The Issue The issue is whether the City of Jacksonville's (City's) amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), also known as Ordinance No. 2007-355-E, and a related text amendment to Conservation/Coastal Management Element Policy 7.3.1 adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-315-E are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City (which also comprises Duval County) is a local government in northeast Florida whose eastern boundary adjoins the Atlantic Ocean. The City is partially bisected by the St. Johns River (River), which begins several hundred miles to the south, flows north through the lower half of the City, and then turns east, eventually emptying into the Atlantic Ocean. The Intracoastal Waterway is connected to the River and runs parallel to the coast. The City adopted the plan amendments which are being challenged by the Department and Intervenors. Intervenor Valerie Britt and the six resident intervenors own property and/or reside within the City. They each presented oral or written comments to the City regarding both amendments before transmittal but before their adoption. As such, they are affected persons and have standing to participate in this matter. Moody (formerly known as the Moody Land Company, Inc.) owns property and operates a business within the City. Moody submitted oral or written comments in support of both amendments to the City after transmittal but before adoption of the amendments. As such, it has standing as an affected person to participate. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, including the City. Coastal High-Hazard Area Because the CHHA is relevant to both the FLUM amendment and the text amendment challenges, a brief overview of its history and development is appropriate. For local governments abutting the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico, or that include or are contiguous to waters of the state, Section 163.3178, Florida Statutes, enumerates certain requirements that must be included within the coastal management element of their comprehensive plans. See § 163.3178(2)(a)-(k), Fla. Stat. The purpose of this directive is that comprehensive plans should "protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster." § 163.3178(1), Fla. Stat. Because it lies adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, the City is subject to these requirements. One of the requirements is the designation of a CHHA in the element. § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. "[F]or uniformity and planning purposes," prior to 2006, the CHHA was simply defined as "category 1 evacuation zones." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. (2005). Presumably to eliminate inconsistencies in the application of this broad definition, in 2006 the Legislature redefined the term as ”the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. (2006). The new law required that no later than July 1, 2008, local governments situated on or near Florida's coastline amend their "future land use map and coastal management element to include the new definition of [CHHA] and to depict the [CHHA] on the [FLUM]." § 163.3178(9)(c), Fla. Stat. Because Policy 7.3.1 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element of the City's current Plan still utilizes the old definition of CHHA, Ordinance No. 2008-315-E was adopted for the purpose of complying with this requirement. The SLOSH model is a computerized model developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service to calculate hurricane storm surge heights. Storm surge is the abnormal rise of water caused by wind and the pressure forces of hurricanes. Based upon various inputs, such as the direction and speed of a hurricane, initial water elevation, topography, and bathymetry, the model produces a display with storm tide elevations per grid cell. The use of a grid cell enables the model to predict storm surge in a smaller land area. The outputs of the model are storm surge elevations averaged over grid cells, which are accurate to within twenty percent based upon post-storm observations from tide gauges behind coastal barrier islands. In July 1998, the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council, now known as the Northeast Florida Regional Council, published a four-volume Storm Surge Atlas (Atlas) as a public safety planning tool to assist with hurricane evacuation planning within northeast Florida. (Each regional planning council in the State is tasked with this responsibility.) Volume 2 applies to Duval County. The Atlas reflects SLOSH model storm surge data on a map with land elevations and water features, thus providing emergency planners information they can use to evacuate coastal areas at appropriate times. Areas depicted in the Atlas below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line are subject to evacuation and are considered to be in the CHHA. In preparing the Atlas, the Council used not only SLOSH model data, but other "suggested changes" (not otherwise disclosed) by emergency manager directors. Because of the time and effort involved in preparing the original Atlas, it has not been revised since its original publication in 1998. The topographical data input for the SLOSH model and the base map for Volume 2 of the Atlas was the 7.5-Minute Series Jacksonville Beach Quadrangle Map produced by the United States Geological Survey. These maps are used to establish the ground elevations for the grids but are limited in their ability to do fine resolution, that is, provide detailed information regarding the elevation for small areas of land within the grid. Although the Atlas indicates that it used the most current quadrangle map available, which was the 1994 version, the Council actually used the 1981 version. Except for some minor items, however, the record does not disclose any material differences between the two maps. Therefore, the use of the older version does not affect the validity of the information in the Atlas. The Atlas further indicates that the base contours taken from the Quadrangle Map were five-foot contours. However, both the 1981 and the 1994 versions of the Quadrangle Map only show a ten-foot contour line just to the south and southwest of the Moody property, and no five-foot contour lines. See Moody Exhibit BRJ-3. Thus, the map was "just saying that this property [the Moody property] is 10 feet or less." Time/History points are specific points within SLOSH grid cells that are selected by the Council for the purpose of giving detailed information at the point selected. Many of the points are on or near critical roadways. The Moody property is directly underneath Time/History Point 73. In terms of size, the Moody property is a very small percentage of the total grid cell in which that point is located. According to the Atlas, Point 73 is where Atlantic Boulevard crosses the Intracoastal Waterway. The Department, City, and Moody agree, and the Atlas indicates, that the maximum category 1 storm surge elevation at that point is five feet. Therefore, any land that is in the vicinity of Time/History Point 73 and is less than or equal to five feet in elevation will be inundated by the maximum category 1 hurricane storm surge. According to the legend on the Atlas, areas depicted in dark blue can anticipate inundation in a category 1 storm. The geographic area within Time/History Point 73 is shown on Plate 6 of Volume 2 of the Atlas and depicts the entire Moody property, as well the land in the vicinity of that point, in dark blue, thus implying that all or most of Moody's property is within the storm surge for a category 1 storm. However, it is noted that a significant portion of the Moody property is obscured by the Point 73 label on the Atlas' Plate 6. Even so, given the broad brush scope of that document and the solid dark blue color extending along the Intracoastal Waterway in that area, it is fair to infer that the land area under the label is also dark blue and subject to category 1 evacuation requirements. For land use planning throughout the State, the Department uses the CHHA that is established in the Atlas published by the local regional planning council. (In both the existing and amended versions of Policy 7.3.1, the City also uses the Atlas for purposes of delineating the CHHA.) Therefore, if the Atlas depicts a geographic area as being in the CHHA, the Department relies upon that information when it reviews plan amendments proposing to increase density within that area. In doing so, the Department acknowledges that the Atlas necessarily reflects the areas subject to storm surge on a "broad-brush regional approach," but points out that it would be impractical to attempt to carve out extremely small areas along the coast or waterways, parcel by parcel or acre by acre, which might have elevations above the storm surge line and not be subject to the development requirements within a CHHA. It also points out that if exceptions to the storm surge line in the Atlas are allowed, the CHHA requirements could be circumvented by a landowner simply placing fill on the property to raise the elevation. Finally, the SLOSH model is based on average elevations for an entire grid cell, and the model cannot produce a map with land elevations for specific parcels. The Department suggests, however, that generalized data is the best data available for conducting an analysis of storm surge. Because of the "broad-brush" and "averaging" constraints inherent in the Atlas and SLOSH, and the fact that the Atlas' delineation of the CHHA is used primarily for evacuation planning purposes rather than land use planning, the City and Moody contend that site-specific data is more desirable when determining land use entitlements. They suggest that professionally prepared surveys are far more accurate and precise in determining the elevation on a parcel than the Quadrangle Map, which in this case only depicted ten-foot contours. In this vein, the amended version of Policy 7.3.1 (which is the subject of Case No. 08-4193GM) allows a property owner to submit site-specific data (such as a survey) to demonstrate that the property, or part of it, is not below the category 1 storm surge elevation and is not within the CHHA. An increase of density (or development) within a CHHA is not barred by the statute. In fact, Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that plan amendments proposing an increase in density within a CHHA may be found in compliance if the adopted level of service (LOS) for out-of-county hurricane evacuation is maintained for a category 5 storm event; or (b) a 12-hour evacuation time to shelter is maintained for a category 5 storm event and shelter reasonably expected to accommodate the residents of the contemplated development is available; or (c) appropriate mitigation is provided that will satisfy the provisions of items (a) and (b), including payment of money, contribution of land, and construction of hurricane shelters and transportation facilities. Therefore, even if the Moody parcel is found to be within a CHHA, it may still increase density within that parcel so long as the above criteria are met. By way of example, payments into a shelter mitigation fund would be one way to mitigate the effects of increasing residential density within the CHHA. FLUM Amendment The property In early 1995, Moody acquired the 77.22-acre tract of property which is the subject of the FLUM amendment, although it has been used as an industrial shipyard since 1951. The property lies on the north side of Atlantic Boulevard, a principal arterial roadway which generally extends from the coast (beginning just north of Neptune Beach) westward to the "downtown" area. The eastern boundary of the property adjoins the Intracoastal Waterway. Approximately 37 acres of the property, or a little less than one-half of the total acreage, consists of environmentally sensitive saltwater marshes. These are located on the west, north, and northeast sides of the property. Near the southwest corner of the property there is also a small wetland scrub vegetative community. The commercial activities on the current site consist of approximately 116,500 square feet of heavy industrial uses involved in the construction and repair of large ships. They are located on that part of the southern half of the property which sits closest to Atlantic Boulevard and the Intracoastal Waterway. The site also includes a small harbor for docking of ships. The area immediately surrounding the existing boat basin in the south-central part of the property has been environmentally disturbed as part of the ongoing shipyard operations. The development surrounding the Moody site is a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Single-family residences are the dominant use, occupying seventy-four percent of parcels within a one-half mile radius of the property. Britt and the resident intervenors all reside or own property in a residential development known as Pablo Point, which begins a hundred feet or so to the west of the Moody property, separated only by a marshland. Directly south of the Moody property, and on the south side of Atlantic Boulevard, is a new development known as HarborTown, which in 2002 was the subject of two land use changes, one from Agriculture IV to Conservation and one from Water-Dependent and Water Related (WD-WR) to Community/General Commercial (C/GC). A companion Planned Unit Development (PUD) provides for a mixed residential development with a maximum of 690 dwelling units, 28,000 square feet of office and commercial space, 150 wet slips, and conservation of approximately 29 acres of marshlands. According to the Atlas, it appears that at least part, if not all, of that development may be within the CHHA. The property is accessed by a service road at the Intracoastal Waterway, off Atlantic Boulevard. The eastbound exit ramp, which would be used by emergency rescue teams to access the site, exits to the right and goes under Atlantic Boulevard adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway in order to reach the Moody site. Egress from the site westbound is by way of a service road on the north side of Atlantic Boulevard. The Moody property is in two flood zones: X5 and AE. Flood zone X5 generally corresponds with the upland areas at the center of the property that have been historically disturbed by shipyard operations and are not likely to flood. Floodzone AE generally corresponds with the environmentally sensitive wetland areas of the property and will likely flood in a 100-year storm. The Application and Review Process Sometime in 2006, Moody filed an application with the City to change the land use designation on its property from WD- WR and Agriculture IV to C/GC. The WD-WR classification allows for water dependent industrial uses such as shipyards, industrial docks, and port facilities. The Agriculture IV land use allows various agriculture uses and single-family residential development at the maximum density of 2.5 units per acre. The C/GC designation permits a wide range of uses, including multi-family residential and boat storage and sales, and is the same land use classification as the HarborTown project across Atlantic Boulevard and to the south. In contrast to the Agriculture IV land use, however, the C/GC land use allows residential development up to twenty units per gross acre. Thus, the map amendment will result in a potential net increase in development by 1,146 dwelling units and 200,245 square feet of nonresidential land use. After reviewing the application, the City approved the map change in December 2006 as a part of its semi-annual land use changes to its Plan. The amendment was then transmitted to the Department for its review. On March 5, 2007, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, which noted six objections and one comment. Despite the objections contained in the ORC, on May 14, 2008, the City approved the map change by enacting Ordinance No. 2007-355-E. In conjunction with the land use change, the City also approved a PUD for the property (Ordinance No. 2007-356-E enacted the same date), which authorizes a maximum residential development of four residential buildings and 590 dwelling units on the property. This density would be achieved by the construction of four twelve-story buildings, each standing around 144 feet high. In addition, Moody intends to develop marina-related specialty retail (including a club, retail, and restaurant activities) not exceeding 6,500 square feet; a marina consisting of 650 slips, a minimum of which will be available to the public on a first come, first served basis; and a public boat ramp. However, the PUD conditions the residential approval through the restriction that no residential development shall be permitted on any portion of the property in the CHHA unless residential units are made available as a result of a program of mitigation for development in the CHHA, approved by the City and the Department under Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes. This meant that the mitigation plan would take those impacts created by residential density in vulnerable areas and negate those impacts by minimizing the time it would take to evacuate and by providing adequate sheltering for those individuals if there was not adequate sheltering already available. On July 9, 2008, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendments Not in Compliance (Statement of Intent). (This action was directed not only to Ordinance No. 2007-355-E, but also to the other sixteen FLUM amendments, as well as certain other amendments not relevant here.) On August 1, 2008, the Department filed its Petition alleging that Ordinance No. 2007-355-E is not in compliance. The Department and Intervenors' Objections Moody (with the City's concurrence) has acknowledged on the record that the FLUM amendment is not in compliance. Although the Department has stated a number of reasons why the amendment is not in compliance, unfortunately, there is no record stipulation by the parties as to which specific deficiencies in the Statement of Intent, if any, the City and Moody still dispute. Further, in their Joint Proposed Recommended Order, the City and Moody contend that the Department and supporting Intervenors failed to sustain their objections in several respects. Because of this, a discussion of the Department and Intervenors' objections is appropriate. This Recommended Order will focus only on the objections to the amendment as adopted by the City, and not whether proposed mitigation measures will bring the amendment into compliance. The Department asserts that the FLUM amendment is not in compliance for four reasons. First, it alleges that the City has failed to direct population concentrations away from a known or predicted CHHA, maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times, or present sufficient mitigation to offset these impacts. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and 7.; § 163.3178(9)(a), Fla. Stat. Second, it alleges that the amendment does not comply with the wetlands protection and conservation requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(3), and it is internally inconsistent with Conservation/Coastal Management Element Goal 4 and Objective 4.1 of the Plan. Third, the Department alleges that the amendment will cause LOS standards on two segments of Atlantic Boulevard to fail, that the traffic analysis performed by Moody was flawed, and that the amendment did not include a financially feasible transportation improvement plan to mitigate traffic impacts. Fla. Admin. Code 9J-5.019(3)(a), (c), and (h). Finally, it contends that because of these deficiencies, the amendment is inconsistent with certain goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan (State Plan) and Northeast Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan). In resolving these contentions, it is noted that the Department's Petition adopts the allegations in the Statement of Intent, which alleges that the amendment is inconsistent with numerous provisions within Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5, and the City, State, and Regional Plans. However, in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department relies on only some, but not all, of these grounds for urging that the amendment be found not in compliance.3 The undersigned assumes that the Department has simply conformed its allegations to the proof adduced at hearing. (In any event, because the parties agree the amendment is not in compliance, this assumption does not affect the outcome of the case.) Britt and the resident intervenors are aligned with the Department and also contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.1 and Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.10, and 1.1.14; Conservation/Coastal Management Element Goals 2, 3, 4, and 7, Objectives 4.1 and 7.4, and Policies 2.8.3, 7.1.6, 7.1.9, 7.3.12, 7.4.8, 7.4.12, and 11.1.1; and Transportation Element Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 and Policy 1.1.4. They further assert that archeological resources will be impacted. Development Within the CHHA The Department has alleged that the FLUM amendment constitutes a failure by the City to direct population concentrations away from a known or predicted CHHA, maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times, or present sufficient mitigation to offset these impacts. These requirements are applicable when an increase in density is proposed for property within a CHHA. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and 7.; § 163.3178(9)(a), Fla. Stat. As noted above, the parties sharply disagree on whether, for land use entitlement purposes, the entire site is within a CHHA. Although existing and amended Policy 7.3.1 rely upon the Atlas for delineating the areas of the City within the CHHA, the proposed amendment to Policy 7.3.1 also allows property owners to provide site-specific data indicating that the property is above the category 1 storm surge elevation and therefore is not subject to the development constraints associated with the CHHA. A professionally prepared survey confirms that about 23.88 acres of the Moody property, mostly located at the south- center of the site where existing commercial activities take place, are above five feet in elevation. (The elevation on the entire parcel ranges from two or three feet along the marsh of the lower lands to nearly twelve feet in the southwest corner of the property, or an average elevation of about seven feet.) Therefore, only the approximately 53.34 acres of the property below five feet in elevation can be expected to be inundated by the maximum category 1 storm surge; the other 23.88 acres will not be affected. The areas on the property which are above the five- foot contour line are connected to Atlantic Boulevard by a service road with an elevation of eleven or twelve feet down to eight feet at its lowest point. Thus, this part of the property is unlikely to ever become completely surrounded by water or inaccessible by emergency personnel or others by car in a category 1 storm event. Even those areas that are below five feet and subject to the storm surge will only reach and maintain an elevation of five feet of water for five or ten minutes before the water begins receding. The evidence shows that slightly less than twenty-four acres of the property are above the category 1 storm surge elevation of five feet, as established by the SLOSH. The evidence further shows that the Atlas is not the most accurate or precise in terms of land elevations because it only depicts ten-foot contours taken from the Quadrangle Map. Thus, it does not identify the elevation on any property less than ten feet. Because of this, on a site-specific scale, based on the Atlas, it cannot be said with certainty that a site or portions of a site are inside or outside of the CHHA. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that, for land use entitlement purposes within the City, a professionally prepared survey constitutes the best available data regarding land elevations. Therefore, as long as Moody restricts its development to the twenty-four acres that have an elevation of five feet or higher, the mitigation requirements cited by the Department for development within a CHHA do not apply. Environmental Issues The Department asserts that the amendment fails to comply with the wetlands protection and conservation requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(3)(a) and (b) and is internally inconsistent with Goal 4 and Objective 4.1 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element of the Plan. The Department also cites to Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes,4 which requires that the Plan protect wetlands and other natural resources. These requirements are relevant here since the site to be developed is bordered on the north and west by wetland areas and other environmentally sensitive lands that are characterized as primarily saltwater marshes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(3)(a) and addresses policies regarding the protection and conservation of wetlands. It reads as follows: Wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands shall be protected and conserved. The adequate and appropriate protection and conservation of wetlands shall be accomplished through a comprehensive planning process which includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands, and which is based on supporting data and analysis. Future land uses which are incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland functions shall be directed away from the wetlands. The type, intensity or density, extent, distribution and location of allowable land uses and the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and location of wetlands are land use factors which shall be considered when directing incompatible land uses away from wetlands. Land uses shall be distributed in a manner that minimizes the effect and impact on wetlands. The protection and conservation of wetlands by the direction of incompatible land uses away from wetlands shall occur in combination with other goals, objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan. Where incompatible land uses are allowed to occur, mitigation shall be considered as one means to compensate for loss of wetlands functions. Goal 4 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element provides that a City goal shall be "[t]o achieve no further net loss of the natural functions of the City's remaining wetlands, improve the quality of the City's wetlands resources over the long-term and improve the water quality and fish and wildlife values of wetlands." Objective 4.1 of the same Element implements Goal 4 and reads as follows: The City shall protect and conserve the natural functions of its existing wetlands, including estuarine marshes. In order to achieve this objective and its associated policies, the City shall continue to work with the applicable regional, state and federal agencies charged with these regulatory responsibilities. As the FLUM amendment now reads, development is limited only by the PUD. Although the PUD contains specific criteria that can be used to prevent adverse impacts to the wetland system, unless appropriate restrictions are incorporated into the Plan itself, the PUD can be amended at any time in the future to allow the property to be developed to its maximum potential. Because the data and analysis for impacts to wetlands are based on the PUD, and not the maximum development potential, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis to ensure that there will be no net loss in existing wetlands, or that existing wetlands will be preserved and protected, as required by Goal 4 and Objective 4.1. Further, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis to show that the City is protecting and preserving natural resources by directing incompatible uses away from the wetlands, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(a) and (b). Therefore, the amendment is internally inconsistent with a goal and objective and is inconsistent with a Department rule. It is also inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), which requires that there be internal consistency within a Plan. Finally, the amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, which requires that the Plan protect all natural resources, including wetlands. Transportation Impacts The Department contends that the amendment will cause the LOS on two roadway links to fail, that the traffic analysis submitted inappropriately assumed densities and intensities that were less than allowed by the amendment, and that the amendment did not include a financially feasible transportation improvement plan to mitigate traffic. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.019(3)(a), (c), and (h). To address potential traffic impacts from the project, Moody's engineering consultant prepared a transportation analysis and hurricane evacuation study dated April 2007. This analysis was based on the amount of development approved under the PUD rezoning, and not the maximum development allowed under the Plan. The study showed that the amendment will cause the adopted LOS standards for two links on Atlantic Boulevard to fail. Those links include the segment from the Intracoastal Waterway to San Pablo Road and the segment from San Pablo Road to Girvin Road. The study does not show how the City will maintain its LOS standards on those links, assuming that the maximum development is allowed. In this respect, the amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(c) and (h). Also, the package did not include a financially feasible transportation improvement plan to mitigate the traffic impacts. Although one roadway improvement project is under construction and a second is included in the Capital Improvements Element, both of which should assist in alleviating the traffic impacts caused by the development, these mitigation measures assume that the project will be based upon the development restrictions contained in the PUD and not on the densities and intensities that are potentially allowed under the FLUM amendment. Therefore, in this respect, the amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(c) and (h). After this proceeding began, the City engaged the services of Prosser Hallock Planners and Engineers to perform a Transportation Analysis Update (Update). The results of that study are dated September 2008. See Moody Exhibit AFK-4. Like the original study, the Update was "based on the site plan [described in the PUD] and not on the maximum densities allowed in the land uses requested." Therefore, because the current FLUM amendment does not restrict development to the maximum densities allowed under the land uses requested, the study fails to properly assess the traffic impacts of the changes, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(c) and (h). To test transportation impacts from the project, both the original traffic analysis and the Update used a methodology taken from a September 2006 memorandum prepared by the DOT's District II office. See Moody Exhibit AFK-3. However, this methodology uses a "significant and adverse" test to determine road impacts for Development of Regional Impacts (DRIs) under Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-2. In using the so- called DRI methodology, the City and Moody assumed that the Department had approved this methodology when it entered into settlement agreements with the applicants for the other sixteen FLUM amendments in Case No. 07-3539GM. However, this assumption was incorrect. While the DRI methodology is not specifically prohibited for use in a plan amendment review, a better methodology to assess traffic impacts for plan amendments is the LOS standard referred to in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(a) and (h). Therefore, the amendment is not consistent with this rule. Archaeological Resources The Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State has reviewed the amendment and expressed no concerns regarding potential impacts on historical or archaeological resources. The contention by Britt and the resident intervenors that such resources will be impacted has been rejected. Consistency with the State and Regional Plans The Department argues that when the State Plan is construed as a whole, the amendment is inconsistent with that Plan, in contravention of Section 187.101(3), Florida Statutes. It also contends that the amendment is inconsistent with certain policies within State Plan Goals (9)(a), (15)(a), (17)(a), and (19)(a),5 which are codified in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Those goals relate generally to natural systems and recreational lands, land use, public facilities, and transportation, respectively. Specifically, the Department contends the amendment is inconsistent with Policies (9)(b)1.,5., and 7., (15)(b)5. and 6., (17)(b)6., and (19)(b)15., which implement the Goals. The Department further contends that the FLUM amendment is inconsistent with Regional Goal 3.2 and Regional Policy 3.2.2. The Regional Goal requires that future development be directed away from areas most vulnerable to storm surge and flooding, while Regional Policy 3.2.2 provides that "[d]evelopment within hurricane evacuation areas should be responsible and permitted only when evacuation route capacity and shelter space capacity is available. Responsible development includes but is not limited to: structures elevated in storm surge and flooding areas, adequate drainage in flooding areas, and sufficient access for emergency response vehicles to all development." Because the FLUM amendment is now limited only by the PUD, and not by other development restrictions in the Plan, the amendment is inconsistent with the cited policies within the State Plan until appropriate remedial measures are adopted. For the same reason, the FLUM amendment is inconsistent with the Regional Goal and Policy. Other Objections Because the City and Moody concede that the amendment is not in compliance, it is unnecessary to address the remaining objections lodged by Britt and the resident intervenors. Ordinance No. 2008-315-E Prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-315-E, Policy 7.3.1 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element read as follows: The City shall designate the Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) as those areas designated as the evacuation zone for a category 1 hurricane as established by the 1998 Northeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study or the most current study. In order to comply with the mandate that before July 1, 2008, it amend the definition of a CHHA to be consistent with state law, the City originally proposed to amend its current policy by redefining the CHHA as follows: The Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) is the area below the elevation of the Category 1 storm surge line as defined by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model as established by the most current Northeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study. It is shown on Map C-18. In February 2008, the foregoing amendment, along with an amendment to another policy not relevant here, was transmitted to the Department for its preliminary review. On March 21, 2008, the Department issued an ORC in which it lodged only one technical objection to new Policy 7.3.1. -- that the amendment was inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2), which requires that when a local government adopts by reference a document that may be revised subsequent to plan adoption, the local government "will need to have [its] reference updated within the plan through the amendment process." For reasons not of record, this specific objection was not included in the Statement of Intent or in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation. Even though the Department's Proposed Recommended Order now relies upon that objection, the issue has been waived. Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 2095GM, 1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 163 at *63 (DOAH Oct. 15, 1996; DCA Nov. 25, 1996)("[challenger] is bound by the allegations in its Petition for Hearing as to the alleged deficiencies in the Plan, as further limited by the Prehearing Stipulation filed in [the] case"). Notwithstanding the technical objection, an adoption hearing was scheduled on June 10, 2008, at which time the City proposed to amend Policy 7.3.1 by adopting the provision as submitted to the Department. During the meeting, but prior to a vote on the matter being taken, a Moody representative submitted for consideration revised language, which added the following sentence at the end of the Policy: "A property shall be deemed to be within the CHHA unless site specific, reliable data and analysis demonstrates otherwise." See City Exhibit 1. The City then adopted the proposed amendment, including the language suggested by Moody. On August 7, 2008, the Department issued a Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendments Not in Compliance (Statement of Intent). A Notice was also published on August 8, 2008. The Statement of Intent indicated that the text amendment is not in compliance because it is inconsistent with the statutory definition found in Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and it creates an internal inconsistency with Conservation/Coastal Element Map C-18 attached to the text amendment. That Map defines and depicts the CHHA as the Category 1 surge zone based on the SLOSH model in the Atlas. The Statement of Intent further asserts that the foregoing deficiencies render the amendment inconsistent with State Plan Goals (7)(a), (8)(a), (15)(a), and (25)(a) and Policies (7)(b)23., (15)(b)6., and (25)(b)7. and Regional Goal 3.2. All of these objections are based upon the City's inclusion at the end of the amendment the words "unless site specific, reliable data and analysis demonstrates otherwise." Intervenor Britt has adopted the objections lodged by the Department. The statutory definition of CHHA does not reference an Atlas or a Hurricane Evacuation Study, but instead only references the SLOSH storm surge elevation for a category 1 storm event. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(c) requires that "[d]ata are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such as . . . regional planning councils . . . or existing technical studies." No matter which the City uses, "[t]he data used shall be the best available data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies." Id. In this case, the City has chosen to utilize the Atlas as the best available data regarding delineation of the CHHA unless rebutted by better data and analysis in the form of "site specific, reliable data and analysis." So long as the SLOSH storm surge elevation for a category 1 storm event is used, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that use of either the Atlas or a land survey identifying the category 1 storm surge contour line on a given property is consistent with the statutory definition. Therefore, the Department's contention that the text amendment conflicts with the statutory definition has not been accepted. The Department also contends that the text amendment creates an internal inconsistency with Map C-18 of the Plan. However, the evidence shows that Map C-18 is used for illustrative purposes only and is intended to be a depiction of the information contained in the Atlas. For the reasons cited in the previous Finding of Fact, the Department and Intervenors have failed to show beyond fair debate that the use of site specific data is inconsistent with other provisions in the Plan. The Department further contends that if the amendment is approved, the requirements of the CHHA can be circumvented by a property owner simply filling his property above the elevation of a category 1 storm surge line. Provided all applicable permitting requirements have been met, however, there is nothing of record to indicate that this would be inappropriate or unlawful. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the text amendment is inconsistent with the State or Regional plans. The evidence shows that the City's determination that Policy 7.3.1 is in compliance is fairly debatable. Proposed Remedial Measures for Ordinance 2007-355-E The City and Moody have proposed the following remedial measures to bring the FLUM amendment into compliance, which would be incorporated into a new text amendment or by using an asterisk on the FLUM: Limit residential development to 590 dwellings; Limit marina-related specialty retail (including club, retail, and restaurant activities) to 6,500 square feet; Make available to the general public a minimum of 100 wet and dry slips; Make available to the 590 dwelling units a maximum of 550 wet and dry slips; Comply with the current Florida Clean Marina Program as designated by state law; Confine all residential and non- residential uses (other than boat channels, basins, docks, slips, and ramps) to the mean high water line; Confine all residential uses to areas above the elevation of the Category One storm surge line as established by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model, which on the Moody property is 5.0 feet (NGVD-29); Obtain, prior to final site plan approval, a final wetlands jurisdictional line from the appropriate regulatory agencies; and Provide a conservation easement (except for boat channels, basins, docks, slips, and ramps), which will provide the highest level of protection, to the appropriate state agency or agencies for all wetlands that it or they require to be preserved. The City and Moody have also agreed to "correct certain inaccurate traffic-roadway improvement descriptions contained in its Traffic Circulation and Mass Transit 5-Year Plan" by: Revising the Hodges Boulevard roadway project to describe the construction of a 4- lane urban section from Atlantic Boulevard to Beach Boulevard; and Revising the Atlantic Intracoastal West Area Intersection Improvements roadway project (Atlantic Boulevard at Girvin Road, Hodges Boulevard, and San Pablo Road) to describe additional through lanes (from 6 to 8 lanes) to Atlantic Boulevard between each of the three intersections. No findings are made as to whether the above-proposed remedial measures will bring the FLUM amendment into compliance. See endnote 2, infra.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-355-E is not in compliance. It is further recommended that the final order make a determination that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-315-E is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: DCA is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to exercise general supervision over the administration and enforcement of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, including Areas of Critical State Concern, and all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. See, Section 380.031(18), Florida Statutes. The City of Key West is in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. See, Section 380.0552(3), Florida Statutes and Rule 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code. Since the City is in the Florida Key's Area of Critical State Concern, City ordinances regulating land development do not take effect until DCA approves them "by rule." See, Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes. See also, Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes (which provides that no proposed land development regulation in an Area of Critical State Concern shall become effective until DCA has adopted a rule approving such regulation.) In pertinent part, Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes provides: 380.0552 Florida Keys Area; protection and designation as area of critical state concern.-- PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT.--State, regional, and local agencies and units of government in the Florida Keys Area shall coordinate their plans and conduct their programs and regulatory activities consistent with the principles for guiding development as set forth in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, which chapter is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. However, the principles for guiding development as set forth in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, are repealed 18 months from July 1, 1986. After repeal, the following shall be the principles with which any plan amendments must be consistent: To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. To protect shorelines and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. To protect the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or man-made disaster and for a post-disaster reconstruction plan. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. * * * MODIFICATION TO PLANS AND REGULATIONS.--Any land development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan in the Florida Keys Area may be enacted, amended, or rescinded by a local government, but the enactment, amendment or rescission shall become effective only upon the approval thereof by the state land planning agency. The state land planning agency shall review the proposed change to determine if it is in compliance with the principles for guiding development set forth in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, and shall either approve or reject the requested changes within 60 days of receipt thereof. Further, the state land planning agency, after consulting with the appropriate local government, may, no more often than once a year, recommend to the Administration Commission the enactment, amendment, or rescission of a land development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan. Within 45 days following the receipt of such recommendation by the state land planning agency, the commission shall reject the recommendation, or accept it with or without modification and adopt it, by rule, including any changes. Any such local development regulation or plan shall be in compliance with the principles for guiding development. (Emphasis supplied.) In sum, any land development regulations adopted by the City must be submitted to DCA for approval or rejection pursuant to Section 380.0552(9). Such regulations become effective when approved by DCA. In evaluating an Ordinance submitted pursuant to Section 380.0552(9), DCA will look to the Principles for Guiding Development found in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. DCA is directed to approve a proposed ordinance if it is in compliance with the Principles for Guiding Development; conversely, DCA is without authority to approve a proposed amendment which is not in compliance with the Principles for Guiding Development. On September 3, 1991, the City adopted Ordinance 91-25 (the "Ordinance") which provides for a 180 day moratorium on certain development activities in the City. The Ordinance prohibits ...the approval of Community Impact Assessment Statements and site plans for projects falling within the scope of the city's CIAS ordinance, where the proposed density or intensity of use is inconsistent with the permitted density or intensity under the future land use map of the city's pending comprehensive plan or the property is situated in an area designated as coastal high hazard or wetlands on the Future Land Use Map of the City's pending comprehensive land use plan... A building moratorium, such as that set forth in the Ordinance, constitutes a land development regulation as defined in Section 380.031(8), and Rule 28-20.19(4), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the moratorium could not take effect until approved by DCA by rule. A Community Impact Assessment Statement ("CIAS"), as defined in Section 34.04, Key West Code, describes expected impacts of proposed development on specified City resources and infrastructure. While a CIAS is not a development order, the City requires a CIAS as a precondition to the granting of a building permit for most large projects in the City. A developer is required to submit a CIAS for a proposed residential or hotel/motel development of ten or more habitable units or a proposed commercial development of 10,000 square feet or more. A CIAS is intended to ensure that the impacts a proposed project will have upon public facilities and the social and economic resources of the community are considered in the planning process and to avoid surprises during the planning process. The City will reject a CIAS that it finds to be incomplete or misleading. The City Commission held its first hearing on the Ordinance on June 18, 1991. At least five public hearings before the City Commission were held prior to the City's adoption of the Ordinance. The 1981 City of Key West Comprehensive Plan (the "Existing Comprehensive Plan") sets forth certain parameters and standards for the issuance of development orders. The Existing Comprehensive Plan has been approved by the Administration Commission in Chapter 28-37, Florida Administrative Code. The City of Key West land development regulations and certain amendments to the Existing Comprehensive Plan have been approved by DCA in Chapter 9J-22, Florida Administrative Code. The City is required by the States's growth management statute, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, to submit to DCA a new comprehensive plan. Since the City is in an Area of Critical State Concern, the new comprehensive plan will not take effect until it is approved by DCA by rule. The Existing Comprehensive Plan remains in effect until a new plan is adopted. At the time the Ordinance was adopted, the City was in the process of preparing a new comprehensive plan to guide future development. By adopting the moratorium, the City sought to provide itself with an opportunity to effectively implement a new comprehensive plan. The City submitted a proposed new comprehensive plan (the "Pending Comprehensive Plan") to DCA on December 2, 1991. DCA and the City are currently involved in negotiations over whether the Pending Comprehensive Plan is in compliance with the state's growth management law, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The Pending Comprehensive Plan was still in the draft stages at the time the Ordinance was adopted. As indicated above, the City adopted the moratorium for projects requiring a CIAS in an effort to ensure that the City would be able to effectively implement a new comprehensive plan. The City is faced with numerous development-related problems which it attempts to address in the Pending Comprehensive Plan. These problems include: Water Quality Water Resources - The City draws all of its water from the Biscayne Aquifer. The water is pumped from wellfields on the mainland in Dade County and is transported through a single pipe to Monroe County to provide water to the Florida Keys population. While there is no immediate problem with the availability of water for the City, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) are in the process of preparing a water supply plan for Dade County and the Keys. These agencies recently informed all Monroe County local governments that they are approaching the limit of water that can be supplied from the aquifer and it is expected that there will be limitations on any further increases in consumption and/or consumptive use permits. The City and DCA contend that the moratorium will help the City to effectively analyze and address these issues in its new comprehensive plan. Chapter 4 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would require the City to develop a plan for potable water resources, including replacement of the aging water main, providing for emergency supplies, and emphasizing the need to conserve water. Sewer System - Sewage treatment in the City of Key West is a serious problem. The treated effluent is currently dumped into the Atlantic Ocean and has been implicated in the degradation of the environmentally sensitive and unique coral reefs. Chapter 4 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would direct the City to substantially improve its wastewater treatment level of service, prevent system infiltration, fix leaky pipes, and reduce the pollution of the surrounding waters. Stormwater Runoff - The waters surrounding the island of Key West have been designated Outstanding Florida Waters, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The runoff generated by rains in the City is currently channeled into these waters either directly or via canals. The Existing Comprehensive Plan does not contain extensive guidance regarding stormwater runoff. Chapter 4 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would direct the City to conduct a half million dollar study over the next two years to examine, develop, and implement a stormwater management plan. Section 4-2.1(d) of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would also require improved levels of service for stormwater runoff. Hurricane Evacuation - The evacuation of people out of the Florida Keys during a hurricane is an important element in the planning process for the City. The Existing Comprehensive Plan does not provide any standards for hurricane evacuation. Chapter 2 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan requires the City of Key West to develop a feasible hurricane evacuation plan and coordinate its implementation with the County. The City has taken no action on this directive to date. A model is being developed within the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan for the safe evacuation of residents from the Florida Keys. The model will include updated information based upon the Pending Comprehensive Plan. The inclusion of new development into the model is complicated. By temporarily limiting new development, the City can provide more certainty to this planning process. Wetlands and Environmental Protection - The Pending Comprehensive Plan seeks to strengthen and clarify the Existing Comprehensive Plan provisions regarding wetlands and habitat protection by reducing densities within wetlands, salt ponds, and coastal high hazard areas and requiring the adoption of amended land development regulations which extensively improve the City's environmental protection requirements. Residential Housing and Conversion to Transient Units - There have been a significant number of conversions from residential to transient units (hotels, motels, and other tourist accommodations) in the City during the last several years. The increase in "transient" persons exacerbates the strain upon public facilities, especially transportation facilities. The Existing Comprehensive Plan offers little protection to residential areas from commercial and transient intrusion. The Future Land Use Element of the Pending Comprehensive Plan attempts to guide and plan the locations of conversions. Transportation - Many roads in the City are currently operating at poor levels of service, including U.S. Highway 1, the main arterial roadway in the City. The City has never had a specific plan to improve the levels of service. The City is required under the growth management statute (Chapter 163) to provide adequate levels of service on the roads within the City. Chapter 2 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan proposes to implement an extensive traffic circulation system over the next twenty years which will include roadway improvements, revised levels of service, and nonmotorized transportation provisions. Solid Waste - Currently, the City's solid waste is disposed at a local landfill. The City's solid waste disposal facility is currently operating under a year old consent order that directs the facility to be closed within three years. The Existing Comprehensive Plan states that the City is to provide adequate public facilities, but does not explain what constitutes "adequate". The Existing Comprehensive Plan does not provide a plan for the impending closure. The Pending Comprehensive Plan would require the City to provide the funding for solid waste disposal improvements. The clear goal of the Ordinance was to delay the approval of certain CIAS applications, site plans and building permits for 180 days while work continued on the Pending Comprehensive Plan. The City contends that the moratorium will help it to effectively implement the policies which it anticipates will be incorporated in the new comprehensive plan when it is finally in place. The Ordinance provided that the 180 day moratorium would begin on the effective date of the administrative rule approving the Ordinance. The City and DCA were concerned that normal administrative rulemaking time periods would defeat the purpose of the Ordinance. Normal rulemaking pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, generally takes between 90 to 120 days. Many local governments experience a significant increase in development proposals immediately prior to the adoption of a new comprehensive plan. Many of these proposals are prompted by a fear as to the impact of the new plan and seek to acquire vested rights under the old plan. The City and DCA were concerned that such an increase in development proposals might complicate the planning process by rendering some aspects or assumptions of a new plan moot before the plan could even be adopted. Moratoria are frequently used by local governments in order to complete an effective comprehensive plan without the need for changes. In the year immediately proceeding the adoption of the Pending Comprehensive Plan by the City Commission (from September 1990 through September 1991), the City received seven CIAS applications. No CIAS applications had been received during the year prior. The City contends that many of the 1990/1991 applications were motivated by an attempt to obtain vested development rights. However, no persuasive evidence to support this speculation was presented. The City Commmission did not consider any reports, studies or other data in connection with the enactment of the Ordinance. At the time the Ordinance was adopted, the City Commission did not make any specific determinations that there were any immediate dangers to the public health, safety or welfare of the community nor was the Ordinance enacted as an emergency ordinance. After its adoption by the City Commission, the Ordinance was transmitted to DCA on September 5, 1991 for approval pursuant to Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes. The only information transmitted to DCA was a copy of the Ordinance. As indicated above, the City and DCA were concerned that normal administrative rulemaking time periods would defeat the purpose of the City's Ordinance. The City Planner contacted DCA to request approval of the Ordinance by emergency rule. The City Planner and DCA concurred in the conclusion that the purpose of the Ordinance would be defeated if it was not immediately implemented. The City Commission did not specifically ask or authorize the City Planner to request DCA to enact the Ordinance by emergency rule. The City's concerns included, among other things, that the conversions of residential properties to transient tourist accommodations would accelerate during the process of finalizing the Pending Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City expects that its new comprehensive plan will reexamine the densities in coastal high hazard areas. By adopting a moratorium, the City sought to insure that any new developments will comply with the new densities ultimately adopted. On September 18, 1991, DCA filed the rule packet for the Emergency Rule with the Secretary of State and the Emergency Rule became effective on that date. DCA did not prepare an economic impact statement for the Emergency Rule. The rule packet consisted of: (a) a Certification Of Emergency Rule; (b) the Notice Of Emergency Rule; (c) a Statement Of The Specific Facts And Reasons For Finding An Immediate Danger To The Public Health, Safety And Welfare, (the "Statement of Specific Reasons") and (d) a Statement of the Agency's Reasons for Concluding that the Procedure Used Is Fair under the Circumstances (the "Agency Conclusions"). The Notice of Emergency Rule appeared in the September 27, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. In the Statement of Specific Reasons, DCA concluded that: ...Generally, a [comprehensive] plan revision process stimulates an accelerated rate of permit requests. Accelerated permitting including the acquisition of vested rights during a planning period will severly erode the City's ability to effectively revise and implement the comprehensive plan. Such accelerated development will also lead to further deterioration of current hurricane evacuation clearance time for the City. This action will increase the existing potential for loss of life and injury to person [sic] and property, will cause further deterioration of level [sic] of service on existing roadways and will lead to irreversible environmental degradation. Therefore this rule must be adopted by emergency procedures because of the potential immediate danger to the public health, safety and welfare. In the Agency Conclusions, DCA concluded: The emergency rulemaking is fair because (1) it immediately approves the ordinance as adopted by the City of Key West Commission and (2) normal rulemaking would moot the intent of the adopted ordinance since the City of Key West would be required to continue accepting applications for building permits, site plans, of [CIAS's] covering work projects or both, as set forth in Section 2 of ordinance 91-25 until the Department's rule approving the ordinance becomes effective. DCA's Statement of Specific Reasons was not reviewed or discussed with the City or its planner prior to its preparation. In deciding to promulgate the Emergency Rule, DCA considered the major public facilities and natural resource problems confronting the City and the City's proposed strategy to deal with these problems in the Pending Comprehensive Plan. DCA concluded that an immediate danger to the public health, safety, and welfare currently exists within the City justifying the approval of the Ordinance by emergency rule. The evidence clearly indicates that the City is facing many significant problems from a planning perspective. Petitioner contends, however, that there is no evidence that any of those problems present an "immediate" threat to the public health, safety or welfare. For the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law below, this contention is rejected. On October 10, 1991, DCA filed a rule packet for the Proposed Rule with the Secretary of State. The rule packet consisted of the Notice Of Proposed Rule 9J-22.013, the Estimate of Economic Impact on All Affected Persons (the "EIS",) a Statement of the Facts and Circumstances Justifying Proposed Rule 9J-22.013 (the "Statement of Facts"), a summary of the Proposed Rule, a Comparison with Federal Standards, a Statement of Impact on Small Business and the text of the Proposed Rule. The Notice of Proposed Rule 9J-22.013 appeared in the October 18, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. On October 24, 1991, DCA filed a Notice of Change with the Secretary of State, stating that the correct number for the Proposed Rule was 9J-22.014, since 9J-22.013 had already been used. The Notice of Change appeared in the November 1, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. DCA did not consider any appraisals, data, reports or other studies concerning the economic impact that could result from the imposition of a moratorium. Instead, DCA followed the approach it had used in approving prior ordinances enacted by the City and concluded that its role in reviewing the Ordinance for compliance with the Priniciples Guiding Development did not require an examination of the economic impact of the underlying policy decisions reached by the City Commission in adopting the Ordinance. The EIS states that: Costs and benefits will occur as a result of this ordinance and were considered by the City prior to adoption of the ordinance. The City did not provide any information to DCA on the economic impacts of the Ordinance or on the impact of the Ordinance on the value of properties affected by it. The evidence was unclear as to the extent to which the City Commission considered economic impacts in deciding to adopt the Ordinance. Several public hearings were held in connection with the adoption of the Ordinance and DCA assumed that interested parties had an opportunity to express their concerns regarding the economic impact of the Ordinance at these hearings. DCA did not inquire as to the number of projects under review by the City at the time the Ordinance was passed nor did it seek a determination as to whether any projects with vested rights were affected by the Ordinance. The City Planning Department has retained a consultant, as required by the Ordinance, to conduct an economic study of existing conditions and projections for future growth. The purpose of this study is to assist in developing future amendments to the Ordinance. The study is not final and was not considered by the Key West City Commission when the Ordinance was enacted. DCA concluded that the proposed moratorium adopted by the Key West City Commission was consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. Therefore, DCA concluded that Section 380.0552 required it to approve the Ordinance. Petitioner has not presented any persuasive evidence to establish that the Ordinance is in any way inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. Petitioner owns 6.8 acres of vacant real property on Atlantic Boulevard in the City. He purchased the property in 1974 with the intent to develop it. Petitioner's property is located in an R-2H zoning district. The City's future land use map designates Petitioner's property as multi-family. Petitioner has spent approximately $71,000.00 to hire architects, engineers, surveyors, planners, biologists and attorneys to aid him in preparing to develop the subject property. In 1989, Petitioner submitted applications for a Department of Environmental Regulation Surface Water Management permit, and an Army Corps of Engineers dredge-and-fill permit, but neither of those permits have been issued to date. Generally the City requires a developer to obtain these "higher-order" permits prior to issuing a building permit. Petitioner has never applied for or installed sewer service, water service or any other utility service to the property. Since he acquired the property, Petitioner has not cleared any vegetation on the property except for minor trimming adjacent to the roadway which was required by the City for safety purposes. In June of 1989, the City passed a resolution notifying the Department of Environmental Regulation that it opposed Petitioner's application to place fill upon the property. On April 10, 1991, Petitioner submitted a CIAS to the City for a proposed 96 unit residential development in three buildings on the subject property. Before the Ordinance was enacted, the City Planner prepared a report dated July 3, 1991 reviewing Petitioner's CIAS as required by the CIAS ordinance. In that review, the City Planner concluded: The project is located in the R-2H zoning district and conforms to all provisions of that district, thus requiring no variances or special exceptions. On August 6, 1991, the Key West City Commission considered Petitioner's CIAS. The City Commission refused to approve the Petitioner's CIAS application. Specifically, the City Commission determined that Petitioner's CIAS application was incomplete and that the "submerged land district" designation ("SL") applied to the Petitioner's property as an overlay zoning district because Petitioner's property is located in an area which is deemed to include wetlands and mangroves. The City Commission requested that the CIAS address the "submerged land district" before the CIAS application could be deemed complete. The City Planner was not present at the August 6, 1991 City Commission meeting. The "submerged land district" in Section 35.07(f), City of Key West Code, provides that the density and site alteration of "environmentally sensitive areas including but not limited to wetland communities, mangroves, tropical hardwood hammocks and salt ponds shall be zoned with a maximum density of one (1) unit per acre. Site alteration shall be limited to a maximum of ten percent of the total size." The "submerged land district" overlay zone applies to any parts of the property which fall within the description of "environmentally sensitive areas" in Section 35.07, City of Key West Code. Because there is confusion over the interpretation and applicability of the SL district and because the SL land use district does not appear on the City's official zoning map, it was not considered in the preparation of the July 3 Report. The evidence in this case was inconclusive as to whether Petitioner's property is located in a SL district and/or whether Petitioner's CIAS for his property can be approved under the City regulations in place prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. On August 22, 1991, Petitioner submitted an amendment to the CIAS as well as a Site Plan. The amendment to the CIAS contests the City's conclusion that Petitioner's property should be considered part of a SL district. As set forth above, during this time period, the City had began consideration of the Ordinance. The first hearing on the Ordinance was held on June 18, 1991 and the Ordinance was passed by the City Commission on September 3, 1991. The City Planner notified Petitioner by letter dated October 11, 1991, that his CIAS Site Plan review and approval had been "stayed" because of the enactment of the Ordinance and because of the project's "inconsistencies with the City's Pending Comprehensive Plan." Petitioner requested an exception from the effect of the Ordinance pursuant to the procedure contained in the Ordinance. A hearing was held before the City Commission and the request was denied.
Findings Of Fact In June, 1982, Florida East Coast Railway Company filed an Application for Development Approval for a Development of Regional Impact to be called "F.E.C. Park of Industry and Commerce" to be located in Dade County, Florida. On June 23, 1983, the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County adopted Resolution Z-114-83, a Development Order approving with conditions the development proposed by Florida East Coast Railway Company. A copy of the Development Order was transmitted to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners on July 7, 1983. By letter dated July 8, 1983, and received by the Department of Community Affairs on July 11, 1983, the Assistant Director of the Building and Zoning Department of Dade County advised that: In compliance with Section 380, Florida Statutes, we are enclosing , herewith, a copy of Resolution No. Z-114-83, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 23, 1983, approving a development of regional impact applied for by Florida East Coast Railway Company to permit the development of the above-described property for an industrial park complex involving a district boundary change from GU (interim) to IU-C (Industry-Controlled) and an Unusual Use to permit two lake excavations. By letter dated July 19, 1983, the Department of Community Affairs responded to receipt of the copy of the Development Order as follows: We have received the copy of the Florida East Coast Railway Development Order you sent on July 8 in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statues[sic]. However, to fulfill the requirements of the law, the Development Order must he signed and include all exhibits. Therefore would you please he kind enough to provide the Department with a signed copy of Resolution #Z-114-83. . . . By letter dated July 27, 1983, and received by the Department of Community Affairs on August 1, 1983, Dade County advised that: In accordance with your letter of July 19, 1983, and our telephone conversation of this date, I am enclosing, herewith, a certified copy of Resolution Z-114-83; as I explained to you on the telephone, the Board of County Commissioners does not sign its resolutions. The only significant difference between the copy of the Development Order received by the Department of Community Affairs on July 11, 1983, and the one received on August 1, 1983, is a certificate signed by a Deputy Clerk in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Dade County certifying that the latter copy of Resolution No. Z-114-83 was a true and correct copy of the original of that document. Since at least 1946, Dade County has adopted and codified its zoning actions in the following manner. After the Board of County Commissioners acts on zoning applications at a regularly scheduled zoning meeting, zoning resolutions are prepared by Mr. Chester C. Czebrinski, who is in attendance at the meetings. Mr. Czebrinski is an attorney and is the Assistant Director of the Dade County Building and Zoning Department. He is also legal counsel to the Department and is a Deputy Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. He has performed the functions described herein since 1946. While in attendance at the zoning meeting, Mr. Czebrinski records the action of the Board of County Commissioners on zoning applications noting any conditions adopted by the Board. In preparing the zoning resolution, he uses information obtained from the Clerk of the County Commission as to the resolution number, the names of the Commissioners who made and seconded the motion, and the vote on the resolution. When such resolutions are prepared, they are never re-submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for any further action or review. Copies of final zoning resolutions prepared by Mr. Czebrinski are sent to the Clerk of the County Commission (two original copies), other county departments, to the applicant, and to the attorneys of record. The purpose of transmitting the resolution to those departments and persons is to notify them of the official final action taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Additional copies of resolutions are also placed in the zoning hearing file. All such resolutions transmitted contain a transmittal date on the face of the resolution. The purpose of the transmittal date is to commence the appeal period within which an appeal may be taken to circuit court from the action of the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. All such resolutions transmitted by Mr. Czebrinski are unstamped, uncertified copies of the final zoning resolution. Upon receipt of the transmittal of two copies of the resolution from Mr. Czebrinski, the office of the Clerk of the Board stamps both with the name of the deputy clerk, who for the past eleven years has been Raymond Reid. The letters on one stamp (the large stamp) are larger than the letters on the other, smaller stamp. The copies stamped with the large stamp are also stamped with the county seal. This copy is retained by the Clerk and is never certified. The other copy, stamped with a small stamp, is not stamped with the county seal. This copy is sent to Mr. Czebrinski with a separate certification by the Clerk on a separate page attached to the back of the resolution. Upon request, the Clerk's office will provide a copy of the zoning resolution retained by it. Such a copy is never certified, even for a state agency, unless a specific request for certification is made. An individual requesting certification is required to pay the Clerk a fee of one dollar. Section 2-1, Rule 1.05, Dade County Code, is interpreted and applied by Dade County not to require certification of the resolution physically retained by the Clerk and not to require certification of any copies of that resolution unless a specific request for certification is made. If Mr. Czebrinski receives a request for a copy of a zoning resolution, he provides one of the additional unstamped copies made prior to transmittal of the Clerk. If a certified copy of the resolution is requested, Mr. Czebrinski would make a copy of the resolution with the certification and then place a further certificate on it indicating that it was a copy on file with his office. The above procedures are for normal zoning actions of the Board of County Commissioners and differ from untypical procedures utilized for Zoning Appeals Board (ZAB) resolutions (which are certified by the Building and Zoning Director) and for resolutions pertaining to county airport matters, which are prepared by the County Attorney's office. Where a resolution encompasses an order of the Board of County Commissioners for a Development of Regional Impact, Mr. Czebrinski prepares a resolution in the manner described above and distributes it to all of the previously mentioned parties, and in addition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and to the South Florida Regional Planning Council. Mr. Czebrinski has had responsibility for transmitting copies to the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, since the adoption of the state law. The resolutions transmitted have been blank, uncertified copies. Each copy is accompanied by a transmittal letter which is signed by Mr. Czebrinski. Although in a few instances the files of the Department of Community Affairs contain items where the typical County Commission zoning procedure was not applicable, this was because either the special procedure of the ZAB or airport zoning applied, because the Department has specifically requested a certified copy in an isolated case, or because the Department had received a transmittal from a non-county source. On September 12, 1983, the Department of Community Affairs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission objecting to various portions of the Development Order.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted through Alachua County Ordinance Number 03-05 on August 26, 2003, are "in compliance," as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Parties The Board is a local government charged with the responsibility of adopting and enforcing a comprehensive plan as provided in the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2003)(the "Act"). In this Recommended Order, "the Board" will refer to the elected Board of County Commissioners. "The County" will refer to Alachua County staff, as well as to the County as a litigant in these proceedings. The Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency with the authority to administer and enforce the Act. David and December McSherry are residents of the County, own and operate a business, and own property in the County. The McSherrys made comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. The McSherrys are "affected persons" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and have standing to bring this proceeding. Dr. Adams owns property and resides in the County. Dr. Adams submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Dr. Adams is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Dr. Kathy Cantwell owns property and resides in the County. Dr. Cantwell submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Dr. Cantwell is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Holly Jensen owns property and resides in the County. Ms. Jensen submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Ms. Jensen is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Sierra Club, Inc., is a California nonprofit organization that advocates ecological conservation in the County through its Florida chapter and the Suwannee-St. Johns Group. Sierra Club and a substantial number of its members conduct a business in the County by maintaining a local website, raising funds, participating in governmental meetings and decisions, soliciting and obtaining membership, distributing publications, purchasing, selling and delivering merchandise and goods and services, holding conferences and meetings, maintaining local representatives, distributing information and newsletters, and organizing members and other citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances. Sierra Club provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Sierra Club is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. SAC is a Florida nonprofit organization that advocates ecological conservation and principles of sustainability in the County. The organization and a substantial number of its members conduct a business in the County by maintaining a local website that is a forum for local comment, raising funds, participating in governmental meetings and decisions, soliciting and obtaining membership, and distributing publications. SAC provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. SAC is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. Each of the Jonesville Petitioners owns property and operates businesses in the County. Each of the Jonesville Petitioners provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. The Jonesville Petitioners are "affected persons" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and have standing to bring this proceeding. PRPV is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that was created for the purpose of representing landowners of rural and agricultural land, participating with local and state government in the development of reasonable land use regulations, and protecting values of rural properties in the County. A substantial number of PRPV's members reside in, own property in, or own or operate businesses in the County. PRPV submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. PRPV is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. BANCF is a Florida corporation that was created for the purpose of educating and advocating on behalf of its members, who are primarily engaged in the residential and commercial construction industry in the County and who are citizens residing in, and businesses located in the County. A substantial number of BANCF's members reside in, own property in, or own or operate businesses in the County. BANCF submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the respective transmittal and adoption periods. BANCF is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. Background and Procedural Issues The Board adopted the Plan in 1991. In 1998, the Board adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR") for the Plan. Subsection 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes (2003), requires each local government to adopt an EAR once every seven years, assessing its progress in implementing its comprehensive plan. The local government must then amend its comprehensive plan to reflect the data and analysis and recommendations in the EAR. § 163.3191(10), Fla. Stat. (2003). In August 2001, the Board adopted amendments to the Plan and transmitted them to DCA, and to the other agencies enumerated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-11.009(6), for review and comment. On November 30, 2001, DCA completed its review of the amendments and issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments document (commonly referred to as an "ORC Report") to the County pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-11.010. On April 8, 2002, the Board adopted the 2002 Plan Update, addressing the objections raised in the ORC Report. By letter dated May 31, 2002, DCA notified the Board that it had completed its review of the 2002 Plan Update and determined that it met the Act's requirements for "compliance," as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). DCA published notice of its intent to find the 2002 Plan Update in compliance in The Gainesville Sun on June 3, 2002. On June 24, 2002, PRPV and others filed a petition challenging DCA's determination that the 2002 Plan Update was in compliance. The Petition was forwarded to DOAH on July 5, 2002. BANCF was granted intervenor status, in alignment with PRPV, on July 11, 2002. On July 25, 2002, the PRPV Petitioners joined by BANCF, filed a request for mediation pursuant to Subsection 163.3189(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). On August 1, 2002, the Board filed a response agreeing to participate in mediation. In the instant proceeding, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners have alleged several irregularities in the mediation process. They allege that despite the requirements of Subsection 163.3184(16)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), regarding mediation, "the McSherry Petitioners found that they were not given adequate notices of [mediation] meetings and proposals, that the method in which the mediator ran the meetings denied them a reasonable opportunity to participate, that they were not included in negotiation meetings, and that negotiation meetings were not open to the public, and that when the public did attend meetings the public was not allowed to comment." The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners allege that they were systematically frozen out of the mediation process, which resulted in a settlement agreement favorable to PRPV and BANCF. However, the facts established at the hearing did not support these allegations. One particular complaint by the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners is that the mediator, Robert Cambric of DCA, split the mediation into two simultaneous meetings, one on land use and one on environmental issues, making it impossible for an individual or a small group to follow all the issues under discussion. This situation did occur at one mediation session on December 12, 2002. Ms. McSherry and Dr. Adams complained about this arrangement, and it was not repeated by Mr. Cambric. Richard Drummond, the County's growth management director, testified that no agreements were reached at the December 12, 2002, sessions; rather, participants were given "homework assignments" to complete for the next mediation session. Mr. Drummond's testimony is supported by the fact that the mediation process continued for another six months after this disputed meeting. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners were allowed to participate in the mediation sessions even before they were formally granted intervention in the underlying proceeding. No evidence was presented to establish that secret meetings were held. The evidence demonstrated that County staff, at the Board's direction, attempted to negotiate a tentative settlement. On several occasions, the Board held public meetings at which extensive public comment was elicited and during which the Board directed staff regarding its position on issues. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners actively participated in these public meetings, and were represented at all the mediation sessions. No evidence was presented that the mediator acted less than capably and professionally during the mediation process. Mediation sessions were open to the press and public, though participation at the sessions was limited to the parties, which included the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners. Every person who requested individual notice of mediation sessions was included on an electronic mail distribution list and received notice. The Board's meetings on the mediation were publicly noticed, and extensive public comment was taken. Beginning in December 2002, a spreadsheet matrix was circulated that outlined the positions of the County and of the PRPV Petitioners on the narrowing list of issues that remained in dispute. As the mediation entered February 2003 and the County and PRPV inched closer to settlement, it became apparent that the County's position on many issues was beginning to diverge from that of its aligned Intervenors, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners. Mr. Cambric, the mediator, offered to meet with Dr. Adams and Dr. Cantwell6/ in order to flesh out their issue positions for inclusion in a separate "intervenors" column of the spreadsheet matrix. On or about March 5, 2003, Mr. Cambric, Richard Drummond, and other County staff persons held the proposed meeting with Dr. Adams, Dr. Cantwell and the McSherrys. A revised matrix was circulated on March 11, 2003, that included a separate column setting forth Intervenors' position. On March 20, 2003, the matrix was further amended to add a separate column for the McSherrys, whose positions on some issues deviated from the positions of Dr. Adams, SAC, and the Sierra Club. It is clear from the documentary evidence and the testimony of various witnesses that the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners felt a degree of betrayal in the County's reaching a settlement with PRPV. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish their allegations that they were denied adequate participation in the process. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend that the driving force in the settlement of PRPV's challenge was a change in the makeup of the Board in the wake of a primary election held on September 10, 2002. The political situation in Alachua County is obviously relevant to the concerns of the parties, but is beyond the scope of this proceeding. There is no need for detailed findings of fact concerning the Board elections or the positions taken by candidates for office in the County. Finally, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend that jilted Intervenors; i.e., those who supported the County's initial litigation position in defense of the 2002 Plan Update and then opposed the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, should be allowed, by virtue of the realignment of parties pursuant to Subsection 163.3184(16)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), to step into the shoes of the original Petitioners and attack the 2002 Plan Update, as well as the 2003 Amendments. This contention was rejected at the hearing for reasons explained in the Conclusions of Law below. Extensive evidence, testimonial and documentary, was taken regarding the 2002 Plan Update. However, findings of fact concerning the 2002 Plan Update are confined to its interplay with the 2003 Amendments and to issues of internal consistency raised thereby. The Jonesville Petitioners raised procedural issues regarding the concluding phase of the mediation. On July 11, 2003, the Jonesville Petitioners filed a motion to intervene in the challenge to the 2002 Plan Update. Their concern was that the revised definition of "strategic ecosystem" in the proposed 2003 Amendments would adversely affect the value and/or development potential of their properties. At the hearing, the Jonesville Petitioners contended that they were not given adequate notice of the proposed change to the definition of "strategic ecosystem." Policy 1.1.2 of the Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element of the 1991 Plan required the County "to provide notification to all property owners whose land use may be restricted due to proposed conservation or preservation designation in the Comprehensive Plan prior to official designation in the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan." The evidence established that the County complied with this policy, providing notice by mail in April 2003 to all owners of property proposed to be mapped as part of a "strategic ecosystem" site by the 2003 Amendments. The notice informed the property owners that their properties had been identified within the mapped areas and invited the property owners to attend one of a series of late-April 2003 informational workshops regarding the map. The Jonesville Petitioners received the mailed notices. The Board held a public hearing on approval of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement on July 15, 2003, and a public hearing on August 26, 2003, to adopt the 2003 Amendments. The Jonesville Petitioners had actual knowledge of the public hearings in July and August to approve the agreement and adopt the 2003 Amendments and were represented at those hearings. At the hearing in the instant proceeding, the Jonesville Petitioners complained that they submitted extensive site investigation reports to the Board at the July 15, 2003, demonstrating that their properties should not be considered "strategic ecosystems," but that they were allowed only three minutes to make their presentation at the hearing. There was no requirement that the Board allow lengthy, fact- intensive presentations concerning specific parcels of land during the public hearing to adopt the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Nonetheless, the evidence established that the Jonesville Petitioners, like the other parties to the underlying litigation, would have been allowed more than three minutes had they requested it before the hearing. There was also no requirement that the County staff or the Board make a detailed response to the Jonesville Petitioners' site reports prior to the Board's adoption of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement or the 2003 Amendments. Further, as is more fully explored below in the findings as to the 2003 Amendments, the information provided by the Jonesville Petitioners was more appropriate to a land development scenario than to the large- scale comprehensive plan amendment process that the County was undertaking. In conclusion, it is found that neither the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners nor the Jonesville Petitioners demonstrated that their procedural rights under the Act or its implementing rules were violated by the process employed by the County during the mediation and when adopting the 2003 Amendments. 2003 FLUE Amendments Gated Communities and Cul-de-Sacs FLUE Objective 1.2 in the 2002 Plan Update states: Provide for adequate future urban residential development that includes a full range of housing types and densities to serve different segments of the housing market, designed to be integrated and connected with surrounding neighborhoods and the community, with opportunities for recreation and other mixed uses within walking or bicycling distance. The 2003 Amendments included the following changes to FLUE Policy 1.2.1.17/: Residential areas shall be designed to provide for an interconnected system of internal circulation, including the provision of streets dedicated to the public connecting the residential area to the major street system. New development shall not restrict preclude public access to the development or include cul de sacs. Residential areas shall also be designed to provide for substantial interconnectivity between adjacent developments and within developments, except where such connectivity is precluded by constraints resulting from physical layout of existing development or environmental features. If connectivity is precluded by such constraints, cul de sacs may be considered for those roads subject to such constraints. The land development regulations shall detail the requirements for public access and substantial interconnectivity based on standards such as a connectivity index, maximum separations between connections to adjacent developments, and rules relative to hours, operations, and public safety considerations for any restriction of access through use of gates. FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 was new to the 2002 Plan Update. Its purpose is to assist in discouraging urban sprawl by encouraging street connectivity, thus, moving the County away from a development pattern of isolated residential subdivisions with only one or two points of ingress/egress. Adding connectivity features allows pedestrian or bicycle travel between subdivisions and disperses the flow of vehicular traffic by providing more points of entry to arterial roads. All of the parties agreed that interconnectivity is a positive value. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners criticize amended Policy 1.2.1.1 for failing to define "substantial interconnectivity" and, therefore, providing no meaningful standards by which to determine whether a new residential development provides "substantial interconnectivity." They point out that the policy leaves it to subsequent land development regulations ("LDRs") to define the term, but provides little guidance and essentially standardless discretion to the drafters of the LDRs. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners' chief concern was that a lax regulatory regime could define a single connecting road as "substantial interconnectivity" and, thereby, defeat the clear intent of the policy. Similarly, they observed that Amended Policy 1.2.1.1 refers to a "connectivity index," but provides no definition or guidance as to the meaning of the term, again leaving the LDR drafters limitless discretion. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners suggest that the seeds for lax regulation are planted in the policy through its requirement that the LDRs provide for "maximum separations between connections to adjacent developments." They argue that, if the goal is to provide for interconnected developments, then the LDRs should logically provide for minimum, not maximum, separations between connections. This argument is rejected simply as a matter of logic because providing for maximum separations in the LDRs is precisely what can ensure interconnectivity.8/ Finally, the McSherry Petitioners argue that the amended policy's allowance of gated communities is in direct contradiction to its mandate that "[n]ew development should not preclude public access to the development." They contend that LDRs providing rules for "hours, operations, and public safety considerations for any restriction of access through use of gates" would create an internal inconsistency within FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1. The County presented testimony from Richard Drummond stating that amended FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 strengthens existing Plan provisions for interconnectivity by adding the requirement for "substantial interconnectivity," and by adding a requirement that new development not preclude public access. Robert Pennock, PRPV's expert witness on local government comprehensive planning, with an emphasis on urban sprawl, testified that the term "substantial," in the context of FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 and in combination with other policies in the Plan, is a meaningful qualifier indicating the County's intent that its future development pattern will not be a patchwork of isolated subdivisions with a single connection to an arterial road. Mr. Pennock pointed out that a degree of common sense must be applied to the use of the term in the development of LDRs and that it must be acknowledged that the details of the LDRs will be developed by professional planners. Mr. Pennock's comments regarding common sense and good faith on the part of the regulators points out the chief flaw in the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners' argument that a lax regulatory regime could employ the terms "substantial interconnectivity" and "connectivity index" in such a way as to allow developers to do whatever they wish. The argument fails to explain why such a hypothetical "bad regulator" could not twist the Sierra Club's favored term, "connectivity," in the same fashion. If one accepts the hypothetical premise of the "bad regulator" poised to do the bidding of residential developers regardless of any other considerations, then the text of the Plan will hardly matter; the bad regulator will find a way around the Plan's language. In fact, "substantial interconnectivity" is no more or less vague a term than "connectivity." As Mr. Pennock testified, these terms have meaning in the planning profession, and it must be accepted that the County will draft meaningful LDRs to implement FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1, including the challenged terms. In summary, the Sierra Club Petitioners did not establish that an outright ban on gated communities or cul-de- sacs is necessary for the County to have an efficient road network, meet applicable levels of service or Rule 9J-5 requirements, or that such a ban has ever been imposed elsewhere in Florida. It is at least fairly debatable that 2003 FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 appropriately responds to the data and analysis and provides adequate guidance for development of LDRs. Clustering Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(14) defines "clustering" as "the grouping together of structures and infrastructure on a portion of a development site." Clustering is a planning and development technique that transfers the allowable development density onto smaller lots on a portion of the property to be developed, in a tighter development pattern, that reduces road and infrastructure costs and that sets aside the remainder of the property for conservation, agriculture, or general open space. Residential cluster development is generally promoted as a means of conserving open space, rural character, and important environmental resources in new housing developments. According to the County's "Supporting Data and Analysis for Comprehensive Plan Amendments Updating the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020" (the "Data and Analysis"), clustering is a "means to protect the characteristics and features of rural areas, while allowing for rural residential lifestyles." FLUE Policy 7.2.8 of the 1991 Plan required clustering in new rural residential subdivisions with 25 or more lots and made no provision to allow clustering for smaller subdivisions. Proposed clustered developments were required to seek permits as Planned Unit Developments, a lengthy and complicated zoning process that included review by County staff, recommendations by the Board, and final approval or denial by the Board at a public hearing. Every witness who testified on the subject agreed that the clustering provision of the 1991 Plan had been a failure. Only two proposed developments have sought permits as clustered developments, and both were denied. The County approved the construction of phased subdivisions, with each phase containing fewer than 25 lots and built to the base rural density of one unit per five acres. Smaller subdivisions were designed to fall below the 25-lot threshold for clustering. Richard Drummond noted that the 1991 Plan would not allow the developer of these smaller subdivisions to cluster even if he so desired. These subdivisions tend to be platted in such a way that each lot owner also owns a small part of the natural resources found in the subdivision, complicating any efforts by the County to preserve those resources. The consensus of the expert opinion was that clustering failed because developers tend to be conservative in designing subdivisions. Clustering is a new pattern for development, and 1991 FLUE Policy 7.2.8 offered insufficient incentive to developers to take the risk of building and marketing nontraditional developments and left them the option of sizing their developments to avoid the clustering requirement. In the 2002 Plan Update, proposed FLUE Policy 6.2.9 addressed the reluctance of developers to cluster by removing their option to avoid clustering by downsizing their projects. The policy would have required clustering in all new rural residential subdivisions. The 2003 Amendments softened the policy as follows: Policy 6.2.9 Clustering The preferred design for Nnew rural residential subdivisions shall be is that they be clustered in order to protect the characteristics and features of rural areas through the following goals: Protect natural and historic resources. Support continued agricultural activities by preserving viable soils and effective land masses. Minimize land use conflicts. Provide recreational and habitat corridors through linked open space networks. Achieve flexibility, efficiency, and cost reduction in the provision of services and infrastructure. Reduce natural hazard risks to life and property. The 2003 Amendments maintain the clustering requirement for new developments containing 25 or more lots, but attempt to provide more incentives to developers to use clustering in developments of any size. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10, relating to allowable density and intensity of new development, provides for a "density bonus" as follows, in relevant part: The overall development density shall not exceed the maximum gross density of one dwelling unit per five acres for the Rural/Agriculture land use category, except as a result of incentive bonuses for clustering as provided under item 4 below, subject to the resource protection standards in the Conservation and Open Space Element. These standards include the following requirements: * * * 4. As an incentive to cluster new residential subdivisions, if a new residential subdivision in the Rural/Agriculture area is clustered with a minimum of 50% of the development in open space, a total of 2 units in addition to the number of units based on the gross density of 1 unit per 5 acres are allowed, plus 1 additional unit per every 10 acres of conservation area set aside as open space; plus 1 additional unit per every 20 acres non-conservation area set aside as open space. As a further incentive, the 2003 Amendments delete the Planned Unit Development aspect of clustered subdivision approval, expediting the zoning approval process. Under the clustering provisions of the 1991 Plan, rural subdivisions with more than 25 lots were required to set aside 80 percent of their area as open space. The 2003 Amendments reduce this open space set-aside to 50 percent. Richard Drummond persuasively noted that there is no practical reduction in the set-aside, because very few people subjected themselves to the clustering requirement of the 1991 Plan. Also, the 1991 Plan expressly disclaimed any intent that the open spaces remain undeveloped in perpetuity. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.12.4 provides that all future development in designated open space areas is prohibited and requires the filing of a legal instrument that runs with the land establishing that the open space will be maintained and remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Conservation is the highest priority among the open space uses recognized by the 2003 Amendments' provisions on rural development. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.5 requires clustering for a new development of more than 25 lots, then goes on to provide that a new development of fewer than 25 lots must either cluster or employ a development plan "that assures the permanent protection of natural resources consistent with the requirements of the [COSE]." 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.5 further provides that the LDRs will detail the requirements for "management and permanent protection of the ecological value of natural resources in those developments that are not clustered, through legally enforceable mechanisms" that provide protections equivalent to those provided in clustered subdivisions. The Sierra Club Petitioners attacked the 2003 clustering provisions as being inconsistent with the 2002 Data and Analysis, which emphasize that urban sprawl is a major threat to the County's rural agricultural landscape. The Data and Analysis indicated "a rapid rate of conversion of the rural area to allow low density development," and concluded that "the rural land character is threatened by the piece-meal development of residential uses." Sierra Club places special emphasis on a 1992 report sponsored by the American Farmland Trust, Florida's Growth Management Plans: Will Agriculture Survive?, summarized and discussed in the 2002 Data and Analysis as follows: This report noted that the degree to which rural low density residential zones are effective in conserving farmland is directly related to the minimum lot size required for each residence. The larger the minimum lot size, the more effective the zone is in conserving farmland. The current policy [in the 1991 Plan] allowing residential development on 5 acre lots in the rural area is totally ineffective, according to this report. The minimum lot sizes can be rated as follows according to their effectiveness in conserving farmland: under 4.9 acres totally ineffective 5 to 9.9 acres generally ineffective acres moderately ineffective to 20 acres moderately effective 20.1 to 40 acres generally effective over 40 acres highly effective In the six years, 1995-2000, the average numbers for single family and mobile home permits issued by lot size in unincorporated Alachua County were as follows: Less than 3 acres 162 average yearly 3 to 8 acres 182 average yearly 8 to 12 acres 72 average yearly 12 to 20 acres 35 average yearly Total 20 acres or less 511 average yearly[9/] Relying on the quoted section of the Data and Analysis, Sierra Club argues that only mandatory clustering of subdivisions in the rural area can fulfill the goal of protecting the characteristics and features of the rural area. Sierra Club correctly notes that, in adopting the 2003 Amendments, the County provided no additional data and analysis to demonstrate that the density bonuses added to the Plan would lead to clustering under 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.9, which eliminated mandatory clustering and simply made it the "preferred design." Sierra Club contends that the County was required to offer some expert testimony to indicate that density bonuses provided in 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10 would actually cause landowners to choose clustering. Alternatively, Sierra Club argues that if voluntary density-bonus clustering occurred, it could lead to considerably more dwelling units in rural areas than under the 1991 Plan. For example, if a 20-acre parcel with four 5-acre lots were clustered to leave ten acres of conservation area, then a total of seven units would be permitted for the parcel: four units based on the allowed rural density of one unit per five acres; two units as a bonus for leaving 50 percent of the development in open space; and one additional unit for setting aside ten acres of conservation area. Thus, seven units would be permitted, compared with four units that would have been allowed without the bonuses, and these seven would be situated on the ten unpreserved acres on lots with an average size of 1.43 acres. Sierra Club contends that these "ranchettes" would not meet the objective of maintaining viable agriculture and of providing a separation between urban and rural land uses. Thus, Sierra Club argues that, under any view, the 2003 Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 6.1: Rural areas shall protect rural and agriculture areas in a manner consistent with the retention of agriculture, open space, and rural character, and the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and efficient use of public services and facilities. Richard Drummond contended that it is impossible at this point to say that the 2003 Amendments dealing with incentive clustering will not work. He conceded that the density bonuses provided in 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10.4 could be too much or not enough, but that the only way to know is to try it in practice, then use the experience to adjust the incentives in future plan cycles. Mr. Drummond credibly testified that given the lack of clustering that occurred under the mandatory provision of the 1991 Plan, it is a virtual certainty that there will be more clustered development under the 2003 Amendments. Sierra Club's criticism that density-bonus clustering will not have a great impact on the density of development in the rural area is well taken, but beside the point. The very 2002 Data and Analysis upon which Sierra Club bases its argument notes that "rural cluster subdivisions are simply an internal transfer of density involving the same number of dwellings." In other words, the chief purpose of clustering is not to affect overall density of development, but to arrange that development on the land in a more environmentally sensitive, aesthetically pleasing way than traditional grid-style platting of lots. The density bonuses offered by the 2003 Amendments will not notably alter the overall density of rural development, but that is not their main purpose. The County hopes that the density bonuses will provide sufficient incentive for developers to avail themselves of the clustering option. The County did not dispute Sierra Club's argument that the 2002 Data and Analysis support the mandatory clustering for all new development that was adopted in the 2002 Plan Update. However, the County does contend that the 2002 Data and Analysis do not require mandatory clustering as the only way to achieve the goals of retaining the rural character and preserving the environmentally sensitive areas of rural lands. The County is correct that the 2002 Data and Analysis provides a generally positive assessment of clustering, but nowhere forces a reader to conclude that mandatory clustering is required. Even accepting the Data and Analysis suggestion that allowing residential development on five-acre lots in the rural area is "totally ineffective" in conserving farmland and that controls show some effectiveness only when the minimum lot size is increased to ten acres, the fact remains that conserving farmland is not the sole value served by the clustering provision, nor should it be the sole measure of the provision's success. In addition to farmland conservation, 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.9 cites protection of natural and historic resources, minimization of land use conflicts, provision of recreational and habitat corridors through linked open-space networks, achievement of flexibility, efficiency, cost reduction in the provision of services and infrastructure, and reduction of natural hazard risks to life and property as goals of the clustering provisions. While it may be true that lot sizes of more than 40 acres would be "highly effective" in conserving farmland, Alachua County seeks to balance all of the stated goals in its clustering provision and has arrived at a reasonable formula for achieving at least some progress on each of the goals. The County pointed out that Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) identifies clustering as an "innovative and flexible" planning strategy, but does not mandate clustering. Given the County's history of failure with one form of mandatory clustering, it is not unreasonable that it would attempt the application of an incentive program as an alternative. Urban Cluster/Urban Services Line10/ The 2003 Amendments amended the Future Land Use Map series ("FLUM"), a necessary part of the FLUE pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(4). FLUE General Strategy 1 provides that the Plan must: Minimize the conversion of land from rural to urban uses by maximizing the efficient use of available urban infrastructure, while preserving environmentally sensitive areas, according to the following: Designate and maintain on the [FLUM] an urban cluster that sets a boundary for urban growth. Provide incentives for higher average densities for residential development and mixed uses in the urban cluster, including density bonus and transfer of development rights. Provide a range of urban residential densities with the highest densities located in or near urban activity centers, and lower densities located in outlying rural areas or areas of the County which have physical limitations to development. . . . The "Urban Cluster" is defined as: An area on the [FLUM] for urban development, which includes residential densities ranging from one unit per acre to 24 units per acre or greater, non- residential development, and is generally served by urban services. The Urban Cluster designation on the FLUM sets a boundary for urban growth in order to maximize the efficient use of available urban infrastructure and to preserve environmentally sensitive areas to minimize urban sprawl. The 2002 Plan Update uses the Urban Cluster to differentiate between urban and rural uses and encourages higher densities in the Urban Cluster in order to use land efficiently. To further the efficient use of land, the 2002 Plan Update also established an "urban services line" ("USL") within the Urban Cluster. FLUE Policy 7.1.3.A describes the USL as follows: In order to phase development for the Urban Cluster and promote efficient use of land and infrastructure and minimize sprawl, an urban services line is designated in the Future Land Use Map series. The line identifies the limits of the area within the Urban Cluster within which phased development shall be promoted through the year 2010. The USL's ten-year planning period, through 2010, is shorter than the planning period for the Urban Cluster, which is through 2020. The purpose of USL is to provide better timing of development within the urban area, to encourage redevelopment and direct new development to areas where infrastructure exists or will be available. The 2003 Amendments expanded the Urban Cluster as part of the FLUM series. The 2003 Amendments also expanded the USL within the Urban Cluster on the FLUM series. The appropriate size for the USL and the Urban Cluster depends on the amount of land needed for projected population growth. FLUE Policy 7.1.3 establishes the process for determining the need for additional developable land to accommodate the projected population as follows: As part of the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan and any proposed amendments to the Urban Cluster, determine a sufficient and nonexcessive amount of land within the Urban Cluster to accommodate urban uses for a ten year and twenty year time frame. The determination (methodology is shown in Appendix A)[11/] shall be based on a comparison of: a forecast need for land for urban residential and non-residential development based on projected population, average household size, a residential vacancy rate, and a market factor. The market factor for the ten year time frame shall be 2.0. The market factor for the 20 year time frame shall be 1.5. land available in the Urban Cluster for urban residential and non-residential uses. Mapping of environmentally sensitive areas shall be utilized as a factor for determining land availability. If the land comparison shows that the land available is less than the forecast need for land, the following measures shall be considered: revisions to density standards and land development regulations, or other measures, to accommodate greater population within the existing Urban Cluster. coordination with municipalities regarding possible reallocation of forecast need to the incorporated areas. phased expansion of the Urban Cluster. If the forecast need for one type of land use exceeds the supply of land for that particular use, a revision to the allocation of land uses within the Urban Cluster shall be considered before the Urban Cluster is expanded. If this methodology determines expansion of the Urban Cluster is warranted, the evaluation of appropriate location shall be subject to analysis including the following economic, infrastructure, transportation, conservation and recreation criteria: rural character and viable agriculture land and the potential impact of expansion of the Urban Cluster on existing agricultural uses. economic development considerations including affordable housing. relationship to existing and planned future urban services and infrastructure. access to the regional transportation network and multi-modal transportation systems. Conservation and Preservation land uses. planned recreation/open space or greenway systems. Thus, FLUE Policy 7.1.3 provides a three-step process for determining "a sufficient and nonexcessive amount of land" to accommodate urban uses. First, there must be a calculation of the estimated need for land to accommodate the projected population. The second step is to calculate the amount of vacant land currently available for urban residential use. Third, a comparison is made between the need for and the availability of vacant land to determine whether and how the FLUM should be amended. In calculating need, the County built into its formula a safety factor to ensure sufficient land for the future population over the projected time period. The real estate market requires some excess capacity to prevent scarcity-driven price increases, and the County, therefore, included a "market factor" in determining the amount of land that should be designated for development. The 2002 Data and Analysis explained the principle as follows: A market factor is included in the calculation to allow for a measure of flexibility between supply and demand. A sufficient market factor allows flexibility in the siting of development, thereby helping ensure that developers can find locations favored by the market. Market factor is a multiplier used in developing a forecast of future land use needs, specifically housing, to allow for market choice. The market factor results in additional developable land in the urban cluster and thereby can have a positive effect on housing affordability. The market factor also addresses market uncertainty with respect to the accuracy of market predictions, for example if some landowners withhold their land from development. The market factor ensures that enough land is set aside for residential purposes to accommodate these residential support activities-- parks, easements for utilities, churches, to name a few. Across the country the range in factors is as low as 1.15 (Portland, Oregon) to over 2.0 (several Florida locations). Alachua County has used the market factor 2.0 for calculations for the year 2010 and the market factor 1.5 for the year 2020. The County multiplied the number of new dwelling units needed over the 2010 and 2020 planning horizons by the market factors chosen for those periods to arrive at a "total capacity needed" number. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contended that the market factors chosen by the County were too high and that 1.25 was a more reasonable figure for the County. Mr. Pennock, PRPV's planning expert, testified that there is no "final magic answer" to the question of the market factor number. He stated that 1.25 is a "conservative" market factor, and that 2.0 is a professionally acceptable number. It is found that the County's market factors of 2.0 for the year 2010 and 1.5 for the year 2020 were reasonable, in light of all the evidence. After determining the amount of land needed over the planning horizon, the second step in the County's formula is to determine the amount of vacant land currently available for urban residential use. In order to determine the amount of land currently available, there must be a calculation of the number of units per acre available for future residential development. The two components of this calculation are, first, the number of acres presently within the Urban Cluster or USL, and second, the residential dwelling unit density allowed within that acreage. FLUE Objective 1.3 provides that "[g]ross residential densities shall be established to serve as a guideline for evaluating development in Alachua County." FLUE Policy 1.3.2 classifies the densities as follows: The following classification of gross residential densities shall serve as a standard for evaluating development in Alachua County, unless specific provisions are otherwise provided in the Plan. a. Urban Residential Densities - Areas designated on the [FLUM] for gross residential densities of one unit per acre or greater shall be considered as urban in character. There shall be four gross residential density ranges as follows: Low Density One to Four dwelling units per acre Medium Density Greater than Four to less or equal to Eight dwelling units per acre Medium-High Greater than Eight to less than or equal to 14 dwelling units per acre High Density Greater than 14 to less than or equal to 24 dwelling units per acre The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend there was already an excess of acres available for development relative to need for the projected population, even before the 2003 Amendments expanded the Urban Cluster and the USL. They point to the 2002 FLUE Data and Analysis, which explained that the need calculations resulted in a finding that there were 7,396 acres available for urban development beyond the projected need in the Urban Cluster through the year 2010, and 4,378 acres beyond the projected need in the Urban Cluster through the year 2020. The 2002 Data and Analysis concluded: "Therefore there is no need in both 2010 and 2020 for modification of the area designated for urban development." Nonetheless, the 2003 Amendments added an additional 434 acres to the Urban Cluster, thereby increasing the available acres for development to 8,370. Richard Drummond explained that the County discovered, after the EAR process and the adoption of the 2002 Plan Update, that some of the population projections for the unincorporated areas were in error. The County also found miscalculations in terms of the existing housing stock. Mr. Drummond stated that the 2002 projections did not reflect the impact that the Plan's new environmental and floodplain policies could have on existing development capacity, or the fact that some private property owners had made it known their land would not be available for development. Mr. Drummond emphasized that the final need projections reflected the methodology that the County chose to employ and conceded that other methodologies could be used to arrive at different projections. The Sierra Club Petitioners have set forth at some length the methodologies they believe should have been employed by the County as regards establishment of the Urban Cluster and USL. At the outset, the Sierra Club Petitioners have challenged the County's methodology for calculating the number of needed dwelling units and corresponding acreage. They contend that the County calculated an excessive amount of acreage based on outdated historical data, rather than on the maximum gross residential densities allowed under the updated Plan. In making its acreage calculations, the County assumed that the low density residential areas would have an average density of 1.6 dwelling units per acre ("DU/acre"). Sierra Club contends that the County placed undue reliance on historical evidence that the density trends in the low density category was 1.34 DU/acre from 1980-1990, and 1.6 DU/acre from 1991-1997, when the County's own EAR provided more recent evidence that the objective of 2.0 DU/acre was being achieved. Mr. Drummond testified that a goal of the 2002 Plan Update was to increase the density of development within the low-density range. Sierra Club contends that using higher densities in the calculations of needed acreage would better support that goal and that the County was, therefore, required to base its calculations of the land presently available to serve the projected need on the maximum available density. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that basing the projections on historical trends "perpetuates old planning mistakes," and is internally inconsistent with FLUE General Strategy 1's requirement that the Plan provide "incentives for higher average densities for residential development and mixed uses in the urban cluster." They conclude that the maximum available density of 4.0 DU/acre should have been the County's basis for allocating acreage in the low density category, rather than the historically-based 1.6 dwelling units per acre presented by the County. The Sierra Club Petitioners offered a detailed recalculation of the "needed acres" for the Urban Cluster and the USL based on a density of 4.0 DU/acre, rather than 1.6 DU/acre, concluding that Alachua County overestimated the needed land by 2,737 acres in the low-density residential category. They performed a similar recalculation of need in the medium-high and high-density residential categories based on the maximum allowable density, rather than the historic "average density" used by the County. It is not necessary to set out the recalculation here because it is found that the Sierra Club Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the methodology employed by Alachua County to project the acreage needed for development in 2010 and 2020 was so unreasonable as to be beyond fair debate, or that their substituted methodology was correct and accurate beyond fair debate. The Sierra Club Petitioners may be correct in their contention that the Plan's goal of increasing densities in low-density residential developments would be better supported by use of maximum allowable densities in the need projections. There is little doubt that reducing the acreage available for development would force more compact development in the Urban Cluster, but there is no indication that the County's projections present an unreasonable risk of urban sprawl. Both Richard Drummond and Mr. Pennock discussed other Plan goals, such as avoiding a distortion of the real estate market caused by allocating too little land for development, that the Sierra Club Petitioners' methodology arguably does not address or would even subvert. In arriving at its methodology, Alachua County necessarily struck a balance in its priorities. Richard Drummond candidly testified that there were other ways to arrive at the need projections. The Sierra Club Petitioners reasonably disagree with that balance and believe that the community would be better served through tighter controls on expansion of urban development. This is a disagreement to be resolved through the political process and is certainly not beyond "fair debate" for either side of the argument in the context of this administrative proceeding. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the "development factor" employed in the calculation of capacity needed within the Urban Cluster and USL also contributes to inflating the estimate. As part of the formula used to calculate the land needed to accommodate the projected population, Alachua County applied a "development factor" of 0.5 to the residential units available on vacant land identified as "strategic ecosystems" or wetland areas, thus halving the available acreage in those areas. The 0.5 development factor was applied in recognition of the Plan's policies requiring that 50 percent of such lands be preserved from development. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that the County's reasoning ignores FLUE Policy 6.2.10, which allows the landowner to cluster the total number of available residential units for an entire parcel on the developable 50 percent of the property. Thus, while 50 percent of the property is placed in conservation with no dwelling units, the dwelling units for the total acreage can be built on the remaining 50 percent of the property. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that this methodology leads to an understatement of the acreage available for development and, thereby, underestimates the number of available dwelling units. Mr. Drummond explained that the "development factor" is intended to account for several contingencies. Some property owners might not choose to cluster and, therefore, would not develop the remaining 50 percent at the maximum density. More than 50 percent of some properties might be set aside after their boundaries are ground-truthed.12/ Because of such contingencies, the County decided to adjust the calculations so that its estimate would include the net acreage that would be fully available for development. This rationale could lead to some excess of vacant residential lands if a significant number of the conservation/wetlands properties are developed to their maximum density, but it cannot be deemed wrong beyond fair debate for Alachua County to seek certainty under its formula. FLUE Policy 7.1.3.d, set out in full above, requires the County to evaluate the appropriate location for expansion of the Urban Cluster according to the criteria set forth therein. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that Alachua County did not provide data and analysis to demonstrate compliance with these locational standards in its 2003 Amendment to the FLUM for the Urban Cluster. The 2002 FLUE Data and Analysis provide that development outside of the USL "must provide a full compliment of urban services." Mr. Drummond testified that because the 2002 Plan Update requires that all new development in the urban area must hook up to central water and sewer services,13/ the 2002 USL was based on proximity to those services, which became "the primary indicator for the rational progression of urban development." The Sierra Club Petitioners have challenged the 2003 Amendments' expansion of the USL to include all land in "common ownership" outside of the parcels on the 2002 FLUM map. According to Mr. Drummond, the common ownership included parcels where there was "a legal relationship between the corporate entities that owned the property." The Sierra Club Petitioners claim that the County "failed to demonstrate that the method of including all parcels within common ownership within the expanded Urban Cluster or [USL] was a professionally acceptable methodology." The Sierra Club Petitioners assert that the effect of this change is to add property within the USL regardless of proximity to existing infrastructure in contravention of 2002 FLUE Policy 7.1.3(d). It is found that the County's recognition of properties under common ownership in setting the USL, where at least part of the property meets all criteria for inclusion within the USL, appears on its face to be a sensible amendment. In this proceeding, the burden was not on the County to demonstrate that its methodology was "professionally acceptable." Rather, the burden was on Petitioners to demonstrate that the methodology did not meet the "fairly debatable" standard of acceptability. Petitioners failed to make that demonstration as to this issue. The Sierra Club Petitioners claim that because the expansion of the USL in the 2003 Amendments was based on availability of central water and sewer, it is internally inconsistent with other provisions of the Plan. FLUE Principle 2 requires the Plan to "[b]ase new development upon the provision of necessary services and infrastructure." FLUE General Strategy 1.f. provides that the Plan should: Minimize the conversion of land from rural to urban uses by maximizing the efficient use of available urban infrastructure, while preserving environmentally sensitive areas, according to the following: * * * f. Time development approval in conjunction with the economic and efficient provision of supporting community facilities, urban services, and infrastructure, such as streets, utilities, police and fire protection service, emergency medical service, mass transit, public schools, recreation and open space, in coordination with the Capital Improvements Element. The Sierra Club Petitioners assert that the County has failed to comply with these provisions because it based the expansion of the Urban Cluster and the USL on only one form of infrastructure, central sewer and water, while ignoring the availability of "supporting community facilities, urban services, and infrastructure" such as schools, police and fire protection, emergency medical service, mass transit, and recreation and open space. The evidence does not support this assertion beyond fair debate. The USL is a timing and phasing mechanism for development within the Urban Cluster over a ten-year planning horizon and is intended to encourage redevelopment and to direct new development to areas where public infrastructure exists or will be available. To the east, the County has located the USL coterminously with the Urban Cluster in order to promote redevelopment in the east Gainesville area. To the west, the USL is located a quarter-mile outward from existing and planned central water and sewer lines, without splitting ownership lines on individual parcels, except that in an area to the southwest near Archer Road, the USL is located a half- mile from existing and planned central water and sewer lines in order to promote this area as a future transit corridor. It is at least fairly debatable that the establishment and location of the USL is supported by appropriate data and analysis and that the County considered other infrastructure factors in drawing the lines of its urban boundaries. Water and Sewer Line Extensions In the 1991 Plan, Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Element ("PWSSE") Policy 8.2 provided, in relevant part: Proposed extensions of potable water and sanitary sewer lines outside of the urban service area designated by the [FLUE] shall be subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. . . . The 2002 Plan Update renumbered the quoted provision as PWSSE Policy 3.5 and changed the term "urban service area" to "Urban Services Line," but otherwise left the text unamended. The 2003 Amendments changed the term "Urban Services Line" to "Urban Cluster." The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the effect of the latter change is to allow the extension of water and sewer outside the USL, but within the Urban Cluster without the approval of the Board. They point out that the City of Gainesville owns and operates Gainesville Regional Utilities ("GRU") and that Alachua County historically has had little to no control over the pattern of development based on utility service. Mr. Drummond conceded that allowing the utility provider to dictate the pattern of development led to low- density sprawl. Thus, the Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the 2003 Amendment to PWSSE Policy 3.5 weakens the ability of the County to control growth through the phasing envisioned by the USL, because the County has no control over how the growth is "phased" when it lacks control over utilities. The County replies that the 2003 Amendments' change of "Urban Services Line" to "Urban Cluster" merely corrects a scrivener's error. Mr. Drummond testified that the 2002 Plan Update version of PWSSE Policy 3.5, requiring Board approval of water and sewer extensions outside the USL, unintentionally conflicted with FLUE Policy 7.1.3.B, which provides a mechanism for development to occur outside the USL but within the Urban Cluster without Board approval. The 2003 Amendment corrected the error and brought PWSSE Policy 3.5 into harmony with FLUE Policy 7.1.3.B. It is found that the 2003 Amendment to PWSSE Policy 3.5 does not represent a substantive change to the Plan. As to Petitioner's "lack of control" critique, the County responds that the City of Gainesville's Plan calls for coordination with the County's Plan when proposing utility line extensions. Mr. Drummond testified that the City of Gainesville's Plan recognizes that GRU will extend its utility lines in the unincorporated area in a manner consistent with the County's Plan. It is at least fairly debatable that the 2003 Amendments are supported by data and analysis and do not inappropriately delegate planning authority to the City of Gainesville or GRU. 2003 COSE Amendments Strategic Ecosystems The 1991 Plan employed the term "conservation area" to describe properties meriting special protection, including areas with significant geologic features such as springs and caves, wetlands, areas subject to 100-year flooding, and surface waters and their transitional zones. The 2002 Plan Update recognized both "primary" and "secondary" conservation areas. 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.1 provided: Primary conservation areas shall consist of natural resources that, because of their ecological value, uniqueness and particular sensitivity to development activities, require stringent protective measures to sustain their ecological integrity. These areas shall include: Wetlands; Surface waters; Wellfield protection areas; Listed species habitat; Significant geologic features; and Strategic ecosystems.[14/] "Strategic ecosystem" was a new term added by the 2002 Plan Update and was defined in the 2002 COSE definitions as follows: Outstanding examples of ecosystems that are intact or capable of restoration and that require conservation or management to maintain important reserves of biodiversity at landscape, natural community and species specific levels. Strategic ecosystems are greater than 20 acres in size and contain one or more natural ecological communities, including but not limited to scrub, sandhill, xeric hammock, upland pine forest, upland mixed forest, mesic hammock, prairie hammock, wet prairie, seepage slope, slope forest, mesic flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, floodplain forest, baygall, wet flatwoods, and hydric hammock. The natural resources that comprise strategic ecosystems are identified through means including, but not limited to: the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's "Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System" (1994), as supplemented with "Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled Life in Florida" (2000); FDEP's "Statewide Ecological Network," contained in The Greenways System Planning Project (1998); the Florida Natural Areas Inventory; and Golder's "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" (1996). 2002 COSE Objective 4.10, not amended in 2003, provides that it is the County's objective to "[p]rotect, conserve, enhance, and manage the ecological integrity of strategic ecosystems in Alachua County." The 2002 COSE Policies implementing Objective 4.10, which were all new to the 2002 Plan Update, provided: Policy 4.10.1 Conserve ecosystems that are determined to be strategic based on an overall assessment of the following characteristics: Natural ecological communities that exhibit: Native biodiversity within or across natural ecological communities. Ecological integrity. Rarity. Functional connectedness. Plant and animal species habitat that is: Documented for listed species. Documented for species with large home ranges. Documented as a special wildlife migration or aggregation site for activities such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting, or over-wintering. High in vegetation quality and species diversity. Low in non-native invasive species. Size, shape, and landscape features that allow the ecosystem to be restored to or maintained in good condition with regular management activities, such as prescribed burning, removal of exotic vegetation, or hydrological restoration. Policy 4.10.2 Strategies shall be implemented through the land use planning and development review process to ensure that each strategic ecosystem is evaluated and protected based on the integrity of the ecological unit. Policy 4.10.3 The County shall create special area plans in cooperation with landowners to establish specific guidelines for strategic ecosystems prior to approval of land use change, zoning change, or development approval. The County shall devise a schedule for creating special area plans, based on current development pressures and anticipated priorities. The County shall create special area plans for each strategic ecosystem, in accordance with the schedule and with the standards under Objective 3.6.[15/] If an applicant seeks development prior to the County's creation of a special area plan for a particular strategic ecosystem, the applicant has two avenues for pursuing development. A special area study may be conducted at the applicant's expense. Alternatively, if the applicant demonstrates that the ecological integrity of the strategic ecosystem will be sufficiently protected, the applicant may proceed according to the clustering provisions in policies under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUE]. Policy 4.10.4 Management strategies for strategic ecosystems shall be developed with landowners in conjunction with special area plans and may include, but are not limited to: Prescribed burning. Control of invasive species. Silvicultural activities according to BMPs [best management practices], with particular emphasis on maintenance and improvement of water quality, biological health, and the function of natural systems. Reduction in the intensity of site preparation activities, including bedding and herbicide application. Provision for listed species habitat needs, including restricting, at appropriate times, intrusions into sensitive feeding and breeding areas. Cooperative efforts and agreements to help promote or conduct certain management activities, such as cleanups, maintenance, public education, observation, monitoring, and reporting. Land acquisition. Policy 4.10.5 Clustering shall be required so that at least 80% of each strategic ecosystem is preserved as undeveloped area. Development shall be designed in accordance with the standards under Objective 3.6 of this Element. In the rural area, development shall also comply with standards under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUM]. Policy 4.10.6 The County shall provide regulatory flexibility to facilitate planning across multiple parcels that protects the integrity of the strategic ecosystem as an ecological unit. Existing cluster and PUD ordinances shall be revised to enhance long-term protection of strategic ecosystems. Policy 4.10.7 The County shall work with owners of agricultural and silvicultural lands to retain the ecological integrity and ecological value of strategic ecosystems through management plans and incentives. A management plan shall be required before any activity occurs in a strategic ecosystem that has not been used for agriculture or silviculture within the last 20 years, in accordance with the following: The management plan shall provide for retention of the ecological integrity and ecological value of the strategic ecosystem. The management plan shall be submitted to Alachua County for review and approval by appropriately qualified technical staff. The management plan may be satisfied by Forest Stewardship Council certification, land acquisition, or participation in a conservation program sponsored by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Passive recreational and ecotourism activities shall be encouraged where consistent with protection of the ecological integrity of the strategic ecosystem. The County shall, through community outreach and collaboration, facilitate participation of landowners in forestry certification programs, land acquisition programs, and federal and state cost-share conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, and the Farmland Protection Program. Policy 4.10.8 Alachua County shall implement an ordinance that specifically addresses the preservation of strategic ecosystems, significant plant and wildlife habitat, habitat corridors, and vegetative communities. The 2003 Amendments deleted 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.2, which had defined "secondary" conservation areas. The 2003 Amendments amended 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.1, set forth above, by deleting the first word, "Primary." The effect of these amendments is that the policy now simply defines "conservation areas" without distinction as to their being "primary" or "secondary." The 2003 Amendments also deleted "Wellfield protection areas" from the definition of "conservation areas," replacing it with "100-year floodplains." Finally, the 2003 Amendments changed the definition of "strategic ecosystem" to read: Outstanding examples of ecosystems that are intact or capable of restoration and that require conservation or management to maintain important reserves of biodiversity at landscape, natural community and species specific levels. Strategic ecosystems are greater than 20 acres in size and contain one or more natural ecological communities, including but not limited to scrub, sandhill, xeric hammock, upland pine forest, upland mixed forest, mesic hammock, prairie hammock, wet prairie, seepage slope, slope forest, mesic flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, floodplain forest, baygall, wet flatwoods, and hydric hammock. The natural resources that comprise strategic ecosystems are identified through means including, but not limited to: the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's "Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System"(1994), as supplemented with "Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled Life in Florida"(2000); FDEP's "Statewide Ecological Network," contained in The Greenways System Planning Project (1998); the Florida Natural Areas Inventory; and Sites that are identified in the KBN/Golder's Associates report, "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" (1996). The 2003 Amendments amended the 2002 COSE Policies implementing Objective 4.10 as follows: Policy 4.10.1 Conserve strategic ecosystems that are determined through ground-truthing using the KBN/Golder report as a guide to be strategic maintain or enhance biodiversity based on an overall assessment of the following characteristics: Natural ecological communities that exhibit: Native biodiversity within or across natural ecological communities. Ecological integrity. Rarity. Functional connectedness. Plant and animal species habitat that is: Documented for listed species. Documented for species with large home ranges. Documented as a special wildlife migration or aggregation site for activities such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting, or over-wintering. High in vegetation quality and species diversity. Low in non-native invasive species. Size, shape, and landscape features that allow the ecosystem to be restored to or maintained in good condition with regular management activities, such as prescribed burning, removal of exotic vegetation, or hydrological restoration. The Alachua County 2001 digital orthophotographic series (for purposes of this policy, the date of this photography is March 1, 2001) shall presumptively establish the baseline condition of the strategic ecosystem property as of the effective date of this policy. The County shall adopt land development regulations that set forth additional guidance for the determination of whether and the extent to which strategic ecosystems exist on a property. * * * Policy 4.10.4 Management strategies for strategic ecosystems shall be developed with landowners in conjunction with special area plans or cluster developments and may include, but are not limited to: Prescribed burning. Control of invasive species. Silvicultural activies according to BMPs [best management practices], with particular emphasis on maintenance and improvement of water quality, biological health, and the function of natural systems. Reduction in the intensity of site preparation activities, including bedding and herbicide application. Provision for listed species habitat needs, including restricting, at appropriate times, intrusions into sensitive feeding and breeding areas. Cooperative efforts and agreements to help promote or conduct certain management activities, such as cleanups, maintenance, public education, observation, monitoring, and reporting. Land acquisition. * * * Policy 4.10.5 Clustering shall be required so that at least 80% of each strategic ecosystem is preserved as undeveloped area. Development shall be designed in accordance with the standards under Objective 3.6 of this Element. In the rural area, development shall also comply with standards under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUM]. Policy 4.10.5 Each strategic ecosystem shall be preserved as undeveloped area, not to exceed 50% of the upland portion of the property without landowner consent and in accordance with the following: Upland areas required to be protected pursuant to policies for significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall be counted in calculation of the 50% limitation, however, the extent of protection of significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall not be reduced by this limitation. This limitation shall not apply to 100-year floodplains and wellfield protection areas, which are addressed independently through policies under Objectives 4.8 and 4.5, respectively. This limitation shall not restrict in any way state and federal agency protections. The remaining Policies implementing 2002 COSE Objective 4.10 were not amended by the 2003 Amendments. Thus, the definition of "strategic ecosystem" was amended from an identification of sites based upon the characteristics of their ecological communities to a question of whether a given property is found on a "strategic ecosystems" map sourced from the "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" prepared by KBN/Golder Associates (the "KBN/Golder Report"). In 1986, the County retained the Gainesville firm of KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. ("KBN") to conduct a survey of potential ecologically significant upland properties. The purpose of the survey, completed in 1987, was to provide information on important upland sites for planning purposes, principally to complete the Conservation Element of what would become the 1991 Plan, and to assist the Alachua County Conservation and Recreation Areas Task Force in greenbelt planning. In November 1996, the County commissioned KBN, now a subsidiary of Golder Associates, to produce the KBN/Golder Report, which built upon the 1987 survey to compile the most extensive study to date of ecological communities in the County. The stated purpose of the KBN/Golder Report was to "identify, inventory, map, describe, and evaluate the most significant biological communities, both upland and wetland, in private ownership in Alachua County and make recommendations for protecting these natural resources." A total of 47 sites were identified and ranked based on their quality of vegetation and landscape ecology, their status as habitats for endangered species and wildlife in general, their hydrology, and their management potential. The 1996 KBN/Golder Report was more comprehensive than its predecessor study in that it covered a larger area, evaluated wetlands as well as uplands, and included mapping of ecological connections and biological communities. KBN/Golder accumulated and evaluated a wide range of data in the process of preparing the Report including: the 1987 KBN survey; a 1995 set of infrared aerial photographs provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District ("SJRWMD"), as well as a 1986 set of infrareds provided by the Alachua County Department of Environmental Services; a 1994 set of black and white aerial photographs provided by the Alachua County Property Appraiser's Office; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWCC") habitat distribution maps; SJRWMD wetlands vegetation maps; Florida Natural Areas Inventory natural community/plant community classification categories; and SJRWMD and Suwannee River Water Management District Floridan Aquifer recharge maps. The KBN/Golder Report described its methodology and limitations as follows: The inventories were done by David Clayton and Bob Simons, working separately. Landowners were contacted where access was necessary for the survey work, and those lands where access was denied were inventoried using aerial photographs, outside sources of information, and whatever information could be obtained by observations from the property boundary. Initially, a review was made of the USGS topographic quadrangle maps (various dates) and aerial photographs... to determine access, location of communities, drainage features, and karst features. Next, vehicle or pedestrian surveys of all accessible areas were used to get an overall view; to discern as many biocommunities as possible; to look for exotic species, listed species, or signs of habitat for listed species; and to evaluate the overall wildlife habitat and the condition of the communities. Specific sites were chosen to inventory in more detail. Limitations for this survey were the large number of sites, the vast acreage, and the restricted time available. Thousands of acres on 47 sites were surveyed within 8 weeks, necessitating limited survey time on the larger sites. Terrestrial species were emphasized because 90 percent of the area surveyed is terrestrial. The Jonesville Petitioners contested the validity of the 2003 Amendments regarding strategic ecosystems on several grounds. Common to all these grounds is a disagreement on the meaning of the strategic ecosystems definition and its interplay with COSE Objective 4.10 and its implementing policies, as amended by the 2003 Amendments. The Jonesville Petitioners argue that defining the term "strategic ecosystem" by way of the map in the KBN/Golder Report is fatally flawed because it provides no flexibility. If a property is identified on the KBN/Golder Report map, then it is a strategic ecosystem subject to the restrictions of COSE Objective 4.10, without regard to the facts on the ground. The definition makes no provision for ground-truthing the property prior to inclusion in the strategic ecosystem category. The County responds that 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for more detailed identification of strategic ecosystems through ground-truthing, using the KBN/Golder Report as a guide. 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 also provides that the County's LDRs will provide additional guidance to determine whether and to what extent, strategic ecosystems exist on a property. The Jonesville Petitioners answer that there is a fundamental conflict in the policy's purported use of the KBN/Golder Report as a "guide" to delineating strategic ecosystems, when the definition provides that identification on the KBN/Golder Report is all that is required to establish a property as a strategic ecosystem. Subsequently adopted LDRs cannot provide guidance as to whether strategic ecosystems exist on a property; by definition, the KBN/Golder Report map determines whether there are strategic ecosystems. The Jonesville Petitioners argue that the only correct way to take a property out of the strategic ecosystem category would be to amend the adopted KBN/Golder Report map, thus amending the definition of "strategic ecosystem." The Jonesville Petitioners' argument fundamentally concedes that, if the definition were to provide for ground- truthing based on the characteristics set forth in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1, it would be unexceptionable. However, they point out that 2003 COSE Objective 4.10 and its policies apply to all "strategic ecosystems," that "strategic ecosystems" are also subject to regulation as "conservation areas" under COSE Policy 3.1.1, and that the ground-truthing provided by 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 does nothing to change the definition. Under this definitional scheme, a landowner whose property is identified on the KBN/Golder Report map can do nothing to take his property out of the strategic ecosystems definition, short of petitioning the County to amend its Plan, and is subject to all COSE provisions dealing with strategic ecosystems. The undersigned agrees with the Jonesville Petitioners that the County would have been better served to refine its definition of "strategic ecosystem" to include the standards set forth in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. The undersigned does not agree that the County's failure to do so invalidates the definition under the "fairly debatable" standard, given the County's interpretation of the interplay among the applicable policies. By using the KBN/Golder Report map to set the boundaries of strategic ecosystems, the County attempted to delineate reasonably large, contiguous areas, rather than create a "swiss cheese" pattern of intermixed conservation and non-conservation lands; i.e., designating isolated pockets of conservation within a large non-conservation area, or vice versa. The County made a general determination that strategic ecosystem site boundaries should be delineated with simple straight lines, rather than by the edges of land features, such as vegetative cover. The County reasonably decided that a straight boundary, such as a section line is easier to administer and more easily communicated to the public than a natural feature such as vegetation, which would require a survey and is often characterized by a gradual change, rather than the sharp demarcation necessary for a boundary. The County recognized that under this approach, strategic ecosystems would include some areas neither particularly environmentally sensitive, nor valuable as habitat. 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for ground-truthing to further refine the delineation of the boundaries of the strategic ecosystem properties to more specifically identify the most environmentally sensitive portions of the property and to assist in the determination of appropriate protection measures. Under the COSE Objective 4.10 policies, set forth in full above, the County will use the KBN/Golder Report map and the more detailed information provided by additional ground-truthing to identify the least environmentally sensitive portion of the strategic ecosystem property, so that any development can be directed and clustered there, and away from the most environmentally sensitive portion of the property. The landowner will retain the right to transfer the same number of residential units as allowed by the density limits of the underlying land use classification to the least sensitive portion of the property, notwithstanding the strategic ecosystems designation. The County's explanation of the interplay among the Plan provisions effectively addresses the concerns of the Jonesville Petitioners regarding "erroneously mapped" parcels, i.e., parcels that are identified on the KBN/Golder Report map, but that, in fact, are not environmentally sensitive. The Jonesville Petitioners are technically correct that because identification on the KBN/Golder Report map defines a property as a strategic ecosystem, subsequent ground-truthing does nothing to remove the property from that definition. However, the Jonesville Petitioners' argument depends on a reading of the Plan that is not merely literal, but blinkered. One must accept that the definition is absolutely controlling and that if a property is on the KBN/Golder Report map, then every individual plan provision referencing "strategic ecosystem" will apply to the property regardless of the natural characteristics found on the ground. A fair reading of the 2003 Amendments makes it clear that the definition of "strategic ecosystem" is the beginning of the analysis, not the end. The County acknowledged that, while the data on the KBN/Golder Report map are professionally accepted for general planning purposes, the data are not detailed enough for regulatory purposes on the level of individual parcels. Thus, once the map designates a property as a strategic ecosystem, 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 requires ground- truthing to determine whether and to what extent that strategic ecosystem is subject to conservation. Later adopted LDRs will provide additional guidance "for the determination of whether and the extent to which strategic ecosystems exist on a property." This treatment is similar to that found in 2002 COSE Policy 3.3.4 regarding conservation and preservation areas on the FLUM generally: Site Specific Delineation: The parcel- specific boundaries of preservation and conservation areas shall be verified by ground surveys conducted in the course of special studies or development review. County-initiated mapping efforts shall be performed at the County's expense, except when an applicant seeks land use change, zoning change, or development approval prior to the completion of the County's mapping efforts, consistent with [COSE] policies 3.4.2 and 4.10.3. Conservation policies shall be applied based on the resulting site specific delineation. The referenced 2002 COSE Policy 3.4.2 provides: Where site specific analysis or verification is required to determine the presence of natural resources protected under this Element, the cost of such analysis or verification shall be borne by the applicant. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that there is an internal inconsistency in the fact that the definition of strategic ecosystem does not include the criteria found in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. However, the parameters used by KBN/Golder Report to score and rank the sites that appear on the map include: vegetation value (species diversity, presence of exotics); endangered species habitat value (plant and animal); wildlife habitat value; hydrology; landscape ecology (community diversity, ecological quality, community rarity, functional connectedness); and management potential. These parameters are consistent with the characteristics listed in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. The Jonesville Petitioners point out that the design of the KBN/Golder Report map was such that no parcel less than 20 acres in size was identified, resulting in the omission of thousands of acres countywide that possess the characteristics identified in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 as indicative of strategic ecosystems. The Jonesville Petitioners claim that this presents an internal inconsistency in the Plan, because the COSE policies would protect only 25 percent of those unmapped properties (under 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12 addressing upland habitat), rather than the 50 percent protected by the strategic ecosystems policies. This alleged inconsistency is simply another example of the County's reasonable policy choice to focus its conservation efforts on larger, more contiguous properties, rather than a myriad of small-acreage lands. Even the 2002 definition of "strategic ecosystem," not challenged by the Jonesville Petitioners, limited strategic ecosystems to properties greater than 20 acres in size. The smaller sites will remain subject to regulation on a site-specific basis as they are proposed for development. The Jonesville Petitioners appear to insist, absent any pending development applications with the County or even any present plans to develop, on their right to have the Plan and its incorporated maps provide them with a definitive, binding delineation of their properties and, thus, their development potential. This claim is unrealistic, given that such a general right would require County staff to ground- truth hundreds of thousands of acres countywide before a conservation land use category could be established at all. The KBN/Golder Report map is sufficient to place landowners, such as the Jonesville Petitioners, on notice of their need to inquire as to the status of their properties prior to the initiation of development activities. Parcel- specific regulation requires parcel-specific ground-truthing, and 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for such ground-truthing. Further, 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.3 provides that the County will create special area plans for strategic ecosystems "based on current development pressures and anticipated priorities." It further provides that an applicant in the position of the Jonesville Petitioners may pay for its own special area plan, should it not wish to wait on the County to complete its plan process. Finally, the Jonesville Petitioners attack 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1's use of the Alachua County 2001 digital orthophotographic series dated March 1, 2001, to "presumptively establish the baseline condition of the strategic ecosystem property as of the effective date of this policy." They contend that it is uncertain how the County will treat properties on which the owners have altered ecosystems in the period between the 2001 orthophotographs and 2003 adoption of the new COSE policies and that the policy would have a retroactive impact of dubious constitutionality if the County were to require restoration of those properties to their 2001 state. This valid concern of the Jonesville Petitioners is prematurely raised in this proceeding. The evidence at hearing failed to demonstrate that the County would not allow a landowner to provide information through the development review process to demonstrate that the condition of the property had changed after March 1, 2001, and prior to the effective date of the 2003 Amendments. In summary, it is found that the mere fact that the County determined that the definition of "strategic ecosystem" shall consist of the identification of properties on the KBN/Golder Report map is a fairly debatable decision, given the manner in which that definition is put into effect through amended COSE Objective 4.10 and its implementing policies. The Jonesville Petitioners entered reports prepared by their environmental consultant concerning particular properties and their unsuitability for designation as strategic ecosystems and presented extensive testimony on the subject. The County presented testimony as to each of the Jonesville Petitioners' properties to support the County's contention that they are indeed strategic ecosystems. Each of the Jonesville properties is a small portion of a much larger parcel on the KBN/Golder Report strategic ecosystems map. It is unnecessary to make detailed findings of fact as to the environmental quality of these properties. As the findings above indicate, the appropriate time to consider the qualities of particular properties will be during the special area planning process and/or the development review process.16/ Uplands Habitat 2002 COSE Objective 4.9, titled "Biodiversity," provides: Maintain and enhance plant and animal species diversity and distribution within Alachua County by protecting significant plant and wildlife habitats, providing for habitat corridors, and preventing habitat fragmentation. The 2002 Plan Update provisions implementing COSE Objective 4.9 provided as follows: Policy 4.9.1 A critical portion of each significant plant and wildlife habitat type in Alachua County shall be protected. Protection shall be accomplished using all available methods, including land acquisition, incentives and requirements for the provision of conservation or preservation areas, habitat corridors, greenways, and common open space. Policy 4.9.2 During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall minimize the effects of development on significant plant and wildlife habitat. All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25% of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site. The habitat to be conserved shall be selected based on the quality and viability of the habitat. The County shall work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside. Conserved habitat shall be located and maintained in areas with intact canopy, understory and groundcover in functional, clustered arrangement which maximizes use by wildlife and maintains the long-term viability of native upland plant communities. Linkages to habitat corridors and greenways shall be required where available. The County shall have the authority to accept alternatives to onsite conservation that provide for the long-term protection and management of significant plant and wildlife habitat of equal or greater habitat value that would not have otherwise been preserved. The land development regulations shall establish criteria for determining which projects warrant the use of alternatives to onsite conservation. Criteria may include but are not limited to: the size of the development site, habitat quality, uniqueness, connectivity, management opportunities, and adjacent uses. Off-site conservation shall not be permitted for listed species habitat that is capable of being managed or restored on- site as a high quality natural plant or animal community or communities. This requirement is not intended to limit the effect of other resource-specific protective measures in this element, such as clustering and buffers. Policy 4.9.3 The County shall require the development and implementation of management plans for all significant plant and wildlife habitat that is to be protected. The management plan shall be prepared at the expense of the developer by an appropriately qualified professional and provide for the following: Removal of invasive vegetation and debris. Replanting with native vegetation as necessary. Maintenance of biodiversity, with special emphasis on protection of listed plant and animal species. Any additional measures determined to be necessary to protect and maintain the functions and values of the habitat conservation areas while ensuring protection from wildfire. Policy 4.9.4[17/] The County shall consult with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services or other appropriate agencies prior to authorizing development that could result in potential adverse impacts to any listed species. The County shall utilize these recommendations to provide specific requirements regarding development where these species are encountered. Conditions of approval shall ensure the maintenance and, where feasible and appropriate, increase the abundance and distribution of populations of listed species. Policy 4.9.5 The use of listed plant and wildlife species habitat shall be restricted to that which is compatible with the requirements of listed species. Development activities[18/] that would threaten the life or habitat of any listed species shall not be permitted. Policy 4.9.6 The County shall prohibit the alteration of natural shorelines or degradation of water quality where listed species feed or breed, through the establishment of buffers as set out in [COSE] Policy 3.6.8. The County shall encourage the restoration of degraded shorelines when possible. Policy 4.9.7[19/] The County shall periodically review monitoring data from federal, state, regional, and local agencies to determine the status of listed species habitats in Alachua County. The County shall use this information to maintain and provide, for the convenience of the public, a table of listed species and listed species habitats in Alachua County. Policy 4.9.8 The County shall recommend specific management and recovery strategies for listed species, as they are developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and shall assist in their implementation. These management techniques shall be incorporated into the land development regulations, as well as the management plans of County-owned preservation areas. Policy 4.9.9 Wildlife habitat enhancement and management programs in urban areas shall be promoted through such techniques as designation of bird sanctuary areas where rookeries or other significant bird populations exist and landscaping schemes for stormwater detention and retention areas that maintain native vegetation and establish littoral zones which encourages wildlife usage. Policy 4.9.10 The County shall develop incentives designed to encourage private land owners to manage land holdings for wildlife attributes. Policy 4.9.11 The County shall establish and preserve habitat corridors that connect significant plant and wildlife habitats throughout the County. The County shall perform an objective analysis to determine the appropriateness of habitat corridors, how extensive they should be, the location of potential corridors, what fiscal resources are available for implementation, and economic incentives for property owners to voluntarily participate in formation of a habitat corridor program. The 2003 Amendments changed 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2 as follows: During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall minimize the effects of development on significant plant and wildlife habitat. All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25% of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site, subject to the limitation in 4.9.12. The habitat to be conserved shall be selected based on the quality and viability of the habitat. The County shall work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside. . . . The 2003 Amendments added a new COSE Policy 4.9.12, which reads as follows: Policy 4.9.12 Upland habitat protections under Objective 4.9 shall be limited as follows: No more than 25% of the upland portion of a property may be required to be set aside for preservation pursuant to policies under this Objective without landowner consent. Upland areas required to be protected pursuant to policies for significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall be counted in calculation of the 25% limitation, however, the extent of protection of significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall not be reduced by this limitation. This limitation shall not apply to 100-year floodplains and wellfield protection areas, which are addressed independently through policies under Objectives 4.8 [Flood Plains and Floodways] and 4.5 [Groundwater], respectively. This limitation shall not restrict in any state and federal agency protections. For purposes of applying this limitation, a property shall include all contiguous land under common ownership or control. Properties may not be disaggregated, processed in piecemeal fashion, reviewed or developed in any manner that results in lesser upland protections than would otherwise be required under this Objective. The Sierra Club Petitioners challenged these uplands policies on several grounds. The 2002 Plan Update, as amended in 2003, provides two kinds of protection to uplands. The most highly protected upland is one established as part of a strategic ecosystem. Under 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.5, up to 50 percent of the upland portion of a strategic ecosystem can be preserved as undeveloped area without the landowner's consent. A lesser level of protection is afforded to "significant plant and wildlife habitat." The 2002 Plan Update defines "significant habitat" as "contiguous stands of natural upland plant communities which have been documented to support, and which have the potential to maintain, healthy and diverse populations of plants or wildlife." Under 2003 COSE Policies 4.9.2 and 4.9.12, up to 25 percent of the upland portion of "significant plant and wildlife habitat" may be set aside for preservation without the landowner's consent. Neither the strategic ecosystems provision nor the significant plant and wildlife habitat provision purports to restrict or lessen any protections afforded by state or federal law. The Sierra Club Petitioners complain that the 2003 Amendments modify the categories and levels of upland protection which had been adopted in the 2002 Plan Update, that these modifications weaken the environmental protection provided to upland vegetative communities and habitats, and that the modifications are based on legislative settlement of the 2002 administrative challenge, not on any science or new data or analysis. The 2002 Plan Update was supported by the 1998 EAR and the 2002 Data and Analysis documents. On December 10, 2002, during the settlement process that culminated in the 2003 Amendments, Alachua County's environmental protection director, Chris Bird, produced a memorandum titled "Response to Questions Raised on Conservation Issues in the 12/2/02 Special [Board] Comp Plan Meeting," referred to hereinafter as "the Bird Memo." As of December 2, 2002, mediation had commenced in the 2002 administrative challenge, but the parties had yet to crystallize their respective positions into what would become the 2003 Amendments. As indicated by its full title, the Bird Memo contains the County staff's explanation of the basis for the conservation policies in the 2002 Amendments. The memo sets forth citations to and quotes from the 2002 Data and Analysis, and supplements this with its own comments on the propriety or necessity for the changes to the 1991 Plan made by the 2002 Amendments. The Sierra Club Petitioners point out that the Bird Memo offers a clear explanation as to how the 2002 Plan Update was based on the 1998 EAR and the 2002 Data and Analysis. They contend that there is no equivalent documentation in the record of this case that explains how the 2003 Amendments were based on the Data and Analysis. In answer to the question, "What's wrong with the old [1991] Comprehensive Plan and why do we have to change it?," the Bird Memo stated: Of 70 measurable objectives set forth for the Conservation portion of the [1998] EAR, less than a third of those objectives were met without caveat. At least 10 objectives were not met, and another 40 objectives were only partially met, met in limited fashion, or were in need of revision/update. The Bird Memo noted that the 1998 EAR made the following recommendations under the heading, "Permitted Uses in Conservation Areas": Review and revise requirements for development in ecologically sensitive/environmentally significant areas. Using the PUD[20/] or a modified Cluster Ordinance, consider the following modifications at a minimum: (1) modify the comprehensive plan to include additional natural communities identified in the 1996 ecological inventory [i.e., the KBN/Golder study]; (2) require clustering for all development and eliminate the 20-acre parcel threshold; (3) require stricter long-term protection for Conservation areas and significant natural communities; (4) increase the 50% minimum set-aside; (5) include incentives/requirements for permanent set-aside arrangements. The Bird Memo went on to set forth staff's recommendation as to what "stricter long-term protection for conservation areas and significant natural communities" necessitates for "significant habitat": Significant habitat is defined in the [2002] Comprehensive Plan update as contiguous stands of natural upland plant communities that support and maintain healthy and diverse populations of plants or wildlife. Sandhill and xeric hammock are two examples. Industrial pine plantations are not significant habitat because they are not natural communities. FAC 9J-5 requires that the Conservation Element include objectives and policies that conserve and protect native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat from destruction by development activities. The Plan update approaches this protection at two scales: strategic ecosystems are important at a larger geographical scale; significant habitat and listed species habitat are important at smaller scales. The purpose is to identify and protect natural systems and their fundamental building blocks before they are in the "emergency room" at the brink of crisis, when they can still be preserved for the future in healthy form. To accomplish this, the largest remaining wild areas are afforded the greatest protection (80% preservation of strategic ecosystems), while the smaller but significant natural habitat areas are afforded lesser but still meaningful protection (25% preservation of significant habitat). There is no percentage associated with listed species habitat protection, but protection is determined on a case-by-case basis depending on species and site characteristics. The requirement for 25% preservation of native habitat is clearly less than what is needed to stop habitat and species declines, but represents a compromise.[21/] This percentage was chosen in order to provide for the conditions necessary to preserve some degree of ecological integrity while accommodating the needs of development. . . . The Sierra Club Petitioners concede that some of the quoted conservation recommendations were adopted in the 2003 Amendments, e.g., the map of the KBN/Golder Report inventory lands was adopted as the initial definition of strategic ecosystems and incentives for clustering are provided. However, they contend that most of the staff's conservation recommendations are not reflected in the 2003 Amendments, e.g., clustering is not required for all development in ecologically sensitive and/or environmentally significant areas; the 20-acre parcel threshold for ecosystem protection is not eliminated; 50 percent minimum set-asides are not increased; species on the Florida Natural Areas Inventory ("FNAI") endangered species list but not on federal or state lists are not protected in wetland buffers; the recommended minimum default buffer is not used; and no minimum protection is required for either listed species habitat or significant habitat. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the 25 percent maximum upland preservation introduced by 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12 destroys the impact of 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.5, which under the 2002 Plan Update would have protected the habitat of any "listed species" on a case-by-case determination of what was reasonable and necessary for the species on the particular site, apparently without regard to the amount of a given tract that would be turned over to preservation against the wishes of the landowner. "Listed species" is defined in the 2003 Amendments as: Those species of plants and animals listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or species of special concern by an official state or federal plant or wildlife agency, or the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI, includes species ranked as S1, S2, or S3), or the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA). These species are targeted for protection for a number of reasons, e.g., they are in imminent danger of extinction, are rapidly declining in number or habitat, or have an inherent vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, or human disturbance which puts them at risk of extinction. This contention is rejected because it neglects to factor in the express limitation expressed in 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12.c. that the 25 percent limitation "shall not restrict in any way state and federal agency protections." Such "protections" include federal and state listed species protections, meaning that the 25 percent limitation cannot function as a brake on listed species protection. The Sierra Club Petitioners make too much of the distinction between 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2's language, "All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25 percent of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site," and 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12's language, "No more than 25 percent of the upland portion of a property may be required to be set aside for preservation pursuant to policies under this Objective without landowner consent." They appear to assume that the former provision would allow the County to impose draconian development limitations without regard to the property rights of landowners. In the undersigned's view, the distinction is not so great, particularly in light of 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2.1's direction to the County to "work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside." (Emphasis added.) The express reference to a "25% set aside" indicates that Alachua County did not anticipate forcing landowners to cede more than that amount of their property even under the 2002 Plan Update. It is found that the Sierra Club Petitioners overstate the necessary impact of the Bird Memo as "Data and Analysis." Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2), indeed, requires that plan amendments be "based upon relevant and appropriate data," and further explains that to be "based on data" means "to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue." However, the Sierra Club Petitioners essentially contend that the Board was bound to enact each recommendation of the Bird Memo in every particular or stand in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). To accept this contention would be to make the elected officials of Alachua County subservient to their own hired staff, an exact reversal of the comprehensive planning process. It is found that the County has reacted to the data and analysis of the Bird Memo "in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data." There is no question that the 2002 Plan Update, as amended by the 2003 Amendments, for the first time "establish[es] an integrated approach to the protection of natural communities and their associated values in Alachua County," in contrast to the fragmented approach of the 1991 Plan. See COSE Data and Analysis, Biodiversity, p. 38. The 2003 Amendments address and, to some degree, adopt every element raised by staff in the Bird Memo. The 2003 Amendments do not adopt the terms of the Bird Memo to the letter as urged by the Sierra Club Petitioners, but the County was not required to do so. It is at least fairly debatable that the COSE uplands policies are supported by data and analysis and provide adequate guidance for the development of LDRs. Wetland Buffers Under the 1991 Plan, standards for natural vegetative buffers around surface waters and wetlands consisted of a minimum 75-foot buffer for Outstanding Florida Waters and a 35-foot buffer for all other surface waters and wetlands. The 2002 Plan Update's version of COSE Policy 3.6.8, referenced in Policy 4.9.6 above, provided detailed new buffer requirements as follows: Policy 3.6.8 Development occurring along the edges of conservation and preservation areas shall be designed to protect and minimize the impact of development on conservation areas through the use of natural vegetative buffers. Buffer width shall be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on what is demonstrated to be scientifically necessary to protect natural ecosystems from significant adverse impact. This determination shall be made in consideration of at least the following factors: Type of development and associated potential for adverse site-specific and off-site impacts; Natural community type and associated hydrologic or management requirements; Buffer area characteristics and function; Presence of listed species of plants and animals. Absent scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate, the following buffer widths shall apply for the resources set forth in the table below. Protected Resource Buffer Distance (feet)** Surface waters and wetlands that do not include the resources listed below 75* Outstanding Florida Waters 200* Areas where listed plant or animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland 300* from the surface water or wetland Public water supply well 200 * Buffer widths are recommended based on the report, "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," prepared by Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. in collaboration with Mark T. Brown, Ph.D., University of Florida Center for Wetlands and Water Resources, and Richard Hamann, Esq., University of Florida College of Law, January 2000. ** If the buffer precludes all economically viable use of a particular property, development may be allowed within the buffer in accordance with [COSE] policy 3.6.5, and where applicable, [COSE] policies 4.6.6 and 4.7.4. Buffers shall be measured from the outer edge of the protected resource. The 2003 Amendments made no changes to the text of COSE Policy 3.6.8, but changed the table of buffer widths as follows: Protected Resource Buffer Distance (feet)** Surface waters and wetlands less than or equal to 0.5 acre that do not include OFWs or listed animal species as described elsewhere in this table 50 average, 35 minimum Surface waters and wetlands greater than 0.5 acre that do not include the resources listed below OFWs or listed animal species as described elsewhere in this table 75* 75 average, 50 minimum Areas where federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species listed plant or animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland 300* from the surface water or wetland 100 average, 75 minimum Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWS) 200* 150 average, 100 minimum Public water supply well 200 * Buffer widths are recommended based on the report, "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," prepared by Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. in collaboration with Mark T. Brown, Ph.D., University of Florida Center for Wetlands and Water Resources, and Richard Hamann, Esq., University of Florida College of Law, January 2000. ** If the buffer precludes all economically viable use of a particular property, development may be allowed within the buffer in accordance with [COSE] policy 3.6.5, and where applicable, [COSE] policies 4.6.6 and 4.7.4. The referenced COSE Policy 3.6.5, introduced in the 2002 Plan Update and not amended in 2003, provides: Development on land that includes conservation areas shall be sited and designed according to the following standards and consistent with policies under Objective 6.2 [Rural/Agriculture] of the [FLUE] in the rural area: The preservation of conservation areas shall be required on all development sites to the greatest extent possible, consistent with standards which are outlined subsequently in [the COSE]. Density or intensity shall be transferred from conservation areas to non- conservation portions of the property, to adjoining property under common ownership or management and within a unified development, or to other development receivership areas, at a rate consistent with that of the underlying zoning district, but not to exceed the maximum density allowed by the land use designation. When there are no non-conservation areas to which density or intensity may be transferred, the development shall be clustered in the portion of the site that will result in least environmental impact. When connection to central sewer is not required, septic wastes shall be disposed of according to the Comprehensive Plan, land development regulations, and health department standards, and without adversely affecting ecosystem health. Existing landscape connections to other conservation areas shall be maintained so that fragmentation is avoided. The referenced COSE Policy 4.6.6, under Objective dealing with "Surface Water Systems," was introduced in the 2002 Plan Update, was not amended in 2003, and provides: The following activities may be allowed within the buffer subject to standards that regulate environmental impacts: Agricultural and silvicultural operations consistent with Objective 5.5 [Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices]; Water dependent facilities; Minimal impact activities; Activities that serve the overriding public interest; and Development allowed through implementation of [COSE] policy 3.6.5.3, provided that the development impact area shall not exceed the rate of 1/2 acre per ten acres of conservation area, including the footprint of principal and accessory structures and parking, allowing for reasonable access. 175. The referenced COSE Policy 4.7.4, under Objective dealing with "Wetland Ecosystems," was introduced in the 2002 Plan Update and amended in 2003 as indicated below: Development activity shall not be authorized in wetlands or wetland buffers except when all of the following conditions are met: The applicant has taken every reasonable step to avoid adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant has taken every reasonable step to minimize adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant has provided appropriate mitigation for adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant shows that one of the following circumstances applies: Minimal impact activity; or Overriding public interest; or All economically beneficial or productive use of the property is otherwise precluded. The development impact area shall not exceed the rate of 1/2 acre per ten acres of conservation area, including the footprint of principal and accessory structures and parking, allowing for reasonable access. Notwithstanding the above, mitigated impact may be allowed to any isolated poor quality wetland that is less than 0.25 acre in size, provided the total impact area is not greater than or equal to 0.25 acre per development. Poor quality shall be defined in the land development regulations based on factors relative to ecological value. The 2002 Data and Analysis clearly concluded that the 35-foot buffers in the 1991 Plan were inadequate to protect the natural functions of the affected wetlands. The Bird Memo summarized the data as follows: The Conservation/Aquifer Recharge portion of the EAR, as well as the data and analysis supporting the Comprehensive Plan update, are replete with documentation of the inadequacy of the current 35-foot buffer for wetlands and surface waters in Alachua County. Inadequacy is demonstrated by documentation of at least the following nine facts: (1) the direct loss of the extent and quality of wetlands, (2) the degradation of wetland functions, (3) no change in declining water quality trends since implementation of 35-foot buffers, high sediment loads in surface waters, elevated nutrient concentrations in surface waters, groundwater, and springs, poor surface water systems health documented by macroinvertebrate sampling, poor hydrology, including lake drawdown problems, (8) the continued loss, degradation and fragmentation of wildlife habitat in Alachua County, and (9) the decline of native species concurrent with the spread of invasive non-native species. The Bird Memo also contained appendices that included 11 pages of specific citations from the Data and Analysis discussing the inadequacy of the 35-foot buffers and supporting larger buffer widths. The buffers in 2002 COSE Policy 3.6.8 were based on the Data and Analysis in the 2000 Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc., report titled "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," ("JEA Report"). The Bird Memo summarized the JEA Report's findings and Alachua County's response, as follows: Upland vegetative buffers are widely regarded as necessary to protect wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. However, buffer size requirements typically have been established by political acceptability, rather than scientific merit. This often leads to insufficiently buffered aquatic resources and the false perception that the resources are being properly protected from potential impacts. Numerous scientific studies have shown that relatively wide buffers (150 to more than 300 feet) are necessary to protect wetlands. (JEA et al. 2000) A dilemma exists. Undersized buffers may place aquatic and wetland resources at risk, while buffers that are sufficiently large to provide full protection may unrealistically deny landowners use of their land. Therefore, it is important to determine the minimum buffer width necessary for protection of most of the resources, or the most sensitive of the resources. Three goals have been identified and used to determine buffer sizes: protection of wildlife habitat; minimization of sediment transport into wetlands; and minimization of groundwater drawdown in wetlands. The JEA report (2000) concludes that a minimum of 300 feet is necessary to reasonably protect a viably functioning wetland ecosystem. A 300-foot buffer would protect approximately 50% of the wetland-dependent wildlife species in freshwater wetlands, and protect water quality from sedimentation by course [sic] and fine sands. In some site-specific cases, such as with silt or clay soils, or from large draw-down structures, a greater buffer distance would be necessary to protect the wetland. Any reduction in the buffer width below 300 feet can impose adverse impacts to the wetland, particularly to the wetland- dependent wildlife species that require a wide surrounding upland area in which to feed, forage, and use as protection from human disturbance. Lesser alternatives would still provide some protection to wetlands; however, any reduction can result in adverse impacts to wildlife populations, as well as degradation of water quality from deposition of fine sediments. The County has chosen an alternative to one large buffer distance. This alternative is intended to provide flexibility while accommodating private property concerns. The Sierra Club Petitioners emphasize the JEA Report's conclusion that "a minimum of 300 feet is necessary to reasonably protect a viably functioning wetland ecosystem." They note that the language of 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 provides that "[a]bsent scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate," a 100-foot average, 75-foot minimum natural vegetative "default" buffer would apply in "areas where federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland." They conclude that providing only a 75-100 foot "default" buffer in an area documented to contain threatened or endangered species habitat within 300 feet would result in the destruction of that habitat between the 75- to 100-foot buffer zone and the 300-foot extent of the documented habitat. This is another instance in which the Sierra Club Petitioners' conclusion requires an assumption of bad faith on the part of the County regulatory authorities. Whether the default buffer is 300 feet or 75 feet, that default buffer applies only in the absence of "scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate." The Sierra Club Petitioners correctly note Michael Drummond's testimony that, under the 1991 Plan, the default buffers were often employed where the existence of wetland- dependent species was suspected, but not verified. Mr. Drummond also testified that application of a 100-foot buffer would not be adequate for listed species. However, Mr. Drummond's testimony does not demonstrate that the County would ignore scientific information demonstrating the presence of endangered species and apply the default buffers regardless of those species' habitat requirements. The undersigned does not agree that it is beyond fair debate that Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.013(2)(c)5. requires the County to apply the default buffers in habitats where there is a "high potential" for endangered species to occur, but where the species have not been documented. The cited Rule requires the COSE to contain policies that address implementation activities for the "[r]estriction of activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife." 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8 complies with the language of the rule by addressing known adverse affects. Alachua County was entitled to make a policy choice not to go farther and address potential adverse effects caused by inadequate buffers in areas that endangered species might inhabit.22/ There is no question that the Sierra Club's policy preference would result in greater protection of endangered species and their habitats, actual or potential. However, this fact alone does not compel the County to enact stricter provisions than the relevant statutes and rules require. The Sierra Club Petitioners' focus on the "300 foot minimum buffer" language in the Bird Memo led them to overlook the fact that the Data and Analysis support 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8, as well as the version in the 2002 Plan Update. The Bird Memo itself recognizes the County's choice of "an alternative to one large buffer distance . . . to provide flexibility while accommodating private property concerns." The Bird Memo expressly recognized that the scientifically preferable wide buffers "may unrealistically deny landowners use of their land." 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8 reasonably balances the interests noted in the Bird Memo by providing for a site- specific determination of the proper buffer width based on the scientific information at hand. Application of the default buffer is always contingent upon the absence of scientific information.23/ The Sierra Club Petitioners also challenge the 2003 Amendment's change of language in the table of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 from "listed plant or animal species" to "federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species." They argue that the evidence showed that limiting the buffer protection in COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 to only federally and/or state regulated species, rather than to all "listed species" as defined in the 2002 Plan as amended, would exclude approximately 14 species from the threatened and endangered species protection of the buffer provision. The 2002 Plan, as amended in 2003, defines "Listed Species" as follows: Those species of plants and animals listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or species of special concern by an official state or federal plant or wildlife agency, or the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI, includes species ranked as S1, S2, or S3), or the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA). These species are targeted for protection for a number of reasons, e.g. they are in imminent danger of extinction, are rapidly declining in number or habitat, or have an inherent vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, or human disturbance which puts them at risk of extinction. The Bird Memo explains the inclusion of the FNAI and, until the 2003 Amendments, the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals ("FCREPA") lists as follows: The use of FNAI and FCREPA sources does not make the list of protected species significantly broader than the list generated from using federal and state agency lists. Rather, it makes protection efforts more accurate and timely because they are based on scientific judgment responsive to changing natural conditions, rather than political listing decisions which can take years in the making. The use of these data sources to identify species for special protection is considered by many ecological professionals, including state and water management district personnel, as the best available data for the purpose of recognizing plants and animals in decline in the state and in Alachua County. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that there was no basis in either the 2002 Plan Update or the Data and Analysis for 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 to exclude the FNAI-listed species from the protection they receive at every other point in the Plan where endangered and threatened species protections apply or to exclude non-vertebrates from the buffering provisions of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2. In response, the County initially points out that the category of buffers for listed species was new to the 2002 Plan Update. The County notes that the 1991 Plan essentially deferred to federal and state agencies in the regulation of plants and wildlife and that in crafting the 2002 Plan Update, the County decided to broaden conservation areas to include the habitat of FNAI-listed species. The County incidentally observes that FNAI is a scientific organization with no regulatory function whatever. The County argues that there is no conflict between its decision to generally broaden conservation areas and its decision to create a new wetland buffer category for federal and state-regulated species. The undersigned agrees that it is at least fairly debatable that the County was not required to apply its "listed species" definition to the buffering provision of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2. The Sierra Club Petitioners simply failed to demonstrate the necessary connection between the definition and the buffer category that might establish an internal inconsistency. The mere fact that the 2002 Plan Update employed the term "listed plant or animal species" in the buffer table does not establish a presumption of correctness. The Bird Memo states that the FNAI and FCREPA lists provide "the best available data for the purpose of recognizing plants and animals in decline," and thus supports the County's decision to reference the FNAI list in its "listed species" definition, but does not require the County to include the list for purposes of defining a buffer category. In further defense of 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8, the County notes that the policy provides flexibility to respond to the needs of individual species by allowing for "buffer averaging," which permits the buffer area to be distributed in a varying width around the wetland, subject to the minimum widths contained in the table. In addition to the increased buffers, the County substantially improved its protection of wetlands by strengthened requirements in proposed COSE Policies 3.6.1324/ and 4.7.4 for avoidance and minimization of impacts. Avoidance and minimization is also facilitated by proposed Policy 3.6.5, which provides for transfers of densities or clustering. The County notes that the updated Plan contains multiple layers of wetlands protection. COSE Policy 4.7.1 provides that wetlands of all sizes are to be regulated, without exception. COSE Policy 4.7.4 limits the development impact area to the ratio of one-half acre of impact to each ten acres of conservation area. If wetland impacts cannot be avoided or minimized, then the strengthened mitigation requirements of COSE Policy 4.7.7 must be met, including a minimum ratio of 5:1 mitigation area to impacted area, a requirement that the mitigation areas be within the County and no mitigation credits for onsite preservation of wetlands, which are required to be protected in any event. Preservation of wetlands and/or other surface waters or uplands cannot be counted as "mitigation" if federal, state, water management district, or local regulations already require protection of the resource in question. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that the County appropriately responded to the Data and Analysis by its policies on surface waters and wetlands. D. Agricultural Uses The Jonesville Petitioners criticized 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2,25/ which provides: In primary and secondary conservation areas, the following uses, if otherwise consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, generally shall be permitted to the extent that they do not significantly alter the natural functions of the conservation area: Public and private conservation, recreation and open space uses. Public and private wildlife preserves, game management and refuge areas. Water conservation and retention/detention areas that are determined to be appropriate for stormwater management. Agricultural uses, employing latest applicable best management practices. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that the quoted policy creates an internal inconsistency in the Plan. The inconsistency is said to stem from a conflict between the County's desire to sustain the ecological integrity of natural resource areas that due to their ecological value, uniqueness and particular sensitivity to development activities, require stringent protective measures, and the fact that some of the uses to be permitted in conservation areas, particularly agricultural uses, can be incompatible with the preservation of ecological integrity as defined in the Plan. While there was some expert testimony as to the difficulty of reconciling agricultural and recreational uses with conservation, the weight of the evidence did not demonstrate such an inherent incompatibility as to establish an internal inconsistency in the Plan. The listed uses are to be permitted "to the extent that they do not significantly alter the natural functions of the conservation area," and there was no showing that this qualification is unenforceable by its terms. The County also pointed out that its authority to regulate agricultural activities by way of development controls is limited by statute. The "Florida Right to Farm Act," Section 823.14, Florida Statutes (2003), provides, in relevant part: (6) Limitation on duplication of government regulation.-- It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate duplication of regulatory authority over farm operations as expressed in this subsection. Except as otherwise provided for in this section and s. 487.051(2)[pesticide regulation], and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local government may not adopt any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to s. 193.461 [property tax assessments of agricultural lands], where such activity is regulated through implemented best-management practices or interim measures developed by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or water management districts and adopted under chapter 120 as part of a statewide or regional program. . . . (Emphasis added.) More recently, the Legislature passed the "Agricultural Lands and Practices Act," Section 163.3162, Florida Statutes (2003), effective July 1, 2003, subsection (4) of which provides: Duplication of regulation.-- Except as otherwise provided in this section and s. 487.051(2), and notwithstanding any other law, including any provision of chapter 125 or this chapter, a county may not exercise any of its powers to adopt any ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to s. 193.461, if such activity is regulated through implemented best management practices, interim measures, or regulations developed by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or a water management district and adopted under chapter 120 as part of a statewide or regional program; or if such activity is expressly regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (Emphasis added.) The Jonesville Petitioners also raised the specter of sham agricultural uses being used as a cover for the conversion of environmentally sensitive properties to residential development. Richard Drummond candidly acknowledged that such conversions could occur if the County were insufficiently diligent as to events on the ground, but also testified that the County did what it could, within the statutory constraints set forth above, to ensure that the updated Plan would circumvent such covert efforts. Both statutes quoted above restrict a local government's ability to restrict a "bona fide farm operation," but neither statute defines the term "bona fide farm operation." In the 2002 COSE definitions, Alachua County provided a definition of "bona fide agricultural purposes" to mean: Good faith commercial agricultural use of the land, provided the land is classified for assessment purposes by the property appraiser as "agricultural" pursuant to Chapter 193, Florida Statutes. In determining whether the use of the land for agricultural purposes is bona fide, the following factors may be taken into consideration: The length of time the land has been so utilized; Whether the use has been continuous; The purchase price paid; Size, as it relates to specific agricultural use; Whether an indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently and adequately for the land in accordance with accepted commercial agricultural practices, including, without limitation, fertilizing, liming, tilling, mowing, reforesting, and other accepted agricultural practices; Whether such land us under lease and, if so, the effective length, terms, and conditions of the lease; and Such other factors as may from time to time become applicable. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 creates an internal inconsistency with 2002 FLUE Policies 6.2.10, 6.2.12, 6.2.13, and 6.2.15. The permitted uses delineated in 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 do not list residential activity as a permitted use in conservation areas. The cited 2002 FLUE Policies all contemplate some residential development in "strategic ecosystems," which are included in the definition of conservation areas. The Jonesville Petitioners also note that, within 2002 FLUE Policy 6.2.12, silviculture, common water supply systems, and common septic system drainfields are listed as potential uses in conservation areas that are designated as "open space" in clustered rural residential subdivisions, yet none of these uses is listed as permitted in 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2. They assert that the definition, treatment, and application of the terms "agriculture" and "silviculture" within the 2003 COSE plan amendments create inconsistency and lack of predictability in the application and treatment of the related policies. As to the last point, the County credibly responds that the COSE definition of "agriculture" includes silviculture and that silviculture is considered in the Plan as a subset of agriculture, except in those instances in which some external factor requires a distinction. For example, Objective 5.5, "Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices," and its implementing policies recognize that agriculture and silviculture have distinct best management practices. It is not unreasonable for the County to interpret 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 as permitting silvicultural uses in conservation areas within the constraints applied to agricultural uses, where the COSE definition of "agriculture" includes silviculture. As to residential development and its concomitant common water supply and septic systems, it is evident from the FLUE Policies cited by the Jonesville Petitioners, as well as 2003 FLUE Policies 1.3.1e and 6.2.11 and 2002 COSE Policies 3.6.5, 4.10.3.3, and 4.10.4 to 4.10.6, that the Plan will allow for residential development of the least environmentally sensitive portion of a strategic ecosystems property by means of clustering, gross residential density limits, transfers of density, and other design techniques intended to protect ecosystems and private property rights. There is no inconsistency with 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 because that policy does not purport to contain the exclusive list of uses allowed in conservation areas, as indicated by its own text and that of the very next policy, 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.3: Primary and secondary cConservation areas shall be developed only in a manner consistent with protection of the ecological integrity of natural resources, and in accordance with standards which are outlined subsequently in this Element. The COSE Definitions provide the following meaning for the term "development activity": Any dredging, filling, excavation, construction of new structures, expansion of existing structures, installation of utilities, roads, personal wireless service facilities, stormwater management systems, septic tanks, bulkheading, land clearing, tree cutting, mechanized vegetation removal and the disposal of solid or liquid waste. Clearly, 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 lists certain uses that "generally shall be permitted," but when read in context with other Plan provisions, does not necessarily forbid residential development on certain properties defined as conservation areas. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that the County appropriately responded to the Data and Analysis by its policies affecting agricultural uses and their impact on conservation. The alleged internal consistencies in these policies were not demonstrated beyond fair debate. Level of Service 2003 Transportation Policy 1.1.2 and Capital Improvements Policy 1.2.4 raise the level of service ("LOS") for rural collector roads from LOS D in the 1991 Plan to LOS C, which is the standard recommended by the Florida Department of Transportation for rural collector roads. The McSherry Petitioners challenged this amendment because the 2002 Plan Update had upgraded the rural collector roads to LOS B. However, the proper point of comparison is from the 1991 Plan to the 2003 Amendments. Further, the evidence produced at hearing did not demonstrate that a higher LOS than C is required for protection of the state or county transportation network. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments regarding the LOS for rural collector roads were adequately supported by data and analysis. Conclusion It is found that, as to the 2003 Amendments in their entirety, the County used the best available data and reacted to it appropriately for planning purposes by applying professionally acceptable analysis in review and application of that data.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the 2003 Alachua County Amendments to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2004.
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 The issue in this case is whether the Wakulla County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 94-12 on March 28, 1994, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The Parties Respondent, Wakulla County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. Petitioner, St. Marks River Protection Association (SMRPA), is a non- profit corporation whose basic purpose is to conserve and protect the St. Marks River. A majority of its members own property or live within the County. Many live along the St. Marks River and fish, swim, dive, and view the various life along the river system. Petitioner participated in the amendment process by appearing at hearings and submitting written comments. Therefore, it has standing to bring this action. Intervenor, N. G. Wade Investment Company, owns the real property which is the subject of the amendment in this proceeding. It also submitted comments to the County during the transmittal and adoptive phases of the process. The Nature of the Dispute The County adopted its current comprehensive plan (plan) on September 2, 1992. On October 15, 1992, DCA issued its notice of intent to find the plan not in compliance. The matter is now pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) in Case No. 92-6287GM. However, the County and DCA have reached a settlement in concept in that case and are drafting language for an acceptable remedial amendment. On February 24, 1993, intervenor made application for a plan amendment to change the future land use map portion of the plan on 240 acres of land in northeastern Wakulla County from agriculture-1 to industrial land use. The plan amendment was adopted by the County on March 28, 1994, and was found to be in compliance by the DCA on May 19, 1994. On June 3, 1994, petitioner filed a petition challenging the plan amendment on the ground the amendment was inconsistent with other parts of the plan, regional policy plan, and state plan as they relate to water quality, protection for ground and surface waters, wildlife habitat, traffic and provision of public services. Thereafter, the matter was referred to DOAH for an evidentiary hearing and has been assigned Case No. 94-3289GM. The Plan Amendment The amendment implements the County's policy to develop an industrial park and to expand the County's employment base by 1995. It was transmitted to the DCA in October 1993 for a compliance review. During its review process, the DCA considered comments from various entities, including the Apalachee Regional Planning Council (ARPC), the Northwest Florida Water Management District, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department (TLCPD). The DCA raised several objections to the amendment in its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) issued on January 28, 1994. These included criticisms that (a) the amendment was not supported by appropriate data and analysis, (b) the County had not properly coordinated with other affected government jurisdictions, and (c) it was not clear that the policy structure of the plan concerning industrial land uses provided adequate assurance that the proposed future land use map amendment would be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, including the need to protect natural resources. After coordinating with the DOT, ARPC, and TLCPD, and in response to the ORC, the County provided more land use analysis and a new traffic analysis. In response to the criticism concerning the protection of natural resources, the County submitted a summary of data and analysis of the soils, subsurface geology, and groundwater conditions on the site to show that the site was suitable for industrial development. On March 28, 1994, the County adopted the amendment and submitted the adoption ordinance and responses to the ORC to the DCA. As modified, the amendment called for a change in the land use designation from agriculture - 1 to industrial "for a proposed 240-acre light industrial planned unit development called Opportunity Park." The property is approximately one mile from State Road 363 and the Leon County line, and the land around it is presently subject to timber harvesting. The size and scope of industrial activities that could take place at Opportunity Park would be constrained by other provisions of the plan including floor area ratio, limitations on pre- and post-development ground and surface water flow rates, and requirements for wastewater reuse. After reviewing this material, the DCA accepted the County's response to the ORC and determined that the additional data and analysis were adequate. In determining whether the level of the data and analysis was adequate, the DCA took into consideration the fact that the County is a small, rural county with modest planning resources and with a very modest rate of population growth. Indeed, the County had only 14,202 people according to the 1990 population census, and it projects a growth rate of only 500 persons per year through the year 2000. The DCA also recognized that the County is in dire need of economic development. This is borne out by the fact that approximately 58 percent of its land is within conservation areas managed by the federal or state governments, 33 percent of the land is in agricultural use, and only 0.32 percent is in industrial land use. By letter dated April 28, 1994, the DCA received a recommendation from the ARPC to find the amendment generally consistent with the Apalachee Regional Policy Plan. Thereafter, on May 18, 1994, the DCA issued its notice of intent to find the amendment in compliance with the Act. Criticisms of the Amendment Generally In its petition, SMRPA has raised a number of grounds regarding what it perceives to be shortcomings in the plan amendment. First, petitioner contends that the amendment lacks adequate data and analysis, it fails to protect natural resources, and it violates the traffic element of the plan. Petitioner further contends that the amendment is inconsistent with those parts of the plan which concern the maintenance of existing hurricane evacuation times, the County failed to coordinate the amendment with adjacent local governments, and the amendment is inconsistent with certain policies of the plan's economic development element. Finally, petitioner asserts that the amendment is inconsistent with the capital improvement element of the plan concerning water supplies and fire fighting equipment, the amendment encourages urban sprawl, it fails to preserve the internal consistency of the plan, and it is contrary to the state and regional policy plans. Data and Analysis Updates to the data which support the County's plan indicate a need in the County for approximately 500 acres of additional industrial use. While the County did not provide the DCA with an analysis or description of the methodology that was used to arrive at the estimate of gross acreage needed in the supporting data, it offered demonstrative evidence that showed that approximately 200 acres of land that are currently designated for industrial use cannot be developed consistent with the County's plan because of existing constraints due to flooding. The evidence fails to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the County did not consider or have available sufficient data and analysis to support a need for the new industrial land use in the County. Protection of Natural Resources The data and analysis supporting the County's plan designates the amendment area as having a high recharge potential to the Floridan Aquifer. The plan's supporting data and analysis also shows the entire County as on the Woodville Karst Plain and as an area prone to sinkhole formation. However, these general characteristics must be tempered by the site-specific data described below. An analysis of site-specific data consisting of soil boring tests and results, which data were considered by the County at the time of the adoption of the amendment, show that the area is underlain with clay confining layers which sit above the Floridan Aquifer. Therefore, the land is not in an area of high or even moderate recharge to the Floridan Aquifer because of the presence of these clay confining layers. An analysis of the site-specific data revealed that, unlike most areas of the County, the amendment area is not on the Woodville Karst Plain. Rather, it is on an ancient sand dune system known as the Wakulla Sandhills, a series of relic sand dunes overlying the St. Marks limestone formation. At the same time, the more persuasive evidence shows that the amendment area is not prone to sinkhole formation. Indeed, the existing depressions on the site are most likely deflation basins caused by wind activity on the sand hills and are commonly known as "blowouts." The evidence fails to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the County failed to consider or did not have available to it sufficient data and analysis to indicate how the subject amendment will protect the groundwater recharge areas to the Floridan Aquifer. The evidence also failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is in conflict with the relevant policies of the County's plan. As to the issue concerning the protection of surface and groundwater quality, the County's soil survey performed by the United States Department of Agriculture shows the amendment area as having severe soil ratings for septic tanks. Even so, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that any development activity undertaken in the amendment area would be unlimited and would adversely impact natural resources. In fact, an analysis of the site-specific data indicates that the presence of the clay confining layers would severely retard the percolation of stormwater or wastewater to the Floridan groundwater acquifer. Although there is evidence of the presence of a surficial (perched) aquifer in the area that might contain pollutants, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the surficial aquifer is a natural drinking water resource in need of protection. There are no surface water streams in the vicinity of the amendment area. Also, there are no unusual site characteristics which would tend to cause pollution of surface or groundwater from industrial usage of the site. Potential discharge from industrial activities into the groundwater at the site would not affect Wakulla Springs or the St. Marks cave systems because these features are four to five miles away and are upgradient of the site. The evidence fails to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that industrial activities at the amendment site will adversely impact the water quality in the St. Marks River. As to the protection of wetlands, SMRPA provided no evidence concerning the existence, nature, extent or value of wetlands that would be impacted by use of the amendment area for industrial purposes. As to the protection of endangered or threatened species, SMRPA alleged that the amendment was inconsistent with policies and objectives of the County's plan concerning habitat protection for endangered or threatened species. There were, however, no endangered or threatened species observed on the amendment site. One gopher tortoise was observed leaving the site while two gopher tortoise burrows were also seen. While it is true that the gopher tortoise is a species of special concern, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has a permit program for the gopher tortoise that includes relocation of the tortoise or payment to a mitigation bank for habitat acquisition. Therefore, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is in conflict with the relevant policies and objectives of the County's comprehensive plan. As to the protection of forests and agricultural lands, petitioner alleged that the amendment was inconsistent with policies and objectives of the County's plan, which state that the County shall encourage continuing use of land for agriculture. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the conversion of 240 acres of land from agricultural use to industrial use is in conflict with the general objective to encourage the continuing use of land for agriculture. Traffic Petitioner alleged that the amendment will allow development that will permit violations of the levels of service established for impacted roadways and policies 1.2 and 5.5 of the plan's traffic element. Petitioner failed to present any evidence showing that the levels of service established for impacted roadways and traffic circulation would be violated by the amendment. Therefore, petitioner failed to show that the amendment was in conflict with the cited policies. Hurricane Evacuation Times Petitioner alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with objective 2(c) and policy 2.11 of the plan's coastal management element concerning the maintenance of existing hurricane evacuation times. The evidence failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment would result in an increase of the existing hurricane evacuation times. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioner alleged that the amendment was inconsistent with objective 1.1 and policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.4 of the plan's intergovernmental coordination element. Those provisions relate to the need to coordinate the County's land use map amendments and review the relationship of any proposed development to the existing comprehensive plans of adjacent local governments. The evidence failed to show a lack of intergovernmental coordination of the impact of the plan amendment on the comprehensive plans of adjacent local governments. In fact, the evidence showed that the County coordinated with adjacent local governments, including the City of Tallahassee and Leon County. Economic Development Petitioner alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with policies of the plan's economic development element. Specifically, it cites policies 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6, which concern the County's objective to expand the employment base by 1995 by indentifying which businesses and industry jobs can be increased. The evidence failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment would not expand the County's employment base by 1995. In fact, the evidence showed that the amendment will assist the County in achieving economic stability and will expand the employment base of the county by providing more job opportunities. Indeed, the eastern part of the County is now experiencing a trend towards industrial and commercial development, and a prison is being constructed adjacent to the site. At the same time, however, a decline in the County's seafood industry and layoffs at Olin Corporation, a major employer, reflect a need for new jobs. Finally, the amendment implements policy 6.1 of the economic development element which provides that "the County shall cooperate with the private and public sector to develop an industrial park with required facilities and services to attract businesses and industries." Water Supplies and Fire Fighting Equipment Petitioner alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with the capital improvement element of the plan because there are inadequate water supplies and fire fighting equipment in the area to support fire protection for industrial uses at the site. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that there would be inadequate water supplies and fire fight equipment to support fire protection for industrial uses at the site. Failure to Discourage the Proliferation of Urban Sprawl Petitioner alleged that by placing an industrial site at the subject location, the amendment would encourage urban sprawl and inhibit advantageous growth in the area. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment will encourage urban sprawl and inhibit advantageous growth in the area of the amendment. Failure to Preserve the Internal Consistency of the Plan Petitioner alleged that the amendment fails to preserve the internal consistency of the County's plan as required by the Act, in that it is in direct conflict with numerous plan provisions. Based on the findings of fact above, it is clear that the amendment is not in direct conflict with numerous plan provisions. Therefore, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment fails to preserve the internal consistency of the County's plan, as required by the Act. The State Comprehensive Plan The State Comprehensive Plan is contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Goals and Policies of the State Comprehensive Plan are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, as a whole. The Regional Policy Plan The Apalachee Regional Planning Council has adopted the Apalachee Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan). The Regional Plan was adopted pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, to provide regional planning objectives to the counties in that region, which includes Wakulla County. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is inconsistent with the Regional Plan. Standing On November 15, 1993, and March 26, 1994, or during the adoptive stage of the amendment, SMRPA filed comments and objections in form of letters with the County. On June 3, 1994, SMRPA filed its petition for formal administrative hearing with the DCA challenging the plan amendment. Throughout the course of this proceeding, intervenor has challenged the standing of petitioner on the theory that the corporation was dissolved prior to filing its petition, and even though the corporation was later reinstated, it was not the same corporation that filed comments and objections during the adoptive stage of the amendment. The facts underlying this claim are as follows. On April 27, 1989, petitioner filed articles of incorporation with the Department of State. On August 13, 1993, the corporation was administratively dissolved. On June 1, 1994, Virginia P. Brock, an officer of SMRPA, released the corporate name and stated that the officers and directors did not have any intention of reinstatement of the corporation. On May 30, 1994, new articles of incorporation for SMRPA were filed with the Department of State. This corporation had common officers and directors with the dissolved corporation. The articles of incorporation were rejected by the Department of State on June 10, 1994, on the ground all outstanding fees and taxes owed by SMRPA had not been paid. After such outstanding taxes and fees were paid through 1994, the Department of State deemed the status of SMRPA to be "active" as of June 14, 1994. Such reinstatement related back and took effect as of the effective date of the dissolution of the corporation on August 13, 1993, and the corporation was carry on its affairs as if no dissolution occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining the Wakulla County comprehensive plan amendment to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, 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 27th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3289GM Petitioner: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 2-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 6-8. Rejected as being unnecesary. 9-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 15-19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5 and 11. 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23-26. Rejected as being unnecessary. 27-74. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-25. 75-76. Partially accepted in findings of fact 26-29. 77-82. Partially accepted in findings of fact 36 and 37. 83-88. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 89. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 90. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42 and 43. 92-93. Partially accepted in findings of fact 38 and 39. 94. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 95. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Respondent DCA 1-5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1-3. 6-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 9-10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 11-13. Rejected as being unnecessary. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 15-24. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7-13. 25-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 27-41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-25. 42-43. Partially accepted in findings of fact 26 and 27. 44-45. Partially accepted in findings of fact 28 and 29. 46-47. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31. 48-49. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32 and 33. 50-51. Partially accepted in findings of fact 34 and 35. 52-53. Partially accepted in findings of fact 36 and 37. 54-55. Partially accepted in findings of fact 38 and 39. 56-57. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 58-60. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42 and 43. Intervenor and County: 1. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1-6. 2-4. Rejected as being unnecessary. 5-7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7-13. 8-19. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 26 and 27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 28 and 29. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31. 23-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32 and 33. 26-27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 34 and 35. 28-33. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42-47. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42-47. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: David Gluckman, Esquire Casey J. Gluckman, Esquire Route 5, Box 3965 Tallahassee, FL 32311 Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esquire Brigette A. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Ronald A. Mowrey, Esquire 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1111 Robert A. Routa, Esquire Post Office Box 6506 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue Whether Policy 20.11.1 of Goal 20: Transportation, of Rule 29H-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rule"), constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners. Pasco is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Its offices are located at 705 East Live Oak, Dade City, Florida. BAGT is an association. BAGT's approximately 697 members are involved in some manner in the development or building industry in the Tampa Bay region. For the most part, BAGT's members reside and own property within the four-county jurisdiction of the TBRPC. BAGT's membership includes approximately 176 builder and developer members and 520 associate members who are subcontractors, material suppliers, financial institutions, engineering firms, architectural firms and other types of firms that provide goods and services related to the building industry. BAGT's membership includes builders who build in "development of regional impact" (hereinafter referred to as "DRI"), projects and associate members who provide construction support services to DRI projects. During an eighteen month period, over 50 percent of the building permits issued in Hillsborough County were issued to twenty-three BAGT builder- members for DRI projects. This amounts to approximately 3.3 percent of the membership of BAGT. BAGT works on behalf of its membership to promote a strong and viable building industry. BAGT has the responsibility to "work for the elimination of governmental orders improperly restricting the home building industry and to support beneficial directives." Certificate of Reincorporation and By-Laws, BAGT exhibits 5 and 6. BAGT members have to consider the levels of service for transportation of local governments and TBRPC in obtaining permits for DRI projects. If more stringent levels of service are required for a project, the development may be prolonged and be more costly to complete. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City's offices are located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. The City and Pasco are located within the jurisdiction of TBRPC. The Petitioners are all substantially affected by the Challenged Rule. The Respondent. TBRPC is an agency of the State of Florida within the definition of the term "agency" contained in Section 120.52(1)(b), Florida Statutes. TBRPC was created pursuant to Section 186.504, Florida Statutes. TBRPC's offices are located at 9455 Koger Boulevard, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. TBRPC's geographic boundaries, which generally include the four- county, Tampa Bay region, include the geographic areas within Department of Transportation Districts one and seven. TBRPC does not build or maintain roads. Nor does TBRPC provide funds to those that are responsible for building or maintaining roads. Comprehensive Regional Policy Plans. Pursuant to Section 186.507, Florida Statutes, all regional planning councils, including the TBRPC, are required to adopt a "comprehensive regional policy plan". Among other things, the comprehensive regional policy plan must include the following: (8) Upon adoption, a comprehensive regional policy plan shall provide, in addition to other criteria established by law, the basis for regional review of developments of regional impact, regional review of federally assisted projects, and other regional overview and comment functions. As required by Section 186.507(1), TBRPC has adopted a comprehensive regional policy plan, Rule 29H-9.002, Florida Administrative Code, Future Of The Region, A Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region. The comprehensive regional policy plan was adopted in 1987, and has been amended in 1988, 1990 and 1991. Although in adopting a comprehensive regional policy plan a regional planning council is required to consider state and local plans and local governments are given an opportunity to comment, the regional planning council is not bound by those plans or comments. Section 186.507(4)-(6), Florida Statutes. TBRPC's comprehensive regional policy plan was adopted before some of the local government comprehensive plans in its region were promulgated. TBRPC interprets Sections 186.507(1) and (8), Florida Statutes, to require that it include the criteria it intends to use in its review of a DRI. The Department of Community Affairs has been designated by the Executive Office of the Governor to review comprehensive regional policy plans and amendments. See Section 186.507(2), Florida Statutes. The Department of Community Affairs reviewed TBRPC's comprehensive regional policy plan. Developments of Regional Impact. Part of the responsibility assigned to regional planning councils, including TBRPC, is the responsibility to review DRIs. Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. DRIs are created and regulated in the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act, Sections 380.012-380.10, Florida Statutes. DRI is defined in Section 380.06(1), Florida Statutes. The procedure for reviewing DRI applications is set out in Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. Several government agencies are involved in the review process, including TBRPC. The Department of Community Affairs is required to, among other things, adopt rules governing the review of DRI applications. Section 380.06(23)(a), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to this authority, the Department of Community Affairs has adopted Chapter 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code. These Rules wee promulgated to "ensure uniform procedural review of developments of regional impact by [the Department of Community Affairs] and regional planning agencies under this section." Section 380.06(23)(a), Florida Statutes. The Bureau of State Planning is the bureau of the Department of Community Affairs with primary responsibility for administering Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to the extent of the Department of Community Affairs' involvement. Regional planning councils, including the TBRPC, are required to review all DRI applications involving developments in their regions. Section 380.06(12), Florida Statutes, requires that regional planning councils issue a report and make recommendations concerning the impact of proposed DRIs. Regional planning councils, while subject to any rules governing DRI review adopted by the Department of Community Affairs, are authorized to adopt additional rules concerning their review of DRI applications. Section 380.06(23)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Those rules, however, must not be "inconsistent" with the rules governing DRI review adopted by the Department of Community Affairs. TBRPC interprets Section 380.06(23)(c), Florida Statutes, as authorizing the Challenged Rule. What is "inconsistent" for purposes of Section 380.06(23)(c), Florida Statutes, is not specifically defined. Ultimately, the decision on a DRI application is made by the local government in which the DRI is located. Section 380.06(15), Florida Statutes. In making that decision the local government is required to consider the local government's comprehensive plan and land development regulations, the State Comprehensive Plan and the report and recommendations of the regional planning council. Section 380.06(14), Florida Statutes. Local governments are governed by the provisions of Section 380.06(15), Florida Statutes, in determining whether to issue a DRI. A local government's decision on a DRI application may be appealed to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "FLWAC"). Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. The final decision on the DRI application, if an appeal is taken, is made by FLWAC after a formal administrative hearing is conducted pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Regional planning councils have the right to appeal a local government's decision. In determining whether a DRI should be granted, local governments are not bound by any of the comments made by the regional planning council that reviewed the DRI application. They are only required to consider the comments of the regional planning council made pursuant to Section 380.06(12), Florida Statutes. Should the local government fail to adequately take into account the comments of the regional planning council, however, it faces the possibility that the regional planning council will appeal the local government's decision on a DRI application to FLWAC. The Role of Comprehensive Plans in DRI Reviews; Establishing Levels of Service. The local government comprehensive plan and the land development regulations which a local government is required to consider when reviewing a DRI application are required by Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Every local government in Florida is required by Section 163.3167, Florida Statutes, to adopt a comprehensive plan. Land development regulations governing the issuance of development orders are required by Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes. In the TBRPC region the comprehensive plans of all local governments, except St. Petersburg Beach and Port Richey, have been found by the Department of Community Affairs to be in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Among other things, each comprehensive plan must provide for transportation facilities within the local government's geographic area. Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes. The Legislature has required that local governments specifically establish levels of service for public facilities in their comprehensive plans. Section 163.3177(10)(f), Florida Statutes. See also Rule 9J-5.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. A "level of service" for a road is the quantification of the quality of travel on the road expressed by letter grades rating from an optimal operating condition of "A" to a rating of unstable operational conditions of "F". Local governments are required by Section 380.06(14), Florida Statutes, to insure that a development is consistent with its comprehensive plan. Therefore, it must insure that a DRI is consistent with the levels of service contained therein. See also Section 163.3194, Florida Statutes. The Florida Department of Transportation has also been specifically authorized to establish levels of service for state roads. Sections 334.044(10) and 336.45, Florida Statutes. The Department of Transportation has adopted Chapter 14-94, Florida Administrative Code, establishing levels of service for its use. The Department of Community Affairs has required that levels of service contained in local comprehensive plans be compatible with Department of Transportation levels of service "to the maximum extent feasible". Rule 9J- 5.0055(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. The Legislature has not specifically required or authorized regional planning councils to adopt levels of service. Nor has the Legislature specifically prohibited regional planning councils from adopting levels of service. The City's and Pasco's Comprehensive Plans. Pasco's comprehensive plan has been adopted and in compliance since June, 1989. In its comprehensive plan, Pasco has included levels of service for State roads which are compatible with those established by the Department of Transportation. Pasco uses the levels of service contained in its comprehensive plan to review DRI applications. The City adopted its comprehensive plan by Ordinance No. 89-167, in July, 1989. The City's comprehensive plan has been found to be in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The City's comprehensive plan contains transportation levels of service in its Traffic Circulation Element. The City uses the levels of service contained in its comprehensive plan to review DRI applications. The Challenged Rule. Pursuant to Section 186.507(1), Florida Statutes, TBRPC is required to include in its comprehensive regional policy plan regional issues that may be used in its review of DRI applications and the criteria TBRPC intends to rely on in its review. As part of its comprehensive regional policy plan, TBRPC has enacted Policy 20.11.1 of Goal 20 of the Future Of The Region, A Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region, as Rule 29H-9.002, Florida Administrative Code. Notice of the Challenged Rule was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on July 24, 1992. The Challenged Rule was approved by TBRPC on September 14, 1992, and it was filed for adoption on October 12, 1992. The Challenged Rule provides: Development of Regional Impact (DRIs) shall be required to analyze project impacts and mitigate to an appropriate peak hour, peak season operating Level of Service (LOS) on regional roads. The level of service standards for DRI's within the Tampa Bay regional shall be: Rural Roads (those not included - C in an urbanized or urbanizing area or a TCMA Within designated CBDs - E Within designated Regional - E Activity Centers Within Transportation Concurrency - as Management Areas (TCMA) established pursuant to Sec. 9J-5.0057 Constrained or Backlogged - maintain Facilities existing V/C (Volume to Capacity) All other regional roadways - D If the affected local government(s) has more stringent standards, those standards will apply. TBRPC adopted the Challenged Rule to fulfill its responsibility to include the criteria for transportation impacts to be used in its DRI review in its comprehensive regional policy plan. TBRPC has been using levels of service for review of transportation impacts of DRIs since 1975. There are levels of service contained in the comprehensive plans of the City and Pasco which are different than some of the levels of service contained in the Challenged Rule. The Challenged Rule provides that the levels of service contained therein are to be used by TBRPC in its review of DRI applications except to the extent that a level of service contained in the local government's comprehensive plan may be more stringent. To the extent that a level of service in the Challenged Rule is more stringent, however, TBRPC intends to recommend to the local government the use of its more stringent level of service. Ultimately, if the local government decides to use a less stringent level of service contained in its comprehensive plan and its decision is appealed, FLWAC will be required to exercise its authority to determine which level of service is consistent with Florida law. The Challenged Rule does not require that local governments accept the levels of service created therein. The Challenged Rule establishes the levels of service that the TBRPC will use in its review and comment on DRI applications. The Challenged Rule also puts developers on notice of the levels of service that TBRPC will base its review of DRI applications on. While a local government must consider the comments of TBRPC, the Challenged Rule does nothing to change the fact that it is up to the local government, after consideration of its comprehensive plan, the State comprehensive plan and the comments of the TBRPC to make the ultimate decision as to whether a DRI application is consistent with State law. Local governments are not required to accept the levels of service contained in the Challenged Rule. Nor is TBRPC, in fulfilling its responsibility to review DRI applications, required by law to only apply levels of service established by local governments in their comprehensive plan. If a local government decides to apply a more strict level of service contained in the Challenged Rule as a result of a comment from TBRPC or as a result of an appeal to FLWAC, the costs associated with the DRI to the local government, including Pasco and the City, could be increased in order to achieve and maintain the higher level of service. Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to the authority of Section 380.06(23)(a), Florida Statutes, the Department of Community Affairs adopted Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the Department of Community Affairs' policy concerning its role in the review of DRI applications. Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, establishes the "minimum standards by which the Department will evaluate transportation conditions in development orders for developments of regional impact " As currently in effect, Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, specifically provides that the Department of Community Affairs, in evaluating a DRI application, will look to the "policies of the local comprehensive plan and Chapter 80 . . ." if a local comprehensive plan is in effect and to the "transportation conditions pursuant to 9J-5, F.A.C., and Chapter 380 . . . " if no local comprehensive plan is in effect. Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, is limited to Department of Community Affairs' evaluations of DRI applications. The Rule does not specify that regional planning councils must utilize the Rule or local government comprehensive plans in their review of DRI applications. The fact that Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, provides that, after a local comprehensive plan has been adopted and found to be in compliance, the levels of service contained therein will be used by the Department of Community Affairs for its purposes does not cause levels of service established by TBRPC for its purposes to be inconsistent with Rule 9J- 2.0255, Florida Administrative Code. The standards established in Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, are only designated as "minimum" standards. Nothing in the Challenged Rule requires the use of any standard less that those "minimum" standards even for purposes of TBRPC's review of DRI applications. The Challenged Rule even specifically provides that, to the extent that a level of service contained in a local government's comprehensive plan is more stringent than that contained in the Challenged Rule, that level of service will be applied by TBRPC. When originally adopted in January, 1987, Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, provided specific transportation levels of service which the Department of Community Affairs intended to use until comprehensive plans containing levels of service were adopted by local governments. The Rule provided, however, that it was not intended to "limit the ability of the regional planning councils and local governments to impose more stringent mitigation measures than those delineated in this rule." Rule 9J-2.0255(8), Florida Administrative Code. This provision is no longer effective. The original rule also did not specifically indicate that levels of service contained in local government comprehensive plans were to be used by the Department of Community Affairs as it now provides. While there was testimony during the final hearing of this matter that the use of different levels of service by TBRPC and the City or Pasco will result in "inconsistent" reviews of DRI applications, there is nothing in Florida Statutes or the Department of Community Affairs' rules that requires consistency in reviews. There was also testimony that such differences will "not promote efficient DRI review." If the Legislature believes the consideration by the TBRPC and local governments of different levels of service in reaching a decision on a DRI application is "inefficient", it has not made its belief clear in Florida Statutes. If the Legislature wants all of the various agencies involved in DRI review to "not disagree" in order to have "efficient" DRI reviews, it must specifically so provide. The Department of Community Affairs reviewed the Challenged Rule. During its review concern was expressed by the then Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs about the inclusion in the Challenged Rule of levels of service. TBRPC was urged "to adopt standards and methodologies for reviewing DRIs that are consistent with those used by the Department of Community Affairs." TBRPC was not, however, told that the use of levels of service consistent with local government comprehensive plans was required by Department of Community Affairs' rules or that the failure of TBRPC to comply with the Department's suggestion would cause the Challenged Rule to be considered inconsistent with Department of Community Affairs' rules. Concern was also expressed during the review of the Challenged Rule to the Department of Community Affairs by the Department of Transportation about possible inconsistencies of the Challenged Rule's levels of service with the Department of Transportation's Rules. Concerns were also raised within the Department of Community Affairs by the Bureau of State Planning. Ultimately, after considering comments from those interested in the Challenged Rule and in spite of the fact that the Department of Community Affairs would prefer that the levels of service used by the Department of Community Affairs, local governments and regional planning councils be the same, the Department of Community Affairs did not conclude that the Challenged Rule was inconsistent with Rule 9J-2.0255, Florida Administrative Code, or any other statute or rule. I. Section 32, CS/CS/HB 2315. On April 4, 1993, Section 32, of CS/CS/HB 2315 (hereinafter referred to as "Section 32"), was enrolled. Section 32, if signed by the Governor, creates Section 186.507(14), and provides: (14) A regional planning council may not, in its strategic regional policy plan or by any other means, establish binding level-of- service standards for public facilities and services provided or regulated by local governments. This limitation shall not be construed to limit the authority of regional planning councils to propose objections, recommendations, or comments on local plans or plan amendments. Section 32 has not yet become law. Additionally, it Section 32 becomes law, it will not be effective until July 1, 1993. Section 32 was filed in this proceeding by BAGT on April 7, 1993, after the final hearing of these cases had closed. Section 32 was not available to the parties until immediately before it was filed by BAGT. Therefore, it could not have been raised at the time of the final hearing of these cases.
