The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether the Petitioner was properly graded on the UNE examination for certification in the field of landscape architecture given in Florida in June, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Thomas W. Hoddinott, was a candidate for examination and licensure as a landscape architect in the state of Florida. The Board of Landscape Architects, is the state agency responsible for the licensure and regulation of the profession of landscape architecture in Florida. Petitioner took the Florida landscape architecture examination administered in June, 1989. When the examination scores were announced, it was determined that of the five sections involved, on all of which a minimum score of 75 was required to pass, Petitioner earned a passing score of 75 on Section 6, the "Florida Section", but failed the other four sections. He received a score of 65 on Section 1, "Professional Practice"; 65.9 on Section 3, "Design application"; 61.1 on Section 4, "Design Implementation"; and 60.5 on Section 5, "Grading and Drainage." Petitioner requested a reevaluation of his scores and by amended grade notification dated January 22, 1990, was advised his score of 75 on Section 6 had been raised to 76.2, but his failing grades on the other four sections had not been changed. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Petition for formal hearing herein claiming that in the case of Sections 3 and 4, both dealing with design, he should have been awarded extra credit sufficient to change his grade from fail to pass. At hearing, Petitioner announced his challenge would be limited to the two major designs called for in questions 3A and 3B, and there would be no challenge to Section 4. The grading procedure for the landscape architecture examination, a national examination, (Uniform National Examination - UNE), is composed of five sections on which multiple choice questions and drawings are required. For a specific performance area, that in which the candidate is required to complete the design of a specific project consistent with the particulars outlined in the problem, an evaluation guide outlines the problem concerning which the examination is being given, and sets out the criteria by which the candidates solution is to be evaluated. The standards applied are national standards and candidates are held to the same elements nationwide. These standards are set by master graders from each state who meet collegiately to set the pertinent standards. Section 3 of the June 9, 1989 examination was a multiple choice test accompanied by two required drawings, 3A and 3B. The candidate was required, in order to achieve a successful passing grade, to pass all three parts. The scores on each of the three parts are added together and must total a raw score of 94 (adjusted to 75) in order to pass. Mr. Oliver was the master grader on the June, 1989 examination and was given the required standardization training for that duty. He also attended a training session for question 3A in Georgia as a master grader. Whereas question 3B is graded only by Florida graders, the other portion could be graded by either Florida or Georgia graders. During the grading process, the examiners were split into two groups headed by a master grader. They were then standardized as to how to grade the examination and what to look for. They were also advised of the permissible tolerances to be applied and other like factors. When the examinations were graded, they were forwarded to the Department. If any challenges were received, the challenged question was sent to another master grader who, with only Florida examiners, regraded the examination sheets and reevaluated the challenges. The original grading on the June, 1989 examination was done in Savannah, Georgia, immediately after the examination by examiners from Florida and Georgia together. Each examination was graded by several graders and the graders were asked to grade the same area twice in an effort to insure reliability and consistency among the grades. All candidates are offered an opportunity to come to Tallahassee to write their objections to questions on which they failed to receive a passing score, and those questions were regraded in light of the objections. In the instant case, as it relates to question 3A, examiners found a strong correlation between Petitioner's original score and the score on regrade. Though there were two differences in the sub-scores awarded, the score remained the same. As to question 3B, as a result of the regrading, Petitioner was awarded 1 additional point. With regard to Question 3A, Petitioner disputes the score he was awarded concerning certain sections of that question. The instructions and problem statement reads: The Department of Transportation of a large city) (population 500,000), is planning a new five mile parkway in a 180 foot right-of-way with occasional parcels designated parkway plazas. The prime consultant, a large transportation planning firm, has engaged you to do the site design for a series of parkway plazas along the right-of-way. This problem is one of these plazas. You are to prepare a site analysis that identifies the influence of existing off- site and on-site conditions on the site plan; a concept diagram and concept statement that illustrate the functional relationships and site organizations of the required program elements; and a site plan that identifies and renders the program elements and design features. After the instructions were outlined, a site description was provided; objectives for the project were outlined, both in general and specifically; and specific program elements and design features were outlined which were to be included in the plan designed by the candidate. The evaluation guide for this question listed 16 separate areas, many of which were broken down into sub- elements. For each of the 16 major areas, points were awarded based on the number of the sub-elements included and accepted in the candidate's solution. For example, area question 1 dealt with site inventory and analysis factors, and included the site inventory elements were such factors as: -Heavy traffic on the Century City Parkway -Bus routes on the parkway -Noise from the parkway -Residential neighborhoods on the northwest and east of the park -Existing park -Continuation of the bike path through the plaza -Bike lanes on Country Club Road -Major intersection -Site visibility-triangle location noted -Bus pull-off -Opposite-side bus pull-off -Railroad switching yard and/or 8' screen wall noted -Existing tree planting -Seasonal or prevailing wind, harsh or mitigating winds -Temperature ranges -Topography -Soils -Views -Utility corridor -Drainage -Other relevant site inventory elements (count each) These factors were to be considered in light of their use of the program elements and design features which define those particular characteristics which must be included in the candidate's individual design. The program elements were described as, for example: Pedestrian Sitting Area: This part of the site should be at least 8,000 square feet of paved area. It should offer a good view of all plaza activity, the sculpture and the parkway traffic. Seating arrangement should encourage communication and socializing. The design features for this particular program element were: 64 LF of benches with backs 100 SF of seat wall or slab benches Some of the trees in grated pavement cuts At least 50% of the area is to be specialty paving Bollards for traffic separation Other program elements in this problem included Bike Node; Bus Stops: Crosswalks; Urban Sculpture; Sound Attenuation Wall; Linkage to the Existing Park; and Planting. Each of these program elements also have design feature criteria related which were to be considered and utilized by the candidate in his or her design. The degree of successful compliance with the stated program elements and the design features determined the number of points awarded for the candidate's solution. For example, with regard to the elements described in paragraph 7, supra, if the candidate complied with fewer than 10 elements, he or she was awarded 0 points; for 10 elements noted, 1 point; for 12 elements noted, 2 points; for 14 elements noted, 3 points; for 16 or more elements noted, 4 Points. Petitioner received a score of 0- on his answer to question 3A. He claims this was inappropriate because the pedestrian sitting area of 8,000 square feet is found on the answer sheet as is the bike node. The bus stop called for is identified as a bus node; required crosswalks are indicated; the urban sculpture is identified and sited; and the required linkage is provided by the crosswalks through the bike node. The sound attenuation wall is, admittedly, not identified. Petitioner admits he did not treat the issue of planting there because he did not think it was included, but based on his analysis of his answer, he believes he included 7 of the 9 required sub- elements, which, he feels, should give him three points. According to Mr. Oliver, a self-employed landscape architect who is also an adjunct professor in the graduate program of landscape architecture at Florida International University and a master grader for the Board of Landscape Architects, the award of 0 points to Petitioner here was appropriate because, while Petitioner may have put some of his elements in box A, the test required that this area be demonstrated in box B. Under the terms of the examination, the elements had to be shown as labeled and "proportionately sized" within an approximately 10% margin. While the 8,000 square feet of pedestrian seating area were indicated, Petitioner was not given credit for the bike node because its size exceeded the 10% allowance. The bus node also was more than 10% bigger than that which was called for, and it was not properly labeled, being called a "node" instead of a "stop." The crosswalks were not labeled as such, and the snack shop was not connected to the existing park. Petitioner was given no credit for planting, but was given credit for including the urban sculpture. Taken together, Petitioner received credit for only two of the required sub- elements, and since his total approval was less than 10, he was awarded a score of 0. This appears to be appropriate. Examinations such as the one in issue here are designed to test minimum competence under the fairest conditions. Examination criteria, as defined in the program elements, are the only factors considered. In the instant case, the concept diagram portion should be precise as to sizes, since sizes deal with proportion and, therefore, have to be approximately in proportion. For example, a 2,500 square foot unit cannot be shown on the plan the same size as an 8,000 square foot unit. Petitioner claims that the size of the diagram provided to him limited labeling and proportions with clarity and readability. The important thing is, in his estimation, that the diagram and plan be readable by the client, and this could not be done if actual proportions were used. In this contention, Petitioner is correct, but, according to Mr. Oliver, the Board recognizes this and permits the candidate to draw the unit out of proportion if it is labeled as being proportioned, and the candidate's notes reflect that. This, Petitioner did not do. With regard to the question of linkage, Mr. Oliver admits the question is poorly worded on this examination, but claims it should be taken as meaning linkage to the existing park to the north. Since there is an ambiguity here, and that ambiguity could well have created a problem for the Petitioner, he should get credit for that particular sub-element. Even including that, however, his score for this question would be three elements rather than two, which is still below ten, and would not justify an award of more than 0 points. Turning to factor 7, Petitioner claims that the bus stop, bike node, and pedestrian seating area are shown on Section C, (site plan), and all are separate but related. He feels the overall design shows a repetition of trees in back and in front, which helps to unify the site with the previously existing trees, and ties the site together. His design shows the urban sculpture and the sound attenuation wall is softened by the use of planting. The snack shop, he claims, is linked, as required, and the crosswalks are shown by the use of specialty pavers. He also provides for pedestrian safety by the use of a pedestrian waiting area in the median. His use of an open grassed area to the north of the park indicates his effort to create open space as a positive extra design feature. In this factor, the possible scores range from 0 for no elements considered to a 5 for five elements considered. Here, Petitioner was awarded a 4 for recognizing four elements, and he claims he should have been awarded a 5 since, in his estimation, he considered five elements. The question calls for consideration of seven elements. Petitioner was originally given credit for elements 1, 3, 4, and 5, but in the opinion of Mr. Oliver, he should not get credit for number 2, overall design, since there is no repeated size and shape and no sense of order to the environment. As to element 6, though the crosswalks are shown, safety is lacking. The crosswalk on the parkway goes to an island and then continues, and this is not good. Also, the East-West crosswalk is concurrent with the bike path. The design criteria for this problem called for safety of handicapped, and joint use creates a safety problem for this category of person. The bikes should be kept separate from the pedestrians. With regard to element 7, additional design features, none were included by the Petitioner. He did not add any additional features such as signs or lighting. Had he done so, he would have gotten credit, but open space, which Petitioner claims as an additional feature, is not considered significant. Taken together, the award of 4 appears appropriate. With regard to that factor described as "ordered and unified environment", this is a judgement call appropriately left to examiners with experience to make, even in the light of the minimum competence criterion. Open space, which Petitioner claims as an additional factor meriting extra credit, may enhance a design if it is, in fact, a design intent and not merely a left over. It appears here that the Petitioner had area left over, but since, in the opinion of Mr. Oliver, another grader might consider this open space as an additional factor, Petitioner should be given the benefit of the doubt and awarded credit. Therefore, he should receive one additional point, resulting in a score of 5 for this factor. Petitioner's design of factor 8, dealing with the bike node resulted in an award of 4 points, nine elements considered. He claims that the drinking fountain as called for in the third element was provided. It is located in the center area, however, rather than at the bike shop. His rationale was that it would be duplicative to provide a drinking fountain at the shop when water was already available there. He also claims that with regard to element 8, 64 linear feet of bench was provided and is located near the snack shop. In his opinion, this exceeds the amount required. Mr. Oliver, on the other hand, claims Petitioner's design solution was unusual. The program statement clearly defines the required elements, and number 2 is a bike node "to include a drinking fountain." Petitioner has provided two bike areas. The linkage to the snack shop also calls for a drinking fountain. Therefore, when Petitioner put his fountain at the small bike node rather than at the larger bike node in conjunction with the drench shower and other items, he did not conform to the dictates of the program statement. Had he put a second fountain in, providing one at each place, he would have gotten full credit. With regard to the benches with backs, the program element clearly shows benches with backs should be in the major park area and the ones utilized by the Petitioner are not properly labeled. Consequently, he should get no additional credit. It is so found. Factor 10 deals with the functional relationships and operational considerations of the pedestrian sitting area and the sculpture location. Petitioner contests the failure to give him credit for the third of the elements involved, dealing with 100 square feet of seat wall or slab bench. He contends that his design provides the required seating by providing a terraced wall. The benches are labeled, and the wall provides the back, he claims. Here, he was given credit for four elements and was awarded 2 points. If he were to get credit for the additional element contested, his score would be raised to 3 points. Mr. Oliver, however, disagrees with Petitioner's position, and claims Petitioner has a label which says "seat wall benches" but his design shows no way of differentiating between the 64 linear feet of backed benches and the 100 square feet of slab wall bench. Therefore, according to Oliver, Petitioner can get credit for one, but not both. Petitioner did not give definitives for the size of the benches. Though the linear measurement is provided, the depth is not and it is, therefore, impossible to arrive at a square foot figure so as to determine whether Petitioner's design meets the requirements. Petitioner disagrees, differentiating between "benches" and "seat wall benches." The former, he claims, when scaled, shows 64 linear feet. The latter, when scaled, would appear to provide more than the required 100 square feet, but, according to Mr. Oliver, "benches" are depicted on only two sides of two planters which measures out to 40 linear feet, and, in addition, these "benches" do not show, "with back." The additional area near the sculpture, while looking like a bench is not so labeled, and the examination grade cannot be based on supposition. The candidate must label his item or put a notation on his drawing which defines the nature of the various elements. Here, therefore, it is clear that Petitioner's depiction is not sufficient to justify additional credit beyond that which was awarded. Factor 11 deals with environmental factors. On grading, Petitioner was awarded 1 point for four elements considered. He was denied credit for elements 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9. He asserts that his plan calls for 50% of the plaza to be shaded by canopy trees; he utilized mass tree planting but tried to keep the sculpture open to view; he used various plant materials in the form of annuals to direct attention toward the sculpture and around the snack shop; and used the same, plus a repetition of tree grates in the plaza to direct movement. He claims also that with regard to the wind, the wall will block it, and the use of the wall is enhanced by the use of a repetition of trees to block off the cold wind while nonetheless opening the area to the cooling summer breezes. Mr. Oliver disputes Petitioner's claim as to shade, indicating that it is not shown on Petitioner's depiction. The eastern and southern parts of the paved area are open to the sun, though the western part is covered. The sculpture would be more attractive, he feels, with a backdrop, and Petitioner's use of trees does not serve as such a device. The plant materials serve to break up the paved area in only two places, and this does not serve to separate the uses of that area. Petitioner appears to have no plan to show that the trees are used to define spaces, nor do they appear, as utilized by Petitioner, to direct movement. The sculpture does this, but it is not a plant. With regard to winds, in Florida, southern and southeast winds predominate. Petitioner has plants in the southwest quadrant but not in the southeast where the intersection is. The annual plants utilized by Petitioner are both colorful and fragrant. Petitioner described them only as annuals, but the program statement calls for annuals plus colorful and fragrant planting. Here Petitioner received credit for annuals but cannot receive double credit for their use when fragrant and colorful are also required. Petitioner has not shown this rationale to be improper. Turning to question 3B, dealing with planting around an apartment complex, on Factor 2, Petitioner was given credit for five considerations which awards 2 points. He initially contested six considerations of those remaining, but at hearing conceded the Board's grading was right in two of those, leaving a total of four in dispute. Here, there is a requirement for the candidate to landscape a residential site on which fifteen two bedroom townhouses will be grouped. Factors for consideration include common parking and open space and a need for outdoor living areas, and the candidate is advised that the developer wants to have the site functionally and attractively planted considering environmental and cultural/visual programs. Factor 2 deals with cultural/visual considerations and sub factor 2 requires screening of parking lots from one of the adjoining streets. Here, Petitioner has installed a line of oak trees which, he contends, provides an ample screen, but overlooks the fact that branches beginning 6 to 8 feet above ground are not going to provide much screening at ground level. Entrance planning at the intersecting street makes, he asserts, a pleasing announcement. The dumpster, he claims, is appropriately screened by plants all around, and the hard lines of buildings, he believes, are softened by the use of shrubbery and plant material. According to Mr. Oliver, however, there appears to be, notwithstanding Petitioner's claim, no appropriate entrance planting, - only oak and viburnum, and he believes Petitioner should have copied the entrance to the parking lot which has a more attractive mixture of plants. As accomplished by Petitioner, there is no "announcement" as called for by the examination standards. With regard to the dumpster, eight viburnum bushes on three sides is insufficiently described. No size is shown though a screening from visual as well as odor contamination is called for. These plants will not screen from view from second floor windows, notwithstanding Petitioner's claim that the plants may get as tall as 30 feet. The building corners need to be screened and not left as merely the joinder of two flat walls. While Petitioner appears to have appropriately softened some walls, he has not done so on all of the buildings. His solution insufficiently addresses the problem. Concerning factor 6, which deals with plant selections and locations, Petitioner was given 1 point for 1 condition met, but was given no credit for the remaining three conditions. The first of these deals with form and textural contrasts of plants to visually soften hard lines at the building entrance. According to Petitioner, the oak and the viburnum create such a contrast. Viburnum is large and the use of crepe myrtle, a medium texture plant, is noted, while the contrast of the textures is promoted by the use of coarse oaks. Not only does the texture of the plants contrast, Petitioner claims, but the colors contrast as well. He also contends that with regard to the spatial reinforcement of sitting areas with planting, his proposal creates shade for these sitting areas with a canopy over head, and it also allows one sitting area exposure to full sun. He claims that his proposed planting will unify the site in that the live oaks, which he uses to encompass the site, are uniform. He also proposes the use of other trees and repeated the use of some entrance materials in the courtyard. Mr. Oliver, on the other hand, claims that the western and northern buildings are devoid of any planting on at least one side. The front planting also appear to be in pockets and isolated, and there is no planting on the sides. One sitting area has no planting materials at all. If this is done on purpose, the examiner has no way to know that. Accepting Petitioner's premise, however, Mr. Oliver noted there are plants which would allow sun but still provide color and design. He further asserts that, with regard to unification, there is some repetition, but the north and east sections of the site are not addressed at all, and no planting is proposed in those areas whatever. The examination requires that the total site be addressed, not just a portion thereof. While the terms used in landscape architecture are subject to interpretation, there are certain basics which are not. These include consistency and uniformity. There may be differences in approach to a problem, such as the softening or the reinforcing of a line, or the de-emphasis of a vertical line, but the basic problems are, nonetheless, subject to specific definition. If, as Petitioner claims, he intended to leave the north and east sides of the buildings in question 3B open for a favorable view, and assuming there are no windows on the northern portion of the eastern buildings and the eastern portion of the northern buildings, Mr. Oliver points out that Petitioner should have noted this on his plan which makes no mention of the intent of the candidate. Since the candidate's intent cannot be determined by other than what appears on the examination paper, here there was clearly a failure of communication which redounded to the Petitioner's detriment. Assuming that Petitioner were to be given credit for the several additional points referenced herein, he would still not have sufficient points to constitute a passing grade. As graded, Petitioner is approximately 15 points below a passing grade, and based on the analyses of the questions challenged, there is no indication that, even taken in the most liberal context, Petitioner's answers justify the award of more than 1 additional point.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Thomas W. Hoddinott, be awarded one additional point for his answer to question 3 on the June, 1989 landscape architect examination, but that his challenge to the other points in issue be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Keith F. Roberts, Esquire Kinsey & Roberts 240 Plant Avenue, Suite B-308 Tampa, Florida 33606 Patricia Ard Executive Director Board of Landscape Architects 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Lincoln A. Herreid, was, at all times material hereto, licensed to practice land surveying in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 3015. At issue in these proceedings are three surveys, which Respondent admits he performed, signed and sealed, to wit: A survey of the real property located at 9 East Lucy Street, Florida City, Florida; a survey of a portion of the real property located in Florida Fruitland Company's Subdivision No. One, Dade County, Florida; and, a survey of the real property located at 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue, Miami, Florida. 9 East Lucy Street Survey On December 17, 1983, Respondent signed and sealed a Sketch of Survey" for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Hays Subdivision, Plat Book 55, Page 53, Public Records of Dade County, Florida, commonly known as 9 East Lucy Street, Florida City, Florida. The Lucy Street property is rectangular in shape, and abuts streets on its north, east and west sides. The survey shows only one angle and no bearings, fails to reflect the measured distance to the nearest intersection of a street or right-of-way, and fails to reflect whether any monument was found, or set, at the southeast corner of the property. The evidence establishes that no monument was found, or set, at the southeast corner of the property. Respondent avers that no monument was set because debris, composed of paints and chemicals, preempted the area and precluded the setting of a monument. However, no offset witness point was set, nor did the survey reflect why a monument had not been set. Florida Fruitland Company Subdivision Survey On February 24, 1984, Respondent signed and sealed a "Waiver of Plat," a survey of a portion of Tract 21, Section 15, Township 53 South, Range 40 East, of Florida Fruitland Company's Subdivision No. One, Plat Book 2, Page 17, Public Records of Dade County, Florida. The Waiver of Plat shows only one angle and no bearings, indicates the four corners of the property by "Pipe," without reference to whether the pipe was set or found, fails to reflect the measured distance to the nearest intersection or right-of- way, fails to reference the source documents for the legal description of the property, and fails to provide vertical datum and benchmark descriptions. Further, the survey incorrectly positioned the property, reflected inaccurate boundary measurements, and established an incorrect elevation. The property, which is the subject of the Waiver of Plat, is rectangular in shape, zoned commercial (no side set- backs required), and its front (the northern boundary of the property) abuts Northwest 70th Street, between N.W. 82nd Avenue and N.W. 84th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The evidence establishes that the north/south dimensions of the property, as reflected by Respondent's survey, were overstated by 2.1' on the west boundary line, and 2.01' on the east boundary line. Although Respondent correctly depicted the correct distances of the east/west property line, the positioning of that line in relation to the fractional line was in error by .12', and the northwest and northeast corner placements were in error by .24' and .20', respectively. The elevation established by Respondent's survey was in error by one foot. 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue Survey On June 13, 1984, Respondent signed and sealed a "Sketch of Survey," for Lot 17, Block 6, Addition J., South Miami Heights, Plat Book 68, Page 74, Public Records of Dade County, Florida commonly known as 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue, Miami, Florida. The Sketch of Survey reflects only one angle and no bearings, and failed to set a monument or offset witness point for the northeast corner of the property.
The Issue This proceeding concerns Lakepointe project, a development of regional impact (DRI) which was approved, with conditions, by Orange County. The developer contests certain of the conditions imposed by the County in its approvals of the DRI and the related rezoning. More specifically, the Petitioner has alleged that the County acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and contrary to the essential requirements of law by: eliminating free-standing commercial uses from the project and requiring that all commercial activities be internalized within office buildings and included within the office square footage; imposing a 10,000 square feet per acre limitation on all office development and reducing the total square footage from 805,000 to 756,000 square feet; limiting structures to 35 feet in height; requiring that all office buildings within the project be designed with "residential scale and character"; reducing the residential density and limiting the residential development to single family detached units on the north portion of the project in lieu of the multi-family, attached units proposed by Petitioner; and imposing uplands buffer requirements that reduce the amount of acreage available for development. Petitioner seeks to have the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a modified development order eliminating these conditions. Orange County and the City of Maitland contend that the challenged conditions are reasonable, given the facts and circumstances surrounding the project, and that they are consistent with the requirements of law. Certain ancillary issues raised by the parties were eliminated through rulings of the hearing officer during the proceeding. Petitioner sought to present extensive evidence that the process by which the County arrived at its conditions of approval was improper as it relied unduly on the demands of the City of Maitland whose jurisdictional boundaries abut the project. Petitioner claims that the City and County reached an agreement on the project which was illegal as it did not comply with the provisions of section 163.3171, F.S. Although some evidence was permitted, and the issue is addressed in this recommended order, the issue is deemed irrelevant. As more fully explained in the conclusions of law, the de novo nature of this proceeding cures the procedural defects claimed by Petitioner. For a similar reason, the hearing officer denied a joint motion in limine by Orange County and the City of Maitland that would have precluded Petitioner from presenting any evidence related to conditions to which it did not expressly object at the December 14, 1987, public hearing conducted by the County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Battaglia Properties, Ltd. (BPL) is a Florida limited partnership whose mailing address is Post Office Box 770398, Winter Garden, Florida 32787. BPL is owner and developer of the property that is the subject of this proceeding. As such, BPL has standing to initiate this appeal pursuant to section 380.07, F.S. (APS, statement of admitted facts, paragraph 3). Orange County (County) is a charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida, authorized to issue "development orders", as that term is defined in section 380.031(3), F.S. and section 163.3164(6), F.S. (APS, statement of admitted facts, paragraph 4). The City of Maitland, Florida (City, or Maitland) is a municipal corporation which has properly intervened in this proceeding. (APS, statement of admitted facts, paragraph 5.) The Site and its Environs The property that is the subject of this appeal comprises 120.6 acres located north and south of Maitland Boulevard in unincorporated Orange County. The south portion consists of 33.3 gross acres and the north portion is 87.3 gross acres. The City of Maitland surrounds the property on three sides: east, south and west. An adjacent parcel owned by Petitioner, east of the property, lies within the incorporated city limits of Maitland. Together, the parcels constitute a development of regional impact (DRI) located within more than one local government jurisdiction, referred to as the "Lakepointe Project" or "Lakepointe DRI/PD". This appeal, and thus this order, address only that portion of the project located in unincorporated Orange County. Maitland Boulevard is currently constructed as a four-lane divided, limited access, principal arterial with interchanges at Interstate 4 on the west, and US 17-92 (Maitland Avenue) on the east. The Battaglia family has owned the property for approximately thirty- five years and has used it for citrus groves. At the time that the property was purchased by the Battaglias, the area was largely rural. Maitland Avenue (US 17-92) was a two-lane road, and Maitland Boulevard was a dirt road. I-4, approximately 1/4 mile to the west was constructed in the 1960's. Subdivisions and a school were constructed south of Sandspur Road, the southern boundary of the property, in the 1960's and 1970's. Around that time other residences were constructed north of the lakes on the northern boundary of the property. In the early 1970's, an office building was built to the east of the property, on the southside of Maitland Boulevard; and Lake Faith Villas, a multi-family residential development, was built on the northside of Maitland Boulevard. A large Jewish Community Center was developed across from Lake Faith Villas, on the south of Maitland Boulevard. West of the Battaglia parcel, and north of Maitland Boulevard, the property is vacant and has been the subject of various development proposals. West of the Battaglia property, but south of Maitland Boulevard, is a large church complex, Orangewood Presbyterian. On the westside of I-4, north and south of Maitland Boulevard is a 230 acre office development, Maitland Center, zoned in the 1970's and developed in the 1980's. When Orange County first adopted zoning, in 1957, the Battaglia parcel was zoned R-1AA, allowing single-family detached units, not to exceed 4.4 units per acre (du/acre). When the County adopted its comprehensive plan in 1980, the parcel north of Maitland Boulevard was designated for low-medium density residential use (4.4 to 7.5 du/acre). The south parcel was designated for low density residential use (1.01-4.4 du/acre). These designations are reflected on Orange County's 1986 Future Land Use Policy Guide Map, included in the County's comprehensive plan, the 1986 Growth Management Policy (GMP). The City of Maitland Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) also addresses the property for planning and informational purposes. Figure 7-1 of the Land Use District Map of the 1986 CDP designates the area as an "undeveloped district" (UD), with the north parcel designated UD 2, permitting single family residential, multi-family, and limited non-residential uses. The south parcel is within a UD 1 district, permitting single family residential and related uses. (Joint Exhibit #10, pp 7-26 to 7-30) When the Florida Department of Transportation acquired the right of way for Maitland Boulevard, it acquired all access rights, except at specific limited locations where shared access between adjoining properties is necessary. The right of way includes anticipated expansion of Maitland Boulevard to six lanes. Access points to the north parcel of the Battaglia property are at both ends, east and west. Access to the south parcel is at the west only, with a "stubbed-out" road that dead-ends before reaching Sandspur Road, on the southern boundary of the south parcel. Construction of I-4, Maitland Boulevard, and Maitland Avenue (US 17- 92) has substantially changed the area from its rural character to one of mixed uses. Although the areas north and south of the property are well-established residential neighborhoods with homes selling between $100,000 and $200,000, the corridor along Maitland Boulevard is not residential in character. No single- family residential subdivision has direct access to Maitland Boulevard. The subdivisions south of the property access Sandspur Road; and those to the north, on the north side of Lakes Faith, Hope and Charity, access small neighborhood streets. Other events occurred which directly impacted the Battaglia family's use of its property. During the decade of the 1980's, five major freezes occurred: January 1981, January 1982, December 1983, January 1985, and December 1989. A substantial portion of the grove, particularly on the south parcel, was destroyed or severely damaged. Some of the trees also passed the upper limits of their twelve to thirty year productive life span. The Development Plan In the mid-1980's the owners came to believe that citrus was probably not the best investment they could make on this property any longer, given the grove damage and the development that was occurring in the area. A planning firm was consulted, and a master development plan was created for the property north and south of Maitland Boulevard. [See Appendix B, attached] The mixed use development, called Lakepointe, was divided into six parcels, as follows, with parcels one and two to be developed in the relatively narrow portion south of Maitland Boulevard, and four through six on the deeper and larger northern portion: Parcel Land Use Acreage Units 1 office 28.3 240,000 (gsf) gross square feet 2 multi-family 5.0 50 du (10 du/a) 3 office/ 3.3 35.000 gsf commercial 6.000 gsf 4 commercial 4.0 12,000 gsf 5 office 35.0 530.000 gsf 6 multi-family 12.0 100 du (8.3 du/a) greenbelt 2.8 entrance road 1.1 lakes 29.1 120.6 ac 805.000 gsf office 18,000 gsf commercial 150 du Under the plan, commercial use in parcel 3 was limited to financial institutions, and in parcel 4 was proposed to be a "quality restaurant". (Joint Exhibit #7; Battaglia Exhibit #2 (a), p. 12-2; APS, p. 6.) The narrative description accompanying the master development plan proposed a height limitation of 35 feet for those structures to be located south of Maitland Boulevard and for the structures to be located on parcel 6. A 55- foot height limitation was proposed by Petitioner for the office and commercial structures on parcels 3, 4, and 5, north of Maitland Boulevard. The Petitioner also proposed a 50-foot wide uplands greenbelt buffer, located landward of Lake Hope and its adjoining conservation areas, along the northern boundary of parcel 5, to provide additional open space and buffering for the 55-foot buildings that were proposed (APS, pp. 6-7). The offices to be located on parcel 1 were proposed to be of "residential scale", due to the limited depth of the parcel and to minimize detrimental impacts on nearby residential uses. (Battaglia Exhibit #2 (a) p. 12-6) A 25-foot buffer was proposed around the multi-family residential use proposed for parcel 6. (transcript, pp. 1173-4) Parcel 6, located in the far northwest portion of the property, is also called "Pine Island" for its unique vegetation. Its approximate 12 acres have never been cultivated in groves, but rather have been allowed to flourish in dense pine and oak trees. It protrudes, like the thumb of a mitten, into the area between Lakes Hope and Charity, and is separated from the subdivision to the north by a drainage divide densely vegetated with grasses, reeds and other plants associated with the presence of a high water table. (transcript, p. 1173) Petitioner's plan for parcel 6 considered the unique character of this portion of the property and proposed attached, multi-family units which would allow maximum flexibility in designing roads and parking and in preserving open space. The Application Process Due to the more extensive grove damage on the south property, Petitioner initially elected to proceed with development there first, and to continue cultivating its citrus on the north. Over the objection of the residential neighbors across Sandspur Road, on October 28, 1985, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners approved Battaglia's request to rezone the south parcel from R-1AA to Planned Development (PD) with office buildings and some multi-family units. The office park was permitted access limited to Maitland Boulevard, and the residential parcel was permitted access to Sandspur Road, with no access between the two parcels. The project was called Sandspur Grove PD. The City of Maitland area homeowners challenged the rezoning and prevailed in Circuit Court. However, the rezoning was reinstated when the Circuit Court was reversed on appeal. See Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In the meantime, the owners determined to pursue the entire development, and in April 1986, filed an application to rezone the north parcel from R-1AA to PD, and an application for Development Approval/Development of Regional Impact (ADA/DRI). On June 11, 1987, Petitioner filed its application to amend the Future Land Use Policy Guide Map contained in Orange County's comprehensive plan to a classification appropriate for the land uses proposed in the Lakepointe DRI/PD, as shown on the Master Development Plan (APS, p. 5). A detailed traffic study in support of the proposed Lakepointe Master Plan was included in the DRI application. Orange County and Maitland reviewed and approved in advance the methodologies and assumptions used in the traffic study. The study included traffic growth applicable to all vacant properties in the traffic impact area, including projected trips from 65,000 square feet of commercial retail. On March 29, 1987, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) issued its final recommendation on the Lakepointe DRI. It recommended approval with conditions, eight of which address traffic, including the recommendation that phase III not proceed until Maitland Boulevard is six-laned, unless monitoring concludes the improvement is not necessary. (Joint Exhibit #8) The ECFRPC also noted in "issues of local concern" that the project is virtually surrounded by the City of Maitland and would have a significant impact on the City and its citizens, and that the project appears to be inconsistent with the Maitland Comprehensive Plan. The ECFRPC recommended that full review of the project be made at a joint public hearing conducted by the City and County. (Joint Exhibit #8, pp. 47-48) The Petitioner did not request such a joint hearing on its application, as provided in Section 380.06, F.S. On April 9, 1987, the Orange County Development Review Committee (DRC) conducted a technical review of the proposed development. Representatives of the Lakepointe project were present and participated. The DRC is comprised of Orange County staff who review a project for compliance with Orange County regulations and make recommendations to the County's Planning and Zoning Commission. On the basis of the staff's technical review, such recommendations will ameliorate the impacts of the proposed development. (APS, p. 8) The approved Minutes of the April 9, 1987, DRC meeting reflect a staff recommendation of approval of the Lakepointe project with the following recommended modifications: Extending the 50-foot wide greenbelt area around the entire northerly perimeter of the PD and ending at the Department of Transportation drainage easement (Parcels 5 and 6). Prohibiting free-standing commercial uses on Parcels 3 and 4, and requiring the commercial uses to be located internally within office buildings. Limiting building height in Parcels 3, 4, and 6 to three stories (forty feet). Limiting building height on Parcel 5 within 100 feet of adjacent property zoned residential to one story and a maximum of 35 feet, while recommending a 4-story, 50-foot maximum height on the balance of Parcel 5. The approved DRC Minutes of April 9, 1987 recommended approval of 805,000 square feet of office uses, plus an additional 18,000 square feet of commercial uses (internalized within offices), and 150 multi-family dwelling units at the densities requested by Battaglia (10 du/a on Parcel 2 and 8.3 du/a on Parcel 6. (APS, pp. 8-9). On August 10, 1987, a joint work session was conducted between the Orange County Board of County Commissioners and the Maitland City Council. Representatives from the Petitioner and other citizens were present, but their participation was limited to occasional unsolicited comments. The purpose of the work session was to consider proposals for a joint agreement that would allow municipal jurisdiction over adjacent unincorporated areas for planning purposes pursuant to section 163.3171, F.S. As reflected in the litigation with regard to the Battaglia property, relations between the local governments were strained. The Lakepointe project was specifically discussed, and the group of council and board members appeared to reach some consensus on certain restrictions on the development: that any development on the property could not exceed 35 feet in height. that the attached multi-family units in parcel 6 be replaced with single family detached units at a density of 7.5 units per acre; and that all residential uses be deleted from the south parcel and replaced with residential scale offices. (Joint Exhibit #17, pp. 17, 23, 27, 28-30, 34-35). Even though votes were taken at the work session, the outcome was not binding on the board. Resolution of the various issues amounted to policy determinations which provide guidance to the staff. Nonetheless, the session concluded with some self-congratulation that the two bodies had been able to sit down amicably and work out tough problems. (Joint Exhibit #17, pp. 62-63). Edward Williams, Orange County's Planning Director and a member of the DRC, sent a memo to the DRC on November 11, 1987 outlining the conditions agreed at the August 10, 1987 work session and stating that certain conditions approved by the DRC should be modified and other conditions added. These included: No free standing commercial and the internal commercial use limited to 18,000 sq. ft. would not exceed 50% of any building. Maximum heights would be 35 feet. The residential uses north of Maitland Boulevard would be single family detached, at 7.5 du/a. Multi-family residential uses south of Maitland Boulevard would be eliminated and redesignated as offices. Building coverage would be no more than 10,000 sq. ft. per acre. The 33.3 acre office tract south of Maitland Boulevard would be limited to 333,000 sq. ft. and the 42.3 acre office tract on the north would be limited to 423,000 square feet. (Battaglia Exhibit #9) The DRC adopted Williams' changes. The Orange County Planning and Zoning Commission (P&ZC), an advisory body to the Board and appointed by the Board, considered the Lakepointe comprehensive plan land use map amendment and the DRI/PD application at two consecutive public hearings on November 19, 1987. The P&ZC accepted the 7.5 du/a single family residence restriction for Parcel 6, but recommended deleting the "detached" requirement, in favor of giving the developer additional flexibility. It also recommended computing the 10,000 square feet per acre office use on a gross basis both on the north and south parcels, rather than on a gross basis on the south and net on the north as the county staff had done. The change in computation resulted in an additional 39,000 square feet for offices on the north parcel when the 2.8 acre green belt and 1.1 acre entrance road are included. Other than these, the conditions urged by Edward Williams from the joint work session were adopted. (Joint Exhibit #18, pp. 106-109; Joint Exhibit #19) The Orange County Board of County Commissioners considered the Lakepointe comprehensive plan amendment, DRI application and PD zoning application at duly noticed and advertised public hearings on December 14, 1987. Representatives of the Petitioner and members of the public were present and participated. (Joint Exhibits #22 and 23; APS, p.4) Accepting the staff recommendations, but deleting the P&ZC recommended changes, the Board adopted an ordinance amending the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the land uses associated with the Lakepointe project. It also approved the project as a DRI, and approved rezoning the north portion of the property from R-1AA to PD. (Joint Exhibits #2, 22 and 23) On February 22, 1988, Orange County issued a Development Order, pursuant to Section 380.06(14), F.S. memorializing the conditions of development approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners on December 14, 1987, for the Lakepointe DRI/PD. (Joint Exhibit #3) On June 12, 1989, the City of Maitland issued a Development Order pursuant to Section 380.06(14), F.S. for that portion of the Lakepointe project located entirely within the City of Maitland. This order relates only to the access road at the northeast of the project. (Joint Exhibit #4) The Orange County Board of County Commissioners and the Maitland City Council formally adopted an interlocal agreement at a duly noticed and advertised joint public hearing held on July 10, 1989. (APS, p. 10) The Development Order The Development Order for Lakepointe DRI consists of approximately 16 pages, plus the legal descriptions of the tracts. Although the order references a 120.3 acre project, the parties have stipulated, and the evidence reflects, that the project is 120.6 acres. (APS, p. 5) The preamble to the conditions of approval includes this language, which the County argues controls the ultimate disposition of this appeal: * * * * NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDERED by the County Commission of Orange County, Florida, that, subject to each of the following terms and conditions <<(each of which the County Commission found was necessary for inclusion for the County Commission to approve the Lakepointe DRI/PD project, and none of which could have been omitted or modified if the Developer expected the County Commission to approve the Lakepointe DRI/PD project),>> the Lakepointe Development of Regional Impact is APPROVED pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), and the Land Use Plan for the zoning change on the northern portion of the Property from R-1AA to PD is approved: * * * (Joint Exhibit #3, p.3, emphasis added) * Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. The order adopts the conditions of approval recommended by the ECFRPC, including the conditions regarding traffic impacts and monitoring/modeling. (Joint Exhibit #3, pp. 9-11) The order requires development in accordance with the DRI/ADA, and supplemental information, except as modified by the specific conditions of approval. (Joint Exhibit #3, p. 7) The relevant specific conditions (those contested in this proceeding) provide as follows: * * * II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AS ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION (A) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AS AMENDED. * * * * 2. The greenbelt (minimum 50-feet wide) shall be continued around the northerly perimeter of the PD, <<particularly along the northwestern boundary of Parcel 6 extending to Lake Charity and ending at the Department of Transportation ("D.O.T.") drainage right-of-way area.>> The greenbelt shall be located outside of designated conservation areas. A minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided around the balance of the perimeter of the PD (<<i.e.>> southerly perimeter of the PD situated immediately north of Maitland Boulevard). A reduction in the 25-foot buffer along Maitland Boulevard may be considered by Orange County staff at the development plan submittal stage (<<e.g.>>, reduced buffer width with wall screening). Specific landscape material for the entire buffer area shall be provided on the development plan submittal for County approval. 3. <<Free-standing commercial structure(s) shall be prohibited.>> The accessory or support commercial shall be located within the office buildings(s). The commercial uses are intended to serve the employees of the office development. The total professional office square footage shall include the square footage for any commercial uses, and the commercial use shall not exceed 18,000 square feet and no more than fifty percent (50%) for two (2)-story structures. * * * 7. <<Maximum height of the office buildings for the project shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Design of the office buildings shall be of a residential scale and character, and include the appropriate landscaping elements.>> Development within one hundred (100) feet of adjacent property zoned residential shall be limited to one story in height (and [35] feet maximum). * * * 14. Residential construction shall be started prior to completion of twenty-five (25%) of the office space. The residential development shall be completed before fifty percent (50%) of the office completion. These square footages relate to the portion of the PD located north of Maitland Boulevard. <<This residential development shall be low-medium density with a cap of 7.5 single family detached units per acre.>> (Development of the portion of Lakepointe south of Maitland Boulevard is controlled by the Sandspur Office Park PD litigation.) * * * <<Building coverage for office on the northern portion of the Property shall not be more than 10,000 square feet per net acre. The 33.3 acre office tract located south of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to 275,000 square feet, while the 42.3 acre tract located north of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to 481,000 square feet, for an aggregate total of 756,000 square feet.>> * * * (Joint Exhibit #3, pp. 3-7, emphasis added.) Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. The Conditions in Controversy Buffering the Northern Perimeter In its application Petitioner proposes a height of 55 feet for office buildings on the north parcel and a 50 foot uplands buffer landward of all conservation areas adjoining the offices on the northern boundary of parcel 5. The DRC reduced the height to 50 feet, for parcel 5, except within 100 feet of property zoned residential. Along the northern perimeter of parcel 6 (the residential use) Petitioner proposed a 25-foot natural buffer. The DRC originally had no problem with the residential density, but recommended extending the 50-foot upland buffer proposed for Parcel 5 around the northern perimeter of parcel 6. Petitioner contends that the 50 foot buffer is unnecessary if the office height and residential density are reduced. Buffers are required on any developer's land. In both Orange County and the City of Maitland, buffers are negotiated in PD's, based on existing factors and circumstances. The lakes along the northern perimeter of the property are between 1,000 to 2,000 feet across and are not effective light or noise buffers. The residential parcel (parcel 6) is separated from the existing subdivision by only a drainage canal and low vegetation. The 50-foot buffer between parcel 6 and Druid Hills (the existing subdivision) is not unusual. Buffer widths in PD's in the county range between 5 and 100 feet. In another case, the County required Buckingham at Lakeville to include a 50-foot wide buffer between residential uses of differing densities. In a case cited by Petitioner, Fairbanks Office Building, on Fairbanks Avenue in unincorporated Orange County, the developer, was required to provide only a 10-foot landscape buffer with a 6-foot wall, separating 46 foot high offices from an existing residential development. The wall, however, and the fact that the office park developer negotiated with the adjacent property owner to provide water and sewer service made that case unique and distinguishable from Lakepointe. (Transcript, p. 1132) No 50-foot buffer is required by the county for the southern boundary of the south parcel as the office uses on that parcel are separated from the single family residences by Sandspur Road and by Petitioner's proposed wall, berming and landscaping. Different requirements for the north and south perimeter are justified and appropriate. Prohibition of Free-Standing Commercial Structures Although there are well-established single family neighborhoods north and south of Maitland Boulevard between I-4 and Maitland Avenue (U.S. 17-92), those neighborhoods are separated from the Maitland Boulevard corridor by the lakes on the north and Sandspur Road on the south. The corridor itself is not residential in character. No single family residential subdivisions directly access Maitland Boulevard. From the beginning of the County's review of the project, however, the free-standing commercial uses proposed by the developer have been eliminated as inconsistent with the character of the portion of Maitland Boulevard east of I-4 and west of Maitland Avenue. The planning and zoning staff have sought to prevent strip commercial development of the type that has proliferated along other principal arterial roads, notably State Road 436, U.S. 17-92 and State Road 434. Free-standing commercial on parcels 3 and 4 would be the only uses of that type in this area of the Maitland Boulevard corridor, setting a precedent for other similar uses on adjacent properties, a trend vigorously opposed by the residential groups and by the City and County officials and their staff. Appropriate locations for free-standing commercial in the vicinity would be at U.S. 17-92, in downtown Maitland or west of I-4 (designated as one of the county's five "activity centers" in the GMP to concentrate high intensity uses and avoid encroachment into residential areas). Relevant policies from Orange County's GMP provide, as follows: COMMERCIAL POLICIES (Policies outlined in Sections 1.0 through 4.0 are applicable to all types of commercial activities within Orange County) GENERAL The County will encourage the concentration of expanded commercial facilities in centers suitably located to provide their market areas with accessibility and to discourage inappropriate roadway strip commercial uses. Uses generally considered as a suitable replacement for strip commercial activities include all types of residential uses, institutional development, or recreation areas and green belts. * * * 11.0 OFFICES AND PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL POLICIES Offices and professional commercial developments are those which provide office space for the furnishing of professional services. Such uses may be located individually or in planned centers, such as office parks. * * * 11.1.3 Office parks should be encouraged to include corollary uses such as office supply stores, banks, restaurants, conference centers and other compatible business and commercial uses. * * * (Joint Exhibit #9, pp VI-21, VI-30) Prohibiting free-standing commercial, but permitting commercial corollary uses as described above, within the office buildings, appropriately effectuates those policies. The County has required other mixed-use PD's besides Lakepointe to incorporate commercial within office buildings. For example, since the early 1960's and '70s, planning studies for the area around the University of Central Florida have discouraged free-standing commercial uses to maintain a campus-like atmosphere and to avoid adverse impacts on the University. Some unspecified commercial use has been permitted in recent years. (Transcript, pp 397-398) Where free-standing commercial developments are permitted in DRI/PDs, the projects are generally much larger than Lakepointe (for example, Southchase with 3,000 acres and Lake Nona with approximately 7,000 acres), or are in an activity center (for example, Maitland Summit). (Transcript, pp. 1188, 1191) In approving or rejecting free-standing commercial uses the County considers each location as it relates to the road network, the relationship to other uses, compatibility with surrounding land uses in the area and the character of the area. (Transcript, p. 398) Maximum Height & "Residential Scale and Character" A 35-foot height limit for office buildings is mandated by the County's "straight" Professional-Office (P-O) zoning district requirement. (Joint Exhibit #11, Article XXXI, Section 6, paragraph 7) A special exception is permitted to increase the height, after consideration of the character of the neighborhood, the effect of the proposed use on the value of surrounding lands, and the area of the site. (Id., Section 5) The project in issue is a Planned Development (PD), however, allowing mixed uses and a greater degree of flexibility than available under straight zoning. The developer is required to submit a plan for approval, which plan identifies, among other details, the proposed building heights. (Joint Exhibit #11, Article XXXIX, Sections 1 and 6) For guidance, the County and developer look to performance standards in the straight zoning, although these are clearly not binding in PD zoning. The Petitioner voluntarily committed to a 35-foot height restriction on the south portion of the property. It also committed to a "residential scale and character" office development on the 28.3 acres that comprise Parcel 1 on the south. As part of the rezoning process the Petitioner showed photographs of residential scale office developments. In making those commitments, Petitioner considered the narrow depth of the south parcel and its proximity to residential uses (across Sandspur Road). It proposed 55-foot heights and a "campus-style" development for the offices on the larger northern parcels, to allow more open space, more landscaping and an opportunity for flexible design. Orange County's codes do not define the term "residential scale and character" and no guidelines or standards have been adopted to apply meaning to the term. Nor does the County have an architectural review board charged with making design decisions on development proposals. It is plain that both parties have some notion of what it means, as both have used the term throughout the plan approval process. For example, Orange County's Planning Director, Edward Williams, when asked by the Board for a definition at its final public hearing, suggested that "residential scale" projects include a roof type and architectural features compatible with what is found in a "typical residential area". Size, for example, a limitation of 5,000 square feet per building, is not necessarily appropriate in all residential scale projects. (Joint Exhibit #22, p. 75) "Residential scale and character" could include one to five very large buildings on the north parcel rather than multiple small buildings as envisioned on the south, according to Mr. Williams. (Transcript, p. 475) As recognized by the Petitioner, "residential scale and character" buildings are appropriate adjacent to existing residential areas. Petitioner also acknowledges that a 35-foot height requirement is appropriate on parcels abutting or close to existing residential areas. Parcel 5, however, is different. Its 35 acres is the largest, and by far, the deepest parcel in the plan. It is buffered from existing residential areas by the greenbelt, by the lakes, and by the proposed residential use on parcel 6, "Pine Island". The height restriction of 35 feet does not make sense in that parcel, and inhibits the creative use of open or green space and landscaping. In his presentation to the local government officials at the August 10, 1987 work session, Mr. Williams articulated County planning policy in the past as trying to "...go up with developments rather than covering the entire site with impervious surfaces. We prefer to have more open space." (Joint exhibit #17, p. 10) Petitioner seeks to target a different market for the offices on the south parcel than for those on Parcel 5 on the north. On the south, there are proposed approximately 18 office buildings averaging 15,000 square feet in size. On the north parcel, the proposal suggests larger buildings, with more open space. If the height is unreasonably limited, the open space is sacrificed. "Residential Scale and Character" is not limited to single-family residential scale, but can also be multifamily. A large building can be made to look residential. Several large office buildings on the north parcel can be designed to have a "campus" feel with a quadrangle or semi-circle configuration. Size alone does not create or negate "residential scale and character". 7.5 Single Family Detached Units Per Acre Petitioner has proposed attached, multi-family units at a density of 8.3 du/acre for the unique, heavily wooded parcel 6. This density is at the lower end of the "medium density" range, "over 7.5 to, and including 14.9 Du/acre" described in the County's GMP. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-8.) The GMP promotes the use of this density to buffer low and low-medium density development from more intensive uses. The plan also encourages medium density residential subdivisions to "provide recreation and open space areas through the clustering of dwelling units". (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-11) The housing element of the GMP states these relevant goals: Socio-Economic Encourage development patterns which do not physically isolate low and moderate income and special needs groups from other sectors of society, especially in low density areas of the County. Recognize the need for and encourage the development of affordable housing for service employees working in Orange County. Examine the feasibility of creating new financial incentives for the development of low cost, affordable housing in Orange County. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. V-3) Petitioner's proposal is consistent with these policies. It seeks to buffer the low-density existing residential areas from the more intensive office uses in Lakepointe. It also seeks to preserve as much of the vegetation as possible, yet derive a benefit from the use of this parcel. It recognizes that residences accessible only through an office park may have a limited market. Its proposal is consistent with the County's goal of providing "affordable housing", and provides a convenient residential choice for persons who may be employed in the office park. The residential neighbors and City of Maitland sought the lower density and detached single family units precisely to avoid lower-income residents and more affordable units. (transcript, pp. 955, 958-59, 1003-04, 1046-47) In order to justify its accommodation of the interests of the local citizens, the County argues that a residential project, perhaps a condominium, could be designed with detached units, clustered together, or with zero lot lines. Visually, there is little difference between the attached units proposed by Petitioner and the County's suggestions for creative design. The latter suggestions do not satisfy the neighbors' desire to have units which are similar to their own, but they impose an unreasonable restriction on the Petitioner's flexibility. The Petitioner's proposal is consistent with Lake Faith Villas, an attached multifamily residential project to the immediate east of Petitioner's property on Maitland Boulevard, within the City of Maitland. Lake Faith Villas has a density of 10 du/acre. Office use limited to 10,000 square feet per acre Although the County's PD regulations do not specifically establish a 10,000 square foot per acre limit for offices, they allow the County to set reasonable, maximum amounts for different projects. The 10,000 square foot per acre limitation was derived from what Edward Williams claims is an average figure for professional office parcels in the county, and is more than the density sought and obtained by Petitioner for the south parcel when Sandspur Grove PD was approved. Other evidence suggests that the average square foot density for PO developments and PD developments in Orange County is closer to 12,000 (Transcript, p. 681-682), but the restriction is not so far off as to be patently unreasonable, considering Petitioner's plans for "residential scale and character" and "campus-style" projects. Computation of the total square feet for office uses was derived on a gross acreage basis on the south and a net basis on the north, ostensibly because the County was unable to ascertain from the development plan how much of the greenbelt and road should be allocated to parcel 6. (Transcript, pp. 436- 438) It is possible to compute gross acreage on the north property, using the parcels identified on Petitioner's master development plan (Joint Exhibit #7) [Appendix B] provided that the acreage allocated to parcel 6 is limited to twelve acres. It is obvious that this is what the developer intended when it derived 100 dwelling units at 8.3 du/acre, and 12 acres. (8.3 x 12 = 99.6) It is thus possible to be consistent and compute the office density allowance for both the north and south property at a gross density, just as the P&ZC did at its November 19, 1987, meeting. This results in a total of 795,000 square feet of offices, not 756,000, as reflected in the development order. As the Petitioner has agreed to limit the south property to 275,000 square feet, this leaves a total of 520,000 square feet for the north property. The County concedes that paragraph 19 of the Development Order, limiting building coverage for offices to 10,000 square feet per acre, does not preclude larger than 10,000 square foot buildings. (Proposed Finding of Fact, paragraph 115) That requirement should be amended in the interest of clarity, so long as the totals permitted for the north and south parcels are included in the order. This sentence, as it now reads, makes the condition internally inconsistent, as the second sentence permits 481,000 square feet on the 42.3 acre tract located north of Maitland Boulevard, more than 10,000 square feet per acre. (See Finding #41, paragraph 19, p. 21, of this recommended order) The Balancing Act: Weighing the Policies The process of review and approval of the Lakepointe project was one of compromise and accommodation. The Board and its staff considered comments from the applicant, the applicant's consultants, the City, the Regional Planning Council, homeowner's groups from both the County and City, and the City of Altamonte Springs. The County did not have a joint agreement with the City of Maitland, and its agreements with regard to conditions for the project were informal and non- binding. Nonetheless, the County considered the level of participation a necessary and appropriate exercise of intergovernmental coordination, as indeed it was. The applicant also exhibited willingness to accede to compromises throughout the process but never abandoned its original plan as it relates to the issues raised in this proceeding. It steadfastly defended the uses and densities it proposed, and in the end, agreed only to the deletion of multifamily units on the south parcel and transfer of that acreage to office use. This was a small DRI project, but a significant one to the owners and to the neighbors. It lacks the vast array of issues usually present in DRI's. There is little or no environmental impact and any traffic issues were resolved substantially though the ECFRPC review, even as to the proposed free-standing commercial uses and the densities originally proposed by the applicant. The single overriding issue here is land use. According to Planning Director, Edward Williams, the Orange County GMP includes some 900 separate policies to guide its decisions. These sometimes divergent policies must be balanced and weighed. (Transcript, p. 382) In this regard, the ultimate decision by the County was skewed. Some of the conditions it imposed, in the legitimate interest of preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods, unduly ignored other equally valid policy considerations. The Developmental Framework Section of the County's Growth Management Plan lists this as its first goal: 1. To promote the orderly economic development of Orange County. Orderly economic development may be defined as maximizing the use of public dollar investments in facilities and services, such as water and wastewater systems, roads, schools, transit, law enforcement, fire protection, and parks. * * * (Joint Exhibit #9, p. II-13) As noted by James A. Sellen, one of Petitioner's two expert witnesses on the topics of comprehensive planning and zoning, the development proposed is appropriate because of the substantial public investment in the controlled access road and over-sized water and sewer infrastructure. Maintenance of land use as low density single family is contrary to that investment. (Transcript, p. 233-34) Commercial Policy 1.0.11 of the Future Land Use Element provides, in pertinent part: 1.0.11 The future conversion of existing residential land uses to non-residential may be permitted under the following conditions: When the general land use character of an area has undergone significant change and will lend itself to more intensive uses; Adequate access to major streets and highways network is provided, whenever possible common access drive shall be used; The carrying capacity on the abutting road segment exceeds 8,000 average daily trips (ADT); The proposed site for conversion has close proximity to a street intersection; All other applicable policies detailed for commercial or office land use in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Policy are met; and, When sufficient area is available to accommodate the conversion, together with the needed improvements including parking, stormwater retention and vehicular turnaround movements. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-22) The changes in the area along Maitland Boulevard support the change in land use from the currently designated 4.4 residential du/acre to the mixed use proposed by Petitioner. The Future Land Use Element's Commercial Policy 11.0, provides: OFFICES AND PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL POLICIES Offices and professional commercial developments are those which provide office space for the furnishing of professional services. Such uses may be located individually or in planned centers, such as office parks. Location and Compatibility Large office uses should generally locate adjacent to arterial thoroughfares that connect to an interstate or expressway in order to lend accessibility to a wider market area. Smaller office uses should generally utilize principal or minor arterials for site access and location. Office parks should be encouraged to include corollary uses such as office supply stores, banks, restaurants, conference centers and other compatible business and commercial uses. Office uses are compatible with adjacent community and regional commercial shopping areas and may provide a buffer between these shopping areas and nearby residential areas. Professional service office parks should locate on major collectors and minor arterials. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-30) As cited in Orange County Ordinance No. 88-3, amending the Future Land Use Map relating to the Lakepointe DRI, the proposed new uses are consistent with these policies of the Growth Management Plan. (Joint Exhibit #2) Concern for the existing residential uses is supported by the following residential policies within the Future Land Use Element: LOCATION AND COMPATIBILITY General Residential areas shall be buffered from major transportation arteries, and from commercial and industrial land uses which are not compatible with residential development. New commercial development will be discouraged where there would be a detrimental impact on existing residential properties due to excessive noise, pollution, traffic congestion, unsafe highway conditions or where an unacceptable physical intrusion into residential neighborhoods would be created. * * * 3.1.3 Land development controls should ensure that future development which may allow a greater intensity of use is compatible with existing development. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-9) In summary, the project, as proposed by Petitioner is substantially consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan, but requires some of the modifications imposed by the County as conditions of approval. Those modifications include the deletion of free-standing commercial uses; the enhanced buffer zone along the north parcels; reduction in height of all but the offices to be located on the large parcel 5, north of Maitland Boulevard; and offices that are designed "residential in scale and character". Other conditions imposed by the County, but contested by Petitioner, i.e., restrictions on the residential development on Pine Island and the height limitations for offices on Parcel 5, violate significant policies cited above without reasonably advancing the goal of protecting the existing character of the surrounding neighborhoods, and should be deleted. The computation of office use density should be amended to provide for gross densities for the entire property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered, granting Petitioner's appeal, in part, by amending the Development Order for Lakepointe DRI, as follows: [Deleted text of the order is struck through, and new language is underlined.] * * * * 7. The proposed development of the Lakepointe DRI/PD consists of the following: Total Acreage: Approximately [[120.3]] <<120.6>> Acres * * * 12. This Development Order also constitutes the development order approving the use of the Property pursuant to the Land Use Plan for PD for [[Low Medium]] <<Medium>> Density Residential, and Office/Commercial, as more particularly detailed in paragraph 7 of Part I of this Development Order. * * * II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AS ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION [WITH MODIFICATIONS BY THE FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION.] (A) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AS AMENDED. [Bracketed portion denotes new language, as the original is underlined.] 1. Development shall conform to each of the Orange County Commission conditions of approval, and to the Land Use Plan dated "Received April 3, 1986, Public Works and Development." Development based upon this approval shall comply with all other applicable federal, state, and county laws, ordinances and regulations which are incorporated herein by reference, except to the extent they are expressly waived or modified by these conditions or by formal action of Orange County. 7. <<Except for office buildings in Parcel 6>>, maximum height of the office buildings for the project shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Design of the office buildings shall be of a residential scale and character, and include the appropriate landscaping elements. <<Maximum height of the office buildings in Parcel 5 shall be fifty (50) feet, and their design shall be residential in character.>> Development within one hundred (100) feet of adjacent property zoned residential shall be limited to one story in height (and [35] feet maximum). * * * 14. Residential construction shall be started prior to completion of twenty-five (25%) of the office space. The residential development shall be completed before fifty percent (50%) of the office completion. These square footages relate to the portion of the PD located north of Maitland Boulevard. This residential development shall be [[low medium]] <<Medium>> density with a cap of [[7.5 single family detached]] <<8.3>> units per acre. [[(Development of the portion of Lakepointe south of Maitland Boulevard is controlled by the Sandspur Office Park PD litigation.)]] * * * 19. Building coverage for office[s] [[on the northern portion of the Property]] shall not be more than 10,000 square feet per [[net]] <<gross>> acre. The 33.3 acre office tract located south of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to 275,000 square feet, while the [[42.3 acre]] tract located north of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to [[481,000]] <<520,000>> square feet, for an aggregate total of [[756,000]] <<795,000>> square feet. Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. Ordinance No. 88-3, amending the Future Land Use Policy Guide Map related to the Lakepoint DRI, should be amended to reflect the above. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 4. and 3. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 7 and 11. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 14, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. and 17. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, as to "best use", except in a very general sense; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 23. and 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 26. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 27. and 32. Adopted in paragraph 30. 33. and 34. Adopted in summary in paragraph 33. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and unsupported by competent credible evidence (as to how limited access points would prevent strip commercial development. Such development could be supported by internal service roads.) - 45. Rejected as unnecessary. Traffic was not the reason the commercial use was deleted. 46. - 49. Adopted in summary in paragraph 65. 50. and 51. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 54. Adopted by implication in paragraph 57. Rejected as unnecessary and contrary to the weight of evidence, which evidence was that "residential in scale and character" does not preclude large buildings. and 57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, which established that "campus style" office buildings are not inconsistent with "residential scale and character". Adopted in paragraph 53. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 44. and 63. Adopted in paragraph 57. Adopted in paragraph 60. Adopted in paragraph 42. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 62. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. and 70. Adopted in paragraph 61. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to the appropriateness of the 25-foot buffer). Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent and Intervenor's Proposed Findings 1. and 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 6. - 10. Adopted in paragraph 4. 11. and 12. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 7. and 17. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 7. - 21. Adopted in summary in paragraph 11. 22. - 29. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. - 32. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. and 35. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 54. Rejected as unnecessary. 39. Adopted in paragraph 54. 40. - 43. Rejected as unnecessary. 44. Adopted in paragraph 14. 45. Rejected as unnecessary. 46. and 47. Adopted in paragraph 15. 48. Adopted in paragraph 23. 49. Adopted in paragraph 24. 50. and 51. Adopted in paragraph 25. 52. and 53. Adopted in paragraph 26. 54. Rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in paragraph 27. 56. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 29. - 60. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 30. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. - 68. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. - 72. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. 73. and 74. Adopted in paragraph 32, in part, otherwise rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. 75. and 76. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 24. - 83. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraph 43. Adopted in paragraph 43. Adopted in paragraph 44. Adopted in paragraph 45. and 89. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in substance in paragraph 47. - 94. Rejected as unnecessary substance or immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 47. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 48. Adopted in paragraph 51. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 47. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraph 52. Adopted in paragraph 53. - 106. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 41. Rejected as contrary to the evidence (as to the similarly situated nature of the 2 parcels). Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 54. Adopted in paragraph 53. Adopted in substance in paragraph 54. Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 59. 115. Adopted in paragraph 67. 116. - 122. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. 123. Adopted in paragraph 41. 124. Rejected as unnecessary. 125. Adopted in paragraph 65. 126. - 128. Rejected as unnecessary. 129. and 130. Adopted in paragraph 66. 131. Adopted in paragraph 41. 132. Adopted in paragraph 16. 133. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to being a "reasonable transition"). 134. and 135. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 63. and 138. Adopted in substance in paragraph 61. The higher density will even better promote the affordable and housing policy. 139. Rejected as immaterial. 140. Adopted in paragraph 68. 141. - 150. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Miranda F. Fitzgerald, Esquire Karen M. Chastain, Esquire Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. 2 South Orange Avenue Post Office Box 633 Orlando, FL 32802 Herbert A. Langston, Jr., Esquire 111 South Maitland Avenue Suite 200 Maitland, FL 32751 Joel Prinsell, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Orange County Legal Department Post Office Box 1393 Orlando, FL 32802-1392 Douglas M. Cook, Director Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Planning & Budgeting Exec. Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In June 1990, petitioner was a candidate on section 4 of the landscape architect examination, having previously passed the other five sections on the examination. The test was administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Landscape Architecture (Board). On October 8, 1990, DPR issued a written uniform grade notice advising petitioner that he had received a grade of 65.7 on the examination. A grade of 75 is necessary to pass this section of the examination. The Board has adopted a rule authorizing an unsuccessful candidate to attend a post-examination review session in Tallahassee for the purpose of challenging his grade. Under this procedure, a candidate may request another grader to regrade the challenged portions of the examination. In this case, petitioner opted to use this procedure and challenged various problems in section 4. Two other graders regraded the examination and, while raising some scores, the graders also lowered others, which resulted in an overall scale score of 73. By letter dated March 31, 1991, petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his grade. In his letter, Delate generally contended he was entitled to a passing grade because his examination solutions were graded in a "careless and inconsistent nature", the instructions given at the examination were "very confusing and interruptive", the regrading of his examination was improper because it resulted the in lowering of the original scores on some problems, three multiple choice questions were arbitrarily thrown out after the examination was given, the passing grade was arbitrarily raised by the Board from 74.5 to 75, and he did not receive appropriate credit on ten problems. The June 1990 examination was a uniform national examination used in approximately thirty-eight states, including Florida. With the exception of one section, all sections on the examination were prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards (CLARB), a national organization of which the Florida board is a member. The examination is blind graded by volunteer licensed landscape architects who receive training from and are "standardized" by master graders prior to the test. On this examination, the solutions by all candidates from the southeastern region of the United States, including Florida, were placed in one group and graded by the same persons. The graders used an evaluation guide prepared by CLARB which contained guidelines and criteria for assigning scores. Since two parts of section 4 are graded subjectively, it is not unusual for two graders to reach a different conclusion with respect to a particular problem. There is no evidence that the first or second graders who reviewed Delate's examination were arbitrary, inconsistent or careless as he has alleged. Section 4 of the examination involves the subject matter of design implementation and consists of parts 4a and 4b. Part 4a had four factors (problems) while part 4b had seven factors. Each factor is assigned points which may range from zero for no credit to as high as eight, depending on the number of items in the factor. In this case petitioner has challenged the score he received on all four factors in part 4a and factors one through six in part 4b. In order to maintain the confidentiality of the specific problems on this examination, it is suffice to say that the candidate on section 4 was required to prepare a large drawing for each part, one being a "layout and dimensioning" drawing, that is, he was required to lay out fixed and proposed elements (e.g., sidewalks, drains, paving detail) and to locate their dimensions, and the other being a "detail and specification" drawing which required the candidate to draw the details and specifications for such things as walls, pavement, decking and the like. Petitioner's drawings have been received in evidence as respondent's exhibits 4 and 5. Each party presented evidence regarding the appropriate grade that should have been assigned to the problems in dispute. Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of another candidate on the same examination and an engineering technician. Although the undersigned allowed the witnesses to express opinions regarding the examination, none were qualified or accepted as experts, and none were familiar with the specific grading criteria for this examination. The Board presented the testimony of a long-time licensed landscape architect, C. Michael Oliver, who is a master grader for CLARB and has been grading the national examination for a number of years. As a master grader, Oliver trains other graders on the national examination. Petitioner's contention that Oliver's testimony is irrelevant has been rejected. 1/ Oliver regraded parts 4a and 4b on petitioner's examination and concluded that Delate was not entitled to a passing grade. He reached this conclusion as to part 4a because the candidate had missing or incorrect dimensions, inaccurately located elements, and poorly communicated plan layout. The expert also reached the same conclusion with respect to part 4b because the candidate had a lack of dimension, missing elements, an unsound structure, and poor communicative skills. This testimony is found to be more credible and persuasive than that offered by petitioner and is hereby accepted. Therefore, it is found that petitioner was not entitled to have his grade raised on parts 4a and 4b. Petitioner also contended that he would have received a passing grade if the Board had not thrown out three multiple choice questions after the examination was given. However, the evidence shows that if the questions had been used, the passing grade (based upon the difficulty of the examination) would have been raised and petitioner would still not achieve a scale score of 75. Petitioner next contended that the Board acted improperly during the regrading process because the second graders lowered the scores from the original grade on some of the challenged questions. In other words, the second graders not only raised certain scores, but they also lowered others resulting in a revised grade of 73, still short of the required 75. Delate complained this was unfair and that no prior notice was given to him regarding this procedure. However, it was established that this process, which is not codified by rule, is an accepted testing procedure, is used on all professional examinations administered by DPR, and never results in the revised score being reduced below the original overall score. Therefore, the agency's policy is found to be justified and adequately explicated. Delate also contended that the review session graders were given unlimited time to grade the examination in contrast to the original graders who had a compressed time schedule and numerous examinations to review. Even so, this can hardly be deemed to be arbitrary or unfair since the second graders raised petitioner's grade by some seven points. Petitioner's next contentions concerned "confusing and interruptive" instructions allegedly given at both the examination and regrading session and an allegation that the Board acted arbitrarily by changing (on an undisclosed date) the required grade for passing from 74.5 to 75. However, there was no evidence to support the allegation that these matters prejudiced petitioner, and in any event, all original and review session candidates would have been subject to the same interruptions, time constraints and passing grade requirements. Further, if the change in the passing grade (from 74.5 to 75) occurred after the examination was given, petitioner's grade (73) was still too low to be affected by that change. Finally, petitioner cited the fact that he will lose his job as a landscape architect with Collier County if he does not receive a passing grade. While this factor obviously has profound economic and personal ramifications for petitioner, it is not a consideration in the grading process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order confirming petitioner's grade of 73 on section 4 of the June 1990 examination. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of September, 1991.
Findings Of Fact In June 1987, petitioner, Karl T. Christiansen, was an examinee on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Uniform National Examination for landscape architects. He had previously passed Sections 1 and 2 in the June, 1986 examination. The test is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation, and licensure is granted by respondent, Board of Landscape Architects. The examination in question is a uniform multi-state examination adopted for use in Florida. The questions are prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. The same organization also prepares a comprehensive Evaluation Guide for use by graders in scoring the test. All Florida graders must be professional landscape architects with at least five years' experience. In addition, they are given training by the Office of Examination Services before grading the examination. After the examination was completed by the candidates, all examinations, including that of Christiansen, were blind-graded by the graders using the Evaluation Guide as a tool. By notice dated October 23, 1987, petitioner was advised by the Office of Examination Services that he had received the following scores on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the examination: Design Application 84.4 PASS Design Implementation 70.8 FAIL Florida Section 76.2 PASS On December 14, 1987, petitioner was given an opportunity to meet with Board representatives in Tallahassee and present objections concerning his score on Section 4 of the examination. Because of Christiansen's concerns, the Board regraded his examination a second time and raised his overall score from 70.8 to 72.4. This was still short of the 74.5 needed for passing. After being given the results of the second grading, petitioner requested a formal hearing. At hearing petitioner lodged objections to scores received on twenty- one questions in Subparts A, B and C of Section 4 of the examination. These objections are contained in joint composite exhibit 1 received in evidence. It was Christiansen's position that the graders had used subjective standards in evaluating his solutions, and that they had failed to take a sufficient amount of time to evaluate his answers. In addition, Christiansen contended that the examiners had failed to note a number of correct answers for which he was not given credit. Other than his own testimony, petitioner did not present any other evidence to support his contentions. Indeed, his own witness, a Fort Lauderdale landscape architect with thirty years experience, concluded that the Board was correct in failing Christiansen and that Christiansen had not demonstrated adequate competence on the examination to justify a passing grade. In support of its position, respondent presented an expert, Michael Oliver, a longtime registered landscape architect with three years experience in grading this type of examination. In preparation for the hearing, Oliver reviewed the examination, instruction booklet and grader's Evaluation Guide. He then regraded petitioner's examination and assigned it a score of 73.4, which was a failing grade. In doing so, Oliver assigned higher scores than did the previous two graders to certain questions but lower scores to others, for an overall average of 73.4. Through a detailed analysis, Oliver pointed out the infirmities in each of Christiansen's objections and why an overall failing grade was appropriate. It was demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that, where petitioner had not received the desired grade, he had misinterpreted the instructions, prepared unsafe designs, failed to satisfy all criteria, or gave incorrect answers. Therefore, petitioner's grade should not be changed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board denying petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on section 4 of the June, 1987 landscape architecture examination. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of May, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Richard Berry, an applicant for licensure as a landscape architect, was administered the Landscape Architecture License Examination in June, 1987. This exam is a standardized national test which is prepared by the Council Of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards and administered through the Florida Department of Professional Regulation. Part of the examination requires the implementation of design knowledge through practical application. Mr. Berry's score on the design implementation portion of the exam was not sufficient to constitute a passing score. A weighted score of 75 on each portion is required to pass the examination. Mr. Berry passed all other portions of the examination. Upon initially receiving the failing score, Mr. Berry requested an informal review of the grading, which resulted in an upward adjustment of his score. However the score was still insufficient to raise the score to a passing level. The remaining disagreement centered on five items in the practical examination. The items were related to architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner as required by question four of the design implementation portion of the exam. The items were as follows: 4b(2) drawing of wood deck attachment detail to wall 4b(4) drawing of concrete sidewalk grade wall detail 4b(5) drawing of metal fence detail 4b(6) qualities/quantities of materials listed 4c(2,3) drawing of deck detail At the hearing, Mr. Berry discussed the relevant exam questions and clearly articulated why he believed his responses were entitled to credit in addition to what had originally been given by the examination graders. The Department's expert witness, Mr. Buchannan, indicated that he had rescored Mr. Berry's exam responses in accordance with the "Examination Evaluation Guide" issued by the Council of Landscape Architectural Examination Boards. Mr. Buchannan testified that one point of additional credit should have been given for Mr. Berry's response on the item 4b(2) and one point of additional credit should be given for the response on item 4b(6) of the design implementation portion of the exam. No additional points were to be credited to the responses on the three remaining items. Juan Trujillo, examination development specialist for the Department of Professional Regulation testified as to the effect of the additional points. According to his testimony, the additional credit would provide Mr. Berry with, a raw score of 71.5, which equates to a weighted score of 74.5. The weighted score is rounded up by the Department to a grade of 75.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Landscape Architecture, granting to Petitioner, if otherwise qualified, licensure as a landscape architect. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 21st day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1376 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent are accepted as modified in the Recommended Older. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Berry, pro se 6588 Southeast 78th Avenue Keystone Heights, Florida 32656 William Leffler, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Ard, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Landscape Architects 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether a Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan, known as Apoxsee,2 was adopted in 1981. In 1989, the County adopted a revised and updated version of that Plan. The current Plan was adopted in 1997 and is based on an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) approved by the County on February 20, 1996. After a lengthy process which began several years earlier, included input from all segments of the community, and involved thousands of hours of community service, on February 28, 2002, the County submitted to the Department a package of amendments comprised of an overlay system (with associated goals, objectives, and policies) based on fifty- year projections of growth. The amendments were in response to Future Land Use Policy 4.7 which mandated the preparation of a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, which had served as an urban growth boundary in the County since the mid-1970s. Through the overlays, the amendments generally established areas in the County for the location of villages, hamlets, greenways, and conservation subdivisions. On May 10, 2002, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC). In response to the ORC, on July 10, 2002, the County enacted Ordinance No. 2001-76, which included various changes to the earlier amendment package and generally established six geographic overlay areas in the County, called Resource Management Areas (RMAs), with associated goals, objectives, and policies in the Future Land Use Chapter. The RMAs include an Urban/Suburban RMA, an Economic Development RMA, a Rural Heritage/Estate RMA, a Village/Estate/Open Space RMA, a Greenway RMA, and an Agriculture/Reserve RMA. The amendments are more commonly known as Sarasota 2050. The revised amendment package was transmitted to the Department on July 24, 2002. On September 5, 2002, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. On September 26, 2002, Manasota-88, Compton, and Ayech (and four large landowners who subsequently voluntarily dismissed their Petitions) filed their Petitions challenging the new amendments. In their Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Manasota-88 and Compton contend that the amendments are not in compliance for the following reasons: vagueness and uncertainties of policies; an inconsistent, absent or flawed population demand and urban capacity allocation methodology; inconsistent planning time frames; overallocation of urban capacity; urban sprawl; failure to coordinate future land uses with planned, adequate and financially feasible facilities and services; failure to protect wetlands, wildlife and other natural resources; failure to meet requirements for multimodal and area-wide concurrency standards; failure to provide affordable housing; land use incompatibility of land uses and conditions; indefinite mixed uses and standards; lack of intergovernmental coordination; and inadequate opportunities for public participation the Amendment is internally inconsistent within itself and with other provisions of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, is not supported by appropriate data and analysis and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Regional Policy [P]lan of the Southwest Regional Planning Council. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Ayech has relied on the same grounds as Manasota-88 and Compton (except for the allegation that the amendments lack intergovernmental coordination). In addition, she has added an allegation that the amendments fail to adequately plan "for hurricane evacuation." The Parties The Department is the state planning agency responsible for review and approval of comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto. The County adopted the amendments being challenged here. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that Petitioners either reside, own property, or own or operate a business within the County, and that they made comments, objections, or recommendations to the County prior to the adoption of the Amendment. These stipulated facts establish that Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to initiate this action. Given the above stipulation, there was no testimony presented by Manasota-88 describing that organization's activities or purpose, or by Compton individually. As to Ayech, however, she is a resident of the County who lives on a 5-acre farm in the "Old Miakka" area east of Interstate 75, zoned OUE, which is designated as a rural classification under the Plan. The activities on her farm are regulated through County zoning ordinances. The Amendment Generally Under the current Plan, the County uses a number of growth management strategies including, but not limited to: an urban services area (USA) boundary; a minimum residential capacity "trigger" mechanism, that is, a minimum dwelling unit capacity of 133 percent of housing demand projected for a ten- year plan period following each EAR, to determine when the USA boundary may need to be moved; a future urban area; and concurrency requirements. Outside the USA, development is generally limited to no greater than one residential unit per five acres in rural designated areas or one unit per two acres in semi-rural areas. The current Plan also includes a Capital Improvement Element incorporating a five-year and a twenty-plus-year planning period. The five-year list of infrastructure projects is costed and prioritized. In the twenty-plus-year list, infrastructure projects are listed in alphabetical order by type of facility and are not costed or prioritized. The construction of infrastructure projects is implemented through an annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with projects generally being moved between the twenty-plus-year time frame and the five-year time frame and then into the CIP. All of the County's future urban capacity outside the USA and the majority of capacity remaining inside the USA are in the southern part of the County (south of Preymore Street extended, and south of Sarasota Square Mall). As the northern part of the County's urban capacity nears buildout, the County has experienced considerable market pressure to create more urban designated land in the northern part of the County and/or to convert undeveloped rural land into large lot, ranchette subdivisions. Because of the foregoing conditions, and the requirement in Future Land Use Policy 4.1.7 that it prepare a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, the County began seeking ways to encourage what it considers to be a "more livable, sustainable form of development." This led to the adoption of Sarasota 2050. As noted above, Sarasota 2050 consists of six geographic overlay areas in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), called RMAs, with associated goals, objectives, and policies. As described in the Plan, the purpose and objective of the Amendment is as follows: The Sarasota County Resource Management Area (RMA) Goal, Objectives and Policies are designed as a supplement to the Future Land Use Chapter of Apoxsee. The RMAs function as an overlay to the adopted Future Land Use Map and do not affect any rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or the Land Development Regulations of Sarasota County or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that Policy TDR 2.2 shall apply to land located within the Rural/Heritage Estate, Village/ Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. To accomplish this purpose and objective, the RMAs and their associated policies are expressly designed to preserve and strengthen existing communities; provide for a variety of land uses and lifestyles to support diverse ages, incomes, and family sizes; preserve environmental systems; direct population growth away from floodplains; avoid urban sprawl; reduce automobile trips; create efficiency in planning and provision of infrastructure; provide County central utilities; conserve water and energy; allocate development costs appropriately; preserve rural character, including opportunities for agriculture; and balance jobs and housing. The Amendment creates an optional, alternative land use policy program in the Plan. To take advantage of the benefits and incentives of this alternative program, a property owner must be bound by the terms and conditions in the goal, objectives, and policies. Policy RMA1.1 explains it this way: The additional development opportunities afforded by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies are provided on the condition that they are implemented and can be enforced as an entire package. For example, the densities and intensities of land use made available by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies may not be approved for use outside the policy framework and implementing regulatory framework set forth herein. Policy RMA1.3 expresses the Amendment’s optional, alternative relationship to the existing Plan as follows: The Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall not affect the existing rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Development Regulations or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that TDR 2.2 [relating to transfer of development rights] shall apply to land located within the Rural Heritage/ Estate, Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. Therefore, if a landowner chooses to pursue the alternative development opportunities, he essentially forfeits his current development rights and accepts the terms and conditions of Sarasota 2050. The RMAs The RMAs were drawn in a series of overlays to the FLUM based on the unique characteristics of different areas of the County, and they result in apportioning the entire County into six RMAs. They are designed to identify, maintain, and enhance the diversity of urban and rural land uses in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Urban/Suburban RMA is an overlay of the USA and is comparable to the growth and development pattern defined by the Plan. Policies for this RMA call for neighborhood planning, providing resources for infrastructure, and encouraging development (or urban infill) in a portion of the Future USA identified in the Amendment as the Settlement Area. The Economic Development RMA consists of land inside the USA that is located along existing commercial corridors and at the interchanges of Interstate 75. In this RMA, the policies in the Amendment provide for facilitating economic development and redevelopment by preparing critical area plans, encouraging mixed uses, providing for multi-modal transportation opportunities, creating land development regulations to encourage economic development, and providing more innovative level of service standards that are in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Greenway RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are of special environmental value or are important for environmental connectivity. Generally, the Greenway RMA is comprised of public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, existing preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands adjacent to the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow- ways and wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Priority Protection Program (ESLPPP), and lands deemed to be of high ecological value. This RMA is accompanied by a map depicting the general location of the features sought to be protected. The Rural/Heritage Estate Resource Management RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are presently rural and very low density residential in character and development and are planned to remain in that form. In other words, the RMA's focus is on protecting the existing rural character of this area. To accomplish this objective, and to discourage inefficient use of land in the area, the Amendment contains policies that will create and implement neighborhood plans focusing on strategies and measures to preserve the historic rural character of the RMA. It also provides incentives to encourage the protection of agricultural uses and natural resources through measures such as the creation of land development regulations for a Conservation Subdivision form of use and development in the area. The Agricultural Reserve RMA is made up of the existing agricultural areas in the eastern and southeastern portions of the County. The Amendment contains policies that call for the amendment of the County’s Zoning and Land Development Regulations to support, preserve, protect, and encourage agricultural and ranching uses and activities in the area. Finally, the Village/Open Space RMA is the centerpiece of the RMA program. It consists of land outside the USA that is planned to be the location of mixed-use developments called Villages and Hamlets. The Village/Open Space RMA is primarily the area where the increment of growth and development associated with the longer, 2050 planning horizon will be accommodated. Villages and Hamlets are form-specific, using connected neighborhoods as basic structural units that form compact, mixed-use, master-planned communities. Neighborhoods provide for a broad range and variety of housing types to accommodate a wide range of family sizes and incomes. Neighborhoods are characterized by a fully connected system of streets and roads that encourage alternative means of transportation such as walking, bicycle, or transit. Permanently dedicated open space is also an important element of the neighborhood form. Neighborhoods are to be designed so that a majority of the housing units are within walking distance of a Neighborhood Center and are collectively served by Village Centers. Village Centers are characterized by being internally designed to the surrounding neighborhoods and provide mixed uses. They are designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental use and service needs of the residents of the Village. Densities and intensities in Village Centers are higher than in neighborhoods to achieve a critical mass capable of serving as the economic nucleus of the Village. Villages must be surrounded by large expanses of open space to protect the character of the rural landscape and to provide a noticeable separation between Villages and rural areas. Hamlets are intended to be designed as collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around crossroads that may include small-scale commercial developments with up to 20,000 square feet of space, as well as civic buildings or shared amenities. Each Hamlet is required to have a public/civic focal point, such as a public park. By clustering and focusing development and population in the Village and Hamlet forms, less land is needed to accommodate the projected population and more land is devoted to open space. The Village/Open Space RMA is an overlay and includes FLUM designations. According to the Amendment, the designations become effective if and when a development master plan for a Village or Hamlet is approved for the property. The Urban/Suburban, Agricultural Reserve, Rural Heritage/Estate, Greenway, and Economic Development RMAs are overlays only and do not include or affect FLUM designations. For these five RMAs, the FLUM designation controls land use, and any changes in use that could be made by using the overlay policies of the Amendment that are not consistent with the land's future land use designation would require a land use redesignation amendment to the Plan before such use could be allowed. Data and analysis in support of the amendment The County did an extensive collection and review of data in connection with the Amendment. In addition to its own data, data on wetlands, soils, habitats, water supplies, and drainage with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) were reviewed. Data from the BEBR were used in deriving population and housing demand forecasts for the 2050 planning period. Transportation system modeling was performed using data from the local Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPA). The MPA uses the Florida State Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS), which is commonly used throughout the State for transportation modeling and planning purposes. Expert technical assistance was also provided by various consulting firms, including the Urban Land Institute, Analytica, Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., Urban Strategies, Inc., Duany-Plater-Zyberk, Glatting Jackson, Fishkind & Associates, Stansbury Resolutions by Design, and Kumpe & Associates. In addition, the Urban Land Institute prepared a comprehensive report on the benefits of moving towards new urbanist and smart growth forms east of Interstate 75 and a build-out 2050 planning horizon. Finally, topical reports were prepared on each of the RMAs, as well as on public participation, financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality, market analysis, and infrastructure analysis. In sum, the data gathered, analyzed, and used by the County were the best available data; the analyses were done in a professionally acceptable manner; and for reasons more fully explained below, the County reacted appropriately to such data. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners have raised a wide range of objections to the Amendment, including a lack of data and analyses to support many parts of the Amendment; flawed or professionally unacceptable population and housing projections; a lack of need; the encouragement of urban sprawl; a lack of coordination between the future land uses associated with the Amendment and the availability of capital facilities; a flawed transportation model; a lack of meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines; internal inconsistency; a failure to protect natural resources; a lack of economic feasibility and fiscal neutrality; and inadequate public participation and intergovernmental coordination. Use of a 50-year planning horizon Petitioners first contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because it has a fifty-year planning time frame rather than a five or ten-year time frame, and because it does not have the same time frame as the Plan itself. Section 163.3177(5)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan must include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period occurring after the plan's adoption and one covering at least a 10-year period." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(4). However, nothing in the statute or rule prohibits a plan from containing more than two planning horizons, or for an amendment to add an additional fifty-year planning period. Therefore, the objection is without merit. Population and housing need projections For a fifty-year plan, the County had to undertake an independent analysis and projection of future population in the County. In doing so, the County extrapolated from BEBR medium range 2030 projections and calculated a need for 82,000 new homes over the 2050 period. Examining building permit trends over the prior ten years, the County calculated a high- end projection of 110,000 new homes. The County developed two sets of estimates since it is reasonable and appropriate to use more than one approach to produce a range of future projections. The County based its planning on the lower number, but also assessed water needs relative to the higher number. The data and sources used by the County in making the population and housing need projections are data and sources commonly used by local governments in making such projections. The County's expert demographer, Dr. Fishkind, independently evaluated the methodologies used by the County and pointed out that the projections came from the BEBR mid- range population projections for the County and that, over the years, these projections have been shown to be reliably accurate. The projections were then extended by linear extrapolation and converted to a housing demand in a series of steps which conformed with good planning practices. The projections were also double-checked by looking at the projected levels of building permits based on historical trends in the previous ten years' time. These two sets of calculations were fairly consistent given the lengthy time frame and the inherent difficulty in making long-range forecasts. Dr. Fishkind also found the extrapolation from 2030 to 2050 using a linear approach to be appropriate. This is because medium-term population projections are linear, and extrapolation under this approach is both reasonable and proper. Likewise, Dr. Fishkind concluded that comparing the projections to the projected level of building permits based on historical trends is also a reasonable and acceptable methodology and offers another perspective. Manasota-88's and Compton's expert demographer, Dr. Smith, disagreed that the County’s methodology was professionally acceptable and opined instead that the mid- range 2050 housing need was 76,800 units. He evidently accepted the BEBR mid-range extrapolation done by the County for the year-round resident population of the County through 2050, but disagreed on the number of people associated with the functional population of the County. To calculate the actual number of persons in the County and the number of homes necessary to accommodate those persons, it is necessary to add the persons who reside in the County year-round (the "resident population") to the number of people who live in the County for only a portion of the year (the "seasonal population"). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(2)(e)("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") The BEBR projections are based on only the resident population. The County’s demographer assigned a 20 percent multiplier to the resident population to account for the seasonal population. This multiplier has been in the Plan for many years, and it has been used by the County (with the Department's approval) in calculating seasonal population for comprehensive planning purposes since at least 1982. Rather than use a 20 percent multiplier, Dr. Smith extrapolated the seasonal population trend between the 1990 census and the 2000 census and arrived at a different number for total county housing demand. Even so, based on the fifty- year time frame of the Amendment, the 2050 housing demand number estimated by Dr. Smith (76,800 units) is for all practical purposes identical to the number projected by the County (82,000). Indeed, Dr. Fishkind opined that there is no statistically significant difference between the County's and Dr. Smith's projections. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area." The "need" issue is also a factor to be considered in an urban sprawl analysis. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans are judged. The County's evidence established that the allocation ratio of housing supply to housing need associated with the best-case scenario, that is, a buildout of existing areas and the maximum possible number of units being approved in the Villages, was nearly 1:1. Adding the total number of remaining potential dwelling units in the County at the time of the Amendment, the total amount of potential supply for the 2050 period was 82,500 units. This ratio is more conservative than the ratios found in other comprehensive plans determined to be in compliance by the Department. In those plans, the ratios tend to be much greater than 1:1. Petitioners objected to the amount of allocation, but offered no independent allocation ratio that should have been followed. Instead, Manasota-88's and Compton's expert undertook an independent calculation of potential units which resulted in a number of units in excess of 100,000 for the next twenty years. However, the witness was not capable of recalling, defending, or explaining these calculations on cross-examination, and therefore they have been given very little weight. Moreover, the witness clearly did not factor the transfer of density units or the limitations associated with the transfer of such units required by the policies in the Amendment for assembling units in the Villages. Given these considerations, it is at least fairly debatable that Sarasota 2050 is based on relevant and appropriate population and housing need projections that were prepared in a professionally acceptable manner using professionally acceptable methodologies. Land use suitability Petitioners next contend that the identification of the RMAs is not based on adequate data and analyses of land use suitability. In this regard, Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that future land use plans be based, in part, on surveys, studies, and data regarding "the character of undeveloped land." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(2), which sets forth the factors that are to be evaluated when formulating future land use designations. The Amendment was based upon a land use suitability analysis which considered soils, wetlands, vegetation, and archeological sites. There is appropriate data and analyses in the record related to such topics as "vegetation and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The data were collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner, and the identification of the RMAs reacts appropriately to that data and analyses. The County's evidence demonstrated that the locations chosen for the particular RMAs are appropriate both as to location and suitability for development. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment is supported by adequate data and analyses establishing land use suitability. Urban sprawl and need Petitioners further contend that the Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5), and that it is not supported by an appropriate demonstration of need. Need is, of course, a component of the overall goal of planning to avoid urban sprawl. The emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County tends toward large-lot development. Here, the RMA concept offers a mixture of uses and requires an overall residential density range of three to six units per net developable Village acre, whereas most of the same residential areas of the County presently appear to have residential densities of one unit per five acres or one unit per ten acres. If the Villages (and Hamlets) are developed according to Plan, they will be a more desirable and useful tool to fight this large-lot land use pattern of current development and constitute an effective anti-urban sprawl alternative. Petitioners also allege that the Amendment will allow urban sprawl for essentially three reasons: first, there is no "need" for the RMA plan; second, there are insufficient guarantees that any future Village or Hamlet will actually be built as a Village or similar new urbanist-type development; and third, the Amendment will result in accelerated and unchecked growth in the County. The more persuasive evidence showed that none of these concerns are justified, or that the concerns are beyond fair debate. The Amendment is crafted with a level of detail to ensure that a specific new urbanist form of development occurs on land designated as Village/Open Space land use. (The "new urbanistic form" of development is characterized by walkable neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing for a range of ages and family sizes; provide civic, commercial, and office opportunities; and facilitate open space and conservation of natural environments.) The compact, mixed-use land use pattern of the Villages and Hamlets is regarded as Urban Villages, a development form designed and recognized as a tool to combat urban sprawl. "New town" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(80) as follows: "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. . The Village/Open Space RMA is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, that is, the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development. Urban Villages referenced in the Rule are also a category and development form expressly recognized to combat urban sprawl. The Village/Open Space RMA policies include the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, and the density or intensity of each use. Villages must include a mix of uses, as well as a range of housing types capable of accommodating a broad range of family sizes and incomes. The non-residential uses in the Village, such as commercial, office, public/civic, educational, and recreational uses, must be capable of providing for most of the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental needs of the residents, and must be phased concurrently with the residential development of the Village. The policies set the minimum and maximum size for any Village development. Other policies establish standards for the minimum open space outside the developed area in the Village. The minimum density of a Village is three dwelling units per acre, the maximum density is six dwelling units per acre, and the target density is five dwelling units per acre. An adequate mix of non-residential uses must be phased with each phase or subphase of development. The maximum amount of commercial space in Neighborhood Centers is 20,000 square feet. Village Centers can be no more than 100 acres, the maximum amount of commercial space is 300,000 square feet, and the minimum size is 50,000 square feet. The Town Center may have between 150,000 and 425,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Villages must have sufficient amounts of non-residential space to satisfy the daily and weekly needs of the residents for such uses. Percentage minimums and maximums for the land area associated with uses in Village Centers and the Town Center are also expressed in the policies. Hamlets have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre and a minimum density of .4 dwelling unit per acre. The maximum amount of commercial space allowed in a Hamlet is 10,000 square feet. The number of potential dwelling units in the Village/Open Space RMA is limited to the total number of acres of land in the Village/Open Space and Greenway RMAs that are capable of transferring development rights. Calculations in the data and analyses submitted to the Department, as well as testimony at the hearing, set this number at 47,000-47,500 units once lands designated for public acquisition under the County’s ESLPPP are properly subtracted. To take advantage of the Village option and the allowable densities associated with Villages, property owners in the Village/Open Space RMA must assemble units above those allowed by the Plan's FLUM designation by acquiring and transferring development rights from the open space, the associated greenbelt and Greenway, the Village Master Plan, and other properties outside the Village. The means and strategy by which transfer sending and receiving areas are identified and density credits are acquired are specified in the Amendment. There are three village areas (South, Central, and North) in the Village/Open Space RMA, and the amendment limits the number of Villages that may be approved in each of the areas. In the South and Central Village areas, a second village cannot be approved for fifteen years after the first village is approved. The amount of village development in the South Village must also be phased to the construction of an interchange at Interstate 75 and Central Sarasota Parkway. In the North Village area, only one village may be approved. In addition, to further limit the amount and rate of approvals and development of Villages, village rezonings and master plans cannot be approved if the approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban residential development within the unincorporated county to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period. To evaluate the housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period, among other things, Policy VOS2.1(a)2. sets forth the following items to be considered in determining housing demand: Housing demand shall be calculated by the County and shall consider the medium range population projections of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research for Sarasota County, projected growth in the Municipalities and residential building permit activity in the Municipalities and unincorporated County. Petitioners contend that Policy VOS2.1 is an illegal population methodology. However, the County established that the Policy merely sets forth factors to be considered and does not express a specific methodology. The County’s position is consistent with the language in the policy. Petitioners also contend that the policy is vague and ambiguous because the outcome of the application of the factors is not ordained (since weights are not assigned to each factor), and because building permit activity is not a valid or proper factor to consider in making housing demand projections. The evidence establishes, however, that the factors are all proper criteria to consider in making housing projections, and that a fixed assignment of weights for each item would be inappropriate. In fact, even though Manasota- 88's and Compton's demographer stated that building permit activity is not an appropriate factor to consider, he has written articles that state just the opposite. The County also established that Sumter County (in central Florida) had examined and used building permit activity in projecting population in connection with their comprehensive plan, and had done so after consulting with BEBR and receiving confirmation that this factor was appropriate. That building permit activity demonstrated that population projections and housing demand were higher in Sumter County than BEBR was projecting at the time, and that Sumter County’s own projections were more accurate than BEBR's projections. Petitioners essentially claim that the County should only use BEBR's medium range projections in calculating future housing needs. However, the evidence does not support this contention. Future housing need is determined by dividing future population by average household size. Because BEBR's medium population projections for a county include all municipalities in the county, they must always be modified to reflect the unincorporated county. Moreover, BEBR's projections are the result of a methodology that first extrapolates for counties, but then adjusts upward or downward to match the state population projection. A projection based on this medium range projection, but adjusted by local data, local information, and local trends, is a more accurate indicator of population, and therefore housing need, than simply the BEBR county-wide medium range projection. At the same time, future conditions are fluid rather than static, and the clear objective of Policy VOS2.1 is to project housing demand as accurately as possible. Assigning fixed weights to each factor would not account for changing conditions and data at particular points in time and would be more likely to lead to inaccurate projections. As specified in Policy VOS2.1, the factors can properly serve as checks or balances on the accuracy of the projections. Given that the clear intent of Policy VOS2.1 is to limit housing capacity and supply, accurately determining the housing demand is the object of the policy, and it is evident that the factors should be flexibly applied rather than fixed as to value, weight, or significance. There is also persuasive evidence that the RMA amendments can be reasonably expected to improve the Plan by providing an anti-sprawl alternative. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) directly addresses this situation in the following manner: If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. (emphasis added) Petitioners did not offer persuasive evidence to refute the fact that the RMAs would improve the existing development pattern in the County. While Petitioners alleged that the Amendment allows for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development, the evidence shows, for example, that the County's current development pattern in the USA has an overall residential density between two and three units per acre. The Rural Heritage/Estate and Agricultural Reserve RMAs may maintain or reduce the existing density found in the Plan by the transfer of development rights. The three to six dwelling units per net developable residential acre required for Village development in the Village/Open Space RMA, coupled with the Amendment's specific policies directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl land use form. They also provide a density of focused development that diminishes, rather than exacerbates, the existing potential for sprawl found in the Plan. In reaching his opinions on urban sprawl, Manasota- 88's and Compton's expert indicated that he only assessed the question of sprawl in light of the thirteen primary indicators of sprawl identified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g). Unlike that limited analysis, the County's and the Department's witnesses considered the sprawl question under all of the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and concluded that the Amendment did not violate the urban sprawl prohibition. As they correctly observed, there are other portions of the law that are critically relevant to the analysis of sprawl in the context of this Amendment. Urban villages described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.003(80) are a category and development form expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. In addition, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) recognizes urban villages and new towns as two "innovative and flexible" ways in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the Village form contained in the Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. The types and mix of land uses in the amendment are consistent with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the County and serves to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. It is also beyond fair debate that the Amendment describes an innovative and flexible planning and development strategy that is expressly encouraged and recognized by Section 163.3177(11), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) as a means to avoid and prevent sprawl. Natural resource protection and wetlands impacts Petitioners next allege that the Amendment fails to protect natural resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. and 9J-5.013(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (b). At a minimum, by providing for a Greenway area, clustering of development, large open space requirements, wildlife crossings, floodplain preservation and protection, greenbelts and buffers, transfers of development rights placing higher value on natural resources, best management practices, and the encouragement of development in the RMA pattern, the RMA plan creates a level of natural resource protection greater than the County’s existing Plan. Though Petitioners disagreed with the extent and breadth of the protections afforded by the Amendment, they could only point to one area where protections may not be as significant as in the Plan: wetland impacts in Villages where the Village Center is involved. On this issue, Policy VOS1.5 provides that: The County recognizes that prevention of urban sprawl and the creation of compact, mixed-use development support an important public purpose. Therefore, the approval of a Master Development Plan for a Village may permit impacts to wetlands within the Village Center itself only when it is determined that the proposed wetland impact is unavoidable to achieve this public purpose and only the minimum wetland impact is proposed. Such approval does not eliminate the need to comply with the other wetland mitigation requirements of the Environmental Technical Manual of the Land Development Regulations, including the requirement for suitable mitigation. The Board of County Commissioners will review such proposals on a case-by-case basis as part of the Master Development Plan review process. Contrary to Petitioners' claims, the Policy does not encourage wetland destruction. Impacts to wetlands with appropriate mitigation are allowed under this policy only when the impact is "unavoidable" and "the minimum impact is proposed." The term "unavoidable impact" is not an ambiguous term in the area of wetland regulation. It is not unbridled in the context of the policy, nor is it ambiguous when properly viewed in the context of the overriding concern of the amendment to "preserve environmental systems." The term "unavoidable impact" is used and has application and meaning in other wetland regulatory programs, such as the federal Clean Water Act and the regulations implementing that law. Regulations based on "unavoidable impacts," both in this policy as well as in the state and federal regulations, can be applied in a lawfully meaningful way. Considering the policies regarding environmental systems, habitats, wildlife, and their protection, especially when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan, the Amendment as a whole reacts appropriately to the data and can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The Greenway RMA was based on data and analyses that generated a series of environmental resource overlays, that when completed, comprised the Greenway RMA. The overlays layered public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands associated with the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow-ways, wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s ESLPPP, lands deemed to be of high ecological value, and appropriate connections. The evidence establishes that the staff and consultants reviewed and consulted a wide range of professionally appropriate resources in analyzing and designating the Greenway RMA. Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Greenway RMA is inadequate in the sense that the RMA does not include all appropriate areas of the County. This claim was based on testimony that the Greenway did not include certain areas west and south of Interstate 75 in the Urban/Suburban and Economic Development RMAs, as well as a few conservation habitats (preserve areas) set aside by Development of Regional Impacts or restricted by conservation easements. However, the preserve areas and conservation easement properties will be preserved and maintained in the same fashion as the Greenway, so for all practical purposes their non-inclusion in the Greenway is not significant. The area located south of Interstate 75 was found to be the Myakka State Forest, which is in the planning jurisdiction of the City of North Port. Manasota-88's and Compton's witness (an employee of the FFWCC) also advocated a slightly different greenway plan for fish and wildlife resources, which he considered to be a better alternative than the one selected by the County. The witness conceded, however, that his alternative was only one of several alternative plans that the County could properly consider. In this regard, the County’s Greenway RMA reacts to data on a number of factors, only one of which is fish and wildlife. One important factor disregarded by the witness was the influence of private property rights on the designation of areas as greenway. While the FFWCC does not factor the rights of property owners in its identification of greenways, it is certainly reasonable and prudent for the County to do so. This is because the County’s regulatory actions may be the subject of takings claims and damages, and its planning actions are expected to avoid such occurrences. See § 163.3161(9), Fla. Stat. Petitioners also alleged that the lack of specific inclusion of the term "A-E Flood Zone" in the Greenway designation criteria of Policy GS1.1 does not properly react to the data and analyses provided in the Greenway Final Support Document. (That policy enumerates the component parts of the Greenway RMA.) Any such omission is insignificant, however, because in the Greenway RMA areas, the A-E Flood Zone and the areas associated with the other criteria already in Policy GS1.1 are 90 percent coterminous. In addition, when an application for a master plan for a Village is filed, the master plan must specifically identify and protect flood plain areas. At the same time, through fine tuning, the development review process, the open space requirements, and the negotiation of the planned unit development master plan, the remaining 10 percent of the A-E Flood Zone will be protected like a greenway. Greenway crossings The Greenway RMA is designed in part to provide habitat and corridors for movement of wildlife. In the initial drafts of the Amendment, future road crossings of the Greenway were located to minimize the amount of Greenway traversed by roads. After further review by the County, and consultation with a FFWCC representative, the number of crossings was reduced to eleven. The road crossings in the Amendment are not great in length, nor do they bisect wide expanses of the Greenway. All of the proposed crossings traverse the Greenway in areas where the Greenway is relatively narrow. Of the eleven crossings in the Greenway, three crossings presently exist, and these crossings will gain greater protection for wildlife through the design requirements of Policy GS2.4 than they would under the current Plan. Petitioners also expressed concerns with the wording of Policy GS2.4 and contended that the policy was not specific enough with regard to how wildlife would be protected at the crossings. The policy provides that Crossings of the Greenway RMA by roads or utilities are discouraged. When necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry, however, transportation corridors within the Greenway RMA shall be designed as limited access facilities that include multi-use trails and prohibit non- emergency stopping except at designated scenic viewpoints. Roadway and associated utility corridors shall be designed to have minimal adverse impacts to the environment, including provisions for wildlife crossings based on accepted standards and including consideration of appropriate speed limits. Accordingly, under the policy, wildlife crossings must be designed to facilitate minimal adverse impacts on wildlife, and such designs must be "based on accepted standards." While Petitioners contended that what is required by "accepted standards" is vague and ambiguous, the County established that this language, taken individually or in the context of the policies of the Amendment, is specific and clear enough to establish that a crossing must be properly and professionally designed for the target species that can be expected to cross the Greenway at the particular location. It was also appropriate to design the crossing at the time of the construction of the crossing to best react to the species that will be expected to cross. Although Petitioners disagreed that the policy was acceptable, their witness agreed that it is essential to know what species are inhabiting a particular area before one can design a wildlife crossing that will protect the wildlife using the crossing. He further acknowledged that he typically designs crossings for the largest traveling species that his data indicates will cross the roadway. In deciding where to locate roads, as well as how they should be designed, crossings for wildlife are not the only matter with which the local government must be concerned. Indeed, if it were, presumably there would likely be no roads, or certainly far fewer places where automobiles could travel. To reflect legitimate planning, and to reasonably react to the data gathered by the local government, the County’s road network should reflect recognition of the data and an effort to balance the need for roads with the impacts of them on wildlife. The Amendment achieves this purpose. In summary, Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the crossings of the Greenway do not react appropriately to the data and analyses, or that the policies of the crossings are so inadequate as to violate the statute or rule. Transportation planning Manasota-88 and Compton next contend that the data and analyses for the transportation planning omit trips, overstate the potential intensity and density of land uses, and understate trips captured in the Villages. The transportation plan was based on use of the FSUTMS, a model recommended by the State and widely used by transportation planners for trip generation and modeling for comprehensive plan purposes. In developing the transportation plan, the County relied upon resources from the Highway Capacity Manual, the Transportation Research Board, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It also reviewed the data and analyses based on the modeling performed in September 2001 in the Infrastructure Corridor Plan, an earlier transportation plan used by the County. To ensure that the 2001 model was still appropriate for the Amendment, the County conducted further review and analyses and determined that the modeling was reasonable for use in connection with the Amendment even though the intensity of development eventually provided for in the Villages was less than had been analyzed in the model. The evidence supports a finding that the data was the best available, and that they were evaluated in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence further shows that the Amendment identifies transportation system needs, and that the Amendment provides for transportation capital facilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. Transportation network modeling was performed for the County both with and without the 2050 Amendment. Based on the modeling, a table of road improvements needed to support the Amendment was made a part of the Amendment as Table RMA-1. Because the modeling factored more residential and non- residential development than was ultimately authorized by the Amendment, the identification of the level of transportation impacts was conservative, as were the improvements that would be needed. Manasota-88 and Compton correctly point out that the improvements contained in the Amendment are not funded for construction. Even so, this is not a defect in the Amendment because the improvements are not needed unless property owners choose to avail themselves of the 2050 options; if they do, they will be required to build the improvements themselves under the fiscal neutrality provisions of the Amendment. Further, the County’s CIP process moves improvements from the five-to-fifteen year horizon to the five-year CIP as the need arises. Thus, as development proposals for Villages or Hamlets are received and approved in the areas east of I-75, specific improvements would be identified and provided for in the development order, or could be placed in the County’s appropriate CIPs, as needed. The improvements necessary under the Amendment can be accommodated in the County’s normal capital improvements planning, and the transportation system associated with the Amendment can be coordinated with development under the Amendment in a manner that will assure that the impacts of development on the transportation system are addressed. It is noted that the Amendment requires additional transportation impact and improvement analysis at the time of master plan submittal and prior to approval of that plan. Accordingly, the Amendment satisfies the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 for transportation planning. The County used the best available data and reacted to that data in a professionally appropriate way and to the extent necessary as indicated by the data. As noted above, the transportation impacts and needs were conservatively projected, and the County was likely planning for more facilities than would be needed. It is beyond fair debate that the Amendment is supported by data and analyses. Utilities Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because the policies relating to capital facilities are not supported by data and analyses, and that there is a lack of available capital facilities to meet the demand. The County analyzed data on water supplies and demands and central wastewater facilities needs under the Amendment. The data on water supplies and demands were the best available data and included the District water supply plan as well as the County's water supply master plan. The data were analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner and the conclusions reached and incorporated into the Amendment are supported by the analyses. The utilities system for water and wastewater has been coordinated in the Amendment with the County’s CIP in a manner that will ensure that impacts on the utilities are addressed. The County established that there are more than adequate permittable sources of potable water to serve the needs associated with the Amendment, and that the needed capital facilities for water and wastewater can reasonably be provided through the policies of the Amendment. The evidence showed that the Amendment provides for capital facilities for utilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. The total water needs for the County through the year 2050 cannot be permitted at this time because the District, which is the permitting state agency, does not issue permits for periods greater than twenty years. Also, there must be a demonstrated demand for the resources within a 20- year time frame before a permit will issue. Nonetheless, the County is part of a multi-jurisdictional alliance that is planning for long-term water supplies and permitting well into the future. It has also merged its stormwater, utilities, and natural resources activities to integrate their goals, policies, and objectives for long-term water supply and conservation purposes. No specific CIP for water or wastewater supplies and facilities was adopted in the Amendment. The County currently has water and wastewater plans in its Capital Improvement Element that will accommodate growth and development under the land use policies of the Plan. From the list contained in the Capital Improvement Element an improvement schedule is developed, as well as a more specific five-year CIP. Only the latter, five-year program identifies funding and construction of projects, and the only projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element are projects that the County must fund and construct. Because of the optional nature of the Amendment, supplies and facilities needed for its implementation will only be capable of being defined if and when development under the Amendment is requested. At that time, the specific capital facility needs for the development can be assessed and provided for, and they can be made a part of the County’s normal capital facilities planning under the Plan's Capital Facilities Chapter and its related policies. Policy VOS 2.1 conditions approval of Village development on demonstrating the availability and permitability of water and other public facilities and services to serve the development. Further, the Amendment provides for timing and phasing of both Villages and development in Villages to assure that capital facilities planning, permitting, and construction are gradual and can be accommodated in the County's typical capital improvement plan programs. Most importantly, the fiscal neutrality policies of the Amendment assure that the County will not bear financial responsibility for the provision of water or the construction of water and wastewater capital facilities in the Village/Open Space RMA. Supplies and facilities are the responsibility of the developers of the Villages and Hamlets that will be served. Additionally, Policy VOS3.6 requires that all irrigation in the Village/Open Space RMA (which therefore would include Villages and Hamlets) cannot be by wells or potable water sources and shall be by non-potable water sources such as stormwater and reuse water. The supplies and improvements that will be associated with the optional development allowed by the Amendment have been coordinated with the Plan and can be accommodated in the County's normal capital improvement planning. Through the policies in the Amendment, the water and wastewater facility impacts of the Amendment are addressed. Indeed, due to the fiscal neutrality policies in the Amendment, the County now has a financial tool that will make it easier to fund and provide water and wastewater facilities than it currently has under the Plan. Finally, to ensure that capital facilities are properly programmed and planned, the Amendment also contains Policy VOS2.2, which provides in pertinent part: To ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure, the County shall annually monitor the actual growth within Sarasota County, including development within the Village/Open Space RMA, and adopt any necessary amendments to APOXSEE in conjunction with the update of the Capital Improvements Program. It is beyond fair debate that the capital facilities provisions within the Amendment are supported by adequate data and analyses, and that they are otherwise in compliance. Financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality The Capital Improvement Element identifies facilities for which a local government has financial responsibility, and for which adopted levels of service are required, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. Manasota-88 and Compton challenge the "financial feasibility" of the Amendment. As noted above, there is significant data and analyses of existing and future public facility needs. The data collection and analyses were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence shows that as part of its analyses, the County conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Village development and determined that Village and Hamlet development can be fiscally neutral and financially feasible. Dr. Fishkind also opined that, based upon his review of the Amendment, it is financially feasible as required by the Act. Policy VOS2.9 of the Amendment provides in part: Each Village and each Hamlet development within the Village/Open Space RMA shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the levels of service standards adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County Government, the School Board, and residents outside that development. The intent of Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the Villages or Hamlets shall be funded by properties within the approved Villages and Hamlets. Policies VOS2.1, VOS2.4, and VOS2.9 provide that facility capacity and fiscal neutrality must be demonstrated, and that a Fiscal Neutrality Plan and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality must be approved at the time of the master plan and again for each phase of development. In addition, under Policy VOS2.9, an applicant's fiscal neutrality analysis and plan must be reviewed and approved by independent economic advisors retained by the County. Monitoring of fiscal neutrality is also provided for in Policy VOS2.2. Finally, Policy VOS2.10 identifies community development districts as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs associated with Villages and Hamlets. The evidence establishes beyond fair debate that the policies in the Amendment will result in a system of regulations that will ensure that fiscal neutrality will be accomplished. Internal inconsistencies Manasota-88 and Compton further contend that there are inconsistencies between certain policies of the Amendment and other provisions in the Plan. If the policies do not conflict with other provisions of the Plan, they are considered to be coordinated, related, and consistent. Conflict between the Amendment and the Plan is avoided by inclusion of the following language in Policy RMA1.3: If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. As to this Policy, Manasota-88's and Compton's claim is really nothing more than a preference that the Plan policies should also have been amended at the same time to expressly state that where there was a conflict between themselves and the new Amendment policies, the new Amendment would apply. Such a stylistic difference does not amount to the Amendment's not being in compliance. Therefore, it is fairly debatable that the Amendment is internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Public participation and intergovernmental coordination Petitioners next contend that there was inadequate public participation during the adoption of the Amendment as well as a lack of coordination with other governmental bodies. Ayech also asserted that there were inadequate procedures adopted by the County which resulted in less than full participation by the public. However, public participation is not a proper consideration in an in-compliance determination. In addition, the County has adopted all required procedures to ensure public participation in the amendment process. The County had numerous meetings with the municipalities in the County, the Council of Governments (of which the County is a member), and meetings and correspondence by and between the respective professional staffs of those local governments. The County also met with the Hospital Board and the School Board. The evidence is overwhelming that the County provided an adequate level of intergovernmental coordination. Regional and state comprehensive plans Petitioners have alleged violations of the state and regional policy plans. On this issue, Michael D. McDaniel, State Initiatives Administrator for the Department, established that the Amendment was not in inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. His testimony was not impeached or refuted. Petitioners' claim that the Amendment is not consistent with the regional policy plan is based only on a report prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) at the Amendment’s transmittal stage. There was no evidence (by SWFRPC representatives or others) that the report raised actual inconsistencies with the SWFRPC regional policy plan, nor was any evidence presented that the SWFRPC has found the amendment, as adopted, to be inconsistent with its regional plan. There was no persuasive evidence that the Amendment is either in conflict with, or fails to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies in, either the state or regional policy plan. Other objections Finally, all other objections raised by Petitioners and not specifically discussed herein have been considered and found to be without merit. County's Request for Attorney's Fees and Sanctions On April 5, 2004, the County filed a Motion for Attorneys Fees and Sanctions Pursuant to F.S. § 120.595 (Motion). The Motion is directed primarily against Ayech and contends that her "claims and evidence were without foundation or relevance," and that her "participation in the proceeding was 'primarily to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose.'" The Motion also alleges that Manasota-88 and Compton "participated in this proceeding with an intent to harass and delay the Amendment from taking effect." Replies in opposition to the Motion were filed by Petitioners on April 12, 2004. The record shows that Ayech aligned herself (in terms of issues identified in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation) with Manasota-88 and Compton. While her evidentiary presentation was remarkably short (in contrast to the other Petitioners and the County), virtually all of the issues identified in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation were addressed in some fashion or another by one of Petitioners' witnesses, or through Petitioners' cross-examination of opposing witnesses. Even though every issue has been resolved in favor of Respondents (and therefore found to be either fairly debatable or beyond fair debate), the undersigned cannot find from the record that the issues were so irrelevant or without some evidentiary foundation as to fall to the level of constituting frivolous claims. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
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 Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 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 14th day of May, 2004.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted through Alachua County Ordinance Number 03-05 on August 26, 2003, are "in compliance," as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Parties The Board is a local government charged with the responsibility of adopting and enforcing a comprehensive plan as provided in the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2003)(the "Act"). In this Recommended Order, "the Board" will refer to the elected Board of County Commissioners. "The County" will refer to Alachua County staff, as well as to the County as a litigant in these proceedings. The Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency with the authority to administer and enforce the Act. David and December McSherry are residents of the County, own and operate a business, and own property in the County. The McSherrys made comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. The McSherrys are "affected persons" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and have standing to bring this proceeding. Dr. Adams owns property and resides in the County. Dr. Adams submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Dr. Adams is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Dr. Kathy Cantwell owns property and resides in the County. Dr. Cantwell submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Dr. Cantwell is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Holly Jensen owns property and resides in the County. Ms. Jensen submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Ms. Jensen is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Sierra Club, Inc., is a California nonprofit organization that advocates ecological conservation in the County through its Florida chapter and the Suwannee-St. Johns Group. Sierra Club and a substantial number of its members conduct a business in the County by maintaining a local website, raising funds, participating in governmental meetings and decisions, soliciting and obtaining membership, distributing publications, purchasing, selling and delivering merchandise and goods and services, holding conferences and meetings, maintaining local representatives, distributing information and newsletters, and organizing members and other citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances. Sierra Club provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Sierra Club is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. SAC is a Florida nonprofit organization that advocates ecological conservation and principles of sustainability in the County. The organization and a substantial number of its members conduct a business in the County by maintaining a local website that is a forum for local comment, raising funds, participating in governmental meetings and decisions, soliciting and obtaining membership, and distributing publications. SAC provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. SAC is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. Each of the Jonesville Petitioners owns property and operates businesses in the County. Each of the Jonesville Petitioners provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. The Jonesville Petitioners are "affected persons" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and have standing to bring this proceeding. PRPV is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that was created for the purpose of representing landowners of rural and agricultural land, participating with local and state government in the development of reasonable land use regulations, and protecting values of rural properties in the County. A substantial number of PRPV's members reside in, own property in, or own or operate businesses in the County. PRPV submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. PRPV is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. BANCF is a Florida corporation that was created for the purpose of educating and advocating on behalf of its members, who are primarily engaged in the residential and commercial construction industry in the County and who are citizens residing in, and businesses located in the County. A substantial number of BANCF's members reside in, own property in, or own or operate businesses in the County. BANCF submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the respective transmittal and adoption periods. BANCF is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. Background and Procedural Issues The Board adopted the Plan in 1991. In 1998, the Board adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR") for the Plan. Subsection 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes (2003), requires each local government to adopt an EAR once every seven years, assessing its progress in implementing its comprehensive plan. The local government must then amend its comprehensive plan to reflect the data and analysis and recommendations in the EAR. § 163.3191(10), Fla. Stat. (2003). In August 2001, the Board adopted amendments to the Plan and transmitted them to DCA, and to the other agencies enumerated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-11.009(6), for review and comment. On November 30, 2001, DCA completed its review of the amendments and issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments document (commonly referred to as an "ORC Report") to the County pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-11.010. On April 8, 2002, the Board adopted the 2002 Plan Update, addressing the objections raised in the ORC Report. By letter dated May 31, 2002, DCA notified the Board that it had completed its review of the 2002 Plan Update and determined that it met the Act's requirements for "compliance," as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). DCA published notice of its intent to find the 2002 Plan Update in compliance in The Gainesville Sun on June 3, 2002. On June 24, 2002, PRPV and others filed a petition challenging DCA's determination that the 2002 Plan Update was in compliance. The Petition was forwarded to DOAH on July 5, 2002. BANCF was granted intervenor status, in alignment with PRPV, on July 11, 2002. On July 25, 2002, the PRPV Petitioners joined by BANCF, filed a request for mediation pursuant to Subsection 163.3189(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). On August 1, 2002, the Board filed a response agreeing to participate in mediation. In the instant proceeding, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners have alleged several irregularities in the mediation process. They allege that despite the requirements of Subsection 163.3184(16)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), regarding mediation, "the McSherry Petitioners found that they were not given adequate notices of [mediation] meetings and proposals, that the method in which the mediator ran the meetings denied them a reasonable opportunity to participate, that they were not included in negotiation meetings, and that negotiation meetings were not open to the public, and that when the public did attend meetings the public was not allowed to comment." The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners allege that they were systematically frozen out of the mediation process, which resulted in a settlement agreement favorable to PRPV and BANCF. However, the facts established at the hearing did not support these allegations. One particular complaint by the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners is that the mediator, Robert Cambric of DCA, split the mediation into two simultaneous meetings, one on land use and one on environmental issues, making it impossible for an individual or a small group to follow all the issues under discussion. This situation did occur at one mediation session on December 12, 2002. Ms. McSherry and Dr. Adams complained about this arrangement, and it was not repeated by Mr. Cambric. Richard Drummond, the County's growth management director, testified that no agreements were reached at the December 12, 2002, sessions; rather, participants were given "homework assignments" to complete for the next mediation session. Mr. Drummond's testimony is supported by the fact that the mediation process continued for another six months after this disputed meeting. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners were allowed to participate in the mediation sessions even before they were formally granted intervention in the underlying proceeding. No evidence was presented to establish that secret meetings were held. The evidence demonstrated that County staff, at the Board's direction, attempted to negotiate a tentative settlement. On several occasions, the Board held public meetings at which extensive public comment was elicited and during which the Board directed staff regarding its position on issues. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners actively participated in these public meetings, and were represented at all the mediation sessions. No evidence was presented that the mediator acted less than capably and professionally during the mediation process. Mediation sessions were open to the press and public, though participation at the sessions was limited to the parties, which included the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners. Every person who requested individual notice of mediation sessions was included on an electronic mail distribution list and received notice. The Board's meetings on the mediation were publicly noticed, and extensive public comment was taken. Beginning in December 2002, a spreadsheet matrix was circulated that outlined the positions of the County and of the PRPV Petitioners on the narrowing list of issues that remained in dispute. As the mediation entered February 2003 and the County and PRPV inched closer to settlement, it became apparent that the County's position on many issues was beginning to diverge from that of its aligned Intervenors, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners. Mr. Cambric, the mediator, offered to meet with Dr. Adams and Dr. Cantwell6/ in order to flesh out their issue positions for inclusion in a separate "intervenors" column of the spreadsheet matrix. On or about March 5, 2003, Mr. Cambric, Richard Drummond, and other County staff persons held the proposed meeting with Dr. Adams, Dr. Cantwell and the McSherrys. A revised matrix was circulated on March 11, 2003, that included a separate column setting forth Intervenors' position. On March 20, 2003, the matrix was further amended to add a separate column for the McSherrys, whose positions on some issues deviated from the positions of Dr. Adams, SAC, and the Sierra Club. It is clear from the documentary evidence and the testimony of various witnesses that the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners felt a degree of betrayal in the County's reaching a settlement with PRPV. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish their allegations that they were denied adequate participation in the process. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend that the driving force in the settlement of PRPV's challenge was a change in the makeup of the Board in the wake of a primary election held on September 10, 2002. The political situation in Alachua County is obviously relevant to the concerns of the parties, but is beyond the scope of this proceeding. There is no need for detailed findings of fact concerning the Board elections or the positions taken by candidates for office in the County. Finally, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend that jilted Intervenors; i.e., those who supported the County's initial litigation position in defense of the 2002 Plan Update and then opposed the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, should be allowed, by virtue of the realignment of parties pursuant to Subsection 163.3184(16)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), to step into the shoes of the original Petitioners and attack the 2002 Plan Update, as well as the 2003 Amendments. This contention was rejected at the hearing for reasons explained in the Conclusions of Law below. Extensive evidence, testimonial and documentary, was taken regarding the 2002 Plan Update. However, findings of fact concerning the 2002 Plan Update are confined to its interplay with the 2003 Amendments and to issues of internal consistency raised thereby. The Jonesville Petitioners raised procedural issues regarding the concluding phase of the mediation. On July 11, 2003, the Jonesville Petitioners filed a motion to intervene in the challenge to the 2002 Plan Update. Their concern was that the revised definition of "strategic ecosystem" in the proposed 2003 Amendments would adversely affect the value and/or development potential of their properties. At the hearing, the Jonesville Petitioners contended that they were not given adequate notice of the proposed change to the definition of "strategic ecosystem." Policy 1.1.2 of the Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element of the 1991 Plan required the County "to provide notification to all property owners whose land use may be restricted due to proposed conservation or preservation designation in the Comprehensive Plan prior to official designation in the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan." The evidence established that the County complied with this policy, providing notice by mail in April 2003 to all owners of property proposed to be mapped as part of a "strategic ecosystem" site by the 2003 Amendments. The notice informed the property owners that their properties had been identified within the mapped areas and invited the property owners to attend one of a series of late-April 2003 informational workshops regarding the map. The Jonesville Petitioners received the mailed notices. The Board held a public hearing on approval of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement on July 15, 2003, and a public hearing on August 26, 2003, to adopt the 2003 Amendments. The Jonesville Petitioners had actual knowledge of the public hearings in July and August to approve the agreement and adopt the 2003 Amendments and were represented at those hearings. At the hearing in the instant proceeding, the Jonesville Petitioners complained that they submitted extensive site investigation reports to the Board at the July 15, 2003, demonstrating that their properties should not be considered "strategic ecosystems," but that they were allowed only three minutes to make their presentation at the hearing. There was no requirement that the Board allow lengthy, fact- intensive presentations concerning specific parcels of land during the public hearing to adopt the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Nonetheless, the evidence established that the Jonesville Petitioners, like the other parties to the underlying litigation, would have been allowed more than three minutes had they requested it before the hearing. There was also no requirement that the County staff or the Board make a detailed response to the Jonesville Petitioners' site reports prior to the Board's adoption of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement or the 2003 Amendments. Further, as is more fully explored below in the findings as to the 2003 Amendments, the information provided by the Jonesville Petitioners was more appropriate to a land development scenario than to the large- scale comprehensive plan amendment process that the County was undertaking. In conclusion, it is found that neither the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners nor the Jonesville Petitioners demonstrated that their procedural rights under the Act or its implementing rules were violated by the process employed by the County during the mediation and when adopting the 2003 Amendments. 2003 FLUE Amendments Gated Communities and Cul-de-Sacs FLUE Objective 1.2 in the 2002 Plan Update states: Provide for adequate future urban residential development that includes a full range of housing types and densities to serve different segments of the housing market, designed to be integrated and connected with surrounding neighborhoods and the community, with opportunities for recreation and other mixed uses within walking or bicycling distance. The 2003 Amendments included the following changes to FLUE Policy 1.2.1.17/: Residential areas shall be designed to provide for an interconnected system of internal circulation, including the provision of streets dedicated to the public connecting the residential area to the major street system. New development shall not restrict preclude public access to the development or include cul de sacs. Residential areas shall also be designed to provide for substantial interconnectivity between adjacent developments and within developments, except where such connectivity is precluded by constraints resulting from physical layout of existing development or environmental features. If connectivity is precluded by such constraints, cul de sacs may be considered for those roads subject to such constraints. The land development regulations shall detail the requirements for public access and substantial interconnectivity based on standards such as a connectivity index, maximum separations between connections to adjacent developments, and rules relative to hours, operations, and public safety considerations for any restriction of access through use of gates. FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 was new to the 2002 Plan Update. Its purpose is to assist in discouraging urban sprawl by encouraging street connectivity, thus, moving the County away from a development pattern of isolated residential subdivisions with only one or two points of ingress/egress. Adding connectivity features allows pedestrian or bicycle travel between subdivisions and disperses the flow of vehicular traffic by providing more points of entry to arterial roads. All of the parties agreed that interconnectivity is a positive value. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners criticize amended Policy 1.2.1.1 for failing to define "substantial interconnectivity" and, therefore, providing no meaningful standards by which to determine whether a new residential development provides "substantial interconnectivity." They point out that the policy leaves it to subsequent land development regulations ("LDRs") to define the term, but provides little guidance and essentially standardless discretion to the drafters of the LDRs. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners' chief concern was that a lax regulatory regime could define a single connecting road as "substantial interconnectivity" and, thereby, defeat the clear intent of the policy. Similarly, they observed that Amended Policy 1.2.1.1 refers to a "connectivity index," but provides no definition or guidance as to the meaning of the term, again leaving the LDR drafters limitless discretion. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners suggest that the seeds for lax regulation are planted in the policy through its requirement that the LDRs provide for "maximum separations between connections to adjacent developments." They argue that, if the goal is to provide for interconnected developments, then the LDRs should logically provide for minimum, not maximum, separations between connections. This argument is rejected simply as a matter of logic because providing for maximum separations in the LDRs is precisely what can ensure interconnectivity.8/ Finally, the McSherry Petitioners argue that the amended policy's allowance of gated communities is in direct contradiction to its mandate that "[n]ew development should not preclude public access to the development." They contend that LDRs providing rules for "hours, operations, and public safety considerations for any restriction of access through use of gates" would create an internal inconsistency within FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1. The County presented testimony from Richard Drummond stating that amended FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 strengthens existing Plan provisions for interconnectivity by adding the requirement for "substantial interconnectivity," and by adding a requirement that new development not preclude public access. Robert Pennock, PRPV's expert witness on local government comprehensive planning, with an emphasis on urban sprawl, testified that the term "substantial," in the context of FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 and in combination with other policies in the Plan, is a meaningful qualifier indicating the County's intent that its future development pattern will not be a patchwork of isolated subdivisions with a single connection to an arterial road. Mr. Pennock pointed out that a degree of common sense must be applied to the use of the term in the development of LDRs and that it must be acknowledged that the details of the LDRs will be developed by professional planners. Mr. Pennock's comments regarding common sense and good faith on the part of the regulators points out the chief flaw in the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners' argument that a lax regulatory regime could employ the terms "substantial interconnectivity" and "connectivity index" in such a way as to allow developers to do whatever they wish. The argument fails to explain why such a hypothetical "bad regulator" could not twist the Sierra Club's favored term, "connectivity," in the same fashion. If one accepts the hypothetical premise of the "bad regulator" poised to do the bidding of residential developers regardless of any other considerations, then the text of the Plan will hardly matter; the bad regulator will find a way around the Plan's language. In fact, "substantial interconnectivity" is no more or less vague a term than "connectivity." As Mr. Pennock testified, these terms have meaning in the planning profession, and it must be accepted that the County will draft meaningful LDRs to implement FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1, including the challenged terms. In summary, the Sierra Club Petitioners did not establish that an outright ban on gated communities or cul-de- sacs is necessary for the County to have an efficient road network, meet applicable levels of service or Rule 9J-5 requirements, or that such a ban has ever been imposed elsewhere in Florida. It is at least fairly debatable that 2003 FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 appropriately responds to the data and analysis and provides adequate guidance for development of LDRs. Clustering Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(14) defines "clustering" as "the grouping together of structures and infrastructure on a portion of a development site." Clustering is a planning and development technique that transfers the allowable development density onto smaller lots on a portion of the property to be developed, in a tighter development pattern, that reduces road and infrastructure costs and that sets aside the remainder of the property for conservation, agriculture, or general open space. Residential cluster development is generally promoted as a means of conserving open space, rural character, and important environmental resources in new housing developments. According to the County's "Supporting Data and Analysis for Comprehensive Plan Amendments Updating the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020" (the "Data and Analysis"), clustering is a "means to protect the characteristics and features of rural areas, while allowing for rural residential lifestyles." FLUE Policy 7.2.8 of the 1991 Plan required clustering in new rural residential subdivisions with 25 or more lots and made no provision to allow clustering for smaller subdivisions. Proposed clustered developments were required to seek permits as Planned Unit Developments, a lengthy and complicated zoning process that included review by County staff, recommendations by the Board, and final approval or denial by the Board at a public hearing. Every witness who testified on the subject agreed that the clustering provision of the 1991 Plan had been a failure. Only two proposed developments have sought permits as clustered developments, and both were denied. The County approved the construction of phased subdivisions, with each phase containing fewer than 25 lots and built to the base rural density of one unit per five acres. Smaller subdivisions were designed to fall below the 25-lot threshold for clustering. Richard Drummond noted that the 1991 Plan would not allow the developer of these smaller subdivisions to cluster even if he so desired. These subdivisions tend to be platted in such a way that each lot owner also owns a small part of the natural resources found in the subdivision, complicating any efforts by the County to preserve those resources. The consensus of the expert opinion was that clustering failed because developers tend to be conservative in designing subdivisions. Clustering is a new pattern for development, and 1991 FLUE Policy 7.2.8 offered insufficient incentive to developers to take the risk of building and marketing nontraditional developments and left them the option of sizing their developments to avoid the clustering requirement. In the 2002 Plan Update, proposed FLUE Policy 6.2.9 addressed the reluctance of developers to cluster by removing their option to avoid clustering by downsizing their projects. The policy would have required clustering in all new rural residential subdivisions. The 2003 Amendments softened the policy as follows: Policy 6.2.9 Clustering The preferred design for Nnew rural residential subdivisions shall be is that they be clustered in order to protect the characteristics and features of rural areas through the following goals: Protect natural and historic resources. Support continued agricultural activities by preserving viable soils and effective land masses. Minimize land use conflicts. Provide recreational and habitat corridors through linked open space networks. Achieve flexibility, efficiency, and cost reduction in the provision of services and infrastructure. Reduce natural hazard risks to life and property. The 2003 Amendments maintain the clustering requirement for new developments containing 25 or more lots, but attempt to provide more incentives to developers to use clustering in developments of any size. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10, relating to allowable density and intensity of new development, provides for a "density bonus" as follows, in relevant part: The overall development density shall not exceed the maximum gross density of one dwelling unit per five acres for the Rural/Agriculture land use category, except as a result of incentive bonuses for clustering as provided under item 4 below, subject to the resource protection standards in the Conservation and Open Space Element. These standards include the following requirements: * * * 4. As an incentive to cluster new residential subdivisions, if a new residential subdivision in the Rural/Agriculture area is clustered with a minimum of 50% of the development in open space, a total of 2 units in addition to the number of units based on the gross density of 1 unit per 5 acres are allowed, plus 1 additional unit per every 10 acres of conservation area set aside as open space; plus 1 additional unit per every 20 acres non-conservation area set aside as open space. As a further incentive, the 2003 Amendments delete the Planned Unit Development aspect of clustered subdivision approval, expediting the zoning approval process. Under the clustering provisions of the 1991 Plan, rural subdivisions with more than 25 lots were required to set aside 80 percent of their area as open space. The 2003 Amendments reduce this open space set-aside to 50 percent. Richard Drummond persuasively noted that there is no practical reduction in the set-aside, because very few people subjected themselves to the clustering requirement of the 1991 Plan. Also, the 1991 Plan expressly disclaimed any intent that the open spaces remain undeveloped in perpetuity. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.12.4 provides that all future development in designated open space areas is prohibited and requires the filing of a legal instrument that runs with the land establishing that the open space will be maintained and remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Conservation is the highest priority among the open space uses recognized by the 2003 Amendments' provisions on rural development. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.5 requires clustering for a new development of more than 25 lots, then goes on to provide that a new development of fewer than 25 lots must either cluster or employ a development plan "that assures the permanent protection of natural resources consistent with the requirements of the [COSE]." 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.5 further provides that the LDRs will detail the requirements for "management and permanent protection of the ecological value of natural resources in those developments that are not clustered, through legally enforceable mechanisms" that provide protections equivalent to those provided in clustered subdivisions. The Sierra Club Petitioners attacked the 2003 clustering provisions as being inconsistent with the 2002 Data and Analysis, which emphasize that urban sprawl is a major threat to the County's rural agricultural landscape. The Data and Analysis indicated "a rapid rate of conversion of the rural area to allow low density development," and concluded that "the rural land character is threatened by the piece-meal development of residential uses." Sierra Club places special emphasis on a 1992 report sponsored by the American Farmland Trust, Florida's Growth Management Plans: Will Agriculture Survive?, summarized and discussed in the 2002 Data and Analysis as follows: This report noted that the degree to which rural low density residential zones are effective in conserving farmland is directly related to the minimum lot size required for each residence. The larger the minimum lot size, the more effective the zone is in conserving farmland. The current policy [in the 1991 Plan] allowing residential development on 5 acre lots in the rural area is totally ineffective, according to this report. The minimum lot sizes can be rated as follows according to their effectiveness in conserving farmland: under 4.9 acres totally ineffective 5 to 9.9 acres generally ineffective acres moderately ineffective to 20 acres moderately effective 20.1 to 40 acres generally effective over 40 acres highly effective In the six years, 1995-2000, the average numbers for single family and mobile home permits issued by lot size in unincorporated Alachua County were as follows: Less than 3 acres 162 average yearly 3 to 8 acres 182 average yearly 8 to 12 acres 72 average yearly 12 to 20 acres 35 average yearly Total 20 acres or less 511 average yearly[9/] Relying on the quoted section of the Data and Analysis, Sierra Club argues that only mandatory clustering of subdivisions in the rural area can fulfill the goal of protecting the characteristics and features of the rural area. Sierra Club correctly notes that, in adopting the 2003 Amendments, the County provided no additional data and analysis to demonstrate that the density bonuses added to the Plan would lead to clustering under 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.9, which eliminated mandatory clustering and simply made it the "preferred design." Sierra Club contends that the County was required to offer some expert testimony to indicate that density bonuses provided in 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10 would actually cause landowners to choose clustering. Alternatively, Sierra Club argues that if voluntary density-bonus clustering occurred, it could lead to considerably more dwelling units in rural areas than under the 1991 Plan. For example, if a 20-acre parcel with four 5-acre lots were clustered to leave ten acres of conservation area, then a total of seven units would be permitted for the parcel: four units based on the allowed rural density of one unit per five acres; two units as a bonus for leaving 50 percent of the development in open space; and one additional unit for setting aside ten acres of conservation area. Thus, seven units would be permitted, compared with four units that would have been allowed without the bonuses, and these seven would be situated on the ten unpreserved acres on lots with an average size of 1.43 acres. Sierra Club contends that these "ranchettes" would not meet the objective of maintaining viable agriculture and of providing a separation between urban and rural land uses. Thus, Sierra Club argues that, under any view, the 2003 Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 6.1: Rural areas shall protect rural and agriculture areas in a manner consistent with the retention of agriculture, open space, and rural character, and the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and efficient use of public services and facilities. Richard Drummond contended that it is impossible at this point to say that the 2003 Amendments dealing with incentive clustering will not work. He conceded that the density bonuses provided in 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10.4 could be too much or not enough, but that the only way to know is to try it in practice, then use the experience to adjust the incentives in future plan cycles. Mr. Drummond credibly testified that given the lack of clustering that occurred under the mandatory provision of the 1991 Plan, it is a virtual certainty that there will be more clustered development under the 2003 Amendments. Sierra Club's criticism that density-bonus clustering will not have a great impact on the density of development in the rural area is well taken, but beside the point. The very 2002 Data and Analysis upon which Sierra Club bases its argument notes that "rural cluster subdivisions are simply an internal transfer of density involving the same number of dwellings." In other words, the chief purpose of clustering is not to affect overall density of development, but to arrange that development on the land in a more environmentally sensitive, aesthetically pleasing way than traditional grid-style platting of lots. The density bonuses offered by the 2003 Amendments will not notably alter the overall density of rural development, but that is not their main purpose. The County hopes that the density bonuses will provide sufficient incentive for developers to avail themselves of the clustering option. The County did not dispute Sierra Club's argument that the 2002 Data and Analysis support the mandatory clustering for all new development that was adopted in the 2002 Plan Update. However, the County does contend that the 2002 Data and Analysis do not require mandatory clustering as the only way to achieve the goals of retaining the rural character and preserving the environmentally sensitive areas of rural lands. The County is correct that the 2002 Data and Analysis provides a generally positive assessment of clustering, but nowhere forces a reader to conclude that mandatory clustering is required. Even accepting the Data and Analysis suggestion that allowing residential development on five-acre lots in the rural area is "totally ineffective" in conserving farmland and that controls show some effectiveness only when the minimum lot size is increased to ten acres, the fact remains that conserving farmland is not the sole value served by the clustering provision, nor should it be the sole measure of the provision's success. In addition to farmland conservation, 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.9 cites protection of natural and historic resources, minimization of land use conflicts, provision of recreational and habitat corridors through linked open-space networks, achievement of flexibility, efficiency, cost reduction in the provision of services and infrastructure, and reduction of natural hazard risks to life and property as goals of the clustering provisions. While it may be true that lot sizes of more than 40 acres would be "highly effective" in conserving farmland, Alachua County seeks to balance all of the stated goals in its clustering provision and has arrived at a reasonable formula for achieving at least some progress on each of the goals. The County pointed out that Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) identifies clustering as an "innovative and flexible" planning strategy, but does not mandate clustering. Given the County's history of failure with one form of mandatory clustering, it is not unreasonable that it would attempt the application of an incentive program as an alternative. Urban Cluster/Urban Services Line10/ The 2003 Amendments amended the Future Land Use Map series ("FLUM"), a necessary part of the FLUE pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(4). FLUE General Strategy 1 provides that the Plan must: Minimize the conversion of land from rural to urban uses by maximizing the efficient use of available urban infrastructure, while preserving environmentally sensitive areas, according to the following: Designate and maintain on the [FLUM] an urban cluster that sets a boundary for urban growth. Provide incentives for higher average densities for residential development and mixed uses in the urban cluster, including density bonus and transfer of development rights. Provide a range of urban residential densities with the highest densities located in or near urban activity centers, and lower densities located in outlying rural areas or areas of the County which have physical limitations to development. . . . The "Urban Cluster" is defined as: An area on the [FLUM] for urban development, which includes residential densities ranging from one unit per acre to 24 units per acre or greater, non- residential development, and is generally served by urban services. The Urban Cluster designation on the FLUM sets a boundary for urban growth in order to maximize the efficient use of available urban infrastructure and to preserve environmentally sensitive areas to minimize urban sprawl. The 2002 Plan Update uses the Urban Cluster to differentiate between urban and rural uses and encourages higher densities in the Urban Cluster in order to use land efficiently. To further the efficient use of land, the 2002 Plan Update also established an "urban services line" ("USL") within the Urban Cluster. FLUE Policy 7.1.3.A describes the USL as follows: In order to phase development for the Urban Cluster and promote efficient use of land and infrastructure and minimize sprawl, an urban services line is designated in the Future Land Use Map series. The line identifies the limits of the area within the Urban Cluster within which phased development shall be promoted through the year 2010. The USL's ten-year planning period, through 2010, is shorter than the planning period for the Urban Cluster, which is through 2020. The purpose of USL is to provide better timing of development within the urban area, to encourage redevelopment and direct new development to areas where infrastructure exists or will be available. The 2003 Amendments expanded the Urban Cluster as part of the FLUM series. The 2003 Amendments also expanded the USL within the Urban Cluster on the FLUM series. The appropriate size for the USL and the Urban Cluster depends on the amount of land needed for projected population growth. FLUE Policy 7.1.3 establishes the process for determining the need for additional developable land to accommodate the projected population as follows: As part of the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan and any proposed amendments to the Urban Cluster, determine a sufficient and nonexcessive amount of land within the Urban Cluster to accommodate urban uses for a ten year and twenty year time frame. The determination (methodology is shown in Appendix A)[11/] shall be based on a comparison of: a forecast need for land for urban residential and non-residential development based on projected population, average household size, a residential vacancy rate, and a market factor. The market factor for the ten year time frame shall be 2.0. The market factor for the 20 year time frame shall be 1.5. land available in the Urban Cluster for urban residential and non-residential uses. Mapping of environmentally sensitive areas shall be utilized as a factor for determining land availability. If the land comparison shows that the land available is less than the forecast need for land, the following measures shall be considered: revisions to density standards and land development regulations, or other measures, to accommodate greater population within the existing Urban Cluster. coordination with municipalities regarding possible reallocation of forecast need to the incorporated areas. phased expansion of the Urban Cluster. If the forecast need for one type of land use exceeds the supply of land for that particular use, a revision to the allocation of land uses within the Urban Cluster shall be considered before the Urban Cluster is expanded. If this methodology determines expansion of the Urban Cluster is warranted, the evaluation of appropriate location shall be subject to analysis including the following economic, infrastructure, transportation, conservation and recreation criteria: rural character and viable agriculture land and the potential impact of expansion of the Urban Cluster on existing agricultural uses. economic development considerations including affordable housing. relationship to existing and planned future urban services and infrastructure. access to the regional transportation network and multi-modal transportation systems. Conservation and Preservation land uses. planned recreation/open space or greenway systems. Thus, FLUE Policy 7.1.3 provides a three-step process for determining "a sufficient and nonexcessive amount of land" to accommodate urban uses. First, there must be a calculation of the estimated need for land to accommodate the projected population. The second step is to calculate the amount of vacant land currently available for urban residential use. Third, a comparison is made between the need for and the availability of vacant land to determine whether and how the FLUM should be amended. In calculating need, the County built into its formula a safety factor to ensure sufficient land for the future population over the projected time period. The real estate market requires some excess capacity to prevent scarcity-driven price increases, and the County, therefore, included a "market factor" in determining the amount of land that should be designated for development. The 2002 Data and Analysis explained the principle as follows: A market factor is included in the calculation to allow for a measure of flexibility between supply and demand. A sufficient market factor allows flexibility in the siting of development, thereby helping ensure that developers can find locations favored by the market. Market factor is a multiplier used in developing a forecast of future land use needs, specifically housing, to allow for market choice. The market factor results in additional developable land in the urban cluster and thereby can have a positive effect on housing affordability. The market factor also addresses market uncertainty with respect to the accuracy of market predictions, for example if some landowners withhold their land from development. The market factor ensures that enough land is set aside for residential purposes to accommodate these residential support activities-- parks, easements for utilities, churches, to name a few. Across the country the range in factors is as low as 1.15 (Portland, Oregon) to over 2.0 (several Florida locations). Alachua County has used the market factor 2.0 for calculations for the year 2010 and the market factor 1.5 for the year 2020. The County multiplied the number of new dwelling units needed over the 2010 and 2020 planning horizons by the market factors chosen for those periods to arrive at a "total capacity needed" number. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contended that the market factors chosen by the County were too high and that 1.25 was a more reasonable figure for the County. Mr. Pennock, PRPV's planning expert, testified that there is no "final magic answer" to the question of the market factor number. He stated that 1.25 is a "conservative" market factor, and that 2.0 is a professionally acceptable number. It is found that the County's market factors of 2.0 for the year 2010 and 1.5 for the year 2020 were reasonable, in light of all the evidence. After determining the amount of land needed over the planning horizon, the second step in the County's formula is to determine the amount of vacant land currently available for urban residential use. In order to determine the amount of land currently available, there must be a calculation of the number of units per acre available for future residential development. The two components of this calculation are, first, the number of acres presently within the Urban Cluster or USL, and second, the residential dwelling unit density allowed within that acreage. FLUE Objective 1.3 provides that "[g]ross residential densities shall be established to serve as a guideline for evaluating development in Alachua County." FLUE Policy 1.3.2 classifies the densities as follows: The following classification of gross residential densities shall serve as a standard for evaluating development in Alachua County, unless specific provisions are otherwise provided in the Plan. a. Urban Residential Densities - Areas designated on the [FLUM] for gross residential densities of one unit per acre or greater shall be considered as urban in character. There shall be four gross residential density ranges as follows: Low Density One to Four dwelling units per acre Medium Density Greater than Four to less or equal to Eight dwelling units per acre Medium-High Greater than Eight to less than or equal to 14 dwelling units per acre High Density Greater than 14 to less than or equal to 24 dwelling units per acre The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend there was already an excess of acres available for development relative to need for the projected population, even before the 2003 Amendments expanded the Urban Cluster and the USL. They point to the 2002 FLUE Data and Analysis, which explained that the need calculations resulted in a finding that there were 7,396 acres available for urban development beyond the projected need in the Urban Cluster through the year 2010, and 4,378 acres beyond the projected need in the Urban Cluster through the year 2020. The 2002 Data and Analysis concluded: "Therefore there is no need in both 2010 and 2020 for modification of the area designated for urban development." Nonetheless, the 2003 Amendments added an additional 434 acres to the Urban Cluster, thereby increasing the available acres for development to 8,370. Richard Drummond explained that the County discovered, after the EAR process and the adoption of the 2002 Plan Update, that some of the population projections for the unincorporated areas were in error. The County also found miscalculations in terms of the existing housing stock. Mr. Drummond stated that the 2002 projections did not reflect the impact that the Plan's new environmental and floodplain policies could have on existing development capacity, or the fact that some private property owners had made it known their land would not be available for development. Mr. Drummond emphasized that the final need projections reflected the methodology that the County chose to employ and conceded that other methodologies could be used to arrive at different projections. The Sierra Club Petitioners have set forth at some length the methodologies they believe should have been employed by the County as regards establishment of the Urban Cluster and USL. At the outset, the Sierra Club Petitioners have challenged the County's methodology for calculating the number of needed dwelling units and corresponding acreage. They contend that the County calculated an excessive amount of acreage based on outdated historical data, rather than on the maximum gross residential densities allowed under the updated Plan. In making its acreage calculations, the County assumed that the low density residential areas would have an average density of 1.6 dwelling units per acre ("DU/acre"). Sierra Club contends that the County placed undue reliance on historical evidence that the density trends in the low density category was 1.34 DU/acre from 1980-1990, and 1.6 DU/acre from 1991-1997, when the County's own EAR provided more recent evidence that the objective of 2.0 DU/acre was being achieved. Mr. Drummond testified that a goal of the 2002 Plan Update was to increase the density of development within the low-density range. Sierra Club contends that using higher densities in the calculations of needed acreage would better support that goal and that the County was, therefore, required to base its calculations of the land presently available to serve the projected need on the maximum available density. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that basing the projections on historical trends "perpetuates old planning mistakes," and is internally inconsistent with FLUE General Strategy 1's requirement that the Plan provide "incentives for higher average densities for residential development and mixed uses in the urban cluster." They conclude that the maximum available density of 4.0 DU/acre should have been the County's basis for allocating acreage in the low density category, rather than the historically-based 1.6 dwelling units per acre presented by the County. The Sierra Club Petitioners offered a detailed recalculation of the "needed acres" for the Urban Cluster and the USL based on a density of 4.0 DU/acre, rather than 1.6 DU/acre, concluding that Alachua County overestimated the needed land by 2,737 acres in the low-density residential category. They performed a similar recalculation of need in the medium-high and high-density residential categories based on the maximum allowable density, rather than the historic "average density" used by the County. It is not necessary to set out the recalculation here because it is found that the Sierra Club Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the methodology employed by Alachua County to project the acreage needed for development in 2010 and 2020 was so unreasonable as to be beyond fair debate, or that their substituted methodology was correct and accurate beyond fair debate. The Sierra Club Petitioners may be correct in their contention that the Plan's goal of increasing densities in low-density residential developments would be better supported by use of maximum allowable densities in the need projections. There is little doubt that reducing the acreage available for development would force more compact development in the Urban Cluster, but there is no indication that the County's projections present an unreasonable risk of urban sprawl. Both Richard Drummond and Mr. Pennock discussed other Plan goals, such as avoiding a distortion of the real estate market caused by allocating too little land for development, that the Sierra Club Petitioners' methodology arguably does not address or would even subvert. In arriving at its methodology, Alachua County necessarily struck a balance in its priorities. Richard Drummond candidly testified that there were other ways to arrive at the need projections. The Sierra Club Petitioners reasonably disagree with that balance and believe that the community would be better served through tighter controls on expansion of urban development. This is a disagreement to be resolved through the political process and is certainly not beyond "fair debate" for either side of the argument in the context of this administrative proceeding. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the "development factor" employed in the calculation of capacity needed within the Urban Cluster and USL also contributes to inflating the estimate. As part of the formula used to calculate the land needed to accommodate the projected population, Alachua County applied a "development factor" of 0.5 to the residential units available on vacant land identified as "strategic ecosystems" or wetland areas, thus halving the available acreage in those areas. The 0.5 development factor was applied in recognition of the Plan's policies requiring that 50 percent of such lands be preserved from development. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that the County's reasoning ignores FLUE Policy 6.2.10, which allows the landowner to cluster the total number of available residential units for an entire parcel on the developable 50 percent of the property. Thus, while 50 percent of the property is placed in conservation with no dwelling units, the dwelling units for the total acreage can be built on the remaining 50 percent of the property. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that this methodology leads to an understatement of the acreage available for development and, thereby, underestimates the number of available dwelling units. Mr. Drummond explained that the "development factor" is intended to account for several contingencies. Some property owners might not choose to cluster and, therefore, would not develop the remaining 50 percent at the maximum density. More than 50 percent of some properties might be set aside after their boundaries are ground-truthed.12/ Because of such contingencies, the County decided to adjust the calculations so that its estimate would include the net acreage that would be fully available for development. This rationale could lead to some excess of vacant residential lands if a significant number of the conservation/wetlands properties are developed to their maximum density, but it cannot be deemed wrong beyond fair debate for Alachua County to seek certainty under its formula. FLUE Policy 7.1.3.d, set out in full above, requires the County to evaluate the appropriate location for expansion of the Urban Cluster according to the criteria set forth therein. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that Alachua County did not provide data and analysis to demonstrate compliance with these locational standards in its 2003 Amendment to the FLUM for the Urban Cluster. The 2002 FLUE Data and Analysis provide that development outside of the USL "must provide a full compliment of urban services." Mr. Drummond testified that because the 2002 Plan Update requires that all new development in the urban area must hook up to central water and sewer services,13/ the 2002 USL was based on proximity to those services, which became "the primary indicator for the rational progression of urban development." The Sierra Club Petitioners have challenged the 2003 Amendments' expansion of the USL to include all land in "common ownership" outside of the parcels on the 2002 FLUM map. According to Mr. Drummond, the common ownership included parcels where there was "a legal relationship between the corporate entities that owned the property." The Sierra Club Petitioners claim that the County "failed to demonstrate that the method of including all parcels within common ownership within the expanded Urban Cluster or [USL] was a professionally acceptable methodology." The Sierra Club Petitioners assert that the effect of this change is to add property within the USL regardless of proximity to existing infrastructure in contravention of 2002 FLUE Policy 7.1.3(d). It is found that the County's recognition of properties under common ownership in setting the USL, where at least part of the property meets all criteria for inclusion within the USL, appears on its face to be a sensible amendment. In this proceeding, the burden was not on the County to demonstrate that its methodology was "professionally acceptable." Rather, the burden was on Petitioners to demonstrate that the methodology did not meet the "fairly debatable" standard of acceptability. Petitioners failed to make that demonstration as to this issue. The Sierra Club Petitioners claim that because the expansion of the USL in the 2003 Amendments was based on availability of central water and sewer, it is internally inconsistent with other provisions of the Plan. FLUE Principle 2 requires the Plan to "[b]ase new development upon the provision of necessary services and infrastructure." FLUE General Strategy 1.f. provides that the Plan should: Minimize the conversion of land from rural to urban uses by maximizing the efficient use of available urban infrastructure, while preserving environmentally sensitive areas, according to the following: * * * f. Time development approval in conjunction with the economic and efficient provision of supporting community facilities, urban services, and infrastructure, such as streets, utilities, police and fire protection service, emergency medical service, mass transit, public schools, recreation and open space, in coordination with the Capital Improvements Element. The Sierra Club Petitioners assert that the County has failed to comply with these provisions because it based the expansion of the Urban Cluster and the USL on only one form of infrastructure, central sewer and water, while ignoring the availability of "supporting community facilities, urban services, and infrastructure" such as schools, police and fire protection, emergency medical service, mass transit, and recreation and open space. The evidence does not support this assertion beyond fair debate. The USL is a timing and phasing mechanism for development within the Urban Cluster over a ten-year planning horizon and is intended to encourage redevelopment and to direct new development to areas where public infrastructure exists or will be available. To the east, the County has located the USL coterminously with the Urban Cluster in order to promote redevelopment in the east Gainesville area. To the west, the USL is located a quarter-mile outward from existing and planned central water and sewer lines, without splitting ownership lines on individual parcels, except that in an area to the southwest near Archer Road, the USL is located a half- mile from existing and planned central water and sewer lines in order to promote this area as a future transit corridor. It is at least fairly debatable that the establishment and location of the USL is supported by appropriate data and analysis and that the County considered other infrastructure factors in drawing the lines of its urban boundaries. Water and Sewer Line Extensions In the 1991 Plan, Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Element ("PWSSE") Policy 8.2 provided, in relevant part: Proposed extensions of potable water and sanitary sewer lines outside of the urban service area designated by the [FLUE] shall be subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. . . . The 2002 Plan Update renumbered the quoted provision as PWSSE Policy 3.5 and changed the term "urban service area" to "Urban Services Line," but otherwise left the text unamended. The 2003 Amendments changed the term "Urban Services Line" to "Urban Cluster." The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the effect of the latter change is to allow the extension of water and sewer outside the USL, but within the Urban Cluster without the approval of the Board. They point out that the City of Gainesville owns and operates Gainesville Regional Utilities ("GRU") and that Alachua County historically has had little to no control over the pattern of development based on utility service. Mr. Drummond conceded that allowing the utility provider to dictate the pattern of development led to low- density sprawl. Thus, the Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the 2003 Amendment to PWSSE Policy 3.5 weakens the ability of the County to control growth through the phasing envisioned by the USL, because the County has no control over how the growth is "phased" when it lacks control over utilities. The County replies that the 2003 Amendments' change of "Urban Services Line" to "Urban Cluster" merely corrects a scrivener's error. Mr. Drummond testified that the 2002 Plan Update version of PWSSE Policy 3.5, requiring Board approval of water and sewer extensions outside the USL, unintentionally conflicted with FLUE Policy 7.1.3.B, which provides a mechanism for development to occur outside the USL but within the Urban Cluster without Board approval. The 2003 Amendment corrected the error and brought PWSSE Policy 3.5 into harmony with FLUE Policy 7.1.3.B. It is found that the 2003 Amendment to PWSSE Policy 3.5 does not represent a substantive change to the Plan. As to Petitioner's "lack of control" critique, the County responds that the City of Gainesville's Plan calls for coordination with the County's Plan when proposing utility line extensions. Mr. Drummond testified that the City of Gainesville's Plan recognizes that GRU will extend its utility lines in the unincorporated area in a manner consistent with the County's Plan. It is at least fairly debatable that the 2003 Amendments are supported by data and analysis and do not inappropriately delegate planning authority to the City of Gainesville or GRU. 2003 COSE Amendments Strategic Ecosystems The 1991 Plan employed the term "conservation area" to describe properties meriting special protection, including areas with significant geologic features such as springs and caves, wetlands, areas subject to 100-year flooding, and surface waters and their transitional zones. The 2002 Plan Update recognized both "primary" and "secondary" conservation areas. 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.1 provided: Primary conservation areas shall consist of natural resources that, because of their ecological value, uniqueness and particular sensitivity to development activities, require stringent protective measures to sustain their ecological integrity. These areas shall include: Wetlands; Surface waters; Wellfield protection areas; Listed species habitat; Significant geologic features; and Strategic ecosystems.[14/] "Strategic ecosystem" was a new term added by the 2002 Plan Update and was defined in the 2002 COSE definitions as follows: Outstanding examples of ecosystems that are intact or capable of restoration and that require conservation or management to maintain important reserves of biodiversity at landscape, natural community and species specific levels. Strategic ecosystems are greater than 20 acres in size and contain one or more natural ecological communities, including but not limited to scrub, sandhill, xeric hammock, upland pine forest, upland mixed forest, mesic hammock, prairie hammock, wet prairie, seepage slope, slope forest, mesic flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, floodplain forest, baygall, wet flatwoods, and hydric hammock. The natural resources that comprise strategic ecosystems are identified through means including, but not limited to: the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's "Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System" (1994), as supplemented with "Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled Life in Florida" (2000); FDEP's "Statewide Ecological Network," contained in The Greenways System Planning Project (1998); the Florida Natural Areas Inventory; and Golder's "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" (1996). 2002 COSE Objective 4.10, not amended in 2003, provides that it is the County's objective to "[p]rotect, conserve, enhance, and manage the ecological integrity of strategic ecosystems in Alachua County." The 2002 COSE Policies implementing Objective 4.10, which were all new to the 2002 Plan Update, provided: Policy 4.10.1 Conserve ecosystems that are determined to be strategic based on an overall assessment of the following characteristics: Natural ecological communities that exhibit: Native biodiversity within or across natural ecological communities. Ecological integrity. Rarity. Functional connectedness. Plant and animal species habitat that is: Documented for listed species. Documented for species with large home ranges. Documented as a special wildlife migration or aggregation site for activities such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting, or over-wintering. High in vegetation quality and species diversity. Low in non-native invasive species. Size, shape, and landscape features that allow the ecosystem to be restored to or maintained in good condition with regular management activities, such as prescribed burning, removal of exotic vegetation, or hydrological restoration. Policy 4.10.2 Strategies shall be implemented through the land use planning and development review process to ensure that each strategic ecosystem is evaluated and protected based on the integrity of the ecological unit. Policy 4.10.3 The County shall create special area plans in cooperation with landowners to establish specific guidelines for strategic ecosystems prior to approval of land use change, zoning change, or development approval. The County shall devise a schedule for creating special area plans, based on current development pressures and anticipated priorities. The County shall create special area plans for each strategic ecosystem, in accordance with the schedule and with the standards under Objective 3.6.[15/] If an applicant seeks development prior to the County's creation of a special area plan for a particular strategic ecosystem, the applicant has two avenues for pursuing development. A special area study may be conducted at the applicant's expense. Alternatively, if the applicant demonstrates that the ecological integrity of the strategic ecosystem will be sufficiently protected, the applicant may proceed according to the clustering provisions in policies under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUE]. Policy 4.10.4 Management strategies for strategic ecosystems shall be developed with landowners in conjunction with special area plans and may include, but are not limited to: Prescribed burning. Control of invasive species. Silvicultural activities according to BMPs [best management practices], with particular emphasis on maintenance and improvement of water quality, biological health, and the function of natural systems. Reduction in the intensity of site preparation activities, including bedding and herbicide application. Provision for listed species habitat needs, including restricting, at appropriate times, intrusions into sensitive feeding and breeding areas. Cooperative efforts and agreements to help promote or conduct certain management activities, such as cleanups, maintenance, public education, observation, monitoring, and reporting. Land acquisition. Policy 4.10.5 Clustering shall be required so that at least 80% of each strategic ecosystem is preserved as undeveloped area. Development shall be designed in accordance with the standards under Objective 3.6 of this Element. In the rural area, development shall also comply with standards under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUM]. Policy 4.10.6 The County shall provide regulatory flexibility to facilitate planning across multiple parcels that protects the integrity of the strategic ecosystem as an ecological unit. Existing cluster and PUD ordinances shall be revised to enhance long-term protection of strategic ecosystems. Policy 4.10.7 The County shall work with owners of agricultural and silvicultural lands to retain the ecological integrity and ecological value of strategic ecosystems through management plans and incentives. A management plan shall be required before any activity occurs in a strategic ecosystem that has not been used for agriculture or silviculture within the last 20 years, in accordance with the following: The management plan shall provide for retention of the ecological integrity and ecological value of the strategic ecosystem. The management plan shall be submitted to Alachua County for review and approval by appropriately qualified technical staff. The management plan may be satisfied by Forest Stewardship Council certification, land acquisition, or participation in a conservation program sponsored by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Passive recreational and ecotourism activities shall be encouraged where consistent with protection of the ecological integrity of the strategic ecosystem. The County shall, through community outreach and collaboration, facilitate participation of landowners in forestry certification programs, land acquisition programs, and federal and state cost-share conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, and the Farmland Protection Program. Policy 4.10.8 Alachua County shall implement an ordinance that specifically addresses the preservation of strategic ecosystems, significant plant and wildlife habitat, habitat corridors, and vegetative communities. The 2003 Amendments deleted 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.2, which had defined "secondary" conservation areas. The 2003 Amendments amended 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.1, set forth above, by deleting the first word, "Primary." The effect of these amendments is that the policy now simply defines "conservation areas" without distinction as to their being "primary" or "secondary." The 2003 Amendments also deleted "Wellfield protection areas" from the definition of "conservation areas," replacing it with "100-year floodplains." Finally, the 2003 Amendments changed the definition of "strategic ecosystem" to read: Outstanding examples of ecosystems that are intact or capable of restoration and that require conservation or management to maintain important reserves of biodiversity at landscape, natural community and species specific levels. Strategic ecosystems are greater than 20 acres in size and contain one or more natural ecological communities, including but not limited to scrub, sandhill, xeric hammock, upland pine forest, upland mixed forest, mesic hammock, prairie hammock, wet prairie, seepage slope, slope forest, mesic flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, floodplain forest, baygall, wet flatwoods, and hydric hammock. The natural resources that comprise strategic ecosystems are identified through means including, but not limited to: the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's "Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System"(1994), as supplemented with "Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled Life in Florida"(2000); FDEP's "Statewide Ecological Network," contained in The Greenways System Planning Project (1998); the Florida Natural Areas Inventory; and Sites that are identified in the KBN/Golder's Associates report, "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" (1996). The 2003 Amendments amended the 2002 COSE Policies implementing Objective 4.10 as follows: Policy 4.10.1 Conserve strategic ecosystems that are determined through ground-truthing using the KBN/Golder report as a guide to be strategic maintain or enhance biodiversity based on an overall assessment of the following characteristics: Natural ecological communities that exhibit: Native biodiversity within or across natural ecological communities. Ecological integrity. Rarity. Functional connectedness. Plant and animal species habitat that is: Documented for listed species. Documented for species with large home ranges. Documented as a special wildlife migration or aggregation site for activities such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting, or over-wintering. High in vegetation quality and species diversity. Low in non-native invasive species. Size, shape, and landscape features that allow the ecosystem to be restored to or maintained in good condition with regular management activities, such as prescribed burning, removal of exotic vegetation, or hydrological restoration. The Alachua County 2001 digital orthophotographic series (for purposes of this policy, the date of this photography is March 1, 2001) shall presumptively establish the baseline condition of the strategic ecosystem property as of the effective date of this policy. The County shall adopt land development regulations that set forth additional guidance for the determination of whether and the extent to which strategic ecosystems exist on a property. * * * Policy 4.10.4 Management strategies for strategic ecosystems shall be developed with landowners in conjunction with special area plans or cluster developments and may include, but are not limited to: Prescribed burning. Control of invasive species. Silvicultural activies according to BMPs [best management practices], with particular emphasis on maintenance and improvement of water quality, biological health, and the function of natural systems. Reduction in the intensity of site preparation activities, including bedding and herbicide application. Provision for listed species habitat needs, including restricting, at appropriate times, intrusions into sensitive feeding and breeding areas. Cooperative efforts and agreements to help promote or conduct certain management activities, such as cleanups, maintenance, public education, observation, monitoring, and reporting. Land acquisition. * * * Policy 4.10.5 Clustering shall be required so that at least 80% of each strategic ecosystem is preserved as undeveloped area. Development shall be designed in accordance with the standards under Objective 3.6 of this Element. In the rural area, development shall also comply with standards under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUM]. Policy 4.10.5 Each strategic ecosystem shall be preserved as undeveloped area, not to exceed 50% of the upland portion of the property without landowner consent and in accordance with the following: Upland areas required to be protected pursuant to policies for significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall be counted in calculation of the 50% limitation, however, the extent of protection of significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall not be reduced by this limitation. This limitation shall not apply to 100-year floodplains and wellfield protection areas, which are addressed independently through policies under Objectives 4.8 and 4.5, respectively. This limitation shall not restrict in any way state and federal agency protections. The remaining Policies implementing 2002 COSE Objective 4.10 were not amended by the 2003 Amendments. Thus, the definition of "strategic ecosystem" was amended from an identification of sites based upon the characteristics of their ecological communities to a question of whether a given property is found on a "strategic ecosystems" map sourced from the "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" prepared by KBN/Golder Associates (the "KBN/Golder Report"). In 1986, the County retained the Gainesville firm of KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. ("KBN") to conduct a survey of potential ecologically significant upland properties. The purpose of the survey, completed in 1987, was to provide information on important upland sites for planning purposes, principally to complete the Conservation Element of what would become the 1991 Plan, and to assist the Alachua County Conservation and Recreation Areas Task Force in greenbelt planning. In November 1996, the County commissioned KBN, now a subsidiary of Golder Associates, to produce the KBN/Golder Report, which built upon the 1987 survey to compile the most extensive study to date of ecological communities in the County. The stated purpose of the KBN/Golder Report was to "identify, inventory, map, describe, and evaluate the most significant biological communities, both upland and wetland, in private ownership in Alachua County and make recommendations for protecting these natural resources." A total of 47 sites were identified and ranked based on their quality of vegetation and landscape ecology, their status as habitats for endangered species and wildlife in general, their hydrology, and their management potential. The 1996 KBN/Golder Report was more comprehensive than its predecessor study in that it covered a larger area, evaluated wetlands as well as uplands, and included mapping of ecological connections and biological communities. KBN/Golder accumulated and evaluated a wide range of data in the process of preparing the Report including: the 1987 KBN survey; a 1995 set of infrared aerial photographs provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District ("SJRWMD"), as well as a 1986 set of infrareds provided by the Alachua County Department of Environmental Services; a 1994 set of black and white aerial photographs provided by the Alachua County Property Appraiser's Office; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWCC") habitat distribution maps; SJRWMD wetlands vegetation maps; Florida Natural Areas Inventory natural community/plant community classification categories; and SJRWMD and Suwannee River Water Management District Floridan Aquifer recharge maps. The KBN/Golder Report described its methodology and limitations as follows: The inventories were done by David Clayton and Bob Simons, working separately. Landowners were contacted where access was necessary for the survey work, and those lands where access was denied were inventoried using aerial photographs, outside sources of information, and whatever information could be obtained by observations from the property boundary. Initially, a review was made of the USGS topographic quadrangle maps (various dates) and aerial photographs... to determine access, location of communities, drainage features, and karst features. Next, vehicle or pedestrian surveys of all accessible areas were used to get an overall view; to discern as many biocommunities as possible; to look for exotic species, listed species, or signs of habitat for listed species; and to evaluate the overall wildlife habitat and the condition of the communities. Specific sites were chosen to inventory in more detail. Limitations for this survey were the large number of sites, the vast acreage, and the restricted time available. Thousands of acres on 47 sites were surveyed within 8 weeks, necessitating limited survey time on the larger sites. Terrestrial species were emphasized because 90 percent of the area surveyed is terrestrial. The Jonesville Petitioners contested the validity of the 2003 Amendments regarding strategic ecosystems on several grounds. Common to all these grounds is a disagreement on the meaning of the strategic ecosystems definition and its interplay with COSE Objective 4.10 and its implementing policies, as amended by the 2003 Amendments. The Jonesville Petitioners argue that defining the term "strategic ecosystem" by way of the map in the KBN/Golder Report is fatally flawed because it provides no flexibility. If a property is identified on the KBN/Golder Report map, then it is a strategic ecosystem subject to the restrictions of COSE Objective 4.10, without regard to the facts on the ground. The definition makes no provision for ground-truthing the property prior to inclusion in the strategic ecosystem category. The County responds that 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for more detailed identification of strategic ecosystems through ground-truthing, using the KBN/Golder Report as a guide. 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 also provides that the County's LDRs will provide additional guidance to determine whether and to what extent, strategic ecosystems exist on a property. The Jonesville Petitioners answer that there is a fundamental conflict in the policy's purported use of the KBN/Golder Report as a "guide" to delineating strategic ecosystems, when the definition provides that identification on the KBN/Golder Report is all that is required to establish a property as a strategic ecosystem. Subsequently adopted LDRs cannot provide guidance as to whether strategic ecosystems exist on a property; by definition, the KBN/Golder Report map determines whether there are strategic ecosystems. The Jonesville Petitioners argue that the only correct way to take a property out of the strategic ecosystem category would be to amend the adopted KBN/Golder Report map, thus amending the definition of "strategic ecosystem." The Jonesville Petitioners' argument fundamentally concedes that, if the definition were to provide for ground- truthing based on the characteristics set forth in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1, it would be unexceptionable. However, they point out that 2003 COSE Objective 4.10 and its policies apply to all "strategic ecosystems," that "strategic ecosystems" are also subject to regulation as "conservation areas" under COSE Policy 3.1.1, and that the ground-truthing provided by 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 does nothing to change the definition. Under this definitional scheme, a landowner whose property is identified on the KBN/Golder Report map can do nothing to take his property out of the strategic ecosystems definition, short of petitioning the County to amend its Plan, and is subject to all COSE provisions dealing with strategic ecosystems. The undersigned agrees with the Jonesville Petitioners that the County would have been better served to refine its definition of "strategic ecosystem" to include the standards set forth in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. The undersigned does not agree that the County's failure to do so invalidates the definition under the "fairly debatable" standard, given the County's interpretation of the interplay among the applicable policies. By using the KBN/Golder Report map to set the boundaries of strategic ecosystems, the County attempted to delineate reasonably large, contiguous areas, rather than create a "swiss cheese" pattern of intermixed conservation and non-conservation lands; i.e., designating isolated pockets of conservation within a large non-conservation area, or vice versa. The County made a general determination that strategic ecosystem site boundaries should be delineated with simple straight lines, rather than by the edges of land features, such as vegetative cover. The County reasonably decided that a straight boundary, such as a section line is easier to administer and more easily communicated to the public than a natural feature such as vegetation, which would require a survey and is often characterized by a gradual change, rather than the sharp demarcation necessary for a boundary. The County recognized that under this approach, strategic ecosystems would include some areas neither particularly environmentally sensitive, nor valuable as habitat. 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for ground-truthing to further refine the delineation of the boundaries of the strategic ecosystem properties to more specifically identify the most environmentally sensitive portions of the property and to assist in the determination of appropriate protection measures. Under the COSE Objective 4.10 policies, set forth in full above, the County will use the KBN/Golder Report map and the more detailed information provided by additional ground-truthing to identify the least environmentally sensitive portion of the strategic ecosystem property, so that any development can be directed and clustered there, and away from the most environmentally sensitive portion of the property. The landowner will retain the right to transfer the same number of residential units as allowed by the density limits of the underlying land use classification to the least sensitive portion of the property, notwithstanding the strategic ecosystems designation. The County's explanation of the interplay among the Plan provisions effectively addresses the concerns of the Jonesville Petitioners regarding "erroneously mapped" parcels, i.e., parcels that are identified on the KBN/Golder Report map, but that, in fact, are not environmentally sensitive. The Jonesville Petitioners are technically correct that because identification on the KBN/Golder Report map defines a property as a strategic ecosystem, subsequent ground-truthing does nothing to remove the property from that definition. However, the Jonesville Petitioners' argument depends on a reading of the Plan that is not merely literal, but blinkered. One must accept that the definition is absolutely controlling and that if a property is on the KBN/Golder Report map, then every individual plan provision referencing "strategic ecosystem" will apply to the property regardless of the natural characteristics found on the ground. A fair reading of the 2003 Amendments makes it clear that the definition of "strategic ecosystem" is the beginning of the analysis, not the end. The County acknowledged that, while the data on the KBN/Golder Report map are professionally accepted for general planning purposes, the data are not detailed enough for regulatory purposes on the level of individual parcels. Thus, once the map designates a property as a strategic ecosystem, 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 requires ground- truthing to determine whether and to what extent that strategic ecosystem is subject to conservation. Later adopted LDRs will provide additional guidance "for the determination of whether and the extent to which strategic ecosystems exist on a property." This treatment is similar to that found in 2002 COSE Policy 3.3.4 regarding conservation and preservation areas on the FLUM generally: Site Specific Delineation: The parcel- specific boundaries of preservation and conservation areas shall be verified by ground surveys conducted in the course of special studies or development review. County-initiated mapping efforts shall be performed at the County's expense, except when an applicant seeks land use change, zoning change, or development approval prior to the completion of the County's mapping efforts, consistent with [COSE] policies 3.4.2 and 4.10.3. Conservation policies shall be applied based on the resulting site specific delineation. The referenced 2002 COSE Policy 3.4.2 provides: Where site specific analysis or verification is required to determine the presence of natural resources protected under this Element, the cost of such analysis or verification shall be borne by the applicant. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that there is an internal inconsistency in the fact that the definition of strategic ecosystem does not include the criteria found in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. However, the parameters used by KBN/Golder Report to score and rank the sites that appear on the map include: vegetation value (species diversity, presence of exotics); endangered species habitat value (plant and animal); wildlife habitat value; hydrology; landscape ecology (community diversity, ecological quality, community rarity, functional connectedness); and management potential. These parameters are consistent with the characteristics listed in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. The Jonesville Petitioners point out that the design of the KBN/Golder Report map was such that no parcel less than 20 acres in size was identified, resulting in the omission of thousands of acres countywide that possess the characteristics identified in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 as indicative of strategic ecosystems. The Jonesville Petitioners claim that this presents an internal inconsistency in the Plan, because the COSE policies would protect only 25 percent of those unmapped properties (under 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12 addressing upland habitat), rather than the 50 percent protected by the strategic ecosystems policies. This alleged inconsistency is simply another example of the County's reasonable policy choice to focus its conservation efforts on larger, more contiguous properties, rather than a myriad of small-acreage lands. Even the 2002 definition of "strategic ecosystem," not challenged by the Jonesville Petitioners, limited strategic ecosystems to properties greater than 20 acres in size. The smaller sites will remain subject to regulation on a site-specific basis as they are proposed for development. The Jonesville Petitioners appear to insist, absent any pending development applications with the County or even any present plans to develop, on their right to have the Plan and its incorporated maps provide them with a definitive, binding delineation of their properties and, thus, their development potential. This claim is unrealistic, given that such a general right would require County staff to ground- truth hundreds of thousands of acres countywide before a conservation land use category could be established at all. The KBN/Golder Report map is sufficient to place landowners, such as the Jonesville Petitioners, on notice of their need to inquire as to the status of their properties prior to the initiation of development activities. Parcel- specific regulation requires parcel-specific ground-truthing, and 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for such ground-truthing. Further, 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.3 provides that the County will create special area plans for strategic ecosystems "based on current development pressures and anticipated priorities." It further provides that an applicant in the position of the Jonesville Petitioners may pay for its own special area plan, should it not wish to wait on the County to complete its plan process. Finally, the Jonesville Petitioners attack 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1's use of the Alachua County 2001 digital orthophotographic series dated March 1, 2001, to "presumptively establish the baseline condition of the strategic ecosystem property as of the effective date of this policy." They contend that it is uncertain how the County will treat properties on which the owners have altered ecosystems in the period between the 2001 orthophotographs and 2003 adoption of the new COSE policies and that the policy would have a retroactive impact of dubious constitutionality if the County were to require restoration of those properties to their 2001 state. This valid concern of the Jonesville Petitioners is prematurely raised in this proceeding. The evidence at hearing failed to demonstrate that the County would not allow a landowner to provide information through the development review process to demonstrate that the condition of the property had changed after March 1, 2001, and prior to the effective date of the 2003 Amendments. In summary, it is found that the mere fact that the County determined that the definition of "strategic ecosystem" shall consist of the identification of properties on the KBN/Golder Report map is a fairly debatable decision, given the manner in which that definition is put into effect through amended COSE Objective 4.10 and its implementing policies. The Jonesville Petitioners entered reports prepared by their environmental consultant concerning particular properties and their unsuitability for designation as strategic ecosystems and presented extensive testimony on the subject. The County presented testimony as to each of the Jonesville Petitioners' properties to support the County's contention that they are indeed strategic ecosystems. Each of the Jonesville properties is a small portion of a much larger parcel on the KBN/Golder Report strategic ecosystems map. It is unnecessary to make detailed findings of fact as to the environmental quality of these properties. As the findings above indicate, the appropriate time to consider the qualities of particular properties will be during the special area planning process and/or the development review process.16/ Uplands Habitat 2002 COSE Objective 4.9, titled "Biodiversity," provides: Maintain and enhance plant and animal species diversity and distribution within Alachua County by protecting significant plant and wildlife habitats, providing for habitat corridors, and preventing habitat fragmentation. The 2002 Plan Update provisions implementing COSE Objective 4.9 provided as follows: Policy 4.9.1 A critical portion of each significant plant and wildlife habitat type in Alachua County shall be protected. Protection shall be accomplished using all available methods, including land acquisition, incentives and requirements for the provision of conservation or preservation areas, habitat corridors, greenways, and common open space. Policy 4.9.2 During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall minimize the effects of development on significant plant and wildlife habitat. All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25% of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site. The habitat to be conserved shall be selected based on the quality and viability of the habitat. The County shall work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside. Conserved habitat shall be located and maintained in areas with intact canopy, understory and groundcover in functional, clustered arrangement which maximizes use by wildlife and maintains the long-term viability of native upland plant communities. Linkages to habitat corridors and greenways shall be required where available. The County shall have the authority to accept alternatives to onsite conservation that provide for the long-term protection and management of significant plant and wildlife habitat of equal or greater habitat value that would not have otherwise been preserved. The land development regulations shall establish criteria for determining which projects warrant the use of alternatives to onsite conservation. Criteria may include but are not limited to: the size of the development site, habitat quality, uniqueness, connectivity, management opportunities, and adjacent uses. Off-site conservation shall not be permitted for listed species habitat that is capable of being managed or restored on- site as a high quality natural plant or animal community or communities. This requirement is not intended to limit the effect of other resource-specific protective measures in this element, such as clustering and buffers. Policy 4.9.3 The County shall require the development and implementation of management plans for all significant plant and wildlife habitat that is to be protected. The management plan shall be prepared at the expense of the developer by an appropriately qualified professional and provide for the following: Removal of invasive vegetation and debris. Replanting with native vegetation as necessary. Maintenance of biodiversity, with special emphasis on protection of listed plant and animal species. Any additional measures determined to be necessary to protect and maintain the functions and values of the habitat conservation areas while ensuring protection from wildfire. Policy 4.9.4[17/] The County shall consult with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services or other appropriate agencies prior to authorizing development that could result in potential adverse impacts to any listed species. The County shall utilize these recommendations to provide specific requirements regarding development where these species are encountered. Conditions of approval shall ensure the maintenance and, where feasible and appropriate, increase the abundance and distribution of populations of listed species. Policy 4.9.5 The use of listed plant and wildlife species habitat shall be restricted to that which is compatible with the requirements of listed species. Development activities[18/] that would threaten the life or habitat of any listed species shall not be permitted. Policy 4.9.6 The County shall prohibit the alteration of natural shorelines or degradation of water quality where listed species feed or breed, through the establishment of buffers as set out in [COSE] Policy 3.6.8. The County shall encourage the restoration of degraded shorelines when possible. Policy 4.9.7[19/] The County shall periodically review monitoring data from federal, state, regional, and local agencies to determine the status of listed species habitats in Alachua County. The County shall use this information to maintain and provide, for the convenience of the public, a table of listed species and listed species habitats in Alachua County. Policy 4.9.8 The County shall recommend specific management and recovery strategies for listed species, as they are developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and shall assist in their implementation. These management techniques shall be incorporated into the land development regulations, as well as the management plans of County-owned preservation areas. Policy 4.9.9 Wildlife habitat enhancement and management programs in urban areas shall be promoted through such techniques as designation of bird sanctuary areas where rookeries or other significant bird populations exist and landscaping schemes for stormwater detention and retention areas that maintain native vegetation and establish littoral zones which encourages wildlife usage. Policy 4.9.10 The County shall develop incentives designed to encourage private land owners to manage land holdings for wildlife attributes. Policy 4.9.11 The County shall establish and preserve habitat corridors that connect significant plant and wildlife habitats throughout the County. The County shall perform an objective analysis to determine the appropriateness of habitat corridors, how extensive they should be, the location of potential corridors, what fiscal resources are available for implementation, and economic incentives for property owners to voluntarily participate in formation of a habitat corridor program. The 2003 Amendments changed 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2 as follows: During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall minimize the effects of development on significant plant and wildlife habitat. All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25% of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site, subject to the limitation in 4.9.12. The habitat to be conserved shall be selected based on the quality and viability of the habitat. The County shall work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside. . . . The 2003 Amendments added a new COSE Policy 4.9.12, which reads as follows: Policy 4.9.12 Upland habitat protections under Objective 4.9 shall be limited as follows: No more than 25% of the upland portion of a property may be required to be set aside for preservation pursuant to policies under this Objective without landowner consent. Upland areas required to be protected pursuant to policies for significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall be counted in calculation of the 25% limitation, however, the extent of protection of significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall not be reduced by this limitation. This limitation shall not apply to 100-year floodplains and wellfield protection areas, which are addressed independently through policies under Objectives 4.8 [Flood Plains and Floodways] and 4.5 [Groundwater], respectively. This limitation shall not restrict in any state and federal agency protections. For purposes of applying this limitation, a property shall include all contiguous land under common ownership or control. Properties may not be disaggregated, processed in piecemeal fashion, reviewed or developed in any manner that results in lesser upland protections than would otherwise be required under this Objective. The Sierra Club Petitioners challenged these uplands policies on several grounds. The 2002 Plan Update, as amended in 2003, provides two kinds of protection to uplands. The most highly protected upland is one established as part of a strategic ecosystem. Under 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.5, up to 50 percent of the upland portion of a strategic ecosystem can be preserved as undeveloped area without the landowner's consent. A lesser level of protection is afforded to "significant plant and wildlife habitat." The 2002 Plan Update defines "significant habitat" as "contiguous stands of natural upland plant communities which have been documented to support, and which have the potential to maintain, healthy and diverse populations of plants or wildlife." Under 2003 COSE Policies 4.9.2 and 4.9.12, up to 25 percent of the upland portion of "significant plant and wildlife habitat" may be set aside for preservation without the landowner's consent. Neither the strategic ecosystems provision nor the significant plant and wildlife habitat provision purports to restrict or lessen any protections afforded by state or federal law. The Sierra Club Petitioners complain that the 2003 Amendments modify the categories and levels of upland protection which had been adopted in the 2002 Plan Update, that these modifications weaken the environmental protection provided to upland vegetative communities and habitats, and that the modifications are based on legislative settlement of the 2002 administrative challenge, not on any science or new data or analysis. The 2002 Plan Update was supported by the 1998 EAR and the 2002 Data and Analysis documents. On December 10, 2002, during the settlement process that culminated in the 2003 Amendments, Alachua County's environmental protection director, Chris Bird, produced a memorandum titled "Response to Questions Raised on Conservation Issues in the 12/2/02 Special [Board] Comp Plan Meeting," referred to hereinafter as "the Bird Memo." As of December 2, 2002, mediation had commenced in the 2002 administrative challenge, but the parties had yet to crystallize their respective positions into what would become the 2003 Amendments. As indicated by its full title, the Bird Memo contains the County staff's explanation of the basis for the conservation policies in the 2002 Amendments. The memo sets forth citations to and quotes from the 2002 Data and Analysis, and supplements this with its own comments on the propriety or necessity for the changes to the 1991 Plan made by the 2002 Amendments. The Sierra Club Petitioners point out that the Bird Memo offers a clear explanation as to how the 2002 Plan Update was based on the 1998 EAR and the 2002 Data and Analysis. They contend that there is no equivalent documentation in the record of this case that explains how the 2003 Amendments were based on the Data and Analysis. In answer to the question, "What's wrong with the old [1991] Comprehensive Plan and why do we have to change it?," the Bird Memo stated: Of 70 measurable objectives set forth for the Conservation portion of the [1998] EAR, less than a third of those objectives were met without caveat. At least 10 objectives were not met, and another 40 objectives were only partially met, met in limited fashion, or were in need of revision/update. The Bird Memo noted that the 1998 EAR made the following recommendations under the heading, "Permitted Uses in Conservation Areas": Review and revise requirements for development in ecologically sensitive/environmentally significant areas. Using the PUD[20/] or a modified Cluster Ordinance, consider the following modifications at a minimum: (1) modify the comprehensive plan to include additional natural communities identified in the 1996 ecological inventory [i.e., the KBN/Golder study]; (2) require clustering for all development and eliminate the 20-acre parcel threshold; (3) require stricter long-term protection for Conservation areas and significant natural communities; (4) increase the 50% minimum set-aside; (5) include incentives/requirements for permanent set-aside arrangements. The Bird Memo went on to set forth staff's recommendation as to what "stricter long-term protection for conservation areas and significant natural communities" necessitates for "significant habitat": Significant habitat is defined in the [2002] Comprehensive Plan update as contiguous stands of natural upland plant communities that support and maintain healthy and diverse populations of plants or wildlife. Sandhill and xeric hammock are two examples. Industrial pine plantations are not significant habitat because they are not natural communities. FAC 9J-5 requires that the Conservation Element include objectives and policies that conserve and protect native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat from destruction by development activities. The Plan update approaches this protection at two scales: strategic ecosystems are important at a larger geographical scale; significant habitat and listed species habitat are important at smaller scales. The purpose is to identify and protect natural systems and their fundamental building blocks before they are in the "emergency room" at the brink of crisis, when they can still be preserved for the future in healthy form. To accomplish this, the largest remaining wild areas are afforded the greatest protection (80% preservation of strategic ecosystems), while the smaller but significant natural habitat areas are afforded lesser but still meaningful protection (25% preservation of significant habitat). There is no percentage associated with listed species habitat protection, but protection is determined on a case-by-case basis depending on species and site characteristics. The requirement for 25% preservation of native habitat is clearly less than what is needed to stop habitat and species declines, but represents a compromise.[21/] This percentage was chosen in order to provide for the conditions necessary to preserve some degree of ecological integrity while accommodating the needs of development. . . . The Sierra Club Petitioners concede that some of the quoted conservation recommendations were adopted in the 2003 Amendments, e.g., the map of the KBN/Golder Report inventory lands was adopted as the initial definition of strategic ecosystems and incentives for clustering are provided. However, they contend that most of the staff's conservation recommendations are not reflected in the 2003 Amendments, e.g., clustering is not required for all development in ecologically sensitive and/or environmentally significant areas; the 20-acre parcel threshold for ecosystem protection is not eliminated; 50 percent minimum set-asides are not increased; species on the Florida Natural Areas Inventory ("FNAI") endangered species list but not on federal or state lists are not protected in wetland buffers; the recommended minimum default buffer is not used; and no minimum protection is required for either listed species habitat or significant habitat. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the 25 percent maximum upland preservation introduced by 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12 destroys the impact of 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.5, which under the 2002 Plan Update would have protected the habitat of any "listed species" on a case-by-case determination of what was reasonable and necessary for the species on the particular site, apparently without regard to the amount of a given tract that would be turned over to preservation against the wishes of the landowner. "Listed species" is defined in the 2003 Amendments as: Those species of plants and animals listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or species of special concern by an official state or federal plant or wildlife agency, or the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI, includes species ranked as S1, S2, or S3), or the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA). These species are targeted for protection for a number of reasons, e.g., they are in imminent danger of extinction, are rapidly declining in number or habitat, or have an inherent vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, or human disturbance which puts them at risk of extinction. This contention is rejected because it neglects to factor in the express limitation expressed in 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12.c. that the 25 percent limitation "shall not restrict in any way state and federal agency protections." Such "protections" include federal and state listed species protections, meaning that the 25 percent limitation cannot function as a brake on listed species protection. The Sierra Club Petitioners make too much of the distinction between 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2's language, "All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25 percent of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site," and 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12's language, "No more than 25 percent of the upland portion of a property may be required to be set aside for preservation pursuant to policies under this Objective without landowner consent." They appear to assume that the former provision would allow the County to impose draconian development limitations without regard to the property rights of landowners. In the undersigned's view, the distinction is not so great, particularly in light of 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2.1's direction to the County to "work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside." (Emphasis added.) The express reference to a "25% set aside" indicates that Alachua County did not anticipate forcing landowners to cede more than that amount of their property even under the 2002 Plan Update. It is found that the Sierra Club Petitioners overstate the necessary impact of the Bird Memo as "Data and Analysis." Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2), indeed, requires that plan amendments be "based upon relevant and appropriate data," and further explains that to be "based on data" means "to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue." However, the Sierra Club Petitioners essentially contend that the Board was bound to enact each recommendation of the Bird Memo in every particular or stand in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). To accept this contention would be to make the elected officials of Alachua County subservient to their own hired staff, an exact reversal of the comprehensive planning process. It is found that the County has reacted to the data and analysis of the Bird Memo "in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data." There is no question that the 2002 Plan Update, as amended by the 2003 Amendments, for the first time "establish[es] an integrated approach to the protection of natural communities and their associated values in Alachua County," in contrast to the fragmented approach of the 1991 Plan. See COSE Data and Analysis, Biodiversity, p. 38. The 2003 Amendments address and, to some degree, adopt every element raised by staff in the Bird Memo. The 2003 Amendments do not adopt the terms of the Bird Memo to the letter as urged by the Sierra Club Petitioners, but the County was not required to do so. It is at least fairly debatable that the COSE uplands policies are supported by data and analysis and provide adequate guidance for the development of LDRs. Wetland Buffers Under the 1991 Plan, standards for natural vegetative buffers around surface waters and wetlands consisted of a minimum 75-foot buffer for Outstanding Florida Waters and a 35-foot buffer for all other surface waters and wetlands. The 2002 Plan Update's version of COSE Policy 3.6.8, referenced in Policy 4.9.6 above, provided detailed new buffer requirements as follows: Policy 3.6.8 Development occurring along the edges of conservation and preservation areas shall be designed to protect and minimize the impact of development on conservation areas through the use of natural vegetative buffers. Buffer width shall be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on what is demonstrated to be scientifically necessary to protect natural ecosystems from significant adverse impact. This determination shall be made in consideration of at least the following factors: Type of development and associated potential for adverse site-specific and off-site impacts; Natural community type and associated hydrologic or management requirements; Buffer area characteristics and function; Presence of listed species of plants and animals. Absent scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate, the following buffer widths shall apply for the resources set forth in the table below. Protected Resource Buffer Distance (feet)** Surface waters and wetlands that do not include the resources listed below 75* Outstanding Florida Waters 200* Areas where listed plant or animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland 300* from the surface water or wetland Public water supply well 200 * Buffer widths are recommended based on the report, "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," prepared by Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. in collaboration with Mark T. Brown, Ph.D., University of Florida Center for Wetlands and Water Resources, and Richard Hamann, Esq., University of Florida College of Law, January 2000. ** If the buffer precludes all economically viable use of a particular property, development may be allowed within the buffer in accordance with [COSE] policy 3.6.5, and where applicable, [COSE] policies 4.6.6 and 4.7.4. Buffers shall be measured from the outer edge of the protected resource. The 2003 Amendments made no changes to the text of COSE Policy 3.6.8, but changed the table of buffer widths as follows: Protected Resource Buffer Distance (feet)** Surface waters and wetlands less than or equal to 0.5 acre that do not include OFWs or listed animal species as described elsewhere in this table 50 average, 35 minimum Surface waters and wetlands greater than 0.5 acre that do not include the resources listed below OFWs or listed animal species as described elsewhere in this table 75* 75 average, 50 minimum Areas where federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species listed plant or animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland 300* from the surface water or wetland 100 average, 75 minimum Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWS) 200* 150 average, 100 minimum Public water supply well 200 * Buffer widths are recommended based on the report, "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," prepared by Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. in collaboration with Mark T. Brown, Ph.D., University of Florida Center for Wetlands and Water Resources, and Richard Hamann, Esq., University of Florida College of Law, January 2000. ** If the buffer precludes all economically viable use of a particular property, development may be allowed within the buffer in accordance with [COSE] policy 3.6.5, and where applicable, [COSE] policies 4.6.6 and 4.7.4. The referenced COSE Policy 3.6.5, introduced in the 2002 Plan Update and not amended in 2003, provides: Development on land that includes conservation areas shall be sited and designed according to the following standards and consistent with policies under Objective 6.2 [Rural/Agriculture] of the [FLUE] in the rural area: The preservation of conservation areas shall be required on all development sites to the greatest extent possible, consistent with standards which are outlined subsequently in [the COSE]. Density or intensity shall be transferred from conservation areas to non- conservation portions of the property, to adjoining property under common ownership or management and within a unified development, or to other development receivership areas, at a rate consistent with that of the underlying zoning district, but not to exceed the maximum density allowed by the land use designation. When there are no non-conservation areas to which density or intensity may be transferred, the development shall be clustered in the portion of the site that will result in least environmental impact. When connection to central sewer is not required, septic wastes shall be disposed of according to the Comprehensive Plan, land development regulations, and health department standards, and without adversely affecting ecosystem health. Existing landscape connections to other conservation areas shall be maintained so that fragmentation is avoided. The referenced COSE Policy 4.6.6, under Objective dealing with "Surface Water Systems," was introduced in the 2002 Plan Update, was not amended in 2003, and provides: The following activities may be allowed within the buffer subject to standards that regulate environmental impacts: Agricultural and silvicultural operations consistent with Objective 5.5 [Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices]; Water dependent facilities; Minimal impact activities; Activities that serve the overriding public interest; and Development allowed through implementation of [COSE] policy 3.6.5.3, provided that the development impact area shall not exceed the rate of 1/2 acre per ten acres of conservation area, including the footprint of principal and accessory structures and parking, allowing for reasonable access. 175. The referenced COSE Policy 4.7.4, under Objective dealing with "Wetland Ecosystems," was introduced in the 2002 Plan Update and amended in 2003 as indicated below: Development activity shall not be authorized in wetlands or wetland buffers except when all of the following conditions are met: The applicant has taken every reasonable step to avoid adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant has taken every reasonable step to minimize adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant has provided appropriate mitigation for adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant shows that one of the following circumstances applies: Minimal impact activity; or Overriding public interest; or All economically beneficial or productive use of the property is otherwise precluded. The development impact area shall not exceed the rate of 1/2 acre per ten acres of conservation area, including the footprint of principal and accessory structures and parking, allowing for reasonable access. Notwithstanding the above, mitigated impact may be allowed to any isolated poor quality wetland that is less than 0.25 acre in size, provided the total impact area is not greater than or equal to 0.25 acre per development. Poor quality shall be defined in the land development regulations based on factors relative to ecological value. The 2002 Data and Analysis clearly concluded that the 35-foot buffers in the 1991 Plan were inadequate to protect the natural functions of the affected wetlands. The Bird Memo summarized the data as follows: The Conservation/Aquifer Recharge portion of the EAR, as well as the data and analysis supporting the Comprehensive Plan update, are replete with documentation of the inadequacy of the current 35-foot buffer for wetlands and surface waters in Alachua County. Inadequacy is demonstrated by documentation of at least the following nine facts: (1) the direct loss of the extent and quality of wetlands, (2) the degradation of wetland functions, (3) no change in declining water quality trends since implementation of 35-foot buffers, high sediment loads in surface waters, elevated nutrient concentrations in surface waters, groundwater, and springs, poor surface water systems health documented by macroinvertebrate sampling, poor hydrology, including lake drawdown problems, (8) the continued loss, degradation and fragmentation of wildlife habitat in Alachua County, and (9) the decline of native species concurrent with the spread of invasive non-native species. The Bird Memo also contained appendices that included 11 pages of specific citations from the Data and Analysis discussing the inadequacy of the 35-foot buffers and supporting larger buffer widths. The buffers in 2002 COSE Policy 3.6.8 were based on the Data and Analysis in the 2000 Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc., report titled "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," ("JEA Report"). The Bird Memo summarized the JEA Report's findings and Alachua County's response, as follows: Upland vegetative buffers are widely regarded as necessary to protect wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. However, buffer size requirements typically have been established by political acceptability, rather than scientific merit. This often leads to insufficiently buffered aquatic resources and the false perception that the resources are being properly protected from potential impacts. Numerous scientific studies have shown that relatively wide buffers (150 to more than 300 feet) are necessary to protect wetlands. (JEA et al. 2000) A dilemma exists. Undersized buffers may place aquatic and wetland resources at risk, while buffers that are sufficiently large to provide full protection may unrealistically deny landowners use of their land. Therefore, it is important to determine the minimum buffer width necessary for protection of most of the resources, or the most sensitive of the resources. Three goals have been identified and used to determine buffer sizes: protection of wildlife habitat; minimization of sediment transport into wetlands; and minimization of groundwater drawdown in wetlands. The JEA report (2000) concludes that a minimum of 300 feet is necessary to reasonably protect a viably functioning wetland ecosystem. A 300-foot buffer would protect approximately 50% of the wetland-dependent wildlife species in freshwater wetlands, and protect water quality from sedimentation by course [sic] and fine sands. In some site-specific cases, such as with silt or clay soils, or from large draw-down structures, a greater buffer distance would be necessary to protect the wetland. Any reduction in the buffer width below 300 feet can impose adverse impacts to the wetland, particularly to the wetland- dependent wildlife species that require a wide surrounding upland area in which to feed, forage, and use as protection from human disturbance. Lesser alternatives would still provide some protection to wetlands; however, any reduction can result in adverse impacts to wildlife populations, as well as degradation of water quality from deposition of fine sediments. The County has chosen an alternative to one large buffer distance. This alternative is intended to provide flexibility while accommodating private property concerns. The Sierra Club Petitioners emphasize the JEA Report's conclusion that "a minimum of 300 feet is necessary to reasonably protect a viably functioning wetland ecosystem." They note that the language of 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 provides that "[a]bsent scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate," a 100-foot average, 75-foot minimum natural vegetative "default" buffer would apply in "areas where federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland." They conclude that providing only a 75-100 foot "default" buffer in an area documented to contain threatened or endangered species habitat within 300 feet would result in the destruction of that habitat between the 75- to 100-foot buffer zone and the 300-foot extent of the documented habitat. This is another instance in which the Sierra Club Petitioners' conclusion requires an assumption of bad faith on the part of the County regulatory authorities. Whether the default buffer is 300 feet or 75 feet, that default buffer applies only in the absence of "scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate." The Sierra Club Petitioners correctly note Michael Drummond's testimony that, under the 1991 Plan, the default buffers were often employed where the existence of wetland- dependent species was suspected, but not verified. Mr. Drummond also testified that application of a 100-foot buffer would not be adequate for listed species. However, Mr. Drummond's testimony does not demonstrate that the County would ignore scientific information demonstrating the presence of endangered species and apply the default buffers regardless of those species' habitat requirements. The undersigned does not agree that it is beyond fair debate that Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.013(2)(c)5. requires the County to apply the default buffers in habitats where there is a "high potential" for endangered species to occur, but where the species have not been documented. The cited Rule requires the COSE to contain policies that address implementation activities for the "[r]estriction of activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife." 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8 complies with the language of the rule by addressing known adverse affects. Alachua County was entitled to make a policy choice not to go farther and address potential adverse effects caused by inadequate buffers in areas that endangered species might inhabit.22/ There is no question that the Sierra Club's policy preference would result in greater protection of endangered species and their habitats, actual or potential. However, this fact alone does not compel the County to enact stricter provisions than the relevant statutes and rules require. The Sierra Club Petitioners' focus on the "300 foot minimum buffer" language in the Bird Memo led them to overlook the fact that the Data and Analysis support 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8, as well as the version in the 2002 Plan Update. The Bird Memo itself recognizes the County's choice of "an alternative to one large buffer distance . . . to provide flexibility while accommodating private property concerns." The Bird Memo expressly recognized that the scientifically preferable wide buffers "may unrealistically deny landowners use of their land." 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8 reasonably balances the interests noted in the Bird Memo by providing for a site- specific determination of the proper buffer width based on the scientific information at hand. Application of the default buffer is always contingent upon the absence of scientific information.23/ The Sierra Club Petitioners also challenge the 2003 Amendment's change of language in the table of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 from "listed plant or animal species" to "federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species." They argue that the evidence showed that limiting the buffer protection in COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 to only federally and/or state regulated species, rather than to all "listed species" as defined in the 2002 Plan as amended, would exclude approximately 14 species from the threatened and endangered species protection of the buffer provision. The 2002 Plan, as amended in 2003, defines "Listed Species" as follows: Those species of plants and animals listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or species of special concern by an official state or federal plant or wildlife agency, or the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI, includes species ranked as S1, S2, or S3), or the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA). These species are targeted for protection for a number of reasons, e.g. they are in imminent danger of extinction, are rapidly declining in number or habitat, or have an inherent vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, or human disturbance which puts them at risk of extinction. The Bird Memo explains the inclusion of the FNAI and, until the 2003 Amendments, the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals ("FCREPA") lists as follows: The use of FNAI and FCREPA sources does not make the list of protected species significantly broader than the list generated from using federal and state agency lists. Rather, it makes protection efforts more accurate and timely because they are based on scientific judgment responsive to changing natural conditions, rather than political listing decisions which can take years in the making. The use of these data sources to identify species for special protection is considered by many ecological professionals, including state and water management district personnel, as the best available data for the purpose of recognizing plants and animals in decline in the state and in Alachua County. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that there was no basis in either the 2002 Plan Update or the Data and Analysis for 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 to exclude the FNAI-listed species from the protection they receive at every other point in the Plan where endangered and threatened species protections apply or to exclude non-vertebrates from the buffering provisions of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2. In response, the County initially points out that the category of buffers for listed species was new to the 2002 Plan Update. The County notes that the 1991 Plan essentially deferred to federal and state agencies in the regulation of plants and wildlife and that in crafting the 2002 Plan Update, the County decided to broaden conservation areas to include the habitat of FNAI-listed species. The County incidentally observes that FNAI is a scientific organization with no regulatory function whatever. The County argues that there is no conflict between its decision to generally broaden conservation areas and its decision to create a new wetland buffer category for federal and state-regulated species. The undersigned agrees that it is at least fairly debatable that the County was not required to apply its "listed species" definition to the buffering provision of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2. The Sierra Club Petitioners simply failed to demonstrate the necessary connection between the definition and the buffer category that might establish an internal inconsistency. The mere fact that the 2002 Plan Update employed the term "listed plant or animal species" in the buffer table does not establish a presumption of correctness. The Bird Memo states that the FNAI and FCREPA lists provide "the best available data for the purpose of recognizing plants and animals in decline," and thus supports the County's decision to reference the FNAI list in its "listed species" definition, but does not require the County to include the list for purposes of defining a buffer category. In further defense of 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8, the County notes that the policy provides flexibility to respond to the needs of individual species by allowing for "buffer averaging," which permits the buffer area to be distributed in a varying width around the wetland, subject to the minimum widths contained in the table. In addition to the increased buffers, the County substantially improved its protection of wetlands by strengthened requirements in proposed COSE Policies 3.6.1324/ and 4.7.4 for avoidance and minimization of impacts. Avoidance and minimization is also facilitated by proposed Policy 3.6.5, which provides for transfers of densities or clustering. The County notes that the updated Plan contains multiple layers of wetlands protection. COSE Policy 4.7.1 provides that wetlands of all sizes are to be regulated, without exception. COSE Policy 4.7.4 limits the development impact area to the ratio of one-half acre of impact to each ten acres of conservation area. If wetland impacts cannot be avoided or minimized, then the strengthened mitigation requirements of COSE Policy 4.7.7 must be met, including a minimum ratio of 5:1 mitigation area to impacted area, a requirement that the mitigation areas be within the County and no mitigation credits for onsite preservation of wetlands, which are required to be protected in any event. Preservation of wetlands and/or other surface waters or uplands cannot be counted as "mitigation" if federal, state, water management district, or local regulations already require protection of the resource in question. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that the County appropriately responded to the Data and Analysis by its policies on surface waters and wetlands. D. Agricultural Uses The Jonesville Petitioners criticized 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2,25/ which provides: In primary and secondary conservation areas, the following uses, if otherwise consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, generally shall be permitted to the extent that they do not significantly alter the natural functions of the conservation area: Public and private conservation, recreation and open space uses. Public and private wildlife preserves, game management and refuge areas. Water conservation and retention/detention areas that are determined to be appropriate for stormwater management. Agricultural uses, employing latest applicable best management practices. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that the quoted policy creates an internal inconsistency in the Plan. The inconsistency is said to stem from a conflict between the County's desire to sustain the ecological integrity of natural resource areas that due to their ecological value, uniqueness and particular sensitivity to development activities, require stringent protective measures, and the fact that some of the uses to be permitted in conservation areas, particularly agricultural uses, can be incompatible with the preservation of ecological integrity as defined in the Plan. While there was some expert testimony as to the difficulty of reconciling agricultural and recreational uses with conservation, the weight of the evidence did not demonstrate such an inherent incompatibility as to establish an internal inconsistency in the Plan. The listed uses are to be permitted "to the extent that they do not significantly alter the natural functions of the conservation area," and there was no showing that this qualification is unenforceable by its terms. The County also pointed out that its authority to regulate agricultural activities by way of development controls is limited by statute. The "Florida Right to Farm Act," Section 823.14, Florida Statutes (2003), provides, in relevant part: (6) Limitation on duplication of government regulation.-- It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate duplication of regulatory authority over farm operations as expressed in this subsection. Except as otherwise provided for in this section and s. 487.051(2)[pesticide regulation], and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local government may not adopt any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to s. 193.461 [property tax assessments of agricultural lands], where such activity is regulated through implemented best-management practices or interim measures developed by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or water management districts and adopted under chapter 120 as part of a statewide or regional program. . . . (Emphasis added.) More recently, the Legislature passed the "Agricultural Lands and Practices Act," Section 163.3162, Florida Statutes (2003), effective July 1, 2003, subsection (4) of which provides: Duplication of regulation.-- Except as otherwise provided in this section and s. 487.051(2), and notwithstanding any other law, including any provision of chapter 125 or this chapter, a county may not exercise any of its powers to adopt any ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to s. 193.461, if such activity is regulated through implemented best management practices, interim measures, or regulations developed by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or a water management district and adopted under chapter 120 as part of a statewide or regional program; or if such activity is expressly regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (Emphasis added.) The Jonesville Petitioners also raised the specter of sham agricultural uses being used as a cover for the conversion of environmentally sensitive properties to residential development. Richard Drummond candidly acknowledged that such conversions could occur if the County were insufficiently diligent as to events on the ground, but also testified that the County did what it could, within the statutory constraints set forth above, to ensure that the updated Plan would circumvent such covert efforts. Both statutes quoted above restrict a local government's ability to restrict a "bona fide farm operation," but neither statute defines the term "bona fide farm operation." In the 2002 COSE definitions, Alachua County provided a definition of "bona fide agricultural purposes" to mean: Good faith commercial agricultural use of the land, provided the land is classified for assessment purposes by the property appraiser as "agricultural" pursuant to Chapter 193, Florida Statutes. In determining whether the use of the land for agricultural purposes is bona fide, the following factors may be taken into consideration: The length of time the land has been so utilized; Whether the use has been continuous; The purchase price paid; Size, as it relates to specific agricultural use; Whether an indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently and adequately for the land in accordance with accepted commercial agricultural practices, including, without limitation, fertilizing, liming, tilling, mowing, reforesting, and other accepted agricultural practices; Whether such land us under lease and, if so, the effective length, terms, and conditions of the lease; and Such other factors as may from time to time become applicable. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 creates an internal inconsistency with 2002 FLUE Policies 6.2.10, 6.2.12, 6.2.13, and 6.2.15. The permitted uses delineated in 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 do not list residential activity as a permitted use in conservation areas. The cited 2002 FLUE Policies all contemplate some residential development in "strategic ecosystems," which are included in the definition of conservation areas. The Jonesville Petitioners also note that, within 2002 FLUE Policy 6.2.12, silviculture, common water supply systems, and common septic system drainfields are listed as potential uses in conservation areas that are designated as "open space" in clustered rural residential subdivisions, yet none of these uses is listed as permitted in 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2. They assert that the definition, treatment, and application of the terms "agriculture" and "silviculture" within the 2003 COSE plan amendments create inconsistency and lack of predictability in the application and treatment of the related policies. As to the last point, the County credibly responds that the COSE definition of "agriculture" includes silviculture and that silviculture is considered in the Plan as a subset of agriculture, except in those instances in which some external factor requires a distinction. For example, Objective 5.5, "Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices," and its implementing policies recognize that agriculture and silviculture have distinct best management practices. It is not unreasonable for the County to interpret 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 as permitting silvicultural uses in conservation areas within the constraints applied to agricultural uses, where the COSE definition of "agriculture" includes silviculture. As to residential development and its concomitant common water supply and septic systems, it is evident from the FLUE Policies cited by the Jonesville Petitioners, as well as 2003 FLUE Policies 1.3.1e and 6.2.11 and 2002 COSE Policies 3.6.5, 4.10.3.3, and 4.10.4 to 4.10.6, that the Plan will allow for residential development of the least environmentally sensitive portion of a strategic ecosystems property by means of clustering, gross residential density limits, transfers of density, and other design techniques intended to protect ecosystems and private property rights. There is no inconsistency with 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 because that policy does not purport to contain the exclusive list of uses allowed in conservation areas, as indicated by its own text and that of the very next policy, 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.3: Primary and secondary cConservation areas shall be developed only in a manner consistent with protection of the ecological integrity of natural resources, and in accordance with standards which are outlined subsequently in this Element. The COSE Definitions provide the following meaning for the term "development activity": Any dredging, filling, excavation, construction of new structures, expansion of existing structures, installation of utilities, roads, personal wireless service facilities, stormwater management systems, septic tanks, bulkheading, land clearing, tree cutting, mechanized vegetation removal and the disposal of solid or liquid waste. Clearly, 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 lists certain uses that "generally shall be permitted," but when read in context with other Plan provisions, does not necessarily forbid residential development on certain properties defined as conservation areas. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that the County appropriately responded to the Data and Analysis by its policies affecting agricultural uses and their impact on conservation. The alleged internal consistencies in these policies were not demonstrated beyond fair debate. Level of Service 2003 Transportation Policy 1.1.2 and Capital Improvements Policy 1.2.4 raise the level of service ("LOS") for rural collector roads from LOS D in the 1991 Plan to LOS C, which is the standard recommended by the Florida Department of Transportation for rural collector roads. The McSherry Petitioners challenged this amendment because the 2002 Plan Update had upgraded the rural collector roads to LOS B. However, the proper point of comparison is from the 1991 Plan to the 2003 Amendments. Further, the evidence produced at hearing did not demonstrate that a higher LOS than C is required for protection of the state or county transportation network. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments regarding the LOS for rural collector roads were adequately supported by data and analysis. Conclusion It is found that, as to the 2003 Amendments in their entirety, the County used the best available data and reacted to it appropriately for planning purposes by applying professionally acceptable analysis in review and application of that data.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the 2003 Alachua County Amendments to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2004.
