The Issue Whether the Plan Amendments to the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance Number 2001-18, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or are not "in compliance" as alleged in the petitions of The Sierra Club (Sierra) and Ellen A. Whitmer (Whitmer).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Sierra Club. Sierra alleged in its Petition that it "does business in St. Johns County and has a substantial number of members who reside in and own property in St. Johns County." Sierra is registered as a California corporation and maintains offices in St. Petersburg and West Palm Beach, Florida. The National Organization of Sierra publishes Sierra Magazine, which members receive in the County. Sierra's basic mission is to provide an opportunity for its members to explore, enjoy, and protect the outdoors and natural systems, including those which exist in the County. The Florida Chapter of The Sierra Club (Florida Chapter) is subdivided into 10-12 "groups," including the approximately 1,400-member Northeast Florida Group, serving Duval, St. Johns, and Clay Counties, with approximately 325 members living in St. Johns County. There are approximately 24,000 Sierra members in the State of Florida. Sierra holds monthly meetings in the County. Speakers discuss various educational subjects with members attending the monthly meetings. Sierra members hike in the County, and canoe and kayak on, for example, the Tolomato and Guana Rivers. These activities can be expected to be enhanced if the Plan Amendments are approved and the approximately 1,630-acre preserve area dedicated as planned. Sierra has held fundraisers in the County for the benefit of the three-county Northeast Group. The Northeast Florida Group sends out monthly newsletters, published in and mailed from Duval County, and publishes the Sierra Sentry: Standing Watch on Northeast Florida. Sierra does not maintain a business address or bank account in the County; nor does Sierra own or lease real property, offices or buildings in the County. The Plan Amendments are not reasonably expected to constrain, inhibit, or prevent activities of Sierra's members, including their educational and permitting activities, although a Sierra member testified that the Plan Amendments would potentially "be adverse to [Sierra's] mission in terms of experiencing outdoors and the wildlife associated with the outdoors " Sierra submitted timely oral and written comments to the St. Johns County Commission between the time the County transmitted the Plan Amendment for review and the time the County adopted the Plan Amendment. Sierra made a presentation at the public hearing related to the Plan Amendments. Ellen A. Whitmer. Whitmer resides and owns property within the County and submitted timely oral and written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. The parties agreed Whitmer has standing. Intervenors. SONOC owns the property which is the subject of the future land use map (FLUM) Plan Amendment being challenged in these proceedings. SONOC submitted oral and/or written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. SONOC has expended approximately $3.5 million in the approval process. The PARC Group is the agent of SONOC, and is the applicant/developer of the Nocatee development, which is the subject of the Plan Amendments. The PARC Group submitted oral and/or written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. St. Johns County. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the County prepared an evaluation and appraisal of the Plan and an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (the "EAR") in January 1998. The EAR process allows local government to periodically assess the success or failure of their comprehensive plan. The EAR is subjected to a sufficiency review by the Department. In May 2000, the County adopted the EAR-Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment (EAR-Based Plan Amendment), with supporting data and analysis, which the Department found to be "in compliance." This included the data and analysis for the future land use element (FLUE), which was adopted as part of the Plan. (Joint Exhibit 7-A). This is part of the data and analysis used to support the Plan Amendments at issue in this proceeding. The Department's "in compliance" review became final agency action without challenge. St. Johns County is located in the northeast portion of the State of Florida, south of Duval County and Jacksonville. The St. Johns River separates the County from Clay and Putnam Counties to the west. Flagler County borders the County to the south. There are three (3) incorporated municipalities located within the County, i.e., St. Augustine, St. Augustine Beach, and the Town of Hastings. The County comprises approximately 423,580 acres. St. Augustine is the largest municipality in the County. Agriculture and silviculture are the leading industries in the County. The County has a large portion of silviculture lands and there are more than 2.5 million acres in Northeast Florida. The intensive agriculture areas of the County are located in the southern part of the County. The Plan Amendments will not adversely affect the economic viability of agriculture or silviculture in the County. A barrier island runs the length of the County, from the Flagler County line to Duval County. Interstate 95 runs north and south through the County and is west of St. Augustine. U.S. Highway 1 also runs north and south and east of Interstate 95 and runs parallel to Interstate 95. The Tolomato and Matanzas Rivers form the majority of the Intercoastal Waterway on the eastern portion of the County and separate the barrier island from the mainland portion of the County. The Guana River State Park and Guana River State Wildlife Management Area form a significant part of the barrier island adjacent to the Tolomato River. The Department. As the state land planning agency, the Department reviewed the Plan Amendments and timely filed a Notice of Intent to find the Plan Amendments "in compliance." The Challenges While Petitioners cite to numerous statutory and rule provisions in their petitions, the principle allegations, that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance," may be placed into three general categories: "need" and urban sprawl; natural resource protection; and economic feasibility. Under each of these general subject headings, Petitioners raise allegations that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapters 163 and 187, Florida Statutes, and that they are internally inconsistent with the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan. The Nocatee Plan Amendments On February 23, 2001, the County amended its Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 2001-18. The Ordinance contains four changes to the Plan. First, the Ordinance creates a new FLUE category known as "New Town Development" (Text Amendment). Second, the Ordinance changes the FLUM designation of approximately 11,332 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to New Town (Map Amendment). Third, the Ordinance changes the FLUM designation for approximately 1,630 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to Conservation (Preserve Amendment). (Petitioners are not challenging the designation of the Nocatee Preserve as "Conservation.") Fourth, the Ordinance adds text (Policy H.1.6.6) to the Plan authorizing the Nocatee DRI "to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in [Section 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes] to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payment of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee [DRI] Order, Special Condition 25, entitled Transportation Resource Impacts." (This latter provision allows the use of "pipelining" and is referred to herein as the Transportation Amendment.) These Plan Amendments are related to a proposed development known as "Nocatee." The New Town category was crafted to provide criteria and guidelines for large projects such as Nocatee. The acreage designated New Town by the Map Amendment is the proposed site of the Nocatee development. The acreage designated Conservation by the Preserve Amendment is for the purpose of establishing the "Nocatee Preserve." The Nocatee development will utilize the Transportation Amendment to address anticipated development impacts on the roadway system. These amendments and the Nocatee development are discussed in more detail below. Ordinance No. 2001-18 provides that "[t]he data and analysis supporting [these Plan Amendments] includes, but is not limited to, the Nocatee Application for Development Approval, Sufficiency Responses, and Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order adopted concurrently with this Ordinance, application materials submitted by the Applicant and reports generated by the County Growth Management Department." Pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, projects which must undergo Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review are subject to a multi-agency, multi-issue review of the proposed development's impacts and a process for mitigating those impacts. A DRI is a development order issued by a local government. It pertains to approval for a specific type of development for a particular site. A comprehensive plan is a different type of document, which considers long-term planning for an entire jurisdiction, taking into account the cumulative effect of many developments, including consideration of projected supply and demand in the future. DRIs are subject to the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. One of the requirements for a DRI is that it be consistent with the requirements of the local government's comprehensive plan, a determination that is separate from that undertaken here. On the other hand, comprehensive plans and amendments, as here, must comply with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which defines "in compliance" as being consistent with Sections 163.3177, 163.3178, and 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. A plan amendment does not have to be consistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to be "in compliance." A DRI development order does not guarantee that the site will be developed or developed as approved. For example, the development order may be amended through the substantial deviation process, or a development order may expire. Applications for DRI approval are prepared and submitted to the appropriate regional planning council by the developer. These applications are submitted in response to a set of criteria that differ from those applicable to a plan or plan amendment. Some of the information provided by a developer in support of a DRI request may be relevant to the review of a plan amendment, as here. However, a DRI development order, in general, and the Nocatee DRI Development Order specifically, are not subject to an "in compliance" review in this administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. At the conclusion of the DRI process, if project approval is attained, the local government issues a development order. Section 380.06(15), Florida Statutes. The development order must include, among numerous other information, a detailed listing of each land use by acreage and magnitude. Rule 9J-2.025(3)(b)(5), Florida Administrative Code. This land use information from the DRI development order is incorporated into the County Plan for any approved New Town. See Finding of Fact 33. In this case, the Nocatee DRI Application for Development Approval (ADA) was reviewed by the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council as required by Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, (and by other agencies), and the Council recommended that the ADA be approved, with conditions. It was stipulated that "[i]n considering comprehensive plan amendments, there is no requirement that favorable consideration be provided to a proposed amendment solely because it is a DRI." See generally Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. The Nocatee DRI "is a proposed mixed use development on approximately 13,323 acres, of which approximately 11,332 acres are located in northeastern St. Johns County . . . and approximately 1,991 acres are located in southeastern Jacksonville, Florida." On February 22 and 23, 2001, concurrent with its consideration of the Plan Amendments, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners considered the merits of the Nocatee DRI ADA and approved same through Resolution No. 2001- 30. Accordingly, while Ordinance No. 2001-18, adopting the Plan Amendments, expressly relies on, in part, the data and analysis in the Nocatee DRI ADA and related documents, including the Nocatee DRI Development Order, and Policy A.1.19.15 expressly refers to the Nocatee DRI and incorporates the "allowable uses and mix of uses within the Nocatee" DRI,1 the Nocatee DRI is not subject to "in compliance" review in this administrative proceeding. See 1000 Friends of Florida and Robert Jenks v. City of Daytona Beach and Department of Community Affairs, et al., 16 F.A.L.R. 2428 (DCA June 16, 1994). See also Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, 795 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(discussing the scope of Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes). The Text Amendment The Text Amendment adds Objective A.1.19, "New Town Development," to the Plan, which is a new future land use category. The purpose of this new land use category is described as follows: The New Town Future Land Use category shall guide development into a series of clearly identified and distinct villages that together form a larger New Town. Within the New Town there is a clear hierarchy of development types utilizing neighborhoods as the basic development unit. Several neighborhoods and one or two village centers combine to form a village, and several villages form a New Town. A central village functions as the Town Center Village, and includes the main employment[,] shopping, and cultural activities for the New Town. Villages shall have central focal points of higher densities and intensities that create an identity and a sense of place. The planned mix of uses of New Towns shall help to provide a positive fiscal impact for the County. New Towns shall offer a wide range of housing choices, including affordable housing. The New Town Future Land Use category may be requested for any Development of Regional Impact that meets the policies set forth herein. The Board of County Commissioners may approve or deny any New Town on a project-by-project basis, after the New Town review. The Text Amendment is proposed to be included in the County's Plan as FLUE Objective A.1.19 – which is quoted in full immediately above – and fifteen (15) implementing policies (Policies A.1.19.1 through A.1.19.15). Unlike many of the other land use categories in the Plan, which are defined only by the statutorily-required minimum list of allowable uses and standards, the New Town land use category contains detail on a wide spectrum of issues ranging from fiscal impact analysis, affordable housing, to the "[i]nterconnectivity of pedestrian and vehicular routes through the [New] Town to encourage multi-modal circulation." The detail contained in the Text Amendment is necessary to ensure that a specific form of development occurs on land bearing the New Town future land use designation. The land use pattern of this category is a tool to combat urban sprawl, as further explained below, and was crafted with guidance from the following Rule definition. "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. Rule 9J-5.003(80), Florida Administrative Code. The New Town category in the Text Amendment is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, i.e., the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development in a rural area. The Text Amendment sets 2,500 acres as the minimum size for any parcel to be eligible for designation as a New Town. The Text Amendment then establishes general land use standards applicable to the overall New Town parcel, which are embellished by more specific controls for the different components of the New Town. "At least 35% of lands within a New Town development shall be reserved for Open Space/Conservation and shall preserve a connected system of environmentally sensitive and passive recreation areas that will form a greenway system," and shall be provided for public uses. "The greenway system will serve the additional goal of surrounding and defining villages and the Town Center Village." ("Greenways, wetlands, and similar natural areas are open space/conservation. Open space/conservation does not include parks, golf courses, and other designated recreational lands.") At least 40 percent of the net developable acreage of a New Town must be residential units and, of the total residential units, at least 20 percent must be multi-family, and at least 50 percent must be residential single-family. Workplace land uses, i.e., retail, service, office, and industrial, must comprise at least five percent of the net developable acreage. This proportion of mix of uses is further refined in Policy A.1.19.9, where square footage requirements for each of the non-residential land uses are linked to the number of approved dwelling units, e.g., a minimum of 50 square feet of retail space for each dwelling unit and 30 square feet of civic space per dwelling unit in a Town Center Village and five square feet per dwelling unit for each Village. Other "specific use standards" are provided. New Towns are also required to provide land for libraries, fire stations, local government annexes, school sites and similar public uses and shall provide minimum park acreage equivalent to Comprehensive Plan LOS [level of service] requirements. In addition to this overall guidance, the Text Amendment directs a specific community form by assembling the several mixed uses into components which together will form the New Town. The "neighborhood" is designed to be the "basic development unit" within the New Town. Neighborhoods are to be compact residential areas with a mix of housing types. "Several neighborhoods and one or two village centers combine to form a village, and several villages form a New Town." Village Centers are areas designed to provide civic, service, limited retail, and elementary school uses for the surrounding neighborhoods. "A village shall contain distinct neighborhoods that will each have a central neighborhood park, which shall be called the neighborhood commons." At least 10 percent of each village must be retained in open space/conservation areas. While residential uses (at least 10 percent of net developable acreage) are also allowed in village centers, at least 45 percent of net developable acreage of the uses must be non-residential. Villages composed of these centers and neighborhoods are to be surrounded by greenways, golf courses, and natural features, and linked to the remainder of the New Town through interconnected roads and a pedestrian/bikeway system. Also, within villages, low density residential must have an overall net residential density between 1-2 units per acre. Medium density residential development must have an overall net density between 2-6 units per acre. Traditional neighborhoods must have an overall net density of 4-6 units per acre. In addition to the villages, each New Town is to contain a "Town Center Village," which "is intended to serve as the cultural, shopping, employment and civic center for the New Town, and shall include office uses, light industrial areas, and higher density residential uses surrounding a mixed-use core." In addition to some single-family residential and retail, the Town Center Village must contain at least 30 percent multi-family residential (percentage of units) and 45 percent (percentage of square feet) office use in order that "[t]he mixed-core shall have the characteristics of a downtown." The most intense of these uses are to be concentrated in the "Town Center Village Mixed-Use Core," which is to be the "pedestrian-oriented 'Main Street' area of retail, service, office, residential, and civic uses." Both the Town Center Village and its Mixed-Use Core are governed by specific design standards addressing matters such as sidewalks, signs, porches, and on-street parking. Overall, the Objective and Policies contained in the New Town land use category provide meaningful and predictable detail.2 The specific Policies describe the types and uses and how these uses will relate to one another, the mix of uses, transportation issues, interconnectivity, design, and urban features of New Towns. The Map Amendment In the same Ordinance in which the Text Amendment was adopted, the County adopted a Map Amendment changing the FLUM designation of approximately 11,332 acres from Rural/Silviculture to New Town. The Map Amendment was adopted to allow development of a project known as "Nocatee." As required by the Text Amendment, Nocatee has been designated as a New Town on the FLUM, and has been reviewed and approved as a DRI. The "allowable uses and mix of uses" within the Nocatee DRI Development Order have been incorporated into the County Plan Amendments. The Nocatee project includes approximately 11,332 New Town acres in St. Johns County. ("The Nocatee site consists of approximately 15,000 acres, with approximately 2200 acres in Jacksonville and the remainder in St. Johns County. The site is generally bounded on the west by [U.S.] 1, on the east by the Intercoastal Waterway, on the south by Pine Island Road, and extends north of CR 210 approximately 1.5 miles.") However, the portion of Nocatee in the southern portion of Duval County (Jacksonville) is not subject to the instant challenges. The land uses adopted in the Nocatee DRI Development Order and incorporated into the St. Johns County Plan are as follows: 2,872,000 square feet, 336 acres of office uses; 968,000 square feet, 150 acres and 3,900 parking spaces for retail commercial uses; 250,000 square feet, 29 acres and 500 parking spaces for light industrial uses; 12,579 total dwelling units, comprising 8,811 single family units, 3,228 multi-family units (including single-family attached units), and 540 assisted living units; 54 golf course holes, 485 hotel rooms, 5,531 acres of recreation/open space (including, but not limited to, parks, the Greenway, and golf courses), churches, schools, and civic uses. The uses described above are to be developed in five phases, each anticipated to last five years, with various combinations of uses allowed in each phase. Individual phases may be extended pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, or accelerated provided that all mitigation requirements have been satisfied for the particular phase to be accelerated. The Nocatee DRI includes a Town Center Village, a secondary town center, seven other villages, and up to two village centers in each village. Village centers may include limited intensity office and retail commercial uses and an elementary school. However, "[t]he specific location of all land uses will be determined through the [Planned Unit Development] PUD approval process." The Nocatee DRI Development Order contains a "conversion table" which authorizes the conversion, at a defined rate, of one type of land use to another, but prohibits the conversion of non-residential land uses to residential uses during the first two phases of development. The conversion tables cannot be used to convert the Nocatee DRI land uses below those established in the New Town land use category. The Preserve Amendment Along with the Text and Map Amendments, the County adopted the Preserve Amendment, which re-designated approximately 1,630 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to Conservation for purposes of establishing the "Nocatee Preserve." The Nocatee Preserve is an area of over 2500 acres including close to 1800 acres of land above the mean high water line. This strategic location with over 3 miles of frontage on the Tolomato River complements the Guana State Park and the Guana Wildlife Management area directly east of the river. The Nocatee Preserve will expand preserved environmental lands to both sides of the Tolomato River. This expansion of environmental lands will provide additional protection for the northern Tolomato River Basin and will provide passive recreation opportunities for both the Nocatee community and the entire region. Additionally, the Preserve will serve as a buffer between the Tolomato River and future development within Nocatee–a buffer that is between 1 and 1 1/2 mile wide. The Preserve includes the most ecologically significant (and economically valuable) part of the [Nocatee] property. Transportation Amendment The last change to the County Plan (Policy H.1.6.6) here at issue, the Transportation Amendment, provides: The Nocatee Development of Regional Impact, a multi-use development meeting the criteria of Chapter 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes, is authorized by the County to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in the Statute to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payments of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order, Special Condition 25, entitled Transportation Resource Impacts. Pursuant to operation of the Transportation Amendment, Nocatee "will contribute up to $99,741,366 in cash payments and funded transportation improvements to offset the impacts of the Nocatee development upon the regional transportation system " Agency Review and Notice The Department is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Act), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Among the responsibilities of the Department under the Act is the duty to review plan amendments and determine if the plan amendments are in compliance with the Act. On or about June 1, 2000, the Department received the County's proposed Plan Amendments, and copies were distributed to various state, regional, and local agencies for their review and comments. On August 10, 2000, the Department submitted its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, Florida Administrative Code. Comments from the Department of Environmental Protection and the St. Johns River Water Management District were attached to the ORC. On or about January 22, 2001, the Applicant, The PARC Group, submitted its response to the Department's ORC. On February 22 and 23, 2001, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners held noticed hearings on the Nocatee DRI and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments and enacted Ordinance No. 2001-18 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-01D), adopting changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and also enacted Ordinance No. 2001-30, approving the Nocatee DRI. On March 5, 2001, the County furnished the Department with a submission package including documents relating to the Plan Amendments. On April 18, 2001, the Department caused to be published its Notice of Intent to find the Text Amendment, Map Amendment, Preserve Amendment, and Transportation Amendment "in compliance" pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, and 163.3189, Florida Statutes. Need and Urban Sprawl The nomenclature "New Town," adopted as the title of the Text Amendment, is a reference to a form of land use described in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. By definition, a "New Town" means, in part, "a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns." In addition, a "New Town" will necessarily contain a full range of uses in order to support a variety of economic and social activities "consistent with an urban area designation." See Rule 9J- 5.003(80), Florida Administrative Code. The new town land use generally described in Rule 9J-5.003(80), is a category expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code, recognizes new towns as one of the "innovative and flexible" manners in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The weight of the evidence demonstrated that the New Town development form contained in the Text Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. For example, Dr. Downs and Mr. Porter, both of whom are national growth management experts with decades of experience, testified that new towns in general, and specifically, the Text Amendment adopted by the County, serve to discourage urban sprawl. Mr. Pennock, the primary author of the urban sprawl rule, which is now a part of Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, testified that the types and mix of uses in the Text Amendment are appropriate for a new town and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. The designated Nocatee New Town is located on the St. Johns County/Duval County line in the Northeast Planning District, and lies east of U.S. Highway 1, and straddles County Road 210. The Nocatee New Town lies in the rural/urban fringe, within the fastest growing sector of the County, in the regional growth corridor emanating from southeast Duval County and Ponte Vedra. This is an advantageous location because it is close enough to the main employment center in the area (Jacksonville), to afford residents employment opportunities. Additionally, the Nocatee New Town is a master-planned community, unlike piecemeal fragmented development which has occurred in other parts of the County. Consistent with the Text and Map Amendments, the Nocatee New Town is planned to include preserved natural areas and greenways and villages. Each village is expected to consist of neighborhoods and a village center, which will include elementary schools, civic and retail uses, and higher density housing. The Nocatee New Town serves as a cultural center, providing for a mix of higher density residential, retail, restaurant, hotel, office, and light industrial, schools, churches, a fire station, a library, a county annex, a police complex, parks and public spaces, and as athletic complex. The Nocatee New Town is geographically separated from existing areas by U.S. Highway 1 and preserved greenways, and is a functionally distinct land use. The Nocatee New Town is functionally similar in size and land use composition to other successful new towns, and includes basic economic activities in all major land use categories. Further, the Nocatee New Town is innovative planning, especially for a rapidly urbanizing county like St. Johns. In addition, it provides for flexibility in land use mixes by designating minimum land use percentages, but not requiring fixed percentages. This flexibility is desirable to allow for market adaptation over the 25-year build-out period. The expert testimony at the final hearing was persuasive that the location chosen for the Map Amendment is appropriate for a New Town in the County. Just a short distance to the north of the Map Amendment is Jacksonville, which was accurately described as "the major economic engine for the northeast Florida area . . . ." The past two decades of economic success for Jacksonville have resulted in growth along a corridor to the southeast, i.e., directly toward the site of the Map Amendment and the proposed Nocatee New Town. From 1991 to 1996, approximately 42 percent of the growth in St. Johns County occurred in the area around the proposed Nocatee New Town. The Nocatee New Town can be expected to improve the current, incremental and piecemeal development patterns of the County. Unfortunately, the emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County exhibits indicators of sprawl. Currently, growth is not occurring in the most compact fashion. Sprawl is often viewed as a single-use or low- density residential setting. Here, the New Town concept offers a mixture of uses and the Plan Amendments, in particular, require an overall residential density range of three to eight units per net developable residential acre, whereas most of the residential areas of the County appear to have two residential unit per acre, and the proposed density for Nocatee is higher than the existing average in the northeast portion of the County. If Nocatee is developed according to its approved plan, it will be a New Town and will be a useful tool to fight this undesirable land use pattern of current development and is an anti-urban sprawl alternative to the existing sprawl development in the County. Petitioners maintain that the Text Amendment will allow, and the Map Amendment will promote, urban sprawl for essentially two reasons; first, there is no "need" for a new land use approval; second, there are insufficient guarantees that Nocatee or any future approval will actually develop as a New Town. The "need" question is founded in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires that "[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 [and] the projected population of the area . . . ." This requirement is repeated in the statute's implementing rule, i.e., Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code ("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") Finally, the "need" issue is one of the primary factors to be considered in any urban sprawl analysis. See Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). 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 time frame 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 time frame 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 are judged. The testimony in this case from the planning experts is that there is no accepted "hard and fast" allocation ratio at which a local government would be required to deny all future plan amendments. (There is testimony from Department planners that there is a recommended guideline, which set a ratio of 1.25:1 of supply over demand. This ratio has not been adopted as a rule nor has it been proven to be an accepted ratio to be applied in this case.) Rather, the allocation ratio is a planning guideline to be used for two purposes: first, ensuring a local government has enough land to accommodate future population; second, discouraging urban sprawl. The County divides St. Johns County into four Planning Districts (part of the data and analysis of the Plan) for purposes of calculating allocation ratios of the amount of land needed for particular land uses compared to an amount of land so designated. (Disaggregating allocation ratios into planning districts is professionally acceptable.) Planning districts differentiate the County into different growth scenarios, development trends, and land use patterns. County staff explained the analysis performed regarding each of the four Planning Districts. Separate ratios were developed for each Planning District. Population projections were developed based on historical growth and compared to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) numbers. See footnote 5. In part, the County analyzed the amount of developable land designated in the FLUM, which was converted "into a very specific GIS map, so [they] had more definitive areas . . . ." Developable and un-developable land was analyzed. The County also examined the nature of the future land use densities existing on the developable lands to derive "a potential development for those developable areas and compare[d] those to the population projections which converted into housing units." A comparison was made "between population projections or need for housing units and the amount of dwelling units that can be accommodated in this developable area on the map."3 As otherwise noted further in Joint Exhibit 7-A, page A-37, in part: These population projections are then converted into housing demand by planning district as discussed in the Housing Element. The demand for these housing units will occur in different residential densities. However, as an aggregate measure, the total housing units needed is useful for comparison to the maximum net densities allowed for the various residential land use designations. It should be pointed out that rarely are the maximum net densities achieved, particularly at the higher density lands. For instance, while the Mixed Use Districts allow up to 13 units per acre, historically these acres have developed at much lower densities. This trend has been particularly significant due to the shortage of multi-family dwelling units constructed in the County. Single-family residential developments generally cannot achieve the densities at the high density level (6-13 units per acre), and rarely exceed the threshold for low density development (less than or equal to 2 units per acre). The May 2000, County EAR-Based Plan Amendment for the FLUE, provides residential land use allocation ratios for the year 2015 ranging between 1.63:1 for the Northeast Planning District to 11.59:1 for the Southwest Planning District, and an overall County allocation ratio of 3.08:1. These ratios appear in Joint Exhibit 7A at A-41, Table A-10, and were previously approved by the Department. ("A comparison of the allocation of dwelling units from the available developable land with the projected housing demand by planning district is provided in Table A-10.") Intervenors' expert independently calculated County allocation ratios, including the Nocatee New Town Map Amendment, and arrived at a ratio of 2.33:1 for the Northeast Planning District and 2.9:1 for the entire County, using data available as of February 2001.4 It is at least fairly debatable that these allocations ratios are supported by appropriate data and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner. Numerous witnesses testified that allocation ratios should not be used as a bright line test because there are no adopted rules or clearly defined professional standards which establish a maximum ratio above which a plan amendment may not go. In other words, use of a maximum allocation ratio as a set upper limit, without consideration of other relevant factors to establish need, would offer no concrete, professionally accepted standard. Sierra offered no independent allocation ratios. Rather, Sierra elicited testimony from County staff that, if a series of assumptions supplied by Sierra were used to calculate the allocation ratios, based on Sierra's concept of using maximum theoretical density, the allocation ratios would be as high as 4.36:1 and 6.1:1 for the Northeast Planning District of the County. In other words, Sierra sought to have the County's calculations redone using the maximum theoretical density allowed under each land use category.5 The allocation ratios offered by Sierra raise a concern that, with the Nocatee development, there is a projected over-allocation of supply to meet the projected demand in the County, and, in particular, in the Northeast Planning District of the County. However, there is no persuasive evidence that the strict maximum theoretical density methodology offered by Sierra was professionally acceptable for use in the County to project the future need in light of the Plan Amendments. In fact, the testimony was that an allocation ratio utilizing the maximum theoretical density may be appropriate if only urban lands are included in the calculation, and if appropriate restrictions on the ability to realize this density are made a part of the equation. Sierra did not so limit its inquiry. Also, the weight of the evidence indicates that the use of maximum theoretical densities, as calculated according to Sierra, is more likely than not to overstate the realistic densities that will be achieved on the land designated for residential use by the County. While not mandating that every subsequent plan amendment must be categorically denied, the presence of an over-allocation will trigger a heightened, more thorough review of the indicators of urban sprawl when considering further plan amendments. Only amendments subjected to this greater scrutiny and still found to discourage urban sprawl may be found "in compliance" in the presence of an over- allocation. On the other hand, a higher allocation ratio may be appropriate in relatively high-growth counties, like the County, to offset the difficulties inherent in forecasting growth. An allocation ratio which is set too low may tend to reduce market choice, resulting in increased housing prices and a reduced employment base. There is persuasive evidence that the Map and Text Amendments meet this heightened level of sprawl analysis. Urban sprawl involves, at its core, the spreading of low density or strip commercial development from urban areas into rural lands. The determination of whether any amendment or plan constitutes urban sprawl is undertaken pursuant to the criteria of Rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code. The emerging development pattern in northeast St. Johns County exhibits numerous symptoms of sprawl. There is persuasive evidence that the Text and Map Amendments can be reasonably expected to make the situation better by providing "an anti-sprawl alternative to what's there now." The rule applicable to sprawl speaks directly to this situation. If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k), Florida Administrative Code (emphasis added). Neither Petitioner offered persuasive evidence to rebut the finding that the Map and Text Amendments improve the existing development pattern in northeast St. Johns County. Sierra attempted to imply that the Text and Map Amendments allow for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development. Contrary to this argument, the evidence shows, for example, that the three to eight dwelling units per net developable residential acre contained in the Text Amendment, coupled with the text provisions directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and the myriad of non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl New Town. The flexibility built into the Text and Map Amendments afford a reasonable ability to change and meet the market demands over a long-term build-out. Natural Resource Protection Every New Town development must adhere to the Policies in the Plan. The Plan Amendment adds additional requirements to the Plan in the environmental section, Policy A.1.19.5, "Environmental Consideration." Policy A.1.19.5 of the Text Amendment affords natural resource protection by requiring that at least 35 percent of any land designated New Town shall be "reserved for Open Space/Conservation lands and shall preserve a connected system of environmentally sensitive and passive recreation areas that will form a greenway system." "At least 15% of this open space component must be uplands." At least ten percent of a village must be retained in open space/conservation areas. According to Policy A.1.19.5, "[s]ignificant environmental characteristics" must "be incorporated into the New Town design, particularly into the greenway system." The applicant for a New Town designation is required to "provide data and analysis regarding potential environmental impacts, including, but not limited to[,] impacts to wetlands, sub- surface waters, and surface waters and the presence of plant and animal species that are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as threatened, endangered, or as a species of special concern." Natural resource protection is furthered through Objective A.1.19 which states: "The New Town Future Land Use category may be requested from any [DRI] that meets the policies set forth " in the Plan Amendments. The application form for a DRI requires a detailed listing of vegetation and wildlife. Rule 9J-2.010(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Any flora or fauna identified as listed must be protected in accordance with the Department's "Listed Plant and Wildlife Resources Uniform Standard Rule." Rule 9J-2.041, Florida Administrative Code. Master planning, such as in a DRI, better protects natural resource than piecemeal development. Moreover, there is persuasive evidence that natural resources can be better protected under the New Town category than in the existing Rural/Silviculture land use category. Pursuant to these provisions, there are 5,531 of the 11,332 acres designated as New Town set aside for recreation/open space, "including, but not limited to, parks, the Greenway, and golf courses." This set aside is based upon data and analysis compiled through the DRI review process. The Nocatee Preserve (an example of an "environmentally significant characteristic") is the most significant environmental resource on the Nocatee site and establishes additional resource protection. (The Plan Amendments designate approximately 1,630 acres (the Nocatee Preserve) lying above the mean high water line in the "Conservation" land use category. Petitioners do not object to this designation.) This Preserve is a mosaic of uplands and wetlands and includes tidal saltwater wetlands. It includes streams, uplands, and a variety of habitats. It fronts the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) of the Guana/Tolomato preserve areas. The Preserve adds protection for the aquatic preserve. The Nocatee Preserve is located between the Nocatee New Town and the Tolomato River and protects the parcel's approximately 3.5 miles of frontage on the Tolomato River (Guana-Tolomato Aquatic Preserve). It is likely to ensure the protection of wildlife habitat on both sides of the Tolomato River and a natural view for recreational boaters and others. In addition to the Nocatee Preserve, which is approximately 1 1/2 miles wide, "the greenways," comprising a minimum of 4,961 acres (at least 960 acres of uplands at build-out) in St. Johns and Duval Counties, will be preserved. Greenways will consist of wetlands and uplands. Vegetative communities currently found on site will be preserved. The County's FLUM series includes Map 9-B, entitled "Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL)." Within the County, the ESL designation is given to OFWs, estuaries, wetlands, essential habitat to listed species, coastal barrier resources and beach and dune systems, and other areas specifically designated by the Board of County Commissioners.6 (Policy E.2.2.5 of the Plan also requires the County to protect ESLs "through the establishment of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which address the alternative types of protection for each type of" ESL.) The weight of the evidence indicates that Map 9-B is a generalized depiction of these ESLs. On its face, the Map contains a disclaimer that the data are provided from multiple sources, with varying degrees of accuracy. In essence, Map 9-B is used by the County for "reference only" purposes, i.e., data and analysis only, and is not intended to be used as a predicate for decision-making, for example, a determination is made as to the "exact location of a wetland jurisdictional line." Map 9-B, although part of the data and analysis, is not the best available data for site-specific analysis. Policy A.1.11.7 of the Plan Amendment states that "[i]n the event of a conflict between any of the Maps and the text of the Plan, the text of the Plan shall control." Pursuant to the Plan Amendments, see, e.g., Policy A.1.19.5, the County requires applicants for New Town plan amendments to provide the County with site-specific information, including environmental, and wildlife surveys (conducted pursuant to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FFWCC) requirements),7 including vegetative surveys, in order for the County to determine the extent of ESLs on the property, proposed for New Town designation. See Finding of Fact 95. This information is part of the data and analysis required under the Plan Amendments and is required to be based on professionally accepted methodologies. Site visits by County personnel are also required. Sierra alleges that the protective measures mentioned above in the Plan Amendments fail to adequately address natural resources because the term "significant environmental characteristics" in the Text Amendment and the protections attendant such areas are uncertain, and the depiction of greenways, wetland impacts, and development of the "Sandy Ridge Village" as depicted in various maps attached to the Nocatee DRI Development Order, allow undue impacts. The operation of the Text Amendment as a whole, including the provision for the protection of "significant environmental characteristics," when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan and Plan Amendments, can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The remainder of Sierra's allegations rest on the presumption that the maps of development areas and greenways attached to the Nocatee DRI Development Order are part of the County Plan and are subject to this compliance review. However, the only portion of the Nocatee DRI Development Order incorporated into the Plan and subject to this review is the provision that establishes the "allowable uses and mix of uses." Policy A.1.19.15. The location of those uses, as shown in the Nocatee DRI Development Order is not incorporated into the Plan. (However, Ordinance No. 2001-18, recognizes the importance of the Nocatee DRI Development Order. See Ordinance No. 2001-18, Section 2, paragraph 5). Accordingly, and as further set forth below in the Conclusions of Law, Sierra's allegations that the Plan Amendment must be found not "in compliance," e.g., because of the location of uses and their potential impact on natural resources, is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Nevertheless, the data and analysis supporting the Nocatee DRI have been considered herein in order to determine whether the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." The Nocatee site in Duval and St. Johns Counties is approximately 15,000 acres, of which "approximately 8,000 acres of uplands and wetlands will be preserved in the Greenway, the Preserve and within preserved jurisdictional wetlands in the villages and Town Center Village " Further, it was apparent that when several maps are reviewed together, up to 474 acres of wetlands may be impacted by the development, subject to further permitting. At present, it is speculative as to the precise number of wetlands which will be impacted by the development. However, there are general depictions of wetlands delineated on, for example, Maps H-1 and H-3, which are anticipated to be preserved. Ultimately, the wetlands impacts are required to be addressed on a site- specific basis in future permitting by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the St. Johns River Water Management District.8 Sierra's expert (Mr. Hoctor) opined that the proposed greenways were, in some instances, too narrow because protected areas should be located at least 330 feet from developed areas due to "edge effect." However, Mr. Hoctor also stated that the distance of the edge effect could be less than 330 feet, although he believed that 330 feet "is a good base-line estimate of edge effects." On the other hand, the County and Intervenors' experts opined that the greenways, as designated, are sufficiently wide, and can be expected to provide adequate habitat to sustain the environmental resources on site.9 In general, on the Nocatee site, buffers of upland areas ranging from 15 to 100 feet will be preserved in their natural state adjacent to wetlands systems. In some areas, the width of the proposed buffers will exceed current County requirements. The buffers serve to push incompatible land uses away from surface waters and protect wetland functions. Further, Deep, Durbin, Smith, and Sweetwater Creeks are proposed to be protected by a minimum 100-foot buffer along the Creeks, which is twice as wide as other County requirements for these areas. (Theoretically, estuary systems, require a 50-foot buffer, whereas the Nocatee project has committed to a 100-foot buffer.) The County Land Development Code requires upland buffers adjacent to contiguous jurisdictional wetlands, and the buffer sizes vary, dependent upon the location of the wetlands. For example, a 50-foot buffer is required along the Tolomato River in areas where the high water line can be set; and in all other areas with contiguous wetlands, a 25-foot buffer and a 25-foot setback are required. As noted in the Nocatee DRI ADA, Question 16, Second Sufficiency Response: "The state-of-the-art stormwater management system proposed for Nocatee will limit the 100-year flood plain to greenways, wetlands, and stormwater management facilities. No post-development developed areas in Nocatee will be in the 100-year flood plain." This representation is adopted in the Nocatee DRI Development Order. Further, the bald eagle is a protected species and the habitat for the bald eagle is an essential habitat. The bald eagle's nest on-the Nocatee site is being protected by means of a 1,500-foot management zone (360 degrees). (The United States Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines indicate that a 1,500-foot buffer should be utilized.) Petitioners also offered evidence, by and through the testimony of Mr. Hoctor, that "only about 60 acres of both sand hill and scrub are proposed for protection out of at least 180 acres of zeric communities on site. Most of it long leaf pine sand hill and xeric oak sand hill." According to Mr. Hoctor, these areas include a 70-acre sandy hill parcel in the proposed Sandy Ridge Village, which is not expected to be preserved, and a 25-acre parcel, which will be preserved. (A 17-acre parcel of scrub-type habitat will also be preserved in the southwest corner of the site.) The experts agree that gopher tortoises live in and need sandy soils to construct their burrows. Gopher tortoises will be impacted by the Nocatee development. One of the guidelines set by the FFWCC states that a minimum size patch of 25 acres is necessary for on-site protection of gopher tortoises. The experts disagree as to whether preservation of a proposed 25-acre site (to be incorporated into a 20-mile greenway on-site) is sufficiently large enough to accommodate the gopher tortoises (and gopher frogs, indigo snakes, and other species) on the Nocatee site. The County and Intervenors provided reasonable explanations for requiring the preservation of the 25-acre site (as a significant natural communities habitat) in lieu of the 70-acre site. At the very least, reasonable minds have differed on this issue. It is also subject to reasonable debate whether gopher tortoises will remain on-site given the preserved 25-acre site. On the other hand, the 25-acre site has canopy and good ground cover vegetation for the gopher tortoise community. Also, pursuant to the Nocatee DRI Development Order, "as mitigation for impacts to gopher tortoises and their commensals, the Developer will be responsible for off-site mitigation of the equivalent of approximately 66 acres of habitat, in conjunction with the permit requirements of the [FFWCC]." "This off-site mitigation will be accomplished by the Developer by issuance of an incidental take permit or by purchase of habitat at an off-site location within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council." Total preservation on-site is expected to be approximately 33 percent which exceeds the ten percent Plan requirement. Sherman Fox Squirrels are a species of special concern. It appears that two fox squirrels have been sighted on the Nocatee site in the general vicinity of the St. Johns County/Duval County lines. This species is "highly mobile" and "will very likely migrate to other suitable habitat when the [Nocatee site is developed]." "[F]ox squirrel habitat will be included in the incidental take permit." The preservation of the fox squirrels has been addressed in a general way, i.e., through preservation of significant natural communities and the 8,000 acres of land which is being preserved on-site. Petitioners also presented expert testimony that the Nocatee site is an essential habitat for the Florida Black Bear, which should be protected by preserving a "large swath" of most or all of the southern portion of the Nocatee site which "would serve as a potentially functional wildlife corridor." (The Florida Black Bear is a threatened species. The minimum acreage required to sustain a viable population for the Florida Black Bear is between 500,000 and 1 million acres.) The experts disagreed whether portions of the Nocatee site are essential habitat for the Florida Black Bear population and the extent of the impacts on the Florida Black Bear if the Nocatee site is developed as proposed. (Mr. Hoctor suggested during cross-examination that the Florida Black Bear population, east of U.S. Highway 1 in the County, stood "only a fair to poor chance of being viable.")10 Part of the habitat data discussed by Mr. Hoctor indicates that bear road kills were more than 15 years ago. More recent bear kills have occurred in other parts of the County (west of the river or adjacent to the Twelve Mile Swamp property), but not east of Interstate 95 in the Nocatee area. Even if Florida Black Bears use the Nocatee site, more than one-half of the site (approximately 8,000 acres), which will be preserved for wildlife corridors, potentially may be used by Florida Black Bears for migration and foraging. It is at least fairly debatable whether the environmental components of the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." Land Use Suitability The Nocatee site plan was based upon a land use suitability analysis, considering soils, wetlands, vegetation, archeological sites, and topography. The Nocatee DRI ADA contains appropriate data and analysis, including testimony during the final hearing, related to such topics as "vegetations and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The Nocatee scientists spent approximately 8,000 man hours in the field (on the Nocatee site) over a course of two and one-half years collecting detailed data related to these issues. The data was collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner. Economic Feasibility In General The Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of a Comprehensive Plan identifies facilities for which local government has financial responsibility, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. (As noted herein, this does not include schools for which the School Board has financial responsibility.) Petitioners raise numerous issues relating to the "financial feasibility" of the Plan Amendments. The record contains detailed data and analysis of existing and future public facility needs. The data and analysis were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. Further, the County conducted a cost benefit analysis of the Nocatee development and determined that the development can be expected to produce a positive revenue stream for capital expenditures in each year. (For example, the County's Budget Director calculated that as of build-out (twenty-five year period), Nocatee will result in a net financial gain to the County of approximately $114 million.) This study was bolstered by Intervenors' cost benefit analysis documenting a net positive cash flow. Public Schools Sierra contends that the Map Amendment runs afoul of the State's growth management laws by not providing a financially feasible development that adequately addresses its impacts on the public school system. As set forth in the Conclusions of Law, existing laws do not require local governments to address public schools as part of comprehensive planning. This link between land use and public schools is currently optional and the County has not elected to pursue the option; this election is supported by extant law. There is persuasive evidence that the County is not responsible for funding public school facilities. Rather, the St. Johns County School Board is responsible for such funding. For example, the only portion of the school facilities construction paid by the County occurs when the School Board requests the County to pay for the upgrading of a facility to provide for use as a hurricane shelter. The Nocatee developers agreed to construct at least two such shelters in accordance with the Department of Education's standards. However, the placement of hurricane shelters is a decision made by the County, not the School Board. Furthermore, the County has not adopted a Public School Facilities Element or a school concurrency funding program. (Examples of concurrency requirements for the State of Florida include transportation, potable water, sanitary sewer, parks and recreation, drainage, and solid waste.) The St. Johns County School Board is an independent taxing authority with an established budget for school construction and operation. Nevertheless, with respect to the New Town Category, elementary schools are allowed within or adjacent to village centers and the Town Center Village. The Nocatee development will require an additional eight schools in the County in order to meet the projected need. (Mr. Toner projected that over a period of 25 years, eight new schools would be needed and that during the five-year planning horizon after construction begins at Nocatee, one middle school would be needed for the projected number of students, i.e., 450 would start to materialize. Mr. Toner desires that schools be built concurrently with development, which does not appear to be required.) The Nocatee developers have agreed to donate, at no charge to the County (or the citizens of the County), land for the eight public schools and to waive a credit against the school impact fees to which the developers would otherwise be entitled. The value of the land donation credit is approximately $12 million. Additionally, by build-out (in the twenty-fifth year), according to Intervenors' data and analysis, the School Board can expect to receive annual net revenue or gain of approximately $9.6 million. It is also expected that over the life of the Nocatee development and, in particular, during the later phases of the development, revenues will "significantly exceed the costs," in light of expected commercial, industrial, and additional residential development "that's generating the student load on the system." Transportation The Plan Amendments add Policy H.1.6.6. to the County's Comprehensive Plan stating: The Nocatee Development of Regional Impact, a multi-use development meeting the criteria of Chapter 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes, is authorized by the County to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in the Statute to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payment of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order, Special Condition No. 25 entitled Transportation Resource Impacts. (See Ordinance No. 2001-18) The "pipelining" method of mitigating transportation impacts has been selected in the Plan Amendments. This method allows the transportation mitigation funds to be used to increase the transportation capacity of some links of a regional roadway network beyond that necessary to offset projected impacts. It allows impacts on the regional roadway network to be handled on a proportionate share basis. Pipelining contemplates that various proportionate share impacts along the regional roadway network are assessed and all of the calculated dollars under the pipelining method are aggregated to create "a pot of money" which is used "to build one or more whole transportation improvements." The pipelining statute takes precedence over the conflicting concurrency requirements of the County. Here, the mitigation package is based upon a "proportionate fair share" calculation, under which Nocatee will pay $99.7 million. This amount is supported by appropriate data and analysis based upon the application of professionally accepted methods. In addition to the payment, the mitigation will include right-of-way donation and roadway construction. Petitioners do not challenge the concept of "pipelining." Rather, Petitioners question whether the transportation components of the Plan Amendments are "economically feasible." Overall, there is persuasive evidence, presented in the form of data and analysis, that with the Nocatee approval and the Plan Amendments, the County's transportation capital funds are likely to be improved both at the 25-year build-out and within the first five years. (State law requires that land use decisions and transportation facility planning be coordinated over the five- year planning time frame in order to maintain and achieve adopted levels of service. See Section 163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The persuasive evidence indicates that the Nocatee development will not cause any roadway segment to fall below its adopted level of service (LOS) standard during the five-year planning time frame.) Petitioners, largely through the testimony and exhibits offered by Mr. Feldt (a former employee with the County whose area of expertise is transportation), contend that the proportionate fair share calculation was incorrectly calculated and that the Nocatee DRI development data and analysis understates transportation impacts which are likely to arise as a result of the Nocatee development. However, while Mr. Feldt maintained that the $99.7 million allocation would not be sufficient to cover some of the improvements he deemed necessary, such as right-of way, most of his concerns regarding the transportation component of the Nocatee DRI had been satisfied during the DRI review process leading up to the County's approval of the Nocatee DRI Development Order. It is at least fairly debatable that the pipelining transportation component of the Plan Amendments is supported by appropriate data and analysis, which is professionally acceptable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Plan Amendments adopted by St. Johns County in Ordinance No. 2001-18 are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2002, 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 20th day of May, 2002.
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 is whether to approve the Petitioners’ application for a beneficial use determination (BUD) regarding their property on Ramrod Key, Florida, and if approved, to determine the type of relief that is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are taken from the parties’ joint pre-hearing stipulation, and the direct evidence adduced at the hearing. The Property The Petitioners’ property is located at 475 Brown Drive, Ramrod Key, in Monroe County. According to the Monroe County Property Appraiser, the size of the site is 0.95 acres. The property is vacant and contains disturbed and undisturbed wetland habitat. The property’s immediate vicinity is described as residential development of single-family units to the west and south, environmentally sensitive lands to the south and east, and open water to the north. The property is legally described as “being a portion of Tract ‘A’, Ramrod Shores Third Addition, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 108 of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida” having real estate number 00209971-004600. The property’s current Land Use Map Zoning Districts are Improved Subdivision (IS) and Native Area (NA). The property’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designations are Residential Medium (RM) and Residential Conservation (RC). The Tier Designation is Tier III Infill Area. Relevant Prior County Actions On December 19, 1972, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) passed Resolution No. 146-1972 approving the Plat of Ramrod Shores Third Addition and filed for record in Plat Book 6 at Page 108 of the Public Records of Monroe County. The landowner was James M. Brown, as Trustee. The subject property is within Tract A of this plat. In 1986, Monroe County adopted a revised set of zoning regulations via Ordinance No. 33-1986. Ordinance No. 33-1986 also approved a revised series of zoning maps (also known as the Pattison Maps) for all areas of the unincorporated county by reference. With the adoption of the 1986 Land Development Regulations and zoning maps, most of the Petitioners’ property was designated as IS zoning with a small portion as NA. In 1992, a revised series of zoning maps were approved (also known as the Craig Maps) for all areas of the unincorporated county. With the adoption of the revised (Craig) zoning maps, the Petitioners’ property remained designated as IS with a small portion as NA. In 1993, the County adopted a set of FLUM maps pursuant to a joint stipulated settlement agreement and section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. BOCC Ordinance No. 016-1993 memorialized the approval. The FLUM maps took effect in 1997 after approval from the state land planning agency. With the adoption of the FLUM maps, the Petitioners’ property was designated as RM and a small portion as RC. On March 23, 2015, the Petitioners were provided a Letter of Current Site Conditions for the subject property. The letter summarized the environmental habitats on the property and the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The letter stated the KEYWEP score for disturbed portions of the wetland was 4.45. The score of 4.45 means the property was buildable, disturbed wetlands. The undisturbed wetlands consist of tidal mangroves and were by definition “red flag” wetlands. Disturbed wetlands may be developed under section 118-10, Monroe County Code. Development is not permitted in undisturbed wetlands where 100 percent open space is required. On November 24, 2015, the Petitioners applied for a building permit to construct a single-family detached residential dwelling unit. On December 4, 2015, the County’s Planning and Environmental Resources Department (the Department) sent the Petitioners a notice that the Department denied their building permit application number 15106233. The notice informed the Petitioners that the Department’s decision may be appealed within 30 calendar days. No appeal was filed to challenge the propriety of the Department’s decision. The Department’s December 4, 2015, notice stated that the Ramrod Shores Third Addition Plat shows that the Petitioners’ property is located within Tract A. Although Tract A was subdivided into seven parcels, this was never shown as lots on an approved and duly recorded plat. The Department determined that the property did not meet the definition of “lot” in section 101-1, Monroe County Code, and did not meet the residential density requirements of the IS Land Use District in order to allow the proposed development of a dwelling unit. See § 130-157, Monroe Cnty. Code. On December 7, 2016, the Department received the agent’s BUD Application, File No. 2016-202. On December 22, 2016, the Department sent the agent a Notice of Deficiencies pursuant to section 102-105, Monroe County Code, after the application was reviewed by staff to determine if the application was complete and included the materials and information listed in section 102-105(b). On January 6, 2017, the Department received additional materials and information from the agent. On January 27, 2017, the Department notified the agent that the application was determined to be sufficient. On March 28, 2017, the Department forwarded the BUD application to DOAH for adjudication. After the Petitioners sought to amend their application with a new basis for relief, DOAH relinquished its jurisdiction. On June 12, 2017, the Petitioners submitted an Amended BUD Application to the Department. After sending a second Notice of Deficiencies and receiving additional materials and information from the agent, the Department determined that the application was sufficient. The Amended BUD Application was suspended for 60 days, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 214-2017, as a temporary emergency measure after Hurricane Irma made landfall in the Florida Keys on September 10, 2017. On November 9, 2017, the Department forwarded the BUD Application to DOAH for adjudication. Petitioners’ Actions The Petitioners purchased the subject property on April 23, 1990. Between 1990 and 1991, the Petitioners submitted an application to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for an on-site aerobic septic system. At first, the HRS denied the application based on lot size issues. The HRS Variance Review Board recommended disapproval of the septic system application on June 7, 1991, on the grounds of insufficient lot size and an illegal canal. After the Petitioners failed to obtain HRS approval in 1991, they took no further steps to develop the property until they submitted an application for a Letter of Current Site Conditions on January 30, 2015, and an application for a single- family residence on November 24, 2015. Mr. Olynger testified that the Petitioners purchased the property because of the ocean view and expected to build a house on the property. He testified that after the HRS denials in the early 1990s, he started the process of trying to develop the property again in 2014 because central sewer was now available. IS Land Use District Due to the density requirements for the IS Land Use District of one dwelling unit per lot, the Petitioners are unable to construct a single-family home, which is an as-of- right use in the IS Land Use District. The IS Land Use District permits other as-of-right and conditional uses. While Mr. Olynger disputed the economic productivity of some of these uses, it was not disputed that the property could potentially be used for (a) recreational purposes; (b) a community park; (c) beekeeping; (d) wastewater system; (e) Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) points or transferable development rights (TDRs); or (f) sold to a neighbor for open space, yard expansion or an accessory use, such as a pool. Mr. Bond testified that that the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Code allow landowners competing for the limited number of building allocations in the point-based ROGO to buy and donate vacant parcels such as the subject property to increase their ROGO scores. The subject property qualifies as a ROGO Lot and there is an active secondary market of people buying and trading ROGO Lots in Monroe County. Mr. Bond also testified that the Petitioners could apply for Future Land Use Map and Land Use (Zoning) District Map amendments to a category that would allow for the construction of a single-family dwelling based upon an adopted acreage density standard. The Petitioners have not made any such applications. There was no direct evidence on the fair market value of the property, as encumbered by the regulation.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petitioners’ application for relief under section 102-104, Monroe County Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2018.
The Issue Whether the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance 2018-109 on September 27, 2018 (the “Plan Amendment”), is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Respondent, Miami-Dade County (“the County”), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a local government comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes. The Limonar Petitioners are limited liability companies under the laws of the State of Florida whose principal places of business are in Florida. The Limonar Petitioners own property within the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Petitioner, Michelle Garcia, resides and owns property in the County near the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Petitioner, Tropical Audubon Society (“Tropical”), is an environmental organization in South Florida dedicated to conserving and restoring South Florida ecosystems, focusing on birds and other wildlife, as well as their habitats. Tropical owns property in the County. Each of the Petitioners submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections concerning the Plan Amendment to the County during the time period beginning with the Plan Amendment adoption hearing and ending with the Plan Amendment transmittal hearing. The parties stipulated that Ms. Garcia’s substantial interests will be adversely affected by the Plan Amendment given that her property is located in the County near the area affected by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment amends the Plan to allow an extension of State Road 835 (also known as the Dolphin Expressway) from its current terminus at Northwest (NW) 137th Avenue and NW 12th Street to the West Kendall suburban area of the County. The approximate 13-mile extension is planned as a six-lane expressway from its current terminus to Southwest (SW) 8th Street and SW 167th Avenue, then continuing as a four-lane expressway to connect with SW 136th Street in Kendall. The proposed extension is referred to herein as the “new corridor.” The Plan Amendment incorporates the new corridor on the County’s Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”), as well as the Transportation Element map series, including both the traffic circulation and Mass Transit subelements. Additionally, the Plan Amendment changes some existing, and adds several new, policies in the Land Use, Transportation (including Traffic Circulation and Mass Transit subelements), Open Space, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. The new corridor was first envisioned in 2012, when the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (“MPO”), since renamed the Transportation Planning Organization (“TPO”), added the southwest extension of SR-836/Dolphin Expressway to its Long-Range Transportation Plan (“LRTP”) as a “partially funded project.” “Partially funded” means that the TPO authorized the project to move forward for study—in the case of the new corridor, to undertake a Project Development and Environment (“PD&E”) Study—but that the project is not yet approved for construction funding. The LRTP describes the purpose and need for the new corridor as follows: The new extension will address existing highway congestion and enhance mobility in the fastest growing area of the county. The purpose of the SR- 836 (Dolphin) SW Extension is to: Improve system connectivity, Improve access to and from the area to major employment centers such as the MIA, the MIC, the Port of Miami, Downtown Miami, Doral, as well as educational and commercial centers within the study area, Provide north south expressway access to serve existing and future travel demand, Improve hurricane/emergency evacuation routes and travel times, Evaluate multimodal transportation opportunities to improve connectivity to the fast growing southwest area of Miami-Dade County, Evaluate the best alternative for the SR-836 (Dolphin) SW Extension that is technically sound, environmentally sensitive and publicly acceptable. The new corridor is to be funded by the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (“MDX”).3 UDB and UEA The entirety of the new corridor will be located outside of the County’s urban development boundary (“UDB”). Some portions of the new corridor lie within the area known as the urban expansion area (“UEA”), but the majority of the new corridor lies outside the UEA. The UDB is a defining feature of the Plan, which distinguishes the area where urban development may occur through the year 2020 from areas where it should not occur. The County’s plan accommodates urban development within the UDB by increasing development densities and intensities inside the UDB. The UDB was originally established in 1975 and comprised 233,000 acres. The UDB boundary was significantly amended in 1988, following enactment of Florida’s Growth Management Act, by the addition of 16,000 acres. Between 1990 and 2012, only about 2,400 acres have been added to the UDB, most of which was added by a 2006 amendment to the Plan. At least in part, the UDB operates to limit development pressure on the County’s agricultural lands located to the west of the UDB between the urbanized area and the Everglades National Park. A 2012 Environmental 3 MDX was dissolved by chapter 2019-169, Laws of Florida. The legislation has been challenged and a current appeal is pending before the First District Court of Appeal. See Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. MDX, Case No. 19-3625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Protection Agency study noted, “the dwindling supply of agricultural land is an especially urgent issue.” The study characterized the County as “dangerously close” to losing its “critical mass” of land in active agriculture usage. The Plan provides for expansion of the UDB to provide additional countywide development capacity “when the need for such change is determined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process.” The UEA was established in 1993 and is the area currently projected to be needed to accommodate development in the area between the 2020 UDB boundary and 2030 UEA boundary. Until this area is brought into the UDB through an amendment to the Plan, development within the UEA is limited to uses consistent with “Agriculture” and “Open Land” areas, as defined in the Plan. Residential development outside the UDB is limited to one dwelling unit per five acres (1du/5acres). New Corridor Path The new corridor is planned to pass through lands that are protected by a variety of regulations and development limitations. Figure 1 depicts the location of the new corridor on the Plan Land Use Map, identified as the solid black line beginning at the western end of NW 12th Street and following a winding path west and southwest to its termination at SW 136th Street. [Remainder of page intentionally blank] Figure 1 From its connection with the existing SR 836 corridor, the new corridor will first traverse an area designated “Open Land,” which, according to the Plan is “set aside for uses other than urban development.” It is more than “simply surplus undeveloped land,” and is intended to serve resource- based functions like agriculture or development of potable water supply. According to the Plan, “Open Land areas primarily consist of wetlands.” The only use definitively allowed in this subarea is rural residential. The Plan provides that all other proposed uses will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. More particularly, the new corridor will traverse the County’s Open Land Subarea 3, which contains the Tamiami-Bird Canal Basins and the eastern portion of the North Trail and Bird Drive Everglades Basins. The basins are recharge areas for the Biscayne Aquifer, the primary source of the County’s drinking water. The Plan provides that the following land uses may be considered for approval in this subarea: [R]ural residences at one dwelling unit per 5 acres (“1 du/5”), compatible institutional uses, public facilities, utility and communications facilities, seasonal agricultural use, recreational use, or limestone quarrying and ancillary uses. Uses that could compromise groundwater quality shall not occur in this area. Any land alteration and development in the Bird Drive or North Trail basins shall conform to the wetland basin plans adopted for those basins pursuant to policies of [the Plan]. The new corridor will traverse a portion of the Bird Drive Basin outside the UDB. Existing development in that area is limited to agriculture and the C-4 detention basin. The detention basin is utilized by the South Florida Water Management District (“District”) to hold water drained from the C-4 canal prior to storm events in order to prevent flooding of the Sweetwater residential community lying to the north. A majority of the new corridor will be located within the County’s West Wellfield protection area, and a portion will run through the 30-day and 100- day travel-time contours. The contours represent the time it takes for a substance released at the contour line to travel to a production well.4 A short segment of the new corridor, approximately three-quarters of a mile, will traverse the Pennsuco wetlands, characteristically high-quality swamps and wet prairies not suited for agriculture or urban development. It is a restored wetland area that has been used as a mitigation project for developers and rock miners over the last 20 to 30 years (i.e., a “mitigation bank”). The mitigation project is under the jurisdiction of the District and other environmental agencies, and is almost complete. The Pennsuco wetlands are also designated as critical habitat for endangered species, including the wood stork, the Florida bonneted bat, the Everglades snail kite, and the Florida Panther. The Pennsuco wetlands are designated on the FLUM as Environmental Protection (“EP”). According to the Plan, the EP designation applies to those areas in the County “most environmentally significant, most susceptible to environmental degradation, and where such degradation would adversely affect the supply of potable fresh water or environmental systems of County, regional, State, or national importance.” The final stretch of the new corridor will traverse Agriculturally- designated lands, mostly within the UEA. Land with this designation “contains the best agricultural land remaining in [the County].” The Plan provides that protection of viable agriculture is a priority of the County. Principle uses allowed in this category “should be” agriculture and uses ancillary to,5 and directly supportive of, agriculture and farm residences. Notably, the Plan provides that, in order to protect the 4 The times are calculated based on a non-reactive substance, i.e., water. Chemicals and other contaminants may have different actual travel times. 5 Uses ancillary to agriculture are those related to preserving, processing packaging, or selling agricultural products; farm supplies; and sale and service of farm machinery and implements. agricultural industry, “uses and facilities that support or encourage urban development are not allowed in this area.” The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (“CERP”) is an extensive environmental restoration project primarily aimed at restoring as much natural Everglades wetland habitat as possible and re-establishing healthy freshwater flows to parts of the Everglades which have suffered from historic alteration of its hydrology, a result of fragmentation of the ecosystem for urban development and agriculture. CERP is a multi-decade, inter-agency process implemented primarily by the District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps”). CERP includes approximately 68 individual projects, approved by a formal process set out in federal law. The projects are compiled in a “yellow book,” originally produced in 1999 and delivered to Congress for approval. Some projects are set forth in great detail, while others are conceptual, but each project identifies a set of hydrologic or ecologic objectives that it is proposed to meet. Restoring surface water flows to the Everglades is a balancing act. While the Everglades is in need of more fresh water, allowing unregulated flows to the Everglades means flooding urban and agricultural properties which were once part of the Everglades system. On the other hand, the urban and agricultural areas depend on surface water flows for water supply, directly or indirectly through groundwater recharge (to prevent saltwater intrusion), for drinking water and agricultural production. CERP regulates the free flow of surface water to provide needed water for urban and agricultural uses, and avoid flooding those areas, while providing as much fresh water to the Everglades as possible. Large portions of the four-square mile Bird Drive Basin have been acquired by the District and the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) to implement a CERP project known as Component U. Component U has several major objectives, including goundwater recharge, reducing seepage from the Everglades National Park buffer areas, enhancing and maintaining wetland viability within the basin, flood attenuation, water treatment of outflows from west Dade wastewater treatment plant, and supplying water to meet demands of the downstream conveyance systems. The state conservation lands north and east of the basin, particularly conservation area 3A, are, at times, inundated with so much water that the wetland literally drowns. CERP projects, including the L31 canal (adjacent to Krome Avenue) and the small canal associated with the Dade/Broward levee, were designed to “shuttle” collected water from the conservation areas and store it for proportionate distribution to both urban areas and the Everglades National Park. Component U is envisioned as both a surface water storage and treatment area, to assist in regulation of water flowing to both the Everglades and the urban areas from the conservation areas to the north and north east. It is related to a larger project to reroute water flowing through the L31 canal, west of Krome Avenue, to the east side of the Bird Drive Basin and eventually into the Bird Drive Canal, utilizing the large, undeveloped basin for storage and treatment, as well as flood control. Additionally, Component U would provide an aquifer recharge function while storing excess water, which would benefit the West Wellfield lying due south. Because of its location relative to several other CERP projects, the Bird Drive Basin plays a critical strategic role in the overall plan for restoration of the southern Everglades. The water quality, conveyance, and storage objectives it is required to meet, along with its flood-attenuation objectives, are relied upon as part of the planning and operation of the other CERP projects in the region to restore the hydrology of the state-owned Water Conservation Areas, Everglades National Park and Florida Bay, and Biscayne Bay. The Bird Drive Basin project is a necessary flow way for restored water levels along the eastern edge of the Everglades, necessary to prevent the flow of too much water through the more central portions of the Everglades, which results in drowning out native plant and animal species. Among the goals of the project is to recharge groundwater and drinking water supplies, and to buffer developed areas in the County from flooding that would result from the higher restored water levels into Everglades National Park. The Bird Drive Recharge project is important to the County as a seepage management project to ensure that restoration of water levels does not affect County landowners and to provide the County with water supply to nearby wellfields. These wetlands are a hydrological buffer between the high water table of Everglades National Park and the much lower water table of the developed areas east of Krome Avenue. This buffer reduces the hydrological gradient of the area, thereby reducing groundwater seepage from the park. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Petitioners allege (as stipulated by the parties) that the Plan Amendment: (1) creates internal inconsistencies with numerous existing Plan goals, objectives and policies, in contravention of section 163.3177(2); (2) fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)9.; (3) violates the requirement in section 163.3177(6)(d)2.k., that the Plan maintain a conservation element that directs incompatible “future land uses” away from wetlands; (4) violates the requirements in section 163.3177(6)(b)2.a., e., and 3.a., that the Plan maintain a transportation element “to plan for a multimodal transportation system,” address “[a]ll alternative modes of travel,” “identif[y] . . . land use densities, building intensities, and transportation management programs to promote public transportation systems in designated public transportation corridors,” and address “provision of efficient public transit services” and the requirement in section 163.3177(6)(b)1. that the element reflect certain “data, analysis, and associated principles and strategies”; (5) fails to be “based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis,” as required by section 163.3177(1)(f); (6) fails to “be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including the character of undeveloped land,” as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)2., and to be based on an “analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site,” as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)8.; and (7) violates the requirement of section 163.3177(1) that the Plan “maintain[] meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide[] meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land developments and use regulations.” Petitioners’ umbrella contention is that the Plan Amendment is contrary to the Plan as a whole—which limits urban services and development to within the UDB, prioritizes implementation of CERP, seeks to preserve remaining agricultural areas and a viable agriculture industry, and is completely dependent on a sensitive aquifer for drinking water—by allowing a four- and six-lane expressway outside of the UDB, through an area identified for a CERP project, bisecting agricultural areas, through a wetland preservation area, and within the West Wellfield. Petitioners’ arguments can be categorized generally as concerns with land use, environment, CERP, agriculture, and transportation. UDB and Land Development Issues Petitioners contend that constructing the new corridor outside of the UDB is inconsistent with the purpose of the UDB, and with the overarching construct of the Plan to achieve the desired development form while protecting both sensitive natural resources and agriculture. The Plan provides that the UDB distinguishes “the area where urban development may occur through the year 2020 from areas where it should not occur.” Translating this concept to infrastructure investment, the Plan provides that “public expenditures for urban service and infrastructure improvements shall be focused on the area within the UDB, and urban infrastructure is discouraged outside the UDB.” (emphasis added). The Plan further provides, “Critical in achieving the desired pattern of development is adherence to the 2020 UDB and 2030 UEA boundary,” and that “since its inception [the Plan] has provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined.” Petitioners’ expert planning witness, Mr. Hawkins, explained that “this regulatory line is not one that just says we are going to have urban land uses on one side and not on the other. We are also going to limit the provision of urban services across the line.” The County offered little response to this allegation. In a series of leading questions on direct examination, Mr. Woerner was asked whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with policy language that begins, “Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities …” Mr. Woerner gave a conclusory “no” answer, to which Mr. Kerbel asked, “And is that for the reasons you’ve already addressed?” Mr. Woerner agreed. However, none of the prior questions addressed anything regarding public expenditures for urban infrastructure. The Plan Amendment proposes development of urban infrastructure outside the UDB, and thus, outside of the envelope within which the Plan dictates public expenditures for urban infrastructure “will be confined,” in contravention of the Plan’s direction that adherence with the UDB/UEA construct is “critical” to achieve the desired pattern of development for the County. The County contends that the new corridor is not “development,” a position which is untenable and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioners proved the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the unnumbered policy statements in paragraph 46 appearing on pages I-60, I-61, and I-74 of the Plan.6 Petitioners further allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Plan policies that discourage urban sprawl, “emphasize[] concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity” and “high intensity, well-designed urban centers,” and “seek to prevent discontinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe,” such that “[u]rban services and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided . . . [and] [a]reas designated Environmental Protection shall be particularly avoided.” Petitioners identify the following goals, objectives, and policies in support of these objections: Land Use Element Objective LU-1 and Policies LU-1B and LU-1O; Objective LU-2 and Policy LU-2B; Policy LU-8G; Policy LU-10A; Transportation Policy TC-6A; and Capital Improvement Element Objective CIE-5 and Policy CIE-5A. Petitioners’ arguments that the Plan Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl are based on many of the same Plan policies. Petitioners contend that the mere existence of the new corridor will increase development pressure, and induce sprawl development, outside of the UDB contrary to Plan policies promoting compact, high-intensity developments in urban centers. This argument is not novel and can be summarized as, “If you build it, they will come.” Petitioners are not wrong, and the expert County planning staff raised the same concern during review of the Plan Amendment application, stating: While roadways facilitate long-distance and local travel and provide access to real property, they also 6 Provisions such as these, which are referred to as “interpretive text,” are contained in the Land Use Element section titled, “Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element.” Although not among the element’s numbered goals, objectives, and policies, the interpretive text is expressly “adopted as County policy.” Furthermore, LU-5C requires “planning activities pertaining to development or redevelopment and the provision of public services and facilities in [the County] shall be consistent with … the locations and extent of future land uses as identified by the [FLUM] map and its interpretive text.” significantly affect the use and development of land in their immediate vicinity. In high growth areas such as [the County], any reduction in travel time between centers of population and commerce directly increases competition in the land market between urban uses, including residential and commercial uses. This could generate increased demand for development of land adjacent to the proposed expressway corridor. Because the proposed alignment is generally adjacent to but outside the UDB, the [new corridor] could have the unintended consequence of increasing development pressure on land outside the UDB, including current agricultural lands, if the proposed amendment only addressed the future construction of the roadway. In response to this concern, staff recommended adoption of, and the Plan Amendment was adopted with, the following new Policy: Traffic Circulation Subelement Policy TC-1M. [The County] approves the [new corridor] only to the extent necessary to relieve existing traffic congestion in the southwestern part of the County and to provide a reliable, robust, and faster connection to Downtown Miami and other major trip attractors across the County. To discourage urban sprawl within the Area of Impact of [the new corridor] … the County’s Concurrency Management System shall be amended to remove the additional LOS/capacity that the roadways in the Area of Impact would experience due to the diversion of trips resulting from the construction of [the new corridor] could not be used to demonstrate concurrency. The purpose of this policy is to assure that the additional capacity attributable to the [new corridor] cannot be used to support further development in the Area of Impact. In other words, “If you build it, they cannot come.” Petitioners raised many arguments to demonstrate that this language would not be effective to truly prevent urban sprawl outside the UDB. They introduced the testimony of Walter Kulash, who exclaimed that it would “be absurd” to create excess roadway capacity that could not be used by developers, and that, as a transportation engineer, “it is not at all clear to me how the chain of computation would work here.” However, as explained by Mr. Sandanasamy, the County’s expert transportation planner, the concurrency restriction will be implemented by comparing the roadway capacity figures prior to the opening of the roadway to any future traffic counts, to determine how much those traffic counts have been reduced. He gave the following example: Assume an arterial with a capacity of 35,000 trips, and before the new corridor opened, the actual amount of traffic counted is 30,000 trips. That means the arterial had a remaining capacity of 5,000 trips before the opening of the new corridor. Assume that when traffic is counted after the opening of the new corridor, the number of vehicles on that arterial drops to 28,000 trips—a reduction of 2,000 trips attributed to the new corridor—meaning that the remaining capacity of the arterial has increased from 5,000 trips to 7,000. Policy TC-1M would require the Concurrency Management System to log the capacity of the arterial as reduced by 2,000 trips, so that future applications would be measured against a roadway capacity of 33,000 trips. Mr. Sandanasamy concluded that the policy is intended to “prevent urban sprawl [and] allow development to go on as it was, like this roadway doesn’t exist.” The parties introduced the testimony of competing expert transportation planners on this subject; but, in the end, Petitioners’ expert, Juan Mullerat, conceded the issue, as follows: Q. [Mr. Kerbel] And in the event that there is a process in which someone seeks to amend their land uses, they would have to address the fact that the road can't be used to show concurrency, right? A. [Mr. Mullerat] Correct. * * * So at the end of the day that is why I am saying it is the same. Right now you don't have infrastructure, so you can't use it for concurrency. Once you put the infrastructure, this says that you won't be able to use that as -- in order to change the land use. Q. Okay. So it is a wash? A. It is a wash. It doesn't make—it is neither harder nor easier. New Policy LU-3Q was added to further ensure the Plan Amendment did not encourage development in the agriculturally-designated lands. The policy reads as follows: Any zoning action or amendment to [the Plan] that would approve any use other than direct agricultural production, the sale of agricultural produce, and permitted residential and Bed and Breakfast uses of property, in an area designated as Agriculture, whether as a primary use or as an accessory or subordinated use to an agricultural use, or action that would liberalize standards or allowances governing such other uses on land that is a) outside the [UDB] and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of [the new corridor], shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where the applicable board issues a decision. Petitioners claimed this policy was not based on data and analysis to demonstrate its effectiveness. To the contrary, the language of new Policy LU-3Q was modeled on language utilized when the County adopted the Plan to allow widening of Krome Avenue, which lies outside the UDB, farther west than the new corridor. Even a cursory review of the FLUM reveals that the land uses adjacent to Krome Avenue remain agriculture. The County’s experience with development surrounding Krome Avenue is data that has been available to, and was relied upon by, the County in adopting the subject Plan Amendment. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment would induce additional urban development outside the UDB and in environmentally sensitive areas. Thus, Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Objective LU-1, which requires “the location and configuration of [the County’s] urban growth through the year 2030 shall emphasize concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity”; Policy LU-1O, which requires the County to “seek to prevent discontinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe in the Agricultural Areas outside the UDB”; Objective LU-2, which provides that “[d]ecisions regarding … urban expansion … shall be based on the physical and financial feasibility of providing, by the year 2020, all urbanized areas with services at levels of service (LOS) which meet or exceed the minimum standards” in the CIE; Policies LU-2B, TC-4C, and CIE-5A, which provide that urban services and facilities, including roadways, which support or encourage “urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided”; Policy LU-10A, which requires the County to “facilitate contiguous urban development, infill [and] redevelopment”; and TC-6A, which mandates that the County “shall avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased development in … environmentally sensitive areas.” The remaining policies implicated by Petitioners are irrelevant to the Plan Amendment: Policy LU-1B, which provides that “major centers of activity” and “other concentrations of significant employment … shall be sited on the basis or metropolitan scale considerations at locations with good countywide, multi-modal accessibility”; Policy LU-1S, which requires the County Strategic Plan to be consistent with the Plan; Objective LU-5 and Policy LU-5B, which pertain to the consistency of development orders with the Plan; and LU-8G, governing considerations for adding land areas to the UDB. Environmental Considerations Wellfields Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following objectives and policies of the Conservation Element relating to protection of wellfields: CON-3, 3A, 3B; and CON-5F. CON-3, 3A, and 3B provide, in relevant part, as follows: Objective CON-3. Regulations governing approved wellfield protection areas shall be strictly enforced …. CON-3A. No new facilities that use, handle, generate, transport or dispose of hazardous wastes shall be permitted within wellfield protection areas[.] CON-3B. The water management systems that recharge regional wellfields shall be protected and enhanced. The Plan Amendment does not adversely affect the County’s ability to enforce its approved wellfield regulations. The new corridor is not a facility that uses, handles, generates, or disposes of hazardous wastes. Petitioners introduced testimony regarding the threat to the West Wellfield posed by trucks, carrying hazardous substances via the new corridor, potentially (and speculatively) spilling chemicals in an accident. Nevertheless, the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that the new corridor is not a “facility” that transports hazardous wastes as contemplated by the policy. The meaning of “water management systems” used in Policy CON-3B, was disputed by the parties. Petitioners introduced the testimony of Dr. McVoy, who testified that he considered the wetlands of the Bird Drive Basin as the water management system that recharges the regional wellfield. Respondent introduced the testimony of Wilbur Mayorga, chief of the County’s environmental monitoring and restoration division, who is responsible for the wellfield protection areas and the boundaries thereof, and who was admitted as an expert in wellfield protection and contamination. Mr. Mayorga gave a broader, more general definition, which is ultimately not in conflict with Dr. McVoy’s definition. The Bird Drive Basin is one part of the larger system managing and conveying freshwater from Lake Okeechobee through various natural and man-made components that store, treat, and deliver water to the urban and agricultural uses, as well as the Everglades. Respondent’s hydrogeology expert, Dr. Virginia Walsh, confirmed that the Bird Drive Basin wetlands serve to recharge the County’s production wells. Dr. McVoy’s opinion was hedging—“I find it hard to see how [the system] would be enhanced and I find it hard to see how [the system] would be protected … I can’t see any way that I, as a scientist, can say that by putting a roadway on [the system] it is going to increase protection ….” Mr. Mayorga was asked directly, “In your professional opinion, would the plan amendment pose any threat to these water management systems?” Mr. Mayorga answered, “That I’m not familiar with.” His answer was puzzling and unhelpful. Significantly, both Dr. McVoy and Mr. Mayorga preferred to answer the question based on the degree of risk created. Dr. McVoy testified that building the tollway certainly increases risk of contamination to the system. Mr. Mayorga opined that removing all uses within the wellfield is the only way to achieve zero risk. He further opined that any roadway carries an inherent risk of contamination, which can be attenuated by the location of uses at the higher contour lines. As Mr. Mayorga explained, “The closer you are to the production wells, the [fewer] alternatives you have in how you manage stormwater.” In an effort to demonstrate compliance with the requirement to “protect the water management systems that recharge” the regional wellfield, Respondent points to new policy LU-1W, which requires that alignment of the new corridor remain “outside and to the east of the boundary of the 10- day travel time contour” of the West Wellfield area. In the end, Respondent’s expert witness confirmed that building the new corridor will neither protect nor enhance the water management systems that recharge the West Wellfield. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is contrary to Objective CON-3 or Policy CON-3A. However, they did prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CON-3B. 7 Policy CON-3F requires the County to implement cut and fill criteria for land in the North Trail and Bird Drive basins, among others. The County has already implemented those criteria and the Plan Amendment does not implicate that policy in any way. The remainder of Petitioners “wellfield” allegations overlap with alleged wetland impacts and are addressed in the following section. Wetlands Petitioners next contend the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following objectives and policies related to wetlands and wetland functions: CON-4 and 4A, and CON-7, 7A, and 7J, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Objective CON-4. The aquifer recharge and water storage capacity of the presently undeveloped areas in the western and southern Miami-Dade County shall be maintained or increased. 7 In addition, to the extent Petitioners challenged the Plan Amendment as inconsistent with the interpretive text in the Land Use Element relating to Open Land Subarea 3 (North Trail and Bird Drive Basins), which reads, “Uses that could compromise groundwater quality shall not occur in this area,” that allegation was proven as well. Mr. Mayorga’s testimony that “any roadway carries an inherent risk of contamination” conceded the point that the Plan Amendment creates a risk of contamination to the wellfields. Policy CON-4A. The aquifer-recharge values of undeveloped land and the water storage values of wetland areas shall be maintained and, where feasible, enhanced or restored. Objective CON-7. [The County] shall protect and preserve the biological and hydrological functions of Future Wetlands identified in the Land Use Element. Future impacts to the biological functions of publicly and privately owned wetlands shall be mitigated.… Publicly acquired wetlands shall be restored and managed for their natural resource, habitat, and hydrologic values. Policy CON-7A. The degradation or destruction of wetlands shall be limited to activities that 1) are necessary to prevent or eliminate a threat to public health, safety or welfare; 2) are water dependent, clearly in the public interest and no other reasonable alternative exists; 3) are carried out in accordance with a basin management plan; or 4) are in areas that have been highly disturbed or degraded and where restoration of a wetland with an equal or greater value in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations if feasible. Habitats critical to endangered or threatened species shall not be degraded or destroyed. CON-7J. In evaluating applications that will result in alterations or adverse impacts to wetlands, [the County] shall consider the application’s consistency with [CERP] objectives. Wetlands play an important part in recharging the Biscayne Aquifer. They filter stormwater to remove pollutants and nutrients prior to the water’s eventual entry into the aquifer. As discussed above, wetlands can also perform the important function of storing stormwater to prevent flooding of adjacent properties, and for use in dryer seasons, if they have a confining clay (or other soil) layer above the aquifer. The new corridor is expected to destroy over 300 acres of wetlands in the Bird Drive and North Trail basins, although the exact number is unknown. Petitioners contend that violates Policy CON-7A because the project does not meet any of the four criteria. The County introduced evidence that the wetland impacts will be carried out in accordance with Bird Drive Basin management plan, thus meeting criteria three of Policy CON-7A. The final sentence of Policy CON-7A prohibits destruction of wetlands in habitats critical to threatened or endangered species. The Pennsuco wetlands are designated critical habitat to several endangered species, but the Plan Amendment implicates wetland impacts in that area. The County maintains that it has addressed this issue through an interlocal agreement with MDX, which requires that the entire span of the new corridor traversing the Pennsuco wetlands be elevated. However, the interlocal agreement is not incorporated into or adopted by reference in the Plan Amendment; thus, is not enforceable through the Plan. To the contrary, the interlocal agreement may be modified or amended upon mutual agreement of the parties.8 Petitioners proved the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CON-7. Because the new corridor will traverse the Pennsuco wetlands, an area designated as critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, the Plan Amendment violates this policy. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this part of CON-7J. As discussed in the Findings of Fact 104 and 107, the County did consider the impact of the new corridor on CERP. Petitioners’ allegations of inconsistency with Objective CON-4, Policy CON-4A, and Objective CON-7, all relate to the impact of the new corridor on aquifer recharge and storage capacity of wetlands in the path of the new corridor. 8 Even if the interlocal agreement were incorporated into the Plan Amendment, this inconsistency would not be completely resolved because the interlocal agreement allows pilings or other support structures for the elevated section to be located in the Pennsuco wetlands. Dr. McVoy opined that the aquifer recharge capacities of the Bird Drive Basin, the West Wellfield, and the Pennsuco Wetlands will not be increased as a result of the Plan Amendment, but he did not testify that the Plan Amendment would inherently decrease those capacities, nor did he testify that the Plan Amendment would prevent those capacities from being maintained. Again, County staff recognized the inherent conflict between wetland functions and development of the roadway corridor, and recommended the Plan Amendment include the following new policies, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: LU-1W. [P]rior to the construction of the roadway, or any phase thereof, MDX shall prepare a surface water sheet flow analysis to demonstrate that the wetlands hydrology in this area shall be adequately retained. LU-3T. The [new corridor] is planned to traverse and impact wetlands within the Bird Drive Basins and elsewhere along its alignment and will require environmental approval and wetland mitigation. To the maximum extent feasible, mitigation for the [new corridor] shall be accomplished through acquisition, preservation, and restoration of wetlands within the Bird Drive and North Trail Basins outside the [UDB]. At a minimum, preservation of wetlands within the Bird Drive Basin shall be included as a component of the wetlands mitigation for this project. The mitigation shall also include a plan to preserve the hydrological connection and surface water flow of the wetlands remaining in these basins through the use of culverts or bridges. (emphasis added). Petitioners have two objections to this language. First, Petitioners argue the only way to preserve the hydrologic connection of the wetlands severed by construction is by bridging, rather than use of culverts. Dr. McVoy expressed the opinion that, if a wetland has water storage capacity, the roadway will need to be elevated to prevent flooding of the roadway. If the County only uses culverts, the road will still be subject to flooding in the areas where it is not culverted. Moreover, the hydrologic function of the wetlands will not be maintained because the wetlands will be disconnected in those areas. The County’s wetland expert explained that while some wetland vegetation is removed for a culverting project, the culvert allows wetland hydrology to be maintained. He gave examples of other roadways, notably Krome Avenue, where culverts have been used to maintain the hydrologic connection of wetlands severed by the roadway. Both Dr. McVoy and Mr. Spinelli have expertise in wetlands and wetland hydrology and hold different opinions on the issue. Neither witness’s testimony was more compelling than the other. Second, Petitioners attack the use of the phrase, “to the maximum extent feasible” to modify the requirement that mitigation of wetland impacts be accomplished within the Bird Drive and North Trail basins. Petitioners contend that this phrase does not provide a meaningful and predictable standard. But this is a common phrase that has been used throughout comprehensive plans that have been found in compliance, including ones prepared by Petitioners’ planning expert, Mr. Iler, and as acknowledged by Mr. Hawkins. Moreover, Mr. Woerner noted that at least three other policies in the Plan use the phrase “to the maximum extent feasible,” and he emphasized that this language provides some flexibility as to how an otherwise mandatory directive can be accomplished. As Mr. Spinelli and Mr. Woerner explained, the phrase “to the maximum extent feasible” in new Policy LU-3T is appropriate because it provides some flexibility as to the location of wetland mitigation, because, as the County’s wetland mitigation estimates showed, there were limits on the amount of available land within the Bird Drive and North Trail Basins to address the entire amount of mitigation that would likely be required. Mr. Hawkins further opined that the standard “is so deferential to the opinions stated by whoever the applicant or the developer might be in the future as to not provide a real standard that we can use today to anticipate whether we can measure compliance of this policy in the future.” However, nothing in Policy LU-3T vests discretion in, or suggests deference to, a permit applicant with respect to the issue of feasibility. It is plain that, as with other policies in the CDMP, the County would ultimately determine feasibility. In summary, the Plan does not prohibit destruction of all wetlands in environmentally-sensitive areas. Rather, it limits damage to projects meeting certain criteria, at least one of which is met by this project. The Plan anticipates mitigation of wetland acreages lost due to development, and requires the water storage, recharge capacity, and hydrology of wetlands be maintained or increased. Finally, the Plan requires restoration of publicly- acquired wetlands “managed for their natural resource, habitat, and hydrologic values.” The Plan Amendment will disturb and destroy wetlands, which will be undertaken in accordance with the basin management plans for the Bird Drive and North Trail basins. The Plan Amendment requires MDX to demonstrate that the wetland hydrology can be maintained by submitting sheet flow analysis prior to construction. Mitigation of wetlands acquired can increase storage capacity by removal of melaleuca and restoration of the confining layer. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment violates any of the cited Conservation Element policies, with the exception of CON-7A, because it allows destruction of portions of the Pennsuco wetlands. CERP Protection of the Everglades is one of the highest priorities of the Plan. The Land Use Element provides that the County’s “growth policy includes … that the intensification of physical development and expansion of the urban area should be managed … in recognition of the County’s physical limitations to horizontal expansion due to the location of the Everglades National Parks[.]” Land Use Policy LU-3S states that “[The County] continues to support the [CERP] and related regional and local habitat restoration and preservation initiatives through its … long-range land planning initiatives.” Future Land Use Element Figure 14 clearly depicts the Bird Drive Basin as “Future Wetlands and CERP Water Management Areas.” The Conservation Element “builds upon past and present initiatives such as … planning for the Bird Drive-Everglades [and other] basins.” Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment is contrary to Policy CON-7J, which provides, as follows: In evaluating applications that will result in alterations or adverse impacts to wetlands[,] [the County] shall consider the applications’ [sic] consistency with [CERP] objectives. Applications that are found to be inconsistent with CERP objectives, projects or features shall be denied. (emphasis added). Petitioners maintain the Plan Amendment will adversely impact wetlands in the Bird Drive Basin, which is designated as CERP Component U, and should be denied as inconsistent with that CERP project and its related objectives. 9 All parties agreed that only the District has authority to determine whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with CERP. As part of the required review of the Plan Amendment, the District commented on the proposed Plan Amendment. In its comment letter, the District noted that “[a] portion of the lands within the proposed study area for the expressway extension have been identified as having potential use with regard to Everglades restoration projects.” The District advised that the 9 The County introduced evidence, all of which constituted hearsay, to prove that the District has determined Component U to be infeasible and has instead moved toward a conveyance concept for the Bird Drive Basin, which, ostensibly requires less property. The issue is a red herring. No matter the size or scale of the CERP project, the District remains the agency with authority to determine whether the Plan Amendment interferes with the project. County had not supplied enough information “that would help the District evaluate the proposed project’s compatibility with the CERP [project],” and directed that County staff “coordinate with appropriate District staff to provide sufficient information.”10 The County did not provide additional information to the District and did not receive any determination from the District regarding the Plan Amendment’s consistency with CERP. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with CERP, or that the County failed to consider consistency with CERP, thus, they did not prove the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy CON-7J. However, Petitioners did prove the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis on this point. Rather than providing the District with the additional information it requested to determine consistency with CERP, the County replied that it would continue to work with the District during the permitting process and “may be able to include features … that provide benefits that are both compatible and consistent with the intent of the CERP.” While only the District has the authority to determine consistency of the Plan Amendment with CERP, the County, not the District, has the duty and authority to determine consistency with its own Plan, including Policy CON-7J. 10 The District’s letter constitutes hearsay evidence for which there is no applicable exception in section 90.803, Florida Statutes. See Ehrhardt’s Florida Evidence § 803.8 (“A third kind of public record is admissible under [the Federal Evidence Code], but was intentionally omitted from section 90.803(8)”—“records and reports by a public official when the official is required to interpret and evaluate facts and information supplied by persons outside the agency.”). If the letter addressed the material disputed fact of whether the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with CERP, those statements would be inadmissible. However, the undersigned determined that statements regarding the need for more information on the issue are admissible, because they do not go to a material disputed fact. The County introduced the testimony of expert planning witness, Mark Woerner, in an attempt to prove that the County need not have a final determination of consistency with CERP prior to adopting a plan amendment. Mr. Woerner testified that the Plan merely requires the County to be aware of particular CERP projects when staff reviews plan amendments.11 Mr. Woerner’s testimony is contrary to the plain language of the policy, which requires the denial of a plan amendment that is found to be inconsistent with a CERP project or objective. Notwithstanding the previous finding that Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with CERP, because the Plan Amendment was adopted absent a determination of consistency with CERP, the Plan Amendment is not based upon adequate data or analysis. To be “based upon data” means “to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary[.]” § 163.3177(f), Fla. Stat. The County did not react appropriately to the data and analysis available—that the District needed more information in order to determine consistency—by adopting the Plan Amendment without such needed information. Agriculture Next, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with policies specifically addressing the preservation of agriculture. The Plan provides the following with respect to lands in the Agriculture category: The area designated as “Agriculture” contains the best agriculture land remaining in [the County]. As 11 Mr. Woerner’s testimony was hedging, at best: “I believe that you can still provide an analysis and address the issues that may be surrounding a particular CERP project or a CERP issue. But I don’t think you need to have to finally finalize that. You have to—the comp plan—the policies that we put in the comp plan regarding CERP were to ensure that in the planning process, the County’s aware of the importance of CERP in its projects and that we have to be aware of that as we review different plan amendments or other permitting issues that might arise for the County.” stated in the [County’s] strategic plan, approved by the Board of County Commissioners, protection of viable agriculture is a priority. The principle uses in this area should be agriculture, uses ancillary to and directly supportive of agriculture and farm residences.[12] The Plan continues, “In order to protect the agricultural industry, uses incompatible with agriculture, and uses and facilities that support or encourage urban development are not allowed within [the Agriculture land use category].” The mandate to protect agriculture is reiterated in the section on Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map, which provides, “Among the long-standing concepts embodied in the [County’s Plan] are … encourage agriculture as a viable economic use of suitable lands.” In addition to the foregoing Plan provisions, Petitioners cite the following goals, objectives, and policies with which the Plan Amendment conflicts: the Land Use Goal, which calls for “preserv[ing] Miami-Dade County’s unique agricultural lands” and Land Use Policies LU-1R, LU-1S, LU-8C, and LU-8E. Policy LU-8C requires the County to “continue to protect and promote agriculture as a viable economic use of land[.]” The Plan Amendment will displace approximately 300 acres of Agriculturally-designated land which is in active agricultural use. The amount of land that is needed to maintain a viable agricultural industry is approximately 50,000 acres. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s December 2012 report titled “Growing for a Sustainable Future: Miami-Dade County Urban Development Boundary Assessment,” approximately 67,000 acres outside the UDB are in active agricultural use. 12 Uses ancillary to agriculture are those related to preserving, processing packaging, or selling agricultural products; farm supplies; and sale and service of farm machinery and implements. The Plan Amendment will not reduce the amount of agriculture land to below the threshold required for a viable agriculture industry. Therefore, Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with either the Concepts and Limitations interpretive text or LU-8C. Policy LU-8E provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Applications requesting amendments to [the Plan] Land Use map shall be evaluated for consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of all Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; Enhance or impeded provision of services at or above adopted LOS standards; Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods, and; Enhance of degrade environmental or historical resources, feature, or systems of County significance[.] There is ample evidence that the Plan Amendment was evaluated for consistency with every aspect of the Plan. As it pertains to Agriculture, County staff specifically recognized potential conflict with the Plan’s directives to protect agricultural land. To address that concern, staff recommended that “MDX be required to preserve agricultural lands that are currently being used for agricultural production, commensurate with the amount of such lands that would be impacted by the roadway extension.” Staff recommended addition of, and the Plan Amendment was adopted with, the following new future land use policies: Policy LU-1U. Notwithstanding the designation of the [new corridor] as an Expressway on the [Plan] Land Use Plan map … no construction associated with the [new corridor] shall occur that would restrict farm vehicle and equipment access to agricultural properties adjacent to the [new corridor]. Moreover, to minimize the impacts of the [new corridor], the design and construction shall be conducted in a manner that does not cause drainage or the spillage of lighting from the [new corridor] onto adjacent agricultural lands. Policy LU-1V. To mitigate the impacts of the [new corridor] on the agricultural area, [MDX] shall preserve agricultural lands outside the UDB commensurate to impacts to agricultural lands that would be taken out of production by the project. Said preservation may be through participation in the County’s Purchase Development Rights program or other mechanism acceptable to the [County] Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (or successor Department). The Plan Amendment addresses both the direct and indirect impacts the new corridor may have on agriculture. Policy LU-1V mitigates the loss of directly impacted acreage by requiring preservation of land for agricultural land outside the UDB through a purchase of development rights program on an acre-for-acre basis. Under the Plan Amendment, all direct impacts to agricultural lands will require preservation of a commensurate amount of agricultural land outside the UDB. Approximately 188 acres of the impacted agricultural acres are located within the UEA, which are already projected to be removed from agricultural production in the future. Policy LU-1V will, arguably, increase the amount of land available for agriculture following the eventual development of the UEA for urban development. Policy LU-1U addresses the indirect impacts to agriculture, by requiring the expressway to be designed in a manner that protects farm vehicle and equipment access and that does not cause drainage or lighting spillage onto agricultural lands. With the addition of the cited policies, it is at least arguable that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Plan directives to protect agricultural lands or Policy LU-8E. At first blush, Policy LU-1R appears to be relevant because it begins by mandating the County to “reserve the amount of land necessary to maintain an economically viable agricultural industry.” However, the remainder of the policy mandates the County to adopt a transfer of development rights (“TDR”) program and provides more detail on how TDR will be implemented. The policy must be construed as a whole. The Plan Amendment included no provisions regarding the development, adoption, or implementation of the TDR program. Thus, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this policy. LU-1S is inapplicable, again, because it addresses the consistency of the County’s Strategic Plan, rather than plan amendments, with the Plan. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the interpretive text describing the Agriculture land use category because, as detailed in Findings of Fact 59 through 62, the Plan Amendment does not support or encourage urban development in the Agriculture land use category. Finally, Petitioners argue that the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis, specifically regarding the amount of agricultural land impacted by the new corridor and the amount of land needed to maintain a viable agriculture industry. Mr. Hawkins opined that the County did not identify the impacts, which is not a professionally acceptable planning practice. However, the evidence adduced at the final hearing revealed that data was available to, and was considered by, the County, and which supports the Plan Amendment. Petitioners did not prove this aspect of the Plan Amendment was not supported by appropriate data and analysis. Transportation The PD&E Study In 2013, following TPO approval, MDX commenced the PD&E process for the new corridor. MDX engaged consultants, overseen by the project manager, Albert Sosa, on behalf of general engineering consulting firm HNTB, to undertake the PD&E process for what was referred to as “MDX Project 836-18.” The PD&E process is the State of Florida’s process by which infrastructure projects demonstrate compliance with federal and state environmental and other regulatory standards. A PD&E study involves roadway engineering, structural work, stormwater drainage work, traffic engineering, transportation engineering, and analysis of the project’s impacts on both the natural and the built environment and on the people in the affected community. Mr. Sosa personally supervised the development of, and reviewed and approved, all methodologies for collection and analysis of data, reviewed the results of the collection and analysis for conformance with the approved methodologies, and reviewed and approved all reports produced as part of the overall PD&E Study for MDX Project 836-18. The first step in the PD&E Study was to develop an evaluation methodology, which, in this case, was the Alternative Corridor Evaluation (“ACE”), whereby several alternative corridors were analyzed and compared based on their relative impacts and benefits to the natural and built environment and to the transportation needs of the affected community, among other criteria. The ACE for MDX Project 836-18 ultimately considered 10 corridor alignments. The analysis began by measuring existing traffic conditions in 2014 to identify existing operational deficiencies along critical roadway facilities. From there, the analysis projected traffic impacts out to the year 2050. The 2050 projections used as a baseline a “no-build” model that incorporated highway, transit, roadway, and other transportation improvements programmed in the LRTP “Cost Feasible Plan” to be constructed by 2050, as well as updated population and other socio-economic projections. The alternative corridor alignments for the proposed expressway were compared against the “no-build” model in the year 2050, to determine whether the existing traffic conditions observed in 2014 remained or worsened even after accounting for future planned transportation improvements; and if so, whether the proposed expressway improved the projected conditions. The ACE analyzed traffic impacts over a broader study area than it used for impacts to the natural and built environment. The traffic study area is based on a model that incorporates the different corridors, and turns those corridors on and off to see where significant impacts to traffic stop appearing. That model is known as the Southeast Regional Planning Model (“SERPM”), which is owned by the TPO and includes: planned transportation projects, existing and future land use designations, existing and future population projections, and existing and future employment projections for different areas of the County. It is, therefore, used to analyze every transportation project in the County for impacts to both the existing and future planned environment. The traffic study area for the SR-836 southwest extension project was established as a 75-square-mile area bounded on the north by NW 12th Street, on the east by SW 97th Avenue, on the south by SW 152 Street/Coral Reef Drive, and on the west by SW 177 Avenue/Krome Avenue (see Figure 2). [Remainder of page intentionally blank] Figure 2 Of the original 10 ACE corridors, the closest to the final adopted alignment was Corridor 6. Between NW 12th Street and SW 88th Street, Corridor 6 matches the alignment presented in the Plan Amendment. The main difference is that the southern portion of ACE Corridor 6 lies further west of the UDB and further away from the residential development in West Kendall south of SW 104th Street than the Application alignment did. Petitioners challenged the PD&E study, and the ACE Report specifically, as insufficient data to support the Plan Amendment because the final adopted alignment of the new corridor differed from any of the 10 the alignments studied. The undersigned finds the PD&E study, including the ACE Report, provides significant data compiled by a professionally-accepted methodology and taken from professionally accepted sources.13 Thus, while none of the 10 ACE corridors exactly matched the final adopted alignment, the PD&E Study ultimately analyzed all of the variations that the County considered, and as of the Plan Amendment’s adoption, the PD&E Study had obtained data for the final adopted alignment. Mobility Approximately 600,000 people live in the West Kendall area (including areas between the UDB and SW 177th Avenue/Krome Avenue), and each weekday, 150,000 of those people commute to work in other areas of the County. The need for increased mobility in West Kendall is well documented by the PD&E Study. In general, the peak travel direction through the study area is eastbound/northbound in the morning peak period, or rush hour (6:00 am to 9:00 am), and southbound/westbound during the evening rush hour (4:00 pm to 7:00 pm). Travel speeds within the study area were found to be lower in the morning rush hour compared to the evening rush hour. Travel speeds lower than 18 mile per hour (“mph”) were documented on Bird Road, Kendall Drive, Coral Reef Drive, SW 137th Avenue, and SW 107th Avenue, during the evening rush hour. The capacity of a roadway is identified by the level of service (“LOS”) standards. The County has adopted LOS D for roadways within the UDB, 13 The ACE Report was originally published in February 2017, but the data and analysis was updated beginning in the summer of 2017 and throughout the Plan Amendment process. and LOS C for roadways outside of the UDB. The roadways listed above are operating at LOS E and F, indicating the level of congestion in the area. In addition to measuring average travel speeds, which incorporate delays at intersections, another planning-level measurement of surface streets is their volume over capacity (V/C) ratio, where volume (V) is the number of vehicles and capacity (C) is the maximum number of vehicles that can pass a point on a roadway in a given amount of time under normal conditions. A roadway is considered to be failing if it has a V/C ratio of 1.0 or more, and it is near failure if it has a V/C ratio between 0.9 and 1.0. During the morning rush hour, 20 roadway segments within the study area had V/C ratios over 1.0, and 15 segments were approaching failure. During the afternoon rush hour, 13 segments had a V/C ratio greater than 1.0, and another 16 were approaching failure. In sum, during the morning rush hour today, roughly 50 percent of the roadway segments operate at substandard speeds, and 33 percent are either already over capacity or near capacity. Additional transportation capacity is needed to accommodate the current residential development in West Kendall, as the existing roadway network cannot effectively serve the area’s current transportation demands, and that population is only expected to increase based on current land use and zoning designations. Petitioners’ overarching challenge relating to transportation is that the Plan Amendment is not supported by the data and analysis from the PD&E study, which demonstrates construction of the new corridor will result in minimal mobility increases in the study area and actually reduce the LOS on some roadway segments. The purpose of the Plan Amendment is two-fold: to improve mobility in West Kendall; and to decrease the commute times to downtown and other employment centers. 14 While the study does reveal significant reduced congestion on certain roadway segments in the West Kendall area during morning and evening rush hours, overall the study supports a finding of minimally increased mobility in the study area. For example, analysis of the alignment most closely approximating the new corridor, scenario 2.1D, results in a reduction of 6,988 vehicles on SW 8th Street, and reduction of 6,264 vehicles on SW 88th Street. But, the impact on daily traffic volumes is minor. The total reduction in vehicle hours traveled (“VHT”) for morning rush hour is four percent, and for evening rush hour is five percent. The average annual daily reduction in VHT is just over three percent (a reduction from 226,033 to 218,803), and an average daily increase in travel speed from 27.72 mph to 29.34 mph. The data also shows the greatest reduction in vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) is six percent. Notably, the new corridor would result in an improvement of the LOS for less than half of the roadways within the study area. 8th Street, east of 157th Avenue, would improve from LOS D to C; Bird Road would improve from LOS E to D; 120th Street would improve from LOS D to C; and 157th Avenue, north of 136th Street, would improve from LOS F to C. The remaining seven segments studied would remain at their existing LOS, 14 The LRTP identifies “[i]mprove[ment] [of] access to and from the area to major employment centers such as the MIA, the MIC, the Port of Miami, Downtown Miami, Doral, as well as educational and commercial centers within the study area,” as one of the primary purposes of the project, in addition to improving mobility in the Kendall area. The Plan Amendment includes new Policy TC-1M, which provides that the County approves the new corridor “only to the extent necessary to relieve existing traffic congestion in the [West Kendall] area of the County and to provide a reliable, robust, and faster connection to Downtown Miami and other major trip attractors across the County.” including 137th Avenue, south of the new corridor, which would continue to operate at LOS F. Not only does the data reveal that the improvements in West Kendall congestion would be, as Petitioner’s expert described, “meager,” but also they provide no support for a finding that the Plan Amendment will accomplish its second objective—improving the commute time to downtown and other employment centers. The County relies upon the PD&E study, the goal of which is to identify an appropriate corridor for the southwest extension of the Dolphin Expressway, which does not include downtown, the airport, or other employment centers, within either the study area or the impact area. Mr. Mullerat, Petitioner’s expert transportation planner, described the problem as follows: [I]f the intent of this project is to solve in part the commuter issues for commuters, the whole path of the commuter should have been looked at … [the study] doesn’t look at some of the destinations—not just downtown and to the east, but also to the north. … And both origin and destination should have been looked at. Mr. Mullerat testified, credibly, that it was not an acceptable planning practice to have ignored origin and destination trips. The majority of the commuters who utilize the new corridor will be traveling beyond this three-mile stretch on to downtown, the hospitals, the airport, and other major trip attractors, yet the study contains no information about impact on commute times to those destinations. The data is silent on whether the time to those destinations will increase, decrease, or stay the same. Furthermore, the existing segment of the Dolphin Expressway operates at a LOS C, at least for the first three miles traveling east from its current termination point. The data shows that, after the new corridor is built, the LOS drops to D in that three-mile stretch. So, commuters will drive 13 miles, outside of the UDB, through active agricultural lands, through environmentally-sensitive lands, and through the West Wellfield, only to connect with the existing expressway operating at an LOS lower than it operates at today.15 Relating to transportation issues, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following goals, objectives, and policies in the Plan: TC-1A; TC-4A and F; and TC-6 and 6B. TC-1A requires the County to update and readopt the LRTP to achieve the objective of TC-1, which requires the County to operate its roadways at the adopted LOS, and strive to achieve a better LOS, in a manner consistent with the other objectives of the Plan. It requires the County to prepare proposals to enhance the Traffic Circulation and Mass Transit subelements following each LRTP update. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with this policy. The Plan Amendment will assist in achievement of the adopted LOS D on at least some roadway segments within the study area, and achieve a better LOS on others. While it will not improve the LOS on all segments, including at least one that is operating at LOS F, it is at least fairly debatable that the Plan Amendment is consistent with this policy. Policy TC-6A requires the County to “avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased development in … environmentally sensitive areas[.]” For the reasons discussed in Findings of Fact 59 through 62, the Plan Amendment does not “encourage increased development” and is not inconsistent with this policy. TC-6B requires that land access interchanges “shall not be placed or constructed in a manner that would provide access to environmental 15 A project to widen the existing segment of the Dolphin Espressway from four to six lanes is expected to re-establish the higher functioning LOS C. However, no evidence was introduced at final hearing to establish the timeframe for that project. protection areas or other areas to be conserved” in order to prevent undue pressure for development in those areas. There is no evidence that the interchanges proposed for the new corridor to connect with existing roads in West Kendall would provide “land access.” Further, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the policy for the same reasons it is not inconsistent with TC-6A. TC-4C provides, “Areas designated Environmental Protection shall be particularly avoided” when the County prioritizes construction of roadways, and allocation of financial resources for said construction.16 At first, it appears the Plan Amendment may be inconsistent with this policy because it allows construction of the new corridor in the Pennsuco wetlands. However, the Plan must be construed as a whole. This policy must be read in conjunction with Policy TC-6C, which provides that “[i]f no feasible alternative exists,” roadways may traverse environmental protection or conservation areas, “however such access should be limited and design techniques should be used to minimize the negative impact upon the natural systems.” Petitioners argue that alternatives to the new corridor exist which would accomplish the objective of relieving congestion in West Kendall. Mr. Kulash opined that congestion could be relieved by lane widening, extending turn lanes, and other roadway improvements; alternately, he expressed an opinion that congestion could be relieved by mass transit improvements. The County experts demonstrated that the alternatives proposed by Petitioners were not feasible, due to costs of land acquisition in the urban area, and the limitations of transit service. 16 The same language is expressed in CIE-6A. For the reasons stated herein, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with that policy. Petitioners did not carry their burden of proof with regard to Policy TC-4C. Petitioners must have done more than suggest alternatives exist, they must have proven the feasibility of those alternatives. Petitioners also raised concerns with the energy inefficiency of a new expressway and increased emissions and greenhouse gases. They identified Intergovernmental Coordination Element (”ICE”) policies ICE-5F and 5G as policies with which the Plan Amendment conflicts. ICE-5F requires the County to participate in the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and to coordinate with other agencies in developing initiatives to address climate change mitigation and adaption. Policy ICE-5G requires County departmental master plans to “include and prioritize climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.” The Plan Amendment has no impact on the County’s ability to implement either of those policies. Mass Transit The County has adopted the Strategic Miami Area Rapid Transit (SMART) Plan (see Figure 3). [Remainder of page intentionally blank] Figure 3 The SMART plan includes two east/west corridors, including the Kendall Corridor, which will connect residents in West Kendall from 167th Avenue east to existing lines serving downtown, and two planned north and northeast corridors. Transportation Element Policy TE-3C states, “It is the policy of [the County] to develop all the transportation facilities identified in the MPO’s [LRTP] … as soon as feasible, in accordance with the LRTP phasing program.” The Goal of the Mass Transit Subelement is to “[m]aintain, operate, and develop a mass transit system in [the County] that provides efficient, convenient, accessible, and affordable service to all residents and visitors,” and it adopts the corridors identified by the SMART plan as Figure 2 in the element’s map series. Policy TE-1A provides that “the County shall promote mass transit alternatives to personal automobile.” The overarching Goal of the Traffic Circulation Element includes developing and operating a traffic circulation that “supports the usage of transit,” among other broad goals. Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendment as inconsistent with several existing Plan provisions regarding mass transit service and prioritizing alternatives to private vehicle travel. Primary among them are Transportation Element TC-1A and Traffic Circulation Subelement TC-4F. Based on the same arguments, Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with section 163.3177(6)(b), which requires a transportation element “to plan for a multimodal transportation system that places emphasis on public transportation systems, where feasible” and to “provide for a safe, convenient multimodal transportation system, coordinated with the future land use map . . . and designed to support all elements of the comprehensive plan,” as well as section 163.3177(6)(b)2.a, which requires that a transportation element address “[a]ll alternative modes of travel, such as public transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle travel.” Policy TC-4F provides, as follows: The County shall consistently improve strategies to facilitate a Countywide shift in travel modes from personal automobile use to pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes. The priority for transportation infrastructure expenditures shall be to insure that pedestrian, bicycle, and transit features are incorporated into roadway design. (emphasis added). Policy TE-1A provides, as follows: As provided in this section and the Mass Transit Subelement, the County shall promote mass transit alternatives to the personal automobile, such as rapid transit, (i.e. heavy rail, light rail, and bus rapid transit, premium transit (enhanced and/or express bus)), local route bus and paratransit services. (emphasis added). Petitioners’ experts testified that the new corridor will accomplish the opposite of what is required by the Plan—it will incentivize the use of personal vehicles by residents of West Kendall, who will take the expressway to escape the congestion of the roadways within the UDB. Respondent countered that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the Plan’s emphasis on alternative mass transit because it requires the new corridor to be built as a multi-modal facility, and will provide connections between the planned new east/west corridors. The Plan Amendment includes the following new policies in the Mass Transit Subelement of the Transportation Element: Mass Transit Subelement Policy MT-4D. Pursuant to Traffic Circulation Subelement Policy TC-4F, [MDX] (or successor agency) shall provide for mass transit service in the [new corridor], to be funded by MDX. The mass transit service shall incorporate lanes having technologies that facilitate the safe travel of automated vehicles, including mass transit vehicles, at high rates of speed for a connection with the transit service being implemented as part of the current SR 836 reconstruction generally east of the Turnpike. MDX shall coordinate the mass transit service with [the County] through the Department of Transportation and Public Works (or successor department). Said coordination shall occur prior to the earlier of the issuance of the first permit for construction of the expressway extension or prior to the commencement of any construction of the expressway extension. Mass Transit Subelement Policy MT-4E. In coordination with [the County] Parks, Recreation and Open Space Department and [the County TPO], [MDX] shall design a multi-use recreational trail within the corridor of the [new corridor]. Additionally, to the maximum extent feasible, the multi-use recreational trail shall be designed to provide for seamless connections to the County’s existing and planned trails and greenways network proximate to the corridor. Said coordination shall occur prior to the earlier of the issuance of the first permit for construction of the expressway extension or prior to the commencement of any construction of the expressway extension. These policies satisfy the requirements in Policies TC-3D to “design new roadways in a way that … incorporates planned rapid transit corridors,” and TC-4F to “insure that … transit features are incorporated into roadway design.” The question is whether the Plan Amendment satisfies the Plan requirement to “promote mass transit use.” Petitioner’s expert planners maintained it will not. Mr. Hawkins explained: The expressway is located outside of the Urban Development Boundary to the west of the urbanized area. For folks to use a transit corridor or a transit route that runs along the expressway corridor, they would have to travel by automobile outside the UDB to the west, to access a park-and-ride facility, and then get on a transit facility—a transit vehicle that operates in that corridor. It would not be back in an urbanized area until it is in the area of Northwest 12th Street and back in the UDB. If you were going to plan a corridor for a transit facility, you would have a much more direct line. You would run a transit facility through the developed area. Why? One is so that people can get to it more quickly. And two, so that all of the stops along its way are functional. When you are running through an agricultural area, you can't have any functional stops until you are all the way back in the UDB. It is just—the suggestion that this is a functional transit corridor or that this was designed with transit in mind is—I will use the word farcical. Respondent’s own planning expert, Mr. Woerner, agreed that the Plan Amendment “does not shift the travel mode from single occupancy vehicle to mass transit,” and “does not reduce dependence on the use of personal vehicles.” The County introduced no data on ridership for the transit lanes or other data to support that the mass transit option incorporated in the Plan Amendment would actually promote use of that option. Mr. Woerner seemed to recall some figures on ridership from the PD&E study, which evaluated a mass transit alternative to the new corridor. The figure Mr. Woerner referenced was an estimated 2,772 transit boardings from the alternative corridor analysis conducted during the PD&E study. However, that study was a mass-transit-only alternative to the new corridor. That ridership number is an estimate of the number of West Kendall residents who would choose to take mass transit if that were the only option in the new corridor. It does not reflect the number of users who, given an option between driving their personal vehicle along the new corridor or boarding a bus along that corridor, would choose the bus. In response, Mr. Woerner responded that, in his opinion, the most important data the County needed was the corridor connections. (See Figure 3 depiction of the approximate location of the new corridor, hand drawn in red, in relation to the planned east/west SMART corridors). In this case, Mr. Woerner considered the connections with Kendall Drive and Tamiami Trail bus lines to be important connections for users. But, when asked directly whether the County needed ridership information to support new Policy MT-4D, Mr. Woerner said, “No. I don’t believe we needed it, but it certainly was helpful to know that there had been a projection made.” Mr. Woerner’s testimony was not credible. As discussed above, the projection Mr. Woerner referred to was never made. There is no data to determine whether the County’s directive to another agency to fund and build 13 miles of mass transit service along the expressway route, will actually “promote mass transit use,” as required by the Plan. The burden was on Petitioners to prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the cited goals and policies. Petitioners did prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy TC-4F, because all the experts agreed that the Plan Amendment does not “shift the travel mode” in this part of the County “from single occupancy vehicle to mass transit.” However, Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Plan’s provisions to: “promote mass transit use,” as required by Policy TE-1A; “support[] use of transit,” as required by the Transportation Element Goal; “significantly enhance public transit services and implement transportation system management programs … to provide feasible alternatives to private automobile use,” as required by CON-1B; or maintain an “efficient” mass transit system, as required by the Goal of the Mass Transit Subelement. Petitioners did prove that the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis to determine whether it is internally consistent with the cited goals and policies.
Conclusions For Petitioners, Limonar Development, LLC; Wonderly Holdings, LLC; and Mills Family, LLC: John C. Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A., Trial Lawyers 75 Valencia Avenue, Suite 600 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Francisco J. Pines, Esquire Francisco J. Pines, P.A. 3301 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 For Petitioners, Tropical Audubon Society and Michelle Garcia: Paul J. Schwiep, Esquire Coffey Burlington, P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse 1 Miami, Florida 33133 Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Richard Grosso, P.A. 6511 Nova Drive, Mail Box 300 Davie, Florida 33317 For Respondent, Miami-Dade County: Dennis Alexander Kerbel, Esquire Christopher J. Wahl, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office 111 Northwest First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128
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 Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance 2018-109 on September 27, 2018, is not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2020, 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 30th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos A. Gimenez, Mayor Miami-Dade County Stephen P. Clark Center, 29th Floor 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 Dennis Alexander Kerbel, Esquire Miami-Dade County Suite 2810 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) John C. Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A., Trial Lawyers Suite 600 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Francisco J. Pines, Esquire Francisco J. Pines, P.A. Suite 220 3301 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Christopher J. Wahl, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office Suite 2810 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) James Michael Porter, Esquire James M. Porter, P.A. 10th Floor 9350 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33156 (eServed) Paul J. Schwiep, Esquire Coffey Burlington, P.L. Penthouse 1 2601 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133 (eServed) Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Richard Grosso P.A. Mail Box 300 6511 Nova Drive Davie, Florida 33317 (eServed) William Chorba, 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) James Uthmeier, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Executive Office of the Governor Suite 209, The Capitol 400 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-001 (eServed) Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the comprehensive plan adopted by Escambia County is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact PARTIES DCA is the state land planning agency charged under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, with the review of comprehensive plans and plan amendments under Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (the Act). Final agency action with regard to plans and plan amendments found not in compliance by DCA is taken by the Governor and Cabinet, acting as the Administration Commission, in accordance with Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes. Respondent, Escambia County, is a local government required to adopt a Comprehensive Plan under the Act. The following intervenors filed petitions challenging portions of the plan: League of Women Voters of the Pensacola Bay Area, Inc.; Dorothy Kaser; Joseph Grizzaffi, Jr.; Anneice Grizzaffi; Francis M. Weston Audubon Society; Gabrielle Faddis; James Lane; Jacqueline Lane; and Vivian Faircloth. The following intervenors filed petitions in support of the plan: Homebuilder's Association of West Florida, Inc., Michael Blanton and Escambia Construction, Inc.; Highland Development Group, Inc.; Edwin Henry and Henry and Co., Inc.; and E.J. Gibbs. Prior to commencement of the hearing Highland Development Group, Inc. withdrew its petition to intervene. As a result of stipulation of the parties, no objection is raised to the participation of the remaining parties who are intervenors on behalf of Respondent. STANDING OF THE PARTIES In order to intervene in this proceeding, the requirements of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, must be met. First, the intervenor must be an "affected person" as defined by that section. Second, the intervenor must have submitted oral or written objection during the local government "review and adoption proceedings." The local government "review and adoption" period is the period of time which runs from the issuance of DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (the ORC Report) and the adoption of the plan. In the instant case this period of time commenced on August 10, 1990, the date of the ORC Report, and ended on October 8, 1990, the date of the plan's adoption. The League of Women Voters of the Pensacola Bay Area, Inc. (the League), is a local chapter of the League of Women Voters. Gloria Dawson, former president for the League, spoke on behalf of the League before the Board of County Commissioners September 17 and 24, 1990, and expressed concerns and opinions regarding the County's proposed plan. Between August 10, 1990, and October 8, 1990, the League also provided written comments to the County concerning the plan. Many members of the League, including Gloria Dawson, Vivian Faircloth, Muriel Wagner, Dorothy Faddis, are residents of Escambia County; several members reside in the unincorporated area of the County. Dorothy Kaser resides and owns property in Escambia County. She was a member of the Planning Board, the County's local planning agency pursuant to Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes, from 1988 to December 1990. Through her duties as a Planning Board member Ms. Kaser provided written and oral comments to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the comprehensive plan. Her comments were stated at Planning Board meetings during the local government review period, and were incorporated in the final Planning Board recommendation which was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval and adoption. Joseph Grizzaffi, Jr., and Anneice Grizzaffi are married and reside and own property in Escambia County. During the local government review period the Grizzaffis spoke on August 23,1990 to the Board of County Commissioners, impaneled as the Zoning Board, concerning mixed use categories, leapfrog development, and strip commercial development. The Grizzaffis made these comments in opposition to a rezoning request, but also as part of the larger planning scheme involving the comprehensive plan. The Grizzaffis were under the impression given by the Public Participation Procedures and the conduct of one of the commissioners at the August 23 meeting that comments concerning the plan could be directed to either the Board of County Commissioners or the Zoning Board. The Frances M. Weston Audubon Society is a local chapter of the National Audubon Society (Audubon). Gabriel Faddis spoke about issues concerning the comprehensive plan on behalf of Audubon before the Board of County Commissioners on August 31 and September 24, 1990. Ms. Faddis represented Audubon at these meetings at the request of the Chapter's president. James and Jacqueline Lane reside and own property in Escambia County. During the local government review process, neither of the Lanes provided the County any oral or written comments concerning the plan. Although the Lanes attended the adoption hearing, neither of them offered any comments because they felt it was "pointless." In their opinion, the period of time between the ORC Report and plan adoption was dedicated by the County to entertaining land use changes as opposed to constructive criticism or comments from the public. Vivian Faircloth is a resident of Escambia County and an officer of the State League of Women Voters. Ms. Faircloth commented on the plan to the Board of County Commissioners on September 24, 1990. At that time she made it clear that she was speaking on behalf of herself, not the League, which was officially represented at the same meeting by Gloria Dawson. DCA was not requested by the County to attend the plan adoption public hearings which were conducted on October 5 and 8, 1990. COUNTY BACKGROUND The most western county in the Florida Panhandle, Escambia County is bordered on the east by the Escambia River, on the west by the Perdido River, on the north by the State of Alabama, and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. It is comprised of approximately 430,661 acres. According to the plan's data and analysis, the population for the unincorporated portion of the County is estimated and projected as follows: 1990 232,271 1995 249,623 2000 263,150 There are only two incorporated municipalities within the County: Pensacola and Century. These municipalities have drafted and adopted their own plans. The City of Pensacola is an urban area in the southeast portion of the County with a population of approximately 62,036 persons; Century is a rural community in the northern portion of the County with a population of 2,664 persons. Approximately 95 percent of the County's population resides in the area of the County which extends from Pensacola to the middle of the County. Escambia County has an abundance of valuable water resources including Pensacola Bay, Perdido Bay, Escambia Bay, Escambia River, Perdido River, Bayou Chico, and Bayou Texar. The County's surface water resources can be divided into four drainage basins: the Escambia River Basin, Pensacola Bay Basin, Perdido Bay Basin, and Perdido River Basin. The County also has significant wetland areas, particularly along the rivers, in the Southwest portion of the County and in the coastal areas. In 1984 the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission, designated the lower portions of Escambia and Santa Rosa counties a resource planning area pursuant to Section 380.045, Florida Statutes. This designation arose from concern about development damaging coastal dunes and wetland areas. The purpose of this designation was not to stop growth in this area, but to evaluate the ability of the local governments to protect the environment through comprehensive planning and land development regulations. The evaluation was conducted by the Escambia-Santa Rosa Counties Coastal Resource Management Planning Committee, which produced a report containing numerous recommendations that were approved by the Governor and Cabinet. In his November 24, 1984 charging letter to the committee, Governor Graham specifically asked it to evaluate the adequacy of resource protection, particularly for coastal dunes, wetland areas, and the estuarine resources of the various bay systems in the study area. Historically the County has been reluctant to plan development. To date not all of the unincorporated areas of the County are subject to zoning regulations. The County did not have any zoning in the unincorporated area of the County until adoption of its Zoning Ordinance in 1989, which zoned the southern part of the County from what is known as Ten-Mile Road south to the coastal edge of the County. The County presently has two zoning ordinances of limited scope which were adopted only after intervention from the State. One of the zoning ordinances applies to the limited area surrounding the University of West Florida, a state-funded university. The University of West Florida zoning ordinance was adopted at the insistence of the State, which did not wish to invest in an unplanned area, prior to the construction of the university. The Urban Land Use Regulation Ordinance, which applies to the area south of Ten Mile Road, was adopted at the request of the Escambia-Santa Rosa Counties Resource Protection Management Committee as a first step towards planning future development. HISTORY OF THE PLAN The County contracted with the West Florida Regional Planning Council (RPC) to draft proposed goals, objectives and policies; compile support data and analysis; and provide technical assistance in the preparation of the plan. The RPC also drafted a Future Land Use Map after the ORC Report was issued. This map was not adopted by the County. The key person involved with the preparation of the plan was Robert Koncar, Assistant County Administrator. Although the County has a planning staff housed in the Department of Planning and Zoning, the County's planners were not involved in the preparation of the plan. Koncar personally revised the goals, objectives, policies and the Future Land Use Map Series which had been developed by the RPC. The County's land development regulations were due to be adopted by May 1, 1991. Those regulations were not adopted on schedule, nor was the Concurrency Management System which the County affirmatively committed to adopt in Capital Improvements Policy 1.3.7 of the plan by May 1, 1991. The proposed plan was received by DCA on May 1, 1990. DCA issued its ORC Report on August 10, 1990. The County held public hearings on the adoption of its plan on October 5 and October 8, 1990. During the course of these public hearings the County considered numerous applications for land use changes. These changes applied to designations on the Future Land Use Map series. The application forms for land use changes simply requested information as to the location of the property and desired use. No explanation or data and analysis was required of an applicant to justify a land use change. No data and analysis was submitted by the County to DCA to support these land use changes. The proposed plan originally did not include planning for Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach. The proposed Santa Rosa Future Land Use Sub-element (Santa Rosa Sub-element) was submitted to DCA after submittal of the proposed plan. The Sub-element was prepared later by a different consultant, the Strategic Planning Group, following DCA's objection to Santa Rosa's exclusion from the plan. DCA reviewed the proposed Santa Rosa Sub-element and its data and analysis later and issued a separate ORC Report based on it. On October 8, 1990, the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 90-18 which by reference adopted the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map or Map Series. On November 30, 1990, DCA issued its Statement of Intent to find the plan to be not in compliance. In 1991 the legislature adopted Chapter 91-310, Laws of Florida, which altered the boundary line between Escambia County and Santa Rosa County so that Navarre Beach is now in Santa Rosa County. SANTA ROSA ISLAND AUTHORITY One of the unusual physical features of Escambia County is Santa Rosa Island, a coastal barrier which stretches from the eastern half of the County to Walton County. The County acquired 20 miles of the western-most portion of the Island by deed from the federal government in 1946 to be used in the public interest subject to regulation by the County, whether leased or not. A substantial part of the Island was given back to the federal government to be used as part of the National Seashore. The deed specifically prohibits the County from selling any part of the Island. The remainder of the County's portion of the Island was either placed under the control of the Santa Rosa Island Authority (SRIA) or leased to Santa Rosa County. The SRIA was established by special act in the 1950's to administer the County's portion of the islands. The SRIA is governed by a board consisting of one member selected by each of the five County Commissioners and one member elected by residents on the Island. The Authority has an executive director and permanent staff of approximately 60 employees. Beginning in the 1950's, the SRIA disposed of the property under its control by entering into standard 99-year leases with automatic 99-year renewals. These leases are for commercial and residential properties and generally authorize the construction of development on the parcels up to a certain intensity of use or density. More current commercial leases for other than hotel purposes are generally for shorter periods than 99-year terms. The leases are not subject to a bidding process or other competitive public process. They are negotiated with private individuals on a case-by-case basis. The rent provided for in the lease has no relationship to the market value of the property. The term of the leases has no relationship to the need to amortize an investment. Very few of the parcels subject to leases for multiple-family use on Pensacola Beach have been built to the maximum density provided for in the lease; yet, most of those uses are earning a profit. The data and analysis, and goals objectives and policies, relating to Santa Rosa Island were done under the assumption that the outstanding leases are enforceable over the police powers of the County. The portions of the plan relating to Santa Rosa Island were designed to take those leases into account. If a "carrying capacity" analysis of the island had been done, a completely different result would have been recommended by the consultant. No effort has been made by the County or the SRIA to challenge the validity of the leases or to enter into a program to minimize the number or term of the leases. In fact leases are still being executed by the SRIA with no information about how the rent relates to the fair market value of the property. In 1985 the County issued a series of revenue bonds to pay for improvements on Pensacola Beach. The revenues which were pledged for repayment included anticipated lease payments from new lessees. The number of units actually built since 1985 has been a mere fraction of the ones anticipated in the bond documents. Yet the debt service on the bonds has been kept current, and existing revenues will be sufficient to maintain those payments into the foreseeable future. The SRIA generates no funds for Escambia County government, and the leases are not subject to ad valorem taxation. EFFICIENCY OF LAND USE AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP As early as its 1980 Comprehensive Plan (1980 Plan), the County acknowledged predominant land development patterns in the unincorporated area characteristic of two types of sprawl: The random development pattern and the corridor pattern. These development patterns resulted from past policies of minimum planning, lack of development coordination and absence of land use or zoning controls in the County except for the areas around the University of West Florida. That area, under the University of West Florida Land Use Regulations, exhibited orderly growth in contrast to other parts of the County. The corridor pattern of growth along the major transportation routes had become an increasing trend in Escambia County in the 1980's as the urbanized area spread outward to the north and west. Even though these patterns of development were criticized in the 1980 Plan, they are still characteristic of the types of development which currently exist in the County and are encouraged by the land use designations on the Future Land Use Map. The 1980 plan noted that the random development, or leapfrog pattern, was characterized by low density residential clusters in the urbanized areas of the County surrounding the City of Pensacola with scattered intermittent commercial and mixed uses along the major transportation routes radiating out from the urban areas. The random or leapfrog growth pattern, characterized by intermittent, developed clusters and undeveloped open spaces, produces low tax revenue per acre of land, a very high cost of providing services and facilities to the scattered clusters, and little incentive for fill-in development in the vacant areas. Generally speaking, single-family residential property does not generate sufficient ad valorem tax revenue to pay the costs of providing public services to the property, especially when sprawling patterns make those services more expensive to provide. Sprawling development patterns impose additional costs, such as increased utility costs and lower levels of service on roads, some of which may be offset by reduced land costs. However, accommodating such patterns through the provision of public services like law enforcement, emergency response, water and sewer, and public schools, also tends to result in the subsidization of inefficient development patterns by residents who live or do business in areas characterized by a mixture of functionally related uses. These costs are of increasing significance to County governments in rapidly growing areas like Florida because residents of unincorporated areas are increasingly demanding a level of public services that used to be enjoyed only by residents of incorporated municipalities. Requirements that a plan be based on data and analysis, protect natural resources, maximize use of efficient infrastructure, and be financially feasible, are related in the sense that a plan which discourages sprawl is more likely to accomplish these planning objectives as well. The term "urban sprawl" as it appears in Chapter 9J-5 is used to describe certain kinds of growth or development patterns. It refers to 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. Leapfrog development occurs when new development is sited away from an existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels located in or closer to the urban area that are suitable for development. It typically results in scattered, discontinuous growth patterns in rural areas which are frequently not appropriate for urban development. Leapfrog development may occur due to the lower cost of land outside the urban area compared to the cost of developable land in the urban area. This can occur when plans fail to address the timing of development in addition to its location. Leapfrog development commonly occurs in areas where infrastructure and services do not already exist to serve it; thus, it requires additional utility extensions and involves higher public capital costs if complete urban services are to be provided at the time of development. If complete urban services, such as connection to central water and sewer systems, are not required, leapfrog development may still present an increased risk to water supplies and sensitive environmental areas. Leapfrog development is not usually mixed-use, multi-dimensional development. Consequently, it works against the creation of vibrant communities, creates much greater dependence on automobile transportation, and results in an inefficient use of land resources. Strip or ribbon development involves the location of high amounts of commercial, retail, office and often multi-family residential development in a linear pattern along both sides of major arterial roadways. Strip development is generally dependent on direct access to the arterial roadway and typically reduces the efficiency of the roadway for moving through traffic due to the high number of curb and median cuts and access points which must be permitted. Strip development frequently overburdens arterial roadways with local trips since local road networks remain poorly developed or nonexistent. Unsightly strip development can extend for miles along arterials into rural, previously undeveloped areas, and sometimes encroach on environmentally sensitive lands or important natural resource areas. Large land areas behind and between strip developments are commonly left undeveloped. Low-density, single-dimensional development consists of single land uses, typically low-density residential, spread over large land areas. Frequently, the land is in rural, forestry, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive areas that may require protection from urban development. This land-intensive development pattern, stemming from uncontrolled, poorly planned, and premature development, tends to place an undue burden on external infrastructure and major transportation connectors by not providing a complementary mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and institutional uses. Sprawling single-use development hinders the evolution of vibrant communities, reinforces dependence upon personal automobile use, generates higher public costs for facilities and services, promotes an inefficient use of developable land, and frequently destroys significant environmental and natural resources. Allowing low-density development on large expanses of land also frequently precludes development or redevelopment at the higher densities that become appropriate as the urban or urbanizing area grows. The resulting growth pattern encourages leapfrog development. If redevelopment of these low-density areas to higher intensities does occur, the costs to expand public facilities and services will commonly be substantially higher than would have been incurred to provide the infrastructure capacities that would have been appropriate initially. Plans which fail to discourage urban sprawl often over-allocate land uses, especially residential uses, and designate areas for development which are not suitable, such as wetlands, floodplains, poorly drained soils and aquifer recharged areas. An unregulated land development environment is usually unsuccessful in bringing about truly efficient land development patterns because such a market does not force a developer or land consumer to pay the true, full economic costs of land development. Hidden subsidies may arise from a failure to impose marginal cost pricing of utilities, failure to establish special taxing units to reflect actual costs of parties' utilities, and failure to assign costs to destruction of natural resources like wetlands and aquifer recharge areas. Sprawling development patterns also adversely impact agricultural operations in that such patterns may cause land use conflicts by encouraging farmers to abandon reinvestment in their farm operations and begin looking to sell their land. The Escambia County plan greatly over-allocates residential land uses. This over-allocation is not based on data and analysis. Generally, the number of developable acres designated for use over the 10 year planning period should be only slightly larger (25 percent) than the number of acres needed for that particular land use. Using the County's own assumption regarding densities, approximately 18,841 acres will be required to meet residential needs, excepting agricultural and agricultural/timber categories. The plan allocates total acreage of 122,980, or more than five times the land supply needed for this purpose. The plan allocates 8,881 acres for commercial and industrial purposes in the face of assumed need for only 4,294 acres, more than twice the projected need. The Escambia County Comprehensive Plan actually encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl in the land use patterns set out on its Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Similarly, the plan is not based on data and analysis regarding land use allocations and, by encouraging scattered residential development, poses a threat to the continued viability of agriculture in the County. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 3.1.3 classifies residential land uses. The following land use categories, as established by that policy, allow special exceptions as land uses: Agricultural Residential; Rural Residential/Mixed Use; Low Density Residential; and Urban Residential. Nowhere in the plan is there any indication of what uses will be allowed by special exception or what criteria will be used in establishing the conditions for a special exception. Thus, the plan's densities and intensities of use for Agricultural Residential; Rural Residential/Mixed Use; Low Density Residential and Urban Residential are chimera. The plan includes mixed use classifications of land use in several policies: FLUE Policy 3.1.5 (Mixed Use and Mixed Use-Southwestern District), 3.1.5.a (Mixed Use and Mixed Use- Southwestern District), 3.1.3 (Rural Residential-Mixed Use), and Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 (Medium Density Residential Commercial and High Density Residential Commercial) and 1.4.8 (High Density Residential). Nowhere in these policies or related policies, including FLUE Policy 4.1.22 and 4.1.23, is there any criteria which establish the composition of mixed use categories (i.e., 30% commercial, 70% residential) or guide the implementation of these mixed use classifications such as by ensuring that the land uses are functionally related. Thus, no densities or intensities of use have been established for these land use categories. The plan does not ensure that development will result in a balanced and complimentary mixture of land uses. FLUE Policy 3.1.5 establishes land uses for the Mixed Use-Southwestern District. This category allows the following development: Low Density residential, 1-7 dwelling units per acre; Medium Density Residential, 8-15 dwelling units per acre; and Commercial, consistent with lot coverage standards of 75% maximum coverage for all impervious surfaces. The Future Land Use Map series does not indicate where the various residential densities are allowed nor does the plan include any criteria to provide any guidance as to which density would apply where and under what circumstances. Most of the area in the Mixed Use-Southwestern District contains wetlands. Based on the General Soils Map contained in the data and analysis, this area is dominated by Klej-Leon (somewhat poorly drained), Plummer-Rutledge (poorly drained) and undifferentiated poorly drained flood plains and swamps. These soils, which are indicative of poor drainage, are referred to as hydric soils, which is an indicator of wetlands. The data and analysis does not analyze the suitability of this area for development despite the soils characteristics. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 establishes land uses for Pensacola Beach and includes a category denominated Conservation/Recreation. That classification states in pertinent parts: . . . depending on the specific characteristics of each site appropriate recreation uses may include public parking, beach access, boardwalks, nature trails, boat launching areas, docking facilities, picnic areas, rest rooms, and other such related uses as may be approved by the Santa Rosa Island Authority consistent with legal requirements presently in force. Other uses may by approved by the Santa Rosa Island Authority subject to appropriate studies which demonstrate that such uses are environmentally sound and in the public interest . . . The development of a golf course is allowed by this category and has been specifically contemplated in the past by the Santa Rosa Island Authority. Language of the Conservation/Recreation category in Santa Rosa Sub- element Policy 1.4.5 (10), affords great discretion in the Santa Rosa Island Authority as to what "other uses" are in the "public interest" or "environmentally sound. "No standards are provided which would specifically identify the limits of the types of uses for this classification or the specific criteria which would apply in ensuring a development was in the "public interest" or "environmentally sound." As a result, this policy places unbridled discretion for development in the hands of the Santa Rosa Island Authority, an entity not elected and not accountable to the public. The residential density for the area depicted on the Future Land Use Map as Special Development/Buffer is established in the FLUE Policy 3.1.1 and FLUE Policy 3.1.9. These policies are internally inconsistent as relates to residential densities. Policy 3.1.1 allows one to five dwelling units per acre and Policy 3.1.9 allows only one dwelling unit per acre for this land use. FLUE Policy 3.1.7 establishes land uses for the Recreational category allowing "public recreation areas, private recreational facilities, including limited commercial uses, such as marinas, public utilities." The intensity must be "consistent with lot coverage included in the land development regulations." This policy is inadequate because the intensity of development must be established in the plan, not the land development regulations. FLUE Policy 3.1.8 establishes land uses for the Conservation category. This category allows: . . . activities compatible with the purposing of conserving or protecting natural resources, including flood control, wildlife habitat protection[,] resource-oriented recreational uses, wetlands application of reclaimed water where appropriate and beneficial, and, where appropriate, silviculture using best management practices as defined by the Florida Division of Forestry. No density or intensity is established in the plan for this category. The County could have established intensities for this category through lot coverage, floor area ratios, height densities, and bulk criteria. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 establishes land uses for Pensacola Beach including the following categories: General Retail; Recreation Retail; Conservation/Recreation; and Government and Civic. Each of these categories allows development but does not establish any densities or intensities. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.8 establishes land uses for Navarre Beach including the following categories: High Density Residential; Commercial; and Recreation. Each of these categories allows development but does not establish any densities or intensities. The data and analysis submitted to support the proposed plan included a map series which identified historic districts, archeological areas, historical sites, and additional facilities. The Future Land Use Map series does not depict any historic properties, although such properties are known and identified in the data and analysis. The data and analysis identifies existing and planned water wells. Table 15 lists wells operated by various facilities for public and industrial uses and Table 16 lists future wells projected for the period of 1985-2005. These existing and future wells are depicted on a location map which is a part of the data and analysis. However, the locations of these existing and future wells are not depicted on the Future Land Use Map series. Further, the areas around major water wells, termed "cones of influence" are also not depicted on The Future Land Use Map series. The data and analysis depicts the 100-year floodplain on a location map. The 100-year floodplain is not depicted on the Future Land Use Map series. There are various types of wetland systems in Escambia County including: Bottom land hardwood communities, located along the Escambia River; the mixed wetlands, found in the Southwest District and the Perdido area; estuarine systems associated with the estuaries Pensacola Bay, Escambia Bay and Perdido Bay; coastal salt marshes; and the unique freshwater lens system found on Perdido Key and Santa Rosa Island. The Future Land Use Map series fails to depict all these wetlands. The identification of hydric soils may be a good indicator of wetland areas, but the Generalized Soils Map which is found in the support data and analysis was not adopted by the County. The adoption ordinance does not indicate that the County adopted a wetlands map of any kind. The data and analysis generally depict soils. The data and analysis contain a map entitled "General Soil Map" which was prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1960. This map was not adopted as a part of the Future Land Use Map series. The Future Land Use Map series which was adopted depicts no soil information. The data and analysis generally depict sandy clay and clay; medium- fine sand and silt; and gravel and coarse sand on a map entitled "Mineral Resources." This map was not adopted as a part of the Future Land Use Map series. The Future Land Use Map which was adopted does not depict any mineral information. The Future Land Use Map series consists of three maps: a countywide map with land use categories "drawn" on a Florida Department of Transportation general highway map, a map of Pensacola Beach, and a map of Navarre Beach. The countywide map is internally inconsistent with the Navarre Beach Map because the countywide map depicts only three land use classifications on Navarre Beach: Low density residential, Commercial, and Conservation. The Navarre Beach Map, however, includes these different designations: low density residential; medium density residential; high density residential; commercial public utility; outdoor recreation; and preservation. The policies in the FLUE which describe low density residential (Policy 3.1.3), commercial (3.1.4) and recreation (3.1.7), describe different uses and intensities or densities than are described for categories of the same name in Santa Rosa Policy 1.4.8. The countywide Future Land Use Map depicts a Tourist/Resort category on Pensacola Beach. No policy establishes this category, describes the allowable uses, or establishes densities or intensities of use. The countywide map depicts a large area next to the City of Pensacola as "Commercial." FLUE Policy 3.1.4 defines this classification to allow commercial activities and public facilities and specifically prohibit residential development. The Existing Land Use Map found in the data and analysis indicates that the existing land uses are more varied and include residential uses. No explanation of the prohibition of residential development exists within the data and analysis. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES The data and analysis identifies numerous types of natural resources: rivers, bay, lakes, estuaries, groundwater, wildlife, endangered and threatened plans and animals, trees, wetlands, dune systems, and marine resources. The FLUE is required to include an objective ensuring the protection of natural resources. The only objective in the FLUE which attempts to address countywide natural resources is Objective 1.9, which reads: By May 1991, development criteria shall be adopted in the land development code to protect areas designated as Conservation, Special Development/Buffer, and other land requiring protection due to the presence of sensitive natural resources. FLUE Objective 1.9, while expressing a basic goal, is not specific and measurable. It is meaningless for purposes of marking progress toward an identified goal. Simply referring to a time frame does not make it measurable. Objectives and policies intended to meet the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., must be substantively effective upon adoption and not relegated to adoption through land development regulations. The data and analysis identify numerous natural resources throughout the County which are threatened by development and should be protected, however FLUE Objective 1.9 provides limited protection to the two areas designated Special Development/Buffer and to the few coastal areas designated Conservation. Therefore, this objective is not supported by the data and analysis. The FLUE is required to contain a policy which addresses implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land. The only policy in the FLUE which attempts to address the protection of environmentally sensitive land is FLUE Policy 1.9.1, an implementing policy of FLUE Objective 1.9., which states: The development criteria shall include, but not be limited to, the prohibition of development of areas designated as Conservation, severe limitation of development potential for areas designated as Special Development Buffer, special review and approval procedures for properties which may be identified as having sensitive natural resources. FLUE Policy 3.1.9 establishes a residential density of one dwelling unit per acre for the Special Development/Buffer. Per the FLUM, this is a land use found in only two areas in the eastern portion of the middle section of the County. The term "severe limitation" contained in FLUE Objective 1.9. is not defined, leaving the application of this policy to be subject to interpretation. The referenced special review and approval procedures have not been delineated, nor have other areas containing sensitive natural resources (in addition to the Conservation and Special Development/Buffer areas) been identified, yet they are known to exist, as shown in the data and analysis. Accordingly, FLUE Policy 1.9.1 does not adequately address implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land. FLUE Policy 1.9.2, also an implementing policy of FLUE Objective 1.9, states: The County shall maintain and implement Section XVI of the Urban Area Land Use Regulation Ordinance, as may be amended, requiring review of all properties for presence of wetlands prior to issuance of any development permits. Development projects proposed for development on lands identified as containing wetlands must complete the special development review procedures established in the land development regulations. Provision shall be established in the Land Development Regulations for requirement exemption through an agreement of nondevelopment of wetland areas. FLUE Policy 1.9.2 fails to establish specifications or programs to protect wetlands, is not supported by the data and analysis, and allows the policy to be amended from time to time without going through the necessary agency review process required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, FLUE Policy 1.9.2 does not adequately address implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land. FLUE Policy 4.1.9 states: The County shall develop criteria for assessing the negative impacts of a potential development upon the environment which shall include, but not be limited to: Environmental habitat adjacent to proposed development; Intensity of development; Potential pollutants or other negative impacts released as a result of development. This policy is inadequate because it does not identify specific actions or programs. It does not constitute a "policy" as that term is defined in Rule 9J- 5.003(68), F.A.C., and it defers implementation or action until a future date. The plan, including FLUE Policies 4.1.9, 1.9.2, and 1.9.1, do not adequately address implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land as required by Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)6, F.A.C. As applied specifically toward the protection of environmentally sensitive lands on Santa Rosa Island, Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Objective 1.4 states: Design and adopt a Future Land Use Map for Santa Rosa Island which coordinates the built environment with the natural environment. The Future Land Use Map shall coordinate topography, soils, beachdunes, native vegetation, natural waterbodies, and other natural resources with compatible intensities of allowable urban land uses such that potential Island population densities do not exceed hurricane evacuation capability. Policies 1.4.1-1.4.7 of Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Objective 1.4 do not ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive land because they do not identify specific actions or programs in accordance with the definition of "policy" in Rule 9J-5.003(68), F.A.C. Accordingly, there is no FLUE policy which adequately addresses implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land on Santa Rosa Island. The Coastal Management Element (CME) is required to include an objective for each goal statement which protects beaches or dunes, establishes construction standards minimizing impacts of manmade structures on beach or dune systems, and restores altered beaches or dunes. CME Policy 2.1.9 states: Construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line shall only be permitted if state permits are first obtained. The Coastal Construction Control Line is a line established by the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, under the premise that the area seaward of the line is subject to erosion. The State will not consider approval of development seaward of the coastal construction control line unless the applicable local government has already approved it. This provision of the plan makes construction contingent on state approval, contrary to law. It is inconsistent with requirements of Chapter 161. The Future Land Use Map series depicts development seaward of the coastal construction control line, including areas which are vacant. CME Policy 2.1.9, along with the Future Land Use Map designations which allow more development than is supported by the data and analysis, abrogates the County's duty to regulate the area seaward of the coastal construction control line in order to protect dune systems or other coastal resources. By failing to discourage development seaward of the coastal construction control line, CME Policy 2.1.9 fails to achieve the goal statement of Goal 2 of the Coastal Management Element which is to protect human life and limit public expenditure in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. Objectives under Goal 2 of the CME do not adequately address protection of beaches and dunes as required by Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)4., F.A.C.. CME Objective 2.1 addresses only maintaining a roadway clearance time for hurricane evacuation of twelve (12) hours; Objective 2.2 simply requires the County to identify the Coastal High Hazard Area; Objective 2.4 is concerned with public expenditures for facilities and infrastructure in the Coastal High Hazard Area; Objectives 2.5, 2.6. 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10 address dune reconstruction in the limited situation of post-disaster redevelopment. CME Objective 2.7 states: Establish site design criteria for construction and reconstruction within the Costal High Hazard Area. This objective is inadequate. It provides no specifically measurable intermediate end that is achievable marking the progress toward Goal 2. Similarly, CME Objective 2.11, which provides that "[c]onstruction activities on Santa Rosa Island shall not adversely impact the barrier island system," is inadequate because it is not specific and measurable. CME Objective 2.12 reads: "Allow no further loss in the acreage of beaches and dunes on the barrier island(s)." This objective, although specific and measurable, is inadequate because it applies only to the barrier islands and ignores the beach and dune resources on the mainland. Furthermore, development is specifically allowed in the beach and dune areas based on the Future Land Use Map designations. This internal inconsistency poses the question of whether the County intended Objective 2.12 or the Future Land Use Map to control the issuance of development orders in this area. The CME is required to include a policy identifying regulatory or management techniques for limiting the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetlands and living marine resources. The CME is also required to include an objective which protects, conserves, or enhances remaining coastal wetlands and living marine resources. CME Objective 1.1 fulfills the requirement of Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)1., F.A.C., to conserve remaining wildlife habitat, but none of its implementing policies meet the requirements of Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1., F.A.C., to limit impacts of development upon wetlands and living marine resources. CME Policy 1.1.6 appears to address this requirement. It is inadequate, however, because it fails to identify specific implementing actions or programs and it defers protection of these resources until the adoption of land development regulations. The policy states: The County shall, in conjunction with the Santa Rosa Island Authority, adopt or amend land use regulations on barrier islands, including Perdido Key and Santa Rosa Island, and other coastal areas identified in data and analysis which, at minimum address the protection of tidal wetlands, native vegetative communities and critical habitat of wildlife species which are endangered, threatened, or of special concern as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and Florida Department of Natural Resources. This policy fails to include any criteria indicating what the land development regulations will require to protect these resources and no interim protection is provided. CME Objective 1.4 states: "By December 1992, the County shall develop a plan of action for maintaining and improving estuarine quality in the Coastal Area." This objective is inadequate because it defers implementation until December, 1992, and does not provide any criteria for any interim or future plan of action. No other objective in the CME addresses estuarine environmental quality. Therefore, there is no objective in the CME which maintains or improves estuarine environmental quality. The CME is required to include a policy identifying regulatory or management techniques for limiting the specific and cumulative impacts of development upon wetlands. CME Policy 1.3.7 clearly attempts to address the requirements of this rule. However, it is inadequate to achieve the objective of protecting wetlands. The policy states: By 1993, amend existing land development regulations to include specific protection provisions for the specific cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetland areas as indicated and recommended by the stormwater management plan study. On its face, this policy is intended to address only the impacts of stormwater runoff on wetlands, and does not address other specific cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment such as the restriction or prohibition of development in wetlands. Furthermore, the policy is inadequate because it defers implementation until 1993 through land development regulations and no specific criteria is included in this policy as to what should be included in those regulations. The CME is also required to include a policy which identifies regulatory or management techniques for limiting impacts of development upon wildlife habitat. CME Policy 1.1.2 attempts to address this requirement. This policy states: By May 1991, revise the Special Development District Regulations to include special provisions to enhance wildlife protection to include, but not be limited to, consideration of cluster development, increasing mandatory open space requirements, consideration of wildlife corridors between special development districts and other such districts, in addressing the protection of tidal wetlands, native vegetative communities and critical habitat of wildlife species which are endangered, threatened, or of special concern as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and Florida Department of Natural Resources. The vague use of the term "consideration" in CME Policy 1.1.2 does not provide any assurance that these actions will actually be implemented at a future date. Furthermore, the policy is not specific and measurable due to lack of criteria for open space, cluster development, or wildlife corridors. Further, the policy does not identify how the protection of species will be implemented. All of this is deferred to special development district regulations. 1/ The quality and quantity of waters flowing into estuarine or oceanic waters is not adequately protected as required by Rules 9J-5.013(2)(b)2., and 9J-5.013(c)6., F.A.C. The Conservation Element (CE) objectives of the plan are silent as to water quantity. Objective 1.1 refers to a state government agency's standards which apply only to water quality and do not address water quantity. CE Objective 1.1, which addresses surface water quality, states: "Prevent degradation of surface water quality below water qualities standards using as a minimum Chapter 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., in consideration of development of alternative regulations." Rule 17-25.040, F.A.C., is the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation rule for construction permit requirements for new stormwater discharge facilities. That rule, in turn, references Rule 17-25.030, F.A.C., which provides exemptions from the notice and permitting requirements of the Chapter. Rule 17-25.030 exempts single-family duplex, triplex and quadraplex facilities. Thus, CE Objective 1.1 applies only to water quality standards for new development and excludes single-family duplex, triplex and quadraplex facilities and existing development from drainage facility standards. CE Policy 1.1.11, which implements CE Objective 1.1, reads: Adopt or amend land development regulations to require retention/detention of stormwater runoff prior to discharge into surface water; and to prevent discharge of untreated or treated domestic and industrial waste water (which does not meet current treatment standards) into these areas through public and private sewage treatment plants, poorly designed septic disposal systems [or] both. Mechanisms shall include the Stormwater Management Conservation Ordinance, the formal agreement called for in Policy 1.1.10 and Policy 2.11.4 in the Coastal Management Element. Require all new development adjacent to marine, aquatic, environmentally sensitive and estuarine areas to prohibit depositing into any of these areas stormwater and domestic water that does not meet treatment standards set forth in Section 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., and the Escambia County Department of Health Regulations relative to septic tanks." CE Policy 1.1.11 adopts by reference Rule 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., which applies the exemptions of Rule 17-25.030, F.A.C., and expressly does not apply to existing development. Thus, CE Policy 1.1.11 does not identify surface water quality standards which are to be maintained for all development. Water quantity may adversely impact water quality especially in wetlands where water moves slowly. Development in and adjacent to wetlands adds runoff, silt and fertilizers to the wetland system. If these substances exceed the carrying capacity of the wetlands, adequate purification of the water does not occur before it enters into the estuaries. Development of wetlands also impairs their ability to retain water and absorb stormwater impact. The County has experienced problems associated with untreated stormwater runoff. The County's engineer has identified four main areas which experience stormwater runoff problems. In those areas the development is primarily single-family residential. Therefore, there is no rational basis for the County to exempt existing development and single-family development from its stormwater standards. There also is no basis in the data and analysis for the County to exclude duplexes, triplexes, and quadraplexes from the stormwater standards. The CE is required to include a policy addressing implementation activities for the restriction of activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife. The County has many plants and animals which are threatened, endangered, and species of special concern. The data and analysis identifies threatened, endangered and special concern communities in Escambia County which were identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory. CE Policy 1.8.3 states: Endangered species habitats and unique natural areas, as identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, shall be considered environmentally sensitive. Prior to development in these sections, the development site shall be inventoried for the presence of environmentally sensitive habitats. The results of this survey, as well as mitigation measures for protection of these features if found, shall be submitted as part of land development permit applications submitted for the project. This policy fails to take into consideration the known listed species already identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as reflected in its data and analysis. This policy also does not address the habitats of threatened species and fails to establish specific criteria which will be applied to development in order to protect the functional viability of the habitats of endangered species. The CE is required to include a policy which addresses implementation activities for the protection and conservation of the natural functions of certain natural resources including rivers, wildlife habitat, estuarine and wetland areas. CE Policy 1.1.13 attempts to address these requirements. The policy reads: By December 1991, the County shall, in conjunction with federal, state and local agencies, develop a set of recommendations to further provide for protection of rivers, wildlife habitat, estuarine, and wetland areas. Once the study has been completed specific recommendations shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for inclusion to land development regulations. CE Policy 1.1.13 does not apply to the natural resources known to be present in the County. The data and analysis identifies numerous natural resources, such as rivers, wildlife areas, estuarine areas, and wetlands, whose natural functions qualify for immediate protection. Accordingly, the policy is not based on the data and analysis. CE Policy 1.1.13 also is not an adequate policy because it does not provide specific criteria which will be used to protect the natural functions of these resources. This policy refers to an undefined and uncommenced study which will be conducted in conjunction with federal, state and local agencies. The policy should include the specific criteria needed to protect the natural resources and be in place at the time of plan adoption, not at a later time such as December, 1991, or at the time of adoption of land development regulations. COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS/HURRICANE EVACUATION The CME is required to include an objective for each goal statement which directs population concentrations away from known or predicted Coastal High-Hazard Areas. The plan contains no provisions to direct or discourage population concentrations away from Coastal High-Hazard Areas. CME Objective 1.8 states: Development or redevelopment in the coastal area shall occur only if minimum level of service standards for infrastructure is met or exceeded. The coastal area is defined by the County as including the area approximately one to one and a half miles inland from the shoreline, with the exception of the area adjacent to Escambia Bay along the bluffs. This includes the barrier islands in their entirety. This coastal area is depicted on Existing Land Use Map Series I which was submitted with the proposed plan. The plan defines the Coastal High-Hazard Area in CME Policy 2.2.1 as the area seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line established by the Department of Natural Resources; Federal Emergency Management Velocity (V) Zones designated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Escambia County; and areas which have historically received damage in areas scientifically predicted to receive water damage in a Category 3 hurricane. The Coastal High Hazard Area is included within the coastal area as defined by the County. CME Objective 1.8 is inadequate to serve the purpose of directing population concentrations away from Coastal High-Hazard Areas because it allows development to continue to occur so long as the levels of service standards are met or exceeded. There is no threshold cap for development or redevelopment. Based on the densities established in the FLUE, population concentrations are being directed toward the Coastal High-Hazard Area. Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 establishes land use densities and intensities for Pensacola Beach. The land use designations of high density residential, high density residential/commercial and commercial are allowed within the Coastal High-Hazard Area of Pensacola Beach. Based on these designations, development of up to thirty (30) units per acre is allowed. High density residential allows multi-family development in the range of sixteen to thirty units per acre; high density residential allows a range of sixteen to thirty units per acre for residential uses or up to fifty units an acre with a special exception; commercial hotel allows the same densities as is allowed under high density residential/commercial. The densities established in Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 represent an increase in development based on what is currently developed on Pensacola Beach in the Coastal High-Hazard Area. The plan encourages more development in the Coastal High-Hazard Area of Pensacola Beach. Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Policy 1.4.8 similarly allows an increase in density in the Coastal High-Hazard Area in Navarre Beach from what is existing there currently. The high density residential designation allows up to thirty dwelling units per acre and the commercial designation allows up to thirty units an acre or fifty units an acre with a special exception. Perdido Key lies entirely within the Coastal High-Hazard Area; however the designation for Perdido Key based on the Future Land Use Map is Mixed Use. Future Land Use Element Policy 3.1.5 allows Mixed Use to be developed between sixteen to fifteen dwelling units per acre and an unspecified mix of commercial which may cover up to eighty percent of the lot with impervious surface. The densities and intensities established for Perdido Key do not serve the purpose of directing population concentrations away from the Coastal High-Hazard Area; rather more development is encouraged to occur there. The plan's hurricane evacuation planning is based on the Tri-state Hurricane Evacuation Study and the Escambia County Peacetime Emergency Plan which are referenced in the data and analysis as sources. No data is available which isolates the evacuation time for just the unincorporated portion of Escambia County. However, it is estimated that the evacuation time for the entire County is approximately 14.25 hours. This is based on a medium response curve for a Category III hurricane event. CME Objective 2.1 states that the County will maintain a roadway clearance time for hurricane evacuation of twelve hours. This clearance standard is not met currently. No data and analysis have been provided to support the densities on the coastal barrier islands in relation to maintaining or improving hurricane evacuation times. Furthermore, the data and analysis do not indicate that the current clearance time to maintain is only 12 hours. Thus, the coastal area population densities have not been coordinated with the appropriate regional hurricane plan, the Tri-State Study, and there is no assurance of maintaining or improving the hurricane evacuation time. CME Objective 2.5 states that the County will adopt a post-disaster redevelopment plan for Escambia County that identifies short-term recovery and long-term redevelopment activities. This objective is inadequate because it does not identify any specific and measurable criteria. CME Policy 2.6.3.b., an implementing policy of CME Objective 2.5, reads: By 1992, incorporate in the Santa Rosa Island land development regulations, the following build-back policy, to be applied after a major natural disaster such as a hurricane . . . B. Structures damaged more than fifty percent of their replacement cost at the time of damage can be re-built to their original square footage and density, provided they can comply with: *Federal requirements for elevation above the 100-year flood level. *Building code requirements for floodproofing. *Current building and life safety codes. *State Coastal Construction Control Line. *Any required zoning or other development regulations (other than density or intensity), unless compliance with such regulations would preclude reconstruction otherwise intended by the build-back policy. *Any other relevant federal regulations. *Any other relevant local regulations, including lease agreements. *Any other relevant state regulations. CME Policy 2.6.3.b., allows structures damaged more than fifty percent to be rebuilt to their original square footage and density. Thus, this policy does not require redevelopment following disaster which will reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life in public and private property to future natural hazards. COASTAL MANAGEMENT The CME is required to include an objective that, following adoption of the plan, limits public expenditures to subsidize development permitted in Coastal High-Hazard Areas except for restoration or enhancement of natural resources. The CME is also required to include a policy designating Coastal High-Hazard Areas, limiting development in these areas, and relocating or replacing infrastructure away from these areas. The CME does not contain any objective or policy that adequately limits development of public expenditures subsidizing development in a Coastal High-Hazard Area. CME Policy 2.4.2 allows the development of public facilities in the Coastal High-Hazard Area provided that certain criteria are met. That policy reads: Public facilities shall not be located or improved in the Coastal High-Hazard Area unless the following criteria are met: the use is necessary to protect human life; the service provided by the facility cannot be provided at another location outside the Coastal High-Hazard Area; no alternate site is identified outside the Coastal High-Hazard Area; the facility is designed to provide the minimum capacity necessary to meet level of service standards for its service area; the total cost to build the facility to meet the Coastal Building Codes including floodproofing requirements does not increase the cost of the project beyond feasibility. CME Policy 2.4.2 does not limit the extension of facilities which subsidize development in the Coastal High-Hazard Area. The level of service will be the minimum criteria for the applicable land uses. As described above, the land uses tend to encourage development towards the Coastal High Hazard Area. Development may continue provided the level of service standards are met. CME Policy 2.1.10 states that the County will not allow the extension of water, sewer or storm drainage infrastructure to facilitate new permanent residential structures within the Coastal High-Hazard Areas of Escambia County for which the County has permitting authority unless state permits are first obtained. This policy does not limit the extension of facilities that subsidize development in the Coastal High-Hazard Area in the event that state permits are first obtained. No state permits have been identified which would independently have the effect of limiting development in the entire Coastal High-Hazard Area or relocating or replacing infrastructure away from this area. VESTED RIGHTS Policies 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4 and 1.4.6 of the Santa Rosa Island Future Land Use Sub-element provide that leased property on Santa Rosa Island is exempt from the plan and land development regulations. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY The comprehensive plan is required to contain a Schedule of Capital Improvements for which the local government has fiscal responsibility for the first five fiscal years following adoption of the plan and a list of projected costs and revenue sources by type of public facility for the five-year period. The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) is required to set forth a financially feasible plan which demonstrates that the local government can achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standards. The Schedule of Capital Improvements includes the expenditure of $9,400,000 for a Master Drainage Study and Facilities for the fiscal years 1990- 91 through 1994-95. The data and analysis identifies and recommends impact fees as the revenue source to fund the Master Drainage Study and Facilities. The County has not adopted an impact fee for drainage or stormwater management, or even for the study. In May 1991, the Board of County Commissioners considered alternative methods of funding for stormwater management. The Board of County Commissioners rejected the implementation of a municipal service benefit unit for stormwater. Instead, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the alternative of development and implementation of a stormwater utility fee which requires approval of the voters at a referendum. At the time of plan adoption and the time of the hearing, the referendum had not taken place. There is no guarantee that the voters will approve the referendum. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Master Drainage Study and Facilities will be funded through fiscal year 1994-95. CIE Policy 1.4.1 states: Existing and future development, including those on Santa Rosa Island, directly benefiting from stormwater management improvements shall bear a proportionate cost of stormwater facility capital improvements. Further, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider, and implement as it deems necessary, impact fees for other public facilities. CIE Policy 1.5.1 states: The Board of County Commissioners shall develop and implement any alternative revenue sources needed to properly fund the Capital Improvements Element which could include, but not be limited to, property taxes, special assessments and other forms of revenue raising measures. Neither Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.4.1 nor Policy 1.5.1 establishes the impact fees necessary to fund the Drainage Study and Facilities or identifies viable revenue sources. Therefore, the Master Drainage Study and Facilities, identified in the Schedule of Capital Improvements, is not funded and is not financially feasible. XII CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT Minimum requirements for a Concurrency Management System mandate that the system ensure that facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of such development. Prior to the issuance of a development order or development permit, the Concurrency Management System must ensure that the adopted level of services standards required by roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, parks and recreation and mass transit, if applicable, will be maintained. The Concurrency Management System contained in the Capital Improvements Element of the plan provides that facility capacity may be determined or counted as existing capacity, provided facilities were in the procurement cycle or if there is a binding executed contract for construction of the facility. This provision is overly broad and, hence, inadequate to meet rule requirements. The minimum requirements for concurrency are not uniform in every respect for the various types of public services and facilities needed to support development. For parks and recreations, the local government may satisfy the concurrency requirements through a binding executed contract which provides for a commencement of the actual construction of the required facilities or the provision of services within one (1) year of the issuance of the development permit in addition to other criteria. However, rule requirements in Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., do not permit use of a binding executed contract to ensure concurrency for potable water, sewer, solid waste, and drainage facilities. The Concurrency Management System provides, on page 11-xi of the plan, that facility capacity may be counted if "the new facilities are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement and is consistent with the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan." This is contrary to the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.0055(2)(a)(4), F.A.C., which contains minimum criteria for meeting concurrency through an enforceable development agreement. Those minimum criteria, which include the provisions of Rules 9J-5.0055(2)(a)1.- 3., F.A.C., are not recited in any provision of the Concurrency Management System or the Capital Improvements Element. The Concurrency Management System does not establish guidelines for interpreting and applying level of service standards to applications for development orders and permits and for determining when the test for concurrency has been met. The Concurrency Management System also does not contain guidelines for measuring the level of service and capacity of public facilities. Santa Rosa Island Future Land Use Sub-element Policy 1.1.3 indicates that the Concurrency Management System does not apply to Pensacola Beach. That policy reads: "By May 1991, the County shall adopt a Concurrency Management System in coordination with the Santa Rosa Island Authority to implement the Level of Service Standards of the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan as applicable to the Pensacola Beach." Santa Rosa Island Future Land Use Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 states: Development orders and/or permits for future development and redevelopment activities on Santa Rosa Island shall be issued only if public facilities necessary to meet level of service standards, adopted as a part of the Capital Improvements Element of the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan, are available concurrent with the impacts of development or are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement pursuant to Section 163, F.S. and Rule 9J-5.0055, F.A.C., or an agreement or development order pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 does not contain a provision that the necessary facilities and services will be in place when the development of impacts occur or, in lieu thereof, that the agreement must include the provisions of Rules 9J-5.0055(2)(a)1.-3., F.A.C. The Pensacola Beach Concurrency Management System was not adopted in the plan. Thus, the plan does not establish countywide concurrency. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.1.3 also is insufficient as it defers implementation of adoption of a concurrency management system until May 1991. The Concurrency Management System must be in place at the time of plan adoption. The Concurrency Management System does not clearly indicate the latest point in the application process for the determination of concurrency. The Concurrency Management System must indicate at what point in the application process final approval of a specific plan for development occurs and that this be prior to the determination of concurrency. The Concurrency Management System indicates that this point is the "final sign-off", however, that term is not defined and its meaning is opaque. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Each local government is required to establish level of service standards for ensuring that adequate facility capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits pursuant to Section 163.3202(2)(g), Florida Statutes. The level of service standards must be set for each individual facility or facility type within the local government jurisdiction and not on a system-wide basis. The purpose of the sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element is to provide for necessary public facilities and services correlated to future land use projections. The sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element of the plan must contain policies which address implementation activities for establishing and utilizing level of service standards in accordance with rule requirements. The County has not adopted a level of service standard for drainage which will be applied to all development. Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 states: The level of service standard for stormwater water quality shall be the minimum Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Standards, Section 17-25.040(5), Florida Administrative Code. Single-family dwellings not part of a larger development will be exempt from the level of service requirements. As discussed above under Protection of Natural Resources, Section 17- 25.040, F.A.C., does not apply to new facilities. Thus, the County has not adopted a drainage level of service standard for existing facilities, as it must. Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 is also insufficient because it has not removed other exemptions included in Chapter 17-25.030, F.A.C.,: the single family, duplex, triplex and quadraplex exemption. This policy specifically exempts single-family dwellings not part of a larger development from the level of service standard, but is silent as to the other exemptions of Chapter 17-25, F.A.C. No such exemptions from the drainage level of service standards is authorized by Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.1.2 states in pertinent part: "Development approval is conditioned upon, but not limited to a determination of whether the following level of service standard can be met: (1) the post- development peak rate of stormwater discharge will not exceed the pre- development peak rate based upon the 25-year stormwater event of critical duration . . ." This level of service standard is inadequate because it ignores such critical factors as water quality. The Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) is required to include a policy establishing level of service standards at peak hours for all roads located within the government's jurisdiction. Subsection 9J-5.005(3) and subparagraph 9J-5.015(3)(b)3., F.A.C. A portion of SR 30/Pensacola Bay Bridge lies within the boundaries of unincorporated Escambia County. The Pensacola Bay Bridge starts in the City of Pensacola and terminates in Gulf Breeze, Santa Rosa County. Between the starting point of the bridge on the Pensacola side and the County line, which is over the Pensacola Bay, a portion of the bridge lies within the jurisdiction of Escambia County. The Department of Transportation General Highway Map, upon which the County-wide Future Land Use Map is drawn, depicts the County boundaries between Escambia County and Santa Rosa County. This map shows that Escambia County has jurisdiction over SR 30 between the City of Pensacola and midway between the mainland and Gulf Breeze. Approximately 1.5 miles of the bridge lies within the jurisdiction of the County. According to the data and analysis, SR 30/Pensacola Bay Bridge currently is operating at a level of service "F". This level of service is applied in the plan. 2/ The TCE is required to include a policy which establishes level of service standards at peak hours for roads within the local government's jurisdiction. These standards must be consistent with Florida Department of Transportation's policies. TCE Policy 1.1.1 adopts peak hour minimum acceptable operating level of service standards for County roads. The level of service standards for Transportation Planning Areas vary for various roadway types (freeways, principal arterials, minor arterials) depending on the area classification (existing urbanized, transitioning urban, rural). The policy also adopts a "deficient" level of service standard of "F" (existing) for the Pensacola Bay Bridge which it separately classifies as a Special Consideration (Backlogged Facility). The policy defines backlogged facilities as "roadways which do not meet the minimum acceptable level of service standards, are not in a Special Transportation Area, not constrained and are not scheduled for capacity improvement." The Pensacola Bay Bridge is a principal arterial road. The recommended Florida Department of Transportation level of service for the bridge is "D". A level of service of "D" indicates a range of speed of 17 to 21 miles per hour. A level of service of "F' indicates a range of speed of 0 to 13 miles per hour. The "F" standard cannot be violated because traffic may not be slowed below zero miles per hour. No specific measure of current operating conditions is provided to ensure the operating conditions will be maintained and improved. As long as existing bridge traffic exceeds 0 miles per hour, TCE Policy 1.1.1 allows the bridge road to continue to degrade. This is no standard at all. Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.3.3 commits the County to certain level of service standards for various services and facilities, including traffic circulation. That policy states in pertinent part that capital improvement projects adopted by Escambia County shall maintain level of service standards as reflected in the policy's tables. A schedule of level of service for Traffic Circulation Facilities is included in the policy. Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.3.3 establishes level of service standards for Special Transportation Areas, but does not establish specific level of service standards for Constrained Facilities and Backlogged Facilities. This policy commits to a level of service standard for Constrained Facilities for freeways, principal arterials, minor arterials, and others as "maintain." As to Backlogged Facilities, the policy commits to "maintain and improve" freeways, principal arterials, minor arterials, and others. As written, the level of service standards "maintain" and "maintain and improve" are not specific and measurable, are internally inconsistent with the specific level of service standards adopted in TCE Policy 1.1.1 (i.e., "C", "D"), and allow for future revision without undergoing the plan amendment process. The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) is required to include a policy for each objective which establishes level of service standards for public facilities within the local government's jurisdiction. These standards are required to be those found in the other local government comprehensive plan elements. The Drainage Sub-Element is required to include a policy addressing implementation activities for establishing and utilizing level of service standards for design storm return frequency for Drainage Facility Capacity. Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 adopts Rule 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., as the level of service standard for Stormwater Water Quality. That rule requires that facilities which directly discharge to Outstanding Florida Waters shall provide additional treatment as specified in Rule 17-25.025(9), which in turn requires an additional level of treatment equal to 50 percent more than the one-half inch requirement for sites less than 100 acres and one-inch of run-off from sites greater than 100 acres. CIE Policy 1.3.3 includes a level of service standard for drainage facilities. The policy states in pertinent part that for projects with drainage areas greater than 100 acres which provide for retention, or detention with filtration facilities, the level of service standard shall be the first one inch of run-off from storm rainfall; for projects with drainage areas less than 100 acres which provide for retention, or detention with filtration facilities, the level of service standard shall be the first one-half inch of run-off from storm rainfall; and for drainage facilities which attenuate the 24-hour, 25-year storm event of critical duration the level of service standard requires that a drainage system allow for discharges equal to pre-development levels unless an engineering analysis using professionally accepted methodologies demonstrates that a differing discharge rate should be used. This policy is internally inconsistent with Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 because CIE Policy 1.3.3 does not provide for the additional level of treatment for stormwater discharge facilities which directly discharge to Outstanding Florida Waters. CIE Policy 1.3.3 level of service standard for drainage facilities which attenuate the 24-hour, 25-year storm event of critical duration is not specific and measurable. This provision allows for the possibility of post- development run-off rate to exceed pre-development rates by allowing a different, presumably a higher, discharge rate to be used instead maintaining pre-development levels. There is no data and analysis to support an increase in discharge beyond pre-development levels. The Coastal Management Element is required to include an objective establishing level of service standards, areas of service and phasing of infrastructure in the coastal area. While CME Policy 1.8.1 establishes coastal area levels of services for sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and recreation and open space, it does not include a level of service standard for traffic circulation. The primary sanitary sewer service provider in Escambia County is the Escambia County Utilities Authority. The data and analysis shows the existing level of service for sanitary sewer to range between 61.5 and 176 gallons per capita per day for wastewater treatment facilities owned by Escambia County Utilities Authority. For example, the Avondale facility has an existing level of service of 61.5 gallons per capita per day, the Mainstreet facility has an existing level of service of 99.8 gallons per capita per day, and the Navarre Beach Facility has an existing level of service of 176 gallons per capita per day. Sanitary Sewer Sub-element Policy 1.2.1 states: Escambia County hereby adopts 75 gallons per capita per day as level of service standard for the provision of sanitary sewer facilities in the Escambia County Utilities Authority service area, and 60 gallons per capita per day for all privately-owned wastewater treatment facilities. Sanitary Sewer Sub-element Policy 1.2.3 states: "The County, through a Certificate of Availability, shall verify the capacity of public sewer systems prior to issuing development permits to ensure that adequate capacity to meet level of service standards (which is 100 gallons per capita per day) is available." The 100 gallons per capita per day level of service referenced in this policy is inconsistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub-element Policy 1.2.1 which adopts a level of service of 75 gallons per capita per day for Escambia County Utilities Authority Facilities and 60 gallons per capita per day for all privately-owned wastewater treatment facilities. This internal inconsistency creates confusion as to which level of service standard is in fact being adopted and will be used for the issuance of development orders. The County is responsible for the disposal of all solid waste within its jurisdiction through the County's Department of Solid Waste. The level of service is established in Solid Waste Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 which states: "The County will provide the capacity to dispose of 7 pounds of solid waste per capita per day." Table 11 of the Solid Waste Sub-element Data and Analysis shows the projected generation of solid waste for the County from the year 1986 through the year 2000. Table 11 Projected Generation for Escambia County Year County Population Annual Tonnage lbs/capita/day 1986 230,250 309,000 7.4 1990 255,552 324,450 7.0 1995 274,520 340,670 6.8 2000 289,368 357,700 6.8 There is no data and analysis which relates the actual capacity of the landfill with the need projections of Table 11. Hence, the data and analysis fails to adequately support Solid Waste Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 and the policy's assurance that the County will provide adequate land-fill space. Potable Water Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 adopts two levels of service standards for the provision of potable water: Escambia County Utilities Authority - 75 gallons per capita per day and all other service providers - 100 gallons per capita per day. Escambia County is served by 10 public water supply systems, none of which are operated by the County. The largest public water supply system is operated by Escambia County Utilities Authority which has an existing level of service of 157.3 gallons per capita per day in Zone 2 and 101.6 gallons per capita per day in Zone 1. Table 12 of the Potable Water Sub-element Data and Analysis shows water system demand and plant facilities for 15 facilities, including facilities operated by private owners, the Town of Century, the Special District of Escambia Utilities Authority, and the Federal Government, Santa Rosa County, and the State of Florida. Nine of the facilities not operated by Escambia Utilities Authority are below 100 gallons per capita per day. The data and analysis do not adequately support Potable Water Sub- element Policy 1.1.1 and the aim of the policy to ensure that service providers currently providing less than 100 gallons per capita per day be able to meet that level in the event of future demand. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Housing Element of the plan is required to contain an objective providing adequate sites for housing for low and moderate income families, and for mobile homes. The Housing Element's data and analysis concludes that affordable housing for persons in the very low, low and moderate income ranges should not exceed 30 percent of family income. By 1987 standards, these family income limits translate into less than $13,151 for very low income families and between $13,152 and $21,040 for low/moderate income families. The data and analysis does not state what the demand for new affordable housing construction will be through the planning period. Housing Element Objective 1.2 states: "Based on existing available resources provide for the rehabilitation of a minimum of 90 substandard homes and 10 new affordable housing sites annually." This objective is not quantitatively supported by the data and analysis and fails to describe the types of housing that will be constructed at the sites, i.e., single family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, or apartment buildings. The Housing Element is required to include a policy for each objective which addresses implementation activities for the improvement in the regulatory and permitting processes, if deemed necessary by the local government. Housing Element Policy 1.1.4 states: Develop a permit review process (that will include a checklist and flow chart) that will take into consideration the following aspects in order to expedite and help facilitate affordable housing projects: Fast track permitting process which will provide for concurrent review of all permits; Waiving or use of weighted permit fees; and Waiving or use of weighted County imposed impact fees. Although the need to improve the regulatory and permitting processes is identified, there is no assurance that the methods to expedite affordable housing projects outlined in Housing Element Policy 1.1.4 will be implemented because the policy merely states that those methods will be taken "into consideration." The policy is subject to interpretation and may or may not be implemented despite the identified need to expedite affordable housing projects. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN For the reasons set forth below, the plan is inconsistent with the state plan, construced as a whole. The plan is not consistent with and fails to further State Comprehensive Plan Goal 5(a) relating to housing, which states: The public and private sectors shall increase the affordability and availability of housing for low- income and moderate-income persons, including citizens in rural areas, while at the same time encouraging self-sufficiency of the individual and assuring environmental and structural quality and cost-effective operations. The vagueness of Objective 1.2 of the plan's housing element fails to further this goal or policy 3 of this state goal, which relates to increasing housing availability for low and moderate income persons and elder persons. Policy 4 of this goal addresses reduction of housing costs through elimination of unnecessary regulation which adds to the cost of housing. The plan's lack of specific implementing actions that will be taken with regard to this policy establishes that the plan is not consistent with and does not further this state goal. Densities and intensities of land use in the plan which increase runoff and inadequacies of level of service for drainage facilities make the plan inconsistent with state goal 8(a) relating to water resources and the need to assure availability of water quantity for reasonable and beneficial uses while maintaining the present level of surface and ground water quality. These inadequacies of the plan also fail to further policy 8(b)2 of the state goal requiring the identification and protection of water recharge areas. The plan also fails to further state policy 8(b)5 of this goal since the plan does not ensure that new development will be compatible with existing local and regional water supplies. The distribution pattern and intensities and densities of land use and the plan's inadequate approach to existing and future deficiencies of drainage issues also prevent the plan from being consistent with state policies 8(b)8-13, which seek to encourage development of floodplain management; preserve hydrologically significant wetlands and other natural floodplain features; support the protection of aquifers from depletion and contamination; protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity; promote water conservation; provide for elimination of discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state; and support alternative methods of wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse to reduce degradation of water resources. The plan fails to further and is not consistent with state goal 9(a) which provides: Florida shall ensure that development and marine resource use and beach access improvements in coastal areas do not endanger public safety or important natural resources. Florida shall, through acquisition and access improvements, make available to the state's population additional beaches and marine environment, consistent with sound environmental planning. Policies of this goal include: Policy 1 which seeks the acceleration of public beach acquisition; policy 2 which ensures public beach access; policy 3 which emphasizes the importance of avoiding expenditure of funds to subsidize development of coastal high hazard areas; policy 4 which protects coastal resources, marine resources and dune systems from the adverse effects of development; policy 5 which seeks development of a planning system ensuring the continued attractive image of coastal areas; policy 6 which requires compatibility of land and water uses with protection of sensitive coastal resources; policy 7 which requires protection and restoration of productivity of fisheries and habitat; and policy 9 which prohibits development of other activities which disturb dune systems. The plan is not consistent with either the goal or policies 1-7 and 9 due to the plan's inadequacies with regard to preservation or conservation of coastal resources; density and development patterns along the coastal area; level of proposed development; and the failure of land uses on the future land use map to be compatible with sensitive coastal resource protection. The plan is inconsistent with and does not further state goal 10(a) which requires the protection of unique natural habitats and ecological systems such as wetlands and various vegetative species, as well as restoring degraded natural systems to a functional condition. Deficiencies within the plan's objective and policies, as well as the failure to depict wetlands and floodplains on an adopted FLUM, prevent a finding that policy 1 of the goal, regarding conservation of forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife, is consistent with or furthered by the plan's objectives and policies. Other policies of this goal where objectives, goals and policies of the plan fail to establish specific implementing actions necessary to a finding of consistency with the state plan include: Policy 2 regarding the acquiring, retaining, managing, and inventory of public lands to provide recreation, conservation, and other public benefits; policy 3 relating to prohibition and destruction of endangered species and protection for their habitats; policy 4 relating to establishment of an integrated regulatory program to assure the survival of endangered and threatened species within the state; policy 5 relating to the promotion of agricultural practices compatible with protection of wildlife and natural systems, which is specifically not supported by the plan's relatively high residential densities in some agricultural areas of 1-5 units per acre; policy 6 relating to maximizing use of forest resources where again the plan's densities and distribution of those densities on the land use map prevent consistency; policy 7 relating to protection and restoration of the ecological functions of wetland systems; policy 9 relating to an acquisition program to ensure the integrity of Florida's river systems, which is unsupported by any provision of the plan to establish such a county program; policy 10 relating to acquisition and maintenance of ecologically intact systems in all land and water planning, management, and regulation; and policy 11 relating to state and local efforts to provide recreational opportunities to urban areas, including the development of activity-based parks. The plan is inconsistent with and does not further state goal 16(a), which states: 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. Likewise the plan is inconsistent with and fails to further policy 2 of state goal 16(a), relating to development of incentives and disincentives to encourage separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. The failure to further this policy highlights the fundamental shortcoming of the plan as to densities and intensities and distribution of those uses. Policies 4 and 6 of state goal 16(a) are not furthered by and are inconsistent with the plan. Policy 4 provides for development of a system of intergovernmental negotiation for siting locally unpopular public and private land uses, but the plan does not provide how the county will address this subject. Policy 6 requires consideration, in land use planning and regulation, of the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water, and other natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. The distribution of land uses shown on the future land map and the lack of adequate policies prevent the plan from furthering this policy. Goal 20 of the State Plan relates to transportation and provides: Florida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass transit, and other transportation modes. The plan does not address coordination between land uses and the transportation system. Therefore this goal is not furthered by the plan. Policy 3 of Goal 20 relates to promotion of a comprehensive transportation planning process coordinating state, regional, and local transportation plans. The plan adopts a level of service "F" for the Pensacola Bay Bridge which designation fails to provide any point at which development orders should be denied. This adopted level of service permits unlimited degradation and therefore does not further and is not consistent with the state plan. Policy 12 of Goal 20 of the state plan requires local governments to eschew transportation improvements which encourage increased development in coastal high-hazard areas or in environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodways, or productive marine areas. The high densities of use provided in the plan for coastal areas will inevitably cause demand for improved transportation systems in these areas and consequently fail to further this policy. The requirement of policy 13 of goal 20 to coordinate transportation improvements with state, local, and regional plans is not furthered by a level of service designation in the plan, such as the one for Pensacola Bay Bridge, which does not ensure that improvements can be coordinated. A level of service designation such as that accorded the bridge permits complete degradation without necessarily requiring coordination for expansion of the facility. The plan fails to address, and thus does not further, Policy 14 of goal 20, addressing acquisition of advanced rights-of-way for transportation projects in designated transportation corridors consistent with state, regional, and local plans. Policy 15 of goal 20, relating to promotion of effective coordination among various modes of transportation in urban areas to assist urban development and redevelopment efforts, is not addressed or furthered by the plan. The plan is not consistent with and does not further transportation goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan. The lack of adequate policies and high density of residential use in agricultural areas in the plan prevent the plan from furthering goal 23 of the state comprehensive plan, which reads as follows: Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, agriculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Goal 26 of the state comprehensive plan reads as follows: Systematic planning capabilities shall be integrated into all levels of government in Florida, with particular emphasis on improving intergovernmental coordination and maximizing citizen involvement. Policy 4 of Goal 26 relating to the need to simplify, streamline, and make more predictable the existing permitting procedures, is not furthered or consistent with plan as a result of the plan's failure to adequately define what would be done to simplify the regulatory process. CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN The plan is inconsistent with the West Florida Regional Policy Plan (the regional plan), construed as a whole, for the reasons listed below. The vagueness of Housing Element objective 1.2 with regard to provision of 10 new housing sites is inconsistent with Regional Goal 2 of Regional Issue 19, related to housing, contained in the regional plan. The plan fails to further that goal, which provides: By 1990, affordable, safe and sanitary housing for low and moderate income households and the elderly population which will increase by 10% over 1985 levels. The failure of the plan to address Goal 3 of Regional Issue 19 contained in the regional plan with regard to elimination of housing discriminatory practices is a significant inconsistency with the regional plan. The failure of the future land use map to identify existing and planned waterwells constitutes an inconsistency with goal 1 of regional issue 37 of the regional plan. That goal reads: By 1995, Regional water supply authorities shall be established throughout the Region which shall adopt water supply plans that incorporate water conservation programs, protection of water recharge areas and existing and future well sites, and identify vulnerable water supplies that local governments should regulate to limit development. As a result of the failure of the plan to set out densities and intensities of land use which serve to protect natural resources, as well as deficiencies of the plan with regard to drainage facilities, the plan does not further regional goal 1 of regional issue number 38. That goal provides: By 1995, the Region's potable aquifers shall be protected from depletion and contamination to ensure adequate quality of the Region's water resources to meet current and long-term needs for all reasonable-beneficial uses. Inadequate protective policies within the plan are inconsistent with the regional plan. Some of those inadequacies include inadequate drainage level of service standards, allowance of septic tanks in unsuitable areas, and high densities covering high aquifer recharge areas with impervious services. These plan policies are inconsistent with regional goal 1 of regional issue 39, Natural Systems Protection, which provides: By 1995, 10 percent of regional natural water systems will be protected, maintained, and their natural processes restored. The densities and intensities of use proposed by the plan for the barrier islands and in some of the coastal areas are very high and negatively impact resources of the land. This is particularly so with regard to densities and intensities of use established in Pensacola Beach, Navarre Beach and Perdido Key areas. The inadequacies of policies within the plan do not further goal 1 of issue 40 of the regional plan relating to protection of beach and dune systems. That goal reads: By 1990, land use guidelines will be adopted which protect beach and dune systems. Goal 1 of regional issue 41 is not furthered by provisions of the plan, specifically the lack of adequate level of service standards for drainage. This goal of the regional plan provides: By 1990, land use and coastal zone planning will be coordinated with the protection and management of marine fisheries habitat. Regional issue 43 of the regional plan addresses protection of natural resources. Goal 1 of that issue is not furthered due to the previously mentioned inadequacies of the plan, plus the lack of inclusion of a wetlands map and floodplains map as part of the adopted comprehensive plan. This goal of the regional plan provides: By 1990, state and local regulatory programs shall be designed to appropriately use and protect the Region's functioning natural systems. Endangered and threatened species are addressed by issue 44 of the regional plan. Goal 1 of that issue provides: By 1995, the number of native species in the Region on the official list of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora in Florida (FGFWFC) shall be reduced by 5 percent. The lack of planning directives and controls upon development in the county by goals, objectives and policies of the plan, prevents a finding that the plan furthers this goal. Regional issue 45 regarding the management of public and private land in a manner that permits continued functioning of natural systems is not furthered by the plan. Again, the densities and intensities of use established by the plan; the lack of control over development permitted by the plan; and specifically, the failure of the plan to include an adopted map of wetlands and floodplains establishes the plan's failure to further goal 1 of this issue. That goal provides: By 1990, public and private lands will be managed and land resources used according to comprehensive, economic and environmental principles, especially critical areas including, but not limited to coastal lands, wetlands, flood plains, margins of estuarine nursery areas, and locally important agricultural lands. Regional issue 58, regarding natural resource preservation and coordination between potable water and wastewater treatment facilities and land uses with regard to aquifer protection, is not furthered by the plan in view of the plan's provisions which fail to discourage urban sprawl and, instead, permit urban development to spread and negatively impact natural systems. Goal 1 and goal 2, respectively, of this issue of the regional plan read as follows: Regional goal 1 By the year 1991, local land use planning will be fully coordinated with planning for the provision of potable water and wastewater treatment and disposal. Regional Goal 2 By the year 1991, each local government in the Region will use review procedures that consider cumulative impact of development on natural resources. Neither of these goals is furthered by the plan. Because level of service standards established in the plan's Capital Improvements Element (CIE) permit inadequate roadway level of service standards with regard to the Pensacola Bay Bridge and permit the change of such level of service standards simply by having a roadway definitionally reclassified, regional issue 63 and regional goal 1 of that issue are not furthered by the plan. Regional goal 1 of the issue reads: By 1995, all modes of transportation planning will be integrated to efficiently, economically and safely accommodate transportation needs in the West Florida Region. Regional issue 64 addresses transportation planning to aid growth management. Regional goal 1 of the issue provides that planned development patterns and land use permitting will conform and coordinate with existing or programmed state and local transportation systems by 1991. Regional goal 2 of this issue provides that land development codes will include an analysis of transportation impacts, provide for protection of transportation rights-of-way, and establish private sector sharing of the cost of transportation facilities by 1991. Inasmuch as traffic analysis under the plan appears based on historical projections, as opposed to the impacts of future land use permitted by the plan, the plan does not further this issue or goals 1 and 2. Regional issue 69 of the regional plan and goals 1 through 4 of that issue are not furthered by the plan in view of the relatively high densities and intensities of residential use permitted in agricultural areas. Such usage for residential purposes does not ensure that agriculture will be protected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings and fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that a final order be entered finding that the Escambia county Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1992.
The Issue Whether the Sunshine Ranches Homeowner's Association, Inc. (Association) and the Environmental Coalition of Florida, Inc. (Coalition) are "affected persons," entitled to challenge Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes? Whether Oriole Homes Corporation is an "affected person" entitled to be granted intervenor status in Case No. 89-2645GM? Whether Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan is not "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged by the Association and the Coalition?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Broward County: A General Overview Broward County is one of Florida's coastal counties. It is located in the southeastern part of the state and is bordered on the north by Palm Beach County, on the south by Dade County, on the west by Collier County and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. Within the boundaries of Broward County are approximately 1,200 square miles of land and water. The western two thirds of the County are in the Everglades and are designated conservation areas. They are separated from the eastern third of the County by a series of dikes and levees. Development of the eastern third of the County began in the coastal area and has moved westward. The movement has not always been orderly. Some areas to the west have been developed despite the absence of infrastructure to service the development. Broward County is the second most populous county in the State of Florida. The average population density in the eastern third of the County is approximately 3,000 residents per square mile, which is comparable to the population density of Detroit, Michigan and Brooklyn, New York. There are 28 incorporated municipalities located in Broward County. Cooper City is one of these incorporated municipalities. Broward County has a Home Rule Charter. Under the Charter, a seven- member County Commission (Commission) governs the County. Article VI of the Charter addresses the issue of land use planning. It directs the Broward County Planning Council (Council) to "prepare and propose," and the County Commission to adopt, a countywide land use plan. This article of the Charter further provides: Within six (6) months after adoption of the County Land Use Plan each governmental unit [incorporated municipality] may submit its own land use plan. . . If the governmental unit plan is in substantial conformity with the County Land Use Plan of the Council, it shall be deemed certified. Until such time as the governmental unit plan is in substantial conformity with the County Land Use Plan, as interpreted by the Council, the County Land Use Plan will be the effective plan for the governmental unit involved. If a governmental unit fails to submit a plan in due course, then the County Land Use Plan will be effective. With respect to the subject of platting, Article VI of the Charter states as follows: The legislative body of each municipality within Broward County and the County Commission for the unincorporated area shall, within six (6) months after the effective date of this Charter, create a mandatory plat ordinance. No plat of lands lying within Broward County, either in the incorporated or unincorporated areas, may be recorded in the Official Records prior to approval by the County Commission. The County Commission shall enact an ordinance establishing standards, procedures and minimum requirements to regulate and control the platting of lands within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Broward County. The governing body of each municipality may enact an ordinance establishing additional standards, procedures, and requirements as may be necessary to regulate and control the platting of lands within its boundaries. Article VIII of Broward County's Home Rule Charter establishes a nine- member Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) vested with regulatory authority in matters relating to air and water quality, including the authority to regulate dredge and fill activity in the County. The construction industry plays a very significant role in Broward County's economy. It is directly responsible for 10 to 12% of the jobs in the County. Agriculture, on the other hand, contributes very little to the County's economy. Since 1955, there has been a steady decline in the amount of land devoted to agricultural uses. Sunshine Ranches Homeowner's Association, Inc. The Sunshine Ranches Homeowner's Association, Inc. is now, and has been since December 11, 1968, a nonprofit Florida corporation. It currently has approximately 290 members who own homes or property in an area of Broward County known as Sunshine Ranches. The Association was formed to promote the common interests of its members. In furtherance of this objective, the Association appears on behalf of its members before the County Commission and represents them in administrative and legal proceedings. Oriole Homes Corp. Oriole Homes Corp. is a Florida corporation. It is the fee title owner of Imagination Farms, a 235 acre parcel of land located in Sunshine Ranches. Environmental Coalition of Florida, Inc. The Environmental Coalition of Florida is a nonprofit Florida corporation that was formed in 1978. It conducts its business from its headquarters in Broward County. As its name suggests, the Coalition is comprised of citizens concerned about Florida's environment. Many of its members own property in Broward County. Some own and operate businesses in the County. In representing the collective views of its members on environmental issues, the Coalition frequently clashes with developers. Sunshine Ranches: The Community Sunshine Ranches is a horse-oriented community of estate homes and working ranches located in the southwest quadrant of the eastern third of Broward County (S.W. Broward), a rapidly developing area of the county which is also the site of four Developments of Regional Impact. The community is within the area designated as "urban" on the Florida Department of Transportation's Federal System Map for Broward County. It is bounded on the north by Griffin Road, on the south by Old Sheridan Street, on the west by Volunteer Road (also known as S.W. 148th Avenue), and on the east by Flamingo Road. These perimeter roadways are all major thoroughfares and, consequently, not only do they provide access to and from the Sunshine Ranches community, they also effectively buffer the community from the residential and commercial development that surrounds it. Interstate 75, while not adjacent to the community, is only a short distance to the west. Sunshine Ranches has an area of approximately four square miles (2,700 acres) which is divided into 664 parcels. Parcels of five acres or more constitute approximately 49% of the total acreage of Sunshine Ranches and 13% of the total number of parcels in the community. Parcels of two to five acres represent approximately 41% of the total acreage and 54% of total number of parcels. Parcels of under two acres make up 10% of the total acreage and 33% of the total number of parcels. Some of these parcels are under an acre in size. The average parcel in Sunshine Ranches is four acres. Approximately 500 families live in Sunshine Ranches. They reside in single-family homes situated on relatively large lots in a rustic setting. These residential properties sell for in excess of $100,000.00. Infrastructure in Sunshine Ranches is limited. Most homes have septic tanks and wells rather than central sewer and water service, a situation that is undesirable particularly in light of the groundwater contamination problem the area has experienced. All but the major roadways in the community are unpaved. Street lights are scarce. There is no unified or central drainage system in the community. Drainage is accomplished in this flood prone area on a site-by-site basis by the individual landowner. 1/ There are no retail establishments located in Sunshine Ranches. Residents, however, do not have to travel far outside the community to meet their consumer needs inasmuch as there is nearby shopping. Although Sunshine Ranches is predominately a residential community, there is commercial activity which takes place within its boundaries, principally on the 68 working ranches in the area. Because of its soil and climatic conditions, drainage problems and parcel sizes, the Sunshine Ranches area is not ideally suited for commercial crop cultivation. Furthermore, as a general rule, parcels in Sunshine Ranches are not large enough to sustain a profitable beef or dairy cattle operation. Consequently, those who own or lease the ranches in the area do not engage in these commercial agricultural pursuits to any significant degree. Rather, the primary commercial activity on these ranches involves horses used for racing, showing and recreational riding. There are ranches where horses are bred and raised, where they are boarded and otherwise cared for, and where they are trained. 2/ The services these horse ranches provide help to support the state's horse racing and equestrian industries. A study conducted after the adoption of Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan by Dr. James Nicholas, an expert in land development economics, found that the horse-related commercial activity in Sunshine Ranches adds 6.4 million dollars in personal income to the Broward County economy. In addition to the horse ranch operators and their employees, among the recipients of the personal income attributable to operations on these farms are veterinarians, farriers, and feed and supply store owners and workers. In 1988, of the 2,600 net acres of land in Sunshine Acres that were subject to ad valorem taxation, 470 acres on 55 separate parcels were granted an agricultural exemption by the Broward County Property Appraiser pursuant to Section 193.461, Florida Statutes. Many of these exempted parcels qualified for such an exemption, not because the Property Appraiser believed that they met the current statutory requirements, but because of the Property Appraiser's policy of "grandfathering" parcels that had received agricultural exemptions under the law prior to its revision. In the absence of such a policy, very few parcels in Sunshine Ranches would have been granted an agricultural exemption. The Property Appraiser does not consider the horse-related activities that take place on the working ranches in Sunshine Ranches to be agricultural in nature inasmuch as they do not involve the production of food or fiber. 3/ Over the past four to five years, the Property Appraiser has received applications from Sunshine Ranches property owners seeking agricultural exemptions for parcels not previously exempted. The only such applications that have been granted have been those seeking exemptions for bona fide commercial nurseries. The continuing commercial viability of the working ranches in Sunshine Ranches is threatened by the increasing land values in the area which provide an inducement to those who own the land upon which these ranches are situated to convert the land to more profitable uses. When the community was in its infancy, land in Sunshine Ranches was relatively inexpensive because it was plentiful and far to the west of the existing urban development in the County. During these early stages of the community's existence, an acre of land in Sunshine Ranches could be purchased from $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. As development activity in S.W. Broward has accelerated, 4/ there has been a corresponding increase in the value of property in Sunshine Ranches. Currently, land in Sunshine Acres is selling at a minimum of $50,000.00 for a single acre. Large tracts of land carry a purchase price of at least $20,000.00 per acre. As one might expect in view of the soaring land values in the area, the recent trend in Sunshine Ranches has been toward the construction of homes, not ranches. Horses are found in Sunshine Ranches not only on the working farms, but on land used exclusively for residential purposes as well. There is approximately one horse for every two acres of land in Sunshine Ranches. All feed and supplies for these horses must be purchased from outlets outside the community because there are no such stores in Sunshine Ranches. Imagination Farms Imagination Farms is situated in the northeastern section of Sunshine Ranches within the municipal boundaries of Cooper City. It is the only property in Sunshine Ranches that is not in the unincorporated area of Broward County. For at least the past 20 years, Imagination Farms has been used for pastureland for dairy cattle. Oriole, however, has plans to develop it into a residential community of single-family homes. Existing water and sewer lines are located directly across the street from the western edge of the property on the other side of Flamingo Road. Until 1989, the Imagination Farms parcel was classified as agricultural by the Broward County Property Appraiser for ad valorem tax purposes. In 1989, Oriole, which had recently purchased the property, sought an agricultural exemption for the property, but its application was denied because the Property Appraiser was of the view that the primary use of the land was for development, not agriculture. According to the jurisdictional determinations made by the Broward County EQCB, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, there are approximately 13 to 14 acres of wetlands in Imagination Farms. Although based in part upon a visit to the property that was made in February, 1989, these jurisdictional determinations did not become final until after the adoption of Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan. The wetlands in Imagination Farms are marginally productive. Because of their relatively small size, they are not particularly effective in removing from storm water nutrients that lower water quality. Pre-1989 Land Use Designations of Property in Sunshine Ranches Under Broward County's 1977 comprehensive plan, all land in Sunshine Ranches, including Imagination Farms, was originally designated for residential use at a maximum density of one unit per acre. Zoning classifications applicable to Sunshine Ranches were E-1 and E-2. The E-1 classification permitted a residential density of no more than one single-family dwelling unit per acre. The E-2 classification, which applied to the major portion of land in Sunshine Ranches, created an "agricultural estate district . . . intended to apply to areas to be used for single family dwelling plots of 1.8 acres or more with vocational agricultural use of land allowed." The purpose of the E-2 classification was to allow certain agricultural activities on the land and to prohibit others that may be considered objectionable by the residents of the area. In 1988, after Oriole's purchase of Imagination Farms, the County Commission considered a request that it amend the 1977 comprehensive plan by changing the land use designation of Imagination Farms to L-3, a residential land use designation permitting a maximum density of three units per acre. Broward County Planning Council staff recommended that the County Commission deny the request for the following reason: This amendment is . . . also located in the Sunshine Ranches area. The Ranches are a viable low density area. Staff believes Estate is the proper land use designation for the area. This amendment would extend into the heart of Sunshine Ranches and would significantly change the character of the area. The Planning Council also recommended against approval of the requested amendment. Furthermore, the Department of Community Affairs, in a letter dated July 15, 1988, expressed its view that the proposed amendment was "not consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the [1977] Comprehensive Plan." Nonetheless, on August 31, 1988, the County Commission voted to approve the amendment with the following conditions: [T]he restrictive covenant[s] [relating to the property] be amended to limit a maximum density of 2.0 units to the acre; that the developer provide sewer and water to all lots including Estate within the development; that the developer agrees to oversized water lines sufficient to serve the entire Sunshine Ranches area; that there be two tiers of Estate one acre lots on the north, south, southeastern and the western boundaries of the property; the entire property be limited to single family development only; street lighting be prohibited from the perimeter Estate zoned areas and only low intensity street lighting be permitted on the internal portions of the property; there be no access to Southwest 136th Avenue, access to be limited to Flamingo Road. The buffer zones on the northern and southern portion of the property, the lake in the northeastern portion of the property and the 5 acre park on the southeastern boundary of the property as represented at the meeting be included in the restrictive covenant requirement. The total density be limited to no more than 2 units to the acre, and there be single family detached homes with no zero lot line properties permitted. This all to become a note on the face of the plat as a part of the public records and be part of a recorded instrument subject to an agreement approved by General Counsel. On or around November 10, 1988, restrictive covenants pertaining to the Imagination Farms property were filed as a matter of public record and they thereafter were approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The restrictive covenants provided as follows: The Property shall be developed at an average density not to exceed 2.0 dwelling units per acre. The residential development of the Property shall be limited to single-family, detached dwelling units. No Zero Lot Line dwelling units shall be permitted. Two (2) rows of residential lots, each lot being at least 35,000 square feet in size (i.e., "builders acre"), shall be located along the following described boundaries of the Property: (1) The Western Boundary of Tracts 25 through 32, excepting therefrom the North 100 feet of Tract 32; (2) the Southern boundary of Tracts 24 and 25; and (3) the Eastern boundary of Tracts 21 through 24; Section 35, Township 50 South, Range 40 East, Florida Fruit Lands Co. Subdivision No. 1, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 17, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Central potable water and sanitary sewer service shall be provided to each residential unit constructed on the Property prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that dwelling unit. Platting of the Property shall be subject to the additional condition that the potable water main to be installed on the Property shall have sufficient capacity to provide potable water service to the residential dwelling units to be constructed on the Property and the real property which is located [in the remaining portions of Sunshine Ranches], based on land use designations in effect at that time. Such capacity shall be determined in accordance with standards applied by the Broward County Office of Environmental Services. No street lights shall be located within the two (2) rows of residential lots described [in (c) above]. Street lights located within the remainder of the Property shall be designed so as to preclude the illumination thereby of any land area located adjacent to the Property with a residential land use designation. The only vehicular access to the Property shall be from Flamingo Road. An open space buffer area having a minimum width of one hundred feet (100') and consisting of natural vegetation, landscaping and/or water bodies shall be located along the Northern boundary of Tracts 1, 16, 17 and 32, excepting therefrom the east 660 feet of Tract 1, Township 50 South, Range 40 East, Florida Fruit Lands Co. Subdivision No. 1, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 17, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. An open space buffer area having a minimum width of (50') and consisting of natural vegetation, landscaping and/or water bodies, shall be located along the Southern boundary of Tracts 3 and 13 and the Eastern Boundary of Tract 13, Township 50 South, Range 40 East, Florida Fruit Lands Co. Subdivision No. 1, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 17, of the Public records of Dade County, Florida. A local park, being at least five (5) acres in size, shall be located on the Property. The exact location and configuration of such park shall be determined by the City of Cooper City, Florida. Preparation and Adoption of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan The countywide future land use element of Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan was drafted by the Broward County Planning Council. The remaining elements of the plan were prepared by the Broward County Office of Planning. In preparing these other elements of the plan, the Office of Planning utilized a service area planning approach. Service area planning is "planning for county owned and/or operated systems some of which cross municipal boundaries and planning for the natural resources of the County." The Office of Planning opted to use the service area method of planning for the following reason: The unincorporated area of Broward County is distinct from most other local political jurisdictions by virtue of its geographically fragmented nature which has resulted from unmanaged and prolific annexation activities over the past several years. The existence of multi-jurisdictional contracts for service between the County and adjacent municipalities also diminishes the practicality of comprehensive planning for a politically defined planning area. Therefore, comprehensive planning for the legal boundaries of the unincorporated area, which does not have the geographic characteristics of a typical local government and does not function as an integrated whole, has been modified in favor of a service area planning approach. On October 1, 1988, the County Commission transmitted all elements of its proposed comprehensive plan to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA, Department). Upon its receipt of the proposed comprehensive plan, DCA distributed copies of it to other governmental agencies, including the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and solicited their comments. After obtaining these agencies' input and conducting its own review of the proposed plan, DCA, on January 10, 1989, sent to the County Commission its written objections, recommendations and comments concerning the plan. DCA objected to, among other things, the analysis of the suitability of the vacant land in S.W. Broward for the uses designated in the proposed plan. It believed that the analysis was inadequate and did not support the land uses designated. On March 1, 1989, the County Commission adopted the final version of the County's 1989 comprehensive plan. It did so over the objections of the Association and the Coalition. Oriole also participated in the proceedings that culminated in the plan's adoption. During these proceedings, it expressed its disagreement with the position taken by the Association regarding the appropriate land use designation of the Imagination Farms parcel. The adopted version of the County's comprehensive plan was sent to DCA. Following its review of the adopted plan, DCA issued a notice announcing its intention to find the plan "in compliance." Contents of Broward County's 1989 Comprehensive Plan: Volume I Future land Use Designations Volume I of Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan contains the countywide future land use element. An integral part of this element of the plan is the future land use map (FLUM). It shows the proposed distribution, extent and location of land uses for the entire land area of Broward County. There are 21 land use categories represented on the FLUM, nine of which are residential in nature. "Residential uses" are defined in Volume I, Chapter IV(A) of the plan as "activities within land areas used predominantly for housing." Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan indicates that the "areas designated for residential use on the [FLUM] are intended primarily for dwellings, but that other land uses related to a residential environment . . . may also be appropriate therein." "Agriculture" is specifically identified as being among those related uses that are permissible in areas with residential designations. The nine residential land use categories shown on the FLUM are as follows: E (up to one dwelling unit per gross acre permitted); L-2 (up to two dwelling units per gross acre permitted); L-3 (up to three dwelling units per gross acre permitted); L-5 (up to five dwelling units per gross acre permitted); LM (up to ten dwelling units per gross acre permitted); M (up to sixteen dwelling units per gross acre permitted); MH (up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre permitted); H (up to 50 dwelling units per gross acre permitted); and Irregular. The higher the residential density of an area, the more efficiently the potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste and drainage needs of the residents can be met. Accordingly, E is the least efficient residential land use category in terms of meeting these basic needs. L-2 is the next least efficient residential land use category. L-2 is a new residential land use category. Under the prior comprehensive plan, there was no intermediate category between E and L-3. The L-2 category was created to fill this void. It was designed to result in residential communities with lot sizes that were larger than those found in areas designated L-3, but not so large that it would be too costly to provide central water and sewer service to the residents. The prevailing view at the time of the preparation and adoption of the 1989 comprehensive plan was that two dwelling units per acre was the lowest residential density at which it would be economically feasible to provide such service. No formal studies, however, were conducted to confirm this view. The following nonresidential land use categories are also found on the FLUM: Agricultural; Commercial; Commercial Recreation; Community Facilities; Conservation; Employment Center; Industrial; Office Park; Recreation and Open Space; Regional Activity Center; Transportation; and Utilities. "Agricultural uses" are defined in Volume I, Chapter IV(A) of the plan as "activities within land areas which are predominantly used for the cultivation of crops and livestock including: cropland; pastureland; orchards; vineyards; nurseries; ornamental horticulture areas; confined feeding operations; specialty farms; and silviculture areas." Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan provides, in pertinent part, as follows with respect to areas designated for "agricultural use:" Agricultural areas are designated on [FLUM] to promote agriculture and agricultural related uses. Residential development may occur within specific limits. Uses permitted in areas designated agricultural are as follows: Agricultural and related uses may be broadly defined by the local government entity to include the following: cultivation of crops, groves, thoroughbred and pleasure horse ranches, private game preserves, fish breeding areas, tree and plant nurseries, cattle ranches and other similar activities. Residential uses at a maximum of one (1) dwelling unit per two (2) net acres or greater or one (1) dwelling unit per two and one-half (2 1/2) gross acres or greater. . . . Neighborhood support business and retail facilities up to one (1) acre per 250 acres. No one contiguous site may exceed ten (10) acres. . . . "Commercial uses" are defined in Volume I, Chapter IV(A) of the plan as "activities within land areas that are predominantly connected with the sale, rental and distribution of products, or performance of services." "Conservation uses" are defined in Volume I, Chapter IV(A) of the plan as "activities within land areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources or environmental quality and includes [sic] 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 habitats." Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan states that "[c]onservation areas are designated on the [FLUM] to protect major reserve water supply areas and natural reservations." Accordingly, lands so designated are permitted to be used for only very limited purposes under the plan. The entire western two-thirds of the County is designated on the FLUM for "conservation uses." In contrast, only certain public lands in the eastern third of the County are so designated. The vast majority of the land has a non- conservation land use designation which allows development. The entire Sunshine Ranches area, including Oriole's Imagination Farms parcel, is designated on the FLUM for "residential uses." By designating the area for "residential uses" rather than for "agricultural uses," as the County Commission has designated certain other lands in the County, including lands to the west of Sunshine Ranches, the Commission has made it less likely that the working ranches in Sunshine Ranches will survive. Such action, however, will tend to have a positive impact on the County's construction industry. The Imagination Farms parcel has an L-2 designation. 5/ The balance of Sunshine Ranches has an E designation. While these designations are not identical, neither are they inherently incompatible. Of the 21 land use categories on the FLUM, L-2 is the most akin to E. While the maximum allowable residential density under the plan for Imagination Farms (two dwelling units per acre) is higher than that for the rest of Sunshine Ranches (one dwelling unit per acre), it is lower than the average maximum allowable residential density under the plan for S.W. Broward as a whole, which is 3.39 dwelling units per acre. Immediately adjacent to the Sunshine Ranches area, in all directions, are lands that, like the Imagination Farms parcel, have a designation other than E. Immediately to the north are lands designated Commercial. Immediately to the south are lands designated Irregular Residential (4.5 dwelling units per acre). Immediately to the west are lands designated L-3, L-5, Commercial and Transportation. Immediately to the east are lands designated L-5, LM, Commercial, Industrial and Irregular Residential (3.8 dwelling units per acre). The only lands immediately adjacent to Sunshine Ranches that have an E designation are to the north on the other side of Griffin Road. S.W. Broward is the site of land designated on the FLUM for use as a Regional Activity Center. This land is located in close proximity to the Sunshine Ranches area. Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan states the following with respect to Regional Activity Centers: The Regional Activity Center land use designation . . . is intended to encourage development or redevelopment of areas that are of regional significance. The major purposes of this designation are to facilitate mixed-use development, encourage mass transit, reduce the need for automobile travel, provide incentives for quality development and give definition to the urban form. This designation will only be applied to areas that are of regional significance. . . . In addition to the examples cited above in and around the Sunshine Ranches area, there are many other instances on the FLUM where adjacent lands have been assigned different residential land use categories. This provides the County's current and prospective residents with a variety of housing options. Furthermore, to the extent that it results in a higher residential density than would otherwise be the case, it promotes the efficient use of land. It is a well accepted planning technique to make changes in residential densities along rear lot lines. The County has used this technique extensively in developing its FLUM. The change in density made in the Sunshine Ranches area is but one example of the use of this technique. Roadways and other man-made courses also serve as boundary lines between adjacent lands that have different land use designations on the FLUM. Wide roadways, particularly when combined with a waterway or canal, provide buffering that is generally superior to that provided by landscaping or walls. They are commonly used to separate residential properties from lands used for other purposes. Rear lot line separation, however, is traditionally employed where the lands in question are designated for residential uses, but at different allowable maximum densities. Local Government Flexibility Although the FLUM prescribes land use designations on a countywide basis, there are "flexibility" provisions in Volume I of the plan designed to afford incorporated municipalities in the County a limited amount of discretion in fashioning a land use plan which meets the particular needs of their community. These provisions provide for the creation of "flexibility zones," which are defined in Volume I, Chapter IV(A) as "geographic area[s], as delineated on the flexibility zone boundary maps in the Administrative Rules Document of the Broward County Planning Council, within which residential densities and land uses may be redistributed through the plan certification process." 6/ Under these provisions "5% of the area designated for residential use on the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) within a flexibility zone may be used for offices and/or retail sales of merchandise or services[, provided that n]o added contiguous area used for offices and/or retail sales of merchandise or services may exceed ten (10) acres." These provisions further permit local land use plans to assign "20 percent of the industrial land designated on the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) within a flexibility zone" for "[c]ommercial and retail business uses" and for "[h]otel, motel and similar lodging" if "certified by the Broward County Planning Council." Because of these "flexibility" provisions, it is necessary to look beyond the FLUM to determine whether particular parcels of property that are designated on the FLUM for residential uses or for industrial uses and, in addition, are within a "flexibility zone," may be used instead for offices or retail sales, in the case of parcels designated residential, or for commercial purposes or lodging, in the case of parcels designated industrial. Volume I of the plan also provides for the redistribution of residential densities shown on the FLUM through the use of "flexibility units" and "reserve units," which are described as follows in Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan: Flexibility Units. "Flexibility units" mean the difference between the number of dwelling units permitted within a flexibility zone by the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) and the number of dwelling units permitted within the flexibility zone by a local government entity's certified future land use plan map. Since the certified local land use plan map may be more restrictive than the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series), available flexibility units may be utilized by a local government entity to rearrange residential densities. . . . Rearrangement of residential densities utilizing flexibility units will be administered within "flexibility zones." The boundaries of and rules governing "flexibility zones" and rearrangement of residential densities therein . . . will be established within the Broward County Planning Council's "Administrative Rules Document." The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a flexibility zone by a local land use plan map shall not exceed the number of dwelling units permitted in the flexibility zone by the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series). Reserve Units. "Reserve units" mean additional permitted dwelling units equal up to two percent (2%) of the total number of dwelling units permitted within a flexibility zone by the Future Broward County Land Use Map (Series). Local government entities may establish provisions within their land use plans . . . to allocate residential densities, utilizing reserve units, which exceed those shown on the local land use plan map. Allocation of reserve units will be administered within "flexibility zones" and not require amendment of the certified local land use plan. The boundaries of and rules governing "flexibility zones" and allocation of reserve units therein . .. will be established within the Broward County Planning Council's "Administrative Rules Document." The number of reserve units in a flexibility zone will be fixed at the adoption of the Future Broward County Land Use Map Plan (Series). The number of reserve units assigned to a parcel designated for residential use on the local land use plan map may not exceed 100% of the maximum number of dwelling units indicated for the parcel by the local land use plan map. However, the local land use plan, the zoning, and the applicable land development regulations shall not permit any density higher than fifty (50) dwelling units per gross acre. Goals, Objectives and Policies Volume I of the plan also sets forth various goals, objectives and policies relating to future land use in the County. They are found in Chapter II of Volume I. A "goal" is defined in Volume I, Chapter IV(A) of the plan as "the long-term end toward which programs and activities are ultimately directed." An "objective" is defined in Volume I, Chapter IV(A) of the plan as a "specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal." A "policy" is defined in Volume I, Chapter IV(A) as the "way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal." The following are among the goals, objectives and policies set forth in Volume I of the plan that relate to residential uses: Goal 01.00.00- Provide residential areas with a variety of housing types and densities offering convenient and affordable housing opportunities to all segments of Broward County's population while maintaining a desired quality of life and adequate public services and facilities. Objective 01.01.00- Accommodate the projected population of Broward County by providing adequate areas on the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) intended primarily for residential development, but which also permit those non-residential uses that are compatible with and necessary to support residential neighborhoods. * * * Policy 01.01.03- Local certified land use plans may establish provisions which allow residential densities to exceed those shown on the local future land use plan map in accordance with the "reserve unit" provisions and restrictions contained in [Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan]. Policy 01.01.04- Local certified land use plans may permit offices and neighborhood retail sales of services and merchandise within areas designated for residential use subject to the provisions and restrictions identified within [Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan]. Objective 01.02.00- Establish flexibility within the Broward County Land Use Plan in order to facilitate the rearrangement of residential densities, and allow local government entities and the private sector to respond to changing conditions. Policy 01.02.01- Local certified land use plans may rearrange the residential densities shown on the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) utilizing "flexibility units" and/or "reserve units" as identified in [Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan] and in accordance with the rules established within the Broward County Planning Council's "Administrative Rules Document" and the Chapter 163, Florida Statutes plan adoption and amendment process. Policy 01.02.02- Rules for the creation of "Flexibility Zones" and rearrangement of residential densities within their boundaries, utilizing "flexibility units" and/or "reserve units," shall be established within the Broward County Planning Council's "Administrative Rules Document." Objective 01.03.00- Correlate the impacts of residential development with the regional roadway network of Broward County and all existing and planned transit facilities to ensure the adequacy and safety of all transportation facilities. Policy 01.03.01- Residential densities in the Low to Medium ranges should be located with access to existing minor arterials and collector streets. Policy 01.03.02- Residential densities in the Medium High and High ranges should be located with adequate access to major and minor arterials, expressways and mass transit routes. Objective 01.04.00- Local government shall adopt subdivision and other development regulations promoting well-planned, orderly, and attractive development which is consistent with locally adopted capital improvements elements and the goals, objectives and policies of the Broward County Land Use Plan. Policy 01.04.01- Subdivision regulations shall incorporate a review process for assessing the adequacy of public services and facilities. New residential development shall be established only within those areas where adequate public services exist, or are scheduled to be available in accordance with a local government entity's adopted Capital Improvements Element. Policy 01.04.02- Subdivision regulations shall provide for both the timely completion and regular maintenance of all required capital improvements and amenities. * * * Policy 01.04.04- The land development codes and regulations of local government entities shall protect whenever possible existing and planned residential areas, including single family neighborhoods, from disruptive land uses and nuisances. * * * Objective 01.06.00- Develop and implement land use controls which promote residential neighborhoods that are attractive, well- maintained and contribute to the health, safety and welfare of their residents. * * * Objective 01.07.00- Develop programs to provide a complete range of affordable housing opportunities necessary to accommodate all segments of Broward County's present and future population. The following are among the goals, objectives and policies set forth in Volume I of the plan that relate to commercial uses: Goal 02.00.00- Provide a complete range of convenient and accessible commercial facilities sufficient to serve Broward County's resident and tourist population. * * * Objective 02.04.00- Provide a sufficient level of commercial development to accommodate the population and economy of Broward County while ensuring that the planned level of service on the regional road network is achieved and maintained. * * * Policy 02.04.02- The land use plans of local government entities shall contain commercial land use policies which form the basis for those land development codes and regulations that are necessary to protect adjacent residential areas. Policy 02.04.03- Local government entities shall employ their local land use plans and zoning ordinances to establish differing intensities of commercial development compatible with adjacent and surrounding land uses. Policy 02.04.04- To allow both the public and private sectors to respond to changing conditions and permit the appropriate location of neighborhood commercial uses within or adjacent to established residential neighborhoods, the Broward County Land Use Plan shall permit up to 5% of the area designated residential within a flexibility zone to be used for neighborhood commercial uses, subject to restrictions identified within [Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan]. Policy 02.04.05- Local certified land use plans may decrease by 20 percent the lands designated Commercial on the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) within a flexibility zone in accordance with the rules established within the Broward County Planning Council's "Administrative Rules Document" and the Chapter 163, Florida Statutes plan adoption and amendment process. The following are among the goals, objectives and policies set forth in Volume I of the plan that relate to industrial uses: Goal 03.00.00- Achieve a more diversified local economy by promoting tourism and industrial growth and providing optimum protection of the County's environment and maintaining a desired quality of life. Objective 03.01.00- Provide additional opportunities for expanding Broward County's economic base by designating the amount of industrial acreage on the Future Broward County Land Use Map (Series) which will accommodate Broward County's projected year 2010 population and/or labor force. * * * Policy 03.01.06- Local certified land use plans may permit twenty (20) percent of designated industrial areas to be used for certain retail, service and tourist-related land uses, subject to the restrictions identified in [Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan]. The following are among the goals, objectives and policies set forth in Volume I of the plan that relate to agricultural uses: Goal 04.00.00- Conserve and protect agricultural lands and uses. Objective 04.01.00- Encourage the retention of agricultural lands and uses through the utilization of financial incentives and creative land development regulations. Policy 04.01.01- Innovative public measures, including tax relief techniques, purchase or transfer of development rights and other measures, should 7/ be instituted to encourage the retention of existing agricultural lands and uses. Policy 04.01.02- Local land use plans, consistent with the requirements of the Regional Plan for South Florida, should inventory and identify locally important agricultural lands and encourage agricultural activities as the primary uses on such lands. Policy 04.01.03- Encourage the retention and expansion of agricultural and related activities which are compatible with the environmental sensitivity of identified agricultural lands, consistent with the provisions of the "Florida Right to Farm Act," Section 823.14, Florida Statutes. * * * Policy 04.02.02- The Broward County Planning Council shall review all permitted uses of the Agricultural land use category and make revisions by 1990, to address the issue of preserving and protecting agricultural lands. Policy 04.02.03- Agricultural areas designated on the Future Broward County Land Use Map (Series) shall permit residential development and local government entities may permit the clustering of dwelling units consistent with those standards contained within [Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan]. Although there is no land use category in the plan denominated as "rural," the subject of "rural areas" is addressed in the following goal, objective and policies set forth in Volume I, Chapter II of the plan: Goal 07.00.00- Ensure the preservation of rural areas. Objective 07.01.00- Define, inventory and protect those existing "rural areas" within Broward County. Policy 07.01.01- Define and inventory all "rural areas" within Broward County during 1989, and study and make recommendations regarding the relationships between the Conservation, Agricultural and Estate [E] land use categories 8/ and the appropriateness of those uses and densities within the "rural areas" of Broward County. 9/ Policy 07.01.02- During 1989, the Broward County Planning Council shall develop any necessary policies and/or land use regulations for the protection of "rural areas" to be incorporated within the Broward County Land Use Plan. Policy 07.01.03- During 1989, the Broward County Planning Council shall analyze the relationship between identified rural areas and potable water and wastewater treatment facilities and develop any necessary policies and/or land use regulations, which will assure that such areas are adequately served in an environmentally sound manner, to be incorporated into the Broward County Land Use Plan. The following are among the goals, objectives and policies in Volume I of the plan that relate to the matter of public facilities and phased growth: Goal 08.00.00- Phase growth consistent with the provision of adequate regional and community services and facilities. Objective 08.01.00- Coordinate future land uses with the availability of regional and community facilities and services sufficient to meet the current and future needs of Broward County's population and economy without endangering its environmental resources. Policy 08.01.01- Local government entities shall implement development review procedures to assure that facilities and services meet established county-wide and municipal level of service standards concurrent with the impacts of development pursuant to Objective 08.06.00. * * * Policy 08.01.03- Local government entities which authorize development permits shall implement procedures which identify the cumulative impacts of proposed development on public service and facilities. Policy 08.01.04- In order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Broward County's residents, development should not be permitted in those portions of Broward County with inadequate potable water and wastewater treatment facilities. Policy 08.01.05- Packaged wastewater treatment facilities should be connected to centralized facilities which have been approved by the appropriate governmental agencies. Policy 08.01.06- Broward County shall continue to monitor and study the impacts of septic tanks on Broward County's water supply. Policy 08.01.07- Broward County shall, by 1991, develop regulations requiring new development to be serviced by centralized water and wastewater systems, where necessary, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Broward County's residents. Policy 08.01.08- Local government entities shall require all new commercial and industrial development to be serviced by centralized wastewater systems where financially feasible. Policy 08.01.09- Private septic tanks and wells in Broward County should be phased out and replaced with centralized water and wastewater systems, where necessary, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Broward County's residents. * * * Objective 08.02.00- Continue to enforce the countywide platting requirements of the Broward County Charter and ensure that land development within Broward County meets the minimum standards of the Broward County Land Development Code. * * * Objective 08.03.00- Discourage urban sprawl 10/ and encourage a separation of urban 11/ and rural land uses 12/ by directing new development into areas where necessary regional and community facilities and services exist. Policy 08.03.01- By 1990, Broward County shall review and revise, where necessary, its land development code to ensure that new development is directed to areas which have the land use, water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Policy 08.03.02- Promote infill development through the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer service to those developed portions of Broward County which are currently inadequately served. Policy 08.03.03- When extending new services to undeveloped portions of Broward County, priority shall be given to those areas where other facilities and services are available or are anticipated to be provided concurrent with the extension of such new services. Policy 08.03.04- Regional or community libraries, clinics, civic centers, cultural facilities and other public facilities should be located in areas of concentrated activity, such as downtown areas and community or regional shopping centers in order to allow multi-purpose trips, provide easy access by mass transit and economize on parking areas. Policy 08.03.05- Except for schools, regional and community facilities shall be located close to major traffic corridors and mass transit routes adequate to carry the volume of traffic generated by such facilities. * * * Objective 08.06.00- Concurrence management systems shall be established to effectively monitor and manage new growth, in conformance with Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Policy 08.06.01- Local government entities shall establish concurrence management systems to effectively manage new growth and to ascertain whether necessary facilities identified within their local Capital Improvements Elements are being constructed in accordance with the schedules in their local plans and to measure the development capacity of such facilities in a given area at a given time. Policy 08.06.02- Those facilities which are subject to the local concurrence requirements include: traffic circulation, recreational, drainage and flood protection, potable water, solid waste and sanitary sewer facilities. * * * Policy 08.06.04- The Broward County Land Development Code plat approval process will require that necessary regional facilities and services be available concurrent with the impacts of development through any of the following situations: The necessary facilities are in place at the time a Broward County plat approval is issued, or a Broward County plat approval is issued subject to the condition that the necessary facilities will be in place when the impacts of development occur. The necessary facilities are under construction at the time a Broward County plat approval is issued. The necessary facilities are the subject of a binding contract executed for the construction of those necessary facilities at the time a Broward County plat approval is issued. The necessary facilities have been included in the Broward County or municipal annual budget at the time a Broward County plat approval is issued although the facilities are not yet the subject of a binding contract for their construction, the unit of local government shall make a determination that it will not remove the budgetary provision for the necessary facilities from their budget. Policy 08.06.05- Within one year from the submission of the updated Broward County Land Use Plan, Broward County shall adopt and implement a concurrence monitoring system to ascertain whether necessary facilities identified within the Capital Improvements Element of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan are being constructed in accordance with the schedules in the Plan and to measure the development capacity of such facilities in a given area at a given time. Goal 09.00.00 is to "[p]rotect Broward County's natural and historic resources through well-planned patterns of growth and development." Objectives 09.01.00 through 09.07.00 and Objectives 09.09.00 and 09.10.00 deal with the protection of natural resources in general and waterwells, cones of influence, beaches, shores, marine resources, floodplains, surface water, groundwater, wetlands, soils and minerals in particular. Objectives 09.01.00, 09.05.00 and 09.09.00, along with their accompanying policies, are especially significant in the context of the instant case. Objective 09.01.00 and its accompanying policies provide as follows: Objective 09.01.00- Broward County shall monitor and protect those Natural Resource Areas (which are considered to be environmentally sensitive lands) designated as Local Areas of Particular Concern on the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series). Policy 09.01.01- Natural Resource Areas that have been found to comply with the definition of Local Areas of Particular Concern have been identified on a Map of Local Areas of Particular Concern within the Future Broward County Land Use Map Series. Policy 09.01.02- Local Areas of Particular Concern are declared to be environmentally sensitive lands and upon adoption of this plan shall be subject to the provisions of the Broward County Land Development Code regarding environmentally sensitive lands. Policy 09.01.03- Broward County shall implement strategies for the protection of Local Areas of Particular Concern and other environmentally sensitive lands such as: acquisition by public or private organizations; establishment of a County trust fund for acquisition; adoption of innovative land development regulations; conservation easements; transfer of development rights; deed restrictions; and restrictive covenants. Policy 09.01.04- Land development codes and regulations should address the mitigation of Local Areas of Particular Concern when other strategies such as those within Policy 09.01.03 have been exhausted. Policy 09.01.05- Discourage activities in the vicinity of Local Areas of Particular Concern which would have a detrimental impact upon such areas. Policy 09.01.06- Encourage local government entities to protect natural resources through the implementation of land development regulations and procedures that promote the acquisition, retention and management of such areas. Policy 09.01.07- During 1989, Broward County shall conduct a review of areas containing natural resources as depicted in the Natural Resource Map Series and shall determine whether the designation and regulation of additional Environmentally Sensitive Lands is appropriate. Policy 09.01.08- During 1989, Broward County shall adopt lot clearing regulations aimed at preserving native vegetation within areas identified pursuant to Broward County's land clearing ordinance. Policy 09.01.09- Broward County should develop and adopt regulations to eliminate invasive exotic vegetation. 13/ Policy 09.01.10- Local landscaping ordinances should encourage the use of native vegetation and include lists of plant species which require minimal watering and fertilization. Policy 09.01.11- Broward County shall endeavor to develop a system of positive incentives for the purpose of encouraging private landowners to protect Local Areas of Particular Concern. Policy 09.01.12- During 1989, Broward County shall develop and implement a program to purchase selected Local Areas of Particular Concern and to purchase and enhance other areas found to be environmentally sensitive lands. Policy 09.01.13- At the time of development review or public acquisition within a Local Area of Particular Concern, Broward County shall develop a management strategy which identifies the entity responsible for the maintenance and protection of the natural area. Objective 09.01.00 and its accompanying policies must be read in conjunction with Natural Resources Map III. B. of the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series), which will be discussed later in these Findings of Fact, and with the provisions of Volume I, Chapter IV(A) and (D) of the plan dealing with Local Areas of Particular Concern. A "Local Area of Particular Concern" is defined in Volume I, Chapter IV(A) of the plan as follows: [A]n area designated on the Natural Resource Map Series of the Broward County Land Use Plan which has been declared to be environmentally sensitive. Those areas are subject to environmental impact report provisions of the Broward County Land Development Code 14/ and policies under Objective 09.01.00. The criteria for Local Areas of Particular Concern are contained in [Volume I, Chapter IV(D) of the plan]. Volume I, Chapter IV(D) of the plan states that "Local Areas of Particular Concern may be designated in six categories according to the types of resources present:" marine resource category; natural landforms and features category; native vegetative communities category; wildlife category; economic resource category; and cultural resource category. It describes a Local Area of Particular Concern in the native vegetative communities category as an "area which shows a predominance of native vegetation associated with one or more of the following ecological communities: beach and dune community; coastal strand forest community; mangrove community (saltwater swamp); scrub community; pine flatwoods community; high hammock community; low hammock community; cypress wetland community (freshwater swamp); and Everglades community (freshwater marsh). It further provides that, in order to be designated a Local Area of Particular Concern in the native vegetative communities category, an area must meet at least three of the following five criteria: Uniqueness- The site contains a significant sample of rare or endangered species, or, the site is among a small number of sites in Broward County representing a particular ecological community. Diversity- A significant sample of two or more ecological communities are contained within the site. Low level of Exotic Invasion- The degree and nature of exotic invasion on the site is such that it can be easily managed or mitigated. Potential for Protection- Ownership patterns, development status and the other factors make the resources of a site likely to be successfully protected. Geography- The site has proximity to other resources which would heighten its value as a [Local Area of Particular Concern]. Objective 09.05.00 and its accompanying policies deal with the protection of wetlands. They provide as follows: Objective 09.05.00- Protect the wetlands, hydric soils and the vegetative communities historic to the areas within Broward County for their natural functions, such as storing freshwater, filtering stormwater runoff and preventing erosion. Policy 09.05.01- The Code of Regulations of the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board shall protect those wetland areas which are within their jurisdiction. 15/ Policy 09.05.02- The jurisdictional boundaries of the landward extent of regulated waters in Broward County are determined by wetland plant indicator species adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, pursuant to Section 403.817 Florida Statutes as utilized by the Environmental Quality Control Board. Policy 09.05.03- To provide increased protection for isolated small wetlands, Broward County shall request the Environmental Quality Control Board to establish a local isolated small wetlands protection program. 16/ Policy 09.05.04- Wetlands should be protected through techniques such as utilizing them as water retention/detention areas and regulating them through development codes. Policy 09.05.05- Land development codes and regulations shall address mitigation of wetlands when alternative strategies such as those within Policy 09.01.03 have been unsuccessful. Policy 09.05.06- Broward County shall complete an inventory of all wetlands areas in southwestern Broward by 1990 and identify those areas on the Wetlands Map of the Natural Resource Map Series of the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series). Objective 09.09.00 and its accompanying policies address drainage and stormwater management. They provide as follows: Objective 09.09.00- Eliminate flooding problems while preserving groundwater quality through planned growth, the provision of drainage and stormwater management systems and the adoption of appropriate development codes and regulations. Policy 09.09.01- New development shall provide water storage capacity equal to that which existed under predevelopment conditions consistent with the water management regulations and plans of the South Florida Water Management District, Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board, Broward County and independent drainage districts. Policy 09.09.02- New non-residential development shall provide pre-treatment for stormwater runoff through grassy swales, wetlands filtration, ex-filtration trenches or other means consistent with the Best Management Practices of the South Florida Management District. Policy 09.09.03- Broward County shall, in cooperation with the appropriate agencies, prepare studies to determine if additional regulations or programs are needed to ensure a comprehensive approach to identified stormwater management problems and the protection of groundwater quality. Policy 09.09.04- Broward County shall, prior to approving land use plan amendments in the flood prone portions of the County, determine that the subsequent development will be served by adequate stormwater management and drainage facilities, not adversely affect groundwater quality or environmentally sensitive lands and not increase saltwater intrusion or areawide flooding. 17/ The subject of mixed land uses is treated in Goal 10.00.00 and its accompanying objectives and policies. 18/ They provide, in pertinent part, as follows: Goal 10.00.00- Promote the efficient use of public facilities and services through planned communities with mixed land uses. Objective 10.01.00- Encourage the use of innovative land development regulations and techniques, for both residential and non- residential development in order to promote planned communities and activity centers designed for efficient use of public services and facilities. Policy 10.01.01- Encourage the use of mixed land use development regulations in those areas where compatible mixed land use patterns currently exist or are planned. Policy 10.01.02- Local government entities should apply the Employment Center land use designation of the Broward County Land Use Plan to lands utilized or planned for mixed non-residential development. * * * Objective 10.02.00- Encourage attractive and functional mixed living, working, shopping and recreational activities by establishing within the Broward County Land Use Plan a Regional Activity Center land use category. Policy 10.02.01- Local government entities may propose land areas for designation as Regional Activity Centers within the Broward County Land Use Plan, consistent with the rules and procedures contained within the Regional Activity Center Permitted Uses subsection of [Volume I, Chapter IV(B) of the plan]. Policy 10.02.02- Modes of mass transit should be encouraged to serve Regional Activity Centers to reduce reliance upon automobile travel. Policy 10.02.03- To facilitate public transit access, integrated transportation systems should be encouraged to serve Regional Activity Centers. * * * Policy 10.02.06- Local land use plans should provide for adequate housing opportunities within Regional Activity Centers to allow people to both live and work within such areas. Other noteworthy goals, objectives and policies set forth in Volume I of the plan are the following: Goal 11.00.00- Provide levels of service for public facilities and services sufficient to meet the existing and future needs of Broward County's population. Objective 11.01.01- Ensure that public facilities and services meet those level of services standards established within the Broward County Comprehensive Plan and local comprehensive plans. * * * Policy 11.01.03- To maintain those level of service standards identified within the Broward County Comprehensive Plan and local comprehensive plans, Broward County shall, prior to final action on amendments to the Broward County Land Use Plan, determine whether adequate public facilities and services will be available when needed to serve the proposed development. Policy 11.01.04- Prior to plat approval, Broward County and/or the appropriate local governmental entity shall ensure that the public facilities and services necessary to meet the level of service standards established within the Broward County Comprehensive Plan and affected municipal comprehensive plan will be available concurrent with the impacts of development, consistent with Chapter 163.3202(g) Florida Statutes and the concurrence management policies included within Goal 8.00.00 of the Broward County Land Use Plan. * * * Goal 12.00.00- Coordinate transportation and land use planning activities to ensure adequate facilities and services are available to meet the existing and future needs of Broward County's population and economy. * * * Policy 12.01.04- Broward County and its local government entities shall consider the individual and cumulative impacts of land use plan amendments on the existing and planned transportation facilities within the County. Policy 12.01.05- Transportation facilities and services should be developed in a manner which encourages infill development and promotes the efficient use of urban services. * * * Objective 13.02.00- Establish procedures to ensure consistency and coordination among the Broward County Land Use Plan, the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Plan for South Florida, plans of municipalities and the Broward County School Board, plans of other units of local government which provide services but do not have land use regulatory authority and the comprehensive plans of adjacent counties. * * * Objective 13.04.00- Provide and utilize coordination mechanisms to ensure that the impacts of development proposed in the 1989 Broward County Land Use upon development in the municipalities, county, adjacent counties, the region and state are addressed. * * * Goal 14.00.00- Eliminate areas of blight and incompatible land uses. * * * Objective 14.02.00- Develop and implement land use programs to encourage the elimination or reduction of existing incompatible land uses and prevent future incompatible land uses. Policy 14.02.01- The compatibility of existing and future land uses shall be a primary consideration in the review and approval of amendments to the Broward County and local land use plans. Policy 14.02.02- Local land use plans shall ensure that commercial, industrial and other non-residential land use plan designations are located in a manner which facilitates their serving, but does not adversely impact existing and designated residential areas. Policy 14.02.03- In order to prevent future incompatible land uses, the established character of predominantly developed areas shall be a primary consideration when amendments to the Broward County Land Use Plan are proposed. Policy 14.02.04- Broward County's local government entities shall minimize the impacts of existing incompatible land uses through requirements within their land development codes and regulations, such as buffering and setbacks. Contents of Broward County's 1989 Comprehensive Plan: Volume III Volume III of Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan references, discusses and analyzes the surveys, studies, and data supporting the countywide future land use element set forth in Volume I of the plan. The aforementioned surveys, studies and data are based upon professionally accepted methodologies. In those instances where the County Commission did not perform its own special studies and surveys or collect original data, the surveys, studies and data upon which it relied in adopting the countywide future land use element represented the best reliable information it was able to obtain from other sources in the time it had available to it. 19/ Volume III, Chapter I of the plan contains an inventory of existing land uses in the County. The inventory reflects that "[v]acant land occupies about 36% of the [eastern third] of Broward County totalling approximately 92,000 acres or 144 square miles" and that "the vast majority of these vacant acres are situated in southwest and northwest Broward County, [although] there are still many areas [to the east] which are available for future growth and development." Volume III, Chapter I of the plan also discusses and analyzes the various maps that were developed to identify the natural resources in the County. One of the maps referenced in Volume III, Chapter I is Map III.C. of the Natural Resource Map Series-Eastern Broward County. It was adopted by the County Commission on March 1, 1989, as the map depicting wetlands in the eastern third of Broward County (wetlands map). 20/ The wetlands map that the County Commission submitted with its proposed comprehensive plan to the Department of Community Affairs identified only wetlands east of Flamingo Road. It was based upon a South Florida Water Management District Land Use and Land Cover Classification Survey and a 1987 survey conducted under the auspices of the Coalition of natural areas in the County east of Flamingo Road. In its written comments regarding the proposed plan, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) objected to the wetlands map submitted with the proposed plan because "a review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Inventory Map for parts of Region 5 of Broward County [S.W. Broward] indicate[d] more forested and non-forested wetlands than [were] shown on the [map]." The County was made aware of this objection and the matter was referred to the staff of the Broward County Planning Council. Planning Council staff began the task of revising the wetlands map to reflect the wetlands in S.W. Broward. The task was a difficult one given the limited amount of time available to complete the project and the lack of accurate, complete and up-to-date information concerning the location of wetlands in the area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Inventory Map referenced in DER's written comments to the proposed plan was not current. It reflected conditions as they existed in 1979. Because S.W. Broward had experienced substantial development activity since that time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's map was of only historic value. Furthermore, the wetlands determinations reflected on the map were based only upon one factor: vegetation. As mentioned above, the Broward County EQCB has regulatory authority over wetlands in the County. DER and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) also have such authority. Before these three agencies exercise their regulatory authority, they first must determine whether there are wetlands involved and, if so, to what extent they exist. In making these jurisdictional determinations, they examine, not one, but three factors: dominant vegetation; 21/ hydrology; and soils. 22/ Neither the Broward EQCB, DER nor the Corps had a map depicting those lands that had been determined to be jurisdictional wetlands in S.W. Broward. Planning Council staff asked the EQCB to produce such a map. The EQCB responded that there was not sufficient time to do so. Although it did not have a map, the Corps did have information in its files concerning previous jurisdictional determinations it had made. This information was contained on several hundred quad sheets. Because the Corps makes jurisdictional determinations in a piecemeal fashion, the information concerned only a limited number of properties in the S.W. Broward area. Furthermore, some of these determinations were no longer valid because they had been made more than two years previous. 23/ Planning Council staff, confronted with the foregoing, sought to enlist the assistance of Ann Buckley. Buckley is a botanist. Her undergraduate degree is in zoology, but she has taken numerous graduate level courses in botany and has had extensive experience in compiling plant lists. At the time she was contacted regarding the matter, Buckley had had little or no experience in determining the existence and extent of wetlands based upon all three indicators relied upon by the EQCB, DER and the Corps in making jurisdictional determinations. Nonetheless, she was approached by Planning Council staff, none of whom had any expertise in the identification of wetlands, 24/ because she was in the process of conducting a vegetative cover study of parts of the County, including S.W. Broward. The study was the subject of a contract between the County and the Coalition. Buckley was working on the project as a subcontractor. Buckley told the Planning Council staff member who contacted her that she believed that the findings of her study could be used to prepare a wetlands map of S.W. Broward. Notwithstanding that neither the Coalition's contract with the County, nor her contract with the Coalition, required that wetlands be identified, Buckley agreed to provide Planning Council staff with information concerning the location of wetlands in S.W. Broward. As she had promised, Buckley furnished Planning Council Staff with such information. The information was provided in the form of a map that Buckley had prepared. According to the map, all but the developed areas of S.W. Broward were wetlands. There were areas shown on the map, however, as developed that were actually undeveloped. The wetlands on Buckley's map were shown as being either intact (in blue), managed (in blue and white stripes) or populated by malaleuca (in green). Developed areas were also depicted on the map (in red). Rock pits were not specifically identified on the map. The entire 235 acre Imagination Farms parcel was depicted on the map as managed wetlands. There were other areas shown on the map as wetlands that were subsequently determined not to be jurisdictional wetlands. Furthermore, there were areas, like the Imagination Farms parcel, that were being used as pastureland and had depressions where smartweed grew, but were not shown on the map as wetlands. Buckley's map reflected the preliminary findings of her study, which she had not yet completed. She so advised Planning Council staff and cautioned that her information needed to be supplemented. Buckley had based her map upon information she had obtained from a review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1979 wetlands map and a 1984 soil survey published by the U.S. Soil and Conservation Service, from an examination of aerial photographs taken in 1987 of the S.W. Broward area, 25/ and from recorded observations she had made while flying over the area in a helicopter at low altitudes and ground-truthing 50% of the sites in the area. 26/ Buckley had also contacted the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in attempt to acquire information that she could use to prepare the map, but these agencies had little, if any, information to share with her. Planning Council staff had not told Buckley what criteria she was to use in determining what areas in S.W. Broward were wetlands. She therefore developed her own criteria. If an area, according to the 1984 U.S. Soil and Conservation Service soil survey, had hydric soil and if it, in addition, had plants that were listed as wetlands species on plant lists set forth in the manuals she consulted, Buckley classified the area as a wetland. She did not take into account hydrology, nor did she consider the relative dominance of the wetlands vegetation in the area under examination, in making her wetlands determinations. After receiving Buckley's wetlands map, Planning Council staff did not conduct any study of their own to verify the accuracy of the map. They did show the map, however, to EQCB representatives, who expressed concerns that the map was not consistent with jurisdictional determinations that had been made by the EQCB. Notwithstanding these concerns, Planning Council staff used Buckley's map to prepare a wetlands map of S.W. Broward and submitted the map it had prepared to the Planning Council. The Planning Council considered the map at a public hearing held in late February, 1989, a matter of days before the County Commission's March 1, 1989, adoption hearing. Considerable testimony was taken at the Planning Council hearing. Many of the people who spoke at the hearing were critical of the map. They voiced their opinion that the study conducted by Buckley, upon which the map was based, was not objective. The Planning Council rejected the map with which it had been presented by its staff. It recommended that the County Commission adopt a wetlands map which showed the Everglades buffer strip as the only wetlands area in S.W. Broward. It further suggested that the County Commission insert language in the comprehensive plan requiring further study of the matter so that a more accurate wetlands map could be prepared. When the wetlands map recommended by the Planning Council came before the County Commission for consideration at the Commission's March 1, 1989, adoption hearing, a representative of the Coalition urged the Commission to instead adopt the map Planning Council staff had prepared based upon Buckley's map. Buckley's map thereupon became the subject of heated public debate and criticism. Members of the public came forward and attacked Buckley's map as being imprecise and inaccurate. Among the matters brought to the attention of the County Commission was that, although Buckley had determined that the entire Imagination Farms parcel constituted wetlands, representatives of the EQCB, DER and the Corps had recently concluded otherwise. Buckley was given an opportunity by the County Commission to speak and to defend her map. During her presentation she was interrupted by her critics in the audience. She became unnerved and was unable to coherently explain to the Commission how she arrived at her findings. Given Buckley's failure to effectively rebut the persuasive arguments of her detractors, the County Commission reasonably determined that Buckley's map, as well as the map that Planning Council staff had prepared based upon her map, were unreliable and therefore should not be adopted. 27/ The County Commission recognized that there were wetlands in S.W. Broward that were not depicted on the map 28/ transmitted by the Planning Council, although it was unsure as to exactly where they were located. The map therefore, in the view of the County Commission, needed to be supplemented. The County Commission decided that the map should show, in addition to what the Planning Council had suggested, "[e]xisting wetland vegetation as identified on vegetation association maps of approved Developments of Regional Impact (DRI's)" and "[m]itigation areas, natural preserves, littoral zones and other wetland areas to be created and/or protected per the Master Plans of approved DRI's." The information upon which these additions to the map were to be based was readily available. There was no other readily available information upon which the County Commission felt it could rely to supplement the Planning Council's map. 29/ Accordingly, it adopted a wetlands map which did not depict any wetlands in S.W. Broward outside the Everglades buffer strip and approved Developments of Regional Impact. In addition, it committed Broward County to conducting a complete study of wetlands in S.W. Broward. 30/ The study is referenced in the following note that appears on the wetlands map adopted by the County Commission: Policy 09.05.06 provides that Broward County shall complete an inventory of all wetland areas in southwestern Broward by 1990 and identify those areas on the Wetlands Map (Map III.C.) of the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series). Immediately above this note on the map is the statement that "Objective 09.05.00 and its policies ensure the protection of wetlands." The adopted wetlands map also contains the following disclaimer: The Wetlands Map of the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map Series is incorporated pursuant to the requirements of Section 163.3177(6) Florida Statutes, and does not represent the wetland jurisdictional boundaries of the landward extent of regulated waters as provided for in the Code of Regulations of the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board. Another map discussed in Volume III, Chapter I of the plan is Map III.B. of the Natural Resource Map Series-Eastern Broward County. This map was adopted by the County Commission on March 1, 1989, as the map depicting Local Areas of Particular Concern and regional parks, as well as Natural Resource Areas in the unincorporated area. Volume III, Chapter I gives the following description of the process which resulted in the selection of the sites that are designated on the map as Local Areas of Particular Concern: The inventory of Environmentally Sensitive Lands 31/ was developed from the comprehensive study prepared by the Environmental Coalition of Broward County in 1987. This study identified approximately 200 sites that were deemed as significant natural areas within Broward County east of Flamingo Road. Of the original list of sites, 137 were transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs by the County Commission during September of 1988 with a commitment to further study and revise the map. During the interim, 13 sites were deleted because they have been destroyed. The remaining 124 sites were reviewed by County staff utilizing the criteria found in Section 8.[g].3 of [Volume I, Chapter IV(D) of the plan]. A total of 63 sites were sent forward for consideration as Local Areas of Particular (LAPC's). Following several public hearings, 39 sites were designated by the County Commission as LAPC's and will receive an additional level of protection under the Broward County Land Development Code. The LAPC sites are depicted on map III.B. Each site is summarized in Table I-3. The foregoing narrative accurately describes how these Local Areas of Particular Concern were selected. Those sites identified as natural areas in the Coalition's 1987 study 32/ that were not selected were eliminated as candidates for selection based upon the recommendations of staff who had visited the sites and upon testimony given at public hearings. Sites were eliminated for a variety of reasons, including their small size, their lack of uniqueness, the inferior quality of their vegetation, the development they had already experienced, the absence of potential and/or need for their protection, and the failure to give proper notice to their owners of their possible selection as Local Areas of Particular Concern. One site, known as the Harris scrub site, was eliminated because it was believed that its designation as a Local Area of Particular Concern would have an adverse impact on the County, notwithstanding that the botanical information presented to the County Commission reflected that the site was of "good quality." The sites selected by the County Commission as Local Areas of Particular Concern were, from a botanical perspective, among the best in the County. Some sites that were not selected as Local Areas of Particular Concern, including the Harris scrub site, were designated by the County Commission as Natural Resource Areas. As such, these sites were subject to the protection offered by Broward County Ordinance 89-6, which prohibits, with limited exceptions, the clearing of Natural Resource Areas before a site plan has been approved. To qualify as a Natural Resource Area a site must have a predominance of one of the native vegetative communities referenced in Volume I, Chapter IV(D) of the plan. Before a site may be designated a Local Area of Particular Concern or a Natural Resource Area notice of the public hearing at which the matter will be considered must be given to the site's owner. The other maps adopted by the County Commission as part of the Natural Resource Map Series show: existing and planned waterwells and cones of influence (Map III.A.); floodplains (Map III.D.); mineral resources (Maps III.E. and IV.B.); beaches, shores, rivers, harbors, drainage canals, major lakes and estuarine systems (Map III.F.); soils (Maps III.G. and IV.C.); and wetlands in the western two thirds of the County (Map IV.A.) These maps are also discussed and analyzed in Volume III, Chapter I of the plan. Volume III, Chapter II of the plan examines the location, 33/ character and magnitude of the existing vacant and undeveloped in Broward County to determine its suitability for use. Included is an examination of soils, topography, flood prone areas, wetlands, historic resources, environmentally sensitive lands, and water wellfields. The following observations are made in this portion of the plan with respect to flood prone areas: The 1982 Southwest Broward Study by SFWMD, notes that large portions of the area north of Hollywood Boulevard are prone to flooding with the potential for long periods. While existing floor elevations are above the flood stage, lawn, driveways and unimproved roads will be under water frequently. The SFWMD study also indicates that the area south of Hollywood Boulevard is also prone to being inundated to flooding due to low elevations, lack of slope and poor percolation characteristics. The natural drainage in southwest Broward due to topography is towards the southeast. * * * Development and redevelopment in areas that are flood prone require special development considerations. First, the raising of building pad elevations to meet the FEMA requirements. Secondly, the development of on-site drainage systems that provide sufficient site drainage and retain/detain stormwater runoff quantity and quality that meets the requirements of the SFWMD, Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board and, if applicable, the requirements of the local drainage district. The 1982 Southwest Broward Study by SFWMD provides information on the subsurface and ground water quality impacts based on anticipated future land uses in southwest Broward. * * * The 1982 Study is the best available data which provides information on the water quality impacts of southwest Broward. The study indicated future development in southwest Broward that is consistent with the 1982 land use plan, utilizes best management practices and is in compliance with the retention/detention criteria of the SFWMD [and] should have minimal impact on the aquifer and natural systems. The examination of wetlands includes the following analysis of wetlands in S.W. Broward: Within S.W. Broward the significant wetland communities occurring are non-forested fresh water wetlands (see NR Map No. III.C). These wetlands consist of three subcategories: wet prairies, managed wetlands and wetlands that have been impacted by invasive exotic species. The wet prairies have good representation of wetland plants. The soil is generally moist, and in many instances, with standing water. The managed wetlands have wetland flora intact although the flora is suppressed by management techniques such as mowing. The impacted wetlands have over fifty (50) percent cover of invasive exotic species as Malaleuca quinquenervia (Malaleuca) and Schinus terebinthifolious (Brazilian pepper). The native flora is suppressed but would return if the exotic species were removed. Environmentally sensitive lands are analyzed as follows: During 1989, Broward County has committed itself to a comprehensive program to identify and protect environmentally sensitive lands. This program is discussed in detail under the heading "Environmentally Sensitive Lands" in [Chapter I] of this Volume. In addition, Policy 09.01.07 calls for a review of areas containing natural resources during 1989 as depicted in the Natural Resource Map Series and the determination as to whether the designation and regulation of additional Environmentally Sensitive Lands is appropriate. The Broward County Commission shall conduct a review of the following maps and, utilizing the criteria enumerated herein or utilizing additional or alternative criteria reviewed and approved by the County Commission, make a determination whether the designation and regulation of additional Environmentally Sensitive Lands is [appropriate]: Existing and Planned Potable Water Wells and Zones of Influence Wetlands Flood Plains and Flood Prone Areas Mineral Resources Beaches, Rivers, Harbors, Canals, Major Lakes and Estuarine System Soils Local Areas of Particular Concern NR Map No. III.B. identifies several sites throughout the county that in addition to being designated natural areas . . . have also been afforded some level of protection through the local area of particular concern designation. However, there are many sites that are contained in the natural areas study within the County which should be offered a degree of protection through the land use planning process. Inasmuch as many of these areas will require platting through Broward County prior to the issuance of development permits it would be appropriate to offer the same level of protection to these areas as are afforded LAPC and urban wilderness areas. 34/ The most expeditious manner to approach protection for these areas is to amend the Broward County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 86-91) to require environmental impact assessments for plats including these sites prior to plat approval. Volume III, Chapter II of the plan contains the following conclusion regarding the suitability of land in the eastern third of Broward County for development: This portion of the document has assessed the suitability to develop Broward's vacant land relative to soils, topography and development in flood prone areas, wetlands, historic resources and environmentally sensitive lands. The analysis reveals that, for the most part, these factors do not play a significant role in developing vacant land. The major reasons for this is that current development economics allow site work to be accomplished within acceptable budget constraints such as soil modifications, the addition of fill to elevate sites and development of on-site stormwater retention/ detention facilities can be provided. In southwest Broward however, the development of vacant land should be required to meet criteria that minimizes impacts to water quality, drainage and natural systems. With this criteria in place, the land is suitable for development, although additional site development costs will be necessary to account for poor soil conditions and lower ground surface elevations. With the continuance of the Everglades buffer areas, along the west side of U.S. 27, the development of southwest Broward is not anticipated to impact the quality of the natural areas associated with the Everglades Conservation Area. Volume III, Chapter III of the plan analyzes the availability of facilities and services to meet the needs of existing land uses and land for which development orders have been issued. The facilities and services examined include those relating to sanitary sewage, solid waste, drainage, and potable water. Volume III, Chapter IV of the plan discusses roadways in the County and their existing levels of service. Volume III, Chapter V of the plan examines the redevelopment needs of the County. Volume III, Chapter VI of the plan projects, on both a countywide and subregional basis, the County's future population and the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population. Among the projections regarding the County's future land needs are those which forecast the amount of land that will be needed for residential use. It is projected that in the year 2010, a total 121,148 acres of land will be needed on a countywide basis for residential use, as compared to the 99,510 acres of land that are currently used for residential purposes countywide. This additional land will be needed because, as Volume III, Chapter VI of the plan reflects, the County's resident population is expected to increase by 411,360 (based upon 1987 population figures) 35/ to 1,592,358 in the year 2010. 36/ Table VI-11, which is found in Volume III, Chapter VI of the plan, reflects that the FLUM designates a total of 152,000 acres of land in the County for various residential uses, which is 30,852 acres of land more than is projected to be needed in the year 2010. 37/ According to the projections set forth in Volume III, Chapter VI of the plan, 44% of the "new residential acreage" in the year 2010 will have single family housing, and multifamily housing will occupy the remaining acreage. No projection is made, however, as to the amount of land that will be needed in the L-2 land use category or in any of the other individual residential land use categories. Contents of Broward County's Comprehensive Plan: Volumes II & IV Volume II of Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan sets forth the plan's remaining elements. These elements are as follows: future unincorporated land use element; traffic circulation element; bikeways element; mass transit element; Port Everglades element; Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport Element; general aviation element; housing element; redevelopment element; sanitary sewer element; solid waste element; potable water element; drainage and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element; coastal management element; conservation element; recreation and open space element; intergovernmental coordination element; and capital improvements element. These elements each contain goals, objectives and policies, as well as a description and analysis of pertinent existing conditions. The appendices to these elements are found in Volume IV of the plan. The plan's conservation element states as follows with respect to the geographic scope of its applicability: Section 8.04 of the Broward County Charter gives the County authority to protect the environment by prohibiting or regulating air or water pollution, or the destruction of the resources of the County. The service area for this Element is, therefore, considered to be the entire County to the extent that it addresses air and water quality and the protection of natural resources. The element includes a discussion and analysis of the natural resources found within the County's jurisdictional boundaries and their potential for conservation and protection. Floodplains, wetlands, and vegetative communities are among the natural resources discussed and analyzed. The following comments are made concerning the County's wetlands: The Conservation Areas, which consist of 710 square miles, west of the developable area of the County are a major wetland of great importance; one of their primary functions is water storage. (See Drainage/Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element). In 1981, there were approximately 5,300 acres of wetland existing in the unincorporated area of Broward County east of the Conservation Areas. The majority of those wetlands are dominated by Malaleuca, an exotic species which forces out native vegetation. Most of the other wetlands are categorized as sawgrass. An inventory of existing wetlands in the unincorporated area in 1981, including acreage, generalized locations, and type of wetland is provided in Appendix 19-4. * * * No current inventory of freshwater wetlands in Broward County exists, although it is known that many acres have been lost due to fill, drainage, saltwater intrusion, and drawdown of the water table. Appendix 19-4 reflects information gleaned from the South Florida Water Management District Land Use and Land Cover Maps that were published in 1981. The County's vegetative communities are addressed in the following narrative found in the plan's conservation element: Broward County consists of a variety of diverse ecological [vegetative] communities. Nine ecological communities have been identified and described by the Interpretive Section of the Parks and Recreation Division. Numerous species of plants and wildlife inhabit those communities including twenty species of endangered, threatened, or rare plants, mammals, birds, and reptiles. Listings of dominant plants and wildlife can be found according to ecological community in Appendix 19-1. Endangered, threatened, rare and species of special concern are noted. An inventory of birds sighted in Broward County regional parks is also included in Appendix 19-3. The inventory consists of over 200 species and is considered representative of the birds which can be found throughout the County. The nine vegetative communities identified in Appendix 19-1 are as follows: beach and dune community; coastal strand forest community; mangrove community; scrub community; pine flatwoods community; high hammock community; low hammock community; cypress wetland community; and Everglades community. Appendix 19-1 gives a general description of these communities and provides information regarding their geology and soils, dominant plant and animal species, current status and the impact that development has had on them. The plan's conservation element also contains a discussion of the existing County programs that serve to protect its natural resources. Among the programs described and explained are those dealing with Local Areas of Particular Concern, Natural Resource Areas, Urban Wilderness Areas and tree removal. Information concerning sites that have been designated as Local Areas of Particular Concern, Natural Resource Areas and Urban Wilderness Areas, including their location, is set forth in Appendices 19-7 and 19-8. Objectives 1 through 4 and Policies 1 through 10 of the plan's conservation element provide as follows: Objective 1- Update Broward County's existing data base of native vegetative communities by 1990. Policy 1- To update the native vegetative communities data base the County shall include those areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Lands on the Natural Resource Map Series as well as lands currently listed as LAPC's, Urban Wilderness Areas and those lands currently on the Urban Wilderness Inventory. The Native Vegetative Communities Data Base should be submitted to the Broward County Board of Commissioners for acceptance, upon completion along with the criteria utilized in the selection of lands for inclusion in the Data Base. Objective 2- Develop a system to monitor development activities occurring on lands listed on the Native Vegetative Communities Data Base. Policy 2- The County should develop a computerized inventory of the Native Vegetative Communities Data Base for access during the development review process. If a site is in the Data Base, the proposed site plan should include the incorporation of the natural vegetative community to the greatest extent possible. Objective 3- Revise the lists of natural resources protected through both the LAPC and the UWA Programs. Policy 3- The Native Vegetative Communities Data Base should be the source of new areas suitable for designation as Local Areas of Particular Concern (LAPC), (Map 19-1 and Appendix 19-8). Land should be selected for designation if the characteristics of one of the six LAPC categories has been satisfied. If any of the existing designated LAPC's no longer possess the characteristics of an LAPC, they should be eliminated from the list. Policy 4- The Native Vegetative Communities Data Base should be used for selecting resources for preservation as Urban Wilderness Areas (UWA). The Urban Wilderness Advisory Board should work with the Office of Planning in selecting areas to be recommended for acquisition as Urban Wilderness Areas (UWA). The UWAs recommended for acquisition should include cost estimates and be financially feasible. Policy 5- Urban Wilderness Areas (UWA) and other appropriate publicly owned lands should be designated as natural reserves on the Broward County Land Use Plan Map under the conservation land use category. Upon completion of the update of the native vegetative communities data base the Broward County Planning Council and the Broward County Office of Planning should study the native vegetative areas to determine which merit designation as LAPC's or purchase and preservation as UWAs. Policy 6- By 1990 the County shall develop a wide range of programs for the conservation of native vegetative communities, such as: acquisition, easements, innovative land development regulations, and incentive programs. Policy 7- Information from the Native Vegetative Communities Data Base shall be made available to local municipalities in order to coordinate resource management activities. Data Base information, provided to the local municipalities, would become the basis for resource "networking." This would establish intra-county vegetative corridors linking LAPC's and UWA's with other green-space areas. Objective 4- Amend the Broward County Tree Preservation Ordinance to promote the maintenance of native vegetative communities by 1990. Policy 8- By 1990 landscaping regulations should be created [which] address the preservation of existing native vegetative communities and the use of native vegetative materials. Policy 9- By 1990 lot clearing regulations should be created which will be effective in preserving native communities, conserving wildlife habitat and eliminating exotics from the local landscap[e]. The SFWMD Model Landscape Code includes land clearing and vegetation preservation procedures which could be used as a basis for revising the County's Ordinance. Policy 10- The lot clearing permitting process should concern those properties listed on the native vegetative cover data base. Coastal management issues are treated in the plan's coastal management element, which includes a natural disaster component and a deepwater port component, as well as other provisions. The natural disaster component applies to those areas in the County delineated in the Broward County Coastal Hurricane Evacuation Plan as being vulnerable to the effects of a hurricane and requiring evacuation, whether they are located in an incorporated municipality or in the unincorporated area of the County. The Port Everglades Authority (Authority) is an independent governmental entity responsible for the management of Port Everglades, a port located in Broward County. The Authority has adopted a Master Plan for the Port. The Master Plan was adopted by the County Commission as the deepwater component of the coastal management element of the County's comprehensive plan. The remaining portions of the plan's coastal management element apply primarily to the unincorporated coastal areas in the County. To the extent, however, that these remaining portions of the plan address programs administered on a countywide basis, such as beach preservation and renourishment programs, they are applicable to those areas served by these programs regardless of whether the areas in question are in the unincorporated part of the County. The coastal management element refers to the two coastal areas in the unincorporated portion of the County as the North Unincorporated Coastal Area (NUCA) and the South Unincorporated Coastal Area (SUCA). The NUCA is comprised of approximately 211 acres. It is almost fully developed. There are only three vacant lots in the area. The development in the area is predominately residential, although there is some commercial development. The SUCA, at approximately 198 acres, is slightly smaller than the NUCA. It falls within the area that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Port Everglades Authority. The view is expressed in the analysis section of the coastal management element that, because "the unincorporated coastal areas are almost fully developed, there is little that can be done to minimize conflicts between land uses and the natural resources of the area." It is further stated that "inasmuch as the unincorporated coastal areas are built out, development activities are expected to be very limited and to have no measurable impact on infrastructure." The plan's coastal management element includes the following goal, objectives and policies: Goal- Manage development activities in Broward County's coastal area to maximize aesthetic, environmental, recreational, and economic values. Objective 1- Renourish the Hollywood/Hallandale beach in 1990 in accordance with the EPD's [Broward County Erosion Prevention District's] Beach Management Plan. Policy 1- Maintain Broward County's beaches to a width of approximately 150 feet. Policy 2- Continue to support the EPD Beach Management Plan as a means of conserving the barrier islands resources. Objective 2- Improve the value of beaches and dunes as a protective device for upland development. Policy 3- Enforce and monitor compliance with the Coastal Construction Control Line Regulations. Policy 4- Permit and monitor development in the unincorporated coastal areas to ensure proper compliance with state and local regulations. Objective 3- Encourage local governments and property owners to protect existing beach vegetation and to revegetate the beach, where appropriate. Policy 5- The Broward Soil and Water Conservation District, with assistance from the USDA Soil Conservation Service, shall continue to provide technical assistance to coastal communities interested in implementing conservation plans. Objective 4- Provide for and maintain public access to the beach including parking facilities at a minimum of one-half mile intervals in the Coastal Area. Policy 6- The County should work with the coastal local governments to develop a plan for maximizing public access to the beach. * * * Policy 7- The County should develop proposals for public parking provision which could be implemented by all local governments interest[ed] in increasing the recreational value of Broward County's beaches. * * * Objective 6- Protect, conserve, and enhance remaining coastal wetlands, living marine resources, coastal barriers, and wildlife habitat, as applicable in the North and South Unincorporated Coastal Area. Policy 9- The County shall limit the specific and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetlands, water quality, water quantity, wildlife habitat, living marine resources and beach dune system through the review of developments by the Development Review Committee (DRC), the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB), and the Broward County Building and Zoning Enforcement Division (BZED). Objective 7- Maintain or improve estuarine environmental quality in the Unincorporated Areas. Policy 10- The County shall provide for restoration or enhancement of disturbed or degraded natural resources and programs to mitigate future disruptions or degradations through the Broward County Land Development Code. Objective 8- Provide criteria or standards for prioritizing shoreline uses, giving priority to water-dependent uses. Policy 11- The County shall maintain the existing zoning of the NUCA which gives priority to residential uses having water dependent accessory uses such as dockage and facilities for mooring pleasure boats, yachts, and non-commercial watercraft. Objective 9- Coordinate efforts and existing resource protection plans where possible to protect estuaries within the jurisdiction of more than one local government. Policy 12- The County shall monitor for potential development impacts on estuaries through participation on the Development Review Committee (DRC), the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB). Policy 13- The County shall coordinate its plans with existing resources protection plans of other agencies through participation on the DRC, TAC, and EQCB. The following are among the objectives and policies found in the plan's drainage and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element: Objective 8- Complete a comprehensive assessment of water management in Broward County by 1991. Policy 14- The comprehensive assessment should be phased to address critical areas in order of priority beginning with Southwest Broward County in accordance with an agreement between Broward County and the South Florida Regional Planning Council. Policy 15A- A study involving municipalities, local water control/drainage districts, the SFRPC, SFWMD, DER, and Broward County shall be conducted to integrate master plans of local districts, EQCB/WRMD water management plans, and other pertinent information for analysis and assessment to perform a determination of any deficiencies and present proposals for their rectification. Policy 15B- The study will involve an assessment of intergovernmental relationships among local and regional water managers. Policy 16- Until the water management assessment is complete, Broward County shall, prior to approving land use plan amendments in the flood prone portions of the County, require an applicant for a land use plan amendment to provide sufficient data and analysis for the County to make a determination that the subsequent development will be served by adequate stormwater management and drainage facilities and shall not adversely affect groundwater quality or environmentally sensitive lands, and not increase saltwater intrusion or area wide flooding. 38/ Policy 17- In order to prevent a degradation of the drainage level of service within Southwest Broward County, prior to the completion of the assessment, future development shall be designed to remove stormwater from non-water management areas, including but not limited to yards, within 72 hours of the end of the ten year design rainfall. The Regional Plan for South Florida The South Florida Regional Planning Council has adopted a Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan) to guide future development in Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties. The following are among the goals and policies found in the Regional Plan: Policy 37.1.4- Individual drainage systems should not adversely impact the water quantity or quality of the surrounding area. Policy 37.1.5- If an off-site water supply is proposed for a new development, confirmation, in writing and prior to construction, from the agency providing the water supply that it will have the capacity to serve the increased demand will be provided to the agencies reviewing the project. Goal 38.1- Beginning in 1987, reduce ground and surface water contamination. Policy 38.1.3- New septic tank systems will be permitted only in low density residential (no more than 2.9 DU per acre) areas and commercial developments not producing more than 1,500 gallons of waste per day, provided the area is serviced by public water supplies. These areas will be connected to regional facilities when they are available, subject to State and local regulations. Policy 39.1.3- Whenever a functional wetland or deep water habitat is degraded or destroyed, mitigation shall be provided either through the creation of new wetland and deep water habitat, through the restoration of degraded habitat or through the enhancement of functions and values provided by existing habitats. Policy 39.1.14- The cumulative impacts of small developments and projects should be addressed in all planning programs. Policy 46.1.4- Developments shall pay their fair share of the cost of providing for the recreational needs of the residents of the State. Goal 57.1- New development will not be permitted in areas where public facilities do not already exist, are not programmed, or cannot be economically provided. Policy 57.1.1- Decisions regarding the location, rate, and intensity of development should be based on the available capacity of the systems required or will be programmed to serve that development. Policy 57.1.3- Permit new development only when and where excess capacity exists, is programmed, or where funding is otherwise made available. Policy 58.1.7- Encourage the compatibility of adjacent land uses. The State Comprehensive Plan The State of Florida also has a comprehensive plan. The State Comprehensive Plan confronts issues of statewide importance. The following are among the policies of the State Comprehensive Plan: "[e]nsure that new development is compatible with existing and local and regional water supplies;" "[p]rotect aquifers from depletion and contamination through appropriate regulatory programs and incentives;" "[p]rotect surface and groundwater quality and quantity in the state;" "[e]liminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state;" "[d]evelop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses, 39/ while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats;" "[p]rovide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities;" "[a]llocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents;" and "[e]ncourage the development of a business climate that provides opportunities for the growth and expansion of existing state industries, particularly those industries which are compatible with Florida's environment."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order in Case No. 89-2645GM and Case No. 89-2646GM finding that Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan is "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of June, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1990.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Jacksonville's (City's) amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), also known as Ordinance No. 2007-355-E, and a related text amendment to Conservation/Coastal Management Element Policy 7.3.1 adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-315-E are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City (which also comprises Duval County) is a local government in northeast Florida whose eastern boundary adjoins the Atlantic Ocean. The City is partially bisected by the St. Johns River (River), which begins several hundred miles to the south, flows north through the lower half of the City, and then turns east, eventually emptying into the Atlantic Ocean. The Intracoastal Waterway is connected to the River and runs parallel to the coast. The City adopted the plan amendments which are being challenged by the Department and Intervenors. Intervenor Valerie Britt and the six resident intervenors own property and/or reside within the City. They each presented oral or written comments to the City regarding both amendments before transmittal but before their adoption. As such, they are affected persons and have standing to participate in this matter. Moody (formerly known as the Moody Land Company, Inc.) owns property and operates a business within the City. Moody submitted oral or written comments in support of both amendments to the City after transmittal but before adoption of the amendments. As such, it has standing as an affected person to participate. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, including the City. Coastal High-Hazard Area Because the CHHA is relevant to both the FLUM amendment and the text amendment challenges, a brief overview of its history and development is appropriate. For local governments abutting the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico, or that include or are contiguous to waters of the state, Section 163.3178, Florida Statutes, enumerates certain requirements that must be included within the coastal management element of their comprehensive plans. See § 163.3178(2)(a)-(k), Fla. Stat. The purpose of this directive is that comprehensive plans should "protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster." § 163.3178(1), Fla. Stat. Because it lies adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, the City is subject to these requirements. One of the requirements is the designation of a CHHA in the element. § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. "[F]or uniformity and planning purposes," prior to 2006, the CHHA was simply defined as "category 1 evacuation zones." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. (2005). Presumably to eliminate inconsistencies in the application of this broad definition, in 2006 the Legislature redefined the term as ”the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. (2006). The new law required that no later than July 1, 2008, local governments situated on or near Florida's coastline amend their "future land use map and coastal management element to include the new definition of [CHHA] and to depict the [CHHA] on the [FLUM]." § 163.3178(9)(c), Fla. Stat. Because Policy 7.3.1 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element of the City's current Plan still utilizes the old definition of CHHA, Ordinance No. 2008-315-E was adopted for the purpose of complying with this requirement. The SLOSH model is a computerized model developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service to calculate hurricane storm surge heights. Storm surge is the abnormal rise of water caused by wind and the pressure forces of hurricanes. Based upon various inputs, such as the direction and speed of a hurricane, initial water elevation, topography, and bathymetry, the model produces a display with storm tide elevations per grid cell. The use of a grid cell enables the model to predict storm surge in a smaller land area. The outputs of the model are storm surge elevations averaged over grid cells, which are accurate to within twenty percent based upon post-storm observations from tide gauges behind coastal barrier islands. In July 1998, the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council, now known as the Northeast Florida Regional Council, published a four-volume Storm Surge Atlas (Atlas) as a public safety planning tool to assist with hurricane evacuation planning within northeast Florida. (Each regional planning council in the State is tasked with this responsibility.) Volume 2 applies to Duval County. The Atlas reflects SLOSH model storm surge data on a map with land elevations and water features, thus providing emergency planners information they can use to evacuate coastal areas at appropriate times. Areas depicted in the Atlas below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line are subject to evacuation and are considered to be in the CHHA. In preparing the Atlas, the Council used not only SLOSH model data, but other "suggested changes" (not otherwise disclosed) by emergency manager directors. Because of the time and effort involved in preparing the original Atlas, it has not been revised since its original publication in 1998. The topographical data input for the SLOSH model and the base map for Volume 2 of the Atlas was the 7.5-Minute Series Jacksonville Beach Quadrangle Map produced by the United States Geological Survey. These maps are used to establish the ground elevations for the grids but are limited in their ability to do fine resolution, that is, provide detailed information regarding the elevation for small areas of land within the grid. Although the Atlas indicates that it used the most current quadrangle map available, which was the 1994 version, the Council actually used the 1981 version. Except for some minor items, however, the record does not disclose any material differences between the two maps. Therefore, the use of the older version does not affect the validity of the information in the Atlas. The Atlas further indicates that the base contours taken from the Quadrangle Map were five-foot contours. However, both the 1981 and the 1994 versions of the Quadrangle Map only show a ten-foot contour line just to the south and southwest of the Moody property, and no five-foot contour lines. See Moody Exhibit BRJ-3. Thus, the map was "just saying that this property [the Moody property] is 10 feet or less." Time/History points are specific points within SLOSH grid cells that are selected by the Council for the purpose of giving detailed information at the point selected. Many of the points are on or near critical roadways. The Moody property is directly underneath Time/History Point 73. In terms of size, the Moody property is a very small percentage of the total grid cell in which that point is located. According to the Atlas, Point 73 is where Atlantic Boulevard crosses the Intracoastal Waterway. The Department, City, and Moody agree, and the Atlas indicates, that the maximum category 1 storm surge elevation at that point is five feet. Therefore, any land that is in the vicinity of Time/History Point 73 and is less than or equal to five feet in elevation will be inundated by the maximum category 1 hurricane storm surge. According to the legend on the Atlas, areas depicted in dark blue can anticipate inundation in a category 1 storm. The geographic area within Time/History Point 73 is shown on Plate 6 of Volume 2 of the Atlas and depicts the entire Moody property, as well the land in the vicinity of that point, in dark blue, thus implying that all or most of Moody's property is within the storm surge for a category 1 storm. However, it is noted that a significant portion of the Moody property is obscured by the Point 73 label on the Atlas' Plate 6. Even so, given the broad brush scope of that document and the solid dark blue color extending along the Intracoastal Waterway in that area, it is fair to infer that the land area under the label is also dark blue and subject to category 1 evacuation requirements. For land use planning throughout the State, the Department uses the CHHA that is established in the Atlas published by the local regional planning council. (In both the existing and amended versions of Policy 7.3.1, the City also uses the Atlas for purposes of delineating the CHHA.) Therefore, if the Atlas depicts a geographic area as being in the CHHA, the Department relies upon that information when it reviews plan amendments proposing to increase density within that area. In doing so, the Department acknowledges that the Atlas necessarily reflects the areas subject to storm surge on a "broad-brush regional approach," but points out that it would be impractical to attempt to carve out extremely small areas along the coast or waterways, parcel by parcel or acre by acre, which might have elevations above the storm surge line and not be subject to the development requirements within a CHHA. It also points out that if exceptions to the storm surge line in the Atlas are allowed, the CHHA requirements could be circumvented by a landowner simply placing fill on the property to raise the elevation. Finally, the SLOSH model is based on average elevations for an entire grid cell, and the model cannot produce a map with land elevations for specific parcels. The Department suggests, however, that generalized data is the best data available for conducting an analysis of storm surge. Because of the "broad-brush" and "averaging" constraints inherent in the Atlas and SLOSH, and the fact that the Atlas' delineation of the CHHA is used primarily for evacuation planning purposes rather than land use planning, the City and Moody contend that site-specific data is more desirable when determining land use entitlements. They suggest that professionally prepared surveys are far more accurate and precise in determining the elevation on a parcel than the Quadrangle Map, which in this case only depicted ten-foot contours. In this vein, the amended version of Policy 7.3.1 (which is the subject of Case No. 08-4193GM) allows a property owner to submit site-specific data (such as a survey) to demonstrate that the property, or part of it, is not below the category 1 storm surge elevation and is not within the CHHA. An increase of density (or development) within a CHHA is not barred by the statute. In fact, Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that plan amendments proposing an increase in density within a CHHA may be found in compliance if the adopted level of service (LOS) for out-of-county hurricane evacuation is maintained for a category 5 storm event; or (b) a 12-hour evacuation time to shelter is maintained for a category 5 storm event and shelter reasonably expected to accommodate the residents of the contemplated development is available; or (c) appropriate mitigation is provided that will satisfy the provisions of items (a) and (b), including payment of money, contribution of land, and construction of hurricane shelters and transportation facilities. Therefore, even if the Moody parcel is found to be within a CHHA, it may still increase density within that parcel so long as the above criteria are met. By way of example, payments into a shelter mitigation fund would be one way to mitigate the effects of increasing residential density within the CHHA. FLUM Amendment The property In early 1995, Moody acquired the 77.22-acre tract of property which is the subject of the FLUM amendment, although it has been used as an industrial shipyard since 1951. The property lies on the north side of Atlantic Boulevard, a principal arterial roadway which generally extends from the coast (beginning just north of Neptune Beach) westward to the "downtown" area. The eastern boundary of the property adjoins the Intracoastal Waterway. Approximately 37 acres of the property, or a little less than one-half of the total acreage, consists of environmentally sensitive saltwater marshes. These are located on the west, north, and northeast sides of the property. Near the southwest corner of the property there is also a small wetland scrub vegetative community. The commercial activities on the current site consist of approximately 116,500 square feet of heavy industrial uses involved in the construction and repair of large ships. They are located on that part of the southern half of the property which sits closest to Atlantic Boulevard and the Intracoastal Waterway. The site also includes a small harbor for docking of ships. The area immediately surrounding the existing boat basin in the south-central part of the property has been environmentally disturbed as part of the ongoing shipyard operations. The development surrounding the Moody site is a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Single-family residences are the dominant use, occupying seventy-four percent of parcels within a one-half mile radius of the property. Britt and the resident intervenors all reside or own property in a residential development known as Pablo Point, which begins a hundred feet or so to the west of the Moody property, separated only by a marshland. Directly south of the Moody property, and on the south side of Atlantic Boulevard, is a new development known as HarborTown, which in 2002 was the subject of two land use changes, one from Agriculture IV to Conservation and one from Water-Dependent and Water Related (WD-WR) to Community/General Commercial (C/GC). A companion Planned Unit Development (PUD) provides for a mixed residential development with a maximum of 690 dwelling units, 28,000 square feet of office and commercial space, 150 wet slips, and conservation of approximately 29 acres of marshlands. According to the Atlas, it appears that at least part, if not all, of that development may be within the CHHA. The property is accessed by a service road at the Intracoastal Waterway, off Atlantic Boulevard. The eastbound exit ramp, which would be used by emergency rescue teams to access the site, exits to the right and goes under Atlantic Boulevard adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway in order to reach the Moody site. Egress from the site westbound is by way of a service road on the north side of Atlantic Boulevard. The Moody property is in two flood zones: X5 and AE. Flood zone X5 generally corresponds with the upland areas at the center of the property that have been historically disturbed by shipyard operations and are not likely to flood. Floodzone AE generally corresponds with the environmentally sensitive wetland areas of the property and will likely flood in a 100-year storm. The Application and Review Process Sometime in 2006, Moody filed an application with the City to change the land use designation on its property from WD- WR and Agriculture IV to C/GC. The WD-WR classification allows for water dependent industrial uses such as shipyards, industrial docks, and port facilities. The Agriculture IV land use allows various agriculture uses and single-family residential development at the maximum density of 2.5 units per acre. The C/GC designation permits a wide range of uses, including multi-family residential and boat storage and sales, and is the same land use classification as the HarborTown project across Atlantic Boulevard and to the south. In contrast to the Agriculture IV land use, however, the C/GC land use allows residential development up to twenty units per gross acre. Thus, the map amendment will result in a potential net increase in development by 1,146 dwelling units and 200,245 square feet of nonresidential land use. After reviewing the application, the City approved the map change in December 2006 as a part of its semi-annual land use changes to its Plan. The amendment was then transmitted to the Department for its review. On March 5, 2007, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, which noted six objections and one comment. Despite the objections contained in the ORC, on May 14, 2008, the City approved the map change by enacting Ordinance No. 2007-355-E. In conjunction with the land use change, the City also approved a PUD for the property (Ordinance No. 2007-356-E enacted the same date), which authorizes a maximum residential development of four residential buildings and 590 dwelling units on the property. This density would be achieved by the construction of four twelve-story buildings, each standing around 144 feet high. In addition, Moody intends to develop marina-related specialty retail (including a club, retail, and restaurant activities) not exceeding 6,500 square feet; a marina consisting of 650 slips, a minimum of which will be available to the public on a first come, first served basis; and a public boat ramp. However, the PUD conditions the residential approval through the restriction that no residential development shall be permitted on any portion of the property in the CHHA unless residential units are made available as a result of a program of mitigation for development in the CHHA, approved by the City and the Department under Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes. This meant that the mitigation plan would take those impacts created by residential density in vulnerable areas and negate those impacts by minimizing the time it would take to evacuate and by providing adequate sheltering for those individuals if there was not adequate sheltering already available. On July 9, 2008, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendments Not in Compliance (Statement of Intent). (This action was directed not only to Ordinance No. 2007-355-E, but also to the other sixteen FLUM amendments, as well as certain other amendments not relevant here.) On August 1, 2008, the Department filed its Petition alleging that Ordinance No. 2007-355-E is not in compliance. The Department and Intervenors' Objections Moody (with the City's concurrence) has acknowledged on the record that the FLUM amendment is not in compliance. Although the Department has stated a number of reasons why the amendment is not in compliance, unfortunately, there is no record stipulation by the parties as to which specific deficiencies in the Statement of Intent, if any, the City and Moody still dispute. Further, in their Joint Proposed Recommended Order, the City and Moody contend that the Department and supporting Intervenors failed to sustain their objections in several respects. Because of this, a discussion of the Department and Intervenors' objections is appropriate. This Recommended Order will focus only on the objections to the amendment as adopted by the City, and not whether proposed mitigation measures will bring the amendment into compliance. The Department asserts that the FLUM amendment is not in compliance for four reasons. First, it alleges that the City has failed to direct population concentrations away from a known or predicted CHHA, maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times, or present sufficient mitigation to offset these impacts. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and 7.; § 163.3178(9)(a), Fla. Stat. Second, it alleges that the amendment does not comply with the wetlands protection and conservation requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(3), and it is internally inconsistent with Conservation/Coastal Management Element Goal 4 and Objective 4.1 of the Plan. Third, the Department alleges that the amendment will cause LOS standards on two segments of Atlantic Boulevard to fail, that the traffic analysis performed by Moody was flawed, and that the amendment did not include a financially feasible transportation improvement plan to mitigate traffic impacts. Fla. Admin. Code 9J-5.019(3)(a), (c), and (h). Finally, it contends that because of these deficiencies, the amendment is inconsistent with certain goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan (State Plan) and Northeast Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan). In resolving these contentions, it is noted that the Department's Petition adopts the allegations in the Statement of Intent, which alleges that the amendment is inconsistent with numerous provisions within Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5, and the City, State, and Regional Plans. However, in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department relies on only some, but not all, of these grounds for urging that the amendment be found not in compliance.3 The undersigned assumes that the Department has simply conformed its allegations to the proof adduced at hearing. (In any event, because the parties agree the amendment is not in compliance, this assumption does not affect the outcome of the case.) Britt and the resident intervenors are aligned with the Department and also contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.1 and Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.10, and 1.1.14; Conservation/Coastal Management Element Goals 2, 3, 4, and 7, Objectives 4.1 and 7.4, and Policies 2.8.3, 7.1.6, 7.1.9, 7.3.12, 7.4.8, 7.4.12, and 11.1.1; and Transportation Element Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 and Policy 1.1.4. They further assert that archeological resources will be impacted. Development Within the CHHA The Department has alleged that the FLUM amendment constitutes a failure by the City to direct population concentrations away from a known or predicted CHHA, maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times, or present sufficient mitigation to offset these impacts. These requirements are applicable when an increase in density is proposed for property within a CHHA. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and 7.; § 163.3178(9)(a), Fla. Stat. As noted above, the parties sharply disagree on whether, for land use entitlement purposes, the entire site is within a CHHA. Although existing and amended Policy 7.3.1 rely upon the Atlas for delineating the areas of the City within the CHHA, the proposed amendment to Policy 7.3.1 also allows property owners to provide site-specific data indicating that the property is above the category 1 storm surge elevation and therefore is not subject to the development constraints associated with the CHHA. A professionally prepared survey confirms that about 23.88 acres of the Moody property, mostly located at the south- center of the site where existing commercial activities take place, are above five feet in elevation. (The elevation on the entire parcel ranges from two or three feet along the marsh of the lower lands to nearly twelve feet in the southwest corner of the property, or an average elevation of about seven feet.) Therefore, only the approximately 53.34 acres of the property below five feet in elevation can be expected to be inundated by the maximum category 1 storm surge; the other 23.88 acres will not be affected. The areas on the property which are above the five- foot contour line are connected to Atlantic Boulevard by a service road with an elevation of eleven or twelve feet down to eight feet at its lowest point. Thus, this part of the property is unlikely to ever become completely surrounded by water or inaccessible by emergency personnel or others by car in a category 1 storm event. Even those areas that are below five feet and subject to the storm surge will only reach and maintain an elevation of five feet of water for five or ten minutes before the water begins receding. The evidence shows that slightly less than twenty-four acres of the property are above the category 1 storm surge elevation of five feet, as established by the SLOSH. The evidence further shows that the Atlas is not the most accurate or precise in terms of land elevations because it only depicts ten-foot contours taken from the Quadrangle Map. Thus, it does not identify the elevation on any property less than ten feet. Because of this, on a site-specific scale, based on the Atlas, it cannot be said with certainty that a site or portions of a site are inside or outside of the CHHA. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that, for land use entitlement purposes within the City, a professionally prepared survey constitutes the best available data regarding land elevations. Therefore, as long as Moody restricts its development to the twenty-four acres that have an elevation of five feet or higher, the mitigation requirements cited by the Department for development within a CHHA do not apply. Environmental Issues The Department asserts that the amendment fails to comply with the wetlands protection and conservation requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(3)(a) and (b) and is internally inconsistent with Goal 4 and Objective 4.1 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element of the Plan. The Department also cites to Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes,4 which requires that the Plan protect wetlands and other natural resources. These requirements are relevant here since the site to be developed is bordered on the north and west by wetland areas and other environmentally sensitive lands that are characterized as primarily saltwater marshes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(3)(a) and addresses policies regarding the protection and conservation of wetlands. It reads as follows: Wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands shall be protected and conserved. The adequate and appropriate protection and conservation of wetlands shall be accomplished through a comprehensive planning process which includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands, and which is based on supporting data and analysis. Future land uses which are incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland functions shall be directed away from the wetlands. The type, intensity or density, extent, distribution and location of allowable land uses and the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and location of wetlands are land use factors which shall be considered when directing incompatible land uses away from wetlands. Land uses shall be distributed in a manner that minimizes the effect and impact on wetlands. The protection and conservation of wetlands by the direction of incompatible land uses away from wetlands shall occur in combination with other goals, objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan. Where incompatible land uses are allowed to occur, mitigation shall be considered as one means to compensate for loss of wetlands functions. Goal 4 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element provides that a City goal shall be "[t]o achieve no further net loss of the natural functions of the City's remaining wetlands, improve the quality of the City's wetlands resources over the long-term and improve the water quality and fish and wildlife values of wetlands." Objective 4.1 of the same Element implements Goal 4 and reads as follows: The City shall protect and conserve the natural functions of its existing wetlands, including estuarine marshes. In order to achieve this objective and its associated policies, the City shall continue to work with the applicable regional, state and federal agencies charged with these regulatory responsibilities. As the FLUM amendment now reads, development is limited only by the PUD. Although the PUD contains specific criteria that can be used to prevent adverse impacts to the wetland system, unless appropriate restrictions are incorporated into the Plan itself, the PUD can be amended at any time in the future to allow the property to be developed to its maximum potential. Because the data and analysis for impacts to wetlands are based on the PUD, and not the maximum development potential, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis to ensure that there will be no net loss in existing wetlands, or that existing wetlands will be preserved and protected, as required by Goal 4 and Objective 4.1. Further, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis to show that the City is protecting and preserving natural resources by directing incompatible uses away from the wetlands, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(a) and (b). Therefore, the amendment is internally inconsistent with a goal and objective and is inconsistent with a Department rule. It is also inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), which requires that there be internal consistency within a Plan. Finally, the amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, which requires that the Plan protect all natural resources, including wetlands. Transportation Impacts The Department contends that the amendment will cause the LOS on two roadway links to fail, that the traffic analysis submitted inappropriately assumed densities and intensities that were less than allowed by the amendment, and that the amendment did not include a financially feasible transportation improvement plan to mitigate traffic. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.019(3)(a), (c), and (h). To address potential traffic impacts from the project, Moody's engineering consultant prepared a transportation analysis and hurricane evacuation study dated April 2007. This analysis was based on the amount of development approved under the PUD rezoning, and not the maximum development allowed under the Plan. The study showed that the amendment will cause the adopted LOS standards for two links on Atlantic Boulevard to fail. Those links include the segment from the Intracoastal Waterway to San Pablo Road and the segment from San Pablo Road to Girvin Road. The study does not show how the City will maintain its LOS standards on those links, assuming that the maximum development is allowed. In this respect, the amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(c) and (h). Also, the package did not include a financially feasible transportation improvement plan to mitigate the traffic impacts. Although one roadway improvement project is under construction and a second is included in the Capital Improvements Element, both of which should assist in alleviating the traffic impacts caused by the development, these mitigation measures assume that the project will be based upon the development restrictions contained in the PUD and not on the densities and intensities that are potentially allowed under the FLUM amendment. Therefore, in this respect, the amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(c) and (h). After this proceeding began, the City engaged the services of Prosser Hallock Planners and Engineers to perform a Transportation Analysis Update (Update). The results of that study are dated September 2008. See Moody Exhibit AFK-4. Like the original study, the Update was "based on the site plan [described in the PUD] and not on the maximum densities allowed in the land uses requested." Therefore, because the current FLUM amendment does not restrict development to the maximum densities allowed under the land uses requested, the study fails to properly assess the traffic impacts of the changes, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(c) and (h). To test transportation impacts from the project, both the original traffic analysis and the Update used a methodology taken from a September 2006 memorandum prepared by the DOT's District II office. See Moody Exhibit AFK-3. However, this methodology uses a "significant and adverse" test to determine road impacts for Development of Regional Impacts (DRIs) under Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-2. In using the so- called DRI methodology, the City and Moody assumed that the Department had approved this methodology when it entered into settlement agreements with the applicants for the other sixteen FLUM amendments in Case No. 07-3539GM. However, this assumption was incorrect. While the DRI methodology is not specifically prohibited for use in a plan amendment review, a better methodology to assess traffic impacts for plan amendments is the LOS standard referred to in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(a) and (h). Therefore, the amendment is not consistent with this rule. Archaeological Resources The Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State has reviewed the amendment and expressed no concerns regarding potential impacts on historical or archaeological resources. The contention by Britt and the resident intervenors that such resources will be impacted has been rejected. Consistency with the State and Regional Plans The Department argues that when the State Plan is construed as a whole, the amendment is inconsistent with that Plan, in contravention of Section 187.101(3), Florida Statutes. It also contends that the amendment is inconsistent with certain policies within State Plan Goals (9)(a), (15)(a), (17)(a), and (19)(a),5 which are codified in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Those goals relate generally to natural systems and recreational lands, land use, public facilities, and transportation, respectively. Specifically, the Department contends the amendment is inconsistent with Policies (9)(b)1.,5., and 7., (15)(b)5. and 6., (17)(b)6., and (19)(b)15., which implement the Goals. The Department further contends that the FLUM amendment is inconsistent with Regional Goal 3.2 and Regional Policy 3.2.2. The Regional Goal requires that future development be directed away from areas most vulnerable to storm surge and flooding, while Regional Policy 3.2.2 provides that "[d]evelopment within hurricane evacuation areas should be responsible and permitted only when evacuation route capacity and shelter space capacity is available. Responsible development includes but is not limited to: structures elevated in storm surge and flooding areas, adequate drainage in flooding areas, and sufficient access for emergency response vehicles to all development." Because the FLUM amendment is now limited only by the PUD, and not by other development restrictions in the Plan, the amendment is inconsistent with the cited policies within the State Plan until appropriate remedial measures are adopted. For the same reason, the FLUM amendment is inconsistent with the Regional Goal and Policy. Other Objections Because the City and Moody concede that the amendment is not in compliance, it is unnecessary to address the remaining objections lodged by Britt and the resident intervenors. Ordinance No. 2008-315-E Prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-315-E, Policy 7.3.1 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element read as follows: The City shall designate the Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) as those areas designated as the evacuation zone for a category 1 hurricane as established by the 1998 Northeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study or the most current study. In order to comply with the mandate that before July 1, 2008, it amend the definition of a CHHA to be consistent with state law, the City originally proposed to amend its current policy by redefining the CHHA as follows: The Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) is the area below the elevation of the Category 1 storm surge line as defined by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model as established by the most current Northeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study. It is shown on Map C-18. In February 2008, the foregoing amendment, along with an amendment to another policy not relevant here, was transmitted to the Department for its preliminary review. On March 21, 2008, the Department issued an ORC in which it lodged only one technical objection to new Policy 7.3.1. -- that the amendment was inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2), which requires that when a local government adopts by reference a document that may be revised subsequent to plan adoption, the local government "will need to have [its] reference updated within the plan through the amendment process." For reasons not of record, this specific objection was not included in the Statement of Intent or in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation. Even though the Department's Proposed Recommended Order now relies upon that objection, the issue has been waived. Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 2095GM, 1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 163 at *63 (DOAH Oct. 15, 1996; DCA Nov. 25, 1996)("[challenger] is bound by the allegations in its Petition for Hearing as to the alleged deficiencies in the Plan, as further limited by the Prehearing Stipulation filed in [the] case"). Notwithstanding the technical objection, an adoption hearing was scheduled on June 10, 2008, at which time the City proposed to amend Policy 7.3.1 by adopting the provision as submitted to the Department. During the meeting, but prior to a vote on the matter being taken, a Moody representative submitted for consideration revised language, which added the following sentence at the end of the Policy: "A property shall be deemed to be within the CHHA unless site specific, reliable data and analysis demonstrates otherwise." See City Exhibit 1. The City then adopted the proposed amendment, including the language suggested by Moody. On August 7, 2008, the Department issued a Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendments Not in Compliance (Statement of Intent). A Notice was also published on August 8, 2008. The Statement of Intent indicated that the text amendment is not in compliance because it is inconsistent with the statutory definition found in Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and it creates an internal inconsistency with Conservation/Coastal Element Map C-18 attached to the text amendment. That Map defines and depicts the CHHA as the Category 1 surge zone based on the SLOSH model in the Atlas. The Statement of Intent further asserts that the foregoing deficiencies render the amendment inconsistent with State Plan Goals (7)(a), (8)(a), (15)(a), and (25)(a) and Policies (7)(b)23., (15)(b)6., and (25)(b)7. and Regional Goal 3.2. All of these objections are based upon the City's inclusion at the end of the amendment the words "unless site specific, reliable data and analysis demonstrates otherwise." Intervenor Britt has adopted the objections lodged by the Department. The statutory definition of CHHA does not reference an Atlas or a Hurricane Evacuation Study, but instead only references the SLOSH storm surge elevation for a category 1 storm event. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(c) requires that "[d]ata are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such as . . . regional planning councils . . . or existing technical studies." No matter which the City uses, "[t]he data used shall be the best available data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies." Id. In this case, the City has chosen to utilize the Atlas as the best available data regarding delineation of the CHHA unless rebutted by better data and analysis in the form of "site specific, reliable data and analysis." So long as the SLOSH storm surge elevation for a category 1 storm event is used, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that use of either the Atlas or a land survey identifying the category 1 storm surge contour line on a given property is consistent with the statutory definition. Therefore, the Department's contention that the text amendment conflicts with the statutory definition has not been accepted. The Department also contends that the text amendment creates an internal inconsistency with Map C-18 of the Plan. However, the evidence shows that Map C-18 is used for illustrative purposes only and is intended to be a depiction of the information contained in the Atlas. For the reasons cited in the previous Finding of Fact, the Department and Intervenors have failed to show beyond fair debate that the use of site specific data is inconsistent with other provisions in the Plan. The Department further contends that if the amendment is approved, the requirements of the CHHA can be circumvented by a property owner simply filling his property above the elevation of a category 1 storm surge line. Provided all applicable permitting requirements have been met, however, there is nothing of record to indicate that this would be inappropriate or unlawful. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the text amendment is inconsistent with the State or Regional plans. The evidence shows that the City's determination that Policy 7.3.1 is in compliance is fairly debatable. Proposed Remedial Measures for Ordinance 2007-355-E The City and Moody have proposed the following remedial measures to bring the FLUM amendment into compliance, which would be incorporated into a new text amendment or by using an asterisk on the FLUM: Limit residential development to 590 dwellings; Limit marina-related specialty retail (including club, retail, and restaurant activities) to 6,500 square feet; Make available to the general public a minimum of 100 wet and dry slips; Make available to the 590 dwelling units a maximum of 550 wet and dry slips; Comply with the current Florida Clean Marina Program as designated by state law; Confine all residential and non- residential uses (other than boat channels, basins, docks, slips, and ramps) to the mean high water line; Confine all residential uses to areas above the elevation of the Category One storm surge line as established by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model, which on the Moody property is 5.0 feet (NGVD-29); Obtain, prior to final site plan approval, a final wetlands jurisdictional line from the appropriate regulatory agencies; and Provide a conservation easement (except for boat channels, basins, docks, slips, and ramps), which will provide the highest level of protection, to the appropriate state agency or agencies for all wetlands that it or they require to be preserved. The City and Moody have also agreed to "correct certain inaccurate traffic-roadway improvement descriptions contained in its Traffic Circulation and Mass Transit 5-Year Plan" by: Revising the Hodges Boulevard roadway project to describe the construction of a 4- lane urban section from Atlantic Boulevard to Beach Boulevard; and Revising the Atlantic Intracoastal West Area Intersection Improvements roadway project (Atlantic Boulevard at Girvin Road, Hodges Boulevard, and San Pablo Road) to describe additional through lanes (from 6 to 8 lanes) to Atlantic Boulevard between each of the three intersections. No findings are made as to whether the above-proposed remedial measures will bring the FLUM amendment into compliance. See endnote 2, infra.
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 plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-355-E is not in compliance. It is further recommended that the final order make a determination that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-315-E is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2009.
