times can be reduced by other means, such as road and bridge capacity improvements. The missing objective must reduce densities and labor-intensive and capital-intensive intensities in the coastal high hazard area. As to Issue 23, the Plan contains a policy identifying regulatory techniques for septic tanks as part of general hazard mitigation to reduce the exposure of life and property in part of the coastal area to natural hazards. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 prohibits, except in cases of "undue hardship," the use of septic tanks for new development in the coastal high hazard area. There is no similar provision governing septic tanks in the larger coastal area, of which the coastal high hazard area is only a part. However, Coastal Element Policy 1.3 requires the County to plan for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities for coastal areas planned for higher densities, thereby reducing the use of interim wastewater treatment alternatives. Coastal Element Policy 1.7 provides, where economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to coastal areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are attributable to malfunctioning septic tanks. Public Facilities (Issues 24-31) As to Issue 24, the Plan establishes peak hour level of service standards for state roads and explains why the adopted level of service standards for certain roads are below the generally applicable standards. As to Issue 25, the Plan appears to govern all action taken by Hillsborough County concerning development and development orders. The four major provisions concerning vesting are reasonable and do not extend unnecessarily the recognition of vested rights. As to Issue 26, the Plan contains a policy addressing programs and activities for the provision of public facilities for development authorized by development orders issued prior to the adoption of the Plan. CIE Policy 1.D.1 requires the County, in determining the scope of capital improvements needed for concurrency, to take into account "demand that is likely to occur from previously issued development orders as well as future growth." As to Issues 27 and 28, the Plan's allowance of pipelining road impact fees in connection with DRI development orders does not necessarily violate concurrency. The Regional Plan allows pipelining, although the County's Plan fails to incorporate the restrictive conditions set forth in Regional Plan Policy 19.8.14. CIE Policy 3.C.4 already provides for considerable flexibility in the selection of affected areas when making concurrency determinations for roads. Reasonable flexibility in identifying the range of roads impacted by a DRI and applying DRI road impact fees does not mean that the resulting developments will violate concurrency. Nonvested DRI's remain subject to the Plan, including the concurrency monitoring and enforcement provisions, and their failure to satisfy these provisions should result in the denial of a development order. As to Issue 29, the Plan contains policies providing for concurrency with respect to developments for which development orders were issued prior to the adoption of the Plan and new developments that are to be assessed a pro rata share of the costs of public facility improvements necessitated by the new development. As noted above, CIE Policy 1.D.1 takes into account the demand for public facilities from development orders issued before the adoption of the Plan. CIE Policy 2.B.1.a provides further that existing development shall pay for at least some of the capital improvements to reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies. CIE Objective 2 addresses the sources of funds for infrastructure, including "County revenues, development's proportionate share contributions, and grants or gift[s] from other source[s]." CIE Policy 2.B.2.a provides that the County will "allocate the cost of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents so that current residents will not subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new development." As to Issue 30, the above-described Plan provisions, together with the five year schedule of capital improvements, establish funding mechanisms to correct existing deficiencies in required public facilities. As to Issue 31, the Plan is consistent with the requirement of financial feasibility based on the schedules of capital improvements and sources of revenues. The $52.4 million discrepancy between the cost of capital improvements in the Five Year Schedule and the Table of Costs and Revenues, which were prepared 18 months apart, does not prove lack of financial feasibility. In the absence of additional evidence, it is equally likely that the County displayed financial prudence in scaling back capital outlays to meet emerging revenue shortfalls. Urban Sprawl (Issues 32-35) As to Issue 32, the FLUM generally depicts urban and rural land uses with one major exception. To the exclusion of fair debate, there is no clear indication as to what land uses are permissible on lands designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas. As to Issue 33, the Plan contains provisions to discourage urban sprawl. The Plan generally provides for a viable mixture of residential and commercial uses in the concept underlying the Plan and the use of nodes. With the exception of the areas whose designations are not supported by the Data and Analysis, urban and rural land uses are separated. Regarding urban sprawl, various Plan provisions, such as FLUE Policies A- 7.6 and B-4.6, discourage urban sprawl and encourage the efficient use of land and provision of public facilities and the protection of natural resources and agriculture. As to Issue 34, the Plan contains provisions, regarding the protection of rural and agricultural lands, designating agricultural uses on the FLUM; setting objectives to conserve, appropriately use, and protect soils and natural vegetative communities; and setting policies to protect and conserve the natural functions of soils, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, floodplains, harbors, and wetlands. The agricultural uses are primarily assigned to Rural designations, and the Rural designations generally specify densities that are low enough to promote agricultural uses. Plan provisions describe the extent to which agricultural uses may be located in Urban and Suburban designations. Some of the natural resources receive more protection than others, such as floodplains, but in general, and especially in the context of protecting rural and agricultural lands, the Plan is consistent with the cited criteria. Miscellaneous (Issues 35-36) As to Issue 35, the Plan contains provisions adequately addressing intergovernmental coordination. As to Issue 36, the Plan contains dual planning timeframes. One timeframe, as shown on the five year schedule of capital improvements, is five years, and the other, as shown on the FLUM, is 20 years. Minimum Criterion of Internal Consistency (Issues 37-38) As to Issue 37, the Plan is, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with respect to, on the one hand, Plan provisions to protect natural resources, which are identified as Conservation and Preservation Areas in the Plan, and, on the other hand, the failure to provide Environmentally Sensitive Areas with a designation that regulates land uses. The Plan is generally internally consistent with respect to the permitted densities and intensities and Plan provisions to protect natural resources. However, there are two major exceptions to this finding. First, if the stormwater level of service standard is not expanded in the manner described above, all designations allowing further development within the 100 year floodplain are, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with Plan provisions to protect natural resources, unless the development in the 100 year floodplain is prohibited from altering predevelopment drainage conditions in terms of rate, volume, quality, timing, or location of discharge. Second, even if the stormwater level of service standard is appropriately broadened, the densities and intensities determined, to the exclusion of fair debate, to be unsuitable or unsupported by the Data and Analysis are, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with Plan provisions to protect natural resources. This applies to the second and third clauses of Issue 37. The Plan is internally consistent with respect to the discouragement of urban sprawl and the adopted level of service standards for roads and the use of dual planning timeframes. As to Issue 38, the Plan is internally consistent with respect to the discouragement of urban sprawl and the Plan provisions requiring developers to pay a pro rata share of the cost of public facilities necessitated by their development. Minimum Criterion of Consistency with Regional Plan (Issue 39) As to Issue 39, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the Regional Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the Regional Plan's provisions requiring the discouragement of urban sprawl, identification of the coastal high hazard area, prohibition against publicly subsidized development in the coastal high hazard area (the Regional Plan lacks a provision requiring the direction of population away from the coastal high hazard area), adoption of road level of service standards, achievement of energy-efficient design of transportation facilities, enhancement of governmental efficiency, and attainment of compliance with national air quality standards. With respect to the Regional Plan's provisions for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, the Plan is consistent in some respects and, to the exclusion of fair debate, inconsistent in other respects. The inconsistencies have all been addressed above in connection with inconsistencies with other criteria of Chapter 9J-5. These inconsistencies are the inadequate stormwater level of service standard, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goal 8.7; in the absence of the expanded stormwater level of service standard discussed above, the inadequate protection of the 100 year floodplain, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goals 8.10, 10.4, and 10.5 and related policies; the inadequate protection extended to public supply potable water wellfields and their cones of influence and aquifer recharge, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goals 8.1 and 8.5 and related policies. Minimum Criterion of Consistency with State Plan (Issues 40-41) As to Issue 40, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the State Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the discouragement of urban sprawl, promotion of agricultural activities that are compatible with the protection of natural resources, reduction of the cost of housing construction by the elimination of costly regulatory practices, coordination of transportation improvements to enhance system efficiency and minimize environmental impacts, assurance that transportation improvements are consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality and efficient use of energy and transportation modes, elimination of regulatory activities not tied to the needs of specific public and natural resource protection, reduction of the need for new power plants by encouraging end-use energy efficiency, and attainment of compliance with all national air quality standards. With respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the elimination of the discharge of inadequately treated stormwater runoff and wastewater into the waters of the state, the Plan is consistent with respect to wastewater, but, to the exclusion of fair debate, inconsistent with respect to stormwater due to the above-noted deficiencies concerning the stormwater level of service standard. As to Issue 41, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the State Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the development of a system of incentives and disincentives to encourage a separation of urban and rural uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats (notwithstanding general shortcomings regarding the protection of water supplies and specific unsuitable designations jeopardizing potentially significant wildlife habitat), promotion of agriculture, provision of incentives for developing land so as to maximize the uses of existing public facilities, allocation of the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents, and assurance that the transportation system provides Florida's residents and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions. With respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the direction of growth into areas that already have or will soon have the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner, the Plan is generally consistent. However, the Plan is inconsistent with this provision of the State Plan, to the exclusion of fair debate, with respect to those five areas for which unsuitable designations were demonstrated to the exclusion of fair debate, and the Plan is inconsistent with this provision of the State Plan, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, with respect to those six areas for which unsuitable designations were demonstrated by a mere preponderance of the evidence..
Recommendation 317
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by the City of St. Pete Beach (City) by Ordinance No. 2008-15 on August 26, 2008, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipality in southwestern Pinellas County. Following an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, the City adopted its current Plan in 1998 (also known as the 2010 Plan), which has been found to be in compliance. Since 2007, municipalities within Pinellas County have participated in the Pilot Program for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. The statutory process is described in Section 163.32465, Florida Statutes. Under the Pilot Program, municipalities have "reduced state oversight of local comprehensive planning," and plan amendments may be enacted in "an alternative, expedited plan amendment adoption and review process." Id. Although the City must send a transmittal package to the Department (and other designated agencies and entities) for its preliminary review, the Department does not issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report or a notice of intent. Instead, the Department "may provide comments regarding the amendment or amendments to the local government." Id. It may also initiate an administrative proceeding to challenge whether such amendments are in compliance, but it chose not to do so here. The amendments in dispute were adopted under the Pilot Program. Petitioner is a resident of, and owns property in, the City, and he submitted oral and written comments and objections concerning the proposed amendments. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. The parties have stipulated that Lorraine Huhn and Deborah Nicklaus reside and own property within the City, and that both individuals submitted comments to the City during the transmittal public hearing on June 16, 2008, and/or the adoption public hearing on August 26, 2008. Therefore, they are affected persons and have standing to participate. According to the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, SOLV is a Florida non-profit corporation with a principal address of 6370 Gulf Boulevard, St. Pete Beach, Florida. The parties have also stipulated that SOLV operates a business within the City. Whether it submitted comments to the City between the transmittal hearing on June 24, 2008, and the adoption hearing on August 26, 2008, is in dispute. SOLV's President, Lorraine Huhn, presented comments at the City's adoption hearing on August 26, 2008. See Petitioner's Exhibit 15, pages 63-64. During her brief oral presentation to the City Commission in support of the amendments, she did not state that she was speaking on behalf of SOLV, and at no time did she refer to that organization. However, on August 2, 2008, Ms. Huhn sent an email on behalf of SOLV to the City Clerk, which arguably can be interpreted as written support for the Ordinance being challenged. See Intervenors' Exhibit 9. Also, an email authored by the City Manager on August 1, 2008, indicates that SOLV representatives met with City representatives on July 31, 2008, to discuss the proposed amendments. See Intervenors' Exhibit 10. Since these written and oral comments were submitted between the transmittal and adoption hearings, SOLV meets the definition of an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. Background By way of background, the City was initially incorporated in 1957 as St. Petersburg Beach by consolidating the towns of Pass-a-Grille, Don CeSar, Belle Vista, St. Petersburg Beach, and certain unincorporated areas of Pinellas County. It occupies a six-mile long barrier island (known as Long Key), which lies between the Gulf of Mexico and Boca Ciega Bay, with a maximum width of three-quarters of a mile and an area of approximately 2.25 square miles or 1,286.14 acres. The name was shortened to St. Pete Beach in 1994 to lessen the confusion with the City of St. Petersburg, which lies to the east. The City has about 4.5 miles of beaches and is very densely populated. Most of the City has been developed with only 13.40 acres, or around one percent of the land, vacant and undeveloped. The entire City is within the flood plain, and much of the City is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The current population is around 10,000. To place the current dispute in proper perspective, a history of events that began in 2002 is necessary. With the assistance of a consulting firm, beginning in April 2002 the City initiated redevelopment planning efforts for various areas within the City including Corey Avenue/Blind Pass Road, Pass-a- Grille, Gulf Boulevard, and residential neighborhoods. The intention of this effort was to define the starting point for subsequent master planning efforts by the City. A Final Report (also known as the Visioning Statement or Plan) was issued by the consulting firm in July 2002. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. This was followed by a master planning process by another consulting firm, which was intended, among other things, to develop a strategy for dealing with the redevelopment of older and outdated properties within the resort area of the City (along the Gulf of Mexico), rather than having them converted into residential condominiums because of existing regulatory restrictions. The final Master Plan was presented to the City Commission in August 2003. See Respondent's Exhibit 3. In response to the Master Plan, on June 28, 2005, the City enacted Ordinance 2004-24, known as the City's Community Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan), which implemented many of the recommendations in the Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibit 8. Among other things, the Redevelopment Plan created a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which included two sub-districts, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 10 of Exhibit 8, and the Downtown Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 11 of the same exhibit. The amendment was intended to establish standards for redevelopment in the so-called "resort" area of the City, which runs north-south along Gulf Boulevard adjacent to the beach on the western side of Long Key, while the same thing was intended for the core downtown area. Although Petitioner is correct that Ordinance No. 2008-15 differs from Ordinance No. 2004-24 in some respects, there are many similarities between the two, including the creation of the two Redevelopment Districts, additional character districts within the two main Districts, and the maps of the Districts. Also, both Ordinances have many of the same Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and both include unnumbered narrative text setting out allowable uses as density and intensity standards. On August 19, 2005, Petitioner and a non-profit association filed a challenge to Ordinance No. 2004-24 under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. See Citizens for Responsible Growth and William C. Pyle v. Department of Community Affairs and City of St. Pete Beach, DOAH Case No. 05- 3159GM. The challengers later voluntarily dismissed their petition, the case was closed on October 17, 2005, and the Department found the amendments to be in compliance. Under the City's Charter, however, citizens may petition to require reconsideration by the City Commission of any adopted ordinance and, if the City Commission fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered, to approve or reject it at a City election. See Petitioner's Exhibit 26; § 7.02, City Charter. (Ten percent of the qualified registered voters in the City must sign a petition in order to have an ordinance placed on the ballot for approval or disapproval.) Petitioners in DOAH Case No. 05-3159GM were instrumental, at least in part, in securing the necessary number of voters to sign a petition, and a majority of the registered voters in the City later voted to repeal the Ordinance in 2006. Pursuant to that vote, the City Commission repealed Ordinance No. 2004-24 and it never took effect. In 2008, six ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 2008-09 through 2008-14) were proposed as citizen initiatives. After the City refused to act on the six initiatives, SOLV and others filed suit against City officials seeking a vote on the six ordinances. See Save Our Little Village, Inc., et al. v. Commissioner Linda Chaney, et al., Case No. 08-2408-CI-8 (6th Circuit, Pinellas County). On March 31, 2008, the City adopted Resolution 2008-09 approving a Settlement Agreement in the law suit. See Joint Exhibit 1, Appendix C. The Settlement Agreement required the City to transmit and adopt the Ordinance being challenged here subject to various conditions and limitations, if the voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10, which was a Petition by SOVL proposing an ordinance to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan. (The City is required by the Countywide Plan Rules to transmit the countywide plan map amendment to the Pinellas County Planning Council for its review in order to adopt the City plan amendment. This process is described in Petitioner's Exhibit 33.) Notably, the City's staff did not prepare the text or the accompanying supporting data for Ordinance No. 2008-15; rather, the text and all supporting data were prepared by SOLV. The voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10 on June 3, 2008, which provided for the review and approval of the amendments being challenged here. Pursuant to the results of the referendum, on June 16, 2008, the City approved Ordinance Nos. 2008-15, 2008-24, and 2008-25. Only the first Ordinance is in issue here; the other two are not contested. As required by Section 163.32465(4)(a), Florida Statutes, the amendments were then transmitted to the Department, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Education, Department of State, Department of Transportation District Seven, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Pinellas County Planning Department for their review and comment, if any. Comments on the amendments were offered by the Department on August 1, 2008, and by the Department of Transportation, Department of Education, and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. On August 26, 2008, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2008-15. Petitioner's challenge was then timely filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 24, 2008. See § 163.32465(6)(a), Fla. Stat. ("[a]ny 'affected person' as defined in s. 163.3184(1)(a) may file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings . . . within 30 days after the local government adopts the amendment"). The Ordinance Ordinance No. 2008-15 establishes a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which includes the Downtown and Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Districts comprised of eleven character districts, and implements that change by amending the FLUM and certain text provisions within the FLUE and HE. The two new Districts comprise approximately twenty percent of the total land area of the City, or around 248.25 acres. The amendments are found in Attachment A, consisting of 115 pages, which is attached to the Ordinance. Attachment A includes six maps found on page 40 (Map 1 - Community Redevelopment Districts Location); page 41 (Map 2 - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Character Districts); page 42 (Map 3 - Downtown Community Redevelopment District 1); page 110 (Map 10 - Future Land Use Map - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); page 111 (Map 11 - Future Land Use Map - Downtown Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); and page 112 (Map 12 - Coastal High Hazard Area - Storm Surge for Category 1 (2007), St. Pete Beach, FL). Pages 1 through 6 are introductory material outlining the need for redevelopment. Pages 7 through 112 pertain to the Future Land Use Element, while pages 113 through 115 relate to the Housing Element. Because SOLV (rather than the City) prepared Attachment A, this is probably the reason why some parts of the lengthy Attachment A have been drafted in narrative style. Besides Attachment A, support documentation for the amendments is attached to the Ordinance and includes the legal notices published in a local newspaper; Citizen Courtesy Information Lists; Commission and Planning Board Agendas; excerpts from Division 31 of the City's Land Development Code; copies of various Ordinances; and a 127-page Special Area Plan submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority in support of the amendment that was necessary in order for the City to adopt the Ordinance. In addition, the data and analyses used for the adoption of Ordinance No. 2004-24 were relied upon to support the amendments, including the Visioning Plan and the Master Plan. Petitioner's Objections In paragraphs 9 through 25 of his Petition, which are in the section entitled "Disputed Issues of Material Fact And/or Mixed Disputes [sic] Issues of Fact and Law," Dr. Pyle contends that the amendments adopted by the Ordinance are not in compliance for numerous reasons. The parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation also states that "the Disputed Issues of Material Fact and/or Mixed Questions of Fact or Law set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing in this matter remain disputed issues for the purposes of the final hearing." In his Proposed Recommended Order, however, Petitioner states in a more concise fashion that the amendments are not in compliance because they: are not clearly based upon appropriate data, including data required for the FLUE; [are not] based upon and supported by an appropriate analysis of the best available data; did not demonstrate "need"; [are] inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan; [are] not "financially feasible"; [do] not meet format requirements; [do] not contain two planning periods; establish a mixed-use FLUM designation of CRD [Community Redevelopment District] that [does] not meet the statutory and rule requirements; [are] internally inconsistent; and [do] not meet the minimum procedural and notice requirements. These objections will be considered below, although not in the order listed above. Procedural Irregularities Petitioner contends that the City failed to follow certain notice requirements and therefore he was unduly prejudiced by these irregularities. Specifically, he claims that the notices published by the City in the St. Petersburg Times on June 8 and August 20, 2008, did not advise the public of all amendments, particularly one relating to the Resort Facilities Overlay District; did not include a map showing areas subject to the FLUM amendments in relation to major streets; did not advise that the City was amending the coastal construction control line (CCCL) definition in the Preservation land use category; and the actual changes being made "did not comport with the title of the adopted Ordinance." Copies of the published notices, albeit in very small and sometimes illegible print, are found in Joint Exhibit 2. Assuming all of these notice deficiencies are true, Petitioner did not establish that he was prejudiced by any irregularities. Besides being intimately involved in this controversy since its inception in 2002, the evidence shows that he attended both the transmittal and adoption hearings of Ordinance No. 2008-15; that he addressed the City Commission at both meetings; that he was provided copies of all pertinent documents; that through counsel he filed a Petition requesting a formal evidentiary hearing, which raises a litany of compliance issues; that he was allowed to conduct discovery; and that he was given an opportunity to fully litigate each issue in his Petition. The contention that he was prejudiced by procedural irregularities is hereby rejected. Planning Time Frames Petitioner alleges that the Plan, as amended, does not set forth either a short-term planning time frame for the five- year period following adoption, or a long-term planning timeframe for at least a ten-year period following adoption. He contends that this is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(4), which requires that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan shall include at least two planning periods: one for at least the first five year period subsequent to the plan's adoption and one for at least an overall 10-year period." See also § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. The existing Plan includes at least two planning periods, a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) covering the first five years after the adoption of the Plan in 1998, and the School Board's Five-Year Work Program for fiscal year 2007-08 through 2011-2012. Although the CIP was first adopted in 1998, the statutory deadline for all local governments to transmit an updated CIP was December 1, 2008, or after the amendment was adopted. Also, the existing Plan utilized a population estimate from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) to project population for the City for the upcoming ten-year period. Besides the above time frames, the new amendment contains two other planning time frames for implementation of the redevelopment incentives in the Plan. First, it contains a Residential Unit Reserve section for the new District, holding specific numbers of residential units in reserve in three of the character districts (Downtown Core Residential District, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road District, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard District) for the first five years after adoption of the plan amendments. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 106-107. This allows the City to evaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment without releasing all residential density otherwise authorized. Second, the amendment contains a General Residential Unit Density Pool Reserve of 195 residential units in the Large Resort District which cannot be released in the first ten years after adoption of the amendment. See Joint Exhibit 2, page 108. Like the other provision, this planning tool allows the City to reevaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment prior to authorizing additional density. Petitioner's own planner agreed that these time frames were part of the planning period for the proposed amendment. While Petitioner contends that the time periods are "minimum waiting periods not tied to any fixed time frame," it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that they will become operative once the Ordinance is implemented. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Plan, as amended, complies with the requirement for two planning time frames and is not inconsistent with either the rule or statute. Mixed-Use Categories Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c) encourages mixed use categories of land and provides that if they are used, "policies for the implementation of such mixed uses shall be included in the comprehensive plan, including the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, and the density and intensity of each use." Petitioner contends that FLUE Policy 2.1.1 establishes a new mixed use district (the Community Redevelopment District) but the Plan, as amended, does not contain the requirements set forth in the rule. The Community Redevelopment District is a mixed use land use category, as is each of the character districts included within the two sub-districts. The Plan identifies four character districts within the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District (Large Resort, Boutique Hotel/Condo, Activity Center, and Bayou Residential) and seven character districts within the Downtown Redevelopment District (Town Center Core, Town Center Corey Circle, Town Center Coquina West, Downtown Core Residential, Upham Beach Village, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard). FLUE Policy 2.1.1 incorporates the development standards found in the "Community Redevelopment District" section of the FLUE for the two larger sub-districts and eleven smaller character districts. Therefore, it provides the policies required for the implementation of the new land use category. These policies govern the distribution, location, and extent of uses and densities and intensities of uses within the sub-districts. They also establish the boundaries, uses, densities, and intensities of use for the eleven character districts. The types of land uses allowed in each character district are clearly listed in a section of the text amendment corresponding to each character district titled "Permitted Uses and Standards." See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 75, 79, 82, 84, 91, 93, 98, 100, 102, and 105. For example, in the Large Resort District, primary uses are hotel, motel, resort condominium, and medium density multi-family residential. Id. at page 75. The density and intensity standards for each type of use allowed within each character district are also listed in the same sections of the Attachment. For example, the maximum density of residential development in the Boutique Hotel/Condo District is eighteen units per acre. Id. at page 75. Finally, the policies for each character district provide objective criteria governing the actual mix of uses permitted on any redevelopment site within the Community Redevelopment District. The location of each allowable use will be distributed throughout each district. For example, the Downtown Redevelopment District creates a traditional downtown core area with traditional downtown core services surrounded by residential neighborhoods buffered from commercial intrusion. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, page 36. On the other hand, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District is a core resort and shopping destination for residents and visitors. Id. The Community Redevelopment District does not use a percentage distribution among the mix of uses since the City is essentially built out and already has a mix of uses within the newly-created districts. Therefore, the plan amendment accomplishes a distribution of mix of land through location of uses in multi- story buildings, rather than a percentage distribution of mix. By doing so, it satisfies the requirement of the rule. See, e.g., The University Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 92- 0691GM, 1993 Fla. ENV LEXIS 19 (DOAH Nov. 2, 1992, DCA Feb. 24, 2003). Therefore, it is found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with the rule. Preservation District The plan amendment is based upon the City's Visioning Plan and Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 3. Neither document contains any recommendation that the City's Preservation Land Use District be revised in any way. In the existing 2010 Plan, the Preservation District is defined in FLUE Policy 1.1.1 as those beaches seaward of the CCCL, Fuller Island, and other environmentally significant natural resource areas. No development is allowed in the Preservation District except dune walkovers. Ordinance No. 2008-15 renumbers Policy 1.1.1 as 2.1.1 and makes a one-word change (underscored below) in the definition of the Preservation District so that it now reads as follows: Preservation (P), applied to the beaches seaward of the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line, Fuller Island and other environmentally significant natural resource areas; such designated areas shall not be developed except to provide beach access dune walkovers from adjacent developed properties under the provisions of the City's Beach Management Regulations. Petitioner argues that the effect of this change is to establish a new boundary line for the Preservation District (further seaward in some instances) and to no longer use the setback line previously used by the City, which was known as the Coastal Construction and Excavation Setback Line. He further contends that the City's setback line and the Florida (State) CCCL encompass different areas along the beach. In some cases, the City's setback line is more seaward than the State, and vice versa. Petitioner contends that the data and analysis for the 2010 Plan "implies" that the location of the Preservation land use category should be based upon the more restrictive of the City setback line or State CCCL, that is, whichever is less seaward. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the underlying reason for raising this claim is that an old Travelodge motel sits just south and east of Petitioner's condominium building and is scheduled to be redeveloped as a new high-rise condominium. Petitioner is concerned that if the State CCCL (rather than the City setback line) is used, it will allow the new building to be constructed closer to the Gulf of Mexico, presumably reducing his view and beach access. The City's witness Holly established that the City does not have a CCCL. Rather, it has an excavation and setback line. He further established that the City has consistently enforced the Preservation District geographically as the area seaward of the State CCCL. Also, the City's land development regulations implementing the existing Plan define the Preservation District as the property seaward of the State CCCL. The Countywide Plan also uses the State CCCL. The amendment is clarifying in nature and is intended to make the text in the City's Plan consistent with the Countywide Plan and existing enforcement practices. As explained by Mr. Holly, the City's setback line predates the establishment of the State CCCL, and functions much in the same manner as the State CCCL "in that it precludes structural development seaward of that line without specific application for approval of variance for those standards." See Transcript, page 415. Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this clarifying change in the definition of the Preservation District in FLUE Policy 2.1.1 is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Format of Plan Amendment Petitioner next contends that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1), which contains general format requirements for comprehensive plans. For example, he points out that there are lengthy unnumbered narrative sections in Attachment A that apparently supplement the numbered sections, that the references to the land development regulations do not identify the specific land development regulation adopted by reference, that the series of maps are not labeled properly, and that the maps do not include north-south arrows or a scale. The amendment contains specific goals, objectives, and policies for the Community Redevelopment District. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 43-48. It also contains goals, objectives, and policies for the two redevelopment districts, numbered policies for each character district, as well as unnumbered text setting forth permitted uses and standards for each character district. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 67-70, 71-77, 78-80, 83-85, 86-90, 90-92, 92-94, 94-97, 97-98, 99-101, 101-103, and 104-106. The deposition testimony of Michael McDaniel, Chief of the Department's Office of Comprehensive Planning, established that while they are not typically used, the narrative sections of Attachment A are permissible to explain the goals, policies, and objectives. He further stated that nothing in the governing statutes or rules requires that all material adopted as part of a plan be labeled as, or be in the form of, a goal, policy, or objective, that many variations of format are found in plans adopted by local governments throughout the State, and that the Plan, as amended, is not inconsistent with any requirement. As to the makeup of the maps, Mr. McDaniel stated that while the Department prefers that maps be labeled as future land use maps, and that they contain the detail suggested by Petitioner, a failure to do so does not render the plan amendment not in compliance. Finally, he stated that the Department staff had no difficulty in understanding the maps or map series when they were reviewed by the Department in July 2008. Notably, the Department did not address any of these format issues when it prepared comments to the proposed amendment on August 1, 2008. Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1). Data and Analyses Petitioner alleges that the City failed to rely upon the best available data sources to support the amendment, that a proper analysis of the data was not made, and that the City did not react to the data in an appropriate way, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). Petitioner presented no expert testimony or other evidence supporting the claim that the plan amendment lacked supporting data and analysis. Although he introduced into evidence various documents on the theory that this information constituted better data than that used by the City, the evidence does not support this allegation. For example, various documents concerning hurricane evacuation times were submitted, including the Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study Update 2006, the Pinellas County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), and the 2008 Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 16, and Since the plan amendment does not increase density, however, it does not conflict with established hurricane evacuation times. Also, the City is not increasing population to be evacuated to other zones; therefore, the Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan is irrelevant. Finally, the amendment is not contrary to any mitigation strategies in the LMS. Population estimates for the year 2006 prepared by the BEBR were introduced by Petitioner, presumably for the purpose of showing that more current population data should have been used, rather than the 2000 Census data relied upon by the City. See Petitioner's Exhibit 21. However, there is no requirement that the City update its population estimates and projections each time it adopts an amendment. According to Mr. McDaniel, this is normally done every seven years at the time of the EAR. In any event, the BEBR estimates an increase in population in the City of only 48 persons during the six-year period from 2000 to 2006 (from 10,002 to 10,050). Petitioner also introduced a list of claims for flood losses within the last ten years in the City for the purpose of demonstrating that the City failed to consider the location of these properties in adopting the amendment. However, the evidence shows that redevelopment policies in the amendment would bring existing older structures up to National Flood Insurance Protection standards. A list of Licensed Dwelling Units was also introduced to show that the list relied upon by the City was incomplete and failed to include a motel in close proximity to Petitioner's condominium. Assuming that this is true, the error was minor and did not affect the overall validity of the City's data. The plan amendment is supported by the City's visioning project, economic analysis, master planning project, and evaluation of infrastructure capacity and availability of services. It is also supported by data submitted by SOLV to the County in support of the amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, which includes the Special Area Plan. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that there is relevant and appropriate data supporting the amendment, that the data was properly analyzed, and that the City reacted in an appropriate manner. Internal Inconsistency Petitioner further alleges that the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with Intergovernmental Element Policy 1.5.3, which requires that the City coordinate with the Pinellas County Emergency Management Department when adopting map amendments resulting in an increase in population within the CHHA. Under the existing definition of the CHHA in the 2010 Plan, the entire City is within the CHHA. The amendment implements a new definition, as required by Section 163.3178(2), Florida Statutes, which removes some parts of the City from the CHHA. Because the new amendment does not relate to either hurricane shelters or evacuation routes, and does not increase the residential density in the CHHA, compliance with the cited policy was not required. Petitioner further alleged that FLUE Policy 4.1.1 is internally inconsistent with Goals 2 and 3 of the Conservation and Coastal Element as well as the implementing objectives for those Goals. However, no testimony or other credible evidence was offered on this issue and the claim must fail. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Plan, as amended, in not internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Need Petitioner contends that the City did not prepare an analysis of need for future land uses authorized by the Ordinance, that it did not prepare an updated existing land use map series, that no tabular form of the approximate acreage and general range of density and intensity of each existing land use was prepared, and no population projections were presented, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a), (b), (c), and (g). Therefore, he argues that the plan amendment is not supported by a demonstration of need for the new land use category to accommodate the anticipated growth. The supporting documentation for the plan amendment demonstrates the need for redevelopment of the City's lodging establishments, the need for additional height for tourist lodging uses in order to prevent conversion of those uses to condominium uses, and the need for aesthetic and other design changes to the City's building facades, streetscapes, and public areas with the redevelopment area. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 1-3. The plan amendment does not propose new density to accommodate new populations. In fact, it reduces the overall residential density in the City, and the total amount of dwelling units, temporary lodging units, and non-residential (commercial) floor area ratio will also be reduced. Because the plan amendment does not increase the total amount of development, but is simply a plan for redevelopment of existing uses, there is no requirement that a need analysis be prepared. Financial Feasibility Petitioner also contends that the Plan, as amended, has not been shown to be financially feasible and does not include an updated five-year CIP. See § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. ("the comprehensive plan shall contain a capital improvements element [which] set[s] forth: . . . [a] schedule of capital improvements . . . "). The statutory requirement for a CIP applies to projects necessary to ensure that adopted levels of service (LOS) standards are achieved and maintained. It applies to all public facilities and services for which an LOS standard is adopted pursuant to Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes. This was confirmed by the testimony of Mr. McDaniel. The evidence shows that all relevant City infrastructure facilities are operating at or above the adopted LOS. Therefore, there are no deficiencies which need correction in order to implement the redevelopment plan. As further confirmed by Mr. McDaniel, if a plan has been found to be in compliance, and the local government proposes changes that do not create a need for capital improvements, the plan amendment does not need to include an amendment to its CIP. In this case, the amendment does not increase the total permissible amount of residential density or non-residential use within the Community Redevelopment District, and no additional infrastructure capacity is needed. Petitioner's expert identified certain infrastructure projects for which he contended an updated CIP is needed, such as sidewalks, street lighting, and bike lanes. While these types of projects are all integral to the proposed redevelopment plan, they are not subject to concurrency or the financial feasibility standard. Even if they were, Petitioner's expert agreed such improvements could be accomplished through private investment when permits for projects are issued. Because Petitioner failed to show that the plan amendment would require the construction of any new or expanded public facilities to provide additional capacity to serve the development, his contention that the plan is not financially feasible must necessarily fail. Other Contentions All other contentions not discussed herein have been considered and rejected because no evidence on the issues was presented or the more credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the contentions are without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-15 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Polk County's small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Ordinance No. 03-03 on January 22, 2003, as later amended by Ordinance No. 03-19 on March 15, 2003, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Berry is the owner of a tract of land located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road (County Road 540-A) and Pollard Road in Section 16, Township 29, Range 26 in the eastern part of unincorporated Polk County, Florida. The property lies south of the City of Winter Haven, east-southeast of the City of Eagle Lake, less than a mile south of Lake Eloise (on which Cypress Gardens is located), and west of U.S. Highway 27. Because Berry owns property within the County, and submitted oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the challenged amendment, it has standing to participate in this action. On July 19, 2002, Berry filed an application with the County Planning Department seeking to change the land use on 9.99 acres (or just below the threshold of 10.0 acres for a small scale amendment) from RL-1 to Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC) to include approximately 4.95 acres of various neighborhood specialty shops such as a grocery store, drug store, convenience store, and dry cleaners, with the remaining acreage used as a mini-warehouse self-storage facility. In September 2002, Berry amended its application by seeking to change 3.93 acres from RL-1 to CC and 6.06 acres from RL-1 to BPC-1. The application was assigned Case File No. CPA2003S- 02. Under the County's review process, the application is first reviewed by the County Development Review Committee (Committee), then by the County Planning Commission (CPC), which either accepts or rejects the Committee's recommendation, and finally by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), which either adopts the amendment, adopts the amendment as amended by the Board, or rejects the amendment. After conducting a preliminary review of the application, on September 16, 2002, the Committee conducted a public hearing and voted to recommend approval. The matter was then transmitted to the CPC, which conducted a meeting on October 9, 2002, and recommended that the Board approve the amendment. On January 22, 2003, by a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted CPA2003S-02 changing the designation on the FLUM of the County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) as proposed by Berry. This was confirmed by the County's adoption of Ordinance No. 03-03. On February 21, 2003, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the Berry amendment. The matter was again placed on the Board's agenda on March 19, 2003, after the County discovered that Ordinance No. 03-03 had inadvertently changed the land use on the entire parcel to CC rather a mix of CC and BPC-1. In addition, there were minor errors in the legal description of both the 3.93 and 6.06-acre parcels. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 03-19 was enacted to correct those errors. A second Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings (with essentially the same allegations, but also adding an allegation that the same property had been improperly subject to two small scale amendments within a 12- month period) was filed by Petitioners on March 19, 2003, challenging the action taken in Ordinance No. 03-19. At the outset of the final hearing, Petitioners voluntarily dismissed two allegations contained in their Petition. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioners have further narrowed the issues by addressing only the following allegations: that the property which is the subject of this proceeding exceeds 10.0 acres in size and therefore cannot qualify as a small scale amendment; and that the amendment violates Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policies 2.102-A1, 2.113-B-3, 2.113-B-4, 2.110-C3, and 2.113-B-1 and is thus internally inconsistent with the Plan. These issues will be discussed separately below. All other allegations contained in the second Petition and the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation are deemed to have been withdrawn or abandoned. Because the change in the FLUM was filed and approved as a small scale plan amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003),1 a compliance review of the amendment was not made by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. Standing of Petitioners Durham is a realtor/developer who owns property within 250 feet of Berry's property and resides at 10 Lake Eloise Lane, Southeast, Winter Haven, Florida. He made oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment. As such, he qualifies as an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and has standing to bring this action. CPPI began as an association in November 2002 and was later incorporated in February 2003. Presently, it has around 100 members, all of whom reside in the County. According to its chairperson, its purpose is to "help educate and inform residents of Polk County . . . towards growth matters that may affect their daily lives." The organization "encourages donations" from its members; it was scheduled to have conducted its first annual meeting on January 10, 2004; and members prepared and circulated petitions opposing the amendment to residents of the area in December 2002 and January 2003. At least one member of CPPI made written and oral comments on its behalf to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment in March 2003. There is no evidence, however, that CPPI (as opposed to its individual members) owns property or owns or operates a business within the County. Therefore, it lacks standing to file a petition. The land and surrounding uses Berry owns a triangle-shaped parcel of land (the parent parcel) totaling around 14 acres which fronts on Eagle Lake Loop Road (a 24-foot wide urban collector road) to the north, Pollard Road (a local road) to the east, and a CSX railroad track, with right-of-way, on its western side. (Pollard Road dead ends at Eagle Lake Loop Road, and another collector road, Eloise Loop Road, continues to the north from the intersection). Pollard Road provides access to eight nearby single-family homes, which lie south of the Berry property and front on Pollard Road, and eventually terminates at the City of Winter Haven's Sewage Treatment Plant (an institutional use), which lies slightly more than a mile south of the site. To the west of the site directly across the railroad tracks and fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road is additional property owned by Berry and on which were once located the original Berry corporate offices. The Berry office buildings are now used, at least partially, by other tenants. Although the land across the railroad tracks is classified as Residential Suburban (RS), the property can be used for offices since the buildings were constructed, and office use began, prior to the adoption of the Plan. Directly across Pollard Road to the east is a vacant 10-acre tract of land owned by the Baptist Ridge Association, which intends to construct a church on the property. Berry's property is now classified as RL-1, a land use classification which "is characterized by single-family dwelling units, duplex units, and small-scale multi-family units." Since at least the 1950s, however, or long before the County adopted its Plan, the property has been used primarily for agriculture purposes (citrus groves); therefore, Berry is grandfathered to continue this non-conforming use on its property. Presently, the entire tract of land is undeveloped and largely covered by an orange grove, which Berry describes as "past maturation and is declining." Citrus trucks and trailers have been parked on the extreme northwestern corner of the parent parcel and are used in conjunction with the citrus operation. Except for the former Berry offices, a nearby beauty salon operating out of a house, and a convenience store about three-quarters of a mile away, which all began operation before the Plan was adopted and are grandfathered as non- conforming uses, and the City of Winter Haven's large tract of institutional land to the south, all of the property within slightly less than a one-mile radius of the Berry property is classified in various residential land use categories with only residential uses. The Amendment As noted above, Berry has owned the subject property for many years. In 1987, Berry (then under the name of Jack M. Berry, Sr.) made application with the County for a zoning change on the property from Rural Conservation (RC) to Commercial (C-3) to allow typical commercial uses. The application was ultimately denied by the County on the ground, among others, that the zoning district being proposed was inconsistent with the Plan, "given the residential development pattern in the area." At least partly on the theory that the area has changed substantially in the last 15 years, Berry has filed (and the County has approved) an application seeking to change the land use on the property to commercial uses. Berry has carved out of the parent parcel two smaller parcels totaling 9.99 acres in size and seeks to change the land use on the northern parcel (3.93 acres) to CC and the land use on the southern parcel (6.06 acres) to BPC-1. The remaining land in the parent parcel, which consists of a 0.43-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the northwestern corner of the parent parcel and now used by citrus trucks, and a vacant 2.74-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the southern end, will remain R-1. (However, all parties agree that if the amendment is approved, these remaining parcels will be unsuitable for residential development.) In addition, strips of land ranging from 22 to 28 feet in width which front on Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road will be dedicated to the County for right-of-way and have not been included in the 9.99-acre amendment. Presumably, the proposed change is being done in this manner so that the total acreage is less than 10.0 acres, which qualifies the application to be processed as a small scale development amendment rather than a regular plan amendment and subject to DCA review and approval. If the change is approved, the northern part of the parcel (3.93 acres) will be changed to CC to develop convenience commercial uses. Under the Plan, the most typical tenant in this category is a convenience store, while other typical tenants include laundry, dry cleaning, barber, restaurant, gas station, and office uses. The southern (and larger) portion of the tract will be changed to BPC-1. The most typical tenant in this category is "[o]ne or more light- assembly plants, or warehouse facilities," which include a mini-warehouse storage facility. Other typical tenants described in the Plan are offices, distribution centers, research and development firms, and high-density residential, with proper buffering. (Berry says it intends to build a mini-warehouse facility on the southern parcel; however, any of the above described uses could be placed on the property if the change is approved.) Petitioners' Objections In broad terms, Petitioners have contended that the small scale amendment actually involves a use of more than 10 acres since the strips of land being dedicated as right-of-way to the County must be counted as a part of the land being amended. They also contend that the plan amendment violates five FLUE policies and is therefore internally inconsistent with the Plan. A small scale development amendment can only be adopted if "[t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." See § 163.3187(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. The parties have agreed that the legal description of the parcel subject to the change includes only 9.99 acres, or less than the 10-acre threshold. However, prior to the development of the site, Berry intends to dedicate to the County two strips of land, one fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road (28 feet wide), and the other on Pollard Road (22 feet wide), for future right-of-way for some public purpose. Petitioners contend that the right-of-way constitutes essential infrastructure for the development and must be included as a part of the amendment. If this land is added to the amendment, the total acreage would obviously exceed 10.0 acres. The dedicated land is not "essential infrastructure" needed for the development activities on the land, since two roadways (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road) already exist on the northern and eastern boundaries of the property, and they are sufficient in size to provide ingress to, and egress from, the property. Instead, the County will "bank" the land in the event some form of right-of-way activity is needed in the future. It is noted that Eagle Lake Loop Road was recently widened to 24 feet, and it is not anticipated that a further widening will occur for a number of years. There is nothing in the Plan which requires an applicant for an amendment to include all of its property in a proposed amendment, or prevents an applicant from leaving a residual piece of property out of the application. Therefore, Berry was not required to include in the amendment the right- of-way or the two smaller residual pieces of property that will remain R-1. Finally, assuming arguendo that Petitioners' contention is correct, that is, that an applicant must include right-of-way land dedicated to the local government in the total acreage calculation, Berry could still lawfully comply with the 10-acre threshold by simply reducing the other acreage being changed to CC or BPC by the amount of land being dedicated to the local government for right-of-way. Therefore, it is found that Berry has not improperly excluded from the amendment land necessary for essential infrastructure so as to violate Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioners. Policy 2.102-A1 requires compatibility between adjacent uses. More specifically, it provides that: Land shall be developed so that adjacent uses are compatible with each other, pursuant to the requirements of other Policies in this Future Land Use Element, so that one or more of the following provisions are accomplished: there have been provisions made which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses; incompatible uses are made to be more compatible to each other through limiting the intensity and scale of the more intense use; uses are transitioned through a gradual scaling of different land use activities through the use of innovative development techniques such as a Planned Unit Development. Therefore, as the Plan is now written, so long as Berry develops the land in a manner which accomplishes at least one of the three "provisions" in paragraphs a - c of the policy, so as to make the adjacent uses compatible, the proposed land use change is permissible. As noted above, except for a few non-conforming uses adjacent to, or near the property, virtually all of the area around the Berry property is designated for residential use. The area to the north and northeast is developed with up-scale (with some homes ranging to as high as $1 million in value), low density, large lot, single-family residential subdivisions, including Harbour Estates, Cedar Cove, Cypress Cove, Gaines Cove, and Valhalla. To the east of the site are more subdivisions, including Eloise Place, Skidmore, Cypress Point, Lake Eloise Estates, Eloise Pointe Estates, a mobile home park, and Little Lake Estates. The lands to the south are primarily agriculture and in active citrus groves, with eight single-family homes on Pollard Road. Finally, a church will be built on the property directly across the street from the Berry property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road. The County Planning Director agrees that a convenience store (which is an authorized use on CC land), standing alone, is incompatible with adjacent single-family residences. Given this acknowledgement, and the fact that a non-binding, proposed site plan submitted by Berry with its application does not provide for any buffering between the commercial uses and the residential areas, Petitioners contend that none of the conditions required for compatibility in paragraphs a through c have been met, and thus the policy has been violated. The County has made clear, however, that when a final site plan is submitted, there must be "provisions [in the site plan] . . . which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses," as required by the policy. Assuming that this is done at the site plan stage, at least one of the three provisions will be accomplished, thereby satisfying the compatibility requirement. This being so, the plan amendment does not violate the policy and in this respect is not internally inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioners next contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.110-C3, which contains locational criteria for CC property. One such criterion requires that "Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads." Because the property is at a T-shaped intersection (as opposed to a traditional cross intersection with four directions for traffic to move off the site), Petitioners assert that the property is not located at an "intersection" within the meaning of the policy. Eagle Lake Loop Road, on which the northern boundary of the property fronts, is designated as an urban collector road. That road forms an intersection with Pollard Road (a local road) and Eloise Loop Road (also an urban collector road), which meets Eagle Lake Loop Road from the north at the intersection, and then makes a 90 degree turn to the east. (When Eagle Lake Loop Road continues to the east beyond the intersection, it turns into Eloise Loop Road, and later into Thompson Nursery Road, until it eventually intersects with U.S. Highway 17.) There is no dispute that the two collector roads (Eagle Loop Lake Road and Eloise Loop Road) form a T intersection, rather than a traditional cross intersection. For many years, however, the County has considered a T intersection and a cross intersection to be the same in terms of satisfying Plan requirements. Indeed, at the present time, at least four other CC designated properties within the County are located at T intersections. The County's interpretation of the policy is consistent with sound planning principles, is reasonable and logical, and is more persuasive than the contrary view offered by Petitioners. Accordingly, it is found that the amendment does not conflict with Policy 2.110- C3. Petitioners also contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.113-B-3, which provides that "Business-Park Centers shall be located with consideration being given to regional transportation issues, and should be located at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line." (Emphasis added.) The use of the word "should" (rather than "shall") is intended to state a preference, but not an absolute requirement, that BPC lands be located at the intersections of arterial roads. According to the County's Planning Director, this is because "most cases that come [before the County] don't meet the ideal situation" of satisfying every requirement, and the County has used this permissive language to give itself some degree of flexibility in handling cases that do not meet every Plan requirement. Therefore, even though it is preferable that BPC land be located at the intersection of arterial roads, this requirement is not mandatory, and the County has the flexibility to approve a BPC land use change at property not sited at the intersection of arterial roads. In contrast to the permissive language described above, Policy 2.113-B-4 provides that development within a Business-Park Center shall conform to certain development criteria, including one that Business-Park Centers shall have frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves an arterial roadway. Business-Park Centers shall incorporate the use of frontage roads or shared ingress/egress facilities wherever practical. In this case, the closest arterial roadway to Berry's property is State Road 17 to the west, which is four miles away, while State Road 60, another arterial roadway, is approximately six miles to the south. These arterial roads must be accessed, at least at the beginning of the trip, by Eagle Lake Loop Road, a two-lane, 24-foot wide urban collector that runs through predominately residential neighborhoods with some homes having fences within a foot or two from the road. The County interprets the requirement that BPC land have "direct access to an arterial road" to be satisfied if the property fronts on a collector road, which then provides access to an arterial road. Under the County's interpretation, the requirement is met since Eagle Lake Loop Road provides access (albeit 4 to 6 miles away) to State Roads 17 and 60. The County says it has consistently interpreted this provision in this manner for at least ten years, and has approved other applications for changes to BPC when those parcels were located on urban collector roads. (The distance between these other BPC parcels and the arterial roads is not of record, however.) While Policy 2.113-B-1 provides that Business-Park Centers are "not intended to accommodate major commercial or other high-traffic producing facilities," they "are intended to promote employment opportunities within the region by allowing for the establishment of office parks, research and development parks, areas for light-industrial facilities, distribution centers, and mixed-use employment parks." The same policy provides that they must have a usable area of 10 acres or more, have a service-area radius of 20 miles or more, be supported by a population of 150,000 or more people, and have a gross leasable area of 500,000 to 2,000,000 square feet. Given this description of their purpose and characteristics, and the wide range of commercial activities that are allowed on Business-Park Center lands, it is not surprising that Policy 2.113-B-3 provides that BPC lands should be located "at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line," while Policy 2.113-B-4 requires that they "have direct frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves on an arterial roadway." When reading these provisions as a whole, it is unreasonable to conclude, as the County does, that "direct access" contemplates a drive of over 4 miles, partly on a narrow two- lane road, in order to reach an arterial road. Accordingly, on this issue, Petitioners' evidence is the most persuasive, and it is found that the plan amendment conflicts with Policy 2.113-B-4 and in this respect is internally inconsistent with the Plan. Policy 2.110-C3 sets forth the following location criteria for Convenience Centers: LOCATION CRITERIA Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads. There shall be the following traveling distance, on public roads, between the center of Convenience Center and the center of any other Convenience Center, or other higher- level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor, or Commercial Enclave providing for the same convenience shopping needs: One (1) mile within the UDA and UGA Two (2) miles within the SDA and UEA This required separation may be reduced if: The higher-level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor or Commercial Enclave within the required distance separation is over 80 percent developed; or the proposed Convenience Center market- area radius, minimum population support is over 5,000 people. Petitioners contend that this policy has been violated in two respects: the Berry property is not located at the intersection of arterial roads; and there is an existing convenience center located within 0.8 mile of the Barry property, and Berry cannot qualify for a reduction in the required separation, as described in paragraphs a and b. For the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 30-32, it is found that the Berry property is located at the intersection of two collector roads (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Eloise Loop Road) and that a T intersection satisfies the requirements of the policy. As to the second contention, the Berry property is located within an UGA (Urban Growth Area), and an existing convenience store is located at the intersection of Rifle Range Road and Eagle Lake Loop Road, or less than a mile west of Berry's property. The land use on the property on which the store sits was recently changed (in December 2003) to BPC, which does not allow a convenience store. However, the store is a non-conforming use, having been located at that site before the Plan was adopted. The locational requirement in Policy 2.110-C-3 that CC lands within the UGA be located at least a mile apart is not the least bit vague or ambiguous: CC designated lands (and not individual convenience stores, as Petitioners suggest) must be separated by at least a mile, unless one of the two criteria for reducing this separation is met. Because there is no CC land within a one-mile radius of the Berry land, the policy has not been violated. Policy 2.113-B-1 sets forth the following relevant characteristic for Business-Park Centers: General characteristics of Business-Park Centers are: Usable Area 10 acres or more There is no dispute that the useable area for the BPC land is only 6.06 acres, or approximately 60 percent of the required acreage. Petitioners contend that the amendment violates the foregoing policy because the useable area on Barry's property is much less than "10 acres or more." While the former County Planning Director conceded that the 10-acre usable area requirement is "mandatory," he justified the amendment on the ground that the 6.06 acres "approximates" 10 acres, and thus satisfies the policy. In the same vein, the current County Planning Director asserted that if Berry was proposing a stand-alone BPC, it would have been required to have 10 usable acres. In this case, though, he pointed out that the Berry property will be used for a nonresidential mixed use (BPC and CC) totaling almost 10 acres, and therefore Berry has satisfied the requirement. The Planning Director admitted, however, that nothing in the Plan specifically allows this type of exception. He justified the County's action on the theory that the Plan "doesn't anticipate every situation that comes in," and "interpretations have to be made of the comprehensive plan and how it's applied." The requirement that Business-Park Centers have a usable area of 10 or more acres is clear and unambiguous, was characterized as being "mandatory," and is not subject to any exceptions in the Plan. This being so, the County's interpretation is found to be unreasonable and contrary to the plain language in the policy, and in this respect the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with the Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Polk County by Ordinance No. 03-03, as amended by Ordinance No. 03-19, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2004, 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 24th day of February, 2004.
The Issue Whether amendments to Respondent, Lee County's (County), comprehensive plan, CPA2018-10014, adopted by ordinance on June 19, 2019, are "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners own and operate a business and own real property within the County, and each submitted oral and written comments to the County concerning the challenged 2019 Plan Amendments during the period beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the 2019 Plan Amendments by the County. The County is a political subdivision of the state of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and maintain a comprehensive plan under the Community Planning Act, sections 163.3161 et seq., Florida Statutes (the Act). Intervenor owns property and operates a business in the County, and provided oral comments to the County during the period beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the 2019 Plan Amendments. Limerock Mining in Lee County Limerock mining has occurred in the County on a large scale since at least the 1970's. A significant deposit of this natural resource was found in the southeast portion of the County. The deposit of limerock was the largest mineable deposit in the state between the Lake Belt region of Dade County and the Brooksville area, and supplied the seven-county southwest Florida region with high-quality, DOT-grade limerock. Three large limerock mines and several smaller mines were approved by the County throughout the years, and were currently operating. These mines existed and operated exclusively in the Southeast Lee County planning community. The Southeast Lee County planning community was geographically shown on Map 16 of the Lee Plan, and was one of 22 planning communities identified in the Lee Plan. In addition to being shown on Map 16 of the Lee Plan, the Southeast Lee County planning community was subject to a series of goals, objectives, and policies under Goal 33 of the Lee Plan. Limerock mining was specifically addressed under Objective 33.1 and policies thereunder. Limerock mining in the County supplied a geographical area greater than the County itself, encompassing all or parts of seven counties in Southwest Florida. The areas were determined by the location of the mine and the costs associated with transport of material to job sites, as compared to other mines in Dade County and the Brooksville area. While the approval of a limerock mine may encompass several thousand acres, mining generally occurred in smaller phases consisting of five to twenty acres over an extended period of time. In a typical year, a limerock mine would excavate 20-25 acres. Land within an approved mine that was not in active mining was generally held as vacant or agricultural land. Land that has been mined transitioned to an open water body, often with vacant land around it to facilitate future uses such as residential or conservation. The extraction of this natural resource within a mining operation was a temporary use as the land went through a normal progression of vacant or agricultural use, then active excavation, then to an open water body, and potentially to some other use such as residential or conservation. The only permanent industrial use and activity at the mine was the rock crushing and processing area. The Original Lee Plan The County adopted its initial comprehensive plan under the 1989 version of the Act. The plan was found "not in compliance" by the state land planning agency at the time (DCA) and was referred to a hearing before DOAH. Prior to the hearing, the County, DCA, and numerous intervenors entered into a stipulated settlement agreement in 1989 that required the County to adopt various remedial plan amendments. Those remedial amendments included the adoption of a new water resources land use classification to be applied to the southeast area of the County, which would have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per ten acres (1du/10 ac) and other uses limited to agriculture, mining, and conservation. As ultimately adopted, the name of the future land use (FLU) classification was changed to DR/GR, and it was applied to uplands in the southeast area of the County. As previously noted, limerock mining was specifically identified as a permitted use throughout the DR/GR and remains a permitted use in the DR/GR to the present. The remedial amendments included the adoption of a generalized map of current limerock mining areas in the County that became known as Map 14 in the Lee Plan. Map 14 reflected mines already approved as of the date of its adoption. The remedial amendments also included the adoption of a series of 125 subdistrict maps as part of the future land use map (FLUM) series that would identify the allowable acreage in each subdistrict for the proposed distribution, location, and extent of generalized land uses based upon population projections for the year 2010. This map series became known as the Year 2010 Overlay. The stipulated settlement agreement also required the adoption of a policy that prohibited any development approvals for any FLU category that would cause the acreage total for any land use to be exceeded in any of the 125 subdistricts. Under the Year 2010 Overlay, limerock mining was not a specifically identified land use category, but acreage for mining was included under the "active agriculture" category while the processing facilities associated with the mines were identified under the industrial category. The remedial amendments were adopted by the County in 1990 and ultimately found "in compliance" with the Act. Between 1990 and 2010, the remedial amendments remained in the Lee Plan, although some changes were made to the Year 2010 Overlay that were relevant for the present case. Specifically, the Year 2010 Overlay proved to be cumbersome with its 125 subdistricts. In 1998, the map series for the 125 subdistricts was eliminated and replaced with a table, referred to as Table 1(b), that allocated acreages for various land uses to 22 "planning communities" identified by a separate map in the Lee Plan. Limerock mining remained under the active agriculture designation and allocations. These amendments were also found "in compliance" under the Act. Map 14 continued as originally adopted and showed mines that had already been approved in Lee County. The Lee Plan established 30 different land use categories in the FLU Element and FLUM. Of the 30 land use categories, 17 allow residential development, 22 allow commercial development, 12 allow industrial development, but only the DR/GR category allows limerock mining. Of the 22 planning communities identified in the Lee Plan, the DR/GR land use classification primarily exists in the Southeast Lee County planning community. Other planning communities that contain the DR/GR classification have policies that preclude approval of limerock mining. Thus, the Lee Plan only permits limerock mining in the DR/GR land use category in the Southeast Lee County planning community. In general, natural resource extraction, i.e., limerock mining, has always been a permitted use in the DR/GR land use category of the Lee Plan, and it remained so under the 2019 Plan Amendments at issue in this proceeding. The Lee Plan also contained an industrial land use category. Natural resource extraction is not permitted under the industrial land use category of the Lee Plan. Industrial land uses were addressed in Goal 7 of the Lee Plan, while natural resource extraction was addressed in Goal 10 of the Lee Plan. As discussed above, the Lee Plan contained an appendix known as Table 1(b). Uses other than residential were allocated under Table 1(b) into generic groupings by planning community, including commercial, industrial, passive and active agricultural, public, conservation, and vacant land. The County used Table 1(b) at the development order stage to ensure that there were adequate acres available for a particular project under the acreage allocations. The 2019 Plan Amendments did not change that process for limerock mines. 2010 Plan Amendments In 2010, the County adopted a series of plan amendments (2010 Amendments) that altered the Lee Plan's treatment of the Southeast Lee County planning community in general, and limerock mining in particular. The 2010 Amendments amended Table 1(b) by removing the limerock mining acreage from active agriculture and placing it in industrial. The 2010 Amendments amended Map 14 so that it was no longer the "generalized map of current limestone mining" required by the 1989 stipulated settlement agreement, but instead was a "Future Limerock Mining Overlay" that identified lands available for future limerock mining. However, all of the area shown on the map as available was already approved for mining. There was no land contained on the map that was not already associated with a previously approved mine. In addition, several mines were left off Map 14, including the Intervenor's. The 2010 Amendments adopted or amended policies in the Lee Plan that: (1) allowed rezonings for new and expanded limerock mines only in the areas identified on Map 14, and required a comprehensive plan amendment to add land to Map 14; (2) provided that new or expanded limerock mine development orders could not be approved if such approval caused the acreage allocations for "industrial" in Table 1(b) to be exceeded; (3) described the location for new and expanded mines shown on Map 14 as concentrated within the "traditional Alico Road industrial corridor"; (4) required a demonstration of "clear necessity" before allowing additional limerock mines in "less disturbed environments"; and (5) required the County to do a supply and demand analysis for limerock that addressed regional demand for the Southwest Florida region and the County's supply of limerock to meet that regional demand. The 2010 Amendments did not alter the land use category in which limerock mining could be approved. Under the 2010 Amendments, limerock mining was not permitted under the Industrial FLU category, but remained a permitted use only in the DR/GR category. Mr. Spikowski, the Petitioners' expert witness who served as the primary drafter of the 2010 Amendments pertaining to limerock mining, testified that much of the language contained in the 2010 Amendments was intentionally vague and ambiguous to allow "elected officials to use judgment under changed circumstances." Changes to the Lee Plan and Southeast Lee County Since 2010 In 2015, the County amended the Lee Plan with regard to the DR/GR in the Southeast Lee County planning community. Specifically, the County adopted the Environmental Enhancement and Preservation Communities (EEPC) Overlay, which allowed landowners within the DR/GR in Southeast Lee County to request greater density than 1du/10ac, if done as a planned development that incorporated certain preservation and enhancement strategies to facilitate the County's objective of restoring flow ways, habitat, and other environmental features in the DR/GR. Since adoption of the EEPC Overlay, several projects were approved by the County that have, or shortly will, convert large tracts of vacant and agricultural land to residential and conservation uses, thereby permanently removing these tracts from possible consideration for limerock mining. In addition, since the 2010 Amendments, the County acquired several large tracts of land in the Southeast Lee County planning community, which has taken additional lands "out of play" for future limerock mining. Two of these acquisitions were the result of lawsuit settlements between landowners and the County over mining rights after the adoption of the 2010 Amendments. A third lawsuit over mining rights affected by the 2010 Amendments remained pending against the County. Another large land acquisition of approximately 3,900 acres, known as Edison Farms, was made by the County in 2017 for public use and conservation purposes. Changes in development and conservation patterns in the Southeast Lee County planning community since 2010 represent significant changes that have reduced the amount of land available for limerock mining. Many of the changes in the development and conservation of lands in the affected area were the result of the County's permitting decisions under the EEPC Overlay, and its acquisition of several large tracts of land. The land currently available for potential mining was confined to several large tracts all located within the DR/GR area of the Southeast Lee County planning community. County Staff Implementation of the 2010 Amendments Since the adoption of the 2010 Amendments, County staff encountered significant issues in applying these amendments in actual practice. Brandon Dunn, the County's principal planner, testified that there were practical difficulties applying the language of the 2010 Amendments to a landowner's application to amend Map 14. The landowner's 2016 application was the first time County staff had occasion to apply the 2010 Amendments. Mr. Dunn explained that the County experienced a number of problems interpreting the 2010 Amendments and reconciling the 2010 Amendments with other portions of the Lee Plan, as well with the Lee County Land Development Code (LDC). Ultimately, County staff concluded that portions of the 2010 Amendments were vague and ambiguous, a conclusion that is supported by the testimony of Mr. Spikowski who drafted the language. Specifically, Mr. Dunn testified that County staff experienced the following problems interpreting and implementing various provisions of the 2010 Amendments: The meaning of the terms "more disturbed" and "less disturbed" lands; The meaning and intended location of the "traditional Alico Road industrial corridor"; The meaning of the term "regional demand"; and The meaning of the term "clear necessity." County staff concluded that these ambiguities and their experience showed that the clear and reasonable application of the 2010 Amendments was difficult, if not impossible. County staff consulted the data and analysis generated for the 2010 Amendments seeking guidance to interpret and apply the ambiguous portions of the 2010 Amendments and found none. Furthermore, that data and analysis was now 10 to 20 years old, and considered "dated" in light of other changes that County staff was aware had occurred in Southeast Lee County in the intervening time period. Accordingly, County staff identified the need to either amend portions of the 2010 Amendments or delete them. Based on policy direction from the Board of County Commissioners, and their experience, County staff proposed to delete portions of the 2010 Amendments. The reasons identified for deletion of portions of the 2010 Amendments were: (1) the County's LDC for mining was significantly strengthened, which resulted in a more rigorous and detailed review of mining applications; (2) since 2010, significant changes in land use patterns in the Southeast Lee County planning community reduced the land available for limerock mining; and (3) the addition of the EEPC Overlay to the Lee Plan committed large areas of land to residential and conservation uses. In addition, the County's first attempt to update the supply and demand analysis required every seven years under the 2010 Amendments demonstrated how the 2010 Amendments could be interpreted in different ways. A subsequent study by Stuart and a "peer review" analysis by Spikowski of all of the supply and demand analyses ultimately showed a lack of consistent methodology and results in the studies. The 2019 Plan Amendments On June 19, 2019, the County adopted the 2019 Plan Amendments that were the subject of this proceeding. Among other changes, the 2019 Plan Amendments rescinded or modified several provisions adopted by the 2010 Amendments. The changes: Eliminated Map 14, the Future Limerock Mining Overlay; Revised Table 1(b) by moving the acres identified for mining from the "industrial" allocation back to the "active agriculture" allocation where they were prior to the 2010 Amendments. The land identified for the industrial uses of a limerock mining operation, i.e., the rock crushing and processing facilities, was kept in the industrial grouping; Eliminated policies that tied allowable mining acreage to Table 1(b); Eliminated policies that tied new and expanded mines to the "traditional Alico Road industrial corridor"; Eliminated the requirement that the County perform a supply and regional demand analysis every seven years; and Eliminated the requirement to apply for a comprehensive plan amendment to amend Map 14 and to demonstrate a "clear necessity" to do so. In addition to the data and analysis described above, County staff reviewed the following data and analysis to prepare the 2019 Plan Amendments: The 2008 Dover Kohl Study, which included The Proposed Lee Plan Amendments for Southeast Lee County; Prospects for Southeast Lee County Planning for the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource Area; Ecological Memorandum of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource Area; and Natural Resource Strategies for Southeast Lee County; The 1993 Henigar & Ray Study; The 2016 Waldrop Mining Study; The 1989 Stipulated Settlement Agreement; Chapter 12 of the County's LDC regulations; and Florida Statutes. Petitioners argued that this change caused the Lee Plan not to comply with the Act. However, the facts adduced at hearing do not support this contention. Neither Mr. Spikowski nor Mr. Stuart could cite any provision of section 163.3177 that required limerock mining to be identified or regulated as industrial, or that prohibited the treatment of portions of limerock mines as active agriculture. In addition, the evidence adduced at hearing showed that at any given time a limerock mine comprised multiple non-industrial land uses including agriculture, vacant land, conservation, open water bodies, and excavation. Only the small portion of a mine that contained the processing facilities and batch plants was devoted to industrial use throughout the life of the mine. Therefore, classifying portions of limerock mining acreage as active agriculture rather than industrial in Table 1(b) was reasonable, particularly when the small portion of the mine that contained the processing facilities and batch plants was classified and regulated as an industrial use under Table 1(b). The retention of those industrial acres in Table 1(b) in the 2019 Plan Amendments fulfilled the statutory requirement to show the distribution, location, and extent of industrial uses under the Lee Plan. Petitioners also argued that moving the limerock mining acres to the active agriculture grouping caused limerock mining to escape regulation. This argument was not persuasive since under the 2019 Plan Amendments, limerock mining continued to be regulated by the Lee Plan. FLU Element Policy 1.4.5 of the Lee Plan, which is now more stringent following the 2019 Plan Amendments, required groundwater modeling to occur at the time of zoning for a new limerock mine in order to ensure consistency with those requirements. The DR/GR classification established under Policy 1.4.5 did not allow industrial uses other than those associated with mining. FLU Element Goal 10 of the Lee Plan was specific to natural resource extraction including limerock mining regardless of the grouping in Table 1(b). Table 1(b) was still used by the County at the development order stage to ensure that there were adequate acres available for industrial land uses associated with a limerock mine. The 2019 Plan Amendments did not change that process. FLU Element Policy 1.7.6 of the Lee Plan still required that "[n]o development orders . . . will be issued or approved by Lee County that would allow the acreage totals for residential, commercial or industrial uses contained in Table 1(b) to be exceeded." The industrial uses in a mine would continue to be subject to this requirement. Chapter 12 of the LDC extensively regulated limerock mining even after the 2019 Plan Amendments. Chapter 12 of the LDC required monitoring of limerock mining even after the 2019 Plan Amendments. The Lee Plan never classified limerock mining as either an industrial or agriculture land use. Instead, it was identified as a specific activity separate from industrial, which was permitted only in the DR/GR category in the Southeast Lee County planning community. Mr. Dunn testified that the industrial acres allocated under Table 1(b) for other planning communities were generally available for more traditional industrial uses such as manufacturing or warehousing. He testified that leaving the limerock mining acres under industrial uses in Table 1(b) "can give the impression that those types of uses might be allowed within Southeast Lee County, which would create an [internal] inconsistency with the future land use category. The future land use categories out there [in Southeast Lee County] are primarily wetlands and DR/GR, and the industrial uses are not allowed within either of those categories." See Tr. p. 601. After adoption of the 2019 Plan Amendments, the Lee Plan remained based on the approved population projection for Lee County, and provided at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium population projections published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research through the year 2030. No internal inconsistencies were created in the Lee Plan by the 2019 Plan Amendments. No internal inconsistency occurred by the County's removal of the requirement to conduct a supply and demand analysis for limerock every seven years. No other land use was required by the Lee Plan to undergo such an analysis. No internal inconsistency was created by the County’s elimination of the tie to the "traditional Alico Road industrial corridor," or to the requirement of "clear necessity" in order to place additional land on Map 14. No internal inconsistency was created by the County's reallocation of mining acres in Table 1(b) to the "active agriculture" category. Petitioners' expert Mr. Stuart pointed to several provisions of the Lee Plan that he believed were now internally inconsistent because of the 2019 Plan Amendments. However, his testimony did not demonstrate actual conflict with any of the cited provisions. After deletion of Map 14 and changes to Table 1(b), the Lee Plan would continue to show the general distribution, location, and extent of limerock mining for the 2030 Plan horizon. Further, the changes in the Southeast Lee County planning community over time, as well as the policy decisions by the County to incentivize conservation have limited the land available for limerock mining to certain identifiable tracts within Southeast Lee County. Map 14 was not required by the Act or the Lee Plan. There were numerous other provisions of the Lee Plan that a new mine would have to comply with in order to obtain approval. All these provisions allowed the County to properly monitor and regulate mining activities. Ultimate Findings Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the 2019 Plan Amendments were not in compliance. The County's determination that the 2019 Plan Amendments were in compliance was fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity issue a final order determining that the 2019 Plan Amendments adopted by the County on June 19, 2019, are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew Donald Uhle, Esquire Law Office of Matthew D. Uhle, LLC 1617 Hendry Street, Suite 411 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Richard W. Wesch, Esquire Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second Street, 6th Floor Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Mark A. Trank, Esquire Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second Street, 6th Floor Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 (eServed) Richard Barton Akin, Esquire Henderson Franklin Starnes & Holt, P.A. Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 (eServed) Michael D. Jacob, Esquire Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second Street, 6th Floor Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 (eServed) Mark Buckles, Interim General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Ken Lawson, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-33 on December 11, 2001, which changes the future land use designation on the FLUM of an approximately 29-acre site from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial," is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frances Z. Parsons, lives at 215 Woodbury Trail, Satsuma, Putnam County, Florida, which is approximately one mile from the racetrack (on the site subject to the Amendment, see Findings of Fact 14 and 15) and has resided there for over seven years. Dr. Parsons understood at the time she purchased the house that a racetrack had been in existence, but was not operational and that no evidence of a racetrack could be seen from the road. A couple of years ago, Dr. Parsons noticed construction-type activity (e.g., earth-moving machines and erection of stadium-type bleachers and lights) occurring on the Property (racetrack site). Trees along the road were "bulldozed down," the site cleared, and a fence erected, after which, Dr. Parsons could see the racetrack from the road and racing commenced. Dr. Parsons also stated that the racetrack is operational and the noise level bothers her at her home. Dr. Parsons described Satsuma as "about a half a mile wide" and "fairly settled for a rural areas, but not for -- it's certainly not downtown." Dr. Parsons stated that the community character has not changed in the last five years. Dr. Parsons submitted oral or written comments and objections regarding the disputed Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the amendment and ending with the adoption of the amendment. Respondent, Putnam County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Section 7.54, Florida Statutes. The County is the local government that adopted the Amendment. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, which includes a determination of whether comprehensive plan amendments are "in compliance." Intervenor, Florida Racing, is a private corporation and is the owner of the approximately 29 acres that are the subject of the challenged Amendment. Oral or written comments and regarding the disputed Amendment were submitted on behalf of Florida Racing during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Amendment. Robert Joseph Potter is the Vice- President and Comptroller for Florida Racing. The Amendment In April 2001, Florida Racing submitted to the County an "Application for Amendment to the Putnam County Future Land Use Map" (Application). This Application requested that the land use designation for an approximately 29-acre site, consisting of five contiguous parcels under the same ownership, be changed from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial" on the FLUM. The Amendment was approved and transmitted to the Department for review under Section 163.3184(6)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department conducted this review, and raised no objections to the proposed FLUM change. On December 11, 2001, the Putnam County Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted the proposed Amendment by Ordinance No. 2001-33. The Department timely caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." On or about February 28, 2002, Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the Department's Notice of Intent. This Petition alleges that the Amendment should be found not "in compliance" on several grounds. This challenge involves an existing development, a racetrack, on the Property. However, the Amendment would allow commercial development on the approximately 29 acres, subject to compliance with applicable Plan and Putnam County Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordnance) provisions. (In the Application, Florida Racing advised that proposed uses included a raceway, mobile home park, restaurant, and related amenities.) The Putnam County Speedway, the Surrounding Area, and the Review Process The approximately 29-acre site (five parcels total (Property)) subject to the Amendment is the site of an existing dirt automobile racetrack with bleachers, a press box, associated structures, and a masonry building/house. A commercial mini-warehouse building (personal storage) is located on the westernmost parcel. The racetrack is currently known as the "Putnam County Speedway" (Speedway). The Property is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 17 South between the Dunn's Creek Bridge and Buffalo Bluff Road (County Road 309B). The land surrounding the Property on the west, south, and east are designated as "Rural Residential" on the FLUM, the same as the Property prior to the proposed FLUM change. The land to the north is designated as "Conservation" on the FLUM and designated as vacant and wetlands as existing land uses. The zoning is "A." See Endnote 8. The land to the east is zoned "A" and is vacant as the existing land use. The land to the north and east of the Property is part of the 1,707-acre Murphy Creek Conservation area owned and managed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. The land to the west is zoned "C-2; A" and has an existing land use of commercial, but a future land use designation on the FLUM of Rural Residential. There is also additional land to the west of the Property within the Murphy Creek Conservation Area, a couple of residences and a vacant subdivision that has been determined not to be vested for development. There is a parcel of land to the west that is also owned by Florida Racing. The land to the south is zoned "C-4, C-1, C-2, [and] A" and is designated as vacant and commercial residential as existing land uses, and has a Rural Residential future land use designation on the FLUM. See Endnote 8. The land south of the Property across U.S. 17 includes an existing commercial establishment that includes a mini-warehouse building with outside storage of equipment and semi-trailers. (The mini- warehouse was rezoned in 1986.) Also, further south and west along U.S. 17, there are two or three additional commercial businesses. Mr. Spofford referred to this area as "a commercial cluster." However, most of the uses are nonconforming uses as to the existing Rural Residential future land use, and they would not be able to change to anything more intensive or that would have more adverse impacts on the surrounding residential uses. 1 Behind the mini-warehouse building are two residential neighborhoods with two subdivisions, one with 22 lots of approximately one acre in size and the other with 19 lots, with most of the lots being significantly larger than those in the former subdivision. Another residential area further west than the two subdivisions consists of approximately 40 parcels of land which have been subdivided over time and never platted. About four of these parcels on U.S. 17 are zoned for commercial use. There is also an existing aluminum business west with a C-4 zoning. It appears that almost all of these residential lots and parcels were created after the racetrack was established. The racetrack was in operation prior to the adoption of the Plan and zoning regulations. There is evidence that a racetrack existed before 1975, but has not remained in continuous use throughout that time. The record does not detail the history of the racetrack from its initial approval some time prior to 1975 to the date of the adoption of the Amendment. There is inference that the racetrack was not actively or frequently used in the mid-1990s. (It is noted in the County Staff Report that "[a]n aerial from the Florida Department of Transportation dated February 1972 shows the subject property cleared with what appears to be an oval dirt track. A 1964 aerial photograph did not show a racetrack on the subject property. A review of property appraisal data indicate the racetrack was established around the 1970 to 1972 period.") At some point after approximately 1995, and prior to the adoption of the Amendment, racing returned to the Speedway. An automobile racetrack is not an allowable or conforming use on land designated "Rural Residential." According to the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), "[t]he Rural Residential land use category depicted on the [FLUM] consists of water front development and developed areas interspersed within the active agricultural areas. These areas are somewhat isolated from the urban areas and rural centers. The development is situated primarily on large lots in the one to five-acre range and is either a homestead or a second home for people who seek the quiet enjoyment of living in a rural environment." As a nonconforming use, the Speedway (racetrack) is subject to County land use and zoning provisions that limit or restrict the ability to undertake improvements. For example, according to the Putnam County Zoning Ordinance 88-1, as amended by Ordinance 91-31 (collectively referred to as County Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance), the racetrack, as a nonconforming use, is restricted from being extended or enlarged, and repair of its structures is limited. For example, work may be done in any 12-consecutive month period on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of 15 percent of the current assessed value of the particular structure if a nonconforming structure is involved, provided the cubic content of the structure as it existed on the date it became nonconforming shall not be increased in size.2 The intent of these nonconforming use restrictions is to "permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival," and it is intended that such uses would become extinguished over time as a result of being prevented from expanding or extensively renovating their structures. See, e.g., County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 2-701-2-708. On March 20, 1998, John Salmons, the Putnam County Planner, advised Tim Keyser, Attorney, that the nonconforming status of the Speedway was still in effect. Mr. Keyser was also informed, in part, that the "Putnam County Speedway may continue to operate under the provisions of the nonconforming use section of the Zoning Ordinance." At the time Florida Racing purchased the racetrack in the 1990's (the specific date is uncertain), some of the existing structures had deteriorated and were in need of repair and/or replacement. To accommodate the renewed activity in racing and the need to upgrade the racetrack, seating at the racetrack was rearranged, new seating was added for children, and a second access driveway was installed north of the existing driveway. In 2000, in a series of letters to Mr. Potter, County staff raised concerns regarding plans to significantly upgrade the racetrack. On September 26, 2000, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter "that the current zoning status for the [S]atsuma racetrack is Nonconforming. As a nonconforming use, the zoning ordinance acknowledges their existence, but does not encourage their survival. As such, there are very strict rules for repairing or maintaining a nonconforming use." Mr. Salmons also informed Mr. Potter that the Property had been designated "Rural Residential" on the County's FLUM at some point subsequent to the racetrack's initial operation. (The racetrack on the Property pre-dates the Plan, including the FLUM land use categories, including "Rural Residential.") Mr. Salmons understood at the time that Mr. Potter had plans to "significantly upgrade the racetrack" and advised Mr. Potter that he "would not be able to proceed with [his] plans." In order to upgrade, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter that he would need to have the Property rezoned and given the current land use designation for the Property, Mr. Potter would need to obtain an amendment to the FLUM to change the Property's land use designation from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial." However, Mr. Salmons further advised that without doing an analysis of the proposed change, he suspected that "it would be difficult for staff to support such a change" "based upon what Future Land Use patterns surround the property." Finally, Mr. Potter was told that he could continue operations "as they were in the past." But, he could not "add seating, restaurants, structures, pave the track or do much more than do some minor maintenance at this time." On December 27, 2000, Mr. Salmons sent Mr. Potter another letter similar in content to the September 26, 2000, letter. Apparently, Mr. Salmons was advised by Mr. Potter that he had already spent in excess of the 15 percent allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Potter was advised to stop making improvements until the land use designation was changed and rezoning approved. (There have not been any legal proceedings initiated to determine whether the 15 percent threshold was crossed.) On April 16, 2001, Florida Racing submitted the Amendment Application and requested the FLUM change suggested by County staff for the Property.3 (Florida Racing also requested rezoning of the Property which is not the subject of this proceeding.) Deficiencies in the applications were noted and additional information requested. The County's FLUE of the Plan was adopted on December 12, 1991, and amended on August 24, 1993. Policy A.1.9.3.A.5. of the FLUE describes the "Commercial" land use category and provides in part: The Commercial land use areas depicted on the [FLUM] are current locations of commercial development in the County with expansion areas provided and are intended to serve as the primary commercial locations for the next 10 years. Secondary commercial locations are provided for in the policies for development in the urban service, urban reserve and rural center land use categories. Commercial land uses include activities that are predominantly associated with the sale, rental, and distribution of products or performance of service. Future development shall be allowed as follows: The maximum permitted floor area for a site shall be 1:1. The maximum permitted impervious surface shall be 70 percent of the site.4 The Staff Report dated July 11, 2001, was prepared by Mr. Spofford, A.I.C.P., a senior planner with Putnam County. As noted in the Staff Report, the purpose of the land use "change is to bring a non-conforming automobile racetrack into compliance with the" Plan. Mr. Spofford testified that the scope of the Staff Report was broader than examining the racetrack. However, the primary focus of the Staff Report is the Property being used as a racetrack and not another commercial use. It was determined that the automobile racetrack is a commercial attraction because it attracts spectators for a fee and further noted: As such, the use is not appropriate for the Agriculture I and II and Rural Residential future land use categories. The site and surrounding area do not meet the intent and description of an Urban Service or Urban Reserve future land use category because urban type infrastructure does not currently exist and is not likely within the next 10 years. This means that the use is most appropriate for a Commercial future land use category. The subject site meets the intent of the Commercial category because it is a current location of a commercial- recreational-entertainment type use. Mr. Spofford explained that the data to support the FLUM change is set forth in the Staff Report. (Mr. Salmons, Mr. Spofford's superior, believed the data in the Staff Report was adequate to support the FLUM change.) The Application was reviewed for consistency with the Plan and various provisions of Rule 9J-5. Staff made the following recommendation: The existing automobile racetrack must go through a two step process to become compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. First, this proposed map amendment must be approved and adopted by the County, and found to be in compliance by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The purpose of this public hearing is to determine whether or not the proposed map amendment should be transmitted for state agency review. Therefore, the Planning Commission must recommend to either transmit the map amendment as proposed, transmit the amendment with recommended changes or not to transmit the map amendment. If the proposed map amendment is transmitted, then state agencies will review the proposed map amendment and return comments to the County in October. The County would then likely hold public hearing[s] to consider actual adoption of the map amendment in November and December. When these public hearings are held to consider the map amendment, a rezoning application would simultaneously be reviewed. A rezoning to Planned Unit Development is a negotiable process where the County can gain greater control of the use. If the proposed map amendment is not transmitted, the a rezoning will not be necessary and the automobile racetrack will continue to be a non-conforming use. As a non-conforming use, code enforcement action will be taken to have the improvements removed that consist of an expenditure greater than 15 percent of the assessed value of the structure(s), with the exception of the permitted work that includes the press box and new lighting. All other improvements could be subject to removal. However, as a non-conforming use, the racetrack would be allowed to continue operation so long as it does not expand. This means that the County would not have much control over the days and hours of operation and other critical site design issues. Although this is not the ideal location for a racetrack, the fact is it has existed on the subject property and has been determined to be a bona fide non- conforming use. Research of County records and other known available sources of information indicates that the racetrack was established prior to the residential development in close proximity south of the subject site. The request for a large-scale comprehensive plan map amendment from Rural Residential to Commercial appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs with a request for their review. On July 11, 2001, the Putnam County Planning Commission unanimously approved the FLUM change after receiving comments. On July 24, 2001, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Amendment and approved same. The FLUM Amendment was transmitted to the Department. Pursuant to the Department's review of the Amendment, a Memorandum dated October 4, 2001, was prepared by Russell Paul Darst, a planner with the Department, and routed to James Stansbury and Mike Sherman, the section administrator, and ultimately to Charles Gauthier, A.I.C.P., and Bureau Chief, who issued the Department's Notice of Intent. Mr. Darst, as well as others at the Department, had no objections to the Amendment. In the Memorandum, Mr. Darst concluded: "The proposed FLUM change for this 29-acre property is from Rural Residential to Commercial. The property has been used for a race track since about 1970. The amendment would change the FLUM designation for the property to reflect the actual and long-standing use of the property. This use is not allowed in the Rural Residential FLUM category." This was the crux of the data and analysis relied on by Mr. Stansbury of the Department. The Memorandum also reflected the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council comment: "Since the raceway already exists, the land use change will not create any additional impacts to regional resources. The proposed land use change may even protect regional resources in the future by granting the County the ability to regulate the property under the most appropriate zoning classification." Dr. Darst stated that in reviewing a FLUM amendment for the Department, it would be typical to examine the existing use of the land before making his recommendation. In reviewing the County's proposed FLUM change, Mr. Darst believed, based on his discussions with County staff, that the racetrack was not expected to expand (and not that it could not) and that the change in the FLUM would give the County "part of a means of gaining effective control over [the operation of the racetrack]." He reiterated that the FLUM change would reflect the actual and long-standing use of the Property as a racetrack. On December 11, 2001, during the public hearing, the Board approved the FLUM Amendment and transmitted the approval package to the Department. On February 13, 2002, the Department had published its Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." The Challenges Petitioner alleges that the Amendment is not "in compliance" on several grounds: first, there is no "need" for additional land to be designated for a commercial use in Putnam County; second, the Amendment and proposed land use is not compatible with the community character and surrounding land uses; and, third, the Amendment is inconsistent with provisions of the Plan, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Need The term "need" as used in growth management refers to the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Local governments are to analyze by acreage how much land within each land use category5 they need to accommodate projected growth through the planning timeframe, and then base their comprehensive plan on this estimate. Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The calculus of need is rather simple and, for that reason, inexact. The calculation of how much land is needed to accommodate the projected population involves comparing what is available for development under the comprehensive plan with the projected population over the same planning timeframe applicable to the plan. An "allocation ratio" to express this need can be derived by dividing the development potential by the projected population. For example, if a comprehensive plan allocated 100 residential dwelling units over the planning timeframe and the jurisdiction's population was projected to increase by 100 over the same time, there would be an allocation ratio of 1:1. This ratio would express an exact match between supply and demand. A ratio of 2:1, on the other hand, would demonstrate that the jurisdiction had twice as much land as designated for use as the projected population is expected to need. There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans and plan amendments are judged. There is evidence that the County has more vacant land designated "Commercial" than is needed to accommodate its projected population.6 There is data and analysis which indicates an excess of vacant commercially-designation land on a County-wide basis. For example, Florida Racing Exhibit 1 is a copy of data and analysis in support of the FLUE. This data and analysis indicates that at least as of 1991, and projected to 2001, the County has an over-allocation of need for commercial land of about two times or, stated otherwise, the County has a 2:1 allocation ratio for commercial. This data is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit P. Mr. Spofford explained that the population data was compiled prior to 1991, has not been updated, is not meant to provide a "detailed analysis," and it is only useful for providing the acreage for each planning district. The population for each planning district is then compared to the acreage to determine the allocation of commercial to service that population. From a very general standpoint, Mr. Spofford analyzed the FLUM Amendment application in light of whether more commercial acreage was needed. Mr. Spofford explained that because the Property was so close to the edge of the planning district, it was difficult to compare the commercial and population need. However, Mr. Spofford opined that the Planning District 1 (which includes the Property) and the one to the northeast are not over-allocated for commercial use. He also opined that, generally, "more is needed, if -- especially if you're looking out 20, ten or twenty years." Petitioner did not come forward with any independent or up-to-date analysis to demonstrate the County is in fact over-allocated for commercial land use. On the other hand, Fred Goodrow, A.I.C.P., opined that the County was over-allocated regarding the need for more commercial in light of the data previously mentioned. The existence and extent of any commercial over- allocation in Putnam County is, at best, fairly debatable. Nonconforming Use, Inconsistency, and Incompatibility Petitioner asserts that the Amendment is not "in compliance" because it fails to eliminate or reduce a nonconforming use in violation of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and (3)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also argues that the Commercial land use designation which would attach to the Property is incompatible with the character of the community and adjacent land uses. Petitioner also contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with several Plan provisions. Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes; Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code. Objective A.1.3 of the FLUE requires that "[u]pon plan adoption, Putnam County shall act to eliminate or reduce uses inconsistent with the uses identified on the [FLUM] and associated adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies through implementing the following policies." Policy A.1.3.1 of the FLUE requires revision of the County's Land Development Regulations, specifically the County Zoning Code, "to reinforce its current provisions regarding the elimination of nonconforming land uses by expanding the definition of nonconforming land uses to include all uses which are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map 2001 or cannot be made compatible with adjacent land uses. The requirements of this provision shall be enforced upon application for building permits to repair or improve such structures."7 The nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance apply to and implement the FLUM. An automobile racetrack is not an appropriate use to put in a Rural Residential future land use category. In theory, one purpose of this land use designation is to protect residents from the intrusion of noisy racetracks which can impact an adjacent residential user. The dispute in this case is clearly framed. Petitioner contends that because the Property was designated "Rural Residential" when the County's Plan was adopted, the Speedway (racetrack) is a nonconforming use which must be restricted and eventually eliminated. Petitioner argues that the County lacks the authority to amend its FLUM to make the Speedway a conforming use under the Plan. Respondents and Florida Racing contend that the County has the authority to amend the FLUM, and acted properly in this instance in adopting the Amendment. The County has the authority to amend its FLUM, including the designations of properties as long as the designations are consistent with other provisions of the Plan and applicable provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The persuasive evidence indicates that an automobile racetrack is an allowable use in the Commercial future land use category as opposed to the Rural Residential category. If the Amendment is approved, the raceway would no longer be considered a nonconforming use for Plan purposes, and could undertake improvements without the restrictions that accompany such a use, subject to compliance with applicable zoning requirements. Stated otherwise, the racetrack could expand without complying with the nonconforming use restrictions, subject to compliance with the nonconforming standards in the Zoning Ordinance because the Property would remain a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance. (Of course, a zoning change for the Property, as contemplated in the County's Staff Report, would create different considerations as noted below.) The Property is currently zoned C-2 and A, with the bulk of the property zoned agriculture.8 If the Amendment is approved, the next step would be for the Property owner to apply for a zoning change, e.g., special exception, or pursue a planned unit development. Under either scenario, the County could impose conditions on the use of the Property such as the amelioration of off-site impacts. On the other hand, if the racetrack continued as a nonconforming use, the persuasive evidence indicates that the County would be limited in establishing any further limitation on the use of the Property, such as duration and frequency of use, e.g., hours of operation and other site design issues. There is no persuasive support for the proposition that all subsequent Boards of County Commissioners are bound in every instance by the decision of one Board regarding the land use of a particular parcel. There is some evidence that leads to at least a fair inference that the designation of the racetrack site as "Rural Residential" may have been in error. The data and analysis that was used to support the original designation indicates the area including the racetrack as being "woodlands." The County planner involved in the preparation of the Plan, including the FLUM, testified that he did not know there was a racetrack on the land designated "woodlands." The FLUM was based "to a great extent" on this data, and very well may have designated the Property as "Rural Residential" by "oversight" based on the incorrect representation of the area as woodlands. Several other commercial uses exist within the immediate vicinity of the site of the Property, are similarly depicted as "woodlands" by the referenced data, and are designated "Rural Residential" on the FLUM. These parcels, too, may be nonconforming by error, and not by some deliberate choice. Whether the original designation of the Property as nonconforming was erroneous or not, the true question is what is the proper standard by which to weigh a FLUM amendment when it affects a site on which there exists a nonconforming use. Neither Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, nor Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, directs the Department to review a FLUM amendment involving a nonconforming use under some specific provisions. Such an amendment must be subjected to the same standards applicable to any FLUM amendment. The Property has been used intermittently as a racetrack for approximately 30 years. A racetrack has operated on the Property as a nonconforming use, and has the right to continue do so under applicable County land use and zoning regulations. The racetrack is, in fact, eligible to expand by 15 percent under these regulations. The County would not have some absolute right to cease racetrack operations if it remained nonconforming, and would not have unlimited authority to address noise and traffic concerns. The uncontradicted testimony is that it is likely that the racetrack would continue to operate even if it remained a nonconforming use. The County does not lose any authority to address noise and traffic by virtue of the Amendment. Credible evidence in the record indicates that the County may actually have a better ability to address these concerns should the racetrack be made a conforming use. Nevertheless, the fact that the racetrack, operated as the Speedway, currently exists in the area as a nonconforming use does not mean that the use is automatically compatible with the adjacent land uses and surrounding area or is otherwise consistent with the character of the community. The nonconforming use designation only means that the racetrack can continue to operate, not that the racetrack can achieve a potentially more useful and elevated land use status by virtue of being an existing raceway and commercial use. Otherwise, an existing nonconforming use would have greater rights to a new and more permissive land use designation than a new entrant into the marketplace. Stated otherwise, the FLUM Amendment, if approved, will further and encourage the nonconforming use rather than its eventual elimination as contemplated by the Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this case, it is beyond fair debate that if a new automobile racetrack were proposed on the Property today, it would be inconsistent with the existing residential and conservation areas surrounding the property, notwithstanding the existence of several commercial properties in the vicinity. The only reasonable conclusion to be reached is that that the Amendment is not "in compliance."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Amendment adopted by Putnam County in Ordinance No. 2001- 33 is not "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 2nd day of May, 2003.
