Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: The City of Oakland Park and Its Roadways The City of Oakland Park is an incorporated municipality located in Broward County, Florida. It is situated in the geographic center of the County. A six-lane divided expressway, I-95, runs north/south through the middle of the City. Among the major east/west thoroughfares in the City is Oakland Park Boulevard. It is a six-lane divided roadway that is functionally classified by the Florida Department of Transportation as an urban principal arterial. The roadway is lined almost exclusively with commercial development. I-95 can be accessed at Oakland Park Boulevard. The Stroks' Property and Its Surroundings Mr. and Mrs. Strok own 20.709 acres of contiguous land in the City. The land is among the few remaining undeveloped properties in the City. The Stroks' property abuts Oakland Park Boulevard to the south. Its southernmost point is a relatively short distance to the west of the Oakland Park Boulevard/I-95 interchange. At present, Oakland Park Boulevard provides the only vehicular access to the Stroks' property. Commercial development lies immediately to the east and to the west of that portion of the Stroks' property fronting on Oakland Park Boulevard. Further north on the property's western boundary is a residential neighborhood of single family homes. Single family homes also lie to the east of the Stroks' property north of Oakland Park Boulevard, but they are separated from the property by a canal. Oakland Park Boulevard, in the vicinity of the Stroks' property (Segment 366), is heavily travelled. Currently, it is operating well over its capacity and therefore, according to standards utilized by the Florida Department of Transportation, is providing a Level of Service (LOS) of "F." There are no formal plans at the moment to expend public funds on capital improvements that would increase the capacity of Oakland Park Boulevard. Whether the Stroks' property is ultimately used primarily for commercial purposes or for single family residential purposes, the development of the property will increase the traffic volume on this segment of Oakland Park Boulevard, as well as other roadway segments in the County that are now operating over capacity, but are not programmed for any capital improvements. As a general rule, however, commercial development generates more traffic than single family residential development. The City's 1989 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map The City adopted its 1989 comprehensive plan on April 5, 1989. Adopted as part of the plan was a Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which was based upon appropriate surveys, studies and data concerning the area. Over Petitioners' objections, all but a small portion of the Stroks' property was designated for commercial use on the FLUM. 1/ Under the City's two prior comprehensive plans, the Stroks' entire property was designated for commercial use. "Commercial uses" are defined in Chapter IV, Section 1.32 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan as "activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental and distribution of products, or performance of services." Furthermore, Chapter IV, Section 3.02(C) of the plan provides as follows with respect to lands designated for commercial use on the FLUM: Each parcel of land within an area designated in a commercial land use category by the City's land Use Plan Map must be zoned in a zoning district which permits any one or more of the following uses, but no other uses: Retail uses. Office and business uses. Wholesale, storage, light fabricating and warehouses uses, if deemed appropriate by the City. Hotels, motels and similar lodging. Recreation and open space, cemeteries, and commercial recreation uses. Community facilities and utilities. a. Special Residential Facility Category (2) development . . . . b. Special Residential Facility Category (3) development . . . . Non-residential agriculture uses. Residential uses are permitted in the same structure as a commercial use provided that the local government entity applies flexibility and reserve units to the parcel and: The residential floor area does not exceed 50% of the total floor area of the building; or The first floor is totally confined to commercial uses. Recreational vehicle park sites at a maximum density of ten (10) sites per gross acre if permanent location of recreational vehicles on the site is permitted by the City land development regulations, or twenty (20) sites per gross acre if such permanent location is prohibited by the local land development regulations, subject to allocation by the City government entity of available flexibility or reserve units. Transportation and communication facilities. The decision to designate in the City's 1989 comprehensive plan almost all of the Stroks' property for commercial use was not made without consideration of the adverse impact commercial development would have on traffic in the vicinity of the Stroks' property. Although it was recognized that such development would add more traffic to the already congested roadways in the area than would single family residential development, the prevailing view was that the additional traffic that would be generated by commercial development, as compared to that which would be generated by single family residential development, would be relatively insignificant. The designation of the major portion of the Stroks' property for commercial use is not inherently incompatible with the designations assigned other parcels of property in the surrounding area. The Stroks' property was designated for commercial use under Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan. The Broward County Charter mandates that the land use plans of the County's incorporated municipalities be in substantial conformity with the County's land use plan. Goals, Objectives and Policies The City's 1989 comprehensive plan also includes various goals, objectives and policies. Those of particular significance to the instant case provide in pertinent part as follows: Goal 1- Protect and enhance the single family residential, multiple-family residential, non-residential and natural resource areas of Oakland Park. Objective 1.1- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, revise the development code to assure that all new development . . . avoids traffic problems now impacting the City . . . . Policy 1.1.5- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the development code shall be amended to specify that no development permit shall be issued unless assurance is given that the public facilities necessitated by the project (in order to meet level of service standards specified in the Traffic Circulation, Recreation and Infrastructure policies) will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development. A concurrency management system shall be included that specifies the latest DCA and City criteria for what constitutes "assurance" in addition to budgeted projects or signed development agreements. Goal 2- To develop an overall transportation circulation system which will provide for the transportation needs of all sectors of the community in a safe, efficient, cost effective and aesthetically pleasing manner. Objective 2.1- Provide for a safe, convenient and efficient motorized and non-motorized transportation system. Policy 2.1.1- Monitor annual traffic accident frequencies by location. Policy 2.2.2- Improve selective enforcement at high accident locations. Policy 2.1.4- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, provide safe and convenient on-site traffic flow through development review procedures. Policy 2.1.7- Reduce the amount of through traffic on local streets and collectors through the implementation, within three years of plan adoption, of a Local Area Traffic Management Program (LATMP) . . . . Policy 2.1.11- Improve the efficiency of traffic flow on existing roadways by implementing the policies of Objective 2.1. Objective 2.2- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, coordinate the traffic circulation system with existing and future land uses as shown on the Future Land Use Map. Policy 2.2.1- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide a Development Management System that will allow development to occur in concurrence with the Future Land Use Map and in concert with development of the traffic circulation system. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "D" on all arterial and collector roadways where existing plus committed traffic allows, and maintain traffic conditions on all other roadways segments. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "C" on all local roadways. LOS shall be based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and the FDOT Generalized Daily and Peak Hour Level of Service Maximum Volumes. Other methods may be utilized but are subject to technical review and acceptance by the City. Policy 2.2.2- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of local roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "C" or better. This list may be based on the February 21,1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development or other sources as appropriate. Policy 2.2.3- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.4- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "D" or better. This list shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. Policy 2.2.5- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.6- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is a scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Planned Improvement Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.7- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.3, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions and the scheduled 2010 improvement will be able to operate at LOS "D" once constructed. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.8- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is no scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. 2/ Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Constrained Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.9- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.5, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. Policy 2.2.10- The City will annually update existing traffic counts and review updated Broward County Trips assignments. Based on the update the City may reclassify any roadway segment within the City. The City may also reclassify a roadway segment if development from outside the City has effected traffic conditions within the City. Policy 2.2.11- Subsequent to plan adoption, modify the land development regulations such that after 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, require trip generation studies from all proposed development within the City and traffic impact studies for developments generating more than 10% of adjacent roadway capacity and allow development contingent upon the provision of LOS Standards. Objective 2.4- Provide for the protection of existing and future rights of way from building encroachment. Policy 2.4.2- Modify land development regulations to ensure consistency with the Broward County Trafficways Plan right-of-way requirements during development review activities. Goal 9- To ensure the orderly and efficient provision of all public services and facilities necessary to serve existing and future local population needs. Objective 9.2- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that development or redevelopment proposals are approved consistent with existing service availability or coincident with the programmed provision of additional services at the adopted level of service standards and meets existing and future facility needs. Policy 9.2.1- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, revise development procedures to review development proposals cognizant of the City's adopted level of service standards, existing levels of service and where appropriate, the timeframe for implementation of additional facility improvements. Policy 9.2.2- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, condition the approval of proposed development or redevelopment projects on the basis of project related needs being concurrently available at the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Policy 9.2.3- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, allow for phasing of development related infrastructure improvements concurrently with project impacts on public facilities. Policy 9.2.4- The Level of Service (LOS) for capital facilities shall be: * * * for Arterials and Collectors- LOS "D" or "Maintain" for Local Roadways- LOS "C" ADT, PSDT and PKHR Objective 9.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that private developers participate on a proportionate share basis in any facility improvement costs necessary to maintain LOS standards. Policy 9.3.2- Establish a preference for the actual construction of adjacent site road improvements in lieu of impact fee payments. Policy 9.3.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, establish in the land development regulations a process for assessing new development on a pro rata share of the costs necessary to finance public facility improvements in order to maintain the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Development Review Requirements Chapter IV, Section 4 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan prescribes development review requirements. It provides in pertinent part as follows: Following the effective date of the Land Use Plan, the City shall not grant a permit for a proposed development unless the City has determined that public facilities are adequate to serve the needs of the proposed development or unless the developer agrees in writing that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the proposed development until public facilities are adequate to serve its needs. Public facilities may be determined to be adequate to serve the needs of a proposed development when the following conditions are met. Traffic circulation . . . public facilities and services will be available to meet established level of service standards, consistent with Chapter 163.3203(g) Florida Statutes and the concurrence management policies included within this Plan. Local streets and roads will provide safe, adequate access between buildings within the proposed development and the trafficways identified on the Broward County Trafficways Plan prior to occupancy. Capital Improvements Implementation Chapter VII of the plan deals with the subject of capital improvements implementation. It contains a section which addresses the matter of level of service standards. This section provides in pertinent part as follows: The minimum criteria for Comprehensive Plans requires that Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park be included for public facilities described in the plan. The Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park are provided in the following Table 2. Subsequent to the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, all future development approvals will be conditioned upon the provision of services at the local level of service standards. Table 2 sets forth the following level of service standards for roadways: Principal Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Minor Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Collectors- LOS "C"- AADT, 3/ PSDT 4/ PKHR 5/ Submission and Approval of the Stroks' Plat On June 6, 1989, the Stroks submitted to the County Commission for its approval a final plat of their property. The plat reflected the Stroks' plan to have 15 single family dwelling units, 180,000 square feet of office space and 36,000 square feet of commercial space constructed on the property. County staff analyzed the plat to ascertain the impact that the proposed development would have on traffic. In performing their analysis, they relied on the County's TRIPS computer model. Broward County assesses impact fees against a developer where it is projected that a development will add traffic to road segments in the County that are over-capacity, but are planned for improvement. The TRIPS computer model is used to determine the amount of the assessment. County staff did a TRIPS run on the Stroks' plat on September 13, 1989 and determined that the development proposed in the plat would generate a total of 6,879 trips on road segments throughout the County, including over-capacity road segments that were not planned for improvement, as well as over-capacity road segments that were planned for improvement. 6/ The County Commission approved the Stroks' plat on September 19, 1989. A short time earlier, the City Council had also approved the plat. Petitioners' Motives Petitioners are all residents of the City of Oakland Park. In filing their petitions challenging the City's 1989 comprehensive plan, they were motivated only by a desire to improve the quality of life in their city. They had no ulterior motive. They filed the petitions because they felt that it was in the best interest of the City that they do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs issue a final order finding that the City of Oakland Park's 1989 comprehensive plan is "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of th Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1990.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Gilchrist County comprehensive plan and subsequent remedial amendments are "in compliance" pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact PARTIES Intervenors Craig Hennis, Jim Moore, and Jean Wonser own property in Gilchrist County, Florida, which is located in or near the area known as the Waccasassa Flats. Hennis, Moore, and Wonser submitted oral and written comments during the review and adoption proceedings. Hennis, Moore, and Wonser are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Gilchrist County Gilchrist County is a local government required to adopt a comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes The County is situated in North Central Florida. The County is bordered on the east by Alachua County; on the south by Levy County; on the west by Dixie and Lafayette Counties; and on the north by Suwannee and Columbia Counties. The County seat is the incorporated City of Trenton. The County contains many areas of natural resources including the Santa Fe River in the north, the Suwannee River in the west, numerous fresh water springs, and the Waccasassa Flats. Department The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing local government comprehensive plans pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Waccasassa Flats The Intervenors' challenge concerns the level of protection afforded the Waccasassa Flats (Flats). The Flats are approximately 56,000 acres in size in Gilchrist County and act as the source of the Waccasassa River, whose headwaters are located in Levy County. The Flats extend from northern Gilchrist County through Levy County to the Gulf of Mexico. The Flats are situated on a high limestone formation between two sand ridges. The Flats are a mosaic of uplands, wetlands, and sandhills composed primarily of commercial pine plantations, hardwood swamps, isolated strands of cypress domes, and shrubs and brush. Approximately 31,000 acres are forested uplands and forested flatwoods; 24,000 acres, forested wetlands and non-forested wetlands; and 1,000 acres, non- forested uplands. The water table in the Flats is generally near or above the surface, and is linked to a surficial aquifer, not the Floridan Aquifer, which is much deeper. The Flats act as a low to moderate water recharge area by collecting water, then slowly releasing it to surrounding areas. The Flats are not unlike many parts of North Central Florida, including northern Columbia County, eastern Alachua County, parts of Baker and Levy Counties, Nassau County, Lafayette County, eastern Hamilton County, western Madison County, Taylor County, and Dixie County. Within Gilchrist County, the Flats are privately owned and historically have been logged in large part by commercial silviculture companies. This activity continues today. A network of logging roads and fire lines have been cut through the Flats. Silviculture activities such as the clearcutting of large tracts of timber, replanting with non-native species of pine, and creating a monoculture pine forest, have degraded the ecosystem, fragmented wildlife habitat, and negatively impacted some species of wildlife and native vegetative communities in the Flats. For example, throughout most of the Flats native longleaf pine communities no longer exist. Many of the native hardwood hammocks have been cut to increase the land available for pine planting and harvesting. In addition, native cypress trees have been cut. While the Flats still function as a natural system, they are not a pristine system because of these past and current silviculture activities. The Division of Forestry in the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services recommended that 56,050 acres of the Flats be acquired by the State of Florida through the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program. The Flats have been on the CARL acquisition list since 1988: they were ranked ninth on the list in 1988 and thirty-third in 1993. WACCASASSA FLATS/DENSITY Intervenors assert that the Plan fails to adequately preserve and restore the natural resources associated with the Flats. Specifically, Intervenors claim that a density of one dwelling unit per 160 acres in the area designated Silviculture/Agriculture (S/A) on the County's FLUM does not preserve wildlife, wildlife habitat, native vegetative communities, and groundwater quality, nor restore wetlands in the Flats. Policy I.2.2 of the Plan establishes the densities in the S/A land use category at no more than one dwelling unit per 160 acres and no more than one development unit per 80 acres. The policy defines development units as: [] structures commonly associated with row crops, pasture, hunting or silviculture activities such as barns, outbuildings and sheds, vehicle storage, small mill operations, and small office structures. . . The density established under Policy I.2.2 is a low density. By requiring at least 160 acres before one residence can be built, development in the S/A category is discouraged and directed to other areas of the County where higher densities are permitted. The following uses and activities are established by Policy I.2.2 for lands classified as S/A: Lands classified in Silviculture/Agriculture shall be lands which are predominantly used for silviculture activities conducted in accordance with Policy V.2.16, limited agricultural uses as described below, dwelling units, development units, archery ranges, rifle, shotgun and pistol ranges, and hunting and fishing camps and uses customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to such uses. Policy I.2.2 describes the limited agricultural activities permitted in the S/A land use classification: Within the Silviculture/Agriculture land use classification, intensive agriculture uses shall be prohibited. Grazing of livestock on pasture lands shall be allowed and row crops planted on a rotational basis between the harvesting of timber and planting of trees as part of silviculture activities shall also be allowed. Row crop activity shall be limited to areas containing soils within hydrological Groups A and B as identified in Soil Survey of the County (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, September 1992) and shall maintain a 50-foot natural buffer around all wetlands. The Plan conserves and protects wetlands. In addition to restricting row crops to drier soils and requiring buffers between row crops and all wetlands (as described above), Policy I.2.2 provides: [] ditching or any other activity which would modify the natural hydrology and environmental character of Silviculture/Agriculture areas shall be prohibited, provided however, that trench irrigation shall be allowed in areas containing soils within hydrological Groups A and B as identified in Soil Survey of the County (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, September 1992) for row crops within Silviculture/Agriculture areas so long as such trench irrigation practices do not result in the conversion of wetlands to uplands. To further protect wetlands, Policy V.2.4 requires a 35-foot natural buffer around all wetlands, within which agricultural and residential uses are prohibited. Additionally, Policy V.2.8 prohibits development which alters the natural functions of wetlands where all structures can be clustered on the non- wetland portion of the site. Where that option does not exist, Policy V.2.8 permits only minimal residential development activity and establishes other limitations on development, including the requirement that walking paths and driveways to residences use permeable fill and allow the uninterrupted flow of water. Wetlands are also protected by Policy V.2.16, which requires silviculture activities to follow the best management practices established in the 1993 Florida Department of Agriculture's "Silviculture Best Management Practices." These identified policies in the Plan conserve and protect wetlands in the Flats. Intervenors assert that development at the rate of one dwelling unit per 160 acres will "fragment" wildlife habitat in the Flats and thereby negatively affect wildlife associated with the Flats. The Flats is not a particularly significant habitat for threatened or endangered species, species of special concern, or rare species. The best available existing data shows that the habitat in the Flats is not used by many, if any, of these types of species. Development at the low density allowed in the S/A land use classification will not adversely impact either the habitat or the wildlife which might use that habitat. Some species may be positively impacted by the limited development activities allowed in the Flats under the Plan. While wading birds at times forage for food in the Flats, development at the low density allowed in the S/A land use category, with the various wetlands protection policies in the Plan, will not adversely affect utilization of the Flats by these bird populations. An individual animal may be negatively impacted by limited development of one dwelling unit per 160 acres, but the wildlife population as a whole will suffer no adverse impacts. Moreover, development at this density could cause less severe fragmentation and fewer negative impacts than are caused by current silviculture practices which have been utilized in the Flats for decades. Policy V.2.8, relating to residential development in wetlands, limits clearing or removal of native vegetation and provides some protection to the Flats. Such clearing or removal may not exceed more than one-half acre per five acres. Requirements of Policy V.3.4 that the County cooperate with other governmental entities, research and interest groups to conserve and protect unique vegetative communities within the County, affords protection to wildlife, wildlife habitat, and native vegetative communities. Also, Policies V.3.4, V.4.1, and V.4.2 require the County to cooperate with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in monitoring and inventorying wildlife and wildlife habitats, including cooperating in the application, and compliance with, all federal and state regulations pertaining to endangered and rare species. Policy V.4.3 also requires consultation with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission prior to the issuance of a development order where there is an indication that such issuance would result in an adverse impact to any endangered or rare species. The low density permitted in the Flats, in conjunction with wetlands protection and other identified policies in the Plan, will conserve and protect wildlife, wildlife habitat, and existing native vegetative communities, and maintain the overall integrity of the natural resources in the Flats. Intervenors assert that placement of septic tanks within the Flats have the potential to contaminate the underlying groundwater. Contamination from a septic tank from a residential development at a rate of one dwelling unit per 160 acres will have no significant impact on groundwater quality. Scientific studies show that any adverse impact of effluent from a septic tank system, or even a malfunctioning septic tank, is dissipated within 50 feet. As a result, the placement of septic tanks in the Flats at the designated density required by the Plan will not adversely impact the groundwater quality. In addition to the Plan's protection of groundwater quality as a result of the maximum density in the S/A land use classification of one dwelling unit per 160 acres and one development unit per 80 acres, protection also results from the previously-identified policies relating to wetlands protection. A comprehensive approach to conserving and protecting the natural resources associated with the Flats has been established by the County through all the above-referenced policies. The Plan relies on the low density established for the S/A land use classification, as well as various planning controls. These controls limit the type and extent of uses allowed in the S/A land use classification and protect wetlands, and require cooperation with other governmental entities to ensure the conservation and protection of wildlife, wildlife habitat, native vegetative communities, and groundwater quality in the Flats. BOUNDARY DESIGNATIONS FOR SILVICULTURE/AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURE-5 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS Intervenors assert that the County's designation of the S/A and Agriculture-5 (Ag-5) land use classifications are inappropriate and do not follow the boundaries of the Flats. Although the Flats are approximately 56,000 acres in Gilchrist County, there is no definitive boundary for the Flats. Prior to the 1991 adoption of the County's comprehensive plan, the Flats were zoned Preservation-1 (P-1). The lands zoned P-1 prior to 1991 now are classified by the Plan as S/A. The size of the S/A category is slightly larger than the P-1 zone. The subject of boundaries of the Flats was addressed in Gilchrist Timber Company v. Gilchrist County, Florida, Case No. 88-156-CA (Eighth Judicial Circuit, August 21, 1989). In that case, the circuit court determined that the County did a "commendable and legally defensible task in following section lines, quarter section lines and existing uses in setting the boundaries [of the P-1 zoning category]. These lines must be somewhere and those made in this case are quite reasonable." Much of the land surrounding the Flats was zoned General Flood Plain-1 (GFP-1) or General Flood Plain-2 (GFP-2) prior to the 1991 Plan adoption; the vast majority of that land now is classified by the Plan as Ag-5. In determining the boundaries of the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications for the FLUM in the adopted Plan, the County reviewed its zoning map, conducted site visits, and utilized updated maps and information prepared by state, federal, and regional agencies. These maps included the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map (1988); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Reconnaissance Survey (1981); the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service's Soil Associations map (1991); and the Florida Sinkhole Research Institute's Potential for Groundwater Pollution of the Floridan Aquifer (1988). This information was the best available data and analysis which existed at the time the Plan and remedial amendments were adopted. These maps depict the boundary of the resources within the Flats, but cannot be used to definitely establish the boundaries of the Flats. Policy I.2.2 establishes the density for the Ag-5 land use classification as one dwelling unit per 40 acres. This is a low density which discourages development in the Ag-5 category, and directs development to other areas of the County which have higher densities. The density in this land use classification thereby serves to limit negative impacts from development to surrounding areas, including the Flats. As a buffer between the Flats and surrounding agriculture lands, the Ag-5 areas protect natural resources in the Flats from the potential adverse impacts of agricultural activities and higher densities and intensities of development permitted outside the Flats. Buffering in this way is a professionally-accepted planning tool for protecting natural resources. The natural resources associated with the Flats will receive adequate protection through the Plan policies referenced earlier, regardless of whether they fall within the S/A or Ag-5 land use classification. The data and analysis used by the County to delineate the boundaries of the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications was the best available existing data, was relevant and appropriate. The Plan's classification of certain lands as S/A and Ag-5 was reasonable and based on sound planning principles. NEEDS ASSESSMENT Intervenors allege that the future population projections in the Plan do not demonstrate a need for additional density in the Flats in order to meet the future residential needs of Gilchrist County. Pursuant to Plan Policy I.2.2, a density of one dwelling unit per 160 acres in the S/A land use category would allow a maximum of 232 dwelling units to be built in the Flats. Under Plan Policy I.2.2, the current density allowed in Ag-5 is one dwelling unit per 40 acres. A comparison of the adopted FLUM with the prior zoning map reveals that over 5,000 acres are designated Ag-5 which were formerly zoned GFP-2 prior to the Plan's adoption. Under the old GFP-2 zoning category, a maximum of 5,000 dwelling units could have been built. Under the current Ag-5 land use classification, no more than 160 dwelling units could be built. Through the Plan's adoption, the densities established for the combined S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications result in an overall reduction in density allowed in the Flats and surrounding areas. Moreover, the densities permitted in these areas do not result in adverse impacts to natural resources in the Flats. The County's designation of densities in the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications is reasonable and appropriate and based on data and analysis in the Plan.
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 finding the Gilchrist County Comprehensive Plan as subsequently amended to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS, 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 23rd day of May, 1995.
The Issue The issue is whether the application of Thomas J. White Development Company for the establishment of a uniform community development district under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The facilities and services that will be provided by the St. Lucie West Services District are the financing, constriction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of the surface water management and control system for the area, and necessary bridges and culverts. The land encompassed by the proposed development district is a development of regional impact. The final revised development order for the area was issued on February 27, 1989, by the City of Port St. Lucie. Exhibit 4. The land within the proposed district is composed of approximately 4,600 contiguous acres located in the city. The proposed district is bounded on the north and south by the city. The western and eastern boundaries are Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike, respectively. A map showing the location of the area to be serviced by the proposed district is found in Exhibit 2; a metes and bounds legal description of the proposed district is attached to the petition as Exhibit 1. The overall development to be serviced by the district will include a variety of single family and multifamily housing units, as well as commercial, industrial, and educational uses. A portion of the future land use map for the City of Port St. Lucie was received in evidence as Exhibit 3, and shows approved land uses for the St. Lucie West area. In the proceedings leading to the issuance of the development order, the city determined that the St. Lucie West development would be consistent with all applicable state, regional, and local comprehensive plans and policies. The proposed development of the district is consistent with the City of Port St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan: 1985, as amended. Exhibit 12. Ernest R. Dike, Jr. is the director of development of Thomas J. White Development Company. He is an expert engineer experienced in the planning, construction and management of large scale communities. Mr. Dike has substantial experience as a civil engineer, and holds an advanced academic degree in planning. He served as director of public works and as city engineer for the City of Port St. Lucie for the three years preceding his employment by White. As White's director of development over the last three and a half years, Mr. Dike assisted in the preparation of the petition; he also identified and explained the exhibits which were admitted into evidence. He assisted in crafting the development order for St. Lucie West which was adopted by the City of Port St. Lucie in February, 1987 and amended on February 27, 1989. Dike has been personally involved with the sales of land from White to other developers of property within the proposed district. All the owners of the real property to be included in the district have given their written consent to the establishment of the proposed district. Since the Thomas J. White Development Company purchased the approximately 4,600 acres which became St. Lucie West, Dike has directed the permitting and approval for all aspects of the project. In the design, White Development Company has accommodated the desires of St. Lucie County to obtain a spring training facility for a professional baseball team. White Development Company agreed to give the county 100 acres of land to build a training facility for the New York Mets. A predevelopment order for the stadium was obtained, which permitted the development of certain roads, a bridge over the Florida Turnpike, and an interchange with Interstate 95 which will all provide access to St. Lucie West These transportation facilities were completed without the use of any state or federal funds. None of these expenses will be born by the proposed district. The establishment of the district would not be inconsistent with any of the elements or provisions of the state comprehensive plan, the regional plan, or the local comprehensive plan. Creation of the district would be the best alternative available for providing water management and control facilities for the land encompassed by the proposed district. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the City of Port St. Lucie have concluded that when fully developed, the land would discharge no additional water into the city's stormwater system as compared to the contribution of stormwater by the land made before it was developed by White. Mr. Dike also testified about the debt service required to amortize the debt on any benefit bonds issued by the proposed district, and the cost of operation and maintenance of the surface water control facilities to be constructed by the proposed district. Mr. Dike prepared a spread sheet entitled "Projected Statement of Cash Flow for the Years 1990-2000". (Exhibit 18). The estimated construction costs for water management facilities in the projection are reasonable. Based on White's plans for the district, and utilizing the assumptions for absorption of the residential and commercial space to be constructed, the benefit and maintenance taxes are projected to begin at $114 per taxable unit per year. These benefit and maintenance taxes will rise to no more than $170 per taxable unit per year in 1996. These projections are consistent with the testimony of Mr. Dike and of Dr. Henry Fishkind, an economist. All assumptions made in projecting future benefit taxes are reasonable. While these projections do not bind the district, which is not yet formed, and the district's electors could ultimately decide to assume additional responsibilities, the evidence shows that the benefit and maintenance taxes projected are adequate to pay the debt to be incurred by the proposed construction of surface water management facilities. Lester L. Solin, Jr., testified as an expert in land use planning. He was a planning consultant with the City of Port St. Lucie when the development of St. Lucie West by White Development Company was first under consideration, and worked with the city to formulate the overall development plan. St. Lucie West has been integrated into the future land use map for the City of Port St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan: 1985. Mr. Solin is also familiar with the state comprehensive plan. He has reviewed the application for development approval for the St. Lucie West development of regional impact. The proposed district would be consistent with the state comprehensive plan, Chapter 187 Florida Statutes. Mr. Solin is also familiar with the City of Port St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan: 1985 (Exhibit 12). The creation of the St. Lucie West Services District would not be inconsistent with any of the goals, objectives or policies in that plan. Peter L. Pimentel is the current executive director of the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District (NPBWD). Mr. Pimentel testified as an expert in special district management, planning, staffing, reporting, and coordination with local governments. As the director of the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District, he oversees a staff which works with other regulatory agencies on permitting, implementation, planning, construction and operation of water management systems. He coordinates construction with contractors, and engineers, and works with lawyers in carrying out the policies established by the district board of directors. The land encompassed by the NPBWD is approximately 200,000 acres. Mr. Pimentel has substantial experience, having worked as the executive director for two large independent special taxing districts, which are similar in structure and have similar powers as the community development district which White Development Company wishes to establish. Mr. Pimentel's testimony was especially persuasive due to his experience with water control entities. The proposed district is the best alternative available for financing, constructing, owning, operating and maintaining the surface water management and control facility for the area encompassed by the proposed district. It provides a more efficient use of resources, and provides the opportunity for new growth in the district to pay for its own surface water management, rather than imposing that cost on general government. The proposed district would not be incompatible with the capacity or uses of existing local and regional community services and facilities. The area to be served by the proposed district is amenable to separate special- district government. Henry H. Fishkind, Ph.D. testified as an expert economist about the economic consequences of establishing a community development district under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, the economic consequences of financing the surface water management and control system through the use of tax exempt bonds, and the cost of operating and maintaining those structures by a community development district. Dr. Fishkind prepared the economic impact statement for the proposed district required by Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The costs to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, and to state and local agencies in reviewing the petition are minimal. The costs to the City of Port St. Lucie and to St. Lucie County have been covered by the $15,000 filing fee which White paid to each of those governments. The cost to the City of Port St. Lucie once the district is operating would be negligible. The potential debt of the proposed district will not become general obligations or debts of the city or county governments. The cost of the surface water improvements will be paid by those who benefit from them. The economic impact statement is adequate, and meets the requirements of Section 124.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes. During the first six years, the proposed district would be controlled by Thomas J. White Development Company since White still would be the largest landowner. Tax exempt benefit bonds would be issued to construct the surface water management facilities. Both White and residents of the proposed district would share the burden of amortizing these bonds through benefit taxes. According to Dr. Fishkind, whose opinion is credited, from an economic perspective: The creation of the St. Lucie West District is not inconsistent with the state and local comprehensive plan; The land to be served by the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a functional interrelated community; The proposed district is the best alternative for providing surface water management for the community, since other alternatives such as municiple service taking units or homeowners' associations are more expensive or more cumbersome; The area to be served by the proposed district is amenable to separate special-district government. All factors which are required to be considered in establishing a community development district under Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, were analyzed by the witnesses presented by the Thomas White Development Company. Their testimony was persuasive, and the application meets all requirements of Chapter 190.
Conclusions Based on the record made, it is concluded: That all statements contained in the petition are true and correct; The creation of the proposed district is not inconsistent with any applicable element of the state comprehensive plan, or the City of Port St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan; The area in the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional, interrelated community; The district is the best alternative for delivering water management services to the area to be serviced by the district, and would be superior to the creation of a municipal service taxing unit, a homeowner's association, or to providing water management by the general county government of St. Lucie County; The community development services provided by the proposed district will not be incompatible with the capacity or uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities; The area to be served by the proposed district is amenable to separate special district government. Accordingly it is recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the petition of the Thomas J. White Development Company and adopt a rule pursuant to Section 190.005(f), Florida Statutes (1987), establishing the St. Lucie West Services District. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. William R. Dorsey, 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 5th day of September, 1989 APPENDIX A Case No. 89-0072 Witnesses Earnest R. Dike, Jr., 590 NW Peacock Loop, Port St. Lucie, Florida. Lester L. Solin, Solin and Associates, 901 Douglas Avenue, Suite 207, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Peter Pimentel, 5725 Corporate Way, Suite 203, West Palm Beach Florida. Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, 201 North New York Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, Florida. APPENDIX B Case No. 89-0072 List of Documentary Evidence Exhibit 1. Petition for Rulemaking filed by Thomas J. White Development Company, Inc., including seven exhibits. Exhibit 2. Location Map for the proposed St. Lucie West Services District. Exhibit 3. Future Land Use Map for the area Exhibit 4. Resolution 89-R7 of the city council of Port St. Lucie, Florida, which is the development order for the St. Lucie West Development of Regional Impact. Exhibit 5. Transmittal letter for the Petition for the establishment of the Services District to the City of Port St. Lucie and filing fee, and transmittal letter for the St. Lucie West Development District to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, and filing fee. Exhibit 6. Transmittal letter for the Petition for the establishment of St. Lucie West Services District to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Exhibit 7. Letter from the staff of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission determining that the Petition appears to satisfy the requirements of Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.009 Florida Administrative Code. Exhibit 8. Resolution 89-R6 from the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida supporting the petition of the Thomas J. White Development Company, Inc. for the establishment of the St. Lucie West Services District. Exhibit 9. Resolution 89-41 of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County supporting the petition of Thomas J. White Development Company, Inc. for the establishment of the St. Lucie West Services District. Exhibit 10. Proof of publication in the local newspapers and in the Florida Administrative Weekly of the Notice of the Hearing on the petition for the establishment of the community development district and notices to other interested persons. Exhibit 11. Copy of the State Comprehensive Plan Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1987) Exhibit 12. Copy of the Comprehensive Plan: 1985 of the City of Port St. Lucie, Ordinance 85-102. Exhibit 13. Resume of Ernest R. Dike, Jr., P.E. APPENDIX B CONT. Case No. 89-0072 Exhibit 14. Permit granted to Thomas J. White Development Company, Inc. by the South Florida Water Management District for the construction and operation of a water management system. Exhibit 15. The prepared testimony Lester L. Solin, Jr. Exhibit 16. The resume of Peter L. Pimentel. Exhibit 17. The prepared testimony of Henry H. Fishkind, Ph.D. Exhibit 18. The additional prepared testimony of Mr. Dike including the computer generated spread sheet. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Lee Worsham, Esquire HONIGAMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ and COHN 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 600 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James C. Vaughn Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 William Buezett The Governor, Legal and Legislative Office The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Carla Stanford, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerville Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David McIntyre, Esquire County Attorney 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Roger Orr, Esquire City Attorney 220 South Second Street Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Patty Woodworth, Director Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Planning & Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether certain portions of Amendment RU-27 to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, as adopted in Sarasota County Ordinance 96- 027, are in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, GROWTH-RESTRAINT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION, INC. (GEO), is a non-profit environmental advocacy organization. By stipulation, GEO is an “affected person” as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, ENVIRONMENTAL CONFEDERATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. (ECOSWF), is a Florida non-profit corporation which has a number of corporate and individual members in Sarasota whose corporate purposes may be affected by RU-27. ECOSWF has engaged in a variety of advocacy and educational activities in Sarasota County and submitted oral comments to Sarasota County during the adoption of RU-27. Petitioner, MIAKKA COMMUNITY CLUB, INC. (MCC), is a non- profit community corporation whose members primarily reside in Sarasota County. By stipulation MCC is an “affected person” as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner REBECCA AYECH (AYECH) owns property and resides in Sarasota County and submitted oral and written comments to Sarasota County on RU-27. By stipulation AYECH is an “affected person” as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DEPARTMENT) is the State land planning agency, with responsibility to review plan amendments under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3189, Florida Statutes. Respondent SARASOTA COUNTY (COUNTY) is a local government with responsibility to prepare a comprehensive plan and any required amendments thereto pursuant to Sections 163.3167, 163.3171, Florida Statutes. The Challenged Amendment Ordinance 96-27, also known as amendment RU-27, was adopted by Sarasota County on April 30, 1996. RU-27 substantially revised the future land use element (FLUE) and future land use map (FLUM). Sarasota County is approximately 563 square miles in size. The revisions to the FLUM contained in RU-27 as a whole substantially affect approximately 305,000 acres. Petitioners’ only challenge to RU-27 as a whole is that the plan improperly fails to incorporate a five-year time frame for land use. In all other respects, Petitioners’ challenge is limited to two parcels of land comprising approximately 200 acres located immediately east of I-75 and immediately north of Fruitville Road. These parcels are identified as “A” and “C” on page 5 of Petitioners’ Exhibit 40. On the pre-amendment FLUM, Parcels A and C are designated semi-rural. “Semi-rural” provides for residential densities up to one unit per two acres. The post-amendment FLUM provided for the following land uses for parcels A and C: the western half of Parcel A was "major employment center/interstate regional office park" (MEC/IROP) and the eastern half was "moderate density residential" (MDR); the northern (approximate) third of Parcel C was "moderate density residential" (MDR), and the southern two thirds was "major employment center" (MEC). MEC is described in the FLUE as: Coordinated development of industrial, commercial, service and governmental uses within a park-like setting" which is encouraged in MEC. Commercial general uses, which are customarily accessory and incidental to the primary uses allowed within a MEC may be permitted, provided that such commercial uses are located and oriented internally, are consistent with an adopted Critical Area Plan or Development of Regional Impact, are located at least 300 feet from the boundary and do not exceed five percent of the total land area. Class A quality type development is encouraged, particularly along 1-75 pursuant to FLUE Policy 3.3.5. MDR-type residential densities can be allowed in the MEC districts up to 25 of the area consistent with FLUE Policy 3.1.2. All development within an MEC must be consistent with an adopted critical area plan for the property under FLUE Policy 3.3.3. Implementing Zoning Categories for MEC are: PCD, PID, I, ILW, GU and PRD. MEC/IROP FLUE policies permit "planned office parks including high technology research and development centers" pursuant to FLUE Policy 3.3.4. All development within an MEC/IROP must be consistent with an adopted critical area plan for the property under FLUE Policy 3.3.3. Implementing Zoning Categories for MEC/IROP are: PCD, PID, I, ILW, GU and PRD. MDR as described in the FLUE Policy 3.1.1 is development within the Urban Service Area (USA) having "gross densities equal to or greater than two dwelling units per acre and less than five dwelling units per acre." Implementing Zoning Categories for MDR are: RSFI, RSF2, RSF3, RSF4, RMH and PRD. Subject Properties Parcels A and C had initially been identified as a "study area" in the transmitted version of RU-27. At the adoption stage public hearing the Sarasota County Planning Department staff presented recommendations as to the designation of Parcels A and C and the extension of the Urban Service Area to encompass those parcels. At the time of the adoption of RU-27, Parcel A was substantially undeveloped, and consisted of about 60-70% pine flatwoods; 35% mesic hammock; and three small freshwater wetlands. There was a dolomite waste water treatment facility in the northwest corner. Further, a two-lane paved road oriented north-south ran inside of the western boundary, connecting the mining operation to the north with Fruitville Road to the south and then west to 1-75. At the time of the adoption of RU-27, Parcel C was mostly cleared open land with approximately a dozen houses and other structures. Adjacent Area At the time of RU-27's adoption, immediately north of Parcel A was a Florida Power and Light Company transmission line and easement, and north of the easement was a series of mining operations and a Development of Regional Impact industrial and office park development. At the time of RU-27's adoption, east of Parcel A was a low density residential area known as the Fox Creek housing development, generally developed with five-acre parcels. At the time of RU-27's adoption, east of Parcel C was a high density area known as the "Sun `N Fun" recreational vehicle and mobile home park. At the time of RU-27's adoption, across Fruitville Road and to the south of Parcel C was what is known as the "celery fields" parcel. The celery fields have been obtained by Sarasota County as a regional stormwater facility. At the time of RU-27's adoption, south of Fruitville Road on both sides of 1-75 were major employment centers with warehousing and industrial uses. At the time of RU-27's adoption, west of 1-75 and North of Richardson Road was a multi-family residential development under construction. At the time of RU-27's adoption, at the immediate northeast corner of 1-75 and Fruitville Road, was a MEC. It was established in 1993 in Amendment RU-15. The FLUM amendments changed the land use designation on the parcel to the immediate north of the previously existing MEC from semi-rural to MEC. Petitioners do not challenge this change. Parcel C is contiguous to the eastern boundary of the previously-existing MEC. A 24-inch force main water pipeline is scheduled to be constructed along Coburn Road, running along the western boundary of Parcel A, and a new water pumping station is planned for the northern corner of Parcel A. Potable water is available to Parcels A and C. A sanitary sewer (wastewater) pipeline is scheduled to be built by Sarasota County along the north, west and south boundaries of Parcel A. An analysis of the planning for the MEC and MEC/IROP land uses is set forth at pages 30-34 of RU-27. The Department's Compliance Review and Finding On or about December 8, 1995, Sarasota County transmitted a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan including amendment to the FLUE and FLUM. Sarasota County requested that the Department apply the Objections, Recommendations and Comments review process. The Department reviewed the proposed amendment, and notified the County on or about March 1, 1996, that the Department had seven objections to the proposed amendment under Chapter 163 and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. None of the objections pertained to Parcels A or C directly. In addition, the Department objected based upon alleged inconsistencies with the Regional Policy Plan, Goal 7, Regional Issue F and Goal 9, Regional Issue E; and based upon inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Goal 7, Policies 24 and 25 and Goal 9 Policy 3. None of the state or regional agencies which commented on RU-27 to the Department at the transmittal or adoption stage registered any objections to RU-27. The Florida Department of Transportation reviewed the amendment and had no objections. The Southwest Florida Water Management District reviewed RU-27 and registered no objections. The District commented that the proposed amendment did not address the District's pending Southern Water Use Caution Area rule and its potential effects on land use and development within the County. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council reviewed the proposed RU-27 amendment and determined it to be consistent with the Regional Policy Plan. The Department of Environmental Protection offered no comments or objections to the amendment. On or about April 30, 1996, the County transmitted the adopted amendment (Ordinance RU-27) to the Department. RU-27 was a major revision of the FLUE. Sarasota County made changes in the transmitted version of RU-27 in the adoption stage, including changes to the FLUM. Among the changes to the transmitted amendment were: updated (to 1995) population estimates and projections; development capacity calculations; existing land use and cover maps, "minor corrections to the FLUM," updating of the FLUM "to show recent government acquisitions and changes to the FLUM that affected specific relatively small areas," and minor changes to several policies. The Department determined that the plan amendment adopted in Ordinance RU-27 was in compliance. The Department published notice of intent to find Ordinance RU-27 in compliance on June 26, 1995, in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Petitioners filed a timely Petition challenging the Department’s intent to find Ordinance RU-27 in compliance. In Paragraph 4.a. of the Petition, Non-Compliance with Section 163.3177, it is alleged that the subject portion of RU-27 violates Section 163.3171, Florida Statutes, because (1) it causes the FLUM not to be based on the projected population of Sarasota County; (2) it allows urban sprawl into new areas without correcting public facilities deficiencies; (3) it fails to recognize important environmental features (messic hammock, wetlands, pine flatwoods); and (4) it fails to account for I-75 as an evacuation route when it is projected to be severely over- stressed for evacuation purposes. The evidence fails to establish any requirement that the designation of each parcel be mathematically justified in the plan or the effect of the designations at issue on the demographic analyses supporting the plan. As part of the plan amendment process, Sarasota County analyzed the growth trends in the northern versus the southern half of the county, and found that the northern half of the county had limited residential capacity for the next ten years, with a projected buildout by 2006. The limited supply justified an additional amount of additional residential capacity. The evidence fails to establish the existence of any public facilities deficiencies that would be affected by the amendment. Native habitats receive protection from other provisions of the comprehensive plan during the development review process, even under the designations applied in RU-27. The evidence fails to establish that the amendment would have any adverse impact on I-75’s ability to carry traffic in an emergency. The subject area is not a hurricane evacuation zone, but is planned to serve as a safe area to absorb evacuees from other coastal regions of the county. Timing of RU-27 vs. the EAR Petitioners allege that the subject portion of the amendment violates Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, because it was transmitted and adopted prior to the adoption of Sarasota County’s Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). Sarasota County’s EAR was adopted on February 20, 1996. RU-27 was adopted on April 30, 1996. Sarasota County notified the Regional Planning Council that RU-27 was an EAR-based amendment, but did not specifically notify the Department. The Department, however, considered and reviewed RU-27 as an EAR-based amendment. Other local governments have failed to specifically designate EAR-based amendments in the past. On such occasions the Department has contacted the local governments to ascertain the status of such amendments during the Department’s review process. Alleged Inconsistency with State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners allege that the amendment "does not comply" with the following parts of the State Comprehensive Plan: 187.201(8), (10), (17), (18), (20), (23), (24), Florida Statutes. The evidence fails to establish any inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council found the amendment to be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the more specific and credible expert opinion is that the designations of the parcels at issue are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. The evidence fails to establish the existing Future Land Use Element was not based on appropriate data and analysis, or that the entirety of RU-27 was not based on appropriate data and analysis. The evidence fails to establish that the data supporting the amendment were not collected and applied in professionally accepted manner. A consultant’s study prepared for the County in 1989 had estimated the unadjusted demand for new office park development in the I-75 corridor to consume approximately 640 acres by the year 2010. These data, prepared for an I-75 Corridor Plan, were incorporated into the 1989 update of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on this information, the County had designated 770 acres of MEC/IROP land to allow for environmental constraints. Although located at an I-75 interchange, Parcels A and C had not been designated for Urban uses in part because of drainage problems and the habitat located on parts of Parcel A. Because of recent drainage improvements in this area and more stringent environmental site planning requirements incorporated into the plan after 1989, this particular location has improved substantially as to its suitability for MEC/IROP development. By designating a portion of this site for MEC/IROP uses, RU-27 increased the supply of MEC/IROP land by approximately 60 to 70 acres. No other MEC/IROP lands were added by RU-27, resulting in a total available supply of approximately 840 to 850 acres. When compared with the 1989 consultant’s study, the total MEC/IROP acreage exceeds absolute demand by approximately 33 percent. The MDR contained within the subject parcels amounts to approximately 120 acres. At the maximum possible density of five units per acre, 600 residential units could be constructed on these parcels, or 540 units more than the maximum allowable under the previous Semi-Rural designation. The total urban residential capacity of the urban-designated area in RU-27 is 43,912 units, meaning that the new urban development permitted on these parcels constitutes a maximum or 1.23 percent of the total number of potential units. Based on the County’s existing land use controls and other constraints, the County projects that such lands will actually develop at even lower densities than the maximum allowed within the FLUM designations. The actual zoning density applied in Sarasota County is less than Future Land Use designation, except in the rural area. In the text of the RU-27 amendment, the County justified the need for the designation of the MDR at this particular location as being to “serve as a transition between lands designated as Major Employment Center and existing Semi- Rural Development.” Population Projections Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.005(2)(e) and 9J-5.006(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, in that it is not based on required population projections. RU-27 is based upon residential as well as seasonal population projections. The MDR areas designated on Parcels A and C by RU-27 were intended to provide a buffer between the newly-created MEC and MEC/IROP land uses on those parcels and existing residential development. Petitioners essentially challenge the changed land uses on Parcels A and C to new residential MDR capacity based upon the allegation that the expansion of the Urban Service Area to include the parcels is "over-allocated" because it exceeds the 133% market flexibility factor. The evidence, however, fails to show that the land uses designated for Parcels A and C is inconsistent with the projected population growth, particularly in light of the faster growth rate in the northern portion of Sarasota County. Planning Time Frames Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rule 9J-5.005(4), Florida Administrative Code, because the FLUE does not contain a five-year planning time frame. The challenged portions of the amendment (Parcels A and C) do not specifically relate to the planning time frame requirement, however, it is clear that the plan as amended contains at least two planning time frames, 1995-2005 time frame associated with the Urban Service Area and provision of capital improvements, and 1995-2010 for long-range capital improvements planning. Internal Consistency with Goals, Objectives, Policies Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rule 9J-5.005 (5), Florida Administrative Code, due to alleged internal inconsistency between the two FLUM changes and the following parts of the FLUE (as amended by RU-27). (1) Analysis. The Petition refers to portions of the Analysis section: "Development Capacity of the Urban Area"; "Coordination of Capital Improvements and band Uses"; "Planning for Residential Uses"; "Planning for Industrial Uses"; and "Summary." The evidence does not establish that the changed land uses on Parcels A and C are inconsistent with the totality of the data and analysis which the County considered. The County Commission designated Parcels A, B and C as a "study area", there was a pre-existing MEC on a contiguous parcel, and Parcel B was an urban enclave proximate to the Interstate. The map depicting the urban planning area did not include Parcels A and C; however, the map was intended to include the pre-RU-27 urban areas as a basis for beginning work on the amendment. The evidence does not establish an inconsistency between the Analysis Section and Parcels A and C. (2) Intent. The Petition did not identify any specific provision of the Intent section alleged to be insistent with the FLUM designation of the two parcels. The Intent Section does not set forth goals, objectives or policy as meant by Rule 9J- 5.005(5)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence does not establish an inconsistency between the Intent Section and the designation of the two parcels at issue. (3) Policy 1.2.1. This policy requires that potential land use incompatibilities be mitigated through certain design techniques. This policy applies to the issuance of development orders and rezonings, not plan amendments. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 1.2.1. (4) Policy 2.2.1. This policy requires that development orders be conditioned on adequate levels of service. A plan amendment, however, is not a development order. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 2.2.1. (5) Policy 2.2.2. This policy requires that public expenditures for infrastructure and services be concentrated to serve areas within the Urban Services Area (USA) boundary. The parcels in question are within the USA boundary. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 2.2.2. (6) Policy 2.3.1. This policy calls for a minimum dwelling unit potential within the USA boundary of 133% of the projected housing demand. Parcels A and C are within the USA, therefore no inconsistency exists. (7) Policy 2.3.2. This policy provides that the Future Urban areas will be considered for inclusion within the USA, based on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 2.3.2. (8) Policy 2.3.4. This policy explains that the FLUM “establishes a long-range maximum limit on the possible intensity of land use,” but not a minimum. The designation of Parcels A and C in this regard is consistent with Policy 2.3.4. (9) Goal 3. This goal calls for the orderly development of lands needed to accommodate the projected population growth. . . .” The designation of Parcels A and C reflects a balanced approach to population growth in the northern part of Sarasota County. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Goal 3. (10) Policy 3.1.1. This policy provides guidelines for the application of the residential density ranges provided in the comprehensive plan to subsequent development orders. The designation of Parcels A and C is not a development order. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 3.1.1. (11) Policy 3.1.7. This policy requires the County to amend and adopt appropriate ordinances and plans to promote mixed use, pedestrian and bicycle friendly communities within two years. Within the context of RU-27, the designation of Parcels A and C provides a reasonable plan to promote the mixed use of this property and incorporate the area in an orderly manner. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 3.1.7. (12) Objective 4.1. Objective 4.1 provides for the establishment and implementation of planning programs to address development and redevelopment opportunities. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Objective 4.1. (13) Policy 4.1.7. This policy calls for the development and preparation of a subsequent overall plan for the areas east of I-75 in Sarasota County. The policy does not prohibit or otherwise limit the uses previously designated or the uses set forth in RU-27. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 4.1.7. (14) Appendix I. Appendix I contains the capacity methodology and the designation of the two parcels at issue. The Petition did not allege that the methodology contained in Appendix I failed to comply with Chapter 163 or Rule 9J-5, and there is no showing of an internal inconsistency. Concurrency Petitioners allege that the subject portion of the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.0055 and 9J- 5.006(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, because all required public facilities will not be available concurrent to the development permitted by RU-27. There is no evidence of any inadequacy of the plan’s existing concurrency management systems or their consistency with state statute or rule. There are no existing public facilities deficiencies at Parcels A and C. The designation of Parcels A and C in the amendment would not exacerbate any existing public facilities deficiencies. While the designation of Parcels A and C would have some impact on roads, sanitary sewers, stormwater management, and other facilities and services, the evidence does not establish that required facilities will not be available concurrent to development. Urban Sprawl Petitioners allege that the subject portion of the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)8 and 9J- 5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, because it allows and encourages urban sprawl. There is no existing or historic problem of urban sprawl in Sarasota County. Sarasota County has historically provided only the capacity needed to support the population projections. RU-27 established the urban service area for Sarasota County. The change in land use for the subject properties in RU-27 did not cause urban sprawl. Sarasota County has for planning purposes a “tight” plan, in that it contains effective land use controls, works well within the planning timeframes, and contains a much lower allocation of new land for growth than other land use plans reviewed and approved by the Department. The approximate 200 acres of Parcels A and C do not constitute a “substantial area” of Sarasota County. Parcels A and C do not constitute a substantial area of the FLUM, which encompasses approximately 305,000 acres. As determined by the planning reviewers, the changes to the adopted FLUM pertain to relatively small areas. The changes to the FLUM for Parcels A and C substantially represent an “urban to urban” change. The rule indicators of urban sprawl are not implicated by the changed land use of Parcels A and C. Sarasota County’s plan has effective development controls in place to mitigate for or discourage urban sprawl. The new FLUM categories for Parcels A and C are not properly characterized as “low intensity” or “single-use development.” The new FLUM categories for Parcels A and C are not properly characterized as “in excess of demonstrated need.” The new land uses for Parcels A and C constitute "nodal development" which is not urban sprawl and not “radial strip development.” The new land uses for Parcels A and C do not constitute “leapfrog” development, but constituted “infill” of the existing and surrounding development to Parcels A and C. 102 The amended land uses for Parcels A and C do not reflect premature, poorly-planned development. Parcels A and C do not have adjacent active agricultural areas with which to conflict. Regional Policy Plan Petitioners claim that the amendment does not comply with the following parts of the Regional Policy Plan: Goal 1-9; Policy 10; Goal 11-25; and Policy 1e. The Department and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council determined that the amendment is consistent with the Regional Policy Plan. There is no evidence of record regarding any inconsistency with the Southwest Florida Regional Policy Plan.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 05-20 is "in compliance," as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005),1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Statement of Intent filed by the Department of Community Affairs ("the Department").
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Lee County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Leeward is a Florida limited liability company that owns a portion of the real property that is the subject of the amendment at issue. The Amendment The amendment would change the future land use designation for 41.28 acres in the northeast quadrant of the Interstate 75 (I-75)/State Road 80 (SR 80) interchange from General Commercial Interchange to Urban Community, as shown on the FLUM. The General Commercial Interchange land use is described in the County Plan as “intended primarily for general community commercial land uses: retail, planned commercial districts, shopping, office, financial, and business.” It does not allow residential development. The Urban Community land use provides for a mix of residential, commercial, public, quasi-public, and limited light industrial uses. The standard density range for residential uses in the Urban Community category is one to six dwelling units per acre (du/a). The 41.28 acres affected by the amendment ("the amendment site") consist of 19.28 acres of lands along the Orange River owned by Leeward, a platted subdivision known as Dos Rios of approximately 11 acres, and the remaining acreage consists of right-of-way for SR 80 and I-75. Currently operating on Leeward's property is a vessel repair facility, a marina with wet and dry slips, and an ecotourism company. Leeward also has its office on the site. The Dos Rios subdivision includes 26 single-family lots. Apparently, only a few of the lots (the number was not established in the record) have been developed. Because residential land uses are not allowed in the General Commercial Interchange category, the Dos Rios lots were non-conforming uses. Maximum Allowed Density The County Plan provides residential density bonuses to promote various County objectives, such as the provision of affordable housing. With density bonuses, lands designated Urban Community can boost their density to a maximum of ten du/a. There was testimony presented by Leeward that the County has not often approved applications for density bonuses. Even if the practice of the County in approving density bonuses were relevant, the practice can change. It is reasonable for the Department to consider the maximum intensity or density associated with a future land use designation when determining whether a FLUM amendment is in compliance. Therefore, in this case, it is reasonable to consider the Urban Community land use designation as allowing up to ten du/a. The Department asserts that the amendment would allow the 41.2 acres affected by the amendment to have a total of 412 dwelling units (41.2 acres x 10 du/a). Leeward disputed that figure because the 41.2 acres includes road right-of-way and the Dos Rios subdivision. A hearing officer appointed to review a Lee County development order recently determined that right-of-way external to a development should not be included in calculating allowable units, and the County accepted the hearing officer's recommendation based on that determination. The definition of "density" in the County Plan supports the determination.2 Therefore, for the purposes of this case, the right-of-way in the northeast quadrant should not be included in calculating the maximum residential density that would result from the amendment. On the other hand, Leeward's argument that the Dos Rios subdivision acreage should not be included in the ten du/a calculation is rejected. For the purposes of an "in compliance" determination, it is reasonable for the Department to apply the maximum potential densities to all developable and re- developable acreage. Using 29 acres as the approximate acreage affected by the amendment when road right-of-way is subtracted, the amendment would create the potential for 290 residences in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. Adoption of the Amendment The amendment was initiated as part of the County's reexamination of the existing land use designations in the four quadrants of the I-75/SR 80 interchange. Following the County planning staff's completion of a study of the entire interchange, it recommended several changes to the County Plan, but no change was recommended for the northeast quadrant. Apparently, the amendment at issue was urged by Leeward, and, at a public hearing held on June 1, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt the amendment. Pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment was forwarded to the Department for an "in compliance" review. Following its review, the Department issued its ORC Report on August 19, 2005. In the ORC Report, the Department objected to the proposed amendment based upon what it considered to be inappropriate residential densities in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA) and floodplain. The Department recommended that the County not adopt the proposed amendment. On October 12, 2005, another public hearing was held before the Board of County Commissioners to consider adoption of the amendment. At the public hearing, the County planning staff recommended that the land use designation in the northeast quadrant not be changed to Urban Community "due to the potential increase in density in the Coastal High Hazard Area." Nevertheless, the Board of County Commissioners approved the amendment. Representatives of Leeward appeared and submitted comments in support of the amendment at the public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. On December 16, 2005, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance, identifying three reasons for its determination: (1) inconsistency with state law regarding development in the CHHA and flood prone areas, (2) internal inconsistency with provisions of the County Plan requiring the consideration of residential density reductions in undeveloped areas within the CHHA, and (3) inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan regarding subsidizing development in the CHHA and regulating areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding. On January 5, 2006, the Department filed its petition for formal hearing with DOAH. Coastal High Hazard Area The Florida Legislature recognized the particular vulnerability of coastal resources and development to natural disasters and required coastal counties to address the subject in their comprehensive plans. [I]t is the intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans restrict development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources, and that such plans protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. § 163.3178(1), Fla. Stat. The statute also requires evacuation planning. Until 2006, the CHHA was defined as the "category 1 evacuation zone." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In 2006, the CHHA was redefined as "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model."3 Ch. 2006-68, § 2, Laws of Fla. The County Plan defines the CHHA as "the category 1 evacuation zone as delineated by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council." Map 5 of the County Plan, entitled "Lee County Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)," shows the entire amendment site as being within the CHHA. Nothing on Map 5, however, indicates it was produced by the Regional Planning Council. Daniel Trescott, who is employed by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and is responsible for, among other things, storm surge mapping, stated that the Category 1 evacuation zone is the storm surge level for the worst case scenario landfall for a Category 1 storm. He stated that the Category 1 storm surge for Lee County was determined by the SLOSH model to be 5.3 feet. Mr. Trescott stated that the 5.3 foot contour (shown on Plate 7 of the Regional Planning Council's "Hurricane Storm Tide Atlas - Lee County") more accurately delineates the CHHA than Map 5 of the County Plan. Although Mr. Trescott's testimony suggests a conflict between the County Plan's definition of the CHHA and Map 5's depiction of the CHHA, the two can be reconciled by a finding that Map 5 is a gross depiction of the CHHA for general public information purposes, but the precise location of the CHHA boundary is the one delineated by the Regional Planning Council, and the latter is controlling. Using the 5.3 contour on the amendment site, Leeward's witness, Michael Raider, estimated that there are approximately 16 acres of the amendment site within the CHHA. Applying the maximum allowable residential density under the Urban Community land use designation (with bonuses) of ten du/a means the amendment would result in a potential for 160 dwellings in the CHHA. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)7., respectively, require each local government’s coastal management element to contain one or more specific objectives that "[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas” and limit development in these areas. The parties' evidence and argument regarding whether the amendment was "in compliance" focused on these rules and the following goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan related to the CHHA: GOAL 105: PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. To protect human life and developed property from natural disasters. OBJECTIVE 105.1: DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. Development seaward of the 1991 Coastal Construction Control Line will require applicable State of Florida approval; new development on barrier islands will be limited to densities that meet required evacuation standards; new development requiring seawalls for protection from coastal erosion will not be permitted; and allowable densities for undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduction. POLICY 105.1.4: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In the opinion of Bernard Piawah, a planner employed by the Department, the amendment is inconsistent with the goal, objective and policy set forth above because these provisions only contemplate possible reductions of residential densities in the CHHA and there is no provision of the County Plan that addresses or establishes criteria for increasing residential densities in the CHHA. Population Concentrations As stated above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. directs local governments to include provisions in their comprehensive plans to direct population concentrations away from the CHHA. The term "population concentrations" is not defined in any statute or rule. The term apparently has no generally accepted meaning in the planning profession. The word "population" has the ordinary meaning of "all of the people inhabiting a specific area." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1981). The word "concentration" has the ordinary meaning of "the act or process of concentrating." Id. The word "concentrate" means "to direct or draw toward a common center." Id. In the context of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012, the term "population concentrations" suggests a meaning of population densities (dwelling units per acre) of a certain level, but the level is not stated. Leeward argues that, because there is no state guidance on the meaning of the term "population concentrations," surrounding land uses should be examined to determine whether a proposed density would be "proportionate to its surroundings." According to Leeward, in order to be a population concentration, the density under review would have to be greater than the surrounding density. This comparative approach is rejected because the overarching Legislative objective is protection of life, which plainly calls for a straightforward consideration of the number of lives placed in harm's way. The Department, in its Proposed Recommended Order, states: By assigning either zero residential density to land by virtue of an Open Space land use designation, or a maximum density of one unit per acre by assigning a low density land use designation, the County Plan fulfills the mandates of State law that development be limited in and residential concentrations be directed away from the CHHA. Thus, not surprisingly, the Department does not consider one du/a to be a population concentration. A density of ten du/a is an urban density, as indicated by the fact that it is the maximum density allowed in the Urban Community land use designation and the highest density within the "standard density range" for the County's Central Urban land use designation. It is a generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that urban areas are areas where populations are concentrated. It is a another generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that ten dwelling units on one acre of land amounts to a lot of people living in a small space. Leeward, itself, described the residential density allowed under the Urban Community designation as "relatively intense." Leeward's Proposed Recommended Order, at 7. Whether measured by density alone (ten du/a) or by Leeward's estimate of 160 residences on 16 acres, the amendment places a population concentration in the CHHA. Offsets in the CHHA Leeward presented evidence that the County has been reducing residential densities, sometimes referred to as "down- planning," in other areas of the CHHA in Lee County. The reduction in dwelling units in the CHHA over the past several years may be as high as 10,000 units. The Department did not present evidence to dispute that there has been an overall reduction in dwelling units in the CHHAs of Lee County. Leeward argues that these reductions "offset" the increase in dwelling units in the CHHA that would result from the amendment and this "overall" reduction in densities in the CHHA must be considered in determining whether the amendment is "in compliance" with state law and with provisions of the County Plan related to directing population concentrations away from the CHHA. At the hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argued that the consideration of offsets in the CHHA was improper and unworkable, but that argument conflicts with the Department's actual practice and official position as described in the January 2006 "Department of Community Affairs Report for the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee." In that report, the Department acknowledged there is no statutory or rule guidance regarding what the maximum density should be in the CHHA. The Report notes that some local governments have established maximum densities for the CHHA (e.g., Pinellas County, 5 du/a; Franklin County 1 du/a). The Department states in the report that it reviews amendments to increase density in the CHHA on a "case by case" basis, and explains further: When a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the CHHA proposes a density increase, DCA's review considers the amount of the density increase, the impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" (generally accomplished through public acquisition). One of the visual aides used in conjunction with the 2006 report to Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee, entitled "Policy Issue #2 - Densities in High Hazard Areas," also describes the Department's practice: Without locally adopted density limits, DCA conducts a case by case review of amendments without any defined numeric limit. DCA considers amount of density increase, impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" in other areas of the CHHA. These statements use the phrase "there will be a corresponding offset," which suggests that for an offset to be considered, it would have to be proposed concurrently with an increase in residential density on other lands within the CHHA. However, according to the director of the Department's Division of Community Planning, Valerie Hubbard, offsets in the CHHA do not have to be concurrent; they can include previous reductions. Furthermore, although the Department pointed to the absence of any criteria in the County Plan to guide an offset analysis, Ms. Hubbard said it was unnecessary for a comprehensive plan to include express provisions for the use of offsets. To the extent that this evidence of the Department's interpretation of relevant law and general practice conflicts with other testimony presented by the Department in this case, the statements contained in the report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee and the testimony of Ms. Hubbard are more persuasive evidence of the Department's policy and practice in determining compliance with the requirement that comprehensive plans direct population densities away from the CHHA and limit development in the CHHA. As long as the Department's practice when conducting an "in compliance" review of amendments that increase residential density in the CHHA is to take into account offsets, the Department has the duty to be consistent and to take into account the County's offsets in the review of this amendment. The County planning director testified that he believed the applicable goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan are met as long as there has been a reduction in residential densities in the CHHAs of the County as a whole. The Department points out that the planning director's opinion was not included in the County planning staff's reports prepared in conjunction with the amendment. However, it necessarily follows from the Board of County Commissioners' adoption of the amendment that it does not interpret Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 as prohibiting an increase in residential density in the CHHA. Although these provisions make no mention of offsets, the Department has not required offset provisions in a comprehensive plan before the Department will consider offsets in its determination whether a plan amendment that increases density in the CHHA is in compliance. The wording used in Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 requiring "consideration" of density reductions in the CHHA can be harmonized with the County planning director's testimony and with the County's adoption of the amendment by construing these plan provisions consistently with the Department's own practice of allowing increases in the CHHA when the increases are offset by overall reductions in dwelling units in the CHHA. Seeking to harmonize the amendment with the provisions of the County Plan is the proper approach because, as discussed later in the Conclusions of Law, whether an amendment is consistent with other provisions of the plan is subject to the "fairly debatable" standard which is a highly deferential standard that looks for "any reason it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction." Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997). Shelter Space and Clearance Time Prior to the hearing in this case, Leeward moved to strike certain statute and rule citations in the Department's petition related to shelter space and clearance time4 because they were not included in the Department's ORC Report. The motion was denied because, although Section 163.3184(8)(b), Florida Statutes, limits the Department's petition to issues raised in the "written comments" in the ORC Report, the statute does not indicate that the Department is barred from citing in its petition, for the first time, a rule or statute that is directly related to the written comments. The CHHA is defined in the County Plan as the category one "evacuation zone." It is the area most in need of evacuation in the event of a severe coastal storm. Shelter space and clearance time are integral to evacuation planning and directly related to the Department's comment in the ORC Report that the amendment would, "expose a substantial population to the dangers of a hurricane." Therefore, the Department was not barred from presenting evidence on shelter space and clearance time in support of this comment. The Department's practice when reviewing an amendment that increases residential density in the CHHA, described in its 2006 report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Area Study Committee, is to consider not only dwelling unit offsets in the CHHA, but also the effect on shelter space and clearance time. That report did not elaborate on how shelter space and clearance time are considered by the Department, but evidence that a comprehensive plan amendment would have a significant adverse effect on shelter space or clearance time could presumably negate what would otherwise appear to the Department to be an acceptable offset of residential density in the CHHA. On this record, however, the Department did not show that a significant adverse impact on shelter space or clearance time would be caused by this particular amendment.5 Special Planning Areas Leeward argues that, even if the amendment were determined to be inconsistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4, that inconsistency should be balanced against other provisions in the County Plan that are furthered by the amendment, principally the provisions related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area and the Water- Dependent Use Overlay Zone. There is no authority for such a balancing approach that can overcome an inconsistency with an objective or policy of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, whether the amendment furthers the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area, Water-Dependent Use Overlay Zone, or other subjects is irrelevant to whether the amendment is consistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4. On the other hand, the Department's contention that the amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area is contrary to the more credible evidence. 100-Year Floodplain The amendment site is entirely within the 100-year floodplain. In its Statement of Intent, the Department determined that the amendment was not in compliance, in part, because the amendment site's location in the 100-year floodplain made it unsuitable for residential development. In addition, the Department determined that the amendment caused an internal inconsistency with the following policies of the County Plan related to development in the floodplain: POLICY 61.3.2: Floodplains must be managed to minimize the potential loss of life and damage to property by flooding. POLICY 61.3.6: Developments must have and maintain an adequate surface water management system, provision for acceptable programs for operation and maintenance, and post-development runoff conditions which reflect the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, direction, quality, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. Detailed regulations will continue to be integrated with other county development regulations. According to Mike McDaniel, a growth management administrator with the Department, "we try to discourage increasing densities in floodplains and encourage that it be located in more suitable areas." The policies set forth above are intended to aid in the achievement of Goal 61 of the Community Facilities and Service Element "to protect water resources through the application of innovative and sound methods of surface water management and by ensuring that the public and private construction, operation, and maintenance of surface water management systems are consistent with the need to protect receiving waters.” Plainly, Goal 61 is directed to regulating construction and surface water management systems. There is no mention in this goal or in the policies that implement the goal of prohibiting all development or certain kinds of development in the 100-year floodplain. The Department's argument in this case regarding development in the 100-year floodplain is rejected because it ignores relevant facts and law. First, substantial portions of Lee County and the State are within the 100-year floodplain. Second, there is no state statute or rule that prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain. Third, the Department of Environmental Protection, water management districts, and local governments regulate development in the floodplain by application of construction standards, water management criteria, and similar regulatory controls to protect floodplain functions as well as human life and property. Fourth, there has been and continues to be development in the 100-year floodplain in Lee County and throughout the State, clearly indicating that such development is able to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements imposed by the permitting agencies for the specific purpose of protecting the floodplain and the public. Fifth, the Department "discourages" development in the floodplain but has not established by rule a standard, based on density or other measure, which reasonably identifies for local governments or the general public what development in the floodplain is acceptable to the Department and what development is unacceptable. Finally, the Department's practice in allowing offsets in the CHHA, as discussed previously, necessarily allows for development in the 100-year floodplain in that particular context.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission determining that the amendment adopted by Lee County in Ordinance No. 05-10 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2006.
The Issue Whether Amendment 99-1-NOI-5017-(A)-(I), Ordinance Number 509, to the Town of Juno Beach's (Town) Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) is "in compliance" as defined in chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and as alleged in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Patterson, Bisbee, and McLeod Petitioners, Dr. Patricia M. Patterson and James M. Bisbee, are husband and wife and have resided at 431 Olympus Drive, Town of Juno Beach, Florida, since February, 1999. Dr. Patterson is a Professor of Public Administration at the Florida Atlantic University. Prior to occupying this residence, Dr. Patterson investigated the neighborhood and wanted to reside in an ungated, single-family neighborhood. Dr. Patterson describes her neighborhood as the Ridge Area, which has a southern border of Olympus Drive or south to a new development, a western border of U.S. Highway 1 (U.S. 1), an eastern border of Ocean Drive or A1A, and a northern boundary of the Ocean View Methodist Church (Church). The linear Ridge bisects this area, running approximately north and south. See (Town's Exhibit 1A); (Petitioners' Exhibits 9A & 9B). The top of the Ridge consists predominantly of single- family residences. There is a significant increase in elevation from the U.S. 1 corridor, east to the top of the Ridge. The Patterson/Bisbee residence is located on the top of the Ridge, toward the middle of Olympus Drive. Mr. McLeod resides in a single-family residence, east and adjacent to the Patterson/Bisbee residence. There is a rental, single-family home immediately adjacent to the west of the Patterson/Bisbee residence. The lots to the west of the rental property are vacant and include the corner property (+/-.34 acre) subject to the Plan Amendment, which is at the bottom of the hill on the U.S. 1 side. Shortly after they moved into their new residence, Dr. Patterson learned from a neighbor that a Key West-style home was proposed to be built on a portion of the vacant lot. Dr. Patterson attended the Town's Land Planning Agency (LPA) April 1999, meeting and learned that there was a proposal to change a portion of the use of the vacant lot to "commercial." She learned that an application was filed on behalf of the Town's former Mayor and a former Councilman. Dr. Patterson expressed concern that the area should remain residential and not be changed to commercial. Dr. Patterson appeared at the May 1999, Town Council meeting and objected to the proposal on behalf of herself and Mr. Bisbee. Dr. Patterson also furnished the members of the Town Council with a letter dated May 17, 1999, which set forth her objections to the proposed changes. Dr. Patterson also attended part of the November 1999 Town Council meeting. Mr. Baird appeared before the LPA and the Town Council on behalf of Mr. McLeod. Dr. Patterson objects to the proposed Plan Amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan based on the proposed "commercial" use of the site, rather than the architectural style of the building proposed by Celestial. The Petitioners are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to participate as parties in this proceeding. Celestial Celestial is a partnership, which owns property and conducts a business in the Town of Juno Beach, Florida. In or around March of 1999, Celestial, the applicant, submitted an Application for an amendment to the Town of Juno Beach Comprehensive Plan. Celestial proposed to re-designate a +/-.34 acre portion (the Property) of a +/-.57 acre parcel owned by Celestial. The entire +/-.57 acre parcel is vacant property at the northeast corner of U.S. 1 and Olympus Drive. Celestial sought to amend the Town's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from the existing "low density residential" classification to the "commercial" classification for the western or corner portion, which is approximately +/-.34 acre. Celestial proposes to build a two (2)-story structure, with a professional office with residential units on the second level. The structure would be of an architectural style that will be compatible with surrounding, existing residential developments. Celestial has standing to participate as a party in this proceeding. Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Town The Town is a local government subject to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Act), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. On November 17, 1999, the Town adopted Ordinance Number 509 as an amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The Town also adopted Ordinance Number 510, which rezones the Property to "commercial office." The Department The Department is the state land planning agency, having authority to administer and enforce the Act. Among other responsibilities of the Department under the Act, the Department has the responsibility to review comprehensive plan amendments submitted by local governments and to determine if the plan amendments are in compliance with the Act. Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes. The Department reviewed the Plan Amendment and determined that it was "in compliance" pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, and 163.3189, Florida Statutes. The Town of Juno Beach, the Property, and the "Neighborhood" The Town is a small coastal community consisting of approximately 903 acres. The Town is located along the U.S. 1 corridor in Northern Palm Beach County, with municipalities, Jupiter and Tequesta to the north, and Palm Beach Gardens, North Palm Beach, Lake Park, and Riviera Beach to the south. The Town is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The U.S. 1 corridor was the subject of a study, conducted by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council in 1999, which became known as "Seven Cities: Northern Palm Beach County US 1 Corridor Study." "[T]he 16-mile corridor is primarily a four-lane facility involving a mixed bag of landscape and lighting treatments, roadway designs, land uses, access management, and drainage infrastructure. Conditions in the corridor range from urban to rural, from healthy to blighted. Long range transportation plans have called for the corridor to be widened to six lanes over times, but the need for this widening has been called into question." "Juno Beach's segment of US 1 is a long expanse with a variety of situations, ranging from the semirural or naturalistic sea scrub landscape to suburban areas of shopping malls & hotels, to strategically located vacant parcels ideal for infill development. The planning team recommends that each of these areas have its own distinct planning approach for improvement over time." Several recommendations are made for the Town, including the provision of "[a] variety of uses" for the town center location at the intersection of Donald Ross Road and U.S. 1, north of the Property, "including adding 'in-town' residential options: apartments above shopfronts, rowhouses along intimate streets, live/work loft combinations and so on would complement Juno Beach other excellent housing offerings." The Study also generally encourages attractive building facades with doors and windows facing the street, as opposed to "[b]lank, windowless facades facing streets [which] are absolutely deadening to the scene for pedestrians and motorists alike." There seems to be some criticism of the existence of "halfhearted 'buffer' of landscaping between the highway and a 'sound wall,'" in the Town area, which does appear along U.S. 1, north and south of the Property. The lands contiguous to the +/-.34 acre Property, on the north and east, are designated "low density residential," on the Town's FLUM. The land to the immediate east of the subject property is vacant and owned by Celestial. See Finding of Fact 3. The land to the immediate north is developed with a single-family home. A four-lane divided highway (U.S. 1), with a 120-foot right-of-way, is located to the west of the vacant Property, and extends from the Town's southern boundary to its northern boundary. There are approximately 24,000 daily trips of traffic passing the Property on U.S. 1. The speed limit on U.S. 1 is fifty (50) miles-per-hour, a speed not consistent with low residential development. The southern and western borders of the Town consist of lands owned by Palm Beach County and maintained as conservation areas. The land immediately to the west of the Property from U.S. 1 is designated "commercial" on the Town's FLUM and is called Seminole Plaza (Seminole), a 65,400-square foot, fairly large-scale, shopping center with various commercial and professional tenants, located on approximately five (5) acres. The property west of U.S. 1, north and south of Seminole, is owned and maintained by Palm Beach County as conservation areas. A short distance south of Seminole are Florida Power and Light's Juno Beach Offices and West Offices, both of which are office developments approved for land totaling over sixty (60) acres. To the immediate south of the Property is Olympus Drive. The land across Olympus Drive, to the immediate south of the Property, is designated "low density residential," and is developed as a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) consisting of single-family homes. This is the "Seaside" area and is bounded on the north by a white picket fence, which does not provide access to "Seaside." Pedestrian and vehicle traffic enter the Seaside development from the east along Ocean Drive or A1A. The southeast corner of Olympus Drive and U.S. 1, which is directly across from the Property, is within Seaside. There is no residential development on the southeast corner. Rather, the corner is developed with a concrete cul-de-sac. This parcel is not eligible for residential development under the Town's zoning code. The Town presented a composite exhibit of photographs of various commercial and other non-residential uses which are interspersed in the vicinity of the Property. The photographs were overlaid onto an aerial photograph of the general area between Donald Ross Road to the north of the Property, and Juno Road, to the south of the Property. The Property is located approximately mid-point between these roads. This visual depiction of the area demonstrates the variety of the uses and structures, which have developed along this segment of the U.S. 1 corridor within the Town, as well as the impact of that highway upon the development in the vicinity of the Property. The developments, north and south of the Property, include office buildings, the Church, an automotive repair business (e.g. Goodyear), motels (e.g. Hampton Inn) and a golf course. For example, the two-story, 9,000 square foot Juno Beach Professional Office Building, is located four-tenths of a mile north of the Property, east and fronting U.S. 1, and between a duplex and a single-family house. (This house has a yellow retaining wall directly fronting U.S. 1.) The Church is directly east of the office building. There are several vacant lots south and east of U.S. 1, designated "low density residential," which are undeveloped. There is a vacant, two (2) acre, commercially-designated parcel, two-tenths of a mile to the south of the Property on the east side of U.S. 1. Compare with Findings of Fact 1-3. Amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan In April of 1999, Celestial filed a revised Application requesting an amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan, changing the FLUM classification of the Property from "low density residential" to "commercial." Among other things, Celestial advised that its Application was for a low-density project on the northeast corner of U.S. 1 and Olympus Drive. Celestial further stated that the proposed commercial (mix-use) land is compatible with the commercial uses adjacent to and across from U.S. 1 from the Property and that the residential component of the mixed-use proposal will be compatible with the residential uses to the north, east, and south of the Property. Celestial did not request a change to the Town's "commercial" FLUM designation. Several documents were attached to the Application including a vegetation survey with indicated that the Property had no environmental constraints which would prohibit its development. Other correspondence included with the Application indicate that all major utilities including telephone, electric, water, and sanitary sewer, would be provided. The described project also met the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. Further, the Florida Department of Transportation concluded that the placing the drive on Olympus Drive would better serve the development for the convenience and safety of the proposed access. On April 19, 1999, the Town of Juno Beach Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed Plan Amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan's FLUM. Mr. Peduto, Director of Planning and Zoning, reviewed the Application, coordinated the review by other governmental entities, prepared the staff report, and recommended approval of the Plan Amendment. The report describes the proposal and sets forth an analysis which included, in part, the following: The proposal meets the adequate facilities standards and is not in the Coastal High Hazard area, as defined by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and State of Florida. The proposed change is an appropriate classification for the subject property. The proposed project is an "infill" development, as opposed to "sprawl" development. Infill development is supported by the TCRPC Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Sprawl, which is typical through "Euclidean" planning, creates isolated uses through non-flexible zoning districts, and also through "single-use" structures. The opposite of this is more "neo-traditional" planning, which encourages multi-use structures and is more community oriented, creating more livable, healthy and sustainable communities and neighborhoods. This is why infill development becomes so important to revitalizing and recreating community in a town's neighborhoods. The Town of Juno Beach has expressed through historical efforts and its Comprehensive Plan (as well as its Zoning Code) that it envisions a sustainable community atmosphere. Mixed-use projects play an important role in this long term, committed effort. While remaining consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, the subject property is an ideal location to further express this effort. The subject property is located along an "urban principal arterial" highway, within an older residential neighborhood. Just south of the subject property [across Olympus Drive] is an newer residential neighborhood [Seaside]. West of the subject property is a commercial plaza (Seminole Plaza) with various commercial uses, from office uses to restaurant, retail, service oriented, medical and private educational uses. Further east is a large public recreational area and the Juno Beach Town Center. In the general area there is an existing mixed use which functions as an important community/neighborhood element in this section of the town. As part of the revitalization process of this overall area of town, the proposed project and petition brings an element of balance between newer residential and older residential, introduces a mixed-use and creates an ideal "bridge" between the western commercial uses and eastern residential, community and recreational uses. The proposed project meets the standards set forth by the Goals, Objectives and Policies in the adopted Town of Juno Beach Comprehensive Development Plan. The report also indicated that "[t]he Comprehensive Plan directly encourages mixed-uses throughout the document," and cited to several Objectives and Policies. The report confirmed that utilities and service providers have sufficient capacity to serve the Property for a potential project within the proposed designation/classification; that there are no environmental concerns concerning the entire +/-.57 acre site including the Property (+/-.34 acre); that the existing level of service standards of the adjacent U.S. 1 will not be adversely impacted by the proposed change of land use; that water and wastewater facilities exist nearby the site and will be able to provide for appropriate services to the site; that solid waste removal services will also be provided; and that all specific drainage designs must be acceptable to the Town engineer upon submittal of any site plan. The report concluded that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and, in part, that the proposed change is "an appropriate land use classification for the subject property, providing for an appropriate use of the property considering existing, surrounding uses and land uses " The Town's Planning and Zoning Board considered the Application. Numerous local residents, including Dr. Patterson and Attorney Thomas Baird representing Petitioner McLeod, opposed the Application. A motion to approve the Application to amend the Comprehensive Plan's FLUM failed with a 3 to 2 vote. Further, a motion to approve a request for a change in zoning from the existing designation of residential single-family to the designation of commercial office was not approved by a vote of 3 to 2. On or about May 12, 1999, Celestial submitted a "memorandum on proposed land use changes" to the Town, which provided a historical analysis of the development of the Town, including but not limited to changed circumstances around Olympus Drive and U.S. 1. The Town Council (Council) of the Town of Juno Beach met on May 26, 1999, to consider Ordinance Number 509 which provided the amendment vehicle to the Town's Comprehensive Plan requested by Celestial. This was the first reading and public hearing for this Ordinance. Several area residents and others were in attendance. The results were mixed with some residents speaking in favor and some against approval of Ordinance Number 509. After some discussion by the Council members, and responses from the Town planner and Celestial's representative, the Council approved Ordinance Number 509 on first reading by a vote of 4 to 1. The Council also discussed, on first reading and during a public hearing, Ordinance Number 510, which proposed to approve a rezoning request for the Property to "commercial office." Attorney Tom Baird, on behalf of Petitioner McLeod, opposed the rezoning request. Dr. Patterson also opposed the request. "Town Planner Peduto pointed out the property that was annexed into town with a residential zoning designation, surrounded on three sides by residential and rezoned to Commercial. This parcel is known as Dr. Hinman's Building, Juno Beach Professional Building. He also pointed out another parcel on U.S. 1 surrounded by residential that was given a commercial land use classification and commercial general zoning designation upon its recent annexation into the town." The minutes indicate that the Council was aware that the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended denial. The Council had before it the Town's Staff Report and Recommendation, which was previously presented to the Town's Planning and Zoning Board in substantially the same form. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 30. The Council unanimously approved Ordinance Number 510 on first reading. On or about August 5, 1999, the Town submitted numerous documents to the Department of Community Affairs, including but not limited to, the Town's Staff Report and Recommendation and proposed Ordinance Number 509. The Town requested no formal review. By letter dated September 3, 1999, the Florida Department of Transportation advised the Department that it did not recommend a formal review of the proposed amendment. By letter dated September 16, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection offered no comments to the Department. The staff at the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) submitted a memorandum dated September 17, 1999, for the Council members. The TCRPC is required to review the Plan Amendment prior to formal adoption by the Town Council. The TCRPC stated, in part, in its evaluation: The Town indicates that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development represents infill. Mixed-use projects of the nature are intended to play an important role in the Town's efforts to create a sustainable community. The amendment is consistent with several objectives of the Town Comprehensive Plan and also with the SRPP which encourages infill development and multi-use structures. The Town indicates that the proposed development will bring a balance between newer and older residential areas and creates a good transition between commercial and residential uses. All urban services are available to the site, there are no level of service concerns, and an environmental survey indicates that there are no environmental concerns relating to development of the site. According to the TCRPC, the proposed Plan Amendment would not have adverse effects on significant regional resources or facilities. The TCRPC concluded that "[b]ased on the lack of extrajurisdictional impacts or effects on significant regional resources and facilities, [TCRPC] does not recommend that the amendment be formally reviewed." However, the [TCRPC] noted: According to the SRPP, a mix of uses on a single property is desirable. However, the first mixed-use development in an area which has previously been devoted entirely to residential use can create controversy and result in opposition from nearby property owners. According to the Town, this has been the case for the subject amendment. Some of this controversy can be avoided and property owner objections lessened by creating a very fine-grained plan. The Town's comprehensive plan contains only a single commercial FLUM category. Therefore, neighbors are understandably concerned about what the type of commercial use might occupy the subject property. During the preparation of its Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the Town should consider the preparation of a more fine-grained plan for those parts of town where the "richness" of the urban fabric is important to protect, preserve, and enhance. On September 17, 1999, the Department advised the Town of its determination that the proposed Plan Amendment should be formally reviewed for consistency. On October 26, 1999, the South Florida Water Management District advised the Department that the District had no water resources related comments regarding the Town's proposed Plan Amendment. No state, regional, or local governmental entity requested review of the Plan Amendment. On November 12, 1999, the Department advised the Town that the Department had no objection to the proposed Plan Amendment. This letter served as the Department's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report. On October 27, 1999, Celestial provided the Town with a Supplemental Memorandum regarding land use changes in the Town since 1990. On November 17, 1999, the Council met to consider Ordinance Numbers 509 and 510 for second reading and received a Staff Report and Recommendation, authored by Mr. Peduto, which contained similar data and analysis from the prior report. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 30. The Town's staff also prepared a report and recommendation regarding the rezoning request/petition, Ordinance Number 510. During the hearing held regarding Ordinance Number 509, the report and recommendation, with backup, and the file for both this hearing and from the previous approval hearing, were entered into the record. During the hearing, the Council was apprised, in part, that the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended denial, by a three-to-two vote, "based on traffic concerns." The minutes further reflect that "[t]he [t]own traffic consultant agrees to the traffic studies from the applicant and the County. He reviewed other areas in [t]own that similar re-zoning occurred located on a local collector, abutted by residential and located on a major thoroughfare." During the public hearing, attorney Baird, representing Petitioner McCloud, advised the Council that Ordinance Number 509 needed to be corrected in the second "WHEREAS" clause stating that the land planning agency had recommended that the Town not adopt the ordinance. "He said the primary reason (to not approve the ordinance) is that the land use classification was incompatible with the residential neighborhood." Several persons opposed the Ordinance, whereas others favored the Ordinance. The Council received numerous letters both for and against Ordinance Number 509. The Council also received petitions for and against the Ordinance. After discussing the issue, the Council approved Ordinance Number 509 by a vote of 4 to 1. The Council also considered Ordinance Number 510 and after considering information both for and against, the Council voted 5 to 0 to approve Ordinance Number 510. On November 23, 1999, the Town submitted the adopted Plan Amendment to the Department. On January 7, 2000, the Department completed its review of the adopted Plan Amendment, Ordinance Number 509, and "determined that it meets the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), for compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), F.S." Petitioners' Objections to the Plan Amendment Petitioners claim that the Plan Amendment, as applied to the Property, is inconsistent with and, therefore, does not further the "Goal," Objective 1, and Policy 1.3, of the FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners also claim that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with and fails to comply with Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners' claim that the Town has approved the Plan Amendment, which approves a mixed-use, without any specific provision in the Comprehensive Plan for a mixed-use designation. Petitioners further claim that the Plan Amendment is not supported by sufficient data and analysis, nor is the analysis professionally acceptable. Petitioners' inconsistency and incompatibility arguments focus primarily on Petitioners' description of the relevant "neighborhood." Mr. James Fleischmann testified on behalf of Petitioners as to his definition of the relevant "neighborhood." Mr. Fleischmann and Dr. Patterson carved out the area east of U.S. 1 and west of A1A and bordered on the north by the Church and on the south by the Seaside area, designated "low density residential," as the appropriate "neighborhood." They opined that any non-residential development within this area was inconsistent with this "neighborhood." See also Findings of Fact 1-3. The "Goal" of the Town's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides: A Town characterized by a community spirit that: recognizes its historical development patterns and styles; maintains its established neighborhoods in a safe, secure, beautified, and efficient manner by providing for both vehicular and pedestrian movement in, and around, town; which promotes future growth and development that is creative and enhances historical values and architectural styles that are indigenous to Juno Beach; which protects natural environmental features; and which reflects those development values by well defined neighborhoods and public areas that create an overall continuity to the Town while providing effective and efficient community services. There is no definition of "neighborhood" in the Town's Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statues, or Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Fleischmann provided his definition based upon his experience and expertise. Mr. Fleischmann did not rely on any specific portion of the Town's Comprehensive Plan in defining his view of the relevant "neighborhood." Mr. Fleischmann testified that all of his opinions concerning compatibility and internal Comprehensive Plan inconsistency in this case are based upon his definition of the relevant "neighborhood." U.S. 1 is a major, four-lane highway, which accommodates traffic at speeds, which are incompatible with a low-density residential neighborhood. It was not unreasonable for the Town to consider that the "neighborhood" area is not as limited or restricted as proposed by Mr. Fleischmann. In fact, Seminole, across U.S. 1 from the Property, actually serves the identified "neighborhood" east of U.S. 1. The data and analysis presented in this hearing, most of which was presented to the Town Council, demonstrates that the area in proximity to the Property has changed over the years, including but not limited to the expansion of U.S. 1 and the development of Seminole directly across from the Property. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that approval of the Plan Amendment will not cause the "neighborhood," as defined by Mr. Fleischmann, to be unsafe, insecure, or not beautified, nor will it impede vehicular and pedestrian movement in and around the Town. The data and analysis presented in this record do not support Petitioners' argument that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the "Goal." Also, the analysis was performed in a professional manner. Objective 1 of the FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan provides: To manage growth and development through the preparation, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of land development regulations which: coordinate future land uses with the appropriate topography, some of the conditions and the availability of the facilities and services; prevent, eliminate, or reduce uses inconsistent with the Land Use Goal, Future Plan, and Future Land Use Map; and which require redevelopment, renewal or renovation, where and when necessary through the establishment of standards or for density and intensity of land development. This Objective requires only the adoption of land development regulations to implement its provisions. The record is clear that the Plan Amendment, as a future land use amendment, is not a land development regulation. Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.3 of the FLUE and Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(c)(2), Florida Administrative Code. See Conclusion of law 87. Policy 1.3 states: "Implementing ordinances, regulations and requirements regarding the development of land shall consider adjacent land uses and promote compatibility with those uses." Mr. Fleischmann claimed that he was unaware of any analysis of compatibility in the Staff Report and Recommendation presented to the Town Council in support of the Plan Amendment. However, Mr. Peduto, in the staff report, analyzed the relationship of the Plan Amendment to the surrounding properties, and stated, in part: "[T]he proposed project and petition bring an element of balance between newer residential, older residential and existing commercial, introduces a mixed- use and creates an ideal transition between the western commercial uses and eastern residential, community, and recreation uses." Mr. Peduto also considered the issue of compatibility and stated: "[The Plan Amendment] is an appropriate land-use classification for the subject property, providing for an appropriate use of the property considering existing, surrounding uses and land uses " Petitioners next contend that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, because the "commercial" FLUM land-use category is not a "mixed-use" category, does not contain a percentage mix of uses, and does not contain densities and intensities of use for all identified land uses. The Town's Comprehensive Plan has numerous future land use classifications, including a classification called "commercial." This definition provides: Land Uses and activities within land areas which are predominantly related to and used for the sale, rental, and distribution of products; the provision or performance of business, personal and professional services. However, in order to allow for mixed uses, a maximum of 75 percent of the total gross floor area on the site may be used for residential development, not to exceed a density of 22 dwelling units per gross acre. The land uses allowed in the "commercial" category include mixed uses, such as residential and commercial. These general descriptions are consistent with the requirements of Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes, and the definitions in Rules 9J-5.003(21)("commercial uses") and 9J- 5.003(108)("residential uses"), Florida Administrative Code. The mix of uses is established within the description of the "commercial" land use category itself. A maximum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the total gross floor area on-site may be residential, with the remainder being commercial. The residential density is also established in the definition of "commercial" for a maximum of twenty-two (22) units per gross acre. Further, it appears the intensity standard for allowable commercial uses is found in FLUE Object 1, Policy 1.13 b. of the Town's Comprehensive Plan which provides: "The Building Site Area Requirements, as established in the CG-Commercial General and CO-Commercial Office zoning districts, shall provide the basis for intensity of use and be the development criteria standards for general commercial and commercial office development, respectively, in Juno Beach." The definition of "commercial" includes, and authorizes a "mixed-use" of the Town's property, including the Property, which is the subject of the Plan Amendment. Petitioners also claim that the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis as required by Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Fleischmann opined that based upon his examination of the record as it existed on November 19, 1999, the data submitted to the Town was insufficient and the analysis not professionally acceptable. Conversely, the data available to the Town and the evidence presented at the de novo hearing, is adequate to support a finding that the Town's decision to change the land use category for the Property from "low density residential" to "commercial" is at least fairly debatable. Mr. Fleischmann's disagreement with Mr. Peduto and the Town staff's analysis of the facts is not conclusive. Mr. Fleischmann offers a different opinion, which failed to overcome the data and analysis of record in this case. Petitioners also argue that the Plan Amendment could not be approved without the Town, and the Department's, requiring an analysis of a "worst case scenario." However, Mr. Wilburn's testimony in this regard is persuasive in that this analysis is normally employed in the planning field for a FLUM amendment only in terms of analyzing the five areas that a local government is required to set level of service standards, i.e., roads, water, sewer, recreation, and open space. It is not appropriate to use a "worst case scenario" when reviewing issues of compatibility. Importantly, the record indicates that there is no issue raised in this case regarding the sufficiency of the existing or proposed level of service standards. The Town Council held two public hearings regarding the Plan Amendment, heard from the public, including Petitioners, and was presented with adequate data and analysis to reasonably conclude that the Plan Amendment was consistent with its Comprehensive Plan and the relevant statutes and rules at issue in this case. In summary, the Plan Amendment's change of the FLUM land use category for the Property is fairly debatable, particularly in light of the historical development occurring within the Town, and the changing conditions affecting the U.S. 1 corridor in the vicinity of the Property. Based upon the totality of the circumstances and factors presented in this case, the Plan Amendment is consistent with the Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Town of Juno Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ordinance Number 509, is "in compliance" as defined in chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Baird, Esquire Thomas J. Baird, P.A. 11891 U.S. Highway One Suite 105 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-2864 Daniel K. Corbett, Esquire 300 Mercury Road Juno Beach, Florida 33408 W. Jay Hunston, Jr. Esquire Gregory S. Kino, Esquire Boose Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens McBane & O'Connell 515 North Flagler Drive Northbridge Center-19th Floor, Suite 190 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4330 Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent, City of Daytona Beach (City), is a Florida municipal corporation subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The City is responsible for the comprehensive planning for the entire municipality. Its most recent comprehensive plan (Plan) was adopted on May 16, 1990, and was found to be in compliance with the law in July 1991. On October 1, 1992, the City made application for what is known as the LPGA Plan Amendment (plan amendment). Generally, the plan amendment changes land uses and densities on approximately 4,000 acres of land within the City and adds various policies to the Plan. Public hearings on the plan amendment were held on October 22, 1992, April 21, 1993, and May 19, 1993. The plan amendment was adopted on June 2, 1993, and it was found to be "in compliance" by the DCA on July 26, 1993. Petitions challenging the plan amendment were filed in Case No. 93- 4863GM by petitioners, 1000 Friends of Florida and Robert Jenks. 1000 Friends of Florida is a non-profit tax-exempt corporation formed expressly for the purpose of overseeing implementation of Florida's growth management laws at all levels of government. Jenks is a property owner within the City and a member of 1000 Friends of Florida. A petition was also filed in Case No. 93-4864GM by petitioners, Adeline Jones, Marta Perez and Nelson Perez. Those individuals are adults residing within the City. Petitioners contended, among other issues, that the housing element of the plan, which has been revised by the amendment, would not assure the provision of adequate affordable housing within the City. Finally, a petition to intervene in support of the plan amendment has been filed in both cases by intervenors, Patricia Lagoni (Lagoni), as trustee, and Indigo Development, Inc. (Indigo). Lagoni is the trustee for two trusts that own approximately 4,600 acres of land within the City that are the subject of the plan amendment. Indigo is the developer of the trustee's property. The parties have stipulated that petitioners and intervenors are "affected persons" within the meaning of the law and have standing to participate in these proceedings. The Plan The plan is a twenty year long range planning document. It includes and applies to the entire City except for approximately 16,400 acres which has subsequently been annexed into the City limits since the adoption of the plan. The portions adopted by ordinance are goals, objectives, and policies; the Neighborhood Development Policies; Capital Improvement Element Implementation; Monitoring, Updating and Evaluation Procedures (Appendix); the Future Land Use Map Series; the Future Traffic Circulation Map; the Future Mass Transit Map; and the Future Aviation Facilities Map. Because a local government may choose not to adopt support documents such as data and analysis, the City did not adopt by ordinance the supporting data and analysis to the plan. The plan support documents include population projections through the year 2010. The population projections used in support of the plan are based on the 1980 U. S. Census. A census is an estimate of population at a particular time while a population projection is an analysis using estimates of past existing populations, such as a census, to predict future population. When the plan was prepared and adopted, the City was required to rely on the 1980 U. S. Census. At that time, the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) was due in 1995. Based on a 1993 change in the law, the EAR is now due in 1997. Under the Department's interpretation of the Act, which is found to be reasonable, a local government need not apply the 1990 U. S. Census until it submits its EAR. Therefore, between the adoption of the original plan and submittal of the EAR, a local government may amend its plan without having to base the amendment on a newly released U. S. Census. Such a comprehensive evaluation and updating of the plan and its data source is not required until the EAR is due because it would be a very exhaustive and expensive burden on local governments. The existing land use map is a support document of the plan. It generally depicts how land is used in various parts of the City at the time of transmittal of the proposed plan and includes six classifications: residential, vacant/undeveloped, commercial, industry, government and institution, and parks and recreation. On the other hand, a future land use map series is an adopted portion of the plan which generally depicts where the local government wants to have particular land uses by the end of its planning period. The future land use classifications include the following broad categories of land uses: residential, commercial, industry, government and institutional, parks and recreation, and miscellaneous. It is noted that the future land use map has no "vacant" classification since "vacant" is not an actual use which can be assigned a density or intensity and direct future development. The plan amendment Adoption and contents On October 1, 1992, Indigo made application for the plan amendment. Public hearings were held for the review and discussion of the amendment on October 22, 1992, and resolution number 92-460 was subsequently enacted by the City authorizing the proposed amendment to be forwarded to the DCA for review. After the amendment was submitted to the DCA, the agency conducted an in-house review of the amendment and thereafter issued its objections, recommendations and comments (ORC) on February 19, 1993. That document contains the DCA's objections and comments as well as more than twenty recommendations which address those concerns. A notice of intent was published by the DCA to advertise that fact. After considering the ORC, the City made various changes in its proposed plan amendment and issued its response to the ORC on March 24, 1993. Also, it conducted further public hearings on April 21 and May 19, 1993. On June 2, 1993, the City adopted plan amendment 93D2 by Ordinance No. 93-219. On July 8, 1993, the amendment was found by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) to be consistent with its Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Finally, on July 26, 1993, the amendment was found by the DCA to be in compliance. The plan amendment (a) amends the future land use map to provide new classifications for approximately 4,000 acres within the City, (b) includes some textual changes to the future land use, conservation, coastal management, traffic, and housing elements, and (c) changes the future traffic circulation map in certain respects. The acreage in question is located mostly to the west of I-95 except for some portions east of I-95 where 11th Street crosses the Interstate. The property is intended to be developed by Indigo as a "world- class golf resort and accompanying planned community." Prior to the amendment, the predominant land use category on the property was Level 1 residential with some designation for government or institutional use and retail commercial. As originally proposed by the City, the amendment reduced Level 1 residential acreage, increased Level II residential acreage, and created new categories of passive park/buffer area, interchange commercial and mixed use. After the DCA issued its criticisms in the form of an ORC, the City revised its amendment by redistributing the future land uses and adding policies to the housing element. The land use changes include a 1,375 acre reduction in Level 1 residential (a single-family residential future land use category with 1 to 8 units per acre) caused by conversion of land to a golf course and dedication of 831 acres for conservation purposes, a 575 acre increase in Level 2 residential (a residential future land use category with 9 to 20 units per acre), and a 98 acre increase in Level 3 residential (a mixed residential/retail category with 21 to 40 residential units per acre), or a net effect of an overall increase in the residential land use density of approximately 4,300 units of higher density housing than that density which existed prior to the plan amendment. The plan amendment proposes a mixed use future land use category to allow a wide range of urban uses, including light industrial, office, tourist accommodations, retail and multi-family residential. In neighborhoods K, S, T and U, a minimum of 12 percent and a maximum of 30 percent of the total area designated as mixed use must be developed as residential with a minimum of 15 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre. Increased density on the property from both the increased Levels 2 and 3 land use designations, as well as the mixed use residential requirements, provide opportunities that foster increased availability of affordable units. Housing element Every comprehensive plan must contain a housing element with goals which state the aspirations for where a community wants to be. Goal 1 of the housing element is "to assure the availability of sound and affordable housing for all current and future residents of Daytona Beach." This means that the City will assure the availability of housing for all segments of the population. The housing element must also contain specific objectives for each goal statement. In the original plan, the City adopted Objective 1.1 (on page 5.37 of the plan) entitled "New Construction." It was not revised by the amendment. That objective reads as follows: Assist the private sector in providing 6,400 additional units of diversified (and thus affordable) housing types by 1995. The amendment adds seven policies to the housing element, all relating to affordable housing. In the context of a comprehensive plan, a policy is interpreted to mean the specific actions the local government will use to implement its objectives. Proposed policy 1.3.6 reads as follows: Policy 1.3.6 The City, through its land development regulations, shall establish a mechanism that permits density bonuses of at least 10 percent for projects that provide very low and low income housing units, provided that the increased density is consistent with all other goals, objectives and policies of this plan including, but not limited to, environmental and concurrency goals. Under this proposed policy, developers are encouraged to construct affordable housing through the offering of a financial incentive. The incentive, more commonly known as a density bonus, allows them to use a slightly higher density than they otherwise would have. This is a common approach in encouraging affordable housing, and while not an absolute guarantee, the policy does have the effect of encouraging additional affordable housing in the City. Proposed policy 1.3.7 reads as follows: Policy 1.3.7 The City will continue programs to maximize opportunities for private sector involvement in the formation of community-based non-profit organizations to actively participate in the provision of low and moderate income affordable housing. This policy simply reinforces the City's commitment in existing policy 1.3.2. to "continue to use its CDBG funds to provide seed money and technical assistance to non-profit corporations that construct housing for low and moderate income households including HUD 202 elderly housing and State/County housing finance agency bond-funded rental units." Proposed policy 1.3.8 provides as follows: Policy 1.3.8 The City Community Development Department will continue to support community-based non-profit organizations such as Habitat for Humanity in their efforts to provide adequate housing at a cost affordable to low-income residents by providing land that is acquired by the City. This policy reiterates the City's commitment in existing policy 1.3.2 and proposed policy 1.3.7 to supporting non-profit organizations which participate in providing affordable housing to low and moderate income households. Although the policy does not add any new assurances in providing affordable housing, it does not adversely affect the provision of affordable housing. No evidence was submitted to show that this policy is inconsistent with any requirements applicable to this proceeding. The next proposed policy is 1.3.9. It reads as follows: Policy 1.3.9 The City shall strive to participate in the State Housing Incentives Partnership Program as specified in the 1992 William Sadowski Affordable Housing Act. The City will follow its Local Housing Assistance Ordinance which establishes a local housing partnership, administrative responsibilities, and a local Housing Advisory Committee. This policy reflects a new affordable housing program which was enacted by the state subsequent to the plan's adoption. The more credible evidence reflects that the policy will have a positive impact on affordable housing. Proposed policy 1.3.10 provides that the City "will encourage the County to provide impact fee waiver programs for schools and transportation as an incentive for affordable housing." In Volusia County, impact fees are a significant cost of housing. Seventy percent of the impact fees applied in the City are County assessed. Under the proposed policy, the City is attempting to persuade the County to provide certain impact fee waivers for affordable housing. Proposed policy 1.3.11 reads as follows: Policy 1.3.11 By 1995, the City shall complete an assessment of affordable and special housing needs utilizing detailed housing data from the 1990 U. S. Census and an assessment of target areas and population segments representing priority affordable housing needs as a basis for establishing specific quantifiable near and long-term affordable housing programs. Results of the assessment shall be used to update the Comprehensive Plan's affordable housing policies. Although this policy will not have the direct effect of producing affordable housing, there is no evidence that the policy is inconsistent with any requirements at issue in this proceeding. Finally, the City has proposed a new policy 1.3.12, which reads as follows: Policy 1.3.12 The City will continue to be active in housing isues through the Community Development Department in the following ways: providing informational and technical asistance to the public on affordable housing programs, completing housing inventories and assessments, working to increase local utilization of state and federal funding programs, and coordinating with the Redevelopment Department. The City will annually update the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) in compliance with U.S. HUD guidelines in conjunction with the State of Florida CHAS. This policy adds nothing new to the plan. It simply reiterates commitments expressed in other housing element policies. Again, no evidence was submitted to show that the policy is inconsistent with any other requirements at issue. As noted earlier, objective 1.1 is to "assist the private sector in providing 6,400 additional units of diversified (and thus affordable) housing types by 1995." The derivation of the 6,400 units is found on page 5.25 of the housing element of the plan. In general terms, the number of units was derived by taking the population of the City in 1980, updating that figure through 1987, and then projecting the number of households by income category in the year 1995. Of the 6,400 units, 2,601 are projected for the low and very low income household categories. Low income is defined as being 80 percent of the median income ($31,000) for Volusia County, or $24,800, while very low income is defined as being one-half of median income, or $15,500. Tables 5-20 and 5-21 of the data and analysis support this objective. Table 5-20 projects housing needs for the City by income category from 1987 to 1995. Table 5-21 projects housing need by income category for the years 1995 through 2000. The tables break the population into the following income categories: very low, low, moderate, middle, and upper and high. The data and analysis concludes that availability of land is not a concern with meeting the projected need for residential units through the year 2000. Rather, the principal concerns center around the current lack of federal and state subsidy programs for housing construction, and the fact that the City is already shouldering more than its regional fair share. As to this latter concern, the City now provides at least 75 percent of the public housing in Volusia County. The amendment, however, provides more opportunities for the new construction of affordable housing units. Also, the mixed use category and its location near retail and office uses and arterial roads will provide a greater diversified housing stock. Between the years 2000 and 2010, the City will need to annex additional acreage to accommodate the anticipated population growth for that period. Since the plan adoption, however, the City has annexed approximately 16,400 acres of land west of I-95 belonging to Indigo. The concept of "filtering" in relation to affordable housing is that when a new house is built, an existing household will move into that house and vacate a less expensive house. Filtering is discussed in the plan's data and analysis as a solution to providing the needed additional units for very low and low income households projected in Tables 5-20 and 5-21. The plan assumes that filtering is operative in the City, and the evidence shows that filtering does in fact operate as a source of affordable housing within the City. The City uses a large portion of its $1.2 million in federal community block grants in assisting low and very low income residents to rehabilitate existing substandard housing. The City also employs a down payment assistance program to aid in the filtering process. This program consists of homeowner education and grants to low and very low income individuals for down payments on the purchase of an existing home, thereby enabling the individual to qualify for and successfully purchase existing housing stock. The program has not had any difficulty in finding housing stock for purchase by its clients. Finally, the City recently obtained an additional $1 million award of federal Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) funds for use in its rehabilitation and down payment assistance programs. While it is not possible to identify the location of future affordable housing on the future land use map, local government can create favorable conditions for affordable housing on the map by utilizing densities and locations. Here, the City has done so. The data and analysis reveal increased minimum floor densities to 15 units per acre minimum and a 25 units per acre maximum of multi-family housing and the location of land uses adjacent to arterial roads of 11th Street and the municipal stadium. They also reveal that the nature of mixed use categories with increased densities could result in three-story, more affordable apartment complexes. Finally, the amendment provides an additional forty-four acres of Level III residential in the area parallel to Williamson Boulevard, south of 11th Street, and increases sites at higher residential densities, and thus increases opportunities for affordable housing. Therefore, it is found that the plan amendment does not preclude the devevopment of affordable housing. b. Data and analysis used in the amendment All elements of a comprehensive plan must be based on "appropriate data." According to Rule 9J-5.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, that data must be taken from existing data sources and should be the "best available existing data." As to population data, Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, requires comprehensive plans to be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections provided by the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, the Executive Office of the Governor, or generated by the local government. Finally, where data are relevant to several elements, Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires that "the same data shall be used, including population estimates and projections." The City has adhered to each of these requirements, and it is found that the plan amendment is based on the best available data and analysis. Population projection information is used in several plan elements. If the 1990 Census was used to support one element, as petitioners suggest it should have been, that same census must be used to support the other elements. Stated another way, the chosen population estimates and projections must be used consistently throughout the entire plan. Relying on different censuses in different elements would render the plan internally inconsistent. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, there is no specific requirement that a local government update its population estimates and projections each time it amends its plan. Such a requirement would impose an unreasonable burden on local governments without advancing any of the purposes of the Act. Petitioners failed to present any compelling reason that the 1990 Census should be the underlying basis for plan amendments before the EARs are due. The fact that the 1990 Census was available in its raw form in the fall of 1991 is not persuasive to overcome the specific requirements of Rule 9J-5.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, as to the approved sources of population estimates and projections. Therefore, it is found that the City was not required to use the 1990 Census in support of its amendment. The LPGA property is located within Zone C, one of three zones designated in the future land use element. Of the 3,995 available vacant developable residential acreage, 2,740 acres were originally allocated to Zone C within the City. Under the plan amendment, the available residential land in Zone C has been reduced to 1,313 acres. The reduction of residential land by the amendment reduces the overall residential developable acres to 2,838. The City's total residential acreage need is 2,144 acres. Of that 2,144 acres, approximately 876 acres are required for very low and low income housing. The data indicates that an additional 694 excess acres are available to accommodate affordable housing needs within the City. When added to the 876 acres previously required for very low and low income housing, a total of 1,570 acres are available to accommodate the very low and low income affordable housing needs within the City. The data and analysis also indicate that a ratio of 1.8 or 180 percent of the need for affordable housing acreage is being met by the City. The more land that is made available by the City increases the opportunity for market forces to work to provide housing. The ratio of 1.8 is further increased by the recent annexation of the Indigo property of approximately 16,400 acres. Not including the recently annexed property, 46 percent of the total vacant residential acreage in the City is in the LPGA property. The LPGA Development of Regional Impact Intervenors' property which is the subject of this amendment is intended to be the future headquarters site of the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA). If completed as originally planned, it will be the size of the neighboring municipality of Holly Hill. The development is a public-private joint venture between the City and intervenors, and the City and State have pledged $23 million of public money for the project. In conjunction with the project, a development of regional impact (DRI) development order was adopted by the City on August 18, 1993. Petitioners did not appeal that order. A DRI is a development order issued by a local government. It pertains to approval for a specific type of development requested by a developer for a particular site. In contrast, a comprehensive plan is a different type of document altogether which considers long range planning for an entire jurisdiction, taking into account the cumulative effect of many developments. DRIs are subject to the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. One of the requirements for a DRI is that it be consistent with the requirements of the local government's comprehensive plan, a determination that is separate and apart from that undertaken here. Conversely, comprehensive plans and amendments must comply with Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which defines "in compliance" as being consistent with Sections 163.3177, 163.3178, and 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. A plan amendment does not have to be consistent with chapter 380 to be "in compliance." A DRI development order does not guarantee that the site will be developed or developed as approved. For example, the development order may be amended through the substantial deviation process to allow for different types of development or increased development over certain thresholds. Then, too, a developer may add up to ten percent more residential units without going through the substantial deviation process. Finally, a development order may expire during the planning period without finishing or even beginning construction. In reviewing a plan amendment, the whole range of development possibilities must be evaluated regardless of any development order issued for the affected land. What a DRI development order, or any other development order, allows to be constructed on a parcel of land which is the subject of a plan amendment is therefore irrelevant for amendment review purposes. Applications for DRI approval are prepared and submitted to the DCA by the developer. These applications are submitted in response to a set of criteria that differ from those applicable to a plan amendment. It is true, of course, that some information provided by a developer in support of a DRI request may be relevant to the review of a plan amendment. Here, however, the information regarding income range of employees and price range of housing anticipated to be constructed on the project site is speculative and should not guide the scope of review for a long range planning document. Indeed, it was not credibly shown how this information applies to the plan or any requirements in this proceeding. Therefore, petitioners' reliance on various projections used in the DRI application for incremental development approval and other DRI documents is misplaced and not relevant to this action. The amendment's internal and external consistency Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires comprehensive plan elements to be consistent with each other. The same rule requires the future land use map to reflect the goals, objective and policies within all elements of a plan. When amending a plan, consistency is maintained by using data consistently throughout the plan. In order to be internally consistent, the City was required to use 1980 census data for the plan amendment, as it did here. By adding policies to the housing element, the City has assisted with the implementation of objective 1.1 of the housing element. By changing the land use designations on the future land use map, the City has effectively increased the opportunity for higher density housing. Finally, the plan amendment's changes to the future land use element are consistent with and further objective 1.1 of the housing element. Accordingly, the plan amendment is found to be internally inconsistent. The state comprehensive plan is found in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. The appropriate regional policy plan in this case is the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. The DCA does not interpret Subsection 163.3177(10(a), Florida Statutes, as requiring a plan or amendment to be consistent with every policy in the state or regional plans. If an inconsistency with an individual policy exists, that policy is not viewed in isolation but rather is considered in the context of the complete state or regional plan. While an amendment may frustrate the achievement of a policy in the state or regional plan, it may further the local government's pursuit of another policy, thus rendering the amendment to be consistent with the state or regional plan construed as a whole. Petitioners allege that the amendment is inconsistent with state plan goals 5, 8, 10 and 16 and with regional policy plan issues 19, 37, 43, 44 and In the joint prehearing stipulation, they also make reference to regional policies 19.1(1), 19.2 and 19.3(4) and state plan provisions found in Subsections 187.201(5)(a), (b)1. and (b)3., Florida Statutes. They did not, however, present any evidence describing how the plan amendment is inconsistent with the foregoing goals, issues or statutes. To the contrary, the more credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the amendment is consistent with both the state and regional plans. Therefore, the plan amendment is in compliance. Attorney's fees Intervenors, but not the DCA or City, have requested sanctions on the theory that the petition initiating Case No. 93-4863GM was filed for an improper purpose within the meaning of Subsections 120.57(1)(b)5., 120.59(6)(a), and 163.3184(12), Florida Statutes. The request is grounded principally on the notion that because the initial petition of 1000 Friends of Florida and Robert Jenks contains allegations pertaining to environmental issues, and no proof was submitted at final hearing as to those claims, the undersigned should draw an inference that the petition was filed for an improper purpose. Having cosidered the totality of the record, the undersigned concludes that insufficient evidence exists to make such an inference. Similarly, there is an insufficient record basis to find that petitioners raised the issue of affordable housing merely to cause unnecessary delay, or that 1000 Friends of Florida's conduct as a whole constitutes "economic harrassment." Therefore, the request for sanctions is denied.
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 finding the City's plan amendment to be in compliance with the law. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 17th day of May 1994. APPENDIX Petitioners: Although the undersigned has considered petitioners' joint proposed order in the preparation of this recommended order, he has not made specific rulings on proposed findings of fact since the proposed order was untimely and it violated Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code. Respondents: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 2-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 7-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 10-11. Rejected as being unnecessary. 12. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4 and 29. 13. Rejected as being unnecessary. 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. 20-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. 22. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 9. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 24-25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 27-29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 30-31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 32-33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 36-37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 38-39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 40-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. 42. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 43.-45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. 46-47. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. 48. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. 49. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35. 50-51. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 52. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. 53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. 54-56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 57. Rejected as being unnecessary. 58-59. Partially accepted in finding of fact 43. 60-61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. Intervenors: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Covered in preliminary statement. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Rejected as being unnecessary. 11-13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 14-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 16. Rejected as being unnecessary. 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 18-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. 22-25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 28. Rejected as being unnecessary. 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. 31-32. Rejected as being unnecessary. 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. 35. Rejected as being unnecessary. 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 37. Rejected as being unnecessary. 38-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 42-43. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 44. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 45-49. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 50. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 51. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 52. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. 53-56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. 57. Rejected as being unnecessary. 58-60. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. 61-64. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 65. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 66-67. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 68. Rejected as being unnecessary. 69-70. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 71-77. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. 78-81. Rejected as being unnecessary. 82-89. Partially accepted in findings of fact 34-39. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. 100-104. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-44. 105-106. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 107-119. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-44. 120-160. Rejected. See finding of fact 45. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, not supported by the evidence, subordinate, unnecessary to a resolution of the issues, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Paola G. Annino, Esquire 308 South Martin Luther King Drive Daytona Beach, Floirda 32014-4872 Frank B. Gummey, III, Esquire Marie S. Hartman, Esquire Post Office Box 2451 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2451 James F. Page, Jr., Esquire Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire Michele P. Scarritt, Esquire Post Office Box 2068 Orlando, Florida 32802-3068 Jonathan W. Hewett, Esquire 216 South 6th Street Palatka, Florida 32177-4608 Robert F. Apgar, Esquire Post Office Box 10809 Daytona Beach, Florida 32120
Findings Of Fact During 1974, Beker Phosphate Corporation applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County for a development order approving proposed phosphate mine operations. Beker is seeking to engage in phosphate mining on over ten thousand acres of land located in Manatee County in the watersheds of the Manatee and Myakka Rivers. The TBRPC is the regional planning agency which reviews development of regional impact applications in Manatee County. On December 9, 1974, the TBRPC recommended that the proposed mine be approved with modifications. On January 28, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County issued a DRI Development Order. The order approved the application submitted by Beker subject to thirteen specified conditions which are set out in the order. A copy of this development order was received in evidence at the final hearing as a Appellant's Exhibit 3. Neither the Division of State Planning nor any appropriate regional planning agency appealed the development order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Sarasota County did attempt to appeal the order; however, on June 17, 1975, the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission accepted the Hearing Officer's recommended order and dismissed the appeal. This action was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal. Sarasota County v. Beker Phosphate Corporation, 322 So.2d 655 (1975). In its application for development order, Beker had proposed to construct two secondary dams prior to commencing mining activities. One of these was to be constructed on the East fork of the Manatee River, and one on Wingate Creek. The dams were located down stream from initial waste clay settling areas. One of the purposes of the secondary dams was to serve as a back up system in the event that there was a break in the primary dam. In approving the application, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County required that the secondary dams be constructed prior to the commencement of mining activities. The primary motivation of Manatee County in requiring construction of the secondary dams was not protection from leaks in the primary dam system, but rather a desire to plan for the County's long term water needs. The Board anticipates that a reservoir would eventually be constructed behind the secondary dams, and that these reservoirs would serve the long-term water needs of the people of Manatee County. Since the secondary dams were to be constructed in wetland areas, Beker needed to obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation in order to construct the dams. An application was submitted. On November 29, 1976, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the application. Beker subsequently petitioned for a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp). The request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. A final hearing was scheduled, but due to subsequent action taken by the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, and due to this proceeding, the hearing was postponed and the case has been held in abeyance since April 5, 1977. No formal hearing has been conducted with respect to the application to construct the secondary dams, and no final order has been issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. While the Department of Environmental Regulation matter was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings Mr. Louis Driggers, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, became concerned that the proceeding could have an adverse effect upon the county's long-range desire to construct a reservoir which would serve water supply needs. Mr. Driggers had a conference with Secretary Landers of the Department of Environmental Regulation, and learned that the agency's initial objections to the secondary dams were that the dams themselves would cause destruction of wetlands areas, and that since the primary dams were being constructed in accordance with Department of Environmental Regulation Rules and Regulations, there would be no need for the secondary dams. This opinion was set out in a letter from Mr. Landers to Mr. Driggers dated March 14, 1977 (Beker Exhibit 1). Mr. Driggers subsequently relayed this information to other members of the Board of County Commissioners, and on April 12, 1977, the Board adopted a resolution modifying a portion of the DRI development order which it had issued on January 28, 1975. The earlier order was specifically amended to delete the requirement that the secondary dams be constructed prior to the beginning of mining operations. The requirement that the secondary dams be constructed has not been altogether deleted; however, it is no longer a purpose of the dams to provide any secondary protection from a putative phosphate spill. The dams now have as their primary purpose long-range water supply and flood control. Manatee County is in effect now able to insist that Beker construct the dams at any time that the county so desires, assuming that all proper permits can be obtained. It is unlikely that the county will ever request that a secondary dam be constructed in Wingate Creek in the Myakka River watershed. The Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County did not submit the issues resolved in the April 12 order to the appropriate regional planning agency, and did not, through its order specifically consider all of the potential regional impacts of the order. The Commission concluded that the amendment did not constitute a substantial deviation from the original development order. Following entry of the order the SWFRPC filed this appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The SWFRPC, and Sarasota County contend that the April 12 amendment constitutes a substantial deviation from the original development order, and that the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County should have entered the order only after conducting all of the proceedings contemplated in Florida Statutes Chapter 380. Beker Phosphate, Manatee County, and the TBRPC contend that the April 12 order does not constitute a substantial deviation from the original development order. Testimony presented at the hearing related primarily to the secondary dam originally proposed for construction in Wingate Creek in the Myakka River watershed. An initial waste clay settling area with a capacity of 8,848 acre- feet is proposed for construction primarily within the Myakka River watershed adjacent to Wingate Creek. Phosphate slimes would be stored above ground and permitted to settle in this area. The proposed secondary dam would have been located approximately three miles downstream from the settling area. The secondary dam would have had a capacity of 260 acre-feet. The secondary dam would thus have the capacity to contain a limited spill from the primary settling area. The secondary dam would provide no protection from a complete destruction or break down of the dams surrounding the primary settling area, or of any spill from the primary area greater than 260 acre-feet. Such a spill would result in destruction of the secondary dam. Spills of less than 40 acre- feet of material from the primary settling area would have no substantial impact on areas below the secondary dam whether the dam was constructed or not. Spills of a volume between 40 acre-feet and 260 acre-feet could, without the construction of secondary dams, have an impact upon areas below the secondary dams. Turbidity caused by such a spill, and deleterious substances contained in the slime could result in substantial environmental impacts, including destruction of vegetation, and short-term and long-term fish kills at least as far down the system as upper Myakka Lake, which is located in Sarasota County. No evidence was presented to indicate that a spill of from 40 to 260 acre-feet from the primary settling area is likely or more than a mere hypothetical possibility. The only testimony respecting the likelihood of any spill was that if the dams surrounding the primary settling area were constructed in accordance with Department of Environmental Regulation Rules and Regulations, and were properly inspected, there is no likelihood of a breakdown in the dams or of a spill. Argument was presented at the hearing to the effect that phosphate slimes could escape the settling area, or other areas within the mining operation, but there was no evidence to that effect, and certainly no evidence that such leakages or minor spills would be as large as 40 acre-feet. Deletion of the requirement for construction of secondary dams prior to commencement of mining activities as set out in the January 28, 1975 development order, would constitute a substantial deviation from that order only if there were some likelihood of a breakdown in the dams surrounding the primary settling area, or of some leakage at some point in the mining operations that would result in a spill of from 40 to 260 acre-feet of material into the Myakka watershed. No evidence was offered that would serve to establish even the remotest likelihood of such an event. The evidence does, however, establish that construction of the secondary dam in Wingate Creek would have adverse environmental consequences. The construction would take place in a viable wetlands area. The natural flow of water through the Myakka watershed would be disturbed. Construction of the dam would appear to constitute a concession that more than 4 acres of valuable and viable flood plain along Wingate Creek would be given up for the sake of the phosphate mining operations. It is possible that without the dams the result of any spill could be confined to a smaller area than that surrounded by the secondary dams. Without the dams the normal flow of water through the system will not be disturbed, and areas below the primary settling area can remain in their natural condition.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the comprehensive plan adopted by Escambia County is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact PARTIES DCA is the state land planning agency charged under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, with the review of comprehensive plans and plan amendments under Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (the Act). Final agency action with regard to plans and plan amendments found not in compliance by DCA is taken by the Governor and Cabinet, acting as the Administration Commission, in accordance with Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes. Respondent, Escambia County, is a local government required to adopt a Comprehensive Plan under the Act. The following intervenors filed petitions challenging portions of the plan: League of Women Voters of the Pensacola Bay Area, Inc.; Dorothy Kaser; Joseph Grizzaffi, Jr.; Anneice Grizzaffi; Francis M. Weston Audubon Society; Gabrielle Faddis; James Lane; Jacqueline Lane; and Vivian Faircloth. The following intervenors filed petitions in support of the plan: Homebuilder's Association of West Florida, Inc., Michael Blanton and Escambia Construction, Inc.; Highland Development Group, Inc.; Edwin Henry and Henry and Co., Inc.; and E.J. Gibbs. Prior to commencement of the hearing Highland Development Group, Inc. withdrew its petition to intervene. As a result of stipulation of the parties, no objection is raised to the participation of the remaining parties who are intervenors on behalf of Respondent. STANDING OF THE PARTIES In order to intervene in this proceeding, the requirements of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, must be met. First, the intervenor must be an "affected person" as defined by that section. Second, the intervenor must have submitted oral or written objection during the local government "review and adoption proceedings." The local government "review and adoption" period is the period of time which runs from the issuance of DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (the ORC Report) and the adoption of the plan. In the instant case this period of time commenced on August 10, 1990, the date of the ORC Report, and ended on October 8, 1990, the date of the plan's adoption. The League of Women Voters of the Pensacola Bay Area, Inc. (the League), is a local chapter of the League of Women Voters. Gloria Dawson, former president for the League, spoke on behalf of the League before the Board of County Commissioners September 17 and 24, 1990, and expressed concerns and opinions regarding the County's proposed plan. Between August 10, 1990, and October 8, 1990, the League also provided written comments to the County concerning the plan. Many members of the League, including Gloria Dawson, Vivian Faircloth, Muriel Wagner, Dorothy Faddis, are residents of Escambia County; several members reside in the unincorporated area of the County. Dorothy Kaser resides and owns property in Escambia County. She was a member of the Planning Board, the County's local planning agency pursuant to Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes, from 1988 to December 1990. Through her duties as a Planning Board member Ms. Kaser provided written and oral comments to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the comprehensive plan. Her comments were stated at Planning Board meetings during the local government review period, and were incorporated in the final Planning Board recommendation which was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval and adoption. Joseph Grizzaffi, Jr., and Anneice Grizzaffi are married and reside and own property in Escambia County. During the local government review period the Grizzaffis spoke on August 23,1990 to the Board of County Commissioners, impaneled as the Zoning Board, concerning mixed use categories, leapfrog development, and strip commercial development. The Grizzaffis made these comments in opposition to a rezoning request, but also as part of the larger planning scheme involving the comprehensive plan. The Grizzaffis were under the impression given by the Public Participation Procedures and the conduct of one of the commissioners at the August 23 meeting that comments concerning the plan could be directed to either the Board of County Commissioners or the Zoning Board. The Frances M. Weston Audubon Society is a local chapter of the National Audubon Society (Audubon). Gabriel Faddis spoke about issues concerning the comprehensive plan on behalf of Audubon before the Board of County Commissioners on August 31 and September 24, 1990. Ms. Faddis represented Audubon at these meetings at the request of the Chapter's president. James and Jacqueline Lane reside and own property in Escambia County. During the local government review process, neither of the Lanes provided the County any oral or written comments concerning the plan. Although the Lanes attended the adoption hearing, neither of them offered any comments because they felt it was "pointless." In their opinion, the period of time between the ORC Report and plan adoption was dedicated by the County to entertaining land use changes as opposed to constructive criticism or comments from the public. Vivian Faircloth is a resident of Escambia County and an officer of the State League of Women Voters. Ms. Faircloth commented on the plan to the Board of County Commissioners on September 24, 1990. At that time she made it clear that she was speaking on behalf of herself, not the League, which was officially represented at the same meeting by Gloria Dawson. DCA was not requested by the County to attend the plan adoption public hearings which were conducted on October 5 and 8, 1990. COUNTY BACKGROUND The most western county in the Florida Panhandle, Escambia County is bordered on the east by the Escambia River, on the west by the Perdido River, on the north by the State of Alabama, and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. It is comprised of approximately 430,661 acres. According to the plan's data and analysis, the population for the unincorporated portion of the County is estimated and projected as follows: 1990 232,271 1995 249,623 2000 263,150 There are only two incorporated municipalities within the County: Pensacola and Century. These municipalities have drafted and adopted their own plans. The City of Pensacola is an urban area in the southeast portion of the County with a population of approximately 62,036 persons; Century is a rural community in the northern portion of the County with a population of 2,664 persons. Approximately 95 percent of the County's population resides in the area of the County which extends from Pensacola to the middle of the County. Escambia County has an abundance of valuable water resources including Pensacola Bay, Perdido Bay, Escambia Bay, Escambia River, Perdido River, Bayou Chico, and Bayou Texar. The County's surface water resources can be divided into four drainage basins: the Escambia River Basin, Pensacola Bay Basin, Perdido Bay Basin, and Perdido River Basin. The County also has significant wetland areas, particularly along the rivers, in the Southwest portion of the County and in the coastal areas. In 1984 the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission, designated the lower portions of Escambia and Santa Rosa counties a resource planning area pursuant to Section 380.045, Florida Statutes. This designation arose from concern about development damaging coastal dunes and wetland areas. The purpose of this designation was not to stop growth in this area, but to evaluate the ability of the local governments to protect the environment through comprehensive planning and land development regulations. The evaluation was conducted by the Escambia-Santa Rosa Counties Coastal Resource Management Planning Committee, which produced a report containing numerous recommendations that were approved by the Governor and Cabinet. In his November 24, 1984 charging letter to the committee, Governor Graham specifically asked it to evaluate the adequacy of resource protection, particularly for coastal dunes, wetland areas, and the estuarine resources of the various bay systems in the study area. Historically the County has been reluctant to plan development. To date not all of the unincorporated areas of the County are subject to zoning regulations. The County did not have any zoning in the unincorporated area of the County until adoption of its Zoning Ordinance in 1989, which zoned the southern part of the County from what is known as Ten-Mile Road south to the coastal edge of the County. The County presently has two zoning ordinances of limited scope which were adopted only after intervention from the State. One of the zoning ordinances applies to the limited area surrounding the University of West Florida, a state-funded university. The University of West Florida zoning ordinance was adopted at the insistence of the State, which did not wish to invest in an unplanned area, prior to the construction of the university. The Urban Land Use Regulation Ordinance, which applies to the area south of Ten Mile Road, was adopted at the request of the Escambia-Santa Rosa Counties Resource Protection Management Committee as a first step towards planning future development. HISTORY OF THE PLAN The County contracted with the West Florida Regional Planning Council (RPC) to draft proposed goals, objectives and policies; compile support data and analysis; and provide technical assistance in the preparation of the plan. The RPC also drafted a Future Land Use Map after the ORC Report was issued. This map was not adopted by the County. The key person involved with the preparation of the plan was Robert Koncar, Assistant County Administrator. Although the County has a planning staff housed in the Department of Planning and Zoning, the County's planners were not involved in the preparation of the plan. Koncar personally revised the goals, objectives, policies and the Future Land Use Map Series which had been developed by the RPC. The County's land development regulations were due to be adopted by May 1, 1991. Those regulations were not adopted on schedule, nor was the Concurrency Management System which the County affirmatively committed to adopt in Capital Improvements Policy 1.3.7 of the plan by May 1, 1991. The proposed plan was received by DCA on May 1, 1990. DCA issued its ORC Report on August 10, 1990. The County held public hearings on the adoption of its plan on October 5 and October 8, 1990. During the course of these public hearings the County considered numerous applications for land use changes. These changes applied to designations on the Future Land Use Map series. The application forms for land use changes simply requested information as to the location of the property and desired use. No explanation or data and analysis was required of an applicant to justify a land use change. No data and analysis was submitted by the County to DCA to support these land use changes. The proposed plan originally did not include planning for Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach. The proposed Santa Rosa Future Land Use Sub-element (Santa Rosa Sub-element) was submitted to DCA after submittal of the proposed plan. The Sub-element was prepared later by a different consultant, the Strategic Planning Group, following DCA's objection to Santa Rosa's exclusion from the plan. DCA reviewed the proposed Santa Rosa Sub-element and its data and analysis later and issued a separate ORC Report based on it. On October 8, 1990, the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 90-18 which by reference adopted the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map or Map Series. On November 30, 1990, DCA issued its Statement of Intent to find the plan to be not in compliance. In 1991 the legislature adopted Chapter 91-310, Laws of Florida, which altered the boundary line between Escambia County and Santa Rosa County so that Navarre Beach is now in Santa Rosa County. SANTA ROSA ISLAND AUTHORITY One of the unusual physical features of Escambia County is Santa Rosa Island, a coastal barrier which stretches from the eastern half of the County to Walton County. The County acquired 20 miles of the western-most portion of the Island by deed from the federal government in 1946 to be used in the public interest subject to regulation by the County, whether leased or not. A substantial part of the Island was given back to the federal government to be used as part of the National Seashore. The deed specifically prohibits the County from selling any part of the Island. The remainder of the County's portion of the Island was either placed under the control of the Santa Rosa Island Authority (SRIA) or leased to Santa Rosa County. The SRIA was established by special act in the 1950's to administer the County's portion of the islands. The SRIA is governed by a board consisting of one member selected by each of the five County Commissioners and one member elected by residents on the Island. The Authority has an executive director and permanent staff of approximately 60 employees. Beginning in the 1950's, the SRIA disposed of the property under its control by entering into standard 99-year leases with automatic 99-year renewals. These leases are for commercial and residential properties and generally authorize the construction of development on the parcels up to a certain intensity of use or density. More current commercial leases for other than hotel purposes are generally for shorter periods than 99-year terms. The leases are not subject to a bidding process or other competitive public process. They are negotiated with private individuals on a case-by-case basis. The rent provided for in the lease has no relationship to the market value of the property. The term of the leases has no relationship to the need to amortize an investment. Very few of the parcels subject to leases for multiple-family use on Pensacola Beach have been built to the maximum density provided for in the lease; yet, most of those uses are earning a profit. The data and analysis, and goals objectives and policies, relating to Santa Rosa Island were done under the assumption that the outstanding leases are enforceable over the police powers of the County. The portions of the plan relating to Santa Rosa Island were designed to take those leases into account. If a "carrying capacity" analysis of the island had been done, a completely different result would have been recommended by the consultant. No effort has been made by the County or the SRIA to challenge the validity of the leases or to enter into a program to minimize the number or term of the leases. In fact leases are still being executed by the SRIA with no information about how the rent relates to the fair market value of the property. In 1985 the County issued a series of revenue bonds to pay for improvements on Pensacola Beach. The revenues which were pledged for repayment included anticipated lease payments from new lessees. The number of units actually built since 1985 has been a mere fraction of the ones anticipated in the bond documents. Yet the debt service on the bonds has been kept current, and existing revenues will be sufficient to maintain those payments into the foreseeable future. The SRIA generates no funds for Escambia County government, and the leases are not subject to ad valorem taxation. EFFICIENCY OF LAND USE AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP As early as its 1980 Comprehensive Plan (1980 Plan), the County acknowledged predominant land development patterns in the unincorporated area characteristic of two types of sprawl: The random development pattern and the corridor pattern. These development patterns resulted from past policies of minimum planning, lack of development coordination and absence of land use or zoning controls in the County except for the areas around the University of West Florida. That area, under the University of West Florida Land Use Regulations, exhibited orderly growth in contrast to other parts of the County. The corridor pattern of growth along the major transportation routes had become an increasing trend in Escambia County in the 1980's as the urbanized area spread outward to the north and west. Even though these patterns of development were criticized in the 1980 Plan, they are still characteristic of the types of development which currently exist in the County and are encouraged by the land use designations on the Future Land Use Map. The 1980 plan noted that the random development, or leapfrog pattern, was characterized by low density residential clusters in the urbanized areas of the County surrounding the City of Pensacola with scattered intermittent commercial and mixed uses along the major transportation routes radiating out from the urban areas. The random or leapfrog growth pattern, characterized by intermittent, developed clusters and undeveloped open spaces, produces low tax revenue per acre of land, a very high cost of providing services and facilities to the scattered clusters, and little incentive for fill-in development in the vacant areas. Generally speaking, single-family residential property does not generate sufficient ad valorem tax revenue to pay the costs of providing public services to the property, especially when sprawling patterns make those services more expensive to provide. Sprawling development patterns impose additional costs, such as increased utility costs and lower levels of service on roads, some of which may be offset by reduced land costs. However, accommodating such patterns through the provision of public services like law enforcement, emergency response, water and sewer, and public schools, also tends to result in the subsidization of inefficient development patterns by residents who live or do business in areas characterized by a mixture of functionally related uses. These costs are of increasing significance to County governments in rapidly growing areas like Florida because residents of unincorporated areas are increasingly demanding a level of public services that used to be enjoyed only by residents of incorporated municipalities. Requirements that a plan be based on data and analysis, protect natural resources, maximize use of efficient infrastructure, and be financially feasible, are related in the sense that a plan which discourages sprawl is more likely to accomplish these planning objectives as well. The term "urban sprawl" as it appears in Chapter 9J-5 is used to describe certain kinds of growth or development patterns. It refers to scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas, and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low- density, single-dimensional development. Leapfrog development occurs when new development is sited away from an existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels located in or closer to the urban area that are suitable for development. It typically results in scattered, discontinuous growth patterns in rural areas which are frequently not appropriate for urban development. Leapfrog development may occur due to the lower cost of land outside the urban area compared to the cost of developable land in the urban area. This can occur when plans fail to address the timing of development in addition to its location. Leapfrog development commonly occurs in areas where infrastructure and services do not already exist to serve it; thus, it requires additional utility extensions and involves higher public capital costs if complete urban services are to be provided at the time of development. If complete urban services, such as connection to central water and sewer systems, are not required, leapfrog development may still present an increased risk to water supplies and sensitive environmental areas. Leapfrog development is not usually mixed-use, multi-dimensional development. Consequently, it works against the creation of vibrant communities, creates much greater dependence on automobile transportation, and results in an inefficient use of land resources. Strip or ribbon development involves the location of high amounts of commercial, retail, office and often multi-family residential development in a linear pattern along both sides of major arterial roadways. Strip development is generally dependent on direct access to the arterial roadway and typically reduces the efficiency of the roadway for moving through traffic due to the high number of curb and median cuts and access points which must be permitted. Strip development frequently overburdens arterial roadways with local trips since local road networks remain poorly developed or nonexistent. Unsightly strip development can extend for miles along arterials into rural, previously undeveloped areas, and sometimes encroach on environmentally sensitive lands or important natural resource areas. Large land areas behind and between strip developments are commonly left undeveloped. Low-density, single-dimensional development consists of single land uses, typically low-density residential, spread over large land areas. Frequently, the land is in rural, forestry, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive areas that may require protection from urban development. This land-intensive development pattern, stemming from uncontrolled, poorly planned, and premature development, tends to place an undue burden on external infrastructure and major transportation connectors by not providing a complementary mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and institutional uses. Sprawling single-use development hinders the evolution of vibrant communities, reinforces dependence upon personal automobile use, generates higher public costs for facilities and services, promotes an inefficient use of developable land, and frequently destroys significant environmental and natural resources. Allowing low-density development on large expanses of land also frequently precludes development or redevelopment at the higher densities that become appropriate as the urban or urbanizing area grows. The resulting growth pattern encourages leapfrog development. If redevelopment of these low-density areas to higher intensities does occur, the costs to expand public facilities and services will commonly be substantially higher than would have been incurred to provide the infrastructure capacities that would have been appropriate initially. Plans which fail to discourage urban sprawl often over-allocate land uses, especially residential uses, and designate areas for development which are not suitable, such as wetlands, floodplains, poorly drained soils and aquifer recharged areas. An unregulated land development environment is usually unsuccessful in bringing about truly efficient land development patterns because such a market does not force a developer or land consumer to pay the true, full economic costs of land development. Hidden subsidies may arise from a failure to impose marginal cost pricing of utilities, failure to establish special taxing units to reflect actual costs of parties' utilities, and failure to assign costs to destruction of natural resources like wetlands and aquifer recharge areas. Sprawling development patterns also adversely impact agricultural operations in that such patterns may cause land use conflicts by encouraging farmers to abandon reinvestment in their farm operations and begin looking to sell their land. The Escambia County plan greatly over-allocates residential land uses. This over-allocation is not based on data and analysis. Generally, the number of developable acres designated for use over the 10 year planning period should be only slightly larger (25 percent) than the number of acres needed for that particular land use. Using the County's own assumption regarding densities, approximately 18,841 acres will be required to meet residential needs, excepting agricultural and agricultural/timber categories. The plan allocates total acreage of 122,980, or more than five times the land supply needed for this purpose. The plan allocates 8,881 acres for commercial and industrial purposes in the face of assumed need for only 4,294 acres, more than twice the projected need. The Escambia County Comprehensive Plan actually encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl in the land use patterns set out on its Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Similarly, the plan is not based on data and analysis regarding land use allocations and, by encouraging scattered residential development, poses a threat to the continued viability of agriculture in the County. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 3.1.3 classifies residential land uses. The following land use categories, as established by that policy, allow special exceptions as land uses: Agricultural Residential; Rural Residential/Mixed Use; Low Density Residential; and Urban Residential. Nowhere in the plan is there any indication of what uses will be allowed by special exception or what criteria will be used in establishing the conditions for a special exception. Thus, the plan's densities and intensities of use for Agricultural Residential; Rural Residential/Mixed Use; Low Density Residential and Urban Residential are chimera. The plan includes mixed use classifications of land use in several policies: FLUE Policy 3.1.5 (Mixed Use and Mixed Use-Southwestern District), 3.1.5.a (Mixed Use and Mixed Use- Southwestern District), 3.1.3 (Rural Residential-Mixed Use), and Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 (Medium Density Residential Commercial and High Density Residential Commercial) and 1.4.8 (High Density Residential). Nowhere in these policies or related policies, including FLUE Policy 4.1.22 and 4.1.23, is there any criteria which establish the composition of mixed use categories (i.e., 30% commercial, 70% residential) or guide the implementation of these mixed use classifications such as by ensuring that the land uses are functionally related. Thus, no densities or intensities of use have been established for these land use categories. The plan does not ensure that development will result in a balanced and complimentary mixture of land uses. FLUE Policy 3.1.5 establishes land uses for the Mixed Use-Southwestern District. This category allows the following development: Low Density residential, 1-7 dwelling units per acre; Medium Density Residential, 8-15 dwelling units per acre; and Commercial, consistent with lot coverage standards of 75% maximum coverage for all impervious surfaces. The Future Land Use Map series does not indicate where the various residential densities are allowed nor does the plan include any criteria to provide any guidance as to which density would apply where and under what circumstances. Most of the area in the Mixed Use-Southwestern District contains wetlands. Based on the General Soils Map contained in the data and analysis, this area is dominated by Klej-Leon (somewhat poorly drained), Plummer-Rutledge (poorly drained) and undifferentiated poorly drained flood plains and swamps. These soils, which are indicative of poor drainage, are referred to as hydric soils, which is an indicator of wetlands. The data and analysis does not analyze the suitability of this area for development despite the soils characteristics. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 establishes land uses for Pensacola Beach and includes a category denominated Conservation/Recreation. That classification states in pertinent parts: . . . depending on the specific characteristics of each site appropriate recreation uses may include public parking, beach access, boardwalks, nature trails, boat launching areas, docking facilities, picnic areas, rest rooms, and other such related uses as may be approved by the Santa Rosa Island Authority consistent with legal requirements presently in force. Other uses may by approved by the Santa Rosa Island Authority subject to appropriate studies which demonstrate that such uses are environmentally sound and in the public interest . . . The development of a golf course is allowed by this category and has been specifically contemplated in the past by the Santa Rosa Island Authority. Language of the Conservation/Recreation category in Santa Rosa Sub- element Policy 1.4.5 (10), affords great discretion in the Santa Rosa Island Authority as to what "other uses" are in the "public interest" or "environmentally sound. "No standards are provided which would specifically identify the limits of the types of uses for this classification or the specific criteria which would apply in ensuring a development was in the "public interest" or "environmentally sound." As a result, this policy places unbridled discretion for development in the hands of the Santa Rosa Island Authority, an entity not elected and not accountable to the public. The residential density for the area depicted on the Future Land Use Map as Special Development/Buffer is established in the FLUE Policy 3.1.1 and FLUE Policy 3.1.9. These policies are internally inconsistent as relates to residential densities. Policy 3.1.1 allows one to five dwelling units per acre and Policy 3.1.9 allows only one dwelling unit per acre for this land use. FLUE Policy 3.1.7 establishes land uses for the Recreational category allowing "public recreation areas, private recreational facilities, including limited commercial uses, such as marinas, public utilities." The intensity must be "consistent with lot coverage included in the land development regulations." This policy is inadequate because the intensity of development must be established in the plan, not the land development regulations. FLUE Policy 3.1.8 establishes land uses for the Conservation category. This category allows: . . . activities compatible with the purposing of conserving or protecting natural resources, including flood control, wildlife habitat protection[,] resource-oriented recreational uses, wetlands application of reclaimed water where appropriate and beneficial, and, where appropriate, silviculture using best management practices as defined by the Florida Division of Forestry. No density or intensity is established in the plan for this category. The County could have established intensities for this category through lot coverage, floor area ratios, height densities, and bulk criteria. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 establishes land uses for Pensacola Beach including the following categories: General Retail; Recreation Retail; Conservation/Recreation; and Government and Civic. Each of these categories allows development but does not establish any densities or intensities. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.8 establishes land uses for Navarre Beach including the following categories: High Density Residential; Commercial; and Recreation. Each of these categories allows development but does not establish any densities or intensities. The data and analysis submitted to support the proposed plan included a map series which identified historic districts, archeological areas, historical sites, and additional facilities. The Future Land Use Map series does not depict any historic properties, although such properties are known and identified in the data and analysis. The data and analysis identifies existing and planned water wells. Table 15 lists wells operated by various facilities for public and industrial uses and Table 16 lists future wells projected for the period of 1985-2005. These existing and future wells are depicted on a location map which is a part of the data and analysis. However, the locations of these existing and future wells are not depicted on the Future Land Use Map series. Further, the areas around major water wells, termed "cones of influence" are also not depicted on The Future Land Use Map series. The data and analysis depicts the 100-year floodplain on a location map. The 100-year floodplain is not depicted on the Future Land Use Map series. There are various types of wetland systems in Escambia County including: Bottom land hardwood communities, located along the Escambia River; the mixed wetlands, found in the Southwest District and the Perdido area; estuarine systems associated with the estuaries Pensacola Bay, Escambia Bay and Perdido Bay; coastal salt marshes; and the unique freshwater lens system found on Perdido Key and Santa Rosa Island. The Future Land Use Map series fails to depict all these wetlands. The identification of hydric soils may be a good indicator of wetland areas, but the Generalized Soils Map which is found in the support data and analysis was not adopted by the County. The adoption ordinance does not indicate that the County adopted a wetlands map of any kind. The data and analysis generally depict soils. The data and analysis contain a map entitled "General Soil Map" which was prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1960. This map was not adopted as a part of the Future Land Use Map series. The Future Land Use Map series which was adopted depicts no soil information. The data and analysis generally depict sandy clay and clay; medium- fine sand and silt; and gravel and coarse sand on a map entitled "Mineral Resources." This map was not adopted as a part of the Future Land Use Map series. The Future Land Use Map which was adopted does not depict any mineral information. The Future Land Use Map series consists of three maps: a countywide map with land use categories "drawn" on a Florida Department of Transportation general highway map, a map of Pensacola Beach, and a map of Navarre Beach. The countywide map is internally inconsistent with the Navarre Beach Map because the countywide map depicts only three land use classifications on Navarre Beach: Low density residential, Commercial, and Conservation. The Navarre Beach Map, however, includes these different designations: low density residential; medium density residential; high density residential; commercial public utility; outdoor recreation; and preservation. The policies in the FLUE which describe low density residential (Policy 3.1.3), commercial (3.1.4) and recreation (3.1.7), describe different uses and intensities or densities than are described for categories of the same name in Santa Rosa Policy 1.4.8. The countywide Future Land Use Map depicts a Tourist/Resort category on Pensacola Beach. No policy establishes this category, describes the allowable uses, or establishes densities or intensities of use. The countywide map depicts a large area next to the City of Pensacola as "Commercial." FLUE Policy 3.1.4 defines this classification to allow commercial activities and public facilities and specifically prohibit residential development. The Existing Land Use Map found in the data and analysis indicates that the existing land uses are more varied and include residential uses. No explanation of the prohibition of residential development exists within the data and analysis. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES The data and analysis identifies numerous types of natural resources: rivers, bay, lakes, estuaries, groundwater, wildlife, endangered and threatened plans and animals, trees, wetlands, dune systems, and marine resources. The FLUE is required to include an objective ensuring the protection of natural resources. The only objective in the FLUE which attempts to address countywide natural resources is Objective 1.9, which reads: By May 1991, development criteria shall be adopted in the land development code to protect areas designated as Conservation, Special Development/Buffer, and other land requiring protection due to the presence of sensitive natural resources. FLUE Objective 1.9, while expressing a basic goal, is not specific and measurable. It is meaningless for purposes of marking progress toward an identified goal. Simply referring to a time frame does not make it measurable. Objectives and policies intended to meet the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., must be substantively effective upon adoption and not relegated to adoption through land development regulations. The data and analysis identify numerous natural resources throughout the County which are threatened by development and should be protected, however FLUE Objective 1.9 provides limited protection to the two areas designated Special Development/Buffer and to the few coastal areas designated Conservation. Therefore, this objective is not supported by the data and analysis. The FLUE is required to contain a policy which addresses implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land. The only policy in the FLUE which attempts to address the protection of environmentally sensitive land is FLUE Policy 1.9.1, an implementing policy of FLUE Objective 1.9., which states: The development criteria shall include, but not be limited to, the prohibition of development of areas designated as Conservation, severe limitation of development potential for areas designated as Special Development Buffer, special review and approval procedures for properties which may be identified as having sensitive natural resources. FLUE Policy 3.1.9 establishes a residential density of one dwelling unit per acre for the Special Development/Buffer. Per the FLUM, this is a land use found in only two areas in the eastern portion of the middle section of the County. The term "severe limitation" contained in FLUE Objective 1.9. is not defined, leaving the application of this policy to be subject to interpretation. The referenced special review and approval procedures have not been delineated, nor have other areas containing sensitive natural resources (in addition to the Conservation and Special Development/Buffer areas) been identified, yet they are known to exist, as shown in the data and analysis. Accordingly, FLUE Policy 1.9.1 does not adequately address implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land. FLUE Policy 1.9.2, also an implementing policy of FLUE Objective 1.9, states: The County shall maintain and implement Section XVI of the Urban Area Land Use Regulation Ordinance, as may be amended, requiring review of all properties for presence of wetlands prior to issuance of any development permits. Development projects proposed for development on lands identified as containing wetlands must complete the special development review procedures established in the land development regulations. Provision shall be established in the Land Development Regulations for requirement exemption through an agreement of nondevelopment of wetland areas. FLUE Policy 1.9.2 fails to establish specifications or programs to protect wetlands, is not supported by the data and analysis, and allows the policy to be amended from time to time without going through the necessary agency review process required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, FLUE Policy 1.9.2 does not adequately address implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land. FLUE Policy 4.1.9 states: The County shall develop criteria for assessing the negative impacts of a potential development upon the environment which shall include, but not be limited to: Environmental habitat adjacent to proposed development; Intensity of development; Potential pollutants or other negative impacts released as a result of development. This policy is inadequate because it does not identify specific actions or programs. It does not constitute a "policy" as that term is defined in Rule 9J- 5.003(68), F.A.C., and it defers implementation or action until a future date. The plan, including FLUE Policies 4.1.9, 1.9.2, and 1.9.1, do not adequately address implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land as required by Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)6, F.A.C. As applied specifically toward the protection of environmentally sensitive lands on Santa Rosa Island, Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Objective 1.4 states: Design and adopt a Future Land Use Map for Santa Rosa Island which coordinates the built environment with the natural environment. The Future Land Use Map shall coordinate topography, soils, beachdunes, native vegetation, natural waterbodies, and other natural resources with compatible intensities of allowable urban land uses such that potential Island population densities do not exceed hurricane evacuation capability. Policies 1.4.1-1.4.7 of Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Objective 1.4 do not ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive land because they do not identify specific actions or programs in accordance with the definition of "policy" in Rule 9J-5.003(68), F.A.C. Accordingly, there is no FLUE policy which adequately addresses implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land on Santa Rosa Island. The Coastal Management Element (CME) is required to include an objective for each goal statement which protects beaches or dunes, establishes construction standards minimizing impacts of manmade structures on beach or dune systems, and restores altered beaches or dunes. CME Policy 2.1.9 states: Construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line shall only be permitted if state permits are first obtained. The Coastal Construction Control Line is a line established by the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, under the premise that the area seaward of the line is subject to erosion. The State will not consider approval of development seaward of the coastal construction control line unless the applicable local government has already approved it. This provision of the plan makes construction contingent on state approval, contrary to law. It is inconsistent with requirements of Chapter 161. The Future Land Use Map series depicts development seaward of the coastal construction control line, including areas which are vacant. CME Policy 2.1.9, along with the Future Land Use Map designations which allow more development than is supported by the data and analysis, abrogates the County's duty to regulate the area seaward of the coastal construction control line in order to protect dune systems or other coastal resources. By failing to discourage development seaward of the coastal construction control line, CME Policy 2.1.9 fails to achieve the goal statement of Goal 2 of the Coastal Management Element which is to protect human life and limit public expenditure in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. Objectives under Goal 2 of the CME do not adequately address protection of beaches and dunes as required by Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)4., F.A.C.. CME Objective 2.1 addresses only maintaining a roadway clearance time for hurricane evacuation of twelve (12) hours; Objective 2.2 simply requires the County to identify the Coastal High Hazard Area; Objective 2.4 is concerned with public expenditures for facilities and infrastructure in the Coastal High Hazard Area; Objectives 2.5, 2.6. 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10 address dune reconstruction in the limited situation of post-disaster redevelopment. CME Objective 2.7 states: Establish site design criteria for construction and reconstruction within the Costal High Hazard Area. This objective is inadequate. It provides no specifically measurable intermediate end that is achievable marking the progress toward Goal 2. Similarly, CME Objective 2.11, which provides that "[c]onstruction activities on Santa Rosa Island shall not adversely impact the barrier island system," is inadequate because it is not specific and measurable. CME Objective 2.12 reads: "Allow no further loss in the acreage of beaches and dunes on the barrier island(s)." This objective, although specific and measurable, is inadequate because it applies only to the barrier islands and ignores the beach and dune resources on the mainland. Furthermore, development is specifically allowed in the beach and dune areas based on the Future Land Use Map designations. This internal inconsistency poses the question of whether the County intended Objective 2.12 or the Future Land Use Map to control the issuance of development orders in this area. The CME is required to include a policy identifying regulatory or management techniques for limiting the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetlands and living marine resources. The CME is also required to include an objective which protects, conserves, or enhances remaining coastal wetlands and living marine resources. CME Objective 1.1 fulfills the requirement of Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)1., F.A.C., to conserve remaining wildlife habitat, but none of its implementing policies meet the requirements of Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1., F.A.C., to limit impacts of development upon wetlands and living marine resources. CME Policy 1.1.6 appears to address this requirement. It is inadequate, however, because it fails to identify specific implementing actions or programs and it defers protection of these resources until the adoption of land development regulations. The policy states: The County shall, in conjunction with the Santa Rosa Island Authority, adopt or amend land use regulations on barrier islands, including Perdido Key and Santa Rosa Island, and other coastal areas identified in data and analysis which, at minimum address the protection of tidal wetlands, native vegetative communities and critical habitat of wildlife species which are endangered, threatened, or of special concern as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and Florida Department of Natural Resources. This policy fails to include any criteria indicating what the land development regulations will require to protect these resources and no interim protection is provided. CME Objective 1.4 states: "By December 1992, the County shall develop a plan of action for maintaining and improving estuarine quality in the Coastal Area." This objective is inadequate because it defers implementation until December, 1992, and does not provide any criteria for any interim or future plan of action. No other objective in the CME addresses estuarine environmental quality. Therefore, there is no objective in the CME which maintains or improves estuarine environmental quality. The CME is required to include a policy identifying regulatory or management techniques for limiting the specific and cumulative impacts of development upon wetlands. CME Policy 1.3.7 clearly attempts to address the requirements of this rule. However, it is inadequate to achieve the objective of protecting wetlands. The policy states: By 1993, amend existing land development regulations to include specific protection provisions for the specific cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetland areas as indicated and recommended by the stormwater management plan study. On its face, this policy is intended to address only the impacts of stormwater runoff on wetlands, and does not address other specific cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment such as the restriction or prohibition of development in wetlands. Furthermore, the policy is inadequate because it defers implementation until 1993 through land development regulations and no specific criteria is included in this policy as to what should be included in those regulations. The CME is also required to include a policy which identifies regulatory or management techniques for limiting impacts of development upon wildlife habitat. CME Policy 1.1.2 attempts to address this requirement. This policy states: By May 1991, revise the Special Development District Regulations to include special provisions to enhance wildlife protection to include, but not be limited to, consideration of cluster development, increasing mandatory open space requirements, consideration of wildlife corridors between special development districts and other such districts, in addressing the protection of tidal wetlands, native vegetative communities and critical habitat of wildlife species which are endangered, threatened, or of special concern as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and Florida Department of Natural Resources. The vague use of the term "consideration" in CME Policy 1.1.2 does not provide any assurance that these actions will actually be implemented at a future date. Furthermore, the policy is not specific and measurable due to lack of criteria for open space, cluster development, or wildlife corridors. Further, the policy does not identify how the protection of species will be implemented. All of this is deferred to special development district regulations. 1/ The quality and quantity of waters flowing into estuarine or oceanic waters is not adequately protected as required by Rules 9J-5.013(2)(b)2., and 9J-5.013(c)6., F.A.C. The Conservation Element (CE) objectives of the plan are silent as to water quantity. Objective 1.1 refers to a state government agency's standards which apply only to water quality and do not address water quantity. CE Objective 1.1, which addresses surface water quality, states: "Prevent degradation of surface water quality below water qualities standards using as a minimum Chapter 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., in consideration of development of alternative regulations." Rule 17-25.040, F.A.C., is the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation rule for construction permit requirements for new stormwater discharge facilities. That rule, in turn, references Rule 17-25.030, F.A.C., which provides exemptions from the notice and permitting requirements of the Chapter. Rule 17-25.030 exempts single-family duplex, triplex and quadraplex facilities. Thus, CE Objective 1.1 applies only to water quality standards for new development and excludes single-family duplex, triplex and quadraplex facilities and existing development from drainage facility standards. CE Policy 1.1.11, which implements CE Objective 1.1, reads: Adopt or amend land development regulations to require retention/detention of stormwater runoff prior to discharge into surface water; and to prevent discharge of untreated or treated domestic and industrial waste water (which does not meet current treatment standards) into these areas through public and private sewage treatment plants, poorly designed septic disposal systems [or] both. Mechanisms shall include the Stormwater Management Conservation Ordinance, the formal agreement called for in Policy 1.1.10 and Policy 2.11.4 in the Coastal Management Element. Require all new development adjacent to marine, aquatic, environmentally sensitive and estuarine areas to prohibit depositing into any of these areas stormwater and domestic water that does not meet treatment standards set forth in Section 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., and the Escambia County Department of Health Regulations relative to septic tanks." CE Policy 1.1.11 adopts by reference Rule 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., which applies the exemptions of Rule 17-25.030, F.A.C., and expressly does not apply to existing development. Thus, CE Policy 1.1.11 does not identify surface water quality standards which are to be maintained for all development. Water quantity may adversely impact water quality especially in wetlands where water moves slowly. Development in and adjacent to wetlands adds runoff, silt and fertilizers to the wetland system. If these substances exceed the carrying capacity of the wetlands, adequate purification of the water does not occur before it enters into the estuaries. Development of wetlands also impairs their ability to retain water and absorb stormwater impact. The County has experienced problems associated with untreated stormwater runoff. The County's engineer has identified four main areas which experience stormwater runoff problems. In those areas the development is primarily single-family residential. Therefore, there is no rational basis for the County to exempt existing development and single-family development from its stormwater standards. There also is no basis in the data and analysis for the County to exclude duplexes, triplexes, and quadraplexes from the stormwater standards. The CE is required to include a policy addressing implementation activities for the restriction of activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife. The County has many plants and animals which are threatened, endangered, and species of special concern. The data and analysis identifies threatened, endangered and special concern communities in Escambia County which were identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory. CE Policy 1.8.3 states: Endangered species habitats and unique natural areas, as identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, shall be considered environmentally sensitive. Prior to development in these sections, the development site shall be inventoried for the presence of environmentally sensitive habitats. The results of this survey, as well as mitigation measures for protection of these features if found, shall be submitted as part of land development permit applications submitted for the project. This policy fails to take into consideration the known listed species already identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as reflected in its data and analysis. This policy also does not address the habitats of threatened species and fails to establish specific criteria which will be applied to development in order to protect the functional viability of the habitats of endangered species. The CE is required to include a policy which addresses implementation activities for the protection and conservation of the natural functions of certain natural resources including rivers, wildlife habitat, estuarine and wetland areas. CE Policy 1.1.13 attempts to address these requirements. The policy reads: By December 1991, the County shall, in conjunction with federal, state and local agencies, develop a set of recommendations to further provide for protection of rivers, wildlife habitat, estuarine, and wetland areas. Once the study has been completed specific recommendations shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for inclusion to land development regulations. CE Policy 1.1.13 does not apply to the natural resources known to be present in the County. The data and analysis identifies numerous natural resources, such as rivers, wildlife areas, estuarine areas, and wetlands, whose natural functions qualify for immediate protection. Accordingly, the policy is not based on the data and analysis. CE Policy 1.1.13 also is not an adequate policy because it does not provide specific criteria which will be used to protect the natural functions of these resources. This policy refers to an undefined and uncommenced study which will be conducted in conjunction with federal, state and local agencies. The policy should include the specific criteria needed to protect the natural resources and be in place at the time of plan adoption, not at a later time such as December, 1991, or at the time of adoption of land development regulations. COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS/HURRICANE EVACUATION The CME is required to include an objective for each goal statement which directs population concentrations away from known or predicted Coastal High-Hazard Areas. The plan contains no provisions to direct or discourage population concentrations away from Coastal High-Hazard Areas. CME Objective 1.8 states: Development or redevelopment in the coastal area shall occur only if minimum level of service standards for infrastructure is met or exceeded. The coastal area is defined by the County as including the area approximately one to one and a half miles inland from the shoreline, with the exception of the area adjacent to Escambia Bay along the bluffs. This includes the barrier islands in their entirety. This coastal area is depicted on Existing Land Use Map Series I which was submitted with the proposed plan. The plan defines the Coastal High-Hazard Area in CME Policy 2.2.1 as the area seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line established by the Department of Natural Resources; Federal Emergency Management Velocity (V) Zones designated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Escambia County; and areas which have historically received damage in areas scientifically predicted to receive water damage in a Category 3 hurricane. The Coastal High Hazard Area is included within the coastal area as defined by the County. CME Objective 1.8 is inadequate to serve the purpose of directing population concentrations away from Coastal High-Hazard Areas because it allows development to continue to occur so long as the levels of service standards are met or exceeded. There is no threshold cap for development or redevelopment. Based on the densities established in the FLUE, population concentrations are being directed toward the Coastal High-Hazard Area. Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 establishes land use densities and intensities for Pensacola Beach. The land use designations of high density residential, high density residential/commercial and commercial are allowed within the Coastal High-Hazard Area of Pensacola Beach. Based on these designations, development of up to thirty (30) units per acre is allowed. High density residential allows multi-family development in the range of sixteen to thirty units per acre; high density residential allows a range of sixteen to thirty units per acre for residential uses or up to fifty units an acre with a special exception; commercial hotel allows the same densities as is allowed under high density residential/commercial. The densities established in Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 represent an increase in development based on what is currently developed on Pensacola Beach in the Coastal High-Hazard Area. The plan encourages more development in the Coastal High-Hazard Area of Pensacola Beach. Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Policy 1.4.8 similarly allows an increase in density in the Coastal High-Hazard Area in Navarre Beach from what is existing there currently. The high density residential designation allows up to thirty dwelling units per acre and the commercial designation allows up to thirty units an acre or fifty units an acre with a special exception. Perdido Key lies entirely within the Coastal High-Hazard Area; however the designation for Perdido Key based on the Future Land Use Map is Mixed Use. Future Land Use Element Policy 3.1.5 allows Mixed Use to be developed between sixteen to fifteen dwelling units per acre and an unspecified mix of commercial which may cover up to eighty percent of the lot with impervious surface. The densities and intensities established for Perdido Key do not serve the purpose of directing population concentrations away from the Coastal High-Hazard Area; rather more development is encouraged to occur there. The plan's hurricane evacuation planning is based on the Tri-state Hurricane Evacuation Study and the Escambia County Peacetime Emergency Plan which are referenced in the data and analysis as sources. No data is available which isolates the evacuation time for just the unincorporated portion of Escambia County. However, it is estimated that the evacuation time for the entire County is approximately 14.25 hours. This is based on a medium response curve for a Category III hurricane event. CME Objective 2.1 states that the County will maintain a roadway clearance time for hurricane evacuation of twelve hours. This clearance standard is not met currently. No data and analysis have been provided to support the densities on the coastal barrier islands in relation to maintaining or improving hurricane evacuation times. Furthermore, the data and analysis do not indicate that the current clearance time to maintain is only 12 hours. Thus, the coastal area population densities have not been coordinated with the appropriate regional hurricane plan, the Tri-State Study, and there is no assurance of maintaining or improving the hurricane evacuation time. CME Objective 2.5 states that the County will adopt a post-disaster redevelopment plan for Escambia County that identifies short-term recovery and long-term redevelopment activities. This objective is inadequate because it does not identify any specific and measurable criteria. CME Policy 2.6.3.b., an implementing policy of CME Objective 2.5, reads: By 1992, incorporate in the Santa Rosa Island land development regulations, the following build-back policy, to be applied after a major natural disaster such as a hurricane . . . B. Structures damaged more than fifty percent of their replacement cost at the time of damage can be re-built to their original square footage and density, provided they can comply with: *Federal requirements for elevation above the 100-year flood level. *Building code requirements for floodproofing. *Current building and life safety codes. *State Coastal Construction Control Line. *Any required zoning or other development regulations (other than density or intensity), unless compliance with such regulations would preclude reconstruction otherwise intended by the build-back policy. *Any other relevant federal regulations. *Any other relevant local regulations, including lease agreements. *Any other relevant state regulations. CME Policy 2.6.3.b., allows structures damaged more than fifty percent to be rebuilt to their original square footage and density. Thus, this policy does not require redevelopment following disaster which will reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life in public and private property to future natural hazards. COASTAL MANAGEMENT The CME is required to include an objective that, following adoption of the plan, limits public expenditures to subsidize development permitted in Coastal High-Hazard Areas except for restoration or enhancement of natural resources. The CME is also required to include a policy designating Coastal High-Hazard Areas, limiting development in these areas, and relocating or replacing infrastructure away from these areas. The CME does not contain any objective or policy that adequately limits development of public expenditures subsidizing development in a Coastal High-Hazard Area. CME Policy 2.4.2 allows the development of public facilities in the Coastal High-Hazard Area provided that certain criteria are met. That policy reads: Public facilities shall not be located or improved in the Coastal High-Hazard Area unless the following criteria are met: the use is necessary to protect human life; the service provided by the facility cannot be provided at another location outside the Coastal High-Hazard Area; no alternate site is identified outside the Coastal High-Hazard Area; the facility is designed to provide the minimum capacity necessary to meet level of service standards for its service area; the total cost to build the facility to meet the Coastal Building Codes including floodproofing requirements does not increase the cost of the project beyond feasibility. CME Policy 2.4.2 does not limit the extension of facilities which subsidize development in the Coastal High-Hazard Area. The level of service will be the minimum criteria for the applicable land uses. As described above, the land uses tend to encourage development towards the Coastal High Hazard Area. Development may continue provided the level of service standards are met. CME Policy 2.1.10 states that the County will not allow the extension of water, sewer or storm drainage infrastructure to facilitate new permanent residential structures within the Coastal High-Hazard Areas of Escambia County for which the County has permitting authority unless state permits are first obtained. This policy does not limit the extension of facilities that subsidize development in the Coastal High-Hazard Area in the event that state permits are first obtained. No state permits have been identified which would independently have the effect of limiting development in the entire Coastal High-Hazard Area or relocating or replacing infrastructure away from this area. VESTED RIGHTS Policies 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4 and 1.4.6 of the Santa Rosa Island Future Land Use Sub-element provide that leased property on Santa Rosa Island is exempt from the plan and land development regulations. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY The comprehensive plan is required to contain a Schedule of Capital Improvements for which the local government has fiscal responsibility for the first five fiscal years following adoption of the plan and a list of projected costs and revenue sources by type of public facility for the five-year period. The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) is required to set forth a financially feasible plan which demonstrates that the local government can achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standards. The Schedule of Capital Improvements includes the expenditure of $9,400,000 for a Master Drainage Study and Facilities for the fiscal years 1990- 91 through 1994-95. The data and analysis identifies and recommends impact fees as the revenue source to fund the Master Drainage Study and Facilities. The County has not adopted an impact fee for drainage or stormwater management, or even for the study. In May 1991, the Board of County Commissioners considered alternative methods of funding for stormwater management. The Board of County Commissioners rejected the implementation of a municipal service benefit unit for stormwater. Instead, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the alternative of development and implementation of a stormwater utility fee which requires approval of the voters at a referendum. At the time of plan adoption and the time of the hearing, the referendum had not taken place. There is no guarantee that the voters will approve the referendum. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Master Drainage Study and Facilities will be funded through fiscal year 1994-95. CIE Policy 1.4.1 states: Existing and future development, including those on Santa Rosa Island, directly benefiting from stormwater management improvements shall bear a proportionate cost of stormwater facility capital improvements. Further, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider, and implement as it deems necessary, impact fees for other public facilities. CIE Policy 1.5.1 states: The Board of County Commissioners shall develop and implement any alternative revenue sources needed to properly fund the Capital Improvements Element which could include, but not be limited to, property taxes, special assessments and other forms of revenue raising measures. Neither Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.4.1 nor Policy 1.5.1 establishes the impact fees necessary to fund the Drainage Study and Facilities or identifies viable revenue sources. Therefore, the Master Drainage Study and Facilities, identified in the Schedule of Capital Improvements, is not funded and is not financially feasible. XII CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT Minimum requirements for a Concurrency Management System mandate that the system ensure that facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of such development. Prior to the issuance of a development order or development permit, the Concurrency Management System must ensure that the adopted level of services standards required by roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, parks and recreation and mass transit, if applicable, will be maintained. The Concurrency Management System contained in the Capital Improvements Element of the plan provides that facility capacity may be determined or counted as existing capacity, provided facilities were in the procurement cycle or if there is a binding executed contract for construction of the facility. This provision is overly broad and, hence, inadequate to meet rule requirements. The minimum requirements for concurrency are not uniform in every respect for the various types of public services and facilities needed to support development. For parks and recreations, the local government may satisfy the concurrency requirements through a binding executed contract which provides for a commencement of the actual construction of the required facilities or the provision of services within one (1) year of the issuance of the development permit in addition to other criteria. However, rule requirements in Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., do not permit use of a binding executed contract to ensure concurrency for potable water, sewer, solid waste, and drainage facilities. The Concurrency Management System provides, on page 11-xi of the plan, that facility capacity may be counted if "the new facilities are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement and is consistent with the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan." This is contrary to the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.0055(2)(a)(4), F.A.C., which contains minimum criteria for meeting concurrency through an enforceable development agreement. Those minimum criteria, which include the provisions of Rules 9J-5.0055(2)(a)1.- 3., F.A.C., are not recited in any provision of the Concurrency Management System or the Capital Improvements Element. The Concurrency Management System does not establish guidelines for interpreting and applying level of service standards to applications for development orders and permits and for determining when the test for concurrency has been met. The Concurrency Management System also does not contain guidelines for measuring the level of service and capacity of public facilities. Santa Rosa Island Future Land Use Sub-element Policy 1.1.3 indicates that the Concurrency Management System does not apply to Pensacola Beach. That policy reads: "By May 1991, the County shall adopt a Concurrency Management System in coordination with the Santa Rosa Island Authority to implement the Level of Service Standards of the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan as applicable to the Pensacola Beach." Santa Rosa Island Future Land Use Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 states: Development orders and/or permits for future development and redevelopment activities on Santa Rosa Island shall be issued only if public facilities necessary to meet level of service standards, adopted as a part of the Capital Improvements Element of the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan, are available concurrent with the impacts of development or are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement pursuant to Section 163, F.S. and Rule 9J-5.0055, F.A.C., or an agreement or development order pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 does not contain a provision that the necessary facilities and services will be in place when the development of impacts occur or, in lieu thereof, that the agreement must include the provisions of Rules 9J-5.0055(2)(a)1.-3., F.A.C. The Pensacola Beach Concurrency Management System was not adopted in the plan. Thus, the plan does not establish countywide concurrency. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.1.3 also is insufficient as it defers implementation of adoption of a concurrency management system until May 1991. The Concurrency Management System must be in place at the time of plan adoption. The Concurrency Management System does not clearly indicate the latest point in the application process for the determination of concurrency. The Concurrency Management System must indicate at what point in the application process final approval of a specific plan for development occurs and that this be prior to the determination of concurrency. The Concurrency Management System indicates that this point is the "final sign-off", however, that term is not defined and its meaning is opaque. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Each local government is required to establish level of service standards for ensuring that adequate facility capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits pursuant to Section 163.3202(2)(g), Florida Statutes. The level of service standards must be set for each individual facility or facility type within the local government jurisdiction and not on a system-wide basis. The purpose of the sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element is to provide for necessary public facilities and services correlated to future land use projections. The sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element of the plan must contain policies which address implementation activities for establishing and utilizing level of service standards in accordance with rule requirements. The County has not adopted a level of service standard for drainage which will be applied to all development. Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 states: The level of service standard for stormwater water quality shall be the minimum Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Standards, Section 17-25.040(5), Florida Administrative Code. Single-family dwellings not part of a larger development will be exempt from the level of service requirements. As discussed above under Protection of Natural Resources, Section 17- 25.040, F.A.C., does not apply to new facilities. Thus, the County has not adopted a drainage level of service standard for existing facilities, as it must. Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 is also insufficient because it has not removed other exemptions included in Chapter 17-25.030, F.A.C.,: the single family, duplex, triplex and quadraplex exemption. This policy specifically exempts single-family dwellings not part of a larger development from the level of service standard, but is silent as to the other exemptions of Chapter 17-25, F.A.C. No such exemptions from the drainage level of service standards is authorized by Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.1.2 states in pertinent part: "Development approval is conditioned upon, but not limited to a determination of whether the following level of service standard can be met: (1) the post- development peak rate of stormwater discharge will not exceed the pre- development peak rate based upon the 25-year stormwater event of critical duration . . ." This level of service standard is inadequate because it ignores such critical factors as water quality. The Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) is required to include a policy establishing level of service standards at peak hours for all roads located within the government's jurisdiction. Subsection 9J-5.005(3) and subparagraph 9J-5.015(3)(b)3., F.A.C. A portion of SR 30/Pensacola Bay Bridge lies within the boundaries of unincorporated Escambia County. The Pensacola Bay Bridge starts in the City of Pensacola and terminates in Gulf Breeze, Santa Rosa County. Between the starting point of the bridge on the Pensacola side and the County line, which is over the Pensacola Bay, a portion of the bridge lies within the jurisdiction of Escambia County. The Department of Transportation General Highway Map, upon which the County-wide Future Land Use Map is drawn, depicts the County boundaries between Escambia County and Santa Rosa County. This map shows that Escambia County has jurisdiction over SR 30 between the City of Pensacola and midway between the mainland and Gulf Breeze. Approximately 1.5 miles of the bridge lies within the jurisdiction of the County. According to the data and analysis, SR 30/Pensacola Bay Bridge currently is operating at a level of service "F". This level of service is applied in the plan. 2/ The TCE is required to include a policy which establishes level of service standards at peak hours for roads within the local government's jurisdiction. These standards must be consistent with Florida Department of Transportation's policies. TCE Policy 1.1.1 adopts peak hour minimum acceptable operating level of service standards for County roads. The level of service standards for Transportation Planning Areas vary for various roadway types (freeways, principal arterials, minor arterials) depending on the area classification (existing urbanized, transitioning urban, rural). The policy also adopts a "deficient" level of service standard of "F" (existing) for the Pensacola Bay Bridge which it separately classifies as a Special Consideration (Backlogged Facility). The policy defines backlogged facilities as "roadways which do not meet the minimum acceptable level of service standards, are not in a Special Transportation Area, not constrained and are not scheduled for capacity improvement." The Pensacola Bay Bridge is a principal arterial road. The recommended Florida Department of Transportation level of service for the bridge is "D". A level of service of "D" indicates a range of speed of 17 to 21 miles per hour. A level of service of "F' indicates a range of speed of 0 to 13 miles per hour. The "F" standard cannot be violated because traffic may not be slowed below zero miles per hour. No specific measure of current operating conditions is provided to ensure the operating conditions will be maintained and improved. As long as existing bridge traffic exceeds 0 miles per hour, TCE Policy 1.1.1 allows the bridge road to continue to degrade. This is no standard at all. Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.3.3 commits the County to certain level of service standards for various services and facilities, including traffic circulation. That policy states in pertinent part that capital improvement projects adopted by Escambia County shall maintain level of service standards as reflected in the policy's tables. A schedule of level of service for Traffic Circulation Facilities is included in the policy. Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.3.3 establishes level of service standards for Special Transportation Areas, but does not establish specific level of service standards for Constrained Facilities and Backlogged Facilities. This policy commits to a level of service standard for Constrained Facilities for freeways, principal arterials, minor arterials, and others as "maintain." As to Backlogged Facilities, the policy commits to "maintain and improve" freeways, principal arterials, minor arterials, and others. As written, the level of service standards "maintain" and "maintain and improve" are not specific and measurable, are internally inconsistent with the specific level of service standards adopted in TCE Policy 1.1.1 (i.e., "C", "D"), and allow for future revision without undergoing the plan amendment process. The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) is required to include a policy for each objective which establishes level of service standards for public facilities within the local government's jurisdiction. These standards are required to be those found in the other local government comprehensive plan elements. The Drainage Sub-Element is required to include a policy addressing implementation activities for establishing and utilizing level of service standards for design storm return frequency for Drainage Facility Capacity. Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 adopts Rule 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., as the level of service standard for Stormwater Water Quality. That rule requires that facilities which directly discharge to Outstanding Florida Waters shall provide additional treatment as specified in Rule 17-25.025(9), which in turn requires an additional level of treatment equal to 50 percent more than the one-half inch requirement for sites less than 100 acres and one-inch of run-off from sites greater than 100 acres. CIE Policy 1.3.3 includes a level of service standard for drainage facilities. The policy states in pertinent part that for projects with drainage areas greater than 100 acres which provide for retention, or detention with filtration facilities, the level of service standard shall be the first one inch of run-off from storm rainfall; for projects with drainage areas less than 100 acres which provide for retention, or detention with filtration facilities, the level of service standard shall be the first one-half inch of run-off from storm rainfall; and for drainage facilities which attenuate the 24-hour, 25-year storm event of critical duration the level of service standard requires that a drainage system allow for discharges equal to pre-development levels unless an engineering analysis using professionally accepted methodologies demonstrates that a differing discharge rate should be used. This policy is internally inconsistent with Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 because CIE Policy 1.3.3 does not provide for the additional level of treatment for stormwater discharge facilities which directly discharge to Outstanding Florida Waters. CIE Policy 1.3.3 level of service standard for drainage facilities which attenuate the 24-hour, 25-year storm event of critical duration is not specific and measurable. This provision allows for the possibility of post- development run-off rate to exceed pre-development rates by allowing a different, presumably a higher, discharge rate to be used instead maintaining pre-development levels. There is no data and analysis to support an increase in discharge beyond pre-development levels. The Coastal Management Element is required to include an objective establishing level of service standards, areas of service and phasing of infrastructure in the coastal area. While CME Policy 1.8.1 establishes coastal area levels of services for sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and recreation and open space, it does not include a level of service standard for traffic circulation. The primary sanitary sewer service provider in Escambia County is the Escambia County Utilities Authority. The data and analysis shows the existing level of service for sanitary sewer to range between 61.5 and 176 gallons per capita per day for wastewater treatment facilities owned by Escambia County Utilities Authority. For example, the Avondale facility has an existing level of service of 61.5 gallons per capita per day, the Mainstreet facility has an existing level of service of 99.8 gallons per capita per day, and the Navarre Beach Facility has an existing level of service of 176 gallons per capita per day. Sanitary Sewer Sub-element Policy 1.2.1 states: Escambia County hereby adopts 75 gallons per capita per day as level of service standard for the provision of sanitary sewer facilities in the Escambia County Utilities Authority service area, and 60 gallons per capita per day for all privately-owned wastewater treatment facilities. Sanitary Sewer Sub-element Policy 1.2.3 states: "The County, through a Certificate of Availability, shall verify the capacity of public sewer systems prior to issuing development permits to ensure that adequate capacity to meet level of service standards (which is 100 gallons per capita per day) is available." The 100 gallons per capita per day level of service referenced in this policy is inconsistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub-element Policy 1.2.1 which adopts a level of service of 75 gallons per capita per day for Escambia County Utilities Authority Facilities and 60 gallons per capita per day for all privately-owned wastewater treatment facilities. This internal inconsistency creates confusion as to which level of service standard is in fact being adopted and will be used for the issuance of development orders. The County is responsible for the disposal of all solid waste within its jurisdiction through the County's Department of Solid Waste. The level of service is established in Solid Waste Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 which states: "The County will provide the capacity to dispose of 7 pounds of solid waste per capita per day." Table 11 of the Solid Waste Sub-element Data and Analysis shows the projected generation of solid waste for the County from the year 1986 through the year 2000. Table 11 Projected Generation for Escambia County Year County Population Annual Tonnage lbs/capita/day 1986 230,250 309,000 7.4 1990 255,552 324,450 7.0 1995 274,520 340,670 6.8 2000 289,368 357,700 6.8 There is no data and analysis which relates the actual capacity of the landfill with the need projections of Table 11. Hence, the data and analysis fails to adequately support Solid Waste Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 and the policy's assurance that the County will provide adequate land-fill space. Potable Water Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 adopts two levels of service standards for the provision of potable water: Escambia County Utilities Authority - 75 gallons per capita per day and all other service providers - 100 gallons per capita per day. Escambia County is served by 10 public water supply systems, none of which are operated by the County. The largest public water supply system is operated by Escambia County Utilities Authority which has an existing level of service of 157.3 gallons per capita per day in Zone 2 and 101.6 gallons per capita per day in Zone 1. Table 12 of the Potable Water Sub-element Data and Analysis shows water system demand and plant facilities for 15 facilities, including facilities operated by private owners, the Town of Century, the Special District of Escambia Utilities Authority, and the Federal Government, Santa Rosa County, and the State of Florida. Nine of the facilities not operated by Escambia Utilities Authority are below 100 gallons per capita per day. The data and analysis do not adequately support Potable Water Sub- element Policy 1.1.1 and the aim of the policy to ensure that service providers currently providing less than 100 gallons per capita per day be able to meet that level in the event of future demand. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Housing Element of the plan is required to contain an objective providing adequate sites for housing for low and moderate income families, and for mobile homes. The Housing Element's data and analysis concludes that affordable housing for persons in the very low, low and moderate income ranges should not exceed 30 percent of family income. By 1987 standards, these family income limits translate into less than $13,151 for very low income families and between $13,152 and $21,040 for low/moderate income families. The data and analysis does not state what the demand for new affordable housing construction will be through the planning period. Housing Element Objective 1.2 states: "Based on existing available resources provide for the rehabilitation of a minimum of 90 substandard homes and 10 new affordable housing sites annually." This objective is not quantitatively supported by the data and analysis and fails to describe the types of housing that will be constructed at the sites, i.e., single family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, or apartment buildings. The Housing Element is required to include a policy for each objective which addresses implementation activities for the improvement in the regulatory and permitting processes, if deemed necessary by the local government. Housing Element Policy 1.1.4 states: Develop a permit review process (that will include a checklist and flow chart) that will take into consideration the following aspects in order to expedite and help facilitate affordable housing projects: Fast track permitting process which will provide for concurrent review of all permits; Waiving or use of weighted permit fees; and Waiving or use of weighted County imposed impact fees. Although the need to improve the regulatory and permitting processes is identified, there is no assurance that the methods to expedite affordable housing projects outlined in Housing Element Policy 1.1.4 will be implemented because the policy merely states that those methods will be taken "into consideration." The policy is subject to interpretation and may or may not be implemented despite the identified need to expedite affordable housing projects. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN For the reasons set forth below, the plan is inconsistent with the state plan, construced as a whole. The plan is not consistent with and fails to further State Comprehensive Plan Goal 5(a) relating to housing, which states: The public and private sectors shall increase the affordability and availability of housing for low- income and moderate-income persons, including citizens in rural areas, while at the same time encouraging self-sufficiency of the individual and assuring environmental and structural quality and cost-effective operations. The vagueness of Objective 1.2 of the plan's housing element fails to further this goal or policy 3 of this state goal, which relates to increasing housing availability for low and moderate income persons and elder persons. Policy 4 of this goal addresses reduction of housing costs through elimination of unnecessary regulation which adds to the cost of housing. The plan's lack of specific implementing actions that will be taken with regard to this policy establishes that the plan is not consistent with and does not further this state goal. Densities and intensities of land use in the plan which increase runoff and inadequacies of level of service for drainage facilities make the plan inconsistent with state goal 8(a) relating to water resources and the need to assure availability of water quantity for reasonable and beneficial uses while maintaining the present level of surface and ground water quality. These inadequacies of the plan also fail to further policy 8(b)2 of the state goal requiring the identification and protection of water recharge areas. The plan also fails to further state policy 8(b)5 of this goal since the plan does not ensure that new development will be compatible with existing local and regional water supplies. The distribution pattern and intensities and densities of land use and the plan's inadequate approach to existing and future deficiencies of drainage issues also prevent the plan from being consistent with state policies 8(b)8-13, which seek to encourage development of floodplain management; preserve hydrologically significant wetlands and other natural floodplain features; support the protection of aquifers from depletion and contamination; protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity; promote water conservation; provide for elimination of discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state; and support alternative methods of wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse to reduce degradation of water resources. The plan fails to further and is not consistent with state goal 9(a) which provides: Florida shall ensure that development and marine resource use and beach access improvements in coastal areas do not endanger public safety or important natural resources. Florida shall, through acquisition and access improvements, make available to the state's population additional beaches and marine environment, consistent with sound environmental planning. Policies of this goal include: Policy 1 which seeks the acceleration of public beach acquisition; policy 2 which ensures public beach access; policy 3 which emphasizes the importance of avoiding expenditure of funds to subsidize development of coastal high hazard areas; policy 4 which protects coastal resources, marine resources and dune systems from the adverse effects of development; policy 5 which seeks development of a planning system ensuring the continued attractive image of coastal areas; policy 6 which requires compatibility of land and water uses with protection of sensitive coastal resources; policy 7 which requires protection and restoration of productivity of fisheries and habitat; and policy 9 which prohibits development of other activities which disturb dune systems. The plan is not consistent with either the goal or policies 1-7 and 9 due to the plan's inadequacies with regard to preservation or conservation of coastal resources; density and development patterns along the coastal area; level of proposed development; and the failure of land uses on the future land use map to be compatible with sensitive coastal resource protection. The plan is inconsistent with and does not further state goal 10(a) which requires the protection of unique natural habitats and ecological systems such as wetlands and various vegetative species, as well as restoring degraded natural systems to a functional condition. Deficiencies within the plan's objective and policies, as well as the failure to depict wetlands and floodplains on an adopted FLUM, prevent a finding that policy 1 of the goal, regarding conservation of forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife, is consistent with or furthered by the plan's objectives and policies. Other policies of this goal where objectives, goals and policies of the plan fail to establish specific implementing actions necessary to a finding of consistency with the state plan include: Policy 2 regarding the acquiring, retaining, managing, and inventory of public lands to provide recreation, conservation, and other public benefits; policy 3 relating to prohibition and destruction of endangered species and protection for their habitats; policy 4 relating to establishment of an integrated regulatory program to assure the survival of endangered and threatened species within the state; policy 5 relating to the promotion of agricultural practices compatible with protection of wildlife and natural systems, which is specifically not supported by the plan's relatively high residential densities in some agricultural areas of 1-5 units per acre; policy 6 relating to maximizing use of forest resources where again the plan's densities and distribution of those densities on the land use map prevent consistency; policy 7 relating to protection and restoration of the ecological functions of wetland systems; policy 9 relating to an acquisition program to ensure the integrity of Florida's river systems, which is unsupported by any provision of the plan to establish such a county program; policy 10 relating to acquisition and maintenance of ecologically intact systems in all land and water planning, management, and regulation; and policy 11 relating to state and local efforts to provide recreational opportunities to urban areas, including the development of activity-based parks. The plan is inconsistent with and does not further state goal 16(a), which states: In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Likewise the plan is inconsistent with and fails to further policy 2 of state goal 16(a), relating to development of incentives and disincentives to encourage separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. The failure to further this policy highlights the fundamental shortcoming of the plan as to densities and intensities and distribution of those uses. Policies 4 and 6 of state goal 16(a) are not furthered by and are inconsistent with the plan. Policy 4 provides for development of a system of intergovernmental negotiation for siting locally unpopular public and private land uses, but the plan does not provide how the county will address this subject. Policy 6 requires consideration, in land use planning and regulation, of the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water, and other natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. The distribution of land uses shown on the future land map and the lack of adequate policies prevent the plan from furthering this policy. Goal 20 of the State Plan relates to transportation and provides: Florida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass transit, and other transportation modes. The plan does not address coordination between land uses and the transportation system. Therefore this goal is not furthered by the plan. Policy 3 of Goal 20 relates to promotion of a comprehensive transportation planning process coordinating state, regional, and local transportation plans. The plan adopts a level of service "F" for the Pensacola Bay Bridge which designation fails to provide any point at which development orders should be denied. This adopted level of service permits unlimited degradation and therefore does not further and is not consistent with the state plan. Policy 12 of Goal 20 of the state plan requires local governments to eschew transportation improvements which encourage increased development in coastal high-hazard areas or in environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodways, or productive marine areas. The high densities of use provided in the plan for coastal areas will inevitably cause demand for improved transportation systems in these areas and consequently fail to further this policy. The requirement of policy 13 of goal 20 to coordinate transportation improvements with state, local, and regional plans is not furthered by a level of service designation in the plan, such as the one for Pensacola Bay Bridge, which does not ensure that improvements can be coordinated. A level of service designation such as that accorded the bridge permits complete degradation without necessarily requiring coordination for expansion of the facility. The plan fails to address, and thus does not further, Policy 14 of goal 20, addressing acquisition of advanced rights-of-way for transportation projects in designated transportation corridors consistent with state, regional, and local plans. Policy 15 of goal 20, relating to promotion of effective coordination among various modes of transportation in urban areas to assist urban development and redevelopment efforts, is not addressed or furthered by the plan. The plan is not consistent with and does not further transportation goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan. The lack of adequate policies and high density of residential use in agricultural areas in the plan prevent the plan from furthering goal 23 of the state comprehensive plan, which reads as follows: Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, agriculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Goal 26 of the state comprehensive plan reads as follows: Systematic planning capabilities shall be integrated into all levels of government in Florida, with particular emphasis on improving intergovernmental coordination and maximizing citizen involvement. Policy 4 of Goal 26 relating to the need to simplify, streamline, and make more predictable the existing permitting procedures, is not furthered or consistent with plan as a result of the plan's failure to adequately define what would be done to simplify the regulatory process. CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN The plan is inconsistent with the West Florida Regional Policy Plan (the regional plan), construed as a whole, for the reasons listed below. The vagueness of Housing Element objective 1.2 with regard to provision of 10 new housing sites is inconsistent with Regional Goal 2 of Regional Issue 19, related to housing, contained in the regional plan. The plan fails to further that goal, which provides: By 1990, affordable, safe and sanitary housing for low and moderate income households and the elderly population which will increase by 10% over 1985 levels. The failure of the plan to address Goal 3 of Regional Issue 19 contained in the regional plan with regard to elimination of housing discriminatory practices is a significant inconsistency with the regional plan. The failure of the future land use map to identify existing and planned waterwells constitutes an inconsistency with goal 1 of regional issue 37 of the regional plan. That goal reads: By 1995, Regional water supply authorities shall be established throughout the Region which shall adopt water supply plans that incorporate water conservation programs, protection of water recharge areas and existing and future well sites, and identify vulnerable water supplies that local governments should regulate to limit development. As a result of the failure of the plan to set out densities and intensities of land use which serve to protect natural resources, as well as deficiencies of the plan with regard to drainage facilities, the plan does not further regional goal 1 of regional issue number 38. That goal provides: By 1995, the Region's potable aquifers shall be protected from depletion and contamination to ensure adequate quality of the Region's water resources to meet current and long-term needs for all reasonable-beneficial uses. Inadequate protective policies within the plan are inconsistent with the regional plan. Some of those inadequacies include inadequate drainage level of service standards, allowance of septic tanks in unsuitable areas, and high densities covering high aquifer recharge areas with impervious services. These plan policies are inconsistent with regional goal 1 of regional issue 39, Natural Systems Protection, which provides: By 1995, 10 percent of regional natural water systems will be protected, maintained, and their natural processes restored. The densities and intensities of use proposed by the plan for the barrier islands and in some of the coastal areas are very high and negatively impact resources of the land. This is particularly so with regard to densities and intensities of use established in Pensacola Beach, Navarre Beach and Perdido Key areas. The inadequacies of policies within the plan do not further goal 1 of issue 40 of the regional plan relating to protection of beach and dune systems. That goal reads: By 1990, land use guidelines will be adopted which protect beach and dune systems. Goal 1 of regional issue 41 is not furthered by provisions of the plan, specifically the lack of adequate level of service standards for drainage. This goal of the regional plan provides: By 1990, land use and coastal zone planning will be coordinated with the protection and management of marine fisheries habitat. Regional issue 43 of the regional plan addresses protection of natural resources. Goal 1 of that issue is not furthered due to the previously mentioned inadequacies of the plan, plus the lack of inclusion of a wetlands map and floodplains map as part of the adopted comprehensive plan. This goal of the regional plan provides: By 1990, state and local regulatory programs shall be designed to appropriately use and protect the Region's functioning natural systems. Endangered and threatened species are addressed by issue 44 of the regional plan. Goal 1 of that issue provides: By 1995, the number of native species in the Region on the official list of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora in Florida (FGFWFC) shall be reduced by 5 percent. The lack of planning directives and controls upon development in the county by goals, objectives and policies of the plan, prevents a finding that the plan furthers this goal. Regional issue 45 regarding the management of public and private land in a manner that permits continued functioning of natural systems is not furthered by the plan. Again, the densities and intensities of use established by the plan; the lack of control over development permitted by the plan; and specifically, the failure of the plan to include an adopted map of wetlands and floodplains establishes the plan's failure to further goal 1 of this issue. That goal provides: By 1990, public and private lands will be managed and land resources used according to comprehensive, economic and environmental principles, especially critical areas including, but not limited to coastal lands, wetlands, flood plains, margins of estuarine nursery areas, and locally important agricultural lands. Regional issue 58, regarding natural resource preservation and coordination between potable water and wastewater treatment facilities and land uses with regard to aquifer protection, is not furthered by the plan in view of the plan's provisions which fail to discourage urban sprawl and, instead, permit urban development to spread and negatively impact natural systems. Goal 1 and goal 2, respectively, of this issue of the regional plan read as follows: Regional goal 1 By the year 1991, local land use planning will be fully coordinated with planning for the provision of potable water and wastewater treatment and disposal. Regional Goal 2 By the year 1991, each local government in the Region will use review procedures that consider cumulative impact of development on natural resources. Neither of these goals is furthered by the plan. Because level of service standards established in the plan's Capital Improvements Element (CIE) permit inadequate roadway level of service standards with regard to the Pensacola Bay Bridge and permit the change of such level of service standards simply by having a roadway definitionally reclassified, regional issue 63 and regional goal 1 of that issue are not furthered by the plan. Regional goal 1 of the issue reads: By 1995, all modes of transportation planning will be integrated to efficiently, economically and safely accommodate transportation needs in the West Florida Region. Regional issue 64 addresses transportation planning to aid growth management. Regional goal 1 of the issue provides that planned development patterns and land use permitting will conform and coordinate with existing or programmed state and local transportation systems by 1991. Regional goal 2 of this issue provides that land development codes will include an analysis of transportation impacts, provide for protection of transportation rights-of-way, and establish private sector sharing of the cost of transportation facilities by 1991. Inasmuch as traffic analysis under the plan appears based on historical projections, as opposed to the impacts of future land use permitted by the plan, the plan does not further this issue or goals 1 and 2. Regional issue 69 of the regional plan and goals 1 through 4 of that issue are not furthered by the plan in view of the relatively high densities and intensities of residential use permitted in agricultural areas. Such usage for residential purposes does not ensure that agriculture will be protected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings and fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that a final order be entered finding that the Escambia county Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1992.
