The Issue The issue in this case is whether Brevard County's 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments B.12, B.13, and B.14 (the Plan Amendments) are "in compliance."
Findings Of Fact General Besides the introduction of the Plan Amendments themselves and a few other documents, Petitioners case-in-chief consisted of examination of Susan Poplin, a Planning Manager for DCA, as an adverse witness, and the testimony of Petitioner, Charles F. Moehle. Most of Poplin's testimony was directly contrary to the positions Petitioners were seeking to prove. Moehle's testimony consisted primarily of conclusions and statements disagreeing with the Plan Amendments. Petitioners provided no data or analysis in support of Moehle's statements and conclusions. Often, Moehle's testimony did not identify specific errors allegedly made by the County. Much of Moehle's presentation was disjointed and difficult to understand. Petitioners also challenged several items which should have been challenged following prior amendments to the County's Plan. For example, Poplin testified that all of the wetland provisions in the challenged Conservation Element B.12 amendments were part of a prior plan amendment and were not changed by the Plan Amendments. See Findings of Fact 7-8, infra. Standing Petitioners' allegations of standing are in paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition for Formal Review: EFFECT ON PETITIONERS' SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS Petitioner, MODERN owns property in Brevard County, the value of which will be reduced by THE AMENDMENT. Additionally, petitioners MODERN and MOEHLE own property in Brevard County and pay property taxes in Brevard County. Additionally, THE AMENDMENT will cause property tax receipt's of Brevard County to decline because of the reduction in value caused to MODERN'S, MOEHLE'S, and other similarly situated property in the county. Additionally, THE AMENDMENT will cause MODERN'S and MOEHLE'S property taxes to increase due to the additional government employees required to implement and enforce THE AMENDMENT and due to the fact that the property taxes imposed upon property which are not effected [sic] by THE AMENDMENT will necessarily increase in order to offset the loss of property tax revenue from private property which is devalued as a result of THE AMENDMENT. MOEHLE and MODERN have appeared before the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners at public meetings and hearings as well as communicating (verbally and in writing) with their growth Management/Planning & Zoning Departments concerning these matters for several years. In an attempt to prove Petitioners' standing, Moehle testified that he has been a resident of Brevard County since 1958. He also testified that he is President of and owns a substantial interest in Petitioner, Modern, Inc. He testified that both he himself and Modern own real property in Brevard County, and that, as such, both are taxpayers. Moehle also testified that he is "affected by these regulations." He gave no specifics as to how he is affected. He also did not testify that Modern was affected. Before concluding his brief testimony on standing, Moehle asked the ALJ if he had to "ramble on some more" about standing and was asked whether he submitted "oral or written comments, comments, recommendations or objections to the County between the time of the transmittal hearing for the Plan amendment and the adoption of the Plan amendment." Moehle answered: I submitted during the whole period of this - I attended a number of hearings that I knew about during this whole process and I would say that, yes, I did, but not all hearings. Some were questionable - some of my problems or some of the meetings that the action was taken on. So they do have my comments, they've had my comments from me on various issues complete back before and including the Settlement Agreement. The evidence was that all hearings and meetings relating to the "Settlement Agreement" to which Moehle referred in his testimony occurred prior to the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments at issue in this case on November 30, 1999. The referenced "Settlement Agreement" was the Stipulated Settlement Agreement entered into in May 1997 to resolve DOAH Case No. 96-2174GM. The County amended its Comprehensive Plan to implement the Stipulated Settlement Agreement on August 24, 1999, by Ordinance 99-48. By Ordinance 99-52, adopted October 7, 1999, the remedial amendments were clarified to include the correct Forested Wetlands Location Map. Ordinance 99-49 and 99-52 both state that the plan amendments adopted by them "shall become effective once the state planning agency issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 163.3184(9), or until the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 163.3184(10)." The stated "Justification" for Policy 5.2 of the B.12 Plan Amendments at issue in this case was: "The above language was part of a stipulated settlement agreement between DCA and the County. This agreement became effective after the transmittal of the 99B Plan Amendments." Apparently for that reason, the B.12 Plan Amendments at issue in this case, specifically under Objective 5 and Policies 5.1 and 5.2, underlined the wetland provisions previously adopted by Ordinance 99-48. This underlining may give the misimpression that these wetlands provisions were being amended through adoption of Ordinance 2000-33. To the contrary, those amendments already had been adopted, and all hearings on those amendments already had occurred prior to transmittal of the Plan Amendments at issue in this case. Other than testifying that he attended hearings and made submittals "before and including the Settlement Agreement," Moehle did not specify when he attended, or what if anything he said or submitted. Nor did he offer any testimony or evidence that he appeared on behalf of Modern. No minutes or other evidence were produced for the record showing his appearance or comments, recommendations or objections. To the contrary, Petitioners' evidence indicates that Moehle was not one of the individuals who offered public comment at either the transmittal hearing on November 30, 1999; the Land Use Citizens Resource Group meeting on November 4, 1999; or the Local Planning Agency Adoption Meeting on May 15, 2000. Paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition, also alleged: that the value of property owned by Modern will be reduced; that the Plan Amendments will cause property tax receipts to decline because of a reduction in the value caused to Petitioners' property; and 3) that the Plan Amendments will cause Petitioners' property taxes to increase due to additional government employees required to implement and enforce the Plan Amendments and due to an increase in taxes for properties not directly affected by the Plan Amendments. None of these allegations were supported by record evidence. Notice Petitioners' allegation of improper notice is contained in paragraph 7.I. of the Amended Petition: Petitioners allege that THE AMENDMENT is subject to the notice requirements of Florida Statute subsections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2), and or 125.66(4) and that Respondent COUNTY has failed to comply with said statutes. (Several other paragraphs of the Amended Petition also allege inadequate notice. See Findings of Fact 19, 28, 44, 50, 54, 63, 65, and 76, infra.) Petitioners filed copies of the applicable advertisements. Moehle testified that the type was "wrong" and the size was "wrong" - the exact nature of the alleged error was not stated. But review of the advertisements for the transmittal and adoption hearings reveals that both are two columns wide, and the headline appears to be in a very large, bold type. Other than Moehle's general complaint about the type being "wrong," there was no testimony or other evidence that the type is not 18-point. Other aspects of the advertisements do not appear to be challenged by Petitioners. The advertisements themselves show that the transmittal hearing was held on November 30, 1999 (a Tuesday) and that the advertisement was run on November 22, 1999, eight days prior to the day of the hearing. They also show that the adoption hearing was on May 16, 2000 (a Tuesday). The advertisement for the adoption hearing was run on May 10, 2000, six days prior to the meeting. The proof of publication shows that the advertisements were not in a portion of the newspaper where legal notices or classified ads appear and that the Florida Today is a newspaper of general circulation. The evidence also included advertisements for local planning agency hearings and meetings relating to the Plan Amendments other than the transmittal and adoption hearings. These other advertisements appear to have been published in legal ad sections, and the type is smaller than that used for the transmittal and adoption hearings. It appears that Moehle was referring to these advertisements when he said the type and size was "wrong." Species and Wetlands Preservation Versus Promoting Infill Development Paragraph 7.IV. of the Amended Petition alleges: The challenged provisions of the THE AMENDMENT, as set forth herein below, violate the legislative intent and spirit of Fl. Stat. Ch. 163, Part II because they place species and wetland preservations over the stated policy goal of promoting infill and development in areas which have concurrency and infrastructure available. The challenged provisions promote leap frog development by making the development of parcels of private property which have concurrency and appropriate infrastructure but also have any quantity of listed species habitat or wetlands unusable. Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3177(10)(h), 163.3177(11). No evidence was offered supporting the claim that species and wetland preservation were "placed over" the goal of promoting infill. Nor was there any evidence provided by Petitioners to show that leapfrog development or urban sprawl was caused by protecting wetlands. To the contrary, Poplin's testimony discussed urban sprawl and leapfrog development in terms of impacts to services and facilities. She clearly stated: "[T]here are no set priorities. We look at each individual local government on a case by case basis. . . . So . . . [it] depends on the context in which its based [sic] in the plan." Poplin also testified that the County had levels of service in place for facilities and services pursuant to Rule 9J-5.0055(1)(a), and that the County's Plan and the subject Plan Amendments have level of service standards which meet the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.0055(2). Poplin also testified that the County had a Capital Improvements Element which was in compliance with Rule 9J- 5.0055(1)(b). She also testified that there was coordination of the various comprehensive plan elements as required by Section 163.3177. Thus, she concluded, the conservation and capital improvements (infrastructure) elements interacted properly. There was no evidence to the contrary. Section 163.3177(10)(h) states that it is the intent of the Legislature to provide public services concurrently with development. Section 163.3177(11) discusses the legislative intent to have innovative planning to address urbanization, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, land use efficiencies in urban areas and conversion of rural land uses. No evidence of any kind was presented regarding these provisions. Certainly, no data and analysis showing failure to meet these statutory provisions were presented by Petitioners. Listed Species Definition Paragraph 8.I.A.2 of the Amendment Petition states: Listed Species definition - pg 11. This change should not be made because the updated Glossary of the Comprehensive Plan was not made available timely for public review and public comments per the hearing and notice requirements of Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2) and or 125.66(4). Prior to the Plan Amendments, the Conservation Element had a Directive entitled "Wildlife." The "Wildlife" directive stated in part: "Development projects should avoid adverse impacts to species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern." The directive also included a definition of the term "listed species": "those species which are listed as either endangered, threatened or as species of special concern." The Plan Amendments deleted these provisions. The stated Justification for deleting the first provision was: "Objective 9 embodies the intent of this directive." The stated Justification for deleting second provision was: "'Listed species' have been defined in the updated Glossary of the Comprehensive Plan." As in several other places in the Amended Petition, Petitioners complain about lack of notice and an opportunity for a hearing as to the updated Glossary. Actually, it appears that the Glossary was not updated along with the Plan Amendments. For that reason, there were no Glossary changes to be noticed. Although the Glossary was not updated to provide the definition of the phrase "listed species," as indicated in the Justification for deleting it from the Directives, the phrase is commonly used to refer to species are listed as threatened or endangered under various state and federal regulations. Rule 9J-5.013(1)(a)5. requires identification and analysis of natural resources including "species listed by federal, state, or local government agencies as endangered, threatened or species of special concern." Species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened (50 C.F.R., Section 17.11) fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with the Endangered Species act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. Section 1531, et. seq.). Listed and unlisted bird species, other than waterfowl and game birds, are also federally protected by the Migratory Bird Act (16 U.S.C. Section 703 et. seq.). The bald eagle has additional federal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. Section 668- 668d). Marine animals (including whales, dolphins, and the West Indian Manatee) are also protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Section 1361 et. seq.) In addition, 24 species of vertebrates are listed by the State as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and are under the jurisdiction of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Chapter 39, Florida Administrative Code. Both snook and Atlantic sturgeon receive further state protection under Chapter 46, Florida Administrative Code. The Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act, 1977, also protects species listed as endangered, threatened or species of special concern under Chapter 372, Florida Statutes (2000). Chapter 372, Florida Statutes (2000), provides additional protection for the American alligator as defined in the Alligators/Crocodilla Protection Act. Sea turtles and the West Indian manatee are further protected by the State through the Marine Turtles Protection Act (Chapter 327, Florida Statutes (2000)) and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act (Chapter 327, Florida Statutes (2000)). Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the phrase "listed species" cannot be understood without a specific definition within the comprehensive plan. Conservation Element Policy 8.5, Protection Of Vegetative Communities Paragraph 8.I.B. of the Amended Petition states: Policy 8.5 - pg 41. This change should not be made because the justification is not correct. These referenced lists were not made available to the public at the relevant public hearing for review and comment in violation of the requirements of Fl. Stat. Section 163.3184. The modification goes beyond the stated intent to merely improve readability and clarify the existing policy in that it actually modifies existing policy. . . . (The last clause was stricken. See Preliminary Statement.) Again, there were no changes to the Glossary to be noticed for hearing. Before the Plan Amendments, Policy 8.9 of the Conservation Element provided that the County would develop a program for the protection of vegetative communities from inappropriate development by 1992. The former provision was replaced with Policy 8.5, which revises the action date to 2002 and states that the County shall protect vegetative communities from inappropriate development. G1 and G2 vegetative communities, as contained in the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, were added to S1 and S2 communities (which were already in the Plan) for consideration for protection. Poplin testified that the G1 and G2 categories were defined by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and were synonymous with the S1 and S2 categories which were already defined in the Plan. The adopted "Justification" for new Policy 8.5 itself indicates that the addition of the G1 and G2 categories "did not add additional vegetative communities that may be considered for protection." In other words, nothing actually changed as to the vegetation (or types of vegetation); only the nomenclature or titles of categories changed. Conservation Element, Objective 9 and Policy 9 Species of Special Concern, Crucial/Critical Habitat Paragraph 8.I.C.,D., and E. of the Amended Petition states: Objective 9 and Policy 9, including sub- sections A, B, C, D, E, of 9.2 (species of special concern, crucial/critical habitat) - pg 43. Species of special concern should not be added. It was discussed at a properly advertised public hearing and its addition was rejected. It was added back at a subsequent and not properly noticed workshop meeting and did not allow proper public input. It is unjustifiably onerous to the regulated public as added, in violation of Fl. Stat. 120.52(8)(g). Crucial habitat should not be allowed to [be] substituted for critical habitat because the new glossary of definitions was not completed timely to allow public review and comment. The resource maps to be used are not identified or indicated that they have been created beyond "draft" status or had proper notice, public review or comment. The reduction from 5 acres to 1 acre in 9.2.C was improperly added at a workshop subsequent to the properly noticed public hearing at which this item was disposed of with public hearing and comment and leaving the size of 5 acres. The provision that the "acquisition of land by the Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program shall be voluntary, and shall not include the use of eminent domain" should not be removed in Policy 9.4 (pg. 45). These new provisions do not meet the requirements of Fl. Stat. Sections 120.58(8) and 120.525, Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3161(18), Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3181, Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3184(15), Fl. Stat. Sections 125.66(2), and or Fl. Stat. Sections 125.66(4). (The identified sentence and references were stricken. See Preliminary Statement.) Again, there were no changes to the Glossary to be noticed for hearing. As to "crucial habitat," amended Policy 9.2 of the Conservation Element requires that an ordinance be developed by 2002 requiring a "crucial habitat" review at the pre-application stage of certain projects. Previously, the plan required development of an ordinance in 2004 requiring a "critical habitat" review in those situations. Apparently, "critical habitat" was defined in the pre-amendment Glossary. (Neither the Glossary nor the rest of the County's Comprehensive Plan prior to the Plan Amendments was put in evidence.) No regulations regarding "crucial habitat" were in effect as of final hearing. A definition of the term "crucial habitat" might well be desirable. (Apparently, an amendment to the Glossary to include such a definition is being considered by someone--it is not clear from the evidence by whom.) But it is possible to use dictionary definitions of "crucial" and "habitat" to derive a useful meaning of the term "crucial habitat" used in Policy 9.2 of the Conservation Element. Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the term "crucial habitat" cannot be adequately understood without a specific definition in the comprehensive plan. "Species of special concern" is a phrase used by Rule 9J-5.013(1)(a)5. in describing natural resources to be identified and analyzed in a local government's conservation element. The "resource maps" mentioned in paragraph 8.I.C., D., and E. of the Amended Petition are not new to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the Plan Amendments, Policy 10.2.A. stated that the County's Office of Natural Resources Management must "develop resource maps showing potential areas for critical wildlife habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species." Amended Policy 9.2.A. requires that Office to "use resource maps which show potential areas of crucial wildlife habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species and species of special concern." While the descriptions of these maps were changed by the amendment, the general manner in which they are identified is the same. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the amendments cannot be adequately understood without identification in a more specific manner or reference to maps already completed. Petitioners' next complaint in paragraph 8.I.C., D., and E. of the Amended Petition was that the threshold for required crucial habitat review in Policy 9.2.C. of the Conservation Element should not have been changed from five-acre projects to one-acre projects. Petitioners' primary argument was that the County discussed this change at a workshop. The only evidence in support of this argument was Moehle's testimony: "[T]he changes that show up in here were rejected in those previous hearings so the public has the impression well, that item is done and settled. Then all of a sudden at a workshop it shows up when nobody - they are not necessarily -- you can't obtain the advance agenda for that and you find a notice in the paper from time to time." In fact, the workshops were noticed in the newspapers. In addition, the transmittal and adoption hearings were noticed. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. As for Petitioners' request for reinstatement of the language regarding voluntary acquisition of environmentally endangered lands, former Policy 10.4 addressed development of an acquisition program; amended Policy 9.4 addresses a continuation of that program. The Justification explains that the amendments were "intended to reflect the achievement of this policy as a result of the EELs [Environmentally Endangered Lands] Program." There was no evidence to support the argument that removal of the voluntary acquisition language in any way changes the EELs Program or creates a compliance issue. Conservation Element Policy 9.13, Species of Special Concern Paragraph 8.I.G. of the Amended Petition stated: Policy 9.13 - species of special concern, habitat rarity, pg 48. This change is inconsistent with the same Florida Statutes and for the same reasons as I.C, I.D, I.E (A, B, C, E, E) and I.F above. Policy 9.13 contains a requirement to develop model management plans for species of special concern dependent on habitat rarity and loss rates. The amendment to former Policy 10.13 merely changes the target date (from 1990 to 2002) and adds "species of special concern" to the other resources sought to be addressed by the model management plans. The provision does not establish new regulations. It merely calls for future action in the development of model management plans. Again, there was no evidence to support the argument that these changes created a compliance issue. See Findings of Fact 32-33, supra. Scrub Habitat Map Paragraph 8.I.H. of the Amended Petition stated: Appendix - List of Maps, pg 52. The Scrub Habitat Map should not be included because it is part of the Scrub Habitat Study done in Brevard County which was not adopted/accepted as a final map by the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. The map is a "draft" map done over 5 years ago, not finalized, and not accurate. Objections at public meetings, with Brevard County Staff, and with the outside consultants preparing the map have never been addressed on the map. Among the inaccuracies are hundreds (maybe thousands) of acres on government lands. The map is wholly deficient and incorrect to become an official map representing the scrub habitat of Brevard County. It doesn't come close to accurately depicting the scrub situation of Brevard County. The map is not supported by competent substantial evidence, has not been officially adopted by the County Commission, the requisite public notices have not been held. Any policy or regulation based upon the map would be equally erroneous and would result in unnecessary regulatory costs, and would be arbitrary or capricious and would be based upon inadequate standards. At final hearing, Moehle testified: "The scrub habitat map as included in the amendments does not include the best available information which information has been available for a number of years." But the Scrub Jay Habitat map Petitioners sought to use to prove this contention (Petitioners' Exhibit 6) was not admitted into evidence because it was not authenticated. The Scrub Habitat Map apparently added to the Appendix of Conservation Element maps through the B.12 Plan Amendments does not appear to map scrub on federal lands. (At least, no scrub is indicated in the extensive federal lands on the map.) But there was no competent evidence as to the significance of the failure to map scrub habitat on federal lands. (Nor did Petitioners cite to any authority for the proposition that excluding federal lands outside the County's jurisdiction is a violation of Chapter 163 or Rule 9J-5.) While Petitioners never clearly articulated their concerns about the Scrub Habitat Map, it appeared that they might have had concerns about the impact of the map on protection of scrub jays. Specifically, Petitioners seem to contend that some scrub jays will not be protected as a result of the map's omission of scrub on federal lands. But, in that regard, amended Conservation Element Policy 9.2. in the B.12 Plan Amendments provides for the development of an ordinance by 2002 that would provide, among other things, that if any endangered or threatened species or species of special concern are found on a project site, or there is evidence that such a species is onsite, the relevant state and federal agency permits would have to be obtained and documented prior to issuance of a building or construction permit. Once adopted, these regulations would protect scrub jays wherever the birds exist. Another apparent concern was that the Scrub Habitat Map allegedly was over 5 years old. Meanwhile, other maps allegedly have been or are in the process of being developed. But Petitioners' evidence was insufficient to prove beyond fair debate that the Scrub Habitat Map was not the best available data at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendments. Land Use Element, Administrative Policies Paragraph 8.II. of the Amended Petition states: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1999B.13 The Administrative Policies 1 thru 8 (pg iv) which have been proposed for inclusion in the future Land Use Element by the County Attorney and added by a April 29, 2000 workshop were not timely provided for public review and comment by a properly noticed hearing in violation of the notice requirements of Florida Statutes subsections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2) and 125.66(4). They are over- broad, too general in nature, vague, and fail to establish adequate standards for county staff decisions, and vest unbridled discretion in the county staff in violation of Florida Statute 120.54(8). Detailed examples of this include: In Administrative Policy 1 - Brevard County zoning officials, planners and the director of planning and zoning should not be arbitrarily, capriciously, and without adequate defined standards be recognized as expert witnesses. Standards with detailed qualifications should be developed and included for each category of expert before this provision is considered for adoption. In Policy 2 (page iv) county staff recommendation should not automatically be considered expert testimony without qualifications. Page 1 under DIRECTIVES. The Future Land Use paragraph should not be deleted until sufficient emphasis has been placed in the requirement to ensure that sufficient land uses are available to support the anticipated population. It has not been at this time, in violation of Florida Statutes subsections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(3)(a), 163.3177(6)(a) and 163.3177(6)(f). As to 8.II.A., the evidence indicated that the advertisements were published in the time frames required and according to the standards set out by statute. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Furthermore, Petitioners failed to establish that the Administrative Policies 1-8 were unavailable at the public hearing or that the Board of County Commissioners was not authorized to consider those policies. The language of the last sentence of paragraph 8.II. should have been stricken with similar provisions at the beginning of the final hearing because of its reliance on Section 120.54(8), which addresses rulemaking activities and not the compliance requirements of Chapter 163. There was no competent, substantial evidence to support any of the other allegations in paragraph 8.II.A. As to 8.II.A.(iii), there was only Moehle's statement regarding the lack of land availability while he was questioning Poplin. Poplin testified that the County should provide an adequate amount of different land uses to accommodate a variety of people and activities. She also testified that the County had provided more than enough residential land to accommodate projected populations. Poplin noted that the County's EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) included or referenced several sources indicating that the County has more than enough land to meet their residential and non-residential needs through the planning time frame. In fact, she testified that land allocated for residential use is over 170 percent of the land necessary for the County's projected population. In explaining the "right-sizing" undertaken in the Plan Amendment, Poplin testified that two major changes have occurred since the adoption of the original County Plan. First, the County sold a substantial amount of land to the water management district; this land is now designated as Conservation. Secondly, some developments have been built to less than their full potential. Poplin testified: "My understanding of the County's actions is that this right sizing is to recognize areas that have developed and maybe have developed at lower densities. So by revising the densities on the map, they're recognizing this." Finally, Poplin testified that the future land use map (FLUM) and the policies proposed in the subject Plan Amendment are consistent with previous actions, previous development patterns, and previous purchases that have occurred within the County. As for Section 163.3177(2), cited by Petitioners at the end of paragraph 8.II.A.(iii) of the Amended Petition, the statute requires coordination of the land use elements. Poplin testified that the County has adequate facilities and services to provide for the land use plan proposed in its FLUM. Section 163.3177(6)(f) requires a housing element. There was no evidence that these elements do not exist in the County's comprehensive plan. Land Use Element Policy 1.1, Residential Land Use Designations Almost all of Paragraph 8.II.B. of the Amended Petition was stricken. See Preliminary Statement. Only the title and last sentence remained: Residential Land Use Designations, Policy 1.1 (reduced densities - pg 14). Property owners (including PETITIONERS) whose land use/zoning classification is no longer in compliance with the comprehensive plan amendment have not been notified as required by Florida Statutes subsection 125.66. Petitioners themselves provided evidence establishing that the statutory notice was properly given. See Findings of Fact 12- 14, supra. Land Use Element Policy 1.2, Public Facilities and Services The last sentence of Paragraph 8.II.C. of the Amended Petition was stricken. See Preliminary Statement. The remaining allegation was: Public Facilities and Services Requirements, Policy 1.2 (page 15). In subsection E, the prohibition by use of the words "shall not" are too harsh, restrictive, and confiscatory and should be replaced "shall not be required at the expense of the County." But the language of Criterion F under Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 1.2 already states what Petitioners seek. Simply stated, Petitioners want the policy to state that private parties were not prohibited from building additional public facilities. The second sentence of the policy states: "This criterion is not intended to preclude acceptance of dedicated facilities and services by the county through . . . other means through which the recipients pay for the service or facility." Finally, the language of Criterion F under Policy 1.2 existed elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan prior to the Plan Amendments; it is not new. The Plan Amendments simply changed the location of the language in the Plan. Land Use Policies 1.31 and 1.4 Paragraph 8.II.D. of the Amended Petition stated: Residential 30, Policy 1.31 and Residential 15, Policy 1.4 (pgs. 16, 18). In subsections 1.31.A.1.3 and 1.4.A. respectively, the limitation of this designation to east of Interstate 95 is arbitrary, capricious and is not supported by substantial evidence. It imposes excessive regulatory costs upon regulated property owners. It is confiscatory and fails to recognize the vested rights of property owners. There are areas west of Interstate 95 just as suitable and qualifying as areas east of Interstate 95. This policy fails to recognize existing or new infrastructure which services areas west of I-95 and is therefore inconsistent with other policies. New policy 1.4 is similar and related and also limits densities west of Interstate 95 under all circumstances. This change and any other related restrictions to all areas west of I-95 should be eliminated. FLUE Policies 1.3 (the proper number, not 1.31) and 1.4 deal with residential densities. Pertinent to Petitioners' complaint, Residential 30, allowing up to 30 units per acre, is located east of Interstate 95; generally, maximum residential density west of Interstate 95 is 15 units per acre in Residential 15, except where "adjacent to existing or designated residential densities of an equal or higher density allowance." Petitioners presented no evidence in opposition to these residential densities or designations or the data and analysis supporting them. To the contrary, Poplin testified that there was adequate data and analysis to support the changes. See Finding of Fact 47, supra. The other issues raised, such as excessive regulatory costs, relate to Section 120.52, Florida Statutes (2000), standards and are not at issue in the proceeding. Land Use Policy 2.8, Community Commercial Designation Paragraph 8.II.E. of the Amended Petition stated: Locational and Development Criteria for Community Commercial Uses, Policy 2.8 (pg 38). Subsection B regarding community commercial complexes should not be limited to 40 acres at an intersection for properties that have existing land use or zoning designations compatible to the new Community Commercial designation. The same is true for the limitations of subsections, C, D, and E. These new limitations are confiscatory, fail to recognize existing land use and zoning and vested rights of property owners, are arbitrary, capricious, are not supported by competent substantial evidence, enlarge existing regulations without justification. They impose additional regulatory costs on regulated property owners when the goal of Florida Statutes Chapter 163 could be met by less restrictive and costly regulatory alternatives. Other provisions of Policy 2.8, Table 2.2, Policy 2.9, Policy 2.10 that exceed the present regulation of properties having existing land use or zoning designations or actual use should not be allowed for the same reasons. Additionally, many of these amendments were added at a April 29, 2000 workshop without complying with applicable public notice requirements. Public review and input as to these elements was therefore lacking. The plain language of Criterion B under FLUE Policy 2.8 demonstrates that the restrictions have been relaxed, not increased. Previously, Criterion C under Policy 2.8 stated: "Sites for community commercial complexes should not exceed 20 acres." The letter designation of the criterion was changed, and the criterion was amended to read: "Community commercial complexes should not exceed 40 acres at an intersection." The Justification for the change states: "Site size has been enlarged to 40 acres maximum at an intersection. Previously, this criterion could be interpreted to permit a maximum of 80 acres at an intersection (20 acres at each corner). Forty acres has been chosen as this is the DRI threshold for commercial development." On its face, the purpose of amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 was twofold: to enlarge the site size restriction from 20 to 40 acres; and to clarify that the restriction (now 40 acres) was meant to apply to all community commercial regardless whether they are located at intersections; locating a project on different sides of the street at an intersection was not supposed to double, triple, or even quadruple the maximum site size. Petitioners' position that amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 shrinks maximum allowable the site size is based on Moehle's assumption that 80-acre projects were permitted at intersections under prior to amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8. But there was no competent, substantial evidence to support Moehle's assumption. Petitioners also seem to contend that the phrase "at an intersection" is imprecise, leading to uncertainty that undermines the required residential allocation analysis. But it is at least fairly debatable that no more precise definition is necessary. Contrary to Moehle's speculation, it is not reasonable to construe the phrase "at an intersection" to also mean "at an indeterminate distance away from an intersection." Petitioners also took the position that "folding" previous land use classifications into Community Commercial greatly expanded the practical effect of the acreage limitation in amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8. Petitioners' evidence did not explain their position in any detail or specificity. It is possible that they had reference to Criterion D under Policy 4.5 prior to the Plan Amendment, which allowed "regional commercial centers to incorporate up to 100 acres." If so, under the B.13 Plan Amendments, amended Policy 2.12 addresses regional commercial centers by requiring their location in a new Development of Regional Impact (DRI) future land use designation. The Justification for this change was: "With the proposed establishment of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) land use category, regional uses will no longer be permitted in a commercial future land use designation. Review in accordance with Chapter 380, F.S. standards is intended to simplify readability and maintain consistency with state statutes." Reading amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 together with amended Policy 2.12, commercial complexes larger than 40 acres are not prohibited under the Plan Amendment; they just have to be developed in a DRI land use category under Chapter 380 DRI standards. The reasonableness of these amendments is at least fairly debatable. Meanwhile, Poplin specifically testified that the data and analysis provided by the County were adequate to support the residential and nonresidential changes, including Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial changes. No contrary evidence was provided. Policies 2.9 and 2.10 allow minimal extensions of commercial boundaries. No evidence was presented addressing these items. The clear evidence was contrary to Petitioners' claim of notice violations. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Transitional Commercial Activities Paragraph 8.II.F. of the Amended Petition states: Transitional Commercial Activities - Community Commercial - General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) - Highway Transient Tourist (TU-2). Existing properties with Mixed Use Land Use Designations and General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) and Highway Transient Tourist (TU-2) zoning classifications have not been protected with their existing regulation constraint in the transformation into the new Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial Regulations as has been asserted by the COUNTY in the revised objective and policies in the provisions covering these classifications as asserted by the COUNTY. Either proposed changes should conform or the changes should not be made. The same objections and changes are made for the new confiscatory provisions of the COUNTY for existing Industrial Land Use Designations and Zoning classifications under Industrial Land Uses (Objective 3, Policy 3, pg 55). The same objections and challenges are made for new confiscatory provisions of Agricultural Land Uses (pg 67) for existing Land Use Designations and densities of lands including reductions of densities to 1 unit per 5 acres by changes from a residential classification (including existing recorded subdivision plats). Many new items of the above were made at the April 29, 2000 workshop and proper public notices, review, and comment was not available. Petitioners failed to demonstrate any impact on actual development as a result of these future land use designation changes. No defect in notice was established by the evidence. Rather, the evidence indicated that all advertising requirements were met. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Finally, Poplin testified that the majority of land uses remained the same based on existing uses, and that all changes were supported by data and analysis. Future Land Use Maps Update Paragraph 8.III.A. of the Amended Petition states: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1999 B.14. The Future Land Use Maps Update Report - The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps are not consistent with the existing FLUM and RDG maps. There are corrections and amplifications needed before they are acceptable. The COUNTY did not either have available or make available to the public for review and comment the map(s) as transmitted to DCA at any properly noticed Public Hearing. It was asserted by the COUNTY that no Land Use Designations, Zoning, or Density Allocation changes, were being made to property owners. That is not true. Some specific examples are Sections 3 & 15, located within Township 22 South, Range 34 East, which were changed from Residential to Agriculture Use (density from 1 unit per acre to 1 unit per 5 acres) and Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 within Township 22 South, Range 34 East, from density of 1 unit per acre to 1 acre per 2.5 acres. The FLUM Report explains that the FLUM series was converted from graphic format to computerized geographic information system (GIS) format; as a result, the Residential Density Guidelines (RDG) map series could be combined with the FLUM series. Petitioners failed to establish any facts demonstrating that the new GIS FLUM series was not available or discussed at properly noticed public hearings. As to notice, see Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. There was no evidence of errors on the GIS maps. Petitioners complained that the GIS maps are unusable because they are too hard to read, especially because they were black and white. But actually the FLUM series is in color. There was no competent, substantial evidence that the color maps were too hard to read or unusable. Petitioners generally complained about residential density reductions but failed to present any competent, substantial evidence as to what supposedly was wrong with those reductions. Petitioners seem to believe that they should be able to obtain all information regarding their property from the Comprehensive Plan. There is no regulation cited by Petitioners requiring that the maps be of sufficient detail to enable someone to determine all possible uses of property based solely on a review of the maps. As a practical matter, additional site-specific information is nearly always necessary. In addition, GIS maps are computerized maps which are merely referenced by the Plan. The GIS system must ultimately be consulted regarding site-specific information. Poplin testified that the GIS updating of the FLUM and RDG map series was done primarily to streamline and consolidate the two previously separate maps. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, Poplin testified that the conversion from two graphic maps to the GIS maps was a very positive change. Mixed Use District Conversion Paragraph 8.III.B. of the Amended Petition stated: Under the MIXED USE DISTRICT CONVERSION (pg 1) - Mixed Use District (MUD) land use designation and zoning classification of General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) or Highway Tourist Commercial (TU-2) existing classifications were not listed as being reclassified (to be designated as Community Commercial). Petitioners base this contention solely on the FLUM Update in the B.14 Plan Amendments. Petitioners' contention ignores FLUE Policy 2.7 in the B.13 Plan Amendments, one of the operative policies relating to the conversion from MUD. Policy 2.7 states which uses are allowed under the Community Commercial designation. Subparagraph "c" lists "Tourist Commercial uses" as being a use under Community Commercial. In their response to the motion for involuntary dismissal, Petitioners finally acknowledged Policy 2.7 but still maintain that it cannot be determined whether TU-1 and TU-2 zoning will be classified as Community Commercial or as Neighborhood Commercial. In making this argument, Petitioners ignore FLUE Policy 2.5, another operative policy in the B.13 section of the Plan Amendment, relating to the conversion from MUD. Policy 2.5 lists "[d]evelopment activities which may be considered within Neighborhood Commercial" and omits any "tourist commercial" development activities. Based on the evidence, it seems clear that both TU-1 and TU-2 zoning will be classified as Community Commercial, and not as Neighborhood Commercial. Petitioners' allegations that they were omitted from the MUD conversion are incorrect. More About the Glossary Paragraph 8.I.V. of the Amended Petition stated: Glossary, Definitions, Thresholds, Maps relating to Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1999 B.12, 1999 B.13 and 1999 B.14. Revised Glossary. A new Glossary and definitions was never completed and made available to the public before any properly noticed Public Hearing to properly allow public review, input, comment, etc. Incomplete or inaccurate data on thresholds and maps relating to Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1999 B.12, 1999 B.13 and 1999 B.14 were also not available. As previously found, the Glossary was not amended, and it would be inappropriate to advertise the Glossary for changes. There is no requirement that a glossary be included in a comprehensive plan. When a glossary is included, not every word in a comprehensive plan must be included. Forested Wetlands Location Map At final hearing, Petitioners asserted that the Forested Wetlands Location Map referred to and incorporated by reference in Policy 5.2.F.3. of the Conservation Element was not the best available data. This issue was not raised in the Amended Petition, and consideration of the merits of the assertion has been waived. In addition, as previously found, the language of Policy 5.2.F.3. was adopted prior to the Plan Amendments at issue in this case. See Finding of Fact 8, supra. On the merits of the argument, three forested wetlands maps were offered into evidence (as Petitioners' Exhibits 2, 3, and 4.) Only Petitioners' Exhibit 2 was admitted into evidence. Petitioners' Exhibit 2 reflects the Forested Wetlands Location Map incorporated by reference as part of the County's comprehensive plan. Without Petitioners' Exhibits 3 or 4 being in evidence, or any other evidence on the issue, Moehle's testimony was insufficient to prove beyond fair debate that the Forested Wetlands Location Map incorporated by reference as part of the County's comprehensive plan was not the best available data at the time of incorporation.
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 dismissing the Amended Petition and finding that Brevard County's Plan Amendments B.12, B.13, and B.14 are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Eden Bentley, Esquire Brevard County Attorney's Office 2725 St. Johns Street Viera, Florida 32940 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Charles F. Moehle Modern, Inc. Post Office Box 321417 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32932 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 05S-01 (the Plan Amendment) adopted by Polk County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 05-004 is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,1 and whether Petitioner, Citizens for Proper Planning, Inc. (CPPI), has standing as an “affected person” as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The ECRA is a local special district governmental agency established pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, and is composed of a seven-member board of directors. The boundaries of the Eloise Community Redevelopment Area include an area consisting of approximately 665 acres within the unincorporated Eloise area of Polk County (the Redevelopment Area). The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area. See JE 8A. The ECRA meets once a month, except July, when they do not normally meet. Its purpose is to discuss and implement the ECRA Redevelopment Plan’s six objectives within the Redevelopment Area. The ECRA opposed the Plan Amendment by and through its attorney and submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County regarding the Plan Amendment during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. As a part of its presentation to the County regarding the Plan Amendment, the ECRA delivered to the County, ECRA Resolution No. R-05-01, objecting to the Plan Amendment. The parties agree that the ECRA has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Bruce Bachman (Mr. Bachman), resides in Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida. His residence is located outside of the Redevelopment Area and is approximately three (3) miles from the Subject Property. He is employed as the operator (since 1980) and general manager of Phoenix Industries, LLP, (Phoenix), located at 621 Snively Avenue, County Road (CR) 655 in Eloise, which is adjacent to and across the street from the Subject Property. Mr. Bachman has served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA since 1998. Phoenix operates a warehousing and distribution complex for dry, refrigerated, and frozen food products east of Snively Avenue and across the street from the Subject Property. The Phoenix property stretches north and south within an elongated area within the Redevelopment Area, and is open 24-hours a day, seven days a week.2 See JE 8A at "30". (The railroad, designated with a red line, runs north and south through the Phoenix property. JE 8A.) Phoenix has spent approximately $115,000 changing the angles of its buildings and moving docks so that trucks could maneuver on the property, and not have to enter Snively Avenue to do so. Mr. Bachman is involved with the Eloise residential area and the Redevelopment Area generally and his contributions to the Eloise area are well-noted in the record. His work with the community includes working with the students at Snively Elementary School. Individually, and on behalf of the ECRA, Mr. Bachman submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Bachman has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Johnny Brooks (Mr. Brooks), resides at 143 8th Street, Eloise, Polk County, Florida, approximately three (3) blocks southwest from the Subject Property. His home is located within the main residential component of the Redevelopment Area. He was born in Eloise (on 5th Street) and has lived, with his wife, at the 8th Street address for 41 years. Mr. Brooks also serves as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA. Although disabled, Mr. Brooks is an active member of the Eloise Community. For example, he and his wife conduct a “homework club” at the Eloise Community Resource Center (opened in 2002) located between 7th and 8th Streets and Snively Avenue, which is east and down the block from his residence. JE 8A at "2". They also use the computer lab at the resource center for adult education. They use the neighborhood Snively/Brooks Park, JE 8A at "4", approximately one block south of the Brooks' residence and west of the Snively Elementary School, JE 8A at "3", for, among other activities, Easter egg hunts and Christmas parties. Mr. Brooks is also involved in the Eloise Neighborhood Association, which offers adult computer classes, GED classes, and classes in English as a Second Language. He and his family use other resources within the Redevelopment Area, such as the Snively Elementary School, and a post office, JE 8A at "1", which is located approximately one block north of the Subject Property between 4th and 5th Streets, near Snively Avenue. Mr. Brooks attends the Eloise United Methodist Church (built in 1966-1967), which is located on land designated as Industrial (IND) on the FLUM. 3 JE 8A at "10". This church is located on the southwest side of Snively Avenue, and approximately five or six blocks south of the Subject Property and approximately two blocks south of the Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park.4 Mr. Brooks submitted oral comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Brooks has standing in this proceeding. CPPI is an organization comprised of approximately two hundred members, located throughout Polk County, Florida. CPPI has been an existing corporation since 2002. No application, request to join or payment of dues is currently required for membership. According to its executive chairperson, Jean Reed, its purpose is to "better plan for our growth in Polk County." Ms. Reed lives approximately one mile east of Eloise and four of five of the CPPI Board of Directors live within a mile of Eloise. All CPPI members live in the County. CPPI had been involved in County hearings and an administrative hearing involving a small scale comprehensive plan amendment. The organization currently encourages donations and plans to charge dues next year. CPPI submitted oral comments, recommendations and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. No evidence was presented to show that CPPI owns real property within the County. The County and the Intervenor dispute CPPI’s standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, empowered to adopt, implement, and amend its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the laws of Florida. Intervenor, Don C. Smith (Smith or Intervenor), owns the Subject Property. He purchased the Subject Property of 9.9 acres, which is part of a contiguous 20-acre site, in May of 2003. Mr. Smith learned that the Subject Property had an RL-4 land use designation just prior to his purchase of the Subject Property. The parties agree that Mr. Smith has standing in this proceeding. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area The Redevelopment Area consists of approximately 665 acres. EE 2, Plan at 30. It is generally bounded by the CSX railroad to the north of US 17; by Lake Lulu and Shell Road on the east; by Snively Avenue (CR 655) on the south; and by Wahneta Canal and a portion of Wahneta farms on the west. JE 8A.5 (Snively Avenue is a four-lane undivided, major collector highway, but is not a buffer.) Both historically and presently, the Redevelopment Area has been composed of mixed uses in an urban area. Under the FLUM, there are eight separate land uses within the Redevelopment Area: Industrial (IND), Business Park Center (BPC- 2), High Impact Commercial (HIC), Institutional (INST-1), Community Activity Center (CAC), Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Low-1 (RL-1), and Residential Low-4 (RL-4). JE 8A. Beginning at the northern portion of the Redevelopment Area and moving from west to east, south of the CSX railroad and approximately one block south of US 17, the land uses designated on the FLUM are HIC, CAC, and HIC. Moving southward and east of Snively Avenue, the land use designation for a triangular portion of land is BPC-2. The land use designation adjacent to and immediately south of the BPC-2 designation and east of Snively Avenue is designated as IND. The IND designation covers the land in a southerly direction until Snively Avenue intersects with Croton Road. The land to the east and adjacent to the BPC-2 and IND designations is designated as RL-1. There is a small portion of land near Shell and Croton Roads at the southern boundary of the Redevelopment Area designated as Residential Suburban (RS). (The RS designation continues to the east outside of the Redevelopment Area. Lake Lulu is to the east of the eastern RL-1 and RS designations.) There is also land designated as RL-1 west of Snively Avenue, bisected by Unnamed Street, extending west of Wahneta Canal and south-southwest of the Snively Elementary School/Snively-Brooks Park area, to the southwestern boundary of the Redevelopment Area.6 The Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park are located in the INST-1 land use designation.7 JE 8A. Approximately 150 children walk to and from this elementary school (with another 60 to middle and high schools outside the Redevelopment Area), utilizing the sidewalk bordering the western portion of Snively Avenue. The majority of the children attending the elementary school reside in the RL-4 designated area (mainly between 1st and 9th Streets). Mr. Smith agreed that the elementary school was in close proximity to the Subject Property. Mr. Smith testified that after meetings with the ECRA, he moved the fence in front of the Subject Property and business back ten feet so that the children could have more room to walk down the street. He also instructed his drivers of big trucks and heavy equipment not to enter the Subject Property during times when the children are going to and from school. There are several school crossings, crossing Snively Avenue. There is a bus stop at 5th Street and Snively Avenue for children attending middle and high school. JE 8A at "6". There are also bus stops on 7th Street and in front of the elementary school. JE 8A at "5" and "7". Except for the residential portions of the CAC and BPC-2 areas, the primary residential area of the Redevelopment Area is generally bounded by US 17 and 1st Street on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, and to just north of Snively Elementary School and 9th Street on the south. JE 8A; EE 2, Plan at 6 and Figure 2. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area Uses 1. In General The Redevelopment Area, for at least the last 40 years, has supported a wide variety of industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential uses. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Smith testified that the Redevelopment Area has supported these mixed uses and has historically been defined by the interrelationship of these various uses with the predominant industrial activities within its boundaries. In the past, the established residential area (RL-4) was once a successful working-class neighborhood which primarily provided homes to those workers who were employed in the citrus plants located within the industrial classified areas. That residential area is now blighted and provides housing for low and moderate income families. Though well established, the RL-4 residential area contains a substantial number of vacant lots within that residential designated area. 2. Redevelopment Area Problems and Redevelopment During the early 1980’s, Eloise was a troubled community, suffering, for example, from theft and vandalism. The community had difficulty finding minority contractors willing to work at Phoenix because of the problems associated with the community. By the early 1990s, the residential area of the Redevelopment Area had deteriorated to such an extent that the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HND), an agency of the County, became actively involved in the redevelopment of the community. In 1992, the Eloise Neighborhood Association was formed. In 1996, a Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan was commissioned by HND. This plan was prepared by County staff. Also in 1996, the HND and the Eloise Neighborhood Association prepared the Eloise Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan, which “focused on the 138 acres generally bounded by the CSX Railroad on the east, the railroad and US 17 on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, to just south of the Snively Elementary School. Its recommendations included improved social services, land use changes, housing programs and infrastructure improvements.” In 1998, a Declaration of Slum and Blight was adopted by the Board through Resolutions Nos. 98-08 and 98-66, which, respectively, made a finding of blighting conditions in Eloise and adopted a redevelopment plan for Eloise. As a result, the ERCA was created pursuant to Section 163.356, Florida Statutes, to rehabilitate, conserve, and/or redevelop the Redevelopment Area. In 2000, the Board, pursuant to Section 163.360, Florida Statutes, adopted Ordinance No. 00-33, approving of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan as the Community Development Plan for the Redevelopment Area. It was the purpose and intent of the Board that the Eloise Redevelopment Plan be implemented in the Redevelopment Area. The Board made numerous findings in Ordinance No. 00- 33 including a determination that “[t]he Plan conforms to the general plan of the county as a whole” and that “[t]he Plan conforms to the Polk County Comprehensive Plan.” The Board also determined that “[t]he need for housing accommodations has increased in the area.” The Eloise Redevelopment Plan has not been adopted as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the Plan Amendment need not be consistent with the Eloise Redevelopment Plan to be “in compliance.” The May 2000, Eloise Redevelopment Plan describes the then existing ownership patterns such that “[t]he existing Eloise residential neighborhood between 1st and 9th Streets is subdivided into platted, fifty-foot wide lots. Most are 100-125 feet in depth. Lots along 9th Street abutting the school are platted as 70-foot wide lots. The ownership pattern in this area typically follows the lot lines. Most are individually owned lots. (See Figure 6).” EE 2, Plan at 16. Particularly relevant here, it is also stated: “Lots 33 and 34 [part of the Subject Property] are each approximately 9 acres and are owned by Alterman Transport Corporation (ATC). The site is currently used for storage and, in the past, was zoned GI [General Industrial] and R-3. In the current Comprehensive Plan, however, this site is planned for Residential Suburban (RS) to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The trucks are a legal-nonconforming use and may continue but any future development shall comply with the RS land use district.” EE 2, Plan at 16. The Eloise Redevelopment Plan also recommended that the Alterman Trucking Annex, also known as the Alterman Transportation Corporation, be developed for up to 75 single- family homes by the end of 2004. EE 2, Plan at 32; JE 3 at 3 of (The Subject Property was also formerly known as the Alterman Motor Freight Terminal. JE 2, 8/10/2004 site map.) In 2001, the County also changed the classification of the Subject Property from RS to RL-4 pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. See Finding of Fact 54. In addition to the creation of the ECRA, the County, through the HND, has attempted to revitalize the Redevelopment Area. Since 1993, HND has spent approximately $4.4 million dollars in these efforts. These funds have been spent on community policing ($424,790), slum and blight clearing ($47,428), housing rehabilitation ($186,807), parks and recreation ($149,982), water/sewer/drainage ($1,094,677), construction of the Eloise Community Center ($2,147,037), replacement of five homes ($314,138), and rehabilitation and repair of five homes ($46,819). As part of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan, many additional infrastructure improvements have been proposed, such as fire hydrants, turnaround areas for emergency vehicles and fire trucks, storm water installation, and sewer for the Residential Area of Eloise between 1st and 9th Streets and between Snively Avenue and the canal. The proposed projects for water, sewer, and storm water include 350 parcels to be served in this Residential Area. The construction of the Eloise Community Center has been the most costly expense in these efforts. After the County obtained this parcel from Phoenix Industries, it was discovered that the land was contaminated and more than $400,000 was spent on environmental clean-up costs for this property. The ECRA and the County have made progress in the area of code enforcement. Furthermore, crime has been cut in half and a drinking ordinance was passed by the County upon request of the ECRA and the Eloise Neighborhood Association. Eloise, with the County's cooperation, also initiated a Community- Oriented Policing program. There has been an increase in construction in the area, both on the residential and commercial/industrial side of Snively Avenue. The ECRA has also been working on a beautification strategy. For example, Phoenix spent $35,000 for landscaping, removing barbed wire, installing an irrigation system, and installing an attractive entrance to its facilities. Further beautification is planned for other areas along Snively Avenue, the main gateway to the area from US 17, and improvements to Snively Elementary School, for which the ECRA allocated up to $10,000. Currently, the socio-economic status of the families living within the residential portion of the Redevelopment Area is low and moderate income. But, as noted above, the area is being revitalized, including the addition of several Habitat for Humanity-built homes. Mr. Bachman confirmed that "[t]hings have changed now," including the employment of minorities and an increase in diversity at the elementary school. The Subject Property The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area on the southwest side of Snively Avenue between 5th and 6th Streets. JE 8A. The Subject Property consists of approximately 9.9 acres, which is part of a 20-acre parcel owned by Mr. Smith. Tr. 261. (There is a vacant parcel not subject to the Plan Amendment, also acquired by Mr. Smith at the same time, adjacent to and west of the Subject Property, which appears to be within a flood zone area. JE 8A at “46”. The canal serves as the western border for this parcel.) Currently, there are ten to eleven residences along 5th Street, north of the Subject Property, and ten residences between the Subject Property and 6th Street, south of the Subject Property. See EE 7. There does not appear to be any appreciable distance between these residences and the Subject Property. Aside from the residential homes north and south of the Subject Property, there are also retail, auto repair, and other commercial uses which border on Snively Avenue. See, e.g., IE 1, aerial with 15 photographs; JE 3 at 5 of 27; Tr. 295-297; JE 8A. According to Mr. Smith, he requested the land use designation change to cure the non-conforming status of the Subject Property. All operations on the Subject Property had ceased for less than one year when he purchased the Subject Property. The Subject Property has historically and, except as noted above, continuously been utilized since the late 1960’s for industrial-type purposes, including motor freight activities which include loading and unloading citrus trucks, racking, truck repair, and truck weighing. These activities would not necessarily be restricted to an Industrial land use designation;8 the current use of the Subject Property as a motor freight terminal is also permitted within a BPC-2 land use designation. There has been no substantial change in the use of the Subject Property since 1980.9 Mr. Brooks testified that while he was growing up in Eloise, the Subject Property "was primarily truck parking for the citrus plant." He "worked for the scale house back in the late 60's before the plant went down and all [they] did was like park the trucks there for unloading and which would be in the citrus plant itself." However, he never knew the Subject Property "to be an industrial park itself," during the late 1960's. Historically, Mr. Snively, who died in 1957, owned several different businesses across the street from the Subject Property, including a fresh fruit packing house, JE 8A at "20", juice plant, JE 8A at "21", concentrate plant, JE 8A at “22”. The plant closed in 1969 or 1970. In and around 1972, during the summer, Mr. Smith worked for the Snively operation when they parked their citrus trucks on the Subject Property and then for the Alterman operation on-site when he loaded and unloaded trucks. Under the County's zoning ordinance adopted in November 1970, the Subject Property, along with the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property southeast and adjacent to Snively Elementary School, were zoned as General Industrial (GI). Like the Subject Property, this industrial area is located east and immediately adjacent to property classified as residential (RS) (although the property is presently undeveloped). By an amendment to the FLUM adopted by Ordinance No. 91-06 on April 19, 1991, the Subject Property was classified as RS, rather than IND.10 At the same time, the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property immediately adjacent to Snively Elementary all maintained their Industrial classification. The May 2000 Eloise Redevelopment Plan recommended, in part, consideration of "a plan amendment from RS to RL-4 for the properties north of Snively [Elementary] School and west of Snively Avenue" which included the Subject Property. EE 2, Plan at 38. On July 11, 2001, the County adopted Ordinance No. 01- 45, which changed the land use designation on the FLUM from RS to RL-4, for all of the property (including the Subject Property) between 1st Street and just south of 9th Street and between Snively Avenue on the east and the canal on the west. EE 1 at map page 2. The land use designation for the Snively- Brooks Park was also changed to INST-1 from IND. Other land use designations were changed pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. EE 1. See also Tr. 130-136, 139-140. The FLUM changes implemented strategies set forth in the Eloise Redevelopment Plan and adopted recommended changes to the FLUM. See Tr. 163. The RL-4 designated property is located immediately adjacent to and on the north, west, and south sides of the Subject Property. JE 8A. Across Snively Avenue from the RL-4 property is the industrial area which was previously used in the citrus industry and which is currently used by Phoenix warehousing and trucking activities. JE 8A. "The purpose of the [RL-4] District is to provide areas for low density residential needs of residents in urban areas who desire areas with smaller lots, a minimum of 6,000 square feet." § 204A7., Land Development Code (LDC). The County and Mr. Smith contend that the Subject Property was mistakenly or erroneously classified as RS in 1991 and RL-4 in 2001. However, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that no mistake or error was made in 1991 or 2001 based, in part, on the chronology of events regarding the land use changes mentioned above. Merle H. Bishop, A.I.C.P., the current Director of Growth Management for the County, has been an employee of Polk County for 30 years, and was involved in the adoption of the original Comprehensive Plan in 1991. In preparing land use designations for the initial FLUM, he used aerial photographs primarily and the existing zoning at the time. Since that time, he and staff have discovered errors in mapping the land uses of property, including industrial. Typically, the errors have been corrected when presented to the Board for comprehensive plan changes to the FLUM. Mr. Bishop testified that pursuant to a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, the County desired to “recognize industrial uses.” Tr. 444-445. According to Mr. Bishop, an active industrial use would only be eliminated with good reason, i.e., such as it was a remote and isolated industrial use. Tr. 455. According to Mr. Bishop, the Subject Property, the southern parcel by the elementary school, and the Phoenix Industries property made up a major industrial use area. Tr. 456. Although Mr. Bishop stated the Subject Property "would have been" designated as Industrial in 1991 given its use, Tr. 511-512, Mr. Bishop could not "say whether or not [they] missed this on the map when [they] mapped it. I mean it appears -- I mean, when you look at the map, it's very general; or whether there was an intention to not map it." Tr. 483-484. Mr. Bishop did not testify persuasively that the Board, in 1991 or in 2001, erroneously designated the Subject Property as RS and then RL-4. The February 2, 2005, staff report, mentions the applicant’s contention that a mapping error occurred, but implicitly rejects this argument. JE 3 at 11 and 12 of 27. Staff stated: The site has recently changed ownership and the current property owner wants the non-conforming uses to become conforming uses. Recognizing the existing use will enable to [sic] owner to continue utilizing the site as it has historically been used and allow the redevelopment of the property as needed. In addition, the use has remained the same since the early 1970’s according to the applicant. The applicant also states that Policy 2.113-A2 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the [FLUM] Series shall include all major existing industrial areas; since the property has historically been used for industrial uses, the recognition of the site will correct the County’s mapping error. On the other hand, staff and the ECRA has [sic] indicated, for this and the prior requested land use change (CPA 04A-05), that the impacts to the residential neighborhood is [sic] more significant than the redevelopment of the site for commercial or industrial uses. The County worked with the residents, business owners, and land owners in the area to develop a redevelopment plan, in which, the site was intentionally made non-conforming by the community and the County in order to create separation between the industrial uses across the street from the residential uses on the west side of CR 655 (Rifle Range Road [sic]). Therefore, the applicant’s primary argument for recognizing the historical use is not relevant. JE 3 at 12 of 27. Mr. Bishop was not directly involved with the staff review although he participated at the pubic hearing before the Board. If the Subject Property were vacant, Mr. Bishop would not recommend an Industrial land use designation. He supports the land use change because of the existing (at the time) use of the Subject Property and to have the property be a conforming use. Tr. 506-507. The history of industrial-type use on both the Subject Property and other sites in the Redevelopment Area has been a subject of significant concern. Although no tests have been conducted to determine whether the Subject Property is contaminated, Dr. Cherry testified that as a result of its long industrial use, it is likely that contamination will be present, which would render its use for residential purposes not realistic. Tr. 221-223. Since the subject property is located near the property upon which the community center was constructed and both parcels were part of a larger industrial area and utilized for similar uses, Dr. Cherry suspects that the Subject Property will likewise be contaminated. Tr. 222. If the Subject Property is contaminated, it is Dr. Cherry's opinion that there will be insufficient funds to clean the area. Tr. 219. Consequently, Dr. Cherry opined that if the Subject Property could not be used for industrial purposes, it would likely be unable to be developed as residential and most likely would be abandoned, thereby becoming a “brownfield.” This would significantly burden the redevelopment efforts in the Redevelopment Area. However, the Subject Property has not been declared a “brownfield” and no finding can be made regarding the environmental condition of the Subject Property based upon the record of this case. The Small Scale Plan Amendment Application and Adoption On or about August 10, 2004, Mr. Smith filed an application requesting the County to re-designate the land use of the Subject Property from RL-4 to IND. JE 2. According to the “Narrative Summary,” “[t]his change will provide for the continuation of historical motor freight uses and provide for optional industrial uses.” Id. On January 4, 2005, the County published Notice in a newspaper of local circulation providing that the Board would consider the adoption of the Plan Amendment at its meeting of January 19, 2005. At the January 19, 2005, meeting, the County tabled consideration of the Plan Amendment to its meeting of February 2, 2005. The Polk County Planning Division Staff report is dated February 2, 2005. This report contains a detailed analysis of the application. The Planning Division recommended denial of the Plan Amendment. (The report indicates that the Planning Commission recommended approval (3 to 1 vote) of the Plan Amendment.) The Planning Division found, in part, that "the proposed development request IS NOT compatible with surrounding land uses and general character of the area of the residential uses on the southern side of Snively Avenue (CR 655) and IS NOT consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan for a land use change to Industrial (IND) because it would likely intrude into the existing residential neighborhood, allow for more intensive uses to be developed next to existing homes, and not be consistent with the approved Eloise Redevelopment Plan." (Emphasis is original). On February 2, 2005, the Board voted to adopt the Plan Amendment by the adoption of Ordinance No. 05-004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order concluding that the Plan Amendment adopted by Polk County Ordinance No. 05-004 is not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Background Lee County adopted its comprehensive growth management plan under Section 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, (the Act) on January 31, 1989 (without regard to the subject plan amendments, the Plan). The Plan is compiled in the first volume of a three- volume set. The remaining volumes contain data and analysis (Original Data and Analysis). The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) determined that the Plan was not in compliance with the Act. DCA filed a petition challenging the Plan under Section 163.3184(10), which commenced DOAH Case No. 89-1843GM. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, on September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted Plan amendments and revised the Original Data and Analysis. These amendments to the Plan shall be referred to as the Plan Amendments. The Plan Amendments are contained in a three-volume set. The first volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis concerning traffic. The second volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis concerning the future land use map series, which includes two maps forming the 2010 overlay. The third volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis involving general matters. The Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendments, shall be referred to as the Amended Plan. The additional data and analysis submitted by Lee County in September, 1990, shall be referred to as the Revised Data and Analysis. The Original Data and Analysis and Revised Data and Analysis shall collectively be referred to as the Data and Analysis. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a notice of intent to find the Plan Amendments in compliance. Petitioner Brenda Sheridan, who is a resident of Lee County, had previously submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings concerning the Plan Amendments. On or about November 17, 1990, Petitioner commenced the above-styled case by filing with DCA a petition alleging that the Plan Amendments and Revised Data and Analysis are not in compliance with the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (collectively referred to as the growth management law). Wildlife Habitats and Vegetative Communities (Issues 2 and 6) As to Issue 2, the Revised Data and Analysis contain limited data or analysis pertaining to wildlife habitat and vegetative communities. Much of the data and analysis concerning wildlife habitats and vegetative communities are in the Original Data and Analysis and were unchanged by the Revised Data and Analysis. The Revised Data and Analysis inventory only certain habitats or vegetative communities and analyze the environmental, socioeconomic, and fiscal impacts of development and redevelopment upon only certain unique wildlife habitats. The habitats or communities so considered are only those used by wood storks, Florida panthers, and black bears. The Revised Data and Analysis state: The only documented wood stork rookery in Lee County is on Telegraph Creek. In the past 3 years, no nesting has occurred there. It is possible that they exist in the Flint Pen Strand, adjacent to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Corkscrew includes a well-known wood stork rookery. Wood stork productivity is highly variable as a result of annual rainfall amounts which accumulate in South Florida. Flight paths . . . associated with that rookery cross into feeding locations within Lee County. These movements are primarily dependent on food availability. Tall structures placed in this flight path could affect the wood storks. The first monitoring report concerning the impact of WEVU's new broadcast tower on wood storks has been submitted. Every day during breeding season a biological intern has inspected the 60-acre tower site for injured wood storks. No injuries or fatalities were found. Feeding areas of the Corkscrew Swamp colony have been documented in Lee, Collier, and Hendry Counties. Southeastern Lee County provides important forage areas for this colony; occasionally saltwater habitats are also used. These food sources are essential to the success of wood stork reproduction within the colony. Figure IX.C-1 indicates the foraging sites used by wood storks from the Corkscrew Swamp Colony. Lee County wetlands provide significant feeding areas for wood storks. As water levels drop in the winter, fish are trapped in depressions associated with the wetland. These fish become an easy meal for the wood storks. The storks rely on this feeding source for successful breeding and survival. Strict enforcement of strong wetland regulations is the first step to protect this important feeding source. The Lee County Protected Species Ordinance provides the next step in protecting wood stork forage areas. It requires surveys and management plans for the wood storks. Nesting, roosting, and rooking areas are identified in the survey. Preservation of those areas can be accomplished through conservation easements granted to the county. All management plans must follow the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the Southeast Region, a 1990 publication of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Of the 20 surveys submitted to date, only one indicated the presence of wood stork areas. Two wood storks were identified off of the property. The management plan associated with this property includes preservation of the wetlands associated with this documented forage site. Joint Exhibit 10.c, page IX-3. Figure IX.C-1 indicates the foraging sites used by wood storks of the Corkscrew Swamp colony from 1985 to 1988. The 30 indicated sites are (with one exception) concentrated in extreme southeast Lee County. All of the area is designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource or Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones. Addressing Florida panthers, the Revised Data and Analysis report: The greatest problems facing panthers are directly related to human intrusion. Habitat loss due to increased development erodes the range necessary for each cat's survival. Florida panthers require extensive and biologically diverse landscapes. Male panthers utilize up to 400 square miles of territory. Biotic systems utilized by the Florida panther include "mixed swamp forests, cypress swamps, sawgrass marshes, mesic hammocks, pine flatwoods, and palmetto prairies." (Maehr, David S., "The Florida Panther and Private Lands.") Uplands are especially critical habitats for Florida panther. The tall palmetto systems which are particularly beneficial to the panther are also particularly prized for agriculture and development. Because of the vast range necessary for the survival of the panther, protection of their habitat cannot be fully accomplished through site design regulations for private development. Large areas need to be acquired, preserved, and managed for the long- term survival of this species. Suitable corridors must also be maintained, either through acquisition or regulations. . . . In recent years, two cats have been documented in Lee County. One travels from Collier County, through the Flint Pen Strand, and north past the Southwest Florida Regional Airport to the Caloosahatchee River. This is a young panther. This movement is reflected in Figure IX.C-2 showing public lands within panther range. The second panther has been documented in Northern Lee County. Its range probably includes portions of Charlotte County. Figure IX.C-3 showing Florida panther range is currently out of date given the known travels of the first panther. The enlargement of this map in Figure IX.C-4 illustrates the importance of the Flint Pen Strand acquisition in the preservation of well-documented panther habitat. Joint Exhibit 10.c, pages IX-5 to IX-6. Figures IX.C-3 and -4 disclose that about 50 square miles of south Lee County serves as known panther habitat, although actual habitat is even greater. The 50-square mile area contains much of the land in Lee County east of I-75 and the headwaters of the Estero River. All of the area is designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource or Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones except for all or parts of six one- mile sections, which are designated Suburban and General (Interchange Area). The Revised Data and Analysis discuss the habitat of black bear: Black bear range requirements are strikingly similar to that of the Florida panther. Like the Florida panther, the adult male will occupy home ranges that are greater than the female; in the case of the black bear, 3 to 8 times greater. The range of the black bear forage area extends anywhere from 40 to 312 square miles. In Lee County, bears are known to exist in the northern and southeastern areas of the county. Bear dens are common in the eastern extent of the Flint Pen Strand acquisition. Black bear are generally more common in the southeastern area of the county (see Figure IX.C-7). Black bears have a diverse diet including acorns, various berries, and insects. Under some circumstances, they may also consume feral hogs and cattle. Consistent with their famous desire for honey, bears are notorious for invading apiaries. This activity causes an obvious conflict between bee-keepers and the bears, as many orange groves currently exist in the northern and eastern areas of the county. More groves are permitted in the area as well. Bears studied in the Ocala National Forest predominantly utilized pine flatwoods for bedding and forage. "Pine flatwoods provide good cover for winter bedding as well as a nearly year-round source of food and water. This habitat type supports a variety of food- producing plans including gallberry, blueberry, and saw palmetto." (Wooding, John B. and Hardisky, Thomas S., Final Performance Report: Black Bear Study, page 18.) Bears studied in [the] Osceola National Forest utilized cypress/bay swamps greatest in the fall and winter. The dense cover and fall food supply are explanations for this use. Black bears are prone to utilize areas which include oak in the autumn to take advantage of acorn production. Oak hammocks provide black bears with dense cover and food during these periods. It appears that black bear hibernate to some degree in south Florida. This period of hibernation is of a shorter duration (2 to 3 months) and the bears are more alert during hibernation than they are in more northern areas. However, building energy stores for the hibernation is still important to the black bear in south Florida. Florida black bear dens are simply beds made of vegetation such as palmetto fronds. They are known to den in a variety of habitats. However, pine flatwoods and cypress swamps would appear to be the most utilized for this area. "It is speculated that Florida black bears have adequate food supplies to reproduce by the age of 3-4 years." (Wooding and Hardisky, page 23.) Black bear road kills have been reported along I-75. These bears were crossing in the vicinity of San Carlos Park. Bears have been sighted in that community and occasionally elsewhere west of I-75. However, I-75 is more typically a barrier to black bear migration to the western half of the county. Preservation of large tracts of unfragmented forests is necessary for the continued survival of black bear in Lee County. Public acquisition of connected forested tracts is an effective way of ensuring habitat preservation for black bear. The Flint Pen Strand acquisition includes the area of most extensive bear denning and bedding in Lee County. Since this area is connected by the Bird Rookery Swamp acquisition to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, connectivity of preserved land is accomplished. The largest area of land currently under public control in southeastern Lee County is owned by the city of Fort Myers. Their southeast wellfield site encompasses 6 sections and is compatible with the management of black bear. This area is just 2 miles from the Flint Pen Strand acquisition. A link between the two would provide the needed connectivity and should become a priority. Enhancement of large preserved tracts may yield a higher density of bears. This enhancement includes the planting of forage plants and the maintenance of dense vegetation. A burning program that favors the production of soft mast-forming species should be evaluated with consideration of promoting Melaleuca [sic]. Joint Exhibit 10.c, pages IX-6 and -13. Figure IX.C-7 shows that most of the bear use areas correspond to the depicted location of the Florida panther habitat. As to Issue 2, to the extent that the Revised Data and Analysis address vegetative communities and wildlife habitats, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Revised Data and Analysis are inconsistent with the criteria of an inventory of existing coastal wildlife habitat and vegetative communities and analysis of the environmental, socioeconomic, and fiscal impacts of development and redevelopment upon unique wildlife habitat. As to Issue 6, the Plan Amendments address to a limited extent regulatory or management techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment on wildlife habitat. The Plan Amendments address the wood stork and its habitat as follows: Objective 77.10: WOOD STORK. By July, 1991, regulatory measures to protect the wood stork's feeding and roosting areas and habitat shall be adopted and enforced by Lee County. Policy 77.10.1: By December 31, 1990, the Protected Species Ordinance (#89-34) and its administrative code (AC-13-10) shall include wood storks as a Lee County Listed Species, requiring surveys for and protection of wood stork habitat. The county shall maintain an inventory of documented feeding, roosting, and rooking areas for the wood stork to ensure that surveys submitted through the Protected Species Ordinance include such areas. Policy 77.10.2: By December 31, 1990, the county shall require management plans for existing wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas to utilize "Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the Southeast Region" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990). Policy 77.10.3: By July 1991, the county shall provide incentives for the creation of wood stork feeding areas in mandatory littoral shelf design, construction, and planting. These incentives shall include relief from 50% of the shrub requirements in exchange for fish entrapment areas. Policy 77.10.4: By July 1991, the county shall identify wood stork flight patterns from roosting and rooking areas to feeding areas within the county. Regulations protecting significant flight areas shall be adopted by July 1992, restricting the construction of tall structures such as broadcast towers (see Policy 2.1.5). Policy 2.1.5 provides: 25/ * [[After the completion and acceptance of a special study]] <<By July 1991, the county shall complete a special study on locational criteria for tall structures such as broadcast towers. These criteria shall include wood stork flight corridors from roosting and rooking areas to feeding areas as well as airport hazard areas. By July 1992, new>> tall structures such as broadcast towers shall be [[encouraged or]] required to be located in areas identified as appropriate <<after examining the findings of the study (see Policy 77.10.4).>> * Note: In the above quotation, language added to the policy is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. Policy 77.10.1 requires Lee County to keep an inventory of wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas to ensure that developer-provided surveys include such areas. The Revised Data and Analysis indicate that the County is already aware of certain of such areas. Policy 77.10.2 requires, by December 31, 1990, Lee County to demand that management plans for existing wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas use regionally applicable U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for habitat management. The requirement of management plans arises from the inclusion of wood storks among Lee County Listed Species, as provided in Policy 77.10.1. Policies 77.10.3 and 77.10.4 provide additional protection for wood storks found in Lee County. The Plan Amendments address the Florida panther, black bear, and their habitat as follows: Objective 77.11: FLORIDA PANTHER AND BLACK BEAR. By June 30, 1991, county staff shall develop measures to protect the Florida panther and black bear through greenbelt and acquisition strategies. Policy 77.11.1: County staff, working with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, shall identify known black bear and Florida panther corridors in Lee County. Policy 77.11.2: Criteria developed for ranking land acquisition priorities shall include known panther and black bear corridors. Policy 77.11.3: Lee County shall inform Collier and Charlotte counties as to Lee County corridor acquisition projects to encourage a regional approach to corridor acquisition. Policy 77.11.4: Lee County shall support the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand through a millage increase of .2 mills over a three-year period. Acquisition of this documented Florida panther and black bear corridor shall be coordinated with the South Florida Water Management District's "Save Our Rivers" program and the state's "Conservation and Recreational Lands" program. Policy 77.11.5: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for regulatory and public acquisition purposes shall be designated within these use areas. The corridor boundaries shall include wetlands, upland buffers, and nearby vegetative communities which are particularly beneficial to the Florida panther and black bear (such as high palmetto and oak hammocks). Policy 77.11.6: Florida panther and black bear corridors shall be included in the Protected Species Ordinance (#89-34) management section. Where corridors are purchased (or designated for purchase) adjacent to the development site, then a buffer to the corridor of no greater than 500 feet shall be required. Policy 77.11.7: In any vegetative restoration projects conducted by Lee County for land acquired due to its environmental sensitivity (such as the Six Mile Cypress Strand and the Flint Pen Strand), plant lists shall include species that provide forage for the prey of the Florida panther and forage for the black bear. The Plan Amendments also modified another policy contained in the Plan: Policy 77.4.1: Identify, inventory, and protect flora and fauna indicated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern in the "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora of Florida," Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, as periodically updated. <<Lee County's Protected Species Ordinance (#89- 34) shall be enforced to protect habitat of those listed species found in Lee County that are vulnerable to development. There shall be a funding commitment of one full-time environmental planner to enforce this ordinance through the zoning and development review process.>> Although not further described in the Amended Plan, the Protected Species Ordinance, which is not part of the Amended Plan, is addressed in the Revised Data and Analysis: The Protected Species ordinance (#89-34) was adopted by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners on August 31, 1989, and became effective on September 1, 1989. The ordinance was the first in the nation to require a survey for listed species habitat and a management plan for proposed development sites. The survey method is delineated to ensure a proper survey is performed. This survey is only required for those vegetative communities known to harbor listed species from the "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Flora and Fauna of Florida" of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Once the listed species are identified, a number of regulatory tools are used to preserve the nesting, feeding, and "other use" areas. These tools include the transfer of density on-site, use of open space requirements, and credits toward regional park impact fees. * * * The ordinance is being administered to allow maximum development flexibility while preserving listed species habitat. Joint Exhibit 10.c, page IX-1. Added by the Plan Amendments, Objective 17.4 states: NATURAL RESOURCES. County regulations, policies, and discretionary actions shall permit no further degradation of estuarine and wetland resources and no unnecessary loss of native upland vegetation and wildlife habitat. Although unaffected by the Plan Amendments, other provisions of the Amended Plan address wildlife habitat and identifies techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment upon important vegetative communities. These provisions state: Goal 77: RESOURCE PROTECTION. To manage the county's wetland and upland ecosystems so as to maintain and enhance native habitats, floral and faunal species diversity, water quality, and natural surface water characteristics. Objective 77.l: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. By 1991 the county shall adopt a resource management plan that will ensure the long- term protection and enhancement of the natural upland and wetland habitats through the retention of interconnected, functioning, and maintainable hydroecological systems where the remaining wetlands and uplands function as a productive unit resembling the original landscape. Policy 77.l.l: The county shall designate a natural resource management agency with responsibilities including: Identifying upland and wetland habitats/systems most suitable for protection, enhancement, reclamation, and conservation. Recommending standards to the Board of County Commissioners for Board approval for development and conservation that will protect and integrate wetlands (Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones), and significant areas of Rare and Unique upland habitats (RU) as indicated in the Lee County Coastal Study, including but not limited to: sand scrub (320); coastal scrub (322); those pine flatwoods (411) which can be categorized as "mature" due to the absence of severe impacts caused by logging, drainage, and exotic infestation; slash pine/midstory oak (412); tropical hardwood (426); live oak hammock (427); and cabbage palm hammock (428). The numbered references are to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Level III (FDOT, 1985). Preparing standards for wetland and rare and unique upland mitigation. Preparing a prioritized listing of wetlands, rare and unique uplands, and critical endangered and threatened species habitat properties for possible acquisition. Recommending a plan for eradicating and controlling problematic exotics Melaleuca, Schinus, and Casuarina with the highest priority placed on preventing new or accelerated infestations in wetlands and rare and unique upland habitats. Maintaining a central clearinghouse for all environmental studies and recommendations by both public and private organizations. Completing the mapping of the hydrological boundaries and habitats of each coastal watershed that extend landward of the coastal area study boundary. Preparing recommendations for maintaining or restoring the desired seasonal base flows and water quality into the coastal zone after reviewing monitoring data. Coordinating the preparation of plans with the municipalities, South Florida Water Management District, and Southwest Florida Water Management District to better control flows of freshwater and reduce pollutant discharges into the Lee County coastal waters. Regularly updating the Level III maps and database of the Coastal Study to reflect the existing conditions following each aerial photography overflight of the county. Providing an annual report to the county commission on the status of wetlands, native uplands, and rare and unique habitats. The report should focus on the adequacy of the land use regulations and management plan to protect and enhance these natural systems. Adjustments should be made in the regulatory process to address whatever deficiencies are noted. Objective 77.2: PLANT COMMUNITIES. By 1991, Lee County will have completed an inventory of natural plant communities and will adopt a program to protect at various suitable locations remnant tracts of all important and representative natural plant communities occurring within Lee County. Policy 77.2.1: Establish a coordinated natural resources information exchange program with state and regional agencies. Policy 77.2.2: Prevent incompatible development in and around areas that have been identified as unique or important natural plant communities. Policy 77.2.3: Prevent water management and development projects from altering or disrupting the natural function of significant natural systems. Policy 77.2.4: Encourage the protection of viable tracts of sensitive or high-quality natural plant communities within developments. Policy 77.2.5: Prepare and adopt regulations to control the clearing of natural vegetation except where and when needed for permitted development. Policy 77.2.6: Avoid needless destruction of upland vegetation communities including coastal and interior hammocks through consideration during the site plan review process of alternative layouts of permitted uses. Policy 77.2.7: Specify in the development regulations where inventories and assessments of the impacts of development in environmentally sensitive lands and Rare and Unique upland habitats shall be required. Policy 77.2.8: Promote the long-term maintenance of natural systems through such instruments as deed restrictions, covenants, easements, transfer of development rights, restrictive zoning, and public acquisition. Policy 77.2.9: Identify possible programs which would help to eradicate noxious plant species and/or non-native plant species from environmentally critical areas and Rare and Unique upland habitats, and implement pilot programs. Incentives such as density bonuses may be considered. Policy 77.2.10: Development adjacent to aquatic and other nature preserves, wildlife refuges, and recreation areas shall protect the natural character and public benefit of these areas including, but not limited to, scenic values for the benefit of future generations. Policy 77.2.11: The planting of Brazilian Pepper, Melaleuca, and Australian Pine is prohibited in order to prevent the spread of these noxious species. Policy 77.2.12: Lee County shall protect its natural resources by encouraging and cooperating with the local Mosquito Control District to employ the maximum feasible use of natural biological agents to control injurious insects. Objective 77.3: WILDLIFE. Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system to which man is inexorably linked. Policy 77.3.1: Encourage upland preservation in and around preserved wetlands to provide habitat diversity, enhance edge effect, and promote wildlife conservation. Policy 77.3.2: Develop a plan to establish wildlife corridors in order to help to maintain regional species viability and diversity. Policy 77.3.3: Adequate safe passage for wildlife under or across new and reconstructed roads shall be provided where appropriate. Objective 77.4: ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN GENERAL. Lee County will continue to protect habitats of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern in order to maintain or enhance existing population numbers and distributions of listed species. * * * Policy 77.4.2: Conserve critical habitat of rare and endangered plant and animal species through development review, regulation, incentives, and acquisition. Policy 77.4.3: Require detailed inventories and assessments of the impacts of development where it threatens habitat of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. Policy 77.4.4: Restrict the use of critical habitats to that which is compatible with the requirements of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. New developments shall protect remnants of viable habitats when listed vegetative and wildlife species inhabit a tract slated for development, except where equivalent mitigation is provided. Objective 77.5: LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLES. By the beginning of the 1989 nesting season (May 1), establish a program to minimize the disorientation of hatchling sea turtles along the Gulf beaches. Policy 77.5.1: The sea turtle protection program shall include at least the following activities: Prepare a guide for homeowners and builders which explains the detrimental effects of night-time beachfront lighting on hatchling sea turtles. Examine public light sources (streetlights, security lights, beach access lights, etc.) and prepare a plan to minimize the amount of harmful light from such sources onto the beach during the nesting season. Conduct an educational program to persuade residents to reduce lighting levels on the beach and to publicize other hazards to turtles from activities of people, pets, and vehicles. Encourage electrical suppliers and lighting dealers to stock special fixtures which reduce the negative effects of beachfront lighting. Develop an ordinance which controls the installation of new light fixtures which could shine on the beach, and which encourages or requires that existing lights be shielded or turned off during the nesting season. Determine whether certain areas of the beachfront are not used by sea turtles for nesting and should therefore not be subject to the same restrictions. Objective 77.6: SOUTHERN BALD EAGLES. During 1989, amend the county's ordinance protecting southern bald eagle habitat to provide an optimum mix of incentives and regulations for protecting buffer areas around nests. Policy 77.6.l: Maintain a policy of negotiations with owners of land surrounding eagle nests to provide an optimal management plan for land subject to imminent development. Policy 77.6.2: The county Eagle Technical Advisory Committee shall complete by the end of 1989 an assessment of all eagle nests in Lee County, and shall prepare proposed guidelines for each nest. Policy 77.6.3: The Committee shall also prepare management guidelines to inform land owners and the general public of proper practices to minimize disturbances to eagle nests. Objective 77.7: WEST INDIAN MANATEES. Minimize injuries and mortality of manatees to maintain the existing population by encouraging the adoption by the state of Florida and local governments of regulations to protect the West Indian Manatee in the Caloosahatchee and elsewhere in Lee County. During 1990, manatee management plans will be prepared for other waters of Lee County also frequented by manatees. Policy 77.7.1: Characterize and map important manatee habitats; identify and evaluate potential threats to important habitats; and consider management agreements to protect such habitats. Policy 77.7.2: Identify areas of greatest actual or potential boat/barge mortality and/or injury by December 31, 1990, and establish slow or idle speed zones. Policy 77.7.3: Inform and educate the public through sign posting, lectures, and regulations about manatee protection. Policy 77.7.4: Educational materials regarding manatees should be disseminated to boaters and warning signs placed in areas where both manatees and humans congregate. Policy 77.7.5: Construction and expansion of multi-slip docking facilities and boat ramps shall be encouraged in locations where there is quick access to deep, open waters where the associated increase in boat traffic will be outside areas of high manatee concentration. Policy 77.7.6: Rezoning and DRI applications for marinas and boat ramps shall be evaluated in the context of cumulative impacts on manatees and marine resources. Policy 77.7.7: State, local, and private interests shall work in cooperation to develop and implement area-specific manatee protection plans. Policy 77.7.8: By October 1, 1991, the county shall provide a permanent funding source to assist the Florida Department of Natural Resources in enforcement of such manatee protection plans as may be adopted. Objective 77.8: GOPHER TORTOISES. During 1989, determine the suitability of publicly owned property for the relocation of gopher tortoises. Policy 77.8.1: The county's policy is to protect gopher tortoise burrows wherever they are found. However, recognizing that there occasionally are unavoidable conflicts which require the relocation of gopher tortoises, the suitability of alternate sites should be evaluated as to --physical suitability of the site for the gopher tortoises; --long-term protection of the land; --conflicts with other management objectives for the land; and --costs that would be incurred by the relocation. Objective 77.9: RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER. By 1990, county staff will prepare a list of best management practices for the red- cockaded woodpecker's habitat. Policy 77.9.1: County staff will note and document other possible red-cockaded woodpecker sites during routine site inspections. As to Issue 6, to the extent that the Plan Amendments address the identification of regulatory or management techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment on wildlife habitat, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with the criterion of a policy identifying such regulatory or management techniques. Future Land Use Map Series (Issues 3, 4, 5, 7, and 11) Issues 5, 7, and 11 As to Issue 11, the future land use map series, which includes the 2010 overlay, reflects a planning timeframe of 20 years. The schedule of capital improvements covers a five-year timeframe. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan uses inconsistent timeframes, such as those mentioned above, as well as timeframes of five years for potable water and sewer, less than 10 years of need for potable water wellfield protection, and one year for mass transit. Different timeframes may be appropriate for different projected items because of the varying amounts of available data and analysis for different items, varying planning requirements in the growth management law concerning different items, and varying degrees of predictability for different items. As to Issue 11, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the criterion of two planning timeframes. As to Issue 5, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis identifies potable water wellfields or their cones of influence. Map 8 of the Amended Plan identifies the cones of influence surrounding depicted wellfields and indicates that it was "as adopted [on] January 31, 1989." Map 8 obviously was part of the Plan and was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. The extensive amendments and revisions concerning the new 2010 overlay, the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, related Plan Amendments, and the data and analysis underlying these operative provisions do not provide a basis for Petitioner's assertion that the future land use map series fails to identify potable water wellfields permitted to pump less than one million gallons per day and their cones of influence. Issue 5 is directed toward the Plan, not the Plan Amendments. As to Issue 7, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis involves densities in the coastal high hazard area, except to the extent that the 2010 overlay may reduce such densities by limiting residential uses when compared to the original 70-year future land use map. 26/ Issue 7 is directed toward the Plan, not the Plan Amendments. Issues 3 and 4 Overview As to Issues 3 and 4, the Plan Amendments substantially changed the future land use map series by the addition of the 2010 overlay and related text. However, except for the introduction of the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, the Plan Amendments, including the 2010 overlay, did not substantially alter the types of land uses permitted by the future land use map series in the Plan. The 2010 overlay and related text address the timing of land uses by limiting the amount of land that may, prior to 2010, be devoted to the uses designated by the future land use map in the Plan. Issues 3 and 4 generally raise the issue whether the Plan Amendments, including the amended future land use map series, are supported by data and analysis. Because the Plan Amendments and the amended future land use map series do not generally change the uses that are ultimately to be allowed in an area, the Plan Amendments and amended future land use map series are not implicated by allegations that the amended future land use maps are not consistent with soils, topography, and floodplains. For the same reason, the Plan Amendments and amended future land use map series do not play a significant role in determining whether land use designations for specific areas, such as North Bonita Springs, are supported by data and analysis. However, as explained below, the Plan Amendments, including the amended future land use map series, directly affect the amount of land that will be available for designated uses by 2010. Based on the findings contained in the following sections, the designations contained in the amended future land use map series--even as limited by the 2010 overlay--lack support from data and analysis in two crucial respects. The first deficiency is that the density allocations are not supported by data and analysis. The second deficiency involves all designations, not just residential designations expressed in terms of densities. The second deficiency contains two parts. First, the existing land use baseline data are omitted from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis. Second, the County has yet to design a reliable process for updating the available baseline existing land use data. The determination whether the density allocations in the amended future land use map series are supported by data and analysis begins with consideration of the ratio of the maximum population accommodated by the Amended Plan for the planning timeframe divided by the projected population at the end of the planning timeframe. The resulting ratio is not itself determinative of the issue whether data and analysis support the density designations in a comprehensive plan. A wide range of density allocation ratios may be calculated for the same plan. There are a variety of reasonable assumptions and adjustments, especially for reducing the maximum population accommodated by the plan. Also there are a range of reasonable density allocation ratios. A density allocation ratio represents a rough calculation of the relationship between the amount of land needed for residential uses during the planning timeframe compared to the amount of land so designated during the planning timeframe. If the ratio is relatively high, there is a greater chance that the plan may not facilitate the efficient use of land or the efficient provision of public facilities, especially if the spatial distribution of densities and textual plan provisions do not tend to achieve these objectives. In any event, a density allocation ratio is an important factor in determining whether data and analysis support the density designations contained in a comprehensive plan. As explained below, the Data and Analysis contain a critical adjustment by which the maximum densities permitted in the Amended Plan are reduced to reflect historic densities--by an unstated amount and according to an incompletely described methodology. The second deficiency concerning supporting data and analysis undermines residential, commercial, industrial, and other designations. The baseline existing land use data are omitted from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis, and the process by which existing land uses will be updated is uncertain and unreliable. The 2010 overlay is meaningless without these data. As described below, the 2010 overlay divides the County into numerous subdistricts. The 2010 overlay limits development in each subdistrict to a maximum acreage for each land use category. The acreage limitations represent total acreage, which consists of the acreage of existing land uses that preexisted the implementation of the 2010 overlay and the acreage of land use authorized pursuant to, and following, the implementation of the 2010 overlay. The baseline data missing from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis are the acres of each existing land use for each subdistrict. The absence of such data from a readily available source such as the Amended Plan or Data and Analysis undermines effective implementation of each of the designations contained in the 2010 overlay. Although the evidence indicates that the County has adequate baseline existing land use data, such data, for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law, must be included in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis because of its indispensable role in the implementation of the 2010 overlay. Neither the Amended Plan nor the Data and Analysis identify the process by which Lee County will update the baseline existing land use data. Evidence at the final hearing revealed serious deficiencies in the updating process, which requires the County to extrapolate from traffic data and analysis the ongoing incremental acreage increases of land use, rather than track the increases as they are authorized in a more straightforward fashion. Thus, concerning the second deficiency, the designations contained in the 2010 overlay are supported by data and analysis only to the extent of: 1) a clearly ascertained baseline, in terms of acres of existing land uses by category for each planning subdistrict, set forth in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis and 2) the identification of a reliable means of determining the incremental acreage increases authorized by the County for each land use category for each planning district following the implementation of the 2010 overlay. 2. How the Amended Future Land Use Map Series Works The primary component of the future land use map series Map 1, which is a future land use map containing 18 future land use designations. Map 1 projects land uses through buildout of the entire County, or about 70 years. Map 1 was contained in the Plan and was not changed by the Plan Amendments, except for the addition of the 2010 overlay and the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation. The Plan Amendments added Maps 16 and 17 to the future land use map series. Maps 16 and 17 constitute the 2010 overlay. Map 16 divides the entire County, including the three municipalities, into 115 planning subdistricts. Map 17 is not a map, but is a series of bar graphs depicting acreages for seven land use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, and vacant and passive agriculture. The regulatory concept of the 2010 overlay is to prohibit, prior to 2010, the issuance of "final development orders or building permits" for any future land use designation once the subdistrict has attained the acreage specified for that type of land use by Map 17. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. This concept is implemented by Policy 1.1.1, which provides: The Future Land Use Map contained in this element is hereby adopted as the pattern for future development and substantial redevelopment within the unincorporated portion of Lee County. <<Maps 16 and 17 are an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series (see Policies 1.7.6 and 2.2.2). They depict the extent of development through the year 2010. No final development orders or building permits will be issued by Lee County which would allow the acreage totals for any land use category on these maps to be exceeded.>> The cities of Fort Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel are depicted on [[this]] <<these>> maps only to indicate the approximate intensities of development permitted under the comprehensive plans of those cities. Residential densities are described in the following policies and summarized in Table l. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that the purpose of the 2010 overlay is to make the 70-year future land use map in the Plan "even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 1. The Revised Data and Analysis elaborate: The addition of a 20-year horizon (i.e., to the year 2010) to the map series is an effort to project and monitor land development quantitatively on a small area basis and over a relatively shorter period of time, thus improving the county's ability to coordinate zoning, impact fees, and other development regulations with the planning and programming of public facilities and services. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 2. Assumptions, Data, and Methodologies Applicable to 2010 Overlay Density Allocations: Assumptions and Data Map 1 and the 2010 overlay are based on the 1987 University of Florida high-range population projections for 2010. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 4. Residential projections are based on peak or seasonal populations, which are permanent populations plus 18%. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 4, and County Exhibit 1.B, page V-7. Populations are converted to dwelling units by assuming that 2.01 persons occupy each dwelling unit. Id. The population figures typically include Ft. Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel, not merely unincorporated Lee County. 27/ Other important assumptions identified in the Revised Data and Analysis are that there will be no net loss of wetlands, the density allocations will reflect the new Groundwater Resource/Density Reduction designation with a density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres (1:10), the Mid-Point Bridge will be built by 2000, all but one of the transportation projects shown on the Interim Traffic Circulation Plan Map will be finished by 2010, and the "state road network" will be enhanced by the Traffic District Program and Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads and Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads. 28/ Joint Exhibit 10.b, pages 4-5. Another key assumption involves adjustments to the designated densities authorized in the comprehensive plans of Ft. Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel. Acknowledging that Lee County lacks planning jurisdiction over these municipalities, the Revised Data and Analysis nonetheless reveal that Lee County made "some adjustments" to their growth trends. In other words, in determining the densities to use for the 2010 population that could be accommodated by the cities' plans, Lee County chose not to rely on the maximum densities indicated by the future land use designations given vacant residential acreage on each city's future land use map. Instead, as it did for the unincorporated County, Lee County reduced the maximum densities in the cities' plans to account for historic buildout densities. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. Density Allocations: Methodology Noting that the 2010 overlay is not a "textbook planning concept," the Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge that the 2010 overlay required an "innovative methodology," which, due to time constraints, could not be fully documented in the Revised Data and Analysis. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. Instead, the Revised Data and Analysis provide only a "brief explanation" of the methodology. Id. Section III of the Revised Data and Analysis for the Future Land Use Element 29/ describes the methodology underlying the County's estimate of the builtout capacity of the land. In this analysis, the County reduces maximum densities permitted under the Amended Plan to reflect anticipated actual densities. This adjustment is intended to reflect the historic buildout factor in Lee County, which generally resulted in involved lower densities in urban areas and higher densities in rural areas than are designated in the Amended Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that the Original Data and Analysis used 1981 data and analysis of then-existing vacant land, including platted but vacant lots. The vacant acreage was then tabulated by land uses identified within the Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis add: By adding the 1981 dwelling unit count to a reasonable projection of future housing densities on the "vacant" acreage, an estimate was made of the build-out capacity of the unincorporated area as shown in the Lee Plan's land use map. The process by which vacant acreage was converted to dwelling units is partly described, at least to the extent of several assumptions. The following percentages were deducted from the vacant acreage for the following uses: commercial--8%; major collector and arterial roads--5%; educational facilities- -2%; and community and regional parks--1%. Another 10,000 acres were deducted from the vacant acreage for industrial uses. The percentage reductions for commercial and industrial future land uses were based on studies by the independent planning consultant who was involved in the preparation of Map 1 and the 2010 overlay. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 6. The deductions for commercial and industrial acreage allotments, as described in this paragraph, are reasonable and supported by data and analysis. 30/ The Revised Data and Analysis, as well as the Original Data and Analysis, mention adjustments that Lee County made to its analysis of the capacity of residential development authorized by the Amended Plan. By these adjustments, the County attempted to show where commercial and industrial uses would preempt residential uses. Although the methodology of the adjustments is not disclosed, they appear to represent a reasonable attempt to avoid the unrealistic land use planning assumption that commercial and industrial uses would be scattered equally throughout the parts of the County where they are authorized under the Amended Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis next break down the acreage of each future land use designation into 15 planning districts and 115 planning subdistricts. Table 1 (III C) beginning on page 8 of Joint Exhibit 10.b provides acreages for each of the 15 planning districts on three tables: one for Lee County in its entirety, one for unincorporated Lee County, and one for the three municipalities. Table 2 (III C) breaks down the acreages by planning subdistrict. The acreages in Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) do not correspond to the acreages shown in Map 17 and Table 3 (V G). 31/ The differences are not indicative of deficient data and analysis. Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) represent interim stages of the process by which Lee County developed the 2010 overlay and, as such, do not provide acreages on which density allocations may be calculated. However, Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) do not suggest that the final acreage figures in Map 17 and Table 3 (V G) represent the maximum densities or population allowed in the Amended Plan without reduction for historic densities. To the contrary, the Revised Data and Analysis indicate that the preparation of Table 2 (III C) allowed "the input of expected densities." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 7. Unlike Table 3 (V G) or Table 1 (III C), Table 2 (III C) contains a column entitled, "Buildout Assumptions." One part of the Buildout Assumptions column is "percent residential." The adjustment for percent residential appears to be based on the above-described deductions for commercial and industrial allotments. In any event, the adjustment represents a reasonable projection as to what portions of land designated residential will necessarily be devoted to other uses, such as commercial and industrial. The other part of the Buildout Assumptions column in Table 2 (III C) is "dwelling units per acre," which appears to represent adjusted projections based on historic buildouts. The maximum densities for each category allowed by the Amended Plan are invariably equal to or (more often) higher than the dwelling units per acre contained in the Buildout Assumptions. 32/ The Revised Data and Analysis revise Section V(G) of the Original Data and Analysis. This section is entitled "Future Land Use Needs for the Year 2010." The new section addresses exclusively residential development. Table 2 (V G) in the new section lists by planning subdistricts the number of dwelling units in 1987, the number of dwelling units projected for 2010, and the number of dwelling units projected at buildout. In introducing Table 3 (V G), the Revised Data and Analysis note that the projected number of dwelling units for 2010 (presumably from Table 2 (V G)) was translated to acreage by "taking the number of acres in each land use category in each district and allocating the residential units projected for 2010 at the density factor (number of units per acre) allowed in the land use category." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 37. However, the acreage allotments in Table 3 (V G), which are the same as those in Map 17, reflect historic density adjustments, rather than unadjusted applications of the maximum densities authorized in the Amended Plan. For the purpose of calculating density allocation ratios in determining whether the designated densities are supported by data and analysis, there is no justification for failing to disclose information necessary to calculate the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan. 33/ For the purpose of calculating density allocation ratios in determining whether the designated densities are supported by data and analysis, there is no justification for reducing the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan by an undisclosed amount to reflect historic buildout densities. The purpose of Map 1 was to depict the land uses in Lee County at buildout, which was estimated to be about 70 years. This 70-year future land use map was to facilitate end-state public facility planning by assisting the County and private utility companies in determining where to locate and how to size public facilities so as to accommodate the builtout population of Lee County. Projecting actual buildouts for end-state public facility planning requires an adjustment based on historic densities. But the present determination is whether the densities authorized by the Amended Plan are supported by data and analysis. This determination requires consideration of the effectiveness of the future land use map series as a regulatory device to assist the Amended Plan in achieving consistency with applicable criteria of the growth management law. To a large extent, any regulatory purpose for Map 1 was frustrated by the fact that, in 1989, it made available for immediate development (subject to concurrency) all of the land that would be needed for various uses by 2060. The 70-year planning timeframe meant that Map 1 designated amounts of land for various uses that were grossly in excess of that which was needed in 1989 or even 2010. To this extent, the 70-year future land use map did not facilitate effective land use planning. The sole purpose of the 2010 overlay is to shorten the planning timeframe of Map 1 from 70 year to 20 years. The shorter planning timeframe is more meaningful for land use planning, as well as facility planning in the interim. Although the 2010 overlay clearly strengthens the future land use map series as a regulatory device, the question still remains whether even the reduced densities designated by the map series are supported by data and analysis. The calculation of a density allocation ratio is part of the determination whether data and analysis support the residential densities in a plan. The analysis misses the point of the process if the maximum densities authorized by a plan are reduced to reflect historic densities. The question is whether the densities authorized by a plan are supported by data and analysis, not whether data and analysis support densities somewhere between the maximum authorized densities and historic densities. Especially where historic densities reflect an inefficient use of land, as is clearly the case in Lee County, analysis of a plan based in part on historic densities invites the repetition of past planning failures. Although there is some flexibility in calculating and interpreting density allocation ratios, the reduction of maximum densities allowed in the Amended Plan by an undisclosed amount and by an incompletely explained methodology frustrates the purpose of comprehensive land use planning. The purpose of the density allocation calculation, as part of the process of determining if the plan is supported by data and analysis, is not to predict the actual density that will occupy the planning jurisdiction at buildout. The purpose of the density allocation calculation is to compare the maximum density allowed by the plan with the projected population and consider the extent of the overallocation in light of other factors in the planning jurisdiction, including plan provisions and relevant data and analysis. The ratio is not required to be 1:1 to satisfy the criterion of supporting data and analysis. But the ratio must be ascertainable in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis. By failing to disclose either the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan or even the bases upon which such maximum densities could be derived, Lee County has implicitly and--at times--explicitly demanded undue deference to its above-described density analyses. Nothing in the record warrants such deference. Although Lee County has made considerable progress in regulating land uses since first adopting zoning in 1962, sprawling, low-density residential monoliths already occupy much of the landscape in Lee County. Two such areas are Lehigh Acres and Cape Coral, the latter of which has now been incorporated. These inefficient land use patterns, which are a large part of Lee County's historic densities, generally exceed rural densities but do not attain urban densities. Lee County confronts a serious challenge from the massive tracts of prematurely (and in some cases unsuitably) platted lots, as well as the ongoing pressure to continue such inefficient and costly land use practices. The Original Data and Analysis note that "vacant zoning together with platted lands could accommodate over 218,700 units or 518,000 people in the unincorporated area alone" and that the "pace of rezoning, often with speculative intent, has not lessened appreciably since that time." County Exhibit 1.B, Future Land Use Element Data and Analysis, page V-1. The Original Data and Analysis observe that Lee County in its entirety contains 480,458 platted lots covering over 153 square miles. Although it is not entirely clear that all of these lots are vacant or preplatted, a considerable number of them are. Most of the lots are in Lehigh Acres (132,512 lots) and Cape Coral (287,869, but deed restrictions require two lots for one homesite.) Only 3768 lots are considered nondevelopable. County Exhibit 1.B, Future Land Use Element Data and Analysis, page I-1. The Revised Data and Analysis argue that Lee County should be accorded greater planning flexibility than should other local governments in Florida due in part to its "large concentrations of pre-platted lands." The other reasons cited to justify special treatment are the presence of three independent municipalities, a multiplicity of private sewer and water systems lacking centralized control, a complicated land and water configuration, a strong wetlands protection program, a large regional airport, existing and future DRI's, and an "historical pattern of decision-making that has created land use expectations which, in the aggregate, are difficult to reverse and require care and sensitivity in so doing." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 2. With the exception of the strong wetlands protection program, if one were to exist, the cited factors at best cut both ways in terms of whether, under the growth management law, a local government facing such challenges requires greater planning flexibility. The pre-platted lands factor militates against greater planning flexibility, as these vacant lots represent a potential liability that threaten the viability of a local government's comprehensive plan. Following the discussion of Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C), the Revised Data and Analysis admit: The above analysis helps to explain the inability of Lee County and private sector utility companies to provide infrastructure to all of the future urban areas shown on the future land use map. Those services that involve major expenditures for site-specific capital improvements (such as sewer lines, water lines, and major roadways) are the major components of local governments' expenses in providing for new growth; yet they are the very services which are difficult to provide economically when a large supply of land is provided for development. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 7. The Revised Data and Analysis identify several factors that militate in favor of abandoning the stricter regulatory land-use controls introduced by the 1984 comprehensive plan. 34/ These factors are the presence of numerous private utility suppliers over which Lee County has no regulatory control; the "existing pattern of development within unincorporated Lee County [involving] numerous physically scattered communities of widely varying character," which renders attempts to apply a "single concept" of urban services across a wide spectrum of communities "inappropriate" and "financially infeasible" both as to existing and future development; the unsuccessful implementation of flexible planning strategies in the 1984 plan, such as planned unit developments in which developers and landowners provide a full range of urban infrastructure without expense to Lee County; and, "[p]erhaps the most difficult issue. . . in implementing the 1984 Lee Plan," the "lack of total commitment to the policy of allowing urban-scale development [over 1:1] only where a commitment was actually being made to provide an urban level of infrastructure." Elaborating on the last factor, the Revised Data and Analysis add: "The future land use map has often been seen as just another obstacle rather than as a vehicle towards the creation of desirable development patterns." Joint Exhibit 10.b, pages 30-31. Again, the cited factors do not militate in favor of more relaxed regulatory land-use practices to achieve consistency with the criteria of the growth management law. Addressing the 2010 overlay and the projected population that it is intended to accommodate, the Revised Data and Analysis contend: [DCA] has tried to rigorously defend the concept of enforcing a future land use map having an approximate capacity equal to the projected growth of the county over a given (typically, 20-year) period. This is not possible in Lee County where existing platted and sold lots greatly exceed the 20-year period. In addition, it is also important to know where and how growth will occur well beyond the conventional timeframe of a comprehensive plan. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 31. However, the Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge the drawbacks of reliance upon a future land use map with a 70-year planning timeframe. The cited disadvantages include the increased likelihood of changes in designations over the intervening 70 years (as compared to shorter periods like 20 years); the premature conversion of agricultural and vacant land to residential uses due to designations that, in 1990, presently permit land uses that will accommodate all projected urbanization through the year 2060; and the possibility that actual population growth will not attain projected population growth, which would result in an even more scattered development pattern that would further increase the cost of servicing the scattered population with required public facilities and services. The Revised Data and Analysis frankly concede that "there is no easy way to exit from the present dilemma." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 32. A "wholesale rollback" of existing future urban areas, though simple, "would inevitably diminish development rights previously granted by Lee County." The prime examples of previously granted development rights are the "hundreds of thousands of [already-sold] platted lots" and "numerous large-scale developments which have recently been approved based on the existing Lee Plan . . .." Id. Acknowledging the obvious, the Revised Data and Analysis admit that the preceding analysis "indicates clearly that the development potential shown on the Future Land Use Map is greater than the projected population for the year 2010." Id. The Revised Data and Analysis list five steps that Lee County has taken to "bridge the gap between the adopted [70- year] future land use map and the desirability of a 20-year map." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 32. These steps are reserving about one-third of the Future Urban Areas for privately funded infrastructure; substantially reducing the total acreage of land, including coastal ares designated urban in the 1984 plan; adopting impact fees for fire protection and emergency medical services; adopting the 2010 overlay; and adopting the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to reduce densities in sensitive areas to 1:10. As noted above, the encouragement of privately funded infrastructure has not enjoyed much success in Lee County. As noted below, the adoption of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation with a low density of 1:10 over thousands of acres of the County allows a real separation of urban and rural uses. But, as noted in this section of the recommended order, data and analysis do not support the density designations in the 2010 overlay and thus the question remains open whether even the reduced densities authorized by the 2010 overlay are supported by data and analysis. Baseline and Updated Existing Land Use Data: Data, Assumptions, and Methodology Lee County possesses the baseline data for existing land uses by each land use category for each subdistrict. Lee County's Growth Management Director William Spikowski testified that the County possessed sufficient, baseline existing land use data, broken down by land use category and subdistrict, as of 1987. Tr., page 122. There is no basis in the record for discrediting the 1987 baseline data, 35/ but, for the reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the criterion of supporting data and analysis requires in this instance that such crucial baseline data be included in the Data and Analysis (or the Amended Plan, if the County prefers). For the faster-growing subdistricts, these baseline data were updated to 1990, which is when the 2010 overlay was adopted. Id. The record does not support the finding that, to the exclusion of fair debate, any problems exist with respect to the one-time 1990 update of the baseline data, which may have been produced by the independent consultant who prepared the commercial and industrial studies and initiated Map 1 and the 2010 overlay. The point at which the 2010 overlay finds no support from the data and analysis is in the updating of the existing land use data from the 1987 (or 1990, where applicable) baseline data. The 115 planning subdistricts in Map 16 are formed out of over 800 traffic analysis zones. Part of the reason for using the traffic analysis zones was the detailed data available for small areas of the County. When confronted with the necessity of calculating exactly how much land remains in a specific subdistrict for a specific use, the County has a very poorly defined process whose results are unreliable. The updating process does not involve tracking actual land areas authorized for development in a specific land use under the 2010 overlay. Instead, the County reverts to traffic data, employs undisclosed conversion factors, and reaches a result that may or may not measure the extent of the development that it has authorized in the subdistrict under the 2010 overlay. The conversion process is unreliable and, even if it were reliable, may be measuring merely actual uses, but not already-authorized uses not yet in existence. The unreliability of the updating process by which authorized development under the 2010 overlay is measured was disclosed in the testimony of Mr. Spikowski. The relevant portion of the transcript reads: Q: Okay. Where would I find the--just the vacant acreage that you're proposing to allow to be developed? A: The exact inventory is what I discussed as what we want to have--be able to take off the property appraiser's records for each parcel so that we can have a constantly updated figure. We don't have that available. . . . Tr., page 1294. After discussing a recent rezoning request that evidently involved commercial uses, possibly as part of a mixed- use project, Mr. Spikowski explained that the County elected to do a manual count of existing land uses rather than rely on the traffic data and use a conversion factor. Mr. Spikowski testified in relevant part: A: . . . instead of using the information we used, which is the 1987 inventory done for the traffic model where we had to use conversion factors to take employees back to acres, the right thing to do in that case was to do a manual count, to do what we want to do on the computer. And maybe week after next we're going to have the capability to do that. It had to be done manually. Because we had base projections in here based on the inventory for the '87 traffic model, but it was calculated for commercial based on number of employees, because that's what the traffic model wanted. For us to use it in the overlay we had to convert that back to acres using standard conversion factors, which introduces an element of error. So before you would use this overlay as a regulation of telling somebody they cannot use their land, you really would need to manually check it. Whether that goes to the property appraiser records for those sections or estimate of aerial photography with the Plan amendment, or either way would work. We tried both methods. Q: I really can't do--take the documents that are in evidence and do this calculation because I can't tell what is existing? A: You would have to--If you take the documents in evidence, I believe you'd have to assume that the conversion factors that are county-wide averages are correct for that subdistrict. And again, for general planning purposes we were comfortable doing that, also knowing that we were getting this new system to do it automatically. This is one of the regulatory flaws of the 2010 overlay and that's why it's become so hated in the development community. They say, if you can't give us the exact amount, how can you expect us to live with it? Tr, pages 1294-97. The record is otherwise devoid of evidence describing the methodology by which the acreage allotments by subdistrict will be updated. The role of Map 17, as described by Policy 1.1.1, is to ensure that the County will not authorize development that would exceed relevant acreage totals. There are absolutely no data or analysis supporting the crucial updating process. Nothing in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis prevents the County from, if it so chooses, using traffic data (which may possibly ignore authorized uses that have not yet placed vehicles on the road), converting employees to acres by some undisclosed formula (or perhaps residents to acres through the undisclosed historic density adjustment), and determining that the development would not exceed the acreage allotment. It is to the County's credit that, in the rezoning application described by Mr. Spikowski, it manually determined existing land uses in the affected subdistrict to determine if additional acreage were available. This is the "right thing to do" for using the 2010 overlay "as a regulation." But the 2010 overlay is unsupported by data and analysis unless the County restricts itself to a reliable updating process. The alternative updating process, which is based on converted traffic data, cannot be found, on basis of this record, to be any more reliable than reading owls' entrails. The Amended Plan or Data and Analysis must assure that the County will adhere to more reliable means of measuring interim increases in land uses authorized under the 2010 overlay. Even if the County implements a computer- assisted reading of updated property appraiser records, questions remain concerning, for instance, the accuracy of such records as measurements of the extent of development authorized by the County pursuant to the 2010 overlay and the frequency with which these measurements must be updated in order to ensure that acreage allotments are not exceeded. These matters must be described either in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis for the designations contained in the 2010 overlay to find support in the data and analysis. As to Issues 3 and 4, for the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the Maps 1, 16 and 17 of the amended future land use map series are not supported by data and analysis. Transportation (Issues 8 and 9) With five exceptions not material to this case, Policy 21.1.1 adopts the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) 2010 Financially Feasible Map as the Interim Traffic Circulation Plan Map. This color map is Map 3 in the Amended Plan. Policy 21.1.5 explains that the future traffic circulation map series consists of Map 3, the MPO 2010 Needs Plan (Map 4), and a map of ports, airlines, and rail lines (Map 13). The Plan Amendments completely revised Policies 21.1.1 and 70.1.3.6, which adopt minimum peak hour/peak season level of service standards 36/ for roads in Lee County. The adopted level of service standard is D for freeways, such as I-75, and principal arterials under state jurisdiction other than US 41. The Amended Plan assigns a level of service E to all other roads, which are County arterials and collectors, and state minor arterials and others, as well as US 41. Concerning constrained roads, Policy 22.1.3 provides: <<Due to scenic, historic, environmental, aesthetic, and right-of-way characteristics and considerations, Lee County has determined that certain roadway segments will not be widened. Therefore, reduced peak hour levels of service will be accepted on those constrained roads as a trade-off for the preservation of the scenic, historic, environmental, and aesthetic character of the community. These constrained roads are defined in Table 2(b). Growth on those constrained roads will be permitted only within the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios established in this plan and only if consistent with the Operational Improvement Program for those constrained roads.>> Table 2(b) identifies nine state and County road segments that are constrained. Policy 22.1.9 sets a maximum volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.85:1 and prohibits the issuance of additional permits for development affecting the constrained segment once that ratio has been reached. Policy 22.1.10 establishes an Operational Improvement Program for each constrained segment. There is no evidence that Lee County has identified as constrained road segments roadways for which capacity-enhancing projects are not appropriately limited by scenic, historic, environmental, aesthetic, or right- of-way factors. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the treatment of constrained roads in the Amended Plan is inconsistent with any of the criteria of the growth management law. Table 2(a) identifies 26 state and County road segments that are backlogged. The treatment of backlogged roads in the Amended Plan is much more elaborate. Even though these road segments do not, by definition, meet the minimum level of service standards otherwise adopted in the Amended Plan for roads of their functional classifications, the Amended Plan requires neither the addition of greater transportation capacity in the affected area nor the cessation of development impacting the affected area. Instead, the Amended Plan offers a two-part alternative. Under the Traffic District Program, a backlogged road segment may be viewed in the context of a much larger area. Pursuant to the Interim/Operational Improvement Program, interim operational improvements may be undertaken, but are not required to restore the subject road segment to its otherwise applicable level of service standard. As to Issue 8, the Traffic District Program in particular has a clear impact on the consistency of the Amended Plan and Plan Amendments with the criteria of setting level of service standards for roads, ensuring concurrency for roads, and correcting infrastructure deficiencies regarding roads. Policy 22.1.2 states: <<The minimum acceptable levels of service specified in Policy 22.1.1 shall not apply on an interim basis to the backlogged roads identified in Table 2(a). It is the County's intent that those segments will be improved to the identified standard in the shortest period possible, but no later than December 31, 1999. During that interim period, however, growth on those backlogged roads may be permitted if it is consistent with the Traffic District Program (Policy 22.1.5) and Interim/Operational Improvements Program (Policy 22.1.6).>> Policy 22.1.5 provides: <<A Traffic District Program is hereby established for purposes of determining allowable development affecting backlogged roads. On at least an annual basis, Lee County shall estimate the service volumes for all City, County and State collectors, arterials and freeways within each traffic district, and shall determine the district- wide service volume surplus or deficiency. Development permits that affect a backlogged road may still be approved provided that the surplus service volume resulting from the existing surplus service volume, any service volume increases due to committed roadway improvements, and any service volume increases due to interim improvements (reported as a percent of existing service volume on a district basis) is equal to or exceeds the annual percent increase in traffic on a traffic district basis. However, such permits will be issued only if mitigation is provided in accordance with Policy 22.1.13. In the event that the percent service volume growth identified above on a traffic district basis is less than the percent traffic growth in that district, no permits will be issued by Lee County for development that affects the backlogged segment. Such development will be permitted only if capacity enhancement and/or operational improvements are programmed for implementation within the specific District so that the total service volume growth for the District will again be equal to or greater than the District traffic growth. Growth on non-backlogged roads will not be affected. Development that does not affect the backlogged segment will still be allowed. For purposes of calculating service volumes for the Traffic District Program, the following rules apply: Constrained roads (see Table 2(b)) will not be included in the determination of traffic growth and percent service volumes. Percent traffic growth will be based on the last full year of traffic count information. Committed roadway improvements for purposes of this calculation are those improvements under a current construction contract.>> Policy 22.1.6 states: <<For the identified backlogged roads (see Table 2(a)), and as any additional backlogged roads may emerge over time, an Interim/ Operational Improvement Program will be established. The Interim/Operational Improvement Program will include the following types of improvements: Phased improvements, representing a staged implementation of the eventual improvement that is needed to return the backlogged road to the minimum acceptable level of service. Operational improvements, representing short-term measures to improve traffic operations and expand capacity prior to the eventual roadway improvement.>> <<The initial Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads is identified in Table 2(c).>> <<On an annual basis, a minimum of five backlogged roads will be studied in detail by Lee County with specific interim/operational improvements identified. Specific interim/ operational improvements shall be incorporated into the County's Capital Improvements Program. Initially, six backlogged roads have been studied in detail including portions of US 41 South, US 41 North, McGregor Boulevard, Gladiolus Drive, San Carlos Boulevard, and Metro Parkway. The selection of specific interim/operational improvements to be constructed in any given year may be adjusted as deemed necessary by Lee County to reflect developer funding opportunities, adjustments to construction schedules, other agency improvement projects and schedules, and alternative improvements of a comparable nature. Specific interim/ operational improvements shall be included in all following updates of the County's Capital Improvements Program to ensure the expeditious construction of those improvements.>> Policy 22.1.8 assures that, "[a]fter December 31, 1999, Lee County shall measure concurrency on all roads on a roadway segment-by-segment basis rather than using the Traffic District Program contained in this plan." Policy 22.1.13 provides: <<All proposed development activity, as part of the concurrency management process, will be reviewed against the Traffic District Program, the Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads and the Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads. Development activity affecting backlogged and constrained roads will be required to mitigate its traffic impacts: For that development activity determined not to affect a backlogged and/or constrained road segment, traffic mitigation will consist of payment of Roads Impact Fees and needed intersection improvements at the site entrance(s). For development activity determined to affect a backlogged and/or constrained road segment, traffic mitigation may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: Advanced, lump sum payment of Roads Impact Fees to Lee County; Developer construction or financing, with Lee County approval, of one or more of the interim or operational improvements identified in the Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads or the Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads; Developer prepares, with Lee County approval, a detailed Interim/Operational Improvement Program for the affected road(s) and funds one or more of the needed interim or operational improvements; and Developer funding of needed road improvements.>> <<Lee County's Concurrency Management Ordinance shall be amended prior to the end of 1990 to specify the impact mitigation procedure and threshold measurements for mitigation purposes.>> The establishment of the Traffic Districts for backlogged roads is left to the Revised Data and Analysis. At page VI-7 of Joint Exhibit 10.a is a map dividing Lee County into nine traffic districts. Six districts cover the entire mainland. The districts approximate the preexisting districts created by Lee County in the implementation of its traffic impact fee program. The service/traffic formula does not operate in isolation. As noted above, the Interim/Operational Improvement Program also requires developer- provided mitigation. However, the required mitigation does not require the developer to restore the road segment to its otherwise applicable adopted level of service standard and may not even affect the road segment impacted by the proposed development. More importantly, the service/traffic formula requires little of the County in addressing the problem of backlogged roads before 2000. A graph on p. VI-10 of Joint Exhibit 10.a provides the necessary data to calculate the service/traffic formula to determine if, under this formula, Lee County would likely be precluded from issuing final development orders due to the presence of backlogged roads. A sample calculation on p. VI-6 of Joint Exhibit 10.a illustrates the calculation. As noted on the graph, the service/traffic formula is inapplicable to two of the island traffic districts, which contain only constrained roads. The service/traffic formula, as a practical matter, eliminates the possibility of concurrency-imposed limitations on development due to the enforcement of level of service standards on nonconstrained roads in any of the six mainland districts. The reason is the vast difference--in each district-- between existing service volume and traffic volume. But this difference bears no relationship to the fact that many road segments are already operating below their otherwise applicable level of service standards and that, under the Traffic District Program, many more road segments, not presently backlogged, will also operate below their otherwise applicable level of service standard prior to 2000. Assuming the same annual increase in traffic volume as presently exists for each mainland district, the service/traffic formula would not require Lee County to build or commit to build any road improvements for over 10 years in Districts 1, 2, 5, and 8, six years in District 4, and seven years in District 3. In other words, the service/traffic formula allows Lee County to continue to issue final development orders impacting backlogged road segments and causing more road segments to become backlogged for at least six years anywhere on the mainland and over 10 years for most of the mainland--even in the absence of any capacity- enhancing transportation improvements. The combination of the service/traffic formula and the vast areas covered by the mainland districts allow the perpetuation of congested conditions on nonconstrained roads in Lee County. The Traffic District Program, including the service/traffic formula, renders completely meaningless the adopted level of service standards for nonconstrained roads and concurrency as it applies to nonconstrained roads. The formula and program also relieve Lee County of any obligation to correct transportation infrastructure deficiencies, or even address such deficiencies. The above-stated findings apply even if Table 2(a) and other provisions of the Amended Plan effectively limited the number and length of backlogged road segments to those listed on Table 2(a). Even worse, however, the Amended Plan does not so limit backlogged roads, and Table 2(a) is merely descriptive of road segments that were backlogged when the Plan Amendments were adopted. As contemplated by the first clause of Policy 22.1.6, "additional backlogged roads may emerge over time." This possibility is repeated in the Revised Data and Analysis, which concede that "backlogged and constrained roads may be added to the list over time." Joint Exhibit 10.a, page VIII-5. By effectively ignoring existing backlogged roads and allowing more roads to become backlogged, Lee County has deferred the adoption of level of service standards and postponed concurrency until the year 2000 when the Traffic District Program ends. When a road segment falls below its otherwise applicable standard, the effect of the Traffic District Program and Interim/Operational Improvement Program is to override concurrency by allowing development impacting the affected road segment to proceed without regard to the availability of capacity-enhancing transportation improvements sufficient to restore the affected roads to their otherwise applicable level of service standards. The short-term prospects for roads in Lee County are discussed in the Revised Data and Analysis. In its discussion of existing roads, the Revised Data and Analysis note: The rapid growth in Lee County's population during the past several years has been accompanied by even more rapid growth in traffic volumes on Lee County roads. According to the [FDOT] . . ., traffic volumes (daily vehicle miles traveled) in Lee County increased by 126 percent from 1979 to 1987, the second highest rate of growth in the State of Florida. This rapid growth in traffic is expected to continue. . . . Generally, historic road construction has not kept pace with traffic growth. However, Lee County has recently embarked on an ambitious roadway improvement program and the pace of construction has accelerated in recent years. Joint Exhibit 10.a, page IV-1. The discussion of the existing road network adds that the existing plus committed roadway network includes major roadway improvements programmed by State and local governments for construction through 1994. Addressing backlogged roads, the Revised Data and Analysis state: Despite the accelerated roadway construction activity in Lee County, many road segments are becoming increasingly congested. Several already meet or exceed the level of service standards established in the Lee Plan. . . . Joint Exhibit 10.a, page V-1. The Revised Data and Analysis describe two exhibits displaying information about traffic volumes. Exhibit V-1 analyzes 1989 traffic volumes with the existing road network. Exhibit V-3 analyzes 1994 traffic volumes with the existing plus committed road network, which reveals that several backlogged segments from Exhibit V-1 have been eliminated and several new backlogged segments have been added. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that Exhibit V- 7, which lists all of the backlogged roads on Table 2(a), shows which backlogged roads will be "relieved to some extent by committed improvements." Joint Exhibit 10.a, page V-3. The Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge that "there are no major improvements programmed for several backlogged roads in Lee County." Id. Exhibit V-1 shows that, for 1989, there were 26 backlogged road segments for a total of 27.3 miles. 37/ Of these, 18 segments for 18.2 miles were under state jurisdiction, rather than County jurisdiction. Exhibit V-3 shows that, for 1994, based on the existing plus committed road network, there will be 28 backlogged road segments for a total of 34.2 miles. The total for state backlogged roads is projected to rise even more rapidly: 22 road segments for a total of 29.4 miles. As indicated by the text, Exhibit V-7 shows that several backlogged roads listed in Table 2(a) are not scheduled to receive committed improvements (presumably through 1994). Recommended improvements to eliminate backlogged conditions (Joint Exhibit 10.a, page VII-4) are shown on Exhibit VII-7. However, nothing in the Amended Plan commits the County to undertaking these projects. The purpose of Exhibit VII-7 is to show the work needed over a ten-year period to restore backlogged roads to their otherwise applicable level of service standards. Some of the projects would be outside of the five-year period covered by the schedule of capital improvements on page VII-21 of the Amended Plan. But, in addition to the fact that Lee County does not commit itself in the Amended Plan to undertaking this work, nothing in Exhibit VII-7 addresses those road segments that become backlogged at a later date. As to Issue 8, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that, as to all nonconstrained roads not under the jurisdiction of any municipality, the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the criteria of setting level of service standards, ensuring concurrency, and correcting existing infrastructure deficiencies. As to Issue 9, Petitioner argues that the Plan Amendments regarding transportation are not financially feasible because the capital improvement schedule does not identify a current source of funding for all of the road improvements described in the Plan Amendments as "necessary or desirable." It is not entirely clear what Petitioner means by road improvements that are described as "necessary or desirable." These words correspond to the MPO Needs Plan and MPO Financially Feasible Plan. Of course, these plans, which are adopted in the Amended Plan as Maps 4 and 3 respectively, pertain to the year 2010, and the five-year capital improvements schedule properly pertains only to 1995. Petitioner may mean by "necessary and desirable" that the road projects do not adequately address backlogged roads, so as to allow the Traffic District Program to attain consistency. This issue has been addressed in connection with Issue 8. Except to the extent that the financial feasibility of transportation improvements has been addressed in connection with Issue 8, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the transportation capital projects are inconsistent with the criterion of financial feasibility. Miscellaneous Minimum Criteria (Issues 1, 10, and 12) As to Issue 1, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis addresses directly the issue of private potable water suppliers. The Plan Amendments create a new future land use category, Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource. The Revised Data and Analysis discuss four studies or reports focusing on the aquifers in Lee County and aquifer recharge areas. But the focus of these material is general and on hydrogeologic supplies, rather than on the specific entities presently involved in producing potable water. As to Issue 10, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis addresses coordination between Lee County and its Amended Plan and the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. However, the separate issue whether the Plan Amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan is addressed below. As to Issue 12, the only provisions amended by the Plan Amendments are Policies 2.2.2 (primarily third factor and flush language), 15.2.2, 38.1.6, 38.4.1, and 38.4.3, as well as the 2010 overlay. The remaining objectives and policies were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Policy 2.2.2 states: Map 1 of Tthe Future Land Use Map <<series>> indicates the uses and density ranges that will ultimately be permitted on a given parcel. However, it is not a guarantee that such densities or uses are immediately appropriate, as the map provides for the county's growth over the coming 70 years. During the rezoning process the Board of County Commissioners will balance the overall standards and policies of this plan with [[two]] <<three>> additional factors: --whether a given proposal would further burden already overwhelmed existing and committed public facilities such that the approval should be delayed until the facilities can be constructed; <<or>> <<--whether a given proposal is for land so far beyond existing development or adequate public facilities that approval should be delayed in an effort to encourage compact and efficient growth patterns.; or>> <<--whether a given proposal would result in unreasonable development expectations which may not be achievable because of acreage limitations on the "Year 2010 Overlay" (see Policy 1.7.6 and Maps 16 and 17).>> <<In all cases where rezoning is approved, such approval does not constitute a determination that the minimum acceptable levels of service (see Policy 70.1.3) will be available concurrent with the impacts of the proposed development. Such a determination must be made prior to the issuance of additional development permits, based on conditions which exist at that time, as required by Lee County's concurrency management system.>> The 2010 overlay designates the proposed location of various future land uses in Lee County. Map 1 shows where certain land uses may generally be located for the next 70 years. Maps 16 and 17 limit these land uses for the next 20 years and, to some extent, show where these land uses may be permitted during that timeframe. Although the specific locations of land uses prior to 2010 are not disclosed by Maps 16 and 17, the generalized locations are. There is nothing vague or ambiguous in Policy 2.2.2. Misciting Policy 2.1.2 as Policy 2.2.2, Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that certain language is vague, but she did not plead Policy 2.1.2, which, in any event, was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Objective 15.2 provides: COMMUNITY FACILITIES. Within funding constraints, the county shall attempt, during 1989, 1990, and 1991, to incorporate the following recommendations of the ad-hoc Bonita Study Group into the planning process for public facilities. Policy 15.2.2 states: <<IRRIGATION WELLS. Bonita Springs (as defined in this plan) is hereby declared a critical area for future potable water supply, based on evidence that withdrawals from the main potable aquifer, the lower Tamiami aquifer, are approaching or exceeding the maximum safe yield. In response to this designation, the county shall amend current regulations to provide that new irrigation well permits in Bonita Springs may not utilize the main potable water source. (Also see Policy 32.1.9 for new permit requirements for wells in Lehigh Acres, and Policy 2.4.3 for special requirements for amendments to the Future Land Use Map.)>> Policy 15.2.2 is not vague, nor does Petitioner argue grounds for vagueness as to Policy 15.2.2 in her proposed recommended order. Policy 38.1.6 provides: <<Within one year after the adoption of this policy, Lee County shall amend its land development regulations to require that proper stormwater management systems be installed when land is being redeveloped. Appropriate exemptions shall be provided to this requirement for individual residential structures and for historic districts. The regulations may also provide modified stormwater management standards for publicly sponsored projects within community redevelopment areas (as defined by Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes). However, this policy shall not be interpreted so as to waive any concurrency level-of-service standards.>> Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the words "proper," "appropriate," and "modified" lack sufficient definition so as to render Policy 38.1.6 vague and ineffective. The terms are sufficiently definite to provide enforceable guidance to the County in the adoption of implementing land development regulations. The word "proper" incorporates the stormwater level of service standards stated at Policy 38.3.1. The word "appropriate" applies to reasonable exceptions to the stormwater level of service standards for individual residences and historic districts. The word "modified" creates a reasonable exception to the stormwater level of service standards for publicly sponsored community redevelopment areas. There are communities in Lee County, such as Harlem Heights, where the housing is seriously substandard and the community is eligible for publicly sponsored redevelopment, as well as interim assistance through such projects as Habitat for Humanity. Evidently due to relatively low elevations, at least when the housing is compared to adjacent roadways, the Harlem Heights community also suffers from a seriously inadequate (and possibly nonexistent) stormwater management system. Ideally, all areas within Lee County should be subject to, and receive the benefits of, effective stormwater management. However, communities desperately in need of publicly funded redevelopment, such as Harlem Heights, present a special challenge. As a practical matter, the treatment of publicly sponsored projects within community redevelopment areas by Policy 38.1.6 represents a fair accommodation of competing policy demands in providing stormwater management and decent, affordable housing. Objective 38.4 states: <<CRITICAL AREAS. The Six Mile Cypress Basin (as defined in Ordinance #83-5 as amended) and the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category are both identified as "critical areas for surface water management." By December 31, 1990, the county shall adopt additional regulations to protect the unique environmental and water resource values of these areas.>> The policy cluster under Objective 38.4 provide: <<Policy 38.4.1: The county shall amend the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance to reduce or eliminate the exemptions allowable in the ordinance.>> <<Policy 38.4.2: The county shall conduct public hearings to consider amending the boundaries of the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance to include all land within the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category.>> <<Policy 38.4.3: The county shall amend the Wetlands Protection Ordinance (#86-31), the Tree Protection Ordinance (#86-34), and the Development Standards Ordinance (#82-42 as amended) to reduce or eliminate the exemptions for agricultural uses and small subdivisions within the "critical areas for surface water management" and shall subject these uses to an appropriate review process.>> The Revised Data and Analysis explain that Lee County has adopted over the years various environmental ordinances, including the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance, Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Tree Protection Ordinance, and Development Standards Ordinance. The Revised Data and Analysis note that exemptions have been adopted that can reduce the effectiveness of these ordinances in "'critical areas for surface water management.'" Joint Exhibit 10.c, page VI-2. Reviewing the exemptions to the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance, the Revised Data and Analysis observe that the exemptions should be revised so that, under the ordinance, the County must "consider all impacts to surface water flow." Joint Exhibit 10.c, page VI-3. As for the Wetlands Protection Ordinance, the Revised Data and Analysis conclude that its expansion "is probably necessary to limit the impact of clearing of wetlands for agricultural purposes." Id. The Revised Data and Analysis observe that amending the Tree Protection Ordinance would reduce incentives to remove trees and understory vegetation, which assist in water quality and quantity considerations in stormwater management. The Revised Data and Analysis note that the Development Standards Ordinance exempts small subdivisions, whose impervious surfaces alter surface water flow. Petitioner correctly argues in her proposed recommended order that the reduction or elimination of exemptions by an unstated amount or without regard to a stated objective is vague and ineffective. However, the assurances involve only land development regulations that, in the context of a limited plan- amendment challenge, do not play a significant role in the outcome of the case. The vagueness is thus harmless. Contrary to Petitioner's assertions, the 2010 overlay is not confusing, nor does it fail to depict the general distribution, extent, and location of the required land use categories. Although more conventional future land use maps are more precise in rendering the location of future land uses, the imprecision of the 2010 overlay is not inconsistent with the criteria of the growth management law. As noted above, the shortcomings of the 2010 overlay result from the lack of crucial supporting data and analysis. Internal Consistency (Issue 13) Issue 13 alleges that the Amended Plan is internally inconsistent. Petitioner argues that the Traffic Circulation Element and transportation improvements contained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements are inconsistent. She also argues that Goal 2, which requires financial feasibility, and the Traffic Circulation Element, including the financially feasible transportation map, are inconsistent. She asserts the same grounds as she does in connection with Issue 9, which has been discussed above. Based on the findings set forth in connection with Issue 9, and subject to the findings set forth in connection with Issue 8, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate any inconsistency between the Traffic Circulation Element and Goal 2 or the transportation improvements contained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements. As noted above, Policy 1.7.6 requires that final development orders and building permits be consistent with the 2010 overlay, including Map 17. Policy 1.7.6 does not impose this requirement upon rezonings. Petitioner asserts that Policy 1.7.6--particularly its omission of rezonings--is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2, Goal 12, and Section XIII(a) of the Amended Plan. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Policy 1.7.6 is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2 because of the emphasis on zoning in the two objectives. The objectives state: DEVELOPMENT LOCATION. Contiguous and compact growth patterns shall be promoted through the rezoning process to contain sprawl, minimize energy costs, conserve land, water and natural resources, minimize the cost of services, and reverse typical development patters where large tracts of land are bypassed in favor of development more distant from services and existing communities. DEVELOPMENT TIMING. Direct new growth through the rezoning process to those portions of the Future Urban Areas where adequate public facilities exist or are assured and where compact and contiguous development patterns can be created. Goal 12 is: "To ensure that appropriate water, sewer, traffic, and environmental review standards are considered in reviewing rezoning applications and are met prior to issuance of a county development order." Section XIII(a) of the Amended Plan adds in part: "Upon adoption of this amended plan, all development and all actions taken in regard to development orders shall be consistent with the plan as adopted." Given the subordinate role of zoning to the designations contained in the Amended Plan and future land use map series, the conflicts perceived by Petitioner either do not exist or, if they exist, are harmless. The Amended Plan governs. Zoning is of such inferior importance that any conflict will be resolved in favor of the Amended Plan. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 1.7.6 is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2, Goal 12, and Section XIII(a). Petitioner asserts that Policy 2.2.2 and Section XIII(a) are inconsistent. As noted above, Policy 2.2.2 identifies the factors that will govern rezonings. This policy explicitly subjects rezoning to the concurrency requirements of the Amended Plan. Nothing in this policy attempts to allow rezoning to override the acreage allotments contained in the 2010 overlay and implemented by Policy 1.1.1. Although it would have been preferable for Policy 2.2.2 to acknowledge the acreage allotments as limitations upon land uses that can be authorized, the subordinate role of zoning, as compared to land use designations in the comprehensive plan, emerges clearly from the Amended Plan as a whole. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 2.2.2 and Section XIII(a) are inconsistent. Petitioner alleges that the amended future land use map is inconsistent with Goals 71, 75, 77, and 79; Objectives 2.3, 74.1, 75.1, 77.3, 77.4, 79.1, and 87.1; and Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, 77.11.5, and 83.1.4. Goal 71 is to: "To protect the public from the effects of natural and technological hazards through county emergency plans and programs." Objective 74.l provides: ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS. By 1990, land within coastal area environmentally critical areas, including present Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones and Rare and Unique upland habitats, shall be regulated and managed so as to conserve and enhance the natural functions of these critical areas. Goal 75 is: "To protect human life and developed property from natural disasters." Objective 75.l adds: DEVELOPMENT IN HAZARD AREAS. Development (other than minor structures) within the V Zones shall not be allowed seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line as it exists in 1988; new development on barrier islands shall be limited to densities that meet required evacuation standards; new development requiring seawalls for protection from coastal erosion shall not be permitted; and allowable densities for undeveloped areas within A Zone areas will be considered for reduction. Goal 77, Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, and Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, and 77.11.5 have been set forth above. 38/ Goal 79 is: "To provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.l adds: EVACUATION. By 1995, evacuation times will be restored to 1987 levels using the 1987 Southwest Florida Regional Hurricane Plan Update as guidance; and by 2010, the clearance time portion of evacuation time will not exceed 18 hours. Policy 83.1.4 provides: Lee County shall protect and conserve the following environmentally sensitive coastal areas: wetlands, estuaries, mangrove stands, undeveloped barrier islands, beach and dune systems, aquatic preserves and wildlife refuges, undeveloped tidal creeks and inlets, critical wildlife habitats, benthic communities, and marine grass beds. Objective 87.1 states: WATER SUPPLIES. Insure water supplies of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the present and projected demands of all consumers and the environment, based on the capacity of the natural systems. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the future land use map series is inconsistent with Goals 71 and 75 because the Amended Plan increases densities in the hurricane vulnerability zone in the North Bonita Springs area and fails to coordinate land use designations with evacuation times and shelter space capacities. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Goals 71 and 75. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 74.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to "conserve and enhance the natural functions" of environmentally critical areas in the coastal area. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objective 74.1, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 74.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 75.1, which requires the County to consider reducing allowable densities in the hurricane vulnerability zone. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 75.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Goal 77, which requires the County to manage the County's wetland and upland ecosystems so as to maintain and enhance native habitats, floral and faunal diversity, water quality, and natural surface water characteristics. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Goal 77, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Goal 77. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, which require the County to "maintain and enhance" current fish and wildlife diversity and existing populations and distributions of listed species. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objectives 77.3 and 77.4. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, and 83.1.4, which call for the protection of unique or important natural plant communities, protection of critical habitats for the preservation of listed species, and protection of critical wildlife habitats in the coastal area, respectively. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with these policies, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by these policies. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Policy 77.11.5, which provides in part: "Corridors for regulatory and public acquisition purposes shall be designated in [black bear and Florida panther] use areas." Added by the Plan Amendments, Policy 77.11.5 is not inconsistent with the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series. The orientation of Policy 77.11.5 is prospective and does not require immediate implementation through amendment of the future land use map series to show corridors that are subject to additional regulatory controls or are eligible for public acquisition. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 79.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 1995 and to ensure a maximum clearance time of 18 hours by 2010. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 79.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 87.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to ensure sufficient quantity and quality of water to meet present and projected demands of all consumers and the environment. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objective 87.1, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 74.1. Consistency with Charlotte Harbor Management Plan (Issue 14) The Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, which was adopted June 5, 1981, is a resource management plan prepared and adopted pursuant to Section 380.045, Florida Statutes. Lee County is within the jurisdiction of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Under "regulatory actions," there are 12 objectives in the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Beneath each objective are implementation actions that pertain to specified federal, state, regional, and local agencies. Twenty-two implementation actions apply to local governments, such as Lee County. Objective 4 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "Future development in floodplain areas is to occur only in a manner consistent with the function of floodplains." In her proposed recommended order, Petitioner argues that the Amended Plan lacks specific provisions identifying the functions of floodplains and requiring new development to be consistent with floodplain functions. Petitioner also argues that the Amended Plan fails to coordinate densities and intensities with tidal floodplains. Except for the stormwater level of service standard, which is discussed below in connection with Objective 5, nothing in the Amended Plan directly addresses floodplains. The floodplain map--Map 9--was part of the future land use map series in the Plan and was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. In general, Petitioner argues only that the Amended Plan fails to deal effectively with floodplain issues. The Plan Amendments substantially change designated land uses by applying the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres in the County. The correspondingly reduced densities and restricted intensities, especially as compared to previously authorized land uses, are much more consistent with floodplain functions. Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan requires: "The stormwater and drainage systems of the Charlotte Harbor area are to function in a manner that protects and preserves the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system." The second implementation action under Objective 5 requires local governments to: establish plans and regulations requiring post development runoff conditions to approximate the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, quality, hydroperiod, and basin. The summary of the problem addressed by Objective 5 states: Improperly designed and maintained stormwater/ drainage systems have affected the quality and quantity of freshwater flowing into area water bodies. These systems have transported various pollutants, including nutrients, sediments, pesticides, heavy metals, and animal waste to local waters. While some of these waters have recognized water quality problems, most of the area's valuable water resources are still of good quality. However, with an expected doubling of population in the next twenty years, preventative action is necessary to prevent further degradation. In addition to the quality of freshwater inflows, the sufficient quantities of freshwater corresponding with the natural hydroperiod are necessary to maintain the productivity of the estuaries. While the flows necessary to meet estuarine needs are unknown, continued development of stormwater/ drainage systems which alter the rate and hydroperiod of runoff may adversely impact estuarine productivity. Petitioner Exhibit 2, page 5. Objective 38.3 of the Amended Plan is to "[r]evise by 1994 the surface water management level-of-service standards for basins and sub-basins identified in the Surface Water Management Master Plan." The Surface Water Management Master Plan was to have begun in 1989, according to Policy 38.1.1. Policy 38.3.1 of the Amended Plan provides: As an interim measure, the following surface water management standards are adopted as minimum acceptable levels of service for unincorporated Lee County . . .: <<Existing>> [[Public]] Infrastructure The [[public stormwater]] <<existing>> [[trunk]] <<surface water>> management system <<in any basin>> in the unincorporated areas of the county, [[including drainage districts]] shall be sufficient to prevent the flooding of <<designated evacuation routes (see Map 15) from the 25-year, 3-day storm event (rainfall)>> [[the public roads to a depth of 12 inches or greater]] for more than [[3 consecutive days]] <<24 hours>>. Regulation of Private <<and Public>> Development Surface water management systems in <<new>> private <<and public>> developments <<(excluding widening of existing roads)>> shall <<be designed to detain or retain excess stormwater to match the predevelopment discharge rate for>> [[meet or exceed]] the <<25-year, 3-day storm event (rainfall)>>. [[minimum standards of the South Florida Water Management District as set forth in the Permit Information Manual, Volume IV, Management and Storage of Surface Water (West Palm Beach, 1986), as may be amended from time to time, and shall meet local regulations in order]] <<This standard is designed>> to minimize <<increases of>> discharges to public water management infrastructure (or to evapotranspiration) that exceed historic <<rates>> [[natural volumes]], to minimize change to the historic [[natural]] hydroperiod of receiving waters, to maintain the quality of receiving waters, [[at or above the applicable minimum standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code ("Water Quality Standards," Florida DER)]], and to eliminate the disruption of wetlands and flow-ways, [[the]] <<whose>> preservation [[of which]] is deemed in the public interest. The implementation action requiring local governments to require that postdevelopment runoff approximate the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, quality, hydroperiod, and basin is the only implementation action involving local governments that imposes specific performance standards. The analysis contained in the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan clearly links the health of the estuarine system to preservation of natural rates and hydroperiods of runoff. Obviously, degraded water quality or alteration of drainage basin also impacts the estuarine system. Policy 38.3.1.B, which underwent substantial revisions by the Plan Amendments, imposes a single requirement upon development in terms of runoff: postdevelopment rate must match predevelopment rate for the 25-year, 3-day storm event. It is irrelevant that this is an interim level of service standard. The stormwater level of service standard contained in Policy 38.3.1.B deviates from Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan in three important respects. First, it fails to incorporate water quality, basin, and hydroperiod into the performance standards of the level of service standard. Second, it qualifies even the rate standard by a specified storm event of specified duration, even though Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan is not so limited. Regardless of the storm, Objective 5 imposes the requirement that postdevelopment conditions as to these four crucial factors approximate natural conditions. Obviously, natural conditions probably involve considerable flooding during and after the 100-year, 3-day storm; but the effect of the limitation in Policy 38.3.1.B is to allow postdevelopment conditions to exceed natural conditions once the specified storm has been exceeded. Third, the stormwater level of service standard contained in Policy 38.3.1.B ignores redevelopment, including but not limited to road-widening projects. When addressing redevelopment in particular, the postdevelopment conditions must match natural conditions, not merely predevelopment conditions. Lee County argues that Policy 38.3.1.B addresses factors in addition to runoff rate. The second sentence of Policy 38.3.1.B imposes no additional requirements; it merely explains the intent of the County in imposing the rate requirement. By regulating the runoff rate, Policy 38.3.1.B may partly address water quality and hydroperiod issues; retained or detained postdevelopment stormwater may be of higher quality and may more closely approximate natural hydroperiods than unretained or undetained postdevelopment stormwater runoff. But these are indirect benefits of a performance standard addressing exclusively postdevelopment runoff rate. The County's stormwater standard may reduce change to hydroperiods and improve water quality--over undetained or unrestrained postdevelopment stormwater--but it does not impose the performance standards of unaltered hydroperiod, water quality, and basin. Nor, more importantly, will the County's stormwater standard assist in meeting the crucial objective of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan to regulate stormwater and drainage to protect and preserve the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, which is the primary focus of the resource management plan. Petitioner has thus proved to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 38.3.1.B is inconsistent with Objective 5 and the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, construed as a whole. 39/ Objective 8 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "The barrier islands and beaches of the Charlotte Harbor area should be managed as a whole, recognizing that any developmental activity potentially affects the processes of the entire barrier beach, barrier island, and pass systems." The second implementation action under Objective 8 is for the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to discourage the dredging of new channels and addition of more passes to the existing pass maintenance program. This implementation action does not apply to local governments. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Objective 8 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Objective 10 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: Future land development decisions by local government should be in accord with the goals and objectives of the Charlotte Harbor Committee, and existing platted areas should also be encouraged to develop in accord with these goals and objectives. The third implementation action under Objective 10 requires local governments and the Florida Department of Transportation to ensure that: "Highway corridor planning for undeveloped areas . . . consider[s] suitability of adjacent land for urbanization and directing [sic] construction away from environmentally sensitive areas." Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Polices 27.2.1 and 27.2.2 of the Amended Plan are insufficient in terms of implementing the cited portion of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. However, these provisions were in the Plan and were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. For the reasons set forth in connection with Petitioner's challenge based on Objective 4 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, nothing in the Plan Amendments addresses this aspect of transportation. Objective 11 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "Mitigation and prevention of development impacts should be initiated during site planning and site alteration processes." The second implementation action requires local governments to: require site development plans, provide for the maintenance of habitats for wildlife species, as listed by the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, tree protection [sic], and prevent the introduction or spread of noxious vegetation. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Policy 77.4.1 of the Amended Plan, which was substantially amended by the Plan Amendments, fails to coordinate with the implementation action under Objective Petitioner asserts that Policy 77.4.1 is deficient because it refers only to the habitats of protected species listed by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and not those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There is no evidence of any material divergence between the state and federal lists of protected wildlife species. Specific objectives in the Amended Plan address loggerhead sea turtles, southern bald eagles, West Indian manatees, gopher tortoises, red-cockaded woodpeckers, wood storks, Florida panthers, and black bears. Without a showing of some discrepancy between the state and federal wildlife lists, especially in the face of numerous provisions in the Amended Plan explicitly addressing specific wildlife species, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Objective 11 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Consistency with Regional Plan (Issue 15) The Southwest Florida Regional Plan (Regional Plan), which covers Lee County, discusses at length the problem of platted lands. Map 3 depicts vast areas of platted lands in the Lehigh Acres area of unincorporated Lee County and Cape Coral. In relevant part, the discussion states: Southwest Florida has approximately 1.1 million existing platted lots . . .. Most of these platted and subdivided lots, although undeveloped, have been sold to individual owners who have expectations of building. Regretfully, these platted areas often have not reflected the most efficient use of land. Also, due to their location, the provision of infrastructure access and service will be prohibitively costly. Further, aging of most of these subdivisions has resulted in deterioration and dilapidation of existing roads and drainage systems. Finally, many needed urban uses are not adequately provided for within these extensive plats. * * * . . . effective concentration of development activities and providing incentives for contiguous development are alternative methods of planning which continue to be discussed and debated within the Region. Although these techniques would have a positive effect on land use patterns, they conflict with development desires of lot owners who purchased property previously reviewed and approved by the local government. Efforts have been made to ensure that development is compatible with available and planned infrastructure services. Still, the problems of previously subdivided, yet still undeveloped, land remain; such problems are particularly severe for planning activities that must meet the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements, since these developments generally do not meet current regulations. As growth continues, Southwest Florida will be under greater pressure to provide services to new homes, businesses, and service centers. These platted areas will be popular, affordable home sites. Providing services to these lots, however, will become an increasing burden. Additionally, the Region will have to consider providing alternative land use choices to current lot owners where development would not be desireable or cannot have services provided at the ultimate buildout densities. Joint Exhibit 11.b, pages 16-8 to 16-9. Regional Plan Goal 16 states: By 2010, the number of vacant platted lots in areas without adequate infrastructure or in areas not designated for urban development in Southwest Florida will be reduced by 30%. Goal 16 is an integral part of the Regional Plan. Effective land use planning may be impossible without addressing the problems presented by thousands of acres of vacant, prematurely platted lands. There is evidence that Lee County is addressing the problem. It has utilized vacant, preplatted lots to some extent in an affordable housing program. Lehigh Corporation, which is evidently a major developer in the Lehigh Acres area, has bought back some lots and/or exchanged better lots for more outlying and less developable lots. However, at the same time, Lehigh Corporation is subdividing more property in the Lehigh Acres area. It is unclear whether Lee County will find itself with more or less vacant, preplatted lots by 2010. More likely, it will be less for a variety of reasons, but how much less is left entirely to conjecture based on the present record. Petitioner's argument in her proposed recommended order is based on the acreage remaining vacant in 2010 in planning subdistricts 601- 11, 704, and 706, which constitute much if not all of Lehigh Acres. However, the record does not establish how much of this acreage is already platted or how much of the vacant acreage remaining in 2010 will by then have been platted. For these reasons, as to Issue 15, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the Regional Plan. Consistency with State Plan (Issue 16) Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2 and 12, (10)(b)10, (16)(b)2, and (18)(b)3. Section 187.201(8)(b)2 is to: "Identify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentives for their conservation. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan does not protect the functions of water recharge areas. She asserts that Policies 85.1.2 and 87.1.1, which generally require the protection of surface and groundwater quality and natural recharge systems, are vague and ineffective. The Plan Amendments did not modify Policies 85.1.2 or 87.1.1. The Plan Amendments added the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres of land, together with Policy 1.4.3, which states: <<The Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource areas include upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future well field development. These areas also are the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers. Only minimal public facilities exist or are programmed. Land uses in these areas must be compatible with maintaining surface and groundwater levels at their historic levels. Permitted land uses include agriculture, mineral and limerock extraction, conservation uses, and residential uses at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per ten acres (1 du/10 acres). Individual residential parcels may contain up to two acres of resource protection areas and transition zones without losing the right to have a dwelling unit, provided that no alterations are made to those wetland areas.>> The Plan Amendments also added Policy 39.1.4, which provides: <<The county's Surface Water Management Master Plan shall place particular emphasis on 1) routing surface water runoff from areas of excess to areas where additional subsurface storage is available; and 2) maintaining and increasing historic surface and groundwater levels in the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category.>> The Plan Amendments revised Policy 41.2.2, which states: <<A new land use category, called the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource category, shall be applied to protect the County's groundwater resources and principal recharge areas. Land use controls in the category shall be as described in Policy 1.4.3.>> Policies 15.2.2 and 32.1.9, which were added by the Plan Amendments, impose special land use restrictions in the Bonita Springs and Lehigh Acres areas, based on potable groundwater considerations. Policy 2.4.2, which was also added by the Plan Amendments, concludes by offering additional protection to these areas and all areas designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource: <<All proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map in critical areas for future potable water supply (Bonita Springs as described in Policy 15.2.2; Lehigh Acres as described in Policy 32.1.9; and all land in the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category) shall be subject to a special review by the staff of Lee County and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). This review will analyze the proposed land uses to determine the short- term and long-term availability of irrigation and domestic water sources, and will assess whether the proposed land uses would cause any significant impact on present or future water resources. If the Board of County Commissioners wishes to approve any such changes to the Future Land Use Map, it must make a formal finding that no significant impacts on present or future water resources will result from the change. (SFWMD's recommendations or findings under this policy shall not be construed to restrict or otherwise encumber their authority to issue or deny water-use permits as may be required by law.)>> The Revised Data and Analysis survey recent hydrologic investigations for all relevant aquifers. The investigations amply support the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designations. The Data and Analysis provide no basis for questioning the consistency of the provisions of the Amended Plan in protecting the functions of water recharge areas with similar provisions in the State Plan. Largely due to the adoption of the Plan Amendments, especially the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2. Section 187.201(8)(b)12 is to: "Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." This is an integral part of the State Plan and is linked to the protection of surface waters including estuaries, drainage and floodplains, and various other natural resources. For reasons already discussed in connection with Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 38.3.1.B, which sets an interim stormwater level of service standard, is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2 with respect to the omission of hydroperiod, basin, and quality performance standards; the addition of a qualifying storm event; and the exclusion of redevelopment. 40/ A level of service standard is a vital provision in a comprehensive plan because the standard is typically clear and easily enforceable. The stormwater management provisions in the State Plan play a crucial role in attaining consistency with numerous provisions of the State Plan. For these reasons, Policy 38.3.1.B represents an inconsistency with the State Plan construed as a whole. The inconsistency between Policy 38.3.1.B and the State Plan is limited to the failure of Policy 38.3.1.B: 1) to set a stormwater level of service standard throughout Lee County requiring postdevelopment conditions to be equal to or better than natural conditions in terms of water quality, hydroperiod, and basin, as well as rate; 2) to impose the stormwater level of service standard throughout Lee County regardless of the storm event; and 3) to impose the stormwater level of service standard on all development and redevelopment in Lee County. 41/ Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the inconsistency with the State Plan extends to the failure of the Amended Plan to fund fully the stormwater management plan. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that consistency with Section 187.201(8)(b)12 and the State Plan requires the above-described funding. Section 187.201(10)(b)10 is to: "Emphasize the acquisition and maintenance of ecologically intact systems in all land and water planning, management, and regulation." Petitioner argues that the Amended Plan is not consistent with the State Plan due to the failure of the future land use map series to designate rare and unique habitats for densities and intensities that are suitable for the vegetative and habitat values of certain areas, especially the North Bonita Springs area. As noted above in connection with the discussion of the 2010 overlay, the Plan Amendments do not directly reintroduce the issue of land use suitability. A timing device, the 2010 overlay is quantitatively oriented. With the exception of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which tends to enhance suitability, nothing in the Plan Amendments directly raises the suitability issue. Provisions contained in the Plan Amendments enhancing the coordination of future land use designations with valuable vegetative communities and, particularly, wildlife habitat are Objectives 77.10 and 77.11 and their policy clusters. These provisions have already been discussed. 42/ Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(10)(b)10. Section 187.201(18)(b)3 is to: "Allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents." Petitioner objects in her proposed recommended order to the sufficiency of Objective 70.3, which requires that "new development pays at least 80% of the capital costs of public infrastructure directly attributable to that new development." Petitioner argues that Policy 2.3.2 is also insufficient because it merely requires that the "cost for the provision and expansion of services and facilities that benefit new development shall be borne primarily by those who benefit." Objective 70.3 and Policy 2.3.2 were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Section 187.201(16)(b)2 is to: "Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats." The Amended Plan is no model of urban containment. Choosing a less regulatory approach to land use planning, although involving considerably more intervention than has traditionally prevailed, Lee County has repeatedly and unconvincingly argued in the Revised Data and Analysis that various conventional planning strategies are unsuitable for Lee County. Some planning alternatives proffered by Lee County have failed to achieve consistency with the growth management law. Some planning alternatives have achieved consistency, and some planning alternatives have been spared review by the focus of the present recommended order on the Plan Amendments and Revised Data and Analysis and the focus of the recommended order in DOAH Case No. 89-1843GM on the settlement agreement. It would be a daunting task to try to determine the effect of the Amended Plan upon urban sprawl. Without the density allocation ratio, it is an impossible task. If the ratio were relatively high, provisions of the Amended Plan would have to bear a greater burden in ensuring efficiency in the use of land and provision of public facilities and the protection of natural resources and agriculture. Without a density allocation ratio, relevant provisions of the Amended Plan cannot be adequately evaluated in terms of their relationship to urban sprawl. It suffices for the purpose of determining consistency with the State Plan that the Plan Amendments assigned the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres of land in Lee County and, by so doing, achieved a significant separation between urban and rural uses. For this reason, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the State Plan in terms of separating urban and rural uses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes, the Department of Community Affairs submit the recommended order to the Administration Commission for entry of a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are not in compliance for the reasons set forth above. ENTERED on January 27, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 27, 1993. NOTE: In the ACCESS document, language added to the policy is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]].
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, William Burke, is the developer of the Countryside Retirement Resort, a proposed development of regional impact, (DRI), located in DeSoto County, Florida. Sunrise Farms, a Florida general partnership, is the owner in fee simple of the site, but is not a party in this matter. Respondent, DeSoto County Board of County Commissioners, is a local government with jurisdiction over the proposed project site. It is responsible for the administration of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, land development regulations, and zoning code. On August, 15, 1990, after a duly-noticed public hearing, the Board of Commissioners of DeSoto County denied Burke's Application for Development Approval and Request for Rezoning. On April 23, 1991, the Board of Commissioners of DeSoto County, pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1989), and the rules promulgated thereunder, adopted its current comprehensive plan. Intervenor, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to enforce and administer Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Department is also authorized to appeal DRI development orders issued by local governments pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and has demonstrated a substantial interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Intervenors, M. Lewis Hall, Jr., M. Lewis Hall, III, Don T. Hall, Frank D. Hall and Steven V. Hall, are landowners near the subject site, and are substantially effected persons. The proposed site of the project is located on Highway 31, approximately ten miles from the City of Arcadia, at the SW 1/4 and W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 39 South, Range 25 East, DeSoto County Florida The project has been named Countryside Retirement Resort (Countryside), and is a proposed PUD intended as an Adult Residential Community which is designed to contain, at build-out, a maximum of 1440 park model residential homesites and 60 transient RV spaces on approximately 239.71 acres. The 1440 permanent park model resort homes are to be offered as a "turn-key" package to insure architectural control and adherence to project design. Park model homes are prefab, factory-built units, which are not susceptible to being moved again. The units in each phase will have a single bedroom, and the estimated price for all phases is $55,000, including the lot and lot preparation. Gross density for the project is 6.0 and 6.25 units per acre, based upon 1440 (park model homes) and 1500 (including 60 RV spaces) units, respectively. The development is privately funded and includes all streets, utility systems, public safety services, community buildings, recreational facilities, and general community amenities. The project area is currently zoned A-5 or improved pasture agricultural, with one dwelling unit per five acres permitted. To the north, the property is zoned A-10, citrus grove agricultural. To the south, the property is zoned improved pasture-agricultural, A-5. The Petitioner proposes to dedicate the 40 feet along the South side of the property to DeSoto County for street purposes. Adjacent to the public dedication will be a 40 foot project buffer for fencing, landscaping, and stormwater containment. The main entrance is to be located at State Road 31, approximately 1,000 feet North of Pine Island Street. Turn lanes are to be provided to minimize any potential detriment to the flow of traffic on the state roadway. As requested by County staff, forty feet of additional right-of-way has been set aside for the future widening of Pine Island Street. In addition to the 40 foot right-of-way for Pine Island Street (approximately 3.66 acres), access and improvements at all intersecting streets will be made. The additional traffic, sewer and potable water impacts will be provided for by the developer. A secondary access from Pine Island Street runs east from SR 31 approximately two miles, and dead ends at the Hall Ranch. The adjoining 40 foot buffer strip features, in addition to security fencing, a perimeter drainage swale and earthen mounds with landscaping that will screen the community from the public roadway. The buffer strip is not intended for future road purposes. The 40 foot buffer will be placed around the perimeter of the site. The buffer will consist of earthen berms and landscaping to protect the community from the outside, and the outside from the community, to make it as self-supporting and self-contained as possible. A 6.5 acre tract in the southwestern corner of the site has been reserved to provide for the commercial institutional needs of the residential community. Anticipated commercial uses include a general store (providing food, hardware, and dry goods), personal service shops, professional office space, and a motel (58 units) with a restaurant. Institutional uses include an arts and crafts building, a volunteer fire station equipped with a "quick response" vehicle, and office space for use by the sheriff's office, a second floor residence apartment for the community manager, the project's water treatment plant, and a helipad for emergency medical services. A general utility area, including maintenance building, the wastewater treatment plant, and a dry storage area for boats and RV's will be located in the Southeast corner of the property, buffered from adjoining properties and from the internal community. The project will also feature an 18 hole executive golf course with a pro shop and aquatic driving range, a multi-use clubhouse, four lighted tennis courts, six neighborhood swimming pools, and a series of mini-parks. The Petitioner's intent is to design the resort to function as a relatively self-contained and readily identifiable neighborhood of the County. The project calls for an on-site sewage treatment plant with tertiary filtration attached to the plant. At build-out, the plans call for the plant to treat approximately 315,000 gallons of sewage per day. A total of 8.99 acres of both man-made and natural wetlands were identified on the site. The project complies with applicable regulations with respect to preservation of wetlands. Approximately 27.75 acres of wetlands are to be created, and approximately 22.95 acres of proposed lakes will exist at completion. The project conforms with applicable regulations with respect to water use. The project's drinking and irrigation water will be served from on-site wells. An on-site water treatment plant will also be built. Adequate provisions are made for hurricane shelters and evacuations measures. The project conforms with applicable regulations with respect to air emissions. The project conforms with applicable regulations with respect to vegetation and wildlife. The entire site is cleared of natural vegetation and managed as improved pasture. The project site as well as adjoining land is not unique agricultural land. The project will not significantly deplete the agricultural community adjacent to the project or in the general neighborhood. Estimates from 1982 indicate that 236,722 total acres of pasture exist in DeSoto County. Removal of the project site from cattle production represents a total of .097% of the total pasture acreage in the County. Approximately 96% (230 acres) of the existing site is improved pasture land for cattle grazing while 6.9 acres or less than 3% of the project's site covers wet prairie. No natural wildlife corridors exist between the subject parcel and any surrounding natural lands. There are no significant historical or archeological sites or corridors considered likely to be present within the project area. Approval of the project would add to the tax revenue base of DeSoto County. The DeSoto County landfill is designed to meet the needs of the County until the year 2000 based on its projected increase of population. The proposed project at buildout, prior to the year 2000, falls below the projected increases of population. The projected increase in population by the year 2000 ranges from 4300 to 5800 with the proposed project generating a theoretical maximum increase in population of 3,000 persons if all units were occupied on a year round basis. The landfill will have adequate capacity to meet the demand from the project. No unusual or industrial or hazardous wastes will originate on-site. A 1.75 acre site has been reserved for the sewage treatment plant in the Southeast corner of the subject property. Sludge is scheduled to be disposed of by a licensed hauler. A tertiary wastewater treatment plant is to be provided in all phases of development. The wastewater is to be filtered and highly disinfected to provide treatment effluent for irrigation purposes. The plant will be situated on approximately 3/4 of an acre including surrounding open space and buffer areas. The utility site is of sufficient size to provide treatment of waste water for the entire development. All on-site facilities (collection treatment) are to be operated and maintained by the homeowner's association in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation operating permits. On-site treatment and disposal facilities are being proposed that will be capable of serving the entire development. The proposed drainage system for the project is consistent with applicable regulations. The water supply system proposed for the development complies with applicable regulations. Florida Power and Light Company has sufficient capacity to provide electrical service to the project. While the project will contribute property taxes to the educational system, the development will not have a negative impact on the DeSoto County District School System, since this project will be an adult community, and no school-age children are contemplated. 94.18 acres, or almost 40% of the development site, are to be devoted to recreation uses and open space. A helipad will be constructed to enhance MedVac emergency services to the project and the surrounding area. DeSoto Memorial Hospital is licensed for 82 beds, and provides emergency services. DeSoto Memorial Hospital is a community not-for-profit facility, serving the DeSoto County area and located in Arcadia, Florida. Health Care and medical services are available at the Hospital and the Arcadia area to meet the needs of the Countryside residents. The county operated ambulance (EMS and ALS certified) offers 15 to 20 minute response time from its headquarters station on State Road 70, a distance of 7 miles, via SR 31. Fire protection services for the project are to be provided by the public safety department of DeSoto County. The nearest fire station is located at State Road 70 and Airport Road about seven miles north of the property. Under normal traffic conditions, response time is estimated to be approximately 10 to 12 minutes. The county's fire protection services are to be enhanced by the construction of an auxiliary fire station on-site. The Petitioner proposes to develop a volunteer fire department from among the residents of the project with emphasis on fire, emergency medical, quick response fire truck and a building for sheltering in the event of a disaster or potential emergency (portable electric, water, restrooms, kitchen and proper square footage to accommodate the residents of the development) would serve as a benefit to the County on SR 31. On April 23, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners for DeSoto County adopted Ordinance 91-03, a new comprehensive plan for the County. Included are goals, objectives and policies in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The Future Land Use Element, Goal L. Objective L2 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, provides that: Development orders and/or permits for future development and redevelopment activities shall be issued only if public facilities necessary to meet level of service standards, adopted as part of the Capital Improvements Element of this Plan, are available concurrent with the impacts of development. The Future Land Use Element, Policy L2.5 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, provides that: No local development order or permit will be issued unless the County determines that the appropriate level of service standards can be met for: drainage; potable water; recreation and open space; solid waste disposal; traffic circulation; and waste water treatment. Traffic Circulation Element, Goal T of the DeSoto Comprehensive Plan, provides that the goal of the traffic element of the Plan will be to "provide for a safe, efficient and economical traffic circulation system." To implement Goal T, Objective T1 provides that, "DeSoto County shall provide a safe and efficient transportation system, and shall establish minimum criteria and standards to ensure the effective functioning of all public roadways within its jurisdiction." The proposed development site accesses State Road 31, a north/south, two-lane minor arterial roadway connecting the City of Arcadia with the City of Fort Myers. SR 31 is currently at a Level of Service (LOS) of B, or better. The DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, Policy T1.1, has established a peak season/peak hour level of service standard of D or better for SR 31. The Five- Year Schedule of Capital Improvements in the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan does not provide for the improvement of SR 31. The average daily traffic maximum volumes established by the Department of Transportation for a LOS D on a minor arterial, such as State Road 31, is 15,000 trips per day. Four separate traffic studies were performed regarding the potential impacts of the proposed development on State Road 31. The first two studies were performed by Mr. Gordon Meyers of Ink Engineering, Inc., the third by Mr. Richard Doyle of Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc., and the fourth by Ms. Nanette Hall of Florida Transportation Engineering, Inc. The study area included segments of SR 31 and the intersection of SR 31 and SR 70, as well as, SR 31 and SR 760-A. SR 70 runs east-west and expands from a two lane roadway to a four lane major arterial at the intersection of SR 70 and SR 31. CR 760-A is a two-lane rural major collector extending westerly from SR 31, just north of the G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, to US 17, which provides access to the Punta Gorda area and Interstate 75. The Department of Transportation has three traffic counting stations on State Road 31 from which reliable traffic data has been collected since 1984. The location of these traffic counting stations are as follows: Station #26, is located just south of the intersection between State Road 31 and State Road 70; Station #4, is located approximately halfway between the site of the proposed development and State Road 70, north of the intersection between State Road 31 and County Road 760A; Station #31, is located south of the intersection between State Road 31 and County Road 760A, and north of the proposed site of the proposed development. All four studies made projections as to the anticipated increase in traffic volume at these stations should the proposed development be approved. The four traffic studies obtained the following projections for the anticipated traffic volumes and corresponding LOS's that would exist at the traffic counting stations upon build out of the proposed development summarized in the table below: LOCATION FIRST STUDY SECOND STUDY THIRD STUDY FOURTH STUDY (MEYER) (MEYER) (DOYLE) (HALL) Station #31 12,474/LOS D 7,610/LOS C 12,474/LOS D 13,466/LOS D Station #4 13,557/LOS D 9,250/LOS C 10,080/LOS D 15,384/LOS E Station #26 15,172/LOS E 9,380/LOS C 10,341/LOS D 17,111/LOS E Of the four traffic studies performed, the projections of the fourth (Hall) study were the most reliable. It was the only study to use historic data available on State Road 31 in the Calculation of a growth rate for background traffic volume, and did not suffer from the methodological flaws that existed in the other studies. The fourth (Hall) traffic study indicated that the proposed development at build out would cause large sections of State Road 31 to exceed its level of service established by the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, and reduce the level of service below D. The fourth (Hall) study also projected the traffic impacts of the proposed development if developed in two phases, the results (expressed in average daily traffic and peak hour/peak season impacts) of which are summarized in the table below: LOCATION PEAK HOUR/PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC PHASE I PHASE II PHASE I PHASE II Station #31 892/LOS C 1,394/LOS D 9,062/LOS C 13,466/LOS D Station #4 1,033/LOS D 1,544/LOS E 10,732/LOS D 15,384/LOS E Station #26 1,183/LOS D 10,341/LOS D 12,397/LOS D 17,111/LOS E Countryside has never requested phased approval for the project. The fourth (Hall) traffic study indicated that even if approval were given for "Phase I" alone, a major portion of the LOS D capacity of the roadway (approximately 80% to 85% of the capacity) would be used up, reducing the possibilities for further development of those sections of State Road 31 between the proposed development and State Road 70. The proposed development will not meet the appropriate level of service for traffic circulation. Land Use Element Policy L6.8 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan provides that: Residential development in a Rural/Agricultural area shall not exceed a maximum density of one dwelling unit per ten gross acres. In a Rural/Agricultural area, the lowest order of commercial goods and services which serve the daily needs of nearby residents may be permitted only on arterial or collector roadways. Commercial areas in a Rural/ Agricultural area shall be appropriately buffered, shall not exceed 3 acres in size, shall not exceed impervious surface lot coverage of 70 per cent, and shall be no less than 2 miles from other commercial development in a Rural/Agricultural area or in other future land use categories. Industrial uses within a Rural/Agricultural area may be permitted only when such activity is related to the extraction or processing of minerals; or when related to agriculture; or is of a scale and nature that would not be acceptable in Town Center. Other industrial uses, such a power plants or manufactured or processing facilities may be permitted, and shall have access to a collector or arterial roadway, shall meet all local regulations, and shall be appropriately buffered from surrounding land uses, including agricultural uses. Within a Rural/Agricultural area, the approval of residential development shall acknowledge that the protection of agricultural lands is a primary function of a Rural/Agricultural area, and that land management activities associated with agricultural uses may be incompatible with residential development. However, such management activities are considered to be an essential element of the protection of successful operations on agricultural lands and the continuation of such activities shall take precedence. Future Land Use Element, Goal L. - Objective L3 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, provides that "DeSoto County shall promote compatible future land use patterns." The current DeSoto County Comprehensive Plant, Future Land and Use Element, Objective L6, provides: Objective L6: As a part of this plan, DeSoto County's Future Land Use Map series shall be applied only in conjunction with the policies of this element and other elements of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, and shall generally illustrate and coordinate the appropriate distribution of residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, preservation, public and utility facility land uses to effectively manage the projected population growth of the County. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Plan's policies are used to effectively manage the projected population growth of the County. The Countryside project is not depicted, in terms of an appropriate land use category, on the FLUM. The Future Land Use Map indicates that the project site is located in an R/A (Rural/Agricultural) land use designation with a maximum allowable density of one residential unit per ten acres. The density of the proposed project is in excess of six dwelling units per acre. The 1991 DeSoto Comprehensive Plan, data and analysis section, indicates that there are 2,765 approved, unconstructed recreational vehicle (RV) sites in nine undeveloped, but approved RV parks, covering 448 acres. The Plan indicates that these approved RV sites will meet the anticipate need through the year 2000. The 1991 Plan estimates that 427 seasonal residents (usually retirees), will be added to the seasonal population of the County between 1990- 2000. Based on two persons per dwelling unit and six dwelling units per acre, only 214 units of new RV residential development will be needed between 1990 and 2000. The existing approved, but unconstructed RV sites, exceed the projected need almost thirteen times. The proposed DRI would add an additional 1500 units, resulting in 4,051 more units than the projected need. Policy L3.3 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan provides that: Land uses which are potentially incompatible either due to type of use or intensity of use, shall be buffered from one another through the provision of open space, landscaping, berms, alternative site design or other suitable means. Land development regulations shall establish criteria for appropriate buffering between adjacent land uses. Policy L3.4 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan provides that, "where the application of such measures as identified in Policy L3.3 cannot mitigate the incompatibility between proposed and existing land uses, the proposed land use shall be disapproved." The proposed development is not functionally related to the surrounding agricultural activities and numerous incompatibilities between the land uses shall arise as adjacent landowners conduct agricultural activities such as application of pesticides and fertilizers and other activities which produce smells, sprays, dust, noises and other externalities incompatible with residential use. The incompatibility of this project with existing land uses cannot be eliminated under the proposed buffers of berms, landscaping, and fencing proposed in the ADA. To implement Goal L. Objective L4 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, Policy L4.1 provides that: The DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan and implementing land development regulations, to be adopted by August 1, 1991, shall include provisions that permit or require a variety of land development techniques that discourage sprawl while protecting natural resources including: Establishment of mixed use future land use categories in the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan to provide residential, commercial and employment opportunities in close proximity; Clustering of development to protect natural resources, open space and agricultural uses, provide for access management to arterial or collector roadways, provide for appropriate buffering, and make efficient use of public facilities and services; Establishment of guidelines or incentives to encourage infill development in the Town Center, Mixed Use Corridor and Suburban Residential areas, which may include . . . There is a clear intent in the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan to discourage urban sprawl. "Urban sprawl" is defined in the plan as "scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental, agricultural and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following ways: 1) leapfrog development; 2) ribbon or strip development; and 3) large expanses of low-density, single-dimensional development." The proposed development is an example of the leapfrog development type of urban sprawl. It provides for residential development far beyond the projected needs of the surrounding area. It is located far from the nearest urban centers and is surrounded by rural land uses. The proposed development would create an urban level of density and intensity of use within a rural area. It is not a well balanced mixed use development. It is not compatible with, nor functionally related to, the surrounding uses, and is designed to be cutoff and separated from those uses. The proposed development cannot be considered a "rural village." It does not support surrounding agricultural activities, but is, in fact, incompatible with surrounding land uses. Because of its location and lack of multiple uses, this development will encourage lengthy commuting, contrary to the policies of the state comprehensive plan to continue to reduce per capita energy consumption, Section 187.201(12), Florida Statutes. The proposed project is not an efficient development because of its location away from existing facilities and services, shopping and employment, contrary to the policies of the state comprehensive plan to encourage efficient development and direct development toward areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce, Section 187.201(21), Florida Statutes. The State Comprehensive Plan, Section 18, "Public Facilities," provides that Florida shall protect the substantial investments in existing public facilities. This project conflicts with this policy, as investments in existing public facilities are best protected by directing growth to nearby locations to efficiently use those facilities, Section 187.201(18), Florida Statutes. The proposed project also conflicts with the state comprehensive plan policy related to governmental efficiency, which encourages the replacement of small scale economically inefficient local public facilities with more economical regional facilities. The project proposes to establish small facilities, rather than efficiently utilize larger facilities, Section 187.201(21), Florida Statutes. Section 380.08(3), Florida Statutes provides: (3) If any governmental agency denies a development permit under this chapter, it shall specify its reasons in writing and indicate in writing any changes in the development proposal that would make it eligible to receive the permit. The Board of Commissioners, in issuing its denial of the Countryside Retirement Resort specified its reasons for denial and identified changes which would make it eligible for approval as follows: The proposed development known as "Countryside Retirement Resort" is not consistent with the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, nor the DeSoto County Land Use Regulations. The proposed development does not make adequate provision for public facilities needed to accommodate the impact of the proposed development. There are no known changes that would make the proposed development eligible to receive approval due to the inappropriateness of the requested zoning. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(a), provides that among factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change would be contrary, and would have an adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan." The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(b), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "the existing land use pattern." The existing land use pattern in the area is agricultural. The proposed development would create a medium density residential enclave within the existing land use pattern of agricultural use. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(c), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts." The proposed development would be an isolated district of high intensity residential land use surrounded by agricultural and low intensity residential land uses. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(d), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "the population such as schools, utilities, street, etc." The existing allowable density in this area of DeSoto County is 1 unit per 10 acres. The proposed development would increase this to 6 units per acre. Response time for police, fire, and rescue services would be poor if provided by existing facilities and personnel. Persons needing essential services that could only be provided in the City of Arcadia would have at least a twenty minute round trip. The County would experience a greater burden in providing services to the proposed development than it would if the development were located closer to the City of Arcadia. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(f), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary." There are no changed or changing conditions in the area which would make it necessary to amend the zoning or the Comprehensive Plant. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(g), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions of the neighborhood." The proposed development would create a high density residential development, urban type land use in an area of DeSoto County which heretofore enjoyed a rural character. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(h), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety." The proposed development would create traffic congestion, and would adversely affect public safety. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(l), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations." The proposed development would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties as property owners attempt to develop their properties. This development would drastically reduce the reserve capacity of State Road 31, and adjacent property owners would find it increasingly difficult and expensive to meet the Levels of Service required by the Comprehensive Plan. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(m), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of a special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare." The proposed development would not constitute the grant of a special privilege if approved, since the developer is seeking approval of a PUD. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(n), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning." There is no reason why the property on which the proposed development is to be located could not be used for what it zones, agricultural usage. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(o), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County." The proposed development is out of the scale with the needs of the County and the immediate neighborhood. The neighborhood is designated at a maximum density of 1 unit per 10 acres. This development would be at a density of 6 units per acre. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(p), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed uses in districts already permitting such use." There was no showing that other sites in DeSoto County could not be developed at this time. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.3, Planned Unit Development Districts (PUD), provides in part that it is the intent of the PUD Ordinance "to provide an optional alternative zoning procedure so that planned developments may be instituted at appropriate locations in the County in accord with the planning and development objectives of the County." The proposed development is not in an appropriate location, nor is it in accord with the planning and development objectives of the County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission denying of the application for development approval of Petitioner, and upholding the decision of the DeSoto County Board of County Commissioners to deny the request for rezoning for the Countryside Retirement Resort. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 January, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1(in part),2,3,6(in part),7(in part),16,17,18,19,20(in part),21,22(in part),23,24,26,27(in part),28,29(in part),30, 31,32,33,36(in part),37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,46(in part),49 (in part),50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61 (in part),62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69 (in part),71,72 (in part),73,74,75(in part),76,81,92,95(in part),96(in part),98,99,100,101,105,106(in part),108,109(in part),112(in part) Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs - 4,5,6(in part),(in part),8,15,47,48,72(in part),77,78,79,80,82,83,84,88,89,102,104,106(in part),107,109(in part),110,111,112(in part),113,114 Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or subsumed: paragraphs - 9,10,11,12,13,14,20(inpart),22(in part),25,27(in part),29(in part),34,35,36(in part),45,46(in part),49(in part),61(in part),69(in part),70,73,75(in part),85,86,87,90,91,97,103 Rejected as argument or conclusions of law: paragraphs - 93,94,95(in part),96(in part) Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 (in part),19(in part),26,27,28,29,30,32(in part),36,37,38,39,40, 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70 ,71,72,74,75,76(in part),77(in part),78,79,80,81, 82,84,85,86,87 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph - 83 Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or subsumed: paragraphs - 18(in part),19(in part),20,21,22,23,24,25,37 (in part),55(in part),56(in part),57(in part),73 Rejected as argument or conclusions of law: paragraphs - 14,31,32(in part),33,34,35,55(in part),56(in part),57(in part),76(in part),77(in part) Intervenor Department of Community Affairs' proposed findings of fact Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7(in part),8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21(in part),22(in part),23(in part),24,25,26,27,28,29 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs - 7(in part) Rejected as argument or conclusion of law: paragraphs - 14,21(in part),22(in part),23(in part) Intervenors Halls' proposed findings of fact. Intervenors Halls did not submit separate proposed findings, but adopted the proposals submitted by the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlie Stampelos, Esquire William Wiley, Esquire MCFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Vorbeck, Esquire Fred Bechtold, Esquire VORBEC, & VORBECK 207 East Magnolia Avenue Arcadia, Florida 33821 Kathryn Funchess Asst. General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lewis Hall, Jr., Esquire HALL & HEDRICK Republic National Bank Building 150 Southeast Second Avenue Suite 1400 Miami, Florida 33131 William E. Sadowski Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire General Counsel, Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Douglas M. Cook, Director Planning & Budgeting Exec. Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 (Plan Amendment) adopted by Bay County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, T & P Enterprises of Bay County, Inc. (T & P), is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in this state, and operates such business at 20016 Front Beach Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, is a resident of Bay County, Florida, and is the President of T & P, which operates a seasonal resort at 20016 Beach Front Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, submitted written comments in opposition to the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment at issue before the adoption of SSA 03-07. Intervenor, Barbara S. Harmon, owns a house located at 190 16th Street in Panama City, Florida. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in 1994. The Harmon property is located in the Laguna Beach subdivision. Mrs. Harmon was one of the property owners who petitioned the County for adoption of SSA 03-07. The Property The property affected by SSA 03-07 consists of twelve separate parcels of land totaling approximately 2.35 acres located in unincorporated Bay County. The property lies within a two-block area generally situated south of First Avenue, East of Wisteria Lane, and along both sides of 16th Street, which is west of the municipal boundaries of Panama City Beach in what is commonly known as the West Beaches. Two of the parcels subject to the Plan Amendment are located on the Gulf of Mexico south of Front Beach Road. The twelve parcels are not contiguous. The predominant type of structure on these parcels are one-story housing structures used primarily for residential purposes. Some of the structures are used as short-term or long-term rentals. Others, including the Harmons' house, are used as second homes during the summer season, or on weekends. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in Bay County in 1994. They reside there six to nine months a year. They also have a residence in Gadsden, Alabama. The Harmons bought their house in Bay County because they wanted a house close to the beach in a clean, quiet neighborhood. The area affected by the Plan Amendment is predominantly residential in character. The area is generally built-out as residential land use. The area has not substantially changed since the Harmons purchased their house in 1994. Background Bay County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The 1991 existing conditions map accompanying the Comprehensive Plan shows that most of the property in the West Beaches Area was "predominantly medium density residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." Mrs. Harmon testified that her house on 16th Street was designated Residential under the County's Comprehensive Plan at the time she purchased it in 1994. In 1994-1995, as part of its Comprehensive Plan evaluation and appraisal process, Bay County's planning staff undertook a "windshield survey" of the West Beaches Area. The windshield survey indicated that Laguna Beach 1st through 7th additions were platted or developed between 1938 and 1954, and consisted primarily of a mix of older single-family houses, mobile homes, multi-family buildings, and church buildings. The windshield survey reflected seasonal resort uses on the south side of Front Beach Road on the Gulf of Mexico. The windshield survey shows that the predominate land use in the West Beaches Area in 1994-1995 continued to be residential, as it was at the time of the 1991 existing conditions map. In December 1999, Bay County adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in which it created the SR FLUM category. Under the Plan, the purpose of the SR FLUM category is "to provide areas for a functional mix of compatible seasonal/resort land uses where the clientele are predominantly seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists." The uses allowed include beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, apartments or other similar multi-family structures, motels, lodges, restaurants, convenience stores, retreats, and lounges, bars, and other similar uses and public utilities." The criteria for designating areas as SR are "areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used for non-residential, tourist-oriented purposes." The Plan further provides that "Year-round, permanent residences should not be located in this area." The County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was the data and analysis relied upon by Bay County for the 1999 plan amendments, defined these seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists as people who visit Bay County for an average 5.385 days. Terry Jernigan, the former Bay County Planning Director, testified that in developing the SR category, the County focused primarily on "typical summertime tourists" who stay for weekend, weekly, and monthly rental periods and attempted to identify areas that were tourist areas or were likely to become transient in nature in the future. Second homeowners and seasonal visitors were not considered when the SR category was developed. The SR Future Land Use Map category has also been applied in the beach areas of unincorporated Bay County located east of the municipal boundaries city of Panama City Beach. Development in that area includes large high-rise condominiums and hotels, bars, T-shirt shops, and night clubs. The SR category was also applied to a number of properties in the West Beaches Area that are indicated as residential uses in the County's official windshield survey, including the parcels that are the subject of the amendment at issue. Mr. Jernigan testified that an indicator of an area that was transient in nature was the large number of signs indicating that the properties were for rent. Mrs. Harmon testified that since she purchased her property in 1994, she had observed no signs advertising rentals in the area in which the properties subject to the amendment are located. Mrs. Harmon was motivated to seek the FLUM amendment from SR to Residential to prevent high-rise development, bars, T-shirt shops, and noise increases that she has observed in the SR category east of Panama City Beach. The applicants for the subject amendment are concerned that the SR category may adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Development of the Plan Amendment In the spring and early summer of 2002, Bay County began receiving "grass roots petitions" from property owners in the West Beaches Area requesting that either their future land use designation or zoning be changed from SR back to Residential. The petitions stated that the FLUM designations were changed without notice to the property owners. These petitions initially involved 400-500 parcels of land. In response to the grass roots petitions, the County identified several "target areas" where there were a large number of parcels generally contiguous to each other. At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, on August 28, 2002, County staff sent letters to individuals within the target areas asking them if they wanted the land use designated on their properties changed from SR to Residential and attaching a land use map application form. Allara Mills Gutcher, a County Senior Planner III, testified that the County wanted assurances that the petitioning property owners understood the nature of the change they were requesting. The County's letter directed to the property owners in the target areas not only asked if the owners wanted a land use designation change, but also indicated that a petitioning property owner would be required to pay the County a $1,100 fee to apply for the land use change. Although the letter indicated that the Board was considering waiving the fee, no evidence was presented that the Board made a decision on the waiver or that the approximately 180 property owners to whom the County had written had received further notice from the County regarding the $1,100 fee. Some County property owners, including Mrs. Harmon, complained to the County that the application fee discouraged a number of property owners from submitting FLUM amendment applications. The forms accompanying the County's August 28, 2002, letter also advised the property owners that small scale plan amendments could only be considered in connection with a specific plan of development or hardship, restrictions not contained in either the County's Plan or Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Gutcher testified that only 20 responses to the County's letter were received. The Plan Amendment Summary Sheet on the subject amendment, however, indicates that a result of the mail out was the submittal of an application to change approximately 30 properties along Front Beach Road in another area, Sunnyside Beach, from SR to Residential. This amendment is known as the Centeno amendment, and was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in December 2002. One of the target areas of the mail out was the Laguna Beach Subdivision area where Intervenor Harmon's property is located. After receiving the County's August 28, 2002, letters and learning of the Centeno/Sunnyside small scale plan amendment, Mrs. Harmon spearheaded an effort to seek the subject small plan amendment in her neighborhood. She worked with County staff on the locations of properties to be included in the proposed amendment. Erroneously included in the first proposed plan amendment was The Laguna Beach Christian Retreat property on Front Beach Road, owned by Petitioners. Mrs. Harmon brought this error to the attention of County staff, and Petitioners' property was removed from the proposed amendment, leaving 16 lots included in the amendment package. County staff initially supported the 16-lot proposed small scale plan amendment in Mrs. Harmon's neighborhood in part because it included properties adjacent to First Avenue on the north and contiguous to properties currently designated Residential on the FLUM. Prior to and at the Planning Commission meeting at which the subject amendment was considered, three individuals owning four of the 16 lots withdrew from the plan amendment application. These withdrawals included the two lots on First Avenue contiguous to the existing Residential FLUM area, a lot on 16th Street, and a lot on Front Beach Road. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested FLUM change from SR to Residential on the 12 remaining parcels. County staff did not dispute the appropriateness of the Residential FLUM designation for the subjected properties, but did not support the plan amendment for the remaining 12 lots because of the configuration of the map. Ms. Gutcher testified that her objection was not to the actual land use designation of the subject land parcels, but to the configuration of the Plan Amendment which interspersed parcels designated SR with the residential parcels. The 12 lots subject to the Plan Amendment are not contiguous to existing Residential lands and there are SR lots adjacent to lots that were changed to Residential. Ms. Gutcher, however, stated that adjacency of future land uses is not a requirement of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Gutcher further testified that although she considered the Plan Amendment "poor planning" and did not support the Plan Amendment, she did not consider the Plan Amendment violative of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On June 3, 2003, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and voted to adopt small scale amendment No. SSA 03-07 amending the FLUM designation on the 12 lots from SR to Residential. Internal Consistency Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), require that all comprehensive plan amendments, including amendments to the FLUM be consistent with the other provisions of the applicable comprehensive plan taken as a whole. Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with several discrete provisions contained in the County's Comprehensive Plan; however, when taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Because the Plan Amendment at issue here amends the FLUM designation from SR to Residential, of particular significance to the analysis of internal consistency in this case is the County Comprehensive Plan's Residential FLUM Category. Policy 3.3.1. of the Future Land Use Element in the County's Plan provides that "criteria for designating land use categories on the FLUM and attendant standards for development shall be as shown on Table 3A." Table 3A contains the following criteria and standards for the Residential FLUM category: Purpose: To provide areas for a functional, compatible mix of residential land uses, and to protect property values in viable residential neighborhoods. Designation Criteria: Existing residential areas, residential subdivisions recorded with the Clerk of the Court prior to adoption of this Plan, areas adjacent to existing residential areas, "in-fill" of vacant areas otherwise surrounded by urban development, and low density rural community development. Allowable Uses: Those land uses typically associated with residential occupancy including single-family, duplex, triplex, quadraplex, and manufactured housing. These uses are generally coded as 100 to 900 on the DOR Property Use Code Table for property tax purposes. Public utilities, recreation, conservation. Limited public institutional uses and educational facilities (Policy 2.8.1) may also be allowed. The County Comprehensive Plan does not define the terms "residential occupancy" or "residential use." Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, setting out the minimum criteria for review of comprehensive plans, defines "residential uses" as "activities within land areas used predominantly for housing." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.003(108). In its compatibility analysis, the County described the subject area as "primarily developed as a single-family use today" "similar to current uses in the area." The area is an existing residential area. The predominant type of structure in the area is one-story residential structures used for housing. Except for one vacant lot, each property that is the subject of the amendment contains a one-story single-family residence. All houses on the amendment properties are used as homes, second homes or long-term rentals. None of the houses included in the Plan Amendment are rented on a short-term basis. The evidence demonstrates that the properties included in the Plan Amendment are now used for housing. All but one of the Plan Amendment properties are coded 100 on the tax code, which is the same as the DOR Property Use Code Table referenced in the Residential FLUM category in Table 3A of the Plan. One lot included in the Plan Amendment is vacant and is coded 0000 on the tax code. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the stated purpose, designation criteria for existing residential areas, and allowable uses for the Residential FLUM designation stated in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Many properties in the West Beaches area are rented; however, according to Mrs. Harmon, most properties that are subject to the Plan Amendment are not rented or are rented on a long-term basis. Neither the provisions of Table 3A describing the Residential FLUM category, nor the definition of "residential use" in Chapter 9J-5, distinguish between owner-occupied and rental housing use. One significance of a land use designation from a planning perspective is its impact on infrastructure. That impact is the same whether a house is rented or owner-occupied. Whether the structures are owner-occupied or rented is not a land use amendment compliance issue. Wendy Grey, Petitioners' expert witness, testified that the configuration of the Plan Amendment is not consistent with those portions of the Goal Statement in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan that express the County's goals "to promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development" and "to promote compatibility between land uses and reduce the potential for nuisances." Ms. Grey opined that leaving some properties designated SR surrounded by Residential properties does not promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development. That portion of the Goal Statement referring to an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development was taken directly from the intent sections of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The language governs the overall planning process of allocation of future land uses based upon infrastructure, natural resource protection and efficiency in terms of using existing infrastructure. It is based upon the purpose of the Growth Management Act to manage the extent, distribution and timing of future growth, discourage urban sprawl, and maximize existing infrastructure. These are terms of art under the Growth Management Act, and have nothing to do with drawing the polygons on the map. Tony Arrant, the County's expert witness, testified that the predominance of the small scale amendments he has seen focus on specific areas that have other land use classifications next to the parcel amended, just as with the Plan Amendment. Further, the Goal Statement also includes a statement that the plan should "protect viable neighborhoods." The amendment is consistent with this portion of the goal statement by designating an existing residential area for residential use. When read as a whole, the Plan Amendment is consistent with this Goal Statement. Designating residential properties for residential use is also consistent with the Goal Statement in the Housing Element of the Plan and with Housing Element Objective 8.5, which requires that the County preserve and protect the character, compatibility, and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods. To make a land use amendment uniform throughout a block, connected to existing residential land uses, and following street rights-of-way helps with code enforcement issues and is easier for the public to understand. However, these are not compliance issues. The configuration of the Plan Amendment and the symmetry or lack of symmetry of the future land use map is not a compliance issue. Policy 3.2.1 of the Future Land Use Element governs amendments to the FLUM. It does not require any particular map configuration, or that FLUM boundary lines follow street rights- of-way. There is no express requirement in the Plan that FLUM boundaries must always follow roads. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 3.7.2. of the Future Land Use Element of the County's Plan. Policy 3.7.2. prescribes the general criteria for zoning districts shown on an Official Zoning District Map. This policy implements Objective 3.7, which provides that "By 2001, (the County will) adopt a zoning code to further the intent, and implement the objectives and policies of this Plan." The County has not yet adopted a zoning code. Petitioners specifically rely on the following criteria in Policy 3.7.2.: 4. District boundaries will be drawn so as to follow property lines, road rights-of way, geographic features, section lines, or other readily identifiable features. Where possible, district boundaries will be drawn so as to create buffers between potentially incompatible land uses. District boundary lines shall be drawn so as to minimize the potential for nuisances caused by incompatible land uses. Ms. Grey opined that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with Policy 3.7.2. because the FLUM boundary lines do not follow roads and other geographic features, making it difficult to implement Policy 3.7.2. when a zoning code is adopted. Ms. Grey, however, also acknowledged that it would be possible to draw a zoning map that is consistent with the Plan Amendment. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 3.9.1. which defines "compatibility" of land uses. Ms. Grey opined that interspersing SR with Residential land uses does not promote compatibility. The Plan Amendment recognizes the current use of the subject property. Under the broad categories of permissible uses for the SR designation there are many compatible uses. Moreover, Mrs. Harmon testified that she believes Petitioners are entitled to engage in their business activity, and that everyone in the West Beaches Area got along fine until the SR designation was adopted. The Plan Amendment can be viewed to support the compatibility of land uses because it is consistent with the land uses that are already there. Therefore, the Plan Amendment may serve to decrease the possibility of future incompatibility. It will provide a level of security for the areas that are residential in that any redevelopment of other developed properties will have to be reviewed in light of Comprehensive Plan policies requiring protection of viable residential areas. Additionally, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several of the many policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan to implement Objective 1.2. Policy 1.2.1.2 states that it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public interest. The subject property has historically been residential, the current use of the property is residential, and the interest of the public is served in continuing the residential nature of the property as indicated by the responses to the County's letter of August 28, 2002. Policy 1.2.1.3 states that a purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to overcome "present handicaps." Ms. Grey opined that if the SR category is a handicap, the Plan Amendment does not overcome it because there are still SR parcels around the subject property. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not define "present handicap" and there is no evidence that the SR category is a "present handicap." Policy 1.2.1.4 requires that the Plan deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land because the Plan Amendment does not address potential incompatible uses between SR and Residential. There are many permissible land uses, including beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, and apartments in the SR category that are compatible with the Plan Amendment. Moreover, Ms. Grey stated that a zoning map could be drawn consistent with the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment recognizes the land uses that currently exist on the subject property. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the land uses already there. Taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Ms. Grey opined that there was not adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that residential land use was the most appropriate or suitable for the subject property and within the public interest. Ms. Grey stated that the primary purpose for the Plan Amendment was to respond to individual requests to change the land use classification. She also believed that the lack of homestead exemptions for the majority of the area was data that supported the SR and not the Residential land use classification. Ms. Gutcher, however, testified that she reviewed appropriate data and the Plan Amendment was supported by the types of data and analysis typically provided for FLUM amendments listed in Policy 3.2.1. of the plan. These data included the national wetlands inventory, the ITE Journal for the Traffic Counts, and other data contained in the checklist in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. There was sufficient data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment, including the following: (a) the fact that the 1990 Plan designated the area as Residential; (b) the 1994 windshield survey identifying the area as residential; (c) the fact that the actual uses of the properties are for housing; (d) the existing residential character of the area; (e) the property owners' desire that their properties be designated Residential; and (f) the 1991 existing land use map identifying the area that is the subject of this case as "predominantly medium density, residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." The population projections in the County's EAR are required to include both resident and seasonal populations to arrive at a functional population. This number is then used to plan for the amount of residential, commercial land use authorized. Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, do not differentiate seasonal housing from permanent housing in forecasting future land use needs. There is adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order concluding that the FLUM Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Bay County in Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 3205 Brentwood Way Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Law Office of Robert C. Apgar 320 Johnston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Colleen M. Castille, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether Lee County Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2015-00005, adopted by Ordinance No. 20-07 on June 17, 2020 (the “Plan Amendment”), is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioner, William J. Semmer, owns and operates seven businesses on San Carlos Island in Lee County, and owns 25 properties on San Carlos Island, including his personal residence, as well as several rental properties and commercial establishments. Petitioner, Joanne E. Semmer, lives and owns her personal residence in San Carlos Island, and owns and operates a business—Ostego Bay Environmental—on San Carlos Island at 1130 Main Street, directly across Main Street from the property subject to the Plan Amendment (“subject property”). Both Petitioners submitted oral comments to the County concerning the Plan Amendment at the adoption hearing on the Plan Amendment. Lee County (“the County”) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, with the duty to adopt and amend its Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Community Planning Act (“the Act”). See § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. Intervenor, Southern Comfort Storage, LLC, owns property and operates a business within the County, and owns the subject property. Intervenor applied for the Plan Amendment that is the subject of this final hearing. San Carlos Island The subject property is located on San Carlos Island, a non-barrier island in the unincorporated area of the County between the cities of Fort Myers and Fort Myers Beach. The Matanzas Pass lies to the south, between the island and Ft. Myers Beach. The pass provides access to Estero Bay through a channel with depths between 11 and 14 feet. That portion of the Bay lying north of the island is shallower, with average depths of between four and six feet. The island is approximately one mile long, and is bisected by two main roadways: San Carlos Boulevard, a north/south arterial roadway on the western side of the island that connects via a bridge to Fort Myers Beach; and Main Street, a collector roadway running east/west bisecting the island north and south. Under the existing Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”), San Carlos Island is dominated by Industrial, Urban Community, and Suburban land use designations, generally located as follows: Suburban (residential) on both the eastern and western ends of the island, as well as in the island center north of Main Street; Industrial concentrated in the center of the island, both north and south of Main Street; and Urban Community concentrated in a corridor along San Carlos Boulevard connecting to Fort Myers Beach. Other large land uses include conservation lands, both uplands and wetlands. Another category—Destination Resort Mixed Use Water Dependent (“DRMUWD”)—was added by a plan amendment in 2009, converting 28 acres of Industrial and Suburban to this new use for the Ebtide development, which includes a 450-unit hotel with 75,000 square feet of convention space; 271 multi-family residential units; 10,000 square feet of office; 85,000 square feet of retail, and a marina. This development is approximately one quarter mile from the subject property. San Carlos Island is designated within the Iona-McGregor Planning Community (“the planning community”) pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Comprehensive Plan, “[t]his community primarily has lands designated as Central Urban, Urban Community, Suburban, and Outlying Suburban …. This community, due to its proximity to the area beaches, will continue to be a popular area for seasonal residents.” The island is one of three discernable sub-areas of the planning community. According to the Comprehensive Plan: The San Carlos Island area, which is nearly built out today, will continue to develop its infill areas while maintaining its marine oriented nature. Residents of the community will address current planning concerns in a comprehensive review of this area and future amendments to this plan will be made to address these concerns. This area is anticipated to grow substantially from today to 2030. Historically, the economy of the island was driven by the commercial shrimping and fishing industries. Many of the industrial uses on the island were associated with processing seafood, especially packing and freezing seafood for transport beyond the island; warehousing and storage of equipment; and boat repair yards. Advances in technology, including shipboard freezing, have reduced the need for dockside packing houses. In 1950, there were seven packing houses on the island. There are only two packing houses currently in operation on the island, both of which are located south of Main Street, where the boats have access to deep water ports. Increased imports of shrimp from other countries has also contributed to the decline of the shrimping industry on the island.2 The amount of shrimp harvested from waters near the island peaked in the mid-1990s at over 6,000,000 pounds, but had fallen to slightly more than 2,000,000 pounds by 2015. Petitioner, Joanne Semmer, attempted to contradict the evidence that the local shrimp harvest is in decline because the data introduced does not include anything subsequent to 2015. She maintains that the industry has stabilized since 2015. Ms. Semmer testified that “they’re having a bang-up year this year.” Ms. Semmer’s testimony was based on her discussions with commercial shrimp fleet owners and is entirely hearsay evidence upon which the undersigned cannot rely for finding that the shrimp industry has stabilized.3 One of the more recent changes in the shrimping industry is the move from 50-foot to 100-foot shrimp boats, which can carry larger amounts of shrimp, thereby reducing the number of trips needed to harvest the catch. Due to the deeper channel, the properties south of Main Street can better accommodate the larger deep-draft shrimp boats used in the modern shrimping industry. In the last 20 years, the significant development and redevelopment on the island has been commercial and recreational in character. 2 The ratio of local to foreign-sourced shrimp in the United States had decreased from roughly 1:1 in the late 1970s, to roughly 1:5.8 in 2002. 3 Furthermore, Ms. Semmer’s testimony that the shrimpers are having a “bang-up year” and “one of their best years ever,” does not provide numbers of pounds of shrimp to compare with the data introduced by Intervenor. Redevelopment south of Main Street has been characterized by commercial and mixed-use development, rather than industrial development on the waterfront. Two large recreational marinas have been developed which provide commercial fishing berths and boat rentals. They have supporting restaurants, wet slips, dry storage, and some commercial retail. Generally, the area south of Main Street is in transition from traditional industrial to more commercial and recreational uses. The industrial uses north of Main Street are less intense and conducted on mostly unimproved properties. The uses include open yards for storing equipment, repairing and maintaining equipment and boats, parking and turnaround of large trucks used to transport seafood beyond the island, and areas to offload seafood products and equipment from boats. Waterfronts Florida Partnership In 1997, the island was designated by the state as one of the first communities in its Waterfronts Florida Partnership (“Waterfronts Florida” or “the partnership”) program. A self-created committee, of which Ms. Semmer was a vital member, applied for the Waterfronts Florida designation “to help the community deal with the capacity of shrimping and fishing boats that docked there seasonally, as well as educate residents and visitors about the island’s working waterfront.” The portion of the island encompassing the Waterfronts Florida Designated Area includes only property south of Main Street, and stretches from its intersection with the San Carlos Boulevard bridge one half-mile along the Matanzas Pass. Through the partnership, the community developed a self-guided working waterfront tour called “A Healthy Bay = Healthy Seafood,” which takes participants along a short trail with kiosks that provide information about the bay, the habitat, and the fish that live in it. Although it is self- guided, a volunteer is available on certain days to provide a narrated tour. Ms. Semmer is the volunteer program manager and frequently guides the tour herself. Ms. Semmer is also the executive director of the Ostego Bay Foundation Marine Science Center, which is integral to the partnership. The center provides a marine science experience through interactive exhibits, aquariums, hands-on tanks, collections and displays, and holds educational camps. One of the projects of the Waterfronts Florida committee was development of a special area management plan (the “special area plan”) for the island, which was adopted in 1999. The special area plan included the following vision statement for the community: San Carlos Island is a people-oriented community with an important working waterfront that includes vibrant commercial seafood and other marine-based industries and recreational opportunities. These assets contribute to making San Carlos Island an attractive community for its permanent and seasonal residents as well as an interesting area for visiting tourists. The first goal of the special area plan is to “[c]ontinue to support and develop” the island’s commercial fishing and passenger vessel industry “while diversifying the economic base” of the island “to enhance recreational and tourism-related opportunities” and support businesses along San Carlos Boulevard and Main Street. Objectives to accomplish that goal include “[d]iversify[ing] the island’s economic base by enhancing tourism, retail, and recreation opportunities.” The special area plan also refers to the need to possibly revise the water- dependent land use policies “which have been identified as limiting development options along the west side of Main Street.”4 The special area plan calls for developing language that will “increase flexibility and mix of land use types” allowable on land currently zoned for water-dependent uses, which may include traditional commercial fishing village industry “such as restaurants and mixed use commercial/residential.” The Subject Property The subject property is 7.47 acres located north of, and abutting, Main Street. The property is a combination of eight adjoining lots, most of which are narrow and elongated, with a variety of existing zoning designations— marine industrial, light industrial, commercial, and mobile home. The property was most recently the site of the Compass Rose marina, which, in 2006, was approved, through special exception and a variance, for a 286-dry slip boat storage facility at a maximum of 65 feet in height, 29 wet slips, and an associated boat launch; commercial spaces for member gatherings, a restaurant, ship store, and mini-storage. The marina and attendant uses were subsequently destroyed, except for the storage facility, which is located on the westernmost portion of the subject property. The subject property has access to Estero Bay via a 75-foot man-made canal along its eastern boundary. However, from the canal, vessels must access the Bay via a shallow channel with average depths of four to six feet. Commercial fishing and shrimping vessels require over six feet of depth at mean low tide. Most of the subject property is designated Industrial on the FLUM, with a very small portion in Suburban. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the Industrial designation is “reserved mainly for industrial activities and selective land use mixtures … includ[ing] industrial, manufacturing, research, educational uses, and office complex (if specifically related to 4 This document refers to Main Street as a roadway running north/south, rather than east/west. West of Main Street coincides with south of Main Street in the parlance of other documents describing Main Street as an east/west corridor. adjoining industrial uses)[.]” Retail, recreational, and service uses are allowed if they are limited to the sale of products “manufactured or directly related to that manufactured on the premises,” and are subject to acreage limitations. Residential uses are not allowed in the Industrial category. The subject property is also located within the San Carlos Island Water-Dependent overlay zone, the objective of which is to “protect marine- oriented land uses [on the island] from incompatible or pre-emptive land uses.” New development, and substantial redevelopment, within this overlay north of Main Street, is limited to marine industrial uses and recreational marinas. Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is surrounded by property in the Industrial category, with the exception of the property to its east. Lying across the 75- foot canal are three “fingers” of densely-developed residential property extending into Estero Bay which are designated Suburban. The developments are mostly mobile homes and manufactured housing, which, in large part, serve the workforce living on the island. The standard density in the Suburban land use category is six dwelling units per acre (“6 du/acre”). The Oak Street residential development lying directly across the canal is developed at a density of 7 du/acre, and is non-conforming. The Canal Point Mobile Home Park just east of Oak Street, encompasses two “fingers,” Nancy Lane and Emily Lane. Both “fingers” were developed at non-conforming densities of 9.6 du/acre and 11.6 du/acre, respectively. Continuing east along Main Street, Helen Lane and Oyster Bay are mobile home and manufactured housing communities developed at over 13 du/acre. Another residential development, Sportman’s Cove, lies north of the Industrial properties, directly on the Bay, and is developed at 13.1 du/acre. Industrial uses to the west include open storage, closed storage, warehousing, and distribution facilities. South of Main Street is a mix of more intense industrial uses with direct access to the Bay via Matanzas Pass’ deep water channels. A portion of the Industrial property directly north of the subject property is owned by Mr. Semmer. He conducts, or leases the property for, a variety of industrial uses. Mr. Semmer’s property is adjacent to the canal, and he contracts with some smaller shrimp boats and blue crab fishermen to dock and unload there. The property is often used for storage of equipment used by those industries, as well as an open yard for equipment repair. Mr. Semmer’s property was also used as a staging area during reconstruction of the Sanibel Causeway, providing a landing site for marine barges to load and unload large equipment needed for the reconstruction. The property was used to pour and set concrete forms used in the reconstruction process. Access to Mr. Semmer’s property from Main Street is via Ostego Drive, a platted street that runs through the eastern portion of the subject property, separating the upland property from that adjacent to the canal. During reconstruction of the Sanibel Causeway, large equipment trucks, and cement trucks accessed his property via this street. 2015 Plan Amendment Application and Concurrent Rezoning In 2015, Intervenor filed separate applications for the Plan Amendment and a concurrent rezoning of the subject property. The Plan Amendment sought to change the land use classification from Industrial and Suburban to Central Urban. In addition to residential uses, the Central Urban classification allows light industrial and commercial uses. The 2015 concurrent rezoning application sought planned development (“PD”) rezoning for a project consisting of 113 residential dwelling units (of which 38 would be affordable housing); a marina with 29 wet and 286 dry slips; and 30,000 square feet of commercial space, including a restaurant, 200 public parking spaces, and a civic/recreational space that would be available to the general public. The PD establishes a maximum structural height of 175 feet. In 2016, an adoption hearing for the Plan Amendment was scheduled before the County Commission, but action on it was deferred at the request of the Intervenor, who then submitted a new plan amendment application seeking to change the FLUM designation of the subject property to DRMUWD, along with text amendments to the DRMUWD classification. That plan amendment, as well as the concurrent rezoning, were denied by the County in 2019. The original Plan Amendment to Central Urban remained pending. On November 5, 2019, Intervenor filed a request for relief with the County pursuant to the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act (“FLUEDRA”), section 70.51, Florida Statutes; as well as a request for informal mediation pursuant to section 163.3181(4). These processes culminated in a mediated settlement agreement between the County and Intervenor whereby the County agreed to adopt the instant Plan Amendment, as well as the concurrent rezoning, for a project consisting of 75 residential dwelling units (reduced from the 113); a marina with 286 dry and 29 wet slips; and 30,000 square feet of commercial space, including a restaurant and waterfront civic/recreational space of 20,000 square feet (land area) that would be open to the general public. The maximum height for structures was reduced from 175 feet to 100 feet under the mediated settlement. The mediated settlement agreement also provided for conditions of development approval and property development regulations. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the subject property from Industrial and Suburban to Central Urban, a classification which allows residential uses at a standard density range of 4-10 du/acre and up to 15 du/acre through the County’s “bonus density” program for affordable housing. 5 The Central Urban category allows development of residential, commercial, public and quasi-public, and limited light industrial land uses (e.g., wet slips, dry storage, marinas). The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use future development in the Central Urban category. The maximum number of residential units that could be constructed on the subject property at the density of 15 du/acre is 113. The Comprehensive Plan does not govern intensity of non-residential uses. The evidence is insufficient to determine the maximum allowable buildout of the non-residential uses on the subject property. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment: (1) creates internal inconsistencies with the existing Comprehensive Plan, in contravention of section 163.3177(2); (2) is not “based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis,” as required by section 163.3177(1)(f); and (3) increases density in the Coastal High Hazard Area (“CHHA”), in violation of section 163.3178(8). Internal Inconsistencies Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with a number of Goals, Objectives, and Policies (“GOPs”) of the Comprehensive Plan. The specific allegations can be grouped, generally, as arguments that (1) the Plan Amendment is incompatible with, or will have negative impacts on, surrounding uses; and (2) the Plan Amendment will negatively impact hurricane evacuation by increasing density in the CHHA. Compatibility Petitioners allege the maximum density and intensity of development allowed under the Plan Amendment is incompatible with surrounding industrial uses, specifically Mr. Semmer’s industrial property directly 5 Density may be increased to 20 du/acre utilizing an existing transfer of development rights ordinance which does not apply to San Carlos Island. adjacent to the north, and the residential uses to the west; and will be destructive to the character of the island. With regard to compatibility, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following specific GOPs: FLUE Objective 2.2: Development Timing. Direct growth to those portions of the future urban areas where adequate public facilities exist or are assured and where compact and contiguous development patterns can be created. FLUE Policy 2.2.1.: Rezonings and Development of Regional Impact proposals will be evaluated as to the availability and proximity of the road network; central sewer and water lines; community facilities and services such as schools, EMS, fire and police protection, and other public facilities; compatibility with surrounding land uses; and any other relevant facts affecting the public health, safety, and welfare. FLUE Objective 2.6: Redevelopment. Future redevelopment activities will be directed in appropriate areas, consistent with sound planning principles, the goals, objectives, and policies contained within this plan, and the desired community character. FLUE Policy 5.1.5: Protect existing and future residential areas from any encroachment of uses that are potentially destructive to the character and integrity of the residential environment. Requests for conventional rezonings will be denied in the event that the buffers provided in Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code are not adequate to address potentially incompatible uses in a satisfactory manner. If such uses are proposed in the form of a planned development or special exception and generally applicable development regulations are deemed to be inadequate, conditions will be attached to minimize or eliminate the potential impacts or, where no adequate conditions can be devised, the application will be denied altogether. FLUE Policy 6.1.1: All applications for commercial development will be reviewed and evaluated as to: Traffic and access impacts (rezonings and development orders); Landscaping and detailed site planning (development orders); Screening and buffering (planned development rezoning and development orders; Availability and adequacy of services and facilities (rezoning and development orders); Impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods (rezoning); Proximity to other similar centers (rezoning); Environmental considerations (rezoning and development orders). FLUE Policy 6.1.3: Commercial developments requiring rezoning and meeting Development of County Impact (DCI) thresholds must be developed as commercial planned developments designed to arrange land uses in an integrated and cohesive unit in order to: Provide visual harmony and screening; Reduce dependence on the automobile; Promote pedestrian movement within the development; Utilize joint parking, access and loading facilities; Avoid negative impacts on surrounding land uses and traffic circulation; Protect natural resources; and, Provide necessary services and facilities where they are inadequate to serve the proposed use. FLUE Policy 6.1.4: Commercial development will be approved only when compatible with adjacent existing and proposed land uses and with existing and programmed public services and facilities. FLUE Policy 6.1.6: The land development regulations will require that commercial development provide adequate and appropriate landscaping, open space, and buffering. Such development is encouraged to be architecturally designed so as to enhance the appearance of structures and parking areas and blend with the character of existing or planned surrounding land uses. FLUE Goal 32: San Carlos Island [Water- Dependent Overlay]. All development approvals on San Carlos Island must be consistent with the following objective and policy in addition to other provisions of this plan. Objective 32.2: To manage growth, development, and redevelopment on San Carlos Island. To maintain and enhance the area’s quality of life and public and private infrastructure. Housing Element (“HE”) Policy 135.9.5: New development adjacent to areas of established residential neighborhoods must be compatible with or improve the area’s existing character. HE Policy 135.9.6: Lee County will administer the planning, zoning, and development review process in such a manner that proposed land uses acceptably minimize adverse drainage, environmental, spatial, traffic, noise, and glare impacts, as specified in county development regulations, upon adjacent residential properties, while maximizing aesthetic qualities. The Plan Amendment is not a rezoning or a development order. It does not, in and of itself, approve any specific development on the subject property. It approves the property for a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses, and provides a maximum density for the residential use. FLUE Policies 2.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4, do not apply to the Plan Amendment because it is not an application for specific commercial development, a rezoning, or a development order.6 The Plan Amendment cannot be inconsistent with Policy 6.1.6 because the policy merely provides the requirements for the land development regulations. It does not impose any requirement on plan amendments. The bases for Petitioners’ argument that the Plan Amendment creates internal inconsistencies regarding compatibility is limited to FLUE Goal 32; FLUE Objectives 2.2, 2.6, 32.1,7 and 32.2; FLUE Policies 5.1.5 and 32.1.1;8 and HE Policies 135.9.5 and 135.9.6. The Comprehensive Plan does not define “compatibility.” The Act defines “compatibility” as “a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition.” § 163.3164(9), Fla. Stat. 6 The Plan Amendment was considered concurrently with a PD rezoning which includes a more detailed development plan. To the extent that Petitioners allege the rezoning does not meet the requirements of policies 2.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4, Petitioners’ remedy is a challenge to those development orders, pursuant to section 163.3215. (“Subsections (3) and (4) provide the exclusive methods for an aggrieved or adversely affected party to appeal and challenge the consistency of a development order with a comprehensive plan.”). 7 Objective 32.1 was not cited in Petitioners’ Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing as a provision with which the Plan Amendment is alleged to be internally inconsistent. However, the issue was tried by consent as neither Respondent nor Intervenor objected to Petitioners’ evidence on this issue, and all parties introduced evidence related to this allegation. 8 Policy 32.1.1 was not cited in Petitioners’ Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing as a provision with which the Plan Amendment is alleged to be internally inconsistent. However, the issue was tried by consent as neither Respondent nor Intervenor objected to Petitioners’ evidence on this issue, and all parties introduced evidence related to this allegation. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is incompatible with the surrounding uses because it introduces high density residential, which could be built to a maximum height of 100 feet; and commercial and recreational uses, into an area of industrial uses, including open storage, boat and equipment repairs, and unloading and packing seafood. Petitioners’ expert planning witness, Joseph McHarris, opined that the anticipated residential development is exactly the type of pre-emptive development anticipated and discouraged by the San Carlos Island Water- Dependent Overlay Zone. Mr. McHarris testified that “dropping in central urban,” the highest density and intensity use category, “right on top of industrial and right next to a suburban neighborhood is not good planning.” Mr. McHarris opined that residents of the “high-end condominiums” proposed for the property will not enjoy the view overlooking industrial outdoor storage yards, unloading cargo vessels, or the sounds and smells that are attendant thereto. The residential use will pre-empt any expansion or redevelopment of the existing industrial for more intense industrial uses. In fact, Mr. McHarris testified that the uses are so incompatible, that he would expect the new residents to push for ceasing the existing operations on those properties. Mr. McHarris did not rely upon any empirical evidence for his conclusion that the introduction of residential uses would be detrimental to the existing low- intensity industrial uses to the north and west of the subject property. His testimony was grounded in what “he would expect” to happen. Intervenor’s planning expert, Dr. David Depew, opined that in both his professional and personal experience, he has observed new waterfront residential and mixed use to coexist nicely with waterfront industrial and commercial. He cited Florida communities such as Apalachicola, Destin, and Cedar Key, generally, as examples of areas where newer residences and condominiums have developed in proximity to historic waterfront industrial uses without unduly negative effects on the historic uses. Dr. Depew made general references to “professional and personal” experiences, but gave no more detailed evidence regarding the coexistence of residential and industrial in traditional industrial waterfronts. The County’s expert planning witness, Brandon Dunn, is the principal planner for the County. He has worked in the County Department of Community Development for at least 13 years, 11 of those in the planning section. Mr. Dunn is extremely familiar with, and has extensive experience applying and interpreting, the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dunn testified that the Plan Amendment represents a transitional use between the existing traditional industrial uses north and west of the subject property and the suburban use east of the subject property. Developing the subject property for a mix of uses, including residential, commercial, and water-dependent light industrial (i.e., marina, wet-slips, dry storage), provides a “step-down” from the single use industrial properties to the north and west, to the traditional suburban residential development to the east. Mr. Dunn’s testimony is accepted as reliable and persuasive. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Plan Amendment introduces uses which are incompatible with the surrounding uses, as that term is defined in section 163.3164(9). The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 5.1.5 because it does not allow the encroachment of uses into residential areas which are destructive to the integrity and character of those areas. The entire island is only one mile in length, and residential and industrial, as well as commercial marine uses, exist throughout the island in relative proximity to each other. Petitioners introduced no evidence from which the undersigned can conclude that juxtaposition has been adverse to the residential development. New residential development at Ebtide is located in proximity to low-intensity industrial uses north of Main Street and no evidence was introduced to suggest that the new residential development has pre-empted the continuation or expansion of those established industrial uses. FLUE Objective 2.2 requires new growth to be directed to urban areas “where adequate public facilities exist or are assured and where compact and contiguous development patterns can be created.” Adequate public facilities (i.e., sewer, water, fire protection, emergency services, law enforcement, and schools) are sufficient to address the impacts of the Plan Amendment at maximum allowable density of use. One roadway segment impacted by the Plan Amendment is currently operating at Level of Service F, but is designated as “constrained,” and the Plan Amendment will not cause the “volume to capacity ratio” established in the Comprehensive Plan to be exceeded. In Mr. McHarris’s opinion, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 2.2 because the uses allowed in Central Urban are not contiguous with the uses of any surrounding property. However, the properties east of the subject property, in the Suburban land use category, are developed for residential, a use which is allowed in Central Urban. Residential uses on the subject property will be contiguous with the adjacent Suburban development. Further, the Industrial category allows limited retail, recreational, and service uses; therefore, the change to the Central Urban designation, which allows commercial and light industrial development, does not introduce any radically-different uses than that allowed on the subject property, except for residential, under its current designation. HE Policy 135.9.5 requires that new development “adjacent to established residential neighborhoods” must be “compatible with or improve the area’s character.” The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with this policy based on the findings above regarding compatibility of the Plan Amendment with surrounding residential uses. HE Policy 135.9.6 requires the County to “administer the planning, zoning and development review process” to ensure that proposed land uses “acceptably minimize adverse … traffic, noise, and glare impacts, as specified in county development regulations, upon adjacent residential properties[.]” Petitioners argue that this policy applies to the Plan Amendment, and that placement of residential uses adjacent to existing industrial uses will expose the residential uses to traffic, noise, and other adverse impacts, which cannot be “acceptably minimized.” Mr. McHarris testified that the unloading and transportation of seafood, as well as repair of boat and other equipment, with their attendant noises and smells, will be a nuisance to the residential uses allowed by the Plan Amendment, thus violating the requirement to minimize those effects on the residential properties. Petitioners did not establish that this policy applies during the plan amendment phase. While the policy includes the “planning process,” in addition to the zoning and development review process, the policy specifically refers to minimizing adverse impacts “as specified in the county land development regulations.” The land development regulations, rather than the Comprehensive Plan, contain the standards for setbacks, screening, buffers, and noise levels, in order to “acceptably minimize” those impacts to adjoining residential properties. The rezoning and site plan review of the development proposed to implement the Plan Amendment, rather than the Plan Amendment review process, are the appropriate processes in which to apply land development regulations for minimization of adverse impacts. Mr. McHarris opined that the Plan Amendment is contrary to Objective 2.6 because it is contrary to the desired “community character,” which he described as a “working waterfront.” Working waterfront is not a term that is used or defined in the Comprehensive Plan. To the extent that the reference is to the Waterfronts Florida designation in partnership with the state, the designation is strictly confined to that area south of Main Street. The desired community character is best reflected in the vision statement in the Comprehensive Plan for the Iona-McGregor Planning Community, of which the island is a designated sub-area. The Comprehensive Plan states, “The San Carlos Island area, which is nearly built out today, will continue to develop its infill areas while maintaining its marine-oriented nature.” The Comprehensive Plan provides that the overall planning community, given its proximity to the area beaches, “will continue to be a popular area for seasonal residents,” and that the entire planning community, is “anticipated to grow substantially from today through 2030.” Some of that growth was anticipated to be residential, as the planning community projected 17 acres of Central Urban for residential development through the year 2030. Plenty of acreage remains for residential development in the Central Urban category. The Plan defines infill as “the use of vacant land within a predominately developed area for further construction or development. These lands already have public services available but may require improvements to meet the current development standards.” The Plan Amendment is infill redevelopment of a former marina site, now utilized only for storage, where all public services are available. The community character is one of transition from historic industrial marine uses to waterfront commercial and mixed-use developments. The Plan Amendment allowing residential development is not inconsistent with that transitioning character. The Plan Amendment is not contrary to Objective 2.6 because it is infill development that is not inconsistent with the community character. Next, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Goal 32, Objectives 32.1 and 32.2, and Policy 32.1.1, which relate to the San Carlos Island Water-Dependent Overlay Zone. Goal 32 provides that “[a]ll development approvals on San Carlos Island must be consistent with the following objective and policy[.]” Objective 32.1 provides that all development must be consistent with a series of policies “[t]o protect marine-oriented land uses” on the island “from incompatible or pre-emptive land uses.” Policy 32.1.1 provides: New development and substantial redevelopment within the Industrial … land use categor[y] … will only be permitted in accordance with the listed criteria. * * * North of Main Street – Within the water- dependent overlay zone which is defined as land within 150 feet of the shoreline: water-dependent marine industrial uses and recreational marinas. Landward of the overlay zone (150-foot line): marine-industrial uses, in addition to commercial or marine industrial uses which support the major industrial activities and recreational marinas. That portion of the subject property lying 150 feet landward of the canal is in the overlay zone. First, it must be noted that Goal 32 and its implementing objectives and policies apply to permitting of new development and redevelopment. Goal 32 sets requirements for “development approvals”; Objective 32.1 applies to “development”; and Policy 32.1.1 speaks to “permit[ing] new development and redevelopment.” Further, Policy 32.1.1 provides that the water dependent overlay zones “will be included in the Lee County zoning regulations[.]” The Plan Amendment is not an application for development permit. Enforcement of the water-dependent overlay zone restrictions will occur at the development order stage.9 9 Again, to the extent Petitioners contend the approved PD rezoning of subject property is inconsistent with these plan provisions, those issues are not properly before the undersigned in this proceeding. See § 163.3215, Fla. Stat. (“Subsections (3) and (4) provide the exclusive methods for an aggrieved or adversely affected party to appeal and challenge the consistency of a development order with a comprehensive plan.”). Furthermore, Policy 32.1.1. applies to development and redevelopment “within the Industrial land use category.” The Plan Amendment changes the designation of the subject property from Industrial and Suburban to Central Urban. Thus, it is at least arguable that the policy does not apply to the Plan Amendment. Even if these Comprehensive Plan provisions apply to the Plan Amendment, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with them. The amendment to the Central Urban land use category will not exclude either “light industrial,” such as water-dependent marine industrial uses, or a recreational marina on the subject property. At first blush, it appears that Policy 32.1.1 would prohibit residential development landward of the overlay zone on the subject property. However, the Comprehensive Plan provides that these regulations will be incorporated into the zoning regulations and “may be the subject of deviation requests during the planned development process.” Hurricane Shelter and Evacuation Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with the hurricane evacuation and shelter provisions of Community Facilities and Services Element (“CFSE”) Goal 73, Objective 73.1, and Policies 73.1.1 and 73.1.2. CFSE Goal 73 is a general goal for the County to provide adequate evacuation and sheltering safeguards for major storm events. Objective 73.1 directs the County to “[w]ork towards attaining” out-of-county evacuation times consistent with the Statewide Regional Evacuation Study. Notably, the objective specifies the ways in which the County will “work toward attaining” those evacuation time—by increasing shelter availability, improving evacuation routes, and increasing public awareness. The objective does not require the County to either prohibit or limit residential density to achieve that end. CFSE Policy 73.1.1 requires the County to do periodic updates of its emergency management plan and the long-range transportation plan, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and to identify critical evacuation routes. Policy 73.1.2 addresses replacement bridges on evacuation routes. None of these provisions are implicated by or address the Plan Amendment at issue. Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with FLUE Goal 32; FLUE Objectives 2.2, 2.6, 32.1, and 32.2; FLUE Policies 5.1.5 and 32.1.1; HE Policies 135.9.5 and 135.9.6; and CFSE Goal 73, Objective 73.1, and Policies 73.1.1 and 73.1.2. Data and Analysis Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment does not appropriately react to data available to the County at the time the Plan Amendment was adopted, namely historical data constituting the community vision for the island. Ms. Semmer testified that the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction to the San Carlos Island Community Redevelopment Area (“CRA”) Plan, which she testified was “the outcome of a long history of community working together to plan for its future.” When asked to identify specific provisions of the CRA plan to which the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction, Ms. Semmer identified the fact that the plan recognized the existence of 917 residential units. She testified that “we felt that we were built out at the time, and we were happy with that … And this project, adding another 75 units, it’s going to be difficult to accommodate the additional traffic and the people.” The CRA plan was adopted in May 1991 and provided the background, findings, and data to support the designation of the entire island as a CRA, pursuant to section 163.358. The CRA Plan makes findings that blighted conditions exist on the island which justify designation as a CRA. The CRA Plan defines the characteristics of the redevelopment area, provides an infrastructure needs assessment, and establishes goals for the redevelopment area, as well as specific subareas. The CRA Plan actually notes the existence of 995 dwelling units on the island, not 917, according to the 1980 census. The CRA Plan does not contain any prohibition on increasing the number of dwelling units on the island, or reflect an intent to prohibit new residential development.10 On the contrary, the CRA Plan contains data which is supportive of the Plan Amendment. For example, one of the findings of blight conditions is “faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness.” The CRA Plan finds that many lots “do not comply with minimum lot size requirements” and “would have significant difficulty being developed under current regulations.” The Plan Amendment combines eight lots, redevelopment of which is constrained by their size and configuration (narrow, elongated lots) with zoning designations of marine industrial, light industrial, commercial, and mobile home. Under the Plan Amendment, the lots are aggregated for a single development. The CRA Plan identifies the area north of Main Street and east of San Carlos Boulevard (where the subject property is located) as “a mixture of single-family, mobile home parks, marinas, commercial retail and service clubs.” San Carlos Island CRA Plan, p. 23. The CRA Plan does not identify this mix of uses as incompatible or undesirable, nor does it express an intent to discontinue mixed uses in that area. The Plan Amendment proposes a land 10 In contrast, the plan reflects the community’s staunch opposition to development of a parking garage on the island: “It is basic that [the island] neither become a parking lot for Fort Myers Beach (Estero Island) nor for Lee County. This would preclude construction of a parking garage on [the island] or additional surface parking for benefit of other areas of Lee County … or which would be utilized as temporary parking with the people parking their vehicles then being transported to another area by any means.” San Carlos Island CRA Plan, p. 11. “The residents and property owners of San Carlos Island are united in their opposition to construction of a parking garage, unless it can be shown that such garage is of benefit to those residents and owners and is not just part of a plan to permit development in some other area of Lee County.” Id. at p. 26. use category that allows a mix of residential, commercial, marina, and light industrial, underscoring the consistency of the Plan Amendment with the historic development pattern. The CRA Plan further describes more particularly the uses in the area of the subject property as “an area of light industrial development consisting of rental storage area, a service club, a fish house, and a large marina.” Id. at 24. The Plan Amendment retains this essential mix of uses and allows these uses, along with residential, to be developed on the subject property. Petitioners identified a report from the San Carlos Island Community Design Workshop, held February 21 and 22, 1992, as an example of data to which the Plan Amendment does not appropriately react. The workshop was conducted solely to determine “the best uses for a piece of County-owned property,” 5.6-acres in size, fronting on the Matanzas Pass. The report, which is entirely hearsay, notes that the community participants “[d]efinitely [did] not want[] high rises or major public attractions, Disney-style.” The report has no relevance to the Plan Amendment, which is not part of the property being considered for redevelopment during the workshop. Next, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction to the data and analysis reflected in the documents designating San Carlos Island within the Waterfronts Florida partnership. Ms. Semmer testified that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Community Vision contained in that document, to wit: San Carlos Island is a people-oriented community with an important working waterfront that includes vibrant commercial seafood and other marine-based industries and recreational opportunities. These assets contribute in making San Carlos Island an attractive community for its permanent and seasonal residents as well as an interesting area for visiting tourists. The designated “working waterfront” under the Waterfronts Florida partnership is located entirely south of Main Street. Thus, the Plan Amendment, affecting property north of Main Street—outside of the designated area—cannot be inconsistent with the vision expressed therein. Ms. Semmer’s contention that the Plan Amendment will convert property from industrial “working waterfront” use, contrary to the Waterfronts Florida document, is not credible. Likewise, the San Carlos Island Special Area Management Plan, adopted in 1999 to implement the Waterfronts Florida designation, applies mainly to the one-half mile long area designated under the program. Finally, Ms. Semmer introduced a 1978 resolution of the Board of County Commissioners stating, “The Board hereby establishes a policy of granting no additional multi-family zoning on Estero Island or San Carlos Island.” Ms. Semmer testified that this resolution recognizes that the island was “built out, that we could not handle any additional density[.]” Thus, Ms. Semmer argues that the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction to that data because it allows new residential uses on the subject property. The resolution addresses rezonings, and the Plan Amendment is not a rezoning. Rezoning of the property has been undertaken and is not an issue cognizable in this challenge to the Plan Amendment.11 Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to react appropriately to data available to the County at the time it was adopted. The Plan Amendment is based on, and appropriately reacts to, the development trends on the island from intense industrial fishing-related uses to more recreational and commercial uses, including more mixed use uses both north and south of Main Street. The Plan Amendment is supported by data on the availability of public utilities to service the property—a condition necessary for infill development. The Plan Amendment will allow for a transition 11 Moreover, Petitioners did not prove that this resolution is still valid. between the industrial uses to the north and west of the subject property and the suburban uses to the east. State Requirements for Development in the CHHA Finally, Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment increases residential density in the CHHA and does not meet the state requirements for such development set forth in section 163.3178(8). Section 163.3178 defines the CHHA as the “area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges for Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model.” § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. The statute requires each local government comprehensive plan to designate the CHHA within its jurisdiction and “the criteria for mitigation for a comprehensive plan amendment in a [CHHA] as defined in subsection (8).” Id. Section 163.3178(8) reads, as follows: (8)(a) A proposed comprehensive plan amendment shall be found in compliance with state coastal high-hazard provisions if: The adopted level of service for out-of-county hurricane evacuation is maintained for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale; or A 12-hour evacuation time to shelter is maintained for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and shelter space reasonably expected to accommodate the residents of the development contemplated by a proposed comprehensive plan amendment is available; or Appropriate mitigation is provided that will satisfy subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. Appropriate mitigation shall include, without limitation, payment of money, contribution of land, and construction of hurricane shelters and transportation facilities. Required mitigation may not exceed the amount required for a developer to accommodate impacts reasonably attributable to development. A local government and a developer shall enter into a binding agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan. It is undisputed that the subject property, and indeed most of the island, is located in the CHHA. The Plan Amendment allows residential density on the subject property, thereby increasing residential density in the CHHA.12 The County has adopted a 16-hour out-of-county evacuation time for a category 5 storm event (Level E storm surge).13 Based on the 2017 Update to the Southwest Florida Regional Evacuation Study (“Regional Evacuation Study”), the base scenario (i.e., the analysis used for growth management purposes) out-of-county clearance time for Lee County is actually 84.5 hours for a category 5 storm.14 Because the County’s adopted level of service (“LOS”) for out-of- county evacuation in a Level 5 hurricane has not been attained, it certainly will not be maintained under a scenario which includes development allowed by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet the requirements of section 163.3178(8)(a)1. to be deemed compliant with state CHHA standards. The Regional Evacuation Study projects Lee County’s 2020 evacuation time-to-shelter for a Category 5 storm (Level E storm surge) as 96 hours, an increase of 11.5 hours from the 2017 projection. 12 No evidence was introduced to support a finding that the County has made a commensurate reduction in residential density in the CHHA. 13 The County had initially adopted an 18-hour out-of-county hurricane evacuation time; however, in 2006, the Florida Legislature set a default 16-hour evacuation standard for certain local governments. See ch. 2006-68, § 2, Laws of Fla. 14 That number has increased to 96 hours for 2020. Because the County has not attained the state-mandated 12-hour evacuation time-to-shelter, the County cannot maintain that metric under the Plan Amendment.15 Dr. Depew testified that, based on his research, a Category 5 hurricane shelter is located approximately 28 miles from the subject property, which is an approximate 44-minute drive. In his opinion, then, the Plan Amendment “maintains the 12-hour evacuation time to shelter” as required by section 163.3178(8)(a)2. Dr. Depew’s testimony was uncontradicted, but is not credible. Evacuation time-to-shelter is defined in the Regional Evacuation Study as “the time necessary to safely evacuate vulnerable residents and visitors to a ‘point of safety’ with in the county based on a specific hazard (i.e., Category 5 hurricane), behavioral assumptions and evacuation scenario.” Clearance time-to-shelter is “[c]alculated from the point in time when the evacuation order is given to the point in time when the last vehicle reaches a ‘point of safety’ within the county.” Clearance time does mean, as suggested by Dr. Depew, merely the drive time between a particular residential development and an existing qualifying shelter on a normal traffic day. That testimony is inadequate for the undersigned to find that the Plan Amendment meets the state CHHA requirement under section 163.3178(8)(a)2. Assuming, arguendo, that Dr. Depew’s testimony was credible and reliable, it would not be sufficient alone to establish that the Plan Amendment meets the standards of paragraph 2. The application of section 163.3178(8)(a)2. does not end with an analysis of evacuation time-to-shelter. The statute also requires that shelter space “reasonably expected to 15 The County has not adopted an LOS for “evacuation time-to-shelter”; instead, the County has adopted an LOS for shelter capacity: “in-county and on-site shelter for 10% of the population at risk in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone under a Category 5 storm hazard scenario.” accommodate the residents of the development contemplated by” the Plan Amendment be “available.” The Regional Evacuation Study analyzes public shelter capacity and projects public shelter demand for each county in the region. For Lee County, the capacity of all shelters is 42,659 (for both the 2017 and 2020 base scenarios). The projected 2020 public shelter demand for a category 5 hurricane (Level E storm surge risk) is 47,018. That is an increase of 13,799 from the 2017 projection of 33,219. The data does not support a finding that the County has available shelter space to accommodate any new residents, yet alone those evacuating from development at the density allowed by the Plan Amendment. Dr. Depew attempted to undermine the reliability of the shelter demand projections, testifying that “there’s a very high error margin in these projections. In some instances, it’s as high as 50 percent from the anticipated demand[.]”16 Dr. Depew did not identify any documentation of the margin-of- error in the study, or offer any more reliable data from which the County (or the undersigned) could pull more accurate projections. On cross-examination, when asked to look at a specific operational demand projection, Dr. Depew was unable to identify whether it was “one of the ones with the 50 percent error margin.” Dr. Depew also criticized use of the base scenario because it “anticipates a hundred percent evacuation,” while the operational scenario anticipates something “closer to reality.” This attempt to persuade the undersigned that the base scenario shelter demand numbers are either unreliable, or inappropriate to use for purposes of evaluating the Plan Amendment, was likewise unpersuasive. The Evacuation Study Report defines the public shelter demand scenarios as follows: 16 The Regional Evacuation Study was introduced by Intervenor, for whom Dr. Depew was testifying. The Base Scenarios – which are used for planning and growth management purposes assume that 100% of the population-at-risk evacuates plus a (smaller) percentage of non- vulnerable population (shadow evacuation). The Operational Scenarios used in operations use the planning assumptions determined by the behavioral analysis which are assumed to be a more realistic set of assumptions. Although they do not reflect 100% evacuation of vulnerable residents, there is a significant percentage of shadow evacuation especially in major storm events. According to the study, the base scenarios are specifically designed for use in planning and growth management decisions, such as the one made by the County when it adopted this Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet state CHHA standards by way of section 163.3178(8)(a)2. Finally, the statute provides that a plan amendment may be deemed to meet state CHHA standards via mitigation. The developer may mitigate hurricane evacuation impacts of development in the CHHA by payment of money, contribution of land, or construction of hurricane shelters or transportation facilities. Intervenor has committed, through the mediated settlement agreement, to mitigation in the form of either construction of an on-site shelter to withstand category 5 hurricane winds and storm surge, or a fee-in- lieu thereof pursuant to the County’s requirements. The settlement agreement contains detailed specifications for shelter construction should the County choose that option. The settlement also requires the developer to submit a post-storm recovery plan for review and approval by Lee County Emergency Management. The settlement provides that “[p]rior to any redevelopment of the site … an agreement must be executed between the county and the property owners” to require the mitigation. Petitioners argue that this commitment is not sufficient to meet the statutory mitigation requirements because the developer has not yet executed a written mitigation agreement with the County to provide any specific mitigation construction or payment. They criticize the process for “put[ting] off the mitigation plan until redevelopment of the site.” The statute requires that the “local government and a developer shall enter into a binding agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan,” but does not address the timing of the binding agreement relative to the adoption of the Plan Amendment. The Comprehensive Plan, at CME Policy 101.1.4, contains provisions very similar to section 163.3178(8) for plan amendments that increase density in the CHHA. With regard to mitigation, Policy 101.1.4 requires the applicant to “enter into a development agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan prior to adoption of the plan amendment.” Petitioners have not challenged the Plan Amendment as inconsistent with Policy 101.1.4, but rather with the statutory provision. In contrast to the policy, the plain language of the statute does not require the mitigation agreement to be executed prior to adoption of the Plan Amendment. Finally, section 163.3178(8) allows for “[a]ppropriate mitigation [] provided that will satisfy subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2.” By referencing the subparagraphs requiring maintenance of out-of-county evacuation time and 12-hour evacuation time to shelter, the statute requires mitigation to the extent necessary to meet, in this case, the 16-hour out-of-county evacuation clearance time or the 12-hour time-to-shelter standard. However, the statute also limits the developer’s mitigation to “the amount required for a developer to accommodate impacts reasonably attributable to development.” The statute does not require the developer to build shelters, make transportation improvements, contribute land, or make payments to reduce the county’s existing deficit to achieve out-of-county evacuation clearance time or address the County’s overall shelter space deficit. The statute clearly limits the developer’s contribution to that required to address the impacts “reasonably attributable to the [specific] development.” Intervenor argues that providing the mitigation to offset hurricane evacuation or sheltering impacts associated with the particular development is sufficient to meet the statutory requirement. However, to allow a developer to construct residential density in the CHHA and mitigate only the hurricane evacuation or time-to-shelter impacts associated with that particular development, when the adopted out-of-county hurricane evacuation clearance time has not been achieved, is contrary to the statutory requirement. The same is true for allowing shelter construction to mitigate only the impacts of the particular development when the adopted time-to-shelter has not been achieved or a shelter deficit exists. If the undersigned were to accept the County’s and Intervenor’s proffered interpretation of subparagraph 3., that would render meaningless the first sentence, which references to subparagraphs 1. and 2. and requires the mitigation to “satisfy” subparagraphs 1. and 2. Those subparagraphs directly address “maintaining” the adopted out-of-county and time-to-shelter clearance times. Under the proffered reading of section 163.3178(8)(a)3., any developer could satisfy the state requirements for CHHA construction by mitigating the impacts of the specific development on a local government’s hurricane evacuation clearance time regardless of whether the adopted out- of-county clearance time is met. That interpretation is unworkable and is rejected. Alternatively, Intervenor maintains that the Plan Amendment meets the state requirements for increased density in the CHHA under section 163.3178(8)(a)3. Because: (1) the Comprehensive Plan anticipates additional residential development in the Iona/McGregor planning community, which is within the CHHA; and (2) the impact of the Plan Amendment on both the out-of-county hurricane evacuation time and time-to-shelter is “de minimis.” To the first point, according to Table 1(b) of the Comprehensive Plan, the County has allocated a total of 375 acres of residential development in the Central Urban category within the planning community through the year 2030. Mr. Dunn testified that the County has approved residential development of 360 acres, leaving a balance of 15 acres available for residential development. His conclusion is that the County anticipated additional residential density in the CHHA because almost the entire planning community is located in the CHHA. Mr. Dunn’s conclusions appear valid based on the data and analysis in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the logic is circular. The County’s decision to locate more residential development within the CHHA is not dispositive of the question of whether that decision meets the state requirements for residential density in the CHHA.17 That determination is the subject of the instant de novo proceeding. To prove their second point, the County and Intervenor introduced into evidence a memorandum prepared by Daniel Trescott, a professional planner with the firm of Trescott Planning Solutions, Inc., analyzing the impact of the Plan Amendment at its maximum residential buildout (113 total dwelling units) on the County’s out-of-county evacuation clearance time and time-to-shelter (“the Trescott memo”). The relevant findings of the Trescott memo are as follows: (1) development of 113 dwelling units results in an additional 124 vehicles to evacuate and the need for an additional 48 shelter beds; (2) the Plan Amendment will increase out-of-county evacuation time by 1.2 minutes; and 17 Moreover, the Plan Amendment represents a decision to locate more Central Urban within the CHHA which was not reflected on the FLUM when the 2030 “residential by future land use category” allocations were made, as reflected in Table 1(b). The table reflects the overall acreage to be developed for residential use of the total acreage in the Central Urban category at that time. (3) the estimated clearance time-to-shelter would increase one-fifth of 1.2 minutes based on a projection that 21 percent of project residents would evacuate to a public shelter rather than out-of-county. The Trescott memo concludes, “This small increase will not cause the out-of-county evacuation time to increase incrementally above 84 hours,”18 and that the impact on clearance time-to-shelter would be “even more de minimis.” The Regional Evacuation Study calculates hurricane evacuation impacts in 30-minute increments. Based on that model, the impact from development allowed under the Plan Amendment will not result in an incremental increase in either out-of-county hurricane evacuation clearance time or time-to-shelter. Section 163.3178(8)(a)3. does not contain an exception for “de minimis” impacts. Furthermore, the statutory standard is not based on the Regional Hurricane Evacuation projected times for out-of-county and time-to- shelter in a Category 5 hurricane (both of which are projected at 96 hours for 2020), but on the adopted LOS for out-of-county evacuation clearance time of 16 hours, and the statutory time-to-shelter time of 12 hours. The alternative argument by the County and Intervenor that the Plan Amendment meets the state standard for increased residential density in the CHHA is rejected.
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 Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance 20-07 on June 17, 2020, is not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney Suite 107 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Mark A. Trank, Esquire Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second Street, 6th Floor Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Amanda Swindle, Assistant County Attorney Lee County Attorney's Office 6th Floor 2115 Second Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2021. Mark Jacob Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 2nd Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3012 Richard Barton Akin, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A. Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes and Holt, P.A. 1715 Monroe Street Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Joshua E. Pratt, Esquire Administration Commission Governor’s Legal Office The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
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 The issue in this case is whether the amendments to Miami- Dade County’s Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), adopted through Ordinance Nos. 08-44 and 08-45, are “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty to review amendments to local comprehensive plans and to determine whether the amendments are “in compliance,” pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The County is a political subdivision of the State and has adopted a local comprehensive plan that the County amends from time to time. 1000 Friends is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that maintains its headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. Its corporate purpose is to ensure the fair and effective implementation of the Growth Management Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, through education, lobbying, research and litigation. 1000 Friends has approximately 3,500 members, 174 of whom live in the County. NPCA is a foreign, not-for-profit corporation that is registered to do business in Florida. Its headquarters are in Washington, D.C. It has a branch office in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. NPCA’s purpose is to protect and preserve national parks, including Everglades National Park. NPCA has approximately 340,000 members, 1,000 of whom live in the County. Barry White and Karen Esty are residents of the County. Lowe’s is a for-profit corporation that owns and operates a business in the County. David Brown, along with his father and brother, is a co-applicant for the Brown amendment. For the purpose of this Recommended Order, the Department and the Intervenors aligned with the Department will be referred to, collectively, as Petitioners. Standing Lowe’s filed the application with the County that resulted in Ordinance No. 08-44 (Lowe’s Amendment). Lowe’s submitted comments to the County concerning the Lowe’s Amendment during the period of time from the County’s transmittal of the amendment to the County’s adoption of the amendment. Brown filed the application with the County that resulted in Ordinance No. 08-45 (Brown Amendment). Brown resides in the County. Brown is a manager/member of BDG Kendall 172, LLC, which has a contract to purchase the larger of the two parcels on the application site. Brown is also a manager/member of BDG Kendall 162, LLC, which owns and operates a business in Miami-Dade County. Brown submitted comments to the County at the transmittal and adoption hearings. 1000 Friends submitted comments to the County during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. 1000 Friends presented its comments to the County on behalf of its members who reside in the County. 1000 Friends does not own property or maintain an office in the County. 1000 Friends does not pay local business taxes in the County and did not show that it is licensed to conduct a business in the County. 1000 Friends has engaged in fundraising, lobbying, and litigation in the County. Its activities include efforts to promote growth management, affordable housing, and Everglades restoration. 1000 Friends did not show that its activities in the County subject it to the provisions of the CDMP. NPCA submitted comments to the County during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. NPCA presented its comments to the County on behalf of NPCA members who reside in the County. NPCA does not own property or maintain an office in the County. No evidence was presented to show that NPCA pays business taxes in the County or that it is licensed to conduct business in the County. NPCA did not show that its activities in the County subject it to the provisions of the CDMP. Barry White and Karen Esty are residents of the County. They submitted comments to the County regarding the amendments during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. The Amendment Adoption Process The applications which resulted in the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments were submitted to the County during the April 2007 plan amendment cycle. The County’s review process for comprehensive plan amendments includes a public hearing before the community council which has jurisdiction over the area of the County where the affected lands are located. Following the public hearings on the proposed Lowe’s and Brown Amendments, the community councils recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments. The County’s Planning Advisory Board also reviews proposed amendments before the transmittal and adoption hearings. Following public hearings on the proposed Lowe’s and Brown Amendments, the Planning Advisory Board recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments for transmittal and for adoption. The County planning staff recommended that the proposed amendments be denied and not transmitted to the Department. The principal objection of the planning staff was that the expansion of the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), an aspect of both proposed amendments, was unjustified. In November 2007, the Board of County Commissioners voted to transmit the amendments to the Department. The Department reviewed the proposed amendments and issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report on February 26, 2008. In the ORC Report, the Department stated that expanding the UDB would be internally inconsistent with the CDMP because the need for the expansion had not been demonstrated. In addition the Department determined that the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with CDMP policies regarding the protection of wetlands, and the Brown Amendment was inconsistent with CDMP policies regarding the protection of agricultural lands. When the amendments came before the Board of County Commissioners after the ORC Report in March 2008, the County planning staff recommended that the amendments be denied, repeating its belief that the expansion of the UDB would be inconsistent with the CDMP. Under the County’s Code of Ordinances, an expansion of the UDB requires approval by a two-thirds vote of the Board of County Commissioners. The County adopted the amendments through Ordinances No. 08-44 and 08-45 on April 24, 2008. On April 30, 2008, the Mayor Carlos Alvarez vetoed the ordinances, citing inconsistencies with the UDB policies of the CDMP. His veto was overridden by a two-thirds vote of the Board of County Commissioners on May 6, 2008. On July 18, 2008, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendments Not in Compliance. The Lowe’s Amendment The Lowe’s Amendment site consists of two parcels located in close proximity to the intersection of Southwest 8th Street, also known as Tamiami Trail, and Northwest 137th Avenue. The easternmost parcel, Parcel A, is 21.6 acres. The adjacent parcel to the west, Parcel B, is 30.1 acres. Neither parcel is currently being used. About 50 percent of both Parcels A and B are covered by wetlands. The wetlands are partially drained and show encroachment by exotic vegetation, including Melaleuca and Australian pine. The Lowe’s site is located within the Bird Trail Canal Basin, which the CDMP characterizes as containing “heavily impacted, partially drained wetlands.” Both Parcels A and B are currently designated Open Land under the CDMP, with a more specific designation as Open Land Subarea 3 (Tamiami-Bird Canal Basins), and can be used for residences at densities of up to one unit per five acres, compatible institutional uses, public facilities, utility and communications facilities, certain agricultural uses, recreational uses, limestone quarrying, and ancillary uses. East of the Lowe’s site is another parcel owned by Lowe’s that is designated Business and Office and is within the UDB. North and west of the Lowe’s site is Open Land. The Lowe’s site is bordered on the south by Tamiami Trail, a six- lane road. Across Tamiami Trail is land designated Business and Office. The Lowe’s amendment would reclassify Parcel A as Business and Office and Parcel B as Institution, Utilities, and Communications. The Lowe’s Amendment would also extend the UDB westward to encompass Parcels A and B. The Business and Office designation allows for a wide range of sales and service activities, as well as compatible residential uses. However, the Lowe’s amendment includes a restrictive covenant that prohibits residential development. The Institution, Utilities, and Communications land use designation allows for “the full range of institution, communications and utilities,” as well as offices and some small businesses. Parcel A is subject to another restrictive covenant that provides that Lowe’s shall not seek building permits for the construction of any buildings on Parcel A without having first submitted for a building permit for the construction of a home improvement store. The use of Parcel B is restricted to a school, which can be a charter school. If a charter school is not developed on Parcel B, the parcel will be offered to the Miami-Dade County School Board. If the School Board does not purchase Parcel B within 120 days, then neither Lowe’s nor its successors of assigns have any further obligations to develop a school on Parcel B. The Brown Amendment The Brown Amendment involves four changes to the CDMP: a future land use re-designation from “Agriculture” to “Business and Office”; an expansion of the UDB to encompass the Brown site; a prohibition of residential uses on the site; and a requirement that the owner build an extension of SW 172nd Avenue through the site. The Agriculture designation allows agricultural uses and single family residences at a density of one unit per five acres. The proposed Business and Office land use designation allows a wide range of commercial uses, including retail, professional services, and office. Residential uses are also allowed, but the Declaration of Restrictions adopted by the County with the Brown Amendment prohibits residential development. The Brown Amendment site is 42 acres. Some of the site is leased to a tenant farmer who grows row crops. The balance is vacant and not in use. The Brown site has a triangular shape. Along the sloping northern/eastern boundary is Kendall Drive. Kendall Drive is a major arterial roadway, a planned urban corridor, and part of the state highway system. On the site's western boundary is other agricultural land. There is commercial development to the east. Along the southern boundary is the 1200-unit Vizcaya Traditional Neighborhood Development, which is within the UDB. The entirety of the Brown site has been altered by farming activities. In the southwest portion of the site is a four-acre, degraded wetland that is part of a larger 28-acre wetland located offsite. The wetland is not connected to any state waters and the Army Corps of Engineers has not asserted jurisdiction over it. The wetland is not on the map of “Future Wetlands and CERP Water Management Areas” in the Land Use Element of the CDMP. The dominant plants in the wetland are exotic species. There is no evidence that any portion of the site is used by any threatened or endangered species. The Urban Development Boundary and Urban Expansion Area The principal dispute in this case involves the application of Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP regarding the expansion of the UDB. Policy LU-8F directs that adequate supplies of residential and nonresidential lands be maintained in the UDB. If the supply of lands becomes inadequate, Policy LU-8G addresses where the expansion of the UDB should occur. The UDB is described in the Land Use Element: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is included on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2015 from areas where it should not occur. Development orders permitting urban development will generally be approved within the UDB at some time through the year 2015 provided that level- of-service standards for necessary public facilities will be met. Adequate countywide development capacity will be maintained within the UDB by increasing development densities or intensities inside the UDB, or by expanding the UDB, when the need for such change is determined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process. The UDB promotes several planning purposes. It provides for the orderly and efficient construction of infrastructure, encourages urban infill and redevelopment, discourages urban sprawl, and helps to conserve agricultural and environmentally-sensitive lands. The County only accepts applications for amendments seeking to expand the UDB once every two years, unless they are directly related to a development of regional impact. In contrast, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, allows two amendment cycles in a calendar year, Amendments that would expand the UDB must be approved by at least two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners. Other types of amendments only require a majority vote of the quorum. Outside the UDB are County lands within the relatively small Urban Expansion Area (UEA), which is described in the CDMP as “the area where current projections indicate that further urban development beyond the 2015 UDB is likely to be warranted some time between the year 2015 and 2025.” The UEA consists of lands that the CDMP directs “shall be avoided” when the County is considering adding land to the UDB. They are (1) future wetlands, (2) lands designated Agriculture, (3) hurricane evacuation areas, and (4) lands that are part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The “future” wetlands on this list are existing wetland areas delineated by the County on Figure 14 of the Land Use Element. A far larger area of the County, mostly west of the UDB and UEA, consists of lands that the CDMP directs “shall not be considered” for inclusion in the UDB. These are water conservation areas, lands associated with Everglades National Park, the Redland agricultural area, and wellfield protection areas. Policy LU-8F Policy LU-8F of the Land Use Element provides: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) should contain developable land having capacity to sustain projected countywide residential demand for a period of 10 years after adoption of the most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) plus a 5-year surplus (a total 15-year Countywide supply beyond the date of EAR adoption). The estimation of this capacity shall include the capacity to develop and redevelop around transit stations at the densities recommended in policy LU-7F. The adequacy of non- residential land supplies shall be determined on the basis of land supplies in subareas of the County appropriate to the type of use, as well as the Countywide supply within the UDB. The adequacy of land supplies for neighborhood- and community- oriented business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, Minor Statistical Areas (MSAs) and combinations thereof. Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof shall be considered along with the Countywide supply when evaluating the adequacy of land supplies for regional commercial and industrial activities. There is no further guidance in the CDMP for determining the “adequacy of land supplies” with respect to nonresidential land uses. Neither Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, nor Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 requires that local governments use a particular methodology to determine the adequacy of nonresidential land supplies. The County’s usual methodology for determining need is described in the Planning Considerations Report that the County planning staff prepared for the 2007 amendment cycle. A report like this one is prepared by the staff for each amendment cycle to evaluate the adequacy of the CDMP to accommodate growth and to evaluate pending amendment applications. The County compares a proposed use to its immediate surroundings and the broader area of the County in which the proposed use is located. The basic geographic unit used in the County’s need analysis is the Minor Statistical Area (MSA). Larger planning areas, called Tiers, are groupings of MSAs. The County is divided into 32 MSAs and four Tiers. The Lowe’s Amendment site is in MSA 3.2, but it is on the border with MSA 6.1, so the two MSAs were consolidated for the County’s need analysis regarding the Lowe’s Amendment, even though MSA 3.2 is in the North Central Tier and MSA 6.1 is in the South Central Tier. The Brown Amendment is in MSA 6.2, but it is close to MSA 6.1, so the County combined the two MSAs for its need analysis for the Brown Amendment. Both MSAs are in the South Central Tier. The Planning Considerations Report contains a 2007 inventory of commercial land. The only vacant land used in the analysis of available commercial land supply was land zoned for business, professional office, office park, or designated Business and Office on the Land Use Map. Although it is stated in the Planning Considerations Report that lands zoned or designated for industrial uses are often used for commercial purposes, this situation was not factored into the calculation of the available supply of commercial lands. The County also excluded any supply that could be gained from the redevelopment of existing sites. Petitioners contend, therefore, that the County’s need for commercial land is less than the planning staff calculated in the Planning Considerations Report. On the other hand, Respondents contend that the County’s need for commercial land is greater than the planning staff calculated in the Planning Considerations Report because the County planning staff did not apply a “market factor” for commercial lands as it does for residential lands. A market factor is considered by some professional planners to be appropriate for commercial land uses to account for physical constraints and other factors that limit the utilization of some vacant parcels, and to prevent situations where the diminished supply of useable parcels causes their prices to rise steeply. The CDMP recognizes the problem in stating that: impediments can arise to the maximum utilization of all lands within the boundaries [of the UDB]. In some urbanized areas, it may be difficult to acquire sufficiently large parcels of land. In other areas, neighborhood opposition to proposed developments could alter the assumed density and character of a particular area. The County used a market factor of 1.5 (50 percent surplus) to determine the need for residential land. The County did not use a market factor in its analysis of the need for commercial land. The Department’s expert planning witness, Mike McDaniel, testified that the Department generally supports use of a 1.25 allocation (25 percent surplus). The County’s most recent UDB expansions for nonresidential uses (other than Lowe’s and Brown) were the Beacon Lakes and Shoppyland amendments in 2002. The Beacon Lakes and Shoppyland UDB expansions were approved despite the fact that the County did not project a need for more industrial land within the planning horizon. The need determinations for these amendments were not based on the use of a market factor, but on a percieved2`` need for the particular land uses proposed – warehouses and related industrial uses on large parcels to serve the Miami International Airport and the Port of Miami. The evidence indicates that the County’s exclusion from its analysis of industrial lands that can be used for commercial purposes, and additional commercial opportunities that could be derived from the redevelopment of existing sites, is offset by the County’s exclusion of a market factor. If the supply of commercial land had been increased 25 percent to account for industrial lands and redevelopment, it would have been offset by a 1.25 market factor on the demand side. The calculations made by the County in its Planning Considerations Report would not have been materially different. The Planning Considerations Report analyzes commercial demand (in acres) through the years 2015 and 2025, and calculates a “depletion year” by MSA, Tier, and countywide. A depletion year is the year in which the supply of vacant land is projected to be exhausted. If the depletion year occurs before 2015 (the planning horizon for the UDB), that is an indication that additional lands for commercial uses might be needed. The County planning staff projected a countywide depletion year of 2023, which indicates there are sufficient commercial lands in the County through the planning horizon of 2015. The County then projected the need for commercial land by MSA and Tier. MSA 3.2, where the Lowe’s site is located, has a depletion year of 2025, but when averaged with MSA 6.1’s depletion years of 2011, results in an average depletion year of 2018. The North Central Tier, in which the Lowe’s Amendment site is located, has a depletion year of 2023. The County’s depletion year analysis at all three levels, MSA, Tier, and countywide, indicates no need for more commercial lands in the area of the Lowe’s site. MSA 6.2, where the Brown site is located, has a depletion year of 2017, but when combined with MSA 6.1’s depletion of 2011, results in an average depletion year for the two MSAs is 2014. The South Central Tier, in which the Brown Amendment site is located, has a depletion year of 2014. Therefore, the County’s depletion year analysis, at the MSA and Tier levels, indicates a need for more commercial lands in the area of the Brown site. The County also analyzed the ratio of commercial acres per 1,000 persons by MSA, Tier, and county-wide. The countywide ratio is not a goal that the County is seeking to achieve for all Tiers and MSAs. However, if a Tier or MSA shows a ratio substantially lower than the countywide ratio, that MSA or Tier might need more commercial lands. The countywide ratio of commercial lands per 1,000 persons is projected to be 6.1 acres per 1,000 persons in 2015. MSA 3.2, in which the Lowe’s site is located, has a ratio of 11.3 acres per 1,000 persons. MSA 6.1 has a ratio of 2.6 acres. The average for the two MSAs is 6.95 acres. The ratio for all of the North Central Tier is 6.3 acres per 1,000 persons. Therefore, a comparison of the countywide ratio with the MSAs and Tier where the Lowe’s site is located indicates there is no need for additional commercial lands in the area of the Lowe’s site. MSA 6.2, where the Brown site is located, has a ratio of 4.1 acres per 1,000 persons. When combined with MSA 6.1’s ratio of 2.6 acres, the average for the two MSAs is 3.35 acres. The ratio for all of the South Central Tier is 4.5 acres per 1,000 persons. Therefore, a comparison with the countywide ratio of 6.1 acres indicates a need for additional commercial lands in the area of the Brown site. The County’s need analysis treated the Kendall Town Center as vacant (i.e., available) commercial land, but the Kendall Town Center is approved and under construction. If the Kendall Town Center had been excluded, the County’s projected future need for commercial land in the area of the Brown site would have been greater. The Planning Considerations Report does not discuss parcel size in its commercial need analysis. Lowe’s contends that the County should have considered whether there is a need for larger “community commercial” uses in the area of the Lowe’s site. Policy LU-8F refers only to the need to consider (by “Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof”) the adequacy of land supplies for “regional commercial activities.” Lowe’s planning expert testified that there are few undeveloped commercial parcels in MSAs 3.2 and 6.1 that are ten acres or more, or could be aggregated with contiguous vacant parcels to create a parcel bigger than ten acres. Lowe’s submitted two market analyses for home improvement stores, which conclude that there is a need for another home improvement store in the area of the Lowe’s site. The market analyses offered by Lowe’s differ from the County’s methodology, which focuses, not on the market for a particular use, but on the availability of commercial lands in appropriate proportion to the population. Even when it is reasonable for the County to consider the need for a unique use, the County’s focus is on serving a general public need, rather than on whether a particular commercial use could be profitable in a particular location. Some of the assumptions used in the market analyses offered by Lowe’s were unreasonable and biased the results toward a finding of need for a home improvement store in the study area. The more persuasive evidence shows that there is no need for more commercial land, and no need for a home improvement store, in the area of the Lowe’s site. Lowe’s Parcel B is proposed for use as a school. The elementary, middle and high schools serving the area are over- capacity. Lowe’s expects the site to be used as a charter high school. Using an inventory of lands that was prepared by the County staff, Lowe’s planning expert investigated each parcel of land located within MSAs 3.2 and 6.1 that was over seven acres2 and determined that no parcel within either MSA was suitable for development as a high school. The record is unclear about how the Lowe’s Amendment fits into the plans of the County School Board. The proposition that there are no other potential school sites in the area was not firmly established by the testimony presented by Lowe’s. The need shown for the school site on Parcel B does not overcome the absence of demonstrated need for the Business and Office land use on Parcel A. It is beyond fair debate that that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8F. The County’s determination that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Policy LU-8F is fairly debatable. Policy LU-8G Policy LU-8GA(i) identifies lands outside the UDB that “shall not be considered for inclusion in the UDB. Policy LU- 8G(ii) identifies other lands that “shall be avoided,” including (1) future wetlands, (2) lands designated Agriculture, (3) hurricane evacuation areas, and (4) lands that are part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. A peculiarity of the UEA is that it is composed entirely of lands that “shall be avoided” when the County considers adding lands to the UDB. The Department contends that “shall be avoided” means, in this context, that the County must make “a compelling showing that every other option has been exhausted” before the UDB can be expanded. However, the CDMP does not express that specific intent. The CDMP does not provide any direct guidance about how compelling the demonstration must be to expand the UDB. Policies LU-8F and LU-8G appear to call for a balancing approach, where the extent of the need for a particular expansion must be balanced against the associated impacts to UEA lands and related CDMP policies. The greater the needs for an expansion of the UDB, the greater are the impacts that can be tolerated. The smaller the need, the smaller are the tolerable impacts. Because the need for the Lowe’s Amendment was not shown, the application of the locational criteria in Policy LU- 8G is moot. However, the evidence presented by Lowe’s is addressed here. Within the meaning of Policy LU-8G(ii)(a), the wetlands that “shall be avoided” are those wetlands that are depicted on the Future Wetlands Map part of the Land Use Element of the CDMP. About 50 percent of the Lowes site is covered by wetlands that are on the Future Wetlands Map. Petitioners speculated that the construction of a Lowe’s home improvement store and school on the Lowe’s site could not be accomplished without harm to the wetlands on the site, but they presented no competent evidence to support that proposition. The wetland protections afforded under the environmental permitting statutes would not be affected by the Lowe’s Amendment. Nevertheless, this is a planning case, not a wetland permitting case. It is a well-recognized planning principle that lands which have a high proportion of wetlands are generally not suitable for land use designations that allow for intense uses. The Lowe’s Amendment runs counter to this principle. Policy LU-8F(iii) identifies areas that “shall be given priority” for inclusion in the UDB: Land within Planning Analysis Tiers having the earliest projected supply depletion year; Lands contiguous to the UDB; Locations within one mile of a planned urban center or extraordinary transit service; and Lands having projected surplus service capacity where necessary services can be readily extended. The Lowe’s site satisfies all but the first criterion. The Lowe’s site is in the Tier with the latest projected supply depletion year. It is beyond fair debate that that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8G. Because a reasonable showing of need for the Brown Amendment was shown, it is appropriate to apply the locational criteria of Policy LU-8G. The Brown Amendment would expand the UDB into an area of the UEA that is designated Agriculture. The single goal of the CDMP’s Land Use Element refers to the preservation of the County’s “unique agricultural lands.” The CDMP refers elsewhere to the importance of protecting “viable agriculture.” Brown argued that these provisions indicate that the County did not intend to treat all agricultural lands similarly, and that agricultural activities like those on the Brown site, that are neither unique nor viable, were not intended to be preserved. Petitioners disagreed. The County made the Redland agricultural area one of the areas that “shall not be considered” for inclusion in the UDB. Therefore, the County knew how to preserve “unique” agricultural lands and prevent them from being re-designated and placed in the UDB. The only evidence in the record about the economic “viability” of the current agricultural activities on the Brown site shows they are marginally profitable, at best. The Brown site is relatively small, has a triangular shape, and is wedged between a major residential development and an arterial roadway, which detracts from its suitability for agricultural operations. These factors also diminish the precedent that the re-designation of the Brown site would have for future applications to expand the UDB. The Brown site satisfies all of the criteria in Policy LU-8G(iii) to be given priority for inclusion in the UDB. The County’s determination that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Policy LU-8G is fairly debatable. Policy EDU-2A Policy EDU-2A of the CDMP states that the County shall not purchase school sites outside the UDB. It is not clear why this part of the policy was cited by Petitioners, since the Lowe’s Amendment would place Parcel B inside the UDB. Policy EDU-2A also states that new elementary schools “should” be located at 1/4 mile inside the UDB, new middle schools “should” be located at least 1/2 mile inside the UDB, and new high schools “should” be located at least one mile inside the UDB. The policy states further that, “in substantially developed areas,” where conforming sites are not available, schools should be placed as far as practical from the UDB. Petitioners contend that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy EDU-2A because Parcel B, the school site in the Lowe’s Amendment, would be contiguous to the UDB if the Lowe’s Amendment were approved. However, when a policy identifies circumstances that allow for an exception to a stated preference, it is necessary for challengers to show that the exceptional circumstances do not exist. It was Petitioners’ burden to demonstrate that there were conforming school sites farther from the UDB in the area of the Lowe’s site. Petitioners did meet their burden. The County’s determination that the Lowe’s Amendment is consistent with Policy EDU-2A is fairly debatable. Urban Sprawl 1000 Friends and NPCA allege that the Brown and Lowe’s Amendments would encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Department did not raise urban sprawl as an “in compliance” issue. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) identifies 13 “primary indicators” of urban sprawl. The presence and potential effects of multiple indicators is to be considered to determine “whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d). Indicator 1 is designating for development “substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low- intensity, low-density, or single use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need.” It was found, above, that the County had a reasonable basis to determine there was a need for the Brown Amendment, but not for the Lowe’s Amendment. Therefore, this indicator is triggered only by the Lowe’s Amendment. Indicator 2 is designating significant amounts of urban development that leaps over undeveloped lands. The facts do not show that undeveloped lands were leaped over for either of the amendments. Indicator 3 is designating urban development “in radial, strip, isolated, or ribbon patterns.” The Lowe’s and Brown Amendments do not involve radial or isolated development patterns. What would constitute a “ribbon” pattern was not explained. Not every extension of existing commercial uses constitutes strip sprawl Other factors need to be considered. For example, both the Lowe’s and Brown sites are at major intersections where more intense land uses are commonly located. Under the circumstances shown in this record, this indicator is not triggered for either amendment. Indicator 4 is premature development of rural land that fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources. This indicator is frequently cited by challengers when an amendment site contains wetlands or other natural resources, without regard to whether the potential impact to these resources has anything to do with sprawl. In the area of the Lowe’s site, the UDB generally divides urbanized areas from substantial wetlands areas that continue west to the Everglades. The Lowe’s Amendment intrudes into an area dominated by wetlands and, therefore, its potential to affect wetlands is an indication of sprawl. In the area of the Brown Amendment, the UDB generally separates urbanized areas from agricultural lands that already have been substantially altered from their natural state. The Brown Amendment invades an agricultural area, not an area of natural resources. Therefore, the potential impacts of the Brown Amendment on the small area of degraded wetlands on the Brown site do not indicate sprawl. Indicator 5 is failing to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities. Because this indicator focuses on “adjacent” agricultural areas, it is not obvious that it includes consideration of effects on the amendment site itself. If this indicator applies to the cessation of agricultural activities on the Brown site, then the Brown Amendment triggers this primary indicator. If the indicator applies only to agricultural activities adjacent to the Brown site, the evidence was insufficient to show that this indicator is triggered. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of public services and facilities. Urban sprawl is generally indicated when new public facilities must be created to serve the proposed use. Petitioners did not show that new public facilities must be created to serve the Lowe’s or Brown sites. The proposed amendments would maximize the use of existing water and sewer facilities. Petitioners did not show that the amendments would cause disproportionate increases in the costs of facilities and services. Indicator 9 is failing to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The Lowe’s Amendment would create an irregular and less clear separation between urban and rural uses in the area and, therefore, the Lowe’s Amendment triggers this indicator. The Brown Amendment does not trigger this indicator because of it is situated between the large Vizcaya development and Kendall Drive, a major arterial roadway. The Brown Amendment would create a more regular separation between urban and rural uses in the area. Indicator 10 is discouraging infill or redevelopment. The CDMP delineates an Urban Infill Area (UIA) that is generally located east of the Palmetto Expressway and NW/SW 77th Avenue. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the Brown and Lowe’s Amendments discourage infill within the UIA. Petitioners did not show how any particular infill opportunities elsewhere in the UDB are impaired by the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments. However, the expansion of the UDB would diminish, at least to a small degree, the incentive for infill. This indicator, therefore, is triggered to a small degree by both amendments. The CDMP promotes redevelopment of buildings that are substandard or underdeveloped. Petitioners did not show how any particular redevelopment opportunities are impaired by the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments. However, the expansion of the UDB would diminish, at least to a small degree, the incentive to redevelop existing properties. This indicator, therefore, is triggered to a small degree by both amendments. Indicator 11 is failing to encourage or attract a functional mix of uses. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that this primary indicator is triggered. Indicator 12 is poor accessibility among linked or related uses. No evidence was presented to show that this indicator would be triggered. Indicator 13 is the loss of “significant” amounts of open space. These amendments do not result in the loss of significant amounts of open space, whether measured by acres, by the percentage of County open lands converted to other uses, or by any specific circumstances in the area of the amendment sites. Evaluating the Lowe’s Amendment using the primary indicators of urban sprawl and the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), it is found by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Evaluating the Brown Amendment using the primary indicators of urban sprawl and the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), it is found by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment does not fail to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Land Use Analysis The Department claims that the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments are inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), which requires that the land use element of a comprehensive plan be based on an analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate projected population. The Department believes the analyses of need presented by Lowe’s and Brown’s consultants were not professionally acceptable. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that there was no need for the Lowe’s Amendment. Therefore, the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c). A preponderance of competent, substantial, and professionally acceptable evidence of need, in conformance with and including the methodology used by the County planning staff, demonstrated that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c).3 Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 - Natural Resources Petitioners contend the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, which require that the land use element of every comprehensive plan contain a goal to protect natural resources, and that every conservation element contain goals, objectives, and policies for the protection of vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, endangered and threatened species, and wetlands. Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the CDMP does not contain these required goals, objectives, and policies. Therefore, Petitioners failed to prove that the Lowe’s amendment is inconsistent with these provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5.4 The State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners contend that the Lowe’s and Brown amendments are inconsistent with several provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan. Goal (9)(a) of the State Comprehensive Plan and its associated policies address the protection of natural systems. Petitioners contend that only the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its policies. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its policies. Goal (15)(a) and its associated policies address land use, especially development in areas where public services and facilities are available. Policy (15)(b)2. is to encourage a separation of urban and rural uses. Because the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP, the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and policy. For the reasons stated above, Petitioners failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies Goal (16)(a) and its associated policies address urban and downtown revitalization. Although the expansion of the UDB diminishes the incentive to infill or redevelop, Petitioners did not show this effect, when considered in the context of the CDMP as a whole and the State Comprehensive Plan as a whole, impairs the achievement of this goal and its associated policies to an extent that the proposed amendments are inconsistent with this goal of the State Comprehensive Plan and its associated policies. Goal (17)(a) and its associated policies address the planning and financing of and public facilities. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the proposed amendments is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal (22)(a) addresses agriculture. Policy(b)1. is to ensure that state and regional plans are not interpreted to permanently restrict the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. This policy recognizes that agricultural landowners have the same right to seek to change the use of their lands, and that engaging in agricultural activities is not a permanent servitude to the general public. The policies cited by Petitioners (regarding the encouragement of agricultural diversification, investment in education and research, funding of extension services, and maintaining property tax benefits) are not affected by the Brown Amendment. For the reasons stated above, Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal (25)(a) and its associated policies address plan implementation, intergovernmental coordination and citizen involvement, and ensuring that local plans reflect state goals and policies. Because the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP, and was found to contribute to the proliferation of urban sprawl, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that when the State Comprehensive Plan is construed as a whole, the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that when the State Comprehensive Plan is construed as a whole, the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.. Strategic Regional Policy Plan Petitioners claim that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Goals 11, 12, and 20 of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) and several policies associated with these goals. The SFRPC reviewed the proposed Brown Amendment and found it was generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Goal 11 and its associated policies encourage the conservation of natural resources and agricultural lands, and the use of existing and planned infrastructure. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal 12 and its associated policies encourage the retention of rural lands and agricultural economy. The CDMP encourages the retention of rural lands and agricultural economy. Because it was found that the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with this regional goal and its policies. Goal 20 and its associated policies are to achieve development patterns that protect natural resources and guide development to areas where there are public facilities. Because it was found that there is no need for the Lowe’s Amendment and that it constitutes urban sprawl, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with these regional goal and policies.
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: Ordinance No. 08-44, the Lowe’s Amendment, is not in compliance, and Ordinance No. 08-45, the Brown Amendment, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether to approve the Petitioners’ application for a beneficial use determination (BUD) regarding their property on Ramrod Key, Florida, and if approved, to determine the type of relief that is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are taken from the parties’ joint pre-hearing stipulation, and the direct evidence adduced at the hearing. The Property The Petitioners’ property is located at 475 Brown Drive, Ramrod Key, in Monroe County. According to the Monroe County Property Appraiser, the size of the site is 0.95 acres. The property is vacant and contains disturbed and undisturbed wetland habitat. The property’s immediate vicinity is described as residential development of single-family units to the west and south, environmentally sensitive lands to the south and east, and open water to the north. The property is legally described as “being a portion of Tract ‘A’, Ramrod Shores Third Addition, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 108 of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida” having real estate number 00209971-004600. The property’s current Land Use Map Zoning Districts are Improved Subdivision (IS) and Native Area (NA). The property’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designations are Residential Medium (RM) and Residential Conservation (RC). The Tier Designation is Tier III Infill Area. Relevant Prior County Actions On December 19, 1972, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) passed Resolution No. 146-1972 approving the Plat of Ramrod Shores Third Addition and filed for record in Plat Book 6 at Page 108 of the Public Records of Monroe County. The landowner was James M. Brown, as Trustee. The subject property is within Tract A of this plat. In 1986, Monroe County adopted a revised set of zoning regulations via Ordinance No. 33-1986. Ordinance No. 33-1986 also approved a revised series of zoning maps (also known as the Pattison Maps) for all areas of the unincorporated county by reference. With the adoption of the 1986 Land Development Regulations and zoning maps, most of the Petitioners’ property was designated as IS zoning with a small portion as NA. In 1992, a revised series of zoning maps were approved (also known as the Craig Maps) for all areas of the unincorporated county. With the adoption of the revised (Craig) zoning maps, the Petitioners’ property remained designated as IS with a small portion as NA. In 1993, the County adopted a set of FLUM maps pursuant to a joint stipulated settlement agreement and section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. BOCC Ordinance No. 016-1993 memorialized the approval. The FLUM maps took effect in 1997 after approval from the state land planning agency. With the adoption of the FLUM maps, the Petitioners’ property was designated as RM and a small portion as RC. On March 23, 2015, the Petitioners were provided a Letter of Current Site Conditions for the subject property. The letter summarized the environmental habitats on the property and the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The letter stated the KEYWEP score for disturbed portions of the wetland was 4.45. The score of 4.45 means the property was buildable, disturbed wetlands. The undisturbed wetlands consist of tidal mangroves and were by definition “red flag” wetlands. Disturbed wetlands may be developed under section 118-10, Monroe County Code. Development is not permitted in undisturbed wetlands where 100 percent open space is required. On November 24, 2015, the Petitioners applied for a building permit to construct a single-family detached residential dwelling unit. On December 4, 2015, the County’s Planning and Environmental Resources Department (the Department) sent the Petitioners a notice that the Department denied their building permit application number 15106233. The notice informed the Petitioners that the Department’s decision may be appealed within 30 calendar days. No appeal was filed to challenge the propriety of the Department’s decision. The Department’s December 4, 2015, notice stated that the Ramrod Shores Third Addition Plat shows that the Petitioners’ property is located within Tract A. Although Tract A was subdivided into seven parcels, this was never shown as lots on an approved and duly recorded plat. The Department determined that the property did not meet the definition of “lot” in section 101-1, Monroe County Code, and did not meet the residential density requirements of the IS Land Use District in order to allow the proposed development of a dwelling unit. See § 130-157, Monroe Cnty. Code. On December 7, 2016, the Department received the agent’s BUD Application, File No. 2016-202. On December 22, 2016, the Department sent the agent a Notice of Deficiencies pursuant to section 102-105, Monroe County Code, after the application was reviewed by staff to determine if the application was complete and included the materials and information listed in section 102-105(b). On January 6, 2017, the Department received additional materials and information from the agent. On January 27, 2017, the Department notified the agent that the application was determined to be sufficient. On March 28, 2017, the Department forwarded the BUD application to DOAH for adjudication. After the Petitioners sought to amend their application with a new basis for relief, DOAH relinquished its jurisdiction. On June 12, 2017, the Petitioners submitted an Amended BUD Application to the Department. After sending a second Notice of Deficiencies and receiving additional materials and information from the agent, the Department determined that the application was sufficient. The Amended BUD Application was suspended for 60 days, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 214-2017, as a temporary emergency measure after Hurricane Irma made landfall in the Florida Keys on September 10, 2017. On November 9, 2017, the Department forwarded the BUD Application to DOAH for adjudication. Petitioners’ Actions The Petitioners purchased the subject property on April 23, 1990. Between 1990 and 1991, the Petitioners submitted an application to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for an on-site aerobic septic system. At first, the HRS denied the application based on lot size issues. The HRS Variance Review Board recommended disapproval of the septic system application on June 7, 1991, on the grounds of insufficient lot size and an illegal canal. After the Petitioners failed to obtain HRS approval in 1991, they took no further steps to develop the property until they submitted an application for a Letter of Current Site Conditions on January 30, 2015, and an application for a single- family residence on November 24, 2015. Mr. Olynger testified that the Petitioners purchased the property because of the ocean view and expected to build a house on the property. He testified that after the HRS denials in the early 1990s, he started the process of trying to develop the property again in 2014 because central sewer was now available. IS Land Use District Due to the density requirements for the IS Land Use District of one dwelling unit per lot, the Petitioners are unable to construct a single-family home, which is an as-of- right use in the IS Land Use District. The IS Land Use District permits other as-of-right and conditional uses. While Mr. Olynger disputed the economic productivity of some of these uses, it was not disputed that the property could potentially be used for (a) recreational purposes; (b) a community park; (c) beekeeping; (d) wastewater system; (e) Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) points or transferable development rights (TDRs); or (f) sold to a neighbor for open space, yard expansion or an accessory use, such as a pool. Mr. Bond testified that that the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Code allow landowners competing for the limited number of building allocations in the point-based ROGO to buy and donate vacant parcels such as the subject property to increase their ROGO scores. The subject property qualifies as a ROGO Lot and there is an active secondary market of people buying and trading ROGO Lots in Monroe County. Mr. Bond also testified that the Petitioners could apply for Future Land Use Map and Land Use (Zoning) District Map amendments to a category that would allow for the construction of a single-family dwelling based upon an adopted acreage density standard. The Petitioners have not made any such applications. There was no direct evidence on the fair market value of the property, as encumbered by the regulation.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petitioners’ application for relief under section 102-104, Monroe County Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2018.
The Issue The general issue for determination in this case is whether Amendment 00-D1 to Sumter County’s comprehensive plan (the “Plan Amendment”) is "in compliance" with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, Sections 163.3161 through 163.3217, Florida Statutes. (All statutory references are to the 2000 codification of the Florida Statutes.) The initial Petition to Request Administrative Hearing (Petition) alleged numerous reasons why the Plan Amendment should be found not "in compliance." But from the time of the initial Petition--through the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, opening statement at final hearing, and Proposed Recommended Order (PRO)--Petitioners reduced the number of reasons why they contend that the Plan Amendment is not "in compliance" to the following: simultaneous conversion of Future Land Use (FLU) from Agricultural to PUD allegedly inconsistent with parts of the County's Plan's; alleged lack of demonstrated need for land use allocations contrary to Section 163.3177 and Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 9J-5 (all rule citations are to the Florida Administrative Code); conversion of FLU from Agricultural to PUD allegedly inconsistent with the Plan's Policy 4.6.1.1 (the so-called "90% rule"); and alleged failure to discourage urban sprawl contrary to Rule 9J-5.0006(6). These are the only compliance issues that still have to be addressed in this proceeding. In addition, Intervenor contends that Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development (SCAID) does not have standing.
Findings Of Fact Intervenor, the Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc., owns land in the northeast part of Sumter County on which Intervenor plans to construct a mixed-use development of regional impact (DRI) known as the Villages of Sumter. The proposed DRI will encompass approximately 4,679 acres and is anticipated to contain: 11,097 residential dwelling units; 1,250,000 square feet of commercial area; 250,000 square feet of office area; 157,000 square feet of institutional area; 120,000 square feet of hotel (300 rooms); 100,000 square feet convention center; 23,500 square feet of movie theater (8 screens); 512 acres of golf courses (126 holes); 8 marina slips; 602 acres of wildlife management and Kestrel foraging areas; 162 acres of lakes, 162 acres of roads, 31 acres of parks and buffers; and 227 acres of stormwater and open space. The proposed DRI will feature neighborhood and town centers and will extensively utilize clustering, open spaces, and buffering as part of its design. It is anticipated that the Villages of Sumter DRI will have an internal vehicle capture rate of over 60%--i.e., over 60% of vehicle trips starting in the DRI will not go outside the DRI. The DRI will provide water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, aquifer recharge areas, and other governmental services as part of its development. Eighty percent of the residents in the Villages of Sumter DRI will have to be occupied by persons 55 of age or older, and no one under 19 will be permitted to reside within this DRI. When Intervenor filed its Application for Development Approval (ADA) for the Villages of Sumter DRI, Intervenor also requested the subject Plan Amendment to accommodate the DRI, including a change in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and FLUM from Agricultural use to UEA and PUD. The ADA itself served as a major part of the data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendment. (Another major part of the data and analysis was the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) prepared by the County in 1995.) The western part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel (i.e., the Villages of Sumter DRI) will be the western part of the southern boundary of a related DRI developed by Intervenor known as the Tri-County Villages. From there, the Tri-County Villages DRI extends north to the southern border of Marion County and east to the western border of Lake County. (Towards the east, the northern boundary of the DRI drops just a little south of the southern border of Marion County.) Tri- County Villages is a large mixed-use DRI. It includes residential, commercial, recreational, and open space land uses. Prior to the Tri-County Villages DRI, Intervenor or its predecessor also developed other related mixed-use DRIs to the east in Lake County. SCAID was formed in 1993 or 1994 to oppose the Tri- County Villages DRI and 1994 comprehensive plan amendments adopted to accommodate the Tri-County Villages DRI. SCAID, T. Daniel Farnsworth, and James E. Boyd filed a petition initiating Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development, T. D. Farnsworth, and James E. Boyd vs. Department of Community Affairs and Sumter County, DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM, to oppose DCA's determination that the County's 1994 amendments were "in compliance." SCAID, Farnsworth, and Weir are collaterally estopped to deny facts established in DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM (SCAID I). (Latham and Roop are not estopped.) See Conclusions of Law 63-64, infra. In any event, all Petitioners agreed to official recognition of the Final Order entered in DOAH Case No. 94-6974GM. Among the facts established by adoption of the Recommended Order by the Final Order in SCAID I was the history of the earlier DRIs, the Tri-County Villages DRI, and the comprehensive plan amendments required by the Tri-County Villages DRI: [¶4] [I]ntervenor [Villages] is the owner and developer of the Tri- County Villages development located in unincorporated Sumter County. Development which predated the existing Tri-County Villages development commenced in approximately 1968 with Orange Blossom Garden North (OBGN). OBGN was an approximately 1,000-acre project owned and operated by Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. as a mobile home retirement community located mostly in the Town of Lady Lake, Florida. That community lies in the northwestern corner of Lake County, which adjoins the northeastern corner of Sumter County. Because the development of OBGN commenced prior to July of 1973, it is vested for purposes of development of regional impact (DRI) review pursuant to Section 380.06(20), Florida Statutes. [¶5] In 1987, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted an Application for Development Approval (ADA) with the Town of Lady Lake which requested authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens South (OBGS). The OBGS development was an approximately 595-acre extension of the vested OBGN retirement community and was determined by the DCA and Town of Lady Lake to be a DRI. On January 18, 1988, the Town of Lady Lake approved the proposed OBGS development. [¶6] In 1989, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted to the Town of Lady Lake and the County an ADA requesting a substantial deviation from the OBGS DRI. The substantial deviation request sought authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens West (OBGW). OBGW was planned as an approximately 1,700-acre extension to the OBGS DRI. The Town of Lady Lake approved the substantial deviation request through the issuance of an Amended Development Order on May 7, 1990. The County approved the development within its jurisdiction on May 29, 1990. [¶7] In September 1993, intervenor, as successor to Orange Blossom Hills, Inc., submitted an ADA to the County which requested a substantial deviation from the OBGS and OBGW DRI's. By submitting this latest development, intervenor sought to add approximately 1,960 acres to the existing OBGS and OBGW DRI's and modify the development already approved by adding a total of 6,250 residential units and 910,000 square feet of commercial square footage. The overall development was renamed Tri-County Villages. The development order approving the substantial deviation for Tri-County Villages was adopted by the County on September 20, 1994. [¶8] On September 20, 1994, or prior to approval of the Tri-County Villages development substantial deviation, but in conjunction with it, the County adopted plan amendment 94D1 by Ordinance No. 94-6. On November 10, 1994, the DCA determined the amendment to be in compliance. That amendment amended the plan's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 1,960 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment designated as Planned Unit Development (PUD) all areas of the approved OBGW DRI and the additional 1,960 acres referred to in Exhibit 1 of 94D1 as parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, parcels 5 and 8 had been designated predominantly as agricultural, with small pockets of rural residential. [¶9] The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the urban expansion area to include all of parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, only a small section of parcel 8 was included in the urban expansion area. [¶10] The plan amendment further included several textual revisions to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), including a revision to FLUE Policy 1.5.7 concerning the ratio of commercial square footage to residential units and the addition of FLUE Objective 1.14 and Policies 1.14.1 - 1.14.6, which essentially incorporated the concept of sector planning into the plan. [¶11] Finally, the plan amendment revised Policy 2.1.5 of the Sanitary Sewer Element which, subject to submission of appropriate data and analysis, and Department of Environmental Protection approval, reduced the established level of service for sanitary sewer throughout the Tri-County Villages development. SCAID I, 17 F.A.L.R. 4527, 4531-32 (Dept. Community Affairs Aug. 1995). (The Recommended Order may also be found on WESTLAW at 1995 WL 1052949.) At its inception, the Tri-County Villages DRI was projected to build-out in approximately 2015. When the Tri- County Villages DRI first began construction in late 1992, the developer pulled 24 building permits. In 1993, the County issued 406 residential building permits, 365 of which were pulled for the Tri-County Villages DRI. In 1997, the developer pulled 1,052 building permits for the Tri-County Villages DRI. To date, approximately 13,000 homes have been built in the Tri- County Villages DRI. Based upon present projections, the Tri- County Villages DRI is anticipated to be substantially built-out in 2003-04, 12 years ahead of its initially projected build-out date of 2015. Presently, there are numerous cultural and recreational activities, shopping options, medical and governmental services available to residents within the Tri-County Villages DRI. While still designated as a UEA and PUD on the County's FLUM, the Tri-County Villages DRI in fact is a self-contained urban area, especially in the context of Sumter County. Sumter County is mostly rural. According to the 1995 EAR, the County's permanent (non-seasonal) population was projected to be: 38,961 for 1998; 56,000 for 2005; and 64,200 for 2010. The unincorporated portion of the County contains 334,903 acres, approximately 99,436 acres of which are state- owned conservation lands, and approximately 202,000 acres of which are agricultural lands. There are five municipalities in the County--Wildwood, Bushnell (also the County seat), Center Hill, Coleman and Webster. None are as urbanized as the Tri- County Villages DRI. Simultaneous Conversion Objective 7.1.2 of the County's comprehensive plan provides in pertinent part: Upon adoption of this plan, Sumter County shall . . . provide for a compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area boundary and insures retention of agricultural activities, preserves natural resources and discourages urban sprawl. In pertinent part, the County Plan's Policy 7.1.1.2(e) provides that the County's land development regulations governing PUDs should be based on and consistent with the following standards for densities and intensities: Within the Urban Expansion Area, a base density of up to 8 residential units per gross acre in residential areas and 6 units per gross acre in commercial areas are allowed. . . . . Outside of an Urban Expansion Area, a base density of up to 4 residential units per gross acre in residential, commercial and agricultural areas are allowed. Policy 7.1.5.1 allows PUDs "in the following land use districts and at the following densities/intensities of use": 8 dwellings per gross acre in "Residential Areas Inside UEA"; 6 dwellings per gross acre in "Commercial Areas Inside UEA"; and 4 dwellings per gross acre in "Res./Comm. Uses Outside UEA." Petitioners contend that the foregoing objective and policies somehow combine to preclude the simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD; they appear to contend that these policies necessitated an intermediate conversion to UEA. (Protection of agricultural lands was raised in a more general sense, but this precise issue was not raised prior to final hearing.) But Petitioners argument not only is not persuasive, it is not even easily understood. It is at least fairly debatable that the objective and policies do not combine to preclude simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD. Even without prior notice of this precise issue, one of the County's expert witnesses in land planning persuasively testified that the cited objective and policies do not combine to preclude simultaneous conversion of Agricultural FLU to UEA and PUD. Even Petitioners' expert land planner ultimately agreed that there is nothing in the Florida Statutes or Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 9J-5 to prevent conversion of agricultural uses to more urban uses. Demonstrated Need As reflected in previous Findings of Fact, the subject Plan Amendment is for a highly mixed-use PUD. Of the many mixed uses involved, Petitioners focus on the allocation of land for residential use in their challenge to the demonstration of need for the Plan Amendment. In this context, demonstrated need refers to the existence of adequate data and analysis to demonstrate the need for additional allocation of residential dwelling units on the FLUM. Petitioners assert that the methodology utilized by the County to project need is flawed. Determination of the need for a certain allocation of residential densities starts with a projection of population on the planning horizon (2020). In doing so, all available data and analysis must be considered. (Petitioners also assert that Policy 7.1.2.5(b)1. of the County's comprehensive plan requires such an analysis "utilizing professionally accepted methods," but that policy speaks to additional densities and allocations of land use for developments proposed in agricultural areas, while the Plan Amendment in this case converts the agricultural land to UEA and PUD.) For the purpose of analyzing whether there is a demonstrated need for this Plan Amendment, the County's planner, Roberta Rogers, relied upon need projections made in conjunction with the preparation of the County's EAR. The EAR, prepared in 1999, included a projection of the County's population for the 2020 planning horizon. The EAR projected that the permanent population of unincorporated Sumter County, by the year 2020, will be 79,475. (The total County permanent population is projected to be 94,205.) One of the purposes of an EAR is to provide data and analysis for comprehensive plan amendments. In preparing the population projections reflected in the EAR, Rogers began her analysis by referring to the projections for Sumter County formulated by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research ("BEBR"), as reported in 1996. The 1996 BEBR Report actually reflected projections made in 1995. BEBR publishes yearly reports that state both the estimated current and the projected future populations for each Florida county. The population projections reflected in BEBR Reports are based upon historical trends of 10-15 years' duration. Because the development in the Tri-County Villages DRI is a relatively recent phenomenon, Rogers believed that reliance upon the BEBR projections alone would have resulted in a significant under-projection of the County's future population. As a consequence, Rogers added an annual rate of growth of 1000 building permits per year through 2005 and 500 permits per year through the remaining portion of the planning period for the Tri-County Villages and the Villages of Sumter. Her approach was a conservative approach, since the actual number of building permits issued for the Tri-County Villages DRI in the past two years has significantly exceeded 1000 per year. Rogers conferred with BEBR, prior to completing her analysis, and was assured that her approach was appropriate. Such an adjustment for the Villages is particularly appropriate since the Villages cater to a very specific segment of the population, i.e., persons 55 and above. Over the twenty- year planning horizon relevant to the Plan Amendment, the population of persons in Florida aged 55 and above will increase dramatically as the "baby boomer" population ages. The demand for residential housing for these senior citizens will show a similar dramatic increase. Henry Iler, the Petitioners' land planning expert, took the contrary position, opining that no additional growth factor should be added to the 1996 BEBR projections. However, Dr. Henry Fishkind, an expert in demography who was involved in the original development of the BEBR population projection methodologies, directly contradicted Iler's opinion, concluding instead that Ms. Rogers' methodology was appropriate. As Dr. Fishkind stated that [Sumter] county has experienced a dramatic structural change to its population growth and development because of the Villages, and that has altered the characteristics of its population growth. In light of that, the use of past trends, which is what the bureau [BEBR] does, is simply extrapolate past trends, would not be appropriate, for it would not have taken into account that major structural change. Ms. Rogers identified the structural change, she measured its amount, and then she added on to the bureau's projections, which were extrapolations of the past trends. That's a very appropriate adjustment, and it's the kind of adjustment that econometricians and economists make on a regular basis. DCA's analysis concurred that the high absorption rates in the Tri-County Villages DRI had to be taken into account. To have ignored the explosion of growth in the Tri- County Villages DRI, particularly in view of the generally accepted expectation that the population to be served by the Tri-County Villages and by the Villages of Sumter will experience tremendous growth, would have resulted in an inaccurate population forecast. Even Iler had to concede that he was aware of building permit data being used to project population figures. It is simply not his preferred methodology to use such information. Thus, Rogers' projection of the County's total population for the year 2020 appropriately incorporated all available and relevant data and was formulated using an accepted methodology. While not part of their PRO, Petitioners previously attacked the County's population projections by questioning the continued success of the Villages to attract out-of-state retirees. Primarily through Weir's testimony, they attempted to raise the specter of a reduction of sales and Intervenor's subsequent financial ruin. But there was no credible evidence to support Petitioners' prophecy of doom. On the evidence presented in this case, it would be more rational from a planning standpoint to expect the Villages to continue to be a marketing and financial success. Having reasonably projected future population, it was then incumbent upon the County to determine how many dwelling units would be needed to accommodate anticipated housing needs. This determination was made by Gail Easley, an independent planner retained by the County to assist Rogers in preparation of the EAR. Easley performed this calculation for the County. Easley used 2.46 as the average number of persons per dwelling unit in the County, a figure taken from the BEBR reports (not from 1990 census information, as Iler incorrectly surmised.) There was no evidence that a number other than 2.46 was appropriate. It would not be appropriate for the number of dwelling units needed in the future to be calculated simply by the division of the anticipated population by the average household size. Rather, it is appropriate to apply a "market factor" (or multiplier) in order to ensure that there is a choice of types of housing and to accommodate lands that are not actually useable for residential construction. Even Petitioner's expert, Henry Iler, agreed that the use of a market factor was appropriate in order to ensure sufficient housing supply and to avoid an increase in housing prices. Easley furnished Rogers with the market factor for the EAR. The market factor chosen by Easley was 1.5, a factor she viewed as conservative and as appropriate for a jurisdiction that is beginning to urbanize. In more rural counties, a higher market factor, such as 2.0, should be used. While Iler implied that a lower marker factor would be more suitable, the record clearly established that the market factor used by Easley fell within the range of reasonable choices. (In SCAID I, the ALJ expressly found, in paragraph 31 of the Recommended Order, that the 1.87 market factor used by the County on that occasion was reasonable and actually low compared to factors used for other comprehensive plans that had been found to be "in compliance." As reflected by this Finding of Fact, facts and circumstances bearing on the choice of a market factor for Sumter County have not changed significantly to date. Cf. Conclusion of Law 64, infra.) Applying the 1.5 market factor to the projected population and average household size, the County determined that 62,274 dwelling units will have to be accommodated during the twenty-year planning horizon. (This includes 48,461 units in permanent housing, 9,113 in seasonal housing, and 4,700 in transient housing.) The County then allocated those dwelling units in various land use categories. Much of Petitioners' PRO on this point was devoted to criticizing parts of the evidence in support of the demonstration of need. They state the obvious that Easley did not perform a demonstration of needs analysis for the Plan Amendment in the EAR, but that was not the purpose of the EAR; nonetheless, the EAR contained valuable data and analysis for use in the demonstration of need analysis for the Plan Amendment. Petitioners also questioned DCA's reliance on the DRI ADA in conducting its demonstration of need analysis, based on the timing of the ADA and Plan Amendment submissions and decisions; but it is not clear what it was about the timing that supposedly detracted from DCA's demonstration of need analysis, and nothing about the timing made it inappropriate for DCA to rely on the data and analysis in the ADA. Petitioners criticized Rogers' reference to up-to-date building permit information that was not offered in evidence; but this information only further supported Rogers' demonstration of need analysis. Petitioners asserted that one of Intervenor's witnesses may have overstated residential sales in the Tri- County Villages DRI (1,750 sales a year versus evidence of 1,431 building permits for 1999); but the witness's statement was not used in any of the demonstration of need analyses. Finally, Petitioners attacked one of Intervenor's witnesses for an alleged "conflict of interest, a lack of professional integrity and an indication of bias"; but the basis for this allegation supposedly was evidence that the witness worked for the County while also working for Intervenor or its predecessor for a few years in the late 1980's, not enough to seriously undermine the credibility of the witness's testimony in this case (which in any event had little or nothing to do with the demonstration of need analyses.) It is at least fairly debatable that the County's demonstration of need was based on relevant and appropriate data, and professionally acceptable methodologies and analyses. Likewise, it at least fairly debatable that the County's projections regarding housing needs, the growth in the retirement population, and the absorption rates achieved in the existing Tri-County Villages DRI adequately support the allocation of 11,000 dwelling units permitted by the Plan Amendment. So-called "90% Rule" The County's Plan Policy 4.6.1.1 provides: The County shall maintain approximately 90% of its land area in land uses such as agricultural (including timberland, mining and vacant), conservation, and open (recreation, open space etc.) land uses for this planning period. (Emphasis added.) This policy is found in the Utilities Element of the County's comprehensive plan under a goal to protect and maintain the functions of the natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas in the County and under an objective to protect the quantity of aquifer recharge. Although couched as an approximation, the policy has been referred to as the "90% rule." Based on the evidence presented in this case, it is at least fairly debatable that the subject Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 4.6.1.1. The primary debate had to do with the proper treatment of certain "open space" provided in the Tri-County Villages DRI and the Villages of Sumter DRI-- 1,032 acres in the former and 2,135 acres in the latter. This "open space" consists of golf courses, preserves, wetlands, parks/buffers, and some stormwater/open spaces. Petitioners' expert refused to count any of this acreage for purposes of the so-called "90% rule" because, while the FLUE and FLUM have Agricultural, Conservation, and Recreation land use categories, there is no category designated "Open Space." (Meanwhile, there is an entire element of the plan entitled "Recreation and Open Space.") The witnesses for the County and DCA counted those 3,167 acres. They reasoned persuasively that the policy's express mention of "open space" (as opposed to a specific land use category designated "Open Space") supports their position. They also argued persuasively for the logic of including "open space," which serves the objective of the policy to "protect quantity aquifer recharge quantity," even if there is no specific land use category designated "Open Space." Counting the 3,167 acres of "open space" in the two DRIs, the percentage calculated under Policy 4.6.1.1 exceeds 90% for existing land uses. Omitting that land, as well as another 500 acres that should have been counted, Petitioners' expert calculated 88.96%. Petitioners' expert also calculated a lower percentage (85.34%) by using land uses he projected for the end of the planning period. However, Petitioners' expert conceded that it was not clear that Policy 4.6.1.1 should be interpreted in that manner. If so interpreted, it would be possible for all plan amendments reducing agricultural, conservation, and open FLUs to be prohibited even if existing land uses in those categories did not fall below "approximately 90%" for another 20 years. It is at least fairly debatable whether such a result is logical, or whether it is more logical to wait until existing land uses in those categories did not fall below "approximately 90%" before prohibiting further FLUE and FLUM amendments. Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl. They attempted to prove seven urban sprawl indicators. But their evidence was far from sufficient to establish any beyond fair debate. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low intensity, low density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. To the contrary, while gross residential density may be relatively low (2.4-2.6 units per gross acre), the Plan Amendment PUD provides for highly mixed-use development, not single-use development, and densities in residential areas within the PUD are significantly higher (up to 5.6 units per acre), especially for Sumter County. Petitioners also did not prove that the Plan Amendment promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development, or that the Plan Amendment promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. To the contrary, the evidence was that part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel coincides with the western part of the southern boundary of the Tri-County Villages DRI, and the Villages of Sumter PUD will be an extension of the Tri-County Villages DRI, which already has all the characteristics of an existing urban area. The reason why the eastern part of the northern boundary of the Plan Amendment parcel does not coincide with the southern boundary of the Tri-County Villages DRI is the existence of land in between which is already in use and not available to become part of the Plan Amendment PUD. Development will not be in a radial or ribbon pattern like (usually) commercial development along main roadways; nor will development be isolated. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Obviously, conversion of agricultural land eliminates such land from agricultural use. But the Plan Amendment protects adjacent agricultural land by phasing development starting from existing urban areas in the Tri-County Villages DRI by mixing in open and recreational uses throughout the Villages of Sumter PUD and by providing some additional buffer between the periphery of the PUD and adjacent agricultural lands. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities and services. Indeed, Petitioners' land use planning expert admitted at the hearing that he "didn’t have the time or expertise, really, to try to evaluate this particular question." To the contrary, the evidence was that the Plan Amendment PUD will include water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, aquifer recharge areas, and other governmental services as part of its development. In addition, impact to schools will be minimal or non-existent due to the character of the PUD as a retirement community. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. To the contrary, the evidence was that clustering, open spaces and buffering in the Villages of Sumter PUD will provide a clear enough separation between rural and urban uses. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment discourages or inhibits in-fill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Specifically, Petitioners argued that in-fill in the City of Wildwood will be discouraged. But the evidence was to the contrary. Not only would development of the kind envisioned in the Plan Amendment PUD be unlikely to occur in Wildwood, sufficient land is not available for such a development there. Actually, the Plan Amendment might encourage in-fill in Wildwood, where service providers for the Villages of Sumter might be expected to reside. SCAID SCAID was formed in 1993 or 1994 by a small group of Sumter County citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of Sumter County, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. SCAID has about 80 members, who are not required to pay dues. The majority of SCAID's members live in Sumter County, including all of the individual Petitioners in this case. SCAID is not incorporated but has by-laws drafted in 1995 or 1996. The by-laws provide for election of officers for one-year terms, but SCAID has not had an election of officers since 1994. Petitioner, T. Daniel Farnsworth, is and always has been SCAID's president. The evidence was that, when former SCAID member James Boyd resigned, Petitioner Linda Latham was appointed to replace him as secretary. SCAID has held just two meetings since its inception. Approximately 15-20 persons attended each meeting. Most communication with members is by regular and internet mail. Financial contributions are solicited from time to time for litigation efforts initiated by SCAID. Farnsworth, on behalf of SCAID, submitted comments on the Plan Amendment to the County between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. Farnsworth and Weir also testified on behalf of Petitioners at final hearing. The other individual Petitioners did not.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, under Section 163.3184(9)(b), the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order that Sumter County's Amendment 00-D1 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Jane M. Gordon, Esquire Jonas & LaSorte Mellon United National Bank Tower Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-2204 Terry T. Neal, Esquire Post Office Box 490327 Leesburg, Florida 34749-0327 Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Council Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
