The Issue The issue in these cases is whether amendments to the City of Stuart's comprehensive plan, designated amendments 97-S1, 97-1, 98-R1, and 98-ER1 by the Department of Community Affairs, are "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Board of County Commissioners of Martin County (hereinafter referred to as "Martin County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Petitioner, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "1000 Friends"), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation. The corporate purpose of 1000 Friends includes monitoring and ensuring the proper implementation of the State's growth management laws. Respondent, City of Stuart (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipal corporation located within Martin County. Respondent/Intervenor, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). No evidence concerning Intervenor, Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., was presented. Standing. Martin County owns real property located within the jurisdiction of the City. Although Martin County is also an "adjoining local government," the evidence failed to prove that the amendments at issue in these cases will produce "substantial impacts" on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within Martin County's jurisdiction. There has been a negative impact on Martin County's ad valorem tax base by the annexation of properties formerly under its jurisdiction. Those impacts, however, were caused by the annexation of the properties and not by the amendments at issue in this case. Additionally, those impacts did not cause any need for "publicly funded infrastructure." There may also be some impact as a result in the change in land use designations for some of the annexed property. Martin County's conclusion about the extent of the increase in commercial uses, however, was not supported by the evidence. The evidence also failed to prove that any of the text amendments at issue in these cases will have a negative impact on Martin County's need to provide publicly funded infrastructure. The evidence also failed to prove that the reduction of land subject to Martin County's municipal service taxing district and any resulting decrease in taxable values with the district will cause Martin County to provide additional publicly funded infrastructure. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Martin County has designated any areas "for protection or special treatment within their jurisdiction" or that there will any "substantial impact" on such areas. Martin County made oral and written comments to the City during the adoption of the amendments at issue in these cases. 1000 Friends, since its formation, has had approximately 6,000 members in Florida. Members from Martin County and the City have totaled approximately 835 and 235 persons, respectively. Martin County and City members constitute a substantial percentage of 1000 Friends' total membership. 1000 Friends' corporate purposes include the representation of its members in legal and administrative proceedings involving the Act. 1000 Friends' litigation committee specifically authorized its participation in these proceedings. The type of relief sought by 1000 Friends in these cases is the type of relief 1000 Friends is authorized to seek on behalf of its members. 1000 Friends made written comments to the City during the adoption of certain large scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the City's comprehensive plan and amendments to the City's comprehensive plan adopted as a result of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Martin County and 1000 Friends are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 1000 Friends' standing is limited, however, to standing to challenge certain large scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the City's comprehensive plan and text amendments to the City's comprehensive plan adopted as a result of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Intervenor, Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., failed to prove its has standing to participate in this proceeding. General Information About Martin County and the City. Martin County is a relatively small county located in the central southeast portion of Florida. Martin County is abutted on the north by St. Lucie County, on the west by Lake Okeechobee and a small portion of Okeechobee and Glades Counties, on the south by Palm Beach County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. Martin County has a population of approximately 118,000 permanent residents. The population increases by 32 to 34 percent during the fall and winter. Martin County has the third highest per capita income in Florida. There are four municipalities in Martin County, including the City. The City is located on the Atlantic Ocean at the mouth of the St. Lucie River, which divides the City into two land masses. Most of the City is located south and east of the St. Lucie River. A small part of the City is located just to the north of the St. Lucie River. The north and south portions of the City are connected by the Roosevelt Bridge. The City is connected to Palm City to the west by the Palm City Bridge. The City has a population of approximately 14,000. During the day the population of the City increases significantly to an estimated population of between 25,000 and 30,000. Because of the City's relatively small population and the large influx of persons traveling to the City during the day, the City has a need for a significant amount of ad valorem taxes. More than half of the City's ad valorem property taxes comes from commercial property located in the City. In November 1996 commercial land use in the City accounted for approximately 24 percent of the City's land area. The City is the only full-service incorporated municipality in Martin County. It is the county seat for Martin County and serves as the center of legal, medical, social, commercial, and governmental activities in Martin County. The City has recently characterized itself as follows: For most of its history the character of Stuart was one of low to moderate intensity development in a waterfront community, with a small town feel. A four-story height limit and 10-unit density limit for most residential building were the two main forces that continue this character. In addition, Stuart has long been a hub for Martin County, home to many public and private institutions and businesses. As a result, the percentage of commercial, institutional, and public land in the City was higher than it would be in a city that did not serve as a hub. This role was evident in 1991, and a balance between the residential needs of the citizens of Stuart and the sometimes competing, sometimes complementary needs of those hub-related land uses seemed to drive the 1991 Future Land Use Element. It was recognized at Plan adoption that Stuart was near build-out, and barring further major annexations, would have limited vacant land remaining for new development. City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report, Martin County Exhibit 11 at page 33. Prior to 1997, approximately 2,800 acres of land were located within the jurisdiction of the City. Compared to the rest of Martin County, the City is relatively modest economically. Per capita income in the City is approximately 80 percent of the Martin County-wide average per capita income. Housing in the City consists of approximately 6,300 units. Two-thirds of the City's housing stock is multi-family. Approximately 92 percent of the multi-family housing stock is valued at less than $70,000.00. Approximately 69 percent of the other third of the City's housing stock, which consists of single-family housing, is valued at less than $70,000.00. The median value of owner-occupied housing in the City has been growing at a much slower rate than Martin County, neighboring counties, and the State as a whole. Between 1980 and 1990, the median value of owner-occupied housing in the City increased 56 percent while in Martin County the median value increased 112 percent, in Indian River County 69 percent, in Palm Beach County 77 percent, in St. Lucie County 66 percent, and in the State of Florida 68 percent. Because of the relatively low value of the City's housing stock, ad valorem taxes generated from housing is relatively low. The U.S. 1 Corridor. One of the main thoroughfares in Martin County is United States Highway 1, "Southeast Federal Highway" (hereinafter referred to as "U.S. 1"). U.S. 1 runs north-south through the City. It crosses the St. Lucie River via the Roosevelt Bridge. Land located within unincorporated Martin County along U.S. 1 north of the Roosevelt Bridge almost to the St. Lucie County line is mostly developed or approved for development. Development includes major retail stores such as Target, Sports Authority, Barnes & Noble Bookstore, Office Max, Marshall's, Service Merchandise, PetSmart, Home Depot, Lowe's Home Improvement Center, and grocery stores. There are also many smaller retailers located in strip commercial shopping centers. Most of the development has been permitted during the past five to six years by Martin County. The area to the west and northwest of property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge during 1997 and 1998 includes Treasure Coast Mall, strip shopping centers, offices, restaurants, and single-family housing at a density of four to five units per acre. The area to the east and northeast of the property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge includes single-family housing at a density of four units per acre, multi- family housing, and commercial and industrial property. The area to the north of the property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge includes a development of regional impact known as "West Jensen." West Jensen runs from Jensen Beach Boulevard north to the St. Lucie County line. By 2003, when the project is projected to be fully developed, West Jensen will include 260,000 square feet of limited industrial space, 729,000 square feet of general commercial space, 23,000 square feet of limited commercial space, 235,000 square feet of office space, 200 hotel rooms, 931 residential units, and four golf courses. The area to the immediate south of the City is fully developed. Along U.S. 1 there are large shopping centers, restaurants, car dealerships, strip shopping centers, single-family housing of four to five units per acre, and condominiums. The Martin County Airport abuts U.S. 1 on the east. The area to the west of the City, Palm City, is fully developed. Growth of the City Through Annexation. To the extent that the City grew during the 1970's, it did so through annexation. Subsequent to the 1970's, however, the City turned from annexation and focused on redevelopment of the City's downtown area and the eastern part of the City. Between 1988 and November 1996, the City only annexed 298 acres in 30 annexations. This amounted to an increase of only 18 percent in the geographic size of the City. Subsequent to late 1995, the City shifted its policy back to annexation as a means of growth. Of the 30 annexations the City was involved in between 1988 and November 1996, 19 took place in October 1995. In approximately 1996, the City performed an analysis of its projected revenues and expenditures through the year 2003. The City projected that its revenues would be less than its expenditures. Based upon more recent projections, which take into account recent City annexations, the City has projected that its revenues and expenditures should be about the same for the next eight to nine years. The City has projected that its revenues will increase as a result of ad valorem and sales taxes and other revenues which should be generated from the newly annexed properties. During the Spring of 1997, the City received a number of requests for voluntary annexation pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. These requests were accepted by the City and the first 16 parcels were annexed in the Spring of 1997. During 1998, another 27 parcels were annexed through voluntary annexation. Between the spring of 1997, and the end of 1998 the City annexed a total of almost 1,200 acres, increasing the geographic area of the city by 48 percent. The City annexed 254.8 acres in 1997 and 934 acres in 1998. The first requests for voluntary annexations began shortly after Martin County determined that certain roads had no more capacity to sustain further growth. As a consequence of this determination, Martin County imposed a moratorium on new development that would impact U.S. 1 north of the Roosevelt Bridge and the area west of the City on the other side of the Palm City Bridge. Some of the parcels annexed by the City in 1997 and 1998, could not be developed because of the transportation concurrency problem Martin County determined it had. Although there was no direct testimony from owners of parcels annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998, as to the reason they sought voluntary annexation of their property by the City, it is clear that at least some of the voluntary annexations were influenced by Martin County's moratorium and the hope of property owners that the City would take sufficient actions to resolve the transportation concurrency problem on U.S. 1 to allow owners to develop their property. More significantly, the annexations were probably influenced by a perception of property owners that obtaining approval for development from Martin County was a more difficult process generally than obtaining approval through the City. During 1997, the level of service (hereinafter referred to as "LOS") standard selected by Martin County for roads under its jurisdiction was a LOS D. While the City ultimately modified its LOS for roads impacted by development of some of the parcels annexed during 1997 and 1998, the evidence failed to prove that the City's modifications were not based upon reasonable planning principles. The 1997 Small Scale Amendments. The City did not determine specifically how the 16 parcels it annexed during 1997 would impact the City of Stuart's Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan") before it accepted the voluntary annexations. Pursuant to Section 171.062(2), Florida Statutes, the 16 parcels the City annexed in 1997 remained subject to the Martin County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "County Plan") and Martin County's land development regulations until the City amended the City's Plan to incorporate the parcels into the City. In particular, the parcels remained subject to the County Plan until the City amended the City's Plan to assign appropriate land uses to the annexed parcels. Therefore, as the parcels were annexed, the City undertook efforts to amend the City's Plan to assign appropriate land use designations to the parcels. The first nine of the 16 parcels annexed by the City during 1997 took place on September 8, 1997. The parcels were annexed pursuant to the voluntary annexation procedure of Section 171.044, Florida Statutes. Each of the nine parcels consisted of less than ten acres of land. Simultaneously with the annexation of the parcels, the City adopted ten small scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM") of the City's Plan assigning land use designations under the City's Plan to the parcels. The small scale amendments adopted by the City on September 8, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Small Scale Amendments"), were designated Amendments 97S-1 by the Department. The Department did not, however, review the amendments because they constituted small scale amendments exempt from review by the Department pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. On October 8, 1997, Martin County filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearings contending that nine of the 1997 Small Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The Petition was designated Case No. 97-4582GM. 1000 Friends did not challenge the 1997 Small Scale Amendments or intervene in Case No. 97-4582GM. Martin County alleged that the 1997 Small Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with Sections 163.3187(c)(1)(c) [sic] and 163.3187(c)(3)(c) [sic], Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1997 Small Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. In two instances, the Kornbluh and Luce properties, the City's land use designations were virtually the same as Martin County's. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1997 Small Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the parcels by the City: Kornbluh property (Parcel 1) This parcel consists of 1.4 acres. In the County, approximately half of the parcel was designated commercial/residential (COR), and the other half commercial. The parcel is surrounded by commercial land use to the north, south, east and west, and a portion of the western boundary abuts existing developed low density residential. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1482-97. There is no substantive difference between the County's land use designation for the Kornbluh property and the City's land use designation. The same types of uses are permitted in both, such as gas stations, restaurants, bars, professional offices, veterinary offices, and other retail and commercial uses. 1st Christian Church property This parcel consists of approximately 2.8 acres and has an existing church on the property. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential. The property abuts some commercial property, some vacant property that was low density residential in the County but which has been changed to neighborhood special district in the City, a mobile home park, and some vacant land designated a medium density residential. Because the land has an existing church on the property, the City determined that institutional was a more appropriate land use designation. Thus, the City adopted an ordinance giving the property a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1494-97. City Cemetery property (Parcel 7) This parcel consists of 2.06 acres. Part of the property is used as a cemetery and the other part is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial general. The City has given that part of the property that is used as a cemetery a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1501.97 and the vacant part a designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1502.97. The City Cemetery property is at the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Monterey Road which is one of the most developed intersections in all of Martin County. The property is surrounded by commercial development and also a mobile home park. Luce property (Parcel 8) This parcel consists of approximately 4 acres. In the County, the land use designation was commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1506-97. There is no difference between the City's and County's land use designation. The City considered a commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Luce property based on the existing use of the property and the surrounding land uses. Specifically, half of the property is currently used as a produce market and the property abuts commercial land use to the north and to the west. To the east, it abuts the old City landfill which is currently closed and to the south it abuts the Martin County jail. Mush property (Parcel 9A) This parcel consists of approximately 3 acres and is fully developed. In the County, the land use designation was industrial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1509-97. The City considered the commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Mush property because it is fully developed as a contractor's showcase office. In addition, the surrounding land uses are commercial to the north and west and industrial to the south and east. The City's land use designation of commercial is more restrictive than the County's land use designation of industrial. The County's industrial designation allows both industrial types of uses and commercial uses, such as a gas stations, professional offices, retail buildings, etc. The City's land use designation of commercial does not allow industrial uses. Treasure Coast Auction House property (Parcel 9B) This parcel consists of approximately 5½ acres and is fully developed. In the County, the land use designation was industrial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1512-97. The City considered the commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Treasure Coast Auction House property because it is fully developed as a Scotty's store. In addition, the surrounding land uses are commercial to the north and west and industrial to the south and east. As explained above in the findings of fact regarding the Mush property (9-A), the City's land use designation of commercial is more restrictive than the County's land use designation of industrial. Hospice property (Parcel 10) This parcel consists of approximately 10 acres. In the County, the land use designation was half low density residential and half commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1515-97. The Hospice property is developed as a hospice facility and the owners have plans to expand the facility. The property abuts Indian Street, which is an existing two-lane facility which will become a four-lane facility. Indian Street is considered a major collector in the County's comprehensive plan and it links U.S. 1 and State Road 76. Bailey property (Parcel 11) This parcel consists of approximately 10 acres and is currently vacant. In the County, the land use designations was half low density residential and half commercial limited. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1519-97. The Bailey property abuts Indian Street, which is an existing two-lane road which will become a four-lane road. Indian Street is considered a major collector in the County's comprehensive plan and it links U.S. 1 and State Road 76. Since it is a commercial corridor, the City considered the commercial designation on the property to be more appropriate than low density residential. Armellini property (Parcel 12) This parcel consists of approximately 1.2 acres. In the County, the land use designation was industrial and the City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1522-97. The Armellini property is on the corner of U.S. 1 and Indian Street and is in close proximity to other commercial development. The types of uses permitted by the City's commercial category is similar to the types of uses allowed by the County's industrial category, such as gas stations, office buildings, restaurants, and bars. The 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the Future Land Use Element Amendment. On December 7, 1997, the City adopted an amendment to the text of the Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE") of the City's Plan. This amendment added a new land use designation to the City's Plan: "Neighborhood/Special District." The amendment also added goals, objectives, and policies concerning the new land use category. The newly created Neighborhood/Special District allows mixed land uses, including neighborhood commercial, office, residential, and recreational. Mixed residential and non- residential uses either in the same building or on the same site are required for a Neighborhood/Special District. A Neighborhood/Special District must have at least 30 percent residential uses and at least ten percent non-residential (excluding recreational) uses. Parking must be clustered in separate pockets rather than located in one expanse, and pedestrian interconnections must be used. On December 8, 1997, the City annexed seven parcels of property by voluntary annexation. On the same date the City adopted nine FLUM amendments assigning land use designations to the annexed property consistent with the City's Plan. Each of the parcels to which the FLUM amendments applied consisted of more than ten acres of land and, therefore, were not considered small scale amendments exempt from Department review. The nine large scale amendments to the FLUM and the FLUE amendment adopted by the City in December 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Large Scale Amendments and the "FLUE Amendment," respectively), were designated Amendment 97-1 by the Department. The Department reviewed the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment. In a Statement of Intent issued February 9, 1998, the Department found the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment were not "in compliance." The Department's determination was based upon its conclusion that the new land use category and existing non-residential land use categories applied in the 1997 Large Scale Amendments lacked a density/intensity standard. On February 17, 1998, the Department filed a Petition of the Department of Community Affairs with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petition was designated Case No. 98-0794GM. Martin County was granted leave to intervene in Case No. 98-0794GM by Order Granting Intervention entered March 11, 1998. Martin County challenged the FLUE Amendment and the 1997 Large Scale Amendments. Martin County alleged that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They can not be reasonably implemented; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They fail to establish intensities of use; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; and They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast. 1000 Friends did not challenge the 1997 Large Scale Amendments or the FLUE Amendment. Nor did 1000 Friends intervene in Case No. 98-0794GM. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1997 Large Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1997 Large Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the properties by the City: Hendry property (Parcel 3) This parcel consists of approximately 7½ acres. The property contains an existing fully developed office warehouse, and in the County the land use designation was commercial general. The parcel abuts commercial property to the north, south, and west, and to the east it abuts a mobile home park as well as a conservation easement within a walled, gated residential development. Because the existing use was a warehouse, the City determined that a more appropriate land use designation would be industrial and suggested this land use to the owner. The City adopted the industrial land use designation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1488-97. With regard to the Hendry property, there is no difference between the County's land use designation of commercial and the City's land use designation of industrial. The existing office warehouse on the property is permitted both in the County's commercial designation. Millenium property (Parcel 4) This parcel consists of approximately 24½ acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1491-97. There is no difference between the County's commercial land use designation and the City's commercial land use designation. Wacha property (Parcel 6) This parcel consists of approximately 47 acres. In the County, the land use designation was part mobile home, part low density, part medium density, and part industrial. The owner of the property approached the City with the idea of building a mixed use village on the property. The City was supportive of this idea and worked with the Treasure Coast Regional Council to develop a new land use category, neighborhood special district, as well as refine the site plan to create the mixed use village concept. The neighborhood special district land use category was adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 1498-97. Part of the property that was originally designated industrial in the County was designated commercial in the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 1497-97. The neighborhood special district land use category will allow the Wacha property to be developed as a traditional neighborhood development project. The proposed development will include a town square area with shops and restaurants on the ground floor, apartments on the second floor, and parking behind the buildings to create a pedestrian-friendly thoroughfare. The development also includes a home office district where people can live and work in the same building. The development also proposes a single family residential neighborhood clustered around a common green with garages to the rear, and the building set with front porches on the street. The City and County's land use designation for the Wacha property differ significantly. The City's land use designation requires a mix of uses, with not less than 30% residential and not less than 10% commercial or non-residential development within a given property. The County's land use designations are exclusive, so that each specific property can only be used for mobile home park or light industrial or medium density residential or low density residential. The County would not permit a mixed use development on this property. The Wacha property is part of the City's Community Redevelopment Area. The City determined that the neighborhood special district land use designation would further the intent and purpose behind the Community Redevelopment Area which is to encourage redevelopment of blighted areas. Dubner North property (Parcel 13), Republic Industries property (Parcel 14), Dubner South property (Parcel 15) The Dubner North parcel consists of approximately 48 acres, the Republic Industries property consists of approximately 11½ acres, and the Dubner South property consists of approximately 56 acres. In the County, the land use designation for each of the properties was industrial. The City has given the Dubner North property a land use designation of part commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1525-97 and part industrial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1526-97, the Republic Industries property a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1529-97, and the Dubner South property a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1532-97. The Dubner North, Republic Industries, and the Dubner South properties are bound by the railroad tracks to the east. To the north, south, and west, the properties are surrounded by either County industrial or commercial future land uses or City commercial land uses. The Remedial Amendments. Subsequent to the opening of Case No. 98-0794GM, the Department and the City entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes. Martin County declined to enter into the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. The City agreed to adopt remedial amendments which included text descriptions of various land use categories, including the Neighborhood/Special Districts category, and a table setting for residential densities and commercial intensities for land use categories created in the City's Plan. On August 24, 1998, the City adopted remedial amendments consistent with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Remedial Amendments"). The Remedial Amendments were adopted by Ordinance No. 1646-98. The Remedial Amendments, designated Amendment 98-R1 by the Department, were determined to be "in compliance" by the Department. Upon the adoption of the Remedial Amendments and the determination that the Remedial Amendments were "in compliance," the parties in Case No. 98-0794GM were realigned as required by Section 163.3184(16)(f)1, Florida Statutes, to reflect that Martin County was challenging the Department's conclusion that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment, as modified by the Remedial Amendments, were "in compliance." Martin County also filed a Petition for Formal Hearing challenging the Department's determination that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment, as modified by the Remedial Amendments were "in compliance." That Petition was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 17, 1998. The Petition was designated Case No. 98-5501GM. 1000 Friends did not challenge the Remedial Amendments. Nor did 1000 Friends intervene in Case No. 98-5501GM. I. The 1998 Large Scale Amendments. Between April 13, 1998, and June 22, 1998, the City annexed 16 large parcels through voluntary annexation. On August 24, 1998, the City adopted 33 FLUM amendments assigning land use designations to the newly annexed parcels consistent with the City's Plan. Eleven of the FLUM amendments were small scale amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the 1998 Small Scale Amendments). The 1998 Small Scale Amendments were not reviewed by the Department even though they were submitted to the Department with the other 22 FLUM amendments. The parcels to which the other 22 FLUM amendments related consisted of more than ten acres of land and, therefore, were not considered small scale amendments exempt from Department review. The 22 large scale amendments adopted on August 24, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "1998 Large Scale Amendments), were designated Amendment 98-1 by the Department. The Department reviewed the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and found them "in compliance." Martin County and 1000 Friends filed separate Petitions for Formal Hearing with the Department challenging the determination that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were "in compliance." The Petitions filed by Martin County and 1000 Friends were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 17, 1998. The Petitions were designated Case Nos. 98- 5503GM and 98-5510GM, respectively. Martin County alleged that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. 1000 Friends alleged that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because they were adopted without intergovernmental coordination. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1998 Large Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1998 Large Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the properties by the City: Pulte Homes property (Parcel F3), Vista A property (Parcel F5), Gibson property (Parcel F6), and Debartolo property (Parcel F24) The Pulte Homes parcel consists of approximately 312 acres. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential and high density residential. The City has given it a combination of conservation, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1549- 97, low density residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1550-97, and neighborhood special district, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1551-97. The Vista A parcel consists of approximately 9 acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial/office/residential (COR) and high density residential. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1546-97. The Vista B parcel consists of approximately 44 acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential and the City has given it a land use designation of low density residential pursuant to Ordinance No. 1553- 97. The Gibson parcel consists of approximately 100 acres. In the County, the land use designation was low density and commercial general. That part of the property that was designated commercial in the County was given a commercial land use designation in the city pursuant to Ordinance No. 1557-97. That part of the property that was designated low density residential in the County was given a combination of low density residential and conservation (Ordinance No. 1558-97), and multi-family residential (Ordinance No. 1559-97) pursuant to Ordinance No. 1549-97, low density residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1550-97, and neighborhood special district, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1551-97 in the City. The Debartolo parcel originally consisted of 205.90 acres. However, a portion of the parcel has been reannexed by the City to cure the defects found by the circuit court. The County's land use designation was a mixture of low, medium and high density residential. The City has given it a combination of part neighborhood special district pursuant to Ordinance No. 1618-97, part low density residential and conservation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1620-97, and part multi-family and conservation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1622-97. These five parcels (Pulte, Vista A, Vista B, Gibson, and Debartolo) contain a series of wetlands that form a slough that drains through Arant's swamp, or Haney Creek, and into the St. Lucie River. In terms of long- range planning, the City believed it best to implement a series of greenways and flow-ways to interconnect those wetlands and preserve areas to help clean up a non-point source pollution problem that was occurring in the St. Lucie River. Thus, recommending an appropriate land use designation for these properties, the City considered the pattern of wetlands in the area that form the slough and proposed a conservation land use designation for parts of some of the properties. In addition, the City received a grant from the Florida Communities Trust to purchase 84 acres of Arant's swamp or Haney Creek. This area is south of the five properties described above. The 84 acres form a flow- way for all of the water flow that comes from north to south and ultimately into the St. Lucie River. The City is proposing to construct a greenway which would connect the wetlands in the five properties described above so that water can flow unimpeded into Arant's swamp and ultimately into the St. Lucie River. Those connections would be accomplished at site planning and connected under roadways with staged culverts so animals can travel along the sides and water can flow through the middle. Comparing the City and County's land use designations for these five parcels, the land use designations adopted by the City are more appropriate than the County's land use designations and will result in a better use of the properties. For instance, by changing some of the land uses from low density residential in the County to conservation in the City, the environmentally sensitive areas will be preserved in perpetuity. In addition, by changing the County's high density residential use for the Pulte Homes property to neighborhood special district in the City, the development will require a mix of uses including some commercial which will be interconnected in a pedestrian fashion to the existing single family home development which lies to the east. This will lessen the need for additional vehicular trips and encourage alternative forms of transportation. Stewart property (Parcel F11), Madyda property (Parcel F12), First Eastern Residential property (Parcel F13), First Eastern property (Parcel F14), and SK Partner's I property (Parcel F15) The Stewart parcel (F11) consists of approximately 15 acres of land and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was a mix of low and medium density residential, and commercial/office/residential (COR). The City has given it a land use designations of multi-family residential pursuant to Ordinance No. 1576-97. The Madyda parcel (F12) consists of approximately 6½ acres. The County's land use designation was a mix of medium density residential and commercial/office/residential (COR). The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1579-97. The First Eastern Residential parcel (F13) consists of 50 acres and is a fully developed low income housing project. The County's land use designation was medium density and low density residential. The City has given it a designation of multi-family pursuant to Ordinance No. 1582-97. The First Eastern parcel (F14) consists of 32.20 acres and is vacant. The County's land use designation was a mixture of Commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1585-97. The SK Partners I parcel (F15) consists of 18.94 acres and is vacant. The County's land use designations was commercial general. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1588-97. There is no difference between the City's and the County's land use designations. Sunbelt Partners/Stetson property (Parcel F17), Sunbelt Partners property (Parcel F18), SK Partners II property (Parcel F190) The Sunbelt/Stetson parcel (F17) consists of approximately 25½ acres, the Sunbelt Partners parcel (F18) consists of approximately 2.5 acres, and the SK Partners II parcel (F19) consists of approximately 38 acres. All three parcels are vacant. The City's original annexation of the Sunbelt Partners/Stetson parcels was invalidated by the circuit court. However, a portion of the parcel has been reannexed. The County's land use designation for the three parcels was primarily commercial, with a small amount of commercial/office/ residential. The City's gave all three parcels a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1615-97, 1612-97, and 1609-97. There is no real difference between the County's and the City's land use designations. Dubner East property (Parcel F22), Sellian property (Parcel F22), Dubner West property (Parcel F23) The Dubner East parcel consists of approximately 11.5 acres, the Sellian parcel (F22) consists of approximately 4 acres, and the Dubner West (F23) consists of approximately 10 acres. Dubner East is vacant, the Sellian property is developed as an office building and indoor assembly, and the Dubner West property is partially developed as an office building. The County's land use designation for each of the parcels was industrial. The City has given each a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1600-97, 1603-97, and 1606-97. The three properties abut County industrial land uses, although for the most part, the properties are developed as commercial uses. The properties also abut City commercial land uses. The City's land use designation is more restrictive than the County's because the County industrial allows both industrial and commercial uses while the City's commercial designation allows only commercial uses. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report Amendments. Consistent with Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the City conducted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report, including suggested amendments to the City's Plan. On August 24, 1998, simultaneously with the adoption of the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and the 1998 Small Scale Amendments, the City adopted amendments to all elements of the City's Plan (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "EAR Amendments") based upon the recommendations of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The EAR Amendments include density and intensity standards adopted as part of the Remedial Amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments revise the schedule for capital improvements and establish new concurrency requirements as part of the Capital Improvements Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments set out the steps the City will take to coordinate the City's Plan and its implementation with other agencies and entities as part of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments revise LOS standards for transportation in the Transportation Element of the City's Plan The EAR Amendments were reviewed by the Department simultaneously with the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and found to be "in compliance." The EAR Amendments were designated Amendment 98-ER1 by the Department. The 1998 Small Scale Amendments were also submitted to the Department with the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and the EAR Amendments but were ultimately withdrawn by the City at the request of the Department. Martin County and 1000 Friends also challenged the EAR Amendments in their Petitions challenging the 1998 Large Scale Amendments filed in Case Nos. 98-5503GM and 98-5510GM, respectively. Martin County alleged that the EAR Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Martin County did not allege which specific elements of the City's Plan amended by the EAR Amendments were being challenged in its Petition. It merely alleged that "Stuart's comprehensive plan amendments" are not in compliance. In the Joint Proposed Order filed by Martin County and 1000 Friends, specific portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (Policies A1.13 through A1.23, Policy A2.4, Policy A7.3, Objective 8, and Policies A8.1 through A8.11), the FLUE (Policies B1.2 through B1.4), and the Capital Improvements Element (the selection of LOS E) are cited. The specific objective and policies cited in the Joint Order are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Additionally, the Future Annexation Map adopted as part of the EAR Amendments by the City is cited in the Joint Proposed Order. The Future Annexation Map includes 8,000 additional acres which are projected to be annexed into the City by the year 2015. 1000 Friends' challenge to the EAR Amendments is limited to a challenge to the City's Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Data and Analysis. At the time that all of the amendments at issue in this proceeding were adopted there was more than adequate data and analysis to support all of the amendments. The data and analysis relied upon by the City in adopting the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments, the FLUE Amendment, the Remedial Amendments, the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, and the EAR Amendments was professionally acceptable. The testimony of Martin County's expert planner concerning data and analysis was not persuasive. That testimony was not based upon a complete review of the data and analysis relied upon by the City and the Department. The evidence presented by Martin County concerning data and analysis focused largely on the fact that the property to which the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments related had been annexed before the accumulation of all the data and analysis relied upon in support of the amendments. That evidence was irrelevant because the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder do not govern annexations; they govern plan amendments and require that the data and analysis be available at the time a plan amendment is adopted and not at the time of annexation. Data and analysis were required for the 1997 Small Scale Amendments and the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments, not to support the need for the annexed property, but to support the City's choice of land use classifications assigned to the annexed property. There were ample data and analysis to support the City's choices. Once the properties at issue in this proceeding were annexed consistent with Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, the City began the process of considering the amendments to the City's Plan necessary to accommodate the annexations and bring them under the City's Plan. While the evidence did prove that the City now has approximately 33 years of commercial property to meet the needs of the City during the 20 years of the City's Plan, there is no requirement in the Act or the implementing rules that a need for annexed property be present before annexation occurs. The commercial property located in the City as a result of the 1997 Small Scale Amendments and the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments is not significantly different from the amount of commercial property which existed prior to the amendments. Most of the annexed property was designated commercial or industrial by the County Plan. Industrial uses under the County Plan include many of the same uses of commercial property under the City Plan. Under these circumstances, the City made the most reasonable planning decision by classifying the annexed property consistent with surrounding land uses and Martin County's prior land use designation of land use for the property. The City completed a needs analysis as part of its review and revision of the City's Plan through the EAR Amendments. That analysis was based upon data available at the time of the EAR Amendments. The data was also available at the time the 1997 Small Scale Amendments, the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments, the FLUE Amendment, and the Remedial Amendments were adopted. The City's needs analysis included an allocation of land uses to the land use categories designated in the City's Plan. Although the allocation of land resulted in an allocation of more commercial land than may be required during the life of the City's Plan, the evidence failed to prove that such a surplus results in any under allocation of land to other classifications. Approximately 150 acres of the property annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998 were re-designated commercial by the City. Eighteen of those acres have already been developed, leaving an additional 132 acres of commercial land in the City. The evidence failed to prove that this increase of acreage is significant. Evidence presented by Martin County as to the increase in commercial property was not persuasive. In actuality, the increase in property designated commercial as a result of City's annexations amounts to approximately 48 acres. There were a total of 35 parcels designated commercial by the City, including the 1998 Small Scale Amendments. Most of those parcels were already developed in whole or in part with commercial, commercial-like, or industrial land uses. The uses of property classified industrial are also substantially similar to the uses allowed for commercial to result in little discernable effect on the supply of commercial property in the City. The only vacant parcels assigned a land use designation of commercial by the City that were not classified commercial or industrial by Martin County were referred to at hearing as parcels 1, 11 F4, F7, F12, and F14. Parcel 1 consisted of 1.4 acres. Approximately half of parcel 1 was designated commercial and the other half was designated commercial/office/residential. At most, this amounts to an increase of .7 acres of commercial. Parcel 11 consists of ten acres, parcel F4 consists of nine acres, parcel F7 consists of 5.06 acres, parcel F12 consists of 6.67 acres, and parcel F14 consists of 32.20 acres. Half of parcel F14 was classified as commercial by Martin County. The evidence also proved that the possible intensity of use for the property annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998, when compared with the possible intensity of use under the County Plan is less under the City's land use classifications. Martin County's expert testimony concerning increases in intensity was not credible. That testimony was based upon small scale parcels 5, 10, and 11, and large scale parcels 6, F6, and F24. Parcel 5 is already developed as 1st Christian. Parcel 10 is partially developed and the testimony concerning Martin County's land use designation for the property was incorrect. For parcel 6, the Wacha property, the testimony by the Martin County expert concerning Martin County's land use designation for part of the property was incorrect. The portion of the property designated commercial by the City was classified as industrial by Martin County. For parcel F6, the Gibson property, only a fourth of the property was designated multi-family. The rest of the property was given a land use designation that is the same or less intense then that allowed by the County. For parcel F24, the Debartolo property, Martin County's land use designation was a combination of low, medium, and high density residential and not just low density residential as testified by Martin County's expert witness. Most of the property was low density residential under the County's Plan and remained low density residential under the City's Plan. The calculations concerning the increase in intensity of use made by Martin County's expert witness were flawed and not credible, as explained in findings of fact 123 through 125. Martin County's assertion that the Remedial Amendments are not supported by data and analysis because of the increase in intensity of commercial property is rejected. In addition to the question of data and analysis to support the land use classifications assigned to the annexed property by the City, Martin County has suggested that there is insufficient data and analysis concerning how public facilities will be provided to the annexed property. The evidence failed to support this assertion. At the time of the 1997 and 1998 Small and Large Scale Amendments the City did not perform a concurrency analysis. Concurrency analyses are required at the time of site plan review or other application for another development permit. Therefore, neither the Act nor the City's Plan required a concurrency analysis. A transportation analysis involves transportation planning for an extended period of time and not planning for individual parcels. Capital facilities and available capacity for a five-year period are looked at in a transportation analysis. Concurrency analyses, on the other hand, are performed on individual parcels of property at the time of proposed development of those parcels. Neither a transportation analysis nor a concurrency analysis is required when a local government designates a general land use classification for a parcel of property. Martin County has asserted that the City's decision to adopt a LOS E and to "maintain" the actual existing LOS for two segments of U.S. 1 and State Roads 707 and 714, both of which are projected to have LOS F within the next five years in light of the moratorium it has imposed on development along U.S. 1 supports its argument that the FLUM amendments are not supported by data and analysis. They assert that evidence presented by the City's expert transportation engineer cannot be considered data and analysis because it was prepared after the FLUM amendments. This assertion is rejected. While the analysis may not have been available, the data was. More importantly, the testimony of the City's expert engineer may be relied upon to refute Martin County's assertion that there existed a transportation concurrency problem at the time the FLUM amendments were adopted. Martin County based its conclusion on an outdated Florida Department of Transportation table adopted as part of the County's Plan. That table lacked a footnote that cautioned against anything other than very general reliance on the table. Martin County's assertions concerning transportation concurrency were also refuted by the more accurate analysis performed by the City's expert engineer. Based upon his analysis, which was unrefuted by credible evidence, there is in fact no LOS deficiency not addressed by the City's Plan. The difference between the LOS adopted by the City and Martin County's LOS is not significant. The reports of the City's expert transportation engineer were sufficient data and analysis to support the EAR Amendments to the Capital Improvements and Transportation Elements. The LOS selected by the City, LOS E, is the most efficient use of the City's arterial roadways under current conditions. The evidence failed to prove that there were inadequate data and analysis to support Policy A1.1 of the FLUE. The evidence failed to prove that there were inadequate data and analysis concerning the effectiveness of existing intergovernmental coordination mechanisms. Intergovernmental Coordination. In May 1997, the City notified Martin County that it was considering a series of voluntary annexation requests it had received. The City and Martin County have entered into formal and informal agreements dealing with the provision of a number of services, including water and sewer, emergency rescue, solid waste, and law enforcement. Impact fees are dealt with by interlocal agreement pursuant to which the City collects impact fees for library services, regional parks, and county roads on behalf of the Martin County. Following the City's notification to Martin County of the voluntary annexation requests it had received, City staff and the Director of Public Works for Martin County met to discuss the provision of water and sewer service to the annexed areas. An agreement was reached between the City and Martin County as to which entity would be responsible for water and sewer services to each parcel to be annexed. Discussions between City and Martin County staff concerning responsibility for maintenance of roads were also held, including discussions at meetings of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee. The Metropolitan Technical Advisory Committee was established to provide for intergovernmental coordination in Martin County. Issues concerning road maintenance were resolved. Beginning essentially at the time of the notice to Martin County of the voluntary annexation requests the City had received, Martin County attempted to prevent the annexations. Although Martin County cooperated to resolve some of the problems that resulted from the annexations, Martin County prepared an emergency agenda item directing staff to evaluate the annexations and seek ways of preventing the annexations. Martin County staff reports concerning the proposed annexations indicated few problems that would result from the annexations. The reports were submitted to the City by Martin County. Martin County indicated, however, that it would be conducting further analysis on potential traffic impacts. Martin subsequently reported to the City that it had further concerns and would be attending a City scheduled workshop to be held in July 1997. No one from Martin County attended the workshop held in July or the workshop held by the City in September 1997. City staff reviewed all of Martin County's comments, notified the City Commission of the comments, and took the comments into consideration in making recommendations concerning the annexations and amendments to the City's Plan to the City. On September 16, 1997, the City notified Martin County of further requests for voluntary annexation. City staff thereafter attempted to schedule meetings with Martin County staff to discuss these annexations. Additional discussions were held with Martin County concerning utilities. These discussions resulted in agreements concerning the provision of utilities to the annexed parcels. Discussions concerning stormwater were also held between the City and Martin County. Transportation issues were discussed at Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Martin County wrote letters to the City and made oral comments concerning the FLUM Amendments. Martin County raised concerns over urban sprawl, concurrency, and intergovernmental coordination. Martin County also filed challenges to the City's annexations resulting in a number of civil actions between the City and Martin County. As a result of these actions and Martin County's attempts to prevent the annexations, relations between City and Martin County staff became strained. It became increasingly difficult for staff to work together to resolve common issues. In November 1997 Martin County sent a letter to the City expressing concerns over the late 1997 annexations involving urban sprawl and transportation concurrency. These comments were considered by the City. Martin County staff attended an August 1998 meeting at which the City adopted the FLUM Amendments relating to the late 1997 annexations. These comments were considered by the City. While the City and Martin County did not come to a consensus over all issues relating to the FLUM amendments, it cannot be said that there was not sufficient intergovernmental coordination between them. Given the diametrically opposing positions of the two governments concerning the annexations which gave rise to the amendments at issue in these cases, it is doubtful that any further coordination between the City and Martin County could have resolved the issues between the City and Martin County. Prior to adopting the EAR Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, the City's planning consultant reviewed the FLUM amendments that had already been adopted, the EAR Amendments, and the additional FLUM amendments the City was considering. The consult obtained data from Martin County concerning population and traffic. Efforts to obtain information from Martin County, however, were by this time difficult. The City even had to result to a public records request from Martin County to obtain some information. Again, while the City and Martin County did not come to a consensus over all issues relating to the EAR Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, it cannot be said that there was not sufficient intergovernmental coordination between them. Given the state of deterioration of the relationship between the City and Martin County by the time these amendments were considered and adopted by the City, it is doubtful that any further coordination between the City and Martin County would have resulted in any improvement in the EAR Amendments or the 1998 Large Scale Amendments. In addition to the fact that the intergovernmental coordination between the City and Martin County under the circumstances of this matter was adequate, any lack of coordination did not result in any substantial issues concerning the amendments to the City's Plan not being resolved. The evidence in these cases has not supported Martin County's or 1000 Friends' alleged deficiencies with the amendments. Evidence concerning intergovernmental coordination or the lack thereof before and during annexation of the parcels to which the FLUM amendments in these case relate was irrelevant. Nothing in the Act or the rules promulgated thereunder requires intergovernmental coordination on annexations. The City adopted an Intergovernmental Coordination Element as part of the EAR Amendments. The Element includes policies which relate to procedures for dealing with coordination concerning the development of the annexed areas. Those policies are quoted in the City's Proposed Order at finding of fact 149 and are incorporated herein by reference. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element adopted by the City does not meet the requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes. It does, however, meet the requirements of Sections 163.3177(4)(a) and (10)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.015, Florida Administrative Code. The requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, must be met by local governments no later than December 31, 1999. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(h)4., Florida Statutes, the Department adopted Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code, providing, in part, that the City submit an intergovernmental coordination element in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, no later than June 1, 1997, and that the element be adopted no later than December 31, 1997. In a publication of the Department called the Summer 1998 Community Planning publication, the Department informed the City to ignore Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code, and submit its intergovernmental coordination element no later than December 31, 1999. The City complied with this direction from the Department. The Department did not repeal Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code. Although Section 163.3177(6)(h)4., Florida Statutes, authorizes local governments to comply with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, earlier than December 31, 1999, the City has not opted to do so. Internal Inconsistency. Goal A of the FLUE provides that the City will "[m]aintain and enhance its small town waterfront character." Although the City has increased its size by 48 percent, it has not increased its "waterfront." None of the amendments to the FLUM at issue in these cases involve property located on the City's waterfront. The evidence also failed to prove that a 48 percent increase in the size of the City in and of itself is contrary to the City's small town character. Finally, the impact on the City's character is a result, not of the designation of land use categories for the annexed property, but from the annexation itself. Although annexation is the catalyst for the amendments being challenged in this proceeding, the fact of the annexation cannot be the issue. Policy A.3.2 of the FLUE provides that the City should "direct development to areas already served by adequate government utilities, services and schools . . . ." While some of the roads serving many of the annexed parcels were determined to be over-utilized, that over-utilization was based upon Martin County's LOS. Based upon the City's newly established LOS E, there are adequate road services for the annexed properties. The delivery of other utilities, services, and schools to the annexed properties has been coordinated between the City and Martin County or those services are already being provided. Objective B.3 of the FLUE provides that the City will discourage urban sprawl and continuous linear development along major roadways in order to achieve a compact urban form. While the annexed parcels are located along U.S. 1, their designated land uses pursuant to the amendments at issue are essentially consistent with their present uses or designated land uses. Little change in the form of development of the annexed parcels will occur as a result of the amendments. Therefore, the FLUM amendments do not increase linear development. Rather, they recognize it. As discussed, infra, the annexed properties do not constitute urban sprawl. As amended by the EAR Amendments, Objective B.1 of the FLUE provides that the City will "[d]iscourage urban sprawl by planning for urban infill and redevelopment of lands located within Stuart." The FLUM amendments constitute urban infill and are consistent with Objective B.1 as amended by the EAR Amendments. Objective B.3 of the FLUE requires a commitment of the City to the promotion of patterns of land use that are compatible and convenient to residents, businesses, and visitors, and the avoidance of the wasteful use of land. The evidence failed to prove that the FLUM amendments are inconsistent with this objective. Again, there is little difference in the uses of the property which is the subject of the FLUM amendments before and after their annexation. Policy A.8 of the Infrastructure Element of the City's Plan requires that the City will maximize the use of existing facilities and discourage urban sprawl through its annexation policy. Policy A.3.3, Objectives A.5, A.6, A.7, and A.9, and Policy A8.1 also provide similar guidance to the City. As discussed, infra, the FLUM amendments do not fail to discourage urban sprawl. The FLUM amendments also are not inconsistent with these provisions to the extent that they require the City to maximize the use of existing services. Policy A1.1 of the Housing Element of the City's Plan provides that the City must designate adequate residential land to accommodate projected need for housing. The most up to date analysis of existing population data suggests that there is adequate housing to meet the City's need for housing through the year 2015. The evidence failed to prove that anything about the amendments at issue in these cases are inconsistent with this policy. The evidence failed to prove that the amendments at issue in these cases are inconsistent with any provision of the City's Plan. The consistency of the foregoing goals, objectives, and policies with the City's Plan were the only ones specifically addressed in the Joint Proposed Order. The City also addressed the consistency of a number of other goals, objectives, and policies with the City's Plan. Those findings of fact (182-190, 193-195, 197, and 200-204) are hereby accepted and incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Urban Sprawl. The areas annexed by the City, while including some vacant land, are not located in a rural or predominately rural area. Instead, the annexed parcels are all located in an area designated in the County's Plan as the "Primary Urban Service Area." An independent evaluation of the properties confirms their urban location. The indicators of urban sprawl listed in Rule 9J- 5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, do not apply to the annexed parcels when considered "within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality." The testimony of Martin County's witnesses concerning the "linear pattern" of development evidenced by the annexed parcels failed to take into account the character of surrounding and abutting, unincorporated properties and the location of all the parcels within the "Primary Urban Service Area" established in the County's Plan. Testimony offered by Martin County concerning urban sprawl was also not credible because Martin County's expert witness did not complete the land use analysis of Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), Florida Administrative Code, because she failed to evaluate local conditions and development controls. Natural Resources. The evidence did not prove that any of the amendments at issue in these case fail to adequately protect natural resources. Availability of Infrastructure. As explained, supra, the City and Martin County coordinated the continued provision of most public utilities and services to the annexed parcels. Continued water, sewer, emergency rescue, law enforcement, and solid waste disposal services for the annexed parcels were all coordinated between the City and Martin County. Water and sewer services and recreational facility needs were analyzed by the City and found to be adequate. The evidence failed to prove that any necessary infrastructure is not available or will not be provided by the City. The Future Annexation Map. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report included a Map of Future Annexation. The Map of Future Annexation identified a small area south of the City for future annexation over the next ten years. The areas actually annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998 involve a more extensive area than that identified on the Map of Future Annexation. The areas identified on the Map of Future Annexation were areas which the City believed it would likely desire to annex and did not take into account voluntary annexation. The Map of Future Annexation was not intended to exclude such voluntary annexations. The EAR Amendments also include a Future Annexation Area Map (hereinafter referred to as the "FAA Map"). The FAA Map identifies approximately 8,000 additional acres of land which the City may consider annexing through the year 2015. The FAA Map is not, however, intended to represent an area which the City intends to pursue for annexation. It simply identifies the maximum area within which the City intends to consider annexation. It is, in effect, intended as a limitation on annexations that the City would pursue. The evidence failed to prove that the FAA Map is not a reasonable boundary for the possible expansion of the City through the year 2015 by annexation. The State and Regional Plans. The evidence failed to prove that any of the challenged amendments are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove that any of the challenged amendments are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast. The Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast was not offered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order dismissing Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., as a party. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments, the Remedial Amendments, the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, and the EAR Amendments to be "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 1st day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Bradshaw, Esquire Paul R. Bradshaw, P.A. 1345 Dupont Road Havana, Florida 32333 Gary K. Oldehoff, Esquire Martin County Attorney 2401 South East Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996 Terrell Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. 926 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert C. Apgar, Esquire Yeline Goin, Esquire 902-A North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Carl Coffin, Esquire City of Stuart 121 South West Flagler Avenue Stuart, Florida 34994 Shaw Stiller, Assistant General Counsel Karen A. Brodeen, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Tim B. Wright, Esquire Louis E. Lozeau, Jr., Esquire Warner, Fox, Seeley, Dungey and Sweet, L.L.P. Post Office Drawer 6 Stuart, Florida 34995 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue is whether the Land Development Code (LDC) adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-12 on August 22, 2007, as amended on February 27, 2008, is inconsistent with the effective comprehensive plan for the City of Doral (City), which is the Miami-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (County Plan).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Section 64 is a Florida corporation. The Grand is a Florida limited partnership. Both entities are owned by the same individual. On September 25, 2001, Section 7 acquired ownership of an approximate ten-acre tract of property in the County (now the City) located along the southern boundary of Northwest 82nd Street, between 109th and 112th Avenues. See Petitioners' Exhibit 416. On December 16, 2005, title in one- half of the property was conveyed to The Grand in order to divide the property into two different ownerships. Id. It was Petitioners' intent at that time to build two hotels on separate five-acre tracts, one owned by Section 7 and the other by The Grand. The City is located in the northwestern part of Dade County and was incorporated as a municipality in June 2003. At the time of incorporation, the County's Plan and Land Use Code were the legally effective comprehensive plan and land development regulations (LDRs), respectively. On April 26, 2006, the City adopted its first comprehensive plan. After the Department determined that the Plan was not in compliance, remedial amendments were adopted on January 10, 2007, pursuant to a Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Although the Department found the Plan, as remediated, to be in compliance, it was challenged by a third party, and the litigation is still pending. See DOAH Case No. 06-2417. Therefore, the County Plan is still the legally effective Plan. See § 163.3167(4), Fla. Stat. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing LDRs whenever the appeal process described in Section 163.3213, Florida Statutes, is invoked by a substantially affected person. History of the Controversy When Petitioners' property was purchased in 2001, the County zoning on the property was Light Industrial (IU-1), having been rezoned by the County to that designation on October 9, 1984. See Petitioners' Exhibit 5. One of the uses permitted under an IU-1 zoning classification is a hotel with up to 75 units per acre. See Petitioners' Exhibit 6. The land use designation on the County's LUP map for the property is Low- Density Residential (LDR), with One Density Bonus, which allows 2.5 to 6 residential units per acre with the ability for a "bump-up" in density to 5 to 13 units per acre if the development includes specific urban design characteristics according to the County urban design guide book. Language found on pages I-62 and I-63 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in effect at the time of the incorporation of the City (now found on pages I-73 and I-74 of the current version of the FLUE) provides in relevant part as follows: Uses and Zoning Not Specifically Depicted on the LUP Map. Within each map category numerous land uses, zoning classifications and housing types may occur. Many existing uses and zoning classifications are not specifically depicted on the Plan map. . . . All existing lawful uses and zoning are deemed to be consistent with the [Plan] unless such a use or zoning (a) is found through a subsequent planning study, as provided in Land Use Policy 4E, to be inconsistent with the criteria set forth below; and (b) the implementation of such a finding will not result in a temporary or permanent taking or in the abrogation of vested rights as determined by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. As noted above, if there is a concern that zoning might be inconsistent with land use, using the criteria described in the provision, the County may initiate a planning study to analyze consistency and down-zone the property to a less intense use if an inconsistency is found. Although the County initiated a number of planning studies after it adopted its Plan in 1993, and ultimately down-zoned many properties, none was ever initiated by the County for Petitioners' property. Essentially, when existing uses and zoning are not depicted on the County LUP map, the language in the FLUE operates to deem lawfully existing zoning consistent with the land use designation on the property. In this case, the parties agree that the zoning of Petitioners' property is not depicted on the County LUP map. Therefore, absent a planning study indicating an inconsistency, the zoning is deemed to be consistent with the land use category. On August 22, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2007-12, which enacted a new LDC, effective September 1, 2007, to replace the then-controlling County Land Use Code. Although the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing the new City Plan, until the new Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Amendments to the LDC were adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-1 on February 27, 2008. The LDC does not change the zoning on Petitioners' property. However, it contains a provision in Chapter 1, Section 5, known as the Zoning Compatibility Table (Table), which sets forth the new land use categories in the City Plan (which are generally similar but not identical to the County land use categories) and the zoning districts for each category. Pertinent to this dispute is an asterisk note to the Table which reads in relevant part as follows: Under no circumstances shall the density, intensity, or uses permitted be inconsistent with that allowed on the city's future land use plan. . . . Zoning districts that are inconsistent with the land use map and categories shall rezone prior to development. See Petitioners' Exhibit 27 at p. I-3. Under the Table, only residential zoning districts (with up to ten dwelling units per acre and no density bonus) are allowed in the City's proposed LDR land use category. Therefore, if or when the City Plan becomes effective, before Petitioners can develop their property, they must rezone it to a district that is consistent with the land use designation shown on the Table. There is no specific requirement in the LDC that the City conduct a planning study when it has a concern that the zoning is inconsistent with the relevant land use category in the new City Plan. Petitioners construed the asterisk note as being inconsistent with the text language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County Plan. See Finding of Fact 5, supra. Accordingly, on August 21, 2008, Petitioners submitted a Petition to the City pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging generally that they were substantially affected persons; that the LDC was inconsistent with the County Plan; that the LDC changes the regulations regarding character, density, and intensity of use permitted by the County Plan; and that the LDC was not compatible with the County Plan, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.023.2 See Petitioners' Exhibit 103. The City issued its Response to the Petition on November 20, 2008. See Petitioners' Exhibit 104. The Response generally indicated that Petitioners did not have standing to challenge the LDC; that the Petition lacked the requisite factual specificity and reasons for the challenge; that the LDC did not change the character, density, or intensity of the permitted uses under the County Plan; and the allegation concerning compatibility lacked factual support or allegations to support that claim. On December 22, 2008, Petitioners filed a Petition with the Department pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging that the LDC implements a City Plan not yet effective; that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the existing County Plan; and that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 105. After conducting an informal hearing on April 7, 2009, as authorized by Section 163.3213(4), Florida Statutes, on July 23, 2009, the Department issued a Determination of Consistency of a Land Development Regulation (Determination). See Petitioners' Exhibit 102. See also Section 7 Tract 64 Property, Inc., et al. v. The City of Doral, Fla., Case No. DCA09-LDR-270, 2009 Fla. ENV LEXIS 119 (DCA July 23, 2009). In the Determination, the Department concluded that Petitioners were substantially affected persons and had standing to file their challenge; that the provision on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE did not apply to Petitioners' property because the uses and zoning of the property are specifically designated on the LUP map; that the law does not prohibit the Department from reviewing the LDC for consistency with the not yet effective City Plan; and that because the LDC will require Petitioners to rezone their property to be consistent with the City Plan, the challenge is actually a challenge to a rezoning action and not subject to review under this administrative process. See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. On August 13, 2009, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Proceedings with DOAH raising three broad grounds: that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet effective; that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with the County Plan; and that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan and is inconsistent with that Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 39. These issues are repeated in the parties' Stipulation. As to other issues raised by Petitioners, and evidence submitted on those matters over the objection of opposing counsel, they were tried without consent of the parties, and they are deemed to be beyond the scope of this appeal. The Objections Petitioners first contend that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet in effect, in that it was specifically intended to be compatible with, further the goals or policies of, and implement the policies and objectives of, the City Plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.023. But Petitioners cited no statute or rule that prohibits a local government from adopting LDRs before a local plan is effective, or that implement another local government's plan (in this case the County Plan). While the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing a City Plan that the City believed would be in effect when the LDC was adopted, the City agrees that until the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Even though the two Plans are not identical, and may even be inconsistent with each other in certain respects, this does automatically create an inconsistency between the LDC and County Plan. Rather, it is necessary to determine consistency between those two documents, and not the City Plan. Except for testimony regarding one provision in the LDC and its alleged inconsistency with language in the County FLUE, no evidence was presented, nor was a ground raised, alleging that other inconsistencies exist. The Table note and the County Plan do not conflict. The LDC is not "inconsistent" merely because it was initially intended to implement a local plan that has not yet become effective. Petitioners next contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with that Plan. Specifically, they contend that the note following the Zoning Compatibility Table in Chapter 1, Section 5 of the LDC is inconsistent with the language on pages I-62 and 63 (now renumbered as pages I-73 and I-74) of the County Plan. In other words, they assert that an inconsistency arises because the note requires them to down- zone their property before development, while the County Plan deems their zoning to be consistent with the County LUP map unless a special planning study is undertaken. The evidence establishes that if there is a conflict between zoning and land use on property within the City, it is necessary to defer to the language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE for direction. This is because the County Plan is the effective plan for the City. Under that language, if no planning study has been conducted, the zoning would be deemed to be consistent with the land use. On the other hand, if a planning study is undertaken, and an inconsistency is found, the property can be rezoned in a manner that would make it consistent with the land use. Therefore, the LDC does not change the use, density, or intensity on Petitioners' property that is permitted under the County Plan. It is at least fairly debatable that there is no conflict between the Table note and the County Plan. Finally, Petitioners contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan because the current industrial zoning designation will be inconsistent with the LDR land use designation. Petitioners argue that once the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC requires them to down-zone their property before development. However, this concern will materialize only if or when the new City Plan, as now written, becomes effective; therefore, it is premature. Further, the definition of "land development regulation" specifically excludes "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land." See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Because the challenged regulation (the note to the Table) is "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land," the issue cannot be raised in an administrative review of land development regulations. Id. The other contentions raised by Petitioner are either new issues that go beyond the scope of the Petition filed in this case or are without merit.
The Issue Have the Intervenors timely challenged the Hamilton County adoption of its comprehensive plan under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes? If allowed to pursue their challenge, what is their burden of proof? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, (1991), the "fairly debatable" standard? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes, (1991) the "preponderance" standard? Did Hamilton County (the County) fail to adopt its comprehensive plan within sixty (60) days from the receipt of written comments from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as required by Section 163.3184(7), Florida Statutes (1991)? If it did, was that failure jurisdictional thereby voiding the adoption process? Within the adopted plan, is Policy V.2.13 requiring special permits for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities and for their placement in areas designated agricultural and located with the rural area of Hamilton County, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1991) and the North Central Florida Regional Policy Plan? Within the adopted plan is Policy 1.15.1 prohibiting the disposal of medical, bio-hazardous, hazardous or solid waste by incineration or by other methods which produce air pollution, other than by facilities permitted, legally sited and operated as of July 23, 1991, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the North Central Regional Policy Plan? More particularly must these policies meet and do they meet the requirements for surveys, studies and data set forth in Section 163.3177(6)(a),(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes (1991) and Rule 9J-5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact In December, 1990, Hamilton County prepared a proposed comprehensive plan. That proposal was submitted to the Department in accordance with Section 163.3184(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Within the Conservation Element of the proposed plan the County included Policy V.2.13, which stated: The County shall only allow hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities as special permits within areas designated agricultural and located within the rural area of the County. Further, the County's land development regulations shall include conditions for such approval of a hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facility as a special permit regarding the location, site design, buffer requirements, access to principal arterials and major intersections, requirements for appropriate public facilities, and require- ments which consider wind currents in relationship to population centers, which will direct any incinerated materials or noxious odors from these population centers. In no case shall a hazardous or bio-medical waste treatment facility be located within an Environmentally Sensitive Area as designated within this Comprehensive Plan. Policy V.2.13 was associated with Objective V.2 which states: The County shall include within the land development regulations, by 1992, provisions for the conservation, appropriate use and protection of the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources, water recharge areas and potable water wells. There was no specific data and analysis in the proposed plan directed to Policy V.2.13. Other policies associated with Objective V.2 addressed water issues. In the data and analysis which the County submitted to DCA with its proposed comprehensive plan the County did identify known pollution problems. This included a reference to point discharges for wastewater, non-point sources of water pollution, point air pollution sources and non-point sources of air pollution. None of the known activities were associated with hazardous and bio- medical waste treatment facilities. The data and analysis associated with the Conversation Element in the proposed plan also identified watersheds, wetlands, lakes, flood prone areas, and current water sources. The data and analysis further discussed the circumstances related to watersheds, wetlands, rivers, lakes, flood prone areas and air quality as the County perceived the existing conditions for those topics. Finally, the data and analysis spoke to the issue of projected water needs. No mention was made concerning how the aforementioned data and analysis would be considered in granting special permits for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities. On April 14, 1991, DCA transmitted its comments to the County concerning the proposed comprehensive plan and supporting data and analysis, together with its objections and recommendations for modifications to the proposed comprehensive plan. This activity was in accordance with Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes. The report that was transmitted is known as the "ORC" Report. The County received the ORC Report on April 22, 1991. The ORC Report made a number of objections to the objectives and policies set forth in the Conservation Element to the proposed comprehensive plan and recommendations for modifications to the same. The ORC Report specifically objected to Policy V.2.13 wherein the DCA stated: Policy V.2.13 does not describe the 'special permits' concerning hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities within agricultural areas, does not define the extent of the buffers, and does not prohibit these facilities in conser- vation areas. The general recommendation to improve Policy V.2.13, among policies found within the Conservation Element, was to this effect: Provide data and analysis to support the above- referenced policies. Revise the policies to identify the specific implementation programs or activities that will be undertaken by the County to achieve the goal and objectives with which the policies are associated. Eliminate or define all conditional and vague language. Revise the Future Land Use Map to support the revised policies. The County then held two public hearings related to the adoption of a comprehensive plan. See Section 163.3184(15), Florida Statutes (1991). The first public hearing was held on June 18, 1991. At that time no decision was reached to adopt a comprehensive plan. The public hearing was adjourned. On July 23, 1991, the County reconvened the public hearing related to the comprehensive plan adoption. Following the second public hearing associated with the plan adoption, the County in the person of its Board of County Commissioners who had conducted the public hearings, adopted a comprehensive plan for Hamilton County. The adopted comprehensive plan was transmitted to DCA on July 30, 1991. The transmittal letter supporting the adopted comprehensive plan noted that the comprehensive plan was adopted on July 23, 1991. The transmittal letter pointed out the changes to the adopted comprehensive plan which were not reviewed by DCA when DCA considered the proposed comprehensive plan. As with the proposed comprehensive plan, the County submitted data and analysis with the adopted comprehensive plan pointing out the data and analysis accompanying the adopted comprehensive plan which had not been reviewed by the DCA when it considered data and analysis supporting the proposed comprehensive plan. Within the conservation element to the adopted comprehensive plan Objective V.2 remained as set forth in the proposed comprehensive plan. Certain policies associated with Objective V.2 had changed. However, Objective V.2. and its associated policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan continued to address water issues. In particular, Policy V.2.13 did not change with the plan adoption. Additional data and analysis submitted by the County supporting the Conservation Element to the adopted comprehensive plan deleted the Suwannee River State Park as a conservation area. Specific references were made to Jumping Gully Creek, Swift Creek, Hunter Creek and the Withlacoochee River and activities associated with those water bodies. However, as with the proposed plan it was not explained how the County intended to use the original and additional data and analysis in deciding special permit issues for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities. When the County adopted its comprehensive plan it added an objective and a policy that had not been included with the proposed comprehensive plan in the category of objectives and policies for both urban development areas and rural areas in the Future Land Use Element. New Objective I.15 stated: Residential areas shall be protected from uses which cause or result in greater than average noise, hazards or odors. The associated Policy I.15.1 stated: No medical, bio-hazardous, hazardous, or solid waste shall be disposed of by incineration or by any other method which produces air pollution emissions subject to permitting by the Department of Environmental Regulation within Hamilton County, unless the use or facility was permitted and otherwise legally sited and operated as of July 23, 1991. The supporting data and analysis which the County provided the Department with the adopted comprehensive plan did not address Objective I.15 nor Policy I.15.1, with the exception that residential land use projections are described. The adopted plan provided specific information concerning future residential land use. That description was supported by a residential land use need methodology and analysis of future residential land use needed. As with the proposed plan, the adopted plan included a reference to industrial land use within the Future Land Use Element. In both the proposed plan and the adopted plan in Policy 1.3.1 it was stated: Lands classified as industrial consist of areas used for the manufacturing, assembly processing or storage of products. Industrial development may be approved in areas of the County not designated industrial on the Future Land Use Plan upon submission and approval of a development plan which shall include at the least: an industrial site plan; traffic plan; and traffic impact studies; provisions for the construction and maintenance of a wastewater treatment system meeting requirements of the State of Florida for that use; and a submission of a Future Land Use Plan Map amendment to Industrial classification. Industrial uses shall be limited to an intensity of less than or equal to 1.0 floor area ratio. The data and analysis associated with industrial land use which had been provided with the proposed comprehensive plan remained consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan when describing the methodology for identifying projected industrial land use. The comments in the data and analysis supporting the proposed and adopted plans indicated: Projecting the need for additional acreage for industrial use cannot be approached using a methodology similar to those used for residential and commercial Future Land Use needs. This is due to the fact that there is no direct relationship between population and industrial location. The additional future acreages for industrial location are anticipated to occur on a site specific basis as needed at the time industrial activities are proposed. Within the adopted comprehensive plan, Future Land Use Element related to urban development areas and rural areas is found the general industrial land use classification. The general industrial land use designations are located in the central area of the county to the southwest of the City of Jasper along County Road 249. There is an additional limited industrial land use classification within the urban development area and rural area category. It identifies industrial opportunities at interchanges on Interstate 75. At these interchanges, upon submission of a site plan that comports with development standards, with due regard for safety and adequate access, light industrial development is allowed which does not require an air emission permit from the State of Florida. Industrial land use designations as well as other land use designations were based upon an analysis of the amount and character of undeveloped land in the county, reliable population projections and growth patterns anticipated for the area, together with the availability of the public services to accommodate the projected population. The adopted comprehensive plan includes a Future Land Use Map and Map Series found within the Future Land Use Element of the adopted plan which depicts industrial land use. Intervenors' property carries a general industrial classification in the future land use designation in the adopted plan. Intervenors' property is not located on the Interstate 75 corridor and therefore would not be considered for this special industrial land use classification. The North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (the Council) assisted the County in preparing its proposed and adopted plans. The Council staff were engaged in that process as early as 1986. From that point forward the Council staff conducted field surveys relating to land use, compiled data from existing data sources and reviewed population projections and growth patterns in Hamilton County. The Council staff compiled information concerning public facilities, recreational and solid waste facilities, information relating to physical capacity for those facilities and information concerning the financing of capital projects. In anticipation of the requirements set forth in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, the Council staff conducted field surveys of existing land use to determine the character of undeveloped land in the county. The staff reviewed the population projections of the University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research. These activities were designed to assist the County in analyzing the amount of land necessary to accommodate projected growth and the availability of public services. The Council staff was responsible for preparing the proposed plan statement related to goals, objectives, and policies. The staff also prepared the Future Land Use Plan Map. The documents prepared by the Council staff were subject to review and workshops were held to consider those matters. Modifications were brought about through public comments presented at the workshops. The Council staff prepared an evaluation, appraisal and review report to examine the success of previously adopted comprehensive plans. Following the conduct of workshops the public sessions for plan adoption were held on June 18, and July 23, 1991. As representative for the County, the Council staff invited the Department to send representatives to attend the public hearing sessions. The Department was represented at those sessions. In the public hearings related to the plan adoption, there was considerable public testimony expressing concern about health and environmental impacts involved with the incineration of bio-medical waste. In particular, remarks were made about air emissions of mercury and dioxins and the disposal of ash residue from the incineration process. Documents were also presented by members of the public who opposed waste incineration. One document was from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, entitled Seminar-Medical and Institutional Waste Incineration: Regulations, Management, Technology, Emissions and Operations. Another document was entitled Hazardous Waste News #82, June 20, 1988, identified as a weekly news and resource for citizens fighting toxins. A third document was entitled "Facts" related to definitions within Section 403.703, Florida Statutes and observations from the author of this document concerning Intervenors intended operations of a bio-medical incineration facility in Hamilton County. Finally, there was a document from the Hamilton County School Board calling for a buffer zone between any school in the county and facilities which incinerated or otherwise disposed of substances through incineration or other disposal means which would create air emissions from the destruction of solid waste, hazardous substances, bio-hazardous waste and biological waste as defined within Section 403.703, Florida Statutes. The Hamilton County School Board also expressed a desire to completely prohibit the incineration or other disposal of those substances which were generated outside Hamilton County. The EPA document spoke in terms of the emissions from incinerators as being particulate and gaseous emissions. The particulate emissions being constituted of char and soot and minerals in the form of metals, silicates and salts. The gaseous emissions referred to in the EPA document were constituted of combustible emissions such as hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, PCDD and PCDF and noncombustible emissions, such as nitrogen oxides, HCLs, hazardous compounds such as POHCs, products of incomplete combustion such as dioxins, and uncondensed volatile metals in excess air. Dr. Ralph Dougherty, an expert in environmental mass spectrometry, analytical chemistry and the chemistry of waste incineration, provided expert testimony concerning the significance of some of the information provided to the County in its public sessions. This testimony was presented at the administrative hearing. Dr. Dougherty did not attend the public hearing associated with the plan adoption. Dr. Dougherty in addressing the waste stream that is created by bio- medical waste described how the incineration process in destroying polyvinyl chloride, PVC plastic, saran wrap and neoprene converted those materials to chlorinated organics such as dioxin. As Dr. Dougherty established, dioxins are very hazardous substances. Kenneth Krantz appeared for the Intervenors at the public sessions for the plan adoption. At that time Basic Energy Corporation was known as TSI Southeast, Inc. (TSI). He provided written information to the county commissioners concerning the TSI bio-medical waste disposal business intended to be located in Hamilton County. TSI took no issue with Objective I.15 which was adopted on July 23, 1991. Intervenors proposed different text for policy I.15.1 and requested adoption of two additional policies I.15.2 and I.15.3 which would place some restrictions on solid waste disposal but would allow an opportunity for operating the TSI facility in the county. Information provided by Krantz in the public sessions indicated that TSI intended to operate a business to incinerate solid, bio-medical and solid municipal waste, together with a waste recycling area, Pelletizer area and turbine-generator area. Krantz addressed the county commissioners concerning county building permit information about the facility, permitting by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. Information was provided concerning square footage for buildings within the overall TSI facility. Information was provided by TSI concerning the intended pollution control systems as being constituted of fabric filters and dry-lime injection systems, together with a detailed description of pending permit applications before the Department of Environmental Regulation for additional incineration units. Information provided by TSI addressed the expected constituents of the air emissions to include carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, organics such as dioxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and particulate matter. A site location map and schematic showing the flow within the waste stream was also provided. TSI also provided information at the public sessions about the Intervenors anticipated emissions rates for two previously permitted units and the third and fourth units that were being considered by the Department of Environmental Regulation. This data about emission rates included a comprehensive listing of anticipated emissions by pollutant type to include projected measurements of omissions for units one and two which would deal with medical waste combustion and units three and four which would deal with medical waste combustion and possibly refuse-derived fuel (RDF). As commented on by members of the public who appeared at the public sessions for adopting the plan, information provided by the Intervenors verified that significant amounts of pollutants would be discharged into the air through Intervenors' operations. TSI provided information concerning the modeling that was done to measure concentration levels for the expected pollutants. Information was provided concerning the incineration process and the manner in which calculations were made concerning expected emissions levels. Information was provided concerning anticipated annual and short term emission rates for the four units intended to be operated by the TSI. The technical information about the intended TSI facility was through documents that appeared to be from an engineering consulting firm. All information provided in the public sessions that has been described was properly available to the county commissioners when adopting the plan. The information provided at the public sessions which has been described was not presented to the Department with the adopted plan. As stated, on July 30, 1991, the County submitted its plan to the Department to determine if the adopted plan was in compliance with the requirements of law. See Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes (1991). On September 12, 1991, DCA issued a notice of intent to find the adopted plan, not "in compliance". See Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes (1991). Pursuant to that provision, DCA filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings setting forth the reasons for its decision to find the adopted plan not "in compliance". That petition was filed on September 23, 1991. The DCA took no issue with Policies I.15.1 and V.2.13. On February 20, 1992, Intervenors petitioned to intervene in the not "in compliance" case. As identified in the statement of issues, the Intervenors were and continue to be opposed to the adoption of Policies I.15.1 and V.2.13. On March 17, 1992, an order was entered which granted the Intervenors leave to intervene. Intervenors own property in Hamilton County. As contemplated by Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes (1993), DCA and the County engaged in settlement discussions. This culminated in a stipulated settlement agreement executed by DCA and County on November 24, 1993. The stipulated settlement agreement is referred to in the statute as a compliance agreement. Intervenors did not join in the settlement. On January 18, 1994, the County adopted the remedial amendments, referred to in the statute as plan amendments pursuant to a compliance agreement called for by the compliance agreement. The remedial plan amendments were submitted to the Department for consideration. On March 10, 1994, DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent addressing the compliance agreement amendments and the plan. DCA gave notice that it attended to find the plan and remedial comprehensive plan amendments/compliance agreement amendments "in compliance" with Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding that the Intervenors did not submit further pleadings within 21 days of the publication of the cumulative notice of intent, the Intervenors were allowed to proceed with their challenge to the plan that was not the subject of the compliance agreement leading to the compliance agreement amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Hamilton County comprehensive plan to be "in compliance" with the exception that Policy V.2.13 is only "in compliance" in its latter sentence, the remaining language in Policy V.2.13 is not "in compliance". DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 21st day of April, 1995. APPENDIX "A" CASE NO. 91-6038GM The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding by the parties: Intervenors' Facts: Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 2 is contrary to facts found. The remaining sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 3 is rejected in its suggestion that there is a perpetual ban on bio-hazardous waste incineration. It is otherwise not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Intervenors' Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is not relevant. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the date of adoption was January 18, 1994. Paragraphs 15 through 22 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 23 is not relevant. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 27 through 31 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 32 through 38 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 39 and 40 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 41 is rejected to the extent that it is suggested that it constitutes agency policy. Paragraphs 42 through the first phrase in 49 are subordinate to facts found. The latter phrase in Paragraph 49 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 50 through 58 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 59 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 60 through 75 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 76 through 82 are rejected as not constituting allowable analysis of data presented in support of the plan adoption. Paragraphs 83 and 84 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 85 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 86 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 87 through 91 are rejected to the extent that it is suggested that some lesser standard is involved with consideration of data for optional plan elements as opposed to mandatory plan elements. See Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes (1991) and Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes (1993). Paragraph 92 is acknowledged but did not form the basis for fact finding in the recommended order. Paragraph 93 is rejected as intended to interpret Policy I.15.1 as an absolute prohibition against waste incineration in the County. Paragraph 94 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 95 through 102 are not relevant. Paragraphs 103 through 105 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 106 through 108 are subordinate to facts found with the exception of the rejection of Policy V.2.13 in part. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Jordan, Esquire Terrell L. Arline, Esquire Suzanne Schmith, Certified Legal Intern Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 John H. McCormick, Esquire Post Office Box O Jasper, FL 32052 William L. Hyde, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli and Stewart, P.A. 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Donald J. Schutz, Esquire Suite 415 535 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Linda L. Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Panama City's small scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 on February 8, 2005, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Creekstone is a limited liability corporation and presumed to be the owner of a 3.212-acre tract of land at 305 East Beach Drive, Panama City.3 (The record does not show when or if Creekstone actually purchased the property; when the application for a land use change on the property was filed with the City, Creekstone was a contract purchaser. In its Proposed Recommended Order, however, the City states that Creekstone "recently acquired" the property.) The property lies at the northwest edge of a residential area known as The Cove and is just south of the central business district of the City. The Cove is separated from the business district by a small waterbody known as Massalina Bayou (Bayou), which is spanned by the Tarpon Bridge (Bridge) at one of the Bayou's most narrow points. The 225-foot Bridge provides the most direct and easiest access between the two areas of the City. For many years, and beginning before the City adopted its Plan, Tibbetts Boat Works, Inc. (Tibbets) occupied the site and was engaged in the boat repair business, consisting of hull repair, engine maintenance, other mechanical services, and boat bottom painting, a legal but nonconforming use under the City's land development code. Photographs of the area suggest that the business is no longer active, presumably because the property has been sold. On or about December 8, 2004, SFB Investment Company, LLLP (SFB), who then owned the property but had a contract to sell it to Creekstone, filed an application with the City Planning Board seeking a change in the land use and zoning on the property. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, the staff noted that the proposed change would "allow an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area" and recommended denial of the application on the ground that the change "is inconsistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan."4 By a 3-1 vote, the City Planning Board rejected the staff recommendation and recommended that the application be approved. On February 8, 2005, by a 4-1 vote, the City accepted the recommendation of the City Planning Board and adopted Ordinance No. 2055.1, which amended the FLUM by reclassifying the land use designation on the property from MU to GC for the purpose of allowing the owner to "develop [a] multi-family project on [the] property." (Simultaneously with that change, the City also changed the zoning on the property from Mixed Use- 3 to General Commercial-2, which allows a wide range of activities, including residential, professional office and services, low-intensity commercial, public/institutional/ utilities, and high-intensity commercial.) The MU land use classification "is intended to provide areas for medium to high density residential development and low intensity commercial development," allows a density of "not more than twenty (20) dwelling units per acre," and an intensity of "[n]o more than 75% lot coverage as determined by the size of the lot compared to the amount of impervious roof and driveway/ parking lot surface." On the other hand, the GC district is "intended to provide areas for high intensity commercial development, including retail sales and services, wholesale sales, shopping centers, office complexes, and other similar land uses." There are no density restrictions, but intensity is limited to "[n]o more than 90% lot coverage." Thus, while the two land uses are similar in some respects, the highest and best use on the property will now be "high intensity commercial development," such as shopping centers and office complexes, a much more intensive use than is presently permitted under the MU land use category. To address this concern, witness Harper indicated that SFB has filed a restrictive covenant on the property which includes a shoreline buffer, as well as use, height, and setback restrictions. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, however, the staff stated "that a covenant would not be enforceable." Under the existing land use (MU), the owner can construct up to 64 residential units on the property. That number is derived by multiplying the size of the property (3.212 acres) times the allowed density (20 units per acre). However, the current zoning on the property (which is apparently tied to the MU land use category) prohibits the construction of buildings which exceed 65 feet in height. Because of this height restriction, which limits the number of residential units that can be constructed on the property, the owner has requested a change in the land use (and zoning) so that it can develop a multi-family residential condominium project (nine stories in height) with approximately 77 units. On March 10, 2005, Mr. Cooper filed his Petition challenging the small-scale amendment. He later filed an Amended Petition on April 21, 2005. Mr. Cooper resides and owns property one-half block south of the subject property (in an area designated as a special historical zone of the City) and submitted objections to the amendment during the adoption process. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to file this challenge. Joint Exhibit 9 reflects that Creekstone is a "contract purchaser" of the subject property. It also reflects that it appeared through counsel at the adoption hearing on February 8, 2005, and offered comments in support of the plan amendment. As such, Creekstone is an affected person and has standing to participate in this case. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Mr. Cooper (through his former counsel) identified numerous issues, many of which were not raised in his Amended Petition. At hearing, however, he contended only that the GC land use is incompatible with the character of the surrounding area, and that the amendment is internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan. All of the objectives and policies relate to the compatibility issue. In all other respects, Petitioner agrees that the plan amendment is in compliance. Because the City's action involves a small scale (as opposed to a large scale) development plan amendment, the Department of Community Affairs did not formally review the plan amendment for compliance. See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. The Subject Property West Beach Drive runs in a northwest-southeast direction through the downtown business portion of the City until a few blocks north of the Bridge, where it changes to East Beach Drive. The roadway continues south across the Bridge and in a southerly direction along the eastern edge of St. Andrews Bay, a much larger waterbody which lies between the City and Panama City Beach. Approximately one-half mile south of the Bridge, East Beach Drive takes a 90-degree turn to the east. Most, if not all, of the peninsula south of the Bayou and Bridge and continuing until East Beach Drive turns to the east is known as The Cove, a part of which has been designated by the City as a historic special treatment zone because of its historical significance. The predominate character of The Cove is older, single-family homes. As noted above, the Bayou separates The Cove from the central business district and serves as a natural barrier between the two areas. The property is an odd-shaped parcel which sits just east of the southern terminus of the Bridge and fronts on the Bayou. (The central business district lies directly across the Bayou to the north and northwest, is classified as General Commercial or Public/Institutional, and includes a wide array of offices, government buildings, restaurants, and other commercial and public uses.) The western side of the property faces East Beach Drive. Immediately across East Beach Drive to the west (and facing St. Andrews Bay) is the Cove Harbor Condominium, a nine-story, multi-family residential condominium which was apparently constructed under MU standards, which apply to that parcel. Immediately to the east of the property is a single- family residence and then a two-story townhouse complex. The southern boundary of the property (which appears to run approximately 325 feet or so) faces East Second Court, a local road which begins on East Beach Drive and runs eastward until Watson Bayou (perhaps a mile or so away). Although a map of the historical district was not introduced into evidence by the parties, the northern and western reaches of the special treatment zone appear to begin just east of the intersection of East Second Court and East Beach Drive since the homes at 114 and 122 East Second Court are designated as having historical significance. See Respondent's Exhibit 4. These two homes appear to lie directly across the street from the southern boundary of Creekstone's property. Except for a two-story, multi-family structure (Cedar Cove Townhouses) which sits across East Second Court facing the southwest corner of the subject property, the remainder of the southern boundary of Creekstone's property faces four single-family homes. Several other multi-family structures are scattered throughout the area to the south and east, while the remainder of the neighborhood extending for at least one-half mile to the south and all the way to Watson Bayou on the east is predominately single-family residences. Finally, a condominium is located about one-half mile south of the property on the waterfront where East Beach Drive makes a 90-degree turn to the east. Except for Tibbets' activities, there is no commercial encroachment (by non-conforming use or land use classification) in the immediate area south of the Bridge and Bayou. The current FLUM shows that, with three exceptions, the entire area south of the Bridge and the Bayou to the end of the peninsula, and extending east at least a mile to Watson Bayou, is either classified as Mixed Use or Residential Low Density. (Perhaps a mile or so to the southeast there is one parcel classified as Recreation, another as Public/Institutional (which is probably a school), and a smaller adjoining parcel classified as General Commercial.) Thus, if the change is approved, the subject property will be the only parcel south of the Bridge and Bayou (except for the above exceptions which lie around a mile away) which is classified as commercial; the remainder is either mixed use or residential. Over the years, Tibbets has been the subject of City code enforcement actions, investigations by City code enforcement personnel, and investigations by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). It has also caused chronic environmental problems in the area. On August 27, 2002, DEP and Tibbets executed a Consent Order to resolve certain violations. Also, on April 10, 2001, Mr. Paul L. Benfield, who apparently either owned Tibbets or was associated with it in some manner, entered into a Consent Order with DEP because of his unlawful filling of 0.114 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the site. It is fair to describe the subject property as blighted, unsightly, and in disrepair. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the business is no longer active. The parcel is fenced on three sides, and, besides an older structure which apparently housed Tibbets' office, the property contains a mixture of empty storage crates, pilings, and various pieces of equipment that were once used in the boat repair business. There are also several docks or small piers extending into the Bayou from the northwestern corner of the site. Finally, it appears that much of the eastern half of the parcel contains wetlands and is largely undeveloped. Although the staff report dated December 31, 2004, recommended denial of the application, noting that it would allow "an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area," it acknowledged that "[a]llowing this request can make a case for helping to rid this area of a problematic non- conforming use." See Joint Exhibit 6, page 2. Petitioner's Objections As narrowed at hearing, Mr. Cooper contends only that the plan amendment is not compatible with the character of the adjoining land in The Cove and is thus internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the FLUE. He also relies upon Policy 2.5.5(6)(e) of the City's Land Development Code. However, plan amendments do not have to be consistent with land development regulations in order to be in compliance. See § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Objective 1.1 requires that the City maintain a FLUM "which coordinates future land uses with . . . [compatibility]5 of adjacent land uses." Policy 1.1.1, which furthers that objective, provides in part that the City will regulate land uses through the designation of land use districts on a FLUM, and that the "location and extent of development within the City" should be "consistent with . . . compatibility of adjacent land uses." Under this objective and policy, then, land use districts on the FLUM should be located in a manner which assures compatibility with adjacent land uses. Objective 1.4 provides that the City shall "maintain procedures for the elimination or reduction of land uses inconsistent with the character of the City and the future land uses designated in the Plan." In furtherance of that objective, Policy 1.4.1 requires that the City "restrict proposed development which is inconsistent with the character of the community." Taken literally, the objective encourages the City to reduce or eliminate land uses that are inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area or other land use districts. In the same fashion, the policy requires that the City prohibit development that is not consistent with the character of the adjoining area. Finally, among other things, Policy 1.2.1 requires that the City "administer land development regulations for implementation of the Comprehensive Plan" in such a manner as to "ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses." (The City has adopted such regulations for this purpose.) Because the implementation of land development regulations is not in issue, the provision does not appear to be relevant. According to the City's Director of Public Works, The Cove, or at least that part which lies in the area around Creekstone's property, is considered to be a part of the central business district since the two areas are "contiguous," and therefore the extension of the commercial land use district across the Bayou would be consistent with the character of the immediate area. The same view was also expressed by witness Grey. However, the two areas are physically separated by a waterbody (the Bayou) and are connected only by a 225-foot bridge which spans the Bayou at one of its most narrow points. At the same time, the land uses in the two areas are distinctly different: the business district contains a wide array of commercial and public/institutional uses while the predominate character of The Cove is single-family residential, with a scattering of multi-family residential dwellings such as townhouses and a condominium. The fact that the City interprets its GC district (presumably through its zoning regulations) as allowing certain residential uses does not change this dichotomy in character. Therefore, it is inappropriate to consider The Cove and the central business district as being contiguous, or to base a finding of compatibility on the fact that commercial uses are now found across the Bayou in the business district. The commercial land use classification has never been extended into the residential neighborhood south of the Bayou. If the change becomes effective, the new land use would be incompatible with the Residential Low Density and Mixed Use land uses which now make up the entire neighborhood. It would also be incompatible with the historic special treatment zone, which lies directly across the street from Creekstone's property. Finally, the creation of a commercial district in this area of The Cove would change the character of the neighborhood, and it is fair to infer that, even if SFB's covenant is enforceable, it would still lead to, and justify, the reclassification of other nearby parcels into commercial uses. Given these considerations, the proposed land use is internally inconsistent with the City's objective and policy that there be "[compatibility] of adjacent land uses," see Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1.1, and Plan provisions encouraging the elimination of land uses and associated development which are inconsistent with the "character of the community." See Objective 1.4 and Policy 1.4.1. The minutes of the two meetings which culminated in the adoption of Ordinance No. 2055.1 reflect that the City's (and Planning Board's) principal rationale for the reclassification of the property was to eliminate an unsightly nonconforming use (boat repair business) which occupied the site. While it is true that the City's Plan encourages the revitalization and redevelopment of blighted areas, and provides that developers should be given "flexibility" when seeking to revitalize blighted areas, see Objectives 1.3 and 1.15 of the FLUE, there is no evidence that these objectives are intended to override (and trump) the provisions of the Plan which require that adjacent land uses be compatible with one another and preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the Metropolitan Dade County comprehensive plan adopted as Item No. 6, Ordinance No. 94-192, is "in compliance", as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Village of Key Biscayne (hereinafter referred to as the "Village"), is a local government (a municipal corporation) located within Dade County, Florida. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department, among other things, is charged with responsibility for the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Respondent, Metropolitan Dade County (hereinafter referred to as "Dade County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Dade County is responsible under the Act for the preparation, processing, and review of land use plans and amendments thereto within its jurisdiction. Intervenor, Marine Exhibition Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Marine"), is the applicant for the amendment which is at issue in this case. Marine is the owner of the Miami Seaquarium (hereinafter referred to as the "Seaquarium"), a saltwater oceanarium and tourist attraction located in Dade County, Florida. The Village's Standing. The Seaquarium is located on Virginia Key, an island located in Biscayne Bay. The Seaquarium is connected with the mainland of Dade County by the Rickenbacker Causeway. The Village is located on Key Biscayne. Key Biscayne is an island located in Biscayne Bay. Key Biscayne is connected to Virginia Key. Key Biscayne is connected with the mainland of Dade County through Virginia Key. The Rickenbacker Causeway runs through Virginia Key, past the Seaquarium, over a bridge onto Key Biscayne. The Causeway becomes Crandon Boulevard, which runs to and through the Village and ends at Cape Florida, at the southeastern corner of Key Biscayne. Virginia Key and Key Biscayne are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Dade County. The closest Village boundary to the Seaquarium is located approximately 2 and 1/4 to 2 and 1/2 miles from the Seaquarium property. The Village is located completely within Dade County's jurisdictional boundaries. The Village, therefore, owns property located in Dade County. The Village conducts all of its business within its city limits, located on Key Biscayne. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the plan amendment at issue in this proceedings will "produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure" of the Village or will create a "substantial impact on areas designed for protection or special treatment within the [Village's] jurisdiction." See Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Village raised objections by oral and written comments concerning the proposed amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Amendment"), at public hearings during the period of time commencing with the transmittal hearing and ending when the Proposed Amendment was adopted by Dade County. The Village's objections and comments did not include objections or comments concerning density and intensity standards. The Seaquarium. The Seaquarium is located on thirty-seven acres. The property is owned by Dade County and has been subject to a long-term lease to Marine. Dade County also owns all structures erected on the site and all marine mammals. The Seaquarium has been in operation at its present site since 1954. The Seaquarium has a history of providing entertainment, educational and recreational uses to residents and visitors to Dade County. Existing uses of the Seaquarium include approximately ten marine mammal exhibits and corresponding shows featuring these mammals, a marina, theme-oriented gift shops and restaurants. Educational activities at the Seaquarium include: (a) a program to train teachers in marine science and student field trips (over 75,000 students attend the past year) in cooperation with Dade County and Broward County, Florida; (b) the largest manatee rehabilitation and recapture program in the United States; (c) an internship program with the Mast Academy, a magnet school for gifted high school students; and (d) research and development exchange programs with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (hereinafter referred to as "NOAA"). Florida Quality Development Designation. Marine decided to improve its facilities at the Seaquarium through a project it labeled "Seaquarium Village." Marine initially sought and obtained a designation from the Department of the Seaquarium Village as a Florida Quality Development (hereinafter referred to as "FQD"), pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Seaquarium Village project was subsequently challenged by the Village pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. The Village alleged that Seaquarium Village was not consistent with Dade County's comprehensive plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Third District Court of Appeal entered an opinion on November 9, 1993, finding that the project was inconsistent with the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). Village of Key Biscayne v. Dade County, 627 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. den., 639 So.2d 976 (1994). The Proposed Amendment. The Plan includes a Land Use Element. The Land Use Element identifies locations in Dade County where various land uses, including intensities of use, will be allowed during the period for which the Plan applies. The land uses are also depicted on the Future Land Use Map. One of the land uses provided for in the Plan is the "Parks and Recreation" land use. The Seaquarium is located within the "Parks and Recreation" Land Use Plan map category of the Plan. The Plan includes the following descriptive text concerning the "Parks and Recreation" Land Use Plan map category: Certain commercial activities that are supportive of the recreational uses and complementary to the resources of the park, such as marine supply stores, fuel docks or tennis and golf clubhouses may be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category. Other commercial recreational, entertainment or cultural uses may also be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category where complementary to the site and its resources. Marine filed an application in November of 1993 with Dade County seeking approval of a modification of the "Parks and Recreation" land use category for the site of the Seaquarium. The proposed modification ultimately adopted by Dade County, after Dade County and Marine cooperated to agree on the proposed language, provides for the addition of the following language immediately after the descriptive text quoted in finding of fact 24: [Included in the category is the Seaquarium, a unique tourist attraction with a long history of educational, entertainment, and recreational benefit both to residents of Dade County and to visitors. Notwithstanding any other provisions in the Parks and Recreation section of the Land Use Plan Element, in order to continue and to enhance its contributions to the community, this facility may be authorized to renovate, expand, and increase the variety of its educa- tional, recreational and entertainment attractions. Accordingly, the following additional uses may be permitted at the Seaquarium site: recreational and educational uses, restaurants, gift shops, marine or water amusements, and environmentally- related theaters.] 1/ The Proposed Amendment does not apply to any Parks and Recreation site other than the Seaquarium site. Following transmittal of the Proposed Amendment to the Department, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments report (hereinafter referred to as the "ORC"), on or about September 1, 1994. In the ORC the Department objected, in relevant part, to the lack of adequate data and analysis to demonstrate the compatibility of the Proposed Amendment with the surrounding land uses and raised questions concerning whether the proposed project was in a Coastal High Hazard Area. In response to the ORC, Dade County provided the following information to the Department: (a) the record of the transmittal and adoption hearings; (b) Chapter 9J-11 deliverables; (c) information on the surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the Seaquarium; (d) the Seaquarium FQD; (d) the Seaquarium ADA; and (e) information concerning coastal high-hazard area. The proposed Seaquarium modification of the Parks and Recreation Land Use Element was adopted by Dade County on October 13, 1994, by Ordinance No. 94- 192. In December, 1994, after review of the Proposed Amendment and the additional information provided by Dade County, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Find the Proposed Amendment in Compliance. The decision of the Department was challenged by the Village on or about December 30, 1994. Intensity or Density of Use. The Act provides the following regarding the Future Land Use plan element required to be included in all comprehensive plans: . . . designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. . . . Each land use category shall be defined in terms of the types of uses included and specific standards for the density or intensity of use. . . . Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. See also Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., Florida Administrative Code. The requirement of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, concerning densities and intensities applies to all comprehensive plans and amendments thereto. "Densities" and "intensities" are objective methods of determining the extent to which land may be utilized. "Densities" are usually expressed in terms of the number of units allowed per acre of land. Rule 9J-5.003(33), Florida Administrative Code, defines "density" as "an objective measurement of the number of people or residential units allowed per unit of land, such as residents or employees per acre." This definition of "density" was first adopted by rule in 1994. Densities are usually associated with residential uses. "Density" requirements are not relevant to the Proposed Amendment because it does not involve residential use of land. "Intensities" are most often expressed in terms of spatial uses, such as the amount of allowable floor space, lot coverage, or height. Rule 9J- 5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code, defines "intensity" as "an objective measurement of the extent to which land may be developed or used, including the consumption or use of the space above, on natural resources; and the measurement of the use or demand on facilities and services." This definition of "intensity" was first adopted by rule in 1994. The purpose of requiring density and intensity standards is to promote intelligent planning which allows for the measurement of developments on natural resources and infrastructure capacity, and allows the evaluation of compatibility with surrounding land uses. Initial Approval of the Plan. The Plan was submitted to the Department for initial review in 1988. The Plan was one of the first comprehensive plans reviewed pursuant to the Act by the Department. At the time of the Department's initial review of the Plan, there was no definition of density or intensity provided by rule. The definitions of density and intensity included in Rules 9J-5.003(33) and (63), Florida Administrative Code, were not adopted until 1994. The Parks and Recreation category of the Plan, when originally submitted for review, was required to include an intensity standard. The Plan's definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category did not, however, contain a specific restriction on intensity of use such as a floor area ratio, maximum lot coverage, or height restriction. Rather than include a specific intensity restriction in the Plan, Dade County elected to describe the types of nonresidential uses which would be allowed under the Parks and Recreation land use category. Dade County restricted allowable uses to those which are complementary to the site and its natural resources. Dade County believed that its description of allowable uses constituted an adequate intensity standard, providing an objective measurement of the extent that land could be developed, the use and demand on natural resources, and the use and demand on facilities and services. Dade County is the largest county in Florida. It includes approximately 2000 to 2100 square miles. Dade County, therefore, elected to emphasize its natural resources and public service impacts on a "macromanagement" basis. The Parks and Recreation land use category included in the Plan allows a wide range of park and recreational uses, including "neighborhood parks, area parks, metropolitan parks, regional and state parks, including Everglades National Park, [and] tourist attractions such as the Seaquarium, Metro Zoo, [and] Viscaya . . . ." Transcript, Vol. III, Page 402. The Department approved the Plan without objection, recommendation or comment with regard to the definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category. The "Baby Seal Policy". The Department's policy concerning the application of the Act to growth management plans has evolved since the initial plans were reviewed. The Department has recognized that some of the plans it initially approved may be "less than perfect". In recognition of this problem, the Department found it necessary to develope a policy to deal with plans that do not comply with the Department's interpretation of the Act now that the Department has more experience interpreting and applying the Act. The Department's response to the problem of dealing with plans that may not comply with the Act, but have previously been approved, is referred to as the "Baby Seal Policy". This policy has been described as follows: Local government A's comprehensive plan provides that ten baby seals may be killed over the planning period while local government B's plan provides that no baby seals may be killed. Both plans are initially approved by the Department. Subsequently, the Department adopts a rule that prohibits the killing of baby seals. Local government A then amends its plan to allow the killing of eight baby seals rather than ten. Local government B also amends its plan to allow the killing of two baby seals. In applying the "Baby Seal Policy" the Department would approve local government's amendment because it moves local government A's plan closer to complying the prohibition against killing baby seals. Local government B's amendment would not be approved, however, because it moves its plan further from complying with the prohibition. The Department's Baby Seal Policy was developed so that the Department can comply with the requirement of Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code, that the Department consider as part of its review of plan amendments whether an amendment makes substantial progress towards consistency with applicable requirements of the rules and the Act. Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code, requires consideration during the review of a proposed plan amendment of the following: Whether the provision at issue constitutes substantial progress over existing provisions regarding consistency with and furtherance of Chapter 163, the State Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Regional Policy Plan and this Chapter, where the existing provisions are in a plan or plan amendment previously found in compliance. The Department's "Baby Seal Policy" encourages local governments to adopt amendments to previously approved plans (which may not be in compliance with all provisions of the Act and/or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code), which bring those plans closer to being in compliance with the Act and/or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. I. Application of the Baby Seal Policy to the Proposed Amendment. The Department recognizes that the Parks and Recreation land use category of the Plan may not be in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, because it does not provide for the type of intensity standard now required by Rule 9J-5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code. The Proposed Amendment, however, continues Dade County's choice of describing the Parks and Recreation land use category by specifying the types of allowable uses at the Seaquarium. There is no doubt that the Proposed Amendment includes uses allowable on the Seaquarium site which, when read alone and without regard to the Plan's overall definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category, are broad. The Proposed Amendment clearly does not include the type of intensity standard now required by Rule 9J-5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code. The Proposed Amendment does, however, provide more detail as to the allowable uses on the Seaquarium site than currently included in the Parks and Recreation land use category. Consequently, the Proposed Amendment does provide greater certainty for indentifying the potential impacts of development at the Seaquarium site than the current definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category. The Proposed Amendment does, therefore, move the Plan in the direction of compliance with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, in furtherance of the Baby Seal Policy and as required by Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Internal Consistency. Internal consistency between and within elements of a growth management plan is required by the Act. Internal consistency must be maintained when a plan is amended. Without consistency in the provisions of a plan, it will not be clear what actions are allowable and unallowable under a plan. The Proposed Amendment provides that certain modifications of the Seaquarium site will be allowable under the Plan "[n]otwithstanding any other provisions in the Parks and Recreation Section of the Land Use Plan Element . . . ." This language creates a clearly designated exception to, or deviation from, other requirements of the Land Use Plan Element. A clearly specified exception to, or deviation from, a provision in a plan does not create an inconsistency. The evidence failed to prove that the Proposed Amendment creates an internal inconsistency with the Plan. Data and Analysis. Plan amendments must be supported by data and analysis. Rules 9J- 5.005(2) and 9J-5.006(2), Florida Administrative Code. Dade County provided, in addition to information concerning the surrounding area and coastal high hazard areas requested by the Department, the FQD and the Application for Development Approval (hereinafter referred to as the "ADA"), to the Department in support of the Proposed Amendment. While the FQD and the ADA pertain to a specifically proposed development, these documents contain data concerning the Seaquarium site, the only site to which the Proposed Amendment applies. Although the Proposed Amendment is not limited to the project approved in the FQD or the portion of the ADA which relates expressly to the project approved in the FQD, the ADA contains information concerning the only site to which the Proposed Amendment applies. That information, or data, and the analysis thereof is relevant to a determination of whether the Proposed Amendment should be approved. The information contained in the ADA is useful in estimating the impacts of the types of development that are permissible pursuant to the Proposed Amendment and not just the impacts of the development addressed in the FQD. The FQD and the ADA also provide information concerning what type of project may reasonably be expected at the Seaquarium site. Much of the pertinent data contained in the ADA also constitutes the best information available concerning the Seaquarium site and, therefore, the subject of the Proposed Amendment. While the only expert witness called by the Village, Mr. David Russ, opined that the FQD does not constitute the data and analysis required in support of the Proposed Amendment, Mr. Russ did not give a similar opinion concerning the ADA. Nor had Mr. Russ read the ADA. Non-development specific data provided to the Department in the ADA included information concerning services and facilities related to development at the site. In particular, data is included in the ADA concerning traffic and emergency services (proposed traffic improvements, trips, the existing roadway network, the applicable level of service and projected background traffic). Data was also provided in the ADA concerning wastewater, drainage and potable water (existing water distribution and transmission systems, pervious and impervious conditions), and solid waste. Data and analysis concerning the natural resources of the Seaquarium site was also included in the ADA. Existing on-site vegetation and wildlife are inventoried and information concerning air quality and wetlands is provided. Data and analysis concerning historical and archeological resources is also provided in the ADA. Question 12 of the ADA provides information concerning the need for renovation and expansion of the Seaquarium site. Data and analysis concerning the need for redevelopment of the site was unrefuted by competent, substantial evidence. The Department was also provided with data and analysis concerning the area which surrounds the site. Surrounding uses included the University of Miami Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, the United States National Marine Fisheries Laboratory Station and offices, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration offices, the Mast Academy, the City of Miami Marine Stadium and the Metro Dade County Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Seaquarium and redevelopment which would be allowable pursuant to the Proposed Amendment are compatible with these surrounding uses. The Village's suggestion that the data and analysis provided to the Department in the FQD and the ADA (which had not been read by the Village's expert witness) was not sufficient because the FQD pertains to a specific project is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The FQD and, more importantly, the ADA contain sufficient data and analysis to support the allowable land uses of the Proposed Amendment. In addition to suggesting that the data and analysis provided to the Department is insufficient because the data and analysis relates to a specific project, the Village has argued that insufficient data and analysis has been provided with regard to intensity of use. This argument is essentially an extension of the Village's argument concerning the lack of an intensity standard. There is as much, or more, data and analysis provided with the Proposed Amendment concerning intensity of use as there is to support the existing Parks and Recreation land use category. The data and analysis to support the Parks and Recreation land use category which is presumed to exist, may also be relied upon in reviewing a plan amendment. Additionally, the data and analysis provided as a part of the ADA is sufficient to support the maximum intensity of use allowable pursuant to the Proposed Amendment. The evidence failed to prove that there was not adequate data and analysis to support a determination that the Proposed Amendment is "in compliance".
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing Pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, filed by the Village of Key Biscayne. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1996, 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 31st day of July, 1996.*
The Issue Whether Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by the County on September 24, 1996, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Sumter County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Petitioners, T. D. Farnsworth, Russell E. Weir, Jack Burchill, Linda Latham, and Terry Forsman, own property and reside within Sumter County. Petitioner, Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development, Inc. (SCAID), is an organization founded by a small group of citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of the county, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. Farnsworth is president of the group. By stipulation of the parties, Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. Intervenor, Pringle Communities, Inc. (Pringle), is a Florida corporation and the potential developer of the subject property of this proceeding. Pringle submitted oral and written comments during the plan amendment review and adoption proceeding and thus has standing as an affected person to participate in this proceeding. The amendment On May 13, 1996, the County adopted plan amendment 96A01 by Ordinance No. 96-17. On November 7, 1996, the DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance. Amendment 96A01 amended the Sumter County Comprehensive Plan's (the Plan) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 510 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment converted the land use designation for the Pringle parcel from an Agricultural to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) land use, limited to 499 residential units. The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel and an adjacent parcel immediately to the north of the Pringle parcel, which had apparently been inadvertently omitted from the Urban Expansion Area in the final draft of the Plan. The data and analysis accompanying the amendment included a compatibility and land use suitability analysis, a soils analysis, an evaluation of urban sprawl related to issues, a preliminary environmental assessment, a population and housing analysis, a concurrency analysis, building permit information and analysis, and an analysis to ensure that the amendment was consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The data and analysis submitted up until the time the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find amendment 96A01 in compliance, and at the final hearing, collectively demonstrate that the amendment is appropriate for the designated area. Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? Petitioners have alleged the amendment is not in compliance for the following reasons: (a) the amendment fails to protect agricultural lands; (b) the amendment encourages urban sprawl; (c) the future land use map fails to reflect the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan; (d) there is no demonstrated need for 510 acres of PUD land use; (e) the amendment does not demonstrate compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses; (f) the amendment does not provide for concurrency for adopted levels of services pursuant to the Plan; (g) the amendment does not comply with stormwater and drainage requirements of the Plan; (h) the amendment fails to satisfy the capital improvements element of the Plan; and (i) affordable housing needs are not met. These contentions will be discussed separately below. Protection of agricultural lands Under the amendment, 510 acres of land designated on the FLUM as agricultural land use will be converted to urban type uses. Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to protect agricultural land as required by Plan Objective 7.1.2 and Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code. The cited objective "establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area" and "insure(s) retention of agricultural activities." If the plan amendment fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas, the cited rule considers this failure to be one of the thirteen primary indicators that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The rule and objective do not prohibit the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Indeed, Plan Objective 7.1.2 and the corresponding policies allow for the conversion of suitable agricultural lands as the need for additional urban land is demonstrated. The policies also require that the conversion be done in a well planned, orderly, and logical fashion based on need and suitability. The agricultural lands being converted to urban land uses as a result of the plan amendment are appropriate for conversion. The Plan designates the Pringle parcel as an area appropriate for urban development. This determination was based on an extensive analysis of various factors including soil suitability, environmental constraints, and other planning criteria such as proximity to existing urbanized areas. In fact, the Plan contains a series of maps which specifically locate agricultural areas appropriate for conversion to urban uses, and the Pringle parcel is located within such designated areas. The evidence establishes that the conversion of agricultural land contemplated by the plan amendment was justifiable because of the extent of urban development already existing in the area and the requirement within the Plan that infrastructure be in place concurrent with development. In addition, future populations will be directed away from the remaining agricultural lands throughout the County and to the development proposed by the plan amendment. The open space required by the PUD will also serve to buffer and ensure compatibility of land covered by the plan amendment and the adjacent agricultural and rural lands. Because Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code, deals exclusively with "adjacent" agricultural land, the conversion of any agricultural uses on the Pringle parcel is not relevant to the cited rule. The Plan requires the County to retain a minimum of ninety percent of its land area in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use. The County has no "mining" zoning or land use designation, but includes mining as an agricultural use. Including the land covered by mining permits in the County, more than ninety percent of the County's land area is maintained in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use, even after the adoption of the amendment. In view of the above, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to protect agricultural land, either on or adjacent to the Pringle parcel. Urban sprawl In the same vein, Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl because it converts 510 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. In support of this contention, they cite a number of provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, all dealing with urban sprawl, which have allegedly been violated. Petitioners also allege the multiplier for the plan amendment is in excess of 1.25, which is an indicator of urban sprawl, and no future public facilities and services are planned for the lands covered by the amendment prior to its adoption. The plan amendment includes an evaluation of urban sprawl. That evaluation references Plan Policy 7.1.2.5(a), which was adopted by the County specifically as a mechanism for discouraging urban sprawl. A review of that policy indicates that, for a PUD to be allowed in an agricultural land use area, it must score at least 50 points, applying a point system based on factors including, but not limited to, proximity to the urban expansion area, proximity to urban services, including water, sewer, and roads, and proximity to other services such as fire protection and emergency medical services. If a proposed amendment or PUD fails to score 50 points, it is deemed to encourage urban sprawl and would not be approved by the County. Amendment 96A01 scored 100 points, well in excess of the 50-point threshold. While the point system does not apply directly because the amendment alters the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel, it is evidence that the amendment does not fail to discourage urban sprawl. In addition to satisfying Plan Policy 7.1.2.5.(a), the plan amendment is consistent with Future Land Use maps VII-18a and VII-18c, which are the future land use constrained area overlay and urban sprawl evaluation overlay, respectively. As the Plan data and analysis indicate, these maps were prepared for the purpose of directing urban development into areas most suitable for such development. Map VII-18a demonstrates that the land included in the plan amendment has only slight limitations in regard to urban sprawl. If the amendment allows a strip development, this is another of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. The evidence shows, however, that the subject property is not a strip development because it is not a linear development that runs parallel to a highway. Finally, the PUD mixed land use category adopted by the plan amendment is a planning method specifically recognized by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(1), Florida Administrative Code, as a method of discouraging urban sprawl. Indeed, the rule provides in part that: mixed use development . . . will be recognized as [a method] of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Because the PUD adopted by the amendment is designed to provide a mix of land uses, the amendment does not fail to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Given the above, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment encourages urban sprawl. Demonstrated need and adequate data Petitioners allege the plan amendment "fails to provide demonstrated need" as required by various provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. They further allege amendment 96A01 "is not based upon adequate surveys, studies, or data regarding the amount of land needed to accommodate anticipated growth." Initially, it is noted that the data and analysis in the plan are not subject to the compliance review process. Section 163.3177(10)(e), Florida Statutes, authorizes the DCA in a compliance review to determine only if the plan or plan amendment is based on appropriate data and analysis and whether the data was collected in a professionally acceptable manner. Planning methodologies used in analysis of the data, such as the calculation of a multiplier, must also be prepared in a professionally acceptable manner. Demonstrated need is only a subset of one of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment or plan may fail to discourage urban sprawl. Rule RJ-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code, lists as one of the thirteen indicators whether the amendment: [p]romotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. (Emphasis added) The thirteen primary indicators are evaluated as a whole, not as a "one strike and you're out" list, to determine one aspect of compliance -- whether the amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. "Multipliers" are a planning tool generally utilized by professional planners to aid in determining the need for additional allowable densities. Multipliers are generally expressed as a percentage or ratio of the estimated population in a given time period compared with the total residential units allowed by the comprehensive plan. For example, a multiplier of 2.0 would mean that, over the particular planning time frame, there existed twice as many residential units allocated as the population projections estimated would be utilized. At hearing, Petitioners raised issues concerning the methodology used in calculating the County's residential land use allocation multiplier and contended (a) seasonal population and planned federal prison expansions contained within the approved Plan were in error and therefore should not be used to support the amendment; (b) the agricultural land use acreage should be included in the multiplier calculation; and (c) the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre should be used to calculate the multiplier rather than the approved density of just under one unit per acre. The preparation of the multiplier in issue came as a result of the DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report and preparation for the hearing in this matter. The ORC report recommended that the County provide data and analysis which demonstrated that the land use change requested in the plan amendment was based on the amount of additional land needed to accommodate the projected population. Based on historic data, the County utilized a multiplier which had been calculated in 1995 in Case No. 94-6974GM, judicial recognition of which was taken in this hearing. In that case, the multiplier depicted the allocation of residential land countywide. The multiplier was 1.87, which means that the County allocated residential land uses approximately eighty-seven percent above its demonstrated need for the planning period. The evidence shows that, in order to allow some degree of development flexibility, a local government will routinely allocate more land than is actually needed. Indeed, a multiplier of 1.87 is low when compared to the other multipliers found in compliance in adjacent local governments as well as in other local governments statewide. In an effort to provide a more accurate multiplier, prior to the hearing, utilizing data available when the amendment was adopted, the County recalculated the multiplier and determined the updated multiplier to be 1.3. The County's calculation of a multiplier excludes agricultural land from consideration, in order to protect agricultural lands as required by the Plan. In some rapidly urbanizing jurisdictions vacant land labeled agricultural or rural on a future land use map may simply be future development land. However, the County has as one of its primary land use goals to protect agricultural land. To include agricultural land use acreage in the multiplier calculation could lead to an under- allocation of density which would jeopardize agricultural land by encouraging development in the very areas the plan is designed to protect. The DCA has utilized multiplier calculations in other counties that do not include agricultural lands. Therefore, because of the unique situation of the County and its land use plan's emphasis on protecting agricultural land, in this case it is professionally acceptable to exclude agricultural land from the multiplier calculation. In the County, PUD is a land use category rather than merely a zoning category as in many other jurisdictions. The effect of that designation is to limit the density of the development by land use designation to 499 units. Any increase in the density or intensity of the development would require a land use plan amendment. Consequently, when calculating the multiplier, the density approved for this PUD (499 units) should be utilized rather than the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre. Petitioners developed a multiplier of their own of 4.1. However, they failed to show that the County's multiplier was not developed in a professionally acceptable manner. Intervenor's marketing scheme for its residential developments is directed at persons moving to Florida from other states. Intervenor plans to use the same marketing scheme for the Pringle parcel, and most residents are not expected to be from the County. The proposed development, along with the Villages development in the northeast section of the County, which is subject to age restrictions which limit its availability to families, is a new type of development for the County. This new population was not taken into account in the original comprehensive plan which also had a low multiplier. Therefore, the need for residential allocation for this new population was not addressed. Between 1992 and 1996, the federal prison facility located near the Pringle property hired new employees, many of whom relocated from outside the area. However, the vast majority of these immigrants located outside of the County because of a lack of available appropriate housing. The federal prison facility is to be expanded in the near future, with the next phase to employ approximately 250 new employees. This expansion has already been funded by the federal government. Although the federal prison and its expansions were contemplated as part of the Plan adoption process, the impact of the federal prison and its expansions were not included in the population projections as calculated in the Plan. The seasonal population of the County was not included in the Plan's population projection. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, requires both resident and seasonal population estimates be used to determine population estimates for plan and plan amendment purposes. Therefore, the seasonal population estimate and the impact of the federal prison should be included in determining need. Given these considerations, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment was not based on a demonstrated need, or was not adequately supported by data and analysis. Compatibility with adjacent agricultural lands Petitioners have also alleged the County has not demonstrated compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses. The Plan allows for the well planned conversion of agricultural lands in the County. One of the requirements of the Plan's PUD provisions is that PUD development be buffered from adjacent lands and contain open space. The purpose of this provision is to ensure compatibility. A review of the PUD application and Master Development Plan, both incorporated into the plan amendment, shows that the Pringle development will provide approximately 225 acres of open space. Much of this open space, as required by the Plan, will act as a buffer between the development and the adjacent agricultural and rural land uses. The project will also cluster its development, which serves to separate the more urban development from the adjacent agricultural and rural uses. In view of these considerations, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is incompatible with adjacent agricultural land uses. Level of services In their Petition, Petitioners assert that amendment 96A01 violates Plan Objective 7.1.6, Policy 7.1.6.1, Objective 8.1.1, and Policy 8.1.1.1, Rules 9J-5.005(3), 9J-5.011(2)c., and 9J-5.015(3)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, and Section 187.201(16)(b)6., Florida Statutes, pertaining specifically or generally to levels of service for recreational facilities, schools, fire protection, emergency medical services, stormwater, and flooding. The stated policies and rules require adoption and adherence to specific levels of service prior to development of land. The amount of facilities required is based on population. Under the Plan, the County must take the necessary steps to insure the availability of these facilities. The development order in this case also requires the developer to provide for adequate public facilities. Petitioners offered no testimony, exhibits, or evidence regarding the following: Plan Objective 7.16, as alleged in paragraph 15.F. of their petition; Objectives 4.4.1, 4.5.1, and 4.5.2, and Policies 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.1.3, 4.5.1.2, and 4.5.2.1, as alleged in paragraph 15.G of their petition; Objective 8.1.1, as alleged in paragraph 15H of their petition; and Objective 1.3.5, as alleged in paragraph 15.I of their petition. Petitioners also specifically stated they are not contesting any issues regarding flooding. In view of this lack of presentation of evidence, Petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of reasonable debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with any of the above Plan Objectives and Policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order determining Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by Sumter County by Ordinance Number 96-17 on September 24, 1996, to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jane M. Gordon Environmental and Land Use Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 T. Daniel Farnsworth 12364 County Road 223 Oxford, Florida 34484 Kathleen R. Fowler, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513-5928 Jimmy D. Crawford, Esquire Post Office Box 492460 Leesburg, Florida 34749-2460 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether a small scale development amendment to the future land use map of the City of Jacksonville's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2019-750-E on February 25, 2020 (the Ordinance), is "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties and Standing Petitioner Livingston is a Florida resident, who lives at 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Livingston appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Livingston is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Petitioner Gopal is a Florida resident, who lives at 1535 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Gopal appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance, and submitted comments and objections on the record. Gopal is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Right Size is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that conducts business in the City, and its corporate address is 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. The specific purpose of Right Size, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation filed February 11, 2020, is to support, protect and preserve the historic character and beauty of San Marco, a historic residential neighborhood south of downtown Jacksonville and the St. Johns River. Officers of Right Size appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Right Size is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Respondent City is a municipal corporation of the state of Florida and is responsible for enacting and amending its comprehensive plan in accordance with Florida law. The City provided timely notice to the parties and the process followed the provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and part II of chapter 163. The Ordinance relates to 2.87 acres of property located at 2137 Hendricks Avenue and 2139 Thacker Avenue (Property). The Property is located within the City's jurisdiction. Intervenor Harbert is an Alabama limited liability company, registered to do business in Florida. Harbert is an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment and currently has the Property under a purchase contract pending the effective adoption of the Ordinance. Harbert is an affected person and intervenor under section 163.3187(5)(a). Intervenor South Jax is a Florida not-for-profit corporation and is the owner of record of the Property that is the subject of the Ordinance. South Jax is also an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment. South Jax is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Property and Surrounding Parcels The Property occupies the majority of one block in the San Marco neighborhood of the City. It is bounded on the north by Alford Place, on the east by Mango Place, on the south by Mitchell Avenue, and on the west by Hendricks Avenue (State Road 13). Hendricks Avenue is classified as an arterial road. The Property is currently home to The South Jacksonville Presbyterian Church. The southern portion of the Property, comprising 1.89 acres, is currently designated Residential Professional Institutional (RPI) on the City's Future Land Use Map series (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The northern portion of the Property, comprising 0.98 acres, is currently designated Community/General Commercial (CGC) on the FLUM. The southern portion of the Property is currently zoned Commercial Residential Office (CRO) on the City's zoning map. The northern portion of the Property is zoned Commercial Community/General-1 (CCG-1) on the City's zoning map. The FLUM shows that the Property is currently in the City's Urban Development Area (UDA), and abuts the boundary line of the City's Urban Priority Development Area (UPDA) to the north. The parcel to the north of the Property was the subject of a small scale FLUM amendment in 2014 (Ordinance 2014-130-E). It is known as East San Marco, currently has a Comp Plan FLUM designation of CGC, and is in the UPDA that permits development of up to 60 residential units per acre (ru/acre). Ordinance 2014-130-E for East San Marco included a FLUE text change, i.e., a site specific policy/text change under section 163.3187(1)(b). FLUE Policy 3.1.26 exempts East San Marco from specified UPDA characteristics. The East San Marco property was recently rezoned from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to PUD (Ordinance 2019-799-E) for a mixed-use project known as the East San Marco development. The PUD provides that the maximum height for commercial buildings is 50 feet not including non- habitable space, and 48 feet for multifamily units. Located south of the Property across Mitchell Avenue are parcels developed for single family residential use and currently designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the FLUM. These properties are zoned Residential Low Density-60 (RLD-60) on the City's zoning map. Located east of the Property across Mango Place are parcels developed with a mix of single family residential and office uses and designated as a mix of CGC and RPI on the FLUM. These properties have a mix of zoning including CCG-1, Residential Medium Density-A (RMD-A), and Commercial Office (CO). Located west of the Property at Hendricks Avenue/San Marco Boulevard are parcels developed with multifamily, restaurant and retail commercial uses and designated as a mix of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and CGC on the FLUM. These properties are zoned RMD-D and CCG-1. Intervenors intend to develop the Property with a mixed-use project that will include 133 multifamily residential units and a parking garage. The existing church sanctuary will remain in use at the northeast corner of Hendricks Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. The Ordinance On August 27, 2019, Intervenors applied for a small scale development amendment proposing to change the Property from RPI and CGC to CGC, and to extend the UPDA to include the Property. On the same date, Intervenors also filed a companion rezoning application seeking to change the zoning on the Property from CRO and CCG-1 to PUD. The rezoning application was processed concurrent with the small scale development amendment application. The City's professional planning staff collected and reviewed data and information related to the small scale development amendment application, the Property, and the surrounding areas. The staff also conducted a site visit. The staff further sought review by, and received input from, a number of different City and state agencies and organizations regarding the proposed Ordinance. On October 28, 2019, the City held a citizens' information meeting to discuss the proposed Ordinance. The meeting was attended by approximately nine residents. After reviewing and analyzing the data and information gathered, City professional planning staff determined that the Ordinance was consistent with the Comp Plan and furthers the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comp Plan. The determination was memorialized in a staff report recommending approval of the Ordinance. The staff report was prepared for consideration by the City's Planning Commission prior to its regular meeting on January 23, 2020. At its January 23, 2020, meeting, the Planning Commission held an approximately two and one-half hour hearing on both the Ordinance and the PUD. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a unanimous vote. The staff report and the Planning Commission's recommendation were forwarded to the City Council's Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) Committee. The LUZ Committee held public hearings addressing the Ordinance on December 3, 2019; January 22, 2020; February 4, 2020; and February 19, 2020. Certain concerns were raised by citizens at public hearings both before and during the February 19, 2020, LUZ Committee meeting. In response, the LUZ Committee requested that Mr. Killingsworth draft a site specific policy/text amendment to adopt limitations on the number of residential units, the non-residential floor area permitted on the Property, and the maximum height of structures on the Property, with measurable criteria for determining the height of structures within the proposed use on the Property. During the February 19, 2020, public hearing, the LUZ Committee recommended addition of FLUE Policy 4.4.16, a site specific policy/text amendment, which states: Multi-family residential uses shall be limited to 133 units. Non-residential floor area shall be limited to 96,000 square feet (garage, all floors) and 25,000 +/- square feet (existing church, all floors). To ensure compatibility with adjacent uses and to protect neighborhood scale and character through transition zones, bulk, massing, and height restrictions, new building height shall be limited to the calculated weighted average, not to exceed 35 feet, across the length of the development from Alford Place to Mitchell Avenue as follows: A sum of the height to the predominant roof line (ridge or parapet wall) of that portion of a building multiplied by the length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of permissible building within the minimum setback. After approximately six hours of testimony and discussion, the LUZ Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Ordinance with the site specific policy/text amendment. The City Council held public hearings to address the Ordinance on November 26, 2019; December 10, 2019; January 28, 2020; February 11, 2020; and February 25, 2020. After approximately five and a half hours of testimony and discussion, the City Council adopted the Ordinance on February 25, 2020, by a vote of 17 to one. There was significant citizen input regarding the Ordinance throughout the hearing process. This included emails and letters to City staff, to Planning Commissioners and City Council members, and submittal of verbal and written comments at the hearings. Petitioners' and Right Size's Objections Following their filing of the Petition and other stipulations mentioned above, Petitioners and Right Size jointly presented their case during the final hearing. They argued that the Ordinance was not "in compliance" because: (i) it created internal inconsistencies based upon Comp Plan Policies 1.1.20A, 1.1.20B, 1.1.21 and 1.1.22; (ii) it was not based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the City; (iii) it did not react to data in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance; and (iv) subsection (c) of FLUE Policy 4.4.16 related to height failed to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and land use regulations. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the primary underlying premise of Petitioners' and Right Size's challenge was that the Ordinance would allow a density in excess of 40 ru/acre and permit a height in excess of 35 feet. Internal Consistency In the Amended Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, as modified by the Notice of Narrowing Issues for Hearing, Petitioners and Right Size identified specific policies in the Comp Plan, which they assert rendered the Ordinance inconsistent with the Comp Plan. FLUE Policy 1.1.20A states that "[e]xtensions of the Development Areas will be noted in each land use amendment where an extension is needed or requested concurrent with a Future Land Use Map Amendment. In addition, plan amendments shall meet the requirements as set forth in Policy 1.1.21 and 1.1.22." The definitional section of the FLUE explains that the City is divided into five tiers of Development Areas which include the UPDA and the UDA. These areas are depicted on the City's FLUM series and control "the density, development characteristics, and other variables within plan categories." The first sentence of Policy 1.1.20A affords applicants the ability to request an extension of a development area concurrent with a land use amendment application. Consistent with the policy, the small scale development amendment application included a request for an extension of the UPDA. The request was submitted concurrent with the request to designate the Property as CGC on the FLUM. The adopted Ordinance makes note of the extension of the UPDA as required by Policy 1.1.20A. The second sentence of Policy 1.1.20A requires that when an amendment application includes a request to extend a development area, the City must ensure consistency with Policies 1.1.21 and 1.1.22. The City's analysis is reflected in the staff report, which finds that the amendment application meets Policies 1.1.20, 1.1.20A, and 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any testimony regarding consistency with Policy 1.1.20A. Their expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that he was familiar with Policy 1.1.20A, but did not explain how or why the Ordinance was internally inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. Instead, Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis regarding Policy 1.1.21. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. FLUE Policy 1.1.20B states: Expansion of the Development Areas shall result in development that would be compatible with its surroundings. When considering land areas to add to the Development Areas, after demonstrating that a need exists in accordance with Policy 1.1.21, inclusion of the following areas is discouraged; Preservation Project Lands Conservation Lands Agricultural Lands, except when development proposals include Master Planned Communities or developments within the Multi-Use Future Land Use Category, as defined in this element. The following areas are deemed generally appropriate for inclusion in Development Areas subject to conformance with Policy 1.1.21: Land contiguous with the Development Area and which would be a logical extension of an existing urban scale and/or has a functional relationship to development within the Development Area. Locations within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Locations within one-half mile of the existing or planned JTA RTS. Locations having projected surplus service capacity where necessary facilities and services can be readily extended. Public water and sewer service exists within one-half mile of the site. Large Scale Multi-Use developments and Master Planned Communities which are designed to provide for the internal capture of daily trips for work, shopping and recreational activities. Low density residential development at locations up to three miles from the inward boundary of the preservation project lands. Inward is measured from that part of the preservation project lands closest to the existing Suburban Area such that the preservation lands serves to separate suburban from rural. The development shall be a logical extension of residential growth, which furthers the intent of the Preservation Project to provide passive recreation and low intensity land use buffers around protected areas. Such sites should be located within one- half mile of existing water and sewer, or within JEA plans for expansion. After the City makes a determination that there is a need for the expansion of a Development Area pursuant to Policy 1.1.21, the City next looks to see if the property is discouraged under Policy 1.1.20B. The subject Property does not fall into one of the discouraged lands. The City's expert, Ms. Reed, explained that if the questions of need and discouraged lands are satisfactorily answered, the Policy then describes lands that are generally deemed appropriate for inclusion in a particular Development Area. The first question is whether the Property is contiguous to the UPDA and whether the extension is logical. The staff report notes that the Property is immediately adjacent to the UPDA to the north and that an extension of the boundary is logical because it permits an infill project. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga testified that the proposed extension of the UPDA to include the Property is also logical because there is a functional relationship to the proposed mixed-use development to the north. The next question is whether the Property is within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that the Property is within a node which was confirmed by Mr. Atkins. The next criterion under Policy 1.1.20B is whether there are mass transit services available near the Property. The staff report notes that mass transit Routes 8 and 25 are available at the Property and this fact was confirmed by Ms. Reed. The fourth and fifth criteria under Policy 1.1.20B address whether there is sufficient water, sewer and other services available to serve the Property. The City requested information from various agencies and utilized the responses to analyze the impact of the Ordinance. The City sought confirmation from the Jacksonville Electric Authority, Transportation Planning, the Duval County School Board, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Concurrency and Mobility Management System Office to determine whether the systems serving the Property, i.e. water, sewer, schools, and roads, had available capacity to serve the site if the UPDA was expanded to include the Property. All the agencies consulted responded that there was sufficient capacity available. In addition, Ms. Reed testified that the Ordinance met Policy 1.1.20B because there is capacity for water and sewer, there is transit available, the area is very walkable, and there is access to a lot of neighborhood services nearby. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga persuasively testified that the Ordinance met the criteria for land deemed appropriate for inclusion in the UPDA as set forth in Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any evidence regarding the consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B and their expert did not offer any opinions or otherwise discuss consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.20B. FLUE Policy 1.1.21 requires the City to analyze need for all land use map amendments. The Policy states: Future amendments to the Future Land Use Map series (FLUMs) shall include consideration of their potential to further the goal of meeting or exceeding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area and to allow for the operation of real estate markets to provide adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents and business consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.5. The projected growth needs and population projections must be based on relevant and appropriate data which is collected pursuant to a professionally acceptable methodology. In considering the growth needs and the allocation of land, the City shall also evaluate land use need based on the characteristics and land development pattern of localized areas. Land use need identifiers include but may not be limited to, proximity to compatible uses, development scale, site limitations, and the likelihood of furthering growth management and mobility goals. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that they did not object to a density on the Property of 40 ru/acre or 114 total units, but object to the additional 19 units permitted by the Ordinance. Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that need to expand the UPDA to encompass the Property was not demonstrated, and that need for the "additional number of units" was not demonstrated. The City's experts, Ms. Reed and Mr. Killingsworth explained that Table L-20 of the FLUE identifies land use categories and their projected need at the end of the 2030 planning horizon. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 demonstrates that at the end of the planning horizon the RPI land use will be at 119 percent of need, while the CGC land use will be at 84 percent of need. This indicates a need for additional CGC designated lands by 2030, as well as an over-abundance of RPI-designated lands. Since the Ordinance includes a request to change existing RPI-designated lands to CGC, it addresses both the need to increase CGC-designated lands and to decrease RPI-designated lands. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 was prepared by the City to comply with section 163.3177(6), which requires all local governments to project need and to assure that there is market availability to respond to such need. The Table, along with the underlying data and analysis used to support it, was reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (n/k/a the Department of Economic Opportunity) and found to comply with state law. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that the City considered testimony by the San Marco Merchants Association, local residents, and the applicant presented during the hearings. The testimony demonstrates that the Ordinance would address current economic and housing needs in the area. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the testimony and Table L-20 demonstrate a need for the Ordinance to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area. With regard to the land use need identifiers of proximity, compatibility, and scale, Mr. Killingsworth testified that "compatibility" as defined in the FLUE "doesn't mean you have to have the same uses adjacent to each other, it doesn’t mean that you have to have the same density adjacent to each other." Instead it means that "those uses have to operate in conjunction with each other and there has to be [ ] some sense to the scale, the mass, and bulk of the structure." See Tr. at pg. 203, lines 11-17. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the City's analysis was that the Ordinance met the land use need identifiers, the limitations included in the site specific policy/text amendment were an additional way to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses with regard to use, scale, and height. The CGC portion of the Property is currently permitted to be developed up to 40 ru/acre. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the Property to a total of 133 residential units (or approximately 46 ru/acre), which the City Council determined is compatible, particularly given the fact that the East San Marco property directly north of the Property can be developed with up to 60 ru/acre. The Comp Plan FLUE does not establish height limitations for any of the land use categories, including CGC and RPI. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the s ite specific policy/text amendment provides for standards related to height that are otherwise not in the FLUE. The East San Marco project to the north has a height limit of 50 feet, and the low density residential neighborhood to the south has a height limit of 35 feet. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the limitation in the site specific policy/text amendment, restricting the height on the Property to an average of 35 feet, allows for an appropriate transition between the uses to the north and the uses to the south, thus ensuring compatibility. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.21. FLUE Policy 1.1.22 states: "Future development orders, development permits and plan amendments shall maintain compact and compatible land use patterns, maintain an increasingly efficient urban service delivery system and discourage urban sprawl as described in the Development Areas and the Plan Category Descriptions of the Operative Provisions." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins testified that he did not review Policy 1.1.22. However, in an abundance of caution, the City and Intervenors presented evidence to establish that the Ordinance was consistent with Policy 1.1.22. Mr. Killingsworth pointed to the definition of compact development from the FLUE, which includes the efficient use of land primarily by increasing intensity, density, and reducing surface parking. He testified that the Ordinance accomplished these criteria. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the height averaging in the site specific policy/text amendment assisted with ensuring compatibility, and that the proposed development's mix of commercial, residential, and institutional uses on a small site met the definition of compact development. Ms. Reed testified that the Property is in an area with full urban services, has access to transit, and fronts on an arterial roadway. Furthermore, it promotes a compact and compatible land use pattern through redevelopment and infill. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.22. Data and Analysis The parties agreed in the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation that the facts remaining for adjudication with regard to "data and analysis" were exclusively related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16, the site specific policy/text amendment that addressed only building height. However, Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins did not discuss data and analysis specifically related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16. Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis related to the Ordinance generally. The City addressed the data and analysis supporting the Ordinance, and the City's response to that data and analysis. The City considered data from professionally accepted sources and applied an analysis based on established procedures set forth in the Comp Plan. The process of data collection began with the submittal of the application, which included a survey, a legal description and an owner's affidavit. Mr. Killingsworth testified that chapter 640 of the City's Ordinance Code sets out the process by which FLUM amendment applications are processed and reviewed by the planning staff. Section 650.404(b) requires that the City hold a Citizens Information Meeting that allows receipt of additional data from the affected community. Ms. Reed explained that all amendments are evaluated based upon standards and methodologies established in the FLUE for the assessment of data and analysis, which includes public facilities, school impacts, population, and development impacts. The City planning staff collected background data for the initial analysis of the Ordinance. The background section of the staff report goes through an analysis of the characteristics of the site, including the location, acreage, and surrounding uses; describes the site in general; identifies the Council district; identifies the Planning District; and notes if there are any applicable vision plans. The City planning staff also did research on applications and amendments that have occurred in proximity to the Property. The background information is part of the data and analysis that the City used to determine whether the Ordinance Amendment was consistent with the City's policies. In addition, FLUE Policy 1.2.16 requires the City to assume maximum development potential when analyzing the impacts of amendments to the FLUM unless there is a site-specific policy limiting density or intensity. In this instance, the staff report was completed prior to the addition of the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance, which specifically limits the density and intensity permitted on the Property. The City's staff followed the guidelines of Policy 1.2.16 and utilized the maximum development potential for the Property in reviewing the application, i.e., 2.87 acres of CGC designated property in the UPDA. Ms. Reed testified that the site specific policy/text amendment "added parameters and limitations that were not there before, so it really lessened the impact based on what we analyzed versus what was ultimately approved." See Tr. at pg. 291, lines 8-17. Under Policy 1.2.16, the City developed a table entitled "Development Standards for Impact Assessment," which is used to collect and analyze specific impact data. The data gathered by the City for the table included the analyses provided by various advising agencies and entities. The data and analyses provided by the other agencies and entities are summarized in the table in the staff report. The table also includes a section where the City staff identifies and reviews other appropriate plans and studies. These plans and studies have not been adopted into the City's Comp Plan, but they are utilized as data and analysis when the planning staff reviews a FLUM amendment. The staff report identifies three plans applicable to the site, the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan, the North San Marco Action Plan, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Ms. Reed explained that the Ordinance was consistent with the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan which provides for new development along Hendricks Avenue compatible with existing neighborhoods. The staff report notes that design details can be addressed in the companion PUD rezoning application. Likewise, the staff report concludes that the Ordinance is generally consistent with the features of the North San Marco Action Plan and that design details would be handled through the PUD review and implementation. Finally, Ms. Reed explained that the City found that the Ordinance would achieve the Strategic Regional Policy Plan's goals of improving quality-of-life with appropriate infill and redevelopment and by providing diverse housing options. Additional evidence and testimony offered by the applicant and the citizens during the Planning Commission, LUZ Committee, and City Council hearings was collected and analyzed by the City prior to final action on the amendment application. The additional data and information gathered during the many different hearings on the Ordinance resulted in the recommendation of the LUZ Committee to add the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the site specific policy/text amendment was a direct result of the City's analysis of input from the public related to intensity, density, and compatibility. Ms. Reed testified that "all of these things were considered together as a whole in order to come up with a recommendation, both in the staff report and final approval by Council as amended." Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and that the City's response to that data and analysis was not appropriate. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) requires that a Comp Plan "establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, opined that subsection (c) of the site specific policy/text amendment is "vague in its application and certainty in its outcome," in that "[t]here is no defined limit of what the height might be in violation of the requirements of section 163.3177(1)." Mr. Atkins acknowledged that the Comp Plan FLUE does not otherwise address height and that "[i]t all seems to be handled at the PUD or LDR level." This fact was confirmed by the City's expert, Mr. Killingsworth. Mr. Killingsworth explained that the objective of the site specific policy/text amendment, as a whole, is to establish a maximum development potential or otherwise restrict development on the Property consistent with Objective 4.4 of the FLUE. The density limitations, combined with the height limitation, restrict the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that subsection (c) represents a policy statement by the City Council that height should be no more than an average of 35 feet, and it provides guidance as to how the height is to be calculated, which will ultimately be implemented in the LDRs and the PUD. Subsection (c) provides more specificity regarding height than would otherwise be achieved through a Comp Plan land use category without a site specific policy/text amendment. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the height limitation in subsection (c) may not dictate that the higher heights should be on the northern portion of the Property and transition to the lower heights on the southern portion of the Property, the PUD and the development of the Property will need to comply with other parts of the Comp Plan that require a transition between uses. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance does not guide future development decisions in a consistent manner, and does not establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land. Ultimate Findings Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding Ordinance No. 2019-750-E "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 (eServed) Frank D. Upchurch, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-9066 (eServed) Emily Gardinier Pierce, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Courtney P. Gaver, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 100 Whetstone Place, Suite 200 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 (eServed) T.R. Hainline Jr., Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Jason R. Teal, Esquire Office of General Counsel City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Paul M. Harden, Esquire The Law Firm of Paul M. Harden, Esquire 501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 901 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Mohammad O. Jazil, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Craig D. Feiser, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Trisha Bowles, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5721 (eServed) Ken Lawson, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Mark Buckles, Interim General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Background Lee County adopted its comprehensive growth management plan under Section 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, (the Act) on January 31, 1989 (without regard to the subject plan amendments, the Plan). The Plan is compiled in the first volume of a three- volume set. The remaining volumes contain data and analysis (Original Data and Analysis). The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) determined that the Plan was not in compliance with the Act. DCA filed a petition challenging the Plan under Section 163.3184(10), which commenced DOAH Case No. 89-1843GM. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, on September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted Plan amendments and revised the Original Data and Analysis. These amendments to the Plan shall be referred to as the Plan Amendments. The Plan Amendments are contained in a three-volume set. The first volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis concerning traffic. The second volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis concerning the future land use map series, which includes two maps forming the 2010 overlay. The third volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis involving general matters. The Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendments, shall be referred to as the Amended Plan. The additional data and analysis submitted by Lee County in September, 1990, shall be referred to as the Revised Data and Analysis. The Original Data and Analysis and Revised Data and Analysis shall collectively be referred to as the Data and Analysis. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a notice of intent to find the Plan Amendments in compliance. Petitioner Brenda Sheridan, who is a resident of Lee County, had previously submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings concerning the Plan Amendments. On or about November 17, 1990, Petitioner commenced the above-styled case by filing with DCA a petition alleging that the Plan Amendments and Revised Data and Analysis are not in compliance with the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (collectively referred to as the growth management law). Wildlife Habitats and Vegetative Communities (Issues 2 and 6) As to Issue 2, the Revised Data and Analysis contain limited data or analysis pertaining to wildlife habitat and vegetative communities. Much of the data and analysis concerning wildlife habitats and vegetative communities are in the Original Data and Analysis and were unchanged by the Revised Data and Analysis. The Revised Data and Analysis inventory only certain habitats or vegetative communities and analyze the environmental, socioeconomic, and fiscal impacts of development and redevelopment upon only certain unique wildlife habitats. The habitats or communities so considered are only those used by wood storks, Florida panthers, and black bears. The Revised Data and Analysis state: The only documented wood stork rookery in Lee County is on Telegraph Creek. In the past 3 years, no nesting has occurred there. It is possible that they exist in the Flint Pen Strand, adjacent to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Corkscrew includes a well-known wood stork rookery. Wood stork productivity is highly variable as a result of annual rainfall amounts which accumulate in South Florida. Flight paths . . . associated with that rookery cross into feeding locations within Lee County. These movements are primarily dependent on food availability. Tall structures placed in this flight path could affect the wood storks. The first monitoring report concerning the impact of WEVU's new broadcast tower on wood storks has been submitted. Every day during breeding season a biological intern has inspected the 60-acre tower site for injured wood storks. No injuries or fatalities were found. Feeding areas of the Corkscrew Swamp colony have been documented in Lee, Collier, and Hendry Counties. Southeastern Lee County provides important forage areas for this colony; occasionally saltwater habitats are also used. These food sources are essential to the success of wood stork reproduction within the colony. Figure IX.C-1 indicates the foraging sites used by wood storks from the Corkscrew Swamp Colony. Lee County wetlands provide significant feeding areas for wood storks. As water levels drop in the winter, fish are trapped in depressions associated with the wetland. These fish become an easy meal for the wood storks. The storks rely on this feeding source for successful breeding and survival. Strict enforcement of strong wetland regulations is the first step to protect this important feeding source. The Lee County Protected Species Ordinance provides the next step in protecting wood stork forage areas. It requires surveys and management plans for the wood storks. Nesting, roosting, and rooking areas are identified in the survey. Preservation of those areas can be accomplished through conservation easements granted to the county. All management plans must follow the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the Southeast Region, a 1990 publication of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Of the 20 surveys submitted to date, only one indicated the presence of wood stork areas. Two wood storks were identified off of the property. The management plan associated with this property includes preservation of the wetlands associated with this documented forage site. Joint Exhibit 10.c, page IX-3. Figure IX.C-1 indicates the foraging sites used by wood storks of the Corkscrew Swamp colony from 1985 to 1988. The 30 indicated sites are (with one exception) concentrated in extreme southeast Lee County. All of the area is designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource or Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones. Addressing Florida panthers, the Revised Data and Analysis report: The greatest problems facing panthers are directly related to human intrusion. Habitat loss due to increased development erodes the range necessary for each cat's survival. Florida panthers require extensive and biologically diverse landscapes. Male panthers utilize up to 400 square miles of territory. Biotic systems utilized by the Florida panther include "mixed swamp forests, cypress swamps, sawgrass marshes, mesic hammocks, pine flatwoods, and palmetto prairies." (Maehr, David S., "The Florida Panther and Private Lands.") Uplands are especially critical habitats for Florida panther. The tall palmetto systems which are particularly beneficial to the panther are also particularly prized for agriculture and development. Because of the vast range necessary for the survival of the panther, protection of their habitat cannot be fully accomplished through site design regulations for private development. Large areas need to be acquired, preserved, and managed for the long- term survival of this species. Suitable corridors must also be maintained, either through acquisition or regulations. . . . In recent years, two cats have been documented in Lee County. One travels from Collier County, through the Flint Pen Strand, and north past the Southwest Florida Regional Airport to the Caloosahatchee River. This is a young panther. This movement is reflected in Figure IX.C-2 showing public lands within panther range. The second panther has been documented in Northern Lee County. Its range probably includes portions of Charlotte County. Figure IX.C-3 showing Florida panther range is currently out of date given the known travels of the first panther. The enlargement of this map in Figure IX.C-4 illustrates the importance of the Flint Pen Strand acquisition in the preservation of well-documented panther habitat. Joint Exhibit 10.c, pages IX-5 to IX-6. Figures IX.C-3 and -4 disclose that about 50 square miles of south Lee County serves as known panther habitat, although actual habitat is even greater. The 50-square mile area contains much of the land in Lee County east of I-75 and the headwaters of the Estero River. All of the area is designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource or Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones except for all or parts of six one- mile sections, which are designated Suburban and General (Interchange Area). The Revised Data and Analysis discuss the habitat of black bear: Black bear range requirements are strikingly similar to that of the Florida panther. Like the Florida panther, the adult male will occupy home ranges that are greater than the female; in the case of the black bear, 3 to 8 times greater. The range of the black bear forage area extends anywhere from 40 to 312 square miles. In Lee County, bears are known to exist in the northern and southeastern areas of the county. Bear dens are common in the eastern extent of the Flint Pen Strand acquisition. Black bear are generally more common in the southeastern area of the county (see Figure IX.C-7). Black bears have a diverse diet including acorns, various berries, and insects. Under some circumstances, they may also consume feral hogs and cattle. Consistent with their famous desire for honey, bears are notorious for invading apiaries. This activity causes an obvious conflict between bee-keepers and the bears, as many orange groves currently exist in the northern and eastern areas of the county. More groves are permitted in the area as well. Bears studied in the Ocala National Forest predominantly utilized pine flatwoods for bedding and forage. "Pine flatwoods provide good cover for winter bedding as well as a nearly year-round source of food and water. This habitat type supports a variety of food- producing plans including gallberry, blueberry, and saw palmetto." (Wooding, John B. and Hardisky, Thomas S., Final Performance Report: Black Bear Study, page 18.) Bears studied in [the] Osceola National Forest utilized cypress/bay swamps greatest in the fall and winter. The dense cover and fall food supply are explanations for this use. Black bears are prone to utilize areas which include oak in the autumn to take advantage of acorn production. Oak hammocks provide black bears with dense cover and food during these periods. It appears that black bear hibernate to some degree in south Florida. This period of hibernation is of a shorter duration (2 to 3 months) and the bears are more alert during hibernation than they are in more northern areas. However, building energy stores for the hibernation is still important to the black bear in south Florida. Florida black bear dens are simply beds made of vegetation such as palmetto fronds. They are known to den in a variety of habitats. However, pine flatwoods and cypress swamps would appear to be the most utilized for this area. "It is speculated that Florida black bears have adequate food supplies to reproduce by the age of 3-4 years." (Wooding and Hardisky, page 23.) Black bear road kills have been reported along I-75. These bears were crossing in the vicinity of San Carlos Park. Bears have been sighted in that community and occasionally elsewhere west of I-75. However, I-75 is more typically a barrier to black bear migration to the western half of the county. Preservation of large tracts of unfragmented forests is necessary for the continued survival of black bear in Lee County. Public acquisition of connected forested tracts is an effective way of ensuring habitat preservation for black bear. The Flint Pen Strand acquisition includes the area of most extensive bear denning and bedding in Lee County. Since this area is connected by the Bird Rookery Swamp acquisition to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, connectivity of preserved land is accomplished. The largest area of land currently under public control in southeastern Lee County is owned by the city of Fort Myers. Their southeast wellfield site encompasses 6 sections and is compatible with the management of black bear. This area is just 2 miles from the Flint Pen Strand acquisition. A link between the two would provide the needed connectivity and should become a priority. Enhancement of large preserved tracts may yield a higher density of bears. This enhancement includes the planting of forage plants and the maintenance of dense vegetation. A burning program that favors the production of soft mast-forming species should be evaluated with consideration of promoting Melaleuca [sic]. Joint Exhibit 10.c, pages IX-6 and -13. Figure IX.C-7 shows that most of the bear use areas correspond to the depicted location of the Florida panther habitat. As to Issue 2, to the extent that the Revised Data and Analysis address vegetative communities and wildlife habitats, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Revised Data and Analysis are inconsistent with the criteria of an inventory of existing coastal wildlife habitat and vegetative communities and analysis of the environmental, socioeconomic, and fiscal impacts of development and redevelopment upon unique wildlife habitat. As to Issue 6, the Plan Amendments address to a limited extent regulatory or management techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment on wildlife habitat. The Plan Amendments address the wood stork and its habitat as follows: Objective 77.10: WOOD STORK. By July, 1991, regulatory measures to protect the wood stork's feeding and roosting areas and habitat shall be adopted and enforced by Lee County. Policy 77.10.1: By December 31, 1990, the Protected Species Ordinance (#89-34) and its administrative code (AC-13-10) shall include wood storks as a Lee County Listed Species, requiring surveys for and protection of wood stork habitat. The county shall maintain an inventory of documented feeding, roosting, and rooking areas for the wood stork to ensure that surveys submitted through the Protected Species Ordinance include such areas. Policy 77.10.2: By December 31, 1990, the county shall require management plans for existing wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas to utilize "Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the Southeast Region" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990). Policy 77.10.3: By July 1991, the county shall provide incentives for the creation of wood stork feeding areas in mandatory littoral shelf design, construction, and planting. These incentives shall include relief from 50% of the shrub requirements in exchange for fish entrapment areas. Policy 77.10.4: By July 1991, the county shall identify wood stork flight patterns from roosting and rooking areas to feeding areas within the county. Regulations protecting significant flight areas shall be adopted by July 1992, restricting the construction of tall structures such as broadcast towers (see Policy 2.1.5). Policy 2.1.5 provides: 25/ * [[After the completion and acceptance of a special study]] <<By July 1991, the county shall complete a special study on locational criteria for tall structures such as broadcast towers. These criteria shall include wood stork flight corridors from roosting and rooking areas to feeding areas as well as airport hazard areas. By July 1992, new>> tall structures such as broadcast towers shall be [[encouraged or]] required to be located in areas identified as appropriate <<after examining the findings of the study (see Policy 77.10.4).>> * Note: In the above quotation, language added to the policy is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. Policy 77.10.1 requires Lee County to keep an inventory of wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas to ensure that developer-provided surveys include such areas. The Revised Data and Analysis indicate that the County is already aware of certain of such areas. Policy 77.10.2 requires, by December 31, 1990, Lee County to demand that management plans for existing wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas use regionally applicable U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for habitat management. The requirement of management plans arises from the inclusion of wood storks among Lee County Listed Species, as provided in Policy 77.10.1. Policies 77.10.3 and 77.10.4 provide additional protection for wood storks found in Lee County. The Plan Amendments address the Florida panther, black bear, and their habitat as follows: Objective 77.11: FLORIDA PANTHER AND BLACK BEAR. By June 30, 1991, county staff shall develop measures to protect the Florida panther and black bear through greenbelt and acquisition strategies. Policy 77.11.1: County staff, working with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, shall identify known black bear and Florida panther corridors in Lee County. Policy 77.11.2: Criteria developed for ranking land acquisition priorities shall include known panther and black bear corridors. Policy 77.11.3: Lee County shall inform Collier and Charlotte counties as to Lee County corridor acquisition projects to encourage a regional approach to corridor acquisition. Policy 77.11.4: Lee County shall support the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand through a millage increase of .2 mills over a three-year period. Acquisition of this documented Florida panther and black bear corridor shall be coordinated with the South Florida Water Management District's "Save Our Rivers" program and the state's "Conservation and Recreational Lands" program. Policy 77.11.5: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for regulatory and public acquisition purposes shall be designated within these use areas. The corridor boundaries shall include wetlands, upland buffers, and nearby vegetative communities which are particularly beneficial to the Florida panther and black bear (such as high palmetto and oak hammocks). Policy 77.11.6: Florida panther and black bear corridors shall be included in the Protected Species Ordinance (#89-34) management section. Where corridors are purchased (or designated for purchase) adjacent to the development site, then a buffer to the corridor of no greater than 500 feet shall be required. Policy 77.11.7: In any vegetative restoration projects conducted by Lee County for land acquired due to its environmental sensitivity (such as the Six Mile Cypress Strand and the Flint Pen Strand), plant lists shall include species that provide forage for the prey of the Florida panther and forage for the black bear. The Plan Amendments also modified another policy contained in the Plan: Policy 77.4.1: Identify, inventory, and protect flora and fauna indicated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern in the "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora of Florida," Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, as periodically updated. <<Lee County's Protected Species Ordinance (#89- 34) shall be enforced to protect habitat of those listed species found in Lee County that are vulnerable to development. There shall be a funding commitment of one full-time environmental planner to enforce this ordinance through the zoning and development review process.>> Although not further described in the Amended Plan, the Protected Species Ordinance, which is not part of the Amended Plan, is addressed in the Revised Data and Analysis: The Protected Species ordinance (#89-34) was adopted by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners on August 31, 1989, and became effective on September 1, 1989. The ordinance was the first in the nation to require a survey for listed species habitat and a management plan for proposed development sites. The survey method is delineated to ensure a proper survey is performed. This survey is only required for those vegetative communities known to harbor listed species from the "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Flora and Fauna of Florida" of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Once the listed species are identified, a number of regulatory tools are used to preserve the nesting, feeding, and "other use" areas. These tools include the transfer of density on-site, use of open space requirements, and credits toward regional park impact fees. * * * The ordinance is being administered to allow maximum development flexibility while preserving listed species habitat. Joint Exhibit 10.c, page IX-1. Added by the Plan Amendments, Objective 17.4 states: NATURAL RESOURCES. County regulations, policies, and discretionary actions shall permit no further degradation of estuarine and wetland resources and no unnecessary loss of native upland vegetation and wildlife habitat. Although unaffected by the Plan Amendments, other provisions of the Amended Plan address wildlife habitat and identifies techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment upon important vegetative communities. These provisions state: Goal 77: RESOURCE PROTECTION. To manage the county's wetland and upland ecosystems so as to maintain and enhance native habitats, floral and faunal species diversity, water quality, and natural surface water characteristics. Objective 77.l: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. By 1991 the county shall adopt a resource management plan that will ensure the long- term protection and enhancement of the natural upland and wetland habitats through the retention of interconnected, functioning, and maintainable hydroecological systems where the remaining wetlands and uplands function as a productive unit resembling the original landscape. Policy 77.l.l: The county shall designate a natural resource management agency with responsibilities including: Identifying upland and wetland habitats/systems most suitable for protection, enhancement, reclamation, and conservation. Recommending standards to the Board of County Commissioners for Board approval for development and conservation that will protect and integrate wetlands (Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones), and significant areas of Rare and Unique upland habitats (RU) as indicated in the Lee County Coastal Study, including but not limited to: sand scrub (320); coastal scrub (322); those pine flatwoods (411) which can be categorized as "mature" due to the absence of severe impacts caused by logging, drainage, and exotic infestation; slash pine/midstory oak (412); tropical hardwood (426); live oak hammock (427); and cabbage palm hammock (428). The numbered references are to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Level III (FDOT, 1985). Preparing standards for wetland and rare and unique upland mitigation. Preparing a prioritized listing of wetlands, rare and unique uplands, and critical endangered and threatened species habitat properties for possible acquisition. Recommending a plan for eradicating and controlling problematic exotics Melaleuca, Schinus, and Casuarina with the highest priority placed on preventing new or accelerated infestations in wetlands and rare and unique upland habitats. Maintaining a central clearinghouse for all environmental studies and recommendations by both public and private organizations. Completing the mapping of the hydrological boundaries and habitats of each coastal watershed that extend landward of the coastal area study boundary. Preparing recommendations for maintaining or restoring the desired seasonal base flows and water quality into the coastal zone after reviewing monitoring data. Coordinating the preparation of plans with the municipalities, South Florida Water Management District, and Southwest Florida Water Management District to better control flows of freshwater and reduce pollutant discharges into the Lee County coastal waters. Regularly updating the Level III maps and database of the Coastal Study to reflect the existing conditions following each aerial photography overflight of the county. Providing an annual report to the county commission on the status of wetlands, native uplands, and rare and unique habitats. The report should focus on the adequacy of the land use regulations and management plan to protect and enhance these natural systems. Adjustments should be made in the regulatory process to address whatever deficiencies are noted. Objective 77.2: PLANT COMMUNITIES. By 1991, Lee County will have completed an inventory of natural plant communities and will adopt a program to protect at various suitable locations remnant tracts of all important and representative natural plant communities occurring within Lee County. Policy 77.2.1: Establish a coordinated natural resources information exchange program with state and regional agencies. Policy 77.2.2: Prevent incompatible development in and around areas that have been identified as unique or important natural plant communities. Policy 77.2.3: Prevent water management and development projects from altering or disrupting the natural function of significant natural systems. Policy 77.2.4: Encourage the protection of viable tracts of sensitive or high-quality natural plant communities within developments. Policy 77.2.5: Prepare and adopt regulations to control the clearing of natural vegetation except where and when needed for permitted development. Policy 77.2.6: Avoid needless destruction of upland vegetation communities including coastal and interior hammocks through consideration during the site plan review process of alternative layouts of permitted uses. Policy 77.2.7: Specify in the development regulations where inventories and assessments of the impacts of development in environmentally sensitive lands and Rare and Unique upland habitats shall be required. Policy 77.2.8: Promote the long-term maintenance of natural systems through such instruments as deed restrictions, covenants, easements, transfer of development rights, restrictive zoning, and public acquisition. Policy 77.2.9: Identify possible programs which would help to eradicate noxious plant species and/or non-native plant species from environmentally critical areas and Rare and Unique upland habitats, and implement pilot programs. Incentives such as density bonuses may be considered. Policy 77.2.10: Development adjacent to aquatic and other nature preserves, wildlife refuges, and recreation areas shall protect the natural character and public benefit of these areas including, but not limited to, scenic values for the benefit of future generations. Policy 77.2.11: The planting of Brazilian Pepper, Melaleuca, and Australian Pine is prohibited in order to prevent the spread of these noxious species. Policy 77.2.12: Lee County shall protect its natural resources by encouraging and cooperating with the local Mosquito Control District to employ the maximum feasible use of natural biological agents to control injurious insects. Objective 77.3: WILDLIFE. Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system to which man is inexorably linked. Policy 77.3.1: Encourage upland preservation in and around preserved wetlands to provide habitat diversity, enhance edge effect, and promote wildlife conservation. Policy 77.3.2: Develop a plan to establish wildlife corridors in order to help to maintain regional species viability and diversity. Policy 77.3.3: Adequate safe passage for wildlife under or across new and reconstructed roads shall be provided where appropriate. Objective 77.4: ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN GENERAL. Lee County will continue to protect habitats of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern in order to maintain or enhance existing population numbers and distributions of listed species. * * * Policy 77.4.2: Conserve critical habitat of rare and endangered plant and animal species through development review, regulation, incentives, and acquisition. Policy 77.4.3: Require detailed inventories and assessments of the impacts of development where it threatens habitat of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. Policy 77.4.4: Restrict the use of critical habitats to that which is compatible with the requirements of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. New developments shall protect remnants of viable habitats when listed vegetative and wildlife species inhabit a tract slated for development, except where equivalent mitigation is provided. Objective 77.5: LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLES. By the beginning of the 1989 nesting season (May 1), establish a program to minimize the disorientation of hatchling sea turtles along the Gulf beaches. Policy 77.5.1: The sea turtle protection program shall include at least the following activities: Prepare a guide for homeowners and builders which explains the detrimental effects of night-time beachfront lighting on hatchling sea turtles. Examine public light sources (streetlights, security lights, beach access lights, etc.) and prepare a plan to minimize the amount of harmful light from such sources onto the beach during the nesting season. Conduct an educational program to persuade residents to reduce lighting levels on the beach and to publicize other hazards to turtles from activities of people, pets, and vehicles. Encourage electrical suppliers and lighting dealers to stock special fixtures which reduce the negative effects of beachfront lighting. Develop an ordinance which controls the installation of new light fixtures which could shine on the beach, and which encourages or requires that existing lights be shielded or turned off during the nesting season. Determine whether certain areas of the beachfront are not used by sea turtles for nesting and should therefore not be subject to the same restrictions. Objective 77.6: SOUTHERN BALD EAGLES. During 1989, amend the county's ordinance protecting southern bald eagle habitat to provide an optimum mix of incentives and regulations for protecting buffer areas around nests. Policy 77.6.l: Maintain a policy of negotiations with owners of land surrounding eagle nests to provide an optimal management plan for land subject to imminent development. Policy 77.6.2: The county Eagle Technical Advisory Committee shall complete by the end of 1989 an assessment of all eagle nests in Lee County, and shall prepare proposed guidelines for each nest. Policy 77.6.3: The Committee shall also prepare management guidelines to inform land owners and the general public of proper practices to minimize disturbances to eagle nests. Objective 77.7: WEST INDIAN MANATEES. Minimize injuries and mortality of manatees to maintain the existing population by encouraging the adoption by the state of Florida and local governments of regulations to protect the West Indian Manatee in the Caloosahatchee and elsewhere in Lee County. During 1990, manatee management plans will be prepared for other waters of Lee County also frequented by manatees. Policy 77.7.1: Characterize and map important manatee habitats; identify and evaluate potential threats to important habitats; and consider management agreements to protect such habitats. Policy 77.7.2: Identify areas of greatest actual or potential boat/barge mortality and/or injury by December 31, 1990, and establish slow or idle speed zones. Policy 77.7.3: Inform and educate the public through sign posting, lectures, and regulations about manatee protection. Policy 77.7.4: Educational materials regarding manatees should be disseminated to boaters and warning signs placed in areas where both manatees and humans congregate. Policy 77.7.5: Construction and expansion of multi-slip docking facilities and boat ramps shall be encouraged in locations where there is quick access to deep, open waters where the associated increase in boat traffic will be outside areas of high manatee concentration. Policy 77.7.6: Rezoning and DRI applications for marinas and boat ramps shall be evaluated in the context of cumulative impacts on manatees and marine resources. Policy 77.7.7: State, local, and private interests shall work in cooperation to develop and implement area-specific manatee protection plans. Policy 77.7.8: By October 1, 1991, the county shall provide a permanent funding source to assist the Florida Department of Natural Resources in enforcement of such manatee protection plans as may be adopted. Objective 77.8: GOPHER TORTOISES. During 1989, determine the suitability of publicly owned property for the relocation of gopher tortoises. Policy 77.8.1: The county's policy is to protect gopher tortoise burrows wherever they are found. However, recognizing that there occasionally are unavoidable conflicts which require the relocation of gopher tortoises, the suitability of alternate sites should be evaluated as to --physical suitability of the site for the gopher tortoises; --long-term protection of the land; --conflicts with other management objectives for the land; and --costs that would be incurred by the relocation. Objective 77.9: RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER. By 1990, county staff will prepare a list of best management practices for the red- cockaded woodpecker's habitat. Policy 77.9.1: County staff will note and document other possible red-cockaded woodpecker sites during routine site inspections. As to Issue 6, to the extent that the Plan Amendments address the identification of regulatory or management techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment on wildlife habitat, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with the criterion of a policy identifying such regulatory or management techniques. Future Land Use Map Series (Issues 3, 4, 5, 7, and 11) Issues 5, 7, and 11 As to Issue 11, the future land use map series, which includes the 2010 overlay, reflects a planning timeframe of 20 years. The schedule of capital improvements covers a five-year timeframe. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan uses inconsistent timeframes, such as those mentioned above, as well as timeframes of five years for potable water and sewer, less than 10 years of need for potable water wellfield protection, and one year for mass transit. Different timeframes may be appropriate for different projected items because of the varying amounts of available data and analysis for different items, varying planning requirements in the growth management law concerning different items, and varying degrees of predictability for different items. As to Issue 11, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the criterion of two planning timeframes. As to Issue 5, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis identifies potable water wellfields or their cones of influence. Map 8 of the Amended Plan identifies the cones of influence surrounding depicted wellfields and indicates that it was "as adopted [on] January 31, 1989." Map 8 obviously was part of the Plan and was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. The extensive amendments and revisions concerning the new 2010 overlay, the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, related Plan Amendments, and the data and analysis underlying these operative provisions do not provide a basis for Petitioner's assertion that the future land use map series fails to identify potable water wellfields permitted to pump less than one million gallons per day and their cones of influence. Issue 5 is directed toward the Plan, not the Plan Amendments. As to Issue 7, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis involves densities in the coastal high hazard area, except to the extent that the 2010 overlay may reduce such densities by limiting residential uses when compared to the original 70-year future land use map. 26/ Issue 7 is directed toward the Plan, not the Plan Amendments. Issues 3 and 4 Overview As to Issues 3 and 4, the Plan Amendments substantially changed the future land use map series by the addition of the 2010 overlay and related text. However, except for the introduction of the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, the Plan Amendments, including the 2010 overlay, did not substantially alter the types of land uses permitted by the future land use map series in the Plan. The 2010 overlay and related text address the timing of land uses by limiting the amount of land that may, prior to 2010, be devoted to the uses designated by the future land use map in the Plan. Issues 3 and 4 generally raise the issue whether the Plan Amendments, including the amended future land use map series, are supported by data and analysis. Because the Plan Amendments and the amended future land use map series do not generally change the uses that are ultimately to be allowed in an area, the Plan Amendments and amended future land use map series are not implicated by allegations that the amended future land use maps are not consistent with soils, topography, and floodplains. For the same reason, the Plan Amendments and amended future land use map series do not play a significant role in determining whether land use designations for specific areas, such as North Bonita Springs, are supported by data and analysis. However, as explained below, the Plan Amendments, including the amended future land use map series, directly affect the amount of land that will be available for designated uses by 2010. Based on the findings contained in the following sections, the designations contained in the amended future land use map series--even as limited by the 2010 overlay--lack support from data and analysis in two crucial respects. The first deficiency is that the density allocations are not supported by data and analysis. The second deficiency involves all designations, not just residential designations expressed in terms of densities. The second deficiency contains two parts. First, the existing land use baseline data are omitted from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis. Second, the County has yet to design a reliable process for updating the available baseline existing land use data. The determination whether the density allocations in the amended future land use map series are supported by data and analysis begins with consideration of the ratio of the maximum population accommodated by the Amended Plan for the planning timeframe divided by the projected population at the end of the planning timeframe. The resulting ratio is not itself determinative of the issue whether data and analysis support the density designations in a comprehensive plan. A wide range of density allocation ratios may be calculated for the same plan. There are a variety of reasonable assumptions and adjustments, especially for reducing the maximum population accommodated by the plan. Also there are a range of reasonable density allocation ratios. A density allocation ratio represents a rough calculation of the relationship between the amount of land needed for residential uses during the planning timeframe compared to the amount of land so designated during the planning timeframe. If the ratio is relatively high, there is a greater chance that the plan may not facilitate the efficient use of land or the efficient provision of public facilities, especially if the spatial distribution of densities and textual plan provisions do not tend to achieve these objectives. In any event, a density allocation ratio is an important factor in determining whether data and analysis support the density designations contained in a comprehensive plan. As explained below, the Data and Analysis contain a critical adjustment by which the maximum densities permitted in the Amended Plan are reduced to reflect historic densities--by an unstated amount and according to an incompletely described methodology. The second deficiency concerning supporting data and analysis undermines residential, commercial, industrial, and other designations. The baseline existing land use data are omitted from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis, and the process by which existing land uses will be updated is uncertain and unreliable. The 2010 overlay is meaningless without these data. As described below, the 2010 overlay divides the County into numerous subdistricts. The 2010 overlay limits development in each subdistrict to a maximum acreage for each land use category. The acreage limitations represent total acreage, which consists of the acreage of existing land uses that preexisted the implementation of the 2010 overlay and the acreage of land use authorized pursuant to, and following, the implementation of the 2010 overlay. The baseline data missing from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis are the acres of each existing land use for each subdistrict. The absence of such data from a readily available source such as the Amended Plan or Data and Analysis undermines effective implementation of each of the designations contained in the 2010 overlay. Although the evidence indicates that the County has adequate baseline existing land use data, such data, for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law, must be included in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis because of its indispensable role in the implementation of the 2010 overlay. Neither the Amended Plan nor the Data and Analysis identify the process by which Lee County will update the baseline existing land use data. Evidence at the final hearing revealed serious deficiencies in the updating process, which requires the County to extrapolate from traffic data and analysis the ongoing incremental acreage increases of land use, rather than track the increases as they are authorized in a more straightforward fashion. Thus, concerning the second deficiency, the designations contained in the 2010 overlay are supported by data and analysis only to the extent of: 1) a clearly ascertained baseline, in terms of acres of existing land uses by category for each planning subdistrict, set forth in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis and 2) the identification of a reliable means of determining the incremental acreage increases authorized by the County for each land use category for each planning district following the implementation of the 2010 overlay. 2. How the Amended Future Land Use Map Series Works The primary component of the future land use map series Map 1, which is a future land use map containing 18 future land use designations. Map 1 projects land uses through buildout of the entire County, or about 70 years. Map 1 was contained in the Plan and was not changed by the Plan Amendments, except for the addition of the 2010 overlay and the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation. The Plan Amendments added Maps 16 and 17 to the future land use map series. Maps 16 and 17 constitute the 2010 overlay. Map 16 divides the entire County, including the three municipalities, into 115 planning subdistricts. Map 17 is not a map, but is a series of bar graphs depicting acreages for seven land use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, and vacant and passive agriculture. The regulatory concept of the 2010 overlay is to prohibit, prior to 2010, the issuance of "final development orders or building permits" for any future land use designation once the subdistrict has attained the acreage specified for that type of land use by Map 17. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. This concept is implemented by Policy 1.1.1, which provides: The Future Land Use Map contained in this element is hereby adopted as the pattern for future development and substantial redevelopment within the unincorporated portion of Lee County. <<Maps 16 and 17 are an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series (see Policies 1.7.6 and 2.2.2). They depict the extent of development through the year 2010. No final development orders or building permits will be issued by Lee County which would allow the acreage totals for any land use category on these maps to be exceeded.>> The cities of Fort Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel are depicted on [[this]] <<these>> maps only to indicate the approximate intensities of development permitted under the comprehensive plans of those cities. Residential densities are described in the following policies and summarized in Table l. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that the purpose of the 2010 overlay is to make the 70-year future land use map in the Plan "even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 1. The Revised Data and Analysis elaborate: The addition of a 20-year horizon (i.e., to the year 2010) to the map series is an effort to project and monitor land development quantitatively on a small area basis and over a relatively shorter period of time, thus improving the county's ability to coordinate zoning, impact fees, and other development regulations with the planning and programming of public facilities and services. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 2. Assumptions, Data, and Methodologies Applicable to 2010 Overlay Density Allocations: Assumptions and Data Map 1 and the 2010 overlay are based on the 1987 University of Florida high-range population projections for 2010. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 4. Residential projections are based on peak or seasonal populations, which are permanent populations plus 18%. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 4, and County Exhibit 1.B, page V-7. Populations are converted to dwelling units by assuming that 2.01 persons occupy each dwelling unit. Id. The population figures typically include Ft. Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel, not merely unincorporated Lee County. 27/ Other important assumptions identified in the Revised Data and Analysis are that there will be no net loss of wetlands, the density allocations will reflect the new Groundwater Resource/Density Reduction designation with a density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres (1:10), the Mid-Point Bridge will be built by 2000, all but one of the transportation projects shown on the Interim Traffic Circulation Plan Map will be finished by 2010, and the "state road network" will be enhanced by the Traffic District Program and Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads and Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads. 28/ Joint Exhibit 10.b, pages 4-5. Another key assumption involves adjustments to the designated densities authorized in the comprehensive plans of Ft. Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel. Acknowledging that Lee County lacks planning jurisdiction over these municipalities, the Revised Data and Analysis nonetheless reveal that Lee County made "some adjustments" to their growth trends. In other words, in determining the densities to use for the 2010 population that could be accommodated by the cities' plans, Lee County chose not to rely on the maximum densities indicated by the future land use designations given vacant residential acreage on each city's future land use map. Instead, as it did for the unincorporated County, Lee County reduced the maximum densities in the cities' plans to account for historic buildout densities. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. Density Allocations: Methodology Noting that the 2010 overlay is not a "textbook planning concept," the Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge that the 2010 overlay required an "innovative methodology," which, due to time constraints, could not be fully documented in the Revised Data and Analysis. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. Instead, the Revised Data and Analysis provide only a "brief explanation" of the methodology. Id. Section III of the Revised Data and Analysis for the Future Land Use Element 29/ describes the methodology underlying the County's estimate of the builtout capacity of the land. In this analysis, the County reduces maximum densities permitted under the Amended Plan to reflect anticipated actual densities. This adjustment is intended to reflect the historic buildout factor in Lee County, which generally resulted in involved lower densities in urban areas and higher densities in rural areas than are designated in the Amended Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that the Original Data and Analysis used 1981 data and analysis of then-existing vacant land, including platted but vacant lots. The vacant acreage was then tabulated by land uses identified within the Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis add: By adding the 1981 dwelling unit count to a reasonable projection of future housing densities on the "vacant" acreage, an estimate was made of the build-out capacity of the unincorporated area as shown in the Lee Plan's land use map. The process by which vacant acreage was converted to dwelling units is partly described, at least to the extent of several assumptions. The following percentages were deducted from the vacant acreage for the following uses: commercial--8%; major collector and arterial roads--5%; educational facilities- -2%; and community and regional parks--1%. Another 10,000 acres were deducted from the vacant acreage for industrial uses. The percentage reductions for commercial and industrial future land uses were based on studies by the independent planning consultant who was involved in the preparation of Map 1 and the 2010 overlay. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 6. The deductions for commercial and industrial acreage allotments, as described in this paragraph, are reasonable and supported by data and analysis. 30/ The Revised Data and Analysis, as well as the Original Data and Analysis, mention adjustments that Lee County made to its analysis of the capacity of residential development authorized by the Amended Plan. By these adjustments, the County attempted to show where commercial and industrial uses would preempt residential uses. Although the methodology of the adjustments is not disclosed, they appear to represent a reasonable attempt to avoid the unrealistic land use planning assumption that commercial and industrial uses would be scattered equally throughout the parts of the County where they are authorized under the Amended Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis next break down the acreage of each future land use designation into 15 planning districts and 115 planning subdistricts. Table 1 (III C) beginning on page 8 of Joint Exhibit 10.b provides acreages for each of the 15 planning districts on three tables: one for Lee County in its entirety, one for unincorporated Lee County, and one for the three municipalities. Table 2 (III C) breaks down the acreages by planning subdistrict. The acreages in Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) do not correspond to the acreages shown in Map 17 and Table 3 (V G). 31/ The differences are not indicative of deficient data and analysis. Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) represent interim stages of the process by which Lee County developed the 2010 overlay and, as such, do not provide acreages on which density allocations may be calculated. However, Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) do not suggest that the final acreage figures in Map 17 and Table 3 (V G) represent the maximum densities or population allowed in the Amended Plan without reduction for historic densities. To the contrary, the Revised Data and Analysis indicate that the preparation of Table 2 (III C) allowed "the input of expected densities." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 7. Unlike Table 3 (V G) or Table 1 (III C), Table 2 (III C) contains a column entitled, "Buildout Assumptions." One part of the Buildout Assumptions column is "percent residential." The adjustment for percent residential appears to be based on the above-described deductions for commercial and industrial allotments. In any event, the adjustment represents a reasonable projection as to what portions of land designated residential will necessarily be devoted to other uses, such as commercial and industrial. The other part of the Buildout Assumptions column in Table 2 (III C) is "dwelling units per acre," which appears to represent adjusted projections based on historic buildouts. The maximum densities for each category allowed by the Amended Plan are invariably equal to or (more often) higher than the dwelling units per acre contained in the Buildout Assumptions. 32/ The Revised Data and Analysis revise Section V(G) of the Original Data and Analysis. This section is entitled "Future Land Use Needs for the Year 2010." The new section addresses exclusively residential development. Table 2 (V G) in the new section lists by planning subdistricts the number of dwelling units in 1987, the number of dwelling units projected for 2010, and the number of dwelling units projected at buildout. In introducing Table 3 (V G), the Revised Data and Analysis note that the projected number of dwelling units for 2010 (presumably from Table 2 (V G)) was translated to acreage by "taking the number of acres in each land use category in each district and allocating the residential units projected for 2010 at the density factor (number of units per acre) allowed in the land use category." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 37. However, the acreage allotments in Table 3 (V G), which are the same as those in Map 17, reflect historic density adjustments, rather than unadjusted applications of the maximum densities authorized in the Amended Plan. For the purpose of calculating density allocation ratios in determining whether the designated densities are supported by data and analysis, there is no justification for failing to disclose information necessary to calculate the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan. 33/ For the purpose of calculating density allocation ratios in determining whether the designated densities are supported by data and analysis, there is no justification for reducing the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan by an undisclosed amount to reflect historic buildout densities. The purpose of Map 1 was to depict the land uses in Lee County at buildout, which was estimated to be about 70 years. This 70-year future land use map was to facilitate end-state public facility planning by assisting the County and private utility companies in determining where to locate and how to size public facilities so as to accommodate the builtout population of Lee County. Projecting actual buildouts for end-state public facility planning requires an adjustment based on historic densities. But the present determination is whether the densities authorized by the Amended Plan are supported by data and analysis. This determination requires consideration of the effectiveness of the future land use map series as a regulatory device to assist the Amended Plan in achieving consistency with applicable criteria of the growth management law. To a large extent, any regulatory purpose for Map 1 was frustrated by the fact that, in 1989, it made available for immediate development (subject to concurrency) all of the land that would be needed for various uses by 2060. The 70-year planning timeframe meant that Map 1 designated amounts of land for various uses that were grossly in excess of that which was needed in 1989 or even 2010. To this extent, the 70-year future land use map did not facilitate effective land use planning. The sole purpose of the 2010 overlay is to shorten the planning timeframe of Map 1 from 70 year to 20 years. The shorter planning timeframe is more meaningful for land use planning, as well as facility planning in the interim. Although the 2010 overlay clearly strengthens the future land use map series as a regulatory device, the question still remains whether even the reduced densities designated by the map series are supported by data and analysis. The calculation of a density allocation ratio is part of the determination whether data and analysis support the residential densities in a plan. The analysis misses the point of the process if the maximum densities authorized by a plan are reduced to reflect historic densities. The question is whether the densities authorized by a plan are supported by data and analysis, not whether data and analysis support densities somewhere between the maximum authorized densities and historic densities. Especially where historic densities reflect an inefficient use of land, as is clearly the case in Lee County, analysis of a plan based in part on historic densities invites the repetition of past planning failures. Although there is some flexibility in calculating and interpreting density allocation ratios, the reduction of maximum densities allowed in the Amended Plan by an undisclosed amount and by an incompletely explained methodology frustrates the purpose of comprehensive land use planning. The purpose of the density allocation calculation, as part of the process of determining if the plan is supported by data and analysis, is not to predict the actual density that will occupy the planning jurisdiction at buildout. The purpose of the density allocation calculation is to compare the maximum density allowed by the plan with the projected population and consider the extent of the overallocation in light of other factors in the planning jurisdiction, including plan provisions and relevant data and analysis. The ratio is not required to be 1:1 to satisfy the criterion of supporting data and analysis. But the ratio must be ascertainable in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis. By failing to disclose either the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan or even the bases upon which such maximum densities could be derived, Lee County has implicitly and--at times--explicitly demanded undue deference to its above-described density analyses. Nothing in the record warrants such deference. Although Lee County has made considerable progress in regulating land uses since first adopting zoning in 1962, sprawling, low-density residential monoliths already occupy much of the landscape in Lee County. Two such areas are Lehigh Acres and Cape Coral, the latter of which has now been incorporated. These inefficient land use patterns, which are a large part of Lee County's historic densities, generally exceed rural densities but do not attain urban densities. Lee County confronts a serious challenge from the massive tracts of prematurely (and in some cases unsuitably) platted lots, as well as the ongoing pressure to continue such inefficient and costly land use practices. The Original Data and Analysis note that "vacant zoning together with platted lands could accommodate over 218,700 units or 518,000 people in the unincorporated area alone" and that the "pace of rezoning, often with speculative intent, has not lessened appreciably since that time." County Exhibit 1.B, Future Land Use Element Data and Analysis, page V-1. The Original Data and Analysis observe that Lee County in its entirety contains 480,458 platted lots covering over 153 square miles. Although it is not entirely clear that all of these lots are vacant or preplatted, a considerable number of them are. Most of the lots are in Lehigh Acres (132,512 lots) and Cape Coral (287,869, but deed restrictions require two lots for one homesite.) Only 3768 lots are considered nondevelopable. County Exhibit 1.B, Future Land Use Element Data and Analysis, page I-1. The Revised Data and Analysis argue that Lee County should be accorded greater planning flexibility than should other local governments in Florida due in part to its "large concentrations of pre-platted lands." The other reasons cited to justify special treatment are the presence of three independent municipalities, a multiplicity of private sewer and water systems lacking centralized control, a complicated land and water configuration, a strong wetlands protection program, a large regional airport, existing and future DRI's, and an "historical pattern of decision-making that has created land use expectations which, in the aggregate, are difficult to reverse and require care and sensitivity in so doing." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 2. With the exception of the strong wetlands protection program, if one were to exist, the cited factors at best cut both ways in terms of whether, under the growth management law, a local government facing such challenges requires greater planning flexibility. The pre-platted lands factor militates against greater planning flexibility, as these vacant lots represent a potential liability that threaten the viability of a local government's comprehensive plan. Following the discussion of Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C), the Revised Data and Analysis admit: The above analysis helps to explain the inability of Lee County and private sector utility companies to provide infrastructure to all of the future urban areas shown on the future land use map. Those services that involve major expenditures for site-specific capital improvements (such as sewer lines, water lines, and major roadways) are the major components of local governments' expenses in providing for new growth; yet they are the very services which are difficult to provide economically when a large supply of land is provided for development. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 7. The Revised Data and Analysis identify several factors that militate in favor of abandoning the stricter regulatory land-use controls introduced by the 1984 comprehensive plan. 34/ These factors are the presence of numerous private utility suppliers over which Lee County has no regulatory control; the "existing pattern of development within unincorporated Lee County [involving] numerous physically scattered communities of widely varying character," which renders attempts to apply a "single concept" of urban services across a wide spectrum of communities "inappropriate" and "financially infeasible" both as to existing and future development; the unsuccessful implementation of flexible planning strategies in the 1984 plan, such as planned unit developments in which developers and landowners provide a full range of urban infrastructure without expense to Lee County; and, "[p]erhaps the most difficult issue. . . in implementing the 1984 Lee Plan," the "lack of total commitment to the policy of allowing urban-scale development [over 1:1] only where a commitment was actually being made to provide an urban level of infrastructure." Elaborating on the last factor, the Revised Data and Analysis add: "The future land use map has often been seen as just another obstacle rather than as a vehicle towards the creation of desirable development patterns." Joint Exhibit 10.b, pages 30-31. Again, the cited factors do not militate in favor of more relaxed regulatory land-use practices to achieve consistency with the criteria of the growth management law. Addressing the 2010 overlay and the projected population that it is intended to accommodate, the Revised Data and Analysis contend: [DCA] has tried to rigorously defend the concept of enforcing a future land use map having an approximate capacity equal to the projected growth of the county over a given (typically, 20-year) period. This is not possible in Lee County where existing platted and sold lots greatly exceed the 20-year period. In addition, it is also important to know where and how growth will occur well beyond the conventional timeframe of a comprehensive plan. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 31. However, the Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge the drawbacks of reliance upon a future land use map with a 70-year planning timeframe. The cited disadvantages include the increased likelihood of changes in designations over the intervening 70 years (as compared to shorter periods like 20 years); the premature conversion of agricultural and vacant land to residential uses due to designations that, in 1990, presently permit land uses that will accommodate all projected urbanization through the year 2060; and the possibility that actual population growth will not attain projected population growth, which would result in an even more scattered development pattern that would further increase the cost of servicing the scattered population with required public facilities and services. The Revised Data and Analysis frankly concede that "there is no easy way to exit from the present dilemma." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 32. A "wholesale rollback" of existing future urban areas, though simple, "would inevitably diminish development rights previously granted by Lee County." The prime examples of previously granted development rights are the "hundreds of thousands of [already-sold] platted lots" and "numerous large-scale developments which have recently been approved based on the existing Lee Plan . . .." Id. Acknowledging the obvious, the Revised Data and Analysis admit that the preceding analysis "indicates clearly that the development potential shown on the Future Land Use Map is greater than the projected population for the year 2010." Id. The Revised Data and Analysis list five steps that Lee County has taken to "bridge the gap between the adopted [70- year] future land use map and the desirability of a 20-year map." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 32. These steps are reserving about one-third of the Future Urban Areas for privately funded infrastructure; substantially reducing the total acreage of land, including coastal ares designated urban in the 1984 plan; adopting impact fees for fire protection and emergency medical services; adopting the 2010 overlay; and adopting the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to reduce densities in sensitive areas to 1:10. As noted above, the encouragement of privately funded infrastructure has not enjoyed much success in Lee County. As noted below, the adoption of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation with a low density of 1:10 over thousands of acres of the County allows a real separation of urban and rural uses. But, as noted in this section of the recommended order, data and analysis do not support the density designations in the 2010 overlay and thus the question remains open whether even the reduced densities authorized by the 2010 overlay are supported by data and analysis. Baseline and Updated Existing Land Use Data: Data, Assumptions, and Methodology Lee County possesses the baseline data for existing land uses by each land use category for each subdistrict. Lee County's Growth Management Director William Spikowski testified that the County possessed sufficient, baseline existing land use data, broken down by land use category and subdistrict, as of 1987. Tr., page 122. There is no basis in the record for discrediting the 1987 baseline data, 35/ but, for the reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the criterion of supporting data and analysis requires in this instance that such crucial baseline data be included in the Data and Analysis (or the Amended Plan, if the County prefers). For the faster-growing subdistricts, these baseline data were updated to 1990, which is when the 2010 overlay was adopted. Id. The record does not support the finding that, to the exclusion of fair debate, any problems exist with respect to the one-time 1990 update of the baseline data, which may have been produced by the independent consultant who prepared the commercial and industrial studies and initiated Map 1 and the 2010 overlay. The point at which the 2010 overlay finds no support from the data and analysis is in the updating of the existing land use data from the 1987 (or 1990, where applicable) baseline data. The 115 planning subdistricts in Map 16 are formed out of over 800 traffic analysis zones. Part of the reason for using the traffic analysis zones was the detailed data available for small areas of the County. When confronted with the necessity of calculating exactly how much land remains in a specific subdistrict for a specific use, the County has a very poorly defined process whose results are unreliable. The updating process does not involve tracking actual land areas authorized for development in a specific land use under the 2010 overlay. Instead, the County reverts to traffic data, employs undisclosed conversion factors, and reaches a result that may or may not measure the extent of the development that it has authorized in the subdistrict under the 2010 overlay. The conversion process is unreliable and, even if it were reliable, may be measuring merely actual uses, but not already-authorized uses not yet in existence. The unreliability of the updating process by which authorized development under the 2010 overlay is measured was disclosed in the testimony of Mr. Spikowski. The relevant portion of the transcript reads: Q: Okay. Where would I find the--just the vacant acreage that you're proposing to allow to be developed? A: The exact inventory is what I discussed as what we want to have--be able to take off the property appraiser's records for each parcel so that we can have a constantly updated figure. We don't have that available. . . . Tr., page 1294. After discussing a recent rezoning request that evidently involved commercial uses, possibly as part of a mixed- use project, Mr. Spikowski explained that the County elected to do a manual count of existing land uses rather than rely on the traffic data and use a conversion factor. Mr. Spikowski testified in relevant part: A: . . . instead of using the information we used, which is the 1987 inventory done for the traffic model where we had to use conversion factors to take employees back to acres, the right thing to do in that case was to do a manual count, to do what we want to do on the computer. And maybe week after next we're going to have the capability to do that. It had to be done manually. Because we had base projections in here based on the inventory for the '87 traffic model, but it was calculated for commercial based on number of employees, because that's what the traffic model wanted. For us to use it in the overlay we had to convert that back to acres using standard conversion factors, which introduces an element of error. So before you would use this overlay as a regulation of telling somebody they cannot use their land, you really would need to manually check it. Whether that goes to the property appraiser records for those sections or estimate of aerial photography with the Plan amendment, or either way would work. We tried both methods. Q: I really can't do--take the documents that are in evidence and do this calculation because I can't tell what is existing? A: You would have to--If you take the documents in evidence, I believe you'd have to assume that the conversion factors that are county-wide averages are correct for that subdistrict. And again, for general planning purposes we were comfortable doing that, also knowing that we were getting this new system to do it automatically. This is one of the regulatory flaws of the 2010 overlay and that's why it's become so hated in the development community. They say, if you can't give us the exact amount, how can you expect us to live with it? Tr, pages 1294-97. The record is otherwise devoid of evidence describing the methodology by which the acreage allotments by subdistrict will be updated. The role of Map 17, as described by Policy 1.1.1, is to ensure that the County will not authorize development that would exceed relevant acreage totals. There are absolutely no data or analysis supporting the crucial updating process. Nothing in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis prevents the County from, if it so chooses, using traffic data (which may possibly ignore authorized uses that have not yet placed vehicles on the road), converting employees to acres by some undisclosed formula (or perhaps residents to acres through the undisclosed historic density adjustment), and determining that the development would not exceed the acreage allotment. It is to the County's credit that, in the rezoning application described by Mr. Spikowski, it manually determined existing land uses in the affected subdistrict to determine if additional acreage were available. This is the "right thing to do" for using the 2010 overlay "as a regulation." But the 2010 overlay is unsupported by data and analysis unless the County restricts itself to a reliable updating process. The alternative updating process, which is based on converted traffic data, cannot be found, on basis of this record, to be any more reliable than reading owls' entrails. The Amended Plan or Data and Analysis must assure that the County will adhere to more reliable means of measuring interim increases in land uses authorized under the 2010 overlay. Even if the County implements a computer- assisted reading of updated property appraiser records, questions remain concerning, for instance, the accuracy of such records as measurements of the extent of development authorized by the County pursuant to the 2010 overlay and the frequency with which these measurements must be updated in order to ensure that acreage allotments are not exceeded. These matters must be described either in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis for the designations contained in the 2010 overlay to find support in the data and analysis. As to Issues 3 and 4, for the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the Maps 1, 16 and 17 of the amended future land use map series are not supported by data and analysis. Transportation (Issues 8 and 9) With five exceptions not material to this case, Policy 21.1.1 adopts the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) 2010 Financially Feasible Map as the Interim Traffic Circulation Plan Map. This color map is Map 3 in the Amended Plan. Policy 21.1.5 explains that the future traffic circulation map series consists of Map 3, the MPO 2010 Needs Plan (Map 4), and a map of ports, airlines, and rail lines (Map 13). The Plan Amendments completely revised Policies 21.1.1 and 70.1.3.6, which adopt minimum peak hour/peak season level of service standards 36/ for roads in Lee County. The adopted level of service standard is D for freeways, such as I-75, and principal arterials under state jurisdiction other than US 41. The Amended Plan assigns a level of service E to all other roads, which are County arterials and collectors, and state minor arterials and others, as well as US 41. Concerning constrained roads, Policy 22.1.3 provides: <<Due to scenic, historic, environmental, aesthetic, and right-of-way characteristics and considerations, Lee County has determined that certain roadway segments will not be widened. Therefore, reduced peak hour levels of service will be accepted on those constrained roads as a trade-off for the preservation of the scenic, historic, environmental, and aesthetic character of the community. These constrained roads are defined in Table 2(b). Growth on those constrained roads will be permitted only within the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios established in this plan and only if consistent with the Operational Improvement Program for those constrained roads.>> Table 2(b) identifies nine state and County road segments that are constrained. Policy 22.1.9 sets a maximum volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.85:1 and prohibits the issuance of additional permits for development affecting the constrained segment once that ratio has been reached. Policy 22.1.10 establishes an Operational Improvement Program for each constrained segment. There is no evidence that Lee County has identified as constrained road segments roadways for which capacity-enhancing projects are not appropriately limited by scenic, historic, environmental, aesthetic, or right- of-way factors. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the treatment of constrained roads in the Amended Plan is inconsistent with any of the criteria of the growth management law. Table 2(a) identifies 26 state and County road segments that are backlogged. The treatment of backlogged roads in the Amended Plan is much more elaborate. Even though these road segments do not, by definition, meet the minimum level of service standards otherwise adopted in the Amended Plan for roads of their functional classifications, the Amended Plan requires neither the addition of greater transportation capacity in the affected area nor the cessation of development impacting the affected area. Instead, the Amended Plan offers a two-part alternative. Under the Traffic District Program, a backlogged road segment may be viewed in the context of a much larger area. Pursuant to the Interim/Operational Improvement Program, interim operational improvements may be undertaken, but are not required to restore the subject road segment to its otherwise applicable level of service standard. As to Issue 8, the Traffic District Program in particular has a clear impact on the consistency of the Amended Plan and Plan Amendments with the criteria of setting level of service standards for roads, ensuring concurrency for roads, and correcting infrastructure deficiencies regarding roads. Policy 22.1.2 states: <<The minimum acceptable levels of service specified in Policy 22.1.1 shall not apply on an interim basis to the backlogged roads identified in Table 2(a). It is the County's intent that those segments will be improved to the identified standard in the shortest period possible, but no later than December 31, 1999. During that interim period, however, growth on those backlogged roads may be permitted if it is consistent with the Traffic District Program (Policy 22.1.5) and Interim/Operational Improvements Program (Policy 22.1.6).>> Policy 22.1.5 provides: <<A Traffic District Program is hereby established for purposes of determining allowable development affecting backlogged roads. On at least an annual basis, Lee County shall estimate the service volumes for all City, County and State collectors, arterials and freeways within each traffic district, and shall determine the district- wide service volume surplus or deficiency. Development permits that affect a backlogged road may still be approved provided that the surplus service volume resulting from the existing surplus service volume, any service volume increases due to committed roadway improvements, and any service volume increases due to interim improvements (reported as a percent of existing service volume on a district basis) is equal to or exceeds the annual percent increase in traffic on a traffic district basis. However, such permits will be issued only if mitigation is provided in accordance with Policy 22.1.13. In the event that the percent service volume growth identified above on a traffic district basis is less than the percent traffic growth in that district, no permits will be issued by Lee County for development that affects the backlogged segment. Such development will be permitted only if capacity enhancement and/or operational improvements are programmed for implementation within the specific District so that the total service volume growth for the District will again be equal to or greater than the District traffic growth. Growth on non-backlogged roads will not be affected. Development that does not affect the backlogged segment will still be allowed. For purposes of calculating service volumes for the Traffic District Program, the following rules apply: Constrained roads (see Table 2(b)) will not be included in the determination of traffic growth and percent service volumes. Percent traffic growth will be based on the last full year of traffic count information. Committed roadway improvements for purposes of this calculation are those improvements under a current construction contract.>> Policy 22.1.6 states: <<For the identified backlogged roads (see Table 2(a)), and as any additional backlogged roads may emerge over time, an Interim/ Operational Improvement Program will be established. The Interim/Operational Improvement Program will include the following types of improvements: Phased improvements, representing a staged implementation of the eventual improvement that is needed to return the backlogged road to the minimum acceptable level of service. Operational improvements, representing short-term measures to improve traffic operations and expand capacity prior to the eventual roadway improvement.>> <<The initial Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads is identified in Table 2(c).>> <<On an annual basis, a minimum of five backlogged roads will be studied in detail by Lee County with specific interim/operational improvements identified. Specific interim/ operational improvements shall be incorporated into the County's Capital Improvements Program. Initially, six backlogged roads have been studied in detail including portions of US 41 South, US 41 North, McGregor Boulevard, Gladiolus Drive, San Carlos Boulevard, and Metro Parkway. The selection of specific interim/operational improvements to be constructed in any given year may be adjusted as deemed necessary by Lee County to reflect developer funding opportunities, adjustments to construction schedules, other agency improvement projects and schedules, and alternative improvements of a comparable nature. Specific interim/ operational improvements shall be included in all following updates of the County's Capital Improvements Program to ensure the expeditious construction of those improvements.>> Policy 22.1.8 assures that, "[a]fter December 31, 1999, Lee County shall measure concurrency on all roads on a roadway segment-by-segment basis rather than using the Traffic District Program contained in this plan." Policy 22.1.13 provides: <<All proposed development activity, as part of the concurrency management process, will be reviewed against the Traffic District Program, the Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads and the Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads. Development activity affecting backlogged and constrained roads will be required to mitigate its traffic impacts: For that development activity determined not to affect a backlogged and/or constrained road segment, traffic mitigation will consist of payment of Roads Impact Fees and needed intersection improvements at the site entrance(s). For development activity determined to affect a backlogged and/or constrained road segment, traffic mitigation may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: Advanced, lump sum payment of Roads Impact Fees to Lee County; Developer construction or financing, with Lee County approval, of one or more of the interim or operational improvements identified in the Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads or the Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads; Developer prepares, with Lee County approval, a detailed Interim/Operational Improvement Program for the affected road(s) and funds one or more of the needed interim or operational improvements; and Developer funding of needed road improvements.>> <<Lee County's Concurrency Management Ordinance shall be amended prior to the end of 1990 to specify the impact mitigation procedure and threshold measurements for mitigation purposes.>> The establishment of the Traffic Districts for backlogged roads is left to the Revised Data and Analysis. At page VI-7 of Joint Exhibit 10.a is a map dividing Lee County into nine traffic districts. Six districts cover the entire mainland. The districts approximate the preexisting districts created by Lee County in the implementation of its traffic impact fee program. The service/traffic formula does not operate in isolation. As noted above, the Interim/Operational Improvement Program also requires developer- provided mitigation. However, the required mitigation does not require the developer to restore the road segment to its otherwise applicable adopted level of service standard and may not even affect the road segment impacted by the proposed development. More importantly, the service/traffic formula requires little of the County in addressing the problem of backlogged roads before 2000. A graph on p. VI-10 of Joint Exhibit 10.a provides the necessary data to calculate the service/traffic formula to determine if, under this formula, Lee County would likely be precluded from issuing final development orders due to the presence of backlogged roads. A sample calculation on p. VI-6 of Joint Exhibit 10.a illustrates the calculation. As noted on the graph, the service/traffic formula is inapplicable to two of the island traffic districts, which contain only constrained roads. The service/traffic formula, as a practical matter, eliminates the possibility of concurrency-imposed limitations on development due to the enforcement of level of service standards on nonconstrained roads in any of the six mainland districts. The reason is the vast difference--in each district-- between existing service volume and traffic volume. But this difference bears no relationship to the fact that many road segments are already operating below their otherwise applicable level of service standards and that, under the Traffic District Program, many more road segments, not presently backlogged, will also operate below their otherwise applicable level of service standard prior to 2000. Assuming the same annual increase in traffic volume as presently exists for each mainland district, the service/traffic formula would not require Lee County to build or commit to build any road improvements for over 10 years in Districts 1, 2, 5, and 8, six years in District 4, and seven years in District 3. In other words, the service/traffic formula allows Lee County to continue to issue final development orders impacting backlogged road segments and causing more road segments to become backlogged for at least six years anywhere on the mainland and over 10 years for most of the mainland--even in the absence of any capacity- enhancing transportation improvements. The combination of the service/traffic formula and the vast areas covered by the mainland districts allow the perpetuation of congested conditions on nonconstrained roads in Lee County. The Traffic District Program, including the service/traffic formula, renders completely meaningless the adopted level of service standards for nonconstrained roads and concurrency as it applies to nonconstrained roads. The formula and program also relieve Lee County of any obligation to correct transportation infrastructure deficiencies, or even address such deficiencies. The above-stated findings apply even if Table 2(a) and other provisions of the Amended Plan effectively limited the number and length of backlogged road segments to those listed on Table 2(a). Even worse, however, the Amended Plan does not so limit backlogged roads, and Table 2(a) is merely descriptive of road segments that were backlogged when the Plan Amendments were adopted. As contemplated by the first clause of Policy 22.1.6, "additional backlogged roads may emerge over time." This possibility is repeated in the Revised Data and Analysis, which concede that "backlogged and constrained roads may be added to the list over time." Joint Exhibit 10.a, page VIII-5. By effectively ignoring existing backlogged roads and allowing more roads to become backlogged, Lee County has deferred the adoption of level of service standards and postponed concurrency until the year 2000 when the Traffic District Program ends. When a road segment falls below its otherwise applicable standard, the effect of the Traffic District Program and Interim/Operational Improvement Program is to override concurrency by allowing development impacting the affected road segment to proceed without regard to the availability of capacity-enhancing transportation improvements sufficient to restore the affected roads to their otherwise applicable level of service standards. The short-term prospects for roads in Lee County are discussed in the Revised Data and Analysis. In its discussion of existing roads, the Revised Data and Analysis note: The rapid growth in Lee County's population during the past several years has been accompanied by even more rapid growth in traffic volumes on Lee County roads. According to the [FDOT] . . ., traffic volumes (daily vehicle miles traveled) in Lee County increased by 126 percent from 1979 to 1987, the second highest rate of growth in the State of Florida. This rapid growth in traffic is expected to continue. . . . Generally, historic road construction has not kept pace with traffic growth. However, Lee County has recently embarked on an ambitious roadway improvement program and the pace of construction has accelerated in recent years. Joint Exhibit 10.a, page IV-1. The discussion of the existing road network adds that the existing plus committed roadway network includes major roadway improvements programmed by State and local governments for construction through 1994. Addressing backlogged roads, the Revised Data and Analysis state: Despite the accelerated roadway construction activity in Lee County, many road segments are becoming increasingly congested. Several already meet or exceed the level of service standards established in the Lee Plan. . . . Joint Exhibit 10.a, page V-1. The Revised Data and Analysis describe two exhibits displaying information about traffic volumes. Exhibit V-1 analyzes 1989 traffic volumes with the existing road network. Exhibit V-3 analyzes 1994 traffic volumes with the existing plus committed road network, which reveals that several backlogged segments from Exhibit V-1 have been eliminated and several new backlogged segments have been added. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that Exhibit V- 7, which lists all of the backlogged roads on Table 2(a), shows which backlogged roads will be "relieved to some extent by committed improvements." Joint Exhibit 10.a, page V-3. The Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge that "there are no major improvements programmed for several backlogged roads in Lee County." Id. Exhibit V-1 shows that, for 1989, there were 26 backlogged road segments for a total of 27.3 miles. 37/ Of these, 18 segments for 18.2 miles were under state jurisdiction, rather than County jurisdiction. Exhibit V-3 shows that, for 1994, based on the existing plus committed road network, there will be 28 backlogged road segments for a total of 34.2 miles. The total for state backlogged roads is projected to rise even more rapidly: 22 road segments for a total of 29.4 miles. As indicated by the text, Exhibit V-7 shows that several backlogged roads listed in Table 2(a) are not scheduled to receive committed improvements (presumably through 1994). Recommended improvements to eliminate backlogged conditions (Joint Exhibit 10.a, page VII-4) are shown on Exhibit VII-7. However, nothing in the Amended Plan commits the County to undertaking these projects. The purpose of Exhibit VII-7 is to show the work needed over a ten-year period to restore backlogged roads to their otherwise applicable level of service standards. Some of the projects would be outside of the five-year period covered by the schedule of capital improvements on page VII-21 of the Amended Plan. But, in addition to the fact that Lee County does not commit itself in the Amended Plan to undertaking this work, nothing in Exhibit VII-7 addresses those road segments that become backlogged at a later date. As to Issue 8, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that, as to all nonconstrained roads not under the jurisdiction of any municipality, the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the criteria of setting level of service standards, ensuring concurrency, and correcting existing infrastructure deficiencies. As to Issue 9, Petitioner argues that the Plan Amendments regarding transportation are not financially feasible because the capital improvement schedule does not identify a current source of funding for all of the road improvements described in the Plan Amendments as "necessary or desirable." It is not entirely clear what Petitioner means by road improvements that are described as "necessary or desirable." These words correspond to the MPO Needs Plan and MPO Financially Feasible Plan. Of course, these plans, which are adopted in the Amended Plan as Maps 4 and 3 respectively, pertain to the year 2010, and the five-year capital improvements schedule properly pertains only to 1995. Petitioner may mean by "necessary and desirable" that the road projects do not adequately address backlogged roads, so as to allow the Traffic District Program to attain consistency. This issue has been addressed in connection with Issue 8. Except to the extent that the financial feasibility of transportation improvements has been addressed in connection with Issue 8, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the transportation capital projects are inconsistent with the criterion of financial feasibility. Miscellaneous Minimum Criteria (Issues 1, 10, and 12) As to Issue 1, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis addresses directly the issue of private potable water suppliers. The Plan Amendments create a new future land use category, Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource. The Revised Data and Analysis discuss four studies or reports focusing on the aquifers in Lee County and aquifer recharge areas. But the focus of these material is general and on hydrogeologic supplies, rather than on the specific entities presently involved in producing potable water. As to Issue 10, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis addresses coordination between Lee County and its Amended Plan and the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. However, the separate issue whether the Plan Amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan is addressed below. As to Issue 12, the only provisions amended by the Plan Amendments are Policies 2.2.2 (primarily third factor and flush language), 15.2.2, 38.1.6, 38.4.1, and 38.4.3, as well as the 2010 overlay. The remaining objectives and policies were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Policy 2.2.2 states: Map 1 of Tthe Future Land Use Map <<series>> indicates the uses and density ranges that will ultimately be permitted on a given parcel. However, it is not a guarantee that such densities or uses are immediately appropriate, as the map provides for the county's growth over the coming 70 years. During the rezoning process the Board of County Commissioners will balance the overall standards and policies of this plan with [[two]] <<three>> additional factors: --whether a given proposal would further burden already overwhelmed existing and committed public facilities such that the approval should be delayed until the facilities can be constructed; <<or>> <<--whether a given proposal is for land so far beyond existing development or adequate public facilities that approval should be delayed in an effort to encourage compact and efficient growth patterns.; or>> <<--whether a given proposal would result in unreasonable development expectations which may not be achievable because of acreage limitations on the "Year 2010 Overlay" (see Policy 1.7.6 and Maps 16 and 17).>> <<In all cases where rezoning is approved, such approval does not constitute a determination that the minimum acceptable levels of service (see Policy 70.1.3) will be available concurrent with the impacts of the proposed development. Such a determination must be made prior to the issuance of additional development permits, based on conditions which exist at that time, as required by Lee County's concurrency management system.>> The 2010 overlay designates the proposed location of various future land uses in Lee County. Map 1 shows where certain land uses may generally be located for the next 70 years. Maps 16 and 17 limit these land uses for the next 20 years and, to some extent, show where these land uses may be permitted during that timeframe. Although the specific locations of land uses prior to 2010 are not disclosed by Maps 16 and 17, the generalized locations are. There is nothing vague or ambiguous in Policy 2.2.2. Misciting Policy 2.1.2 as Policy 2.2.2, Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that certain language is vague, but she did not plead Policy 2.1.2, which, in any event, was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Objective 15.2 provides: COMMUNITY FACILITIES. Within funding constraints, the county shall attempt, during 1989, 1990, and 1991, to incorporate the following recommendations of the ad-hoc Bonita Study Group into the planning process for public facilities. Policy 15.2.2 states: <<IRRIGATION WELLS. Bonita Springs (as defined in this plan) is hereby declared a critical area for future potable water supply, based on evidence that withdrawals from the main potable aquifer, the lower Tamiami aquifer, are approaching or exceeding the maximum safe yield. In response to this designation, the county shall amend current regulations to provide that new irrigation well permits in Bonita Springs may not utilize the main potable water source. (Also see Policy 32.1.9 for new permit requirements for wells in Lehigh Acres, and Policy 2.4.3 for special requirements for amendments to the Future Land Use Map.)>> Policy 15.2.2 is not vague, nor does Petitioner argue grounds for vagueness as to Policy 15.2.2 in her proposed recommended order. Policy 38.1.6 provides: <<Within one year after the adoption of this policy, Lee County shall amend its land development regulations to require that proper stormwater management systems be installed when land is being redeveloped. Appropriate exemptions shall be provided to this requirement for individual residential structures and for historic districts. The regulations may also provide modified stormwater management standards for publicly sponsored projects within community redevelopment areas (as defined by Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes). However, this policy shall not be interpreted so as to waive any concurrency level-of-service standards.>> Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the words "proper," "appropriate," and "modified" lack sufficient definition so as to render Policy 38.1.6 vague and ineffective. The terms are sufficiently definite to provide enforceable guidance to the County in the adoption of implementing land development regulations. The word "proper" incorporates the stormwater level of service standards stated at Policy 38.3.1. The word "appropriate" applies to reasonable exceptions to the stormwater level of service standards for individual residences and historic districts. The word "modified" creates a reasonable exception to the stormwater level of service standards for publicly sponsored community redevelopment areas. There are communities in Lee County, such as Harlem Heights, where the housing is seriously substandard and the community is eligible for publicly sponsored redevelopment, as well as interim assistance through such projects as Habitat for Humanity. Evidently due to relatively low elevations, at least when the housing is compared to adjacent roadways, the Harlem Heights community also suffers from a seriously inadequate (and possibly nonexistent) stormwater management system. Ideally, all areas within Lee County should be subject to, and receive the benefits of, effective stormwater management. However, communities desperately in need of publicly funded redevelopment, such as Harlem Heights, present a special challenge. As a practical matter, the treatment of publicly sponsored projects within community redevelopment areas by Policy 38.1.6 represents a fair accommodation of competing policy demands in providing stormwater management and decent, affordable housing. Objective 38.4 states: <<CRITICAL AREAS. The Six Mile Cypress Basin (as defined in Ordinance #83-5 as amended) and the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category are both identified as "critical areas for surface water management." By December 31, 1990, the county shall adopt additional regulations to protect the unique environmental and water resource values of these areas.>> The policy cluster under Objective 38.4 provide: <<Policy 38.4.1: The county shall amend the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance to reduce or eliminate the exemptions allowable in the ordinance.>> <<Policy 38.4.2: The county shall conduct public hearings to consider amending the boundaries of the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance to include all land within the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category.>> <<Policy 38.4.3: The county shall amend the Wetlands Protection Ordinance (#86-31), the Tree Protection Ordinance (#86-34), and the Development Standards Ordinance (#82-42 as amended) to reduce or eliminate the exemptions for agricultural uses and small subdivisions within the "critical areas for surface water management" and shall subject these uses to an appropriate review process.>> The Revised Data and Analysis explain that Lee County has adopted over the years various environmental ordinances, including the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance, Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Tree Protection Ordinance, and Development Standards Ordinance. The Revised Data and Analysis note that exemptions have been adopted that can reduce the effectiveness of these ordinances in "'critical areas for surface water management.'" Joint Exhibit 10.c, page VI-2. Reviewing the exemptions to the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance, the Revised Data and Analysis observe that the exemptions should be revised so that, under the ordinance, the County must "consider all impacts to surface water flow." Joint Exhibit 10.c, page VI-3. As for the Wetlands Protection Ordinance, the Revised Data and Analysis conclude that its expansion "is probably necessary to limit the impact of clearing of wetlands for agricultural purposes." Id. The Revised Data and Analysis observe that amending the Tree Protection Ordinance would reduce incentives to remove trees and understory vegetation, which assist in water quality and quantity considerations in stormwater management. The Revised Data and Analysis note that the Development Standards Ordinance exempts small subdivisions, whose impervious surfaces alter surface water flow. Petitioner correctly argues in her proposed recommended order that the reduction or elimination of exemptions by an unstated amount or without regard to a stated objective is vague and ineffective. However, the assurances involve only land development regulations that, in the context of a limited plan- amendment challenge, do not play a significant role in the outcome of the case. The vagueness is thus harmless. Contrary to Petitioner's assertions, the 2010 overlay is not confusing, nor does it fail to depict the general distribution, extent, and location of the required land use categories. Although more conventional future land use maps are more precise in rendering the location of future land uses, the imprecision of the 2010 overlay is not inconsistent with the criteria of the growth management law. As noted above, the shortcomings of the 2010 overlay result from the lack of crucial supporting data and analysis. Internal Consistency (Issue 13) Issue 13 alleges that the Amended Plan is internally inconsistent. Petitioner argues that the Traffic Circulation Element and transportation improvements contained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements are inconsistent. She also argues that Goal 2, which requires financial feasibility, and the Traffic Circulation Element, including the financially feasible transportation map, are inconsistent. She asserts the same grounds as she does in connection with Issue 9, which has been discussed above. Based on the findings set forth in connection with Issue 9, and subject to the findings set forth in connection with Issue 8, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate any inconsistency between the Traffic Circulation Element and Goal 2 or the transportation improvements contained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements. As noted above, Policy 1.7.6 requires that final development orders and building permits be consistent with the 2010 overlay, including Map 17. Policy 1.7.6 does not impose this requirement upon rezonings. Petitioner asserts that Policy 1.7.6--particularly its omission of rezonings--is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2, Goal 12, and Section XIII(a) of the Amended Plan. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Policy 1.7.6 is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2 because of the emphasis on zoning in the two objectives. The objectives state: DEVELOPMENT LOCATION. Contiguous and compact growth patterns shall be promoted through the rezoning process to contain sprawl, minimize energy costs, conserve land, water and natural resources, minimize the cost of services, and reverse typical development patters where large tracts of land are bypassed in favor of development more distant from services and existing communities. DEVELOPMENT TIMING. Direct new growth through the rezoning process to those portions of the Future Urban Areas where adequate public facilities exist or are assured and where compact and contiguous development patterns can be created. Goal 12 is: "To ensure that appropriate water, sewer, traffic, and environmental review standards are considered in reviewing rezoning applications and are met prior to issuance of a county development order." Section XIII(a) of the Amended Plan adds in part: "Upon adoption of this amended plan, all development and all actions taken in regard to development orders shall be consistent with the plan as adopted." Given the subordinate role of zoning to the designations contained in the Amended Plan and future land use map series, the conflicts perceived by Petitioner either do not exist or, if they exist, are harmless. The Amended Plan governs. Zoning is of such inferior importance that any conflict will be resolved in favor of the Amended Plan. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 1.7.6 is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2, Goal 12, and Section XIII(a). Petitioner asserts that Policy 2.2.2 and Section XIII(a) are inconsistent. As noted above, Policy 2.2.2 identifies the factors that will govern rezonings. This policy explicitly subjects rezoning to the concurrency requirements of the Amended Plan. Nothing in this policy attempts to allow rezoning to override the acreage allotments contained in the 2010 overlay and implemented by Policy 1.1.1. Although it would have been preferable for Policy 2.2.2 to acknowledge the acreage allotments as limitations upon land uses that can be authorized, the subordinate role of zoning, as compared to land use designations in the comprehensive plan, emerges clearly from the Amended Plan as a whole. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 2.2.2 and Section XIII(a) are inconsistent. Petitioner alleges that the amended future land use map is inconsistent with Goals 71, 75, 77, and 79; Objectives 2.3, 74.1, 75.1, 77.3, 77.4, 79.1, and 87.1; and Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, 77.11.5, and 83.1.4. Goal 71 is to: "To protect the public from the effects of natural and technological hazards through county emergency plans and programs." Objective 74.l provides: ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS. By 1990, land within coastal area environmentally critical areas, including present Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones and Rare and Unique upland habitats, shall be regulated and managed so as to conserve and enhance the natural functions of these critical areas. Goal 75 is: "To protect human life and developed property from natural disasters." Objective 75.l adds: DEVELOPMENT IN HAZARD AREAS. Development (other than minor structures) within the V Zones shall not be allowed seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line as it exists in 1988; new development on barrier islands shall be limited to densities that meet required evacuation standards; new development requiring seawalls for protection from coastal erosion shall not be permitted; and allowable densities for undeveloped areas within A Zone areas will be considered for reduction. Goal 77, Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, and Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, and 77.11.5 have been set forth above. 38/ Goal 79 is: "To provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.l adds: EVACUATION. By 1995, evacuation times will be restored to 1987 levels using the 1987 Southwest Florida Regional Hurricane Plan Update as guidance; and by 2010, the clearance time portion of evacuation time will not exceed 18 hours. Policy 83.1.4 provides: Lee County shall protect and conserve the following environmentally sensitive coastal areas: wetlands, estuaries, mangrove stands, undeveloped barrier islands, beach and dune systems, aquatic preserves and wildlife refuges, undeveloped tidal creeks and inlets, critical wildlife habitats, benthic communities, and marine grass beds. Objective 87.1 states: WATER SUPPLIES. Insure water supplies of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the present and projected demands of all consumers and the environment, based on the capacity of the natural systems. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the future land use map series is inconsistent with Goals 71 and 75 because the Amended Plan increases densities in the hurricane vulnerability zone in the North Bonita Springs area and fails to coordinate land use designations with evacuation times and shelter space capacities. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Goals 71 and 75. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 74.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to "conserve and enhance the natural functions" of environmentally critical areas in the coastal area. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objective 74.1, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 74.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 75.1, which requires the County to consider reducing allowable densities in the hurricane vulnerability zone. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 75.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Goal 77, which requires the County to manage the County's wetland and upland ecosystems so as to maintain and enhance native habitats, floral and faunal diversity, water quality, and natural surface water characteristics. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Goal 77, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Goal 77. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, which require the County to "maintain and enhance" current fish and wildlife diversity and existing populations and distributions of listed species. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objectives 77.3 and 77.4. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, and 83.1.4, which call for the protection of unique or important natural plant communities, protection of critical habitats for the preservation of listed species, and protection of critical wildlife habitats in the coastal area, respectively. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with these policies, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by these policies. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Policy 77.11.5, which provides in part: "Corridors for regulatory and public acquisition purposes shall be designated in [black bear and Florida panther] use areas." Added by the Plan Amendments, Policy 77.11.5 is not inconsistent with the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series. The orientation of Policy 77.11.5 is prospective and does not require immediate implementation through amendment of the future land use map series to show corridors that are subject to additional regulatory controls or are eligible for public acquisition. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 79.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 1995 and to ensure a maximum clearance time of 18 hours by 2010. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 79.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 87.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to ensure sufficient quantity and quality of water to meet present and projected demands of all consumers and the environment. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objective 87.1, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 74.1. Consistency with Charlotte Harbor Management Plan (Issue 14) The Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, which was adopted June 5, 1981, is a resource management plan prepared and adopted pursuant to Section 380.045, Florida Statutes. Lee County is within the jurisdiction of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Under "regulatory actions," there are 12 objectives in the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Beneath each objective are implementation actions that pertain to specified federal, state, regional, and local agencies. Twenty-two implementation actions apply to local governments, such as Lee County. Objective 4 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "Future development in floodplain areas is to occur only in a manner consistent with the function of floodplains." In her proposed recommended order, Petitioner argues that the Amended Plan lacks specific provisions identifying the functions of floodplains and requiring new development to be consistent with floodplain functions. Petitioner also argues that the Amended Plan fails to coordinate densities and intensities with tidal floodplains. Except for the stormwater level of service standard, which is discussed below in connection with Objective 5, nothing in the Amended Plan directly addresses floodplains. The floodplain map--Map 9--was part of the future land use map series in the Plan and was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. In general, Petitioner argues only that the Amended Plan fails to deal effectively with floodplain issues. The Plan Amendments substantially change designated land uses by applying the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres in the County. The correspondingly reduced densities and restricted intensities, especially as compared to previously authorized land uses, are much more consistent with floodplain functions. Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan requires: "The stormwater and drainage systems of the Charlotte Harbor area are to function in a manner that protects and preserves the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system." The second implementation action under Objective 5 requires local governments to: establish plans and regulations requiring post development runoff conditions to approximate the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, quality, hydroperiod, and basin. The summary of the problem addressed by Objective 5 states: Improperly designed and maintained stormwater/ drainage systems have affected the quality and quantity of freshwater flowing into area water bodies. These systems have transported various pollutants, including nutrients, sediments, pesticides, heavy metals, and animal waste to local waters. While some of these waters have recognized water quality problems, most of the area's valuable water resources are still of good quality. However, with an expected doubling of population in the next twenty years, preventative action is necessary to prevent further degradation. In addition to the quality of freshwater inflows, the sufficient quantities of freshwater corresponding with the natural hydroperiod are necessary to maintain the productivity of the estuaries. While the flows necessary to meet estuarine needs are unknown, continued development of stormwater/ drainage systems which alter the rate and hydroperiod of runoff may adversely impact estuarine productivity. Petitioner Exhibit 2, page 5. Objective 38.3 of the Amended Plan is to "[r]evise by 1994 the surface water management level-of-service standards for basins and sub-basins identified in the Surface Water Management Master Plan." The Surface Water Management Master Plan was to have begun in 1989, according to Policy 38.1.1. Policy 38.3.1 of the Amended Plan provides: As an interim measure, the following surface water management standards are adopted as minimum acceptable levels of service for unincorporated Lee County . . .: <<Existing>> [[Public]] Infrastructure The [[public stormwater]] <<existing>> [[trunk]] <<surface water>> management system <<in any basin>> in the unincorporated areas of the county, [[including drainage districts]] shall be sufficient to prevent the flooding of <<designated evacuation routes (see Map 15) from the 25-year, 3-day storm event (rainfall)>> [[the public roads to a depth of 12 inches or greater]] for more than [[3 consecutive days]] <<24 hours>>. Regulation of Private <<and Public>> Development Surface water management systems in <<new>> private <<and public>> developments <<(excluding widening of existing roads)>> shall <<be designed to detain or retain excess stormwater to match the predevelopment discharge rate for>> [[meet or exceed]] the <<25-year, 3-day storm event (rainfall)>>. [[minimum standards of the South Florida Water Management District as set forth in the Permit Information Manual, Volume IV, Management and Storage of Surface Water (West Palm Beach, 1986), as may be amended from time to time, and shall meet local regulations in order]] <<This standard is designed>> to minimize <<increases of>> discharges to public water management infrastructure (or to evapotranspiration) that exceed historic <<rates>> [[natural volumes]], to minimize change to the historic [[natural]] hydroperiod of receiving waters, to maintain the quality of receiving waters, [[at or above the applicable minimum standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code ("Water Quality Standards," Florida DER)]], and to eliminate the disruption of wetlands and flow-ways, [[the]] <<whose>> preservation [[of which]] is deemed in the public interest. The implementation action requiring local governments to require that postdevelopment runoff approximate the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, quality, hydroperiod, and basin is the only implementation action involving local governments that imposes specific performance standards. The analysis contained in the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan clearly links the health of the estuarine system to preservation of natural rates and hydroperiods of runoff. Obviously, degraded water quality or alteration of drainage basin also impacts the estuarine system. Policy 38.3.1.B, which underwent substantial revisions by the Plan Amendments, imposes a single requirement upon development in terms of runoff: postdevelopment rate must match predevelopment rate for the 25-year, 3-day storm event. It is irrelevant that this is an interim level of service standard. The stormwater level of service standard contained in Policy 38.3.1.B deviates from Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan in three important respects. First, it fails to incorporate water quality, basin, and hydroperiod into the performance standards of the level of service standard. Second, it qualifies even the rate standard by a specified storm event of specified duration, even though Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan is not so limited. Regardless of the storm, Objective 5 imposes the requirement that postdevelopment conditions as to these four crucial factors approximate natural conditions. Obviously, natural conditions probably involve considerable flooding during and after the 100-year, 3-day storm; but the effect of the limitation in Policy 38.3.1.B is to allow postdevelopment conditions to exceed natural conditions once the specified storm has been exceeded. Third, the stormwater level of service standard contained in Policy 38.3.1.B ignores redevelopment, including but not limited to road-widening projects. When addressing redevelopment in particular, the postdevelopment conditions must match natural conditions, not merely predevelopment conditions. Lee County argues that Policy 38.3.1.B addresses factors in addition to runoff rate. The second sentence of Policy 38.3.1.B imposes no additional requirements; it merely explains the intent of the County in imposing the rate requirement. By regulating the runoff rate, Policy 38.3.1.B may partly address water quality and hydroperiod issues; retained or detained postdevelopment stormwater may be of higher quality and may more closely approximate natural hydroperiods than unretained or undetained postdevelopment stormwater runoff. But these are indirect benefits of a performance standard addressing exclusively postdevelopment runoff rate. The County's stormwater standard may reduce change to hydroperiods and improve water quality--over undetained or unrestrained postdevelopment stormwater--but it does not impose the performance standards of unaltered hydroperiod, water quality, and basin. Nor, more importantly, will the County's stormwater standard assist in meeting the crucial objective of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan to regulate stormwater and drainage to protect and preserve the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, which is the primary focus of the resource management plan. Petitioner has thus proved to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 38.3.1.B is inconsistent with Objective 5 and the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, construed as a whole. 39/ Objective 8 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "The barrier islands and beaches of the Charlotte Harbor area should be managed as a whole, recognizing that any developmental activity potentially affects the processes of the entire barrier beach, barrier island, and pass systems." The second implementation action under Objective 8 is for the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to discourage the dredging of new channels and addition of more passes to the existing pass maintenance program. This implementation action does not apply to local governments. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Objective 8 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Objective 10 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: Future land development decisions by local government should be in accord with the goals and objectives of the Charlotte Harbor Committee, and existing platted areas should also be encouraged to develop in accord with these goals and objectives. The third implementation action under Objective 10 requires local governments and the Florida Department of Transportation to ensure that: "Highway corridor planning for undeveloped areas . . . consider[s] suitability of adjacent land for urbanization and directing [sic] construction away from environmentally sensitive areas." Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Polices 27.2.1 and 27.2.2 of the Amended Plan are insufficient in terms of implementing the cited portion of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. However, these provisions were in the Plan and were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. For the reasons set forth in connection with Petitioner's challenge based on Objective 4 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, nothing in the Plan Amendments addresses this aspect of transportation. Objective 11 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "Mitigation and prevention of development impacts should be initiated during site planning and site alteration processes." The second implementation action requires local governments to: require site development plans, provide for the maintenance of habitats for wildlife species, as listed by the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, tree protection [sic], and prevent the introduction or spread of noxious vegetation. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Policy 77.4.1 of the Amended Plan, which was substantially amended by the Plan Amendments, fails to coordinate with the implementation action under Objective Petitioner asserts that Policy 77.4.1 is deficient because it refers only to the habitats of protected species listed by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and not those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There is no evidence of any material divergence between the state and federal lists of protected wildlife species. Specific objectives in the Amended Plan address loggerhead sea turtles, southern bald eagles, West Indian manatees, gopher tortoises, red-cockaded woodpeckers, wood storks, Florida panthers, and black bears. Without a showing of some discrepancy between the state and federal wildlife lists, especially in the face of numerous provisions in the Amended Plan explicitly addressing specific wildlife species, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Objective 11 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Consistency with Regional Plan (Issue 15) The Southwest Florida Regional Plan (Regional Plan), which covers Lee County, discusses at length the problem of platted lands. Map 3 depicts vast areas of platted lands in the Lehigh Acres area of unincorporated Lee County and Cape Coral. In relevant part, the discussion states: Southwest Florida has approximately 1.1 million existing platted lots . . .. Most of these platted and subdivided lots, although undeveloped, have been sold to individual owners who have expectations of building. Regretfully, these platted areas often have not reflected the most efficient use of land. Also, due to their location, the provision of infrastructure access and service will be prohibitively costly. Further, aging of most of these subdivisions has resulted in deterioration and dilapidation of existing roads and drainage systems. Finally, many needed urban uses are not adequately provided for within these extensive plats. * * * . . . effective concentration of development activities and providing incentives for contiguous development are alternative methods of planning which continue to be discussed and debated within the Region. Although these techniques would have a positive effect on land use patterns, they conflict with development desires of lot owners who purchased property previously reviewed and approved by the local government. Efforts have been made to ensure that development is compatible with available and planned infrastructure services. Still, the problems of previously subdivided, yet still undeveloped, land remain; such problems are particularly severe for planning activities that must meet the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements, since these developments generally do not meet current regulations. As growth continues, Southwest Florida will be under greater pressure to provide services to new homes, businesses, and service centers. These platted areas will be popular, affordable home sites. Providing services to these lots, however, will become an increasing burden. Additionally, the Region will have to consider providing alternative land use choices to current lot owners where development would not be desireable or cannot have services provided at the ultimate buildout densities. Joint Exhibit 11.b, pages 16-8 to 16-9. Regional Plan Goal 16 states: By 2010, the number of vacant platted lots in areas without adequate infrastructure or in areas not designated for urban development in Southwest Florida will be reduced by 30%. Goal 16 is an integral part of the Regional Plan. Effective land use planning may be impossible without addressing the problems presented by thousands of acres of vacant, prematurely platted lands. There is evidence that Lee County is addressing the problem. It has utilized vacant, preplatted lots to some extent in an affordable housing program. Lehigh Corporation, which is evidently a major developer in the Lehigh Acres area, has bought back some lots and/or exchanged better lots for more outlying and less developable lots. However, at the same time, Lehigh Corporation is subdividing more property in the Lehigh Acres area. It is unclear whether Lee County will find itself with more or less vacant, preplatted lots by 2010. More likely, it will be less for a variety of reasons, but how much less is left entirely to conjecture based on the present record. Petitioner's argument in her proposed recommended order is based on the acreage remaining vacant in 2010 in planning subdistricts 601- 11, 704, and 706, which constitute much if not all of Lehigh Acres. However, the record does not establish how much of this acreage is already platted or how much of the vacant acreage remaining in 2010 will by then have been platted. For these reasons, as to Issue 15, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the Regional Plan. Consistency with State Plan (Issue 16) Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2 and 12, (10)(b)10, (16)(b)2, and (18)(b)3. Section 187.201(8)(b)2 is to: "Identify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentives for their conservation. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan does not protect the functions of water recharge areas. She asserts that Policies 85.1.2 and 87.1.1, which generally require the protection of surface and groundwater quality and natural recharge systems, are vague and ineffective. The Plan Amendments did not modify Policies 85.1.2 or 87.1.1. The Plan Amendments added the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres of land, together with Policy 1.4.3, which states: <<The Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource areas include upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future well field development. These areas also are the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers. Only minimal public facilities exist or are programmed. Land uses in these areas must be compatible with maintaining surface and groundwater levels at their historic levels. Permitted land uses include agriculture, mineral and limerock extraction, conservation uses, and residential uses at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per ten acres (1 du/10 acres). Individual residential parcels may contain up to two acres of resource protection areas and transition zones without losing the right to have a dwelling unit, provided that no alterations are made to those wetland areas.>> The Plan Amendments also added Policy 39.1.4, which provides: <<The county's Surface Water Management Master Plan shall place particular emphasis on 1) routing surface water runoff from areas of excess to areas where additional subsurface storage is available; and 2) maintaining and increasing historic surface and groundwater levels in the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category.>> The Plan Amendments revised Policy 41.2.2, which states: <<A new land use category, called the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource category, shall be applied to protect the County's groundwater resources and principal recharge areas. Land use controls in the category shall be as described in Policy 1.4.3.>> Policies 15.2.2 and 32.1.9, which were added by the Plan Amendments, impose special land use restrictions in the Bonita Springs and Lehigh Acres areas, based on potable groundwater considerations. Policy 2.4.2, which was also added by the Plan Amendments, concludes by offering additional protection to these areas and all areas designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource: <<All proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map in critical areas for future potable water supply (Bonita Springs as described in Policy 15.2.2; Lehigh Acres as described in Policy 32.1.9; and all land in the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category) shall be subject to a special review by the staff of Lee County and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). This review will analyze the proposed land uses to determine the short- term and long-term availability of irrigation and domestic water sources, and will assess whether the proposed land uses would cause any significant impact on present or future water resources. If the Board of County Commissioners wishes to approve any such changes to the Future Land Use Map, it must make a formal finding that no significant impacts on present or future water resources will result from the change. (SFWMD's recommendations or findings under this policy shall not be construed to restrict or otherwise encumber their authority to issue or deny water-use permits as may be required by law.)>> The Revised Data and Analysis survey recent hydrologic investigations for all relevant aquifers. The investigations amply support the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designations. The Data and Analysis provide no basis for questioning the consistency of the provisions of the Amended Plan in protecting the functions of water recharge areas with similar provisions in the State Plan. Largely due to the adoption of the Plan Amendments, especially the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2. Section 187.201(8)(b)12 is to: "Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." This is an integral part of the State Plan and is linked to the protection of surface waters including estuaries, drainage and floodplains, and various other natural resources. For reasons already discussed in connection with Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 38.3.1.B, which sets an interim stormwater level of service standard, is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2 with respect to the omission of hydroperiod, basin, and quality performance standards; the addition of a qualifying storm event; and the exclusion of redevelopment. 40/ A level of service standard is a vital provision in a comprehensive plan because the standard is typically clear and easily enforceable. The stormwater management provisions in the State Plan play a crucial role in attaining consistency with numerous provisions of the State Plan. For these reasons, Policy 38.3.1.B represents an inconsistency with the State Plan construed as a whole. The inconsistency between Policy 38.3.1.B and the State Plan is limited to the failure of Policy 38.3.1.B: 1) to set a stormwater level of service standard throughout Lee County requiring postdevelopment conditions to be equal to or better than natural conditions in terms of water quality, hydroperiod, and basin, as well as rate; 2) to impose the stormwater level of service standard throughout Lee County regardless of the storm event; and 3) to impose the stormwater level of service standard on all development and redevelopment in Lee County. 41/ Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the inconsistency with the State Plan extends to the failure of the Amended Plan to fund fully the stormwater management plan. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that consistency with Section 187.201(8)(b)12 and the State Plan requires the above-described funding. Section 187.201(10)(b)10 is to: "Emphasize the acquisition and maintenance of ecologically intact systems in all land and water planning, management, and regulation." Petitioner argues that the Amended Plan is not consistent with the State Plan due to the failure of the future land use map series to designate rare and unique habitats for densities and intensities that are suitable for the vegetative and habitat values of certain areas, especially the North Bonita Springs area. As noted above in connection with the discussion of the 2010 overlay, the Plan Amendments do not directly reintroduce the issue of land use suitability. A timing device, the 2010 overlay is quantitatively oriented. With the exception of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which tends to enhance suitability, nothing in the Plan Amendments directly raises the suitability issue. Provisions contained in the Plan Amendments enhancing the coordination of future land use designations with valuable vegetative communities and, particularly, wildlife habitat are Objectives 77.10 and 77.11 and their policy clusters. These provisions have already been discussed. 42/ Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(10)(b)10. Section 187.201(18)(b)3 is to: "Allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents." Petitioner objects in her proposed recommended order to the sufficiency of Objective 70.3, which requires that "new development pays at least 80% of the capital costs of public infrastructure directly attributable to that new development." Petitioner argues that Policy 2.3.2 is also insufficient because it merely requires that the "cost for the provision and expansion of services and facilities that benefit new development shall be borne primarily by those who benefit." Objective 70.3 and Policy 2.3.2 were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Section 187.201(16)(b)2 is to: "Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats." The Amended Plan is no model of urban containment. Choosing a less regulatory approach to land use planning, although involving considerably more intervention than has traditionally prevailed, Lee County has repeatedly and unconvincingly argued in the Revised Data and Analysis that various conventional planning strategies are unsuitable for Lee County. Some planning alternatives proffered by Lee County have failed to achieve consistency with the growth management law. Some planning alternatives have achieved consistency, and some planning alternatives have been spared review by the focus of the present recommended order on the Plan Amendments and Revised Data and Analysis and the focus of the recommended order in DOAH Case No. 89-1843GM on the settlement agreement. It would be a daunting task to try to determine the effect of the Amended Plan upon urban sprawl. Without the density allocation ratio, it is an impossible task. If the ratio were relatively high, provisions of the Amended Plan would have to bear a greater burden in ensuring efficiency in the use of land and provision of public facilities and the protection of natural resources and agriculture. Without a density allocation ratio, relevant provisions of the Amended Plan cannot be adequately evaluated in terms of their relationship to urban sprawl. It suffices for the purpose of determining consistency with the State Plan that the Plan Amendments assigned the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres of land in Lee County and, by so doing, achieved a significant separation between urban and rural uses. For this reason, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the State Plan in terms of separating urban and rural uses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes, the Department of Community Affairs submit the recommended order to the Administration Commission for entry of a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are not in compliance for the reasons set forth above. ENTERED on January 27, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 27, 1993. NOTE: In the ACCESS document, language added to the policy is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]].
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether City of Miami Ordinance 12911, which amends the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), is a small-scale development amendment, as defined by Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) whether Ordinance 12911 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (Statutes refer to the 2007 codification.)
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following facts are determined: The Property Subject to the FLUM Amendment TRG-MH Venture, LTD. (TRG-MH), is a Florida limited partnership formed for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of property in the southeast corner of a larger, 40- acre parcel owned by Mercy Hospital, Inc. (Mercy). TRG-MH and Mercy have executed a purchase and sale agreement for this corner parcel, which is located at approximately 3663 South Bayshore Drive in the Coconut Grove area of Miami, Florida (the Site). TRG-MH hired an architectural firm, Arquitectonica, to design on the Site a proposed residential development named 300 Grove Bay Residences (the Project). The Site, which currently serves as a paved parking lot for Mercy Hospital employees, measures 6.72 acres. The Site is abutted on the north, northwest, and northeast by the rest of the 40-acre parcel owned by Mercy and used for its hospital, professional offices, and patient and visitor parking. The tallest of these buildings is 146 feet. To the north of Mercy's property and medical complex is another 30-plus acre parcel owned by the Catholic Diocese of Miami and used for La Salle High School and a religious facility, Ermita de la Caridad. Abutting the northern boundary of the La Salle High School property is Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. To the west of the Site are a small convent, an administration building, and a modest-sized assisted living facility. To the west of these buildings is South Bayshore Drive, which is a four-lane road. Single-family residential neighborhoods are west of South Bayshore Drive. The Site is abutted on the southwest, south, southeast and east by Biscayne Bay. Grove Isle, a three-building, 18- story condominium/hotel/marina complex, is located on a small, man-made island (Fair Isle) in the Bay to the south of the Site. It is located approximately 1,300 feet from the Site and is separated from the Site by Bay water. Grove Isle has a future land use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential (M/D Residential) and is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-3). However, Grove Isle is a legal nonconformity because it exceeds the densities allowed in M/D Residential and R-3. To the southwest of the Site, but separated from the Site by Bay water, are single-family and medium-density dwellings, including several multifamily structures. Petitioners Bloch and Steen reside in this neighborhood. No property zoned single-family residential (R-1) abuts the Site. Currently a paved parking lot, the Site has no archeological, environmental, or historical significance. Miami-Dade County had designated all of the City as an "Urban Infill Area." This designation is made in the County's Comprehensive Plan and is implemented in Policy LU-1.1.11 of the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The Parties The Vizcayans, Inc. (The Vizcayans), is a not-for- profit Florida corporation of volunteer members and a paid staff consisting of: an executive director, a membership director, and a controller. The purpose of the organization is to support the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens (Vizcaya), a publicly-owned and operated museum, through contributions and fundraising events. The Vizcayans' office at 3251 South Miami Avenue is located on the grounds of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM Amendment and appeared in person and through lawyers at the City Commission hearings. The Respondent and Intervenors stipulated that The Vizcayans have standing as affected persons under Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to challenge the small-scale development amendment in this proceeding based on allegations that The Vizcayans operate a business in the City. Miami-Dade County owns Vizcaya. By contract, The Vizcayans provides funds annually to Miami-Dade County for use in maintaining Vizcaya's properties and conducting educational programs. Any funds in excess of those owed to the County under the contract are used to pay staff and host fundraisers or are invested for future use. Vizcaya is governed by the County through the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, which is an agency of Miami-Dade County. Jason Bloch and Constance Steen reside in the City and own properties to the southwest of the Site. Glencoe is a not- for-profit corporation of homeowners in the Glencoe neighborhood to the southwest of the Site. Mr. Bloch formed the corporation during the pendency of the application proceedings for the primary purpose of opposing the proposed development of the Site. Bloch, Steen, and Glencoe submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. Grove Isle is a not-for-profit Florida corporation of condominium owners. Grove Isle submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City and Intervenors stipulated to Grove Isle's standing in these proceedings. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City adopted its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, including its FLUM, in 1989. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM have been amended from time to time as allowed by law. TRG-MH is a joint venture limited partnership. Its direct and indirect participants include Ocean Land Equities, Ltd., and The Related Group. TRG-MH contracted to purchase the Site from Mercy and applied to the City for the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. TRG-MH also submitted applications for a change of zoning and MUSP on the Site. The zoning and MUSP applications, and the resulting City ordinance and resolution arising from their approval, are not at issue in this proceeding. Mercy is a not-for-profit Florida corporation that owns and operates Mercy Hospital. Mercy has contracted to sell the Site to TRG-MH. The FLUM Amendment In June 2007, TRG-MH applied to the City for a small- scale development amendment to change the Site's land use designation on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities (M/I) to High Density Multifamily Residential (H/D). TRG-MH submitted its application concurrently with its applications for a zoning change from G/I to R-4 and for a MUSP. According to the FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH was seeking a map amendment for a 6.723-acre parcel of real property. With its FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH submitted a survey prepared and certified by surveyors Fortin, Leavy & Skiles. The survey depicted: the Site, as a parcel with a "net lot area" of 6.723 acres; a Proposed Road, measuring 1.39 acres, that wrapped around the Site on its west and north sides (the Perimeter Road); and a Private Road, also known as Tract "C" or Halissee Street, measuring .95 acres, which accesses the Site and Perimeter Road from South Bayshore Drive. Accompanying the survey was a legal description for the Site, which included a description for the proposed new Perimeter Road abutting the Site. The legal description covered an area comprising 8.11 acres. Also accompanying the application was a traffic analysis showing the impact to existing road networks of traffic resulting from the proposed MUSP application, which sought to build 300 residential units on property currently having no existing residential units. TRG-MH's applications were reviewed by the City's Planning Department and its Planning Advisory Board (PAB). The City's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use designation change. The PAB's 3-3 tie vote operated as to deny the request for a change of the land use designation recommendation. On April 26, 2007, the City Commission voted to approve the FLUM amendment application and, with modifications, the accompanying zoning and MUSP applications. (The City Commission approved the zoning change and MUSP subject to the condition that the size and scale of the Project be reduced by 25 percent across the board. Thus, for example, the height of the tallest of the three condominium buildings was reduced from approximately 411 feet to 310 feet.) The FLUM change was adopted by Ordinance 12911, which the Mayor signed on May 7, 2007. Ordinance 12911 amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation "for the property located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated." Exhibit A to the ordinance was the legal description included on the Fortin, Leavy, Skiles survey. The section of the MCNP entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various future land use categories in the Plan. It describes the Major Institutional future land use category as follows: Major Institutional Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) at 21 (June 2006). The same section describes the H/D Residential, in pertinent part, as follows: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" allow residential structures to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. MCNP at 20 (June 2006). (By way of comparison, M/D Residential is described similarly except that the maximum density is 65 dwelling units per acre.) According to the MCNP, the FLUM land use designations "are arranged following the 'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion, whereby subsequent categories are inclusive of those listed previously, except as otherwise noted." Ordinance 12911 was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required for text changes and large- scale FLUM changes to a comprehensive plan. On June 4 and 6, 2007, Petitioners filed their petitions challenging the FLUM Amendment. Generally, the Petitioners alleged that the FLUM Amendment did not qualify for treatment as a "small-scale" development amendment; was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; was not supported by adequate data and analysis; and was not "in compliance" with Florida's Growth Management Act and its implementing regulations. Scale of the FLUM Amendment A small-scale development amendment may be adopted if the "proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." § 163.3187(1)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. According to the survey and architectural plans on file with the City, the "net lot area" of the Site measures 6.72 acres. The City Zoning Code defines "net lot area" as "[t]he total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights-of- way or other required dedications." § 2502, City Zoning Code. In determining how large (in square feet of floor area) the planned Project could be, the architects were permitted, under the City's zoning regulations, to multiply the "floor area ratio" (FAR) for the High Density Multifamily Residential zoning classification by an area larger than the "net lot area." See § 401, City Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows the maximum square footage to be calculated using the Site's "gross lot area." Id. The City Zoning Code defines "gross lot area," in pertinent part, as "[t]he net area of the lot, as defined herein, plus half of adjoining street rights-of-way and seventy (70) feet of any other public open space such as parks, lakes, rivers, bays, public transit right-of-way and the like." § 2502, City Zoning Code. If the "gross lot area" to be used to calculate the maximum square footage involves properties under different ownership, either the owners must apply jointly for a MUSP, or they must enter a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title. Properties joined by a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title need not have the same land use designation or zoning classification. If a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title is required, it need not be submitted to the City until building permits are sought. At present, no covenant-in-lieu of unity of title has been prepared or executed for the Site. The "gross lot area" used to calculate the Project's maximum square footage of floor area measured 11.44 acres. Thus, the Petitioners argued that the FLUM Amendment "involved a use" of more than 10 acres. But the application requested a land use designation change on only 6.72 acres of land. Because High-Density Multifamily Residential use will not be made of the proposed Perimeter Road, the access road known as Halissee Street, or the proposed Bay Walk, a land use designation change was not required for that acreage. Indeed, according to the amended FLUM, there is no land use designation applied to Halissee or to the northern part of the Perimeter Road. Moreover, use of Halissee Street, the Perimeter Road, and the Bay Walk is not exclusive to the 6.72 acres but will remain shared with Mercy Hospital, its patients and employees, as well as with the public. The Petitioners attempted to prove that a marina was planned to serve the development, which would involve a total use of more than ten acres for residential purposes. Even if a marina was initially contemplated, the application on file with the City does not include one, and there are no approved plans for a marina to be incorporated into the proposed residential development. No marina is required to be developed in connection with the 300 Grove Bay project. Moreover, there was unrebutted evidence that it is highly unlikely that a marina would ever be permitted under the statutes now regulating Biscayne Bay. There is no evidentiary support for including any part of Biscayne Bay in the acreage subject to the small-scale FLUM Amendment because of a possible marina so as to support the Petitioners' claim that Ordinance 12911 should not have been processed as a small-scale amendment. Suitability and Compatibility of FLUM Amendment The Site is a parking lot. It is not environmentally sensitive and has no significant natural or archeological resources that would make it unsuitable for High Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Major Institutional accommodates the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the Mercy Hospital complex, which are compatible with and actually part of Coconut Grove. However, as pointed out by the City and the Intervenors, Major Institutional also allows future land uses that could be less compatible with the surrounding land uses, including the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the residential neighborhoods of Coconut Grove. While a lower density residential future land use would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding uses, the issue in this case is the density allowed by H/D Residential--up to 150 residential units per acre, which Petitioners contend is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and inconsistent with previous efforts to protect Vizcaya and Coconut Grove from the intrusion of high- density residential development. The Petitioners also contend that the FLUM Amendment is not suitable on the bayfront. Suitability on the Bayfront The Petitioners contend that H/D Residential is not suitable on the bayfront for reasons related mostly to aesthetics and views. While it certainly would be possible and reasonable for a community to decide not to allow dense and intense development on significant water bodies, it was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the City has done so, or that H/D Residential is unsuitable on the Site for that reason. 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report The City's 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("2005 EAR") focused on two citywide issues relevant here: (1) the preservation and enhancement of historic and similar resources; and (2) neighborhood integrity and the need to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development. Vizcaya Museum Gardens Industrialist James Deering built Vizcaya in 1916 as a winter home. The land Deering purchased in the early 1900s was developed into a 180-acre estate that included his Mediterranean-style home, Italianate gardens, farms, orchards, and lagoons. The mansion and gardens were designed by three well-known architects and designers and constructed using local materials. When Deering died nine years later in 1925, Vizcaya was left to his heirs, who eventually sold the south gardens and western agricultural fields to the Catholic Diocese. The southern acreage (which included the Site) was later developed into a church (Ermita de la Caridad), a school (La Salle), and medical and hospital facilities (Mercy). The Diocese sold the western acreage, which was eventually developed into single- family-home subdivisions. In the 1950s, the Deering heirs sold the remaining property, consisting of the mansion, gardens, and farm buildings, to Dade County. In 1952, Dade County opened Vizcaya to the public. Since then, the County has operated Vizcaya as a museum, which has welcomed thousands of visitors annually and is a popular site for tourists, social functions, and photo shoots. The Vizcaya mansion and gardens have historical, architectural, and botanical significance. The mansion is an "architectural masterpiece" and an "outstanding example of Italian Renaissance Revival architecture." Vizcaya has been on the National Register of Historical Places since 1977; it was designated as a City Heritage Conservation District in 1984; and, in 1994, it was designated a National Historical Landmark-- one of only three in Miami-Dade County. The southernmost part of Vizcaya's gardens is approximately 1,600 feet from the FLUM Amendment Site, and the mansion is approximately 2,300 feet from the Site. For the specific purpose of objecting to the 300 Grove Bay project, The Vizcayans commissioned the Vizcaya Viewshed Impact Assessment, which is referred to as the "balloon" study, and the Vizcaya View Corridor Study. According to the balloon study, the 300 Grove Bay condominiums would be visible from the balcony on the south side of the mansion. Although the balloon study was based on the original Project building heights and not re-done using the reduced heights in the zoning and MUSP approvals, the Petitioners' witnesses said that the Project would still be visible through the existing landscape, even at the reduced height. The Petitioners' witnesses opined that the development of 300 Grove Bay would "overpower and overshadow" the gardens on the south side of the mansion. No federal, state, or local statutes, rules or ordinances, including those relevant to this proceeding, protect the view corridors of Vizcaya's gardens. Coconut Grove The area known as Coconut Grove was settled in the late 1800s and was considered "off the beaten path" from the City which was incorporated in 1896. Coconut Grove was incorporated as a separate municipality in 1919, but in 1925 it was annexed to the City, as were five other municipalities. Petitioners' witnesses observed that Coconut Grove is the only one of these towns that has continued to retain a unique and recognizable character. Vizcaya and Mercy Hospital, including the parking lot site, are located in the northern area of Coconut Grove. Coconut Grove is primarily, but not entirely, a residential community. Coconut Grove has an active "downtown" business, commercial, and hotel district. The Petitioners maintained that the northern area of Coconut Grove is primarily single-family residential. However, it also includes a non- conforming high-density development (Grove Isle), medium-density residential, Mercy Hospital and its professional buildings, an assisted living facility, a school, a church, and governmental office buildings, as well as two museums (Vizcaya and the Museum of Science). A Coconut Grove Planning Study was commissioned and printed in 1974, but the City never adopted it; therefore, it has no official status. The Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District In 2005, the City adopted by ordinance the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3). See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. According to the Code, a Neighborhood Conservation District is an "umbrella land use designation overlay," which allows for the tailoring of a master plan or of design guidelines for any area that meets certain criteria. See § 800, City Zoning Code. The intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District is to "[p]reserve the historic, heavily landscaped character of Coconut Grove's residential areas and enhance and protect Coconut Grove's natural features such as tree canopy and green space." § 803.1, City Zoning Code. NCD-3 does not specify the High-Density, Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning classification. But that does not mean that NCD-3 does not allow R-4. NCD-3 is enabling legislation that imposes greater restrictions within a geographic "overlay" for the zoning classifications addressed in Section 803.3. So far, NCD-3 has not addressed G/I and R-4 but only Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial Districts. See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. For that reason, the ordinance does not apply to the Site. The "Grovenor Ordinance" The so-called Grovenor Ordinance was the City's response in July 2004 to the construction of a high-density residential project on property in Coconut Grove zoned "G/I Government and Institutional." The Grovenor Ordinance amended subsection of Section 401 of the City's Zoning Code to provide in pertinent part: G/I Government and Institutional Intent and Scale: The government/institutional category allows the development of facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious, or educational activities, major transportation facilities, public utilities, and public and private cemeteries. Uses ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, subject to the same limiting conditions. Intensity: For residential uses: As for the least intense abutting zoning district. . . . * * * Permitted Principal Uses: Governmental and institutional uses as described in the City of Miami Comprehensive Development Plan designation of "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities", however for accessory non-governmental or institutional uses-only such uses as may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abutting zoning district . . . . § 401, City Zoning Code. The Grovenor Ordinance applies to property that is zoned G/I. The City's and Intervenors' witnesses testified that it applies only if G/I-zoned property ceases to be used for governmental or institutional purposes and is used instead for residential purposes. However, from the language of the ordinance itself, it is beyond fair debate that it also applies to G/I-zoned property that is used both for government or institutional uses and for ancillary residential uses. Clearly, without a FLUM change to a higher-density residential zoning category, in Coconut Grove the residential use on the Site would be restricted to the zoning classification of the "least intense abutting zoning district." Since it pertains to zoning, the Grovenor Ordinance does not directly apply to the issue of whether a FLUM amendment is "in compliance." However, it has some bearing on the proper interpretation and application of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP's future land use designations, which is important to the issues for determination in this case. The Pyramid Concept The City and the Intervenors rely heavily on their interpretation of the MCNP's pyramid concept of cumulative future land use designations to support the FLUM Amendment in this case. According to them, the FLUM Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses because high-density multi-family residential use already is a permitted use as a matter of right for land designated "Major Institutional." Similarly, they maintain that, under the "pyramid" concept, high-density multi- family residential use is permitted as a matter of right in all of the commercially designated land in Coconut Grove. But it is beyond fair debate that their interpretation of the "pyramid concept" is incorrect. As indicated, the "'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion" applies "except as otherwise noted." In the Major Institutional future land use category, it is noted that residential facilities with densities equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" (i.e., up to 150 units per acre) are permitted only if "ancillary" to the listed major institutional uses. Similarly, in the General Commercial future land use category, it is noted that high-density residential uses "are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents." If the "pyramid concept" authorized high- density multi-family residential use as a matter of right on land designated either Major Institutional or General Commercial, there would be no reason to limit those uses by notation. Under the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, free-standing high-density multi-family residential use of up to 150 units per acre is not already permitted as of right in either the Major Institutional or the General Commercial land use categories. Compatibility Notwithstanding the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that High Density Multi Family Residential future land use on the Site is incompatible with the surrounding uses or is inappropriate. The lower density residential and other less intense future land uses in the MCNP are buffered from the Site by Biscayne Bay and by Medium Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Vizcaya is buffered from the Site by Mercy Hospital and related medical facilities and by La Salle High School. The compatibility of a specific density of residential development on the Site with less dense residential use in Coconut Grove and with Vizcaya, including issues regarding building height and intrusion into Vizcaya's view corridors, can be addressed through zoning and MUSP proceedings. Data and Analysis Data and analysis is another matter. Because of their incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the City and the Intervenors took the position that the FLUM Amendment constitutes "down-planning" and that the City was not required to perform the same level of analysis as it would have if the amendment sought a designation that permitted uses of greater impact, density, and/or intensity. The experts disagreed on whether "down-planning" is a concept in land use planning that can eliminate or minimize the requirement for data and analysis. In any event, the FLUM Amendment in this case could not be characterized as "down- planning." See Findings 57-59, supra. The MCNP's pyramid concept does not dispense with the need for data and analysis, and the data and analysis in this case was minimal and inadequate. The primary data and analysis in this case was the "Analysis for Land Use Change Request" (Analysis) that resulted from the City staff's review. After identifying the proposed land use designation and the uses permitted on it the Analysis recommended "Approval" of the FLUM Amendment and made four findings in support of "the position that the existing land use pattern in this neighborhood should be changed. These findings are as follows: It is found that the subject property is part of the Mercy Hospital and do [sic] not front South Miami Avenue. It is found that the "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation & Utilities" category allows 150 residential units per acre and the requested "High Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow a maximum density of 150 residential units per acre. It is found that the requested change to "High-Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the property at the above described location and therefore should be changed as part of the MUSP. It is found that MCNP Goal LU-1 maintains a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods, and (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts. Id. (Emphasis in original.) As to the City’s third finding, a particular developer's flexibility is irrelevant to the determination of whether the land use change is consistent with the MCNP. To the extent that flexibility in general could be relevant to the inquiry, the finding was incorrect. While allowing a free- standing high-density residential project that would not otherwise be possible, the FLUM Amendment eliminates all of the non-residential uses permitted within the "Major Institutional" category. The second finding was based on the City's incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP, which led the City to wrongly equate a primary use with an ancillary use and to simply assume no population increase would result from the FLUM Amendment, and that the FLUM Amendment would result in "down-planning." Attached to the City's Analysis was a separate "Concurrency Management Analysis," which addressed in summary form the data and analysis generated by the applicant and by the City's staff to address the "impact of [the] proposed amendment to land use map within a transportation corridor." The "Concurrency Management Analysis" also was predicated on the assumption that the FLUM change to HD Residential would not increase population. Essentially, it assumed without any data or analysis that infrastructure was available for 1,008 people living on the Site, even though the Site is being used as a parking lot at this time. This data and analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. As to transportation, there was additional evidence of a traffic analysis performed by the City in support of the Project’s MUSP. This MUSP traffic analysis utilized a proper starting point of zero population on the Site at this time. It then projected the impact of the addition of 300 units. This was more than the 225 units ultimately approved in the MUSP but did not analyze the much larger potential increases in traffic that would be allowed under the FLUM Amendment, which is not limited to 300 units. There also was no data or analysis to show that limiting the analysis to 300 units was reasonable. It also only looked two years into the future. The MUSP traffic analysis also did not address the 2005 EAR finding that Bayshore Drive will be at level of service F by year 2025, without even any development on the Site. In short, the MUSP traffic analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. The City and Intervenor took the position that the designation of the entire City as an urban infill area meant that every parcel is appropriate for high-density multi-family residential development. This is not correct. It is still necessary to look at comprehensive plan to determine which areas are appropriate for that kind of future land use and to have data and analysis to support it. See Payne et al. v. City of Miami et al., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, *10-13 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007) (on motion for rehearing). For these reasons, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment were inadequate. Inconsistency with City's Comprehensive Plan The Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with any MCNP goals, objectives, or policies. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners did not prove that the FLUM Amendment at issue is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order that the FLUM Amendment adopted by City of Miami Ordinance 12911 is not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2008, 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 10th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jason Gonzalez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney City of Miami Miami Riverside Center, Suite 945 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Patrick J. Goggins, Esquire Patrick J. Goggins, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2811 John Charles Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A. 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6616 H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Stephen J. Darmody, Esquire Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Miami Center - Suite 2400 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4339 Lewis W. Fishman, Esquire Lewis W. Fishman, P.A. Two Datran Center, Suite 1121 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7848 John K. Shubin, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 Southwest First Street, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1610
The Issue The issues in this case are whether two City of Palm Bay Comprehensive Plan Amendments, one of which was "small scale development amendment" under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Brevard County (County) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. See Section 7.05, Florida Statutes. The County is bordered on the north by Volusia County, on the west by Volusia, Orange, and Osceola Counties, on the south by Indian River County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The City of Palm Bay (City) is a municipality in southeast Brevard County, just to the southwest of the City of Melbourne. In its extreme northeast, the City borders on the Intracoastal Waterway. From there, it fans out to the southeast, surrounded on all sides by the County. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Small-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On June 3, 1999, William Wilson submitted an application to amend the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for a 1.1558-acre (small-scale) parcel of land in the unincorporated County at the southeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road (an east/west thoroughfare) and Babcock Street (a north/south thoroughfare), in anticipation of annexation by the City. In this vicinity, the unincorporated County lay to the east, across Babcock Street, between the City and the Intracoastal Waterway. The unincorporated County land to the north, east, and south of the parcel had a future land use designation of "Residential" on the County's FLUM; the City land to the west had a residential future land use designation on the City's FLUM. The requested amendment was from the existing County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial." A zoning change also was requested from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial). The parcel subject to the small-scale amendment request has a single-family home and free-standing residential garage located onsite. Projected impacts from commercial development on the parcel met all relevant City level of service (LOS) standards. (The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the parcel.) The City planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment; staff recommended approval of the zoning change but to City NC (Neighborhood Commerical). These requests were heard by the City Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the local planning agency (LPA), on October 20, 1999. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the plan amendment be approved and that the zoning change to City NC also be approved. By Ordinance 2000-08, adopted on March 2, 2000, the City annexed the small-scale parcel, effective immediately upon enactment of the Ordinance. By Ordinance No. 2000-09, also adopted on March 2, 2000, the City Council granted the request to change the future land use designation of the parcel on the City's FLUM to City "Commercial." By Ordinance No. 2000-10, zoning on the parcel was changed to City NC. The Large-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On July 6, 1999, Brian West submitted an application to amend the City's FLUM for a 19.57-acre parcel on the northeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road and Babcock Street (immediately north of the small-scale parcel, across Valkaria), in anticipation of annexation by the City. The requested amendment was from the existing Brevard County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial" future land use. A zoning change from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial) also was requested. This 19.57-acre (large-scale) parcel is vacant. The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the large-scale parcel. The City's planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment, which was heard by the City's Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the LPA, on October 20, 1999, along with the small-scale request. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the large-scale amendment be denied. On February 15, 2000, the City Council conducted a special meeting to consider the requested large-scale annexation, plan amendment, and zoning change and voted to approve the requests. However, at the time, the City also was in the process of developing plan amendments in response to its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR); as a result, transmittal to DCA was deferred until transmittal of the EAR-based amendments. On January 18, 2001, the City Council met in regular session and voted to transmit the requested large-scale amendment to DCA, along with the other EAR-based amendments. On May 17, 2001, DCA issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report regarding the transmitted comprehensive plan amendments. DCA raised several objections and made comments regarding the amendment. The ORC Report was received by the City on May 21, 2001. (The greater weight of the evidence was contrary to testimony of the City's Planning Manager that the ORC Report received on that date was incomplete.) On October 2, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2001-65, which adopted the requested amendment for the large-scale parcel from County Residential to City Commercial future land use. The EAR-based amendments also were adopted on the same date by Ordinance 2001-66. By Ordinance 2001-86 adopted on November 1, 2001, the City annexed the large-scale parcel, effective immediately. Re-Adoption of Plan Amendments at Issue At some unspecified time after October 2, 2001, the City became aware of concerns voiced by DCA regarding the sequence and timing of the large-scale annexation and FLUM amendment. To address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2001-105 on December 20, 2001. This Ordinance repealed and re-adopted Ordinance No. 2000-65. At some unspecified time after March 2, 2000, the City became aware of concerns raised by DCA that adoption of the small- scale FLUM amendment took place before the City adopted plan amendments to comply with new school siting requirements, contrary to a statutory prohibition. In order to address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2000-79 on January 4, 2001, to repeal and re-adopt Ordinance No. 2000-09, re-designating the small-scale parcel for "Commercial" future land use. DCA Notice of Intent and City's EAR-Based Amendments On January 21, 2002, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the readopted large-scale amendment "in compliance." DCA subsequently caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find this readopted amendment "in compliance." The EAR-based amendments adopted on October 2, 2001, included certain text amendments, but these amendments had no direct bearing on the plan amendments at issue in this case. All plan text provisions relating to the plan amendments at issue in this case remained "substantially the same" after the EAR-based amendments. Need for Additional Commercial Future Land Use and Internal Consistency The County contends that analysis of the data in existence at the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue in this case does not support a need to change the future land use on these parcels from County Agricultural Residential to City Commercial. But the following Findings are based on these data and analysis. City data and analysis dated January 2001 indicated in pertinent part: In 2011 the City will need 719 acres of commercial land and at buildout, will need approximately 1,725 acres. The Future Land Use Map currently allocated approximately 1,612 acres for commercial and office development. This is slightly below the needs identified over the long term time periods. The expansion of existing Activity Centers and the development of new Activity Centers should easily accommodate this minor increase. Between now and the next required Plan update in 2007, the City should analyze the available commercial land to determine if existing designated lands are appropriately located or whether new areas should be established and existing designations converted to other land use types. Of particular interest in that regard would be the large amount of neighborhood commercial presently designated but which is primarily vacant. It was not clear from the evidence how the acreage figures in the data and analysis were calculated. It does not appear from the evidence that the figure for commercial acreage "needed" included any "cushion" or "margin of error." If the City has more land allocated for commercial future land use than is expected to be "needed" within the planning horizon of its Comprehensive Plan (the year 2011), it may be the result of pre-platting of the City by General Development Corporation. If so, the City also has an even greater excess of acreage allocated for residential future land use since approximately 90 percent of the City was pre-platted for small, quarter-acre residential lots. As a result of pre-platting, it now appears that, at build-out (expected in about 20-30 years), the City will have an excess of allocated for residential land use and a shortage of acreage allocated for commercial land use (among other non-residential uses.) As a result, there is a current need to begin to reduce the amount of acreage allocated for residential future land use and add commercial acreage (as well as other non-residential uses.) A disproportion of City land allocated to commercial future land use is in the northern part of the City, between Malabar Road and Palm Bay Road, a considerable distance from the intersection of Babcock Street and Valkaria Road. Before the plan amendments at issue in this case, there was hardly any commercial future land use in the City in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of what little commercial future land use could be found in the vicinity was in small parcels--the single exception being a 15-acre parcel at the intersection of Eldron and Grant approximately two miles to the south. There also was very little land allocated to commercial future land uses in the unincorporated County anywhere near the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of the unincorporated County in the vicinity had Rural Residential future land use. There was some County Neighborhood Commercial across Babcock from the 15- acre parcel of City Commercial two miles to the south of the intersection. There also was some County Neighborhood Commercial and a small amount of County Community Commercial future land use east of Babcock about a mile to the north of the intersection. A 40-acre parcel approximately 650 feet to the east of the intersection was changed from County rural residential to general commercial zoning in 1988. But at around the time the City began to process the plan amendments at issue in this case, the County purchased the land and re-designated it for Public future land use and GML (Government-Managed Land) zoning. Most of the City's population growth in the last 20 years has been in the southern and western part of the City, to the west of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Between 1986 and 1999, residential development within 2-3 miles of the amendment sites increased approximately 160 percent. As a result, whereas 17 years ago most of the City's population was east of Interstate 95, now approximately half the population resides west of Interstate 95 (although 60 percent still resides north of Malabar Road.) Due to the sparse commercial use in the vicinity, either in the City or the unincorporated County, there is a need for more land designated for commercial future land uses in the southern part of the City to serve the rapidly growing population in that area. The applicant for the large-scale amendment submitted a letter projecting a need for 1.5 million square feet of retail space in the City based on a comparison of "current space" with average retail space per capita in Florida. The County criticized the professional acceptability of this submission as data and analysis to demonstrate need for additional commercial acreage in the City. Standing alone, the submission may be fairly subject to the County's criticism; but considered along with the other data and analysis, the submission adds to the demonstration of need for the plan amendments. It was estimated that commercial uses at the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria will generate an additional 12,000 vehicle trips on Babcock in the vicinity of its intersection with Valkaria. This estimate further demonstrates a need for additional commercial future land use in the vicinity. At least some of the vehicle trips expected to be generated in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection as a result of adding commercial future land use there would correspond to a reduction in vehicular traffic from the southern part of the City to and from commercial areas in the northern part of the City. For that reason, by helping balance the amount of commercial land use available in the northern and southern parts of the City, adding commercial future land use in the southern part of the City could be reasonably expected to reduce traffic overall. Commercial land uses generally generate higher tax revenue and demand fewer government services than residential land uses. Meanwhile, the City provides most of the government services in the Babcock/Valkaria vicinity and has a backlog of infrastructure projects. For that reason, an economic benefit reasonably is expected to accrue to the City from adding commercial in the southern part of the City.2 Future Land Use Element FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon area need. . . ." FLU Policy 3.1A states: "The acreage of commercial land permitted by the Future Land Use Map shall not exceed projected needs." The County did not prove that the proposed FLUM amendments are inconsistent with either this Objective or this Policy. The plan amendments at issue are based upon area need and do not exceed projected needs, as reflected in the data and analysis. Compatibility and Internal Consistency The County contended that City Commercial future land use for the amendment parcels is incompatible with surrounding land uses and internally inconsistent with provisions the City's FLU Objective 2.3, to: "Prevent incompatible land uses from locating in residential areas in order to promote neighborhood stability and prevent deterioration." In the unincorporated County to the east of Babcock Street, there are primarily large-lot, rural residential land uses with some agricultural uses such as horses and tree-farming. But, as indicated, there are platted residential lots in the City to the west of Babcock Street that are urban (or suburban) in character. During the course of these proceedings, the County abandoned its contentions as to incompatibility of the small-scale amendment except for the existence of a residential structure on the property. In arguing that the existence of the residential structure on the property makes commercial future land use incompatible, the County relied on the City's zoning LDRs. But zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not at issue in this comprehensive plan amendment case. See Conclusion 52, infra. Even if zoning and consistency with zoning LDRs were at issue, the applicant's residential structure would not defeat the applicant's proposed future land use change; rather, granting the application would mean that use of the residential structure would have to be discontinued after the future land use change. As to the large-scale amendment, the County also relies in part on alleged inconsistency with an LDR--in this instance, the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning that these areas are "to be primarily located in or near the intersection of arterial roadways." But, again, zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not issues for determination in this comprehensive plan amendment case. Id. Even if zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs were at issue, consistency and compatibility still would be fairly debatable. The evidence was that Valkaria was designated as a collector road at the time of adoption of the proposed large-scale amendment and that Babcock was designated as an arterial roadway to the north of Valkaria and as a collector to the south of Valkaria. The City characterized Babcock as a minor arterial. By its terms, the LDR in question does not prohibit Community Commercial zoning except in or near the intersection of arterial roadways; it only provides that these areas are to be located primarily in or near these intersections. Even if City Community Commercial zoning were clearly inconsistent with the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning, City Neighborhood Commercial zoning has no similar provision for location vis-a-vis arterial roads. Since the City only has one commercial future land use category, City Commercial would be the appropriate City future land use designation for City Neighborhood Commercial zoning. The County's contentions as to the large-scale amendment also are seriously undermined by the existence of both County Community Commercial and County Neighborhood Commercial future land use east of Babcock. In addition, a County-sponsored Small Area Study (SAS) of approximately 11,500 acres of land east of the intersection along Valkaria Road recommended County Neighborhood Commercial future land use for the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria (as well as County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning). As indicated, the City's Comprehensive Plan does not distinguish between the two categories of commercial future land use and, if any commercial future land use is compatible with surrounding land uses, City Commercial future land use is appropriate. Contrary to the County's argument, it makes no difference to the appropriateness of City Commercial future land use that County Neighborhood Commercial future land is more limited than City Commercial future land use (or that County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning is more limited than City Community Commercial zoning). The County argued that the large-scale future land use amendment was inconsistent with City FLUE Policy 2.3A, which states that LDRs must "continue to contain provisions to ensure that land uses surrounded by and/or abutting residential areas are not in conflict with the scale, intensity, density and character of the residential area." There is nothing about the proposed FLUM changes that is inconsistent with this Policy. Consistency of LDRs with this Policy is not at issue in this proceeding. See Conclusion 53, infra. The County also questioned the adequacy of buffer between commercial uses on the large-scale parcel and nearby residential uses. Precise questions as to the adequacy of buffer are decided under the LDRs, during site development review and permitting. However, it is noted that there is a 50-foot wide "paper street" (i.e., a platted right-of-way that never was developed as a street) to the west of the large-scale parcel. In addition, zoning as City Community Commercial was conditioned upon additional buffer to the east (25 feet wide) and to the north (50 feet wide). Consideration also is being given to a Habitat Conservation Plan of an undetermined size in the northern portion of the site for use as a "fly-over" for scrub jays. In addition, actual use of the residential land in the unincorporated County to the north of the large-scale parcel includes a car repair business with garage and approximately 15 cars in various states of disrepair.3 For all of the foregoing reasons, the evidence did not establish either internal inconsistency or incompatibility of commercial uses on the large-scale parcel with existing residential uses. Infrastructure and Internal Consistency At the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue, central water and sewer services had not yet been extended to the two parcels. However, it was clear from the evidence that adequate central water and sewer capacity existed to accommodate commercial development on these parcels and that central water and sewer was being extended to the parcels. The Capital Improvements Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan listed $1.7 million being budgeted for water and sewer improvements in fiscal year 2001/2002, and in excess of $15.3 million budgeted in fiscal year 2002/2003. FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon . . . the availability of supporting infrastructure." The County did not prove that the proposed plan amendments are inconsistent with this Objective. Urban Sprawl and Internal Consistency The County maintains that the proposed plan amendments exacerbate urban sprawl. But the County provided no detailed analysis of the indicators of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, to support its contention. In arguing urban sprawl, the County relied on its contentions that there was no demonstrated need to convert County rural residential land use to City commercial land use. This argument has been rejected. See Findings 20-31, supra. The County's urban sprawl argument also focused on uses in the unincorporated County east of Babcock and characterizes the plan amendments as placing commercial land use in a rural area. This focus and characterization ignores the existence of urban residential uses in the City west of Babcock. Seen in proper perspective, the proposed plan amendments allow commercial land use that would tend to mitigate and discourage the kind of urban sprawl promoted by the pre-platting of the City. Instead of having to travel to access commercial uses in distant parts of the City, City residents in the vicinity would have a much closer option under the proposed amendments (as would County residents in the vicinity). FLU Objective 1.4 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Establish a Growth Management Area to control urban sprawl." FLU Policy 1.4B states: "City funds shall not be utilized to expand public facilities and services for future growth outside of the established Growth Management Area." The small-scale parcel was outside the established Growth Management Area (GMA) at the time of adoption of the small-scale amendment. But it does not follow that the small-scale amendment constitutes urban sprawl. Nor does it follow that the small-scale amendment is inconsistent with either the Objective or the Policy. The small-scale amendment can be made a GMA before any City funds are used to expand public facilities and services for future commercial use of the small-scale parcel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding both the small-scale amendment and the large- scale amendment of the City of Palm Bay (adopted by Ordinance 2000- 79 and by Ordinance 2001-105, respectively) "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2002.
