Findings Of Fact In 1987 the City of St. Petersburg sought permission to file an application for an Areawide Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the Intown Area. On July 23, 1987, notice was sent to each property owner within the proposed Areawide DRI. The notice indicates that a public hearing would be held on August 27, 1987, from which the St. Petersburg City Council would decide whether to authorize the City of St. Petersburg to proceed to apply for the DRI. Petitioner, John Warren, received said notice and owns property within the area encompassing the Areawide DRI. Further notices were provided to property owners within the area, including a notice of the petition filed by the City which was published in the St. Petersburg Times on July 27, 1987; a notice to property owners dated September 1, 1987, advising that the City was authorized to proceed with the Intown Areawide DRI; and three other notices regarding public hearings and consideration of the DRI. After all required notice, the St. Petersburg City Council considered the proposed Areawide DRI on December 15, 1988, and formally adopted the DRI by Ordinance No. 1072-F. The ordinance was signed on December 15, 1988. A Notice of Adoption of a Development Order was executed and recorded in the public records on December 20, 1988. The development order enacted on December 15, 1988, was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council on December 19, 1988, and to the City Clerk on December 20, 1988. A certified copy of the DRI Ordinance 1072-F as enacted on December 15, 1988, is a part of the record as Exhibit K and it is incorporated by reference. Thereafter the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council appealed the DRI pursuant to Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes, to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The City and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council reached an agreement for settling the appeal and said settlement was finalized in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, the St. Petersburg City Council, at its February 2, 1989, meeting, adopted the terms of the Settlement Agreement, modified Ordinance 1072-F to incorporate the settlement terms, and adopted Ordinance 1072-F as modified. Based upon the settlement and modification of the DRI by the St. Petersburg City Council, on February 7, 1989, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission entered a Final Order of Dismissal on February 20, 1989. Warren filed his Petition on Appeal on March 20, 1989. The Petition is filed pursuant to Sections 380.06(25)(h) and 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-2.002, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a Final Order granting the Amended Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the Petition on Appeal filed by John Warren. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter B. Belmont Patty Woodworth, Secretary Attorney at Law Planning and Budgeting 511 31st Avenue North Executive Office of the Governor St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Michael S. Davis Mirelle Murphy James Honorable Bob Martinez Mark A. Winn Governor, State of Florida Attorneys at Law The Capitol Post Office Box 2842 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Roger S. Tucker Attorney General Attorney at Law State of Florida Tampa Bay Regional Planning The Capitol Council Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Suite 209 9455 Koger Boulevard Honorable Doyle Conner St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida Jeffrey N. Steinsnyder The Capitol Attorney at Law Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Honorable Betty Castor Suite 138 Commissioner of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 State of Florida The Capitol James C. Vaughn, Jr. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Governmental Analyst Florida Land and Water Honorable Jim Smith Adjudicatory Commission Secretary of State The Capitol State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Honorable Gerald Lewis Commissioner Comptroller, State of Florida State of Florida The Capitol The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On August 20, 1975, the Appellant, MGIC - Janis Properties, Inc., developer, filed an Application for Development Approval for Development of Regional Impact (hereinafter referred to as the "Application") with the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council and the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. A copy of that application as amended was attached as Exhibit "B" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. The Exhibit "B" has two parts, the initial part consisting of the Development of Regional Impact, Planning Concepts and Zoning Requests and the latter part consisting of addendum one. The submission of the application to the two Regional Planning Councils was necessitated by the fact that the property covered by the application lies in both Alachua and Marion Counties, which counties are within the jurisdictional areas of the North Central Regional Planning Council and the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, respectively. Following the preliminary review by the Withlacoochee Planning Council, the Council, by letter of September 25, 1975, notified Marion County, by and through Mr. John Hastings, Zoning Director, Marion County Zoning and Building Department, that the Planning Council was ready to proceed with the formal review of the application and further advising that public hearing dates should be scheduled to comply with the requirements of the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 (Chapter 380, Florida Statutes). A copy of that letter was attached as Exhibit "C" to Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On October 7, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County (hereinafter referred to as "Alachua County") scheduled a public hearing on the application before the County Commission to be held at 4:30 P.M. on December 9, 1975, in the Alachua County Courthouse, Gainesville, Florida. The Appellants were given notice of the public hearing by a copy of the letter of October 8, 1975, from Howard Weston, County Administrator to Alachua County, a copy of that letter appearing as Exhibit "D" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. On October 14, 1975, the Appellee scheduled public hearings on the application before the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission held at 4:00 P.M. on January 5, 1976, at the Marion County Courthouse, Ocala, Florida, and before the Board of County Commissioners at 9:00 A.M. on January 21, 1976, at the Marion County Courthouse, Ocala, Florida. Notification to the Appellants of these public hearings was given by letter of October 15, 1975 from Ronald H. Miller, Marion County Planner, a copy of that letter being Exhibit "E" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. On November 6, 1975, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council prepared, adopted and sent to Alachua County their recommendations regarding the application, which recommendations recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "F" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On November 13, 1975, the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, meeting in full session, prepared, adopted and sent to Marion County, their recommendations regarding the application, which recommendation recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "G" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On December 9, 1975 Alachua County held a public hearing on the Appellants' application and that public hearing was continued on January 6, 1976. On December 24, 1975 the Marion County Planning Department prepared and sent to Marion County their considerations and recommendations regarding the application, which recommendations recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. The recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department were based in part on comments provided by the Marion County Engineer and the Environmental Health Division of the Marion County Health Department. A copy of these considerations and recommendations was attached as Exhibit "H" to the Appellants' petition and is made apart of the record herein. On January 5, 1976, the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public Hearing on the Appellants' application, which public hearing was continued on January 12, 1976. At the conclusion of the public hearing, after having heard and considered all interested parties and pertinent facts and matters with regard to the Appellants' application and after having considered the recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department, the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council and all testimony and information presented at the public hearing, the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Appellants' application subject to the conditions previously recommended by the Withlacoochee Planning Council and the Marion County Planning Department, and subject to certain other conditions. Copies of the minutes of the special meeting of the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 5, 1976 and January 12, 1976 were attached as Exhibit "I" and Exhibit "J" respectively to the Appellants' petition and are made a part of the record herein. On January 6, 1976, Mr. Al Lewis, Director of the Department of Planning, Alachua County, prepared and sent to Alachua County, by and through Mr. Howard Weston, County Administrator, his recommendation regarding the application, which recommendation recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "K" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On that same date, Alachua County, after having heard and considered all interested parties and pertinent facts and matters with regard to Appellants' application, and after having considered the recommendations of the Alachua County Department of Planning, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council and all testimony and information presented at the public hearing, issued a development order approving Appellants' application subject to certain conditions. A copy of said development order was attached as Exhibit "L" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On January 21, 1976, the Appellee, Marion County, held a public hearing on the Appellants' application, which public hearing was continued on February 10, 1976 and February 18, 1976 and the record of those hearings have been transcribed and made a part of the record herein. After the January 21, 1976 meeting before the Marion County Board of County Commissioners in which discussion was entered into on the recommendations arising from the Withlacoochee Planning Council meeting on November 13, 1975 and the recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department of December 24, 1975, the Appellants in the person of their attorney, Stephen A. Scott, and the architect for the Appellants, David Reaves, submitted two letters dated February 4, 1976, which set forth the position of the Appellants on the aforementioned recommendations of the Planning Council and the Marion County Planning Department. Copies of these letters of February 4, 1976 have been filed with the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, and are made a part of the record herein. On February 13, 1976 the Marion County Plat Committee prepared and sent to Marion County suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions to the approval of Appellants' application. A copy of these suggested working changes is attached hereto as Exhibit "M" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. In response to the February 13, 1976 Marion County Plat Committee suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions and/or modifications applicable to the application dated February 13, 1976, the Appellants' attorney, Stephen A. Scott filed a letter of February 18, 1976. This letter is filed in the case by permission of the Hearing Officer and is made a part of the record herein. At the conclusion of the public hearing on February 18, 1976, Marion County adopted a resolution denying approval of Appellants' application. A copy of said resolution was attached as Exhibit "A" to Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. In the course of the DRI process, not all aspects of the application, Exhibit "B", were disputed by the various planning agencies, the Appellee and the Intervenor. Moreover, Alachua County, Florida has given its approval and any reference to action before that governmental body is for the limited purposes of describing the Marion County, Florida application. Therefore, the discussion of the facts will be in terms of those facts which were disputed and not those facts in support of the application which are not in dispute. The points of contention between the parties are primarily discussed in the Exhibit "B", Development of Regional Impact, Planning Concepts and Zoning Requests and its addendum; Exhibit "G", the recommendations of the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council of November 13, 1975; Exhibit "H", the Marion County Planning Department, Statement of considerations and recommendation; Exhibit "J", the minutes of the Marion County Planning and Zoning Department meeting, January 12, 1976; the letters of February 4, 1976, from the representatives of the Appellant, David Reaves and the Appellants' attorney Stephen A. Scott; Exhibit "M", the Marion County Plat Committee suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions and/or modifications, dated February 13, 1976; the discussion of the aforementioned document in the course of the public hearings of January 21, 1976, February 10, 1976 and February 18, 1976 and the Exhibit "A", Resolution and Development Order of the Marion County Board of County Commissioners. The proposed development is a horse ownership oriented community located 12 miles south of Gainesville, Florida and 18 miles north of Ocala, Florida and it encompasses an area of approximately 5 square miles (3200 acres). The statement of market study is found on page 87 of Exhibit "B". This project is located on the border of Alachua and Marion Counties, Florida. One sixth of this area lies within Alachua County and the remaining area in Marion County. The highway system as shown in map "J" of Exhibit "B". The project has five developmental phases as described in the Exhibit "B" and within those developmental phases are planned construction of midrise, townhouse, patiohouse, and single family dwellings for a total population build out in all phases of approximately 8,234 residents. This project also anticipates lodges to be built in the various phases to accommodate additional average yearly population of 1,200 persons. Its estimated that visitors will total 834 at the completion of all phases, for a total of 10,000 plus persons within the development at the end of the final phase. Further discussion of these statistics may be found on page 15 of Exhibit "B". At present the area is primarily agricultural and is zoned as such. Within the immediate vicinity of the project are the towns of Micanopy and Mcintosh and the community of Evinston. These communities together with the population immediately outside these towns would total approximately 2,500 people. Consequently, the area can best be described as rural, as opposed to the suburban nature of the proposed development. The difference in character in the locale as it presently exists and as is proposed by the development plan is the principal point of contention between the appellants on the one side, and the Appellee and Intervenor on the other. It is the suggestion of the Appellants that the project can be developed and carry with it a suburban nature without being inconsistent with or destroying the rural character of the surrounding towns and unincorporated areas. On the other hand the Appellee and Intervenor suggest that to allow this project would destroy the rural lifestyle of the area. The transcript of the proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners, Marion County, Florida held on January 21, 1976, February 10, 1976, and February 18, 1976 developes in detail the opposing points of view on the issue of the compatibility of the development with the present surroundings. Considering the distance between the proposed development and the larger communities in the areas to wit, Gainesville and Ocala, the rural nature of the land at present and the fact that this development would be potentially the third largest community in the Alachua County and Marion County area, the development does not appear to be compatible with its surroundings. The Appellant has proposed a private roads community, and this concept is contrary to the express policy of Marion County, Florida. Prohibition to this form of private roads is set forth in subsection 2A.13 of the Public Works Manual, Marion County, Florida. There is concern by the Appellee on the question of access of the public through the private road system, in that it would create a necessity the public to go around the entire development. However, at present there are public roads serving the area and it is not contemplated that future public roads will go through the project. The Appellee is also concerned with maintenance of speed limits on private property and resubdivision of the parcel of land in the future where private roads have been allowed. The restriction against private roads has been waived in Marion County in the past and could be waived in this instance if a private road network or a combination of private and public road network were built in the development. The Appellee would require that the network be built to Marion County Specifications, and the Appellant agrees. There are proposed to be built two bridges. One bridge across Interstate-75 incident to the last phase of the project and other bridge across SE-10, County Line Road. The Appellee would require conceptual approval of these matters by the permitting agencies going into the project, and the bridges would be constructed at the developers' expense prior to the development phase effected by the bridges. Other roads affected by the project are State Road 320 and Hickman Road which are in the southern part of the project. If these roads were utilized, access for emergency, police, fire and other needs of similar nature would have to be worked out. In connection with the question of access, the developer had initially proposed that the project be a gated community with private security patrols within the community. In view of the considerable debate in the course of the proceedings about this technique of a gated community and private security patrol, the developer has indicated a willingness to forgo the utilization of perimeter walls or fencing and private security patrols or entrance guards. As mentioned before, the land selected for development is presently zoned agricultural and to achieve the purposes of the project the zoning would have to be changed to a type of residential zoning. As a part of the zoning consideration, the Appellee has asked that the Appellant submit a master plan in conjunction with or as a part of the zoning change. The conditions of the master plan are as set forth in pages 6 - 9 of the December 24, 1975 report which is Exhibit "H". The Appellants' specific response to the question of the master plan as it relates to matters of zoning is found in the February 4, 1976 letter of attorney Stephen A. Scott. In summary, the developer is concerned with the wording of some of the provisions of the December 24, 1975 report, Exhibit "H", and with the repetitious aspects of the master plan, in view of the fact that the questions have been addressed through the DRI. The letter also indicates a reluctance to divulge detailed financial information about the developer. There are certain aspects about the development proposal which contemplate the sponsorship by a homeowners association. Among these aspects are security patrol, fire protection, sewage treatment, recreational facilities, maintenance of recreational facilities, water treatment and service, and eventual health care. These items are in addition to the construction and maintenance of private roads, to include storm drainage. The Appellee has requested that the developer in detail the intricacies of the homeowners association and the method by which it may accomplish the aforementioned goals. Again this discussion is found in pages 6 - 9 of the Exhibit "H". The related matters of health care in the initial 4 stages and long term treatment at the point of final build out must be accomplished by coordination with emergency transportation to the hospitals in the Gainesville and Ocala area. The health care facilities are shown on map "I" to the Exhibit "B". At some point in time, it is the feeling of the Appellants that a fulltime physician will establish a clinic due to the number of persons in the development community, without the need for any subsidy by the developer. Medical evacuation seems to be suggested as a function of the homeowners association, in the latter phases. The appellant and appellee acknowledged that the acreage for a landfill site for solid waste disposal would be off the grounds of the project. This would need to be within a five mile travelling of distance to satisfy the Appellee and to meet the requirements of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. The acreage necessary would be 35 acres. The resolution of the question of location was not resolved between the parties; however, it seems that some plan by which the developer purchased a site either by having that site selected by the Appellee and then purchasing the site or paying a fixed sum of money to the County for such a purpose is indicated. The unresolved issues pertain to the purchase of the equipment necessary and the arrangement for the maintenance of the site location. In the past in Marion County, this type of landfill has been maintained as a part of commercial contracts for collection and disposal of solid waste1 and nothing suggests that this could not be achieved in this instance. The soil description and analysis is found beginning on page 32 of Exhibit "B" and within maps E, F, and G of Exhibit "B". An examination of the report shows that much of the soil is Blichton-Kendrick Association which has slow permeability. Other places are Bayboro-Placid Association which is low wet lands that have interspersed with them really poorly drained deep sands. Within this overall network it is intended that a sewage plant be placed, which treats the sewage and utilizes the activated sludge method with some form of additional treatment for spray irrigation of the remaining effluent. The site location and details of the treatment plan will be approved by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. There are 243 ranches and ranchettes which are intended for septic tank utilization and individual wells for water supply. Discussion of these matters is found on pages 93 through 96 of Exhibit "B". Storm water disposal, in consideration of the 100 year flood elevations are found on pages 97 through 101, and map "G" of Exhibit "B". Some special problems that have occurred in the past pertain to the question of storm water disposal. The Old Field Pond area has had flooding. Flooding has occurred across SE-10 over U.S. 441 and into the adjacent land owner's property. Moreover, the Fire Tower Road which is in the area of SE-10 has flooded and one requirement would be consideration of those property owners who utilize SE-10 as an alternate route to the so called Fire Tower Road in times of flooding. As shown in the map on page 34 of Exhibit "B" there are a number of recharge wells in the active Old Field Pond area. It is the feeling of the Appellee through its staff reports, i.e., the Withlacoochee Planning Council report of November 13, 1975 and the agreement of other staff agencies that these recharge wells should be plugged to avoid the problem of liquid waste going directly back into the Floridian Aquifer, which flows under the property. The developer feels that this should only be done after testing. Discussion was also entered into about the coordination of sewage treatment and water supply needs with the surrounding communities of Mcintosh and Micanopy. The provision for electric power is discussed by letters from the Florida Power Corporation and Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc. found on pages 112 and 113 of Exhibit "B". There is concern that due to prior power shortages in the immediate service area, that further service obligations would diminish the quality of the electric service. This indication runs contrary to the comments within the letters of the two utility companies and it has been suggested that greatly increased needs would promote more efficient electric service. This latter argument, does not address the conditions in the early phases of development. A matter of much discussion was the need for schools, fire protection and police protection. If the private security and fire service concept is rejected, there is no indication whether these needs could be met by the Appellee, although tax revenues would be generated to assist in responding to those needs. On the former question of schools, there has been preliminary contact by the developers agent in considering regional schools, since the project lies within two counties, but that contact has been very limited. The question of site location for a school to service this community and surrounding communities and the sharing of the costs of such implementation is also in the preliminary stages. Therefore, matters concerning the school system are yet to be resolved. The project contemplates a number of recreational areas, lodges and stores. The lodges and stores would be open to the public, but the recreational facilities are primarily designed for the residents. The discussion of the recreational areas within the project brings to light the question of the possible service community which would grow out of the development. It has been estimated by the Appellant that 807 persons in terms of average annual construction employment will be needed for the five phases of the development. Discussion of these aspects of the project begins on page 82 of Exhibit "B". Based upon this projection, the possibility exists that some satellite community would form in the immediate vicinity of the project site, in view of the distances between the project site and the towns of Ocala and Gainesville. None of the surrounding communities, nor the developer have specifically addressed the deployment of the so called satellite community, in terms of housing, essential services and recreation. Another consideration which is in dispute is the archaeological significance of the project land and the necessary steps to preserve these archaeological finds. A discussion of the archaeology of this site is found on pages 59 through 80 of Exhibit "B". The dispute arises over the necessary steps to the preservation of the archaeologically significant sites, with the Appellee suggesting compliance with the recommendation of the archaeologist's report in Exhibit "B" and the Appellants desiring to make a site by site isolation of the significant archaeological finds and subsequent preservation of those sites at the point of development encounter. Another similar issue is game preservation. There is evidence that the Florida Panther has passed through the development area since tracks were found on the western part of the proposed development. In addition, the Florida Sandhill Crane and Wood Ibis have been sited at Tuscaeilla Lake, on the wet prairie just south of that body of water at the northwest pond. Further discussion of these endangered species and other species of wildlife is found on pages 56 and 57 of the Exhibit "B". A statement by a witness of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission was to the effect that the Florida Panther will not stay in the area which is developed to the extent proposed herein. Finally, consideration was given to the question of the sequence of permitting within the five phases of the proposed project. The Appellee has expressed a desire to withhold local permits until federal and state permits were given, which would have an effect on how local permits would be granted. The Appellants are concerned that these local permits in the initial phases, not be held up while waiting for federal or state permits which would pertain to a latter phase. This is a particular concern in view of the fact that the stated five year build out of the project does not seem to be realistic and the actual build out will be between ten and twenty years from the point of any DRI permitting. The requirement for obtaining federal and state permits prior to the local permits at the commencement of each phase and obtaining a general statement of commitment by the federal and state systems in the later phases, was discussed as a solution in the bridge over Interstate-75 and would seem an appropriate solution to other issues similarly in dispute.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Application for Development Approval for a Development of Regional Impact filed with the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council on August 20, 1975 for preliminary review be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Scott, Esquire Post Office Box 1292 Gainesville, Florida 32602 MGIC - Janis Properties, Inc. 1550 Madruga Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Ernest Tew, as Trustee Suite B-1 901 Northwest Eighth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Mr. Jackson E. Sullivan Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council 3500 Northeast Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 4 Ocala, Florida 32670 R. Stephen Ryder, Esquire Marion County Attorney Board of County Commissioners of Marion County Post Office Box 81 Ocala, Florida 32670 Honorable Reubin O'D. Askew Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Robert L. Shevin Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Bruce Smathers Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Philip F. Ashler State Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Louis Hubener, Esquire 660 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Counsel for the Division of State Planning Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission c/o Secretary of the Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ATTENTION: David V. Kerns, Esquire Robert T. Roess, President Florida Investors Mortgage Corp Post Office Box 639 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Vice Chairman, Simonton-Tuscawilla Concerned Citizens
Findings Of Fact Maurice Fox ("Developer" or "Respondent" hereafter) filed his original application for approval of a development of regional impact with the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners in April, 1974. An extensive application was filed. Personnel from the staff of the County's Planning, Building, and Zoning Department discussed the application with the Respondent and his representatives, and the staff's recommendations were presented to the Planning Commission and to the Board of County Commissioners. The Respondent made presentations to the South Florida Regional Planing Council, and to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board received input from the Respondent, from the South Florida Regional Planning Council, from its own staff, from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and from the Flood Control District, which is now the South Florida Water Management District. Palm Beach County was, at that time, a member of the South Florida Regional Planning Council. The Council recommended that the Board of County Commissioners deny the application for development order, maintaining that the proposed development conflicted with the county land use plan, would stimulate excessive migration into the region, would cause an excessive burden upon transportation facilities, did not adequately provide for solid waste disposal, could have an adverse impact upon water quality in the region, and would eliminate a significant habitat for wildlife including several threatened or endangered species. The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission opposed the proposed project because of its potentially adverse impact upon the wildlife habitat. The Flood Control District considered that the lake system proposed to be operated in conjunction with the development could be maintained in such a way as to negate adverse impacts upon water quality of the region, and did not oppose the project. The County's Planning, Building, and Zoning Department recommended that the development order be issued, and the County Planning Commission concurred. By resolution number R74-700, the County Commission approved the application for development order subject to three conditions on September 3, 1974. This proceeding ensued. During the pendency of this proceeding, Palm Beach County withdrew from membership in the South Florida Regional Planning Council. The County joined the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC). Since it was granted status as an intervenor, TCRPC has been functioning as the appellant. The South Florida Council has withdrawn from the proceeding. TCRPC has contended that the Board of County Commissioners did not adequately consider the environmental consequences of the proposed development. This contention is not supported by the evidence. The Board of County Commissioners did not have before it all of the evidence that is now before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, but it did have adequate information from which it could assess the environmental impacts of the proposed development, and weigh these impacts against potential advantages and disadvantages of the development. Whether the County Commission made a correct assessment of the ecological consequences of the proposed development is an issue for this appeal. The thought processes by which members of the Commission made the determination are not issues in this proceeding. Maurice Fox acquired the property which is the subject of this proceeding, and which has come to be known as the Fox Property, in 1954. The Fox Property lies in Palm Beach County, and is bordered on the east by State Road 7 as it is presently constructed and as it is proposed for extension. The property will run three lineal miles along State Road 7 when State Road 7 is completed. Okeechobee Road runs through the southern section of the property. The property has roughly a rectangular configuration, and consists of 1705 net acres apart from the rights of way of Okeechobee Road and State Road 7. The proposed development is a retirement community. It would contain 10,004 living units with a population cap of 18,416 persons. Dwelling units would be dispersed in forty five residential pods, some bordering on a lake, others on a golf course. There would be single and mixed story clusters. The maximum rise would be four stories. Two golf courses are proposed for construction, along with a 406-acre lake for sailing, boating, and fishing. A fourteen mile bicycle path that would not cross any roads is proposed for construction around the lake. There would be tennis courts, and at least one swimming pool for each building pod. The main social club would be located on the lake. Each golf course would have a club house. There would be a total of 1028 acres of open space, with approximately fourteen acres preserved in a natural condition. Three church sites have been set aside, along with a four and one half acre civic center, which would include a fire station, security facility, and municipal services. A commercial facility on a twenty five and one half acre tract is planned, with smaller convenience centers located at each of the golf club houses. The most significant feature of the development is a proposed center for geriatric medicine, which would be located on the southeast corner of the property. The center would be owned by a non profit corporation, and would be operated for the public benefit. The Respondent proposes to donate the land for the center. The center would have the following facilities: (a) A medical clinic with group practices of physicians; (b) Emergency facilities and rehabilitation services as a part of the clinic; (c) A retirement hotel for physically or mentally disabled persons who do not require complete nursing care; (d) A nursing home, and facilities that would provide in home services designed to keep older persons in their homes; (e) A nursing school, or continuing education facility that would provide training for staff for the center, and for other facilities. The center would have a significant research function, allowing a group of older persons to be studied over a period of years. The development would be constructed in four essentially, equal phases. Phases for construction of the geriatrics center have not yet been detailed. Local and state licensing would be required in order to operate many of the proposed functions of the center, and planning for construction of the center would need to be coordinated on an on going basis with the development of the retirement community. No evidence was offered that would specifically compare the proposed retirement community with other such communities. It is apparent, however, that the proposed community would provide a desirable place to live. All residences would border either a lake or golf course, and good recreational facilities would be immediately accessible to all residents. The project has been designed in order to maintain open spaces, with as much as seventy five, percent of the area remaining open. The primary benefit that the development would offer is the proposed center for geriatric medicine. The center is a primary altruistic goal of the Developer. The Developer has consulted eminent experts about the proposed center, and the center could provide a means for conducting significant research into illnesses of the elderly, and as a facility for training persons to treat illnesses of the elderly. Florida has a particular need for such an institute, and none of the medical schools in the state presently provide it. Although much is known about the needs for medical care of the elderly, a broader treatment concept has not been adequately developed. Old people are constantly fearful of becoming dependent, and they dread loneliness and bereavement. They have anxiety about spending their last days in a nursing home. The proposed center would address these problems by recruiting sensitive health care personnel, and providing a total care program for residents of the proposed community. Elderly persons require a continuum of care. Institutionalization of older people should be deferred as long as possible. There is a need to develop health services that can be delivered directly to the home. When it becomes necessary to institutionalize older persons, the proposed geriatrics center would accomplish it in a facility near to where they have lived, and to where their friends continue to live. Persons too fragile to stay in their own homes could live in the proposed hotel, and maintain personal relationships and community activities. Such a center as is being proposed would not have to be constructed in connection with a housing project, but it would be helpful to do so. Study would be facilitated due to the ready availability of a group of appropriate persons. The research that could be conducted could provide vital information about diseases of the aged. Some evidence was offered that tends to show that the Respondent may have some difficulty in obtaining all of the pertinent licenses that he will require in order to operate all facets of the proposed center. The evidence does not establish that the center is an impractical goal, but that ongoing planning that accounts for needs of the entire region is necessary. The Developer's motivations are clearly good. He is in part motivated by his own experience in dealing with an aged mother. He is not interested in developing the retirement community unless the center for geriatric medicine can also be developed. With appropriate planning the facility can become a reality, and would be a significant benefit to Palm Beach County, the region, the State of Florida, and indeed to society as a whole. The Fox Property is presently undeveloped. Human activities have had an effect on the property, but the property remains in an essentially natural condition. The property has been diked on all four sides by persons other than the Respondent. These dikes effect the flow of water across the property. While the evidence does not conclusively reveal whether the property has become drier or wetter as a result of human activity surrounding it, the present state of the property leads to a finding that its condition has not changed drastically in many years. The property may now be wetter than it was at some given instant in the past, or it may be drier. What is apparent is that the property has consistently maintained a degree of wetness that would support submerged or emergent vegetation, and that it has provided habitat for wildlife that thrive in transitional areas. Expert witnesses, who testified at the hearing, agreed as to the present characteristics of the property, but their testimony conflicted sharply in characterizing the condition as wet or dry, or as high quality or low quality wildlife habitat. Ecologists have reached no unanimous consensus in defining the term "wetland". The most generally accepted definition has been proposed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department of the Interior in a "Draft of Interim Classification of Wetlands and Aquatic Habitats in the United States." The definition is as follows: Wetland is land where an excess of water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living at the soil surface,. It spans a continuum of environ- ments where terrestrial and aquatic systems intergrade. For the purpose of this classification system, wetland is defined more specifically as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough each year to promote the formation of hydric soils and to support the growth of hydrophytes, as long as other environmental conditions are favorable. Permanent flooded lands lying beyond the deep water boundary of wetlands are referred to as aquatic habitats. The definition is compatible with the definition developed by other entities including the United States Corps of Engineers. The definition is also compatible with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation system of classifying areas as submerged, transitional, and upland. Transitional areas within the Department of Environmental Regulation criteria would be classified as wetlands under the Fish and Wildlife Service definition. Wetlands have commonly recognized ecological values. These values are applicable to all wetlands, varying in quantitative and qualitative degree. In order of importance these values are as follows: First, wetlands provide habitat for an enormous array of plant and animal species, which cannot survive without such a habitat. Many endangered and threatened species require wetland habitats. They have become endangered or threatened because their realm has been diminished. Second, wetlands serve to remove and store excesses of certain elements from the environment. As a result of agricultural activities and as a result of large scale usage of fossil fuels, nitrogen and sulfates have become generally excessive in the environment. Wetlands serve a filtering and storage function for these potential pollutants. Third, wetlands serve an important water quality function. In periods of heavy rainfall wetlands serve to store and slowly release waters. Wetland vegetation serves to filter excess nutrients, from rainfall and from runoff, especially phosphorus and nitrogen. Fourth, wetlands are extremely productive in biological terms. Wetland vegetation takes in nutrients, and causes a net production of oxygen in the process of respiration. On a global, and even on a local scale, wetlands can thus be very important to air quality. Fifth, wetlands have an important impact upon the climate. Stored water in wetland areas maintains a warmer climate in areas surrounding the wetland. Wetlands also serve to fuel rainfall in an area. These wetland attributes apply to all wetlands in varying degrees, and do not apply as profoundly to other ecosystems. In addition to these values, wetlands serve an important food producing function since they serve as breeding grounds for fish, have important esthetic and recreational value, and have research and educational importance. Preservation of wetland areas has become an important environmental concern because there has been a very large loss of wetland areas to development. It has been estimated that more than one third of all wetlands in the United States, and more than half of the wetlands in Florida have been drained. Utilizing the Fish and Wildlife Service definition, from 900 to 1400 acres of the 1705 acre Fox Property can be classified as wetland. Only approximately 60 acres of the tract is aquatic, in other words wet at all times. Other areas are, however, sufficiently dominated by an excess of water to fall within the Fish and Wildlife definition. The Fox Property is not without human influence. The dikes which surround the property have effected the flow of water. "All terrain vehicles" have crossed the area and left their tracks. In some locations this vehicle use has been sufficiently significant that trails have been identified. There has been considerable hunting in the area. Some trash has been dumped, particularly in the areas adjacent to Okeechobee Boulevard. Trees have been removed, and potholes left in their place. In the area south of Okeechobee Boulevard it is apparent that there was considerable agricultural usage in the past which has affected the land. It is also apparent that there has been burning, although not to the extent that the ecological viability of the area has been violated. Exotic pest plants have infiltrated portions of the property. Melaleuca is the most dramatic of these. In small areas of the property melaleuca has become the dominant vegetation. Over a period of time melaleuca will tend to dry out a wetland, but the process is a lengthy one, which may take centuries to complete. Large airplanes fly low over the property disturbing the area with loud noises. Despite these intrusions, the Fox Property is dominated primarily by natural as opposed to human caused conditions. Nine hundred to fourteen hundred acres of the Fox Property display high or moderate wetland values. The remainder of the property displays low wetland values. Some parts of the property display outstanding wetland values. The most significant wetland attribute displayed by the Fox Property is the wildlife habitat that it provides. The habitat on the property is quite varied, and that contributes to its importance for wildlife. Several species on the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission "Threatened Species List" were actually observed on the property. These are the American alligator, the Florida great white heron, the osprey, the southeastern kestrel, the audubon's caracara, and the Florida sandhill crane. Several species on the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission "Species of Special Concern List" were also observed. Wildlife on this list are considered to be not as threatened with extinction as those on the "Threatened Species List", but nonetheless of concern. Observed were the little blue heron, the great egret, the snowy egret, the white ibis, the Cooper's Hawk, and the roundtail muskrat. Several other species on these lists thrive in such habitats as the Fox Property, and potentially could be there. The Florida Endangered Species List promulgated by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission constitutes species, that are in eminent danger of becoming extinct. None of these species were actually observed on the Fox Property, but the Fox Property provides viable habitat for the wood stork, the Florida Everglade kite, the red cockaded woodpecker, the, Florida grasshopper sparrow, and, the Florida panther. The Everglade kite, the red cockaded woodpecker, and the Florida panther are also on the Federal Endangered Species List. It is because of loss of habitat that these species are of concern, or are threatened, or are endangered. The Fox Property lies adjacent to a wetland area known as the Loxahatchee Slough. This is a major north south surface water drainage basin in eastern Palm Beach, County. Surface water moves across the Slough to the north, feeding the Loxahatchee River, or to the south into what is known as Conservation Area One within the Loxahatchee Preserve. The Fox property is in effect the western boundary of the Slough. The Loxahatchee Slough is a wetlands ecosystem. The Slough, and the National Wildlife Refuge, which surrounds and encompasses it, amount to 145,635 acres. This is primarily wetland. There are other viable wetland areas in the vicinity of the Fox Property which encompass as much as 850,000 acres. The fact that extensive wetlands are near to the Fox Property does not, however, lessen the wetland values of the Fox Property. In fact, the adjoining wetlands augment the wetland values that can be ascribed to the Fox Property, especially in terms of the property's importance to endangered wildlife. The proposed development would include a lake with an area of more than 490 acres. The lake system would provide viable habitat for the Florida alligator, but not for the other species discussed above, except perhaps as an occasional feeding area. These species are becoming scarce because their available habitat is shrinking. They are reclusive, and do not flourish in human residential areas. If the proposed development is approved, the Fox Property will effectively be obliterated as a viable wildlife habitat for many species, including some whose existence is threatened. The proposed lake system would also not perform other important wetland functions to the extent that the Fox Property now does so. The TCRPC has contended that the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon water quality in the region. This contention has not been supported by the evidence. It is apparent that the lake system will not serve the water purifying function that the Fox Property as a viable wet land presently serves. It does appear from the evidence, however, that the lake system can be maintained in such a manner as to not cause an adverse impact upon water quality. One witness testified that the lake is likely to suffer from algal blooms in part because it would be overloaded with phosphorus. This testimony did not, however, consider the effect that the swale system proposed by the Developer will have in filtering phosphorus from runoff which will enter the lake system. The testimony reveals that artificial lakes in the South Florida area have frequently been plagued with poor water quality. It is apparent that if the proposed lake were not properly maintained, its water quality could seriously deteriorate. With proper management, however, good water quality could be maintained. The evidence presented respecting the impact of the proposed development in environmental terms related solely to the proposed development. Whether less ambitious developments could be undertaken on the property without damaging the wildlife habitat or the wetland values was not addressed, and would not have been relevant.
The Issue The dispositive issue in the above-styled cases is whether certain Lee County plan amendments and revisions to data and analysis are consistent with and substantially similar to the amendments and revisions described in a settlement agreement previously entered into by the parties.
Findings Of Fact Lee County is a local government that is required to prepare and submit to the state land planning agency a comprehensive plan pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes ("the Act"). Section 163.3167, Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections and their corresponding Chapters are to Florida Statutes. All references to Rules and their corresponding Chapters are to the Florida Administrative Code.) The Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") is the state land planning agency, pursuant to Section 163.3164(19). As such, DCA is responsible for reviewing the comprehensive plans of local governments and determining whether they are in compliance with the Act. Section 163.3184(8). The City of Fort Myers ("Ft. Myers") and the City of Cape Coral ("Cape Coral") are municipalities located in Lee County. Relative to Lee County, they are adjoining local governments, pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(a). Each municipality has standing in the above-styled case. By Lee County Ordinance No. 89-02, adopted on January 31, 1989, Lee County adopted a comprehensive plan, effective March 1, 1989. (The Lee County comprehensive plan shall be referred to as "the Plan.") Although not adopted as part of the Plan, two volumes of data and analysis, which are entitled "Support Documentation," accompany the Plan. (These materials shall be referred to as "the Data and Analysis.") On March 24, 1989, DCA issued its Notice of Intent to Find the Lee County Comprehensive Plan Not in Compliance. The Notice of Intent is accompanied by a 24-page Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Not in Compliance. The Statement of Intent details the various alleged deficiencies in the Plan, but omits any mention of the Intergovernmental Coordination element contained in the Plan. On July 12, 1989, Ft. Myers filed its Petition for Leave to Intervene. Paragraph 19 of the petition alleges that the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Plan fails to provide a strong and effective intergovernmental coordination element showing relationships and stating principles and guidelines to be used in the accomplishment of coordination of the [Plan] with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities. The Intergovernmental Coordination element of the Plan states: GOAL 108: SERVICE COORDINATION. To provide for efficient and effective coordination of provision of public services by Lee County and its special districts, bodies, boards, and other entities. OBJECTIVE 108.1: SPECIAL DISTRICTS. By 1991, a clearinghouse process shall be instituted to provide for the regular exchange of information, proposals, and plans between the county and its special districts, bodies, boards, and other entities. POLICY 108.1.1: The office of the county administrator shall establish a special district clearinghouse, in coordination with district directors and managers, for the purpose of coordinating the programs, activities, and procedures for the provision of services and information. OBJECTIVE 108.2: LEVEL-OF-SERVICE STANDARDS. By 1991, conflicts in level-of-service standards for public facilities shall be resolved. POLICY 108.2.1: The Planning Division shall prepare an inventory and analysis of the various level-of-service standards for public facilities and shall recommend means of coordinating those standards which are not in agreement. POLICY 108.2.2: Where conflicts with other entities regarding service standards cannot be resolved through discussion among those concerned, the informal mediation process of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council shall be utilized to seek resolution. POLICY 108.2.3: Development proposals within Lee County shall be reviewed for their impacts on levels of service for public facilities as stated in the comprehensive plans of adjacent governments. OBJECTIVE 108.3: POLICY COORDINATION. By 1989, the Lee County Executive Advisory Committee shall be re-established in order to provide an intergovernmental policy coordination policy. POLICY 108.3.1: The office of the county administrator shall be responsible for organizing meetings of the Executive Advisory Committee. POLICY 108.3.2: The initial agenda for the Executive Advisory Committee shall be to discuss issues identified during the 1988 comprehensive plan revision process. Other items for discussion may include: --discuss areas of mutual interest; --establish and implement formal procedures for mutual review of appropriate planning and policy documents; --enter into agreements at the direction of and with the approval of the Lee County Board of Commissioners; --encourage participation of representatives from adjacent and overlapping jurisdictions, and state and federal agencies to attend EAC meetings on a standing or specific basis when appropriate; --utilize staff support of the appropriate planning departments; and --schedule public meetings, when appropriate, to ensure citizen awareness. POLICY 108.3.3: Lee County shall continue to: --utilize the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for matters of coordination in transportation planning and implementation; and --utilize the Technical Advisory Committee to the MPO in matter requiring communication, cooperation, and coordination between Lee County and other jurisdictions. GOAL 109: GROWTH MANAGEMENT. To coordinate the plans and policies of Lee County, its municipalities, and adjacent local governments so as to guide, manage, and regulate urban growth in a compatible fashion. OBJECTIVE 109.1: EFFECTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT. By 1990, the review of impacts of planned developments on the municipalities within Lee County and on adjacent counties, regional agencies, and other governmental units shall function in a coordinated and efficient manner. POLICY 109.1.1: Lee County shall adopt formal coordination procedures for mandated planning activities with other local governments, regional agencies, the state, and other governmental units. POLICY 109.1.2: Where conflicts regarding growth management and development issues cannot be resolved through discussion among those concerned, the informal mediation process of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council shall be used where judicial action can be avoided. POLICY 109.1.3: Lee County shall enter into interlocal agreements with appropriate entities for the notification and exchange of information regarding changes in land use or zoning of areas within one mile of its boundaries. POLICY 109.1.4: The county shall strive to negotiate interlocal agreements with all incorporated municipalities to resolve planning issues relating to areas outside the cities' limits which they would like to target for annexation. "Urban Reserve" boundaries adopted in such agreements will be designated on the future land use map (see Policy 1.7.3). POLICY 109.1.5: The county shall protect natural resource systems that cross governmental boundaries through the means described under Goal 82 of this plan. POLICY 109.1.6: The county shall coordinate transportation planning and road improvements with other jurisdictions through the means described under Goal 28 of this plan. POLICY 109.1.7: The county shall address the regional need for adequate sites for water- dependent uses through means described under Objective 98.7 of this plan. POLICY 109.1.8: The county shall continue to pursue efforts to establish a plan for surface water management with the surrounding affected counties and affected municipalities within Lee County. OBJECTIVE 109.2: POLITICAL INTERVENTION. By 1989, vehicles for dialogue and communication with other local governments shall be initiated by Lee County to address issues which have an effect beyond the boundaries of unincorporated Lee County. POLICY 109.2.1: In order to address issues which cross jurisdictional boundaries, during 1989 the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners shall initiate and coordinate interactions with political counterparts in municipalities and counties in the region. The Data and Analysis accompanying the Intergovernmental Coordination Element contains an evaluation and appraisal report (the "EAR") concerning intergovernmental coordination provisions of the former comprehensive plan. The EAR notes that the Executive Advisory Committee is a permanent committee of the chief executive officers (or their designees) of the County, the municipalities, the Regional Planning Council, the School Board, and the South Florida Water Management District. The EAR states that the Executive Advisory Committee has been effective in the past, but has not met since 1984. Addressing the Traffic Circulation Element of the proposed comprehensive plan of Ft. Myers, the EAR accompanying the Data and Analysis of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element merely notes the inconsistencies between the two plans as to the proposed Mid-Point Bridge. The EAR concludes that the intergovernmental coordination goals, objectives, and policies of Lee County's former comprehensive plan are "very general and broad in scope[, which] is unfortunate [because] this element provides an excellent opportunity to establish a better working relationship with other units of government." The Data and Analysis underlying the Intergovernmental Coordination Element note that Lee County uses the following methods to ensure intergovernmental coordination: interlocal agreements, coordinating organizations, and informal working groups. The Data and Analysis explain that interlocal agreements allow two or more units of government to integrate functions and provide services more efficiently than each could separately. The Mid-Point Bridge is not the subject of such an agreement. The Data and Analysis state that Lee County is a member of three coordinating organizations. In addition to the Florida Association of Counties and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, Lee County belongs to the Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization (the "MPO"). The MPO, which consists of representatives from the governing boards of each local government in Lee County, is primarily concerned with transportation planning. The Data and Analysis describe three working groups: the Regional Planning Council Technical Advisory Committee, which consists of representatives from the planning departments of each of the 19 local governments in the region, the Florida Department of Transportation, and other entities; the MPO Technical Advisory Committee, which consists of staffpersons from Lee County and the cities of Ft. Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel; and the now-dormant Executive Advisory Committee, which consisted of the chief executive officers of Lee County, the three municipalities, and three other entities. The Data and Analysis analyze the three coordination mechanisms. The interlocal agreement is "only used when the solution to an issue has been decided upon." The interlocal agreement "has had only a small role in resolving disputes." Addressing specifically the Mid-Point Bridge dispute, the Data and Analysis note: For over twenty years a new bridge across the Caloosahatchee has been discussed to connect the central portions of Cape Coral and Fort Myers. Although such a bridge would cause admitted difficulties on both sides of the river, the idea has persisted and gained momentum through the years. The obvious symptom was the increasingly paralyzing traffic backups, especially during the commuting hours, on the existing bridges. The underlying causes of this congestion include both the area's general strong growth and also the extremely rapid construction of homes in Cape Coral, which had originally been intended as a retirement haven but instead has become a full-fledged city with all age groups well represented. Very little land was set aside for employment and commerce when Cape Coral was platted, and despite active efforts by both the Cape Coral and Lee County governments to allow business development on the Cape Coral side of the river, most jobs still lie across the river. Many studies have been conducted by all parties to this dispute. The mid-point bridge has at this point become a political issue of the greatest importance. Lee County leaders for years opposed the bridge but now are very actively supporting it as the only possible means of relieving the crippling traffic problems that have developed. The politics of the situation are such that no Cape Coral councilman could get elected without being an absolute proponent of the bridge, and no Ft. Myers councilman could get elected without being an absolute opponent. Within this context it has become apparent to all parties that the solution lies not with intergovernmental cooperation in the normal sense but rather by resolving the legalities involved. Since the issue will ultimately be settled by the courts anyway, Lee County has decided to force the issue at this time by filing suit against the city of Ft. Myers over their resistance to the bridge and their inclusion in their comprehensive plan of language to positively forbid the bridge. Just prior to the filing of this suit, a joint meeting was held between the city council and the county commission in a last attempt to resolve the difference. As this effort was entirely unsuccessful, the case is working its way through the courts. It is an emotional issue for all parties but has not otherwise interfered with a generally friendly relationship between both governments on a multitude of other issues. The Data and Analysis identify working groups as efficient methods of coordination between governments, but acknowledge that they were unsuccessful as to the Mid-Point Bridge issue. The Traffic Circulation Element of the Plan states in relevant part: GOAL 24: MAJOR INTRA-COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS. To provide for efficient intra- county vehicular traffic by planning an integrated system of transportation corridors, possibly of limited access design, that connect urban centers within the county. OBJECTIVE 24.1 MID-POINT CORRIDOR. Create a new east-west transportation corridor, possibly of limited access design, across central Lee County in order to alleviate existing congestion of traffic crossing the Caloosahatchee River. POLICY 24.1.1: The county will continue the planning, feasibility determination, and environmental impact assessment for the Mid- Point Bridge. POLICY 24.1.2: The construction of this east- west transportation corridor will be coordinated through the Metropolitan Planning Organization to ensure system-wide continuity. POLICY 24.1.3: Due to the overriding public need to provide this critically important corridor so as to solve existing roadway deficiencies affecting most of Lee County, and due to the admitted impossibility of devising any alignment which would not generate at least some negative impacts, it is declared as the policy of Lee County that once the best alignment is selected, this policy shall preempt any other perceived conflicting portion of the Lee Plan and such conflicts, real or perceived, shall not be construed so as to require or justify blocking the construction of this facility. POLICY 24.1.4: Because of the high priority Lee County places on the planning and construction of this transportation corridor, permitting efforts shall be initiated by the year 1989, if feasible, and construction shall begin, if possible, by the year 1993. * * * GOAL 28: INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION. Lee County shall participate in and share the leadership of all necessary and desirable programs in coordinating the transportation planning and improvements of routes within or affecting Lee County. OBJECTIVE 28.1: PLANNING. Lee County will continue to plan cooperatively with its municipalities, surrounding counties, and FDOT. POLICY 28.1.1: The county will participate in the MPO and Regional Planning Council planning processes for system-wide facility needs. POLICY 28.1.2: The county will use informal mediation whenever possible to resolve disputes before other formalized processes are pursued. * * * The Data and Analysis accompanying the Traffic Circulation Element contain an EAR for the transportation goals, objectives, and policies of the former comprehensive plan of Lee County. The EAR addresses only those goals, objectives, or policies for which modifications are recommended. Nothing concerning the Mid-Point Bridge is discussed in the EAR. The Data and Analysis note that the continued rapid growth of Lee County necessitates major roads beyond a traffic circulation map dated November 26, 1986. One of the two major elements of the addition is an east-west corridor through Cape Coral and across the Caloosahatchee River. The second is a continuous loop around central Lee County. Further studies will determine if the southwest quadrant of the loop could replace the east-west corridor. The two major additions remain largely conceptual. The Data and Analysis explain: The exact location, timing, and cost of these improvements cannot be easily determined until at least general alignments have been selected. The final alignment process is time-consuming because it must address and weigh a multitude of sometimes conflicting factors such as needed capacity, environmental impacts, affordability, engineering feasibility, neighborhood disruption, relative costs, air quality and noise impact, and permitting requirements. Moreover, this exercise must address more than one possible alignment and a "no-build" alternative. To provide the necessary flexibility to allow this alignment selection process to function, the alignment for the east-west corridor was shown only in general form on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map (which was originally adopted November 16, 1984, amended on November 26, 1986, . . . and incorporated by reference as an integral part of the Lee Plan). A shaded corridor was shown that incorporated the alignment alternatives that have been previously studied. The bridge portion of this corridor is popularly known as the "Mid-Point Bridge." Another alternative which is also being considered was not shown on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map because it was not sufficiently detailed as of the most recent revision. This alterative can generally be described as the accelerated construction of the southwest quadrant of a future loop expressway system which would include a crossing of the Caloosahatchee four to seven miles southwest of the existing Cape Coral Bridge, connecting Cape Coral from a point somewhere between Piney Point and Punta Blanca Creek, to the mainland at a point somewhere between Iona Point and Punta Rassa Cove. The bridge which would be needed to accomplish this crossing has yet to acquire a popular name. For purposes of this element it is called the "Loop Bridge." Ft. Myers opposes the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge and associated expressway, and Cape Coral supports the construction of the bridge and expressway. Provisions in the respective plans of the two municipalities generally reflect these positions. The plan of Ft. Myers was adopted on February 13, 1989, but was in preparation and available to Lee County when it adopted the Plan. No evidence was presented at the hearing that Lee County requested the participation of DCA at the adoption hearing or that DCA participated at the adoption hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of the City of Fort Myers. ENTERED this 6 day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6 day of April, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Ft. Myers' Proposed Findings rejected as irrelevant. 2-3 adopted in substance. 4-5: rejected as subordinate. 6: adopted in substance. 7: adopted. 8-22: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence and, in some cases, irrelevant. Treatment Accorded Lee County's Proposed Findings All of Lee County's proposed findings are adopted or adopted in substance except for Paragraphs 10, 11, 21, 22, and 25-28, which are rejected as conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Russ, Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399 Andrew C. Stansell Siemon, Larsen & Purdy Mizner Administration Building East Camino Real Boca Raton, FL 33432 Michael J. Ciccarone Assistant County Attorney P.O. Box 398 Ft. Myers, FL 33432 William M. Powell City Attorney P.O. Box 150027 Cape Coral, FL 33915-0027 James F. Murley 1000 Friends of Florida P.O. Box 5948 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Thomas W. Reese 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Kenneth G. Oertel Scott Shirley Oertel, Hoffman, et al. P.O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Gary P. Sams Elizabeth C. Bowman Douglas S. Roberts Hopping, Boyd, et al. P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Frank B. Watson, Jr. City Attorney City of Fort Myers 2200 Second Street Ft. Myers, FL 33901 Harold N. Hume Henderson, Franklin, et al. P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, FL 33902-0280 David Emerson Bruner Chamber of Commerce Plaza 1114-B North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, FL 33937
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2002-02, adopted by the Town of Jupiter (Town) as Ordinance 62-02, is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Anna Current, resides at property on the Jupiter River in the Town of Jupiter at 711 Ryan Road, Jupiter, Florida 33477. The Town of Jupiter (Town) is a municipality of the State of Florida whose address is 210 Military Trail, Jupiter, Florida. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments pursuant to Sections 163.3164(20) and 163.3184. The Amendment Amendment 2002-02 (Amendment), which was adopted by the Town's Ordinance 62-02, consists of four text amendments, one amendment to the Transportation Map Series, and one amendment to the future land use map (FLUM) element. The first text amendment amends the Transportation Element by adding Policy 2.2.6. Policy 2.2.6 requires updates to the Town's Bicycle Transportation Master Plan. The second text amendment amends the text of the Conservation Element. Specifically, it amends Policy 1.2.5 to reference the June 2000 as opposed to the December 1985 version of the "Loxahatchee River National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan." The third text amendment adds two new policies to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. These policies reference and adopt certain parameters for the Western Corridor Interlocal Agreement, an interlocal agreement between the Town, Palm Beach County and Martin County. The fourth text amendment amends certain tables related to Level of Service and Capacity Standards in the Public School Facilities Element. The fifth change adds Figures 10 and 10a and amends Figures 5, 6 and 7 of the Transportation Map Series. The sixth and final section of the Amendment changes the Future Land Use Map for the Town of Jupiter. Specifically, it redesignates 12.3 acres in Jupiter Community Park from the recreation land use category to the conservation land use category. The Adoption Process On August 13, 2002, the Town's Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the local planning agency (LPA), held a public hearing and recommended that the Jupiter Town Council approve seven separate comprehensive plan amendments. These amendments consisted of five text amendments, an amendment to the Transportation Map Series (with modifications), and a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment. Petitioner testified that this LPA public hearing was not advertised in advance. The Town's witness, David Kemp, who is the Town's Principal Long Range Planner, did not dispute Petitioner's testimony; instead, he testified that he did not recall whether this LPA public hearing was advertised. There was documentary evidence that, on July 7, 2003, the Town Planner sent an e-mail message to the Town's Clerk informing her that, with regard to Petitioner's request for "proof of publication" of the advertisement for the LPA meeting on August 13, 2002, the Town Planner's staff had reviewed all relevant files and was unable to locate the requested public records. There also was documentary evidence that the Town's Records and Archives Manager notified the Town's Clerk by e- mail on April 29, 2003, that Petitioner had requested a copy of the "proof of publication" of the advertisement for the LPA public hearing on August 13, 2002, and had been informed that no advertisement was necessary since it was a regular meeting of the LPA. The minutes of the LPA's meeting on August 13, 2002, show that the six component parts being considered as part of the proposed Amendment 2002-02 were on the LPA's regular meeting consent agenda. The minutes indicate that two of the components were "pulled" from the consent agenda. The minutes also indicate that no one in attendance at the meeting spoke on the proposed amendments. The minutes do not reflect that the LPA or any of its members invited public participation before a vote was taken on the six components of the proposed amendments. Neither the Town nor DCA introduced evidence of an advertisement for the LPA's meeting on August 13, 2002, notwithstanding their listing of proof of publication of the advertisement as a joint exhibit of the DCA and the Town in their Joint Prehearing Statement, and Petitioner's stipulation to its admissibility. The minutes of the LPA meeting on August 13, 2002, reflect that Petitioner was not present during the consent agenda portion of the meeting. They indicate that she appeared later for the regular agenda portion of the meeting and spoke in favor of a site plan/special exception/PUD application being considered during that portion of the meeting. On Tuesday, September 3, and Tuesday, September 17, 2002, the Jupiter Town Council held public hearings and approved the transmittal of Ordinance 62-02, consisting of all seven of the proposed plan amendments recommended by the LPA, to DCA. The transmittal public hearing was held on a weekday at least seven days after the advertisement for the public hearing, which appeared in the Palm Beach Post, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town, on August 25, 2002. The advertisement included the title of the proposed Ordinance 62- 02, in bold: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN . . . AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 57-89, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE TOWN . . . ; AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE CONSERVATION, FUTURE LAND USE, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENTS; AMENDING THE TEXT AND MAP SERIES OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT; PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 12.3 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE TOWN'S COMMUNITY PARK AT 3377 CHURCH STREET FROM A RECREATION DESIGNATION TO A CONSERVATION DESIGNATION; . . . . The advertisement also included a map showing the location of the 12.3-acre property. At the transmittal hearing, the public was invited to comment, and three individuals offered public comments. On September 26, 2002, DCA received the proposed amendments. Although the Town requested that DCA not review the Amendment or issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC report), Petitioner requested a review and ORC report, and DCA determined that a review and ORC report were necessary, even if not requested by Petitioner. DCA conducted a review of the proposed amendments for consistency with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Strategic Policy Plan, and Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (the State Comprehensive Plan), and issued an ORC report to the Town of Jupiter on November 27, 2002. The ORC report raised only one objection, specifically to a text amendment that would allow for increased densities in the Coastal High Hazard Area. The Town Council held a public hearing on December 17, 2002, at which six of the seven proposed changes contemplated by the transmitted proposed amendments were adopted. (The Town did not adopt the amendment to which DCA has objected in the ORC report.) This adoption hearing was held on a weekday at least five days after the advertisement for the public hearing appeared in the Palm Beach Post, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town. The advertising appeared on December 10, 2002. The advertisement included, in bold, the same title of the proposed Ordinance 62-02 as the transmittal hearing advertisement, except that reference to the text change to the Future Land Use Element was omitted. The advertisement also included a map showing the location of the 12.3-acre property (as well as other properties affected by other ordinances being advertised at the same time). At the adoption hearing, Petitioner offered written comments. There were no other comments or objections. Petitioner attempted to prove that the Town failed to meet a statutory requirement to provide sign-forms for comprehensive plan amendment hearings. She proved that no sign-in forms were provided for the LPA hearing on August 13, 2002. She did not prove that no sign-in forms were provided for the transmittal hearings in September 2002 or for the adoption hearing in December 2002. On December 23, 2002, DCA received the Town’s adopted Amendment 2002-02 for review. DCA conducted a review of adopted Amendment 2002-02 for consistency with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, Rule 9J-5, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Strategic Policy Plan, and Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (the State Comprehensive Plan). Amendment 2002-02 was found to be "in compliance." DCA's witness, Senior Planner, Dr. Joseph Addae- Mensa, testified that DCA's review of an adopted plan amendment includes verification that the local government held the required advertised transmittal and adoption hearings. According to his testimony, this ordinarily is accomplished by a simple review to ascertain that the local government included the usual statement in its submission to DCA to the effect that the required advertised public hearings had been held. In this case, the Town's submission included such a statement, and DCA's review went no further. Town's Public Participation and Advertising Requirements Petitioner asserts that the Town's adoption of Resolution No. 58-87 on December 1, 1987, specified additional or more stringent public participation and notice procedures for the consideration and recommendation of comprehensive plans and amendments by the Town's LPA and for the adoption of such plans by the Town's governing body. However, Section 1 of the Resolution stated: The Town of Jupiter hereby adopts the following procedures [for the LPA and Town Council] to implement . . . [minimum] criteria as established by [DCA] . . . pending the enactment of permanent provisions by Ordinance, provided, however, that any failure by the Town to fully comply with the technical requirements hereof shall not be cause to invalidate the adoption of any Amendments to the Jupiter Comprehensive Plan which otherwise meet the requirements of law . . . . In addition, on March 3, 1998, the Town's new home-rule charter became effective. It provided in Article VI that "procedures for the adoption of ordinances and resolutions for the Town of Jupiter shall be as made and provided by the Florida Statutes, as may be hereafter amended and revised" and that the Town Council "may provide, by appropriate action, requirements for the adoption of ordinances and resolutions which are more stringent than those set forth in the Florida Statutes." There was no evidence of any subsequent "appropriate action" to establish procedures that are "more stringent . . . than those set forth in the Florida Statutes." Resolution 58-87 was neither repealed nor re-enacted after the effective date of the home-rule charter. However, it appears that the home-rule charter should be viewed as repealing or superseding Resolution 58-87. In any event, for purposes of this proceeding, as indicated, Resolution 58-87 did not add any compliance review criteria to the "requirements of law." Data and Analysis for the Conservation Element Petitioner attempted to challenge the text amendment to the Conservation Element of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The Amended Petition states: "The restrictions placed on the Loxahatchee River Buffer were hastily prepared, flawed, and dubious in value. It was submitted without valid data and analysis." It was determined at the hearing that Petitioner actually mistakenly was seeking to challenge either a subsequent FLUM amendment considered by the Town Council in July, 2003, or land development regulations that were considered by the Town Council in February, 2003. These are not the changes to the Conservation Element of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan adopted in Amendment 2002-02. The amendment at issue here merely changed a reference from the December 1985 version of the "Loxahatchee River National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan" to the June 2000 plan. Submitted with the Amendment was data and analysis in the form of a staff report describing the procedural process used to adopt the amendment to the Conservation Element, staff analysis, and a narrative explanation of why this essentially housekeeping item was needed. Petitioner presented no evidence at hearing that this minor change to the Conservation Element was submitted without adequate valid data and analysis. Data and Analysis for the Transportation Element Petitioner challenged the modification of Transportation Map Series figures 5, 6 and 7, and on the basis that they were supported by old data from 1999. DCA did not raise this as an objection in their ORC report. The Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") did raise the issue of old data as an objection in its comment letter to DCA dated October 21, 2002. After receipt of the comment letter, however, Town Staff contacted FDOT regarding the objection. Town Staff explained that the Town was completing a transportation study related to the Indiantown Road Corridor and indicated the Town's commitment to incorporating the data and analysis contained in the final transportation study into the Transportation Element in a subsequent round of comprehensive plan amendments. At the final hearing, David Kemp, Principle Long Range Planner for the Town, testified that the Transportation Map Series amendments were to reflect only the possible alignment of a future roadway, that the Town had utilized the most current data based on the interlocal agreement and the alignments shown in the interlocal agreement, and that the Town had resolved the FDOT's concerns regarding the data. Submitted with the Amendment was data and analysis in the form of a staff report describing the procedural process used to adopt the amendment to the Transportation Element and Map Series, staff analysis which responded to FDOT's objections, and a narrative explanation describing the changes and why they were needed. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Transportation Map Series amendment was not supported by data and analysis. Other Substantive Issues Other issues Petitioner may have raised in her challenge to the compliance determination in this case either were dropped or were unfounded, some having been mistakenly directed to Town action other than the Amendment at issue in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DCA enter a final order finding the Town's Amendment 2002-02 to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S __________________________________ 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 24th day of October, 2002.
Findings Of Fact During 1974, Beker Phosphate Corporation applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County for a development order approving proposed phosphate mine operations. Beker is seeking to engage in phosphate mining on over ten thousand acres of land located in Manatee County in the watersheds of the Manatee and Myakka Rivers. The TBRPC is the regional planning agency which reviews development of regional impact applications in Manatee County. On December 9, 1974, the TBRPC recommended that the proposed mine be approved with modifications. On January 28, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County issued a DRI Development Order. The order approved the application submitted by Beker subject to thirteen specified conditions which are set out in the order. A copy of this development order was received in evidence at the final hearing as a Appellant's Exhibit 3. Neither the Division of State Planning nor any appropriate regional planning agency appealed the development order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Sarasota County did attempt to appeal the order; however, on June 17, 1975, the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission accepted the Hearing Officer's recommended order and dismissed the appeal. This action was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal. Sarasota County v. Beker Phosphate Corporation, 322 So.2d 655 (1975). In its application for development order, Beker had proposed to construct two secondary dams prior to commencing mining activities. One of these was to be constructed on the East fork of the Manatee River, and one on Wingate Creek. The dams were located down stream from initial waste clay settling areas. One of the purposes of the secondary dams was to serve as a back up system in the event that there was a break in the primary dam. In approving the application, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County required that the secondary dams be constructed prior to the commencement of mining activities. The primary motivation of Manatee County in requiring construction of the secondary dams was not protection from leaks in the primary dam system, but rather a desire to plan for the County's long term water needs. The Board anticipates that a reservoir would eventually be constructed behind the secondary dams, and that these reservoirs would serve the long-term water needs of the people of Manatee County. Since the secondary dams were to be constructed in wetland areas, Beker needed to obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation in order to construct the dams. An application was submitted. On November 29, 1976, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the application. Beker subsequently petitioned for a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp). The request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. A final hearing was scheduled, but due to subsequent action taken by the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, and due to this proceeding, the hearing was postponed and the case has been held in abeyance since April 5, 1977. No formal hearing has been conducted with respect to the application to construct the secondary dams, and no final order has been issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. While the Department of Environmental Regulation matter was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings Mr. Louis Driggers, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, became concerned that the proceeding could have an adverse effect upon the county's long-range desire to construct a reservoir which would serve water supply needs. Mr. Driggers had a conference with Secretary Landers of the Department of Environmental Regulation, and learned that the agency's initial objections to the secondary dams were that the dams themselves would cause destruction of wetlands areas, and that since the primary dams were being constructed in accordance with Department of Environmental Regulation Rules and Regulations, there would be no need for the secondary dams. This opinion was set out in a letter from Mr. Landers to Mr. Driggers dated March 14, 1977 (Beker Exhibit 1). Mr. Driggers subsequently relayed this information to other members of the Board of County Commissioners, and on April 12, 1977, the Board adopted a resolution modifying a portion of the DRI development order which it had issued on January 28, 1975. The earlier order was specifically amended to delete the requirement that the secondary dams be constructed prior to the beginning of mining operations. The requirement that the secondary dams be constructed has not been altogether deleted; however, it is no longer a purpose of the dams to provide any secondary protection from a putative phosphate spill. The dams now have as their primary purpose long-range water supply and flood control. Manatee County is in effect now able to insist that Beker construct the dams at any time that the county so desires, assuming that all proper permits can be obtained. It is unlikely that the county will ever request that a secondary dam be constructed in Wingate Creek in the Myakka River watershed. The Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County did not submit the issues resolved in the April 12 order to the appropriate regional planning agency, and did not, through its order specifically consider all of the potential regional impacts of the order. The Commission concluded that the amendment did not constitute a substantial deviation from the original development order. Following entry of the order the SWFRPC filed this appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The SWFRPC, and Sarasota County contend that the April 12 amendment constitutes a substantial deviation from the original development order, and that the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County should have entered the order only after conducting all of the proceedings contemplated in Florida Statutes Chapter 380. Beker Phosphate, Manatee County, and the TBRPC contend that the April 12 order does not constitute a substantial deviation from the original development order. Testimony presented at the hearing related primarily to the secondary dam originally proposed for construction in Wingate Creek in the Myakka River watershed. An initial waste clay settling area with a capacity of 8,848 acre- feet is proposed for construction primarily within the Myakka River watershed adjacent to Wingate Creek. Phosphate slimes would be stored above ground and permitted to settle in this area. The proposed secondary dam would have been located approximately three miles downstream from the settling area. The secondary dam would have had a capacity of 260 acre-feet. The secondary dam would thus have the capacity to contain a limited spill from the primary settling area. The secondary dam would provide no protection from a complete destruction or break down of the dams surrounding the primary settling area, or of any spill from the primary area greater than 260 acre-feet. Such a spill would result in destruction of the secondary dam. Spills of less than 40 acre- feet of material from the primary settling area would have no substantial impact on areas below the secondary dam whether the dam was constructed or not. Spills of a volume between 40 acre-feet and 260 acre-feet could, without the construction of secondary dams, have an impact upon areas below the secondary dams. Turbidity caused by such a spill, and deleterious substances contained in the slime could result in substantial environmental impacts, including destruction of vegetation, and short-term and long-term fish kills at least as far down the system as upper Myakka Lake, which is located in Sarasota County. No evidence was presented to indicate that a spill of from 40 to 260 acre-feet from the primary settling area is likely or more than a mere hypothetical possibility. The only testimony respecting the likelihood of any spill was that if the dams surrounding the primary settling area were constructed in accordance with Department of Environmental Regulation Rules and Regulations, and were properly inspected, there is no likelihood of a breakdown in the dams or of a spill. Argument was presented at the hearing to the effect that phosphate slimes could escape the settling area, or other areas within the mining operation, but there was no evidence to that effect, and certainly no evidence that such leakages or minor spills would be as large as 40 acre-feet. Deletion of the requirement for construction of secondary dams prior to commencement of mining activities as set out in the January 28, 1975 development order, would constitute a substantial deviation from that order only if there were some likelihood of a breakdown in the dams surrounding the primary settling area, or of some leakage at some point in the mining operations that would result in a spill of from 40 to 260 acre-feet of material into the Myakka watershed. No evidence was offered that would serve to establish even the remotest likelihood of such an event. The evidence does, however, establish that construction of the secondary dam in Wingate Creek would have adverse environmental consequences. The construction would take place in a viable wetlands area. The natural flow of water through the Myakka watershed would be disturbed. Construction of the dam would appear to constitute a concession that more than 4 acres of valuable and viable flood plain along Wingate Creek would be given up for the sake of the phosphate mining operations. It is possible that without the dams the result of any spill could be confined to a smaller area than that surrounded by the secondary dams. Without the dams the normal flow of water through the system will not be disturbed, and areas below the primary settling area can remain in their natural condition.
The Issue Introduction. 21 The Parties. 21 General Description of Monroe County 22 The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan 24 The Original Comprehensive Plan. 24 The Remedial Comprehensive Plan. 25 Area of Critical State Concern Review 27 The Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. 27 Area of Critical State Concern Review of the Remedial Plan. 28 The DCA Proposed Rules 31 Challenges to the DCA Proposed Rules 33 The Administration Commission Proposed Rules . 34 Challenges to the Administration Commission Proposed Rules 36 The Final Order in the DCA and Administration Commission Proposed Rules Challenge Cases. 36 The Department's Review Pursuant to the Act. 38 Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes 38 The Department's Review. 39 Impact of the Area of Critical State Concern Review on the Department's Review Under the Act. 40 Challenge to the Remedial Plan Pursuant to the Act by the Intervenors 41 Carrying Capacity: The Cornerstone of Monroe County Remedial Plan. 42 Carrying Capacity as a Planning Tool 42 Monroe County's Carrying Capacity Analysis 44 The Settlement Agreement's Reference to a Carrying Capacity Analysis 45 Monroe County's Application of the Carrying Capacity Analysis. 46 Hurricane Evacuation Carrying Capacity 47 Environmental Carrying Capacity. 48 The Department's Review of Monroe County's General Acceptance of a Carrying Capacity Approach 49 Monroe County's Environment. 49 The Unique Environmental Character of the Florida Keys 49 General Habitat Types in the Florida Keys. 51 Upland Habitat Types 53 Wetland and Transitional Wetland Habitat Types. 55 Marine Habitat Types 59 The National Marine Sanctuary. 63 The Upper, Middle and Lower Keys 64 Areas of Critical County Concern 66 Ohio Key 67 Coupon Bight 67 Species of Special Concern 68 The Florida Key Deer 68 Marine Turtles 72 The Impacts of Development on the Environment of the Florida Keys. 72 A Brief History of Development in the Florida Keys 72 The Impact of Development on Water Quality and Marine Resources 73 The Impact of Development on Coral Reefs 79 The Impact of Development on Seagrasses. 80 The Impacts of Boating 80 The Impacts of Docks and Marinas 82 The Impacts of Development on Wetlands and Transitional Wetlands. 83 The Impact of Development on Mangroves 85 The Impact of Development on Beach Berm. 85 The Impact of Development on Hammocks. 86 The Impact of Development on Offshore Islands. 87 The Impact of Development on North Key Largo . 88 The Impact of Development on Ohio Key. 88 The Impact of Development on Key Deer and Big Pine Key 89 The Impact of Development on Coupon Bight. 92 The Impact of Development on Marine Turtles. 92 The Florida Keys' Environmental Carrying Capacity 92 Monroe County's Conclusion 92 The Carrying Capacity of the Nearshore Waters and Seagrasses. 94 The Carrying Capacity of the Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys. 98 The Carrying Capacity of Offshore Islands. 98 The Carrying Capacity of North Key Largo, Ohio Key and Coupon Bight. 99 The Carrying Capacity of the Key Deer and Big Pine Key 101 The Need to Maximize Measures to Protect Other Environmental Features of the Florida Keys Environment 103 Sewage Treatment Systems 104 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 104 The Department's Review Under the Act. 107 Intervenor Challenges. 108 Maintenance vs. Improvement. 109 Delay of the Adoption of the Master Plan 110 The Interim Levels of Service. 112 Cesspool Inspection Program. 117 Disturbed and Undisturbed Wetlands 117 Stormwater Treatment. 118 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 118 The Department's Review Under the Act. 119 Intervenor Challenges. 119 Delay of the Adoption of the Master Plan 120 Impact on Water Quality. 121 The Interim Levels of Service. 121 Marine Resources 121 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 121 The Department's Review Under the Plan 124 Intervenor Challenges. 125 Adequacy of Living Marine Resource Protections. 127 Moored/Anchored Vessels, Marinas and Docks. 128 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Impacting Moored/Anchored Vessels. 128 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Impacting Marines. 128 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Impacting Docks. 129 The Department's Review Under the Act. 131 Intervenor Challenges. 133 F Residential Docks. 135 G. Perpendicular Docks. 136 Canals 137 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 137 The Department's Review Under the Act. 138 Intervenor Challenges. 138 Wetlands. 139 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 139 The Department's Review Under the Act. 140 Intervenor Challenges. 140 Disturbed Wetlands 141 Setbacks 141 Provisions in the Remedial Plan. 141 The Department's Review Under the Plan 142 Intervenor Challenges. 143 The Justification for Setbacks 143 "No Net Loss" of Wetlands 145 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 145 The Department's Review Under the Act. 145 Intervenor Challenges. 146 On-Site Mitigation vs. Off-Site Mitigation 147 ACCC: Big Pine Key, North Key Largo and Ohio Key. 148 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 148 The Department's Review Under the Act. 151 Intervenor Challenges. 152 Big Pine Key; Protection of the Key Deer 154 North Key Largo. 155 Miscellaneous Environmental Provisions. 156 Freshwater Lenses. 156 Open Space Requirements for Hammocks 157 Public Access to Beaches 158 Public Expenditures in the Coastal Zone. 159 Natural Heritage and Park Program. 160 Protection of Upland Vegetation. 161 Clustering 161 Hurricane Evacuation Carrying Capacity. 162 Hurricanes 162 Preparation for Hurricanes 165 The Potential Impacts of Hurricanes on the Florida Keys 167 Evacuation and Refuges of Last Resort 169 Monroe County's Hurricane Evacuation Provisions 172 The Department's Review of Monroe County's Hurricane Evacuation Response in Objective 101.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175 Intervenor Challenges. 177 Alleged Worthlessness of Undeveloped Property and Impact on Taxes. 179 Hurricane Evacuation Clearance Time Calculations 180 The Reasonableness of the Estimated Clearance Time Calculations. 187 Sham Device and Reasonableness of Monroe County's Hurricane Evacuation Goals. 189 Hurricane Shelters 191 The Board of County Commissioner's Meeting of May 4, 1991 198 The Administration Commission's Policy 216.1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198 The Permit Allocation System 200 Monroe County's Decision to Employ a Permit Allocation System. 200 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Adopting the Permit Allocation System 203 Monroe County's Method of Allocating Allowable Growth Under the Permit Allocation System. 205 The Department's Review of the Permit Allocation System Under the Act. 210 The Department's Review of the Point System Under the Act. 210 Intervenor Challenges to the Permit Allocation System. 216 General Challenges to the Point System 216 Intervenor Challenges to Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.5. 217 The Number of Permits and Subareas 218 The General Challenges to the Permit Allocation System 219 General Challenges to Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.4. 222 Negative Points for Habitat, Habitat of Critical Concern and Species 222 Protected Species Habitat Map. 228 Coastal High Hazard Areas. 228 Platted Subdivisions 229 Affordable Housing 229 Transportation Levels of Service 229 Commercial Infill, and the Existence of Infrastructure 230 Points for TDRs. 230 Offshore Islands, Conservation Lands and Historic/Archaelogical Resources 232 Transferable Development Rights Program 233 The Current Transferable Development Rights Program. 233 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 233 The Department's Review Under the Act. 236 D Intervenor Challenges. 238 E. Sender vs. Receiver Sites. 239 Land Use Categories. 242 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 242 The Department's Review Under the Act. 243 Intervenor Challenges. 247 D. Policies 101.4.1 and 101.4.2 248 Maintenance of Community Character and Protection of Environmental Resources. 248 Residential Medium Land Use Category 249 Mixed Use/Commercial and Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing. 249 Disturbed Wetlands 251 Height Limitation. 251 The Future Land Use Map Series. 252 The Future Land Use Map Series Adopted by Monroe County 252 The Department's Review Under the Act. 252 Intervenor Challenges. 253 Are the Future Land Use Maps in Compliance With the Act 254 Vested Rights. 255 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 255 The Department's Review Under the Act. 256 Intervenor Challenges. 258 Definition of Vested Rights. 258 Limited Application of Land Development Regulations to Property with Vested Rights 259 Miscellaneous Provisions of the Remedial Plan 260 Non-Residential Development. 260 The Monroe County Land Authority 263 Transient Residential Unit Moratorium. 264 Nonconforming Uses 266 The Coastal High Hazard Area 268 The Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan 269 Siting Public Facilities 270 Intergovernmental Coordination 272 The County Geographic Information System 275 Public Expenditures for Services and Infrastructure 275 Affordable Housing 276 L. Goal 101 276 Roadway Improvements 277 Solid Waste Level of Service 278 Proposed Widening of U.S. Highway 1 on Big Pine Key 279 Public Participation 280 Capital Improvements 280 Monroe County's Commitment to Funding the Remedial Plan. 282 Monroe County's Determination of the Economic Impact Consequences of the Remedial Plan and Its Response Thereto 282 The Department's Review of Monroe County's Commitment to Funding the Remedial Plan. 284 Intervenor Challenges. 286 Monroe County's Lack of Commitment to Funding the Remedial Plan. 286 The Justification for Funding Assistance 287 Policy 1, as Modified by the Department and Policy 4 as Adopted by the Administration Commission are in Compliance with the Act. 288 Compliance with the State and Regional Plans. 291 The State Comprehensive Plan 291 The South Florida Regional Planning Council Policy Plan. 292 Constitutional Taking. 293
Conclusions For Petitioner, the Department of Community Affairs: Stephanie M. Gehres Assistant General Counsel David J. Russ Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, Florida 33050 For Respondent, Monroe County: Robert C. Apgar, Esquire David A. Theriaque, Esquire Apgar, Pelham, Pfeiffer & Theriaque 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Intervenor, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc.: Richard Grosso, Legal Director 1000 Friends of Florida Civil Law Clinic Shepard Broad Law Center NOVA Southeastern University 3305 College Aveneue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33314 For Intervenors, Henry Lee Morgenstern and Florida Wildlife Federation: David J. White, Esquire National Wildlife Federation 1401 Peachtree Street, Northeast Suite 240 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 For Intervenor, Friends of the Everglades, Inc.: Nancy Carroll Brown, President Friends of the Everglades, Inc. 9220 Southwest 166th Street Miami, Florida 33157 For Intervenor, Upper Keys Citizens Association: Dagny Johnson, President Upper Keys Citizens Association, Inc. 95,600 Overseas Highway Key Largo, Florida 33037 For Intervenors, George N. Kundtz and Florida Keys Citizens Coalition: Gregg Goldfarb, Esquire 19 West Flagler Street, Suite 707 Miami, Florida 33130 For Intervenor, The Wilderness Society: Debra S. Harrison Florida Keys Coordinator The Wilderness Society 8065 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 For Intervenors, George DeCarion, et al.: James S. Mattson, Esquire Andrew M. Tobin, Esquire MATTSON & TOBIN Post Office Box 586 Key Largo, Florida 33037 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The issue in these cases is whether the remedial Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is "in compliance", as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, consistent with this Recommended Order. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 19th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX A Case Numbers 91-1932GM and 93-3371GM The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, or the proposed findings of fact of the parties, except 1000 Friends of Florida, George N. Kundtz and the Florida Keys Citizens' Coalition and the Upper Keys' Citizens' Association, have been accepted or rejected in this Appendix A. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 1, 9-10, 24, 26, 31-34, 43, 60, 67, 73, 75, 78, 87-88, 91, 97-100, 102-103, 107, 160, 192, 224, 231, 237, 248, 256, 282, 288, 294, 300-303, 313, 316, 331, 338, 340, 355, 376 Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 2 Not a finding of fact. 108 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Monroe County's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 3, Footnote 4, 42, 55, 93-94, 115, 125-127, 130, 173, 178, and 181. Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 10 The third sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 13 The second sentence to the next to last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence and the rest of the proposed finding is not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. "DCA" did not amend Policy 1. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and there has been no challenge to the rules that address Policy 1. 48 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and there has been no challenge to the rules that address Policy 1. 58 The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 133 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 138 The first two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 146 The last three sentences are not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally true, the proposed finding ignores the fact that the evidence failed to prove that the lack of action by the Service is because the key deer have not reached their carrying capacity, which is the issue in these proceedings. The first two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not relevant. 157-159 Although generally correct summaries of some testimony, these proposed findings are not relevant. 160-163 These proposed findings are generally accepted. They do not, however, justify failing to recognize that the carrying capacity of the key deer has been exceeded. Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 170 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 189 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 191 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 193 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 195 The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 202 The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 203 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 204 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 205 Not relevant. 205 Not relevant. DeCarion's Proposed Findings of Fact Findings of fact after number 53 have not been numbered in DeCarion's proposed order. They are referred to in this Appendix by the titles of the portion of the proposed order under which they appear. Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 1, 25-29, 32, 35-38 Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 1 No evidence to support this proposed finding was presented. Standing was, however, stipulated to. 7-16 Although generally correct, the conclusions reached in these proposed findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 19 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 24 The first sentence is not relevant. 43-44 While these proposed findings are an accurate reflection of some of the testimony in these proceedings, the conclusions suggested by DeCarion are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 46-48 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 49-50 Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The third sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. "Five-Year Moratorium on Hotel-Motel Construction": The second paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. "Marina Expansion Restrictions": The second paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Wilderness Society's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 1, 7, 10, 12, 29, 34, 71-72, 81, 87, 138, 141 Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 3-6 Not relevant. 73-75 Not relevant. 88-89 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 102-103 Not relevant. Not relevant. The first paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 117-130 Not relevant. 147-248 Not relevant. 154 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 159-161 Not relevant. APPENDIX B ORIGINAL AND REMEDIAL PLAN CHALLENGE CASES: CASE NUMBERS 91-1932GM AND 93-3371GM TABLE OF CONTENTS APPEARANCES. 3
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Gilchrist County comprehensive plan and subsequent remedial amendments are "in compliance" pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact PARTIES Intervenors Craig Hennis, Jim Moore, and Jean Wonser own property in Gilchrist County, Florida, which is located in or near the area known as the Waccasassa Flats. Hennis, Moore, and Wonser submitted oral and written comments during the review and adoption proceedings. Hennis, Moore, and Wonser are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Gilchrist County Gilchrist County is a local government required to adopt a comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes The County is situated in North Central Florida. The County is bordered on the east by Alachua County; on the south by Levy County; on the west by Dixie and Lafayette Counties; and on the north by Suwannee and Columbia Counties. The County seat is the incorporated City of Trenton. The County contains many areas of natural resources including the Santa Fe River in the north, the Suwannee River in the west, numerous fresh water springs, and the Waccasassa Flats. Department The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing local government comprehensive plans pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Waccasassa Flats The Intervenors' challenge concerns the level of protection afforded the Waccasassa Flats (Flats). The Flats are approximately 56,000 acres in size in Gilchrist County and act as the source of the Waccasassa River, whose headwaters are located in Levy County. The Flats extend from northern Gilchrist County through Levy County to the Gulf of Mexico. The Flats are situated on a high limestone formation between two sand ridges. The Flats are a mosaic of uplands, wetlands, and sandhills composed primarily of commercial pine plantations, hardwood swamps, isolated strands of cypress domes, and shrubs and brush. Approximately 31,000 acres are forested uplands and forested flatwoods; 24,000 acres, forested wetlands and non-forested wetlands; and 1,000 acres, non- forested uplands. The water table in the Flats is generally near or above the surface, and is linked to a surficial aquifer, not the Floridan Aquifer, which is much deeper. The Flats act as a low to moderate water recharge area by collecting water, then slowly releasing it to surrounding areas. The Flats are not unlike many parts of North Central Florida, including northern Columbia County, eastern Alachua County, parts of Baker and Levy Counties, Nassau County, Lafayette County, eastern Hamilton County, western Madison County, Taylor County, and Dixie County. Within Gilchrist County, the Flats are privately owned and historically have been logged in large part by commercial silviculture companies. This activity continues today. A network of logging roads and fire lines have been cut through the Flats. Silviculture activities such as the clearcutting of large tracts of timber, replanting with non-native species of pine, and creating a monoculture pine forest, have degraded the ecosystem, fragmented wildlife habitat, and negatively impacted some species of wildlife and native vegetative communities in the Flats. For example, throughout most of the Flats native longleaf pine communities no longer exist. Many of the native hardwood hammocks have been cut to increase the land available for pine planting and harvesting. In addition, native cypress trees have been cut. While the Flats still function as a natural system, they are not a pristine system because of these past and current silviculture activities. The Division of Forestry in the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services recommended that 56,050 acres of the Flats be acquired by the State of Florida through the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program. The Flats have been on the CARL acquisition list since 1988: they were ranked ninth on the list in 1988 and thirty-third in 1993. WACCASASSA FLATS/DENSITY Intervenors assert that the Plan fails to adequately preserve and restore the natural resources associated with the Flats. Specifically, Intervenors claim that a density of one dwelling unit per 160 acres in the area designated Silviculture/Agriculture (S/A) on the County's FLUM does not preserve wildlife, wildlife habitat, native vegetative communities, and groundwater quality, nor restore wetlands in the Flats. Policy I.2.2 of the Plan establishes the densities in the S/A land use category at no more than one dwelling unit per 160 acres and no more than one development unit per 80 acres. The policy defines development units as: [] structures commonly associated with row crops, pasture, hunting or silviculture activities such as barns, outbuildings and sheds, vehicle storage, small mill operations, and small office structures. . . The density established under Policy I.2.2 is a low density. By requiring at least 160 acres before one residence can be built, development in the S/A category is discouraged and directed to other areas of the County where higher densities are permitted. The following uses and activities are established by Policy I.2.2 for lands classified as S/A: Lands classified in Silviculture/Agriculture shall be lands which are predominantly used for silviculture activities conducted in accordance with Policy V.2.16, limited agricultural uses as described below, dwelling units, development units, archery ranges, rifle, shotgun and pistol ranges, and hunting and fishing camps and uses customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to such uses. Policy I.2.2 describes the limited agricultural activities permitted in the S/A land use classification: Within the Silviculture/Agriculture land use classification, intensive agriculture uses shall be prohibited. Grazing of livestock on pasture lands shall be allowed and row crops planted on a rotational basis between the harvesting of timber and planting of trees as part of silviculture activities shall also be allowed. Row crop activity shall be limited to areas containing soils within hydrological Groups A and B as identified in Soil Survey of the County (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, September 1992) and shall maintain a 50-foot natural buffer around all wetlands. The Plan conserves and protects wetlands. In addition to restricting row crops to drier soils and requiring buffers between row crops and all wetlands (as described above), Policy I.2.2 provides: [] ditching or any other activity which would modify the natural hydrology and environmental character of Silviculture/Agriculture areas shall be prohibited, provided however, that trench irrigation shall be allowed in areas containing soils within hydrological Groups A and B as identified in Soil Survey of the County (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, September 1992) for row crops within Silviculture/Agriculture areas so long as such trench irrigation practices do not result in the conversion of wetlands to uplands. To further protect wetlands, Policy V.2.4 requires a 35-foot natural buffer around all wetlands, within which agricultural and residential uses are prohibited. Additionally, Policy V.2.8 prohibits development which alters the natural functions of wetlands where all structures can be clustered on the non- wetland portion of the site. Where that option does not exist, Policy V.2.8 permits only minimal residential development activity and establishes other limitations on development, including the requirement that walking paths and driveways to residences use permeable fill and allow the uninterrupted flow of water. Wetlands are also protected by Policy V.2.16, which requires silviculture activities to follow the best management practices established in the 1993 Florida Department of Agriculture's "Silviculture Best Management Practices." These identified policies in the Plan conserve and protect wetlands in the Flats. Intervenors assert that development at the rate of one dwelling unit per 160 acres will "fragment" wildlife habitat in the Flats and thereby negatively affect wildlife associated with the Flats. The Flats is not a particularly significant habitat for threatened or endangered species, species of special concern, or rare species. The best available existing data shows that the habitat in the Flats is not used by many, if any, of these types of species. Development at the low density allowed in the S/A land use classification will not adversely impact either the habitat or the wildlife which might use that habitat. Some species may be positively impacted by the limited development activities allowed in the Flats under the Plan. While wading birds at times forage for food in the Flats, development at the low density allowed in the S/A land use category, with the various wetlands protection policies in the Plan, will not adversely affect utilization of the Flats by these bird populations. An individual animal may be negatively impacted by limited development of one dwelling unit per 160 acres, but the wildlife population as a whole will suffer no adverse impacts. Moreover, development at this density could cause less severe fragmentation and fewer negative impacts than are caused by current silviculture practices which have been utilized in the Flats for decades. Policy V.2.8, relating to residential development in wetlands, limits clearing or removal of native vegetation and provides some protection to the Flats. Such clearing or removal may not exceed more than one-half acre per five acres. Requirements of Policy V.3.4 that the County cooperate with other governmental entities, research and interest groups to conserve and protect unique vegetative communities within the County, affords protection to wildlife, wildlife habitat, and native vegetative communities. Also, Policies V.3.4, V.4.1, and V.4.2 require the County to cooperate with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in monitoring and inventorying wildlife and wildlife habitats, including cooperating in the application, and compliance with, all federal and state regulations pertaining to endangered and rare species. Policy V.4.3 also requires consultation with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission prior to the issuance of a development order where there is an indication that such issuance would result in an adverse impact to any endangered or rare species. The low density permitted in the Flats, in conjunction with wetlands protection and other identified policies in the Plan, will conserve and protect wildlife, wildlife habitat, and existing native vegetative communities, and maintain the overall integrity of the natural resources in the Flats. Intervenors assert that placement of septic tanks within the Flats have the potential to contaminate the underlying groundwater. Contamination from a septic tank from a residential development at a rate of one dwelling unit per 160 acres will have no significant impact on groundwater quality. Scientific studies show that any adverse impact of effluent from a septic tank system, or even a malfunctioning septic tank, is dissipated within 50 feet. As a result, the placement of septic tanks in the Flats at the designated density required by the Plan will not adversely impact the groundwater quality. In addition to the Plan's protection of groundwater quality as a result of the maximum density in the S/A land use classification of one dwelling unit per 160 acres and one development unit per 80 acres, protection also results from the previously-identified policies relating to wetlands protection. A comprehensive approach to conserving and protecting the natural resources associated with the Flats has been established by the County through all the above-referenced policies. The Plan relies on the low density established for the S/A land use classification, as well as various planning controls. These controls limit the type and extent of uses allowed in the S/A land use classification and protect wetlands, and require cooperation with other governmental entities to ensure the conservation and protection of wildlife, wildlife habitat, native vegetative communities, and groundwater quality in the Flats. BOUNDARY DESIGNATIONS FOR SILVICULTURE/AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURE-5 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS Intervenors assert that the County's designation of the S/A and Agriculture-5 (Ag-5) land use classifications are inappropriate and do not follow the boundaries of the Flats. Although the Flats are approximately 56,000 acres in Gilchrist County, there is no definitive boundary for the Flats. Prior to the 1991 adoption of the County's comprehensive plan, the Flats were zoned Preservation-1 (P-1). The lands zoned P-1 prior to 1991 now are classified by the Plan as S/A. The size of the S/A category is slightly larger than the P-1 zone. The subject of boundaries of the Flats was addressed in Gilchrist Timber Company v. Gilchrist County, Florida, Case No. 88-156-CA (Eighth Judicial Circuit, August 21, 1989). In that case, the circuit court determined that the County did a "commendable and legally defensible task in following section lines, quarter section lines and existing uses in setting the boundaries [of the P-1 zoning category]. These lines must be somewhere and those made in this case are quite reasonable." Much of the land surrounding the Flats was zoned General Flood Plain-1 (GFP-1) or General Flood Plain-2 (GFP-2) prior to the 1991 Plan adoption; the vast majority of that land now is classified by the Plan as Ag-5. In determining the boundaries of the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications for the FLUM in the adopted Plan, the County reviewed its zoning map, conducted site visits, and utilized updated maps and information prepared by state, federal, and regional agencies. These maps included the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map (1988); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Reconnaissance Survey (1981); the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service's Soil Associations map (1991); and the Florida Sinkhole Research Institute's Potential for Groundwater Pollution of the Floridan Aquifer (1988). This information was the best available data and analysis which existed at the time the Plan and remedial amendments were adopted. These maps depict the boundary of the resources within the Flats, but cannot be used to definitely establish the boundaries of the Flats. Policy I.2.2 establishes the density for the Ag-5 land use classification as one dwelling unit per 40 acres. This is a low density which discourages development in the Ag-5 category, and directs development to other areas of the County which have higher densities. The density in this land use classification thereby serves to limit negative impacts from development to surrounding areas, including the Flats. As a buffer between the Flats and surrounding agriculture lands, the Ag-5 areas protect natural resources in the Flats from the potential adverse impacts of agricultural activities and higher densities and intensities of development permitted outside the Flats. Buffering in this way is a professionally-accepted planning tool for protecting natural resources. The natural resources associated with the Flats will receive adequate protection through the Plan policies referenced earlier, regardless of whether they fall within the S/A or Ag-5 land use classification. The data and analysis used by the County to delineate the boundaries of the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications was the best available existing data, was relevant and appropriate. The Plan's classification of certain lands as S/A and Ag-5 was reasonable and based on sound planning principles. NEEDS ASSESSMENT Intervenors allege that the future population projections in the Plan do not demonstrate a need for additional density in the Flats in order to meet the future residential needs of Gilchrist County. Pursuant to Plan Policy I.2.2, a density of one dwelling unit per 160 acres in the S/A land use category would allow a maximum of 232 dwelling units to be built in the Flats. Under Plan Policy I.2.2, the current density allowed in Ag-5 is one dwelling unit per 40 acres. A comparison of the adopted FLUM with the prior zoning map reveals that over 5,000 acres are designated Ag-5 which were formerly zoned GFP-2 prior to the Plan's adoption. Under the old GFP-2 zoning category, a maximum of 5,000 dwelling units could have been built. Under the current Ag-5 land use classification, no more than 160 dwelling units could be built. Through the Plan's adoption, the densities established for the combined S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications result in an overall reduction in density allowed in the Flats and surrounding areas. Moreover, the densities permitted in these areas do not result in adverse impacts to natural resources in the Flats. The County's designation of densities in the S/A and Ag-5 land use classifications is reasonable and appropriate and based on data and analysis in the Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order finding the Gilchrist County Comprehensive Plan as subsequently amended to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 23rd day of May, 1995.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the comprehensive plan adopted by Escambia County is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact PARTIES DCA is the state land planning agency charged under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, with the review of comprehensive plans and plan amendments under Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (the Act). Final agency action with regard to plans and plan amendments found not in compliance by DCA is taken by the Governor and Cabinet, acting as the Administration Commission, in accordance with Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes. Respondent, Escambia County, is a local government required to adopt a Comprehensive Plan under the Act. The following intervenors filed petitions challenging portions of the plan: League of Women Voters of the Pensacola Bay Area, Inc.; Dorothy Kaser; Joseph Grizzaffi, Jr.; Anneice Grizzaffi; Francis M. Weston Audubon Society; Gabrielle Faddis; James Lane; Jacqueline Lane; and Vivian Faircloth. The following intervenors filed petitions in support of the plan: Homebuilder's Association of West Florida, Inc., Michael Blanton and Escambia Construction, Inc.; Highland Development Group, Inc.; Edwin Henry and Henry and Co., Inc.; and E.J. Gibbs. Prior to commencement of the hearing Highland Development Group, Inc. withdrew its petition to intervene. As a result of stipulation of the parties, no objection is raised to the participation of the remaining parties who are intervenors on behalf of Respondent. STANDING OF THE PARTIES In order to intervene in this proceeding, the requirements of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, must be met. First, the intervenor must be an "affected person" as defined by that section. Second, the intervenor must have submitted oral or written objection during the local government "review and adoption proceedings." The local government "review and adoption" period is the period of time which runs from the issuance of DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (the ORC Report) and the adoption of the plan. In the instant case this period of time commenced on August 10, 1990, the date of the ORC Report, and ended on October 8, 1990, the date of the plan's adoption. The League of Women Voters of the Pensacola Bay Area, Inc. (the League), is a local chapter of the League of Women Voters. Gloria Dawson, former president for the League, spoke on behalf of the League before the Board of County Commissioners September 17 and 24, 1990, and expressed concerns and opinions regarding the County's proposed plan. Between August 10, 1990, and October 8, 1990, the League also provided written comments to the County concerning the plan. Many members of the League, including Gloria Dawson, Vivian Faircloth, Muriel Wagner, Dorothy Faddis, are residents of Escambia County; several members reside in the unincorporated area of the County. Dorothy Kaser resides and owns property in Escambia County. She was a member of the Planning Board, the County's local planning agency pursuant to Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes, from 1988 to December 1990. Through her duties as a Planning Board member Ms. Kaser provided written and oral comments to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the comprehensive plan. Her comments were stated at Planning Board meetings during the local government review period, and were incorporated in the final Planning Board recommendation which was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval and adoption. Joseph Grizzaffi, Jr., and Anneice Grizzaffi are married and reside and own property in Escambia County. During the local government review period the Grizzaffis spoke on August 23,1990 to the Board of County Commissioners, impaneled as the Zoning Board, concerning mixed use categories, leapfrog development, and strip commercial development. The Grizzaffis made these comments in opposition to a rezoning request, but also as part of the larger planning scheme involving the comprehensive plan. The Grizzaffis were under the impression given by the Public Participation Procedures and the conduct of one of the commissioners at the August 23 meeting that comments concerning the plan could be directed to either the Board of County Commissioners or the Zoning Board. The Frances M. Weston Audubon Society is a local chapter of the National Audubon Society (Audubon). Gabriel Faddis spoke about issues concerning the comprehensive plan on behalf of Audubon before the Board of County Commissioners on August 31 and September 24, 1990. Ms. Faddis represented Audubon at these meetings at the request of the Chapter's president. James and Jacqueline Lane reside and own property in Escambia County. During the local government review process, neither of the Lanes provided the County any oral or written comments concerning the plan. Although the Lanes attended the adoption hearing, neither of them offered any comments because they felt it was "pointless." In their opinion, the period of time between the ORC Report and plan adoption was dedicated by the County to entertaining land use changes as opposed to constructive criticism or comments from the public. Vivian Faircloth is a resident of Escambia County and an officer of the State League of Women Voters. Ms. Faircloth commented on the plan to the Board of County Commissioners on September 24, 1990. At that time she made it clear that she was speaking on behalf of herself, not the League, which was officially represented at the same meeting by Gloria Dawson. DCA was not requested by the County to attend the plan adoption public hearings which were conducted on October 5 and 8, 1990. COUNTY BACKGROUND The most western county in the Florida Panhandle, Escambia County is bordered on the east by the Escambia River, on the west by the Perdido River, on the north by the State of Alabama, and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. It is comprised of approximately 430,661 acres. According to the plan's data and analysis, the population for the unincorporated portion of the County is estimated and projected as follows: 1990 232,271 1995 249,623 2000 263,150 There are only two incorporated municipalities within the County: Pensacola and Century. These municipalities have drafted and adopted their own plans. The City of Pensacola is an urban area in the southeast portion of the County with a population of approximately 62,036 persons; Century is a rural community in the northern portion of the County with a population of 2,664 persons. Approximately 95 percent of the County's population resides in the area of the County which extends from Pensacola to the middle of the County. Escambia County has an abundance of valuable water resources including Pensacola Bay, Perdido Bay, Escambia Bay, Escambia River, Perdido River, Bayou Chico, and Bayou Texar. The County's surface water resources can be divided into four drainage basins: the Escambia River Basin, Pensacola Bay Basin, Perdido Bay Basin, and Perdido River Basin. The County also has significant wetland areas, particularly along the rivers, in the Southwest portion of the County and in the coastal areas. In 1984 the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission, designated the lower portions of Escambia and Santa Rosa counties a resource planning area pursuant to Section 380.045, Florida Statutes. This designation arose from concern about development damaging coastal dunes and wetland areas. The purpose of this designation was not to stop growth in this area, but to evaluate the ability of the local governments to protect the environment through comprehensive planning and land development regulations. The evaluation was conducted by the Escambia-Santa Rosa Counties Coastal Resource Management Planning Committee, which produced a report containing numerous recommendations that were approved by the Governor and Cabinet. In his November 24, 1984 charging letter to the committee, Governor Graham specifically asked it to evaluate the adequacy of resource protection, particularly for coastal dunes, wetland areas, and the estuarine resources of the various bay systems in the study area. Historically the County has been reluctant to plan development. To date not all of the unincorporated areas of the County are subject to zoning regulations. The County did not have any zoning in the unincorporated area of the County until adoption of its Zoning Ordinance in 1989, which zoned the southern part of the County from what is known as Ten-Mile Road south to the coastal edge of the County. The County presently has two zoning ordinances of limited scope which were adopted only after intervention from the State. One of the zoning ordinances applies to the limited area surrounding the University of West Florida, a state-funded university. The University of West Florida zoning ordinance was adopted at the insistence of the State, which did not wish to invest in an unplanned area, prior to the construction of the university. The Urban Land Use Regulation Ordinance, which applies to the area south of Ten Mile Road, was adopted at the request of the Escambia-Santa Rosa Counties Resource Protection Management Committee as a first step towards planning future development. HISTORY OF THE PLAN The County contracted with the West Florida Regional Planning Council (RPC) to draft proposed goals, objectives and policies; compile support data and analysis; and provide technical assistance in the preparation of the plan. The RPC also drafted a Future Land Use Map after the ORC Report was issued. This map was not adopted by the County. The key person involved with the preparation of the plan was Robert Koncar, Assistant County Administrator. Although the County has a planning staff housed in the Department of Planning and Zoning, the County's planners were not involved in the preparation of the plan. Koncar personally revised the goals, objectives, policies and the Future Land Use Map Series which had been developed by the RPC. The County's land development regulations were due to be adopted by May 1, 1991. Those regulations were not adopted on schedule, nor was the Concurrency Management System which the County affirmatively committed to adopt in Capital Improvements Policy 1.3.7 of the plan by May 1, 1991. The proposed plan was received by DCA on May 1, 1990. DCA issued its ORC Report on August 10, 1990. The County held public hearings on the adoption of its plan on October 5 and October 8, 1990. During the course of these public hearings the County considered numerous applications for land use changes. These changes applied to designations on the Future Land Use Map series. The application forms for land use changes simply requested information as to the location of the property and desired use. No explanation or data and analysis was required of an applicant to justify a land use change. No data and analysis was submitted by the County to DCA to support these land use changes. The proposed plan originally did not include planning for Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach. The proposed Santa Rosa Future Land Use Sub-element (Santa Rosa Sub-element) was submitted to DCA after submittal of the proposed plan. The Sub-element was prepared later by a different consultant, the Strategic Planning Group, following DCA's objection to Santa Rosa's exclusion from the plan. DCA reviewed the proposed Santa Rosa Sub-element and its data and analysis later and issued a separate ORC Report based on it. On October 8, 1990, the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 90-18 which by reference adopted the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map or Map Series. On November 30, 1990, DCA issued its Statement of Intent to find the plan to be not in compliance. In 1991 the legislature adopted Chapter 91-310, Laws of Florida, which altered the boundary line between Escambia County and Santa Rosa County so that Navarre Beach is now in Santa Rosa County. SANTA ROSA ISLAND AUTHORITY One of the unusual physical features of Escambia County is Santa Rosa Island, a coastal barrier which stretches from the eastern half of the County to Walton County. The County acquired 20 miles of the western-most portion of the Island by deed from the federal government in 1946 to be used in the public interest subject to regulation by the County, whether leased or not. A substantial part of the Island was given back to the federal government to be used as part of the National Seashore. The deed specifically prohibits the County from selling any part of the Island. The remainder of the County's portion of the Island was either placed under the control of the Santa Rosa Island Authority (SRIA) or leased to Santa Rosa County. The SRIA was established by special act in the 1950's to administer the County's portion of the islands. The SRIA is governed by a board consisting of one member selected by each of the five County Commissioners and one member elected by residents on the Island. The Authority has an executive director and permanent staff of approximately 60 employees. Beginning in the 1950's, the SRIA disposed of the property under its control by entering into standard 99-year leases with automatic 99-year renewals. These leases are for commercial and residential properties and generally authorize the construction of development on the parcels up to a certain intensity of use or density. More current commercial leases for other than hotel purposes are generally for shorter periods than 99-year terms. The leases are not subject to a bidding process or other competitive public process. They are negotiated with private individuals on a case-by-case basis. The rent provided for in the lease has no relationship to the market value of the property. The term of the leases has no relationship to the need to amortize an investment. Very few of the parcels subject to leases for multiple-family use on Pensacola Beach have been built to the maximum density provided for in the lease; yet, most of those uses are earning a profit. The data and analysis, and goals objectives and policies, relating to Santa Rosa Island were done under the assumption that the outstanding leases are enforceable over the police powers of the County. The portions of the plan relating to Santa Rosa Island were designed to take those leases into account. If a "carrying capacity" analysis of the island had been done, a completely different result would have been recommended by the consultant. No effort has been made by the County or the SRIA to challenge the validity of the leases or to enter into a program to minimize the number or term of the leases. In fact leases are still being executed by the SRIA with no information about how the rent relates to the fair market value of the property. In 1985 the County issued a series of revenue bonds to pay for improvements on Pensacola Beach. The revenues which were pledged for repayment included anticipated lease payments from new lessees. The number of units actually built since 1985 has been a mere fraction of the ones anticipated in the bond documents. Yet the debt service on the bonds has been kept current, and existing revenues will be sufficient to maintain those payments into the foreseeable future. The SRIA generates no funds for Escambia County government, and the leases are not subject to ad valorem taxation. EFFICIENCY OF LAND USE AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP As early as its 1980 Comprehensive Plan (1980 Plan), the County acknowledged predominant land development patterns in the unincorporated area characteristic of two types of sprawl: The random development pattern and the corridor pattern. These development patterns resulted from past policies of minimum planning, lack of development coordination and absence of land use or zoning controls in the County except for the areas around the University of West Florida. That area, under the University of West Florida Land Use Regulations, exhibited orderly growth in contrast to other parts of the County. The corridor pattern of growth along the major transportation routes had become an increasing trend in Escambia County in the 1980's as the urbanized area spread outward to the north and west. Even though these patterns of development were criticized in the 1980 Plan, they are still characteristic of the types of development which currently exist in the County and are encouraged by the land use designations on the Future Land Use Map. The 1980 plan noted that the random development, or leapfrog pattern, was characterized by low density residential clusters in the urbanized areas of the County surrounding the City of Pensacola with scattered intermittent commercial and mixed uses along the major transportation routes radiating out from the urban areas. The random or leapfrog growth pattern, characterized by intermittent, developed clusters and undeveloped open spaces, produces low tax revenue per acre of land, a very high cost of providing services and facilities to the scattered clusters, and little incentive for fill-in development in the vacant areas. Generally speaking, single-family residential property does not generate sufficient ad valorem tax revenue to pay the costs of providing public services to the property, especially when sprawling patterns make those services more expensive to provide. Sprawling development patterns impose additional costs, such as increased utility costs and lower levels of service on roads, some of which may be offset by reduced land costs. However, accommodating such patterns through the provision of public services like law enforcement, emergency response, water and sewer, and public schools, also tends to result in the subsidization of inefficient development patterns by residents who live or do business in areas characterized by a mixture of functionally related uses. These costs are of increasing significance to County governments in rapidly growing areas like Florida because residents of unincorporated areas are increasingly demanding a level of public services that used to be enjoyed only by residents of incorporated municipalities. Requirements that a plan be based on data and analysis, protect natural resources, maximize use of efficient infrastructure, and be financially feasible, are related in the sense that a plan which discourages sprawl is more likely to accomplish these planning objectives as well. The term "urban sprawl" as it appears in Chapter 9J-5 is used to describe certain kinds of growth or development patterns. It refers to scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas, and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low- density, single-dimensional development. Leapfrog development occurs when new development is sited away from an existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels located in or closer to the urban area that are suitable for development. It typically results in scattered, discontinuous growth patterns in rural areas which are frequently not appropriate for urban development. Leapfrog development may occur due to the lower cost of land outside the urban area compared to the cost of developable land in the urban area. This can occur when plans fail to address the timing of development in addition to its location. Leapfrog development commonly occurs in areas where infrastructure and services do not already exist to serve it; thus, it requires additional utility extensions and involves higher public capital costs if complete urban services are to be provided at the time of development. If complete urban services, such as connection to central water and sewer systems, are not required, leapfrog development may still present an increased risk to water supplies and sensitive environmental areas. Leapfrog development is not usually mixed-use, multi-dimensional development. Consequently, it works against the creation of vibrant communities, creates much greater dependence on automobile transportation, and results in an inefficient use of land resources. Strip or ribbon development involves the location of high amounts of commercial, retail, office and often multi-family residential development in a linear pattern along both sides of major arterial roadways. Strip development is generally dependent on direct access to the arterial roadway and typically reduces the efficiency of the roadway for moving through traffic due to the high number of curb and median cuts and access points which must be permitted. Strip development frequently overburdens arterial roadways with local trips since local road networks remain poorly developed or nonexistent. Unsightly strip development can extend for miles along arterials into rural, previously undeveloped areas, and sometimes encroach on environmentally sensitive lands or important natural resource areas. Large land areas behind and between strip developments are commonly left undeveloped. Low-density, single-dimensional development consists of single land uses, typically low-density residential, spread over large land areas. Frequently, the land is in rural, forestry, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive areas that may require protection from urban development. This land-intensive development pattern, stemming from uncontrolled, poorly planned, and premature development, tends to place an undue burden on external infrastructure and major transportation connectors by not providing a complementary mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and institutional uses. Sprawling single-use development hinders the evolution of vibrant communities, reinforces dependence upon personal automobile use, generates higher public costs for facilities and services, promotes an inefficient use of developable land, and frequently destroys significant environmental and natural resources. Allowing low-density development on large expanses of land also frequently precludes development or redevelopment at the higher densities that become appropriate as the urban or urbanizing area grows. The resulting growth pattern encourages leapfrog development. If redevelopment of these low-density areas to higher intensities does occur, the costs to expand public facilities and services will commonly be substantially higher than would have been incurred to provide the infrastructure capacities that would have been appropriate initially. Plans which fail to discourage urban sprawl often over-allocate land uses, especially residential uses, and designate areas for development which are not suitable, such as wetlands, floodplains, poorly drained soils and aquifer recharged areas. An unregulated land development environment is usually unsuccessful in bringing about truly efficient land development patterns because such a market does not force a developer or land consumer to pay the true, full economic costs of land development. Hidden subsidies may arise from a failure to impose marginal cost pricing of utilities, failure to establish special taxing units to reflect actual costs of parties' utilities, and failure to assign costs to destruction of natural resources like wetlands and aquifer recharge areas. Sprawling development patterns also adversely impact agricultural operations in that such patterns may cause land use conflicts by encouraging farmers to abandon reinvestment in their farm operations and begin looking to sell their land. The Escambia County plan greatly over-allocates residential land uses. This over-allocation is not based on data and analysis. Generally, the number of developable acres designated for use over the 10 year planning period should be only slightly larger (25 percent) than the number of acres needed for that particular land use. Using the County's own assumption regarding densities, approximately 18,841 acres will be required to meet residential needs, excepting agricultural and agricultural/timber categories. The plan allocates total acreage of 122,980, or more than five times the land supply needed for this purpose. The plan allocates 8,881 acres for commercial and industrial purposes in the face of assumed need for only 4,294 acres, more than twice the projected need. The Escambia County Comprehensive Plan actually encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl in the land use patterns set out on its Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Similarly, the plan is not based on data and analysis regarding land use allocations and, by encouraging scattered residential development, poses a threat to the continued viability of agriculture in the County. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 3.1.3 classifies residential land uses. The following land use categories, as established by that policy, allow special exceptions as land uses: Agricultural Residential; Rural Residential/Mixed Use; Low Density Residential; and Urban Residential. Nowhere in the plan is there any indication of what uses will be allowed by special exception or what criteria will be used in establishing the conditions for a special exception. Thus, the plan's densities and intensities of use for Agricultural Residential; Rural Residential/Mixed Use; Low Density Residential and Urban Residential are chimera. The plan includes mixed use classifications of land use in several policies: FLUE Policy 3.1.5 (Mixed Use and Mixed Use-Southwestern District), 3.1.5.a (Mixed Use and Mixed Use- Southwestern District), 3.1.3 (Rural Residential-Mixed Use), and Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 (Medium Density Residential Commercial and High Density Residential Commercial) and 1.4.8 (High Density Residential). Nowhere in these policies or related policies, including FLUE Policy 4.1.22 and 4.1.23, is there any criteria which establish the composition of mixed use categories (i.e., 30% commercial, 70% residential) or guide the implementation of these mixed use classifications such as by ensuring that the land uses are functionally related. Thus, no densities or intensities of use have been established for these land use categories. The plan does not ensure that development will result in a balanced and complimentary mixture of land uses. FLUE Policy 3.1.5 establishes land uses for the Mixed Use-Southwestern District. This category allows the following development: Low Density residential, 1-7 dwelling units per acre; Medium Density Residential, 8-15 dwelling units per acre; and Commercial, consistent with lot coverage standards of 75% maximum coverage for all impervious surfaces. The Future Land Use Map series does not indicate where the various residential densities are allowed nor does the plan include any criteria to provide any guidance as to which density would apply where and under what circumstances. Most of the area in the Mixed Use-Southwestern District contains wetlands. Based on the General Soils Map contained in the data and analysis, this area is dominated by Klej-Leon (somewhat poorly drained), Plummer-Rutledge (poorly drained) and undifferentiated poorly drained flood plains and swamps. These soils, which are indicative of poor drainage, are referred to as hydric soils, which is an indicator of wetlands. The data and analysis does not analyze the suitability of this area for development despite the soils characteristics. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 establishes land uses for Pensacola Beach and includes a category denominated Conservation/Recreation. That classification states in pertinent parts: . . . depending on the specific characteristics of each site appropriate recreation uses may include public parking, beach access, boardwalks, nature trails, boat launching areas, docking facilities, picnic areas, rest rooms, and other such related uses as may be approved by the Santa Rosa Island Authority consistent with legal requirements presently in force. Other uses may by approved by the Santa Rosa Island Authority subject to appropriate studies which demonstrate that such uses are environmentally sound and in the public interest . . . The development of a golf course is allowed by this category and has been specifically contemplated in the past by the Santa Rosa Island Authority. Language of the Conservation/Recreation category in Santa Rosa Sub- element Policy 1.4.5 (10), affords great discretion in the Santa Rosa Island Authority as to what "other uses" are in the "public interest" or "environmentally sound. "No standards are provided which would specifically identify the limits of the types of uses for this classification or the specific criteria which would apply in ensuring a development was in the "public interest" or "environmentally sound." As a result, this policy places unbridled discretion for development in the hands of the Santa Rosa Island Authority, an entity not elected and not accountable to the public. The residential density for the area depicted on the Future Land Use Map as Special Development/Buffer is established in the FLUE Policy 3.1.1 and FLUE Policy 3.1.9. These policies are internally inconsistent as relates to residential densities. Policy 3.1.1 allows one to five dwelling units per acre and Policy 3.1.9 allows only one dwelling unit per acre for this land use. FLUE Policy 3.1.7 establishes land uses for the Recreational category allowing "public recreation areas, private recreational facilities, including limited commercial uses, such as marinas, public utilities." The intensity must be "consistent with lot coverage included in the land development regulations." This policy is inadequate because the intensity of development must be established in the plan, not the land development regulations. FLUE Policy 3.1.8 establishes land uses for the Conservation category. This category allows: . . . activities compatible with the purposing of conserving or protecting natural resources, including flood control, wildlife habitat protection[,] resource-oriented recreational uses, wetlands application of reclaimed water where appropriate and beneficial, and, where appropriate, silviculture using best management practices as defined by the Florida Division of Forestry. No density or intensity is established in the plan for this category. The County could have established intensities for this category through lot coverage, floor area ratios, height densities, and bulk criteria. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 establishes land uses for Pensacola Beach including the following categories: General Retail; Recreation Retail; Conservation/Recreation; and Government and Civic. Each of these categories allows development but does not establish any densities or intensities. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.8 establishes land uses for Navarre Beach including the following categories: High Density Residential; Commercial; and Recreation. Each of these categories allows development but does not establish any densities or intensities. The data and analysis submitted to support the proposed plan included a map series which identified historic districts, archeological areas, historical sites, and additional facilities. The Future Land Use Map series does not depict any historic properties, although such properties are known and identified in the data and analysis. The data and analysis identifies existing and planned water wells. Table 15 lists wells operated by various facilities for public and industrial uses and Table 16 lists future wells projected for the period of 1985-2005. These existing and future wells are depicted on a location map which is a part of the data and analysis. However, the locations of these existing and future wells are not depicted on the Future Land Use Map series. Further, the areas around major water wells, termed "cones of influence" are also not depicted on The Future Land Use Map series. The data and analysis depicts the 100-year floodplain on a location map. The 100-year floodplain is not depicted on the Future Land Use Map series. There are various types of wetland systems in Escambia County including: Bottom land hardwood communities, located along the Escambia River; the mixed wetlands, found in the Southwest District and the Perdido area; estuarine systems associated with the estuaries Pensacola Bay, Escambia Bay and Perdido Bay; coastal salt marshes; and the unique freshwater lens system found on Perdido Key and Santa Rosa Island. The Future Land Use Map series fails to depict all these wetlands. The identification of hydric soils may be a good indicator of wetland areas, but the Generalized Soils Map which is found in the support data and analysis was not adopted by the County. The adoption ordinance does not indicate that the County adopted a wetlands map of any kind. The data and analysis generally depict soils. The data and analysis contain a map entitled "General Soil Map" which was prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1960. This map was not adopted as a part of the Future Land Use Map series. The Future Land Use Map series which was adopted depicts no soil information. The data and analysis generally depict sandy clay and clay; medium- fine sand and silt; and gravel and coarse sand on a map entitled "Mineral Resources." This map was not adopted as a part of the Future Land Use Map series. The Future Land Use Map which was adopted does not depict any mineral information. The Future Land Use Map series consists of three maps: a countywide map with land use categories "drawn" on a Florida Department of Transportation general highway map, a map of Pensacola Beach, and a map of Navarre Beach. The countywide map is internally inconsistent with the Navarre Beach Map because the countywide map depicts only three land use classifications on Navarre Beach: Low density residential, Commercial, and Conservation. The Navarre Beach Map, however, includes these different designations: low density residential; medium density residential; high density residential; commercial public utility; outdoor recreation; and preservation. The policies in the FLUE which describe low density residential (Policy 3.1.3), commercial (3.1.4) and recreation (3.1.7), describe different uses and intensities or densities than are described for categories of the same name in Santa Rosa Policy 1.4.8. The countywide Future Land Use Map depicts a Tourist/Resort category on Pensacola Beach. No policy establishes this category, describes the allowable uses, or establishes densities or intensities of use. The countywide map depicts a large area next to the City of Pensacola as "Commercial." FLUE Policy 3.1.4 defines this classification to allow commercial activities and public facilities and specifically prohibit residential development. The Existing Land Use Map found in the data and analysis indicates that the existing land uses are more varied and include residential uses. No explanation of the prohibition of residential development exists within the data and analysis. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES The data and analysis identifies numerous types of natural resources: rivers, bay, lakes, estuaries, groundwater, wildlife, endangered and threatened plans and animals, trees, wetlands, dune systems, and marine resources. The FLUE is required to include an objective ensuring the protection of natural resources. The only objective in the FLUE which attempts to address countywide natural resources is Objective 1.9, which reads: By May 1991, development criteria shall be adopted in the land development code to protect areas designated as Conservation, Special Development/Buffer, and other land requiring protection due to the presence of sensitive natural resources. FLUE Objective 1.9, while expressing a basic goal, is not specific and measurable. It is meaningless for purposes of marking progress toward an identified goal. Simply referring to a time frame does not make it measurable. Objectives and policies intended to meet the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., must be substantively effective upon adoption and not relegated to adoption through land development regulations. The data and analysis identify numerous natural resources throughout the County which are threatened by development and should be protected, however FLUE Objective 1.9 provides limited protection to the two areas designated Special Development/Buffer and to the few coastal areas designated Conservation. Therefore, this objective is not supported by the data and analysis. The FLUE is required to contain a policy which addresses implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land. The only policy in the FLUE which attempts to address the protection of environmentally sensitive land is FLUE Policy 1.9.1, an implementing policy of FLUE Objective 1.9., which states: The development criteria shall include, but not be limited to, the prohibition of development of areas designated as Conservation, severe limitation of development potential for areas designated as Special Development Buffer, special review and approval procedures for properties which may be identified as having sensitive natural resources. FLUE Policy 3.1.9 establishes a residential density of one dwelling unit per acre for the Special Development/Buffer. Per the FLUM, this is a land use found in only two areas in the eastern portion of the middle section of the County. The term "severe limitation" contained in FLUE Objective 1.9. is not defined, leaving the application of this policy to be subject to interpretation. The referenced special review and approval procedures have not been delineated, nor have other areas containing sensitive natural resources (in addition to the Conservation and Special Development/Buffer areas) been identified, yet they are known to exist, as shown in the data and analysis. Accordingly, FLUE Policy 1.9.1 does not adequately address implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land. FLUE Policy 1.9.2, also an implementing policy of FLUE Objective 1.9, states: The County shall maintain and implement Section XVI of the Urban Area Land Use Regulation Ordinance, as may be amended, requiring review of all properties for presence of wetlands prior to issuance of any development permits. Development projects proposed for development on lands identified as containing wetlands must complete the special development review procedures established in the land development regulations. Provision shall be established in the Land Development Regulations for requirement exemption through an agreement of nondevelopment of wetland areas. FLUE Policy 1.9.2 fails to establish specifications or programs to protect wetlands, is not supported by the data and analysis, and allows the policy to be amended from time to time without going through the necessary agency review process required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, FLUE Policy 1.9.2 does not adequately address implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land. FLUE Policy 4.1.9 states: The County shall develop criteria for assessing the negative impacts of a potential development upon the environment which shall include, but not be limited to: Environmental habitat adjacent to proposed development; Intensity of development; Potential pollutants or other negative impacts released as a result of development. This policy is inadequate because it does not identify specific actions or programs. It does not constitute a "policy" as that term is defined in Rule 9J- 5.003(68), F.A.C., and it defers implementation or action until a future date. The plan, including FLUE Policies 4.1.9, 1.9.2, and 1.9.1, do not adequately address implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land as required by Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)6, F.A.C. As applied specifically toward the protection of environmentally sensitive lands on Santa Rosa Island, Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Objective 1.4 states: Design and adopt a Future Land Use Map for Santa Rosa Island which coordinates the built environment with the natural environment. The Future Land Use Map shall coordinate topography, soils, beachdunes, native vegetation, natural waterbodies, and other natural resources with compatible intensities of allowable urban land uses such that potential Island population densities do not exceed hurricane evacuation capability. Policies 1.4.1-1.4.7 of Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Objective 1.4 do not ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive land because they do not identify specific actions or programs in accordance with the definition of "policy" in Rule 9J-5.003(68), F.A.C. Accordingly, there is no FLUE policy which adequately addresses implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive land on Santa Rosa Island. The Coastal Management Element (CME) is required to include an objective for each goal statement which protects beaches or dunes, establishes construction standards minimizing impacts of manmade structures on beach or dune systems, and restores altered beaches or dunes. CME Policy 2.1.9 states: Construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line shall only be permitted if state permits are first obtained. The Coastal Construction Control Line is a line established by the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, under the premise that the area seaward of the line is subject to erosion. The State will not consider approval of development seaward of the coastal construction control line unless the applicable local government has already approved it. This provision of the plan makes construction contingent on state approval, contrary to law. It is inconsistent with requirements of Chapter 161. The Future Land Use Map series depicts development seaward of the coastal construction control line, including areas which are vacant. CME Policy 2.1.9, along with the Future Land Use Map designations which allow more development than is supported by the data and analysis, abrogates the County's duty to regulate the area seaward of the coastal construction control line in order to protect dune systems or other coastal resources. By failing to discourage development seaward of the coastal construction control line, CME Policy 2.1.9 fails to achieve the goal statement of Goal 2 of the Coastal Management Element which is to protect human life and limit public expenditure in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. Objectives under Goal 2 of the CME do not adequately address protection of beaches and dunes as required by Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)4., F.A.C.. CME Objective 2.1 addresses only maintaining a roadway clearance time for hurricane evacuation of twelve (12) hours; Objective 2.2 simply requires the County to identify the Coastal High Hazard Area; Objective 2.4 is concerned with public expenditures for facilities and infrastructure in the Coastal High Hazard Area; Objectives 2.5, 2.6. 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10 address dune reconstruction in the limited situation of post-disaster redevelopment. CME Objective 2.7 states: Establish site design criteria for construction and reconstruction within the Costal High Hazard Area. This objective is inadequate. It provides no specifically measurable intermediate end that is achievable marking the progress toward Goal 2. Similarly, CME Objective 2.11, which provides that "[c]onstruction activities on Santa Rosa Island shall not adversely impact the barrier island system," is inadequate because it is not specific and measurable. CME Objective 2.12 reads: "Allow no further loss in the acreage of beaches and dunes on the barrier island(s)." This objective, although specific and measurable, is inadequate because it applies only to the barrier islands and ignores the beach and dune resources on the mainland. Furthermore, development is specifically allowed in the beach and dune areas based on the Future Land Use Map designations. This internal inconsistency poses the question of whether the County intended Objective 2.12 or the Future Land Use Map to control the issuance of development orders in this area. The CME is required to include a policy identifying regulatory or management techniques for limiting the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetlands and living marine resources. The CME is also required to include an objective which protects, conserves, or enhances remaining coastal wetlands and living marine resources. CME Objective 1.1 fulfills the requirement of Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)1., F.A.C., to conserve remaining wildlife habitat, but none of its implementing policies meet the requirements of Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1., F.A.C., to limit impacts of development upon wetlands and living marine resources. CME Policy 1.1.6 appears to address this requirement. It is inadequate, however, because it fails to identify specific implementing actions or programs and it defers protection of these resources until the adoption of land development regulations. The policy states: The County shall, in conjunction with the Santa Rosa Island Authority, adopt or amend land use regulations on barrier islands, including Perdido Key and Santa Rosa Island, and other coastal areas identified in data and analysis which, at minimum address the protection of tidal wetlands, native vegetative communities and critical habitat of wildlife species which are endangered, threatened, or of special concern as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and Florida Department of Natural Resources. This policy fails to include any criteria indicating what the land development regulations will require to protect these resources and no interim protection is provided. CME Objective 1.4 states: "By December 1992, the County shall develop a plan of action for maintaining and improving estuarine quality in the Coastal Area." This objective is inadequate because it defers implementation until December, 1992, and does not provide any criteria for any interim or future plan of action. No other objective in the CME addresses estuarine environmental quality. Therefore, there is no objective in the CME which maintains or improves estuarine environmental quality. The CME is required to include a policy identifying regulatory or management techniques for limiting the specific and cumulative impacts of development upon wetlands. CME Policy 1.3.7 clearly attempts to address the requirements of this rule. However, it is inadequate to achieve the objective of protecting wetlands. The policy states: By 1993, amend existing land development regulations to include specific protection provisions for the specific cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetland areas as indicated and recommended by the stormwater management plan study. On its face, this policy is intended to address only the impacts of stormwater runoff on wetlands, and does not address other specific cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment such as the restriction or prohibition of development in wetlands. Furthermore, the policy is inadequate because it defers implementation until 1993 through land development regulations and no specific criteria is included in this policy as to what should be included in those regulations. The CME is also required to include a policy which identifies regulatory or management techniques for limiting impacts of development upon wildlife habitat. CME Policy 1.1.2 attempts to address this requirement. This policy states: By May 1991, revise the Special Development District Regulations to include special provisions to enhance wildlife protection to include, but not be limited to, consideration of cluster development, increasing mandatory open space requirements, consideration of wildlife corridors between special development districts and other such districts, in addressing the protection of tidal wetlands, native vegetative communities and critical habitat of wildlife species which are endangered, threatened, or of special concern as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and Florida Department of Natural Resources. The vague use of the term "consideration" in CME Policy 1.1.2 does not provide any assurance that these actions will actually be implemented at a future date. Furthermore, the policy is not specific and measurable due to lack of criteria for open space, cluster development, or wildlife corridors. Further, the policy does not identify how the protection of species will be implemented. All of this is deferred to special development district regulations. 1/ The quality and quantity of waters flowing into estuarine or oceanic waters is not adequately protected as required by Rules 9J-5.013(2)(b)2., and 9J-5.013(c)6., F.A.C. The Conservation Element (CE) objectives of the plan are silent as to water quantity. Objective 1.1 refers to a state government agency's standards which apply only to water quality and do not address water quantity. CE Objective 1.1, which addresses surface water quality, states: "Prevent degradation of surface water quality below water qualities standards using as a minimum Chapter 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., in consideration of development of alternative regulations." Rule 17-25.040, F.A.C., is the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation rule for construction permit requirements for new stormwater discharge facilities. That rule, in turn, references Rule 17-25.030, F.A.C., which provides exemptions from the notice and permitting requirements of the Chapter. Rule 17-25.030 exempts single-family duplex, triplex and quadraplex facilities. Thus, CE Objective 1.1 applies only to water quality standards for new development and excludes single-family duplex, triplex and quadraplex facilities and existing development from drainage facility standards. CE Policy 1.1.11, which implements CE Objective 1.1, reads: Adopt or amend land development regulations to require retention/detention of stormwater runoff prior to discharge into surface water; and to prevent discharge of untreated or treated domestic and industrial waste water (which does not meet current treatment standards) into these areas through public and private sewage treatment plants, poorly designed septic disposal systems [or] both. Mechanisms shall include the Stormwater Management Conservation Ordinance, the formal agreement called for in Policy 1.1.10 and Policy 2.11.4 in the Coastal Management Element. Require all new development adjacent to marine, aquatic, environmentally sensitive and estuarine areas to prohibit depositing into any of these areas stormwater and domestic water that does not meet treatment standards set forth in Section 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., and the Escambia County Department of Health Regulations relative to septic tanks." CE Policy 1.1.11 adopts by reference Rule 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., which applies the exemptions of Rule 17-25.030, F.A.C., and expressly does not apply to existing development. Thus, CE Policy 1.1.11 does not identify surface water quality standards which are to be maintained for all development. Water quantity may adversely impact water quality especially in wetlands where water moves slowly. Development in and adjacent to wetlands adds runoff, silt and fertilizers to the wetland system. If these substances exceed the carrying capacity of the wetlands, adequate purification of the water does not occur before it enters into the estuaries. Development of wetlands also impairs their ability to retain water and absorb stormwater impact. The County has experienced problems associated with untreated stormwater runoff. The County's engineer has identified four main areas which experience stormwater runoff problems. In those areas the development is primarily single-family residential. Therefore, there is no rational basis for the County to exempt existing development and single-family development from its stormwater standards. There also is no basis in the data and analysis for the County to exclude duplexes, triplexes, and quadraplexes from the stormwater standards. The CE is required to include a policy addressing implementation activities for the restriction of activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife. The County has many plants and animals which are threatened, endangered, and species of special concern. The data and analysis identifies threatened, endangered and special concern communities in Escambia County which were identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory. CE Policy 1.8.3 states: Endangered species habitats and unique natural areas, as identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, shall be considered environmentally sensitive. Prior to development in these sections, the development site shall be inventoried for the presence of environmentally sensitive habitats. The results of this survey, as well as mitigation measures for protection of these features if found, shall be submitted as part of land development permit applications submitted for the project. This policy fails to take into consideration the known listed species already identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as reflected in its data and analysis. This policy also does not address the habitats of threatened species and fails to establish specific criteria which will be applied to development in order to protect the functional viability of the habitats of endangered species. The CE is required to include a policy which addresses implementation activities for the protection and conservation of the natural functions of certain natural resources including rivers, wildlife habitat, estuarine and wetland areas. CE Policy 1.1.13 attempts to address these requirements. The policy reads: By December 1991, the County shall, in conjunction with federal, state and local agencies, develop a set of recommendations to further provide for protection of rivers, wildlife habitat, estuarine, and wetland areas. Once the study has been completed specific recommendations shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for inclusion to land development regulations. CE Policy 1.1.13 does not apply to the natural resources known to be present in the County. The data and analysis identifies numerous natural resources, such as rivers, wildlife areas, estuarine areas, and wetlands, whose natural functions qualify for immediate protection. Accordingly, the policy is not based on the data and analysis. CE Policy 1.1.13 also is not an adequate policy because it does not provide specific criteria which will be used to protect the natural functions of these resources. This policy refers to an undefined and uncommenced study which will be conducted in conjunction with federal, state and local agencies. The policy should include the specific criteria needed to protect the natural resources and be in place at the time of plan adoption, not at a later time such as December, 1991, or at the time of adoption of land development regulations. COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS/HURRICANE EVACUATION The CME is required to include an objective for each goal statement which directs population concentrations away from known or predicted Coastal High-Hazard Areas. The plan contains no provisions to direct or discourage population concentrations away from Coastal High-Hazard Areas. CME Objective 1.8 states: Development or redevelopment in the coastal area shall occur only if minimum level of service standards for infrastructure is met or exceeded. The coastal area is defined by the County as including the area approximately one to one and a half miles inland from the shoreline, with the exception of the area adjacent to Escambia Bay along the bluffs. This includes the barrier islands in their entirety. This coastal area is depicted on Existing Land Use Map Series I which was submitted with the proposed plan. The plan defines the Coastal High-Hazard Area in CME Policy 2.2.1 as the area seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line established by the Department of Natural Resources; Federal Emergency Management Velocity (V) Zones designated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Escambia County; and areas which have historically received damage in areas scientifically predicted to receive water damage in a Category 3 hurricane. The Coastal High Hazard Area is included within the coastal area as defined by the County. CME Objective 1.8 is inadequate to serve the purpose of directing population concentrations away from Coastal High-Hazard Areas because it allows development to continue to occur so long as the levels of service standards are met or exceeded. There is no threshold cap for development or redevelopment. Based on the densities established in the FLUE, population concentrations are being directed toward the Coastal High-Hazard Area. Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 establishes land use densities and intensities for Pensacola Beach. The land use designations of high density residential, high density residential/commercial and commercial are allowed within the Coastal High-Hazard Area of Pensacola Beach. Based on these designations, development of up to thirty (30) units per acre is allowed. High density residential allows multi-family development in the range of sixteen to thirty units per acre; high density residential allows a range of sixteen to thirty units per acre for residential uses or up to fifty units an acre with a special exception; commercial hotel allows the same densities as is allowed under high density residential/commercial. The densities established in Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.4.5 represent an increase in development based on what is currently developed on Pensacola Beach in the Coastal High-Hazard Area. The plan encourages more development in the Coastal High-Hazard Area of Pensacola Beach. Santa Rosa Island Sub-element Policy 1.4.8 similarly allows an increase in density in the Coastal High-Hazard Area in Navarre Beach from what is existing there currently. The high density residential designation allows up to thirty dwelling units per acre and the commercial designation allows up to thirty units an acre or fifty units an acre with a special exception. Perdido Key lies entirely within the Coastal High-Hazard Area; however the designation for Perdido Key based on the Future Land Use Map is Mixed Use. Future Land Use Element Policy 3.1.5 allows Mixed Use to be developed between sixteen to fifteen dwelling units per acre and an unspecified mix of commercial which may cover up to eighty percent of the lot with impervious surface. The densities and intensities established for Perdido Key do not serve the purpose of directing population concentrations away from the Coastal High-Hazard Area; rather more development is encouraged to occur there. The plan's hurricane evacuation planning is based on the Tri-state Hurricane Evacuation Study and the Escambia County Peacetime Emergency Plan which are referenced in the data and analysis as sources. No data is available which isolates the evacuation time for just the unincorporated portion of Escambia County. However, it is estimated that the evacuation time for the entire County is approximately 14.25 hours. This is based on a medium response curve for a Category III hurricane event. CME Objective 2.1 states that the County will maintain a roadway clearance time for hurricane evacuation of twelve hours. This clearance standard is not met currently. No data and analysis have been provided to support the densities on the coastal barrier islands in relation to maintaining or improving hurricane evacuation times. Furthermore, the data and analysis do not indicate that the current clearance time to maintain is only 12 hours. Thus, the coastal area population densities have not been coordinated with the appropriate regional hurricane plan, the Tri-State Study, and there is no assurance of maintaining or improving the hurricane evacuation time. CME Objective 2.5 states that the County will adopt a post-disaster redevelopment plan for Escambia County that identifies short-term recovery and long-term redevelopment activities. This objective is inadequate because it does not identify any specific and measurable criteria. CME Policy 2.6.3.b., an implementing policy of CME Objective 2.5, reads: By 1992, incorporate in the Santa Rosa Island land development regulations, the following build-back policy, to be applied after a major natural disaster such as a hurricane . . . B. Structures damaged more than fifty percent of their replacement cost at the time of damage can be re-built to their original square footage and density, provided they can comply with: *Federal requirements for elevation above the 100-year flood level. *Building code requirements for floodproofing. *Current building and life safety codes. *State Coastal Construction Control Line. *Any required zoning or other development regulations (other than density or intensity), unless compliance with such regulations would preclude reconstruction otherwise intended by the build-back policy. *Any other relevant federal regulations. *Any other relevant local regulations, including lease agreements. *Any other relevant state regulations. CME Policy 2.6.3.b., allows structures damaged more than fifty percent to be rebuilt to their original square footage and density. Thus, this policy does not require redevelopment following disaster which will reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life in public and private property to future natural hazards. COASTAL MANAGEMENT The CME is required to include an objective that, following adoption of the plan, limits public expenditures to subsidize development permitted in Coastal High-Hazard Areas except for restoration or enhancement of natural resources. The CME is also required to include a policy designating Coastal High-Hazard Areas, limiting development in these areas, and relocating or replacing infrastructure away from these areas. The CME does not contain any objective or policy that adequately limits development of public expenditures subsidizing development in a Coastal High-Hazard Area. CME Policy 2.4.2 allows the development of public facilities in the Coastal High-Hazard Area provided that certain criteria are met. That policy reads: Public facilities shall not be located or improved in the Coastal High-Hazard Area unless the following criteria are met: the use is necessary to protect human life; the service provided by the facility cannot be provided at another location outside the Coastal High-Hazard Area; no alternate site is identified outside the Coastal High-Hazard Area; the facility is designed to provide the minimum capacity necessary to meet level of service standards for its service area; the total cost to build the facility to meet the Coastal Building Codes including floodproofing requirements does not increase the cost of the project beyond feasibility. CME Policy 2.4.2 does not limit the extension of facilities which subsidize development in the Coastal High-Hazard Area. The level of service will be the minimum criteria for the applicable land uses. As described above, the land uses tend to encourage development towards the Coastal High Hazard Area. Development may continue provided the level of service standards are met. CME Policy 2.1.10 states that the County will not allow the extension of water, sewer or storm drainage infrastructure to facilitate new permanent residential structures within the Coastal High-Hazard Areas of Escambia County for which the County has permitting authority unless state permits are first obtained. This policy does not limit the extension of facilities that subsidize development in the Coastal High-Hazard Area in the event that state permits are first obtained. No state permits have been identified which would independently have the effect of limiting development in the entire Coastal High-Hazard Area or relocating or replacing infrastructure away from this area. VESTED RIGHTS Policies 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4 and 1.4.6 of the Santa Rosa Island Future Land Use Sub-element provide that leased property on Santa Rosa Island is exempt from the plan and land development regulations. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY The comprehensive plan is required to contain a Schedule of Capital Improvements for which the local government has fiscal responsibility for the first five fiscal years following adoption of the plan and a list of projected costs and revenue sources by type of public facility for the five-year period. The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) is required to set forth a financially feasible plan which demonstrates that the local government can achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standards. The Schedule of Capital Improvements includes the expenditure of $9,400,000 for a Master Drainage Study and Facilities for the fiscal years 1990- 91 through 1994-95. The data and analysis identifies and recommends impact fees as the revenue source to fund the Master Drainage Study and Facilities. The County has not adopted an impact fee for drainage or stormwater management, or even for the study. In May 1991, the Board of County Commissioners considered alternative methods of funding for stormwater management. The Board of County Commissioners rejected the implementation of a municipal service benefit unit for stormwater. Instead, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the alternative of development and implementation of a stormwater utility fee which requires approval of the voters at a referendum. At the time of plan adoption and the time of the hearing, the referendum had not taken place. There is no guarantee that the voters will approve the referendum. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Master Drainage Study and Facilities will be funded through fiscal year 1994-95. CIE Policy 1.4.1 states: Existing and future development, including those on Santa Rosa Island, directly benefiting from stormwater management improvements shall bear a proportionate cost of stormwater facility capital improvements. Further, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider, and implement as it deems necessary, impact fees for other public facilities. CIE Policy 1.5.1 states: The Board of County Commissioners shall develop and implement any alternative revenue sources needed to properly fund the Capital Improvements Element which could include, but not be limited to, property taxes, special assessments and other forms of revenue raising measures. Neither Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.4.1 nor Policy 1.5.1 establishes the impact fees necessary to fund the Drainage Study and Facilities or identifies viable revenue sources. Therefore, the Master Drainage Study and Facilities, identified in the Schedule of Capital Improvements, is not funded and is not financially feasible. XII CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT Minimum requirements for a Concurrency Management System mandate that the system ensure that facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrent with the impacts of such development. Prior to the issuance of a development order or development permit, the Concurrency Management System must ensure that the adopted level of services standards required by roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, parks and recreation and mass transit, if applicable, will be maintained. The Concurrency Management System contained in the Capital Improvements Element of the plan provides that facility capacity may be determined or counted as existing capacity, provided facilities were in the procurement cycle or if there is a binding executed contract for construction of the facility. This provision is overly broad and, hence, inadequate to meet rule requirements. The minimum requirements for concurrency are not uniform in every respect for the various types of public services and facilities needed to support development. For parks and recreations, the local government may satisfy the concurrency requirements through a binding executed contract which provides for a commencement of the actual construction of the required facilities or the provision of services within one (1) year of the issuance of the development permit in addition to other criteria. However, rule requirements in Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., do not permit use of a binding executed contract to ensure concurrency for potable water, sewer, solid waste, and drainage facilities. The Concurrency Management System provides, on page 11-xi of the plan, that facility capacity may be counted if "the new facilities are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement and is consistent with the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan." This is contrary to the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.0055(2)(a)(4), F.A.C., which contains minimum criteria for meeting concurrency through an enforceable development agreement. Those minimum criteria, which include the provisions of Rules 9J-5.0055(2)(a)1.- 3., F.A.C., are not recited in any provision of the Concurrency Management System or the Capital Improvements Element. The Concurrency Management System does not establish guidelines for interpreting and applying level of service standards to applications for development orders and permits and for determining when the test for concurrency has been met. The Concurrency Management System also does not contain guidelines for measuring the level of service and capacity of public facilities. Santa Rosa Island Future Land Use Sub-element Policy 1.1.3 indicates that the Concurrency Management System does not apply to Pensacola Beach. That policy reads: "By May 1991, the County shall adopt a Concurrency Management System in coordination with the Santa Rosa Island Authority to implement the Level of Service Standards of the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan as applicable to the Pensacola Beach." Santa Rosa Island Future Land Use Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 states: Development orders and/or permits for future development and redevelopment activities on Santa Rosa Island shall be issued only if public facilities necessary to meet level of service standards, adopted as a part of the Capital Improvements Element of the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan, are available concurrent with the impacts of development or are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement pursuant to Section 163, F.S. and Rule 9J-5.0055, F.A.C., or an agreement or development order pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 does not contain a provision that the necessary facilities and services will be in place when the development of impacts occur or, in lieu thereof, that the agreement must include the provisions of Rules 9J-5.0055(2)(a)1.-3., F.A.C. The Pensacola Beach Concurrency Management System was not adopted in the plan. Thus, the plan does not establish countywide concurrency. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.1.3 also is insufficient as it defers implementation of adoption of a concurrency management system until May 1991. The Concurrency Management System must be in place at the time of plan adoption. The Concurrency Management System does not clearly indicate the latest point in the application process for the determination of concurrency. The Concurrency Management System must indicate at what point in the application process final approval of a specific plan for development occurs and that this be prior to the determination of concurrency. The Concurrency Management System indicates that this point is the "final sign-off", however, that term is not defined and its meaning is opaque. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Each local government is required to establish level of service standards for ensuring that adequate facility capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits pursuant to Section 163.3202(2)(g), Florida Statutes. The level of service standards must be set for each individual facility or facility type within the local government jurisdiction and not on a system-wide basis. The purpose of the sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element is to provide for necessary public facilities and services correlated to future land use projections. The sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element of the plan must contain policies which address implementation activities for establishing and utilizing level of service standards in accordance with rule requirements. The County has not adopted a level of service standard for drainage which will be applied to all development. Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 states: The level of service standard for stormwater water quality shall be the minimum Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Standards, Section 17-25.040(5), Florida Administrative Code. Single-family dwellings not part of a larger development will be exempt from the level of service requirements. As discussed above under Protection of Natural Resources, Section 17- 25.040, F.A.C., does not apply to new facilities. Thus, the County has not adopted a drainage level of service standard for existing facilities, as it must. Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 is also insufficient because it has not removed other exemptions included in Chapter 17-25.030, F.A.C.,: the single family, duplex, triplex and quadraplex exemption. This policy specifically exempts single-family dwellings not part of a larger development from the level of service standard, but is silent as to the other exemptions of Chapter 17-25, F.A.C. No such exemptions from the drainage level of service standards is authorized by Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. Santa Rosa Sub-element Policy 1.1.2 states in pertinent part: "Development approval is conditioned upon, but not limited to a determination of whether the following level of service standard can be met: (1) the post- development peak rate of stormwater discharge will not exceed the pre- development peak rate based upon the 25-year stormwater event of critical duration . . ." This level of service standard is inadequate because it ignores such critical factors as water quality. The Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) is required to include a policy establishing level of service standards at peak hours for all roads located within the government's jurisdiction. Subsection 9J-5.005(3) and subparagraph 9J-5.015(3)(b)3., F.A.C. A portion of SR 30/Pensacola Bay Bridge lies within the boundaries of unincorporated Escambia County. The Pensacola Bay Bridge starts in the City of Pensacola and terminates in Gulf Breeze, Santa Rosa County. Between the starting point of the bridge on the Pensacola side and the County line, which is over the Pensacola Bay, a portion of the bridge lies within the jurisdiction of Escambia County. The Department of Transportation General Highway Map, upon which the County-wide Future Land Use Map is drawn, depicts the County boundaries between Escambia County and Santa Rosa County. This map shows that Escambia County has jurisdiction over SR 30 between the City of Pensacola and midway between the mainland and Gulf Breeze. Approximately 1.5 miles of the bridge lies within the jurisdiction of the County. According to the data and analysis, SR 30/Pensacola Bay Bridge currently is operating at a level of service "F". This level of service is applied in the plan. 2/ The TCE is required to include a policy which establishes level of service standards at peak hours for roads within the local government's jurisdiction. These standards must be consistent with Florida Department of Transportation's policies. TCE Policy 1.1.1 adopts peak hour minimum acceptable operating level of service standards for County roads. The level of service standards for Transportation Planning Areas vary for various roadway types (freeways, principal arterials, minor arterials) depending on the area classification (existing urbanized, transitioning urban, rural). The policy also adopts a "deficient" level of service standard of "F" (existing) for the Pensacola Bay Bridge which it separately classifies as a Special Consideration (Backlogged Facility). The policy defines backlogged facilities as "roadways which do not meet the minimum acceptable level of service standards, are not in a Special Transportation Area, not constrained and are not scheduled for capacity improvement." The Pensacola Bay Bridge is a principal arterial road. The recommended Florida Department of Transportation level of service for the bridge is "D". A level of service of "D" indicates a range of speed of 17 to 21 miles per hour. A level of service of "F' indicates a range of speed of 0 to 13 miles per hour. The "F" standard cannot be violated because traffic may not be slowed below zero miles per hour. No specific measure of current operating conditions is provided to ensure the operating conditions will be maintained and improved. As long as existing bridge traffic exceeds 0 miles per hour, TCE Policy 1.1.1 allows the bridge road to continue to degrade. This is no standard at all. Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.3.3 commits the County to certain level of service standards for various services and facilities, including traffic circulation. That policy states in pertinent part that capital improvement projects adopted by Escambia County shall maintain level of service standards as reflected in the policy's tables. A schedule of level of service for Traffic Circulation Facilities is included in the policy. Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.3.3 establishes level of service standards for Special Transportation Areas, but does not establish specific level of service standards for Constrained Facilities and Backlogged Facilities. This policy commits to a level of service standard for Constrained Facilities for freeways, principal arterials, minor arterials, and others as "maintain." As to Backlogged Facilities, the policy commits to "maintain and improve" freeways, principal arterials, minor arterials, and others. As written, the level of service standards "maintain" and "maintain and improve" are not specific and measurable, are internally inconsistent with the specific level of service standards adopted in TCE Policy 1.1.1 (i.e., "C", "D"), and allow for future revision without undergoing the plan amendment process. The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) is required to include a policy for each objective which establishes level of service standards for public facilities within the local government's jurisdiction. These standards are required to be those found in the other local government comprehensive plan elements. The Drainage Sub-Element is required to include a policy addressing implementation activities for establishing and utilizing level of service standards for design storm return frequency for Drainage Facility Capacity. Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 adopts Rule 17-25.040(5), F.A.C., as the level of service standard for Stormwater Water Quality. That rule requires that facilities which directly discharge to Outstanding Florida Waters shall provide additional treatment as specified in Rule 17-25.025(9), which in turn requires an additional level of treatment equal to 50 percent more than the one-half inch requirement for sites less than 100 acres and one-inch of run-off from sites greater than 100 acres. CIE Policy 1.3.3 includes a level of service standard for drainage facilities. The policy states in pertinent part that for projects with drainage areas greater than 100 acres which provide for retention, or detention with filtration facilities, the level of service standard shall be the first one inch of run-off from storm rainfall; for projects with drainage areas less than 100 acres which provide for retention, or detention with filtration facilities, the level of service standard shall be the first one-half inch of run-off from storm rainfall; and for drainage facilities which attenuate the 24-hour, 25-year storm event of critical duration the level of service standard requires that a drainage system allow for discharges equal to pre-development levels unless an engineering analysis using professionally accepted methodologies demonstrates that a differing discharge rate should be used. This policy is internally inconsistent with Drainage Sub-element Policy 2.1.3 because CIE Policy 1.3.3 does not provide for the additional level of treatment for stormwater discharge facilities which directly discharge to Outstanding Florida Waters. CIE Policy 1.3.3 level of service standard for drainage facilities which attenuate the 24-hour, 25-year storm event of critical duration is not specific and measurable. This provision allows for the possibility of post- development run-off rate to exceed pre-development rates by allowing a different, presumably a higher, discharge rate to be used instead maintaining pre-development levels. There is no data and analysis to support an increase in discharge beyond pre-development levels. The Coastal Management Element is required to include an objective establishing level of service standards, areas of service and phasing of infrastructure in the coastal area. While CME Policy 1.8.1 establishes coastal area levels of services for sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and recreation and open space, it does not include a level of service standard for traffic circulation. The primary sanitary sewer service provider in Escambia County is the Escambia County Utilities Authority. The data and analysis shows the existing level of service for sanitary sewer to range between 61.5 and 176 gallons per capita per day for wastewater treatment facilities owned by Escambia County Utilities Authority. For example, the Avondale facility has an existing level of service of 61.5 gallons per capita per day, the Mainstreet facility has an existing level of service of 99.8 gallons per capita per day, and the Navarre Beach Facility has an existing level of service of 176 gallons per capita per day. Sanitary Sewer Sub-element Policy 1.2.1 states: Escambia County hereby adopts 75 gallons per capita per day as level of service standard for the provision of sanitary sewer facilities in the Escambia County Utilities Authority service area, and 60 gallons per capita per day for all privately-owned wastewater treatment facilities. Sanitary Sewer Sub-element Policy 1.2.3 states: "The County, through a Certificate of Availability, shall verify the capacity of public sewer systems prior to issuing development permits to ensure that adequate capacity to meet level of service standards (which is 100 gallons per capita per day) is available." The 100 gallons per capita per day level of service referenced in this policy is inconsistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub-element Policy 1.2.1 which adopts a level of service of 75 gallons per capita per day for Escambia County Utilities Authority Facilities and 60 gallons per capita per day for all privately-owned wastewater treatment facilities. This internal inconsistency creates confusion as to which level of service standard is in fact being adopted and will be used for the issuance of development orders. The County is responsible for the disposal of all solid waste within its jurisdiction through the County's Department of Solid Waste. The level of service is established in Solid Waste Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 which states: "The County will provide the capacity to dispose of 7 pounds of solid waste per capita per day." Table 11 of the Solid Waste Sub-element Data and Analysis shows the projected generation of solid waste for the County from the year 1986 through the year 2000. Table 11 Projected Generation for Escambia County Year County Population Annual Tonnage lbs/capita/day 1986 230,250 309,000 7.4 1990 255,552 324,450 7.0 1995 274,520 340,670 6.8 2000 289,368 357,700 6.8 There is no data and analysis which relates the actual capacity of the landfill with the need projections of Table 11. Hence, the data and analysis fails to adequately support Solid Waste Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 and the policy's assurance that the County will provide adequate land-fill space. Potable Water Sub-element Policy 1.1.1 adopts two levels of service standards for the provision of potable water: Escambia County Utilities Authority - 75 gallons per capita per day and all other service providers - 100 gallons per capita per day. Escambia County is served by 10 public water supply systems, none of which are operated by the County. The largest public water supply system is operated by Escambia County Utilities Authority which has an existing level of service of 157.3 gallons per capita per day in Zone 2 and 101.6 gallons per capita per day in Zone 1. Table 12 of the Potable Water Sub-element Data and Analysis shows water system demand and plant facilities for 15 facilities, including facilities operated by private owners, the Town of Century, the Special District of Escambia Utilities Authority, and the Federal Government, Santa Rosa County, and the State of Florida. Nine of the facilities not operated by Escambia Utilities Authority are below 100 gallons per capita per day. The data and analysis do not adequately support Potable Water Sub- element Policy 1.1.1 and the aim of the policy to ensure that service providers currently providing less than 100 gallons per capita per day be able to meet that level in the event of future demand. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Housing Element of the plan is required to contain an objective providing adequate sites for housing for low and moderate income families, and for mobile homes. The Housing Element's data and analysis concludes that affordable housing for persons in the very low, low and moderate income ranges should not exceed 30 percent of family income. By 1987 standards, these family income limits translate into less than $13,151 for very low income families and between $13,152 and $21,040 for low/moderate income families. The data and analysis does not state what the demand for new affordable housing construction will be through the planning period. Housing Element Objective 1.2 states: "Based on existing available resources provide for the rehabilitation of a minimum of 90 substandard homes and 10 new affordable housing sites annually." This objective is not quantitatively supported by the data and analysis and fails to describe the types of housing that will be constructed at the sites, i.e., single family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, or apartment buildings. The Housing Element is required to include a policy for each objective which addresses implementation activities for the improvement in the regulatory and permitting processes, if deemed necessary by the local government. Housing Element Policy 1.1.4 states: Develop a permit review process (that will include a checklist and flow chart) that will take into consideration the following aspects in order to expedite and help facilitate affordable housing projects: Fast track permitting process which will provide for concurrent review of all permits; Waiving or use of weighted permit fees; and Waiving or use of weighted County imposed impact fees. Although the need to improve the regulatory and permitting processes is identified, there is no assurance that the methods to expedite affordable housing projects outlined in Housing Element Policy 1.1.4 will be implemented because the policy merely states that those methods will be taken "into consideration." The policy is subject to interpretation and may or may not be implemented despite the identified need to expedite affordable housing projects. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN For the reasons set forth below, the plan is inconsistent with the state plan, construced as a whole. The plan is not consistent with and fails to further State Comprehensive Plan Goal 5(a) relating to housing, which states: The public and private sectors shall increase the affordability and availability of housing for low- income and moderate-income persons, including citizens in rural areas, while at the same time encouraging self-sufficiency of the individual and assuring environmental and structural quality and cost-effective operations. The vagueness of Objective 1.2 of the plan's housing element fails to further this goal or policy 3 of this state goal, which relates to increasing housing availability for low and moderate income persons and elder persons. Policy 4 of this goal addresses reduction of housing costs through elimination of unnecessary regulation which adds to the cost of housing. The plan's lack of specific implementing actions that will be taken with regard to this policy establishes that the plan is not consistent with and does not further this state goal. Densities and intensities of land use in the plan which increase runoff and inadequacies of level of service for drainage facilities make the plan inconsistent with state goal 8(a) relating to water resources and the need to assure availability of water quantity for reasonable and beneficial uses while maintaining the present level of surface and ground water quality. These inadequacies of the plan also fail to further policy 8(b)2 of the state goal requiring the identification and protection of water recharge areas. The plan also fails to further state policy 8(b)5 of this goal since the plan does not ensure that new development will be compatible with existing local and regional water supplies. The distribution pattern and intensities and densities of land use and the plan's inadequate approach to existing and future deficiencies of drainage issues also prevent the plan from being consistent with state policies 8(b)8-13, which seek to encourage development of floodplain management; preserve hydrologically significant wetlands and other natural floodplain features; support the protection of aquifers from depletion and contamination; protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity; promote water conservation; provide for elimination of discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state; and support alternative methods of wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse to reduce degradation of water resources. The plan fails to further and is not consistent with state goal 9(a) which provides: Florida shall ensure that development and marine resource use and beach access improvements in coastal areas do not endanger public safety or important natural resources. Florida shall, through acquisition and access improvements, make available to the state's population additional beaches and marine environment, consistent with sound environmental planning. Policies of this goal include: Policy 1 which seeks the acceleration of public beach acquisition; policy 2 which ensures public beach access; policy 3 which emphasizes the importance of avoiding expenditure of funds to subsidize development of coastal high hazard areas; policy 4 which protects coastal resources, marine resources and dune systems from the adverse effects of development; policy 5 which seeks development of a planning system ensuring the continued attractive image of coastal areas; policy 6 which requires compatibility of land and water uses with protection of sensitive coastal resources; policy 7 which requires protection and restoration of productivity of fisheries and habitat; and policy 9 which prohibits development of other activities which disturb dune systems. The plan is not consistent with either the goal or policies 1-7 and 9 due to the plan's inadequacies with regard to preservation or conservation of coastal resources; density and development patterns along the coastal area; level of proposed development; and the failure of land uses on the future land use map to be compatible with sensitive coastal resource protection. The plan is inconsistent with and does not further state goal 10(a) which requires the protection of unique natural habitats and ecological systems such as wetlands and various vegetative species, as well as restoring degraded natural systems to a functional condition. Deficiencies within the plan's objective and policies, as well as the failure to depict wetlands and floodplains on an adopted FLUM, prevent a finding that policy 1 of the goal, regarding conservation of forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife, is consistent with or furthered by the plan's objectives and policies. Other policies of this goal where objectives, goals and policies of the plan fail to establish specific implementing actions necessary to a finding of consistency with the state plan include: Policy 2 regarding the acquiring, retaining, managing, and inventory of public lands to provide recreation, conservation, and other public benefits; policy 3 relating to prohibition and destruction of endangered species and protection for their habitats; policy 4 relating to establishment of an integrated regulatory program to assure the survival of endangered and threatened species within the state; policy 5 relating to the promotion of agricultural practices compatible with protection of wildlife and natural systems, which is specifically not supported by the plan's relatively high residential densities in some agricultural areas of 1-5 units per acre; policy 6 relating to maximizing use of forest resources where again the plan's densities and distribution of those densities on the land use map prevent consistency; policy 7 relating to protection and restoration of the ecological functions of wetland systems; policy 9 relating to an acquisition program to ensure the integrity of Florida's river systems, which is unsupported by any provision of the plan to establish such a county program; policy 10 relating to acquisition and maintenance of ecologically intact systems in all land and water planning, management, and regulation; and policy 11 relating to state and local efforts to provide recreational opportunities to urban areas, including the development of activity-based parks. The plan is inconsistent with and does not further state goal 16(a), which states: In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Likewise the plan is inconsistent with and fails to further policy 2 of state goal 16(a), relating to development of incentives and disincentives to encourage separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. The failure to further this policy highlights the fundamental shortcoming of the plan as to densities and intensities and distribution of those uses. Policies 4 and 6 of state goal 16(a) are not furthered by and are inconsistent with the plan. Policy 4 provides for development of a system of intergovernmental negotiation for siting locally unpopular public and private land uses, but the plan does not provide how the county will address this subject. Policy 6 requires consideration, in land use planning and regulation, of the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water, and other natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. The distribution of land uses shown on the future land map and the lack of adequate policies prevent the plan from furthering this policy. Goal 20 of the State Plan relates to transportation and provides: Florida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass transit, and other transportation modes. The plan does not address coordination between land uses and the transportation system. Therefore this goal is not furthered by the plan. Policy 3 of Goal 20 relates to promotion of a comprehensive transportation planning process coordinating state, regional, and local transportation plans. The plan adopts a level of service "F" for the Pensacola Bay Bridge which designation fails to provide any point at which development orders should be denied. This adopted level of service permits unlimited degradation and therefore does not further and is not consistent with the state plan. Policy 12 of Goal 20 of the state plan requires local governments to eschew transportation improvements which encourage increased development in coastal high-hazard areas or in environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodways, or productive marine areas. The high densities of use provided in the plan for coastal areas will inevitably cause demand for improved transportation systems in these areas and consequently fail to further this policy. The requirement of policy 13 of goal 20 to coordinate transportation improvements with state, local, and regional plans is not furthered by a level of service designation in the plan, such as the one for Pensacola Bay Bridge, which does not ensure that improvements can be coordinated. A level of service designation such as that accorded the bridge permits complete degradation without necessarily requiring coordination for expansion of the facility. The plan fails to address, and thus does not further, Policy 14 of goal 20, addressing acquisition of advanced rights-of-way for transportation projects in designated transportation corridors consistent with state, regional, and local plans. Policy 15 of goal 20, relating to promotion of effective coordination among various modes of transportation in urban areas to assist urban development and redevelopment efforts, is not addressed or furthered by the plan. The plan is not consistent with and does not further transportation goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan. The lack of adequate policies and high density of residential use in agricultural areas in the plan prevent the plan from furthering goal 23 of the state comprehensive plan, which reads as follows: Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, agriculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Goal 26 of the state comprehensive plan reads as follows: Systematic planning capabilities shall be integrated into all levels of government in Florida, with particular emphasis on improving intergovernmental coordination and maximizing citizen involvement. Policy 4 of Goal 26 relating to the need to simplify, streamline, and make more predictable the existing permitting procedures, is not furthered or consistent with plan as a result of the plan's failure to adequately define what would be done to simplify the regulatory process. CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN The plan is inconsistent with the West Florida Regional Policy Plan (the regional plan), construed as a whole, for the reasons listed below. The vagueness of Housing Element objective 1.2 with regard to provision of 10 new housing sites is inconsistent with Regional Goal 2 of Regional Issue 19, related to housing, contained in the regional plan. The plan fails to further that goal, which provides: By 1990, affordable, safe and sanitary housing for low and moderate income households and the elderly population which will increase by 10% over 1985 levels. The failure of the plan to address Goal 3 of Regional Issue 19 contained in the regional plan with regard to elimination of housing discriminatory practices is a significant inconsistency with the regional plan. The failure of the future land use map to identify existing and planned waterwells constitutes an inconsistency with goal 1 of regional issue 37 of the regional plan. That goal reads: By 1995, Regional water supply authorities shall be established throughout the Region which shall adopt water supply plans that incorporate water conservation programs, protection of water recharge areas and existing and future well sites, and identify vulnerable water supplies that local governments should regulate to limit development. As a result of the failure of the plan to set out densities and intensities of land use which serve to protect natural resources, as well as deficiencies of the plan with regard to drainage facilities, the plan does not further regional goal 1 of regional issue number 38. That goal provides: By 1995, the Region's potable aquifers shall be protected from depletion and contamination to ensure adequate quality of the Region's water resources to meet current and long-term needs for all reasonable-beneficial uses. Inadequate protective policies within the plan are inconsistent with the regional plan. Some of those inadequacies include inadequate drainage level of service standards, allowance of septic tanks in unsuitable areas, and high densities covering high aquifer recharge areas with impervious services. These plan policies are inconsistent with regional goal 1 of regional issue 39, Natural Systems Protection, which provides: By 1995, 10 percent of regional natural water systems will be protected, maintained, and their natural processes restored. The densities and intensities of use proposed by the plan for the barrier islands and in some of the coastal areas are very high and negatively impact resources of the land. This is particularly so with regard to densities and intensities of use established in Pensacola Beach, Navarre Beach and Perdido Key areas. The inadequacies of policies within the plan do not further goal 1 of issue 40 of the regional plan relating to protection of beach and dune systems. That goal reads: By 1990, land use guidelines will be adopted which protect beach and dune systems. Goal 1 of regional issue 41 is not furthered by provisions of the plan, specifically the lack of adequate level of service standards for drainage. This goal of the regional plan provides: By 1990, land use and coastal zone planning will be coordinated with the protection and management of marine fisheries habitat. Regional issue 43 of the regional plan addresses protection of natural resources. Goal 1 of that issue is not furthered due to the previously mentioned inadequacies of the plan, plus the lack of inclusion of a wetlands map and floodplains map as part of the adopted comprehensive plan. This goal of the regional plan provides: By 1990, state and local regulatory programs shall be designed to appropriately use and protect the Region's functioning natural systems. Endangered and threatened species are addressed by issue 44 of the regional plan. Goal 1 of that issue provides: By 1995, the number of native species in the Region on the official list of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora in Florida (FGFWFC) shall be reduced by 5 percent. The lack of planning directives and controls upon development in the county by goals, objectives and policies of the plan, prevents a finding that the plan furthers this goal. Regional issue 45 regarding the management of public and private land in a manner that permits continued functioning of natural systems is not furthered by the plan. Again, the densities and intensities of use established by the plan; the lack of control over development permitted by the plan; and specifically, the failure of the plan to include an adopted map of wetlands and floodplains establishes the plan's failure to further goal 1 of this issue. That goal provides: By 1990, public and private lands will be managed and land resources used according to comprehensive, economic and environmental principles, especially critical areas including, but not limited to coastal lands, wetlands, flood plains, margins of estuarine nursery areas, and locally important agricultural lands. Regional issue 58, regarding natural resource preservation and coordination between potable water and wastewater treatment facilities and land uses with regard to aquifer protection, is not furthered by the plan in view of the plan's provisions which fail to discourage urban sprawl and, instead, permit urban development to spread and negatively impact natural systems. Goal 1 and goal 2, respectively, of this issue of the regional plan read as follows: Regional goal 1 By the year 1991, local land use planning will be fully coordinated with planning for the provision of potable water and wastewater treatment and disposal. Regional Goal 2 By the year 1991, each local government in the Region will use review procedures that consider cumulative impact of development on natural resources. Neither of these goals is furthered by the plan. Because level of service standards established in the plan's Capital Improvements Element (CIE) permit inadequate roadway level of service standards with regard to the Pensacola Bay Bridge and permit the change of such level of service standards simply by having a roadway definitionally reclassified, regional issue 63 and regional goal 1 of that issue are not furthered by the plan. Regional goal 1 of the issue reads: By 1995, all modes of transportation planning will be integrated to efficiently, economically and safely accommodate transportation needs in the West Florida Region. Regional issue 64 addresses transportation planning to aid growth management. Regional goal 1 of the issue provides that planned development patterns and land use permitting will conform and coordinate with existing or programmed state and local transportation systems by 1991. Regional goal 2 of this issue provides that land development codes will include an analysis of transportation impacts, provide for protection of transportation rights-of-way, and establish private sector sharing of the cost of transportation facilities by 1991. Inasmuch as traffic analysis under the plan appears based on historical projections, as opposed to the impacts of future land use permitted by the plan, the plan does not further this issue or goals 1 and 2. Regional issue 69 of the regional plan and goals 1 through 4 of that issue are not furthered by the plan in view of the relatively high densities and intensities of residential use permitted in agricultural areas. Such usage for residential purposes does not ensure that agriculture will be protected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings and fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that a final order be entered finding that the Escambia county Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1992.
