The Issue Whether the amendments to the Hendry County Comprehensive Plan adopted on February 25, 2014, by County Ordinance No. 2014- 03, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2013).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Respondent, Hendry County (Respondent or County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and amend a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167. Petitioner, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Petitioner or Seminole Tribe), owns real property consisting of the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation and adjacent non-reservation lands located in the County. The address of the main tribal office is 31000 Josie Billie Highway, Clewiston, Florida 33440. On February 25, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing and adopted the Plan Amendment. The Seminole Tribe submitted written and oral comments to the County concerning the Plan Amendment through their counsel and several Tribal members at the adoption public hearing. Existing Land Uses and Future Designations Hendry County is approximately 1,190 square miles in size. The County is predominantly an agriculturally-based community with roughly 55 percent of the total land area in agricultural production and another 12 percent designated as preserve. Approximately 71 percent of the land area in the County is designated Agriculture on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).2/ Lands within the Agriculture Future Land Use Category (Ag FLU), some 529,936 acres, predominantly comprise the central, southern and eastern portion of the County. The Ag FLU designates those lands which “will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The County has limited property designated for future industrial and commercial use. Less than one-half percent of the land area on the FLUM is designated as Industrial. Less than two-tenths percent is designated as Commercial. Other future land use categories which allow Industrial development include Agriculture, Public, Multi-Use Development, and land within the Rodina sector plan, which authorizes a maximum of 1,900,000 square feet of Office, Civic, and Industrial uses. Industrial uses allowed within the Agriculture land use category include processing of agricultural products as Level One uses allowed as permitted uses, special exceptions, or accessory uses under the Land Development Code. A number of other uses, such as utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining, and solid waste recovery, are allowed as Level Two uses which require rezoning of the property to a Planned Unit Development, with significant review by County staff and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Less than one percent of the land area is designated for Public Use. The Public land use category designates areas which are publicly-owned, semi-public, or private lands authorized for public purposes, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. The largest industrial site in the County is the AirGlades industrial complex, which is designated as a Public land use on the FLUM. The site is approximately 2,400 acres in size, but only roughly 200 acres is in industrial use. The complex cannot be fully developed due to inadequate County wastewater facilities serving the site, Federal Aviation Authority restrictions (e.g., height limitations) on development in proximity to the Airglades airport, and lack of opportunity for fee ownership of property owned by the County.3/ Roughly one-half percent of the land area is designated Multi-Use. Designated lands are generally located adjacent to the primary transportation system and existing or programmed utilities. The purpose of this land use category is to promote new development and redevelopment of the properties located within the category. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Industrial development in the Multi-Use category is limited to 0.75. As with industrial uses, commercial uses are allowed in land use categories other than Commercial. The Agriculture category allows commercial uses such as ornamental horticulture and nurseries. Non-residential intensity is generally limited to an FAR of .40. Commercial development is allowed within both the Medium–Density and High-Density Residential FLU Categories; however, development is limited to residential-serving commercial, must be approved through the PUD rezoning process, and is limited to 15 percent of the uses within the PUD. Less than one percent of the County is designated as Rural Special Density, and, under the existing Plan, this designation cannot be expanded. The Residential Special Density category allows commercial and retail on no more than 10 percent of the designated area and with a total cap of 200 square feet at buildout. Commercial development is also allowed within the Multi-Use category, but is limited to an FAR of .25 for retail commercial, .50 for mixed-use buildings (maximum of 25 percent retail), and .30 FAR for mixed-use buildings with commercial on the first floor. The County is sparsely populated with concentrations surrounding the cities of Clewiston and LaBelle, including Port LaBelle, as well as the unincorporated areas known as Felda and Harlem. The cities of LaBelle and Clewiston and the unincorporated populated areas are located at the northernmost end of the County along State Road 80 (SR 80). The Felda Community is located in the northwestern portion of the County, south of the City of LaBelle. Most of the development in the County since 1999 has occurred in and surrounding the incorporated areas of LaBelle and Clewiston, primarily adjacent to the City of LaBelle and along SR 80 from LaBelle to the Lee County line. The vast majority of land in the County is not served by centralized public utilities, such as sewer and water. Existing public utilities, including centralized water and sewer, are limited to the northernmost areas of the County surrounding the cities of LaBelle and Clewiston, and along SR 80. South of LaBelle and Clewiston, there are only three north/south and two east/west principle arterial or collector roads in the County. All of these are two-lane roads, and only SR 29 south of LaBelle is planned to be widened to four lanes under either alternative in the County’s 2040 long-range transportation plan. Economic Conditions It is undisputed that the economic condition of the County is dire. The County ranks high in many negative economic indicators, including a 30 percent poverty rate (compared to 17 percent statewide), the highest unemployment rate in the state for 34 of the most recent 36 months, and an annual wage $10,000 lower than the state average. Roughly 80 percent of County school children qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch, and a high percentage of the County population are Medicaid recipients. The County’s ability to raise revenue through taxation is limited by the extent of property exempt from ad valorem taxation (e.g., government-owned property), and the extent classified as Agricultural and assessed at less than just value. Slightly more than half of the just value of property in the County is subject to an Agricultural classification. Another 21 percent of the just value of property in the County is government-owned, thus exempt from ad valorem taxation. More than half of the parcels in the County are taxed as vacant residential, and less than two percent are taxable commercial properties. On May 24, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a workshop on proposed new Mission, Vision, and Core Values statements for the County. On September 13, 2011, the Board adopted the following Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment was adopted in an effort to attract large-scale commercial and industrial businesses to locate in, and bring jobs to, the County. Under the Plan Amendment, a new development project that is designated as an Economic Engine Project (EEP), and “large-scale commercial and/or industrial” developments, are expressly permitted in any and all FLU categories throughout the County with the exception of Agricultural Conservation, Residential - Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. The Plan Amendment is designed to spur economic development by “streamlining” the permitting process to give the County a competitive advantage in attracting new business. By permitting EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses in nearly every future land use category, the Plan Amendment is intended to eliminate the costs (in both time and money) of processing comprehensive plan amendments for future development projects. The amount of land eligible for siting either an EEP or a large-scale commercial and/or industrial development under the Plan Amendment is approximately 580,000 acres.4/ The majority of that land area, 529,936.49 acres, is located within the Agriculture FLU category. The Plan Amendment significantly rewrites the Economic Development Element of the County’s Plan, and adds new policies to Chapter 1, Goal 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), related to “Innovative Planning and Development Strategies.” The Plan Amendment rewrites Goal 2 as follows:5/ In order to protect water resources, protect the environment and wildlife habitat, build a more sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote energy efficiency, and to permit job creation for the citizens and residents of Hendry County, the following innovative land use planning techniques should be encouraged: In order to build a sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote job creation, and support vibrant rural and urban communities, the following flexible development strategies are encouraged: Innovative and flexible planning and development strategies list in Section 163.3168, Florida Statutes. Innovative and creative planning tools. Innovative Flexible and strategic land use techniques listed and defined in this comprehensive plan. The Plan Amendment adds the following new Objective and Policies to FLUE Goal 2: Objective 2.1: Recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to economic development to meet the needs of the existing and future urban, suburban and rural areas. Policy 2.1.1: A qualifying County economic development and job creation project (Economic Engine Project) is a project that complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element, Hendry County's compatibility requirements, Policy 2.1.2, and which will have adequate infrastructure. These projects shall be allowed in any category listed in the Future Land Use Element except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre- Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Economic Development Element. Additionally, Economic Engine Projects shall be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, and the sector plan. Densities and Intensities shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Policy 2.1.2: Large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in any Future Land Use category, except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas if they meet the requirements below. In addition, large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, F.S., the sector plan, and meet the requirements below. Policy 2.1.2 does not apply to industrial development located in the industrial land use category nor commercial development located in the commercial land use category. The development is approved as a PUD as provided in the Land Development Code; The development is consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners; The project has direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development; The project has access to, will upgrade/extend existing utilities, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility's financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone; The project has access to and can provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate; The project will provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues. Large-scale Commercial and/or Industrial development must be a minimum of eighty (80) acres. The County reserves the right to require the project area to be larger if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project. The project must demonstrate that it will produce at least fifty (50) new jobs within three years after the project is initiated. The development must contribute positively to the County's economy. If the project requires that the County expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program, the developer shall cooperate with the County in obtaining the funds. This provision includes requiring the County to accelerate a programmed project. If necessary, the owner/developer of the project will work with the appropriate educational facilities to create the necessary education and training programs that will enable Hendry County residents to be employed with the Large- scale Commercial and/or Industrial development. Intensities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Densities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. Additionally, the Plan Amendment adds the following definitions to the Plan: "Economic Engine Project" means a qualifying County economic development and job creation project which complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element and means the proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry. "Target Industry" means an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness. Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida's Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries; and Agricultural Industries New Economic Development Element Policy 10.1.7, reads as follows: The County Administrator has the authority to designate a project as a County-approved Economic Engine Project provided it meets the definition of an Economic Engine Project, the criterion in future land use element Objective 2.1, and policies 2.1.1- 2.1.2. Petitioner’s Challenge Petitioner challenges the Plan Amendment as not “in compliance” with chapter 163. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment fails to appropriately plan for orderly future growth by providing measurable and predictable standards to guide and control the future growth and distribution of large-scale commercial and industrial developments and Economic Engine Projects throughout the County; is not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis; is internally inconsistent with other goals, objectives, and policies in the Plan; and fails to discourage urban sprawl. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) provides, “The [local government comprehensive plan] shall 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.” Section 163.3177(6)(a) requires the local government to designate, through the FLUE, the “proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for” commercial and industrial categories of use. Further, this section requires the local government to include the “approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use . . . for the gross land area in each existing land use category.” Subparagraph 163.3177(6)(a)1. requires local governments to define each future land use category “in terms of uses included” and to include “standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensities.” Designated Economic Engine Projects The Plan Amendment does not define an EEP in a manner sufficient to put property owners on notice as to what use might be approved within the approximately 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment defines an EEP as a “proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry.” “Target industry” is further defined by the Plan Amendment as “an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness.” The definition continues, as follows: Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries Agricultural Industries Under Policy 2.1.1, a project that meets the definitions above may be designated as an EEP by the County Administrator, pursuant to Policy 10.1.7, if it meets the criterion in Policy 2.1.2, and if it “complies with the County’s compatibility requirements and [has] adequate infrastructure.” As adopted, the Plan Amendment provides no meaningful standard for the use or development of land for an EEP. The definition of an industry that “contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness” is essentially open-ended, defining an EEP only in the sense that it must be different from the existing predominate County industry -- Agriculture. Yet, even that distinction is eliminated by the inclusion of “Agricultural Industries” on the list of target industries “that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP. The list of industries defined as “eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP provides no meaningful standard because it incorporates by reference industries listed by, targeted by, or “aligned with,” private and quasi-government entities such as Enterprise Florida, Visit Florida, and Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative. The definition does not even fix to a specific date the list of targeted industries designated by those business development entities, thus rendering the Amendment “self-amending,” without any meaningful list of qualifying uses. Moreover, the definition of “target industry” incorporates these third-party lists with the qualification “including but not limited to.” Thus, determination of an EEP is at the sole discretion of the County Administrator. Sarah Catala, Hendry County associate planner, is the author of the Plan Amendment. Ms. Catala testified that an EEP could encompass a wide variety of uses, including ecotourism (e.g., bird-watching tours), manufacturing, and large-scale commercial development such as a Super Walmart. The Plan Amendment is essentially circular. The definition of an EEP refers to compliance with Policy 10.1.7, but Policy 10.1.7 refers back to the definition and the criteria in Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Policy 2.1.1 requires an EEP to comply with Policy 10.1.7, as well as Policy 2.1.2. Objective 2.1 and Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 lack meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of EEPs. Policy 2.1.1, as previously referenced, refers the reader to Policy 2.1.2 and further states that EEPs must “comply with Hendry County’s compatibility requirements” and must have “adequate infrastructure.” The Plan Amendment does not define either “compatibility requirements” or “adequate infrastructure.” Nor does the Plan Amendment cross-reference any specific compatibility or infrastructure requirement in either the Plan or the County’s Land Development Regulations. The County highlights Policy 2.1.2 as the measurable criterion that directs the location, timing and extent of development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments throughout the County. However, as discussed below, Policy 2.1.2 does not resolve the Plan Amendment’s failure to provide meaningful and predictable standards directing the location, amount and timing of the development of EEPs or large-scale commercial and industrial in the County. Large-scale Commercial and Industrial Developments Policy 2.1.2 adds “large-scale commercial and industrial developments” as an allowable use in every FLU category in the County with the exception of the same three categories from which EEPs are excluded: Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. Large-scale commercial and industrial developments must meet the requirements listed in paragraphs (a) through (n) of Policy 2.1.2.6/ Policy 2.1.2(a) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to undergo a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) during which time various site-specific criteria found in the land development regulations will be applied to development of a particular project. The PUD rezoning criterion in the County’s LDRs govern the location of a particular use on a specific property. The PUD requirements do not relate in any way to the appropriate location of either an economic project or large-scale commercial or industrial development within the approximately 580,000 acres open for those developments under the Plan Amendment. Thus, this criterion is not a meaningful standard that provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of land for EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial use. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to be “consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.” It is undisputed that the said siting proposals have yet to be developed by staff. Ms. Catala anticipates developing a locational matrix that will “match up locations in the County with the needs of a business.” As such, the siting proposals will provide locational standards for future EEPs and large- scale commercial and industrial developments. As written and adopted, though, the Plan Amendment contains no such standards. Policy 2.1.2(c) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have “direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development.” This criterion simply requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have access to a roadway of some sort. It does not guide developments to locate within proximity to a roadway, or require direct access to a particular class of roadway. The criterion does not preclude the developer from building a road from the project to an existing local roadway. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment neither defines the term “adequate capacity” nor cross-references an existing definition of that term elsewhere in the Plan. Without a definition, the reader is left to speculate whether a particular project site is appropriate in proximity to any particular roadway. As written, Policy 2.1.2(c) does not provide meaningful standards for the location, distribution, or extent of either EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial projects within the approximately 580,000 acres designated eligible for these uses under the Plan Amendment. Policy 2.1.2(d) relates to the provision of utilities to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial project. The Policy reads as follows: The project has access to, will upgrade/extend, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility’s financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone. This criterion provides so many alternatives, it is essentially meaningless. Boiled down, the provision requires only that the project have utilities, which is essential to any development. The criterion does not direct the location of one of these projects to areas where utilities exist or are planned, but rather allows them anywhere within the approximately 580,000 acres as long as the developer provides needed utilities, somehow, some way. Policy 2.1.2(e) requires “[t]he project [to have] access to and . . . provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate[.]” This criterion provides locational criterion to the extent that a development for which rail facilities are integral must locate in proximity thereto. However, that criterion is self-evident. The policy does not add any guidance for the location, distribution, and extent of EEPs and large- scale commercial or industrial projects which do not require rail facilities. Policy 2.1.2(f) requires the project to “provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues.” Buffers, screening, and open space requirements are addressed at the PUD rezoning stage of development and do not provide guidance as to the location of development within any particular land area. Furthermore, the language does not direct an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development away from existing uses which may be incompatible therewith. The Plan Amendment actually anticipates incompatibility and requires development techniques to address incompatibilities at the rezoning stage. Policy 2.1.2(g) requires a minimum of 80 acres for a large-scale commercial or industrial development. The policy allows the County to increase that minimum size “if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project.” The policy has a veneer of locational criterion: it excludes development or redevelopment of parcels, or aggregated parcels, which are smaller than the 80 acre threshold. However, the policy provides an exception for the County to require larger parcels solely at its discretion. Again, the policy anticipates incompatibility between large- scale commercial or industrial development and the existing land uses. Policies 2.1.2(h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m) bear no relationship to location, distribution, or extent of the land uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment neither provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for commercial and industrial purposes nor meaningful standards for the future development of EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development. Section 163.3177(1) requires local government plan amendments to establish meaningful guidelines for the content of more-detailed land development regulations. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires large-scale commercial and industrial developments to be consistent with “siting proposals,” which Ms. Catala testified are anticipated to be adopted in the County’s land development code. Ms. Catala generally described a matrix that would help industry “get the best fit for their needs in the County.” The Plan Amendment does not provide any guidelines for adoption of a matrix or any other siting proposals to be adopted by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Policy 2.1.2.(b). Lastly, section 163.3177(6)(a) requires that the FLUE establish the general range of density and intensity of the uses allowed. Ms. Catala testified that the intent of the Plan Amendment is not to change the density or intensity of uses from those already allowed in the plan. The plain language of the Plan Amendment does not support a finding that densities and intensities of use remain the same under the Plan Amendment. The intensity of non- residential development allowed under the Plan Amendment is, at best, unclear, and in some cases left entirely to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 2.1.1 provides that the densities and intensities of EEPs “shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories.” The County argues that a fair reading of the Policy restricts non-residential development to the intensities established in the underlying category for non-residential development. Under Policy 2.1.2, intensities of large-scale commercial and industrial developments “shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial Uses established in their respective land use categories.” While a fair reading of Policy 2.1.1 restricts the intensity of commercial or industrial development to the density established in the underlying land use district, Policy 2.1.2 does not. The pronoun “their” refers back to the Commercial and Industrial land use categories. Thus, under Policy 2.1.2, commercial and industrial uses can develop in other land use categories at the intensities established in the Commercial or Industrial category. Further, both Policy 2.1.1 and Policy 2.1.2 cap EEP intensity at 0.25 FAR in residential FLU categories. This language overrides the existing cap on non-residential development in those categories established in the FLUE. It also overrides those FLU categories, such as Residential Low- Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. Finally, Policy 2.1.2 contains no intensity cap on development of commercial and industrial development within residential FLU categories. The County explains that large- scale commercial and industrial developments are simply not allowed in FLU categories, such as Residential Low-Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. The County’s interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of the policy. Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows large-scale commercial and industrial development in all land use categories except Agricultural-Conservation, Residential/ Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. If the County intended to exclude other FLU categories, they would have been included in the list of exceptions. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment does not establish the general range of intensity of large-scale commercial and industrial development. Data and Analysis Section 163.3177(6)(a)2. requires local government FLUE amendments “to be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable” including the following: The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. The character of the undeveloped land. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. The compatibility of uses on land adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. The discouragement of urban sprawl. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. County staff did not collect data or perform an analysis of the character of the undeveloped land affected by the Plan Amendment. County staff did not perform any analysis of the suitability of the land area affected by the Plan Amendment for either a large-scale commercial or industrial development nor for an EEP. County staff did not perform an analysis of the availability of the County water supplies, wastewater treatment, or other public facilities, to serve large-scale commercial or industrial development or an EEP located within the area affected by the Plan Amendment. In fact, County staff acknowledged that wastewater treatment facilities are inadequate to support full buildout of the industrial sites available at the Airglades airport facility. County staff did not perform an analysis of the compatibility of large-scale commercial or industrial development adjacent to the Airglades airport facility. In preparing the Plan Amendment, County staff clearly relied upon data reflecting the County’s needs for job creation, economic development, and a diversified economy, including the Department of Revenue Property Tax Overview for Hendry County, and the fact that the County is designated a Rural Area of Critical State Concern. County staff also considered, in support of the Plan Amendment, the County Commission’s recently-adopted Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” No evidence was introduced to support a finding that County staff analyzed whether the Plan Amendment would achieve the goals of strengthening and diversifying the County’s economy. The County introduced the testimony of Greg Gillman, the County’s Economic Development Director, regarding his efforts to attract new business to the County, as well as the obstacles the County faces in these efforts. Mr. Gillman testified regarding five particular scenarios in which he worked with companies to find a suitable location in the County. In one scenario, the price was too high for the potential buyer. In another, the potential buyer was put off by the wooded acreage. In another, the seller would not subdivide. In another, the property is undergoing a PUD rezoning process. In the final scenario, Mr. Gillman testified the potential buyer rejected all proposed sites without explanation. Mr. Gillman did not give a single example of a scenario in which a potential business opportunity was lost due to the need to change the FLUM designation of a property. In fact, Mr. Gillman testified that he does not even show sites without appropriate land use classifications to potential buyers. While there is a plethora of data on the limited amount of land in the County classified for commercial and industrial uses, County staff gathered no data regarding, and conducted no analysis of, the vacancy rate of sites on which commercial and industrial uses are currently allowed. Mr. Gillman provided anecdotal evidence regarding recent efforts to redevelop vacant sites, some of which have been successful. Ms. Catala testified that, in addition to relying on the County’s Vision statement and economic data, she reviewed the comprehensive plans of other jurisdictions. From that review, she gleaned the idea of an EEP. The County introduced no evidence to support a finding that the threshold of 80 acres for an EEP was based upon data at all. Mr. Gillman’s testimony revealed that Ms. Catala originally proposed a higher threshold (perhaps 120 acres), but that he recommended a smaller acreage. Mr. Gillman gave no explanation of the basis for his recommendation. Section 163.3177(f) provides, “To be based on data means to react to it an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” Given the lack of evidence linking the Plan Amendment to spurring economic development, the County failed to demonstrate that it reacted appropriately to the economic data on which it relied. Even if Mr. Gillman’s anecdotes were accepted as data, they do not support eliminating plan amendments to allow commercial and industrial development in a variety of other land use categories. Internal Inconsistency Section 163.3177(2) provides as follows: Coordination of the several elements of the local comprehensive plan shall be a major objective of the planning process. The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent. The Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment changes to the FLUE and Economic Development Element are inconsistent with a number of goals, objectives, and policies found within the FLUE and in other plan elements. Each one is taken in turn. Future Land Use Element First, Petitioner alleges internal inconsistency within the FLUE, specifically between the Plan Amendment and FLUE Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.9, 1.1.10, 1.1.11, and 1.1.13. Policy 1.1.1 governs land uses allowed within the Agriculture FLU category. The policy states, in pertinent part, as follows: Purpose The purpose of the Agriculture Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040. * * * Location Standards Areas classified as Agriculture are located within the rural areas of Hendry County. Lands in this category are not within the urban area, but may be adjacent to the urban area. Some of these lands may be converted to urban uses within the 2040 planning horizon. However, the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040. The Plan Amendment affects more land designated as Agriculture than that designated in any other category. Slightly more than 70 percent of the County, almost 530,000 acres, is designated as Agriculture, and all of it is subject to development for an EEP or an 80-acre minimum commercial or industrial project under the Plan Amendment. Development of ill-defined EEPs and 80-acre minimum large-scale commercial and industrial projects is not consistent with designating lands “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state” through 2040. Respondent counters that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 1.1.1 because that Policy already allows a number of non-traditional agricultural uses which are commercial and/or industrial in nature, and may be sited through the PUD rezoning process, just as the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Policy 1.1.1 authorizes the use of Agriculture lands for utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining and earth extraction and processing operations, solid waste facilities, resource recovery facilities, and other similar uses. The County’s argument is not persuasive.7/ The non- agricultural uses allowed under the existing plan are agriculturally-related or agriculture-dependent uses, such as bio-fuel, mining, and resource recovery, or uses which, by their nature, are best suited to less-populated rural areas, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. In contrast, large-scale commercial and industrial uses are not limited to agriculturally-related or utility uses. Under the Plan Amendment, anything from an auto parts manufacturing plant to a Super Walmart could be developed in areas designated Agriculture. Any number of urban uses could be developed under the auspices of an EEP or large-scale commercial. Under the Plan Amendment, no amendment to the County’s comprehensive plan will be needed to allow such urban uses in the Agriculture category. Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5 govern land uses in the following FLU categories: Residential – Rural Estates, Residential – Medium Density, and Residential – High Density, respectively. According to Policy 1.1.3, the purpose of the Residential – Rural Estates category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which have been or should be developed at lower density in order to promote and protect the rural lifestyle through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy permits only residential and customary accessory uses within the category. The Policy specifically sets a FAR of 0.00 for non- residential development. According to Policy 1.1.4, the purpose of the Residential – Medium Density category is “to identify those areas within Hendry County which currently, or should be, encouraged to become the primary location of residential development offering a mixture of residential products at suburban/urban style density through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits single- and multi-family development, as well as mobile homes, and customary accessory uses. Commercial development is allowed only as an element of mixed-use developments, of which commercial is limited to 15 percent. Additional limitations on commercial apply, including limits on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering from adjacent residential uses. Policy 1.1.4 establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. According to Policy 1.1.5, the purpose of the Residential – High Density category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which are or should become higher density residential development through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits all types of residential development and customary accessory uses. As with medium-density category, Policy 1.1.5 allows some commercial development within mixed-use developments subject to limitations on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering. The policy establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. Under the Plan Amendment, each of these three Residential categories is available for siting an EEP. New Policy 2.1.2 allows for development of EEPs in these categories at an FAR of 0.25. The Plan Amendment allows EEPs within the Residential Rural Estates category directly in contravention of Policy 1.1.3, which limits uses to residential, recreational, and limited agricultural, and provides zero intensity for non- residential uses. As previously noted, the Plan Amendment broadly defines EEPs, and the record supports a finding that such a project could encompass anything from a manufacturing facility to a Super Walmart. The broad array of uses to diversify the County’s economy is in conflict with the County’s previous decision, reflected in Policy 1.1.3 to designate these areas for future development at low-density residential “to promote and protect the rural lifestyle.” Likewise, the Plan Amendment opens up the Residential Medium Density and Residential – High Density categories for location of ill-defined EEPs in contravention of Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit development in those categories to primarily residential, only allowing commercial within a mixed- use development and limited to a maximum of 15 percent. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment allows these developments at a greater intensity than the FAR of 0.10 established for non- residential density in those categories. The parties disagreed as to whether the Plan Amendment authorizes large-scale commercial and industrial development in the Residential – Rural Estates category governed by Policy 1.1.3. The argument primarily turns on interpretation of new Policy 2.1.2, as discussed in the previous section herein titled “Meaningful and Predictable Standards.” The County contends that the correct interpretation of Policy 2.1.2 allows a large-scale commercial or industrial development at the maximum intensity established in the underlying land use category. In other words, if the underlying land use category establishes an FAR of 0.00 for industrial development, no industrial development is allowed. However, if the same category establishes an FAR for commercial development, the Plan Amendment allows commercial development in that category limited to the intensity established by the FAR. The undersigned has rejected that interpretation as discussed in the prior section herein. Petitioner contends that the language allows commercial and industrial development in every non-exempt land use category at the intensities established in the Commercial and/or Industrial land use category, as applicable. Petitioner’s interpretation is the correct interpretation, and indeed the only possible reading of the plain language of Policy 2.1.2(l).8/ Policy 1.1.9 governs uses in the Commercial land use category. The Policy allows non-residential development at the following intensities: Retail Commercial – 0.25 FAR Office – 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR for mixed-use building with a maximum of 25% retail and a minimum of 75% office 0.30 FAR for mixed-use development with commercial on the first floor and residential on stories above the first floor. Allowing large-scale commercial development at the stated intensities directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; Policy 1.1.4, which caps intensity at 0.10 for commercial in Residential – Medium; and Policy 1.1.5, which provides an FAR of 0.10 in Residential – High. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.2.1 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.10 governs uses in the Industrial land use category. The Policy allows industrial development at an intensity of 0.75. Allowing large-scale industrial development at an intensity of 0.75 directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; and Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit non-residential uses to commercial and recreation in the Residential – Medium and Residential – High land use categories. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.1.2 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 governing development within the Commercial and Industrial categories, respectively. The allegations were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Plan Amendment does not alter either the uses allowed in those categories or the intensity of development allowed therein. Those policies are essentially unscathed. However, because the Plan Amendment allows the types and intensities of development described in the Commercial and Industrial categories to occur in residential and other categories in which those uses and intensities conflict, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the policies governing those residential and other categories. Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 are merely the conduits through which Policy 2.1.2 is found to be inconsistent with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.11 governs land uses in the Public category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Public Future Land Use Category is to establish regulations relative to use and location of publicly- owned lands, semi-public lands, and private lands authorized for public purposes which currently exist or which may become public through the planning horizon 2040. Description/Uses Lands in this category are areas designated for public and semi-public uses, including governmental buildings, schools, churches, and worship centers, utilities, solid waste handling and disposal facilities, airports, logistic centers when operated on public property, recycling facilities, and similar public and semi-public uses. This category may also include publicly-owned parks and other public/semi-public recreational facilities. There is no dispute that the Plan Amendment would allow both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses within the Public land use category. Large-scale commercial and industrial development is inconsistent with the purpose of the Public land use category adopted in Policy 1.1.11 and the uses established therein. Because the Plan Amendment provides no clear definition of an EEP, and leaves the determination solely to the County Administrator, it is impossible to determine whether allowing said development in the Public land use category would necessarily be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.11. Policy 1.1.13 governs uses in the Leisure/Recreation category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Leisure/Recreation Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which are used or may become used for free standing/independent leisure/recreation activities through the planning horizon 2040. * * * Description/Uses Leisure/Recreation areas are sites which are currently developed for leisure/recreation facilities or undeveloped sites which are designated for development as leisure/ recreation facilities. . . . Uses allowed within this category shall be limited to sports facilities whether individually developed or in sports complexes, active and/or passive parks, recreation vehicle parks, campgrounds (whether primitive or improved), marinas, golf courses, equestrian centers and riding areas, sporting clay facilities, eco tourism activities, and similar leisure and recreation facilities and ancillary facilities. Large-scale industrial and commercial development would directly conflict with the purpose and types of use allowed within this category pursuant to Policy 1.1.13. As the Plan Amendment provides a very broad definition of EEP, it is impossible to determine that every such use would be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.13. In fact, since an EEP may include eco-tourism uses, location within Leisure/Recreation may be entirely suitable. Petitioner next contends that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17, which provides, as follows: The County’s development regulations shall specifically encourage redevelopment, infill development, compatibility with adjacent uses, and curtailment of uses inconsistent with the character and land uses of surrounding area, and shall discourage urban sprawl. No evidence was introduced regarding whether the County’s land development regulations fall short of this Policy mandate. The County’s expert testified that he had not reviewed the County’s land development regulations to determine whether they met this requirement. Petitioner’s expert provided no testimony on this issue. Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17. Other Plan Elements Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Infrastructure Element Objective 7.A.3 and Policy 7.A.3.1, which read as follows: Objective 7.A.3: The County shall maximize use of existing sewer facilities and discourage urban sprawl within infill development. In addition, limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map. This Objective shall be implemented through the following policies: Policy 7.A.3.1: The Future Land Use Element and Map allows density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer connections than the more remote areas. The Plan Amendment allows development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial projects regardless of the availability of existing sewer facilities to the project site. The Plan Amendment expresses no preference between, and alternately allows said development with either, access to existing sewer facilities, or provision of on-site wastewater treatment. The Plan Amendment does not change the land use designations on the existing Future Land Use Map. Nearly 580,000 acres opened up for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development under the Plan Amendment is designated on the FLUM as Agriculture. Policy 1.1.1 specifically defines the Agriculture category for those areas of the County “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy clearly characterizes the Agriculture designations on the FLUM as “rural areas of Hendry County,” and, while it recognizes that “some of these lands may be converted to urban uses” within the planning horizon, “the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040.” Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows a public or private provider to “extend and/or expand” utilities in order to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development. Thus, the Plan Amendment does not “limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map” as required by Objective 7.A.3. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not “allow the greatest density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer extensions than the more remote areas.” Indeed, Ms. Catala testified consistently that one of the main objectives of the Plan Amendment was to provide more flexibility for development than allowed under the existing plan. Next, Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Traffic Circulation Element Policy 8.5.3, which reads as follows: Revisions of the roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map shall be coordinated with and connect or directly serve existing development areas or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. The Plan Amendment does not revise any roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map. No evidence was presented that the said revisions would not be coordinated with existing or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 8.5.3. Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Concurrency Management Element Policy 9.2.1, which reads, as follows: The Future Land Use Map is developed to coincide with the availability of public facilities and/or natural resources such that new facilities are not necessarily required for new development. The Plan Amendment allows both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development to occur without regard to availability of public facilities. Although Policy 2.1.2 recognizes the importance of serving these new projects by adequate utilities of all types, it specifically allows public providers to build new, or extend existing, infrastructure to serve those developments. Further, the Plan Amendment anticipates the construction of new facilities to serve these developments, even requiring the County to accelerate projects in its Capital Improvements Program. The Plan Amendment conflicts with Policy 9.2.1 by authorizing development in areas on the FLUM for which public facilities are neither available nor planned. Future Land Use Map Series Finally, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the maps adopted in the current plan, specifically the FLUM and Conservation Map series. Because the Plan Amendment allows large-scale commercial and industrial developments in land use categories with which those uses are inconsistent, the location and distribution of uses shown on the FLUM are no longer accurate. The Conservation Map series indicates the generalized location in the County of eight different environmental categories, including soils, panther habitat, and historical resources. Very little evidence was adduced relative to whether the Plan Amendment directly conflicted with any one of the maps in the series. The evidence presented related more to the issue of whether the Plan Amendment was supported by data and analysis. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment directly conflicts with the Conservation Map series. Urban Sprawl Petitioner’s final challenge to the Plan Amendment is that it does not discourage urban sprawl as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)9. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b. provides as follows: The future land use element or plan amendment shall be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following: Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems. Promotes the efficient and cost- effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available. Promotes conservation of water and energy. Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including siliviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils. Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs. Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area. Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes urban sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented development or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164. Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment does not meet any of the listed criterion, thus the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County maintains the Plan Amendment meets at least four of the foregoing indicators, and, thus, must be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County’s expert witness testified that, in his opinion, the Plan Amendment meets indicators I, II, IV, V, VII, and perhaps VI. In making the following findings, the undersigned considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses and found Petitioner’s expert opinions to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets indicator I if it directs or locates EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment contains no locational criteria for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments within the 580,000 acres of land opened up for these uses under the Plan Amendment. County staff had data, in the form of the existing conservation land use map series and the soils map, to draw from in determining areas inappropriate for these types of development. Ms. Catala did not rely upon that data, however, explaining instead that her knowledge of the location of wetlands, floodplains, and other natural resources within the subject area was derived from her day-to-day work. Ms. Catala performed no analysis of the impact of potential large-scale commercial or industrial uses on the natural resources and ecosystems which are present in the affected area. The County argues that the Plan Amendment meets criterion I because it does not allow the subject developments in the Agriculture Conservation Land Use Category, thus the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources located in that category. Policy 1.1.1(b). states the purpose of the Agriculture Conservation category is to define those areas within the County which are predominantly jurisdictional wetlands or contain a large portion of wetlands. Land in this category also includes state projects designed to meet the water quality and quantity goals related to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The policy strictly limits both the type and intensity of development which may be located within this category. For example, non-agricultural development is limited to large-lot single-family homes, clustered developments, and rural PUDs, at an intensity no greater than 0.10. The County’s argument misses the mark. The issue is not whether the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment are excluded from land in protected categories, but whether the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources present in the 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Conservation Element Map Series documents the location of wetland, floodplains, primary and secondary panther habitat, and hydric soils within the County, including the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Because the Plan Amendment allows the subject development to occur anywhere within the 580,000 acres without regard to location of natural resources, it cannot be found to direct or locate development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion I. Criterion II applies if the Plan Amendment promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. The Plan Amendment allows the subject development to locate without regard to the availability of public infrastructure or services. The Plan Amendment acknowledges that the development must be served, but anticipates that a public or private provider may have to extend services to the property, and does not discourage location of said projects in remote areas where said services are neither available nor planned. Further, the Plan Amendment acknowledges that the County may have to “expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program” to serve the development. Extending services to remote areas of the County is neither efficient nor cost-effective, especially in light of the fact that development could occur in multiple far-flung areas under the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion II. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet sprawl criterion IV because it does nothing to promote conservation of water and energy. The Amendment allows on-site utilities, including wells, to service new development. By allowing development in remote areas of the County, the Plan Amendment does not promote energy conservation. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion V, “[p]reserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique and prime farmland and soils.” The Plan Amendment does not relate to the soils map and direct development away from prime farmland and soils. Further, the Plan Amendment allows conversion of some 580,000 acres of land designated “Agriculture” to non-agricultural uses. Lands in the Agriculture land use category have been designated by the County to “continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Plan Amendment meets criterion VI if it “preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs.” The County’s expert testified that the Plan Amendment will increase the County’s tax base so that more public open space and recreation can be provided. Petitioner’s expert testified that the subject developments will intrude into rural open spaces and natural lands and “could change the scenic landscape” of the County. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VI. Criterion VII applies if the Plan Amendment creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the non-residential needs of the area. Neither party introduced any evidence regarding the amount of commercial or industrial development needed to serve the residential population of the County. Certainly the unemployment statistics indicate a need for employment opportunities. Petitioner did not prove that the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VII. Criterion III and VIII do not apply to the Plan Amendment. Having determined that the Plan Amendment does not meet four or more of the criterion to be determined not to promote the proliferation of urban sprawl, the analysis then turns to the primary indicators of urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a. lays out 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Again, the evidence conflicted as to whether the Plan Amendment meets any of the indicators. In making the following findings, the undersigned has considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses, and found the testimony of Petitioner’s expert to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets several of the primary indicators of the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Plan Amendment allows loosely-identified EEPs and large-scale commercial development to occur in roughly 580,000 largely rural acres currently designated for Agriculture. The Plan Amendment does not limit location of these developments within the Agriculture designation. Thus, the Plan Amendment “[p]romotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development” which is indicator II. Promoting these areas for development is, in fact, the main purpose of the Plan Amendment. Indicator IV is triggered if the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to adequately protect and conserve” a litany of natural resources and natural systems. The Plan Amendment meets this indicator because it does not direct development away from natural resources which may be located within the 580,000 acres in which it promotes development. Under the Plan Amendment, vast areas currently in, or designated for, agricultural uses, are allowed to convert to urban uses without a plan amendment. The Plan Amendment does not direct development away from existing agricultural uses. Thus, the Plan Amendment meets indicator V: “Fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, active agricultural and silvicultural activities, passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.” Similarly, the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses[,]” thus triggering indicator IX. On the issue of public facilities, the Plan Amendment meets both criterion VI and VII. The Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities because it does not direct development to areas where public facilities, including roads, sewer, and water, are available. Likewise, the Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of future public facilities, because it allows development to occur in areas where public facilities are not planned. In addition, the Plan Amendment anticipates the extension of facilities to serve potentially far-flung development, but would not require subsequent future development to locate where the new service was available (i.e., infill development). For this same reason, the Plan Amendment discourages infill development, triggering indicator X. Similary, because it allows scattered large-scale development, the Plan Amendment triggers indicator VIII: “Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining” a litany of public facilities and services. Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment triggers indicators I, III, XI, XII, and XIII. Petitioner proved that the Plan Amendment meets indicators II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X. On balance, the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
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 is not “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 12th day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Jacksonville's small scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2003-1070-E on October 27, 2003, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Bartram is a limited liability corporation which owns an 8.5-acre tract of land at 5720 Atlantic Boulevard between Bartram Road and St. Paul Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida, or less than a mile east of the Hart Bridge (which crosses into downtown Jacksonville) and around one-quarter mile south of the Arlington River.4 The property is now vacant; from 1939 until 1990, however, a three-story, 125,000 square-foot hospital (with three separate "out buildings") for children operated on the site. The unused buildings remained on the site until they were demolished in 1998. On October 27, 2003, the City approved an application filed by Wal-Mart's counsel (originally on behalf of the property's former owner, the Christopher Forrest Skinner Trust, and then the new owner, Bartram) for a small scale plan amendment. This was formalized through the adoption of Ordinance No. 2003-1070-E, which changed the property's land use designation on the FLUM, a component of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in the Plan, from RPI to NC. Both land use categories are commercial classifications. If the amendment is found to be in compliance, Wal-Mart intends to construct a 40,000 square-foot free-standing grocery store with a 7,500 square-foot outparcel for other retail stores. The grocery store will be operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Wal-Mart has also agreed to file a second land use application to change approximately 3.0 acres of the site to Conservation (CSV), which means that portion of the property cannot be developed in the future. Ordinance No. 94-1011-568, enacted in 1994, requires that small scale plan amendments be reviewed with a companion rezoning application. This is to ensure that when examining an application for a small-scale amendment, the City’s determination of "in compliance" is predicated on both the Plan and its Land Development Regulations. Pursuant to that requirement, the City also approved a change in the zoning on the property from Commercial, Residential, Office (CRO) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Under the PUD, the City has limited development of the site to a 40,000 square-foot grocery store and a 7,500 square-foot outparcel for limited retail uses; imposed a limitation on curb cuts; provided for setback restrictions, building orientation, and design standards; and preserved over 70 trees on the property as well as green space. These limitations and restrictions are more stringent than those set forth in the NC category. The City's rezoning decision (Ordinance No. 2003-1071-E) has been challenged in Circuit Court by one of Petitioners. (While the new zoning and site plan appear to be solidified, the City concedes that it has the authority at a later date to approve modifications to the site plan, or even change the zoning on the property to another category that is allowed under NC.) On November 18, 2003, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the plan amendment. In their unilateral Prehearing Stipulation,5 Petitioners contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate or professionally acceptable data and analysis, and it is inconsistent with the standards governing "the location and extent of commercial uses," "the current designation of Bartram Road as a local road," and "the protection of established residential neighborhoods." At hearing, counsel for Petitioners further stipulated that the allegations of internal inconsistencies regarding urban sprawl and roadway/traffic capacity (contained in the Petition) were being withdrawn. A request to add affordable housing as an issue was denied as being untimely. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners and Intervenors reside, own property, or own or operate a business within the City and offered comments, recommendations, or objections to the City prior to the adoption of the amendment. Accordingly, these stipulated facts establish that Petitioners and Intervenors are affected persons and have standing to participate in this action. 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 Existing and Proposed Land Use on the Site The City's Plan, which was adopted in 1990, includes five types of commercially denominated land use categories, two of which are RPI and NC. The RPI category (in which category the Bartram property has been assigned since 1990) is a mixed- use category "primarily intended to accommodate office, limited commercial retail and service establishments, institutional and medium density residential uses." Among others, this category also authorizes large institutional uses, office-professional uses, veterinarians, filling stations, off street parking, nursing homes, residential treatment facilities, day care centers, and other institutional uses "when sited in compliance with [the FLUE] and other elements of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan." According to the Plan Category Description in the FLUE (pages 50-51, Respondent's Exhibit 13), "RPI developments are frequently appropriate transitional uses between residential and non-residential areas." While the existing RPI designation on the property allows Commercial Neighborhood zoning, which may include a grocery store like Wal-Mart proposes, because of some uncertainty over this, and its desire to have a PUD on the property, the City has required that Bartram seek a land use change to NC with PUD zoning, which serves to limit the range of allowable uses and imposes other development restrictions. The Plan Category Description in the FLUE (pages 51- 52, Respondent's Exhibit 13) provides that NC designated lands "serve the needs of contiguous neighborhoods"; they "will generally be located within a ten minute drive time of the service population"; they allow uses which "serve the daily needs of contiguous neighborhoods"; and they must not "penetrate into residential neighborhoods." They may include "convenience goods, personal services, veterinarians, filling stations and other low intensity retail and office-professional commercial uses developed in freestanding or shopping center configurations," and "[n]ormally, such centers will be anchored by a food or drug store and will contain four to ten other supporting retail and office uses." Finally, NC sites "should abut a roadway classified as a collector or higher facility on the [City's] adopted functional classification system map." The Property and Surrounding Area As noted above, the property has been vacant since 1990, when an existing hospital was closed; demolition of the buildings was completed some eight years later. On its northern boundary (which measures approximately 400 feet), the property abuts Atlantic Boulevard, an extremely busy, six-lane roadway classified on the City’s Highway Functional Classification Map (Map) as a principal arterial road. The eastern boundary of the property (which runs around 480 feet deep) abuts Bartram Road, a two-laned paved road with an 80-foot right-of way which runs south from Atlantic Boulevard for around one-half mile and then curves east where it meets University Boulevard (a north-south arterial road) a few hundred feet away. When the hearing was conducted in January 2004, or after the amendment was adopted, Bartram Road was still classified as a local road on the City's Map. Whether it is still classified as a local road at this time is not of record.6 On its western side, the property abuts St. Paul Avenue, a local road which dead ends just south of Bartram's property on Heston Road (another local road), while nine single-family lots are located adjacent to the southern boundary of the property (and on the northern side of Heston Road). The property is around one-quarter mile west of a highly developed major intersection at Atlantic and University Boulevards. The property (on both sides of the roadway) lying between the eastern side of Bartram's property and the major intersection is currently classified as Community/General Commercial (CGC), which authorizes a wide range of slightly more intense commercial uses than are authorized in NC. That land use category is "generally developed in nodal patterns and [is intended to] serve large areas of the City." Directly across Bartram Road to the east (and in the southeastern quadrant of Bartram Road and Atlantic Boulevard) is an older shopping center anchored by a 50,000 square-foot Publix grocery store. The shopping center also has a sandwich shop, florist, pizza parlor, and beauty salon, and sits on a tract of land approximately the same size as Bartram's property. That parcel has approximately the same depth as the Bartram property (480 feet), and the rear of the stores come as close as 35 feet to the single-family homes which lie directly behind the shopping center. Since 1887, the St. Paul Episcopal Church has occupied the 5-acre tract of property directly across St. Paul Avenue to the west. Besides the church itself, a library, office building, educational wing, parish fellowship hall, and a small house (all owned by the church) sit on the property. From the church property to the Little Pottsburg Creek, or around a quarter of a mile to the west, a large, single parcel of land fronts on the southern side of Atlantic Boulevard and is classified as RPI. While aerial photographs appear to show that the property west of the church is either undeveloped or largely undeveloped, under its present RPI classification it may be used for commercial, institutional, or medium density residential purposes at some time in the future. The distance from the intersection of Atlantic and University Boulevards to the Little Pottsburg Creek appears to be six-tenths of a mile or so. An apartment complex (the Villa Apartments) sits on the northeastern quadrant of Bartram Road and Atlantic Boulevard on a fairly narrow sliver of land classified as Medium Density which extends north-northwest some 1,200 feet or so to the Arlington River, a tributary of the St. Johns River. Immediately west of the apartment complex along the northern side of Atlantic Boulevard (and across the street beginning at the eastern part of Bartram's property and extending west) the land uses along the roadway include a relatively small CGC parcel containing a dry cleaning establishment and an upholstery shop; an approximate 350 to 400- foot strip of Low Density Residential (LDR) property (which faces more than half of the Bartram site) with two single-family homes located directly on Atlantic Boulevard, as well as two grandfathered non-conforming uses (a plumbing establishment and a coin shop); then an RPI parcel (which faces the western edge of Bartram's property and extends perhaps 150 feet along the road) with a small office development consisting of 8-10 offices; and finally more LDR parcels until the road crosses the Little Pottsburg Creek. Two local roads which dead end on Atlantic Boulevard and provide access into the residential areas north of Atlantic Boulevard are Oak Haven Street, which terminates directly across the street from the Bartram property, and Campbell Street, which terminates in front of the St. Paul Episcopal Church. Except for the limited commercial uses which front on the northern side of Atlantic Boulevard, and the apartment complex which lies in the northeastern quadrant of Atlantic Boulevard and Bartram Road, virtually all of the property directly across the street to the north and west of Bartram's property running 1,200-1,500 feet or so to the Arlington River is made up of an old, established residential neighborhood (known by some as the Oak Haven neighborhood) consisting of single-family homes, some of which (closest to the Arlington River) are on larger multi-acre tracts and have historical significance. Indeed, the oldest home in the City of Jacksonville, built around 1848, is located in this area. The area directly south of the property and to the west of Bartram Road is classified as Low Density Residential and contains single-family homes for perhaps one-half mile or so. As noted above, some of these homes back up to the rear of the Bartram property. The Amendment and Review by Staff Under the process for reviewing small scale amendments, the application is first reviewed by the City's Planning and Development Department for completeness and accuracy. After the staff reviews the data and performs an analysis of the data, the application is assigned an ordinance number. A staff report is then prepared, and the application is set for hearing before the City's Planning Commission (Commission), an advisory board which makes a recommendation on the application. The Commission's decision (which in this case was a recommendation to deny both applications) is then reviewed by the Land Use and Zoning Committee of the City Council, which consists of 7 members (and voted 5-1 in this case to approve the applications), and the matter is finally considered by the full 19-member City Council (which in this case approved the applications by a 13-2 vote, with 4 members abstaining or absent). After the application was filed, among other things, the City staff reviewed various maps, the FLUM, a zoning atlas, other relevant portions of the Plan, and data provided by other governmental agencies. It also made an inspection of the site and other potentially affected properties in the neighborhood. In preparing its report, the staff analyzed the roadway system, the neighborhood character, the site characteristics, the commercial node, compatibility with the Plan and existing uses, and compatibility with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan and State Comprehensive Plan. A more detailed account of the data relied upon by the staff and its analysis of that data is found in Respondent's Exhibit 19. Besides the staff report, there are underlying work papers (not attached to the report) used by the staff to support its findings (Respondent's Exhibit 33). As a part of its review and analyses, the City considered and applied the locational criteria found in the Operative Provisions of the FLUE, which describe the factors to be used in determining appropriate locations for primary use plan categories (such as NC) in plan amendment requests. Those factors include street classification, public facilities and services, land use compatibility, development and redevelopment potential, structural orientation and other site design factors, ownership patterns, and environmental impacts. The analysis included an evaluation by staff of the impact of development based upon the most intensive uses permitted on NC property. Besides the locational criteria, the FLUE contains a number of policies directed at combating the expansion of strip commercial uses that have historically developed along the City's arterial and collector roadways, including Atlantic Boulevard. These are found in FLUE Policies 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, and 3.2.16. In reviewing the application, the staff considered these policies and concluded that the amendment would be consistent with those provisions. Objections by Petitioners As noted earlier, Petitioners generally contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analyses. They further contend that the amendment is inconsistent with standards governing the location and extent of commercial uses, the current designation of Bartram Road as a local road, and the protection of established residential neighborhoods. While the various papers filed by Petitioners did not identify the specific provisions of the Plan allegedly being violated, they were disclosed through their expert at the final hearing. Petitioners first contend that the City's data and analyses were predicated on the uses and restrictions contained in the PUD rezoning proposal, and not on alternative development scenarios that are possible under the NC land use designation. They also contend that the City failed to develop data and analyses regarding the impact on FLUE Objective 3.1 or FLUE Policies 1.1.19 and 3.1.7. The latter FLUE policy and the cited objective pertain to affordable housing, an issue not timely raised by Petitioners, while the remaining policy requires that FLUM amendments be based on the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area. The evidence shows that, prior to the adoption of the amendment, the City reviewed appropriate data from a number of different sources, and it evaluated the plan amendment based upon the most intensive uses that could be permitted under the NC land use designation. In every instance where Petitioners' expert testified that there was insufficient data and analyses, the testimony and exhibits credibly countered that testimony. Therefore, it is found that the plan amendment is supported by adequate and acceptable data, and that the data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. Petitioners' main contention regarding consistency is that the amendment conflicts with FLUE Policies 1.1.8, 3.2.1, and 3.2.5 in several respects. The first policy requires in relevant part: that all new non-residential projects [including commercial projects on NC lands] be developed in either nodal areas, in appropriate commercial infill areas, or as part of mixed or multi-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), . . . Policy 3.2.1 requires that the City promote, through the use of development incentives and other regulatory measures, development of commercial and light/service industrial uses in the form of nodes, centers or parks, while discouraging strip commercial development patterns, in order to limit the number of curb cuts and reduce conflicts in land uses, particularly along collectors and arterials. Finally, Policy 3.2.5 provides that the City shall require neighborhood commercial uses to be located in nodes at the intersections of collector and arterial roads. Prohibit the location of neighborhood commercial uses interior to residential neighborhoods in a manner that will encourage the use of local streets for non-residential traffic. Petitioners first contend that Bartram's property does not lie within a "node," as that term is defined in the Definitions portion of the FLUE, and that by siting the NC land outside of a nodal area, the amendment is encouraging strip development in contravention of all three policies. They also contend that the amendment conflicts with Policy 3.2.5 because the Bartram property is not located at the corner of an arterial or collector road. Finally, they assert that the amendment is at odds with Policy 1.1.8 because the Bartram parcel is not an "appropriate commercial infill location." In resolving these contentions, it is first necessary to determine whether Bartram Road is a collector or a local street. By virtue of its high traffic volume (an Average Daily Traffic count of more than 1,600), the road actually functions as a collector road, that is, it collects traffic from the local roadway network in the neighborhood, two elementary schools, and a church campus (all south of Atlantic Boulevard) and distributes that traffic to both Atlantic and University Boulevards on each end, both of which intersections are signalized. Indeed, one of Petitioners' witnesses described Bartram Road as a heavily-used, cut-through street for persons traveling between Atlantic and University Boulevards. When the amendment was adopted, however, and even as late as the final hearing in January 2004, the road was still classified on the City's Map as a local road. For purposes of making a land use change, the actual classification on the City's Map should be used, rather than basing the decision on a future change on the Map that may or may not occur. Therefore, the property does not lie at the intersection of a collector or arterial roadway. A "node" is defined in the Definitions portion of the FLUE (page 74, Respondent's Exhibit 13) as follows: A focal point within the context of a larger, contiguous area surrounding it. It is an area of concentrated activity that attracts people from outside its boundaries for purposes of interaction within that area. The developed or developable land areas at the confluence of collector or higher classified roadways, which are suitable for medium to high densities and intensities of use for either single, multiple or mixed use developments. Petitioners contend that a fair reading of the definition is that a node (or focal point of concentrated activity) exists only at the intersection of University and Atlantic Boulevards, and does not extend outward to include the vacant Bartram site. In other words, Petitioners contend that the node is limited to the individual parcels at the intersection itself. On the other hand, the City and Intervenors take the position that a commercial node extends from its center (the intersection) outward in a lineal direction along a roadway until it ends at a natural physical boundary; if no physical boundary exists, then the node extends only to the end of the existing development along the roadway. Using this rule of thumb, they argue that the node begins at the intersection of Atlantic and University Boulevards and extends westward, presumably on both sides of the road,7 in a lineal direction along Atlantic Boulevard until it ends at a natural physical boundary, the Little Pottsburg Creek, approximately six-tenths of a mile away. The purpose of a node is, of course, to concentrate commercial uses near an intersection and reduce the potential for strip development along arterial roads, such as Atlantic Boulevard (which now has strip development extending eastward from the intersection for more than a mile to the Regency Square Shopping Mall). All parties agree that the existing development along Atlantic Boulevard west of the intersection up to the Bartram site is strip or ribbon development, as defined in the Plan, that is, development which "is generally characterized by one or two story commercial/office uses that are located immediately adjacent to one another, or in close proximity, extending out in a development pattern, typically along arterial roadways and usually each individual structure has one or more driveway accesses to an arterial." (Respondent's Exhibit 13, page 76.) The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the node, that is, the area of concentrated commercial activity or the developed or developable lands at the confluence of University and Atlantic Boulevards, logically extends from the intersection westward in a lineal fashion along the southern side of Atlantic Boulevard until the end of the existing development, that is, the Publix shopping center, where virtually all commercial uses on both sides of the roadway end. (On the northern side of the road, the node would terminate just east of the Villa Apartments, where the CGC uses end). This collection of parcels (up to the eastern side of the Bartram site) includes all of the "developed or developable land areas at the confluence of collector or higher classified roadways, which are suitable for medium to high densities and intensities of use for either single, multiple, or mixed use developments." (If the contrary evidence was accepted, that is, the node extends to the Little Pottsburg Creek, the City could arguably change the land use on the property west of the church to a more intensive commercial use, and in doing so encourage more strip development.) Therefore, the Bartram property is not located within a nodal area and is not a developable land area suitable for "medium to high densities and intensities" of use. By changing its classification to NC and encouraging further strip development beyond the node, the amendment conflicts with Policies 1.1.8, 3.2.1, and 3.2.5. "Commercial infill" is defined in the FLUE as "[c]ommercial development of the same type and scale as adjacent commercial uses that is sited between those uses in existing strip commercial areas." (Respondent's Exhibit 13, page 68.) To qualify as commercial infill under this definition, the adjacent commercial uses must be "of the same type and scale" as those being sited on the vacant property. In the staff report, the City describes the property as "a true infill site," since the land on both sides of the parcel is developed, and the Bartram property is now vacant. However, while the Bartram property has a similar type and scale of development on its eastern side (an older Publix grocery store with 4 connected small retail shops), the property on its western side is a church campus and therefore a completely dissimilar use. (In addition, the property on its southern side is single-family residential). Because the surrounding uses are not of the same type and scale as the proposed infill, the change in land use is not an appropriate commercial infill area. Therefore, the amendment conflicts with Policy 1.1.8, which requires that "all non-residential projects be developed in either nodal areas, [or] in appropriate commercial infill areas." In their Amended Proposed Recommended Order, the City and Intervenors contend that the development nonetheless qualifies as "urban infill," which is defined in part at pages 77-78 of the FLUE as "[t]he development of vacant parcels in otherwise built-up areas where public facilities . . . are already in place." While this catch-all definition would appear to authorize the type of infill being proposed by Bartram (as well as virtually any other type of infill since the Bartram site is a vacant parcel in an otherwise built-up area), other FLUE provisions refer to commercial infill and nodal areas as the primary considerations for siting NC property. Finally, the City and Intervenors suggest that the plan amendment provides an appropriate transition from the busy intersection uses to residential neighborhoods, that is, from intense commercial uses to the east and residential uses to the south and west. The change, if approved, will result in two fairly large grocery stores, one in a shopping center configuration, and both with attendant retail stores, sitting side by side, with a church campus immediately to the west, existing residential uses to the south, and primarily residential uses directly to the north. This pattern of development is at odds with Policy 1.1.7, which requires a "[g]radual transition of densities and intensities between land uses in conformance with the [FLUE]." The other contentions of Petitioners have been considered and found to be unpersuasive.
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 small scale development amendment adopted by the City of Jacksonville in Ordinance No. 2003-1070-E is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue in Case 08-1144GM is whether Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP or Plan) Amendment 7-20, called the "Land Protection Incentives" (LPI) Amendment (LPIA), which was adopted by Ordinance 777 on December 11, 2007, and amended by Ordinance 795 on April 29, 2008, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1 The issue in Case 08-1465GM is whether Martin County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 7-22, called the "Secondary Urban Service District" (SUSD) Amendment (SUSDA), which was adopted by Ordinance 781 on December 11, 2007, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners' Standing FOF and MCCA objected to the LPIA and the SUSDA during the time period from transmittal to adoption of those amendments.3 FOF FOF is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1986, shortly after Florida’s Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation (Growth Management) Act was enacted to monitor the Act's implementation. FOF engages in legislative, legal, and grassroots advocacy for sustainable comprehensive land use planning in Florida. It conducts membership meetings, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings open to the general public, and initiates or participates in litigation or administrative proceedings concerning amendments to local comprehensive plans. Its main office is in Tallahassee, where several employees work. It also has a branch office in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, where one employee works. It has no office or employees in Martin County. There was no evidence that FOF has applied for or obtained any license or permit to operate a business in Martin County; nor was there any evidence as to the requirements for obtaining such a license or permit. FOF has approximately 3,500 members; approximately 550 members live or own property in Martin County. FOF does not have a continuous presence in Martin County, other than its members who live and own property there, but it continuously monitors comprehensive planning and related growth management issues in Martin County and from time to time engages in activities in Martin County. Since 1990, FOF was involved in the Loxahatchee Greenways project, a major river corridor running through Martin County; was involved in the protection of Jonathan Dickinson State Park, which is in Martin County; undertook its Palm Beach and Martin County Green Initiative (which addressed housing, legal, transportation, and other planning issues in Martin County and resulted in the distribution of educational materials on Martin County planning issues); opposed specific local development proposals; supported a sales tax referendum to buy and preserve environmentally- sensitive lands; collaborated with the County planning department to update the housing element of the County Comprehensive Plan; assisted with a local affordable housing initiative; published a booklet on comprehensive planning in the County; and conducted a public survey of County residents assessing attitudes about planning. FOF staff members speak at and participate in annual growth management forums in Martin County, which are attended by a substantial number of its members. FOF has regularly commented in person and in writing to the Martin County Commission on proposed CGMP changes. FOF also has previously participated as a party in administrative hearings conducted in the County concerning the CGMP, during which its president has testified as an expert planner. The relief requested by FOF in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. MCCA MCCA is a Florida not-for-profit corporation created in 1997. It is a membership-based organization of 120 individuals and 14 other organizations. MCCA itself does not own real property in Martin County. However, at least 38 individual members reside and own real property in the County, and at least one organizational member (Audubon of Martin County) owns real property in the County. MCCA does not maintain an office or have paid employees. It operates through its members, who volunteer. MCCA's Articles of Incorporation state that it was formed "to conserve the natural resources of Martin County, to protect the native flora and fauna of Martin County, [and] to maintain and improve the quality of life for all of the residents of Martin County." It engages in various forms of lobbying and advocacy for or against amendments to Martin County's Comprehensive Plan, including initiation or participation in litigation and administrative proceedings. It conducts membership meetings in the County, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings in the County that are open to the general public (including an annual growth management meeting with FOF and an annual awards luncheon with local conservation groups), and works with member organizations on issues relating to the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), including petition drives. The relief requested by MCCA in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan The CGMP establishes two "urban service districts" in the County, a Primary Urban Service District (PUSD) and a Secondary Urban Service District (SUSD). See CGMP, § 4.4.G. The PUSD has been part of the Plan since it was first adopted in 1982, while the SUSD was added during the major revision of the Plan in 1990. Approximately 65,702 acres (101 square miles) are located within the PUSD. The PUSD encompasses most of the eastern coastal area of the County surrounding four incorporated municipalities, (Stuart, Sewall's Point, Jupiter Island, and Ocean Breeze Park), plus an isolated inland area known as Indiantown. Approximately 9,621 acres (14 square miles) are located within the SUSD. All land within the SUSD is immediately adjacent to land within the PUSD, but is split into several discontinuous sections so that some of the land along the western border of the PUSD abuts land outside the urban service districts. The County's purpose for having urban service districts is to "regulate urban sprawl tendencies by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available, or are programmed to be available at the levels of service adopted in [the Plan]." CGMP, § 4.4.G. The Plan further provides: Objective: Martin County shall concentrate higher densities and intensities of development within the strategically located [PUSDs], as delineated, including commercial or industrial uses as well as residential development exceeding a density of two units per acre . . . . * * * b. Policy: Martin County shall require that new residential development containing one-half acre or smaller lots, commercial uses, and industrial uses shall be located within the [PUSD]. * * * Objective 2. Martin County shall concentrate rural and estate densities not exceeding one unit per gross acre within the [SUSDs] where a reduced level of public facility needs are programmed to be available at the base level of service adopted in the Capital Improvements Element. a. Policy: Martin County shall designate land uses within the [SUSD] in order to provide for the use and extension of urban services in an efficient and economical manner, and consistent with the reduced intensity of urban services normally associated with densities of one unit per gross acre (Estate Density RE-1A) and one unit per two gross acres (Rural Density). . . . * * * f. Policy: In areas designated as [SUSD], where development is proposed that would contain one- half acre lots, or commercial and industrial uses, a change to a [PUSD] designation must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a land use amendment . . . . The Plan thus generally establishes residential density for land within the PUSD at 2 or more dwelling units per acre, and for land within the SUSD at 1 dwelling unit per acre to 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. The remaining land within the County that is not within the PUSD or SUSD is generally referred to as "outside" the urban service districts. There are approximately 269,034 acres of such land. The vast majority of such land (approximately 210,379 acres) is designated in the Plan for "agricultural" use. Most of the other land outside the urban service districts is designated for either "public conservation" or "public utilities" See CGMP, § 4.4.L., § 4.4.M.1.a., i., and j. The Plan currently allows residential use of land outside the urban service boundaries that is designated for agricultural use but limits it to either 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, known as "agricultural ranchette," or 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. See CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.& c. The Plan further specifies for the latter that: Residential development in the agricultural area is restricted to one-single family residence per gross 20-acre tract. [N]o development shall be permitted which divides landholdings into lots, parcels or other units of less than 20 gross acres. Acreage may be split for bona fide agricultural uses into parcels no smaller than 20 gross acres. . . . Residential subdivisions at a density or intensity or greater than one single- family dwelling unit per 20 gross acre lot shall not be allowed. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.) Throughout the Plan, residential development on lots of 2 acres or more is consistently referred to as "rural" development (even within the SUSD), while residential development on smaller lots is consistently referred to as "urban" and must be in either the PUSD or SUSD. It was undisputed that the County's adoption of such a distinction between urban and rural residential lots was a professionally acceptable planning practice. Preservation of the County's agricultural lands is a goal of the Plan. See CGMP, § 4.4.L.1. It is also later stated in a policy related to the allocation of land: Through its planning, capital improvements, cooperative extension, regulatory and intergovernmental coordination activities, Martin County shall continue to protect agriculture as a viable economic use of land. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.b.) Preservation of conservation and open space areas within the County is the subject of an entire element of the Plan. See CGMP, Chap. 9.4 The County's goal is "to effectively manage, conserve, and preserve the natural resources of Martin County, giving consideration to an equitable balance of public and private property rights. These resources include air, water, soils, habitat, fisheries, and wildlife, with special emphasis on restoring the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon." CGMP, § 9.4.A. Preservation of conservation and open space areas is also addressed in numerous other objectives and policies throughout the several elements of the Plan and is a predominant theme of the entire Plan. The provision of "urban public facilities and services" is expressly limited by a policy to the County's urban service districts "in order to preserve agricultural lands and provide maximum protection to the farmer from encroachment by urban uses." CGMP, § 4.4.L.1.a. The Plan defines the term "public urban facilities and services" as "regional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network." CGMP, § 4.1.B.4. However, the term is often used in the Plan in a rearranged or abbreviated manner, such as "urban public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G.1.f.(7)), "public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G and § 4.4.G.1.f.), "public services and facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.c.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), or merely "public facilities (§ 4.4.G.1.) or "urban services " (§ 4.4.G.2.a.). LPIA Provisions The LPIA adds a new objective and new policies under the Future Land Use Element goal addressing "natural resource protection," which provides: Martin County shall protect all the natural resource systems of the County from the adverse impacts of development, provide for continued growth in population and economy and recognize the inter-relationship between the maintenance of urban support infrastructure in waste management, air and water quality, and the coastal zone environmental quality. (CGMP, § 4.4.E.) To the existing 6 objectives under that goal, the LPIA adds a seventh which states: Martin County shall create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007. For the purposes of Section 4.4.E.7., and supporting paragraphs, the definition of open space, found in Section 9.4.A.11., CGMP, shall not include roads, highways and their median strips and berms. This objective is intended to encourage the conveyance of fee simple title of land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local environmental or governmental agencies or land trusts. Lands listed for acquisition include, but are not be limited to [sic], land designated for public acquisition under the Save Our Rivers program, the Indian River Lagoon, North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program. The overall purpose of the LPIA is to encourage the owners of tracts of land outside the urban service districts that are at least 500 acres to choose a different pattern of development than the Plan now allows, by allowing a substantial reduction in the minimum lot size so that the development may be "clustered" on a smaller "footprint" within the overall tract of land, but only if at least 50% of the entire tract is "set aside" permanently for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and stripped of its potential for future development. This approach, it is hoped, will make it easier and cheaper for the County and other governmental entities to acquire the large tracts of land they desire to use for the CERP and other conservation projects. The LPIA does not allow for more development than is allowed under the Plan currently. It allows the same amount of development to be arranged on a tract of land in a different pattern than is currently allowed. It accomplishes this primarily through the combination of a change in the minimum lot size from "20 acres" to "over 2 acres" with a new allowance for "clustering" the smaller lots on a portion of an overall tract of land rather than having an equal number of larger lots spread throughout the entire tract of land. The LPIA adopts six policies to accomplish the new objective: Policy (7)a. provides for the protection of the land "set aside" to be conveyed or subject to an easement in favor of a combination of the County, the South Florida Water Management District, and a third entity, chosen from among the other governmental or not-for-profit conservation- oriented organizational entities listed in the policy. Policy (7)b. requires that a combination of a comprehensive plan amendment and a PUD agreement be used for the change in the development characteristics of the land. The PUD agreement would address the portion of the tract subject to development and not "set aside," while the plan amendment would address (at a minimum) the remaining portion of the tract which is permanently "set aside" for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and would no longer have any potential for residential development. Policy (7)c. provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the comprehensive plan amendment, such as any required change in land use designation for the set-aside portion of the tract of land, and if it remains designated for agricultural use, the removal of any potential for development. Policy (7)d. primarily provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the PUD agreement, setting minimum requirements to be met such as the tract having to be a minimum of 500 acres in size; the development being "fiscally neutral to existing taxpayers"; the lots having to be more than 2 acres in size; the inability to develop in environmentally sensitive areas on the tract; and the acknowledgment of a permanent restriction against any future increase of density on the tract. The policy also essentially repeats some of the requirements enunciated in the second and third policies regarding the conveyance of title or easement and the required comprehensive plan amendment, and addresses who pays the closing costs for the set-aside portion of the tract. Policy (7)e. establishes additional requirements specifically applicable to land that has been "listed for acquisition by state, regional, or local agencies as part of an established conservation program." Policy (7)f. enumerates the "site specific benefits" that the second policy states the County must consider when deciding whether to approve an application for development under the optional pattern allowed by the LPIA, such as whether more than the minimum 50% of the tract will be "set aside" permanently, whether the location fills "gaps in natural systems, wildlife corridors, greenways and trails," or whether buffers are provided along roads "to limit access and to protect vistas." The LPIA requirement for at least 50% of an entire tract being set aside for one of the three public purposes, when coupled with other requirements of the Plan such as establishment of construction setback distances, preservation of wetlands and creation of buffers around wetlands, preservation of certain uplands, would result in more than 50% of an undeveloped tract of land remaining in an undeveloped state and at least 50% of agricultural land remaining in agricultural use. Meaning and Predictability of LPIA Standards Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards in numerous respects. No Guide to Location and Pattern of Development Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards essentially because it does not identify the lands to be preserved and developed, leaving the results up to the choice of landowners to make proposals and Martin County's case-by-case decisions on future development proposals. See PPRO, ¶¶52-53. However, the goals of the LPIA are quite clear, and there is no basis to speculate that Martin County will make decisions contrary to those goals--for example, by approving PUDs or agricultural uses on the most environmentally-sensitive part of tract, ignoring the importance of environmentally-sensitive and agricultural lands and the impact of development patterns on them, and ignoring the impact of the pattern of development under the LPIA on rural character. Petitioners also criticize the LPIA for not being clear "whether a subject property must be in single ownership." (PPRO, ¶61.) However, it is not clear why that omission would be pertinent. Undefined Increase in Maximum Density Petitioners contend that, in four ways, the LPIA increases maximum density in the Agricultural category without defining the amount of the increase. Waiver of Density Limits Clearly, the LPIA exempts the PUD option from "the agricultural land use policies in Section 4.4.M.1.a. pertaining to the 20 acre lot size . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(8). Contrary to Petitioners' contention, that does not eliminate density standards. Residential lots must be greater than two acres. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(3). Maintenance of Residential Capacity Petitioners contend the LPIA increases density because its objective is to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. (Emphasis added.) Petitioners complain that County-wide residential capacity on that date is not identified and that the objective requires residential capacity in Agricultural lands to increase as it decreases elsewhere in the County. This interpretation is unreasonable. The County's interpretation, that residential units lost by preservation are to be maintained by clustering on the remaining Agricultural lands, is more reasonable. Transfer of Wetland Density Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by allowing transfer of wetland density in the Agricultural future land use category. See LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). Under the Plan before the LPIA, up to half of wetland density can be transferred to uplands in a PUD. See CGMP § 9.4A7.b.(8). PUDs were not allowed in Agricultural lands before the LPIA. But Petitioners did not prove that allowing the transfer and clustering of residential units into a PUD on Agricultural lands under the LPIA would change the total number of residential units already allowed in Agricultural lands (at one unit per 20 acres). Alleged Failure to Remove Density from All Non-PUD Land Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by not stripping residential units from all so-called non-PUD land. Contrary to this contention, the more reasonable interpretation is that land not set aside for permanent preservation in a proposal made under the LPIA must be part of the proposed PUD. In any event, even if an LPIA proposal could include land that is neither set aside for preservation nor part of the PUD land, no residential units is such land would be transferred to the PUD, and failure to strip such land of its residential units would not affect the total number of units associated with the LPIA proposal. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA allows text amendments to increase density on land set aside for preservation under the LPIA because it specifies that such land must be changed on the FLUM and will not be eligible for "any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. Even if text amendments are not prohibited, they would apply to all land in a particular land use category, not just to land set aside under the LPIA. Subsequent Plan Amendments Not Required for PUD Petitioners contend that the LPIA "is unclear as to whether a PUD can be approved without a subsequent plan amendment specifically authorizing the two-acre lot subdivision site plan." PPRO, ¶80. This contention supposedly arises from the language of LPIA § 4.4.E.7.c.: "The Comprehensive Plan amendment that is part of a joint Plan Amendment and concurrent PUD application submitted under this objective must address the land use designation on the land set aside in perpetuity as contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and/or agricultural land uses in the following manner: . . . ." (Emphasis added in PPRO, ¶82.) The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. It ignores LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7): "The Comprehensive Plan amendment filed concurrently with the PUD application shall allow the site-specific clustering of density in one portion of the total subject site, including the transfer of full density of any wetlands on the site, at a density that shall not exceed one unit per twenty acres for the total site prior to conveyance. . . . The Plan amendment shall further specify that neither the land conveyed nor the land controlled by the PUD agreement shall be eligible for any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." While LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7) discusses land that is conveyed, it is reasonably clear that a Plan amendment addressing the PUD also would be required for lands that are set aside using one of the other mechanisms specified in the LPIA. Public Benefit Criteria Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.b. and f. gives the County "unfettered discretion to reject or approve a PUD 'for any reason.'" PPRO, ¶90. Those sections provide that approval of a PUD will be based on consideration of "significant site-specific public benefits," some of which are listed. While it is true that the LPIA gives the County discretion to grant or approve a PUD based on its consideration of those factors, Petitioners did not prove "unfettered discretion." First, minimum requirements under the LPIA first must be met. Second, the list of public benefits gives some guidance as to the kinds of additional public benefits that will justify approval of a PUD. Petitioners did not prove that a comprehensive plan provision allowing for PUD zoning need be any more specific to be implemented in a consistent manner. Protection of Land Set Aside Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to protect land set aside under the LPIA because it does not identify the land most appropriate for preservation or require that it be set aside. This contention ignores the objective to encourage conveyance of "land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of established conservation programs" which "include, but are not be [sic] limited to land designated for public acquisition under" several named public acquisition programs. LPIA § 4.4.E.7. It also ignores the policy: "No development in the PUD shall be allowed on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(4). It also ignores the policy that "PUDs that include land listed for acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of an established conservation program shall be subject to . . . additional requirements": including fee simple conveyance of at least half of such land; and no development in the PUD on such land "unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities and the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.e.(1)-(2). In addition, various means of protecting such lands are several of the listed "additional significant site-specific benefits" of a PUD proposal to be considered in the approval process. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.f. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to "require set-aside lands to be contiguous to other farmland, open space, or natural lands" and "contiguous, functional, and connected to adjacent and regional systems." PPRO, ¶¶102-98 [sic]. These contentions ignore the objective to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses. . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. They also ignore that land in public acquisition programs ideally is contiguous to other open space and natural lands. Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶97 [sic] that it is necessary to specify the public acquisition programs for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to define the "perpetual easement" mechanism allowed in LPIA Section 4.E.7.a. for setting aside land in lieu of fee simple conveyance. See PPRO, ¶103. This contention ignores the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(5) to use perpetual easements as a means of enforcing the prohibition against increasing residential density or intensity of use by FLUM amendments, as well as the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(6) to use perpetual easements "to restrict future uses and ensure the government agencies or other entities holding fee simple title do not sell or develop the property inconsistent with this policy or the approved uses within the PUD Agreement." Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶103 that it is necessary to further define "perpetual easement" for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend in PPRO ¶¶105 and 107 that the LPIA fails to define the "agricultural uses" to be preserved in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) and allows the County to "specify allowed uses" without limitation and with "no certainty that farmland will be protected as farmland by easement." (Emphasis in PPRO ¶105.) Petitioners contend that everything allowed in the Agricultural category under the Plan will be allowed. See PPRO ¶107. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, it is reasonably clear that, while the language of LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) contains a typographical error, the policy clearly is to maintain existing agricultural uses, not to allow intensification of agricultural use or expansion into "non-farm" uses that might be allowed in the Agricultural category. Alleged Threat to IRL and CERP Lands Petitioners contend that, by making development under its PUD option more marketable, the LPIA will encourage PUDs that do not protect and that fragment IRL and CERP lands. Petitioners did not prove that such a result is likely. Petitioners contend that the adverse impacts on IRL and CERP lands is more than speculation in part because of the wording of the policy in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(2), which is misstated in PPRO ¶114 and actually states: "If the land to be protected and maintained in perpetuity is land that is part of the North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program, the plan amendment must include a future land use amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation to Institutional-Public Conservation." The language used in the policy is poor. But Petitioners' interpretation--that only land set aside for protection that is part of all of the described CERP projects will be protected--is absurd since no such land exists. That interpretation and Petitioners' interpretation that no IRL lands are protected under the LPIA ignore and are contrary to the language and intent of the objective stated in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7. and of the policies stated in Section 4.4.E.7.a., c.(1), and d.(5). The County's interpretation, that CERP and IRL lands are eligible for protection, is more reasonable. Definition of Critical Habitat Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) does not provide a meaningful or predictable standard because the term "critical to the support of listed plant or animal species" is not better defined. Actually, PUD development is prohibited "on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species." While the policy could have been better defined, Petitioners did not prove that a better definition is necessary for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that, regardless of the "critical habitat" definition, the policy language in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) by prohibiting PUD development "on land listed for acquisition . . . unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities " Actually, the policy continues to state that the exception only applies if "the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." Petitioners' interpretation, that the policy allows PUD development on virtually all Agricultural lands, is unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the LPIA. The County's interpretation is more reasonable and is reasonably clear. It allows for distinctions among the various kinds of agricultural activities, which the Plan already recognizes. See, e.g., CGMP § 4.2.A.6.b.(8) ("Many low intensity agricultural uses such as range (pasture) land can be compatible with environmentally significant resource areas.") For these reasons, Petitioners did not prove that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4), or that the LPIA cannot be implemented in a consistent manner. LPIA and Urban Sprawl In part based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA's objective and policy language, Petitioners contend that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the LPIA no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the LPIA encourages urban sprawl. In part because the interpretations were unreasonable, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. Even if the LPIA results in a proliferation of PUDs with clusters of residences on lots slightly larger than two acres, which is the minimum lot size, it would not equate to urban (or suburban) sprawl. Assuming PUDs based on 500-acre tracts, it would result in a cluster of 25 homes within a 500-acre rural area. The LPIA does not plan for the extension of urban services to those homes and does not provide for or allow any new commercial or industrial development. Both the LPIA and the rest of the CGMP include provisions, most notably those related to the urban service districts, to reasonably ensure that urban sprawl will not result. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the first primary indicator of urban sprawl in Florida Administrative Code Rule5 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction for low-intensity, low density or single use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the second primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[p]romotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development"). The development promoted, allowed, or designated by the LPIA is not "urban" and does not "leap over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." It allowed for development already promoted, allowed, and designated to arrange itself differently in a rural area. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the third primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (designation of urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fourth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (promotes premature conversion of rural land to other uses, thereby failing to adequately protect and conserve natural resources). To the contrary, its primary purpose is to protect and conserve natural resources and rural land. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fifth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to adequately protect "adjacent agricultural areas" as well as "passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers either the sixth or seventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to maximize use of existing and future public facilities and services). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the eighth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[a]llows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the ninth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the tenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[d]iscourages or inhibits infill development or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities"). Although LPIA PUDs obviously would not be infill or redevelopment, it was not proven that they will discourage or inhibit infill and redevelopment. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the eleventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the twelfth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in poor accessibility among linked or related uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the thirteenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space"). The LPIA does not exacerbate the two already-existing indicators of urban sprawl, but Petitioners still contend that the indicators are triggered by the LPIA essentially because development will proceed more quickly under the LPIA. This contention was not proven. Even if it were, Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl or that the CGMP, as amended by the LPIA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. LPIA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis because the County explained it as a necessary response to the proliferation of 20-acre ranchette developments whereas only 75 have been built and only 15 have certificates of occupancy. Actually, the ranchette developments were only one reason for the LPIA, and the data and analysis showed 13 approved developments as of mid-September 2007, and three more approvals plus two pending applications for approval a year later. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA implements some but not all of the recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA does not conform to some recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. However, Petitioners base their contentions largely on unreasonable interpretations of the language of the objective and policies of the LPIA. In addition, the data and analysis they point to essentially reflect merely that planners disagree on the best plan for the Agricultural lands. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA is not identical to the Atlantic Ridge project amendment. While all agree that the Atlantic Ridge project is a resounding success story, it is unique. The obvious and understandable inability to instantaneously duplicate Atlantic Ridge to the greatest extent possible in the Agricultural lands should not prevent the County from taking any action in its direction, such as the LPIA. Taken together, the data and analysis are adequate to support the LPIA. LPIA and TCRPC Regional Policy Plan Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). The TCRPC's SRPP was not introduced in evidence, but the TCRPC's Executive Director testified and sponsored the TCRPC's report on the LPIA and the SUSDA. The TCRPC's findings on consistency with its SRPP were not contradicted. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2, which are to determine areas that are environmentally significant and to map, acquire, and manage them. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Goal 1.1, which requires sustainable countryside development in urban enclaves, such as towns and villages, with mixed-use and appropriate densities between 4-10 units per acre, on strategically selected locations while preserving contiguous, targeted land identified through SRPP Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1, which is to increase the clarity of local land use plans so that preferred forms of development can be pre-approved. Instead, the LPIA uses the case-by-case PUD approval process to determine the ultimate development patterns for the Agricultural lands. The inconsistency with SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1 is the only LPIA inconsistency not already equally present in the existing CGMP. The TCRPC's concern as to the other inconsistencies is that the LPIA will make residential development in the Agricultural lands more marketable and increase the rate of residential growth in a manner inconsistent with SRPP Goal 1.1 and Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. Internal Consistency of the LPIA Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Sections 1.6 and 1.11.A. for being inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP. CGMP Section 1.6 states that "elements of the [CGMP] shall be consistent and coordinated with policies of [various entities, including the TCRPC]. Petitioners did not prove that the County does not interpret that provision to require internal consistency and coordination with the other entities' policies, or that such an interpretation would be incorrect. CGMP Section 1.11.A. refers to amendment procedures. Essentially, it states that plan amendments must be "in compliance." There was no evidence that the County intended it to require strict and absolute consistency with the TCRPC's SRPP, or any evidence to prove that it would be incorrect for the County to interpret it not to. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K., which also refers to amendment procedure. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K. for not having concurrently-processed land development regulations (LDRs) since concurrently-processed LDRs are only required "[t]o the extent necessary to implement a proposed amendment," and Petitioners did not prove that concurrently-processed LDRs are necessary. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with numerous other provisions of the CGMP. These contentions were not proven. Most, if not all, were based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA. SUSDA Provisions The SUSDA amends the text of the future land use element, the sanitary sewer services element, and the potable water services element of the Plan. As amended, the Plan would allow owners of real property within the SUSD to apply for connection to regional water and sewer service rather than be limited to using individual potable water wells and individual septic tanks, provided all costs of connection to the public services would be paid by the owner. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.g. expressly states: The County Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Martin County that regional water and sewer services be made available to properties within the [SUSD], in order to: (1) Protect our natural resources . . . from the negative impacts of onsite sewage disposal (septic) systems and private wells to serve individual residential units; (2) Provide fire protection; [and] (3) Provide safe drinking water. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.h. requires that the extension of any such services to properties within the SUSD must have Board approval, which cannot occur unless the Board finds that certain enumerated criteria have been met, including: Regional utility services may be provided to properties within the [SUSD] upon the request of the affected property owner, and upon payment of the required costs for connection to the regional system. Such services may only be provided by a regional utility, public or private, within a service area shown on Figure 11-2. Package plants for the provision of utility service are prohibited except under the provisions of the [CGMP]. The regional utility must demonstrate the treatment facility has capacity for the proposed connection and priority has been given to projects within the [PUSD]. Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in the residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]. Property lying outside the Urban Service Districts . . . shall not receive utility service from a regional wastewater system. Extension of utility service outside the Urban Service Districts shall be prohibited. Development within the [SUSD] shall maintain lot sizes that exceed one-half acres. The SUSDA also contains new charts added to both the sanitary sewer services element and the potable water services element that display the numerical capacity of the regional water and sewer systems to handle additional customers upon extension of lines to the SUSD. See SUSDA Tables 10-3 through 10-6 and 11- 12 through 11-15. There was no credible evidence of any likelihood that the adoption of the SUSDA would allow the further extensions of water and sewer lines from the SUSD to properties outside the urban service districts. The testimony offered by Petitioners was speculative at best and depended upon an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting such extension of services. See SUSDA §§ 4.4.G.2.h.(6)-(7) and 4.5.H. Meaning and Predictability of SUSDA Standards Petitioners contend that the SUSDA's standards are not meaningful or predictable because of the undefined term "central water and sewer" in the policy in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a. Petitioners contend that "central water and sewer" can be interpreted to mean something other than a regional utility, and that the SUSDA can be interpreted to allow regional utility, package plant, and other similar types of utility systems serving two or more houses outside the urban services districts. Petitioners' interpretations are unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the SUSDA. Petitioners' evidence was speculative and depended on an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting package treatment plants in the SUSD. See SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(3) and § 4.5.H. In addition, the evidence was that package treatment plants may no longer be economically feasible. The County's interpretation is more reasonable--"central water and sewer," as used in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., means the provision of regional utility services by Martin County in the SUSD, and no such facilities may be provided outside the urban service districts. SUSDA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the data and analysis do not support the SUSDA essentially because they do not establish "any actual health, safety, or welfare problems." PPRO, ¶208. The absence of proof of actual health, safety, or welfare problems is not fatal in view of the rest of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA. Since the creation of the SUSD in 1992, development in the PUSD has resulted in the extension of water and sewer lines up to the border between the PUSD and the SUSD. In effect, the intended SUSD transition area has transitioned. Meanwhile, the regional water and sewer utilities serving the County now have the necessary capacity to serve the PUSD and the SUSD. Improved fire protection in the SUSD is a benefit of regional water service, allowing installation of community fire hydrants. Without it, developers in the SUSD must rely on installed sprinklers and emergency generators and water drawn from nearby lakes or installed water tanks. While regional water service can fail temporarily in major storms, and the data and analysis did not include actual instances of fire damage cause by the lack of regional water service in the SUSD, regional water service generally provides more reliable and less costly fire protection. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit potable water wells, regional water service generally is better, more reliable, and less costly. The data and analysis did include actual instances of home owners having to install expensive water treatment systems due to increasing chloride levels in their potable water wells. Connection to regional water service would eliminate those costs and concerns. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit septic tanks systems for onsite sewage treatment (i.e., systems that meet environmental and health standards), such systems can fail if improperly installed, maintained, and repaired. If they fail, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can leach into and harm the groundwater and nearby surface waters. The North Fork of the Loxahatchee River, which is nutrient-impaired, probably would benefit from elimination of septic tanks. Regional sewer service generally is better for the environmental and public health. The data and analysis suggest that allowing regional water and sewer service in the SUSD, with the SUSDA's requirement for developers to pay the cost of installation, probably will save the County money in the long run. It will be a significant cost to the County if it has to install water and sewer lines post-development. Petitioners attack the credibility of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA because regional water and sewer service is optional in the SUSD. But there were data and analysis that, even if regional water and sewer service in the SUSD is preferable, there are valid reasons to make it optional at this time. Alleged Environmental Impact of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part from a proliferation of package treatment plants in the SUSD, which is discouraged in CGMP Section 4.4. See PPRO, ¶¶221, 223. This contention is based on Petitioners' unreasonable interpretations of two sentences of the SUSDA. SUSDA Section 4.5.G. prohibits interim water systems outside the urban service districts and allows them, with conditions, in the PUSD where connection to a regional utility is not feasible. Petitioners interpret these two sentences to mean that interim water systems are allowed, without conditions, in the SUSD. The County's interpretation is more reasonable. Since the SUSDA makes connection to the regional utilities optional, there is no need for interim water systems in the SUSDA, and the SUSDA should not be construed to allow them there. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part essentially because increased development results in increased pollution. See PPRO, ¶228. To the extent true, it would be equally or more true of similar development without regional water and sewer services. SUSDA and Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend, in part due to their unreasonable interpretations of the objective in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the SUSDA, no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. In part due to the unreasonableness of Petitioners' interpretation of the SUSDA, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. It is unlikely that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl. Petitioners also contend that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl simply by allowing denser development in the 5,000- 6,000 acres of the SUSDA not yet developed. This contention is contrary to the SUSDA policy: "Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]." SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(5). Even if the SUSDA increased density in the SUSDA, increase in density itself does not promote urban sprawl. To the contrary, it is possible for increased density to discourage urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that increasing density in the SUSDA itself encourages urban sprawl or that, with the SUSDA, the CGMP will discourage urban sprawl less. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will create pressures to develop areas that border the SUSD, leaping over areas suitable for urban development. See PPRO, ¶¶236-237. This contention actually devalues the very urban service district concept Petitioners seek to defend and can be said about any urban district boundary. Currently, there are many places where the PUSD borders the Agricultural lands. The pressures created by the SUSDA will be no greater than the pressures that have existed in those places all along. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will increase costs to the County essentially because, notwithstanding SUSDA's requirement that developers pay the cost of connection, development will not pay for itself in the long run (taking into account costs of operations, maintenance, and repair.) To the extent true, it can be said of all development and does not prove that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that the SUSDA triggers any of the indicators of urban sprawl; did not prove that the SUSDA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl; and did not prove that the CGMP, as amended by the SUSDA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Internal Consistency of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA is internally inconsistent with CGMP Section 4.4.G.1.i., which gives priority in the provision and funding of water and sewer services to the PUSD, essentially because the data and analysis ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met through 2025. The lack of data and analysis at present to ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met beyond 2025 does not prove that priority will not be given to the needs of the PUSD.
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 determining that the LPIA and the SUSDA are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether amendments to the Palm Beach County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2004-34 through 2004-39, 2004-63 and 2004-64 (Amendments) to accommodate the County's development of a biotechnology research park on 1,900 acres known as the Mecca site are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Overview of the County's Pre-Scripps Plan The County's first Plan was adopted in 1980. Its 1989 Plan, the first adopted under the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (also known as the 1985 Growth Management Act, or GMA) built upon the strengths of the first Plan. In 1995, the County evaluated and appraised its 1989 Plan, completed an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), and subsequently adopted a substantially-amended EAR-based Plan. In 1999, the Plan again was amended by the addition of a Managed Growth Tier System (MGTS) as a new growth management tool.2 The County's Plan recognizes that development in the County has generally moved from eastern coastal areas to the west and from the southern part of the County to the north. Generally, the Plan has attempted to direct growth towards the eastern part of the County and to encourage infill and redevelopment in that part of the County. Redevelopment is underway in older areas, usually under the auspices of local governments. At the same time, the Plan now recognizes that another growth corridor is located along SR 7 and US 441. Even with the efforts to encourage infill and redevelopment in the eastern part of the County, growth pressures have led to 18,000 acres of new land use approvals in the County north of Lake Worth Boulevard in the last 10 years. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the County's Plan contains County Directions, GOPs (i.e., Goals, Objectives, and Policies), the MGTS Map, and the Future Land Use Atlas. The County Directions "provide the basis for preparation of the [GOPs]." The GOPs "provide the framework for decisions that direct the location, pattern, character, interrelationships and timing of development, which ultimately affects the distribution of facilities and services to support it." The MGTS Map "defines distinct geographical areas within the County that currently either support or are anticipated to accommodate various types of development patterns and service delivery provisions that, together, allow for a diverse range of lifestyle choices, and livable, sustainable communities." The Atlas "graphically depicts the future distribution, general use and densities and intensities of [land use] within each tier." (FLUE Introduction, pp. 1-2) The County also routinely employs geographic-specific planning tools. The Plan creates at least 15 overlays to meet planning challenges for specific areas. It also recognizes 10 neighborhood plans. Optional sector planning for a large part of the Central-Western Communities of the County also is underway. The FLUE's County Directions include: Livable Communities (with "a balance of land uses and [other features]"); Growth Management (to "provide for sustainable urban, suburban, exurban and rural communities and lifestyle choices by: (a) directing . . . development that respects the characteristics of a particular geographic area; (b) ensuring smart growth . . . ; and (c) providing for facilities and services in a cost efficient timely manner"); Infill Development (to increase efficiency); Land Use Compatibility; Neighborhood Integrity; Economic Diversity and Prosperity (to promote the growth of industries that are high-wage and diversify the economic base); Housing Opportunity ("by providing an adequate distribution of very-low and low-income housing, Countywide"); Economic Activity Centers (to encourage manufacturing and other value-added activities); Level of Service Standards ("to accommodate an optimal level . . . needed as a result of growth"); Linear Open Space and Park Systems; Environmental Integrity (to "[e]ncourage restoration and protection of viable, native ecosystems and endangered and threatened wildlife by limiting the impacts of growth on those systems; direct incompatible growth away from them; encourage environmentally sound land use planning and development and recognize the carrying capacity and/or limits of stress upon these fragile areas"); Design; A Strong Sense of Community; and Externalities (placing "major negative" ones "away from neighborhoods"). (Id. at pp. 5-6) FLUE Goal 1 is to establish the MGTS. Objective 1.1 recognizes five geographic regions (tiers) of land with "distinctive physical development patterns with different needs for services to ensure a diversity of lifestyle choices": Urban/Suburban (land within the Urban Service Area (USA), generally along the east coast but also along the southeast shore of Lake Okeechobee in the extreme west of the County, having urban or suburban density and intensity and afforded urban levels of service); Exurban (land outside the USA and generally between the Urban and Rural Tiers, platted prior to the 1989 Plan and developed at densities greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (du/ac); Rural (land outside the USA and east of the Water Conservation Areas, Twenty Mile Bend, and the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area (Corbet WMA), including large tracts of land, as well as lands platted prior to the 1989 Plan, that had a predominant density of 1 du/10 ac, but less than 1 du/5 ac, and afforded rural levels of service); Agricultural Reserve (primarily for agricultural use, reflecting the unique farmlands and wetlands within it, to be either preserved or developed only at low residential density); and Glades (all land west of the Water Conservation Areas, Twenty Mile Bend, and Corbett WMA, predominantly supporting large-scale agricultural operations, and afforded rural levels of service.) The five tiers are depicted graphically in Map LU 1.1, MGTS, of the Map Series. Conservation lands are also depicted on Map LU 1.1 but are not assigned to a tier. The Map also depicts the United Technologies (Pratt-Whitney) (UT) Overlay and the North County General Aviation Airport (North County Airport), neither one which appears from Map LU 1.1 to lie within a tier. The UT Overlay is in the north-central part of the County, sandwiched between Rural Tier on the north, east, and southeast and Conservation land, including Corbett WMA on the west and southwest, and roughly bisected by the Beeline Highway (Beeline), which runs diagonally through the overlay between its northwest and southeast extremes. The Airport lies farther to the southeast along the Beeline, essentially surrounded by Rural Tier land, except for relatively small pieces of Conservation land contiguous to it along its western boundary and at its southeast corner (the North County Airport Preserve.) Notwithstanding the possible appearance from the depictions on Map LU 1.1, the County has no general planning jurisdiction in any of the incorporated areas of the County.3 Map LU 2.1 depicts the three service areas to guide delivery of public services that are established under FLUE Goal 3. These are the Urban Service Area (USA), the Rural Service Area (RSA), and the Limited Urban Service Areas (LUSA). The USA essentially follows the boundaries of the Urban/Suburban Tier. The LUSA is relatively limited geographically and includes the Agricultural Reserve Tier, the UT Overlay, and the North County Airport (with contiguous Conservation lands). The rest of the County is in the RSA. The verbiage of Goal 3, its Objectives and Policies and other parts of the Plan, gives the impression that provision of services is fine-tuned to the character and needs of a particular locale. For example, Goal 3 is "to define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost- effective manner, reflective of the quality of life associated with each respective Tier." But actually the Plan assigns countywide level-of-service standards (LOSS's) to seven of nine types of facilities. All urban services can be provided in all areas of the County except that County centralized water and sewer services cannot be provided in the RSA. While theoretically intended to be geographically limited, the main difference between the USA and the LUSA is that the LUSA is outside the USA. The Agricultural Reserve part of the LUSA is actually a westerly extension of the USA. The North County Airport part of the LUSA is surrounded by Rural Tier land; the UT part of the LUSA is surrounded by Rural Tier and Conservation lands, the same as the UT Overlay. The County has re-examined its policy decision not to provide centralized water and sewer services in the RSA because it has resulted in various municipalities and utilities special districts and perhaps private alternative providers extending services while the County excludes itself. The County has adopted plan amendments to change this to allow the County to provide such services and to exclude others. Those plan amendments are under administrative challenge at this time and are not yet in effect. The County has three priorities for extending services. One is to encourage development of basic industry to further the Economic Element. The County Plan's Economic Element is optional. It reflects a concerted effort to diversify the economy of the County by encouraging growth in cluster industries, including medical products. Taken together, the Plan reflects a desire to accommodate growth in the Urban/Suburban Tier, especially in the eastern part of the County. Many GOPs in the Plan promote and encourage infill and redevelopment. However, pressure to grow in other parts of the County are undeniable. It appears that, under the Plan, the County will be completely built-out within 30 years. The County's current Plan is detailed and complicated. Many other parts of it, some of which will be addressed later in this Recommended Order, also are implicated in some manner and in different degrees by the Amendments at issue. Scripps Florida In the early 1990s, a County study indicated concern about the three main elements of the local economy: tourism was low-paying; agriculture was low-paying and a declining sector; and construction and development would decline as the County built out. In 1998, a consulting firm (SRI) proposed an action plan for the County to develop economic clusters. The action plan addressed several industry clusters, including medical/pharmaceuticals. SRI recommended, among other things, attracting a biomedical park development, a satellite campus of a medical school, venture capital providers, and a medical research institute. Meanwhile, in the same general time frame, the State’s economic development arm, Enterprise Florida, Inc., targeted the biomedical industry for development in Florida. The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California (Scripps), is the largest not-for-profit biotechnology research organization of its kind in the world. In 2003, Scripps decided to expand its operations. Florida Governor Bush, along with several Florida legislators, personally and through Enterprise Florida and OTTED, actively pursued Scripps to locate in Florida. During the same timeframe, the Federal Government made funds available to Florida under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, for the essential governmental service of improving economic opportunities available to the people of this state by attracting new or expanding businesses to, and retaining businesses in, the State. It was decided to use $310,000,000 of these funds in the pursuit of Scripps and hoped-for related economic and other benefits. By October 2003, Scripps agreed to negotiate expansion to Florida and chose Palm Beach County as its preferred location in the State. Also in October 2003, the Florida Legislature met in special session and, on November 3, 2003, enacted Chapter 2003-420, Laws of Florida, which created the Scripps Florida Funding Corporation to facilitate establishment and operation of a biomedical research institution for the purposes of enhancing education and research and promoting economic development and diversity. The Funding Corporation was required by the law to negotiate a contract with the Scripps Research Institute of La Jolla, California, for Scripps to establish a state-of-the-art biomedical research institution and campus in Florida. After disbursement of $300,000 to OTTED to cover staffing and administration expenses of the Funding Corporation, and upon execution of the contract with Scripps, the balance of the $310,000,000 was to be disbursed to the Funding Corporation subject to the terms of the contract. The Scripps Grant Agreement Scripps Florida and the County entered into a Grant Agreement on February 9, 2004, with a term of 30 years. In the Grant Agreement, the County agreed to pay for or provide: a 100-acre campus for Scripps Florida in the 1,919-acre site at Mecca Farms (Mecca), with a funding limitation of $60,000,000; the construction of initial temporary facilities for Scripps Florida at the Florida Atlantic University (FAU) campus in Jupiter, with a funding limitation of $12,000,000; the construction of permanent facilities for Scripps Florida at the Mecca site, with a funding limitation of $137,000,000; 400 adjacent acres for development of “related uses”; and applications for approvals for Scripps Florida to develop 2 million square feet at Mecca. The Grant Agreement’s definition of “related uses” was intended to be broad so that the County can open the 400 acres to computer research, telecommunications and other economic clusters if not enough pharmaceutical or life-science research firms are attracted. The Grant Agreement requires Scripps Florida to create or relocate at least 545 new jobs to the Mecca site; to strive to create 2,777 new or relocated jobs; and to work with the County to create a total 6,500 jobs. In the Grant Agreement, the County expressly reserves all legislative and quasi-judicial powers, acting only in its proprietary capacity. The County's Purchase of Mecca Site In accordance with the Grant Agreement, the County proceeded with the purchase of the Mecca site. In October 2003, the Business Development Board (BDB), a non- profit organization that is funded primarily by and reports to the County, already had obtained an option to purchase the site for $60,000,000, if certain government approvals could be obtained. In February 2004, the County acquired the option on the Mecca property from the BDB and exercised it. Including the cost of some "oral add-ons," the purchase price for Mecca was approximately $60,500,000. Characteristics of the Mecca and Surroundings The Mecca site is in the shape of a rectangle located in the north-central part of the County. It is designated in the Rural Tier. For approximately 50 years, most of the site has been used as a citrus grove with trees grown in rows 15 feet apart, 73-acres of agricultural ditches, and a 272-acre above-ground water impoundment area in the northeast quadrant of the site used for irrigation. There also is a 30-acre sand mine operation in the southwestern quadrant. At this time, the Mecca site is accessible by road only by Seminole Pratt-Whitney Road (SPW), a two-lane paved road from the south. When SPW reaches the southwest corner of Mecca, it becomes a dirt road as it continues along the west side of the property. While Mecca itself is in the Rural Tier, it is not surrounded by Rural Tier land. The land to the west is designated Conservation, and the land to the north and south is designated Exurban Tier. The land to the east is designated Rural Tier, but it actually is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The area around Mecca is a “mosaic” of uses, including undeveloped agricultural lands, conservation lands, and lands developed predominantly as undesirable residential sprawl with limited employment and shopping. The nearby Beeline, part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), is classified by the State as “urban” to the east and “transitional” to the west of SPW. Significant among the developed areas near Mecca is The Acreage, abutting Mecca to the south. The County designated The Acreage as part of the Exurban Tier. It is a large, 76 percent built-out, antiquated subdivision with a density of 1 du/1.25 ac and a population of approximately 42,000. As such, it can be characterized as either urban or suburban, but not rural. To the south and west of The Acreage are large citrus groves in the Rural Tier. Farther south and west of The Acreage is Loxahatchee Groves, another antiquated subdivision in the Exurban Tier, with a density of 1 du/5 ac that is just 18 percent built-ut with 1,216 homes built. Farther south, just south of Southern Boulevard, is the Village of Wellington, which is a municipality located within the boundaries of the Urban/Suburban Tier. South and east of The Acreage is the Village of Royal Palm Beach, also a municipality within the Urban/Suburban Tier. The 60,288-acre Corbett WMA is located immediately west of Mecca and is owned and managed by the State as a hunting preserve. It has no tier designation. Corbett has a variety of habitats for endangered or threatened species (wood storks, eagles, red-cockaded woodpeckers, gopher tortoises and indigo snakes), including wet prairie, freshwater marsh and pine flatwoods. Corbett could provide habitat for Florida panthers although there have been no confirmed panther sightings in the area in a number of years. Immediately north of Mecca is another antiquated subdivision, Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District (Unit 11). The County is buying Unit 11 for preservation as Hungryland Slough, a regional off-site mitigation area. Unit 11 is designated in the Exurban Tier. Hungryland contains habitat similar to that found in Corbett WMA. North of Hungryland, and south of the Beeline, is a small triangle of Rural Tier land, which is just south and south east of the UT Overlay, which includes the Park of Commerce (a/k/a Florida Research Park). The Rural Tier land to the northeast of Hungryland, across the Beeline, is Caloosa, a large-lot residential development with a density of 1 du/5 ac. To the northeast of Caloosa is Jupiter Farms, another large, 81 percent built-out antiquated residential subdivision with a density of 1 du/2 ac and a population of about 12,600. Jupiter Farms is designated in the Rural Tier although it also seems to fit the criteria for the Exurban Tier. The Vavrus Ranch, a 4,600-acre landholding, is located immediately east of Mecca. Approximately half of Vavrus Ranch is wetlands, and the remainder is improved pasture. The Vavrus Ranch appears to be designated in the Rural Tier, but it actually is in the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Existing urban-scale public facilities between Mecca and Southern Boulevard to serve the suburbs include five fire stations, two post offices, eight elementary schools, two middle schools and two branch libraries, with one high school and one middle school planned or under construction. Existing public facilities north of Mecca in Caloosa include one fire station and one elementary school. East of Mecca and the Vavrus Ranch is the North County General Aviation Airport. To address land use deficiencies in this area, the County has agreed with DCA to prepare a plan for a 52,000-acre sector, which originally included Mecca. Current development has committed approximately two- thirds of lands in the sector to an inefficient pattern that is not “sustainable.” This pattern increases reliance on the automobile; may not be served long-term by private wells and septic tanks; and does not pay for itself, requiring substantial taxpayer subsidies. The sector has a serious jobs/housing imbalance, resulting in more congestion and longer commutes for residents. The County’s sector planning consultants identified Mecca as an appropriate site for an intensive employment center in two out of three initial scenarios. Subsequent studies identified Mecca for other uses, and the site was deleted from the sector planning area in 2004 when the Scripps Florida opportunity arose at Mecca. Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Plan Amendments Since the Scripps opportunity arose, the County's primary vision for Mecca has been to transform its 1,919 acres into a very special place that would be able not only to satisfy the needs of Scripps, but also would have all of the essential elements and many extra amenities so as to enable the County to compete with other areas of the country (and, indeed, the world) to attract related research and development (R&D) and, especially commercial activity in order to reap the maximum possible economic benefits of a biotechnology cluster. This vision included not only onsite opportunities for development of related biotechnology R&D and related commercial ventures, but also a university campus, a hospital/clinic, expansive green spaces and water features, onsite residential opportunities, including affordable housing, and onsite commercial and retail uses, including a town center. The County prepared plans by first reviewing and considering other R&D complexes, companies potentially interested in new locations, views of university officials, the Scripps experience at La Jolla, employees per square foot per industry type, and its own allowable floor area ratios (FARs) in order to identify the developable square footage for R&D at Mecca. As applicant for the necessary DRI approval and Plan amendments, the County’s staff and consultants initially requested approval of 10.5 million square feet for R&D use after balancing space needs, traffic impacts, environmental needs, buffering and other factors. The County’s real estate consultant concluded that a minimum of 2 to 3 million square feet of R&D space would be necessary for the venture to be successful, and that the absorption of 8 to 8.5 million square feet over a long-term build-out period of 30 years was a reasonable expectation. That view was bolstered by the potential establishment of other R&D users, if biotechnology firms do not absorb the entire capacity of the project. Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved a development of regional impact (DRI) for 8 to 8.5 million square feet of R&D, including the 2 million square feet for Scripps Florida, in order to provide economic opportunities while avoiding the need for eight-lane roads in the area. In order to accommodate this project, amendments to the County's Plan were necessary. Changes to the Plan adopted October 13, 2004, included Ordinance Nos. 2004-34 through 2004-39. Changes to the Plan adopted December 14, 2004, included Ordinance Nos. 2004-63 and 2004-64. Ordinance No. 2004-34 removes the 1,919-acre Mecca site from the Rural Tier; creates a scientific community overlay (SCO) on Mecca; establishes its allowed uses; imposes controls to balance residential and non-residential uses by phase; sets design principles; designates Mecca as a LUSA; and makes related changes to the FLUE and Economic Element and the FLUE Map Series. Ordinance No. 2004-35 modifies FLUE Policy 3.5-d to exempt the SCO from a County-imposed limitation on allowed land use changes expected to generate significant impacts on any roadway segment projected to fail to operate at LOSS "D" based on the adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan. Ordinance No. 2004-36 amends the FLUE Atlas to change the land use on Mecca from Rural Residential with a density of 1 du/10 ac (RR-10) to Economic Development Center with an underlying density of 2 du/ac (EDC/2). This amendment also sets minimum and maximum amounts of each use and incorporates by reference the land use conversion matrix in the DRI development order (DO). Ordinance No. 2004-37 amends the FLUE Atlas to change the land use on a 28-acre Accessory Site obtained from Corbett WMA from Conservation to Transportation and Utilities Facilities. Ordinance No. 2004-38 amends the Transportation Element (TE) to lower the adopted LOSS on 37 road segments and 6 intersections from the generally applicable standard of “D” to “Constrained Roadway at Lower Level of Service” (CRALLS). Ordinance No. 2004-39 amends the Thoroughfare Right- of-Way (ROW) Identification Map (TIM) and the 2020 Roadway System Map to reflect certain road improvements to accommodate SCO-generated traffic. Ordinance No. 2004-63 updates Tables 1 through 16 of the 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Schedule (CIS), and includes road, water, and sewer facilities to serve the SCO. Ordinance No. 2004-64 updates Table 17 of the CIS, which addresses schools. g. The Petitioners, Their Burden, and Their Issues DCA’s notices of intent to find the Amendments in compliance were challenged by four not-for-profit organizations and one resident of Palm Beach County. All of the Petitioners timely commented, orally or in writing, to the County regarding the Amendments. Additional standing evidence was presented as to each Petitioner. Standing as an "affected person" under Section 163.3184(1)(a) was disputed as to all but one Petitioner. As to Petitioner, Maria Wise-Miller, it was undisputed that she is an "affected person" under Section 163.3184(1)(a). It was Petitioners' burden to prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance." See Conclusions 210-211, infra. Essentially, Petitioners are concerned that development of the SCO on Mecca's 1,919 acres is poor planning because of its present agricultural use, its location in relation to nearby natural areas and rural areas, and its distance from more urban areas and transportation facilities. More specifically, the issues raised by Petitioners as reasons why the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" are framed in their Amended Petition.4 Implicating numerous applicable statutory and rule provisions, Petitioners' issues involve: urban sprawl; capital improvements (infrastructure); transportation concurrency; data and analysis; internal consistency; natural resources; community character and compatibility with adjacent uses; the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC's) Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP); and State Comprehensive Plan (SCP). No other issues have been added by further amendment, and no additional issues were heard by consent of the parties. See Conclusion 212, infra. H. Urban Sprawl Whether the Plan Amendments are consistent with relevant provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, the GMA, and Rule Chapter 9J-5 regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources, is determined by application of Rule 9J-5.006(5).5 Exceedingly detailed and complex, Rule 9J-5.006(5) provides in pertinent part: (d) Paragraph (5)(g) describes those aspects or attributes of a plan or plan amendment which, when present, indicate that the plan or plan amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. For purposes of reviewing the plan for discouragement of urban sprawl, an evaluation shall be made whether any of these indicators is present in a plan or plan amendment. If an indicator is present, the extent, amount or frequency of that indicator shall be considered. The presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl. * * * Primary indicators. The primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl are listed below. The evaluation of the presence of these indicators shall consist of an analysis of the plan or plan amendment within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality in order to determine whether the plan or plan amendment: Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development. Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Evaluation of land uses. The comprehensive plan must be reviewed in its entirety to make the determinations in (5)(g) above. Plan amendments must be reviewed individually and for their impact on the remainder of the plan. However, in either case, a land use analysis will be the focus of the review and constitute the primary factor for making the determinations. Land use types cumulatively (within the entire jurisdiction and areas less than the entire jurisdiction, and in proximate areas outside the jurisdiction) will be evaluated based on density, intensity, distribution and functional relationship, including an analysis of the distribution of urban and rural land uses. Each land use type will be evaluated based on: Extent. Location. Distribution. Density. Intensity. Compatibility. Suitability. Functional relationship. Land use combinations. Demonstrated need over the planning period. Local conditions. Each of the land use factors in (5)(h) above will be evaluated within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality. These include: Size of developable area. Projected growth rate (including population, commerce, industry, and agriculture). Projected growth amounts (acres per land use category). Facility availability (existing and committed). Existing pattern of development (built and vested), including an analysis of the extent to which the existing pattern of development reflects urban sprawl. Projected growth trends over the planning period, including the change in the overall density or intensity of urban development throughout the jurisdiction. Costs of facilities and services, such as per capita cost over the planning period in terms of resources and energy. Extra-jurisdictional and regional growth characteristics. Transportation networks and use characteristics (existing and committed). Geography, topography and various natural features of the jurisdiction. Development controls. Development controls in the comprehensive plan may affect the determinations in (5)(g) above. The following development controls, to the extent they are included in the comprehensive plan, will be evaluated to determine how they discourage urban sprawl: Open space requirements. Development clustering requirements. Other planning strategies, including the establishment of minimum development density and intensity, affecting the pattern and character of development. Phasing of urban land use types, densities, intensities, extent, locations, and distribution over time, as measured through the permitted changes in land use within each urban land use category in the plan, and the timing and location of those changes. Land use locational criteria related to the existing development pattern, natural resources and facilities and services. Infrastructure extension controls, and infrastructure maximization requirements and incentives. Allocation of the costs of future development based on the benefits received. The extent to which new development pays for itself. Transfer of development rights. Purchase of development rights. Planned unit development requirements. Traditional neighborhood developments. Land use functional relationship linkages and mixed land uses. Jobs-to-housing balance requirements. Policies specifying the circumstances under which future amendments could designate new lands for the urbanizing area. Provision for new towns, rural villages or rural activity centers. Effective functional buffering requirements. Restriction on expansion of urban areas. Planning strategies and incentives which promote the continuation of productive agricultural areas and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands. Urban service areas. Urban growth boundaries. Access management controls. Evaluation of factors. Each of the land use types and land use combinations analyzed in paragraph (5)(h) above will be evaluated within the context of the features and characteristics of the locality, individually and together (as appropriate), as listed in paragraph (5)(i). If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. Innovative and flexible planning and development strategies. Notwithstanding and as a means of addressing any provisions contained in Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)8., 9J- 5.011(2)(b)3., 9J-5.003(140), F.A.C., and this subsection, the Department encourages innovative and flexible planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques in local plans. Planning strategies and techniques such as urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed-use development and sector planning that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost- efficient delivery of public facilities and services, will be recognized as methods 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. Of the 13 urban sprawl indicators in Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g), Petitioners alleged the existence of only 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. While there was evidence from which Petitioners reasonably could argue that the Plan Amendments promote urban sprawl, all of the Rule's indicators are at least fairly debatable. Indicator 2 As to Indicator 2, Petitioners' arguments on urban sprawl hinge in large part on characterization of Mecca as being rural land in the midst of likewise rural and conservation land far distant from any land use that could be characterized as urban or suburban. But while Mecca is distant from most of the Urban/Suburban Tier, neither the Village of Wellington nor Royal Palm Beach, both in the Urban/Suburban Tier, is very far away. The Acreage to Mecca's south, moreover, can be characterized as either urbanizing or suburban, but not rural. To the extent that Mecca is separated from other urban or suburban uses to the east by conservation lands (namely, the Loxahatchee Slough and Grassy Waters Preserve, a/k/a the West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area), no urban, suburban or even rural development of those conservation lands should be expected, making it fairly debatable whether "leaping over" those undeveloped lands should be considered an indicator of sprawl. In that sense, those conservation lands are similar to bodies of water. The “patchwork” pattern of developed, rural, and conservation uses near Mecca, including the adjacency of extensive residential development in The Acreage, also is significant. Nearby subdivisions including Jupiter Farms and Caloosa add further context for the sprawl analysis. The multi-use development at the SCO allowed by the Amendments may remediate the existing sprawl pattern near Mecca. Indicator 4 As to Indicator 4, it is at least fairly debatable whether conversion of rural land to urban uses on Mecca is premature in light of the Scripps opportunity and existing development pressures in the area. According to expert planning testimony for DCA and the County, the County is obliged to plan for growth in accordance with GMA and Rule 9J-5 up to its "sustainable carrying capacity," which has not been reached. Whether or not they believe the County has the option to plan to slow or stop growth before reaching "sustainable carrying capacity," it is clear from the evidence that the County is not doing so, but instead is planning for continued growth within the framework of its Plan until reaching what it considers to be "build-out" conditions. Given the County's basic growth policy, the County’s analysis of population projections for the next 20 years, compared to available vacant lands planned for residential use, shows the County has a “tight” plan with a restricted supply of land for development. This land use needs analysis shows that the eastern half of Palm Beach County (which includes Mecca) is experiencing intensive growth pressures due to the restricted supply of developable land, and that it will likely build out in approximately 20 years. Conservative assumptions in the County’s analysis suggest build-out in this area could occur even sooner. In its 1997 EAR, the County also concluded that eastern Palm Beach County would build out in approximately 20 years. The report noted that the approaching build-out of Dade and Broward counties to the south in the near future would further exacerbate growth pressures in Palm Beach County. Industrial lands in eastern Palm Beach County are expected to be exhausted by 2026. Because communities typically need greater locational variety for industrial uses compared to other uses, and in light of the many different activities that constitute an industrial use, the amount of land in eastern Palm Beach County designated for industrial use may be adequate but is not excessive. Besides, a numeric analysis is not necessary to justify industrial uses since they may be goal-based and aspirational. Seeking to diversify the local economy is an appropriate goal to support additional industrial land. Having a committed end-user for an industrial site is appropriate data to consider in evaluating such a land use change. Onsite residential and commercial uses will support the industrial use and better achieve a balance of uses, which will relieve the necessity to be evaluated against a numeric need test. Likelihood of Economic Benefits Petitioners argue that the proposed development at Mecca is not needed because significant economic benefits are so unlikely that the costly planned use of Mecca's 1,919 acres cannot be justified. Ordinarily, the likelihood of success of planned land uses would not be relevant to the compliance of a comprehensive plan or plan amendment. In this case, however, the County's vision for a Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster at Mecca was the impetus for the major and important changes embodied in the Plan Amendments and is part of the demonstration of need. For that reason, consideration of the issue is appropriate in this case. The evidence is clear that the County's vision is not guaranteed success as planned and that there are significant risks involved. To maximize economic benefits, the County will have to not only attract R&D but also generate commercial spin-offs, where maximum economic benefits result. R&D requires research funding, and commercial spin-offs require venture capital. It also is essential to establish relationships with hospitals or clinics where clinical trials can take place. The predominant source of biotech research funding has been the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In the mid- 1990s, NIH funding increased dramatically, but significant increases in the coming years cannot be counted on, and other sources of research funding will have to replace the deficit. To the extent that pharmaceutical companies are resorted to for this purpose, they may require participation in any resulting commercialization, which could reduce local economic benefits if the funding source is not local. The evidence was that, over the last 30 years or so, significant economic benefits from biotechnology clusters achieving effective commercialization have been concentrated in just nine areas of the country. One is San Diego, California; none are in Florida. These nine areas also have garnered a disproportionate share of NIH research funding (although the percentage has declined a little in the last few years.) They also tend to have scientists inclined towards commercialization of the results of research and businessmen having the special abilities needed in the unique world of biotech, where years can pass before a business begins to see profits, and many start-ups fail. These nine areas also have access to venture capital, a good percentage of which has tended to be local, since many venture capitalists also want to be more active in monitoring and participating in the businesses they fund than most other investors. On the other hand, there was evidence acknowledging that at least some venture capital will seek out and follow good opportunities for profit wherever they may exist. Historically, at least through 2001, the biotech industry has become increasingly concentrated in these nine areas of the country, and they continue to have competitive advantages that the County's vision for the SCO would have to overcome. (On the other hand, several of these nine areas also have competitive disadvantage in the form of high taxes, high real estate costs, high cost-of-living, and less-than- ideal quality of life. So far, however, their advantages have surpassed their disadvantages.) There also is competition from many other cities and counties throughout the country desiring, like Florida and the County, to develop a biotechnology cluster. Recognizing the intense competition, the County's vision is to create a world-class setting for its effort at Mecca. Allowable facilities at the SCO include not just R&D space, but also a clinical hospital of up to 300 beds, a university campus of up to 2,000 college and university students, public facilities supporting environmental amenities, community facilities and retail facilities in a “town center,” and 2,000 or more housing units, including affordable housing. The SCO contemplates a mixture of uses that is hoped will lead to synergistic relationships and exchange of “tacit knowledge,” which are important to the success of a biotechnology cluster. Scripps Florida, as the anchor institution, will bring critical world renown and credibility. The principles of adjacency within the SCO are intended to promote synergy that transcends local competition and attracts regional and national users. In planning the SCO, Scripps’ experience in La Jolla and the views of Scripps officials were taken into account. Scripps’ campus at Torrey Pines Mesa has been in existence for almost 30 years, and has worked well. Scripps attempts to keep its buildings close to one another and has met with difficulty finding scientists willing to fill workspace four miles from the main Scripps campus. The FAR for the 500 acres of R&D use at the SCO is very low, at 0.39.6 By comparison, there was evidence that the FAR of the 900-acre University of Florida campus in Gainesville, Florida, is 2.00. Petitioners contend that much less than 500 acres is needed for the 8.5 million square feet of R&D provided in the SCO. However, the County found that Scripps’ buildings in California are constructed in horizontal fashion, with three, four and rarely five stories. Taller buildings have lower net-to-gross floor area, so they have significant added cost. Scripps considers close-by affordable housing desirable, especially for graduate and post-doctoral students. For other occupants of the SCO, low-rise construction makes it easier for companies to add space as they grow. High-rise construction is more expensive, harder to finance because of pre-leasing requirements, and less efficient. Based on the evidence, the FAR is fairly debatable. Venture capital from within and outside Florida is growing, as is capital interest in the Scripps initiative in Florida. Four clinical hospitals have expressed interest in participating in the SCO. In the year after announcement of Scripps Florida, the number of new life-science projects announced in Florida quadrupled in comparison to recent years. Workforce training and educational improvement are contemplated as support for and results of the SCO. The State has implemented and funded workforce programs in the life sciences, including in the County. The County has participated in the development of a consortium of Florida institutions of higher learning aimed at creating a specialized campus in the SCO. Scripps Florida is obligated to establish accredited science degree programs and internship programs for educators and secondary, post- secondary, graduate and post-doctoral students. Petitioners’ economic witness testified that the County lacks key competitive ingredients for developing a successful biotechnology cluster. Other witnesses, however, explained the level of efforts that the State, the County, and Scripps Florida are making to bring those ingredients to fruition. In addition, while Petitioners’ economic witness recited past experience of the biotechnology industry and forecast limited success for Scripps Florida primarily based on year seven, the last year of presently-committed State funding, he acknowledged that biotechnology research parks tend to experience a slow ramp-up, and the County anticipates a 30-year build-out. Of course, other sources of needed funding would have to be found after year seven. The evidence was that the chances for successful development of a biotechnology cluster at Mecca will decrease if no universities or hospitals are established onsite at Mecca and will decrease the longer it takes to establish them. If the planned biotechnology cluster does not succeed as well as planned, the SCO incorporates flexibility for absorption of R&D floor space by other types of research and development occupants. Often, when a large development project does not succeed as planned, pressures develop for investors to change the project's characteristics in an attempt to cut losses and increase profitability by selling land more quickly. In the case of the SCO, the investors are the taxpayers of Palm Beach County. It cannot be predicted what kind of pressures the County would feel, or what changes to the planned build-out would occur, if the SCO does not succeed as planned. Based on all the evidence, it is fairly debatable whether the likelihood of economic benefit is enough to justify the planned use of Mecca's 1,919 acres. Other Alternatives Petitioners also contend that the proposed development at Mecca is not needed because better alternatives exist. Specifically, they contend that the Scripps project could be sited: on the Briger site adjacent to the Florida Turnpike on its west and straddling I-95 in the City of Palm Beach Gardens; on Parcel 19 just west of I-95 and the Florida Turnpike, straddling Indiantown Road in the Town of Jupiter; or in the Park of Commerce (a/k/a Florida Research Park) in the unincorporated County near Mecca in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of the Beeline and SPW. Although the County had a contract with Scripps Florida to be located at Mecca, during the review process the BCC requested a study of possible alternative sites. The number of sites reduced rather quickly to three: Briger; Parcel 19; and the Park of Commerce. Data and analysis at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendments indicated that each of these alternative sites had flaws and risk factors, making it fairly debatable whether Scripps should be sited at any one of them instead of at Mecca. All three proposed alternatives have less acreage than Mecca and do not provide the same opportunities for affordable housing, open space, or flexibility of design, so as to be able to be developed in accordance with the vision the County has for development on its own 1,919 acres at Mecca. The Park of Commerce has limited opportunity for affordable housing, is limited in permitted uses, and is limited in flexibility by existing and platted infrastructure and industrial uses. It is now being used for industrial purposes--a railroad, a General Motors distribution facility, and a Walgreen's distribution facility--not considered to be consistent with the County's vision for a biotechnology research park. In addition, it may become necessary in the future to construct an overpass at the Beeline and SPW directly over the only suitable location for construction of the Scripps facilities at that site. Parcel 19 cannot accommodate affordable housing and would require $75 million in construction of major interchanges at I-95 and Indiantown Road, after which Indiantown Road still would be seriously over capacity, creating great traffic problems. In addition, it would be difficult to achieve the County’s targeted development program of 8 to 8.5 million square feet of R&D uses. The 682-acre Briger site favored by the Petitioners is bisected by I-95 into two triangular pieces. It would not meet the acreage requirements of the County’s contract with Scripps Florida unless the City of Palm Beach Gardens waives certain upland preservation requirements. In addition, at this time Briger remains on the County’s list of properties for acquisition for preservation (although its placement on the list may be out-of-date since Briger's hydrologic connection to the Loxahatchee River Slough has been more disrupted by development since its listing). Even if the Scripps contract requirements could be met, it would require higher vertical construction, which would be less compatible with surrounding residential uses, would provide less open space, and would have reduced flexibility. The County's complete vision for onsite incorporation of uses and amenities would not fit on Briger. For example, the university tie-in, the hospital, and residential features would have to be offsite. Briger might have a short-term marketing advantage over Mecca (in part because hospitals and FAU's Jupiter campus already exist in close enough proximity). Briger also would be closer to major transportation facilities, but that advantage would not necessarily offset Briger's deficiencies. It is fairly debatable whether long-term success would be more likely at Mecca or at Briger. All four sites–-Mecca, Briger, Parcel 19, and the Park of Commerce-–are located in the eastern half of Palm Beach County, where growth pressures are strong, the County’s Plan is "tight," and build-out is anticipated within the next 30 years, even without the SCO, based on County data compilations for land use need purposes. Natural Resources Protection and Conservation While they may not protect and conserve natural resources in an absolute sense (as is rarely if ever possible when development takes place near natural areas), it is at least fairly debatable whether measures in the Plan and Plan Amendments to protect and conserve natural resources are adequate. See Findings 146-182, infra. Indicator 6 As to Indicator 6, significant new infrastructure will have to be extended to Mecca under the Plan Amendments. Development closer to existing roads and, to a lesser extent, the existing USA and LUSA might make more use of existing facilities and services possible. But the evidence was that most of the $15 million of centralized water and sewer lines that will serve the SCO at Mecca already are planned for extension of service to the UT Overlay. Many of the road improvements planned for the SCO at Mecca also are already planned. See Findings 116-117 and 152-155, infra. In addition, it is at least fairly debatable whether and to what extent greater use could be made of existing public facilities and services by locating the Scripps elsewhere in the County, or whether location elsewhere in the County would be better or even possible, especially given the County's complete vision for development of the SCO at Mecca. See Findings 85-92, supra. Given the decision to develop at Mecca, there was no evidence that existing public facilities and services will not be used to the maximum extent possible. Indicator 7 As to Indicator 7, there is no reason to believe that the development at Mecca resulting from the Plan Amendments will not maximize the use of future public facilities and services. (The County has not planned to provide centralized water and sewer service to the Vavrus property because it does not have the legal right or ability to provide services within the boundaries of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.) Indicator 8 As to Indicator 8, a disproportionate increase in the cost in time, money, and energy may result from providing and maintaining facilities and services to the SCO. However, while this indicator may be in evidence short-term due to the cost of constructing facilities to the SCO, over time these costs would be ameliorated as more development occurs in the area. Indicator 9 As to Indicator 9, as depicted on Map H of the DRI application, which is referenced in new Policy 1.2-f as a “land use/site planning measure,” it is at least fairly debatable whether the Plan Amendments provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The only rural uses adjacent to Mecca are the Vavrus land to the east, and Map H depicts a 50-foot buffer there. There was evidence that the 50-foot buffer on the east is sufficient for the current use and the rural residential land use designation (1 du/10ac) placed on the Vavrus site at this time by the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The Mecca project has been designed so that, if there are changes in the future in the land use on the Vavrus property, those buffers would continue to provide compatibility. Indicator 10 As to Indicator 10, no language contained in the Plan Amendments discourages or inhibits infill or redevelopment, and the Plan still contains several provisions encouraging infill and redevelopment. On the other hand, development occurring at Mecca obviously will not result in infill or redevelopment. To the extent that the availability of economic incentives for infill and redevelopment is limited, the significant economic incentives committed to the Mecca project will not be available for infill and redevelopment. However, it is at least fairly debatable whether the infill and redevelopment measures in the Plan will be compromised by the Amendments in view of the increasing growth pressures in the County and the “tight” supply of land for development. The Plan Amendments include numerous anti-sprawl development controls that also are considered in the urban sprawl analysis. The principal controls are in the structure of the Plan Amendments, primarily the minimum and maximum amounts established for specific uses, a requirement for phasing, and a required balance of residential and non- residential uses for each phase. To mitigate sprawl, development controls should be meaningful and predictable, but also flexible. They need not include numeric setbacks and building spacing requirements, or a site plan. It is at least fairly debatable that the controls in the Amendments satisfy the State’s criteria. Cf. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(j). Petitioners' Evidence One planning witness for Petitioners who opined that the Amendments constitute sprawl did not consider the extent, amount or frequency of any indicator, contrary to Rule 9J-5.006(5)(d). He also opined there is no need for the Amendments. However, in analyzing this issue, he only reviewed portions of the Plan and a six-page summary of the EAR prepared by Petitioners’ counsel. He did not examine the 2003 Population Allocation Model or the County’s population projections and land use need analysis.7 Another planning witness for Petitioners rendered opinions about the interpretation of several indicators in the urban sprawl rule, but his testimony did not constitute expert opinions as to whether the Amendments constitute sprawl, or are "in compliance." A third planning witness for Petitioners, from the TCRPC, opined that the Amendments are sprawl, as is the existing development near Mecca. However, he admitted the definition of “sprawl” in the TCRPC's SRPP is not the same as the definition in Rule 9J-5. Urban Sprawl Summary Based on the foregoing, the determinations by the County and DCA in this case that the Plan Amendments are consistent with the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, the GMA, and Rule Chapter 9J-5 regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources are subject to fair debate. Capital Improvements In this category, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Section 163.3177(3)(a) and Rule 9J-5.016(2) and (3)(b). The statute provides: The comprehensive plan shall contain a capital improvements element designed to consider the need for and the location of public facilities in order to encourage the efficient utilization of such facilities and set forth: A component which outlines principles for construction, extension, or increase in capacity of public facilities, as well as a component which outlines principles for correcting existing public facility deficiencies, which are necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. The components shall cover at least a 5-year period. Estimated public facility costs, including a delineation of when facilities will be needed, the general location of the facilities, and projected revenue sources to fund the facilities. Standards to ensure the availability of public facilities and the adequacy of those facilities including acceptable levels of service. Standards for the management of debt. The Rule provides: Capital Improvements Analysis Requirements. The element shall be based upon the following analyses which support the comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection 9J-5.005(2), F.A.C. Current local practices that guide the timing and location of construction, extension or increases in capacity of each public facility; The general fiscal implications of the existing deficiencies and future needs for each type of public facility. This analysis shall be based on the needed improvements, as identified in the other local government comprehensive plan elements, and shall address the relative priority of need among facility types, and shall support the future land use element; The costs of needed capital improvements for mitigation of existing deficiencies, replacement and new growth needs pursuant to the future land use element and shall explain the basis of cost estimates; The impact of new or improved public educational and public health care systems and facilities on the provision of infrastructure; The use of timing and location of capital improvements to public facilities to support efficient land development and goals, objectives, and policies in the future land use element. This analysis must take into consideration plans of state agencies and water management districts that provide public facilities within the local government jurisdiction; and An assessment of the local government's ability to finance capital improvements based upon anticipated population and revenues including: Forecasting of revenues and expenditures for five years; Projections of debt service obligations for currently outstanding bond issues; Projection of ad valorem tax base, assessment ratio and millage rate; Projections of other tax bases and other revenue sources such as impact and user fees; Projection of operating cost considerations; and Projection of debt capacity. Requirements for Capital Improvements Goals, Objectives, and Policies. * * * (b) The element shall contain one or more objectives for each goal and shall address: The use of the capital improvements element as a means to meet the needs of the local government for the construction of capital facilities necessary to meet existing deficiencies, to accommodate desired future growth and to replace obsolete or worn-out facilities; The limitation of public expenditures that subsidize development in high hazard coastal areas; The coordination of land use decisions and available or projected fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements which maintains adopted level of service standards and meets the existing and future facility needs; The extent to which future development will bear a proportionate cost of facility improvements necessitated by the development in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards; and The demonstration of the local government's ability to provide or require provision of the needed improvements identified in the other local government comprehensive plan elements and to manage the land development process so that public facility needs created by previously issued development orders or future development do not exceed the ability of the local government to fund and provide or require provision of the needed capital improvements. There was no evidence that the Plan does not contain a CIE meeting these requirements or, more germane to this case, that the Plan Amendments undo the Plan's CIE, which already has been determined to be "in compliance." Actually, while seemingly focusing here on capital improvements other than those related to traffic circulation, Petitioners attempt to use these requirements primarily as additional bases for their urban sprawl arguments, supra, and their transportation concurrency and data and analysis arguments, infra. Chapter 2003-420, Laws of Florida, provides that the County in which Scripps is located shall have the exclusive right to provide central water and sewer service to the project. The County intends to provide such service to the SCO via lines extending from Okeechobee Boulevard and SR 7 about 12.5 miles away. The County has enough plant capacity to serve the SCO through build-out. Assuming Scripps Florida is located at the SCO, it would be expected to pay guaranteed revenue fees, connection fees, and on-line rates (which could be special rates set for Scripps and Mecca.) The evidence was that the total cost of construction for the lines to serve the SCO, while substantial at approximately $15 million (some of which would be expended with or without the SCO), is a relatively small percentage (5-6 percent) of the County's overall capital improvements budget, is relatively minor in light of the County’s strong financial condition, will enhance the use of existing assets and rate stability for customers, represents a least-cost and efficient approach for the area to be served, and will not cause other water and sewer needs to go unmet. The County’s 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Schedule (CIS) is financially feasible, as are each year’s program in the CIS. The CIS is based on best available data. Capital outlays to support the SCO will not deprive the County of money for other needed projects or distort the County’s fiscal priorities. Transportation Concurrency The Petitioners' focus here is on the CRALLS designations. CRALLS designations have been assigned to 37 different road segments and 6 intersections, not only near Mecca but also as far north as Indiantown Road, as far south as Okeechobee Boulevard, and as far east as I-95. They are set at vehicle loadings that match the traffic loads expected with development of the SCO. They only apply to the SCO. Other developments cannot rely on them but must use an applicable LOSS. In part, Petitioners frame their arguments on inconsistency with statutes and rules governing interim LOSS designed to correct existing deficiencies and set priorities for addressing backlogged facilities; Transportation Concurrency Management Areas used to promote infill and redevelopment; and Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas used to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on urban infill and redevelopment and to achieve other goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan, such as promoting the development of public transportation. See Section 163.3180(9) and Rule 9J-5.0055(4)-(6). However, DCA and the County have made no effort to defend its CRALLS under those provisions.8 Rather, their position is that a CRALLS designation is a specialized LOSS that is "in compliance" without resort to those provisions of the law. DCA and the County seemed to come close to defending the CRALLS in part on the ground that the County has absolute discretion to establish these CRALLS and that they are not even subject to review for adequacy. Such a legal position would be untenable. Cf. Conclusion 217, infra. Assessment of the adequacy of the CRALLS is required. The transportation issues associated with the SCO are unprecedented in the County because of its size, location, and 30-year build-out. To address the challenges posed by these factors, the County relied on a combination of strategies to address transportation, including road improvements, CRALLS, adopting development controls for the SCO, and requiring mitigation. The initial transportation issue for the SCO was posed by FLUE Policy 3.5-d. This policy prohibits land use changes expected to generate significant impacts on any roadway segment projected to fail to operate at LOSS "D" based on the adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan. This policy is self-imposed and not required by the State. The SCO would generate trips beyond the significance thresholds in FLUE Policy 3.5-d. The County Engineer supported an exemption from this policy for the SCO because traffic considerations should not outweigh the economic and other land use goals the County is pursuing with the SCO. The first traffic analysis for the SCO was included in the DRI application, and was predicated on 10.5 million square feet of R&D. Later, in conjunction with re-zoning, the County’s consultants prepared a concurrency analysis for 8.5 million square feet of R&D, reflecting the maximum allowed by the Plan Amendments. All traffic analyses were performed as they would have been for a private developer, with methodologies approved by the County in collaboration with FDOT, TCRPC and Martin County. Assumptions were conservative, representing a worst- case scenario. SCO-related road improvements approved by the County in its five-year road program for 2005-2009 included 18 segments and three intersections at a total cost of $179.7 million. Of these, eight projects totaling $64.8 million were not new or changed in their amount of funding. The SCO-related improvements in the five-year road program were incorporated into the CIS for 2005-2010. An additional $26 million for these projects was included for 2010. Approximately 70 percent of the improvements needed for the SCO was previously identified on the 2020 Roadway System Map. In addition to these construction projects, the County also lowered the LOSS on some roads and intersections that would be impacted by the SCO over the next 30 years. In doing so, the County utilized its long-standing policy of establishing a CRALLS designation for each such road segment or intersection. The County is authorized under its charter to set LOSS's for all major roadways in unincorporated areas and municipalities except for the FIHS. The State sets the LOSS on roads in the FIHS. The County's generally applicable LOSS is LOSS “D”. Since 1989, the County has utilized the CRALLS strategy to establish an alternative LOSS on some roads due to physical or policy constraints. Examples of physical constraints include natural features, waterways, right-of-way limitations, and other roads; neighborhood opposition to a wider road would be an example of a policy constraint. CRALLS designations are not limited to the Urban/Suburban Tier; they may be adopted for land in any tier. Under TE Policy 1.2-f, CRALLS designations by the BCC must be based on data and analysis. These data and analysis must address 11 criteria in the County’s Unified Land Development Code (ULDC). CRALLS standards typically are expressed as a numeric limit on trip loadings on the road segment or intersection in question, rather than reliance upon the conventional, generalized “A”-“F” standards used by transportation engineers. Since 1993, Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5 have granted a local government discretion to adopt LOSS for seven types of public facilities, including roads other than FIHS roads. The only State requirements are that LOSS's must be adequate, based on data and analysis, and established for each facility type. Local governments are not prohibited from adopting LOSS's for different facilities within a service type or even project-specific LOSS's that overlay the more generally applicable LOSS for a facility or facility type. Of the 37 road segments and six intersections given project-specific CRALLS designations in the Amendments, the designations on nine road segments will become ineffective when the roads are widened as planned. Another seven segments may eventually have their CRALLS designations repealed as unneeded. These segments are projected to be no more than 12 percent over generalized LOS “D”, and the County’s experience is that a detailed arterial analysis generally will show such a segment actually operating at LOS “D” when site-specific factors are considered. Seven segments and one intersection already had CRALLS designations, but the CRALLS was changed to accommodate the SCO. An additional nine segments and four intersections were expected to have a CRALLS designation even without the SCO, due to pre-existing conditions. On all but two of these, the SCO accounted for 5% or less of the trip loadings. Five segments and one intersection received a CRALLS designation solely because of the SCO. These include three segments of PGA Boulevard, two segments of SPW, and the Northlake Boulevard to Orange Boulevard intersection. In analyzing an LOSS for adequacy, a local government should consider both technical and policy issues. Technical issues for roads include the actual amount of traffic to be allowed on a road segment or intersection at the peak hour in the peak season. Policy issues involve comparing increased congestion to other planning principles, such as preventing sprawl, promoting economic development, and neighborhood opposition to wider roads. There is not a limiting list of planning principles to consider in evaluating adequacy. The County Engineer concluded that these CRALLS designations were appropriate and adequate LOSS's. He based his opinion on the amount of traffic on each segment or intersection, how the road would function, fiscal issues, his knowledge of the area, residents’ opinions, and other factors. He noted that the maximum trips in each CRALLS designation are for the peak hour in the peak season; the peak season represents a 15 percent increase over the off-peak season. The CRALLS determinations were supported by the best available data. Among other things, the data and analysis addressed the 11 criteria identified in the ULDC. As transmitted, the Amendments included a number of temporary CRALLS designations. In its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC), DCA objected that temporary CRALLS designations without an accompanying long- range CIS were inconsistent with Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5. DCA suggested the County identify improvements for those CRALLS that were indeed temporary, and assign permanent CRALLS to those segments for which no improvements were planned. Of the 43 CRALLS designations in the Amendments as adopted, all but two were permanent. The CRALLS designations on two segments of Northlake Boulevard were to be “no longer in effect” after the extension of PGA Boulevard. These CRALLS designations are supported by a fully-funded extension of PGA Boulevard from SPW to the Beeline in the CIS. Considering the road improvements in the adopted CIS and the CRALLS designations adopted in the Amendments, the County will achieve and maintain the LOSS's on roads affected by the Amendments through 2009. In addition to road improvements and adopting CRALLS, the County adopted “best planning practices” for transportation in the Amendments. These included a variety of requirements in FLUE Policy 2.8-c, 1.-3., emphasizing bicycle and pedestrian mobility, project design measures like slip roads, and mixing uses to enhance internal trip capture. Policy 2.8-c, 9., included several requirements intended to foster public transportation at the SCO. Policy 2.8-d required a balance of residential and non-residential uses in each five-year project phase. Finally, the Amendments include required mitigation measures in conjunction with the CRALLS designations, including road construction and design principles for the SCO. Petitioners’ transportation witness opined that the CRALLS designations were not adequate and, in some cases, not feasible. But for several reasons, his opinions were not beyond fair debate. First, he based his opinion on the traffic analysis of 10.5 million square feet of development in the DRI application, which was later reduced to a maximum of 8.5 million, unbeknownst to the witness. Second, his technical analysis was general and did not take into account the County’s actual experience, which is not professionally acceptable data and analysis for purposes of a plan amendment. For example, some CRALLS loadings he said were impossible to achieve are already being met or exceeded in the County on actual roads, and traffic on some roads flows at speeds equivalent to LOS “D” even though trip loadings greatly exceed the LOS "D" numbers on the generalized LOS tables. Third, his opinion did not take into account the possibility that required on-site affordable housing and CRALLS mitigation measures in the Plan Amendments might increase internal trip capture and reduce trips on the external roadway system. Fourth, he assumed that the only policies the County could consider when evaluating the adequacy of a CRALLS designation are infill, redevelopment, and promotion of “forgotten modes” of transportation like bicycles; he did not consider economic development, urban sprawl, growth pressures, and other planning principles. Data and Analysis Paragraph 75 of the Amended Petition, labeled "Data and Analysis," alleges that the Plan Amendments are: not clearly based on the relevant and appropriate and professionally-accepted data and analysis regarding: impacts to adjacent natural areas; compatibility with adjacent land uses; impacts to the Loxahatchee River and restoration thereof; the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan [CERP] and components thereof; impacts to rural communities; the availability and necessity of infrastructure and the provision thereof to support the project; the necessity for and the amount of land needed to accommodate the project; the availability and suitability of alternative sites for the project; the character of the undeveloped land and the surrounding community; the economic impacts of the proposed plan amendments; [and]9 the likelihood of developing an economically significant biotech industry as [a] result of the plan amendments . . . as required by sections 163.3177(6)(a), (8) and (10)(e), Fla. Stat. and Rule 9J-5.005(2) and (5)10 and 9J-5.006(2) and 9J-5.013(1) F.A.C.11 Section 163.3177(6)(a) requires that the future land use plan be based on appropriate data and analysis. Section 163.3177(8) requires all elements of comprehensive plans to be "based upon data appropriate to the element involved." Section 163.3177(10)(e) states the Legislature's intent that goals and policies be "clearly based on appropriate data"; states that DCA "may evaluate the application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted"; and states that DCA "shall not evaluate whether one accepted methodology is better than another." Rule 9J-5.005(2) states in pertinent part: (a) All goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. Rule 9J-5.006(2) describes the Land Use Analysis Requirements for the FLUE. It should be noted that new FLUE Policy 2.8-f in the Plan Amendments provides: "If the Scripps Research Institute does not move forward on the Mecca site, Staff shall bring to the BCC for initiation proposed amendments to consider removing any text and maps related to the [SCO] from the Comprehensive Plan." While Petitioners characterize this Policy as an admission that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance," the Policy actually is prudent and would allow reconsideration of planning for Mecca and vicinity with a Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster effort located elsewhere in the County (or even without any Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster effort in the County, if that were to occur) as part of the EAR-based and sector planning efforts of the County. Some parts of the data and analysis would not be "professionally accepted" and, standing alone, would not be adequate to support the Plan Amendments. For example, the Washington Economic Group report is not "professionally accepted" because: it does not explain its methodology; it is based on an erroneous assumption that the plan for Scripps Florida, which is planned to be smaller than Scripps California, will generate the level of biotechnical industry found in all of San Diego, which includes not only Scripps, but also the University of California at San Diego and the Salk Institute in its cluster; it overestimates the importance of Scripps' role in the San Diego cluster; and it double- counts Scripps employment in its employment estimates. But other data and analysis corrected these errors. The amount of data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendments is voluminous. Petitioners' data and analysis arguments essentially are that the same evidence they presented as to the substantive areas of concern proves alleged failures of data and analysis to be "professionally accepted" and adequate. As indicated elsewhere in this RO, Petitioners' evidence did not prove their case as to substantive areas of concern beyond fair debate; likewise, they did not prove beyond fair debate that the totality of the data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendments were not "professionally accepted" or were inadequate. Internal Consistency The Amended Petition alleges numerous internal inconsistencies. Section 163.3177(2) requires: "The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent . . . ." Rule 9J-5.005(5) repeats this admonition in subparagraph (a), and subparagraph (b) adds: "Each map depicting future conditions must reflect goals, objectives, and policies within all elements and each such map must be contained within the comprehensive plan." Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following statements in section B., the Assessment and Conclusions section of the Introduction to the FLUE, that the updated 1989 Plan implements the direction provided by the BCC to: strengthen and facilitate revitalization and redevelopment and infill development programs; protect agricultural land and equestrian based industries; balance growth through the County; * * * 8. establish a timing and phasing program to provide for orderly growth; * * * coordinate growth with the provision of infrastructure; define how growth/services will be managed in rural residential areas; define service areas and the type of services to be provided within each service area; and provide criteria for expanding the Urban/Suburban Tier. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following GOPs of the FLUE: Goal 1, to establish the Tier System. Policy 1.1-b, establishing criteria for redesignation of a Tier. Policy 1.1-d, not to modify the Tier System if redesignation would exhibit the characteristics of urban sprawl, as defined by Rule 9J-5.006. Objective 1.4, for a Rural Tier to protect and maintain rural residential, equestrian, and agricultural areas. Policy 1.4-k, not to make future land use decisions that increase density and/or intensity requiring major new public investments in capital facilities and related services in the Rural Tier. Objective 2.1, to designate sufficient land area in each land use designation to manage and direct future development to appropriate locations to achieve balanced growth. Policy 2.1-f, not to exceed the natural or manmade constraints of an area considering assessment of soil types, wetlands, flood plains, wellfield zones, aquifer recharge areas, committed residential development, the transportation network, and available facilities and services; and not to underutilize existing or planned capacities of urban services. Policy 2.2-b, requiring: an adequate justification and a demonstrated need for proposed future land use; for residential density increases to demonstrate that the current land use is inappropriate; for a review and determination of compatibility with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity; and an evaluation of impacts on the natural environment, availability of facilities and services, adjacent and surrounding development, future land use balance, prevention of urban sprawl as defined by Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g), Community Plans and/or recognized Planning Area Special Studies, and municipalities in accordance with Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective 1.1. Policy 2.2-d, to ensure consistency of the County's ULDC with the appropriate elements of the Plan. Objective 2.6, to establish a transfer of development rights (TDR) program. Policy 2.6-b, requiring the TDR program to be the method for increasing density within the County unless an applicant can justify and demonstrate need and that the current designation is inappropriate, or is using the Voluntary Density Bonus program, as outlined in the Housing Element and the ULDC. Policy 2.6-f, limiting potential TDR receiving areas to the Urban/Suburban Tier, Planned Development Districts and Traditional Development Districts requesting a density increase, and subdivisions requesting a bonus density above the standard density. Policy 2.6-h, prohibiting designation of receiving areas which would result in a significant negative impact upon adjacent Environmentally Sensitive Land. Policy 2.6-i, prohibiting designation of receiving areas which would be incompatible with surrounding existing and future land uses. Goal 3, to define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost-effective manner. Objective 3.1, to establish graduated service areas to distinguish levels and types of services needed in a Tier. Policy 3.1-a, to establish the USA, LUSA, and RSA considering: the density and intensity of land uses depicted in the FLUE Atlas; the cost and feasibility of extending services; the necessity to protect natural resources; and the objective of encouraging reinvestment in the Revitalization and Redevelopment Overlay. Objective 3.4, to require a RSA which meets the needs of rural development and use without encouraging the conversion of rural areas to more intense uses. Policy 3.4-a, for the RSA to include those areas of the County where the extension of urban LOS's is neither foreseen during the long range planning horizon nor warranted by development patterns or densities and intensities allowed. Policy 3.4-c, not to provide or subsidize centralized potable water or sanitary sewer in the RSA unless: required to correct an existing problem; required to prevent a projected public health hazard; required to prevent significant environmental degradation; or required by the Public Health Department for development in the Rural Tier adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to adoption of the Plan in 1989. Objective 3.5, to require availability of services concurrent with impacts of development, to ensure consistency of decisions regarding location, extent, and intensity of future land use (particularly urban expansion), with types of land use and development established in each Tier. Objective 4.1, to develop and implement a Community Planning and Neighborhood Planning program, consider the program's plans for more livable communities with a strong sense of place and identity for the various regions in the County. Policy 4.1-c, to consider the objectives and recommendations of all Community and Neighborhood Plans, including recognized Planning Area Special Studies, prior to extending utilities or services, approving land use amendments, or issuing development orders for rezoning, conditional use, or Development Review Committee approval. Goal 5, to provide for the continual protection, preservation, and enhancement of the County's various high quality environmental communities. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following parts of the Conservation Element (CE): Objective 2.1, to preserve and protect native communities and ecosystems to ensure that representative communities remain intact, giving priority to significant native vegetation. Policy 2.1-g, to ensure that management plans are developed for County-owned or County-managed natural areas and that uses allowed on these lands are compatible with them and preserve their natural character. Objective 2.4, to protect and preserve endangered and threatened species, species of special concern, and their associated habitats. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following GOPs of the CIE: Objective 1.1, to maintain minimum LOSS's for various facilities, including traffic circulation, and to issue development approvals based on ability to maintain those LOSS's. Objective 1.4, to identify and fund services and capital improvements required by the Plan. Policy 1.4-a, to fund projects and programs to (not in order of importance): correct public hazards; eliminate existing deficiencies in LOS's; provide capacity for projects in the USA approved through development orders; provide for renewal and replacement of, and improvement to, existing public infrastructure and physical assets; maintain LOS's as new growth occurs; increase existing LOS's to desired LOS's; and implement the GOPs in the Plan. Policy 1.5-c, not to provide urban LOS's in the RSA except where allowed under CIE Objective 1.1, required to correct a public health hazard, or required by the Public Health Department for development in the Rural Tier adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to adoption of the Plan in 1989. (Other internal consistencies mentioned in Petitioners' PRO were not alleged or heard by consent and may not be considered. See Conclusion 212, infra.) The evidence did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments cause the elements of the Plan to be internally inconsistent, or cause the depictions of future conditions in the FLUE Atlas not to reflect the GOPs within all elements of the Plan. Natural Resources Impacts on the Mecca Site As a result of its use for citrus growing and mining, Mecca itself is devoid of significant environmental value. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has found no jurisdictional wetlands on it. There are no native plant communities; in fact, there is virtually no native vegetation anywhere on the site. Mecca is used by wildlife in limited and intermittent ways. The main wildlife use is localized foraging by species such as sandhill cranes and wood storks in the impoundment and irrigation ditches. Mecca does not provide suitable habitat for nesting or denning. A listed species survey revealed no gopher tortoises or snail kites. The surface water management system for the first 535 acres of the SCO has received a construction permit, and the system for the total site was conceptually approved based on water quantity and water quality compliance. See Florida Wildlife Federation, et al., v. SFWMD, et al., SFWMD Order No. 2004-208 FOF ERP, DOAH Case Nos. 04-3064 and 04-3084, 2004 WL 2770101 (DOAH December 3, 2004; SFWMD Final Order December 8, 2004). No significant adverse impacts to natural resources on Mecca itself would result from development of the SCO on Mecca. Impacts of Development on Mecca on Natural Areas Surrounding Mecca The lands surrounding Mecca are more significant environmentally. They include Corbett WMA to the west, Hungryland Slough to the north and northeast, the Vavrus property to the east, and the North County Airport Preserve (Conservation lands to the west, south, and southeast of that Airport) east of the Vavrus property. Farther away to the east and northeast is the Loxahatchee Slough and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, including its federally- designated Wild and Scenic and Outstanding Florida Water portion. Farther away to the southeast is the Grassy Waters Water Preserve Area, which is both a high quality natural wetlands area and an important source of drinking water for the City of West Palm Beach. New FLUE Policy 2.8-c requires the adoption of design standards for the SCO which, among other things, will at a minimum address: 4. Protection of conservation lands to the north and west of the SCO and include a passive recreational wetland system to enhance the quality of surrounding areas of environmentally sensitive lands. In accordance with this Policy, Map H designates a 247-acre, 500-1,000 foot wide flow-way along the entire north and west sides of Mecca. The flow-way will consist of braided channels through a freshwater marsh, as well as forested wetland and upland tree islands. These wetlands will enhance recreation and wildlife use. The mining lake and a new, separate lake on the south end of the site will have littoral shelves and plantings conducive to wildlife use. In addition to providing onsite environmental benefits, the flow-way will help protect adjacent environmental lands to the west and north from the effects of development on Mecca itself. Impacts of Road Construction on Natural Areas Surrounding Mecca SPW as currently depicted in the Plan runs directly along the western border of Mecca immediately adjacent to Corbett WMA. By virtue of the Amendments, the road alignment has been moved eastward onto Mecca, with the flow-way on its west as a buffer between the actual road and Corbett. This road alignment and buffer can be expected to have less of an impact on Corbett than would an alignment without a buffer. In addition to the impacts of development on Mecca itself, the Plan Amendments also affect road construction offsite that have environmental impacts. The extension of SPW from south of Mecca north to the Beeline through the Hungryland Slough was planned and included in the Plan's 2020 Roadway System Map before the Amendments were adopted, but was not in the County's five-year road program through 2009. The Amendments enlarged the planned roadway from four to six lanes and accelerated its construction to 2007. The extension of PGA Boulevard west from the Beeline to Mecca was not depicted in the Plan prior to the Amendments. The Plan Amendments identify a new 260-foot wide ROW on the new TIM; although the ROW could accommodate ten lanes of roadway, a six-lane road is depicted on the new 2020 Roadway System Map. The new road construction is expected to impact a number of wetlands on private property, but the exact extent of this impact is not known as its precise alignment has not been selected, and the general alignment depicted in Ordinance No. 2004-39 does not allow an exact assessment of potential environmental impacts. In order to examine potential impacts of the PGA Boulevard Extension, the County studied the “worst case scenario” for the extension if it were completed in a straight-line from the Beeline to Mecca. A road constructed on this alignment would directly impact over 45 acres of wetlands, and have an indirect impact upon another 56 acres of wetlands. SFWMD considered this “worst case scenario” as part of its review of secondary impacts for purposes of the conceptual permit it issued for the SCO, which assumed that impacts will be lessened during subsequent permitting as a result of SFWMD's avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements. See Florida Wildlife Federation, et al., v. SFWMD, et al., SFWMD Order No. 2004-208 FOF ERP, supra. Habitat Fragmentation The integrity of natural areas is very important to wildlife. For one thing, the ability of wildlife to move around and mix to enlarge the gene pool increases the structural stability of wildlife populations. Loss of enough integrated habitat can be very damaging to particular species of wildlife. As habitat becomes further and further fragmented by development, the remaining connections among areas of quality habitat become increasingly important in general and especially for particular species of wildlife. Development and roads built through natural areas result in road kill and habitat fragmentation, which compromises the quality of the natural areas. Before the Plan Amendments, through at least 2009, wildlife would have had the ability to use Mecca and especially Hungryland to move between Corbett, Vavrus, the North County Airport Preserve, without having to cross any major roads until coming to the Beeline and Northlake Boulevard, which separate those areas from the Loxahatchee Slough northeast of the Beeline and north and south of existing PGA Boulevard, and from the Grassy Waters Preserve south of Northlake Boulevard. At some point between 2009 and 2020, a four-lane extension of SPW was planned to be added. As a result of the Plan Amendments, the SPW extension will be accelerated to 2007 and constructed with two additional lanes. As a result, the Plan Amendments will tend to reduce connectivity, increase fragmentation of natural habitats, and probably increase road kill of deer, alligators, various kinds of turtles, otters, and snakes. While not part of the Plan Amendments, planned protection measures include fencing to separate Corbett from the Mecca project and wildlife crossings and bridging installed along with the widening of SPW north of Mecca and the extension of PGA Boulevard to Mecca in an attempt to retain the linkage of open wetland and upland areas to the west, north and east, consistent with CE Objective 5.1. Unfortunately, even if the fencing and wildlife crossings and bridging are 100 percent effective for larger animals (which they probably will not be), it should be recognized that many smaller animals will benefit little from them if at all. In particular, increased road kills of listed indigo snakes should be expected due to their large habitat home range (200-acre home range for males). Fire Management Virtually all plant communities in the vicinity of Mecca are fire dependent--in order to be maintained in their natural state, they must be burned approximately every three years, or they will be invaded by exotic species, and their habitat values will be reduced. The inability to maintain a regular burn schedule also poses a public safety threat due to the increased risk of wildfires. Fire management is compromised near roadways and developed areas due to health concerns, reduced visibility, and increased wildfire threat. Caution is used when burning near roadways so as not to cause (traffic accidents,) or to be blamed unfairly for causing them, which can be just as bad for the public relations that have to be maintained to successfully fire-manage natural lands. If an airport, hospital, school, or community is within two miles of a burn area, it is considered a smoke-critical area. If Mecca is developed as proposed, it will be considered a smoke-critical area for many burns in Corbett, which will not be able to be burned if the wind is blowing from the west. In Corbett, which has a lot of lighter wood, fires often smolder for weeks, further constraining fire management. For these reasons, the development allowed by the Plan Amendments will negatively impact the management of Corbett. However, there are alternative fire-management techniques that can be used, if necessary, in natural areas adjacent to Mecca. In addition, with or without the SCO, the County was planning a four-lane extension of SPW along the eastern boundary of Corbett, which would be a constraint on fire management. Light Impacts The proposed development on Mecca will add light sources that will alter the nighttime sky viewable from Corbett, Hungryland, and the Loxahatchee Slough. Depending on the extent, such an alteration would reduce recreational values of Corbett. Lights also can interrupt bird migration and be harmful to migratory birds. The area surrounding Mecca is important for migratory birds because the lack of lighting provides a dark sky and safe route for migration. Special downward-directed lighting that can reduce the adverse impacts from lighting is intended to be used on the Mecca project although a clear requirement to use them is not included in the Plan Amendments. Noise, Pollution, and Mosquito Control Noise and other roadway disturbance cause behavioral problems in wildlife, disrupt bird-nesting for considerable distances, and negatively impact prey and predator by interfering with offensive and defensive mechanisms. However, it should not be anticipated that these kinds of impacts will be significant. In most cases, they probably will disturb the human recreational users of these public lands more than the wildlife. Fertilizer and pesticide use on Mecca may be harmful to wildlife on adjacent properties. But there are ways to control their ill effects through land development regulation consistent with provision in the CE of the Plan. Mosquito control is typically required in urban developments, and is accomplished through the use of pesticides that are not only targeted towards mosquitoes, which are an important part of the food chain, but also kill a wide variety of insects, spiders, and invertebrates. This reduces the populations of these species, negatively impacts species that rely on them for food, can be expected to result in less food for birds such as tree swallows, which feed heavily on mosquitoes, as well as dragonflies, and numerous species that rely on mosquito larvae in the aquatic environment. Loxahatchee River Basin Petitioners contend that it is unacceptably poor planning to develop the SCO on Mecca at this time and eliminate it as an option for use for water storage as part of efforts to restore the Loxahatchee River. The Loxahatchee River has been negatively impacted by development in its basin. Such development has resulted in several changes, including the redirection of water discharge to other basins and an unnatural increase in stormwater drainage. These changes to the drainage patterns have resulted in several problems, including excessively high flows in the river following rainfall events, and reduced base flows during the dry season. Excessive flows during the wet season have resulted in erosion of the stream bed, sedimentation blocking the channel at times, and sometimes water quality problems and fish kills. Reduced base flows during the dry season have contributed to allowing saltwater intrusion up the river channel. (Other contributing factors include straightening and stabilization of the inlet to reduce the need for maintenance dredging and the removal of a large oyster bar from the riverbed for navigation purposes.) Saltwater intrusion has altered aquatic ecosystems and caused a change in the vegetation along the riverbanks. Specifically, freshwater cypress-dominated wetlands used to occur as far seaward as 6.2 miles from the river mouth; now mangroves have replaced the cypress swamps as far inland as river mile 9.2, and the cypress wetlands to river mile 10.2 are stressed. Restoration of the Loxahatchee River is an objective of CERP, North Palm Beach County Part One. One component of North Palm Beach County Part One was for SFWMD to acquire rock mine pits for water storage from Palm Beach Aggregates near where the L-8 canal meets the C-51 canal. SFWMD plans to channel water through canals into these pits during wet season or high rainfall events, then discharge the water from the pits back through the canals during dry season. One destination for this fresh water during the dry season would be the Loxahatchee River. Until recently, prior to the Scripps opportunity, the North Palm Beach County Part One CERP team also was considering use of Mecca for water storage as a possible management measure in the overall CERP strategy for restoration of the Loxahatchee River. Mecca was considered for two main reasons. One was its location on the west leg of the C-18 canal, which receives discharges from the C-18 basin and flows into the Loxahatchee River. Water could be fairly easily stored there during the wet season and released to the river during the dry season. The other was its disturbed condition, being an orange grove and sand mine. The only other potential water storage sites near the C-18 canal without pristine wetlands that would be unsuitable and undesirable sites for a water storage facility is approximately 1,500 acres of disturbed agricultural land on Vavrus. (The other two-thirds of the Vavrus property has high-quality wetlands habitat.) However, Mecca was not specifically mentioned in any component of CERP, North Palm Beach County Part One, and consideration also was being given to restoring the Loxahatchee River without using Mecca for water storage. No decision was made to use Mecca for water storage, and no steps were taken to purchase Mecca for this purpose. When the Scripps opportunity arose, the County purchased the property for development of a biotechnology research park and applied to SRWMD for a surface water storage and management system and environmental resource permit. One issue was whether the permit would be consistent with the objectives of SFWMD, including CERP. SFWMD did a preliminary study, which included modeling, and determined that Mecca would not be needed for water storage, finding that water storage capacity available in the Palm Beach Aggregates rock mine pits was sufficient, given the pits’ location, depth, and access to nearby canals. SFWMD already had a contract for use of 48,000 acre-feet feet of storage capacity, which is more than seven times the achievable storage at Mecca. In addition, SFWMD was negotiating to acquire the right to double that storage capacity at Palm Beach Aggregates. Based on the County's plans to develop the SCO on Mecca, and the options available for restoring the Loxahatchee without water storage on Mecca, the CERP team eliminated the Mecca option. Instead, SFWMD and the County coordinated on the role the SCO might play in the recovery effort. SFWMD concluded that Mecca could be used to advantage as part of the water conveyance system between the rock mine pits and environmental areas, including the Loxahatchee River. Establishing a flow-way from the south to north of Mecca would give SFWMD another route with which to move water, would reduce dependence on Lake Okeechobee for fresh water, and would provide greater base flows to the Loxahatchee. Based on SFWMD input, the County designed for Mecca a flow-way that will allow flow up to 1,000 cubic feet of water per second (cfs) to assist recovery efforts for the Loxahatchee. Construction at Mecca is phased to assure that the existing onsite impoundment will be in place until the flow-way is functioning. This conveyance system will benefit offsite resources and improve water quality, and is consistent with and complementary to SFWMD’s CERP implementation. Petitioners' witnesses criticized the decision to proceed with development of the SCO on Mecca at this time on the ground that CERP's implementation report (a/k/a "tentatively selected plan") has yet to be approved. However, approval requires not only agreement by the State and federal agencies involved but also a vote of the United States Congress, which may not occur until 2008. It is a fairly debatable policy question whether to postpone a decision on developing the SCO at Mecca until Congress approves an ultimate CERP implementation plan. Petitioners' witnesses also criticized the modeling relied on by SFWMD to eliminate the Mecca option. They pointed out that the modeling was not peer-reviewed and that it assumed 80,000 to 100,000 acre-feet of storage at the rock mine pits. But this point, too, is fairly debatable. First, while peer-review is required in the CERP planning process, it is not required of data and analysis under the GMA. See Finding 136, supra. Second, the purpose of the modeling was to supplement modeling already done assuming 48,000 acre-feet of storage for comparison purposes. It was not intended to answer the ultimate question of CERP planning process--whether the CERP implementation plan will meet CERP objectives, including restoration of the Loxahatchee. In addition, based on the evidence, prospects for obtaining the additional storage seem reasonably good. Third, water from the rock mine pits is only one of four sources of flow needed for restoration of the Loxahatchee. The combination of sources CERP will use has not been determined yet. Preliminarily, it is estimated that base flows from the south will be required to maintain 65 cfs minimum flows at the Lainhart Dam. Based on the evidence, the prospects for being able to maintain those flows using water from the rock mine pits are reasonably good. Other necessary flow will be sought from the Palmar/Cypress Creek and Kitchen Creek areas to the north. Fourth, as for reducing high flows during the wet season, it is fairly debatable whether the plan to use the Palm Beach Aggregates rock mine pits alone for water storage will work well enough. It could be that, despite capacity limitations on storage potential in the C-18 basin, some storage there may prove beneficial, perhaps in conjunction with aquifer storage and recovery wells (ASRs), along with the rock mine pits. Even with the Plan Amendments, there remains some potential at this time that a limited portion of Mecca and disturbed portions of Vavrus could be used for this purpose if needed. Petitioners' witnesses also complained that use of the rock mine pits along with a flow-way through Mecca will require potentially costly land acquisition and permitting and modification of existing canals and construction of new canals, as well as larger pumps, and that water will be lost in transit between the rock mine pits and Mecca through evaporation. But there was no evidence that those factors will in fact harm or jeopardize restoration of the Loxahatchee River. Meanwhile, it is significant that the flow-way on Mecca will be provided by the County and will not cost SFWMD or CERP anything. Natural Resources Summary As can be seen, development of the SCO at Mecca will not be without some adverse impacts to natural resources and the environment. However, the County's determination that the benefits of the SCO outweigh the harm of those impacts, so as not to cause the Plan Amendments to be "in compliance," is a policy decision that is at least fairly debatable. Community Character and Compatibility It is obvious that the Plan Amendments will result in a complete change in the character and use of the Mecca site. Without question, development of the SCO at Mecca will impact adjacent lands and the character of the nearest communities. The question raised, however, is whether the changes at Mecca are compatible with the character and uses of the surrounding lands. New FLUE Policy 2.8-c requires, among other things: urban uses allowed by the SCO to have a defined edge; protection of conservation lands to the north and west by a passive recreational wetland system to enhance the quality of surrounding environmentally sensitive lands; and compatibility with and minimization of impacts on land uses adjacent to the SCO. Map H of the DRI application shows wetland and other buffers on the north, west, and south sides of the SCO, and a 50-foot upland buffer along the Vavrus property to the east. There was evidence that the 50-foot buffer on the east is sufficient for the current use and the rural residential land use designation (1 du/10ac) placed on the Vavrus site at this time by the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The Mecca project has been designed so that, if there are changes in the future in the land use on the Vavrus property, those buffers would continue to provide compatibility. Corbett WMA and the Hungryland preservation lands in Unit 11 will be buffered by passive recreational wetlands 500 to 1,000 feet wide, based on Map H. Corbett WMA will be benefited by moving Seminole Pratt-Whitney (SPW) Road to the east of the SCO westerly buffer and converting the existing roadbed to an equestrian trail.12 To the south, The Acreage is an example of urban or suburban sprawl. A residential development platted in 1.25- acre lots, it has all internal roads in place and in use. There was ample evidence that development of the SCO can be compatible with The Acreage. The southerly buffer between the nearest residence in The Acreage and development in the SCO would be about 800 feet. SPW already is in the 2020 TIM and Roadway System Map as a four-lane paved road through The Acreage and north past Mecca and the Beeline to Indiantown Road. However, SPW Road already has a 120-foot-wide ROW, which can accommodate a six- lane road, and The Acreage Neighborhood Plan calls for construction of this road from Northlake to the Beeline Highway, as well as extension of SR 7 north from Okeechobee Boulevard to Northlake. There is already heavy traffic on the few major through-roads in The Acreage, and that will increase incrementally. At the same time, some work trips from The Acreage to areas of the County farther east could be offset by employment opportunities in the SCO. The North County Airport has a five-mile runway buffer zone precluding educational uses. That buffer zone was accommodated on the SCO by the arrangement of uses on Map H. The new extension of PGA Boulevard from the SCO to the Beeline Highway will be subject to FAA setback requirements, but there are options for addressing that issue when an alignment is selected. The 28-acre Accessory Site is located on the west side of SPW Road just south of the SCO. Its use for construction of SPW Road, a connector canal, and an FPL substation is compatible with the existing FPL transmission line on the property. The substation will be sufficiently buffered by canals and SPW Road from The Acreage to its east and south. Many residents in the communities in the vicinity of Mecca desire to preserve the character of their communities or, it seems, even restore it to what it was before the growth the County has seen in this area over the last several years. Several own horses and desire to continue to ride their horses along the roads in the area. However, as indicated, with or without the Plan Amendments, growth in the area was expected, the County was planning to build roads in the area, and traffic was expected to increase. Based on the foregoing, it is fairly debatable whether the Plan Amendments are compatible with community character and surrounding land uses. Regional and State Plans Section 163.3177(10) states in pertinent part: for the purpose of determining whether local comprehensive plans are consistent with the state comprehensive plan and the appropriate regional policy plan, a local plan shall be consistent with such plans if the local plan is "compatible with" and "furthers" such plans. The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in conflict with the state comprehensive plan or appropriate regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan. For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with the state comprehensive plan or the appropriate regional policy plan, the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans. Treasure Coast Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) In the Amended Petition, the Petitioners did not allege the Amendments are inconsistent with the SRPP, as a whole. Only allegations in the Amended Petition may be considered. See Conclusion 212, infra. Notwithstanding testimony from Petitioners’ TCRPC witness that the Plan Amendments were not consistent with some provisions of the SRPP, he did not testify that they were inconsistent with the SRPP as a whole. The Amendments further some parts of the SRPP. These include SRPP Goal 3.6 and SRPP Goal 3.7 of the Economic Development element, and their supporting strategies and policies. Petitioners' TCRPC witness testified there were five inconsistencies between the Amendments and the SRPP. However, he admitted that he did not recommend that TCRPC file formal objections to the Amendments with DCA on three grounds he cited for inconsistency at hearing --proximity to the Corbett WMA and other natural resources, the CRALLS designations, and proximity to the North County Airport. In discussing some provisions, this witness failed to give the SRPP its proper context. Many goals, strategies, and policies in the SRPP use directive verbs intended to be recommendations to a local government, not requirements. As one of his five grounds of inconsistency with the SRPP, Petitioners' TCRPC witness opined that Regional Goal 4.1 and its supporting measures require the County to prepare a regional plan before urban development may be allowed at Mecca, and to ensure such development meets the SRPP’s definition of a new town, village or city. However, this goal and its key provisions use the verb “should” and therefore are not mandates. Further, a plain reading of these provisions shows no requirement for the County to complete a regional plan as a pre-requisite for urban development. Also, the TCRPC witness opined that SRRP Policies 9.1.1.1 and 7.1.3.1 prohibit CRALLS designations outside urban areas. However, a plain reading of these policies shows no basis for such an assertion, and the witness later admitted the SRPP does not prohibit CRALLS designations in rural areas. Moreover, his testimony on this point was contradicted by his testimony that the SRPP is only “advisory.” State Comprehensive Plan The State Comprehensive Plan (SCP) is a very broad, direction-setting document. The SCP provides over-arching policy guidance, and does not impose or authorize the creation of regulatory authority. The Amended Petition alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the goals of the SCP regarding Land Use, Water Resources, Natural Systems and Recreational Lands, Transportation, and Urban and Downtown Revitalization, as well as numerous policies under these goals. Based on these allegations, Petitioners alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the SCP as a whole. To the contrary, the record evidence demonstrates that all relevant issues regarding water and other natural resources, land use, and transportation were taken into account by the County and are addressed in the Amendments. Additionally, the Amendments are consistent with and further numerous goals of the SCP not mentioned in the Amended Petition. The Amendments contain a commitment that each phase of development must contain affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate income households. This commitment furthers the SCP goal to “increase the affordability and availability of housing for low-income and moderate-income persons ” § 187.201(4), Fla. Stat. The Amendments have as their principal focus the creation of quality employment opportunities with Scripps Florida as anchor tenant. This purpose is consistent with and furthers the SCP policy to “[a]ttract new job-producing industries, corporate headquarters, distribution and service centers, regional offices, and research and development facilities to provide quality employment for the residents of Florida.” § 187.201(21)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. Summary Using the statutory definition of internal consistency, it is not beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with either the TCRPC's SRRP or the SCP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DCA enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2005, 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 28th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether two map changes on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Taylor County (County) by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 on December 15, 2009, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The Department is the state planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving amendments to comprehensive plans adopted by local governments. The County is a local government that administers a Plan. It adopted the two plan amendments that are the subject of this proceeding. It is considered a "rural" county with a current population of around 20,000 residents. Dr. Hutchins owns property in the County. Although his initial pleading alleges, and his Proposed Recommended Order states, that he "submitted oral comments regarding the subject amendments at transmittal and prior to adoption of the amendment," no evidence was presented at hearing that Dr. Hutchins did so during the adoption process. Ms. Redding and Mr. Wood are siblings and along with three other members of the Wood family jointly own property in the County. Like Dr. Hutchins, no evidence was presented at the hearing that either Intervenor submitted written or oral comments to the County during the adoption process. History Preceding the Amendments The process for adopting the County's first Plan, including the FLUM, began around 1988. For the purpose of drafting a FLUM, a Planning Board (Board) was created consisting of seven individuals, all of whom were volunteers with no formal planning experience. However, they received advice and assistance from two outside consultants, who also advised the County concerning the appropriate text to be used in the new Plan. Four members of the Board, including its former Chairman, testified at the final hearing. Over the next two years, the Board conducted meetings, spoke with numerous property owners, and collected information in order to assign each parcel an appropriate land use category. The collective efforts of the Board culminated in a large, hand- colored FLUM (consisting of numerous sections of aerial maps patched together) that was affixed to the wall of what is now the courtroom on the second floor in the County Courthouse. Testimony by former members of the Board established that the Hutchins parcel (then owned by Colin and Lucille Kelly) and the Bird Island parcel (owned by Wood, Redding, and other family members) were assigned a classification of Mixed Use-Urban Development. Because the County does not have a zoning code, the properties were never assigned a zoning classification consistent with that land use category. This classification was based upon the fact that at least two different businesses were being conducted on each parcel at the time, and the owners requested that they be given that classification. In the case of the Hutchins (then Kelly) property, it was being used to conduct a commercial fishing operation as well as a small construction company (with dump trucks, bulldozers, and front end loaders) that had a contract with Proctor & Gamble (now known as Buckeye Technologies, Inc.) to maintain roads. An office for the construction company was located in a separate mobile home placed on the property. Mr. Bird was a commercial fisherman and operated a wholesale fish business on Bird Island. Also, both he and his mother had separate homes on the property, another structure was used to store fish nets, and docking facilities for other commercial fisherman were maintained. Many of these structures were blown away during the so-called Storm of the Century on March 13, 1993, and never replaced. Except for property within the small communities of Keaton Beach, Dekle Beach, Denzel Beach, and Steinhatchee, and a few other small parcels, such as Dark Island, Cedar Island, and Intervenors' property, all of the remaining land along the coastline was placed in either Conservation or Agriculture. An unusual feature of the County is that it has one of the longest coastlines in the State (58 miles), stretching on the Gulf of Mexico from Jefferson County to Dixie County. Because around 88 percent of the coastline is owned by the State, very little waterfront land is left for development. In fact, Dr. Hutchins pointed out that except for his property and Bird Island, no other vacant, upland Gulf-front property within the County is in private ownership at this time. The FLUM, with the foregoing classifications, was adopted by the County by Ordinance No. 90-4 on June 19, 1990. Before it was submitted to the Department for its review, the County was advised by the Department that it would not accept the large, hand-colored FLUM in that format. Rather, the Department required that the map be reduced in size and digitized. To comply with this request, the original FLUM was dismantled into smaller sections and hand-carried to a firm in Crystal River that had the capability of reducing the large map into digital form. The original FLUM was then returned to the County Courthouse. When the larger map was reduced in size and converted to a digital format, it was not parcel-specific and failed to pick up the Hutchins parcel and Bird Island. Instead, except for larger tracts of land, especially in the small communities noted in Finding of Fact 8, the entire coastline was shown as being Conservation or Agriculture. This error was not detected by County officials or the affected property owners since they continued to rely upon the designations shown on the large, hand-colored FLUM in the Courthouse. The Department reviewed the FLUM, as digitized, assumed that the Hutchins and Bird Island property were Agriculture and Conservation, and found those parts of the FLUM to be in compliance. This agency action occurred on or about October 1, 1990. Thus, the Department never undertook a compliance review for either parcel with the intended higher density/intensity land use. In 1995, the room in which the original FLUM was mounted was taken over by another occupant of the Courthouse, and the original FLUM was moved to a different floor. During or after the moving process, it was lost or accidentally destroyed and its whereabouts have been unknown since that time. In 1993, Dr. Hutchins purchased his property from Colin and Lucille Kelly. Based on a conversation with a County employee, he purchased the property with the understanding that it was classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development. Although he had no specific plans to develop the property at that time, and still has none, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use category was the major inducement for him to purchase the property. In 2005, Dr. Hutchins was approached by an investor who wished to develop the property at a later time. When the investor contacted the County to confirm its land use designation, Dr. Hutchins learned for the first time that the digitized map approved by the Department reflected the property carried an Agriculture/Rural Residential land use. Because of this, the agreement with the potential investor was never consummated. In a similar vein, Mr. Wood, who served on the Board that assigned land use designations to property on the original FLUM, and knew that the Board had designated his property as Mixed Use-Urban Development, placed the Bird Island property on the market in 2005 representing that it was classified in that category. A prospective purchaser checked with the County to verify its land use and learned that it was Conservation. Mr. Wood was unaware of this error until that time. Because of this, the sale was never consummated. After 2005, the County and Department held numerous meetings in an attempt to resolve this dispute. The Department refused to allow the FLUM to be changed to reflect the original land use designations. This led to the County adopting the two challenged amendments to correct what it characterizes as a "scrivener's error." Besides the two parcels that are in dispute here, on an undisclosed date, two other parcels (in the interior part of the County) were discovered by the County to have the wrong land use category as a result of the digitizing process. Both should have been placed in the Industrial land use category, and after a review, the Department had no objection to those errors being corrected by an amendment. The Plan Amendments On December 15, 2009, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17, also known as CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3. The first amendment changed the land use on the 14-acre Hutchins parcel from Agriculture/Rural Residential to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The present land use allows one dwelling unit per 5 acres while the new land use designation allows up to 12 dwelling units per acre and a 60 percent impervious surface ratio for nonresidential development. See Department Exhibit 1, Future Land Use Policy I.3.2. Thus, up to 126 residential units and 96,476 square feet of non-residential development could be built on the Hutchins site. The second amendment changed the land use on the 3.36-acre Bird Island parcel from Agriculture-2 and Conservation to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The former land use allows one dwelling unit per 40 acres while the new land use would permit the same density/intensity as the Hutchins parcel. The new category would allow up to 30 residential units and 21,954 square feet of non-residential development. The amendments were transmitted by the County to the Department for its review in early April 2009. On June 5, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. The Department lodged objections to both amendments generally on the grounds the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; the amendments authorize an improper increase in density within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) without proper mitigation; the amendments failed to discourage urban sprawl; and they are internally inconsistent with existing provisions within the Plan. The ORC recommended that the County not adopt the amendments. Besides the Department, DEP and the Regional Planning Council also provided written comments on the amendments. By letter dated May 8, 2009, DEP generally noted that it had concerns regarding development adjacent to the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve) where the parcels are located, and that careful planning strategies should be used for any development on the land. See Department Exhibit 4. The Regional Planning Council issued a staff report on February 25, 2010, generally concluding that the amendments were consistent with the applicable Strategic Regional Policy Plan goals and objectives. See Department Exhibit 15; County Exhibit 1. The County did not respond in writing to the ORC. On December 15, 2009, it adopted the amendments without change. On March 10, 2010, the Department published its Notice of Intent to find the amendments not in compliance in the Taco Times. On March 16, 2010, the Department filed its Petition with DOAH raising the same grounds that are in its Notice of Intent. The Property The Hutchins parcel is located in the southwest part of the County, a few miles south of Keaton Beach, with around 500 to 600 feet fronting on the Gulf of Mexico. The 14 upland acres that are the subject of this case are a sub-site of a larger 25-acre parcel owned by Dr. Hutchins, with the remaining 11 acres being adjoining wetlands on the north and south sides. Dr. Hutchins has built a home on pilings on his property along with a smaller ancillary structure. Photographs indicate that except for trees, the remainder of the upland property is vacant. Bird Island also lies on the Gulf of Mexico just northwest of the Hutchins parcel and is surrounded by water on three sides. Photographs reflect one residence and a dock still on the property. The two parcels are separated by "marsh grass and a little water." Both parcels of property are easily accessible to, and just west of, County Road 361, a paved two- lane highway that begins south of the subject properties and runs adjacent to, or near, the coastline, eventually turning northeast and terminating on U.S. Highway 19 south of Perry. Both properties abut portions of the Gulf of Mexico that have been designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The waters are a part of the Preserve, which was established in 1985 and is managed by DEP. The Preserve has exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. The two parcels are located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). That is to say, they are in "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In order to increase density within the CHHA, the County must meet certain criteria set forth in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department's Objections As summarized in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department contends that the two plan amendments are not in compliance because the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; there is an improper increase in density within the CHHA without proper mitigation; and the amendments fail to discourage urban sprawl. Although the Notice of Intent also raised the issue of whether the amendments are internally inconsistent with other provisions in the County's existing Plan, the Proposed Recommended Order does not address any specific internal inconsistencies, and the evidence focuses on the first three concerns. Therefore, the undersigned has assumed that those objections have been withdrawn or abandoned. Environmental Suitability With the exception of an area in the middle part of the County's coastline (where the Fenholloway River flows into the Gulf), the Preserve extends along the County's entire coastline, including the area in which the two parcels are located. The Preserve, designated as an OFW, contains various types of seagrasses, whose function is to provide habitat for a number of species, improve water quality, and reduce currents or wave energy in the event of a storm. It is undisputed that the seagrass beds near the amendment sites are high-quality, healthy, and of high environmental value. Coastal marshes are prevalent in the area of the County where the amendment sites are located. They serve many functions, including cleaning water flowing into The Preserve, functioning as a habitat for a number of species, and acting as a coastal barrier against storm surge during large storm events. Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, requires that local governments protect and conserve natural resources through the conservation element of the local plan. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. A Department rule also requires local governments to limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon water quality and living marine resources. See Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1. High-density development (up to 12 units per acre) on the parcels clearly has the potential to negatively impact coastal marshes and seagrasses adjacent to and near the subject sites. Although Dr. Hutchins indicated that he would develop his property only to the extent allowed by DEP so that the marshes and seagrasses would be safeguarded, the Department's practice for many years has been to assume that the property will be developed at its maximum allowable density and intensity. See, e.g., Sheridan v. Lee Cty, et al., Case No. 90- 7791 (DOAH Jan. 27, 1992; DCA June 28, 1993; Admin. Comm. Feb. 15, 1994)(compliance determination must be made based on maximum impacts authorized by the amendment terms, not speculation of a lesser impact). Mr. Wood's development intentions are not known. In any event, the two parcels potentially authorize 156 residential units and 113,430 square feet of non-residential uses adjacent to an OFW. Even so, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use designation may still be permissible if specific conditions limiting the density/intensity on the parcels are incorporated into the Plan by asterisk or text language in conjunction with a new amendment. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this planning practice has been used in other cases. Without any limitations, though, the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the maximum allowable density/intensity contravenes the cited statute and rules. CHHA Both parcels are located within the CHHA of the County. Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, requires that the County establish mitigation criteria for plan amendments located in the CHHA. Probably because of its small size in terms of population, and the lack of development (or ability to do so) along the coastline, the County has no goals, objectives, or policies addressing criteria for mitigation. Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. requires that a plan "direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas." Also, Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)7. requires that a plan "maintain or reduce evacuation times." Prior to 2006, the Department would allow a local government to comply with the foregoing rules by allowing density increases in the CHHA if the local government decreased a similar type of density elsewhere. This practice was known as "offsets." In 2006, however, the Legislature amended the statute to include criteria for compliance with the two rules. Due to the change in the law, the Department no longer engages in the practice of offsets for land use changes in the CHHA. Instead, it requires a local government that proposes to increase density within the CHHA to meet the requirements of Section 163.3178(9)(a)1.-3., Florida Statutes. Under the statute, if the County can demonstrate a 16-hour out-of-county evacuation time for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and a 12-hour evacuation time to shelter within the County for a category 5 storm event, an increase in density within the CHHA may be allowed. See § 163.3178(9)(a)1. and 2., Fla. Stat. Alternatively, the County may use one of the mitigation measures described in Section 163.3178(9)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Except for Coastal Element Objective IX-7 of the Plan, which provides that the County maintain a hurricane evacuation time of 9 hours for a category 1 storm, see County Exhibit 7, no data and analysis, such as a hurricane evacuation study for a category 5 storm event, was presented to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Dr. Hutchins' submission during the mediation process of an evacuation plan for a category 3 storm does not satisfy this criterion. Typically, a local government will have an adopted plan for a category 5 storm, as well as an evacuation model. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the mitigation measures in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes, have not been satisfied. At hearing, the County and Dr. Hutchins contended that offsets should still be used in this case to satisfy the mitigation requirements. They point out that the County has recently purchased property (totaling 51.7 acres) that is designated Mixed Use-Urban Development and more than compensates for any potential increase of residents needing to evacuate if the two amendments are found to be in compliance. As noted above, however, the practice of offsets was discontinued in 2006 with the passage of the new law. Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, there was no legal requirement that the Department notify every affected local government and property owner that it was discontinuing that practice to comply with the new law.2 Urban Sprawl Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1.-13. identifies thirteen "primary" indicators of urban sprawl. The Department contends that eight indicators are "tripped" or "triggered" by the new amendments and collectively they indicate that the proliferation of urban sprawl is not discouraged. No evidence was presented regarding five indicators. According to the rule, "[t]he presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d). Indicator 1 is tripped if the amendments allow uses in excess of demonstrated need. In this case no need analysis for additional land in the Mixed Use-Urban Development category was submitted by the County. The absence of a study is sufficient to trigger this indicator. Indicator 2 is tripped if the amendments allow "significant" amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas. The only true existing "urban" area in the County, as that term is commonly understood, is the City of Perry. Other residential and some commercial development (but to a much lesser degree) is found mainly in a few small communities on the coastline such as Steinhatchee, an unincorporated community perhaps 15 miles south of the subject parcels with probably around 1,500 residents, and Keaton Beach and Dekle Beach, both having no more than a few hundred residents each. (Official recognition has been taken of the population data.) Keaton Beach is around 2 or 3 miles north of the subject property and has condominiums and other limited residential/commercial development. In addition, Dark Island is located a short distance north of Bird Island and is classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, which authorizes the higher density/intensity development. Given this lack of "urban areas" in the County, virtually any development outside of Perry could arguably be considered "urban development . . . in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. Notwithstanding this unique (and perhaps unfair) situation, it is fair to characterize the potential addition of 12 units per acre as urban development and a total of around 150 residential units with associated commercial development as "substantial" when considering the County's size and existing development. Therefore, the second indicator has been triggered. Indicator 3 is triggered if the amendments allow urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development." Because urban development will occur in a rural, isolated area, this indicator is triggered. Indicator 4 is triggered if there is premature development of rural land that fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources. The evidence supports a finding that this indicator is triggered. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of existing and future public services and facilities. The evidence shows that the area is not currently served by central sewer and is not near any fire or police stations. While no public facilities are planned for that area in the five year capital improvement schedule, at a meeting in March 2010 the Taylor County Coastal Water & Sewer District indicated that a request for partial federal funding to extend central sewer services to Fish Creek, which lies beyond and to the south of the subject parcels, would be placed on the April agenda. See County Exhibit 7. Whether a request was actually made at that meeting is not of record. In any event, Coastal Element Policy IX.6.5 provides that where central sewer is not available in an area classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, septic tanks may be used within the CHHA. See Department Exhibit 1. As to fire and law enforcement support, there is insufficient evidence to establish that these services cannot be provided in an efficient manner. Given these circumstances, there is less than a preponderance of the evidence to support a finding that indicators 6 through 8 are triggered. Indicator 9 is triggered if the plan amendments fail to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that this indicator is triggered. Collectively, the presence of four indicators is sufficient to support a finding that the County has failed to discourage urban sprawl. E. Scrivener's Error The County and Intervenors rely heavily upon the fact that the plan amendments are in compliance because the amendments simply correct an error that occurred when, at the Department's direction in 1990, the original FLUM was reduced in size and digitized. While at first blush this argument is appealing, it assumes that the Department would have approved the new land use classifications in 1990 when it performed a compliance review of the original FLUM. But this never occurred, and the new amendments give the Department its first opportunity to determine if the new land uses are in compliance. It is undisputed that on an undisclosed date the Department approved an amendment based on the same type of error. While the record is somewhat confusing, it appears that in that case, the two properties were Industrial, they were not located in the CHHA, and on-going business concerns were operating on the properties. Intervenor Hutchins also cited several instances where mapping errors were allowed to be corrected by subsequent plan amendments. Where final agency action in those matters is of record, however, it shows that approval was given only after a compliance review was made by the Department.3
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 Plan Amendments CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3 adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of December, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Environmental Coalition of Broward County, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Coalition"), is a Florida corporation. The Coalition has offices located in Broward County. The Coalition has approximately 500 members, most of whom reside in Broward County. A substantial number of the Coalition's members own property in Broward County and/or operate businesses within Broward County. The Coalition is a not-for-profit corporation, chartered for educational and scientific purposes. The primary purpose of the Coalition is to present objections and recommendations to local governments concerning planning issues on behalf of its membership. The Coalition is authorized to participate in actions of this type and to represent its membership in administrative proceedings. The Coalition presented oral and written objections to Broward County during the review and adoption process concerning the plan amendment at issue in this proceeding. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of implementing the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Among other things, the Department is required to review local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto for compliance with the Act. Respondent, Broward County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the local government with the authority pursuant to the Act and the Broward County Charter to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan. The County has adopted the 1989 Broward County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Broward County Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as the "County Commission"), is the local planning agency for the County. The County Commission is advised on land use planning issues by the Broward County Planning Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Council"). The Planning Council was created by the County Charter. Intervenors, Miramar Lakes, Inc., d/b/a Miramar Rock, Robert A. Whitcombe, Trustee, and the South Broward Trust own or have under contract virtually all of the property affected by the Plan amendment which is the subject of this proceeding. These Intervenors have entered into a joint venture agreement with Intervenor Atlantic Gulf Communities Corporation to develop the subject property. Intervenors applied for the amendment that is the subject of this proceeding and presented oral or written comments, recommendations and objections during the period of time between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the subject Plan amendment. The County's Plan. The County adopted a comprehensive plan as required by the Act in 1989. The planning horizon of the plan is 2010. The Plan includes two volumes of text, two volumes of support documents and associated maps. See Petitioner's exhibit 8. Volume One is text and is effective countywide. Volume Three contains support documents for the Plan. The Plan also includes the 1989 Broward County Future Land Use Plan Map (Series) (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"). The FLUM depicts the proposed distribution, extent and location of categories of land uses allowed under the Plan. Among others, those land uses include "residential" at various densities and "agricultural". Pursuant to the Plan, the eastern approximately one-third of the County may be developed. The developable area consists of approximately 400 square miles of land area. The western approximately two-thirds of the County are designated as water conservation areas and are separated by a levee from the developable one- third. Future land use elements of municipal comprehensive plans in the County must be in substantial conformity to the Plan. The Subject Property. The property which is the subject of the Plan amendment at issue in this case consists of 1,280 acres of a total of 1,965 acres (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). The Property is located in the City of Miramar, in southwest Broward County, Florida, Sections 25, 26, 27 and 36, Township 51 South, Range 39 East. The Property is located in the southwestern portion of the developable one-third of the County. See Map 1 of Broward County exhibit 1. The Property is bounded on the east by S.W. 184th Avenue and on the north by Honey Hill Road. It is east of U.S. Highway 27. Part of the Property is vacant. Part of the Property is being used as cattle pasture and for a rock mining, batching, mixing and crushing operation. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the Property include vacant land, rock mining and some development to the north, single-family residential development to the east, rock mining and vacant land to the south, in Dade County, Florida. Residential development immediately to the east in a development known as "Silverlakes" is being developed at a density of three dwelling units per acre. Further to the west of the Property is the eastern boundary of the water conservation areas of the Everglades. These areas are separated from the rest of Broward County by a levee. The land use designation of the Property and other property in the surrounding area is "agricultural". Under the Plan, the land use designation allows agricultural uses and residential development of one dwelling per 2.5 acres. Under its current land use designation, a total of 786 dwelling units may be developed on the Property. The First Amendment Requested by the Intervenors. In early 1994 Intervenors filed an application with the County seeking an amendment of the FLUM to modify the future land use designation of all 1,965 acres of the Property to "Low (2) Residential". "Low (2) Residential" allows the development of two dwelling units per acre. The Planning Council conducted a review of the proposed amendment. The Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection raised objections to the proposed amendment because the Property is located in an area of water recharge and wetlands. The area is identified as within a general wetlands area on the "Southwestern Generalized Wetlands Map" of the Plan. 30 Based upon the objections of the County Department of Natural Resource Protection, the staff of the Planning Council recommended denial of the proposed amendment. The South Florida Water Management District (hereinafter referred to as the "SFWMD"), an agency with broad regional responsibility for water management in southeast Florida, raised objections with the Planning Council concerning the location of the property in an area which was being considered for use as part of a project to restore the Everglades. The SFWMD was concerned that the Property is located within an area which has come to be known as the "East Coast Buffer". In early 1994, at the time of the initial review of the proposed amendment, the East Coast Buffer was a study area abutting the eastern water conservation areas of southeast Florida. The SFWMD was studying the East Coast Buffer for use in water conservation efforts in southeast Florida. At the time of the first review of the proposed amendment, the portion of the East Coast Buffer in which the Property is located was being considered for preservation as a reservoir site. The Planning Council transmitted the proposed amendment to the County Commission without recommendation. The County Commission decided not to transmit the proposed amendment to the Department for its review, ending review of the initial application. The Initial Review of the Subject Amendment. A second application on the Property was resubmitted by the Intervenors in March of 1994. The application was designated Application PC 94- 15. Application PC 94-15 sought an amendment of the FLUM to modify the future land use designation of all 1,965 acres of the Property to "Irregular 1.5 Residential". "Irregular 1.5 Residential" allows 1.5 dwelling units per acre. The amendment sought by Intervenors would have allowed an increase from 786 dwelling units to 2,947 dwelling units on the Property. An increase of 2,161 units. Application PC 94-15 was again reviewed. The same comments about, and objections to, the proposed amendment were raised concerning groundwater and aquifer recharge. The staff of the Planning Council again recommended denial of the proposed amendment. 41 The Planning Council recommended transmittal of the application, subject to the Intervenors satisfying the concerns raised by the SFWMD. On August 17, 1994, the County Commission transmitted Application PC 94-15 to the Department, conditioned upon the Intervenors satisfying the concerns of the SFWMD. The SFWMD objected to Application PC 94-15 because of its conclusion that the proposed future land use designation was not compatible with the East Coast Buffer then under evaluation by the SFWMD. SFWMD had developed data and conducted computer modeling concerning the utilization of a buffer for a variety of purposes, including reducing seepage of water from the Everglades, increasing groundwater recharge into aquifers and creating a natural buffer to protect the Everglades from the impacts of development. The SFWMD had commissioned a worldwide engineering firm, CH2M Hill to prepare a report on the East Coast Buffer. The SFWMD recommended that Application PC 94-15 not be approved until it had completed its study of the East Coast Buffer because the land use designation being sought might be incompatible with the conclusions reached from the SFWMD's and CH2M Hill's evaluation. The Department reviewed Application PC 94-15 and, based upon comments from the SFWMD similar to those raised before the County Commission, issued an Objections, Recommendations and Comments report concerning Application PC 94-15. The Department raised objections consistent with the adverse comments from the SFWMD. Modification of the Proposed Amendment. Parts of southwestern Broward County and northwestern Dade County were designated "Management Unit 5" by the SFWMD. Management Unit 5 was being considered, as recommended by CH2M Hill, as a reservoir area. Development of the Property was, therefore, not considered to be a use comparable with the concept of the East Coast Buffer being considered by the SFWMD at the time of the County's and Department's decision to reject Application PC 94-15. Intervenors worked with the SFWMD in an effort to find a way of modifying Application PC 94-15 to satisfy the SFWMD's concerns. SFWMD utilized computer modeling to simulate groundwater and surface water flows in Management Unit 5 to determine the impact of allowing development of the Property. The SFWMD concluded that Management Unit 5 was more suitable as a recharge area rather than as a reservoir. This conclusion was based, in part, of the transmissibility of the soil and other site conditions which were not conducive to storing water above ground for long periods of time. Use of Management Unit 5 as a recharge area and not a reservoir requires less surface area. Therefore, it was concluded that development in the area might be compatible with the SFWMD's East Coast Buffer concept. The SFWMD modeled four development alternatives for Management Unit 5 and analyzed the impact of each alternative on the efforts to retard seepage, provide groundwater recharge and enhance wetland benefits: (a) retaining the Property as a recharge area and allowing no development; (b) retaining the entire western two-thirds as a recharge area and allowing development of the eastern one-third; (c) retaining the western one-third as a recharge area and allowing development of the eastern two-thirds; and (d) allowing development of the entire management unit. Alternatives (b) and (c) assumed that a berm would be constructed between the recharge area and the developed area. After meeting with Intervenors and discussing the results of the modeling, Intervenors indicated willingness to remove the western portion of the Property from the proposed development. The SFWMD then conducted a more detailed, computer analysis of the following alternatives: (a) continuing existing conditions; (b) constructing a berm around Management Unit 5 and utilizing the entire area as a recharge area; (c) constructing a berm between the eastern and western sections of the Management Unit 5 and utilizing the western section for recharge with no development in the eastern section; and (d) alternative "(c)" with development of the eastern section. As a result of computer modeling of the alternatives, it was concluded that alternatives (b), (c) and (d) could significantly reduce seepage from the Everglades and increase groundwater recharge in to the aquifers when compared to development under the agricultural land use designation of alternative (a). As a result of the more detailed analysis, the SFWMD concluded that essentially all of its goals could be achieved for Management Unit 5 if the western section of Management Unit 5 is preserved even if development is allowed in the eastern section. The SFWMD concluded that the eastern two-thirds of the Property, consisting of approximately 1,280 acres, could be developed as "Irregular 1.5 Residential" if the western one-third, consisting of approximately 685 acres, was utilized as a recharge area. Intervenors agreed to preserve the western third of the Property (685 acres) and grant the SFWMD a flowage easement, consistent with the East Coast Buffer and at a savings of $43 million. On December 14, 1994, the staff of the SFWMD presented the results of the computer modeling to the SFWMD. On December 15, 1994, the SFWMD withdrew its objection to Application PC 94-15, conditioned upon the deletion of the 685 acres from the application and the granting of a flowage easement. The County and the Department were informed of the decision of the SFWMD. Approval of Application 94-15. On December 20, 1994, the County Commission adopted by Ordinance 94-55 an amendment to the Plan, Amendment PC 94-15 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"), subject to the conditions suggested by the SFWMD, which resolved the SFWMD's objections. The Amendment included modifications to the FLUM and text amendments. The Amendment, in relevant part, modifies the future land use designation of approximately 1,280 acres of the Property from "Agricultural" to "Irregular 1.5 Residential". This will allow the construction of a total of 1,920 dwelling units on the Property, or an increase of 1,408 dwelling units over the number of dwelling that may be constructed under the current future land use designation for the Property. In light of Intervenor's modifications of the application, the removal of the SFWMD's objections and the approval of the application by the County, the Department found the Amendment to be in compliance with the Act. On February 14, 1995, the Department issued a notice of intent to find the Amendment in compliance. The County and the Department accepted and relied upon the data and methodology employed by the SFWMD and the conditions for removal of the SFWMD's objections. Petitioner's Challenge. On or about March 8, 1995, Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department challenging the Amendment. Petitioner filed an Amended Petition on April 25, 1995. At the commencement of the final hearing, Petitioner withdrew all issues it had raised in the Amended Petition except the issues of: (a) whether the data and analysis available supports a conclusion that there is a need for additional residential development; and (b) whether the Amendment is supported by data and analysis in light of an ongoing study of the East Coast Buffer. Residential Housing Need. The Plan includes the following Goal and Objective concerning the provision of adequate areas for residential use: Goal 01.00.00 Provide residential areas with a variety of housing types and densities offering convenient and affordable housing opportunities to all segments of Broward County's population while maintaining a desired quality of life and adequate public services and facilities. Objective 01.01.00 Accommodate the projected population of Broward County by providing adequate areas on the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) intended primarily for residential development, but which also permit those non-residential uses that are compatible with and necessary to support residential neighborhoods. The Plan, including the methodology utilized to determine residential need, was found to be in compliance by the Department. The residential need methodology of the Plan utilized the Broward County Population Forecasting Model to project the population of southwest Broward County in 1994 to be 225,489 people. This projected population formed the basis for the allocation of residential housing units for Subregion 5 under the Plan. The Property is located in an area of southwest Broward County designated as Subregion 5 in the Plan. In reviewing the Amendment, the County conducted an analysis of the need for additional residential development in southwest Broward County. This analysis utilized, and was consistent with, the residential need methodology of the Plan. A summary of the data and analysis utilized by the County was provided to the Department. The County's analysis indicated that the population of Subregion 5 has exceeded the population projections for the Subregion of the Plan. By 1994, there were 284,361 people living in Subregion 5 or 17,872 more than projected in the Plan. The increased population rate of growth in Subregion 5 was projected to represent an increase in projected demand for approximately 6,847 residential units in excess of the projected demand expected under the Plan. The analysis also took into account amendments to the Plan which have resulted in a reduction of 1,087 residential units for Subregion 5. When combined with the increased population, the data and analysis supports a conclusion that there is a need for 7,934 additional residential units in Subregion 5. The Amendment increases residential housing in Subregion 5 by 1,134 dwelling units (1,920 units allowed under the Amendment, less 786 dwelling units allowed under the current agriculture classification), well below the projected need for additional residential units for Subregion 5. The data and analysis relied upon by the County and submitted to the Department supports the conclusion of the County that there is need for the proposed additional residential development approved by the Amendment. The data and analysis relied upon by the County and the Department was professionally acceptable and adequate to support the Amendment. The evidence presented by Petitioner failed to prove that the data and analysis relied upon by the County and the Department was not professionally acceptable and adequate. Rather than attempting to prove that the County's methodology was not professionally acceptable or was flawed, Petitioner utilized a methodology based upon an annualized population growth rate for Subregion 5. Petitioner offered evidence that there is sufficient residential housing approved under the Plan to meet the projected population for 15.6 years, beyond the remaining life of the Plan. The methodology utilized by Petitioner was, by the admission of the Petitioner's own witness, not a professionally acceptable methodology. The evidence failed to prove that the data and analysis relied upon by the County does not support its conclusion that there is sufficient need for the additional residential housing authorized for the County by the Amendment. The East Coast Buffer Zone. Efforts to restore the Everglades have been initiated and are ongoing. As a part of these efforts a group of technical and scientific staff members of various federal agencies involved in the restoration efforts were formed as the "Science Sub Group." The Science Sub Group was formed as an advisory group to provide guidance towards ecosystem restoration efforts. The Science Sub Group had no implementing authority. It issued at least one report in late 1993 which included an East Coast Buffer concept. The East Coast Buffer identified by the Science Sub Group included the area in which the Property is located. The Science Sub Group relied upon data obtained from the SFWMD and various computer models developed by the SFWMD, and SFWMD personnel contributed to the preparation of the report. The East Coast Buffer concept generally includes a series of interconnected water flow-ways along the eastern edge of the water conservation areas necessary to restore the Everglades. The federal government has also instituted a study known as the "Central & South Florida Project: Comprehensive Review Study" (hereinafter referred to as the "Restudy"). The United States Corps of Engineers is the lead agency of the Restudy. The first phase of the Restudy's efforts has resulted in a "Reconnaissance Report", also known as the "Recon Study". The second phase of the Restudy's efforts will be the feasibility phase. The feasibility phase will begin in the summer of 1995 and will be completed several years later. The purpose of the Restudy is to bring together the interested federal agencies to review the current management of the Everglades and identify strategies for altering management practices and systems to improve the Everglades. The Recon Study was completed in late 1994. It describes various conceptual strategies for restoring the Everglades. The determination of the feasibility of the strategies has not, however, been started, much less completed. Therefore, although the East Coast Buffer concept is considered in the Recon Study, the actual identification of the area which will constitute the Buffer has not been identified. Nor has the area which should constitute the East Coast Buffer been recommended in the Recon Study. The Recon Study identifies problems and opportunities, formulates alternative plans, evaluates conceptual alternative plans and recommends further study. The Recon Study is advisory. It does not identify, recommend or implement a plan of action. The Coalition presented evidence concerning the ongoing analysis of Everglades restoration efforts. That evidence proved that the Property is located within a very large area, which completely surrounds the Everglades, which is being considered as part of the Everglades restoration effort because of the impact of this large area on restoration efforts. The evidence presented by the Coalition, however, failed to prove that the Property has been, or will be, determined to be essential or even necessary for future Everglades restoration efforts. At the time of the approval of the Amendment and, even at the time of the final hearing of this case, no such determination had been made. Nor had any determination been made as to what will be necessary for the restoration of the Everglades or whether decisions will be made to carry out the necessary restoration efforts. As recognized by the Coalition in its proposed order: 52. The study necessary to make [a determination of the water levels needed] for the areas which are implicated by this amendment will be done in the next two years or three years. * * * 55. There is no way of telling, based on the data and analysis available at this point, how much water will be necessary in order to fully restore the Everglades. . . . Coalition proposed findings of fact 52 and 55. The Coalition also recognized the following: The Reconnaissance study has not reached the point where conclusions can be drawn about parcel specific uses. The next step is the feasibility planning phase, which is a much more detailed phase which will run for several years. . . . Coalition proposed finding of fact 107. Instead of attempting to prove that the data and analysis at the time of adoption of the Amendment indicated that development of the Property authorized by the Amendment would be detrimental to restoration efforts, the Coalition attempted to prove that development of the Property should be delayed until data and analysis is available indicating conclusively what the impact of development of the Property will be on restoration efforts. The Act does not require such delay. In addition to failing to prove what the impact of development of the Property will be on restoration efforts, the evidence presented by the Coalition also failed to prove that the conclusions reached by the Science Sub Group and the Restudy will even be implemented. The evidence presented by the Coalition failed to prove that the conclusions of the SFWMD with regard to the impact of the Amendment are not supported by data and analysis or were not arrived at by professionally acceptable methods. While the evidence proved that there will be some reduction in the amount of groundwater recharge function and seepage control function as a result of the Amendment, the evidence failed to prove what ultimate impact the reductions in recharge and seepage control will be or that the SFWMD's conclusions are not reasonable. While the Coalition proved that the SFWMD's conclusions were not based upon a consideration of what should be done to restore the Everglades, the evidence failed to prove that the information available was sufficiently conclusive that the SFWMD should have objected to the Amendment. The data and analysis relied upon by the County in approving the Amendment was collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. None of those agencies charged with responsibility to review the Amendment raised objections to its approval. The evidence failed to prove that the state of the data and analysis available to the County from the Science Sub Group and the Restudy or any other source concerning the area referred to as the East Coast Buffer and the Property is such that it proved that the data that was relied by the County upon was inadequate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department dismissing finding the Amendment "in compliance" and dismissing the petition in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Coalition's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1-2. Accepted in 2. 3-4 Accepted in 3. Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5 Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5. Accepted in 4-6. Accepted in 5-6. Accepted in 6. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12 14-15 Not relevant. 16-18 Not relevant. See 81-84. 19-25 Not relevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 81-84. Accepted in 29. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 26 and hereby accepted. 30-31 See 24. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 36 and 62. Accepted in 62. 35-41 Hereby accepted. 42-48 These proposed findings are generally correct. They are not, however, relevant to the ultimate determination in this case. 49-50 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The last sentence is not relevant. See 96. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is accepted in 96. The last sentence is not relevant. Hereby accepted. 57-63 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 64-65 Not relevant. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 89 and 91 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 90 and 92. See 86 and 92. Hereby accepted. Although generally true, the evidence failed to prove that this finding specifically applies to the Property. Except for the first sentence, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 31-33. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 76-87 Although generally correct, these findings were too broad and the evidence failed to prove that they specifically apply to the Property. 88-90 Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 94-97 Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. 98 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 99-100 Not relevant. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. 104-105 Not relevant. Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 97. Accepted in 90. Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 111-114 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The County's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Accepted in 1. 2 Accepted in 7. 3 Accepted in 8. 4 Accepted in 11. 5 Hereby accepted. 6 Accepted in 12. 7 Accepted in 13. 8 Accepted in 14. 9 Accepted in 15. 10 Accepted in 9-10. 11 Accepted in 18. 12 Accepted in 16. 13 Accepted in 17. 14 Accepted in 61. 15 Accepted in 60. 16 Accepted in 19-20, 26 and 62. 17 Accepted in 23. 18 Accepted in 21-22 19-20 Accepted in 24. 21 Hereby accepted. 22 Accepted in 37. 23-24 Hereby accepted. 25 Accepted in 68. 26 Accepted in 65-67. 27-28 Accepted in 67. 29-30 Hereby accepted. 31-32 Accepted in 28. 33 Accepted in 29. 34 Accepted in 30. 35 Accepted in 34. 36 Accepted in 31 and hereby accepted. 37 Accepted in 32-33. 38 Accepted in 31. 39 Accepted in 33. 40 Accepted in 35. 41 Accepted in 316. 42 Accepted in 37. 43 Accepted in 39. 44 Accepted in 40. 45 Accepted in 41. 46 Accepted in 42. 47 Accepted in 72. 48-49 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 73-77 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 76-77. Accepted in 38. Accepted in 79-80 Accepted 58 and 62. 55-57 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 82. Hereby accepted. 60-61 Accepted in 81-84. 62 Hereby accepted. 63-65 Accepted in 46 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 43 and 45. Accepted in 88. Accepted in 89-90. 69-70 Accepted in 85-86. 71 Accepted in 90 and 92-93. 72-77 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 32 and 44. Hereby accepted. None proposed. Accepted in 33. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 51. Accepted in 49 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 87-88 Accepted in 52. 89-90 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 53 and 58 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 54. Accepted in 56. Accepted in 58. 95-96 Accepted in 59. Accepted in 60. Accepted in 61. The Department's and Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 7. Accepted in 8. Accepted in 11. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 9-10. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 16. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 61. Accepted in 11 and 19-20. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 24-25. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 27. Accepted in 36-38. 22-37 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 43. Accepted in 88. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 31. 42-43 Accepted in 44. Accepted in 43 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 42. Accepted in 42 and 46. Accepted in 46 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 46. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 46. 52-53 Accepted in 48. Accepted 49. Accepted in 49, 52 and 54. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 51. Accepted in 54 and 57. 59-60 Accepted 54. 61-63 Accepted in 54 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 55. Accepted in 56-57. 66-67 Accepted in 58. 68-70 Accepted in 59. Accepted in 64. Accepted in 58 and 62. Accepted in 60 and 62. Accepted in 63. Accepted in 67. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 67 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 37 and hereby accepted. Not relevant. Accepted in 86. Hereby accepted. 82-83 Accepted in 86. Accepted in 87. Accepted in 89 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 90. Accepted in 90 and 92-93. Accepted in 93. 89-90 Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 72-78. Accepted in 69-71. Accepted in 70. Accepted in 73-74 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 75. Accepted in 76. Accepted in 77. Accepted in 78. Accepted in 79-80. 101-102 Accepted in 82. Accepted in 83. Accepted in 83-84. Accepted in 81 and 84. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dan Stengle, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Brion Blackwelder, Esquire Jack Milbery, Esquire 8751 West Broward Boulevard, #206 Plantation, Florida 33324 Sherry A. Spiers Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Tracy Lautenschlager, Esquire Broward County Attorney's Office 115 South Andrews Avenue Suite 423 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Glenn Smith, Esquire Michael A. Cohn, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 200 East Broward Boulevard Post Office Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Honorable Gerald F. Thompson Chairman, Broward County Board of County Commissioners Governmental Center 115 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the amendments to the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan (“the Comp Plan”) adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County by Ordinance No. 14-030 (“Proposed Amendments”) are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Alerts of PBC, Inc. (“Alerts”), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation doing business in Palm Beach County. Alerts made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Patricia Curry is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Ms. Curry made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Robert Schutzer is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Mr. Schutzer made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Karen Schutzer is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Ms. Schutzer made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Respondent Palm Beach County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted the Comp Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184. Intervenor Minto is a Florida limited liability company doing business in Palm Beach County. Minto is the owner of all of the 3,788.6 acres (“the Property”) which are the subject of the Proposed Amendments, with the exception of two parcels totaling 40.04 acres, which are owned by the Seminole Improvement District. Minto appointed the board of supervisors of the Seminole Improvement District pursuant to state law. Background FLUE Objective 1.1 establishes a unique Managed Growth Tier System “to protect viable existing neighborhoods and communities and direct the location and timing of future development.” The Property is located in the County’s Rural Tier and is bounded by Exurban Tier to the north and east. North of the Property is a large subdivision known as the Acreage, which was described by Respondents as “antiquated” because it was developed in a manner that was common decades ago before modern community planning concepts and growth management laws. The Acreage is dominated by 1.25-acre residential lots, laid out in a grid pattern with few other uses. Although the residents of the Acreage have a strong sense of community, it is apparently a matter of aesthetics, familiarity, and social intercourse, because the Acreage is not a community in the modern planning sense of providing a mix of uses where residents can live, shop, work, and play. It is a development pattern that is now discouraged by state law and the Comp Plan, because it is inefficient with respect to the provision and use of public services. The Property and the Acreage are within a 57,000-acre area known as the Central Western Communities (“CWC"). The CWC has been the subject of extensive planning efforts by the County for many years to address land use imbalances in the area. There are many residential lots, but few non-residential uses to serve the residents. In 2008, the previous owner of the Property, Callery- Judge Groves (“Callery”), obtained an Agricultural Enclave (AGE) future land use designation for essentially the same area as the Property. The Comp Plan was amended to establish an AGE future land use designation, AGE policies, a conceptual plan of development, and implementing principles (“the 2008 Amendments”). Under the 2008 Amendments, the site was limited to 2,996 residential units and 235,000 square feet of retail and office uses. No development has been undertaken pursuant to the 2008 Amendments. In 2013, the site was sold to Minto, which submitted a Comp Plan amendment application in November 2013, and a revised application in July 2014. On October 29, 2014, the County adopted the Proposed Amendments. The Proposed Amendments change the future land use designation of 53.17 acres (“the outparcels”) from RR-10 to AGE, and increase residential density to 4,546 units and increase intensity to two million square feet of non-residential uses, 200,000 square feet of civic uses, a 150-room hotel and a 3,000- student college, and revise the Conceptual Plan and Implementing Principles. The Proposed Amendments would also revise text in the Introduction and Administration, Future Land Use, and Transportation Elements. The Map Series would be amended to add 53.17 acres to the Limited Urban Service Area on Map LU 1.1 and Map LU 2.1, and to identify new Rural Parkways on Map TE 14.1. Petitioners’ Challenge Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are not “in compliance” because they fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards; do not comply with the agricultural enclave provisions of section 163.3164(4); are not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis; promote urban sprawl; are incompatible with adjacent communities and land uses; and create inconsistencies within the Comp Plan. Many of the issues raised and the arguments made by Petitioners fail to acknowledge or distinguish the 2008 Amendments that address future development of the Property. In several respects, as discussed below, the 2008 Amendments already authorize future development of the Property in a manner which Petitioners object to. In several respects, the types of impacts that Petitioners are concerned about are actually diminished by the Proposed Amendments from what is currently allowed under the 2008 Amendments. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners contend that proposed FLUE Policies 2.2.5-d, 2.2.5-e, and 2.2.5-f, and Maps LU 1.1 and 2.1 fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and fail to provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations, in violation of section 163.3177(1). The Proposed Amendments add more detail to the standards that were adopted in the 2008 Amendments. The Proposed Amendments establish substantially more direction for the future development of the Property than simply a land use designation and listing of allowed uses, which is typical in comprehensive plans. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments lack adequate standards because they refer to the use of “appropriate new urbanism concepts,” which Petitioners say is vague. New urbanism refers to land use planning concepts such as clustering, mixed-use development, rural villages, and city centers. See § 163.3162(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). In land use planning parlance, new urbanism creates more “livable” and “sustainable” communities. The term “appropriate new urbanism concepts” used in the Proposed Amendments is the same term used in section 163.3162(4), dealing with the development of agricultural enclaves. There are many concepts that are part of new urbanism, which can be used in combination. Which concepts are “appropriate” depends on the unique opportunities and constraints presented by the area to be developed. Use of the term “appropriate new urbanism concepts” in the Proposed Amendments adds detail to the future development standards applicable to the Property. It does not create vagueness. Petitioners contend the proposed amendments of Maps LU 1.1 and 2.1 do not provide meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines. However, the maps are only being amended to show that 53.17 acres of outparcels within the Property are being added to the existing Limited Urban Service Area. The map amendments do not diminish the meaningfulness or predictability of any standards in the Comp Plan. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments establish meaningful and predictable standards. Agricultural Enclave Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to meet the requirements for an agricultural enclave in section 163.3164. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, consistency with section 163.3164 is not a component of an “in compliance” determination. Furthermore, the Property is already designated Agricultural Enclave in the Comp Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend the amendment of the Limited Urban Service Area is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). The inclusion of the outparcels is logical and reasonable. It is consistent with the Comp Plan policies applicable to Limited Urban Service Areas. It is supported by data and analysis. Petitioners contend the increases in density and intensity allowed by the Proposed Amendments are not supported by data and analysis showing a need for the increases. However, the increases are supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, including population projections and extensive analysis of the need for non-residential uses in the CWC. Population projections establish the minimum amount of land to be designated for particular uses; not the maximum amount of land. See § 163.3177(1)(f)3., Fla. Stat (2014). Petitioners make several claims related to the availability of public utilities and other services to the Property. The data and analysis show sufficient capacity for roads, transportation, schools, water supply, wastewater treatment, fire, emergency and police either already exists or is contemplated in the Comp Plan to accommodate the development authorized by the Proposed Amendments. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments are supported by relevant data and analysis. Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments do not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is defined in section 163.3164(51) as “a development pattern characterized by low density, automobile-dependent development with either a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related, requiring the extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient manner, and failing to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses.” Petitioners contend the Property does not qualify for the presumption against urban sprawl under the criteria in section 163.3162(4), but Minto did not rely on that statutory presumption. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments create five of the 13 primary indicators of urban sprawl set forth in section 163.3177(6)(a)9.: Promotes, allows, or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses. Promotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The evidence presented on this issue by Petitioners was inconsistent with generally accepted land use planning concepts and principles. The Proposed Amendments do not promote urban sprawl. They go far to rectify existing sprawl conditions in the CWC. Findings relevant to the five indicators have already been made above. Compatibility with adjacent uses is discussed below. There are ample data and analysis which show the Proposed Amendments discourage urban sprawl. Respondents’ characterization of the Proposed Amendments as the opposite of urban sprawl is not unreasonable. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Compatibility Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are “incompatible with the lifestyle of the existing and surrounding communities and adjacent agricultural and other land uses.” Protection of Petitioners’ lifestyle cannot mean that surrounding areas must remain undeveloped or must be developed in a similar suburban sprawl pattern. Land use imbalances in the CWC are rectified by the Proposed Amendments while providing large buffers and a transition of land uses on the Property to protect adjacent land uses. The Acreage is more accurately characterized as suburban rather than rural. Moreover, the Proposed Amendments include a conceptual plan and development guidelines designed to create a clear separation between urban uses on the Property and less dense and intense external uses. Residential densities near the perimeter of the Property would correspond to the density in the Acreage. The proposed distribution of land uses and large open space buffers would not establish merely an adequate transition. They would provide substantial protection to adjacent neighborhoods. A person at the periphery of the Property would likely see only open space, parks, and low-density residential uses. The distribution of land uses and natural buffers in the Proposed Amendments provide more protection for external land uses than the 2008 Amendments. The more persuasive evidence presented indicates that Petitioners and other persons living near the Property would be beneficiaries of the Proposed Amendments because they could use and be served by the office, commercial, government, and recreational uses that will be available nearby. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments are compatible with adjacent land uses. Internal Consistency The Comp Plan’s Introduction and Administration Element and FLUE contain statements of intent. They are not objectives or policies. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with some of the statements. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with the Introduction and Administration Element statements discouraging growth to the west where services are not adequate, do not provide for orderly growth or the provision of facilities and services to maintain the existing quality of life in an economical manner, and do not recognize countywide growth management strategies or maintain the diversity of lifestyles. Findings that refute this contention have been made above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with several general statements in FLUE Sections I A, I B, and I C. regarding respect for the character of the area, protection of quality of life and integrity of neighborhoods, prevention of “piecemeal” development, and efficient provision of public services. Findings that refute this contention have been made above. Petitioners contend FLUE Policy 2.2.5-d allows land uses which are inconsistent with the policies applicable to the Rural Tier in which the Property is located. In the proposed policy, the County exempts the Project from any conflicting Rural Tier policies that would otherwise apply. Under the County’s Managed Growth Tier System, the tiers are the “first level” land use consideration in the FLUE. Therefore, it would have been helpful to amend the Rural Tier section of the FLUE to indicate the exceptions to Rural Tier policies for agricultural enclaves, in general, or for the Property, in particular. Instead, the Proposed Amendments place the new wording about exceptions in the section of the FLUE dealing with agricultural land uses. However, as stated in the Conclusions of Law, where the exception is located in the comprehensive plan is not a consistency issue. The County has shown there are unique considerations involved with the CWC that justify the exceptions. It also demonstrated that the Proposed Amendments would accomplish numerous objectives and policies of the Comp Plan that could not be accomplished without creating exceptions to some Rural Tier policies. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1-3 because they encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. That contention has been rejected above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1-6 because they do not protect agricultural land and equestrian uses. The evidence shows that agricultural and equestrian uses are enhanced by the Proposed Amendments over the existing provisions of the Comp Plan. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-b, which addresses criteria re- designating a tier. This policy is not applicable because the Proposed Amendments do not re-designate a tier. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-c, which requires the review of the tier system as part of each Evaluation and Appraisal review. Evaluation and Appraisal Reviews are no longer required by state law. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-d, which states a tier shall not be re-designated if it would cause urban sprawl. This policy is not applicable because the Proposed Amendments do not re- designate a tier. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-a, which requires the County to protect and maintain the rural residential, equestrian, and agricultural areas within the Rural Tier. The Proposed Amendments and Conceptual Plan increase the level of protection for these uses over what is currently in the Comp Plan. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-d, which generally prohibits subdividing parcels of land within the Rural Tier unless certain conditions are met. The Proposed Amendments do not subdivide any parcels. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-k, which addresses the designation of “sending areas” for Transfer of Development Rights (“TDR”). This policy only applies to parcels with a RR20 future land use designation and there are no such parcels existing or that would be created by the Proposed Amendments. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-l, which requires the County to provide rural zoning regulations for areas designated Rural Residential. The Property does not have any Rural Residential designations. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.4-b, which provides that the TDR program is the required method for increasing density within the County. The County applies this policy only to density increases in urban areas, because they are the only areas authorized to receive TDRs. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 2.1 and some related policies, which promote balanced growth. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments will further this objective and its policies because they correct the current imbalance of land uses in the CWC and provide for a balanced mix of residential, agricultural, commercial, light industrial, office, recreation, and civic uses. Petitioners presented no evidence to support their claim that Proposed Amendments would exceed the natural or manmade constraints of the area. Petitioners presented no credible evidence that transportation infrastructure and other public services could not be efficiently provided to the Property. The data and analysis and other evidence presented show otherwise. Petitioners contend there is no justification for the increased density and intensity authorized by the Proposed Amendments. There was ample justification presented to show the increases were needed to create a sustainable community where people can live, work, shop, and play. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 2.2 and some related policies, which require development to be consistent with land use designations in the Comp Plan. Petitioners’ evidence failed to show any inconsistencies. The Proposed Amendments are compatible with and benefit adjacent land uses, as found above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to include “new urbanism” concepts as required by section 163.3164(4) and Policy 2.2.5-i. The evidence presented by Respondents proved otherwise. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 3 and some related policies, which address the provision of utilities and other public services. Petitioners presented no credible evidence to support this claim. The data and analysis and other evidence presented show that public services are available or planned and can be efficiently provided to the Property. Petitioners argued the Proposed Amendments were inconsistent with several other FLUE policies generally related to compatibility with adjacent land uses and the provision of public services, all of which Petitioners failed to prove as explained above. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments would not create internal inconsistency in the Comp Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity issue a final order determining the Proposed Amendments adopted by Palm Beach County Ordinance No. 2014-030 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire 1217 East Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green and Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Tara W. Duhy, Esquire Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire Palm Beach County Attorney's Office 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Jesse Panuccio, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Katie Zimmer, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Seminole Raceway, as proposed in Charles and Linda Wimberlys' Site and Development Plan and approved with conditions by the Leon County Development Review Committee (DRC), is consistent with the requirements of the 2010 Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and is a permissible land use under applicable provisions of Chapter 10, Leon County Code (the Code).
The Issue The issue in this case is whether it should be determined that the Highlands County Comprehensive Plan, as amended, was in compliance with Chapter 163, Fla. Stat. (1993), as of the adoption of the County Ordinance 94-1 on March 2, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Adoption History Highlands County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1991. The Department of Community Affairs (the DCA or Department) took the position that the initial comprehensive plan was not in compliance. On September 15, 1993, the County adopted an amended comprehensive plan. (County Exhibit 6) The DCA took the position that the amended comprehensive plan, in particular its natural resources element, did not adequately protect areas of important plant and animal habitat from agricultural land uses. (County Exhibit 8). Highlands County adopted remedial amendments on March 2, 1994. (County Exhibit 9) On March 16, 1994, DCA published a Cumulative Notice of Intent to find the Highlands County Comprehensive Plan and Remedial Comprehensive Plan Amendments in compliance. (County Exhibit 13) The Petition for Administrative Hearing by Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. (HEC) was filed on or about April 6, 1994. The HEC Petition was signed by Kris Delaney, as its president. The parties' Prehearing Stipulation filed on October 17, 1994, eliminated several of the issues initially raised in the HEC Petition. The Lake Wales Ridge Highlands County is special because of the presence of a feature known as the Lake Wales Ridge, which is only between five and 14 miles wide but stretches for about 100 miles in a north-south orientation through the County. Most of the Ridge is contained within Highlands County, but smaller portions extend into neighboring counties. The Lake Wales Ridge had its beginnings when the sea covered much of what is now the Florida peninsula. A paleo beach and dune system was formed at the edge between the sea and the Ridge. When the waters receded, it left behind a ridge of relatively high ground characterized by generally coarse sands. These sands, which began as beach sand, have been weathered for millions of years, rendering them very sterile and low in nutrients. Water passes very quickly through these sands, making the soil and environment resemble those occurring in much drier places. Although created through the same processes, the Ridge contains many different unique and specialized habitats. Because of these habitats, the Ridge is a national "hot spot" for endemism. This means that many different species of organisms occur in this relatively small area; many of these species occur exclusively or primarily on the Ridge. At least two dozen plant species are found exclusively or primarily on the Ridge, and it is believed that many species have yet to be discovered. In more recent times, the high and dry Ridge also has attracted a disproportionate share of the residential, commercial and agricultural development in the County. Development pressures have conflicted with the habitat needs for the survival of many of the plant and animal species that occurred on the Ridge. Urban and citrus development tend to obliterate habitat; they also compete for available water supply. In addition, as the Ridge has developed, the natural fires that served an important role in maintaining the special habitats of the Ridge were suppressed. More recently, although man has come to understand the importance of fire to these habitats and the species that thrive in them, the increasing presence of man's development has made fire management more problematic and, in some cases, impossible. With more and more development, the habitats of the Ridge with their many endemic plant and animal species have come under increasing pressure. The most widespread kind of natural habitat on the Ridge is called scrub. Scrub consists mainly of scrub oak and shrubs adapted to dry, low nutrient conditions. Scrub contains a disproportionate share of the threatened and endangered plant and animal species on the Ridge. These include the Florida scrub jay, the gopher tortoise, the sand skink, the scrub lizard and the Florida mouse. Natural scrub habitat is rapidly disappearing from the Ridge. By 1981, about 64 percent of the scrub on the southern Ridge had been severely altered. Along the central Ridge, losses were even greater--about 74 percent. By 1991, losses were estimated to be approximately 70 to 90 percent. Sandhill is the rarest natural community in the County. It is the historic high pineland community dominated by long leaf pines. (A vegetative community known as southern sandhill is not dominated by long leaf pines and is not true sandhill; it actually is a type of scrub.) Only about one percent of the original true sandhill still existed as of March, 1994. Although altered by fragmentation and fire suppression, the remaining sandhill still supports several important endemic plant and animal species, such as the gopher tortoise, Sherman's fox squirrel, and a plant called the clasping warea. A type of natural habitat unique to Highlands County portion of the Ridge is cutthroat seep. Cutthroat seeps occur where groundwater near and at surface elevation flows rapidly through areas usually adjacent to true wetlands, keeping the area wet but not ponded. These areas are dominated by cutthoat grasses, which require periodic burning to maintain their dominance. Drainage related to development lowers the water table and otherwise interrupts the needed lateral flow of water, allowing the invasion of woody species. In addition, development makes fire management more problematic and, in some cases, impossible. The most effective protection of cutthroat seep requires preservation of relatively large parcels, approximately ten acres or more. Smaller parcels are harder to fire manage. In addition, smaller parcels could be subjected to inadvertent hydrologic interruption from nearby development. There are about 18 plant species that occur only on the Ridge. Forty plant species occur only in Florida scrub and occur on the Ridge. Twenty-two plants on the Ridge are federally listed as either endangered or threatened. The Florida scrub jay is a federally listed endangered species that occurs only in peninsular Florida. The scrub jay also serves as an indicator species--management for scrub jay habitat will meet the habitat requirements of most other species that occur in scrub habitat. Scrub jays require the presence of scrub oak, as well as bare ground and low growing scrub. Periodic fire is necessary to maintain this mix. Scrub jays are very territorial. The tend to stay on one specific site. Scrub jays are monogamous, pairing to breed for life. Juveniles help feed and protect younger birds before dispersing to find a territory of their own. Dispersal distance typically is less than a mile. Each family group occupies a relatively large area--approximately 25 acres. Large sites are necessary to maintain a viable scrub jay population. Population viability models indicate that 150-200 individuals are needed for a population to persist for 200 years. Using this standard, fewer than ten potentially secure populations of scrub jay exist. It is believed that as much as 750 acres of scrub oak may be required to give a such a population a 90 percent chance of survival for 100 years. Development destroys scrub jay habitat. In addition, nearby development not only makes fire management difficult, if not impossible, it increases scrub jay mortality from feral cats and dogs and from motor vehicles. In the Base Documents supporting the Highlands County Plan, as amended, the County recognized the unique and sensitive natural resource represented by the Lake Wales Ridge. The Base Documents acknowledged that, before the comprehensive plan was adopted, the County did not have a "formal mechanism to examine the effects of proposed development and agricultural uses on natural vegetation and wildlife." The Base Documents also acknowledged that the Ridge required "more stringent controls and greater incentives for resource protection." Conservation, Use, and Protection of Natural Resources Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] Highlands County has adopted, as the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] of its Natural Resources Element, Objective 3 providing that the County shall protect and acquire native vegetative communities which are endemic to Central Florida and shall restrict activities known to adversely affect the endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Under that Objective, Highlands County has adopted a number of Policies. Highlands County's approach to conservation, use, and protection of natural resources under Objective 3 and its policies is to identify, evaluate, and protect natural resources on a site-by-site basis. (County Exhibit 6, Pages NRE-10 through NRE-25, inclusive, and County Exhibit 9) The review procedures prepared by Petitioner's representative, Kris Delaney, for the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) also used a site-by-site approach. (Petitioner Exhibit 56) Kris Delaney is the immediate past president of HEC and was described by Petitioner's counsel as its main representative. Highlands County's approach to evaluation of natural resources also is comparable to the review processes adopted by federal statute and state law for the protection of threatened and endangered species. Site specific evaluation was necessary due to the variety of protected species needs, site conditions, and legal constraints. Under Policy 3.1, A., Highlands County has adopted a number of source documents to identify endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern. Under Policy 3.1, B., Highlands County has adopted a number of documents as guidelines for establishing mitigation, on-site protection, and remedial actions for the protection of habitats and listed species in the County's land development regulations. Under Policy 3.2, Highlands County adopted a Conservation Overlay Map series to be used as a general indicator for the presence of xeric uplands, wetlands, cutthroat seeps, historical and archeological resources, cones of influence for potable wells, and aquifer recharge areas. (See Findings 52-59, infra, for a detailed description and explanation of these maps.) Whenever a particular site is in an area where one of those resource categories is mapped on the Conservation Overlay Map series or are otherwise known to occur, Policy 3.3 of the Natural Resources Element requires the applicant to submit to the Highlands County Planning Department a preliminary field investigation report prepared by a County-approved professional, firm, government agency, or institution. If that field investigation determines that any of those resources actually exist on the site, an Environmental Impact Report is required of the applicant. Those Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) must also be prepared by a County approved-professional, firm, agency, or institution. Policy 3.3, E., specifies the content of the EIR: (1) maps and a description of natural vegetative communities occurring on the proposed development site in terms of their habitat functions and significance; (2) maps and a description of the aforementioned natural resource categories which may be impacted by the proposed development; (3) an assessment of the potential impacts which would be sustained by a natural resource as a result of the proposed development; (4) an evaluation of water quality inputs and outputs; recommendations for appropriate mitigation and on-site protection measures; recommended land maintenance and management procedures to assure the continued viability or function of the natural resource after development; and a list of agencies which may have permit requirements pertaining to the proposed development. Under Policy 3.3, F., the application package and the EIR are transmitted for review and comment to the agencies listed in the Environmental Impact Report as having permit requirements and to the Highlands County Natural Resources Advisory Committee. Responsive comments and recommendations which are received are forwarded to the County employee or board having decision-making authority concerning the applicable permit and included in the County records pertaining to the project. Under Policy 3.3, G., after receiving the application packet, the EIR, and the comments and recommendations from other permitting agencies and the Highlands County Natural Resources Advisory Committee, the County evaluates and determines the permit conditions required to: (1) protect and preserve the water quality or natural functions of flood plains and drainage ways, potable water wells, and wetlands; (2) protect and preserve the function of native vegetative communities which are endemic to Central Florida or the habitats of endangered species, threatened species, or species of special concern; (3) preserve and protect historical and archeological resources; (4) establish measures to protect life and property from flood hazard; and (5) establish land maintenance and management procedures for the natural resource to assure its continued viability or function after development. Policy 3.3, G., further requires that the County's final development order must be conditioned upon adequate avoidance, preservation, mitigation, or remedial actions for the protection of the aforementioned resources and must be consistent with the wetlands, flood plain, aquifer recharge, water quality, and cultural resource protection measures set forth within the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It also requires the County to require that the necessary state and local permits be obtained as a condition of approval for the project's final development order. In determining the appropriate conditions for the County's final development order, Policy 3.3, B., states that avoidance and preservation of the resource shall be the first choice for protecting the resource. Acquisition, conservation easements or dedications, and site design methods (including clustering development to the portion of the site where the resource does not exist or, if that is not possible, to the least environmentally sensitive portion of the site), are among the methods allowed to accomplish that purpose. Appropriate buffers between the development and the resource are also required. Policy 3.3, C., also provides that a mitigation fee may be imposed by the Board of County Commissioners for small, isolated tracts containing less significant habitat and that the mitigation fees collected would be used to fund off-site mitigation in order that preservation of equal or greater habitat type, function, and quantity can be achieved. This is consistent with the "Review Procedure for Special Habits: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC which provides that "[L]ocal government may wish to establish procedural relationship with such agencies and, based on locally determined criteria, a minimum parcel size requiring review." Similarly, Policy 3.4 provides an environmental mitigation fee alternative for construction of single-family residences on preexisting lots of records to the extent consistent with state and federal regulations. These mitigation fee provisions are consistent with existing state and federal programs for protection of threatened and endangered species and species of special concern (Petitioner Exhibit 53, Pages 58 through 60; Petitioner Exhibit 56, Page 25, Level III, G.1 (cont.); and Petitioner Exhibit 78, Page 16) Policy 3.15 identifies several mitigation options which are consistent with those found in the "Review Procedure for Special Habitats: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC. Policy 3.5, A., requires the County to institute an ongoing program to define, identify, and conserve its native vegetative communities and the habitats of endangered or threatened species and species of special concern and states that the conservation program must include the following implementation measures: (1) acquisition of lands using public funds and grants; (2) lease of land; (3) tax abatement; (4) land swaps and transfers of title; (5) establishment of conservation or open space easements; (6) density bonuses for cluster development; (7) density bonuses for development that preserves habitat and avoids impact on endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern; (8) density transfers for conservation set-asides to buildable portions of sites; and (9) mitigation fees and mitigation fee credits. Under Policy 3.5, B., the County has established as the top priority of its conservation program working with public and private agencies to acquire and preserve in their natural state: (1) scrub or sand hill habitats (xeric uplands); (2) endemic populations of endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern; (3) wetlands, cutthroat grass seeps, and estuaries; (4) important aquifer recharge areas; and (5) unique scenic or natural resources. In Policy 3.6, the County specifically references the "Review Procedure for Special Habitats: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC as the model for its development review process for coordination with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. Policy 3.6(g) specifically provides for coordination with local, state, and federal agencies concerning native vegetative communities or habitat areas spanning more than one local jurisdiction. Policy 3.7 establishes funding sources for the County's conservation trust fund and requires that the fund be used exclusively for the acquisition of the priorities listed in Policy 3.5, B., or the enhancement of other publicly- owned conservation-valued lands, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. To discourage clearing of land prior to environmental review, the County adopted Policy 3.13, which requires property owners to obtain a County land clearing permit prior to land clearing. Issuance of the land clearing permit is conditioned upon completion of the environmental review process adopted in Policy 3.3. If property is cleared without a County land clearing permit, no development orders may be issued for that site for a period of three years after such clearing. Under Policy 3.13, C., of the Plan, as amended, no land clearing permit is required for "any agricultural activity not requiring a Highlands County land development order conducted by a lawfully operating and bona fide agricultural operation" on property "designated by the Future Land Use Map as either General or Urban Agriculture . . .." Under the policy, such operations are "encouraged to implement a Soil and Water Conservation District approved conservation plan, including the use of Best Management Practices, as applicable to the specific area being cleared, and [to secure all other permits required by State and federal agencies exercising jurisdiction over the natural resources referred to in Policy 3.2 and found on said property]." [Emphasis added.] In addition, Policy 3.9 of the Natural Resources Element provides for encouraging agricultural uses which are compatible with wildlife protection and water quality outputs, implementation of erosion control and Best Management Practices. Highlands County also has adopted many other policies in the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] of the Natural Resources Element for the protection of natural resources, including: Policy 3.8, providing for the removal and control of exotic plant species; Policy 3.10, requiring the County to incorporate the protection and conservation measures adopted under the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] into all County surface water management plans, public works projects and infrastructure improvement plans; Policy 3.11, encouraging the expansion of wildlife/greenbelt corridors; Policy 3.12, encouraging the creation of parks for the protection, preservation, and conservation of natural resources; Policy 3.14, requiring setbacks from environmentally sensitive land; Policy 3.16, providing for transfers of density and density bonuses to encourage preservation of environmentally sensitive lands and listed species through the use of planned unit developments; Policies 3.17 through 3.19, providing for the appointment, functions and responsibilities of the Highlands County Natural Resource Advisory Committee; Policy 3.20, providing for the adoption of a five-year acreage target for acquisition of natural resource lands; and Policy 3.21, providing for a buffer around Highlands Hammock State Park, publicly-owned conservation lands, and conservation lands being considered for acquisition with public funds. Wetlands Subelement [sic] Highlands County has adopted, as the Wetlands Subelement [sic] of its Natural Resources Element, Objective 4 providing for the protection of wetlands systems and their ecological functions to ensure their long term, economic, environmental, and recreational value and to encourage restoration of wetlands systems to a functional condition. Under Objective 4 of the Natural Resources Element, Highlands County has adopted a number of policies to protect wetlands systems. Policy 4.1 provides for the protection of ecological functions of wetlands systems by the County through actions such as supporting the restoration of wetlands systems, protecting the natural functions and hydrology of wetlands systems by buffering against incompatible land uses and mitigating development impacts, providing for clustering and open space buffering, intergovernmental cooperation, and the acquisition of wetlands systems, including cutthroat grass seeps. In Policy 4.2, Highlands County adopted definitions for wetlands and cutthroat seeps which are required to be mapped according to Policies 3.2 and 4.3. In Policies 4.4 through 4.7, the County provided for the adoption of land development regulations which: encourage the restoration of wetlands systems; provide that development orders in cutthroat seeps be conditioned upon the issuance of wetlands permits by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the South and Southwest Florida Water Management Districts, as their jurisdictions apply, as a condition of approval of the project's final development order or land clearing permit; prevent the net loss or alteration of wetlands on a County-wide basis; and require conservation easements and delineation on final plats for wetland and cutthroat grass seep areas used for mitigation purposes. State and Federal Protections State and federal permitting processes protect threatened and endangered species and species of special concern found in Highlands County. See Conclusions 125-130 and 140-147, infra. The review processes required to obtain the state and federal permits pertaining to threatened and endangered species require site-specific review, comparable to obtaining environmental clearance from the County under Policy 3.3 of the Natural Resources Element. In view of the diversity of threatened and endangered species and species of special concern and their habitat needs, variations in quantity and quality of resources existing on site, and statutory and constitutional property rights protection, the County has chosen not to establish fixed set asides for every resource under every circumstance on a County-wide basis. By including in its permitting process notification to federal and state agencies having permitting responsibilities, Highlands County will be providing valuable assistance to state and federal environmental protection by bringing those agencies in at an early stage of the review process. Moreover, the County's requirements that the necessary federal, state, and local permits be obtained as a condition of approval for a project's final development order will assist those federal and state agencies in enforcing environmental permits in Highlands County. Measuring Success of Protection Measures Extensive work by federal and state agencies has been devoted to identifying and studying threatened and endangered species, both plant and animal. Threatened and endangered species and the habitats necessary for their survival exist throughout the State of Florida. Listed species found in Highlands County are also found in other areas of the State of Florida. The amount and land-cover types of conservation areas have been extensively studied for the entire State of Florida. The percentage of conservation lands in Highlands County (9.4 percent) exceeds the statewide median for the portion of conservation lands within individual counties (8.6 percent). The land cover types for the entire State of Florida have been identified and quantified by location and number of acres and the amounts of those habitats in conservation lands have also been determined. Likewise, for every county, the land cover types have been located, identified, mapped, and acreage determined for "natural" upland cover types, "natural" wetland cover types, and "disturbed" cover types. The "natural" upland cover type category includes coastal strand, dry prairie, pine lands, sand pine scrub, sand hill, xeric oak scrub, mixed hardwood-pine forest, hardwood hammocks and forest, and tropical hard wood hammocks. "Natural" wetland cover types include coastal salt marshes, fresh water marsh and wet prairie, cypress swamp, mixed hardwood swamp, bay swamp, shrub swamp, mangrove swamp, and bottomland hardwood forest. "Disturbed" cover types include grass land and agriculture, shrub and bush land, exotic plant communities and barren and urban land. Open water areas were also identified, located, mapped, and the acreage areas determined. The amounts of land in each of those land cover categories has been tabulated by county and for the State as a whole. The amount of land in each of those categories located in conservation lands has also been tabulated for each county and for the State as a whole. The tabulation for land cover types for Highlands County and the amount of conservation lands for each cover type are as follows: "Natural" upland cover types - coastal strand (0/0), dry prairie (427/112), pine lands (167/41), sand pine scrub (14/3), sand hill (0/0), xeric scrub oak (112/12), mixed hardwood-pine forest (4/0), hardwood hammocks and forests (46/5), tropical hardwood hammocks (0/0); "Natural" wetland cover types - coastal salt marshes (0/0), freshwater marsh and wet prairie (129/34), cypress swamp (21/8), mixed hardwood swamp (41/5), bay swamp (17/0), shrub swamp (21/5), mangrove swamp (0/0), bottomland hardwood forest (0/0); Open water (202/1); and "Disturbed" cover types - grass land and agriculture (1086/15), shrub and brush land (271/18), exotic plant communities (0/0), barren and urban land (307/11) Within the parenthesis above, the first number represents the total area in square kilometers and the second number represents the conservation lands in that category, also in square kilometers. There are approximately 247 acres per square kilometer. For Highlands County, these identified land cover types cover 2,866 square kilometers of which, 270.8 square kilometers are conservation lands. In addition to mapping those important habitat areas in each county in the State of Florida, the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern found in those habitat areas have also been identified. Those habitat areas and the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern which they support have been specifically identified and mapped for Highlands County. Since the land cover types in Highlands County have been identified, located, mapped, and quantified and the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern, both plant and animal, supported by those land cover types have been identified, Highlands County has the ability to objectively measure the success of its adopted Goals, Policies, and Objectives in protecting natural resources. Data and Analysis and Maps Eugene Engman, AICP, a planner/economist, was the principal author of the conservation element and Base Documents of supporting data and analysis for the County's 1991 Plan. The Base Documents indicate extensive analysis of the County's natural resources, including: surface waters; floodplains; mineral deposits; areas with erosion problems; and fisheries, wildlife habitat and vegetative communities. The Conservation Overlay Maps The Base Documents also contain a "methodology for conservation designation," that applies to areas identified as areas of outstanding natural resources and to areas containing special habitat (high quality scrub habitat, cutthroat grass seeps with predominantly native vegetation, and forested wetlands on and near the Ridge). With respect to the latter, it was not Engman's intention to map all vegetative communities on and near the Ridge; oak hammock and palm hammock, for example, was not mapped. It also was not Engman's intention to map the entire County. Engman did not believe that mapping of high quality scrub habitats, seeps and wetland forest was required, but he mapped them at no charge to the County to enable the County to better protect endangered species and other resources on and near the Ridge where most the special habitat and most development coincided. Following the methodology, Engman and his colleagues prepared the Resource Base Maps--County Exhibit 40. They consisted of 27 USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) quadrangle maps, two with acetate overlays. The quad maps themselves show some resources indicated by a separate legend available from the SCS. In addition, Engman and his colleagues indicated the location of scrub habitats, seeps and wetland forest through use of an additional legend they wrote on the quad maps. Some legends applied to more than one quad map. In addition to the SCS quad maps themselves, Engman and his colleagues used the Soil Survey field notes of Lew Carter of the SCS, 1985 infrared aerial photographs, and local knowledge of the Dr. James Layne of the Archbold Research Station, Lew Carter of the USDA Soil Conservation Service, Mike Sawyer of the Florida Division of Forestry, and County sources. The Base Documents also contains a Generalized Soils Map which references as its source "USDA/SCS, Soil Survey of Highlands County, Florida, July, 1989." The Base Documents also contained two maps at the scale of one inch equals three miles--one mapping outstanding natural resources, and the other mapping special habitat. These two maps were then combined into a third map at the scale of one inch equals five miles. This third map was designated the Conservation Overlay Map in the Base Documents. Each quarter section (160 acres) of the County that contained any of the identified resources depicted on the Resource Base Maps was depicted as "Conservation" on the Conservation Overlay Map. The Conservation Overlay Map advised that: "This map is for comprehensive planning purposes only. Specific locations are identifiable on the Resource Base Maps located in the Office of the County Planning Director." No duplicates or copies of the Resource Base Maps--County Exhibit 40-- were made before the final hearing in this case. They were available to the public during the development of the 1991 Plan, and they were forwarded to the County Planning Department when Engman's work was finished. There, they remained available for use by the County Planning Department in implementing the Plan, and remained available for public inspection, except for a period of approximately one year when they were misplaced and could not be located. FLU-54, the Conservation Overlay Map in the Future Land Use Map series, is the same map that is contained in the Base Documents as the Conservation Overlay Map. The Future Land Use Map Series In addition to FLU-54, the Future Land Use Map Series in the adopted plan, as amended through 1993, contained a Future Land Use Map Set of three large maps--a one inch equals two miles base map, and two one inch equals one/half mile maps--together with several letter-size maps at one inch equals five miles (one is at one inch equals four miles), which are FLU-55 through FLU- 62. The adopted plan, as amended through 1994, contained the same text as the plan as amended through 1993, along with an updated Future Land Use Map Set of six large color sheets. The base map is at a scale of one inch equals two miles and is a colorized version of the base map contained in the 1993 version of the plan; the other five maps are color insets from the base map at a scale of one inch equals one quarter mile. The rest of the Future Land Use Map Series is the same as in the Plan as amended through 1993. In addition to the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map, the future land use map series included: a Generalized Soils Map which identifies its source as "USDA/SCS, Soil Survey of Highlands County, Florida, July, 1989"; Highland's County Peat Deposits, whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Wetlands 600, whose legend identifies "wetlands" and "ridge," and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Floodplains, whose legend identifies "floodplains" and "ridge," and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Water and Canal Map 500, whose legend identifies "generalized interim well protection zones (cones of influence) for potable water supply wells" and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc., Highlands County Building and Zoning Department and DER," and which is dated December, 1990; Future Traffic Circulation Map State Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands County Engineering Department and FDOT"; Future Traffic Circulation Map County Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands Co. Engineering Department and FDOT"; Future Traffic Circulation Map County Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands Co. Engineering Dept. (9/88) and FDOT (11/90)"; and Modified Community Parks which depicts existing and proposed parks and "existing urban land use" and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. April, 1990". FLU-55, the Generalized Soils Map, was prepared using the 1989 USDA SCS Soil Survey. Major field work for the USDA/SCS Soil Survey was completed in 1986. It is the same map as the Generalized Soils Map contained in the Base Documents. FLU-57 maps wetland features which are not depicted on either the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) or the Conservation Overlay Map. The 1989 USDA SCS Soil Survey was used to identify wetlands on FLU-57. HEC's Contentions HEC contended that the maps in the Plan, as amended, were deficient. It became apparent during the course of the final hearing that HEC considered the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map in the Plan, as amended, to be the only map pertinent to the designation of conservation lands. HEC contended that FLU-54 is too small, not clear and legible enough, and inadequate for its purposes. It appeared that HEC learned of the existence of the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) during the final hearing. HEC contended that the Resource Base Maps were deficient because they were not based on the appropriate and best available data. As a result, HEC contended, the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map "missed" some significant resources. Kris Delaney quickly reviewed the Resource Base Maps during the course of the final hearing and testified that on the Frostproof, Lake Arbuckle, Sebring, and Fort Kissimmee quad sheets some "significant areas of native vegetation were not shown on the mylar overlays." Delaney's observations regarding the five allegedly-inaccurate mylar quad map overlays were made with reference to the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey and what he believed was a wetland symbol on the underlying quad map. But it is not clear that Delaney understood the legend to the Resource Base Maps. Furthermore, he was not offered as an expert in photogrammetry, geography, or surveying, and the specifics of his personal knowledge of the areas in dispute were not made clear. Another HEC witness, Dr. Menges, testified to his opinion that the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map did not map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. He testified that, to map native vegetative communities on a species-specific basis, Steve Christman's 1988 report for the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission would provide the best available data. (He also mentioned data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, but it was not clear that those data were not used or how available those data were.) However, it was not clear from the evidence that the Christman report was not used as a data source. In addition, Menges conceded that "the primary source for the distribution of (native vegetative) communities" (in Highlands County) would be the "Soil Conservation Service Survey map," and it is clear that the County's consultants used this data source, together with other soil survey information and aerial photography, as was appropriate. It should not be surprising that the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map did not map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. As previously, stated, the effort was limited to high quality scrub habitat, cutthroat grass seeps with predominantly native vegetation, and forested wetlands on and near the Ridge. There was no intention to map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. Regardless of the alleged deficiencies with the Resource Base Maps and the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map, HEC did not take into account all of the maps in the Future Land Use Map series in contending that the mapping was deficient. HEC did not recognize that Policy 3.2 provides for the use of the "adopted Conservation Overlap Map series contained in the Future Land Use Element" as the "general indicator" for the resources described in the policy. The Future Land Use Map series includes not only FLU-54 and the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) but also: FLU-55 (the Generalized Soils Map), FLU-57 (the Wetlands 600 map), FLU-58 (the Floodplains map), and FLU-59 (the Water and Canals Map 500). HEC also did not recognize that the environmental clearance procedures under Policies 3.3 and 3.13 are triggered not only if the presence of the resources described in Policy 3.2 is mapped on the Conservation Overlay Map (which includes not only FLU-54, but also the Resource Base Maps), but also if they are known to occur by reference to any of the maps in the Future Land Use Map series, or are otherwise known to occur. The references acknowledged by the County in Policy 3.1 can serve as the source of knowledge of where the resources described in Policy 3.2 occur. It is not beyond debate that these sources of information, taken together, are adequate for purposes of indicating the existence of the resources described in Policy 3.2 and triggering environmental clearance review under Policy 3.3. HEC did not establish beyond debate that the County did not use appropriate or the best available data, that the County did not apply the data in a professional manner, or that the Plan, as amended, did not react to the data in an appropriate way. Future Land Use Element Residential Land Use Density In Agricultural Land Use Categories HEC presented no credible testimony or evidence to substantiate its allegation that the land use densities for agriculture and urban agriculture encourage "urban sprawl" or are not supported by adequate data. No expert testimony in land use planning was offered, although HEC had identified such potential experts on its witness list. The Base Documents stated that agricultural density was at 1 unit/acre prior to the adoption of the Plan and recommended that the density be decreased to 1 unit/10 acres. The draft of the Base Documents recommended a density of 1 unit/ 5 acres. The Plan established the General Agriculture land use category as the predominant land use for rural areas. It has the lowest development potential of all adopted land use categories. The General Agriculture land use category has a density range of one unit per ten acres. The Urban Agriculture land use category was established as a transitional zone between urbanized and rural lands. The Urban Agriculture land use category has a density range of one unit per five acres. (County Exhibit 6, Pages FLU-6 and FLU-7 There was no evidence to prove that lesser densities are required to discourage urban sprawl, to protect natural resources, to protect agricultural lands, or for any other reason. Population Accommodation Data and Analysis HEC did not present any population accommodation analysis. There was no competent evidence presented in this case as to the population accommodated in the year 2000 under either the Plan as amended and adopted on March 2, 1994, or the Plan as amended and adopted on September 15, 1993. HEC pointed to a projection in the Housing Element in the County's Plan indicating a need for 10,075 new housing units to accommodate 16,977 new residents by the year 2000. HEC also pointed to data and analysis indicating that there are approximately 108,000 residential lots in existing subdivisions of 100 lots or more in the County that potentially could be developed to accommodate new housing units. But HEC did not establish that it is realistic to project maximum development in those subdivisions at one unit per lot; nor did HEC establish the extent of vested rights to development in those subdivisions. Protection of Water Quality and Quantity The Base Documents contain extensive data and analysis of County geology and soils, including water supply considerations, and recharge. Aquifer recharge in Highlands County occurs primarily on the Lake Wales Ridge. Contamination of groundwater has been documented from hazardous waste associated with landfills, agricultural use of the pesticides EDB (ethylene dibromide) and Bromicil, and leaking underground storage tanks. Of these, only the agricultural pesticide use is documented to have impacted potable water supplies. EDB, the primary source of contamination noted, has not been used since 1983. While the presence of Bromacil is also noted, the number of wells is not mentioned. Moreover, the evidence does not mention a single health- related case. Where EDB contamination has been found, the State of Florida has paid the cost of connecting to public water supplies or installing carbon filters. There is no evidence that stormwater management activities has caused groundwater contamination. Highlands County has adopted a number of objectives and policies in both the Infrastructure Element and the Natural Resources Element of the Plan, as amended, intended to protect potable water wells, conserve potable water resources, and reduce the risk of groundwater contamination. Objective 6 under the Potable Water Subelement [sic] of the Infrastructure Element is to ensure public health by protecting the water quality of potable wells. Among the policies adopted to implement that objective is Policy 6.4, adopting stringent restrictions on activities within a 600 feet radius around public potable water wells. Highlands County also adopted Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.3 under the Potable Water Subelement [sic] to establish minimum design and construction requirements for all potable water wells to protect and assure delivery of potable water. Highlands County has also adopted a number of other objectives and policies under the Natural Resources Element intended to protect groundwater quality, including: prohibiting the location of hazardous waste treatment facilities in the County; requiring cooperation with the DEP "DRASTIC" program; prohibiting discharges of untreated stormwater and waste material into underground formations; adopting stormwater quality and quantity standards; mapping wellhead protection zones; and encouraging implementation of best management practices for agricultural operations in the County. HEC did not prove beyond fair debate that, taken together, the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan, as amended, do not ensure the protection and conservation of potable water supplies.
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 that the Highlands County Plan adopted through County Ordinance 91- 1, as amended by County Ordinances 93-16 and 94-1, is "in compliance." DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1996.
