The Issue The issue in this case is whether Ft. Myers' comprehensive plan, as amended, is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the prehearing stipulation, as amended during the final hearing.
Findings Of Fact Background The City of Ft. Myers, (Ft. Myers) adopted its comprehensive plan on February 13, 1989. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued a Notice of Intent to find the plan not in compliance. Among other things, DCA alleged that the plan improperly omitted the Mid-Point Bridge and was inadequate in terms of intergovernmental coordination, at least with regard to the bridge. The City of Cape Coral (Cape Coral) and Lee County filed petitions to intervene. The petitions challenged the Ft. Myers plan based on its omission of the Mid-Point Bridge. DCA and Ft. Myers subsequently reached a settlement. On August 20, 1990, Ft. Myers adopted plan amendments pursuant to the settlement agreement. The plan, as amended, will be referred to as the Plan. DCA issued a Notice of Intent to find the plan amendments in compliance, but Lee County and Cape Coral, finding the plan amendments unsatisfactory, continued to prosecute their challenge to the Plan. Ft. Myers and Cape Coral are two of the three municipalities located in Lee County. /2 The two cities are divided by the Caloosahatchee River, which forms the western end of the Okeechobee Waterway. This waterway links the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Okeechobee, via the Caloosahatchee River, and Lake Okeechobee to the Atlantic Ocean. In the eastern part of Lee County, the Caloosahatchee River runs from east to west. In this area, the river is spanned by the State Road 31 Bridge and, further downstream, the Interstate 75 bridge. In the vicinity of Interstate 75, about two miles northeast of the city limits of Ft. Myers, the river widens, makes a slow turn, and takes a northeast-to-southwest course. Except for a railroad bridge about one mile downstream from the Interstate 75 bridge, the next bridge is the Edison Bridge, which is about 5 1/2 miles downstream from the Interstate 75 bridge. The Edison Bridge serves old U.S. 41. The southern landfall of this bridge runs into the northern end of the central business district of Ft. Myers. The Edison Bridge, which is presently two lanes, is planned to be widened to six lanes in the near future. About 1/2 mile downstream of the Edison Bridge is the Caloosahatchee Bridge, which serves new U.S. 41. The southern landfall of the Caloosahatchee Bridge, which is sometimes called the 41 Bridge, also runs into the central business district of Ft. Myers. The Caloosahatchee Bridge is four lanes. About seven miles downstream from the Caloosahatchee Bridge is the Cape Coral Bridge, which is the last bridge before the mouth of the river. The Cape Coral Bridge was recently expanded to four lanes. The proposed Mid-Point Bridge would be located 3.4 miles upstream from the Cape Coral Bridge and 3.8 miles downstream from the Caloosahatchee Bridge. At this point, the river runs more in a north-to-south direction. The bridge would connect central Cape Coral with south Ft. Myers. The Mid-Point Bridge project would include an east-west road corridor on both sides of the river. The corridor would connect Everest Parkway on the Cape Coral or west side of the river with Colonial Boulevard on the Ft. Myers or east side of the river. Everest Parkway is presently only about 12,000 feet long. The corridor would connect Everest Parkway with Miracle Parkway to the west, turn north at Malatcha Pass (the western boundary of Cape Coral), and extend to New Burnt Store Road. Everest Parkway and most of Miracle Parkway are four-lane divided collectors for which Cape Coral has jurisdiction. Colonial Boulevard is an arterial consisting of six lanes from McGregor Boulevard east to U.S. 41 and four lanes from U.S. 41 east to Interstate 75. The State had jurisdiction over all of Colonial Boulevard, but the County now has jurisdiction over the segment between McGregor Boulevard and U.S. 41. The west terminus of Colonial at McGregor Boulevard is about one- quarter mile east of the river. About 2000 feet east of McGregor is Summerlin Road. The next major intersection is U.S. 41, which is about 4000 feet east of Summerlin and less than 1.2 miles east of McGregor Boulevard. The Edison Mall, which is a major regional shopping mall, is less than one-half mile north of this intersection on the east side of U.S. 41. The next major intersection on Colonial is Metro Parkway, which is 1.3 miles east of U.S. 41. A little over 3.1 miles east of Metro Parkway is Interstate 75 where an interchange exists. From west to east, the major north-south roads are McGregor Boulevard, for which capacity improvements are constrained by historic and scenic factors; U.S. 41, which crosses the Caloosahatchee Bridge; Fowler Street and Evans Avenue, which are a one-way pair between the Edison Bridge and Colonial; Metro Parkway, which is proposed to be extended north to cross the proposed Metro Bridge; and Interstate 75, which is considerably east of the downtown area. Cape Coral is a relatively new community whose predominant land uses are residential. The relevant road network in Cape Coral consists of two major east-west roads: Pine Island Road, which is about four miles north of Everest, and Cape Coral Parkway, which is about three miles south of Everest. The major north-south roads are, from east to west, Del Prado Boulevard (at which point Everest presently ends), Country Club Boulevard, and Santa Barbara Boulevard. In contrast to Cape Coral, Ft. Myers has been more or less continuously occupied since the construction of a fort by the same name in 1850 between the Second and Third Seminole Wars. In 1887, Thomas A. Edison built his home alongside the Caloosahatchee River between the central business district and what is now Colonial Boulevard. Edison's home is located on McGregor Boulevard, which is attractively lined by Royal Palm trees. Aided by the arrival of Henry Plant's Coast Railroad in 1904 (and presumably a bridge to go with it), Ft. Myers began to grow rapidly in the early 1900's. The Colonial Boulevard area was not developed until the Florida land boom in the 1920's. Although the structures of historical interest are north of Colonial Boulevard, seven sextant structures on Rio Vista Way were constructed during the 1920's and 1930's and exemplify the prevailing Mediterranean revival architectural style. Running toward the river, Rio Vista Way intersects McGregor Boulevard about 250-500 feet of north of the western end of Colonial Boulevard. Data and Analysis February, 1989, Data and Analysis At the time of the adoption of the plan, Ft. Myers prepared a 45-page volume entitled "Traffic Circulation Data and Analysis." The document was dated August, 1988, and revised February, 1989. This document will be referred to as the 1989 Data and Analysis. The 1989 Data and Analysis reviews the city's current situation with respect to transportation facilities, especially roads. Table 1 of the document is a chart of daily traffic volumes based on Florida Department of Transportation traffic estimates issued April 10, 1987 Table 1 projects the peak hour level of services for various road segments for 2010. According to Table 1, by 2010, all of U.S. 41 is projected to be at level of service F, except for a segment south of downtown that is projected to deteriorate only to level of service D. All of Colonial Boulevard is projected to be at level of service F, except for the short segment between McGregor Boulevard and Summerlin Road, which is projected to deteriorate only to level of service C. McGregor Boulevard and Fowler Street are projected to be level of service F, except for the segment of Fowler Street beginning at the river, which is projected to be level of service E. Among the road segments already exceeding level of service standards are Colonial Boulevard west of U.S. 41 (level of service E) and McGregor Boulevard (level of service F). The 1989 Data and Analysis notes that the "intensified urbanization of Fort Myers will continue, and congestion problems will worsen." 1989 Data and Analysis, page 7. The 1989 Data and Analysis summarizes the "three major areas of major capacity deficiencies" as follows: Firstly, Fort Myers' downtown is the economic hub of Lee County and development attracts approximately 38,800 daily trip ends. [Fort Myers Downtown Plan, July 1986.] Second, the Edison Mall area which due to the major regional shopping mall is a main attractor of traffic congestions. Finally, McGregor Boulevard, the renowned historic and scenic highway, has capacity constraints. Id. at page 9. Map B in the 1989 Data and Analysis depicts future roadways and classifications. In addition to the existing Interstate 75, railroad, Edison, and Caloosahatchee bridges, the map shows the Metro Bridge. This bridge, which will be located just over one mile upstream from the Edison Bridge, will allow Metro Parkway to cross the river and intersect with Interstate 75 in north Lee County. According to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), Metro Parkway presently extends from south of Colonial Boulevard to about two miles north of Colonial. Map B depicts Metro Parkway as continuing north until it meets the proposed landfall of the southern end of the proposed Metro Bridge. The proposed alignment of Metro Parkway between its present northern terminus and the proposed bridge takes it through economically distressed areas east of the railroad tracks and central, downtown area. Map F in the 1989 Data and Analysis depicts graphically travel desires lines for 1980 and 2010. The travel desires map shows the general direction and approximate volume of trips between 13 centroids for 1980 and 2010. The centroids aggregate up to 396 travel analysis zones. The 1989 Data and Analysis explains that the travel desires map "was produced as part of the MPO 2010 Needs plan update . . .." 1989 Data and Analysis, page 19. The 1980 travel desires line signifying the greatest number of trips runs in at northeast-southwest direction between south Ft. Myers near the river to north Ft. Myers a couple of miles inland. Other major 1980 travel desire lines cross the river in the vicinity of the Caloosahatchee, Edison, and proposed Metro Bridges cross the river between the center of Cape Coral and north Ft. Myers and connect north Ft. Myers to a point well east of Interstate 75 in the area of Lehigh Acres. The projected travel desires lines signifying the most travel in 2010 are the above-described line between south and north Ft. Myers and a line between south Ft. Myers and a point about six miles due south. The latter travel line depicts considerably less traffic in 1980. Compared to the two most significant 2010 travel lines, the travel lines crossing the river are projected to increase at a lesser rate. Table 3 in the 1989 Data and Analysis contains 1987 Traffic Counts. The table, which is derived from Lee County data, projects when various road segments will deteriorate to seasonal level of service E. Table 3 projects that Colonial Boulevard between Summerlin Road and U.S. 41 and Colonial east of Metro Parkway will deteriorate to peak season level of service E by 1988 and 1992, respectively. McGregor was already at an average level of service of E by 1987. Segments of Metro Parkway south and north of Colonial are projected to reach level of service E by 1991 and 1989, respectively. Also, U.S. 41 at the river is projected to deteriorate to level of service E by 1992. Other relevant segments are projected to be at seasonal level of service D or better. Map G in the 1989 Data and Analysis graphically depicts 1980 and 2010 levels of population and employment by area. In general, Map G shows that, in 1980 and 2010, Cape Coral experienced and is projected to continue to experience considerably greater population than employment opportunities. North and south Ft. Myers' figures show a much better balance between population and jobs. Addressing Map B in, the 1989 data and Analysis, which depicts future roadways, the 1989 Data and Analysis states: The City's Major Thoroughfare Plan (Map H[)] /4 has been developed to coordinate with the Metropolitan Planning Organization, State and County plans to the greatest extent possible. The most significant deviations from these plans are the terminus of the Evans/Fowler one-way pair and the exclusion of a "mid- point bridge." The proposal by other agency plans of a "mid-point bridge," at its current proposed location, conflicts overwhelmingly with other goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Conflicts with Land Use, Historic, and Community Appearance elements and internal conflicts with the Traffic Circulation element precludes the City from supporting the proposed bridge alignment. The present and future land use pat1terns have been coordinated to the greatest extent feasible with the Major Thoroughfare Plan. 1989 Data and Analysis, page 36. The 1989 Data and Analysis does not explain how the Major Thoroughfare Plan ``coordinates'' with the plans of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations' State, and County plans. Maps A and B of the 1989 Data and Analysis depict, respectively, present and future roads. Tables in the 1989 Data and Analysis following the Major Thoroughfare Plan--2010 list transportation projects included in the list of one organization or entity but excluded from that of another. Mentioning the Mid-Point Bridge and approaches, Table 12 states "The City of Fort Myers is adamantly opposed to this project on the basis of it being inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." The 1989 Data and Analysis concludes with a discussion of "issues and opportunities." This discussion mentions the maintenance or provision of "adequate road capacity for future traffic needs" and the preservation and protection of the "quality of residential areas, major activity centers, and recreation and environmental resources." Nothing in the 1989 Data and Analysis expressly incorporates by reference other sources of data or analysis in support of the plan's treatment of the Mid-Point Bridge or any approach. Setember, 1990, Data and Analysis An updated version of the 1989 Data and Analysis was issued. The new version bears the date, "August 1988," but also states that it was "updated September 1990." This document will be referred to as the 1990 Data and Analysis. Table I in the 1990 Data and Analysis is based on the same Florida Department of Transportation estimates issued April 10, 1987, on which Table 1 in the 1989 data and Analysis was based. The above-noted segments are all projected to reach the same level of service, except that all segments of U.S. 41 are projected to reach level of service F by 2010. Other differences between the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis appear fairly minor. /6 Table IV updates the 1987 Traffic Counts in the 1989 Data and Analysis with 1988 Traffic Counts, which are, also from Lee County. The differences as to when relevant road segments are projected to deteriorate to peak season level oil service E are as follows: Colonial Boulevard east of Metro Parkway, which is now projected to reach level of service E in 1993 instead of 1992; Metro Parkway north and south of Colonial, which are no longer "projected" to deteriorate to level of service E in 1988; and Colonial Boulevard just west of U.S. 41, which is now projected not to reach level of service E within the applicable timeframe instead of reaching it in 1988. There is no difference in the discussions in the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis concerning the differences between the road network portrayed by the Major Thoroughfare Plan--2010 and the road networks portrayed by the plans of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, State, /7 and County. The conflict concerning the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor remains unresolved. Nothing in the 1990 Data and Analysis expressly incorporates by reference other sources of data or analysis in support of the plan's treatment of the Mid-Point Bridge or any approach. The MPO Plans and Environmental Fact Statement Other sources of data and analysis existing in February, 1989, pertain to the Mid-Point Bridge and transportation planning issues. Much of these data nd analysis are associated with the work of the Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and of Lee County and its consultants in the preparation of an environmental impact statement for the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor. When adopting the Plan, Ft. Myers representatives were aware of the data and analysis used or prepared by the MPO and the data and analysis used to prepared by Lee County and its consultants in connection with the environmental impact statement. Required by federal law, a metropolitan planning organization coordinates transportation planning in areas governed by more than one local jurisdiction to ensure that federal and state transportation funds are spent effectively. The MPO consists of 12 voting members: five Lee County Commissioners, the Mayor and two City Council members of Ft. Myers, the Mayor and two City Council members of Cape Coral, and the Mayor or a City Council member of Sanibel. The MPO is also served by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which consists largely of planning and engineering employees of each of the member jurisdictions. The TAC analyzes data and presents to the MPO for consideration. The MPO prepared its initial transportation plan in 1974. The MPO first included the Mid-Point Bridge in its 1978 transportation plan. The MPO later dropped the Mid-Point Bridge project, but reinstated it in 1983. The Mid-Point Bridge remained in the MPO's transportation plans until March, 1991. At an early stage, Lee County was opposed to the bridge, but later reversed its position. The positions of Cape Coral and Ft. Myers appear to have remained constant. In 1987, the MPO began to run computer simulations of various transportation improvements. These modeling runs, or assignments, were integral to the preparation of the MPO 2010 Needs Plan (Needs Plan) and MPO 2010 Financially Feasible Plan (Financially Feasible Plan). Although some text is associated with these plans, they generally consist of two maps of road networks with indications as to the number of lanes and type of facility (e.g., freeway or collector). The Needs Plan depicts the system needed "to accommodate projected travel demand efficiently and conveniently at acceptable levels of service, but unconstrained by cost considerations." Financially Feasible Plan. Based upon cost-benefit analyses, the Financially Feasible Plan prioritizes the facilities shown in the Needs Plan. It is arguable whether the Financially Feasible Plan depicts road improvements that are, in fact, financially feasible. The plan concedes that the MPO has proposed improvements whose cost nearly doubles projected available revenues: The estimated $993 million cost of the Financially Feasible Plan, while $442 million less than that of the 2010 Needs Plan, still exceeds projected financial resources from traditional or existing Sources by -some $313 million. In order to pay for the implementation of the Financially Feasible Plan, a number of options for raising additional revenue available under current Florida law have been identified. Financially Feasible Plan. Although a number of the revenue options involve Ft. Myers, such as through the use of impact fees or local option gas taxes and infrastructure sales taxes, the proposed Mid-Point Bridge and corridor would not Ft. Myers to contribute directly to its cost. The record does not address whether the commitment of Lee County to the project prevents the County from sharing in other transportation expenses otherwise borne to a greater extent by Ft. Myers. Lee County intends to pay for the Mid-Point Bridge and the corridor between Del Prado-Boulevard and Interstate 75. The Lee County schedule of capital improvements, which are contained in the Lee County plan, includes the $168.4 million cost of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor from Del Prado to Interstate 75. The capital improvement schedule identifies the revenue source as toll revenue bond proceeds. Cape Coral intends to pay for the corridor west of Del Prado Boulevard. The Cape Coral schedule of capital improvements includes $17.8 million for the design and construction of the east-west expressway from Del Prado to Santa Barbara and includes another $6.9 million for related right-of- way acquisition. The Cape Coral plan, as amended August 27, 1990, identifies impact fees and gas taxes as sources for the needed revenue, although later amendments identify other sources as well. In running computer simulations, the MPO used the Florida Standard Model to process socioeconomic data inputs and project levels of service for various network alternatives. The TAC validated the modeling by comparing projections to current travel conditions. The MPO or TAC approved the model after reviewing the validation results. After approving the model, the MPO and TAC unanimously approved the socioeconomic data in December, 1986. In addition to the specified transportation network, the data inputs include such socioeconomic data as projected populations, numbers of housing units by type, pp categories by type, and school enrollments. Generally, each TAC member supplied the socioeconomic data for the jurisdiction represented by that member. Decisions concerning the evaluation of data were by majority vote. The TAC and its outside consultant, Wilbur Smith and Associates, selected alternatives to test, although it appears that the TAC had considerable discretion in `the choice of alternatives. The socioeconomic data were correlated to applicable land uses, which were derived from land use plans then in effect for the various jurisdictions. None of these land use plans contained the comprehensive revisions required by the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (the Act). By running traffic simulation models, Wilbur Smith and Associates determined the relationship of population to employment for 1980 and projected the relationship to 2010. This work was reflected in Map G of the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis. Wilbur Smith and Associates then simulated the travel projected to occur in the area and the routes to accommodate such travel. This work eventually was incorporated into the travel desires map, which, is Map F of the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis. The modeling process is iterative. The first network model led was the existing and committed road network, as of February, 1987. This system, as expected, was grossly inadequate to handle projected growth through 2010. The existing and committed network consisted of, the following committed projects: the Edison Bridge six-laning, the cape Coral Bridge four-laning, an extension of Colonial Avenue, and multi-laning of State Road 80. The next network modelled was the MPO 2000 Long Range Transportation Plan. The predecessor to the 2010 Needs Plan, the 2000 Long Range Transportation Plan, which included the Mid-Point Bridge, provided an ample road network. A total of 15 assignments were run prior to the preparation and adoption of the Needs Plan. The computer modelling represents the first time that the MPO undertook such work on its own or with an outside consultant. By the latter half of 1987, the TAC and Wilbur Smith and Associates had prepared Assignment D, which included much of what was eventually included in the Needs Plan. Assignment D became a base against which other alternatives were tested. At the request of Ft. Myers, the TAC and Wilbur Smith and Associates ran an assignment without the Mid-Point Bridge. This assignment included the Iona Cove Bridge expanded to four lanes and served by a freeway. /8 As ultimately adopted in the Needs Plan, the Iona Cove Bridge and Southern Corridor would consist of a two-lane bridge downstream from the Cape Coral Bridge and about 2 1/2 miles upstream from the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River. On the Cape Coral side, the Southern Corridor would connect indirectly to the Cape Coral Parkway well west of the Cape Coral Bridge. On the Ft. Myers side, the Southern Corridor would be a new four-lane expressway in south Lee County that, from west to east, would intersect Metro Parkway and then Interstate 75. As a two-lane expressway, the Southern Corridor would turn north, passing south of the regional airport, and teirminate at Lehigh Acres in east Lee County. The simulation without the Mid-Point Bridge was Assignment G. Due to faulty data inputs, 9 possibly concerning one or more developments of regional impact in south Lee County, the MPO reran the requested alternative as Assignment J. Assignment J is the only valid assignment excluding the Mid-Point Bridge except for the initial run of the base network. Table A-I of Technical Report 3, which was prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates, compares projected traffic volumes on various road segments based on Assignment D and Assignment J. In Assignment D, the Iona Cove Bridge would be a two-lane facility with expressway approaches, rather than freeway approaches. Treating the Edison, Caloosahatchee, and Metro Bridges as a single corridor with a capacity of 138,000 trips per day, Table A-I projects that these bridges would handle, under Assignment D, 142,864 trips per bay and, under Assignment J, 153,605 trips per day. The respective volume to capacity ratios are 1.04 and 1.11. The Mid-Point Bridge in Assignment D would have a capacity of 76,000 trips per day and would carry 36,542 for a volume to capacity ratio of 0.48. The Cape Coral Bridge, with a capacity of 33,600, is projected to serve 34,565 trips per day under Assignment D and 43,778 trips per day under Assignment J. The respective volume to capacity ratios are 1.03 and 1.30. Table A-I considers a group of three north-south roads in Ft. Myers, including U.S. 41, in three segments as they travel south from the river. The range of volume to capacity ratios, under Assignment D, from 0.76 to 1.00 and, under Assignment J, from 0.84 to 1.06. Table A-I reports the results for 18 other segments in Cape Coral or Ft. Myers. All but four of these segments are below a volume to capacity ratio of 0.95 under Assignment D. With Assignment J, eight segments exceed 1.0 and two more exceed 0.95. The MPO adopted the Needs Plan on January 21, 1988. After running 14 more assignments, the MPO adopted the Financially Feasible Plan on November 17, 1988. The more elaborate Needs Plan contains a four-lane Metro Bridge with Metro Parkway as, a divided six-lane arterial south of the bridge and a four-lane expressway to U.S. 41 north of the bridge. The Caloosahatchee Bridge remains four lanes, as would be the proposed Mid-Point Bridge. To the west, Everest Parkway is a four-lane freeway to Del Prado Boulevard, then Everest turns into a four-lane expressway as it is extended west to join the existing Miracle Parkway. As the new expressway turns north toward New Burnt Store Road, it is reduced from four to two lanes. To the east of the Mid-Point Bridge, the Needs Plan converts Colonial Boulevard to a four-lane freeway with a pair of one-way service roads and elevated interchanges at Summerlin Road, U.S. 41, and Metro Parkway. The one-way service roads continue east to the vicinity of Interstate 75, but Colonial becomes a four-lane expressway east of Metro. The Financially Feasible Plan retains the four- lane Metro Bridge, but reduces the capacity of the adjoining corridor to the north. Mid-Point Bridge remains four lanes, but, on the Cape Coral side, the expressway is reduced from four lanes to two lanes at Santa Barbara Boulevard rather than at New Burnt Store Road. To the east of the Mid-Point Bridge, Colonial remains unchanged from the Needs Plan. The Financially Feasible Plan eliminates the Iona Cove Bridge and the eastern half of the Southern Corridor. The southern half of the expressway is shown, but is reduced to two lanes and ends west of Interstate 75. Another important source of data and analysis relating to the Mid- Point Bridge and approaches is a draft environmental impact statement prepared by Lee County for the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor. The Draft EIS considers the proposed Mid-Point Bridge in the context of two alternatives: "no action" and the construction of the Iona Cove Bridge and Southern Corridor. Exhibit 7 of the Draft EIS /10 portrays the Colonial corridor east of the Mid-Point Bridge. Consistent with the MPO Needs Plan's depiction of elevated interchanges at Summerlin, U.S. 41, and Metro Parkway, Exhibit 7 also shows overpasses at McGregor, Fowler, Evans, and the railroad track. By the summer of 1987, Lee County had retained Greiner, Inc. as a consultant to assist in the preparation of the Draft EIS. Cape Coral, which joined Lee County in proposing the project, hired Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. to assist in projecting transportation planning impacts west of Del Prado Boulevard. The Coast Guard, which served as the lease agency, approved the final environmental impact statement in September, 1990 (EIS). Greiner retained Wilbur Smith and Associates as a subconsultant to perform traffic modeling for roads east of Del Prado, and Kimley Horn performed modeling for Cape Coral for roads west of Del Prado. Either Griner or Wilbur Smith and Associates prepared Exhibit 5 /11 in the Draft EIS. Exhibit 5 identifies various existing and proposed river crossings, supplies actual 1986 traffic volumes, and projects traffic volumes for 2010 if no action were taken, if the Mid-Point Bridge were constructed, and if the Iona Cove Bridge and Southern Corridor were built. For 2010 projections, Exhibit 5 presumed that the Edison Bridge would be six lanes, Caloosahatchee Bridge would be four lanes, Cape Coral Bridge would be four lanes, and Metro Bridge would be added. For 1986, Exhibit 5 shows the Edison Bridge as handling 19,700 trips daily for a level of service of E, the Caloosahatchee Bridge as handling 45,800 trips daily for a level of service of D, and the Cape Coral Bridge as handling 45,400 trips daily for a level of service F. If no action were taken, Exhibit 5 projects that, by 2010, average daily trips and levels of service will be: Edison Bridge 59,400 and C; Caloosahatchee Bridge 59,500 and E; and Cape Coral Bridge (which was widened after 1986) 65,950 and If the Mid-Point Bridge were built and the Iona Cove Bridge were not, Exhibit 5 projects that, by 2010, average daily trips and levels of service will be: Edison Bridge 53,140 and B; Caloosahatchee Bridge 52,400 and D; Mid-Point Bridge 47,400 and C; and Cape Coral Bridge 41,870 and C. If the Iona Cove Bridge were built and the Mid-Point Bridge were not, Exhibit 5 projects that, by 2010, average daily trips and levels of service will be: Edison Bridge 56,427 and C; Caloosahatchee Bridge 56,250 and D; Cape Coral Bridge 45,740 and D; and Iona Cove Bridge 34,600 and B. Composite Exhibit 4 of the Draft EIS /12 projects average annual daily traffic for over 100 road links /13 mostly on the Ft. Myers side of the river and bounded on the east by Interstate 75 and the south by the Southern Corridor. The projections address alternatives of no-action, the Mid-Point Bridge, and the Iona Cove Bridge. Twenty of the Ft. Myers links most directly affected the addition or deletion of the Mid-Point Bridge yield 537,398 trips under the no-action alternative, 614,280 trips under the Mid-Point Bridge alternative, and 522,425 trips under the Iona Cove Bridge alternative. /14 With the Mid-Point Bridge, the new elevated freeway is projected to receive about one-third and two-thirds more traffic than Colonial presently experiences just west of Metro Parkway and just west of U.S. 41, respectively. With the Mid-Point Bridge, the projected number of trips on these two links are, respectively, 40,900 and 52,700. Just west of Summerlin, the traffic volume on Colonial increases from 6400 to 43,300 trips. Even if the three Colonial links are excluded from the 20 links, the total volume remains greatest under the Mid- Point Bridge and corridor alternative, which is projected to have 477,380 trips. For the remaining 17 links, the no-action alternative generates 469,038 trips and the Iona Cove Bridge and Southern Corridor alternative generates 455,345 trips. Analyzing the same data, Transportation Planner and Engineer Marty Wells, who is an employee of Gorove-Slade, testified on behalf of Ft. Myers that he examined the links identified by the Draft EIS that are in the City limits. These links yield the following volumes under the three alternatives: no action--1.84 million trips; Mid-Point Bridge and corridor-- 2.1 million trips; and Iona Cove Bridge and Southen Corridor-- 1.8 million trips. May 15 Transcript, pages 29 et seq. Using existing data, Mr. Wells also calculated the capacities for these links. Based on the volumes in the preceding paragraph, the overall volume-to-capacity ratios for Ft. Myers' links are as follows for the three alternatives: no action--0.60; Mid-Point Bridge and corridor--0.68; and Iona Cove Bridge and Southern Corridor--0.59. In other words, the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor, if built, would mean that overall traffic would absorb 68% of the capacity of Ft. Myers links most affected by the proposed project. The no-action alternative, on the other hand, would mean that overall traffic would absorb only 60% of the capacity of the same links. Table 415 of the Draft EIS reports other variables among the three alternatives. The first is that total daily river crossings in 2010 are greatest if the Mid-Point Bridge is built. The Mid-Point Bridge alternative generates 196,110 river crossings daily. The Iona Cove Bridge alternative generates 193,020 daily river crossings, and the no-action alternative generates only 186,090 daily river crossings. Under total vehicle hours of operation, Table 4 projects for 2010 the following figures: no-action alternative-- 656,902 hours; Mid-Point Bridge alternative--638,433 hours; and Iona Cove Bridge alternative--660,483 hours. Total vehicle miles are projected as follows: no-action alternative--14,466,600; Mid-Point Bridge alternative--14,437,100; and Iona Cove Bridge alternative--15,013,456. Table 5 of the EIS compares the Mid-Point and Iona Cove alternatives. These data were available by February, 1989. The Mid-Point Bridge and corridor would require 8.8 miles of corridor and 1.5 miles of bridge over the river, reduce vehicle miles traveled from the no-action alternative, by 30,000 daily, bypass wetlands, cost about $170 million, and require the relocation of 100-350 residences, 2' 6-56 businesses, and 1-4 nonprofit operations. The Iona Cove Bridge' and Southern Corridor would require 19.3 miles of corridor and 2.4 miles of bridge over the river, increase vehicle miles traveled from the no-action alternative by 550,000 daily, require the removal of 10-30 acres of wetlands, cost about $266 million, and require the relocation of 317-361 residences and 10 businesses. Table 5 of the EIS concludes that the Mid-Point Bridge would result in "more efficient distribution of traffic across combined bridges," and the Iona Cove Bridge would result in "[s]omewhat less efficient distribution of traffic across combined bridges." Table 5 reports that the "Mid-Point Bridge alternative "[c]omplies with existing land use plan; supports existing business communities," and the Iona Cove Bridge alternative would be "[non-compliant with land use plan; bypasses existing business communities." The Draft EIS concludes that the Iona Cove Bridge alternative is not a "reasonable or feasible" alternative to the Mid-Point Bridge alternative. The, EIS later cautions, however, that the Iona Cove Bridge alternative may have a role in the "very long term" transportation network. After rejecting the Iona Cove Bridge alternative, the Draft EIS reports that the "`No Action' Alternative is the base caste against which the [Mid Point Bridge project) is compared in order to determine the benefits and impacts of the project." The EIS reveals more of the analysis undertaken by the Coast Guard in reaching its latter conclusion that the no- action alternative "is not a reasonable alternative." EIS, page 171. To the extent that any data are implicit in such analysis, the data were available in February 1989. Offering a somewhat `expanded version of a discussion of community impact contained in the Draft EIS, the EIS notes that the State of Florida has designated as an "historic highway" McGregor Boulevard from U.S. 41 to College Parkway, which leads to the Cape Coral Bridge. The EIS acknowledges that Lee County and Ft. Myers have ordinances similar to state law with one key difference. The County ordinance specifically allows construction of an overpass for the Mid-Point Bridge corridor, and the City ordinance specifically prohibits such crossings. The EIS observes that litigation is pending over the controversy concerning the McGregor overpass, which would require the removal of about seven Royal Palms along McGregor according to the EIS. EIS, page 2-41. In a similar vein, the EIS reports that the Colonial corridor would mean, due in large part to the existing Colonial arterial, little community- disruption from "proximity" effects, such as "air and noise pollution, visual impacts, access changes, and other considerations." EIS, page 2-37. The EIS anticipates that 75 acres would be required for additional right-of-way along Colonial Boulevard. Id. at page; 2-38. The EIS considers in some detail the impact of noise pollution. The corridor would result in noise levels in excess of those set for residential use and would affect 26 dwelling units along the Colonial corridor. EIS, page 4-56 and Tables 35 and 36. Sound barriers are not technically feasible for the road surface between the river and McGregor and Summerlin and U.S. 41. EIS, page 4-57. For the remainder, cost barriers are implicitly deemed cost ineffective. The EIS envisions a 288'-330' right-of-way along Colonial Boulevard. The right-of-way would be within about 150' of Rio Vista Way. The corridor would be elevated 22'-24'. Turning to the Cape Coral side of the project, the EIS states: It is envisioned that a direct east-west roadway corridor [on the Cape Coral side of the river would enhance future residential development in the area. EIS, page 4-2. The EIS generally fails to address any need for the development in Cape Coral of commercial, industrial, recreational, or institutional uses. The EIS contains detailed comments from Ft. Myers' counsel with an appendix containing, among other things, comments from Ft. Myers' transportation consultant, Gorove-Slade Associates, Inc. Ft. Myers' counsel submitted these comments to the Coast Guard on September 22, 1989, and the EIS also contains the Coast Guard's undated responses. One suggestion of the Gorove-Slade representative is that reversible lanes on the existing bridges could accommodate the present and future demand. The Gorove-Slade letter suggests that reversible lanes are feasible as long as the directional imbalance on a bridge is "normally 2:1 to 3:1." The Gorove-Slade letter asserts that the imbalance is 67/33, which is of course within the above-stated range. Rejecting the suggestion of reversible lanes, the Coast Guard first erroneously concludes that the 67/33 split is not greater than 2:1. Then the Coast Guard states that the more recent directional imbalance is 58/42. The source of the Coast Guard's data is undisclosed. However, the evidence is abundant that the cross-river traffic is at least 2:1 toward Ft. Myers on weekday mornings and 2:1 toward Cape Coral on weekday afternoons. Even Lee County's witness, Ronald Talone, who was formerly employed in the Lee County Planning Department, testified to a 67/33 split based on data that Lee County had collected./ 16 The Coast Guard response also relies upon "potential shifts in land use patterns [in connection with) land use plans, which were the basis for [the Draft EIS] analysis. The results show an overwhelming need for the Midpoint Bridge Corridor." EIS, page 151. The basis for this statement apparently is the work of Lee County's consultant, who replicated future land uses under the settlement agreement between DCA and Lee County. However, this work was "unofficial" and offered only "initial results." EIS, page 159. The EIS notes that the settlement between Lee County and DCA required the county to reduce densities in outlying areas, such as those served by the Southern Corridor proposed by Ft. Myers. The reductions reportedly were as much as 10,000 percent, "further reducing the travel production/attraction base in those areas." EIS, page 160. The consultant also considered the plans of "cities in the region." EIS, page 146. However, it is unlikely that the consultant considered the plans adopted pursuant to the Act. It is difficult to determine the extent to which any traffic modeling in this case was informed by the future land use designations contained in the plans of Lee County, Cape Coral, and Ft. Myers under the Act. If not done, it is impossible to determine the impact of changed future land uses, which could result in large changes in the distributions of new residents. /17 However, later modeling--presumably incorporating changed future land uses--reportedly did not generate significantly different traffic volumes, at least for the various river crossings. Such later modeling includes that performed by Gorove- Slade for Ft. Myers. Focusing directly on land use planning concerns, the Coast Guard explains one of the reasons why it did not oppose the Mid-Point Bridge proposed by Lee County and Cape Coral: The concept of intentionally prohibiting construction of a bridge to force development on one side of a river is inappropriate and contrary to urban development concepts. In this instance, the no-bridge alternative would not stimulate development, given the interdependent nature of the Lee County economy. EIS, page 151. Lee County did not attempt to tell the city governments to change their Future Land Use elements, as the Fort Myers comments suggest that Cape Coral be instructed to do. * * * Alternative land use planning is not the purview of the transportation planner and is outside the scope of the project to plan this single bridge crossing. Instead, a project such as this is required to accept the adopted land use plans and the projected travel demand based on them. EIS, pages 169 and 171. Alluding to the land-use planning responsibilities placed upon local governments by the Act, the Coast Guard notes: Since the publication of the [Draft EIS], an important event has taken place in regard to this specific issue, rendering [a fatteners'] comment obsolete. The top state land planning agency, the Department of Community Affairs, found the Fort Myers' Comprehensive Plan to be non-compliant with state land planning guidelines because it prohibited the Midpoint Bridge, which is include in the plans of the county, the region, /18 and the City of Cape Coral. Administrative hearing procedures were scheduled to settle the issue but, instead of defending its opposition to the bridge, the city elected to remove the wording obstructing the project from the Comprehensive Plan. Instead, the city agreed to enter binding arbitration on the issue. Id. at page 153. Specifically addressing urban sprawl, the Coast Guard response states: Lee County Future Land Use plans since 1984 have aimed at containing urban sprawl through encouraging compact development patterns. The 1984 Lee Plan was based upon an urban service area concept, which focused future growth on the existing urbanized areas and their environs through a combination of land use categories, density allocations, infrastructure policies, and environmental protection standards. The 1989 Lee Plan continued to stress the importance of existing and permitted urban areas as the focal points for more intensive future growth. The major existing and permitted urban areas in Lee County, in terms of size, are clearly Cape Coral, Fort Myers (including its Urban Reserve area for future growth), and Lehigh Acres. . . . Both the 1984 and 1989 Lee Plans recognized these three major urban areas as givens, where preexisting investments and governmental approvals dictated the need for public services and infrastructure. Together, they constitute a tier of urban areas extending across the northern central part of the county, which is served by the east-west alignment of the Midpoint Bridge Corridor as extended to connect with Lee Boulevard in Lehigh Acres, as shown on the [Financially Feasible Plan]. The logic of connecting the population concentrations of Fort Myers and Cape Coral, the two largest urban areas in the County, with a primary east-west route is clear; with the extension to Lee Boulevard in Lehigh Acres, the logic of the Midpoint Bridge is even stronger. EIS, page 168. Summarizing its findings as to the planning decisions made by Lee County, the EIS concludes: The 1989 Lee Plan builds upon the 1984 Lee Plan. It was adopted as a result of the mandatory process of participation and review. It contains a responsible strategy for managing the large and rapid growth of the county. It sets forth numerous policies for providing the infrastructure necessary to support future populations, for projecting the sensitive natural environment, for paying for future public facilities, for maintaining a reasonable and compact, future land use pattern, and for buildings the necessary transportation network to allow its citizens to move efficiently between their homes, work, recreation, and shopping destinations. It is not a utopian document based upon unsubstantiated opinions, but a practical guide to development based upon the best available data and information. Following the amendments from the Stipulated Agreement, [the 1989 Lee Plan) will be fully consistent with Florida law and an even more effective guide for future development, in terms of reducing sprawl, protecting the environment, maintaining desirable land use patterns, and providing orderly expansion of roads and infrastructure. EIS, pages 169-70. Other Sources of Data and Analysis The Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (Regional Plan) contains land use analysis. Prepared no later than May 21, 1987, when the current version of the Regional Plan was adopted, the land use analysis was in existence at the time of the adoption of the Plan. In its analysis of the regional issue of Balanced and Planned Development under Land Use, the Regional Plan notes: The growth that has occurred [during the recent period of rapid growth that the region has experienced] can also", be considered "imbalanced." This imbalance is of two natures: inadequate development of certain common aspects of urban areas and inadequate distribution of certain types of urban areas. A lack of manufacturing is sometimes considered an indication of the urban inadequacies. More commonly, the problem is described as a lack of suitable jobs within industrial, office, education, and research facilities. The uneven distribution of urban uses is best (but not solely) depicted by an aerial view of the Region's major subdivisions, entire townships devoted to residential uses. Such areas have only limited commercial uses, few of the necessary public use site's, and high demand for transportation improvements for access to other areas. This lack of diversity is the result of private sector planning, namely large development projects, and traditional zoning techniques which discourage the use of planned unit developments by making them special exceptions and by segregating uses into separate zoning categories instead of using a performance zoning approach. Regional Plan, page 16-2. Another source of data and analysis is the Cape Coral comprehensive plan. Both the operative provisions and data and analysis provide a potential source of data and analysis in support of the Ft. Myers Plan. Adopted on February 13, 1989, the Cape Coral plan was in existence when the Ft. Myers plan was adopted. Amended August 27, 1990, the Cape Coral plan amendments were likely available, given noticed and public participation requirements, when Ft. Myers amended, its plan one week earlier. Cape Coral's Transportation Data and Analysis discloses that the city's strategy through 2000 is to direct future growth into the Infill and Transition areas. The Infill Area is located in Cape Coral's southeast quadrant, which has historically served as the growth center from which new growth emanated. The eastern two miles off Everest Parkway run through the Infill Area, dividing its northern third from its southern two-thirds. The Transition Areas is a band of land north and west of the Infill Area. Although Everest Parkway presently ends at the west limit of the Infill Area, the southern end of the Transition Area encompasses about 1 1/3 miles of the proposed Everest Parkway extension. Cape Coral's Transportation Data and Analysis rejects the MPO data concerning population projections for Cape Coral. The differences are significant. Rejecting the MPO projection as "lack[ing] any credibility, and . . . of no value as a planning tool," Cape Coral projects that its population would reach 100,000 persons by 2000, not 2010. Transportation Data and Analysis, pages 6-7. Cape Coral also contests other important socioeconomic data on which the MPO models rely, such as where Cape Coral residents actually reside or will reside. The MPO study "projected" that about 70% of-the population "lives" in the Infill and Transition Areas. The Cape Coral existing land use map provides that at least 90% of the population lives in these two areas. Cape Coral's Transportation Data and Analysis notes that the present location of commercial/office and other employment activities in Cape Coral is generally along the most heavily traveled roads, especially the Del Prado Boulevard, Cape Coral Parkway, and the Downtown Business District. This "strip commercial development" has engendered traffic congestion along these critical arterials. Without its own data or analysis as to employment trends, Cape Coral adopts the MPO data and analysis concerning, employment trends. This includes a projection that total employment within Cape Coral will increase from an estimated 8000 persons in 1980 to over 27,000 persons, presumably by 2000. Also, the ratio of Cape Coral residents to jobs in Cape Coral is expected to decrease from 4.2:1 in 1980 to 3.7:1 in 2000. The data and analysis add: "If the City commercial acreage estimates are realized, however, an even more favorable ratio would result." Transportation Data and Analysis, page 9. In any event, "Employment growth is expected to increase twice as fast as residential growth." Id. at page 8. Cape Coral's Transportation Data and Analysis acknowledges a clear directional flow or modal split of cross- river traffic: Until [the Cape Coral Bridge) is widened to four lanes (scheduled by the County for 1989), mile long traffic queues will continue to exist on the Cape Coral side of the bridge during the morning peak period and on the Fort Myers side during the afternoon peak. Transportation Data and Analysis, page 20. Through 2000, the destination of tries will remain largely outside the City of Cape Coral. Lacking "high intensity employment centers, airports or other facilities that attract County residents [to Cape Coral], the prime reason for travel into Cape Coral by nonresidents is to provide services, such as construction. Transportation Data and Analysis, page B-2. But this factor is relatively insignificant, as the data and analysis predict that, by 2000, there will be twice the number of trips to points outside the city than to points within the city. Transportation Data and Analysis, page 44. In the meantime, however, intensive growth will outstrip the capacity of Cape Coral's internal parkway system, id. at page 49, and Cape Coral's strategy in "road programming has been to the major roads into the two new proposed County Bridges". Id. at page 60. The Cape Coral plan contains operative provisions that, to some extent, address the historic absence of employment and regional shopping opportunities in the city. These provisions generally involve the attempt to deal with vacant, platted land and promote a mixture of uses in the city. /19 The Lee County plan was most recently amended on September 17, 1990. Based on the above mentioned notice and participation requirements, it is likely that all provisions were in existence when Ft. Myers adopted its amendments on August 20, 1990. The Lee County plan contains a number of provisions encouraging the development and redevelopment of mixed uses. /20 Lee County's traffic circulation element policy 21.1.1 adopts the Financially Feasible Plan with five minor changes. /21 Policy 21.1.3 is for the county's current Thoroughfare Alignment Project to reexamine the transportation model used to generate the MPO plans. Concerning the Mid-Point Bridge and associated corridor, the Lee County traffic circulation element states in relevant part: GOAL 24: MAJOR INTRA-COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS. To provide for efficient intra- county vehicular traffic by planning an integrated system of transportation corridors, possibly of limited access design, that connect urban centers within the county. OBJECTIVE 24.1 MID-POINT CORRIDOR. Create a new east-west transportation corridor, possibly of limited access design, across central Lee Counts in order to alleviate existing congestion of traffic crossing the Caloosahatchee River. POLICY 24.1.1: The county will continue the planning, feasibility determination, and environmental impact assessment for the Mid-Point Bridge. POLICY 24.1.2: The construction of this east-west transportation corridor will be coordinated through the Metropolitan Planning Organization to ensure system-wide continuity. POLICY 24.1.3: Due to the public need to provide this critically important corridor so as to solve roadway deficiencies affecting most of Lee County, and due to the admitted impossibility of devising any alignment, which would not generate at least some negative impacts, it is declared as the policy of Lee County that once the best alignment is selected this policy shall preempt any other perceived conflicting portion of the Lee Plan and such conflicts, real or perceived, shall not be construed so as to require or justify blocking the construction of this facility. POLICY 24.1.4: Because of the high priority Lee County placed on the planning and construction of this transportation corridor, permitting efforts shall be initiated by the year 1989, if feasible, and construction shall begin, if possible, by the year 1993. * * * The Lee County intergovernmental coordination element provides, in relevant part: GOAL 28: INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION. Lee County shall participate in and share the leadership of all necessary and desirable programs in coordinating the transportation planning and improvements of routes within or affecting Lee County. OBJECTIVE 28.1: PLANNING. Lee County will continue to plan cooperatively with its municipalities, surrounding counties, and FDOT. POLICY 28.1.1: The county will participate in the MPO and Regional Planning Council planning processes for system-wide facility needs. POLICY 28.1.2: The County will use informal mediation whenever possible to resolve disputes before other formalized processes are pursued. * * * Various other sources of data and analysis were in existence when the Plan was adopted. As Colonial proceeds east of McGregor, the prevailing and planned land uses are predominantly commercial, and the existing commercial uses are dependent upon direct access to Colonial Boulevard. The addition of an elevated freeway or expressway would tend to reduce business for some of these roadsides commercial uses due to, among other factors, the presence of one-way service roads in place of two-way traffic, less on-site parking, and less visibility from the road. However, the record establishes no more than a temporary reduction in commercial property values. It is unclear whether, in the longer term, commercial uses, especially the older ones along the western part of Colonial, would be impaired by a freeway. The record does not preclude the possibility that the corridor could lead to commercial revitalization, especially at the Summerlin, U.S. 41, and Metro Parkway interchanges. The existing and planned land uses on both sides of McGregor north and south of Colonial are low density residential. The record establishes that the elevated freeway would, through noise and visual impact, have a negative impact upon these and possibly other residential areas. However, the record does not establish the extent of such an impact. The record does not establish that the freeway would impair access between points within the affected area. Presently, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists must cross Colonial, which is an at-grade six-lane arterial west of U.S. 41. Accessibility with the Mid-Point Bridge corridor would depend upon a variety of factors, such as the design of the service roads and three interchanges, the sign of the other overpasses, the traffic on the service roads, and the traffic on the north- south roads in the vicinity of the corridor. Provisions of Ft. Myers Plan Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) Objective 1 is "To meet the transportation needs of the incorporated area through a balanced system of roadway, rail, air, boating, public transportation, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities." TCE Objective 2 is, "To maintain or provide adequate road capacity to meet present and anticipated future traffic needs." TCE Policy 2.4 is: "New roadway corridors will be provided when justified by needs where feasible, and when exiting corridors cannot meet the need. TCE Policy 2.6 is: "The City will obtain traffic counts and intersection studies to determine current service levels." Standard 2.6.3 mentions capacity constraints on McGregor Boulevard and all roads in the downtown area; for those, the peak hour, peak season acceptable level of service is "Maintain and improve." The downtown area is limited to the immediate vicinity of the Caloosahatchee and Edison Bridges. TCE Objective 5 is: "To preserve the integrity and quality of residential areas, major activity centers, and recreational and environmental resources." TCE Policy 5.1 is: "Proposed transportation improvements will be coordinated with existing land uses and the Future Land Use Map." TCE Action 5.1.1 is: "Changes to the Future Functional Classification Map (Map F) that would change proposed rights-of-way requirements, will be developed in accord with adjacent land uses as well as bin accord with the City's overall needs." TCE Action 5.1.2, which was amended at least to add the language concerning the Mid-Point Bridge, states: No new transportation corridors or improvements will be permitted which could preclude those indicated on the Major Thoroughfare Map (Map G)--unless, with respect to the Mid-Point Bridge and elevated limited access expressway system proposed by Lee County and Cape Coral, the result of the binding conflict resolution process described in the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is that the Bridge should be constructed. Any proposed amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan must be consistent with all Traffic Circulation policies as well as other Comprehensive Plan Elements. TCE Policy 5.2 is: "Any transportation improvements proposed for McGregor Boulevard shall consider its qualities as a special historic and scenic corridor." Action 5.2.1 provides that, except under certain conditions, there shall be no new street connections, road connections, road intersection, or the widening of any existing, intersections and no overpasses or underpasses, made either with, under, or over McGregor Boulevard or any alteration of the physical dimensions, appearance, or location of this corridor . . . However, new street connections, road connections, road intersections, or widening of any existing intersections and overpasses or underpasses may be made either with, under, or over McGregor Boulevard or alteration of the physical dimensions, appearance, or location of this corridor with respect to the Mid-Point Bridge and elevated limited access expressway system proposed by Lee County and Cape Coral, if the result of the binding conflict resolution process described in the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is that the Bridge should be constructed. At least the language following the ellipses is the result of a plan amendment. TCE Policy 5.3 is: "Transportation improvements proposed in or near residential arenas will contain appropriate mitigation measures." TCE Objective 6 is: "To obtain the cooperation and active participation of all responsible governments in the coordinated implementation of the metropolitan transportation plan." TCE Policy 6.1 is: "All proposed major transportation improvements, including all improvements which extend beyond the limits of the City, will be coordinated with the other affected jurisdictions prior to City approval of the improvement." TCE Action 6.1.1 is: "The City will participate in the committees of the Metropolitan Planning Organization to ensure that this policy is met." TCE Policy 6.2 is: "The City will actively participate in the development and review of transportation improvements proposed by other jurisdictions." TCE Action 6.2.1 is: "The City will participate in the County's Planning Technical Advisory Committee to ensure that this policy is met." Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) Goal 2, which, together with its objectives and policy, was added by amendment, states in its entirety: It is the goal of the City of Fort Myers to resolve the conflict with Lee County. and the City of Cape Coral concerning the Mid-point Bridge through ban independent, objective, equitable, efficient and binding process as an alternative to the litigation in Lee County vs. City of Fort Myer, Circuit Court Case No. 88-5598 CA-RWP pending in the 20th Judicial Circuit for Lee County, that will ensure that all relevant factors and concerns are fairly and objectively evaluated. Objective 1. In order to achieve the City's goal of resolving the conflict over the proposed Mid-Point Bridge, it is the objective of the City of Fort Myers to abate the pending litigation between the County and the City in regard to the Mid-Point Bridge and to enter into a binding conflict resolution process that will provide a balanced determination of the need for and appropriateness of the proposed Mid-Point Bridge in terms of the following factors: county-wide transportation needs; the comparative effectiveness and cost benefit of reasonable alternative transportation solutions; social, cultural economic and environmental impacts on the City of Fort Myers and Lee County; and long-term financial feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Policy 1.1 It is the policy of the City of Fort Myers in regard to the conflict over the proposed Mid-Point Bridge to submit the conflict to a conflict resolution process that contains the, following elements: An objective, independent decision maker who has substantive, and/or technical familiarity with land use and transportation issues; A fair and reasonable opportunity for all affected persons including the City of Fort Myers to submit substantive information in regard to the merits of the proposed Mid- Point Bridge; A resolution of the conflict and the merits of the proposed Mid-Point Bridge based on the following principles: the proposed Mid-Point Bridge should not be constructed if it can be reasonably demonstrated that implementation of the comprehensive plans of Lee County, the City of Fort Myers and the City of Cape Coral will result in a shift in land use patterns, transportation management systems, or increased modal splits that will reduce the projected number of rivers crossings so that there is no need for the proposed Mid-Point Bridge; the proposed Mid-Point Bridge should not be constructed if peak hour levels of service on existing and committee river crossings, with or without operational improvements such as reversible lanes, will provide an acceptable level of service; the proposed Mid-Point Bridge should not be constructed if there are reasonable alternatives that have the following characteristics: reduced or equal costs; equal or superior transportation capacity too serve county wide transportation needs; arid reduced social, cultural, economic or environmental impacts on the residents of the City of Fort Myers. For the purposes of this paragraph, reasonable alternatives Shall include, but not be limited to, river crossings at other locations, a county-wide beltway or circumferential road system and non-geometric improvements such as transportation management systems, reversible lanes and the like. 4) Any determination-of fact shall be based on a standard of preponderance of the evidence. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Objective 1 is: "Coordinate land development with the public and private provision of community services and facilities, soil suitability, and topography." FLUE Objective 2 is: "Protect distinct functional areas from intrusion and encroachment of incompatible uses." FLUE Objective 3 is: "Protect significant natural and historic resources from intrusion and encroachment of incompatible uses." FLUE Objective 4 is: "Ensure a balanced distribution and allocation of the various land uses in newly developing areas." FLUE Objective 5 is: "Revitalize declining areas through rehabilitation, redevelopment, and infill strategies as appropriate." Map C, which accompanies the FLUE, designates the following corridors as part of the "corridor improvement strategy": U.S. 41 on both sides of Colonial, Evans Avenue north of Colonial to the river, Fowler south from the river but only about halfway to Colonial, and three east-west routes including Palm Beach Boulevard, which runs along the river, from Interstate 75 to the proposed landfall of the Metro Bridge. Map C designates the following corridors as part of the "corridor conscious" development strategy. Less in need of redevelopment than those named in the preceding paragraph, the corridor conscious corridors include Colonial Boulevard, Winkler Avenue, Summerlin Road south of Colonial Boulevard, Metro Parkway north and south of Colonial and in the vicinity of the Metro Bridge, and Palmetto, Marsh and Ortiz Avenues on both sides of Colonial. FLUE Policy 5.2 is for the central business district to be "redeveloped as the pre-eminent regional center." Provisions of Regional Plan Goal 19, Regional Issue B, of the Regional Plan concerns transportation and growth management. Policy 1 is: All regional transportation systems should be designed, upgraded or maintained to enable roadways to operate at, or above, a service level acceptable to the agency with land use authority, with operational maintenance responsibility, and with the affected surrounding local government, when such standards incorporate the minimum standards set by the agency having operational, and maintenance responsibility for that public facility, unless designated a special transportation area by those agencies and governments. Policy 3.d. is that transportation improvements are to be "related to seasonal and area needs in order to minimize disruption of the existing road network during periods of highest use." Policy 6 is: "Transportation plans should preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the integrity of residential areas." Policy 9 is: `"Transportation investments should be directed in such a way so that they contribute to efficient urban development." Goal 20, Regional Issue A, of the Regional Plan addresses intergovernmental coordination. The policies suggest the improvement of intergovernmental coordination through the use of interlocal agreements, technical assistance, and solicitation of review and comments. Regional Issue D speaks in stronger terms, but only requires, by 1996, that "each jurisdiction will have enacted the appropriate administrative arrangement to ensure coordination occurs." Pursuant to this Issue, Policy D states: "Mediation of jurisdictional disputes should be pursued by local governments as a first alternative to judicial action." Goal 16 of the Regional Plan concerns land uses. Regional Issue A relates to balanced and planned development. The first policy is: "The plans of all jurisdictions should promote balanced and planned development." Policy 3.e. suggests that comprehensive plans "ensure existing urban areas are protected from the adverse impacts of future growth." Policy 3.i. suggests that plans "provide for effective intergovernmental coordination methods for siting public and private locally unpopular land uses." Policy 3.1. suggests that plans "provide for new central business districts, as needed by urban growth." Policy 9 states: Comprehensive plans and land development regulations should provide incentives to develop and redevelop land downtown including allowing mixed uses, higher densities, shared parking, and improved vehicular access. Regional Issue C, which concerns the problem of already-platted, vacant lands in the region, contains Policy 3, which states: "Additional urban uses and protection of threatened resources within existing platted areas should be pursed through reassembly or other techniques." Policy 8 adds: "Each local government should provide alternatives to traditional development of platted lands." The Regional Plan does not recommend the construction of the Mid- Point Bridge. Map IV-10 of the volume entitled, "Description of the Region," identifies the bridge and corridor as a regional roadway "not yet constructed." Neither the map nor the surrounding text suggests that the Regional Planning Council has determined that the bridge and corridor should be built. /22 Ultimate Findings of Fact Sorting Data and Analysis TCE Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, and the implementing actions thereunder, prohibit the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor unless this alternative is selected pursuant to the binding arbitration described in ICE Goal 2. Lee County is unwilling to agree to the conditions set forth in ICE Goal 2. The refusal is justified because, for reasons set forth below, the offer to arbitrate contains an unreasonable condition. The Plan's treatment of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor can be characterized as an intentional omission of these improvements from any road network for the city, and the Plan's offer to arbitrate, in effect, leaves the resolution of the Mid-Point Bridge dispute to the courts or voters. However, Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor from the Plan is not supported by data and analysis. The data and analysis contained in the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis are sparse in terms of support for the omission or inclusion of the bridge and corridor. Ft. Myers failed to incorporate into its data and analysis, verbatim or by reference, the best "available existing data, which were those generated by Lee County bin preparing the EIS, especially Composite Exhibit 4 of the EIS. However, the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis contain analysis in support of the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor. The analysis consists mostly of consideration of the effect of the proposed project on various provisions of the Plan and the conclusion that the project would be inconsistent with these provisions. The Ft. Myers' planning strategy emphasizes more than the preservation of the historic and aesthetic values of McGregor Boulevard and nearby Rio Vista Way. The analysis justifies the omission of the ride and corridor by at least implicitly construing the Plan as part of an urban containment strategy that, if successful, benefits the region by promoting existing, close-in commercial uses and promoting the attractiveness of Ft. Myers as a place to live. This analysis finds some support in the data concerning the noise and visual impact of the corridor upon nearby residential areas. The most important sources of data and analysis in support of the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor are the Draft EIS and EIS, especially Composite Exhibit 4. Although Ft. Myers was aware of these data, it failed to include and analyze them, in the 1989 Data and Analysis or 1990 Data and Analysis. The most likely explanation for this omission is that the exclusion of the bridge and corridor was a foregone conclusion at the beginning of the planning process, and, until plan litigation became imminent Ft. Myers felt no need to explicate its opposition to the project. However, for reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law, the sources of data and analysis available to support the plan are not limited to those identified or even actually relied upon by Ft. Myers in the plan-adoption process. The data and analysis contained in the Draft EIS and EIS support the exclusion of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor because this project would tap, to some degree, latent travel demand and would result, to , a significant extent, in more traffic on Ft. Myers' roads. The corridor would also displace, at least in the short term, viable commercial uses whose proximity to downtown Ft. Myers and nearby residential areas is useful in maintaining a mixture of uses in Ft. Myers. The data and analysis do not, however, address the possibility of renewed commercial development along the corridor. It is therefore impossible to determine if the data and analysis suggesting the possible displacement of existing commercial uses are offset by data and analysis indicative of a possible revitalization of aging commercial uses. In short, data and analysis exist to support a decision by Ft. Myers to omit the bridge and corridor, and data and analysis also exist to support a decision by Ft. Myers to include the bridge and corridor, had it wished to do so. Little, if any, data and analysis exist that comprehensively net the benefits of the Mid-Point Bridge alternative against the benefits of the no-action or Iona Cove Bridge alternative. In large part, the conflict is between transportation and land use strategies whose competing sets of underlying data and analysis have not been evaluated in a process designed to identify the superior data and analysis from an appropriately broad perspective. In such a proceeding, no deference could be given to the planning preference of any individual local government. This is the first shortcoming of the EIS process in which due deference to the prerogative of local governments in local land use planning provided a procedural advantage to the proponents of the project, Lee County and Cape Coral. In any event, the conclusions of the EIS are supported by its data and analysis to the extent that the Coast Guard concludes that the decision of Lee County and Cape Coral to build the bridge is reasonable. The conclusions of the EIS that the other alternatives, especially the no-action, are unreasonable from a regional perspective, if even relevant to the present case involving only Ft. Myers' Plan, are based predominantly upon transportation considerations. These conclusions clearly are not based upon a comprehensive, objective, and informed review of comprehensive land use strategies, of which transportation strategies are a part. To the extent that the EIS concludes that the no-action alternative is an unreasonable land use strategy, such a conclusion is unsupported even by the data and analysis contained in the EIS. To some extent, Lee County and especially Cape Coral, although responsible for preparing nearly all of the relevant data in this case, have not sufficiently focused their data and analysis so as to justify a finding that the Plan's omission of the bridge and corridor is not supported by the data and analysis. The Lee County and Cape Coral data and analysis supporting the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor justify a transportation strategy linking more efficiently the bedroom communities to the east and west with each other and to shopping and jobs. By contrast, the omission of the bridge and corridor is based on more comprehensive land use planning considerations. Data and analysis supporting the exclusion of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor address an overall land use strategy, to which transportation planning is properly subordinated. To some extent, the differing emphases reflect that Ft. Myers is a more established community than the fast- growing Cape Coral and Lee County. To some extent, the increased emphasis upon overall land use planning by Ft. Myers, as opposed to the focus upon transportation planning by Cape Coral in particular, may reflect varying planning philosophies. Cape Coral has suffered from the lack of an effective land use strategy to overcome the burdens of urban sprawl, which has engendered a monolithic land use dominated by low-density residential. The Cape Coral plan and data and analysis point to some improvement dealing with this problem. But to meet the burden of showing that the Ft. Myers strategy, which excludes the bridge and corridor, is supported by data and analysis, Cape Coral must offer data and analysis more effectively addressing land use planning issues, rather than merely transportation planning issues. Cape Coral cannot meet its burden in this case by presenting data and analysis supporting a transportation strategy of linking its internal parkways to bridges and building more bridges. Although such data and analysis may support Cape Coral's planning solutions, they are not so compelling as to displace the data and analysis presently supporting Ft. Myers' land use strategy of preserving a viable mixture of uses. The support for Ft. Myers' land use strategy excluding the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor is not overwhelming in terms of data and analysis. The increased traffic on city roads, noise pollution, and the visual impact support the decision. Other factors, such as impaired physical accessibility, commercial decline, and the extent of the negative impact upon residential integrity, do not so clearly support the decision. Even if present conditions clearly were to support the decision to exclude the bridge and corridor, changing conditions could later deprive Ft. Myers' decision of support from the data and analysis. New developments, such as Omni Park, could leave Colonial and nearby collectors, as well as McGregor, choked in traffic during nonpeak season, nonpeak hours. The decline of commercial uses along the western part of Colonial may in time require revitalization through redevelopment If so, imaginative planning solutions may :,"identify corridor-connected uses whose scale and type promote, rather than threaten, Ft. Myers' status as a viable mixed-use center. If sufficiently compelling under then-existing conditions, such solutions may even compel a bridge and corridor. But the data and analysis do not portray these conditions presently. Internal Consistency Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that TCE Action 5.2.1 is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1. TCE Action 5.2.1 prohibits the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor unless this alternative is selected pursuant to the binding arbitration described in ICE Goal 2. FLUE Objective 1 is, to coordinate land development with the adequate provision of facilities, which include roads. FLUE Objective 1 and its policy cluster require adequate levels of service for facilities (presumably for which concurrency is required), the availability of land for public facilities, development patterns that maximize, the use of existing public facilities, and coordination with Lee County and the Florida Department of Transportation regarding tide intensity of land uses and their location relative to collectors and arterials. There is nothing inherently contradictory between TCE Action 5.2.1 and FLUE objective 1. FLUE Objective 1 does not require the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor, just as it does not require that downtown segments of U.S. 41 or Fowler be widened to 12 lanes if there is sufficient traffic demand. FLUE Objective 1 does not requiring reducing the planning exercise to promising invariably to widening existing roads or building new roads in urban areas upon the identification of traffic congestion. Taking a wider view, FLUE Goal 1 is to ensure the achievement of acceptable "general patterns and relationships (distribution, allocation, and intensity) of all land uses" in the city. The record does not establish that the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1. Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that TCE Objective 5, Policy 5.1, Actions 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, Policy 5.2, Action 5.2.1, ICE Goal 2, Objective 2, and Policy 1.1, on the one hand, are inconsistent with TCE Objective 6, Policy 6.1, Auction 6.1.1, Policy 6.2, and Action 6.2.1, on the other hand. TCE Objective 5, Policy 5.1, Actions 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, Policy 5.2, Action 5.2.1, ICE Goal 2, Objective 2, and Policy 1.1 will bet referred to as Modified TCE Objective 5. Modified TCE Objective 5 prohibits the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor unless this alternative is selected pursuant tot the binding arbitration described in ICE Goal 2. ICE Goal 2, Objective 2, arc Policy 1.1 set the conditions of such arbitration. With one exception, these conditions are reasonable. The goal to obtain a fair, objective, and binding resolution of the bridge dispute outside of court is salutary. The objective is also reasonable, assuming that the reference to the socioeconomic and environmental, impacts on Ft. Myers and Lee County includes Cape Coral. Policy 1.1 establishes specific conditions. The first calls for an objective, disinterested decision-maker with expertise in land use and transportation planning. The second condition ensures that all parties have a chance to be heard. The fourth condition provides that the standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence. These conditions are obviously reasonable. The substantive guidelines for the decision-maker are set forth in ICE Policy 1.1(3). The first guideline prohibits the bridge if the land use plans of Cape Coral, Ft. Myers, and Lee County can be implemented so as to reduce the number of river crossings by shifting land use patterns, introducing or expanding transportation management systems, or increasing modal splits. The second guideline prohibits the bridge if existing and committed river crossings will provide an acceptable level of service regardless of operational improvements such as reversible lanes. In general, these conditions are reasonable. The effectiveness of transportation management systems and operational improvements, especially reversible lanes, should be considered as relatively inexpensive alternatives to the construction of a new bridge and corridor. Changing land use patterns presumably requires each local government to address through comprehensive planning any deficiencies that it may suffer in terms of a lack of mixed land uses. The guideline does not specify the extent to which a local government must remediate a lack of mixed uses. For example, it might be effective but prohibitively costly for Cape Coral to solve its mixed land use problems by purchasing and reassembling vacant and developed platted land suitable for commercial or industrial development. The reasonableness of the guideline of changing land use patterns depends upon its interpretation. The third guideline, prohibits the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge if "reasonable" alternatives exist at reduced or equal costs, with equal or superior transportation capacity to serve County-wide transportation needs, and with reduced socioeconomic and environmental impacts on Ft. Myers residents. The factors of reduced or equal costs and equal or superior transportation capacity are reasonable and address regional concerns. The guideline focusing on the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of Ft. Myers' residents exclusively undermines the viability of ICE goal 2 and Ft. Myers' putative "offer" to submit to binding arbitration. Just as it is reasonable for Ft. Myers to concern itself exclusively with the socioeconomic and environmental welfare of itself and its residents, so it is reasonable for Lee County and Cape Coral to concern themselves with the socioeconomic and environmental welfare of themselves and their residents. This guideline is unreasonable and effectively relegates the parties to whatever judicial or political solutions that may be available. Notwithstanding the failure of the offer to arbitrate, Modified Objective 5 is not inconsistent with TCE Objective 6 and its policies and actions. The latter provisions do not preclude the judicial option for this longstanding dispute. TCE Objective 6 is to obtain the cooperation of all governmental entities in the implementation of MPO plan. Except for TCE Policy 6.1, the policy and actions under this objective require merely participation in transportation planning processes. The arbitration process described in Modified TCE Objective 5 does not preclude participation in transportation planning processes; Modified TCE objective 5 merely identifies one approach to resolving disputes not resolved by normal transportation planning processes. Policy 6.1 requires the "coordination" of "major transportation improvements" with other affected governmental entities. The simple resolution of this issue is that the policy requires coordination only of projects that Ft. Myers proposes to undertake, not of projects sponsored by other entities that Ft. Myers proposes to ignore or resist. Even if the omission of a project sponsored by others triggers the coordination requirement of Policy 6.1, Modified TCE Objective 5 is not inconsistent with such a requirement. Coordination does not require the successful achievement of a consensus for each transportation project that each local government or regional entity may propose. "Coordinate" means: To place in the same order, class, or rank. To arrange in the proper relative position. To harmonize in an action or effort. American Heritage Dictionary. In this case, Ft. Myers participated in the normal transportation planning processes. Consensus was reached as to a considerable number of road projects, although the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor are extremely large projects in the County. "Coordinate" does not mean "approve," and Ft. Myers is not required by TCE Policy 6.1 to obtain the approval of all other governmental entities for projects proposed by Ft. Myers or to give its approval for projects proposed by any or even all of the others. The facts of this case do not reveal a series of disputes involving numerous proposed road projects. The three local governments have not had systemwide impasse that defeats their ability to design and implement a coordinated transportation network. Although the Mid-Point project is of considerable magnitude, the Major Thoroughfare Plan--2010 does not prevent the transportation plans of Lee County and Cape Coral from working. The size of a project proposed by a majority of area local governments does not alone compel a lone opponent to capitulate to attain intergovernmental coordination. Neither does the inclusion of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor in the financially Feasible Plan compel Ft. Myers to accede to the project or risk inconsistency with the intergovernmental coordination provisions of its Plan. The MPO's data and analysis support its adoption of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor. But the purpose of the MPO is not to restate the positions of its constituent members and, even if they are supported by data and analysis, thereby compel dissenters to conform their plans to the plans of the majority. The MPO has served a valuable purpose in this case by collecting and disseminating important data and providing the parties with a forum in which to exchange their data and analysis; inform and, if necessary, revise their positions; and, if possible, form a consensus. Like Lee County and Cape Coral, Ft. Myers participated in this process in good faith and thereby engaged in intergovernmental coordination. The unreasonableness of requiring local governments invariably to conform their plans to those of the MPO is illustrated by another factor in this case. The Financially Feasible Plan describes a road network that is financially feasible only if existing available revenues are nearly doubled. The present facts do not support a construction of intergovernmental coordination that mandates strict compliance with a Financially Feasible Plan that requires local governments to raise additional revenues. Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Modified TCE Objective 5 is inconsistent with TCE Objective 1. TCE Objective 1 is to meet the city's transportation needs through a "balanced system" of road, rail, air, boat, bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation. For the reasons set forth above, the preclusion of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor does not preclude the attainment of such a balanced system. Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Modified TCE Objective 5 is inconsistent with TCE Objective 2, Policies 2.4 and 2.6, and Standard 2.6.3. TCE Objective 2 is to "maintain or provide adequate road capacity to meet present and anticipated future needs." Policy 2.4 is to construct new roadway corridors when existing corridors cannot meet the need. Policy 2.6 is for the city to "pursue acceptable level of service standards for its roadways, and coordinate the standards with Lee County and the Florida Department of Transportation." Standard 2.6.3 acknowledges constraints on capacity improvements for McGregor and the central business district and adopts a peak season, peak hour level of service for these roads of "maintain and improve." The record fails to establish that the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor is inconsistent with these provisions. The evidence shows that traffic would actually increase on city roads with the Mid-Point Bridge. Consistency with Regional Plan Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the TCE, in omitting the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor, is not consistent with the Regional Plan. The record fails to establish that the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor is inconsistent with the Regional Plan considered as a whole. The Plan's treatment of the bridge and corridor is consistent with provisions in the Regional Plan regarding balanced land uses and intergovernmental coordination. Consistency with Other Minimum Criteria For the reasons set forth above, Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by, a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan is not consistent with the criterion of, "to the maximum extent feasible as determined by the local government," analysis compatible with the plans of the Florida Department of Transportation and MPO, as well as the criteria of analysis of projecting levels of service for roads based on the FLUM, the need for new roads, and the adopted level of service standards and plans of the Florida Department of Transportation and MPO. Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that TCE Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, with their implementing actions, in omitting the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor, are not consistent with the criteria of an objective coordinating transportation planning with the metropolitan planning organization and a future traffic circulation map showing the location of arterial and limited access facilities. The issue of coordination has already been addressed. The Major Thoroughfare Plan--2010 is consistent with the latter criterion. Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the FLUE or TCE Action 5.2.1 is not consistent with the criterion of discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. The strategy of urban containment is not limited to planning for undeveloped or underdeveloped areas. The maintenance of existing mixed-use centers also assists in deterring urban sprawl. By preserving and enhancing close-in residential areas, some of the pressure toward urban sprawl may be alleviated. The omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor may be viewed as part of a reasonable planning strategy designed to promote the mixture of uses presently characterizing the city. For the reasons set forth above, Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the ICE is not consistent with the criteria of establishing principles and guidelines to be used in attaining coordination with the plans of adjacent municipalities and the county, ensuring coordination in setting level of service standards for public facilities with any governmental entity with operational or maintenance responsibility for such facility, and resolving conflicts with other local governments through the Regional Planning Council's informal mediation process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the Ft. Myers plan, as amended, is in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. ENTERED this 7 day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7 of January, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Poinciana Community Development District.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the proposed amendment to the Pinellas Countywide Plan Map, changing the land use designations on 34.6 acres of land in Safety Harbor, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the contract purchaser of 34.6 acres of land (“the Property”) located near the northeast corner of 10th Street South and McMullen-Booth Road in the City of Safety Harbor. Respondent is the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, in their capacity as the CPA. The Proposed Amendment The Amendment would change the land use designations for nine parcels within the Property. The Amendment would make the following changes to the current land use designations: However, the parties’ dispute focuses on the 15.8-acre parcel that is now designated Industrial Limited (“IL”). The Amendment would change the designation of the parcel to Residential Medium (“RM”). Existing Land Uses on the Property and Surrounding Area Located on the 15.8-acre parcel (referred to hereafter as the “IL parcel” or “Richman parcel”) are numerous industrial buildings and structures associated with a citrus processing facility that is no longer in operation. There are no uses being made of the other eight parcels that comprise the Property. The balance of the Property is undeveloped and relatively undisturbed. There are wetlands as well as a creek on the Property. There is an extensive tree canopy in the undeveloped area. Access to the IL parcel is via 10th Street South (S.R. 590), which is a two-lane, undivided roadway on the southern boundary. There is no rail access to the IL parcel. To the north and east of the Property are relatively affluent neighborhoods of single-family residences on lands designated Residential Suburban and Residential Low. The residences on the north are separated from the IL parcel by the large undeveloped area, but the residences to the east are immediately adjacent to the IL parcel. McMullen-Booth Road, a six-lane arterial roadway, runs along the northwestern boundary of the Property. On the southwestern boundary, adjacent to the IL parcel, are lands designated Residential/Office/Retail where there is a drug store, car wash, and bank. Across 10th Street South, on the southeast corner of its intersection with McMullen-Booth Road, is a gas station/convenience store. Also across 10th Street South, opposite the entrance to the citrus processing facility, is land designated IL and used for warehousing, auto-repair, and other uses. The Scenic Non-Commercial Corridor McMullen-Booth Road has been designated by Pinellas County as a Scenic Non-Commercial Corridor (“SNCC”). The SNCC designation includes lands bordering both sides of McMullen-Booth Road. The SNCC designation identifies preferred land uses within the corridor to achieve the CPA’s goal to preserve and enhance the scenic qualities of the corridor. The western half of the IL parcel is within the McMullen-Booth Road SNCC. Under the SNCC policies, the preferred land use for the western half of the parcel is “Mixed Use.” The Amendment would allow for land uses consistent with the SNCC. The Development Agreement The proposed Amendment is accompanied by a Development Agreement between Richman and the City of Safety Harbor which provides more specifically for how the Property would be developed. Among other items, the Development Agreement provides for: 246 apartment units in three-story and four-story buildings; a 25,000-square-foot office building fronting on McMullen-Booth Road; a 182-foot buffer between the nearest apartment unit and the residences to the east; a requirement that no three-story building will be located within 450 feet of the eastern property line; and the preservation of more than 10 acres of the undeveloped area, including the creek and wetlands. Action on the Proposed Amendment Changing a land use designation in the City of Safety Harbor requires an amendment to the Countywide Plan Map, which depicts all land use designations in Pinellas County and its municipalities. Countywide Rules are used in conjunction with the Countywide Plan and they address amendments to the Countywide Plan Map. The Countywide Plan and Countywide Rules are created and administered by the CPA. Proposed amendments to the Countywide Plan Map are reviewed by the Pinellas County Planning Advisory Committee (“PAC”), which is comprised of planners from most of the local governments in Pinellas County. The PAC makes a recommendation to the Pinellas Planning Council on a proposed amendment. The PAC recommended approval of the Amendment. The staff of the Pinellas Planning Council prepared an “Agenda Memorandum,” which included the following findings which are supported by the preponderance of the evidence presented in this case and, therefore, are findings of fact in this Recommended Order: The RM land use is well-suited to serve as a transition from non-residential areas to the west and south and the residential neighborhoods to the east and north. The area is not part of a larger consolidated industrial area, but the Richman parcel, together with the IL parcel across 10th Street South, could function as a small industrial park. The IL category, with all potential uses allowed, is “in the broadest sense” inconsistent with single-family uses to the north and east. The IL parcel can accommodate certain “target employers.” At the final hearing, target employers were identified as “office light industrial and research and development.” The environmentally sensitive areas on the Property and adjacent to single-family residences limit the types of industrial uses that could be located on the IL parcel. The Amendment does not foreclose the opportunity to attract target employers to other parcels within the Property. “On balance,” the Amendment is consistent with the Countywide Rules. The Council staff recommended approval of the Amendment. As partial mitigation for the loss of the IL land use, the staff recommended that Richman work with the County to attract target employers to other parcels within the Property. The Council held a public hearing and voted to recommend approval of the Amendment. The Pinellas County planning staff recommended approval of the Amendment to the CPA. The CPA, at a public hearing, voted to deny the Amendment, based primarily on concern over the loss of industrial lands. Relevant Criteria Section 5.5.3.1 of the Countywide Rules states: In the consideration of a regular Countywide Plan Map amendment, it is the objective of these Countywide Rules to evaluate the amendment so as to make a balanced legislative determination based on the following six (6) Relevant Countywide Considerations, as they pertain to the overall purpose and integrity of the Countywide Plan. Of these six criteria, the parties stipulated that only the consideration stated in Section 5.5.3.1.1 is at issue in this case. That section states: Consistency with Countywide Rules. The manner in, and extent to, which the amendment is consistent with Article 4, Plan Criteria and Standards of these Countywide Rules and with the Countywide Plan as implemented through the Countywide Rules. The parties disputed what criteria are “implemented through the Countywide Rules.” Richman contends that to be implemented through the Countywide Rules, a policy must be contained in the Countywide Rules. The CPA contends that there are provisions of the Plan that must be considered even if they do not also appear in the Rules. As set forth in the Conclusions of Law, in order for a provision of the Countywide Plan to be implemented through the Countywide Rules so that the provision can act as a criterion applied by the CPA in the approval or denial of a proposed amendment to the Countywide Plan Map, the provision must be repeated, paraphrased, or adopted by reference in the Countywide Rules. In this regard it is noted that Resolution 06-3 of the Pinellas Planning Council, which discusses the need to reserve industrial parcels for target employers, was referred to in the Council's Agenda Memorandum and discussed in the public hearing before the CPA. However, Resolution 06-3 is not implemented through the Countywide Rules and, therefore, is not a source of criteria applicable to the Amendment. The SNCC designation for McMullen-Booth Road is in the Countywide Rules and, therefore, must be considered by the CPA in its review of the Amendment. Section 2.3.3.6.1 of the Countywide Rules is relevant to the issues raised and states in part: Category/Symbol – Industrial Limited (IL) Purpose – It is the purpose of this category to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a limited industrial manner; and so as to encourage the reservation and use of consolidated areas for industrial and industrial/mixed use in a manner and location consistent with surrounding use, transportation facilities, and natural resource characteristics. In addition to this statement of purpose, the section addresses locational characteristics, traffic generation characteristics, density/intensity characteristics, density/intensity standards, and “other standards.” Section 2.3.3.6.1 identifies the “primary uses” allowed in the IL land use category as office, research/development, light manufacturing/assembly, wholesale/distribution, and storage/warehouse. The “secondary” uses allowed are residential, retail/commercial; personal service/office support, commercial/business service, commercial recreation, temporary lodging, institutional, transportation/utility, recreation/open space, transfer/recycling, incinerator facility, and agricultural. The CPA’s desire for certain target employers to use the IL parcel fails to account for the fact that there are industrial uses of the site that are allowed under the IL land use category in the Countywide Plan that would cause noise, odor, truck traffic, or other conditions that are incompatible with adjacent residential uses. Understandably, the CPA would like to see the Richman parcel used in the future by one of the target employers, but the CPA does not acknowledge that the IL designation authorizes other uses that would be incompatible with surrounding uses. At the final hearing, the County’s Director of Economic Development testified that the Richman parcel is “perfect” for an IL land use, but that testimony only makes sense in the context of certain target employers. In the context of all the IL uses that are allowable under the Countywide Plan and Countywide Rules, the site is imperfect and impracticable because of the proximity of single-family homes and the access from an undivided, two-lane street used by residential traffic. Several years of marketing efforts by Richman and the County have not generated a single offer to purchase or lease the Richman parcel for any of the allowed IL uses, including target employers. Following the CPA’s denial of the Amendment, the staff of the Pinellas Planning Council undertook a review of its current policies regarding the preservation of industrial lands and recommended amending the Countywide Rules to identify industrial properties “worthy of preserving” and to develop criteria for the evaluation of proposed amendments to convert industrial land. These recommendations highlight the current lack of adequate guidance in the Countywide Rules. The determination by the CPA that the Amendment is inconsistent with the Countywide Rules is based primarily on three propositions which are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. First, that the Richman parcel is being reserved for IL uses. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the parcel is inappropriate for several authorized IL uses and the CPA wants the parcel reserved only for a few target employers. Second, that the IL designation is not inconsistent with the McMullen-Booth Road SNCC. The identification of preferred land uses in the corridor would have no effect unless it was a factor to be considered by the CPA when it reviews proposed amendments to the Countywide Plan Map. The IL designation within the McMullen-Booth SNCC is inconsistent with the goal of the corridor and is a factor (not a requirement) in favor of changing current IL designation to another designation that qualifies as Mixed Use. Third, that the Richman parcel is part of a “consolidated area” for industrial uses in a location “consistent with surrounding uses” as described in Section 2.3.3.6.1. The preponderance of the evidence shows that this is not a consolidated area for industrial uses. It was once a consolidated area, but past land use decisions have eliminated more than half the industrial acreage. If Richman had proposed to consolidate its parcel with the IL parcel south of 10th Street South to create a large, integrated warehousing and distribution operation served by rail, the proposal would have been consistent with the core purpose for IL lands as expressed in Section 2.3.3.6.1. The impracticability of such a proposal, however, highlights the problem with the current IL designation for the Richman parcel. The County’s 2008 Target Employment and Industrial Land Study found that two-thirds of the “target industries” operating in Pinellas County are on lands not designated industrial, because these uses can often be accommodated on lands designated for office uses. The 2008 study recommended that the industrial designations of lands in five “prime industrial areas” be preserved. Richman’s IL parcel is not in one of these prime industrial areas. When all relevant factors are considered, the CPA appears to be taking a stand for preservation of industrial lands in the wrong place.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Countywide Planning Authority issue a Final Order approving the Amendment. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. McLaren, Esquire Edward D. Armstrong, III, Esquire Hill, Ward and Henderson, P.A. 3700 Bank of America Plaza 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Gordon Beardslee, General Planning Administrator Pinellas County Department of Strategic Planning and Initiatives 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Michael Crawford, Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 310 Court Street, Second Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756-5137 Kenneth Welch, Commission Chairman Board of County Commissioners Pinellas County 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Nancy S. Meyer, Esquire David S. Sadowsky, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Issue Whether Development Order 13-87 issued by the Monroe County Planning Commission on January 21, 1988, granting major conditional use approval to a project known as Residence Inn Resort should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Wigwam, Inc., is the present equitable owner of the subject parcel of land, is the successor to the development authorizations for a proposed hotel and marina known as Residence Inn Resort to be constructed on that parcel, and is the developer of the project. Respondent Peter Louis Edwards is the legal owner of the subject parcel of land. The subject parcel is a tract of land located at Mile Marker 52.4 on U.S. 1, on a portion of Government Lot 2, in Section 6, Township 66 South, Range 33 East on Key Vaca, Marathon, Monroe County, Florida. The site plan prepared for Ocean Resort now know as Residence Inn Resort, Marathon, Florida, by Kris Mihelich, Inc., last revision 9/3/87, pages SD-1 to SD-6 is the site plan approved by Monroe County for the subject parcel. The subject parcel consists of 4.82 acres of land above water located between U.S. 1 and the Atlantic Ocean. The subject parcel includes within its boundaries a dredged harbor at least 8 feet deep below mean sea level at mean low tide. The current Monroe County Land Use Maps show the land use designation for the subject parcel as Destination Resort (hereinafter "DR") for the oceanward three-quarters of the parcel and Suburban Residential (hereinafter "SR") for the landward one-quarter of the parcel adjacent to U.S. 1. The companion case, Residence Inn Resort v. Department of Community Affairs, DOAH Case No. 88-3469RGM (Final Order issued simultaneously herewith), is a challenge to a proposed rule of the Department of Community Affairs rejecting a portion of a Monroe County ordinance which would change the designation of the "SR" portion of the parcel to "DR" so that the entire parcel would be designated "DR." That rule challenge has been dismissed in the Final Order issued simultaneously with this Recommended Order. Accordingly, the designations for the subject parcel remain "DR" for the oceanward portion and "SR" for the landward portion. Even if the rule challenge had been successful thereby allowing the entire parcel to be designated "DR," the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law contained within this Recommended Order would remain the same. The Development Order under appeal in this cause, Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-87, would approve a major conditional use for the subject parcel. That Development Order would allow construction of a 96-unit hotel resort and would allow the harbor located within the property to be used as a marina. The 96-unit density is computed by including 24 transferrable development rights known as TDRs purchased by Wigwam, Inc., which increase the density on the subject parcel to 96-units. The maximum permittable density for this parcel designated "DR" in part and "SR" in part is not sufficient to allow a 96-room hotel. The maximum permittable density if the entire parcel were designated "DR," or as the parcel is now designated as partially "DR" and partially "SR," will not allow the development of 96 permanent dwelling units. Section 3-101.P-4. of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations provides that "permanent residential unit means a dwelling unit that is designed for, and capable of, serving as a residence for a full housekeeping unit which includes a kitchen composed of at least a refrigerator and stove." Section 3-101.T-2 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations provides that "temporary residential unit means a dwelling unit used for transient housing such as a hotel, motel or guestroom that does not contain a kitchen " The 96 hotel rooms approved by Monroe County in the Development Order under review herein each include a kitchen. If each unit of the proposed Residence Inn Resort is constructed with a kitchen, as Resolution 13-87 would allow, each of the 96 units would be a permanent unit. The Institute of Transportation Engineering (hereinafter "ITE") Trip Generation Manual is a compilation of traffic data that has been accumulated over a number of years by transportation engineers on many types of land uses. The data has been categorized by land use and summarized in terms of average number of trips generated by each individual type of land use. The ITE studies of trip generation rates are performed by placing a standard traffic counter with a pneumatic hose at the entrances and exits to the land use in question. The traffic counter records both hourly and daily summaries of vehicle trips over the traffic counter. The ITE trip generation rate for hotels and motels is 10.189 daily trips per occupied room. The ITE trip generation rate for hotels is 8.7 trips per room on a weekday basis. The ITE definition of a hotel for the purpose of that trip generation rate is a place of lodging, providing sleeping accommodations, restaurants, a cocktail lounge, meeting and banquet rooms with convention facilities, and other retail and service shops. The only significant difference between the proposed Residence Inn Resort and the typical hotel studied in the ITE Trip Generation Manuel is that the proposed Residence Inn Resort has a marina. All of the other proposed amenities are typically found in ordinary hotels. The proximity of the proposed Residence Inn Resort to an airport is also not unusual for hotels. As discussed hereinafter, the marina, which is the only real distinguishing feature between hotels and the Residence Inn Resort, does not qualify for approval as part of this project since it is not in compliance with the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. A hotel providing 50 or more rooms is permitted as a major conditional use in a destination resort district only if the applicant has demonstrated through a traffic impact study prepared by a qualified professional that traffic generated by the use will not exceed 50% of the trips generated by a hotel or motel as shown in the Institute of Transportation Engineering Trip Generation Manual. Section 9-213.B.1.c., Monroe County Land Development Regulations. Prior to the issuance of the subject Development Order by Monroe County, Respondent Wigwam, Inc., prepared a transportation study for the proposed development. That transportation study did not demonstrate, and made no attempt to demonstrate, that the traffic generated by the proposed Residence Inn Resort would not exceed 50% of the trips generated by a hotel or motel as shown in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. On the contrary, the transportation report submitted to Monroe County simply utilized the same trip generation rates that appear in the third edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. A June 21, 1988, letter directed to Monroe County from Post, Buckley, Shuh and Jernigan after the Development Order under appeal in this cause had already issued indicates that Monroe County simply assumed that the proposed Residence Inn Resort would have a trip generation rate 50% less than the trips generated by a hotel or motel as shown in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. No traffic impact studies submitted to Monroe County prior to the issuance of the Development Order under review in this case support such a conclusion. Respondent Wigwam, Inc., presented the testimony of two experts in the field of transportation engineering, Dan Hoyt and Richard Mercer. Both Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Mercer had prepared transportation reports subsequent to the issuance of the Development Order under review in this cause, which concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed Residence Inn Resort would not exceed 50% of the trips generated by a hotel or motel as shown in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Both believed that the number and type of amenities included in the proposed Residence Inn Resort would be so attractive that the hotel guests would not want to leave the premises. However, Mr. Hoyt's opinion is based upon a list of amenities significantly larger than the amenities actually approved for the Residence Inn Resort. A large part of Mr. Mercer's opinion is based on the assumption that the type of people that will be guests at the proposed Residence Inn Resort simply will not want to leave the hotel, and not upon any particular merit to the amenities planned for the hotel. Both experts testified that their conclusions were based upon their overall professional judgment rather than upon specific empirical data. The Department presented the testimony of one transportation expert, Rick Hall. Mr. Hall testified that there are two methods of demonstrating an "internal trip capture rate" (the retention of guests on-site due to the number of amenities which guests would normally have to travel to off-site) that is greater than what is normally expected. The first and best method is to take empirical measurements of similar types of facilities that are already constructed. In the case of Residence Inn Resort, an existing hotel or motel with a marina located in Monroe County would be a similar facility for purposes of taking traffic generation measurements. No one has performed such an empirical study for the proposed Residence Inn Resort. The second method of demonstrating a greater internal capture rate is to move into the theoretical realm, as was attempted by Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Mercer. However, when the internal capture rate predicted by Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Mercer is tested with common sense, as was ably done on cross-examination, it is apparent that the amenities of the proposed Residence Inn hotel are not sufficient to keep 50% of the average number of trips on-site. For example, 112 trips per day would have to be assigned to the 5-table barbecue picnic area, 50 trips per day assigned to the small beach, and numerous trips to the other small amenities. Messrs. Hoyt and Mercer did not increase the number of trips off-site for persons to purchase those items necessary to utilize the barbecue/picnic area or for preparing meals and snacks in the kitchens provided in each unit, did not consider the fact that the small beach anticipated to keep the guests of the 96- room hotel on-site would only be approximately 50 feet by 150 feet once constructed, and considered no data regarding actual use by hotel guests of the proposed small sports court based upon such usage at similar facilities. A more reasonable internal trip capture rate for the Residence Inn Resort is 20% of the ITE Trip Generation Manual rate. However, this 20% is attributed to the marina proposed for the project, which marina is disapproved in this Recommended Order as set forth below. The dredged harbor within the subject parcel is at least 8 feet deep. Just oceanward of the project boundary, the undredged ocean bottom shoals to less than 4 feet at mean low tide. This area is more than 4 feet deep measured from mean sea level. A marina is permitted as a major conditional use in a destination resort district provided that "the parcel proposed for development has access to water of at least 4 feet below mean sea level at mean low tide." Section 9- 213.B.2.a., Monroe County Land Development Regulations. The Land Development Regulations define the phrase "water of at least 4 feet below mean sea level at mean low tide" to mean locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on off-shore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this definition, off-shore resources of particular importance shall mean ... shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of less than four (4) feet ... Section 3-101.W-1., Monroe County Land Development Regulations. The shallow water area just oceanward of the project boundary is comprised of a natural marine community of seagrass beds. The dominant species is turtle grass, also known as Thallassia. Monroe County Development Order No. 13-87 was rendered to the Department on April 7, 1988, and no earlier. The Department timely filed the Notice of Appeal and Petition in this cause. There is no basis for application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel in this proceeding, requiring the Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to approve the Development Order issued by Monroe County which is the subject matter of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission issue a Final Order: Denying the proposed 96-unit Residence Inn Resort and marina as preliminarily approved by Monroe County in the Development Order appealed herein; Providing that the proposed hotel without marina may be approved if: None of the hotel rooms contain kitchens; The density is reduced to comply with the current "DR" and "SR" land use designations; and Wigwam, Inc., is able to demonstrate a 50% reduction in trips from the motel and hotel rate as shown in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Providing further that a different project may be approved so long as it complies with the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of October, 1989. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 18th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 88-3450 Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1-24 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1-3, 5, and 7-12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Findings of Fact numbered 4 and 6 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Findings of Fact numbered 13 and 21-25 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting statements of a party's position. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Findings of Fact numbered 14-20 and 26-32 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Finding of Fact numbered 33 which is 2 1/2 pages long has been rejected primarily because it is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent Wigwam, Inc.'s, proposed Finding of Fact numbered 34 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jordan, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William J. Roberts, Esquire Roberts, Egan and Routa 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred Tittle, Esquire Tittle & Tittle, P. A. Post Office Drawer 535 Tavernier, Florida 33070 Lucien Proby, Esquire Monroe County Attorney 310 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Larry Keesey, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Patty Woodworth, Director Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Planning and Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact The Resource Recovery Facility The purpose of the Applicants' proposed resource recovery facility (RRF), a solid waste-fired electrical power plant, is to dispose of municipal solid waste and recover energy. This "waste to energy" facility will initially dispose of up to 2,200 tons of refuse each day, and generate up to 55.5 megawatts of electrical power. The ultimate disposal capacity of the proposed facility is 3,300 tons of refuse each day, and a generating capacity of 83.25 megawatts. The proposed RRF complex will include an administrative building, scalehouse/weigh station, receiving and handling building, furnace boilers, turbine generators, ash disposal area, and electrical substation. The site development plans for the project contemplate that solid waste will be delivered by truck to the enclosed refuse receiving and handling building. All waste will be stored and processed inside the main facility. The Site The site for the proposed RRF is an undeveloped 25-acre parcel of land situated on the south side of Northwest 45th Street (Hilton Road), midway between the Florida Turnpike and Powerline Road; an unincorporated area of Broward County. The uses surrounding the site are predominantly industrial. On the south side of Hilton Road, between the Florida Turnpike, which lies to the west, and Powerline Road, which lies to the east, are welding shops, engine repair shops, and automobile salvage yards. Located north of Hilton Road is an industrial zoned area which includes an asphalt batching plant. Immediately south and east of the project site is a newly permitted landfill area which will function as an expansion of the existing landfill located immediately south and west of the site's boundaries. Consistency of the site with local land use plans and zoning ordinances Broward County has adopted a Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Chapter 163 Florida Statutes, which establishes guidelines and policies to promote orderly and balanced economic, social, physical, environmental and fiscal development of the area. Pertinent to this proceeding are the Broward bounty Land Use Plan-map and the Unincorporated Area Land Use Plan (the land use plan element of the comprehensive plan), and Broward County's zoning ordinances. The proposed site is designated industrial under the Broward County Land Use Plan-map and the Unincorporated Area Land Use Plan. The proposed RRF is a utility for solid waste disposal and, as such, an allowable use under the industrial designation of both plans, and satisfies the goals, policies, and objectives of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. On April 22, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners of Broward County approved the rezoning of the site to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Special Complex District, and approved the RRF conceptual site plan. The proposed RRF is a Planned Special Complex under Broward County's PUD zoning ordinances and, as such, a permitted non-residential use. 1/ The Department of Community Affairs, Department of Environmental Regulation, and South Florida Water Management District concur that the proposed RRF is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. The Public Service Commission did not participate in this land use portion of the power plant siting process. Notice of the land use hearing was published in the Fort Lauderdale News/Sun-Sentinel on April 21, 1986, and in the Florida Administrative Weekly on April 18, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting certification for the location, construction and operation of the proposed facility, subject to the conditions of the certification attached to this Recommended Order as Appendix II. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January 1987.
The Issue The issue is whether Polk County's small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Ordinance No. 03-03 on January 22, 2003, as later amended by Ordinance No. 03-19 on March 15, 2003, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Berry is the owner of a tract of land located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road (County Road 540-A) and Pollard Road in Section 16, Township 29, Range 26 in the eastern part of unincorporated Polk County, Florida. The property lies south of the City of Winter Haven, east-southeast of the City of Eagle Lake, less than a mile south of Lake Eloise (on which Cypress Gardens is located), and west of U.S. Highway 27. Because Berry owns property within the County, and submitted oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the challenged amendment, it has standing to participate in this action. On July 19, 2002, Berry filed an application with the County Planning Department seeking to change the land use on 9.99 acres (or just below the threshold of 10.0 acres for a small scale amendment) from RL-1 to Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC) to include approximately 4.95 acres of various neighborhood specialty shops such as a grocery store, drug store, convenience store, and dry cleaners, with the remaining acreage used as a mini-warehouse self-storage facility. In September 2002, Berry amended its application by seeking to change 3.93 acres from RL-1 to CC and 6.06 acres from RL-1 to BPC-1. The application was assigned Case File No. CPA2003S- 02. Under the County's review process, the application is first reviewed by the County Development Review Committee (Committee), then by the County Planning Commission (CPC), which either accepts or rejects the Committee's recommendation, and finally by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), which either adopts the amendment, adopts the amendment as amended by the Board, or rejects the amendment. After conducting a preliminary review of the application, on September 16, 2002, the Committee conducted a public hearing and voted to recommend approval. The matter was then transmitted to the CPC, which conducted a meeting on October 9, 2002, and recommended that the Board approve the amendment. On January 22, 2003, by a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted CPA2003S-02 changing the designation on the FLUM of the County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) as proposed by Berry. This was confirmed by the County's adoption of Ordinance No. 03-03. On February 21, 2003, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the Berry amendment. The matter was again placed on the Board's agenda on March 19, 2003, after the County discovered that Ordinance No. 03-03 had inadvertently changed the land use on the entire parcel to CC rather a mix of CC and BPC-1. In addition, there were minor errors in the legal description of both the 3.93 and 6.06-acre parcels. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 03-19 was enacted to correct those errors. A second Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings (with essentially the same allegations, but also adding an allegation that the same property had been improperly subject to two small scale amendments within a 12- month period) was filed by Petitioners on March 19, 2003, challenging the action taken in Ordinance No. 03-19. At the outset of the final hearing, Petitioners voluntarily dismissed two allegations contained in their Petition. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioners have further narrowed the issues by addressing only the following allegations: that the property which is the subject of this proceeding exceeds 10.0 acres in size and therefore cannot qualify as a small scale amendment; and that the amendment violates Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policies 2.102-A1, 2.113-B-3, 2.113-B-4, 2.110-C3, and 2.113-B-1 and is thus internally inconsistent with the Plan. These issues will be discussed separately below. All other allegations contained in the second Petition and the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation are deemed to have been withdrawn or abandoned. Because the change in the FLUM was filed and approved as a small scale plan amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003),1 a compliance review of the amendment was not made by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. Standing of Petitioners Durham is a realtor/developer who owns property within 250 feet of Berry's property and resides at 10 Lake Eloise Lane, Southeast, Winter Haven, Florida. He made oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment. As such, he qualifies as an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and has standing to bring this action. CPPI began as an association in November 2002 and was later incorporated in February 2003. Presently, it has around 100 members, all of whom reside in the County. According to its chairperson, its purpose is to "help educate and inform residents of Polk County . . . towards growth matters that may affect their daily lives." The organization "encourages donations" from its members; it was scheduled to have conducted its first annual meeting on January 10, 2004; and members prepared and circulated petitions opposing the amendment to residents of the area in December 2002 and January 2003. At least one member of CPPI made written and oral comments on its behalf to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment in March 2003. There is no evidence, however, that CPPI (as opposed to its individual members) owns property or owns or operates a business within the County. Therefore, it lacks standing to file a petition. The land and surrounding uses Berry owns a triangle-shaped parcel of land (the parent parcel) totaling around 14 acres which fronts on Eagle Lake Loop Road (a 24-foot wide urban collector road) to the north, Pollard Road (a local road) to the east, and a CSX railroad track, with right-of-way, on its western side. (Pollard Road dead ends at Eagle Lake Loop Road, and another collector road, Eloise Loop Road, continues to the north from the intersection). Pollard Road provides access to eight nearby single-family homes, which lie south of the Berry property and front on Pollard Road, and eventually terminates at the City of Winter Haven's Sewage Treatment Plant (an institutional use), which lies slightly more than a mile south of the site. To the west of the site directly across the railroad tracks and fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road is additional property owned by Berry and on which were once located the original Berry corporate offices. The Berry office buildings are now used, at least partially, by other tenants. Although the land across the railroad tracks is classified as Residential Suburban (RS), the property can be used for offices since the buildings were constructed, and office use began, prior to the adoption of the Plan. Directly across Pollard Road to the east is a vacant 10-acre tract of land owned by the Baptist Ridge Association, which intends to construct a church on the property. Berry's property is now classified as RL-1, a land use classification which "is characterized by single-family dwelling units, duplex units, and small-scale multi-family units." Since at least the 1950s, however, or long before the County adopted its Plan, the property has been used primarily for agriculture purposes (citrus groves); therefore, Berry is grandfathered to continue this non-conforming use on its property. Presently, the entire tract of land is undeveloped and largely covered by an orange grove, which Berry describes as "past maturation and is declining." Citrus trucks and trailers have been parked on the extreme northwestern corner of the parent parcel and are used in conjunction with the citrus operation. Except for the former Berry offices, a nearby beauty salon operating out of a house, and a convenience store about three-quarters of a mile away, which all began operation before the Plan was adopted and are grandfathered as non- conforming uses, and the City of Winter Haven's large tract of institutional land to the south, all of the property within slightly less than a one-mile radius of the Berry property is classified in various residential land use categories with only residential uses. The Amendment As noted above, Berry has owned the subject property for many years. In 1987, Berry (then under the name of Jack M. Berry, Sr.) made application with the County for a zoning change on the property from Rural Conservation (RC) to Commercial (C-3) to allow typical commercial uses. The application was ultimately denied by the County on the ground, among others, that the zoning district being proposed was inconsistent with the Plan, "given the residential development pattern in the area." At least partly on the theory that the area has changed substantially in the last 15 years, Berry has filed (and the County has approved) an application seeking to change the land use on the property to commercial uses. Berry has carved out of the parent parcel two smaller parcels totaling 9.99 acres in size and seeks to change the land use on the northern parcel (3.93 acres) to CC and the land use on the southern parcel (6.06 acres) to BPC-1. The remaining land in the parent parcel, which consists of a 0.43-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the northwestern corner of the parent parcel and now used by citrus trucks, and a vacant 2.74-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the southern end, will remain R-1. (However, all parties agree that if the amendment is approved, these remaining parcels will be unsuitable for residential development.) In addition, strips of land ranging from 22 to 28 feet in width which front on Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road will be dedicated to the County for right-of-way and have not been included in the 9.99-acre amendment. Presumably, the proposed change is being done in this manner so that the total acreage is less than 10.0 acres, which qualifies the application to be processed as a small scale development amendment rather than a regular plan amendment and subject to DCA review and approval. If the change is approved, the northern part of the parcel (3.93 acres) will be changed to CC to develop convenience commercial uses. Under the Plan, the most typical tenant in this category is a convenience store, while other typical tenants include laundry, dry cleaning, barber, restaurant, gas station, and office uses. The southern (and larger) portion of the tract will be changed to BPC-1. The most typical tenant in this category is "[o]ne or more light- assembly plants, or warehouse facilities," which include a mini-warehouse storage facility. Other typical tenants described in the Plan are offices, distribution centers, research and development firms, and high-density residential, with proper buffering. (Berry says it intends to build a mini-warehouse facility on the southern parcel; however, any of the above described uses could be placed on the property if the change is approved.) Petitioners' Objections In broad terms, Petitioners have contended that the small scale amendment actually involves a use of more than 10 acres since the strips of land being dedicated as right-of-way to the County must be counted as a part of the land being amended. They also contend that the plan amendment violates five FLUE policies and is therefore internally inconsistent with the Plan. A small scale development amendment can only be adopted if "[t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." See § 163.3187(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. The parties have agreed that the legal description of the parcel subject to the change includes only 9.99 acres, or less than the 10-acre threshold. However, prior to the development of the site, Berry intends to dedicate to the County two strips of land, one fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road (28 feet wide), and the other on Pollard Road (22 feet wide), for future right-of-way for some public purpose. Petitioners contend that the right-of-way constitutes essential infrastructure for the development and must be included as a part of the amendment. If this land is added to the amendment, the total acreage would obviously exceed 10.0 acres. The dedicated land is not "essential infrastructure" needed for the development activities on the land, since two roadways (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road) already exist on the northern and eastern boundaries of the property, and they are sufficient in size to provide ingress to, and egress from, the property. Instead, the County will "bank" the land in the event some form of right-of-way activity is needed in the future. It is noted that Eagle Lake Loop Road was recently widened to 24 feet, and it is not anticipated that a further widening will occur for a number of years. There is nothing in the Plan which requires an applicant for an amendment to include all of its property in a proposed amendment, or prevents an applicant from leaving a residual piece of property out of the application. Therefore, Berry was not required to include in the amendment the right- of-way or the two smaller residual pieces of property that will remain R-1. Finally, assuming arguendo that Petitioners' contention is correct, that is, that an applicant must include right-of-way land dedicated to the local government in the total acreage calculation, Berry could still lawfully comply with the 10-acre threshold by simply reducing the other acreage being changed to CC or BPC by the amount of land being dedicated to the local government for right-of-way. Therefore, it is found that Berry has not improperly excluded from the amendment land necessary for essential infrastructure so as to violate Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioners. Policy 2.102-A1 requires compatibility between adjacent uses. More specifically, it provides that: Land shall be developed so that adjacent uses are compatible with each other, pursuant to the requirements of other Policies in this Future Land Use Element, so that one or more of the following provisions are accomplished: there have been provisions made which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses; incompatible uses are made to be more compatible to each other through limiting the intensity and scale of the more intense use; uses are transitioned through a gradual scaling of different land use activities through the use of innovative development techniques such as a Planned Unit Development. Therefore, as the Plan is now written, so long as Berry develops the land in a manner which accomplishes at least one of the three "provisions" in paragraphs a - c of the policy, so as to make the adjacent uses compatible, the proposed land use change is permissible. As noted above, except for a few non-conforming uses adjacent to, or near the property, virtually all of the area around the Berry property is designated for residential use. The area to the north and northeast is developed with up-scale (with some homes ranging to as high as $1 million in value), low density, large lot, single-family residential subdivisions, including Harbour Estates, Cedar Cove, Cypress Cove, Gaines Cove, and Valhalla. To the east of the site are more subdivisions, including Eloise Place, Skidmore, Cypress Point, Lake Eloise Estates, Eloise Pointe Estates, a mobile home park, and Little Lake Estates. The lands to the south are primarily agriculture and in active citrus groves, with eight single-family homes on Pollard Road. Finally, a church will be built on the property directly across the street from the Berry property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road. The County Planning Director agrees that a convenience store (which is an authorized use on CC land), standing alone, is incompatible with adjacent single-family residences. Given this acknowledgement, and the fact that a non-binding, proposed site plan submitted by Berry with its application does not provide for any buffering between the commercial uses and the residential areas, Petitioners contend that none of the conditions required for compatibility in paragraphs a through c have been met, and thus the policy has been violated. The County has made clear, however, that when a final site plan is submitted, there must be "provisions [in the site plan] . . . which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses," as required by the policy. Assuming that this is done at the site plan stage, at least one of the three provisions will be accomplished, thereby satisfying the compatibility requirement. This being so, the plan amendment does not violate the policy and in this respect is not internally inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioners next contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.110-C3, which contains locational criteria for CC property. One such criterion requires that "Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads." Because the property is at a T-shaped intersection (as opposed to a traditional cross intersection with four directions for traffic to move off the site), Petitioners assert that the property is not located at an "intersection" within the meaning of the policy. Eagle Lake Loop Road, on which the northern boundary of the property fronts, is designated as an urban collector road. That road forms an intersection with Pollard Road (a local road) and Eloise Loop Road (also an urban collector road), which meets Eagle Lake Loop Road from the north at the intersection, and then makes a 90 degree turn to the east. (When Eagle Lake Loop Road continues to the east beyond the intersection, it turns into Eloise Loop Road, and later into Thompson Nursery Road, until it eventually intersects with U.S. Highway 17.) There is no dispute that the two collector roads (Eagle Loop Lake Road and Eloise Loop Road) form a T intersection, rather than a traditional cross intersection. For many years, however, the County has considered a T intersection and a cross intersection to be the same in terms of satisfying Plan requirements. Indeed, at the present time, at least four other CC designated properties within the County are located at T intersections. The County's interpretation of the policy is consistent with sound planning principles, is reasonable and logical, and is more persuasive than the contrary view offered by Petitioners. Accordingly, it is found that the amendment does not conflict with Policy 2.110- C3. Petitioners also contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.113-B-3, which provides that "Business-Park Centers shall be located with consideration being given to regional transportation issues, and should be located at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line." (Emphasis added.) The use of the word "should" (rather than "shall") is intended to state a preference, but not an absolute requirement, that BPC lands be located at the intersections of arterial roads. According to the County's Planning Director, this is because "most cases that come [before the County] don't meet the ideal situation" of satisfying every requirement, and the County has used this permissive language to give itself some degree of flexibility in handling cases that do not meet every Plan requirement. Therefore, even though it is preferable that BPC land be located at the intersection of arterial roads, this requirement is not mandatory, and the County has the flexibility to approve a BPC land use change at property not sited at the intersection of arterial roads. In contrast to the permissive language described above, Policy 2.113-B-4 provides that development within a Business-Park Center shall conform to certain development criteria, including one that Business-Park Centers shall have frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves an arterial roadway. Business-Park Centers shall incorporate the use of frontage roads or shared ingress/egress facilities wherever practical. In this case, the closest arterial roadway to Berry's property is State Road 17 to the west, which is four miles away, while State Road 60, another arterial roadway, is approximately six miles to the south. These arterial roads must be accessed, at least at the beginning of the trip, by Eagle Lake Loop Road, a two-lane, 24-foot wide urban collector that runs through predominately residential neighborhoods with some homes having fences within a foot or two from the road. The County interprets the requirement that BPC land have "direct access to an arterial road" to be satisfied if the property fronts on a collector road, which then provides access to an arterial road. Under the County's interpretation, the requirement is met since Eagle Lake Loop Road provides access (albeit 4 to 6 miles away) to State Roads 17 and 60. The County says it has consistently interpreted this provision in this manner for at least ten years, and has approved other applications for changes to BPC when those parcels were located on urban collector roads. (The distance between these other BPC parcels and the arterial roads is not of record, however.) While Policy 2.113-B-1 provides that Business-Park Centers are "not intended to accommodate major commercial or other high-traffic producing facilities," they "are intended to promote employment opportunities within the region by allowing for the establishment of office parks, research and development parks, areas for light-industrial facilities, distribution centers, and mixed-use employment parks." The same policy provides that they must have a usable area of 10 acres or more, have a service-area radius of 20 miles or more, be supported by a population of 150,000 or more people, and have a gross leasable area of 500,000 to 2,000,000 square feet. Given this description of their purpose and characteristics, and the wide range of commercial activities that are allowed on Business-Park Center lands, it is not surprising that Policy 2.113-B-3 provides that BPC lands should be located "at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line," while Policy 2.113-B-4 requires that they "have direct frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves on an arterial roadway." When reading these provisions as a whole, it is unreasonable to conclude, as the County does, that "direct access" contemplates a drive of over 4 miles, partly on a narrow two- lane road, in order to reach an arterial road. Accordingly, on this issue, Petitioners' evidence is the most persuasive, and it is found that the plan amendment conflicts with Policy 2.113-B-4 and in this respect is internally inconsistent with the Plan. Policy 2.110-C3 sets forth the following location criteria for Convenience Centers: LOCATION CRITERIA Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads. There shall be the following traveling distance, on public roads, between the center of Convenience Center and the center of any other Convenience Center, or other higher- level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor, or Commercial Enclave providing for the same convenience shopping needs: One (1) mile within the UDA and UGA Two (2) miles within the SDA and UEA This required separation may be reduced if: The higher-level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor or Commercial Enclave within the required distance separation is over 80 percent developed; or the proposed Convenience Center market- area radius, minimum population support is over 5,000 people. Petitioners contend that this policy has been violated in two respects: the Berry property is not located at the intersection of arterial roads; and there is an existing convenience center located within 0.8 mile of the Barry property, and Berry cannot qualify for a reduction in the required separation, as described in paragraphs a and b. For the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 30-32, it is found that the Berry property is located at the intersection of two collector roads (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Eloise Loop Road) and that a T intersection satisfies the requirements of the policy. As to the second contention, the Berry property is located within an UGA (Urban Growth Area), and an existing convenience store is located at the intersection of Rifle Range Road and Eagle Lake Loop Road, or less than a mile west of Berry's property. The land use on the property on which the store sits was recently changed (in December 2003) to BPC, which does not allow a convenience store. However, the store is a non-conforming use, having been located at that site before the Plan was adopted. The locational requirement in Policy 2.110-C-3 that CC lands within the UGA be located at least a mile apart is not the least bit vague or ambiguous: CC designated lands (and not individual convenience stores, as Petitioners suggest) must be separated by at least a mile, unless one of the two criteria for reducing this separation is met. Because there is no CC land within a one-mile radius of the Berry land, the policy has not been violated. Policy 2.113-B-1 sets forth the following relevant characteristic for Business-Park Centers: General characteristics of Business-Park Centers are: Usable Area 10 acres or more There is no dispute that the useable area for the BPC land is only 6.06 acres, or approximately 60 percent of the required acreage. Petitioners contend that the amendment violates the foregoing policy because the useable area on Barry's property is much less than "10 acres or more." While the former County Planning Director conceded that the 10-acre usable area requirement is "mandatory," he justified the amendment on the ground that the 6.06 acres "approximates" 10 acres, and thus satisfies the policy. In the same vein, the current County Planning Director asserted that if Berry was proposing a stand-alone BPC, it would have been required to have 10 usable acres. In this case, though, he pointed out that the Berry property will be used for a nonresidential mixed use (BPC and CC) totaling almost 10 acres, and therefore Berry has satisfied the requirement. The Planning Director admitted, however, that nothing in the Plan specifically allows this type of exception. He justified the County's action on the theory that the Plan "doesn't anticipate every situation that comes in," and "interpretations have to be made of the comprehensive plan and how it's applied." The requirement that Business-Park Centers have a usable area of 10 or more acres is clear and unambiguous, was characterized as being "mandatory," and is not subject to any exceptions in the Plan. This being so, the County's interpretation is found to be unreasonable and contrary to the plain language in the policy, and in this respect the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with the Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Polk County by Ordinance No. 03-03, as amended by Ordinance No. 03-19, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments for the Bay County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Diane C. Brown resides and owns property within the County, and she submitted written and oral comments to the County during the adoption process of Ordinance No. 09-36. The County is a local government that administers its Plan and adopted the Ordinance which approved the changes being contested here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. The EAR Process The County's first Plan was adopted in 1990 and then amended through the EAR process in 1999. As required by law, on September 5, 2006, the County adopted another EAR and in 2007 a Supplement to the EAR. See County Ex. 1C and 1D. The EAR and Supplement were found to be sufficient by the Department on December 21, 2007. See County Ex. 1E. After the EAR-based amendments were adopted by the County and transmitted to the Department for its review, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. After making revisions to the amendments in response to the ORC, on October 20, 2009, the County enacted Ordinance No. 09-36, which adopted the final version of the EAR-based amendments known as "Charting Our Course to 2020." See County Ex. 1B. On December 15, 2009, the Department issued its notice of intent determining that the EAR-based amendments were in compliance. See County Ex. 1F. Notice of this determination was published in the Panama City News Herald the following day. See County Ex. 1G. The EAR is a large document comprised of five sections: Overview Special Topics; Issues; Element Reviews; Recommended Changes; and a series of Maps. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes, requires that the County amend its comprehensive plan "based" on the recommendations in the report; subsection (2) also requires that the County update the comprehensive plan based on the components of that subsection. The EAR-based amendments are extensive in nature, and include amendments to all 13 chapters in the Plan. However, many provisions in the 1999 version of the Plan were left unchanged, while many revisions were simply a renumbering of a provision, a transfer of a provision to another element, a change in the format, or an otherwise minor and non-substantive change. Although the EAR discusses a number of issues and concerns in the first three sections of the report, the EAR- based amendments must only be based on the recommended changes. See § 163.3191(10), Fla. Stat. Therefore, it was unnecessary for the County to react through the amendment process to the discussions in the Issues and Element Reviews portions of the EAR. For example, the EAR discusses air quality and mercury but made no specific recommendations to amend the Plan to address either subject. Also, nothing in chapter 163 or Department rules requires that the County implement changes to the Plan that parrot each specific recommendation to the letter. So long as the revisions are "based" on an area of concern in the recommendations, the statutory requirement has been satisfied. Section Four of the EAR contains the "Recommended EAR- Based Actions and Corrective Measures Section 163.3191(2)(i)." See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 1-9. Paragraph (2)(i) of the statute requires that the EAR include "[t]he identification of any actions or corrective measures, including whether plan amendments are anticipated to address the major issues identified and analyzed in the report." Section Four indicates that it was intended to respond to the requirements of this paragraph. Id. at p. 1. Finally, the only issue in this proceeding is whether the EAR-based amendments are in compliance. Therefore, criticisms regarding the level of detail in the EAR and Supplement, and whether the County adequately addressed a particular issue in those documents, are not relevant. A determination that the EAR was sufficient in all respects was made by the Department on December 21, 2007. In her Amended Petition, Petitioner raises numerous allegations regarding the EAR-based amendments. They can be generally summarized as allegations that various text amendments, including entire elements or sub-elements, are inconsistent with statutory and rule provisions or are internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions, and that the County failed to properly react to changes recommended in the EAR. Because this is a challenge to an in-compliance determination by the Department, Petitioner must show that even though there is evidence to support the propriety of these amendments, no reasonable person would agree that the amendments are in compliance. See Conclusion of Law 90, infra. Objections Administrative Procedures - Chapter 1 Petitioner contends that new policy 1.4.1(4) is inconsistent with sections 163.3181 and 187.201(25)(a) and (b)6., which generally require or encourage effective citizen participation, and rule 9J-5.004, which requires a local government to adopt procedures for public participation. She also contends the County should not have deleted policy 1.4.2, which required the County to provide notices (by mail and sign postings) beyond those required by chapter 163. The new policy simply provides that notice of public hearings be provided for in accordance with chapter 163. There is no statutory or rule requirement that more stringent notice requirements be incorporated into a plan. The new notice requirements are consistent with the above statutes and rule. It is fairly debatable that the changes to the Administrative Procedures part of the Plan are in compliance. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) - Chapter 3 Petitioner has challenged (a) one policy that creates a new planning area; (b) the County's failure to adopt new energy standards in the FLUE; and (c) the adoption of new development standards for two land use categories in Table 3A of the FLUE. Table 3A describes each land use category in the Plan, including its purpose, service area, designation criteria, allowable uses, density, intensity, and development restrictions. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-5 through 3-17. These contentions are discussed separately below. Southport Neighborhood Planning Area New FLUE policy 3.4.8 creates the Southport Neighborhood Planning Area (Southport), a self-sustaining community with a functional mix of uses. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-20 and 21. The effect of the amendment is simply to identify Southport as a potential planning area that includes a mixture of uses. This follows the EAR recommendations to create "new areas where residents are allowed to work, shop, live, and recreate within one relatively compact area while preserving the rural and low density land uses in the area[,]" and to create "higher density rural development." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 2. Southport is located north of the greater Panama City area in an unincorporated part of the County near or adjacent to the proposed new intersection of County Road 388 and State Road 77. Southport is also identified in new policy 3.2.5(8) as a Special Treatment Zone (STZ) that is designated as an overlay on the Future Land Use Map Series. Id. at p. 3-5. (There are seven STZs in the Plan that act as overlay districts on the FLUM. Overlays do not convey development rights.) Petitioner contends that policy 3.4.8 is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(a) and (d), (8), and (9)(b) and (e), and rules 9J-5.005(2), (5), and (7), 9J-5.006(5), and 9J-5.013. More precisely, Petitioner generally contends that the amendment will encourage urban sprawl; that there is no need for the additional development; that there are no central water and wastewater facilities available to serve that area; that there is no mechanism for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation of the policy; that it will impact nearby natural resources; that it allows increased density standards in the area; and that it is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Most of the data and analysis that support the establishment of the new planning area are in the EAR. They are found in the Introduction and Overview portion of Section One and the FLUE portion of Section 3 of the Element Reviews. The County Director of Planning also indicated that the County relied upon other data as well. Although the new policy allows an increase in maximum residential density from five to 15 dwelling units per acre, paragraph (b) of the policy specifically requires that "all new development [be] served by central water and sewer." Petitioner's expert opined that the new community will create urban sprawl. However, Southport is located within the suburban service area of the County, which already allows densities of up to five dwelling units per acre; it is currently developed with low-density residential uses; and it is becoming more urban in nature. Given these considerations, it is fairly debatable that Southport will not encourage urban sprawl. The new STZ specifically excludes the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Therefore, concerns that the new policy will potentially threaten the water quantity and quality in that reservoir are not credited. In addition, there are other provisions within the Plan that are designed to protect the reservoir. Petitioner criticized the County's failure to perform a suitability analysis before adopting the amendment. However, a suitability study is performed when a land use change is proposed. Policy 3.4.8 is not an amendment to the FLUM. In fact, the Plan notes that "[n]othing in this policy shall be interpreted as changing the land use category of any parcel of the [FLUM]." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-21. In determining the need for this amendment, the County took into consideration the fact that except for the Beaches STZ, the EAR-based amendments delete residential uses as an allowed use in commercially-designated lands. The number of potential residential units removed from the commercial land use category far exceeds the potential number of residential units that could be developed at Southport. Thus, the new amendment will not result in an increase in residential units. Petitioner also contends that the County should have based its needs analysis using Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) estimates. The County's population projections are found in the Introduction portion of the EAR and while they make reference to BEBR estimates, they are not based exclusively on those data. See County Ex. 1C, § 1, pp. 2 and 3. However, there was no evidence that the estimates used by the County are not professionally acceptable. Where there are two acceptable methodologies used by the parties, the Department is not required to evaluate whether one is better than the other. See § 163.3177(10)(e), Fla. Stat. ("the Department shall not evaluate whether one accepted methodology is better than another"). The County's estimates are professionally acceptable for determining need. The other objections to the amendment have been considered and found to be without merit. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendment is in compliance. Neighborhood Commercial - Table 3A The purpose of this commercial category is to "provide areas for the convenience of residential neighborhoods so as to generate a functional mix of land uses and reduce traffic congestion." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-15. Allowable uses include, among others, supermarket centers, restaurants, public facilities, and other similar uses. The County amended the intensity standard for this category by allowing development that is "[n]o more than 50-feet in height." Id. Petitioner asserts that the new 50-foot height limitation for commercial buildings results in the amendment being inconsistent with rule 9J-5.006 because it is not based on adequate data and analysis. Petitioner further argues that the standard is internally inconsistent with FLUE objective 3.9 and policy 3.9.1 and Housing Element objective 8.5, which relate to compatibility. Finally, Petitioner alleges that it will cause unsustainable density in the category and create new demands for public services. The EAR contains a section that analyzes data regarding residential development in commercial land use categories. See County Ex. 1C, § 2. There is, then, data and analysis that support the amendment. The 50-foot height limitation actually limits the intensity that would normally be allowed under current Land Development Regulations (LDRs) if this limitation were not in the Plan. Therefore, it will not increase the intensity of development within this district. Because the Plan specifically provides that the category is for "areas [with] low-intensity commercial uses that will be compatible with adjacent or surrounding residential uses," and such uses must be located "outside subdivisions . . . unless intended to be included in the subdivisions," compatibility issues with adjacent residential areas should not arise. Petitioner failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendment is not in compliance. Seasonal/Resort - Table 3A This land use category is designed for transient occupancy (temporary seasonal visitors and tourists) under chapter 509, rather than permanent residents. It is limited to areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used in the tourist trade. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3- The category includes a new intensity standard for buildings of "[n]o more than 230-feet in height." Id. Petitioner contends that this intensity standard is inconsistent with section 163.3177(6)(d), (8), and (9) and rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), 9J-5.006, and 9J-5.013. These provisions require that an amendment protect natural resources, that it be based on the best available data and analysis, and that it be internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Petitioner also points out that the land use category is located in or adjacent to the Coastal High Hazard Area, that the amendment allows an increase in density, and this results in an inconsistency with statutes and rules pertaining to hurricane evacuation zones. Prior to the adoption of the EAR-based amendments, there was no intensity standard in the Plan for this land use category and all development was governed by LDRs. Pursuant to a recommendation by the Department in its ORC, the new standard was incorporated into the Plan. Before making a decision on the specific height limitation, the County considered existing condominium construction on the beach, current LDR standards for the district, and whether the new standard would create an internal inconsistency with other Plan provisions. Therefore, it is fair to find that adequate data were considered and analyzed. The new height limitation is the same as the maximum height restriction found in the Seasonal Resort zoning district, which now applies to new construction in the district. Because condominiums and hotels that do not exceed 230 feet in height are now allowed within the district, and may actually exceed that height if approved by the County, the amendment is not expected to increase density or otherwise affect hurricane evacuation planning. Historically, transient visitors/tourists are the first to leave the area if a hurricane threatens the coast. Petitioner also contends that the amendment will create compatibility problems between existing one- or two-story residential dwellings in the district and high-rise condominiums, and that the County failed to adequately consider that issue. However, before a condominium or other similar structure may be built, the County requires that the developer provide a statement of compatibility. It is fairly debatable that the new intensity standard is in compliance. Energy Issues Petitioner alleges that the new amendments do not adequately address energy issues, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a). That statute requires, among many other things, that the FLUE be based upon "energy-efficient land use patterns accounting for existing and future electric power generation and transmission systems; [and] greenhouse gas reduction strategies." However, amendments to objective 3.11 and policy 3.11.5, which relate to energy-efficient land use patterns, adequately respond to these concerns. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-27 and 3-28. In addition, new Transportation Element policy 4.10.3 will result in energy savings and reduce greenhouse gases by reducing idle times of vehicular traffic. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, p. 4-12. It is fairly debatable that the energy portions of the Plan are in compliance, and they promote energy efficient land use patterns and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the statute. Transportation Element - Chapter 4 The EAR contains 14 recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 2-4. Item 2 recommends generally that bike paths be installed in or next to certain areas and roadways. Id. at p. 2. Petitioner contends that this recommendation was not implemented because it is not included in the Recreation and Open Space Element. However, one section of the Transportation Element is devoted to Bicycle and Pedestrian Ways and includes objectives 4.14 and 4.15 and policies 4.14.1 and 4.15.1, which respond to the recommendation. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, pp. 4-14 and 4-15. In addition, the General Strategy portion of the element requires the County to install alternative transportation systems where a demonstrated need exists. Id. at p. 4-1. Petitioner contends that by limiting bike paths only to where there is a demonstrated need, the County has not fully responded to the recommendation. This argument is illogical and has been rejected. It is fairly debatable that the above amendments are in compliance. Groundwater Aquifer Recharge - Chapter 5F As required by section 163.3177(6)(c), the County has adopted a natural groundwater aquifer recharge element. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5F. The goal of this sub-element, as amended, is to "[s]afeguard the functions of the natural groundwater recharge areas within the County to protect the water quality and quantity in the Floridan Aquifer." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The EAR contains three recommended changes for this part of the Plan: that the County update its data and analysis to identify areas of high and/or critical recharge for the Floridan aquifer; that it include in the data and analysis an examination of existing LDRs which affect land uses and development activities in high recharge areas and note any gaps that could be filled through the LDRs; and that it include within the data and analysis a study of potential impacts of increased development in high recharge areas, including reasonable development standards for those areas. See County Ex. 1C, §4, pp. 4-5. Petitioner contends that "the objectives and policies pertaining to protecting water recharge areas" are inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(7) and rules 9J-5.5.011 and 9J-5.013, which require that the Plan protect groundwater; that they violate section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(7), which require measurable objectives for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation; and that the County violated section 163.3191(10) by failing to respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. In response to the EAR, in July 2009, the County prepared a watershed report entitled "Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Lake Watershed," which was based on a watershed management model used by County expert witness Peene. See County Ex. 4. The model used for that report is the same model used by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The study was also based on data and analysis prepared by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The purpose of the analysis was to look at potential future land use changes in the Deer Point watershed and assess their ultimate impact upon the Deer Point Reservoir, which is the primary public water supply for the County. The model examined the entire Deer Point watershed, which is a much larger area than the Deer Point Lake Protection Zone, and it assumed various flows from rain, springs, and other sources coming into the Deer Point Reservoir. The study was in direct response to a recommendation in the EAR that the County undertake a study to determine if additional standards were needed to better protect the County's drinking water supply and the St. Andrews estuary. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. Another recommendation was that the study be incorporated by reference into the data and analysis of the Plan and be used as a basis for any amendments to the Plan that might be necessary. Id. at p. 6. Pursuant to that recommendation, the report was incorporated by reference into Objective 5F.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The evidence supports a finding that the report is based on a professionally accepted methodology and is responsive to the EAR. The model evaluated certain future land use scenarios and predicted the level of pollutants that would run off of different land uses into the Deer Point Reservoir. Based on this analysis, Dr. Peene recommended that the County adopt certain measures to protect the groundwater in the basin from fertilizers, stormwater, and pesticides. He also recommended that best management practices be used, that septic tanks be replaced, and that any new growth be on a centralized wastewater treatment plant. Petitioner's expert criticized the report as not sufficiently delineating the karst features or the karst plain within the basin. However, the report addresses that issue. See County Ex. 4, p. 2-36. Also, Map 13 in the EAR identifies the Karst Regions in the County. See County Ex. 1C, § 5, Map 13. One of the recommendations in the EAR was to amend all goals, policies, and objectives in the Plan "to better protect the Deer Point watershed in areas not included within the Deer Point Reservoir Special Treatment Zone, and [to] consider expanding the zone to include additional areas important to preserving the quantity and quality of water entering the reservoir." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Besides amending the sub-element's goal, see Finding of Fact 31, supra, the County amended objective 5F.1 to read as follows: By 2010 protect groundwater resources by identifying and mapping all Areas of High Aquifer Recharge Potential to the Floridan Aquifer in Bay County by using the data and analysis contained in the Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Watershed, prepared by Applied Technology and Management, Inc., dated July 2009. In addition, policy 5F-1.1 requires that the County use "the map of High Aquifer Recharge Areas to establish an Ecosystem Management overlay in the Conservation Element where specific land use regulations pertaining to aquifer water quality and quantity shall apply." Also, policy 5F-1.2 requires the identification of the Dougherty Karst Region. Finally, the EAR and Map 13A were incorporated by reference into the Plan by policy 1.1.4.4. These amendments sufficiently respond to the recommendations in the EAR. While Petitioner's expert criticized the sufficiency of the EAR, and he did not believe the report adequately addressed the issue of karsts, the expert did not establish that the study was professionally unacceptable or otherwise flawed. His criticism of the County's deletion of language in the vision statement of the sub-element that would restrict development density and intensity in areas known to have high groundwater aquifer potential is misplaced. An amendment to a vision statement is not a compliance issue, and nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to limit "density and intensity" in high aquifer recharge areas. On this issue, the EAR recommended that the County's drinking water supply be protected by using "scientifically defensible development standards." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. The amendments accomplish this result. Petitioner also contends that while new policy 5F.3 and related policies are "good," the County should have collected additional data and analysis on the existence of swallets, which are places where streams flow underground. Again, nothing in chapter 163 or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to consider swallets. Also, a contention that policy 5F3.2 allows solid waste disposal facilities in high recharge areas is without merit. The policy requires that the County continue to follow chapter 62-7 regulations (implemented by DEP) to protect water quality of the aquifers. In addition, a moratorium on construction and demolition landfills has been adopted, and current LDRs prohibit landfills within the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Petitioner also criticized the sufficiency of policy 5F.4, which requires the implementation of LDRs that limit land uses around high aquifer recharge areas. The evidence establishes that the new policy is sufficient to achieve this purpose. It is at least fairly debatable that the new amendments protect the natural resources, are based on the best available data and analysis, include measurable objectives for overseeing the amendments, and respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. Conservation Element - Chapter 6 The purpose of this element is to conserve the natural resources of the County. Petitioner contends that "many of the amendments [to this chapter] are not consistent with applicable rules and statutes, and that a number of recommendations in the EAR pertaining to the Conservation Element were not implemented as required by Section 163.3191(10)." These contentions are discussed below. Air pollution While the EAR discusses air pollution, there were no specific recommendations to amend the plan to address air quality. See County Ex. 1C, Element Reviews, Ch. 6, pp. 1 and Petitioner contends, however, that current Plan objective 6.3, which was not amended, is not protecting air quality and should have been revised to correct major air quality problems in the County, including "the deposition of atmospheric mercury caused by fossil fuel burning power plants and incinerators." Objective 6.3 requires the County to maintain or improve air quality levels, while related policies 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 require that the County's facilities will be constructed and operated in accordance with state and federal standards. The policies also require that the County work through state and federal agencies to eliminate unlawful sources of air pollution. Notably, the County does not regulate emissions or air pollution, as that responsibility lies within the jurisdiction of other state and federal agencies. It is fairly debatable that the County reacted to the EAR in an appropriate manner. Policies and Objectives in Chapter 6 Petitioner contends that policy 6.1.1 is inconsistent with section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(2) because: it is not supported by adequate data and analysis; it does not implement the EAR recommendations, as required by section 163.3191(10); it is inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(b) and (f) because it results in "inconsistent application of policies intended to guide local land use decision[s]"; it is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(9) and (10) and rule 9J- 5.013 because it fails to adequately protect natural resources, including isolated wetlands; and it is internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Policy 6.1.1 provides that as a subdivision of the State, the County "will, to the maximum extent practicable, rely upon state laws and regulations to meet the conservation goals and objectives of this Plan." Item 9 in the recommended changes recommends that the County should resolve the ambiguities and inconsistencies between various policies and objectives which rely on the jurisdiction of state laws and regulation on the one hand, and objective 6.11 and implementing policies, which appear to extend wetland jurisdiction to all wetlands, including isolated wetlands not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. The real issue involves isolated wetlands, which at the time of the EAR were not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The EAR did not recommend a specific solution, but only to resolve any apparent "ambiguity." Through amendments to policy 6.11.3, which implements objective 6.11, the County reacted to the recommendation. These amendments clarify the Plan and provide that wetlands in the County will be subject to the Plan if they are also regulated by state and federal agencies. Any ambiguity as to the Plan's application to isolated wetlands was resolved by the adoption of new rules by the Northwest Florida Water Management District, which extend that entity's jurisdiction to isolated wetlands. See Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-346. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick, who explained that the Plan now defers to the wetland regulations of state and federal agencies. Therefore, any inconsistencies or ambiguities have been resolved. Petitioner contends that objective 6.2 and implementing policy 6.2.1 are inconsistent with statutes and a rule which require protection of natural resources because they focus on "significant" natural resources, and not all natural resources. With the exception of one minor change to the policy, the objective and policy were not amended, and the EAR did not recommend that either be revised. Also, testimony established that existing regulations are applied uniformly throughout the County, and not to selected habitat. Finally, the existing objective and related policies already protect rare and endangered species in the County. Objective 6.3 requires that the County "maintain or improve air quality levels." For the reasons cited in Finding of Fact 45, the objective is in compliance. Objective 6.5 requires the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality consistent with state water quality standards, while policy 6.5.1 delineates the measures that the County will take to achieve that objective. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-4 and 6-5. Except for one minor change to paragraph (3) of the policy (which is not in issue), neither provision was revised. Also, the EAR did not recommend any changes to either provision. Notwithstanding Petitioner's contention to the contrary, the County was not required to revise the objective or policy. Policy 6.5.2 requires that the County "protect seagrass beds in those areas under County jurisdiction" by implementing certain enforcement measures. County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-5. The policy was only amended in minor respects during the EAR process. Petitioner contends that the County failed to amend the policy, as required by the EAR, and this failure results in no protection to natural resources. However, the EAR only discusses the policy in the Issues section. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 7. While the EAR emphasizes the importance of seagrass beds to marine and estuarine productivity, it has no recommended changes to the objective or policy. Even so, the County amended policy 6.5.2(5) by requiring the initiation of a seagrass monitoring program using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping by 2012. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. It is at least fairly debatable that the objective and policy are in compliance. Objective 6.6 requires the County to "protect, conserve and appropriately use Outstanding Florida Waters, Class I waters and Class II waters." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. Its purpose is to ensure the quality and safety of the County's primary drinking water supply. Id. The objective was not amended and remains unchanged since 1999. Except for a recommendation that the County give a land use designation to water bodies, there were no recommended changes for this objective or related policies in the EAR. Because land use designations are for land, and not water, the County logically did not assign a land use to any water bodies. Petitioner contends that the objective and related policies are not based on the best available data and analysis and are not measurable, and that they fail to protect Lake Powell, an Outstanding Florida Water, whose quality has been declining over the years. Because no changes were recommended, it was unnecessary to amend the objective and policies. Therefore, Petitioner's objections are misplaced. Notably, the Plan already contains provisions specifically directed to protecting Lake Powell. See, e.g., policy 6.6.1(1), which requires the County to specifically enforce LDRs for Lake Powell, and objective 6.21, which requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-6 and 6-24. Petitioner's expert also criticized the objective and related policies on the ground the County did not adequately identify karst areas in the region. However, nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to collect new data on the existence of karst areas. Petitioner also points out that objective 6.6 and policy 6.6.1 are designed to protect Deer Point Lake but were not amended, as required by the EAR, and they fail to adequately protect that water body. For the reasons expressed in Finding of Fact 55, this contention has been rejected. Objective 6.7, which was not amended, provides that the County "[c]onserve and manage natural resources on a systemwide basis rather than piecemeal." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-8. Related policies, which were not amended except in one minor respect, require that the County implement programs in "Ecosystem Management Areas." These areas are illustrated on Map 6.1 of chapter 6. Petitioner contends that even though they were not amended, the objective and policies are not supported by adequate data and analysis, they fail to contain measurable standards, and they are not responsive to a recommendation in the EAR. Because no changes were made to these provisions, and the EAR does not recommend any specific changes, the contentions are rejected. The 17 water bodies comprising the Sand Hill Lakes are identified in policy 6.9.1. Policy 6.9.3, which also implements objective 6.9, continues the practice of prohibiting development with a density of greater than one unit per ten acres on land immediately adjacent to any of the Sand Hills Lakes outside designated Rural Communities. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6- (The three Rural Communities in the County have been designated as a STZ and are described in FLUE policy 3.4.4.) The policy has been amended by adding new language providing that "[p]roposed developments not immediately adjacent to, but within 1320 feet of a Sand Hill Lake, and outside of a designated Rural Community, will provide, prior to approval, an analysis indicating that the development will not be too dense or intense to sustain the lake." Id. Other related policies are unchanged. The amendment was in response to a recommendation in the EAR that all goals, objectives, and policies be amended to more clearly define the area around the Sand Hill Lakes within which densities and intensities of land must be limited to ensure protection of the lakes. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Petitioner contends that the amended policy is inconsistent with various statutes and rules because it contains no specific standards for site suitability assessment and does not restrict density bordering on the lake; it does not implement the EAR; it is not based on EAR data and analysis; and it does not contain procedures for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of all policies. Policy 6.9.3 applies to agricultural areas outside of rural communities where the maximum density is now one dwelling unit per ten acres, and to properties that are designated as agriculture timber, which allows one dwelling unit per 20 acres. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, it does not change the established densities on those land use categories. Before a property owner can convert a land use affected by the policy, the applicant will be required to provide an analysis that the new development will not be too intense or dense to sustain the lake. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendment responds to the EAR recommendation, that it will not increase density, that it is based on sufficient data and analysis in the EAR, and that adequate standards are contained in the policies to ensure proper implementation. Objective 6.11 requires the County to "[p]rotect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-14. A challenge to an amendment to policy 6.11.3(3), which relates to setbacks or buffers for wetlands, has already been addressed in Case No. 10-0859GM. Policy 6.11.3 provides that in order "[t]o protect and ensure an overall no net loss of wetlands," the County will employ the measures described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the policy. Petitioner contends that by using the standards employed by state and federal agencies for wetlands in paragraph (2), the County has abdicated its responsibility to protect natural resources. However, as previously discussed, the recent assumption of jurisdiction over isolated wetlands by the Northwest Florida Water Management District allows the County to extend these measures to all wetlands in the County. Petitioner also contends that the term "no net loss" in policy 6.11.3 is not measurable. Through its GIS system, though, the County can monitor any loss of wetlands. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick. In addition, the County will know at the development order phase whether any federal or state agency requires mitigation to offset impacts to wetlands. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendments to policy 6.11.3 will protect all wetlands, including isolated wetlands. Objective 6.12 requires that by the year 2012, the County will "develop a GIS layer that provides baseline information on the County's existing wetlands. This database will be predicated on the USFWS [United States Fish and Wildlife Service] National Wetlands Inventory (Cowardin et al 1979) hierarchy of coastal and inland (wetlands) represented in North Florida. This inventory shall be developed through a comprehensive planning process which includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-15. Related policies 6.12.1, 6.12.2, and 6.12.3 require that the County (a) use the GIS database to identify, classify, and monitor wetlands; (b) adopt LDRs which further the objective and policies; and (c) track in the GIS database the dredge and fill permits issued by DEP. Id. Petitioner criticizes the County's decision to wait until 2012 to develop a GIS layer; contends that policy 6.12.2 improperly defers to LDRs; asserts that the policy lacks meaningful standards; and contends it is not responsive to the EAR. The evidence presented on these issues supports a finding that it is at least fairly debatable that the amendments are in compliance. The EAR-based amendments deleted objective 6.13, together with the underlying policies, which related to floodplains, and created new provisions on that subject in the Stormwater Management Sub-Element in Chapter 5E. This change was made because the County concluded that floodplain issues should more appropriately be located in the stormwater chapter. The natural resource values of floodplains are still protected by objective 5E-9 and related policies, which require that state water quality standards are maintained or improved through the County's stormwater management programs. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5E, p. 5E-7. Also, "flood zones" are retained as a listed "significant natural resource" in Conservation Element policy 6.2.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-3. It is at least fairly debatable that the transfer of the floodplain provisions to a new element does not diminish protection of that resource. Finally, Objective 6.21 (formerly numbered as 6.23) requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." Except for renumbering this objective, this provision was not amended, and there is no specific recommendation in the EAR that it be revised. Therefore, the contentions that the existing policy are not in compliance are not credited. Coastal Management Element - Chapter 7 The recommended changes for this element of the Plan are found on pages 7 and 8 of Section 4 of the EAR. In her Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends that the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County did not follow the recommendations in items 1, 2, and 4. Those items generally recommended that the County update the data and analysis supporting the element to reflect current conditions for, among other things, impaired waters. This was done by the County. Accordingly, the County adequately responded to the recommendations. Petitioner also contends that policy 7.1.1 improperly deferred protection of coastal resources to the LDRs. The policy reads as follows: 7.1.1: Comply with development provisions established in the [LDRs] for The Coastal Planning Area (Chapter 10, Section 1003.2 of the Bay County [LDRs] adopted September 21, 2004) which is hereby defined as all land and water seaward of the landward section line of those sections of land and water areas seaward of the hurricane evacuation zone. County witness Crelling established, however, that there are numerous other policies in the element that govern the protection of natural resources. Petitioner contends that no changes were made to provide additional guidance in policy 7.2.1 (formerly numbered as 7.3.1) to improve estuarine water quality even though multiple water bodies are listed as impaired. Except for a few clarifying changes, no revisions were made to the policy. Policy 7.2.1 does not reduce the protection for impaired waters. The minor rewording of the policy makes clear that the protective measures enumerated in the policy "will be taken" by the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality. It is fairly debatable that the element and new objectives and policies are in compliance. Petitioner contends that amended objective 7.2 (formerly numbered as 7.3) will lead to less protection of water quality. The objective requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve estuarine water quality by regulating such sources of pollution and constructing capital improvements to reduce or eliminate known pollutants." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-2. Its purpose is to regulate all known potential sources of estuarine pollution. The evidence fails to establish that the amended objective will reduce the protection of water quality. Policy 7.3.1 was amended to delete the requirement that areas with significant dunes be identified and mapped and to provide instead that the County may impose special conditions on development in dune areas as a part of the development approval process. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-4. This change was made because the EAR recommended that a requirement to map and identify dune systems be deleted due to the "extremely dynamic nature of beach and dune systems." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 7. A similar provision in the Conservation Element was transferred to the Coastal Management Element to respond to the recommended change. The County adequately responded to the recommendation. Petitioner contends that amended policy 7.3.2 (formerly numbered as 7.4.1) does not include sufficient standards to protect significant dunes. The amended policy requires that where damage to dunes is unavoidable, the significant dunes must be restored and revegetated to at least predevelopment conditions. It is at least fairly debatable that the standards in the policy are sufficient to protect dunes. In summary, the evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the revisions to chapter 7 are not in compliance. Housing Element - Chapter 8 Petitioner contends the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County failed to react to recommendations in the EAR; and that new objective 8.16 and related policies 8.16.1, 8.16.2, and 8.16.3 are inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(e) and rules 9J-5.005(6) and (7) because they fail to identify how the provisions will be implemented and thus lack specific measurable objectives and procedures for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation. Petitioner focused on item 4 in the Recommended Changes for the Housing Element. That recommendation reads as follows: 4. The revised data and analysis should also include a detailed analysis and recommendations regarding what constitutes affordable housing, the various state and federal programs available to assist in providing it; where it should be located to maximize utilization of existing schools, medical facilities, other supporting infrastructure, and employment centers taking into consideration the costs of real property; and what the likely demand will be through the planning horizon. The objectives and policies should then be revised consistent with the recommendation of the analysis, including the creation of additional incentives, identification on the Future Land Use Map of areas suited for affordable housing, and, possibly amending the County Land Development Regulations to require the provision of affordable housing if no other alternatives exist. County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 8. Item 1 of the Recommended Changes states that "[t]he County should implement those policies within the Housing Element which proactively address affordable housing, and in particular Policy 8.15.1 outlining density bonuses, reduced fees, and streamlined permitting, to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing." Id. Policy 8.15.1 was amended to conform to this recommendation. The new objective and policies address incentives for the development of affordable housing. While item 4 is not specifically addressed, the new objective and policies address the County's housing concern as a whole, as described in the Recommended Changes. Also, the new objective and policies contain sufficient specificity to provide guidance to a user of the Plan. It is fairly debatable that the element as a whole, and the new objective and policies, are in compliance. Intergovernmental Coordination Element - Chapter 10 Although discussed in the Element Reviews portion of the EAR, there are no recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 3, pp. 1-5. Petitioner contends that because the County deleted objective 10.5, the entire element conflicts with the EAR recommendations, and it is inconsistent with two goals in the state comprehensive plan, sections 163.3177(6)(h)1. and (9)(b) and (h), and rules 9J-5.015 and 9J-5.013(2)(b)8. The deleted provision required the County to "establish countywide resource protection standards for the conservation of locally significant environmental resources." Besides deleting this objective, the County also deleted objective 10.1, which provided that the County "will take the lead role toward the creation of an 'intergovernmental forum' as a means to promote coordination between various jurisdictions and agencies." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 10, p. 10-1. To support her argument, Petitioner relies upon a concern in the Issues part of the EAR that states that "countywide resource protection standards have not been established" and that "consistency of regulation between jurisdictions" must be observed. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 45. Mr. Jacobson, the County Planning and Zoning Director, pointed out that the County currently has numerous interlocal agreements with various municipalities and does not require authorization from the Plan to adopt these agreements. Objective 10.5 was deleted because the County cannot implement its regulations in the various municipalities, and protection of natural resources is addressed in other portions of the Plan. He also noted that the "intergovernmental forum" discussed in deleted objective 10-1 is not required by any statute or rule. It is at least fairly debatable that the element is in compliance and does not violate any statute or rule. (i) Capital Improvements Element - Chapter 11 Petitioner contends that the County failed to implement three recommended changes in the EAR and therefore the entire element is in violation of section 163.3191(10). Those recommendations include an updating of information on the County's current revenue streams, debts, commitments and contingencies, and other financial matters; a revision of policy 11.6.1 to be consistent with Recreation and Open Space Element policy 9.71 with regard to recreational levels of service (LOS); and the development of a five-year schedule of capital improvements. See County Ex. 1, § 4, p.9. Policy 11.6.1 has been substantially revised through the EAR process. Table 11.1 in the policy establishes new LOSs, including one for local parks, regional parks, and beach access points. The County has also adopted an updated five-year Capital Improvement Plan. See County Ex. 36. That exhibit includes a LOS Analysis for recreational services. The same exhibit contains a breakdown of financial matters related to capital improvements. It is fairly debatable that the element is in compliance. Petitioner also contends that objective 11.1 and policy 11.1.1 are not in compliance. Both provisions remain unchanged from the 1999 Plan, and the EAR did not recommend that either provision be amended. The contention is therefore rejected. Other Issues All other issues not specifically addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit, contrary to the more persuasive evidence, or not subject to a challenge in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the EAR-based amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 09-36 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Escambia County (County) by Ordinance No. 2017-53 on September 7, 2017, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner owns real property and resides in the County. She submitted written comments to the County during the adoption phase of the amendment. She is an affected person within the meaning of section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The County is a local government that is subject to the requirements of chapter 163, Florida Statutes. A sector plan is the process in which the local government engages in long-term planning for an area of at least 5,000 acres. §§ 163.3164(42) and 163.3245(1), Fla. Stat. It involves two levels of planning: a) a long-term master plan, and b) a Detailed Specific Area Plan (DSAP), which implements the master plan. A DSAP is created for an area that is at least 1,000 acres and identifies the distribution, extent, and location of future uses and public facilities. § 163.3245(3), Fla. Stat. While the DSAP is created by a local development order that is not subject to state compliance review, an amendment to an adopted sector plan is a plan amendment reviewed under the State Coordinated Review process. § 163.3184(2)(c), Fla. Stat. The development standards in the DSAP are separate and distinct from the development standards in non-sector plan properties. On June 3, 2010, the County approved Ordinance No. 2010-16, which adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based amendments to the Plan, including a new Optional Sector Plan (OSP). The Ordinance was challenged by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-6857GM. In response to the DCA challenge, on February 3, 2011, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2011-3 as a stipulated remedial amendment. The Ordinance establishes a long-term master plan for central Escambia County known as the Mid-West Escambia County Sector Plan (Sector Plan). The Sector Plan is comprised of approximately 15,000 acres, north of Interstate 10, west of Highway 29, and south of Highway 196. The area is depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the OSP. The DCA determined the Ordinance to be in compliance. To implement the long-term master plan, on September 9, 2011, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2011-29, which establishes two DSAPs: Muskogee DSAP and Jacks Branch DSAP. Petitioner's residence and the subject property are located within the Jacks Branch DSAP. State compliance review of that action under section 163.3184(3) or (4) was not required. In 2011, the Legislature created the right to opt out or withdraw from a sector plan. See § 163.3245(8), Fla. Stat. This can be accomplished "only with the approval of the local government by plan amendment adopted and reviewed pursuant to s. 163.3184." Id. In response to the statutory amendment, the County adopted a plan amendment which provides that any additions to, or deletions from, a DSAP must follow the established procedures in the Plan. See Ex. 40, p. 14. In order to consolidate the County zoning districts, on April 16, 2015, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2015-12, which repealed the entire Land Development Code (LDC) and replaced it with a new LDC, which has a county-wide rezoning plan. After the first (and only) application to opt out of the Sector Plan was filed by a property owner, on March 16, 2017, the County amended the LDC through Ordinance No. 2017-14, which establishes seven criteria for evaluating this type of request. See LDC, § 2-7.4. The Ordinance was not challenged. According to the County, the criteria were actually drafted by the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and require it to consider the following: All standard Comprehensive Plan map criteria; Comprehensive Plan requirement for changes to an existing DSAP; The size of the subject parcel in relation to the individual DSAP land use category and in relation to the overall Sector Plan, to specifically include the aggregate acreage of any previously granted opt-outs; The existing transportation infrastructure and any impact the proposed opt-out may have on the capacity of the infrastructure; The underlying existing zoning category and its compatibility with surrounding DSAP land use designations; The consistency of the requested future land use designation with the underlying zoning; and The previous future land use designation. Besides the foregoing criteria, subsection 2-7.4(b) provides that when the County reviews an opt-out application: [t]o the extent possible, the staff analysis and the reviewing bodies shall consider whether the applicant lost development rights or was effectively downzoned as part of the Sector Plan adoption. The Board may take into consideration any other relevant factors in making its determination related to the request. Once a parcel is removed from the County's Sector Plan, the underlying zoning that was in effect when the Sector Plan was created remains the same, but a new future land use (FLU) category must be assigned to the property by a plan amendment. § 163.3245(8), Fla. Stat. Withdrawing from a DSAP does not modify the DSAP because the DSAP is the development standard itself. The Property The parcel lies on the eastern edge of the DSAP about ten miles north of Interstate 10 on the northwest corner of Highway 29 and Neal Road. Highway 29 is a major four-lane arterial road running in a north-south direction with a median in the middle. The road is maintained by the state. Neal Road is a small, two-lane County road that intersects with Highway 29 from the west and provides access to a residential area where Petitioner resides. Existing commercial development is located on the east side of Highway 29. Most recently, a Family Dollar Store was developed directly across the street from the property. Currently, the parcel is vacant and lies in the Conservation Neighborhood District, which permits a maximum density of three dwelling units per gross acre and is the lowest density of residential development allowed in the Sector Plan. Only residential uses are allowed in the district, which is intended to treat stormwater and preserve open space and wildlife. Based on maps of the area, Petitioner's property appears to be no more than one-half mile west of the subject property. The character of the area in Petitioner's neighborhood is low-density residential development. Before the Sector Plan was adopted, the assigned land use on the parcel was MU-S. This use is intended for "a mix of residential and non-residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses." Its express purpose is to serve as a mixed-use area. As described by a County witness, "the mixed-use aspect of it allows a non-residential component first, but, again, it's predominately residential, low-density residential." The range of allowable uses includes residential, retail services, professional office, recreational facilities, and public and civic, with a maximum intensity of a 1.0 floor area ratio. Until the Sector Plan was created, the parcel was zoned as Gateway Business District (GBD). Under the new rezoning plan established in 2015, all parcels outside the Sector Plan which were zoned GBD were consolidated with similar zoning categories into the new district of Heavy Commercial/ Light Industrial (HC/LI). Permitted uses under this district are residential, retail sales, retail services, public and civic, recreation and entertainment, industrial and related, agricultural and related, and "other uses," such as billboards, outdoor sales, trade shops, warehouses, and the like. Once a parcel is withdrawn from the Sector Plan, it retains the underlying zoning in effect when the DSAP was established. Because the new zoning scheme consolidates GBD into HC/LI, the parcel will revert to HC/LI. Therefore, the zoning and land use will be the same as they were before the Sector Plan was created. This combination is not unusual, as there are "multiple parcels" outside the DSAP that have this zoning/land use pairing. The Challenged Amendment In June 2016, the property owner filed an application with the County requesting that his parcel be removed from the Mid-West Sector Plan. At that time, neither the County nor the applicant realized that a new land use must be assigned. Consequently, no request for a new land use was made. Because this was the first time an opt-out application had been filed with any local government, the County had a series of meetings with DEO seeking guidance on how to proceed. It was told by DEO that the opt-out application and a FLU change should be processed in the same manner as a FLUM amendment and then reviewed under the State Coordinated Review process. DEO also provided suggested criteria that should be considered when processing such an application. These criteria were adopted as new LDC section 2-7.4. The County followed all steps suggested by DEO. DEO instructed the County to require a second application from the property owner, which included a request for a new land use category. After the second application was filed, the County began the process of determining whether the application satisfied the opt-out criteria in section 2-7.4 and relevant Plan requirements. The second application addressed the FLU requirement and contained the analysis required for each component of the Plan. A future land use of Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) was initially requested by the owner. This category is consistent with HC/LI zoning, but is a much more intense land use category than MU-S. Because of concerns that the MU-U land use would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in the DSAP, the County changed the proposed new land use to MU-S, the use assigned to the property before the Sector Plan was adopted. MU-S is the same land use assigned to other non-Sector Plan parcels surrounding the subject property, and there are non- industrial uses within the HC/LI zoning district that are consistent with MU-S. If the application is approved, only 25 potential residential units will be removed from the total Sector Plan, and the reduction in total developable area will be de minimis. Except for a change to the DSAP map and the acreage table, no changes to the text of the DSAP are made. During the application process, the County addressed natural resources, wetlands, historically significant sites, and impacts on the environment. The County also evaluated the application in light of the criteria found in section 2-7.4 and determined that, as a whole, it satisfied those requirements. See Cnty. Ex. 34, pp. 28-39. Because a proposed use of the property was not submitted with the application, an analysis of a specific use was not made. When a site plan to develop the property is filed, the proposed use will be evaluated by the Development Review Committee, and then by the Board of County Commissioners. That review will ensure that the intended development will not be inconsistent with the zoning district and land use assigned to the parcel. The opt-out request was debated extensively during a series of ten public hearings that began in September 2016. Members of the public were allowed to speak for or against the proposal. On September 7, 2017, the County voted to amend the Plan by (a) allowing the parcel to withdraw from the OSP, removing the Sector Plan overlay on the parcel, and amending the FLUM by assigning the property a MU-S land use designation. No other changes were made. The amendment does not create a remnant area or fragmented DSAP. The amendment was transmitted to DEO for review under the State Coordinated Review process. DEO determined it met the requirements of chapter 163 for compliance purposes. The State Coordinated Review is more comprehensive than the Expedited Review process under section 163.3184(3). On November 8, 2017, a Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance was issued by DEO. See Cnty. Ex. 39. Petitioner filed her Petition within 30 days after the Ordinance was adopted, but before DEO issued its Notice of Intent. Therefore, it was timely. Besides DEO's review, the Department of Transportation and Department of Education reviewed the proposal for impacts on transportation and school concurrency, respectively. No further information was requested from the County by any agency. Petitioner's Objections In the parties' Pre-hearing Stipulation, Petitioner raises a procedural objection to the manner in which the withdrawal application was adopted. She also alleges generally that the amendment creates inconsistent and incompatible zoning and future land use pairing in violation of sections 163.3177(2) and 163.3194(1); is inconsistent with the FLU Element; conflicts with statutory provisions regarding compatibility of adjacent land uses; and lacks sufficient data and analysis required by section 163.3177(1)(f). These contentions, and others not directly related to a compliance challenge, are addressed below. Petitioner first contends an opt-out application must be adopted by a local development order, rather than by a plan amendment. She argues the County erred by not providing her the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the adoption hearing and failing to subject the proposal to more "intense review and analysis." The quasi-judicial process requires strict scrutiny of a local government's action, rather than a fairly debatable standard of review, and provides third parties the right to challenge the local government's decision in circuit court, rather than in a section 163.3184 proceeding. This contention has been rejected and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner contends approval of the application will lead to further requests by other property owners to opt out of the Sector Plan. Currently, there are over 1,000 property owners in the Sector Plan. During the County hearings, staff identified 24 or 25 other properties that might choose to file an opt-out application in the future. Whether those owners will do so is no more than speculation at this point. The County responds that it will evaluate each application on a case-by- case basis. A case-by-case analysis is necessary because an application involving a large parcel of property would clearly have a different analysis than one which involves only 8.67 acres. More importantly, because the opt-out process is a statutory right created by the Legislature, the County is obligated to consider every opt-out application filed, and if it satisfies the applicable criteria, it must be approved. In any event, there is nothing in sections 163.3184 or 163.3245 which requires the local government to deny an application merely because another property owner might file a similar application at some point in the future. Petitioner contends the County acted "unreasonably" because it did not establish opt-out criteria until after the application was filed. The County's action was reasonable under the circumstances because it had no standards or precedent for reviewing this type of application; at the direction of DEO, the criteria were adopted before final action on the application was taken; and the criteria were considered by the County. Petitioner contends the criteria in section 2-7.4 are vague and lack specific, objective evaluation standards. However, Ordinance No. 2017-14 was never challenged and is presumed to be valid. Petitioner contends HC/LI zoning is inconsistent with the MU-S land use and violates sections 163.3177(2) and 163.3194(1)(b).1/ Those provisions require generally that zoning regulations and land uses be consistent with one another and the elements of the Plan. The zoning and land use will be the same as existed before the Sector Plan was adopted. They correlate with the zoning and land use on numerous other non-Sector Plan parcels in the immediate area and throughout the County. MU-S contemplates a mixed-use area, while HC/LI contains a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Although industrial uses are inconsistent with the land use, see Endnote 1, there are many other uses within the zoning district that are compatible with MU-S. It is fairly debatable that the zoning and land use designation are compatible. FLU Objective 1.3 provides that future land use designations should "discourage urban sprawl, promote mixed use, compact development in urban areas, and support development compatible with the protection and preservation of rural areas." By allowing more intensive development next to the Conservation Neighborhood District, Petitioner contends the plan amendment is inconsistent with this directive because it encourages urban sprawl. "Sprawl" is defined in chapter 3 of the Plan as [h]aphazard growth of dispersed, leap- frog and strip development in suburbs and rural areas and along highways; typically, sprawl is automobile-dependent, single use, resource-consuming, and low-density development in previously rural areas and disconnected from existing development and infrastructure. The parcels on the east side of Highway 29 have similar zoning and land uses as the subject property and are interspersed with commercial development. Therefore, future development on the subject property would not be "disconnected from existing development and infrastructure," and it would not leap-frog into non-developed areas. It is fairly debatable that the plan amendment does not encourage urban sprawl. Petitioner contends the underlying zoning on the parcel is incompatible with the land use in her neighborhood. Although the County considered this issue, it points out that the Sector Plan and Comprehensive Plan have different development standards, and therefore there is no requirement that it consider the compatibility of non-Sector Plan property with property in the DSAP. Moreover, to restore the property rights that an owner once had, when the withdrawal application is approved, the property should revert to the underlying zoning in existence when the Sector Plan was established. Notwithstanding the foregoing, LDC section 2-7.4(a)5. requires that when reviewing an opt-out application, the County must consider "[t]he underlying existing zoning category and its compatibility with surrounding DSAP land use designations." To this end, the County addressed this factor by assigning a less intense MU-S land use to the parcel so that more intense uses allowed by HC/LI would be prohibited or minimized. It is fairly datable that the underlying zoning will be compatible with the neighboring area. Petitioner contends the amendment is not supported by data and analysis, as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). Prior to adopting the amendment, the County staff made a qualitative and quantitative analysis of impacts on natural resources, wetlands, historically significant sites, the environment, and adjacent lands. Because Highway 29 is a state road, the County has limited planning responsibilities for traffic impacts. Even so, a limited analysis of traffic impacts is found in County Exhibit 17. In addition, the Department of Transportation performed a more complete analysis of traffic impacts attributable to the amendment. Because the parcel is currently vacant, traffic impacts on Neal Road cannot be fully analyzed until a site plan is filed. A review of school concurrency issues was performed by the Department of Education and no adverse comments were submitted. The County verified that Emerald Coast Utility Authority had available water, sewer, and garbage capacity to serve the parcel. Finally, the County took into account the fact that removal of such a small parcel from the edge of the eastern side of the Sector Plan would have minimal, if any, effect on the Sector Plan goals and objectives. It is fairly debatable that the amendment is supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2017-53 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 05-20 is "in compliance," as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005),1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Statement of Intent filed by the Department of Community Affairs ("the Department").
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Lee County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Leeward is a Florida limited liability company that owns a portion of the real property that is the subject of the amendment at issue. The Amendment The amendment would change the future land use designation for 41.28 acres in the northeast quadrant of the Interstate 75 (I-75)/State Road 80 (SR 80) interchange from General Commercial Interchange to Urban Community, as shown on the FLUM. The General Commercial Interchange land use is described in the County Plan as “intended primarily for general community commercial land uses: retail, planned commercial districts, shopping, office, financial, and business.” It does not allow residential development. The Urban Community land use provides for a mix of residential, commercial, public, quasi-public, and limited light industrial uses. The standard density range for residential uses in the Urban Community category is one to six dwelling units per acre (du/a). The 41.28 acres affected by the amendment ("the amendment site") consist of 19.28 acres of lands along the Orange River owned by Leeward, a platted subdivision known as Dos Rios of approximately 11 acres, and the remaining acreage consists of right-of-way for SR 80 and I-75. Currently operating on Leeward's property is a vessel repair facility, a marina with wet and dry slips, and an ecotourism company. Leeward also has its office on the site. The Dos Rios subdivision includes 26 single-family lots. Apparently, only a few of the lots (the number was not established in the record) have been developed. Because residential land uses are not allowed in the General Commercial Interchange category, the Dos Rios lots were non-conforming uses. Maximum Allowed Density The County Plan provides residential density bonuses to promote various County objectives, such as the provision of affordable housing. With density bonuses, lands designated Urban Community can boost their density to a maximum of ten du/a. There was testimony presented by Leeward that the County has not often approved applications for density bonuses. Even if the practice of the County in approving density bonuses were relevant, the practice can change. It is reasonable for the Department to consider the maximum intensity or density associated with a future land use designation when determining whether a FLUM amendment is in compliance. Therefore, in this case, it is reasonable to consider the Urban Community land use designation as allowing up to ten du/a. The Department asserts that the amendment would allow the 41.2 acres affected by the amendment to have a total of 412 dwelling units (41.2 acres x 10 du/a). Leeward disputed that figure because the 41.2 acres includes road right-of-way and the Dos Rios subdivision. A hearing officer appointed to review a Lee County development order recently determined that right-of-way external to a development should not be included in calculating allowable units, and the County accepted the hearing officer's recommendation based on that determination. The definition of "density" in the County Plan supports the determination.2 Therefore, for the purposes of this case, the right-of-way in the northeast quadrant should not be included in calculating the maximum residential density that would result from the amendment. On the other hand, Leeward's argument that the Dos Rios subdivision acreage should not be included in the ten du/a calculation is rejected. For the purposes of an "in compliance" determination, it is reasonable for the Department to apply the maximum potential densities to all developable and re- developable acreage. Using 29 acres as the approximate acreage affected by the amendment when road right-of-way is subtracted, the amendment would create the potential for 290 residences in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. Adoption of the Amendment The amendment was initiated as part of the County's reexamination of the existing land use designations in the four quadrants of the I-75/SR 80 interchange. Following the County planning staff's completion of a study of the entire interchange, it recommended several changes to the County Plan, but no change was recommended for the northeast quadrant. Apparently, the amendment at issue was urged by Leeward, and, at a public hearing held on June 1, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt the amendment. Pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment was forwarded to the Department for an "in compliance" review. Following its review, the Department issued its ORC Report on August 19, 2005. In the ORC Report, the Department objected to the proposed amendment based upon what it considered to be inappropriate residential densities in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA) and floodplain. The Department recommended that the County not adopt the proposed amendment. On October 12, 2005, another public hearing was held before the Board of County Commissioners to consider adoption of the amendment. At the public hearing, the County planning staff recommended that the land use designation in the northeast quadrant not be changed to Urban Community "due to the potential increase in density in the Coastal High Hazard Area." Nevertheless, the Board of County Commissioners approved the amendment. Representatives of Leeward appeared and submitted comments in support of the amendment at the public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. On December 16, 2005, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance, identifying three reasons for its determination: (1) inconsistency with state law regarding development in the CHHA and flood prone areas, (2) internal inconsistency with provisions of the County Plan requiring the consideration of residential density reductions in undeveloped areas within the CHHA, and (3) inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan regarding subsidizing development in the CHHA and regulating areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding. On January 5, 2006, the Department filed its petition for formal hearing with DOAH. Coastal High Hazard Area The Florida Legislature recognized the particular vulnerability of coastal resources and development to natural disasters and required coastal counties to address the subject in their comprehensive plans. [I]t is the intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans restrict development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources, and that such plans protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. § 163.3178(1), Fla. Stat. The statute also requires evacuation planning. Until 2006, the CHHA was defined as the "category 1 evacuation zone." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In 2006, the CHHA was redefined as "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model."3 Ch. 2006-68, § 2, Laws of Fla. The County Plan defines the CHHA as "the category 1 evacuation zone as delineated by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council." Map 5 of the County Plan, entitled "Lee County Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)," shows the entire amendment site as being within the CHHA. Nothing on Map 5, however, indicates it was produced by the Regional Planning Council. Daniel Trescott, who is employed by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and is responsible for, among other things, storm surge mapping, stated that the Category 1 evacuation zone is the storm surge level for the worst case scenario landfall for a Category 1 storm. He stated that the Category 1 storm surge for Lee County was determined by the SLOSH model to be 5.3 feet. Mr. Trescott stated that the 5.3 foot contour (shown on Plate 7 of the Regional Planning Council's "Hurricane Storm Tide Atlas - Lee County") more accurately delineates the CHHA than Map 5 of the County Plan. Although Mr. Trescott's testimony suggests a conflict between the County Plan's definition of the CHHA and Map 5's depiction of the CHHA, the two can be reconciled by a finding that Map 5 is a gross depiction of the CHHA for general public information purposes, but the precise location of the CHHA boundary is the one delineated by the Regional Planning Council, and the latter is controlling. Using the 5.3 contour on the amendment site, Leeward's witness, Michael Raider, estimated that there are approximately 16 acres of the amendment site within the CHHA. Applying the maximum allowable residential density under the Urban Community land use designation (with bonuses) of ten du/a means the amendment would result in a potential for 160 dwellings in the CHHA. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)7., respectively, require each local government’s coastal management element to contain one or more specific objectives that "[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas” and limit development in these areas. The parties' evidence and argument regarding whether the amendment was "in compliance" focused on these rules and the following goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan related to the CHHA: GOAL 105: PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. To protect human life and developed property from natural disasters. OBJECTIVE 105.1: DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. Development seaward of the 1991 Coastal Construction Control Line will require applicable State of Florida approval; new development on barrier islands will be limited to densities that meet required evacuation standards; new development requiring seawalls for protection from coastal erosion will not be permitted; and allowable densities for undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduction. POLICY 105.1.4: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In the opinion of Bernard Piawah, a planner employed by the Department, the amendment is inconsistent with the goal, objective and policy set forth above because these provisions only contemplate possible reductions of residential densities in the CHHA and there is no provision of the County Plan that addresses or establishes criteria for increasing residential densities in the CHHA. Population Concentrations As stated above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. directs local governments to include provisions in their comprehensive plans to direct population concentrations away from the CHHA. The term "population concentrations" is not defined in any statute or rule. The term apparently has no generally accepted meaning in the planning profession. The word "population" has the ordinary meaning of "all of the people inhabiting a specific area." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1981). The word "concentration" has the ordinary meaning of "the act or process of concentrating." Id. The word "concentrate" means "to direct or draw toward a common center." Id. In the context of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012, the term "population concentrations" suggests a meaning of population densities (dwelling units per acre) of a certain level, but the level is not stated. Leeward argues that, because there is no state guidance on the meaning of the term "population concentrations," surrounding land uses should be examined to determine whether a proposed density would be "proportionate to its surroundings." According to Leeward, in order to be a population concentration, the density under review would have to be greater than the surrounding density. This comparative approach is rejected because the overarching Legislative objective is protection of life, which plainly calls for a straightforward consideration of the number of lives placed in harm's way. The Department, in its Proposed Recommended Order, states: By assigning either zero residential density to land by virtue of an Open Space land use designation, or a maximum density of one unit per acre by assigning a low density land use designation, the County Plan fulfills the mandates of State law that development be limited in and residential concentrations be directed away from the CHHA. Thus, not surprisingly, the Department does not consider one du/a to be a population concentration. A density of ten du/a is an urban density, as indicated by the fact that it is the maximum density allowed in the Urban Community land use designation and the highest density within the "standard density range" for the County's Central Urban land use designation. It is a generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that urban areas are areas where populations are concentrated. It is a another generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that ten dwelling units on one acre of land amounts to a lot of people living in a small space. Leeward, itself, described the residential density allowed under the Urban Community designation as "relatively intense." Leeward's Proposed Recommended Order, at 7. Whether measured by density alone (ten du/a) or by Leeward's estimate of 160 residences on 16 acres, the amendment places a population concentration in the CHHA. Offsets in the CHHA Leeward presented evidence that the County has been reducing residential densities, sometimes referred to as "down- planning," in other areas of the CHHA in Lee County. The reduction in dwelling units in the CHHA over the past several years may be as high as 10,000 units. The Department did not present evidence to dispute that there has been an overall reduction in dwelling units in the CHHAs of Lee County. Leeward argues that these reductions "offset" the increase in dwelling units in the CHHA that would result from the amendment and this "overall" reduction in densities in the CHHA must be considered in determining whether the amendment is "in compliance" with state law and with provisions of the County Plan related to directing population concentrations away from the CHHA. At the hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argued that the consideration of offsets in the CHHA was improper and unworkable, but that argument conflicts with the Department's actual practice and official position as described in the January 2006 "Department of Community Affairs Report for the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee." In that report, the Department acknowledged there is no statutory or rule guidance regarding what the maximum density should be in the CHHA. The Report notes that some local governments have established maximum densities for the CHHA (e.g., Pinellas County, 5 du/a; Franklin County 1 du/a). The Department states in the report that it reviews amendments to increase density in the CHHA on a "case by case" basis, and explains further: When a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the CHHA proposes a density increase, DCA's review considers the amount of the density increase, the impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" (generally accomplished through public acquisition). One of the visual aides used in conjunction with the 2006 report to Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee, entitled "Policy Issue #2 - Densities in High Hazard Areas," also describes the Department's practice: Without locally adopted density limits, DCA conducts a case by case review of amendments without any defined numeric limit. DCA considers amount of density increase, impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" in other areas of the CHHA. These statements use the phrase "there will be a corresponding offset," which suggests that for an offset to be considered, it would have to be proposed concurrently with an increase in residential density on other lands within the CHHA. However, according to the director of the Department's Division of Community Planning, Valerie Hubbard, offsets in the CHHA do not have to be concurrent; they can include previous reductions. Furthermore, although the Department pointed to the absence of any criteria in the County Plan to guide an offset analysis, Ms. Hubbard said it was unnecessary for a comprehensive plan to include express provisions for the use of offsets. To the extent that this evidence of the Department's interpretation of relevant law and general practice conflicts with other testimony presented by the Department in this case, the statements contained in the report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee and the testimony of Ms. Hubbard are more persuasive evidence of the Department's policy and practice in determining compliance with the requirement that comprehensive plans direct population densities away from the CHHA and limit development in the CHHA. As long as the Department's practice when conducting an "in compliance" review of amendments that increase residential density in the CHHA is to take into account offsets, the Department has the duty to be consistent and to take into account the County's offsets in the review of this amendment. The County planning director testified that he believed the applicable goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan are met as long as there has been a reduction in residential densities in the CHHAs of the County as a whole. The Department points out that the planning director's opinion was not included in the County planning staff's reports prepared in conjunction with the amendment. However, it necessarily follows from the Board of County Commissioners' adoption of the amendment that it does not interpret Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 as prohibiting an increase in residential density in the CHHA. Although these provisions make no mention of offsets, the Department has not required offset provisions in a comprehensive plan before the Department will consider offsets in its determination whether a plan amendment that increases density in the CHHA is in compliance. The wording used in Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 requiring "consideration" of density reductions in the CHHA can be harmonized with the County planning director's testimony and with the County's adoption of the amendment by construing these plan provisions consistently with the Department's own practice of allowing increases in the CHHA when the increases are offset by overall reductions in dwelling units in the CHHA. Seeking to harmonize the amendment with the provisions of the County Plan is the proper approach because, as discussed later in the Conclusions of Law, whether an amendment is consistent with other provisions of the plan is subject to the "fairly debatable" standard which is a highly deferential standard that looks for "any reason it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction." Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997). Shelter Space and Clearance Time Prior to the hearing in this case, Leeward moved to strike certain statute and rule citations in the Department's petition related to shelter space and clearance time4 because they were not included in the Department's ORC Report. The motion was denied because, although Section 163.3184(8)(b), Florida Statutes, limits the Department's petition to issues raised in the "written comments" in the ORC Report, the statute does not indicate that the Department is barred from citing in its petition, for the first time, a rule or statute that is directly related to the written comments. The CHHA is defined in the County Plan as the category one "evacuation zone." It is the area most in need of evacuation in the event of a severe coastal storm. Shelter space and clearance time are integral to evacuation planning and directly related to the Department's comment in the ORC Report that the amendment would, "expose a substantial population to the dangers of a hurricane." Therefore, the Department was not barred from presenting evidence on shelter space and clearance time in support of this comment. The Department's practice when reviewing an amendment that increases residential density in the CHHA, described in its 2006 report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Area Study Committee, is to consider not only dwelling unit offsets in the CHHA, but also the effect on shelter space and clearance time. That report did not elaborate on how shelter space and clearance time are considered by the Department, but evidence that a comprehensive plan amendment would have a significant adverse effect on shelter space or clearance time could presumably negate what would otherwise appear to the Department to be an acceptable offset of residential density in the CHHA. On this record, however, the Department did not show that a significant adverse impact on shelter space or clearance time would be caused by this particular amendment.5 Special Planning Areas Leeward argues that, even if the amendment were determined to be inconsistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4, that inconsistency should be balanced against other provisions in the County Plan that are furthered by the amendment, principally the provisions related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area and the Water- Dependent Use Overlay Zone. There is no authority for such a balancing approach that can overcome an inconsistency with an objective or policy of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, whether the amendment furthers the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area, Water-Dependent Use Overlay Zone, or other subjects is irrelevant to whether the amendment is consistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4. On the other hand, the Department's contention that the amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area is contrary to the more credible evidence. 100-Year Floodplain The amendment site is entirely within the 100-year floodplain. In its Statement of Intent, the Department determined that the amendment was not in compliance, in part, because the amendment site's location in the 100-year floodplain made it unsuitable for residential development. In addition, the Department determined that the amendment caused an internal inconsistency with the following policies of the County Plan related to development in the floodplain: POLICY 61.3.2: Floodplains must be managed to minimize the potential loss of life and damage to property by flooding. POLICY 61.3.6: Developments must have and maintain an adequate surface water management system, provision for acceptable programs for operation and maintenance, and post-development runoff conditions which reflect the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, direction, quality, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. Detailed regulations will continue to be integrated with other county development regulations. According to Mike McDaniel, a growth management administrator with the Department, "we try to discourage increasing densities in floodplains and encourage that it be located in more suitable areas." The policies set forth above are intended to aid in the achievement of Goal 61 of the Community Facilities and Service Element "to protect water resources through the application of innovative and sound methods of surface water management and by ensuring that the public and private construction, operation, and maintenance of surface water management systems are consistent with the need to protect receiving waters.” Plainly, Goal 61 is directed to regulating construction and surface water management systems. There is no mention in this goal or in the policies that implement the goal of prohibiting all development or certain kinds of development in the 100-year floodplain. The Department's argument in this case regarding development in the 100-year floodplain is rejected because it ignores relevant facts and law. First, substantial portions of Lee County and the State are within the 100-year floodplain. Second, there is no state statute or rule that prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain. Third, the Department of Environmental Protection, water management districts, and local governments regulate development in the floodplain by application of construction standards, water management criteria, and similar regulatory controls to protect floodplain functions as well as human life and property. Fourth, there has been and continues to be development in the 100-year floodplain in Lee County and throughout the State, clearly indicating that such development is able to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements imposed by the permitting agencies for the specific purpose of protecting the floodplain and the public. Fifth, the Department "discourages" development in the floodplain but has not established by rule a standard, based on density or other measure, which reasonably identifies for local governments or the general public what development in the floodplain is acceptable to the Department and what development is unacceptable. Finally, the Department's practice in allowing offsets in the CHHA, as discussed previously, necessarily allows for development in the 100-year floodplain in that particular context.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission determining that the amendment adopted by Lee County in Ordinance No. 05-10 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 25th day of August, 2006.
