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 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 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 Ultimately at issue in this case is whether certain comprehensive plan amendments, adopted by Lee County Ordinance No. 94-30, are "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, many of the subordinate issues raised by parties seeking to have the plan amendments found to be "not in compliance" have been withdrawn, and others have been stricken as not timely raised or for other reasons. The remaining issues are addressed in this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact The FLUM and the Overlay. Lee County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1984. On January 31, 1989, the County adopted an amended version of the 1984 Plan intended to plan for growth up to the year 2010 and to comply with the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements. Essentially, the 1989 Plan was very similar to that drafted in 1984. Some major differences were provision of development timing and concurrency, creation of the privately-funded infrastructure overlay, elimination of the fringe land use category, and a variety of other new goals, objectives, and policies (GOP's). Most of the land use categories in the 1984 Plan were carried forward to the 1989 Plan. Almost all of the land use categories are mixed land use categories that allow residential, commercial and in some cases also light industrial uses without any percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. The DCA took the position that the 1989 Lee Plan was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act and filed a petition under Section 163.3184(10). The Department's objection to the 1989 Plan flowed in large part from the alleged overallocation of land for development by the year 2010 that resulted from the categories in the future land use map series (FLUM). Using the County's data and analysis, the DCA concluded that the 1989 map provided for 70 years of growth, to the year 2060, instead of 20 years, to the year 2010. To resolve the 1989 Plan dispute, the County agreed to adopt a 2010 Overlay and create a Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource future land use (FLUE) category (DRGR). The 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement included the following provisions: Amend the Future Land Use Map series by designating the proposed distribution, extent, and location of the generalized land uses required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a)1.-9. for the year 2010. These designations will include acreage totals and percentage distributions (illustrated by a bar graph) for about 125 discrete sub-districts encompassing all of Lee County, which, once designated, shall be changed only by a formal amendment to the Lee Plan. The data for these designations shall be consistent with the Lee Plan's population pro- jections for the year 2010. This amendment shall be accomplished by the adoption of over- lay or sub-district maps for the entire County using the concepts developed therefor by Thomas H. Roberts of Thomas H. Roberts Associates and presented publicly to the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County on September 12, 1989, and to the Department of Community Affairs on September 22, 1989. Adopt a policy which will provide that no development approvals for any land use category will be issued in any of the sub- districts described above that would cause the acreage total set for that land use category in 2010 to be exceeded. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County created a 2010 Overlay. The County first projected future growth in Lee County to the year 2010, using a basic assumption that historic patterns of growth in Lee County, including historic densities, would continue. The County's 2010 population estimate was 757,370 for the entire unincorporated County. The County then assigned acreage allocations for different land uses allowed in each planning subdistrict. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County adopted the resulting 2010 Overlay, as well as a DRGR FLUE category with a density range of one unit per ten acres, as part of the 1990 remedial plan amendments. The Overlay consisted of Maps 16 and 17, which were added to the FLUM, along with implementing policies in the Future Land Use Element. The 2010 Overlay is, in the words of the 1994 Codification of the Plan, "an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series." Map 16 is a map which divides Lee County into 115 subdistricts. "Map" 17 is not a true map; it is a series of bar tables and pie charts that correspond to acreage allocations for land uses within the subdistricts. Each subdistrict is allocated a specific number of acres for each of the following land uses: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, passive agriculture and vacant. The land use acreage allocations for each Overlay subdistrict are the maximum amount of land which can be developed in that subdistrict. The intent of the 2010 Overlay was to match the amount of development that could be accommodated by the 2010 FLUM with the projected County-wide population for the year 2010. The 2010 Overlay accomplished this in part by assigning percentage distributions, in the form of acreage allocations, to the various uses in the many mixed use categories in the FLUM. Under the Overlay, once the acreage allocation for a particular land use is exhausted, no more acreage can be developed for that land use in that subdistrict unless the Lee Plan is amended. Policy 1.7.6 was adopted to establish an ongoing mandatory review procedure for evaluation and amendment of the 2010 Overlay. On September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments and officially revised the original data and analysis supporting the Plan. As the support documents for the 1990 remedial amendments stated: The future land use map series currently contained in the Future Land Use element of the Lee Plan depicts 18 land use categories and has an estimated 70-year population holding capacity. A future land use map series is re- quired by state law and is also a useful and necessary part of the plan in guiding land use and related decisions. The Year 2010 Overlay makes this map series even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon. * * * In addition to this "pure planning" function of the 2010 Overlay, a regulatory function will be added. No final development orders or building permits for any land use category will be issued in any subdistrict that would cause the acreage total for that category in 2010 to be exceeded. The Dwelling Unit Counts and Projections charts in the support documents for the 1990 amendments demonstrate that the 2010 Overlay was designed to greatly limit the number of dwelling units that could be constructed by 2010 compared to the number allowed by the 2010 FLUM without the Overlay. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments in compliance. However, a citizen challenge to the County's 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments resulted in an Administration Commission Final Order that the amendments were not in compliance and that the County had to take certain remedial actions to bring the Plan amendments into compliance. Final Order, Sheridan v. Lee Co. and DCA, 16 FALR 654 (Fla. Admin. Com. 1994)(the "Sheridan Final Order"). The Sheridan Final Order required the County to apply the 2010 Overlay at the development order stage, rather than at the building permit stage. As a result, no development order could be issued which caused the acreage allocations for any given individual subdistrict to be exceeded. The Sheridan Final Order also held that the County had not properly calculated the amount of development allowed by the 2010 Overlay and adopted the following analysis from the hearing officer's Recommended Order: The calculation of a density allocation ratio is part of the determination whether data and analysis support the residential densities in a plan. The analysis misses the point of the process if the maximum densities authorized by a plan are reduced to reflect historic densities. The question is whether the densities authorized by a plan are supported by data and analysis, not whether data and analysis support densities some- where between the maximum authorized densities and historic densities. Especially where historic densities reflect an inefficient use of land, as is clearly the case in Lee County, analysis of a plan based in part on historic densities invites the repetition of past planning failures. * * * The purpose of the density allocation calculation, as part of the process of determining if the plan is supported by data and analysis, is not to predict the actual density that will occupy the planning jurisdiction at buildout. The purpose of the density allocation calculation is to compare the maximum density allowed by the plan with the projected population, and consider the extent of the overallocation in the light of other factors in the planning jurisdiction, including plan provisions and relevant data and analysis. The ratio is not required to be 1:1 to satisfy the criterion of supporting data and analysis. But the ratio must be ascertainable in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 689. As a result, one of the remedial amendments required by the Administration Commission was: To address the density calculation issue the County shall revise the data and analysis to include the maximum allowable densities in determining the amount of development allowed by the 2010 overlay and to show that the amount of development allowed is based on the expected growth. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 661. The County adopted 2010 Overlay remedial amendments in October, 1994. In December, 1994, the DCA determined that the remedial amendments were in compliance. (The revised data and analysis were not made a part of the record in this case.) On July 1, 1994, the County adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for its Plan and subsequently submitted to the DCA the EAR, along with the proposed EAR-based amendments for the year 2020. Among other things, the proposed EAR-based amendments eliminated the 2010 Overlay. Among other things, the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report objected to the elimination of the 2010 Overlay, taking the position that, without the Overlay, the EAR-based plan had the same allocation-related problems that had been in the 1989 plan. On November 1, 1994, the County adopted a modified version of the EAR- based amendments--still without any Overlay--and submitted these to the DCA, together with its staff response to the DCA's ORC Report. On December 28, 1994, the DCA issued a Statement of Intent to find the EAR-based amendments not in compliance. FLUM Population Accommodation Data and Analysis. The evidence in this case includes data and several different analyses comparing the population accommodated by the plan amendments at issue--i.e., the FLUM without any Overlay--with the population projected for the year 2020. Figure 14. Lee County's proposed population accommodation data and analysis is included in the EAR in Figure 14. Based on Figure 14, the County concluded that the 2020 FLUM accommodates 802,655 persons, or 128 percent of the projected 2020 population (an accommodation ratio of 1.28). Although the FLUM's many mixed use categories do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses, Figure 14 assumes that certain percentages of the many mixed use categories will develop in residential use, based on historic growth patterns. Also based on historic growth patterns, Figure 14 assumes that residential density will be less than the maximum of the standard residential density range allowed in each category although the GOP's allow residential development at much higher densities. Since Figure 14 is based on historic patterns of growth that are expected to continue into the future, Figure 14 appears to predict future growth as accurately as is possible at this time. It probably is the best possible estimate of how Lee County will build out under the proposed amendments. However, the ability to make truely accurate predictions over such a long period of time--25 years--is questionable. Figure 14 assumes that only a fraction of the new Vested Community land use district (Lehigh Acres) will be developed by the end of the planning timeframe. Most of the Vested Community district consists of subdivisions which were approved and platted several years before the adoption of the earliest Lee Plan, and which are vested from the restrictions of the Lee Plan. The Vested Community district contains over 130,000 vested lots which can accommodate at least 271,700 residents. In addition, the Vested Community district contains some land which is not actually vested from the Lee Plan but is allowed to develop at four density units per acre (du/ac). Figure 14 assumes that 45,888 residential units accommodating 95,906 persons will be developed in Lehigh Acres by 2020. There is no goal, objective or policy in the Lee Plan which would prevent the development of more lots vested or allocated in the Vested Community district. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis assumed that the Rural and Outer Islands categories will develop at their maximum residential density of one du/ac. In fact, the Lee Plan includes a Planned Development District Option ("PDDO") which allows: landowners outside the Future Urban Areas to increase allowable densities for development that will be totally independent of county- subsidized facilities and services. (Objective 1.8) The PDDO increases the maximum theoretical residential density of the Rural and Outer Islands districts from 1 du/ac to 6 du/ac. However, due the requirements for use of the PDDO, realistically it cannot be anticipated that much Rural or Outer Islands land will utilize it. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis did not include any residential allocation for the General Interchange category. The General Interchange category allows residential development of 100 residential units at 8 du/ac for every 100,000 square feet of commercial development. If the residential option applied to all 1,436 acres of the General Interchange category, the Lee Plan would accommodate another 13,209 persons in that category. However, for the residential option, the category requires 160 acres under common ownership. Currently, there is only one case in which the requirement is met, and it is a development of regional impact (DRI) that does not allow residential at this time. Figure 14A. Figure 14A is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It was supposed to adjust Figure 14 by assuming the maximum residential density allowed by each land use category in accordance with the Sheridan Final Order. The Figure 14A accommodated population rises to 1,325,568, and the so-called allocation ratio rises to 2.11. Actually, Figure 14A does not take into account the actual maximum residential density in Intensive Development (22 du/ac), Central Urban (15 du/ac), and Urban Community (10 du/ac). Instead, it uses the top of the "standard density range" in those categories. Figure 14 B. Figure 14B also is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It adjusts the Figure 14A analysis by estimating the total residential development allowed by the Vested Community category at 170,732 dwelling units, which will accommodate 356,829 persons. Adding those Vested Community numbers to the Figure 14A numbers, Figure 14B estimates the population accommodated by the 2020 FLUM as 1,586,491 persons, or an accommodation ratio of 2.53. Maximum Theoretical Residential Potential. The DCA proposes an analysis of the data using maximum theoretical residential potential for each land use category. Under the DCA analysis, there is enough land available for residential development accommodate a population of approximately 2.5 million people--401 percent of the expected County population in 2020 or, expressed as a ratio, 4.01. In contrast to Figure 14B, the DCA's preferred analysis takes into account all of the residential development capacity in Lehigh Acres. In addition, it assumes residential development in the Vested Intensive Development part of the Lehigh Vested Community at the maximum density of 14 du/ac and in the Vested Central Urban part at the maximum density of 10 du/ac. These assumptions add to the FLUM population accommodation analysis the capacity to accommodate approximately 246,000 more people, over and above the Figure 14B capacity. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that all Rural and Outer Islands land will utilize PDDO and develop residentially at 6 du/ac. Use of this assumption more than doubles the population accommodation in those categories, adding approximately 500,000 people to the analysis. While theoretically possible, as previously stated, this assumption is unrealistic. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that 13,209 people are accommodated in residential development in the General Interchange category. This assumption, too, is theoretically possible but not realistic. Finally, the DCA's preferred analysis assumes that, although most of Lee County's future land use categories allow a mix of uses, the land will develop at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area--i.e., that no other type of permitted use, such as commercial, parks, schools or even roads would occur in any of the land use categories. Finally, it disregards the actual existence of non-residential uses and residential uses at lower densities; instead, it assumes redevelopment at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area. County's 2010 Overlay Analysis. It seems obvious that deletion of the 2010 Overlay must increase population accommodation, at least up to the year 2010. Up to the time of the final hearing, the DCA had not requested, and no party did, an allocation ratio analysis of the 2010 Overlay similar to the one the DCA prefers for the 2020 FLUM without any Overlay for purposes of making a comparison between the two. The County's chief planner testified that he performed such an analysis during the course of the final hearing using the maximum residential and maximum density assumptions. Neither the details nor the results of the analysis were clear. However, it appears to indicate that the 2010 Overlay accommodated a 2010 population of 1.06 million, apparently including 282,000 assumed to be accommodated in Lehigh Acres, an allocation ratio of 2.11. Assuming that the County's 2010 Overlay analysis included Lehigh, it can be roughly compared to the Figure 14B analysis and the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" analysis by removing the Lehigh component from each. Subtracting the Lehigh component from the County's 2010 Overlay population accommodation analysis results in a 2010 population accommodation of 778,000. Removing the Lehigh component from Figure 14B results in 2020 population accommodation of 1,229,662. Removing the Lehigh component from the DCA's analysis results in 2020 population accommodation of 2,008,927. Meanwhile, the County's projection of future increased by only about 70,000 between 2010 and 2020 for the entire unincorporated county. RGMC Alternative 2010 Overlay Accommodation Analysis and Comparision. RGMC proposes its own alternative analysis for comparing the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay to the population accommodated without it. Using the County's population projection for 2020 of 626,860 in the unincorporated county and the accepted 2.09 people per unit, it can be estimated that approximately 300,000 units will be needed in the year 2020. Subtracting the 127,000 units existing in 1990, approximately 173,000 additional units will be needed over the 30 years from 1990 to 2020 to accommodate the expected population, or approximately 5,800 additional units per year. At that average rate, 116,000 units would be added by the year 2010 (5,800 units per year times 20 years). Adding the new units to the 127,000 units existing in 1990 results in a total of approximately 244,000 units in 2010. Since it is agreed that the Overlay was designed to accommodate, and accommodated, approximately the population expected in the year 2010, it can be estimated that the Overlay accommodated approximately 244,000 units. In the sense that all units accommodated under the 2020 FLUM without the Overlay are available for development before 2010, a rough comparison can be made between the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay and the population accommodated according to the other analysis methodologies: according to Figure 14, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 384,045 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14A, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 634,243 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14B, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 759,086 units for the year 2020; and according to the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" methodology, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 1,201,973 units for the year 2020. Calculation and Use of the "Allocation Ratio". The technique of determining a residential density allocation ratio was described in an article entitled "Expanding the Overallocation of Land Use Categories," which appears in a June, 1995, publication of the Department of Community Affairs called "Community Planning." "Community Planning" is published by the Department of Community Affairs "to provide technical assistance to Florida's counties and cities and implement any requirements of Florida's growth management laws." The article announces how the Department reviews the question of "overallocation" in determining whether a plan is in compliance with statutory and rule requirements regarding urban sprawl. According to the article, the Department suggests that a comprehensive plan should allocate up to 125 percent of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected future population. The article does not explain how the "allocation ratio" should be calculated. The Sheridan Final Order seems to say that maximum densities should be assumed. See Finding 11, above. But neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order indicate what other assumptions should be made. The "Community Planning" article and the Sheridan Final Order also do not specify whether, in calculating the allocation ratio, population accommodation capacity should be compared to the total expected population or to the incremental growth expected in the population. The DCA has accepted a 1.25 allocation ratio applied to the total expected population as being reasonable. A major treatise in this area known as Urban Land Use Planning, Fourth Edition, by Kaiser, Godchalk, and Chapin, suggests that an allocation ratio of up to 2.05 can be considered reasonable; however, when doing so, the authors were evaluating plans with a closer planning horizon (one to five years), and they were comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population. When calculating an allocation ratio for a 20-year planning horizon, they suggest that a 1.20 allocation ratio that compares population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be reasonable. By accepting a 1.25 allocation ratio that compares the population accommodation capacity to the total population expected on a 25-year planning horizon, the DCA seems to have been misapplying the allocation ratio analysis. Clearly, an accommodation ratio comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be much than one comparing to to the total population expected. There was no data and analysis as to exactly how much higher, and it is difficult to say based on the record in this case. However, an example of the difference between the too methodologies is suggested by one of RGMC's alternative analyses. It is known that approximately 300,000 units of residential development will be needed for the population expected in the year 2020. See Finding 36, above. The evidence was that there were approximately 143,000 units existing in 1995, so approximately 157,000 additional units will be needed by the year 2020 to accommodate the expected population. Meanwhile, using the County's Figure 14 assumptions, the FLUM without the Overlay makes 384,045 units available for development by the year 2020, or an accommodation of an additional 241,045 units over what was in existence in 1995. Comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020 would result in an "accommodation ratio" of approximately 1.54, versus the ratio of 1.28 calculated in Figure 14 comparing to total population expected. By way of further examples, using the same method of comparison: Figure 14A's 2.11 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.13, comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020; Figure 14B's 2.53 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.92; and the DCA's "accommodation ratio" of 4.01 would become a ratio of 6.75. It should be noted that the Urban Land Use Planning treatise also speaks of the use of the allocation ratio as a safety factor to provide a choice of location for housing type and to avoid artificially increasing land and housing prices. Rather than being a device merely to avoid the overallocation of land, the safety factor also is said to be necessary to ensure that enough land is allocated and that the limitations of forecasting approaches do not exacerbate the need for affordable housing. It also should be noted that neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order specify that allocation and urban sprawl issues should be determined from the simple calculation of a residential density allocation. To the contrary, the Sheridan Final Order would indicate that, once the allocation ratio is obtained, full consideration should be given to all pertinent factors "in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis." Analyses Not Conducted. The plan amendments do not only eliminate the 2010 Overlay. They also decline to retain the Overlay concept and extend it another ten years to the year 2020. There is no data or analysis in this case comparing the population accommodated by the FLUM without any Overlay to the population that would be accommodated in the year 2020 if the Overlay were extended another ten years to 2020. Such data and analysis would most clearly illuminate the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay, and abandoning the Overlay concept, on the residential allocation of the plan for the year 2020. There may be tens of thousands of, up to perhaps almost a hundred thousand, residential units in DRI's that have been approved but not yet built. There was inadequate data and analysis of how many of the residential units that will be needed by the year 2020 can be supplied in these DRI's. Lehigh Acres. Clearly, Lehigh Acres presents a special problem for Lee County and the DCA. Lehigh Acres was platted in the 1950s and 1960s. It covers approximately 97 square miles, which is slightly more than 62,000 acres. Since its inception, Lehigh has had all the attributes of urban sprawl. It is a large, sprawling, almost entirely residential community that was created in an area remote from urban services. It is characterized by grid patterns of development, a poorly-designed transportation network with large numbers of small local roads and no four-lane roads, huge amounts of land allocated to residential development and a relatively small amount of land allocated to commercial development. The roads in Lehigh are built. Virtually all of Lehigh has been subdivided into relatively small single family residential homesites, and almost all of these homesites have been sold to buyers all over the world. By virtue of the platting and sale of the land into homesites, Lehigh is a vested community. Over the years, the County has considered a number of potential solutions to the Lehigh Acres dilemma. Ultimately, the County decided to take a multi-pronged approach: (1) creating restrictions on additional subdivision and attempting to reduce densities to no more than four units per acre; (2) continuing the privately-funded infrastructure overlay as the means of providing infrastructure in Lehigh; and (3) utilizing sector planning to work toward a better transportation system and larger areas of commercial allocation to create a more balanced community. Based on the new treatment of Lehigh Acres, the County engaged in different assumptions about how Lehigh will build out. In 1989, Lehigh was shown as "central urban" and "urban community," together with the rest of the Lee Plan future land use categories. Under the 2010 Overlay, the County purported to reduce acreage allocations in Lehigh, but in fact there was little impact on residential potential due to vesting. In the EAR-based amendments, Lehigh is shown under "Vested Community," a separate land use category. Through the vested community category, the County attempted to restrict additional subdividing of lots and, with a few limited exceptions, set a maximum density of four units per acre. Based on the different treatment of Lehigh in the Plan, the County projected a population for Lehigh based on the amount of growth actually expected to occur by Year 2020. To do this, the County utilized eight different methodologies and averaged the projections to come up with a 2010 population for Lehigh of 95,906. These assumptions are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Neither the Department's rules nor the "Community Planning" article provide specific guidance as to how vested areas are to be treated in making a calculation of a plan's "allocation ratio." The vast area of Lehigh has the capacity to absorb virtually all the anticipated future population growth in unincorporated Lee County through the year 2020. In fact, it may be appropriate for Lee County to increase overall density in Lehigh if necessary to support the infrastructure and transportation needed to convert Lehigh Acres into a more balanced, multi-use development. Lee County's approach to Lehigh essentially was to attempt to satisfy the Department's desire for an acceptable "allocation ratio" by estimating how many residents will actually live in Lehigh by 2020, assuming the Plan's treatment of Lehigh, and treating those estimates as Lehigh's population accommodation. By studying historic rates of growth, the Lee Planning Division believes that number will be approximately 96,000 people. No evidence was presented by the Department or any intervenor in contradiction of this estimate. The results of the County's approach to Lehigh are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Another approach would be to attempt to reduce residential development in other parts of the County. It would be poor planning to reduce densities "across the board" throughout the County just to achieve a lower allocation ratio. Such an approach could direct population concentration away from urban areas into poorly-served rural areas, thereby discouraging the efficient use of land and encouraging sprawling uses. Depending on the densities, it could direct growth to remote areas of the county. Additionally, if Lee County attemped to limit residential growth based on incorrect assumptions regarding future densities, it could seriously underallocate land uses. Underallocation can greatly inflate land costs to the detriment of the general public. On the other hand, a better approach might be to couple sector planning in Lehigh with a reduction in densities in certain other parts of the County. If successful, such an approach could both create more balanced development in Lehigh Acres and direct future growth to Lehigh and away from coastal high hazard areas (CHHA), DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Commercial Allocations. The 2020 Lee Plan, without the 2010 Overlay, has some guidance for the location of commercial development, especially retail commercial. But it does not have percentage distributions or other objective measurement of the distribution of commercial and other uses allowed in its many mixed land use districts. Policy 6.1.2 of the 2020 Lee Plan consists of site location criteria which apply to retail commercial development, such as shopping centers, restaurants, gas stations, and other commercial development generating large volumes of traffic. Non-retail commercial development, such as office, hotel and motel or wholesale commercial development, may be developed at the identified intersections or anywhere else in the land use categories which allow commercial development. Even retail commercial can be developed at locations which do not meet the location criteria under discretion granted to the Board of County Commissioners. According to Lee County's EAR, the Commercial Site Locations Standards Map (Map 16) identifies 52 full intersections and 15 half-moon intersections which comply with the site location standards for Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. They represent 9,520 acres of land designated for retail commercial development. Using the standard planning conversion rate of 10,000 square feet per acre, average, there is room for approximately 95,000,000 square feet of commercial development in the commercial sites depicted on Map There also may be other intersections which meet the criteria for Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial but are not shown on Map 16. In addition, there are numerous intersections which meet the criteria for Minor Commercial which are not shown on Map 16. Map 16 also does not include Regional Commercial development. The report by Thomas H. Roberts & Associates on Commercial Land Use Needs In Lee County (Jan. 10, 1987), indicates that the retail space ratio in Lee County is 26 square feet per capita. Just counting the 95,000,000 square feet of retail commercial development allowed in the land shown on Map 16, the 2020 Lee Plan has enough retail commercial capacity to accommodate 3.7 million people. Without even considering the non-retail commercial uses that can be developed at any location in the several land use districts which allow commercial uses, or the unknown amount of retail commercial that can be developed at the numerous intersections which meet the Minor Commercial location criteria, the 2020 Lee Plan without the 2010 Overlay allows commercial development far in excess of the amount needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. Industrial Allocation Policy 7.1.4 in the 2020 Lee Plan provides: The [FLUM] shall designate a sufficient quantity of land to accommodate industrial development that will employ 3 percent of the county's population in manufacturing activities by the year 2010. The 2020 FLUM, without the 2010 Overlay, designates 6,062 acres in the Industrial Development category. Three percent of the 2020 County population represents approximately 19,000 people. The 1984 Roberts industrial land analysis for Lee County suggested a ratio of seven industrial workers per acre for industrial related activities. Most industrial land uses employ more workers per acre, and the national average is about 17 employees per acre. But even using the ratio suggested by the Roberts analysis, Lee County would need only approximately 3,000 acres of industrial land to accommodate three percent of the 2020 County population in industrial employment. Analysis in the EAR indicates that enough additional industrial land is needed to serve the needs of municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves and that this additional land accounts for the apparent excess in industrial lands allocated in the county. However, it is not clear from the data and analysis how this determination was made. In addition, light industrial development is permitted in several other mixed land use categories. For example, the existing approximately 2,800 acres of Airport Commerce (AC) located to the northwest of the airport is intended to include light industrial activities. There was no data or analysis as to how much additional industrial use will be made of land in those categories. There are no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution of land uses in the mixed land use districts that allow light industrial use. The Mixed Land Use Districts. As has been seen, the Lee Plan without any Overlay makes extensive use of mixed land use districts without percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. Much of the dispute between the parties as to residential accommodation and allocations of land for commercial and industrial uses results from the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use categories. Although the County predicts development of only a percentage of these districts as residential, it remains possible for much larger percentages to be developed residential. On the other hand, it is possible for practically all of mixed land use districts to develop commercially or even industrially. The 2010 Overlay attempted to address the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use districts by limiting the acreage that could be developed in particular uses by the year 2010. Without the Overlay concept, no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses remain in the plan. Because of the plan's extensive use of mixed use districts, the County's ability to control development through the plan is seriously undermined. Other Urban Sprawl Considerations. Unincorporated Lee County contains approximately 685 square miles. Lehigh Acres and the DRGR areas, combined, are approximately 199 more square miles, 29 percent of the total area of unincorporated Lee County. Except for the growth that will occur in the Vested Community of Lehigh, much of the future growth in Lee County will occur in the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor, which is oriented in a generally North-South direction and contains most of the urbanized areas of the County, including the City of Fort Myers. Because this area is already largely urbanized, most of the growth in it will result in either the expansion of existing urbanized areas or in-fill between existing urban areas. Certificated water and sewer franchise areas also generally coincide with the north/south urban core in which growth is expected to continue. The presence of water and sewer franchise areas in the north/south urban core and in Lehigh Acres encourages utilization of these areas through the ability to provide urban services. The absence of water and sewer franchise areas in other portions of the County will act as a hindrance to development in areas which are undeveloped and either in conservation or agricultural use. A review of County DRI approvals, together with approved development orders, also appears to indicate a trend toward development in the north/south core. The absence of development orders in most of the outlying areas, indicated as either agricultural, vacant, or conservation use, indicate that probably relatively little growth will occur in those areas. Platted subdivisions also appear to show a trend toward development in the north/south urban core. In general, there also appears to be a correlation between existing land uses and those factors which can reasonably be expected to establish future growth trends in the north/south urban core. Growth in the north/south I-75, U.S. 41 corridor across the county line to the south in Collier County tends to encourage similar growth at the southern end of Lee County. Meanwhile, there are hindrances to development across the county line to the east and southeast by virtue of the presence of agricultural lands and regional wetland systems such as the Corkscrew Swamp and the Everglades. The County has also made use of sector planning. The County's sector plans represent extensive and detailed planning studies which in many cases are reflected in both the FLUM and the policies in the Plan. However, currently there is no sector plan for Lehigh Acres. Policy 1.5.5, creating the Vested Community category for Lehigh, states a sector plan for Lehigh will be developed beginning in 1996. In terms of land uses, the Plan seems to be fairly well functionally related, both in terms of what is shown on the FLUM and the relation between the FLUM and the Plan policies themselves. A good example of this is the commercial site location standards, which establish a strong functional relationship between transportation and regional commercial facilities. There is also a good functional relationship between existing land uses. The Plan mixed use categories appear to recognize and attempt to encourage sound functional relationships between home, work, and shopping. The Plan also has compatibility standards that help maintain functional relationships. However, without the Overlay, the many mixed use categories in the Plan do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts. In terms of land use suitability, the County generally appears to be designating for development those areas which are most suitable for development. However, because it allows development of all kinds throughout the County in excess of what is needed by 2020, the Plan allows development in less suitable areas. A variety of methodologies and assumptions leads to the conclusion that the Lee Plan generally is an urban development plan, not a rural development plan. For instance, under the Figure 14 methodology, 80 percent of the population is directed toward urban land uses, and 12 percent into rural. Under Figure 14B, which unrealistically assumes that all of Lehigh Acres will be built out within the planning time frame, 90 percent of the population is directed to urban areas, and only 10 percent to rural. Even assuming that 100 percent of the land will be used for residential purposes, and that all of Lehigh will build out within the planning time frame, 92 percent is directed to urban areas, and only 8 percent to rural. Finally, even assuming 100 percent of the land to residential at maximum densities, and also that all rural land uses will use the PDDO option at six units per acre, only 4 percent of the population will be directed to rural areas in the FLUM. Notwithstanding the overall patterns of growth in Lee County, it clearly is indicated in the Sheridan Final Order that land in Lee County historically has been used inefficiently and that, without the Overlay, the plan allows inefficiency to continue unabated. This is due in large part to the extensive use of mixed land use categories that do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts, together with the overallocation of land that also results in part from their use. By comparing the FLUM's since 1984 with the current Existing Land Use Map (ELUM) (Lee 56), it is apparent that rural designations have not preserved agriculture. Significant parts of county that have been designated rural since 1984 actually have been developed residential or non-agricultural use. In Range (R) 25 East (E), Township (T) 45 South(S), Sections 31 and 32 are residential, while 33 is a golf course. Similarly, R 25 E, T 47 S, Sections 14, 15 and 23 have developed significantly residential and part of Section 14 is now designated Outlying Suburban. In addition, significant residential development has occurred in areas of Pine Island that have been designated rural since 1984. On the other side of the coin, much of the "New Community" still is in rural use (R 35 E, T 45 S, Sections 1, 2, 3, parts of 10, 11, and 12; R 26 E, Sectons 5-8, 17 and 18.) Some "Industrial Development" land is actually still in rural use or vacant--R 25 E, T 46 S, Section 3 west of I-75, and Sections 4- There is significant land that actually is rural or vacant adjacent to wetlands and Estero Bay in R 24 E, T 45 S (Sections 28, 29, and 31-35), together with Sections 3-5, 8-10, and 15 in R 24 E, T 46 S, that are designated for Suburban or Outlying Suburban uses. Land designated rural, open land or fringe in 1984 has been redesignated for urban uses over the years. A large block straddling Daniels Parkway east of the 6 Mile Cypress Strand has been designated Outlying Suburban. Approximately between Buckingham Road, Orange River Boulevard and I-75, rural land has been redesignated as Rural Community Preserve. Large blocks of land, one at the extreme north end of the county between U.S. 41 and I-75, and the other east of I-75 near the river, have gone from rural to Outlying Suburban. A large amount of what was rural and fringe between Bonita Springs and San Carlos Park, west of U.S. 41, has become Suburban and Outlying Suburban. CHHA and Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter. Objective 75.1 of the amended Lee Plan defines and delineates Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) for the first time. Previously, the plan referred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "A Zone," which encompasses somewhat more land than the new CHHA. Policy 75.1.4 of the amended Lee Plan, which formerly applied to the "A Zone," states: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within [CHHA] shall be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In this round of amendments, the County did not consider either reducing density categories, or assigning the minimum allowable densities in categories with a range of densities, in undeveloped land in the CHHA. In prior rounds of amendments, the County reduced densities in areas that would be inundated by Category 1, 2 and 3 hurricanes (which would include CHHA). Assuming maximum allowable densities together with the other Figure 14A assumptions, the density reductions reduced population accommodation by 13,000 units in those areas. Elimination of the 2010 Overlay opened additional land to immediate development in the CHHA. There was no data and analysis on the amount of new land opened to immediate development or the additional population accommodated in the CHHA that would result. Goal 79 in the Lee Plan, as amended, is to "provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.1 of the Lee Plan, as amended, is to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 2000, and to reduce the clearance time portion of evacuation time to 18 hours or less by 2010. Previously, the plan's objective was to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. Lee County has among the best hurricane planning efforts in southwest Florida. Nonetheless, as of the time of the final hearing, evacuation times still exceeded 1987 levels, and clearance times exceeded 18 hours. Little progress had been made toward the previous objective to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. That is why the objective was extended five more years until the year 2000. It may be that the 2010 Overlay was not designed with hurricane evacuation times in mind. It also is true that the County's evacuation plans are updated every three years based on actual development data. But it also is true that additional development in the CHHA due to elimination of the 2010 Overlay may make it more difficult to achieve Objective 79.1, even as amended. Objective 79.2 of the Lee Plan is to make adequate shelter space available by the year 2010 "for the population in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone at risk under a Category 3 storm." There was no data and analysis of the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. There also was no data and analysis of the impact of amending Objective 75.1 and 75.1.4 to reduce the size of the coastal area subject to consideration for land use density reductions on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. Change of Alico Property from DRGR to AC. Another significant FLUM amendment in the EAR-based amendments was to change the designation of 1400 acres of property owned by Alico, Inc., from DRGR to Airport Commerce (AC). Uses allowed in the AC district include light manufacturing and assembly, warehousing, distribution facilities, ground transportation and airport related terminals or transfer facilities, and hospitality services. Suitability. Policy 1.4.5 of the plan, as amended, defines DRGR as "upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" and as "the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." Although previously designated DRGR, more recent data and analysis calls this designation into question. The amendment property does provide some recharge to both the water table (surficial) aquifer and the underlying Sandstone aquifer, but it does not provide above-average groundwater recharge for either aquifer (or any recharge to any of the deeper aquifers). In addition, it is not a good site for the development of a wellfield in either the water table or the Sandstone aquifer. The water table aquifer is not especially thick, and there are too many wetlands on the site for production from the water table aquifer. (Pumping from the water table aquifer next to the airport also could be problematic in that the stability of the soil under the airport could be affected. (Cf. Finding 100, below.) In the Sandstone aquifer, groundwater flows away from the site, making it unsuitable for production. Despite the questions raised by the new data and analysis, the amendment property may still be suitable for designation as DRGR. But that does not necessarily make it unsuitable for AC use. In terms of location, the amendment property is perfectly suited to AC use. I-75 and other AC-designated property is to the immediate west of the amendment property. The Southwest Florida International Airport is to the immediate north of the amendment property. A second runway and a new cargo handling facility are planned for construction to the south of the existing airport runway. When built, the new facilities will practically be touching the northern boundary of the amendment property, and the proposed new south airport access will cross the amendment property and intersect Alico Road, which is the southern boundary of the amendment property. Commercial and industrial use on the property would not pose an unreasonable threat to contaminate either existing or future potable water wells. Theoretically, stormwater from the amendment property could contain contaminants which could eventually migrate to a drinking water well. But the threat of such contamination is small. Permitting criteria adopted and imposed by the South Florida Water Management District will require all construction on this site to conform to surface water quality standards through Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and permitting rules of the Water Management District within Chapter 40, Florida Administrative Code. These rules will require on-site detention and retention of stormwater which will greatly reduce the threat of surface contaminants leaving the property. Additionally, all surface water runoff from the property, and most groundwater, will be intercepted by the Alico Road Canal, which drains in a westerly direction away from any existing drinking water wells. If any contaminants from the amendment property were to enter the groundwater, avoid the Alico Road Canal and leave the property, they would have to migrate a considerable distance to reach a potable water wellhead. The only wellfield pumping, or planned to pump, from the water table aquifer which contaminants possibly could reach would be the existing Gulf Utilities wellfield approximately one mile and a half southeast of the amendment property. Contaminants within the groundwater move at a slower speed than the water itself. Most contaminants move at a much slower speed than the water. Thus, the chances are very slight that contaminants from the amendment property would threaten the Gulf Utilities wellfield. Any metals in the groundwater would attach to soil particles and migrate extremely slowly. Other potential contaminants would eventually break down within the soil as they slowly migrated away from the site. It was estimated that the travel time from the closest portion of the amendment property to the Gulf Utilities well field would be in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 years. If any such contaminants did reach the wellfield they would be in such dilute concentrations that they would pose no health hazard. The only other wellfield that is reasonably close to the proposed site is the Florida Cities well field to the northeast. This wellfield taps the Sandstone aquifer. The Sandstone aquifer is separated from the water table aquifer by an approximately 40 foot thick semi-confining layer. This layer is composed of silt and clay which provides hydraulic separation between the aquifers. There are no known breaches of the semi-confining layer in this area. The direction of flow and the nature of the semi-confining layer also make it extremely unlikely that contaminants from activities on the amendment property and discharged from the site by stormwater could migrate to the Florida Cities water wellfield. The groundwater in the water table aquifer flows generally southwest, and the confining layer has low leakance values. Additionally, safety measures required for the development of the amendment property include the installation of monitoring wells and the requirement to use the best environmental management practices. The data and analysis includes panther sitings in the vicinity of the amendment property. There also is evidence that the amendment property is part of land that has been labeled as "Panther Priority 2." The significance of this label was not clear from the evidence. In any event, while part of the "Panther Priority 2" land, the amendment property clearly also is surrounded by uses not particularly suited for panthers. Currently, rock mining is occurring on property to the east and to the south of the amendment property. Rock mining on the amendment property itself also is allowed under its previous DRGR designation. The airport is immediately to the north, and both other AC property and I-75 are immediately to the west. In light of those developments, the "Panther Priority 2" designation does not make the amendment property unsuitable for AC designation. Need. The County has a legitimate need to diversify its economy so that it is not so dependent on tourism. It is the County's perogative to attempt to develop its regional airport into an international trade center. In view of the suitability of the amendment property for AC, and its projected role in furthering the County's plans to develop its regional airport into an international trade center, the amendment property should be viewed as a valuable economic resource in need of protection. It is appropriate, when trying to protect a resource, to plan for the needs of generations to come. If the amendment is not approved, there is a good chance that the land eventually will be used for a rock mine. Residential use in that location is incompatible with airport noise. A public gun range is a permissible use of DRGR property, but there are no plans for a public gun range on the amendment property, and such a use also would not be compatible so close to the airport and would be unlikely. Although agricultural use as pasture is possible, ultimate use of the property for pasture seems less likely than rock mining. As previously mentioned, the land immediately to the east of the subject parcel and to the south of the subject parcel is being utilized as rock pits. If the amendment property eventually is used for rock mining, the land would be excavated into what becomes deep lakes. In all likelihood, such a use would permanently preempt the land in question from being a commercial resource that could be utilized in conjunction with the airport. Of the 1400 acres of amendment property, approximately 800 acres are jurisdictional wetlands; only about 600 acres of uplands actually can be used for AC purposes. Meanwhile, approximately 173 acres of industrial land has been rezoned to other uses within Lee County between 1990 and the date of the hearing. Another 300 acres of AC are to be incorporated into the new airport expansion. But there was no data or analysis as to how much of those 473 acres consist of wetlands. Utilizing the 1984 Roberts methodology, the County has analyzed the need for industrial land in the County and has concluded that the addition of the amendment property is necessary to meet those requirements. However, as previously mentioned, it is not clear how the County's analysis was conducted or what the actual needs for industrial land in the County are. In addition, several mixed land use categories permit light industrial use but do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution among the mixed uses within those categories. Taken as a whole the data and analysis does not establish that the AC amendment is necessary to meet the need for industrial land in the County. Adequate data and analysis to establish those needs is necessary to determine whether other land where industrial use is permitted should be redesignated if the AC amendment is to be adopted. As previously discussed, Lee County has much more land designated for commercial development than will be needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. See Findings 58-68, above. In support of their position that the AC map amendment is needed in order to meet the demand for airport-related industrial and commercial development that will be generated by the expanding Southwest Florida International Airport, Lee County and Alico point out that international airports serve a larger area than a single County, and that a larger AC district near the Airport will serve the Southwest Florida region. With its new runway and larger terminal with new cargo handling facility, the Airport Authority intends, and the County would like to encourage, a large increase in airfreight handled by the Airport by 2020. Alico prepared a Response to DCA's ORC, which attempted to compare the acreage of approved, large-scale commercial and industrial development near the Orlando International Airport to the amount of acres proposed for Airport Commerce near the Southwest Florida International Airport. However, the Alico Response failed to take into account the amount of approved development near the Orlando Airport which is vacant. According to the Alico Response, the Orlando International Airport handled 233,587 tons of airfreight in 1994. Also according to the Alico Response, 7,152 acres of industrial and commercial development, including ten DRI's, are located near the Orlando Airport. The ten DRI's located near the Orlando Airport include 55,464,770 square feet of approved industrial and commercial development. But as of June of 1995, only 3,386,744 square feet of industrial and commercial development, or 6.11 percent of the approved industrial and commercial square footage, had been constructed. Applying the percentage of approved industrial and commercial in DRI's actually developed by 1995 (6.11 percent) to the acreage approved for industrial and commercial (7,152 acres), it can be determined that 440 acres of existing industrial and commercial development were supporting the 233,587 tons of airfreight handled by the Orlando Airport in 1994. Based upon the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that each acre of industrial and commercial development near an airport supports 534.54 tons of airfreight each year. The Southwest International Airport projects that 196,110 tons of airfreight will be handled by the Airport by 2020. Dividing the projected 2020 tonnage by the 534.54 tons of airfreight per acre from the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that the air freight activities projected for the Southwest Florida International Airport by the year 2020 will support only about 367 acres of AC. The Lee Plan FLUM already includes approximately 2800 acres of AC located to the northwest of the Airport. (It is not clear whether the 300 acres consumed by the runway expansion should be deducted from the 2850 acres of AC said to currently exist.) The existing AC district is essentially undeveloped. The AC which already exists to the northwest of the Airport is more than sufficient to support the airfreight which the Airport expects to handle by 2020. Zemel FLUM Amendment. Background. The Zemels own approximately 8600 acres of land in northwest Lee County. The 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendments which resulted from the settlement between Lee County and DCA, designated Zemel property as DRGR with a residential density of one unit per ten acres. The DRGR designation for the Zemel property was determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Zemel v. Lee County & DCA, 15 FALR 2735 (Fla. Dept. Comm. Aff. 1993), aff'd, 642 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1st DCA 1994). Based in part on data and analysis which were not available at the time of adoption of the DRGR category, a circuit court determined that the Zemel property did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the DRGR category. The circuit court ordered that: The property is hereby restored to the Rural land use classification on the Future Land Use Map of the Lee Plan, including restoration of the subject property's density to 1 du/acre and use of the Planned Development District Option for the property. This action shall not preclude the County from amending its plan, including the 2010 Overlay, as it pertains to the Zemel property, pursuant to Chapter 163, Fla. Stat., subject to constitutional limita- tions and other requirements of law. Placement of Zemel Property in Open Lands Classification The 1994 EAR-based amendments changed the land use designation of the Zemel property to Open Lands. Open Lands is a new category created by the EAR- based amendments in Policy 1.4.4. The residential density allowed in the Open Lands category is one unit per ten acres, except a density of one unit per five acres is permitted if the planned development process is used to prevent adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands (as defined in Policy 77.1.1.4). (Commercial and industrial uses are permitted in the Open Lands category in accordance with the standards in the Rural category.) Of the 8,600 acres owned by Zemel, approximately 1,900 acres are wetlands and 6,700 acres are uplands. Lee County chose the Open Lands category for the Zemel property because it was the least intensive land use category available after the circuit court determined that the DRGR category was not appropriate, and because the County did not wish to exacerbate the overallocation of the FLUM. According to new Policy 1.4.4: Open Lands are upland areas that are located north of Rural and/or sparsely developed areas in Township 43 South. These areas are extremely remote from public services and are characterized by agricultural and low-density residential uses. It was not proven that the Zemel property does not meet the Policy 1.4.4 definition of Open Lands. The Zemel property clearly is in Township 43 South. It is north of areas that can be said to be "sparsely developed." The Zemel property clearly is characterized by agricultural use. Finally, although some of the Zemel property is not "extremely remote" from some public services, all of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from at least some public services, and some of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from all public services. Placement of the Zemel property in the Opens Lands category was based on adequate data and analysis. To the extent that data and analysis in the EAR may have been lacking, the evidence at final hearing included adequate data and analysis. Using the Figure 14 methodology, the County calculated that Open Lands category would accommodate 2,073 people, as compared to 8,293 people at the Rural density. However, assuming development of all of the Zemel property at the one du/ac standard density allowed by the Lee Plan for Rural, 14,003 people (1 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit) would be accommodated. In the case of the Zemel property, such an assumption would be less unrealistic than in many other parts of the County since it is a large, vacant tract. The evidence also was that the Zemel property is one of the few parcels of land in the County in which use of the PDDO is a realistic possibility. Assuming maximum densities under the PDDO, the Zemel property under the Rural designation could accommodate 84,018 people (6 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Under the Open Lands category, even at the maximum density allowed for planned developments, the Zemel property could accommodate only 2,801 people (1 du/5 ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Dependence of Open Lands on Deletion of Overlay Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. Although all of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires," the evidence was that one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. Specifically, there was evidence that the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," was intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay, and to either become effective together or not at all. Otherwise, there would be no development authorized in property redesignated "Open Lands" because there was no land use category called "Open Lands" at the time of adoption of the 2010 overlay, and no express authorization for development of any kind in "Open Lands." Planning Timeframe. Clearly, the EAR-based Lee Plan amendments are intended to plan through the year 2020. The year 2020 was chosen for the amendments to enable the County to make use of the best available demographic projections being generated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for that time frame. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the plan, as amended, retains Map 11. Map 11 depicts "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries." It is the map that was generated in 1989 and used in the 1989 and subsequent plans for the year 2010. However, it was not proven that the map does not accurately depict "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries" for the year 2020. The County concedes that the Community Facilities and Services Element of the plan, as amended, projects waste generation and recycling rates only from 1991 to 2015. The County contends that these projections are easily extrapolated to the year 2020, and no party disputes this. The County's response to the DCA's ORC report indicates that the Hurricane Shelter/Deficit analysis for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element is for shelter needs to the year 2000. However, the County cannot accurately project shelter needs much further in the future. The evidence is that the better practice is to plan for shorter periods of time and continually update the projections. This is what the County does. It was not proven that the County is planning for the wrong timeframe or that its plan is defective for that reason. Other alleged uses of the wrong planning timeframe actually arise from questions as to the allocation of land to meet the needs of the County through the year 2020. There is no question whether the County's intent is to plan for the year 2020. The dispute is whether land has been overallocated. Other Alleged Internal Inconsistency. Amended Objective 100.1 in the Housing Element uses data for the County, including municipalities, in projecting the number of housing units needed for the 2020 timeframe. It is true that EAR Figures 14, 14A and 14B, which analyze the FLUM, identify the number of units which may be accommodated for the unincorporated area. But EAR Figures 12 and 13, which also analyze the FLUM, are directed to the entire county, including municipalities. Besides, it is clear that the County understands its obligation is only to implement affordable housing with respect to the unincorporated county. Water Supply. The Regional Water Supply Master Plan (RWSMP) serves as supporting data for several amended policies in the Potable Water sub-element of the Community Facilities and Services Element. The purpose of the RWSMP was to ensure an adequate, reliable and cost-efficient supply of potable water to meet the current and future needs of Lee County to the Year 2030 and beyond, considering both economic and environmental factors. The County's reliance on implementation of the RWSMP for this purpose is justified. Preparation of the plan was a very complex undertaking. In preparing the population projections on which the Regional Water Supply Master Plan relies, the County's consultant attended the technical staff meetings of the individuals with the Metropolitan Planning Association (MPO) charged with preparing the MPO population projections. The MPO Countywide population projections utilized in the RWSMP were prepared by estimating the number of permanent residents and taking into account a number of other economic characteristics and social characteristics such as the number of children per household, historic and expected natural and State trends, and the degree to which these trends will affect the future of Lee County. The Lee Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plans of the other governmental jurisdictions in Lee County, were utilized in preparing the RWSMP. It was a plainly spelled out requirement for preparation of the Master Plan that it had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of the County and cities in Lee County. The MPO population projections are reasonably accurate, and they are the best available data for purposes of planning water supply. The MPO projections are preferable to the "maximum theoretical" population accommodation used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis. Regardless of the appropriate analysis for purposes of determining whether a plan overallocates land, it would not be appropriate to plan water supply based on unrealistic population projections. The RWSMP uses MPO 2020 population projections that are somewhat different from, but reasonably close, to the 2020 population projections reflected in Figure 14 and used to support the FLUE of the Lee Plan. The special purposes of the RWSMP projections justify the differences. Besides, the differences are not large enough to prove beyond fair debate that the plan is not internally consistent. Wetlands Protection. Prior to the County's adoption of the EAR-based amendments, Goal 84 in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Lee Plan and its objectives and policies included guides for local land development regulations in the protection of wetlands by establishing allowable land uses and their densities, and by establishing design and performance standards for development in wetlands. The County modified Policy 84.1.2 (renumbered 84.1.1) in part by deleting a prohibition against the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or additional drainage features in wetlands. Ditches, canals and dikes could be constructed in wetlands to have beneficial effects. For example, a ditch could be built to increase the hydroperiod of a wetland and result in a benefit. A dike could enhance a mitigation area, which would also result in environmental benefits. Thus, the repeal of this prohibition could benefit wetlands. The 1984 data and analysis contained in the EAR recommended that the prohibition be deleted and instead suggested the use of performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. The EAR-based amendments to the Lee Plan do not include performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. Instead, the County has modified Policy 84.1.1 (renumbered 84.1.2) in part by deleting the following language: Wetland regulations shall be designed to protect, conserve, restore, or preserve water resource systems and attendant biological functions, including: Preventing degradation of water quality and biological productivity. Preventing degradation of freshwater storage capabilities. Preventing damage to property and loss of life due to flooding. Preventing degradation of the viability and diversity of native plants and animals and their habitats. Assuring the conservation of irretrievable or irreversible resources. In place of those performance standards, the EAR-based Policy 84.1.2 provides: The county's wetlands protection regulations will be amended by 1995 to be consistent with the following: In accordance with F.S. 163.3184(6)(c), the county will not undertake an independent review of the impacts to wetlands resulting from development in wetlands that is specifically authorized by a DEP or SWFWMD dredge and fill permit or exemption. No development in wetlands regulated by the State of Florida will be permitted by Lee County without the appropriate state agency permit or authorization. Lee County shall incorporate the terms and conditions of state permits into county permits and shall prosecute violations of state regulations and permit conditions through its code enforcement procedures. Every reasonable effort shall be required to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on wet- lands through the clustering of development and other site planning techniques. On- or off-site mitigation shall only be permitted in accordance with applicable state standards. Mitigation banks and the issuance and use of mitigation bank credits shall be permitted to the extent authorized by applicable state agencies. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County also modified Policy 84.1.4 by deleting language that addressed permitted uses in wetlands and their densities, but that issue is now covered under renumbered Policy 84.1.1. The amendments added to Policy 84.1.4 the following provision: Land uses in uplands will be regulated through the implementation of the Land Development Code to avoid degrading the values and functions of adjoining and nearby wetlands. New Policies 84.1.2 and 84.1.4 in effect defer performance standards covering development in wetlands to the state and water management district permitting processes. The Lee amendments in part are an attempt to avoid duplicating what state agencies accomplish through their permitting programs. The evidence is that the state and water management district permitting processes include newly adopted Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules. These rules consider the type, value, function, size, condition and location of wetlands in determining how to protect them. The ERP rules also require proposed development to avoid or eliminate wetland impacts or, if not possible, to minimize and mitigate for them. The ERP rules also require consideration of the cumulative and long-term adverse impacts of development on wetlands in a comprehensive manner within the same water basin. The DEP and the Southwest Florida Water Management District also have adopted supplemental ERP rules covering only the jurisdiction of that water management district, which includes Lee County. By including a requirement that every state environmental permit shall be incorporated into county permits and that violations of a state permit also are violations of the county permit, the Lee Plan commits the County to assist the State in enforcing environmental permits in Lee County. Through this new emphasis on compliance and enforcement, Lee County will be providing valuable assistance to state environmental protection. Lee County's efforts will assist those agencies by devoting staff to compliance and enforcement efforts. Prior to the EAR-based amendments, the County had two wetland land use categories under the Lee Plan. These were described as the Resource Protection Areas (RPA) and Transition Zones (TZ). Guidelines and standards for permitted uses and development in the RPA and TZ were found in the policies under Objective 84.1 and 84.2, respectively. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County replaced the RPA and TZ categories with a single Wetlands category. This new Wetlands category includes all lands that are identified as wetlands under the statewide definition using the state delineation methodology. The County's definition of "wetlands" in the plan amendments covers more area than the areas previously known as "resource protection" and "transition zones." To that extent, the present amendments to the Lee Plan give greater protection to wetlands than the previous version of the Lee Plan. The Lee Plan, as amended, also contains other GOP's. Taken together, the GOP's ensure the protection of wetlands and their natural functions. Reservation of Future Road Right-of-Way. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County has deleted or amended certain policies in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Lee Plan regarding the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. Deleted Policy 25.1.3 provided that the County would attempt to reserve adequate rights-of-way for state and county roads consistent with state and county plans. The County also deleted Policy 21.1.7, which addressed the possibility of acquiring future rights-of-way through required dedications of land. Policy 21.1.7 provided: The previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs shall not be construed so as to prohibit the adoption of regulations requiring such dedication. However, any such regulations must provide for a rational nexus between the amount of land for which dedication is required and the impact of the development in question, and must also provide that such dedication, when combined with other means which may be used to offset the impact of development (such as, for example, the imposition of impact fees), does not exceed the total impact of the develop- ment in question upon the county's transportation network. The "previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs," referenced in Policy 21.1.7, above, was Policy 21.1.6, which has been renumbered 21.1.5. As modified, that policy provides: In order to acquire rights-of-way and complete the construction of all roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map, voluntary dedications of land and construction of road segments and inter- sections by developers shall be encouraged through relevant provisions in the development regulations and other ordinances as described below: Voluntary dedication of rights-of-way necessary for improvements shown on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map shall be encouraged at the time local development orders are granted. In cases where there are missing segments in the traffic circulation system, developers shall be encouraged to also construct that portion of the thoroughfare that lies within or abuts the development, with appropriate credits granted towards impact fees for roads. However, site-related improvements (see glossary) are not eligible for credits towards impact fees. Policy 21.1.7 provided policy guidance for LDRs in establishing required dedication of future rights-of-way as a means of acquisition, if the County chose to use that measure. Policy 21.1.6 (renumbered 21.1.5) provides policy guidance for LDRs in establishing voluntary dedication of future rights- of-way as another means of acquisition. By deleting Policy 21.1.7, the Lee Plan, as amended, is left with a policy that establishes only the voluntary dedication measure as a means towards acquiring future rights-of-way to facilitate the construction of roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map of the Lee Plan. The County has made these changes because legally it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option after the decision in Joint Ventures, Inc., v. Dept. of Transportation, 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1990). The County's plan does more than just encourage voluntary dedication of rights-of-way. There are numerous policies in the Lee Plan that, taken together, adequately address the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. The following policies relate and achieve right-of-way protection: Policy 1.3, 1.6, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 6.1.5, 16.3.5, 21.1.5, Objective 21.2, Policies 21.2.1, 21.2.3, 21.2.5, 21.2.6, 21.2.7, Policy 23.1.2, 23.1.4, 23.2.3, Policy 25.1.1, and 25.1.3. Under these policies, all new projects receive a review for voluntary dedication as against the Lee County official trafficways map and the facility need identified for the planning horizon of the future traffic circulation element and map. In addition, all new developments are required to mitigate off-site impacts through a payment of impact fees. They are also required to address and mitigate site-related impacts through the provision of site-related improvements at the developer's expense. Payment of impact fees and additional revenues generated through mitigation of site-related impacts, both generate revenues for the capital improvements programming process for purchase of rights-of-way. Accomplishing necessary site-related improvements pursuant to the Lee County program also frequently results in County acquisition of rights-of-way at the developer's expense. Mitigation of site-related impacts, as well as payment of proportional share and impact fees, are generally accomplished through Policy 1.8.3, Subsection 1, Policy 2.3.2, Objective 3.1, Policy 3.1.3, Policy 7.1.2, Policy 14.3.2, Objective 22.1, 23.1, and the policies thereunder, Policy 23.1.1, 23.1.3-.7, 23.2.6, Objective 24.2, Policy 25.1.2, Objective 28.2, and Policy 70.1.1, Subsection A-7. The County's primary method of acquisition of rights-of-way is through the Capital Improvements Element. The Capital Improvements Element does include projected costs to purchase needed rights-of-way. The Lee County Capital Improvements Program is accomplished through Goal 70 of the Lee Plan, which expressly includes acquisition of rights-of-way. Objective 77.3 - Wildlife. Before the EAR-based changes, Objective 77.3 of the Lee Plan was to: "Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system . . .." In pertinent part, the EAR-based amendment deleted the phrase "current complement of." The change does not alter the meaning of the objective. The concept of a baseline expressed by the deleted phrase also is inherent in the words "[m]aintain and enhance" and remains in the amended objective. Policy 77.11.5 - Endangered and Threatened Species. The EAR-based amendments deleted Policy 77.11.5, which stated: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for public acquisition purposes shall be identified within these use areas. The corridor boundaries shall include wetlands, upland buffers, and nearby vegetative communities which are particularly beneficial to the Florida panther and black bear (such as high palmetto and oak hammocks). Data and analysis supports the deletion of the first two sentences. The use areas and public acquisition corridors have been identified. To reflect the new data and analysis, Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2 also were amended to provide for updating of data on sitings and habitat for these species and to encourage state land acquisition programs. The last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 has been transferred and added verbatim to Policy 77.11.2. Related Policy 77.11.4 was also amended to reflect new data and analysis and to provide that, instead of just encouraging the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand, the County shall continue an acquisition that is in progress. The Adoption Ordinance. As mentioned in connection with the Zemel amendment, Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. All of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires." All of the parties except for the Zemels agree that, under Section 8 of the ordinance, the "ultra vires" part of the adopting ordinance is severable from the rest of the ordinance, which remains valid. The Zemels take the positions (1) that the state circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the remainder of the ordinance is valid and (2) that the remainder of the ordinance is invalid. Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30 provided: [I]t is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners . . . to confer the whole or any part of the powers herein provided. If any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any remaining provision of this ordinance. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners that this ordinance would have been adopted had such unconstitutional provisions not been included therein. The evidence was that, notwithstanding Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30, one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. As discussed in connection with the Zemel amendment, the evidence was that one such package consisted of the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," and the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. There also was some less compelling evidence that amendments creating the Commercial Site Location Standards Map, FLUM 16, were intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. No other examples of similar "packages" of plan amendments was shown by the evidence or argued by any party. RGMC's Standing. The Responsible Growth Management Coalition, Inc. (RGMC), was formed in 1988 to insure compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule Chapter 9J-5 and to conserve resources. RGMC has offices in Lee County and conducts educational programs in Lee. In addition, at the time of the hearing, RGMC had 157 members residing throughout Lee County, most or all of whom own property in Lee County. RGMC participated in the process leading to the adoption of the Lee plan amendments in issue in this case and submitted oral or written comments, recommendations or suggestions between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the plan amendments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding that the Lee Plan amendments are not in compliance and requiring as remedial action: That the FLUE's mixed land use categories be amended to include percentage distribution or other objective measurements of the distribution among allowed uses, whether by use of an appropriate 2020 Overlay or by other appropriate means. That a sector plan be adopted for Lehigh Acres, including appropriate plans for provision of infrastructure, to create more balanced development in Lehigh and, to the extent possible, to direct future population growth to Lehigh and away from CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Such a sector plan could include minimum densities and target densities to support mass transit along transit corridors in Lehigh. That consideration be given to increasing densities in central urban areas and along transit corridors while at the same time reducing densities or adopting other plan provisions, such as the prohibition of certain kinds of development, to afford more protection to CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. One example would be the prohibition, or staging, of non-farm development in some or all rural areas. That, in accordance with Policy 75.1.4, undeveloped areas within CHHA be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. That the data and analysis supporting the remedial amendments account for units approved but not built and include both a population accommodation analysis based on maximum densities and an explanation of how the GOP's in the remedial amendments justify the resulting allocation ratio. That the remedial amendments include data and analysis of the impact of the resulting plan, as amended, on hurricane evacuation and clearance times and shelter planning, especially if, as part of remedial amendments, the 2010 Overlay is removed (or replaced). That the remedial amendments be based on data and analysis as to the need for commercial and industrial land, including the Alico amendment property. That the data and analysis extrapolate solid waste projections to 2020. That the sub-elements of the Community Facilities and Services Element (and other parts of the plan, as appropriate) be consistent with and based on data and analysis of future population predictions in light of any remedial amendments to the FLUE and FLUM. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0098GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1995), as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, Ltd., v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: DCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-17. Accepted. 18. There is a legal issue whether Ordinance 94-30 was adopted validly; otherwise, accepted. 19.-28. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected in part: plan includes "guides" (but no "objective measurements"); and Commercial Site Location Standards Map 16 implies that other uses are required elsewhere in the districts where these sites are located. Otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, rejected. (Assumptions are in part "based on" the GOP's, but they also assume less development than permitted by the GOP's.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Characterization "conservative" rejected as argument; otherwise, accepted. 34.-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted as being theoretically possible, but not likely to happen. 37.-38. Accepted. 39. Accepted as approximation of maximum theoretical residential capacity. 40.-46. Accepted. (However, as to 45 and 46, these numbers do not take into account industrial land needed to serve municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves.) First sentence, conclusion of law. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (The plan is "based on" the population projections, but allocates more land than needed to accommodate the population.) First sentence, conclusion of law; second sentence, accepted. 49.-50. Conclusions of law. 51.-52. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 53. First sentence, conclusion of law; second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; last sentence, accepted. 54.-55. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 56. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 57.-58. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; third, accepted (but does not prove non- compliance with the state plan.) First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 63.-64. Accepted. As to b.1. not timely raised; accepted as to b.2. (but easily extrapolated five more years to 2020); otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First two sentences of a. and b., accepted; otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (As to b., the discrepancies are not significant enough to create "internal inconsistency.") First sentence, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; rest, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that deletion of the Overlay "accelerated development." (Rather, it allows--and, under certain conditions, would result it--development of more acreage sooner.) First sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First and third sentences, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are easonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The RWSMP population projections are reasonably close to the Figure 14 projections. See also 66., above.) First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See also 71., above. 74.-77. Accepted. 78. 2850 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); otherwise, accepted. 79.-81. Accepted. 82.-83. Accepted. However, last sentences assume: (1) accurate inventory of developed acres in Orlando comparable to the land uses in AC under the Lee Plan; (2) 2850 acres of AC; and (3) developability of all AC acreage--including wetlands--for AC use. Those assumptions are not, or may not be, reasonable. 84. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See 82.-83. 85.-87. Accepted. However, as to 87., it is noted that the words "area," "surrounded by," and "nearby" are imprecise. Accepted; however, the degree of the sandstone aquifer's "susceptibility" to impacts depends on many factors. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that existing sources cannot produce any more; however, proven that new sources will be required, and otherwise accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that groundwater moves "to" the existing and planned wellfields. Otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. Fourth sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 97.-98. Accepted. Characterization of methodology as "flawed" rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It depends on the use being made of the results of the methodology.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, legal conclusion. (Legally, it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option, and the County's amendments presume that it is not.) Rest, accepted. 102.-105. Accepted. 106. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that voluntary dedication is not "effective" as one of several policies. Otherwise, accepted. 107.-108. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the state regulations are supposed to serve as "guidelines" or "guidance" for LDR's; rather, they are to serve in the place of duplicative County LDR's on the subject. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, appropriate comprehensive planning for wetlands occurs in other parts of the plan; the state regulations take the place of performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. Rest, accepted. (However, state regulations apply to some uplands that adjoin or are near to wetlands.) First sentence, accepted. (They don't guide the establishment of design and performance standard kinds of LDR's for any development in any wetlands; the state regulations take the place of design and performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (that they are the "core wetland policies in the plan.") Third sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. RGMC's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted. 9. Conclusion of law. 10.-15. Subordinate; conclusion of law; argument. 16. Accepted but subordinate. 17.-18. Rejected as not supported by record evidence. 19.-35. Accepted. 35(a). Conclusion of law. 36.-40. Accepted. 40(a). Conclusion of law. 41. Accepted. 41(a). Conclusion of law. 42.-44. Accepted. Accepted; however, the option to consider assignment of the minimum of a range of densities is in parentheses after the primary option to consider reducing densities. Largely argument. The objective and policy is "triggered" by any plan amendment, before and after the change from "A Zone" to "CHHA." See 47. Accepted. 47(a). Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (It is a question of internal consistency.) Accepted. 48(a). Argument and recommended remediation. Accepted. 50.-59. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 60.-62. Accepted. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 65.-66. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are reasonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) 67.-73(a) County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 77.-78. 2800 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); 1000 rejected as 400 low; otherwise, accepted. 79.-81(a). Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 82(a). Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Accepted but "between" is imprecise. Accepted, but not likely. Accepted that two are mutually exclusive; otherwise, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the lands are "adjacent"; otherwise, accepted. 93.-94. Accepted. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that it is "the reasonable professionally acceptable methodology." Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Whether it is appropriate to apply a safety margin factor just to projected new growth can depend on the safety margin factor used and how far out the projection.) Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as being hypothetical argument. (Also, the ratios do not convert to percentages, i.e., 25:1 does not convert to a safety margin factor of 25 percent.) 104.-111(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that "overallocations" occur in the earlier years of the planning timeframe; the relevant inquiry relates to the planning horizon. Also, as to 111., the reference should be to the year 2020. (Also, again the ratios do not convert to percentages.) Otherwise, accepted. 112.-118. Accepted as being paraphrased from part of the Sheridan Final Order. 119.-128. Accepted as being the adjustments to Figure 14B to yield unrealistic "maximum theoretical" capacity. 129.-130. Conclusions of law. 131. Accepted. 132.-133. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The plan does not "propose development"; its projections on which the County bases its facilities and services are more realistic that the "maximum theoretical" capacity projections.) Also, these specific issues were not timely raised, and County motion to strike granted. 134. Accepted. 135.-140. Descriptions of what the various FLUM's show and what development has occurred over the years, accepted as reasonably accurate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there were either official or unofficial "urban expansion lines." (It was not clear from the evidence whether the so-called "Proposed EAR Urban Boundary" shown on Lee Exhibit 53 was either an official or an unofficial "urban expansion line," and there was no other evidence of any "urban expansion lines.") Also, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there was a "failure to maintain" them, or that the Southwest International Airport or the Westinghouse Gateway DRI "breached" the alleged "1988 urban expansion line." (The Westinghouse Gateway DRI was vested prior to 1984, and the regional airport development appears on FLUM's prior to 1988.) Also, development that occurred in earlier years is not particularly probative on the issues in this case (in particular, the amendment eliminating the Overlay). 141.-142. Accepted. 142(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Also, the specific issue of failure to establish an "urban expansion line" is not raised by amendments at issue in this case (in particular, the elimination of the Overlay), and was not timely raised by any party. 143.-146. Densities in land use categories, accepted as reasonably accurate. The rest is rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. The plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance. Primarily, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage of non-urban land uses prior to 2010. They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020. 147.-150. Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. 150(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. Conclusion of law. In part, accepted; in part conclusion of law. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. 154.-160. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It remains to be seen how effective they will be in the long term.) Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage in potential wildlife habitat and corridor areas prior to 2010. (They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. 164.-168. Rejected because issues not raised timely. 169. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. 170.-174. County motion to strike granted. 175.-179. Accepted. 180.-182. Conclusions of law. 183.-184. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 185. Accepted. 186.-188. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 189. First clause, rejected (see 186.-188.); second clause, accepted. 190.-191. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 192.-193. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 194. Conclusion of law. 195.-196. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 197.-198. Except for typographical errors, accepted. (However, the last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 was transferred verbatim to amended Policy 77.11.2.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence to be the entire justification. (Also justified by updated data and analysis--namely, that the habitats have been identified and mapped--and by amended Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2, which respond to the new data and analysis.) Argument. 201.-204. Cumulative. (See 154.-157.) 205.-206. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 207.-208. Accepted. Accepted (although not demonstrated by Lee Exhibit 49). Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not clear from the evidence that the Zemel property is connected to and part of the Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area. Otherwise, accepted. 213.-216. Accepted. 217.-218. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (which is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 219.-222. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate (which, again, is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 223. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected. See 217.-222. Zemels' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted; however, relatively little of the Zemel property abuts either U.S. 41 or Burnt Store Road. 2-10. Accepted. Last clause rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; another option would be to amend the definition. Otherwise, accepted. Last clause, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that they are not "sparsely developed." Otherwise, accepted. 13.-15. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence as to the south; otherwise, accepted but irrelevant to the application of the definition. Accepted; however, not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Zemel property is not north of "sparsely developed areas." (Emphasis added.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rest, accepted in large part and rejected in part as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Clearly, at least a good portion of the Zemel property is "extremely remote" from all existing public services. Some portions of the Zemel property are not "extremely remote" from some public services, but not proven by a preponderance of evidence that at least some public services are not "extremely remote" from all portions of the Zemel property. Also, in addition to existing public services, c) and e) also refer to future public services. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that no agricultural activities have been profitable (only that row crop farming has not); otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (as to second and third sentences, because of the existence of the Open Lands category.) Accepted (although there also are other data and analysis in the record). First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Not all of the statements are "conclusory".) Second, accepted. Third, rejected; see 21., above. 28.-29. Accepted. (However, as to 29., it refers to existing access.) First sentence, accepted. A. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "fails to recognize" the roads in northern Cape Coral (although it clearly does not mention them); otherwise, accepted. B. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "appears to ignore" the water line along U.S. 41 (although it clearly does not mention it); otherwise, accepted. C. - accepted; however, the "proximity" is to a point on the periphery of the property. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence except using the County's methodology. Otherwise, accepted. 33.-34. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The County in effect "borrowed" the DCA's data and analysis.) Rest, accepted. Accepted, assuming the County's methodology; however, there also are other concerns. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. As to the second, there is rural land to the northwest; as to the third, there also is resource protection land in Charlotte County to the north, and the "enclave" is large; as to the fourth, no I-75 boundary would appear to apply to Township 43 even if it might appear to apply to the south. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The analysis compares the costs and difficulty in Yucca Pen to Lehigh and Cape Coral; in terms of such a comparison, the differences are significant.) 40.-45. Accepted. County's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; third, accepted (assuming "actual bona fide business" means a for-profit commercial enterprise.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the DCA "agreed with and relied on" the County's analysis. (The DCA utilized the analysis for purposes of its objection.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the determination was "on a largely subjective basis" (although some determinations necessarily were at least partly subjective); otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay was designed "without policy considerations" or that historic growth trends were "simply extrapolated." (The policy considerations already in the plan were utilized, and an effort was made to predict growth in light of those policy considerations. It is true, however, that the Overlay was not designed to further direct growth patterns within the planning districts and subdistricts.) Accepted (but not particularly probative). 11.-14. Accepted. Rejected in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it implies that the impact of the plan was not taken into consideration in predicting future population. See 9., above. Otherwise, accepted. Firsts sentence, accepted. As to second and third, not clear from the evidence what if anything was submitted in the way of data and analysis for the remedial amendments. They were not introduced in evidence or referred to by any party. As to the last sentence, it is not clear from the evidence exactly how the 2.11 factor was derived or whether it took into account the 2010 population accommodation for Lehigh (282,000 people in this analysis). (T. 1267-1269.) If the 507,000 units of accommodation did not include Lehigh, the total accommodation of 1.06 million also could not have included Lehigh. Accepted. First three sentences, argument. Rest, accepted. 19.-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as unclear what "that allocation" refers to. (Accepted if it means "up to 125 percent"; rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence if it means "200 percent.") 22.-23. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (In addition, a more meaningful comparison would be between the adopted EAR 2020 plan without a 2010 Overlay and a 2020 plan with an overlay extending the 2010 Overlay out another ten years.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rest, accepted (as accurate recitation of testimony) but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 30.-32. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to first sentence, see Sheridan Final Order.) Accepted. First and last sentences, accepted. Rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Such an approach would direct population to Lehigh, which might be the best thing to do. (At this point in time, development of Lehigh under a good Sector Plan might be able to change what was classic urban sprawl under past conditions into well-planned growth under present and future conditions.) It might also direct population to other, non- urban areas if densities were not low enough in them. Finally, Nelson suggested other ways of bring the plan into compliance without the Overlay. 38.-42. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The County did not seek to "match the available land to meet that growth"; rather, it checked to see if what was on the FLUM would "accommodate" (i.e., hold) the population projected for 2020. Last sentence, rejected in that RGMC challenged the opinion in its response to this proposed finding; otherwise, accepted. Rejected that the County "cannot alter the future development" of Lehigh or that Lehigh is "beyond the reach of" the comprehensive plan; otherwise, accepted. The 199 acres is part of the 685 acre total. Otherwise, generally accepted. However, significant additional growth can be expected in coastal areas, and there is rural land both within and outside the so-called "I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; presumably, the existence of this land is the reason the finding is couched in the terms: "the remaining area . . . is largely . . . along the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; and "all future growth . . . will predominantly occur." First and third sentences, conclusion of law; second, accepted. Conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted but subordinate; also, the rule citation is incorrect; in addition, they testified to the effect of removing the Overlay. Second sentence, conclusion of law. Accepted. (The effect of the Overlay is in the extent of the indicators that exist.) Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted; third, conclusion of law; fourth, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear"; also, conclusion of law. 58.-60. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The same conditions exist without the Overlay.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay did not have any "true policy bias or consideration built into it"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, the same conditions exist without the Overlay.) 68.-71. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "removing Cape Coral . . . reduces the FLUM capacity"; rather, it represents a change in the methodology of evaluating the FLUM capacity. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. 74.-78. Accepted. However, it appears that the County's treatment of Lehigh essentially was a device to enable it to have the projected population in the year 2020 treated as if it were the capacity of Lehigh in the year 2020. 79.-81. First sentence of 79, unclear; rest, accepted. However, only certain retail commercial are restricted to the locations on Map 16; others can go either there or elsewhere. 82.-85. Conclusion of law. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the ELUM "represents the growth trends" (rather, it shows what is there now) or that, except for Lehigh, growth only "is occurring in the north/south core." Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First and last sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Barrier" is too strong; "obstacle" or "hindrance" would be accepted.) Otherwise, accepted. 91.-95. Generally, accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as conclusion of law that they are "objective measures" and "responsive to . . . 5(c)"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, accepted (although some higher, urban densities are in coastal areas, and there remains some rural land in the so-called "north/south core"); third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that a "large impact" is "clear"; fourth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the "segmentation" is absolute but otherwise accepted. Except for Lehigh, generally accepted. (What is missing are "objective measures.") Generally, accepted. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "nearly identical." Third sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it necessarily is not excessive. The evidence was that it is not necessarily excessive, but it could be depending on many factors, including whether it was calculated based on total capacity on the planning horizon or incremental growth during the planning timeframe, and the length of the planning horizon. Otherwise, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; last two, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 107.-108. Accepted. 109. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. 110.-117. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The effect of removing the Overlay is to allow more development sooner throughout the County. The effect of the increased development would depend on how it occurs. As to 116 and 117, one purpose of the Overlay was to require a mix of uses in mixed land use districts. First sentence, rejected. See 110-117, above. Rest, accepted. Cumulative. Last sentence, subordinate argument; except for apparent typographical error in third sentence, rest accepted. Last sentence, rejected as unclear from the evidence why there has been no agricultural use; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Significance" depends on other factors as well, including the amount of acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) Assuming that the "127 additional acres" refers to uplands, the rest is accepted. 124.-125. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and, in part, conclusion of law. There was no evidence of any serious risk of a taking. If these were legitimate reasons to redesignate the Alico property AC, it would be questionable if any DRGR would survive. First sentence, accepted (assuming the County's efforts are otherwise "in compliance"; second, subordinate argument; third, cumulative. Accepted. (However, the County's analysis does not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) First four sentences, accepted but irrelevant; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "safe to assume"; last sentence, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that mining would "permanently preempt" commercial use, but accepted that subsequent commercial use would be much less likely; fourth sentence, accepted (except for typos); last sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not clear that it "won't be available," but accepted that it may not, depending on when it is "needed." Rest, accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear" but accepted that it probably "will not pose a significant threat"; third and fourth, accepted; fifth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that there is no recharge, but accepted that recharge is not better than average; rest, accepted. Accepted (with the understanding that the last sentence refers to surface water runoff). First sentence, accepted; second and third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Gulf Utilities-San Carlos wellfield is the only wellfield in the water table aquifer (otherwise, the third sentence is accepted). 134.-136. Accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There also were other internal consistency issues concerning the date.) Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 140.-141. Accepted. 142. Irrelevant; issue not timely raised. 143.-144. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (in that DCA and RGMC did not prove internal inconsistency beyond fair debate); second, third and fourth sentences, accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay); rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 147.-149. Accepted. First two sentences, argument; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; last, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that a reduction in densities is not necessarily positive; rest, accepted. 152.-155. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (assuming it refers to the deleted first sentence of former Policy 84.1.2, now 84.1.1); second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence since its context requires the opposite interpretation. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the report "specifically recommends the amendment . . . in the fashion that Lee County has done." Otherwise, accepted. 159.-160. Accepted (159, based on the plan language and Joyce testimony, as well as the Deadman testimony.) First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; conclusion of law; subordinate. Accepted; subordinate. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 166.-169. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Use of the "allocation ratio" is being determined in this case.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order can be said to be a DCA "publication." Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Joint Exhibit 17 gives some indication of how to apply an "allocation ratio"; accepted that Joint Exhibit 17 does not fully explain how to apply the "allocation ratio." Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order constitutes such evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Atlantic Gulf's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted. 4. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 5.-7. Accepted. 8.-10. In part conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. (The incorporation of the DEP and SWFWMD permitting requirements only replaces former County permitting requirements; other parts of the amended plan's provisions relating to wetlands protection remain in effect.) Alico's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-13. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the phrase "substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" may distinguish DRGR-suitable land from other land by the nature of the aquifer it recharges, not by the relative amounts of recharge. However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that it is in the "area" of "most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. 16.-19. Accepted. Accepted (assuming it refers to the DCA submitting); subordinate. Accepted. 22.-24. Subordinate argument and conclusion of law. 25.-34. Accepted. 35.-36. Accepted; subordinate. Last sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument and conclusion of law. Accepted (except, in s. and u., it should read "Six Mile Cypress Basin.") Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the list is not exhaustive ; otherwise, accepted. 40.-41. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Policy 7.1.1 just says applications are to be "reviewed and evaluated as to" these items; it does not say that "negative impacts" must be "avoided." Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Goal 12 and Standard 12.4 under it are renumbered under the current amendments as Goal 11 and Standard 11.4; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that former Standard 14.1 has been transferred to Policy 7.1.1. under the current amendments. See 40 and 42, above. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that former designation as DRGR is the only reason why water quality and quantity issues arise; second, cumulative. Cumulative. First two sentences, cumulative; rest, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, unclear which fact is "in dispute"; rest, accepted. (The AC amendment property probably would not be developed as a producing wellfield.) First sentence, accepted; second, cumulative. First two clauses of first sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, cumulative; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. 55.-56. Cumulative. 57.-59. Accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, third and fourth sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, argument; rest, accepted. Accepted. 65.-66. In part, cumulative; otherwise, accepted. 67.-70. Accepted. First sentence, argument; middle sentences, accepted; penultimate sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that he made no blanket concession, instead conditioning interception on water table levels; last sentence, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that there's no "realistic way" "you" can do it); rest, accepted. 73.-74. Cumulative. Accepted. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. Beginning, cumulative; last sentence, subordinate argument. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the influence of additional pumping has not been analyzed; last, accepted. Accepted. First two sentences, conclusion of law; last, accepted. Subordinate argument. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the "performance standards" say to maintain current protection and expand protection "to encompass the entire area." Accepted. (However, it is far from clear that the BMP's referred to in Policy 1.2.2 are the same ones referred to in this proposed finding.) Accepted. 87.-88. Subordinate argument. Cumulative or subordinate argument. Unclear what is meant by "several generations of numbers." Otherwise, cumulative. Cumulative. Accepted but subordinate. Accepted. (However, he also raised the question that the County's analysis did not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) 94.-95. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that they conceded need is not based exclusively on resident and seasonal population, not that it is not based at all on it; third, accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument. Accepted. Accepted. (Nor was there testimony that there is a need based on population.) Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law, cumulative, and rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that there was evidence of other motivations for providing the information as well. Accepted. (However, the analysis was limited to Orlando, and Nelson's method resulted in no need found.) Subordinate argument; cumulative. Subordinate argument. Accepted. (As to third sentence, neither did any other witness.) 106.-107. Accepted. Last sentence, subordinate argument; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (or, at least, unclear); rest accepted. Cumulative. 110.-113. Accepted. Cumulative. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted as an excerpt from the dictionary, but argument and conclusion of law that it is the "plain meaning" of the word "need," as used in 9J-5. (Also, citation to Joint Exhibit 11, p. 9, is not understood.) Argument and cumulative. 117.-118. Accepted. 119.-120. Conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 121. Last sentence, accepted. (It is not clear from the evidence that the designation of the property as "Panther Priority 2" on Lee Exhibit 42, introduced by RGMC, means that the County has identified it as being "in need of conservation.") Rest, conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 122.-126. Conclusion of law and cumulative. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not essentially incorporated into the Findings of Fact of this Recommended Order, they were considered to be either subordinate or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jordan, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Bridgette Ffolkes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Timothy Jones, Esquire Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue So. St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Connie C. Durrence, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Charles J. Basinait, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Steven C. Hartsell, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Thomas B. Hart, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Post Office Box 2449 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2449 Michael J. Ciccarone, Esquire Goldberg, Goldstein, & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Greg Smith, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capitol - Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning Administration Commission The Capitol - Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
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 Whether the small-scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of St. Petersburg's (the City) Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), adopted by Ordinance 739-L (Ordinance) on August 13, 2020, is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2020).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Property Petitioner, PGSP, is a membership organization, with 118 members. It is registered with the State of Florida as a not-for-profit corporation located in St. Petersburg, Florida. PGSP's stated mission is to promote healthy urban development throughout St. Petersburg; it was formed to promote development and growth compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. It works with the City and residents to ensure new development is cohesive with existing and planned environmental and infrastructural demands. Respondent, City of St. Petersburg, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida that is subject to the requirements of chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The subject property is located at 635 64th Street South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida (Property). It is owned by Grace Connection of Tampa Bay, Inc., operating as Grace Connection Church (Church). The Church was the applicant for the Amendment at issue but is not a party to this action. The Property is triangular in shape with a total of 4.66 acres. To the north and west, the Property is bounded by Bear Creek, a natural water feature. To the east, the Property is bounded by 64th Street South, a "Collector, City Road." To the south, the Property is bounded by an undeveloped 40-foot right-of-way. A portion of the Property that abuts Bear Creek is located in a Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA).3 Respondent has not sought changes to the portion of the Property that is within the CHHA. 3 The Property is also within the projected storm surge in Hurricane Evacuation Level "D," which is a Pinellas County emergency management designation, and not a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Property is currently categorized for Neighborhood Suburban (NS-1) zoning (which is separate from its Future Land Use Category). A substantial number of PGSP members live within the City, in close proximity to the Property and allege they will be adversely affected by the concomitant impacts of increased densities in the community as addressed in these proceedings. The Ordinance The Church's application sought to amend the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. The application divided the non-portion of the CHHA into three portions and sought to make the following changes to the Future Land Use categories: A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 4.33 ACRES), FROM I (INSTITUTIONAL) TO RM (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM); A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 0.21 ACRES), FROM I (INSTITUTIONAL) TO RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN); AND A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 0.04 ACRES), FROM RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM). On August 13, 2020, the City Council had a public hearing on the Church's appeal of the denial of its application by the Planning Commission. At this hearing, PGSP members submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the City. At the August 13 meeting, the City Council adopted the Ordinance. This had the effect of adopting the Amendment and changing the Future Land Use categories to the Property. The Ordinance instituted a small-scale amendment to the FLUM, as defined by section 163.3187(2). Maximum Density Petitioner argues the Ordinance is not "in compliance," as defined in sections 163.3184(1)(b) and 163.3187(4). Specifically, PGSP attacks the Amendment because it does not (1) direct "population concentrations" away from areas designated as a CCHA; (2) provide for compatible land use transitions; and (3) preserve the existing character of the surrounding areas. Each of these claims are either partially or wholly dependent on the increased maximum density for the Property after the Amendment. As such, the threshold issue of density must be addressed. This dispute involves the 4.37 acre that are changed from the Residential Urban (RU) and Institutional land use categories to Residential Medium (RM) made up of approximately 4.33 acres from Institutional to RM and approximately 0.04 acres from RU to RM. The "Institutional" designation allows a density of 12 dwelling units per acre but limits residential use as an accessory to the primary institutional use, which in this case is a church.4 The Church submitted the application for the FLUM amendment because it ultimately seeks to sell the Property for multi-family housing development, which would not be a proper use in an area designated "Institutional." The Future Land Use categories for the area to the north and east of the Property are RU, which have a density of 7.5 units per acre. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.2. This area is primarily made up of single-family homes. The southern boundary of the property is also the municipal border between St. Petersburg and an unincorporated portion of Pinellas County. This area is governed by the Pinellas County FLUM and Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent property to the south is a mobile home park development which has a residential density of 20.4 units per acre. 4 Pursuant to section 16.10.020.2 of the City's Code, Institutional uses include, "government buildings and grounds, and cemeteries, hospitals, houses of worship and schools." In between the RU and RM categories is a category labeled "Residential Low Medium" (RLM). The RLM category allows low to moderately intensive residential development with a density not to exceed ten dwelling units per acre. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.3. As stated above, the Ordinance would categorize the portion of the Property at issue as RM. The RM category allows medium density residential development and has a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre, with a possible maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre with the qualification of a density bonus. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.4. PGSP argues the density of the areas designated as RM by the Ordinance will have a maximum possible density of 30 dwelling units per acre. The City argues the maximum density is calculated using the actual density that can be built in the RM areas. As explained below, the practical allowable density of 15 dwelling units per acre with a Workforce Housing Bonus of six, or 21 dwelling units per acre. Petitioner relies on a "Missing Middle Housing" density bonus allowable in Neighborhood Traditional Mixed Residential (NTM) zoning category. This bonus allows up to 30 units per acre as an incentive to develop housing that is lacking in the area. While NTM is an available zoning category for RM, the Plan specifically states that 30 dwelling units per acre is only "permitted in accordance with the Land Development Regulations [LDRs]." Per the LDRs, the NTM designation could not be placed over this parcel because the designation is used as a transitional zoning category in St. Petersburg's traditional neighborhoods. While PGSP's planning expert considered the neighborhood surrounding the Property to be traditional, he admitted his opinion was not based on standards in the Comprehensive Plan or LDR definitions regarding what is considered a traditional or suburban neighborhood. In contrast, Derek Kilborn, a manager in the City's Planning Department, testified about the different characteristics of traditional versus suburban neighborhoods and opined that the neighborhood surrounding the Property is "suburban" according to the terms in the Comprehensive Plan. This determination is bolstered by the existing zoning of the surrounding neighborhood being largely NS-1. The City established it would be impossible for the Property to qualify for the Missing Middle Housing bonus, because the parcel at issue is not in the NTM zoning category. Rather, as explained by Mr. Kilborn's testimony and based on the LDRs and the Comprehensive Code, the RM category only allows a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. The Church has not applied to rezone the Property. The Planning Department's director testified, however, that if the Church had applied for a rezoning for the Property to NTM, the maximum number of dwelling units would be less than the numbers asserted by Petitioner due to the requirements for spacing, alleyways, and height restrictions required in NTM zones. The Property is eligible for a Workforce Housing density bonus. This bonus would increase the maximum density by six dwelling units for workforce housing. The City's final density calculation incorporated the Workforce Housing bonus and determined the maximum density for the RM portion of the Property to be 21 dwelling units per acre. PSGP did not prove beyond fair debate that the actual density of 21 units per acre is an erroneous calculation or contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with Objective CM 10B and Policy CM 10.65 Comprehensive Plan Objective CM 10B states: The City shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element. The phrase "Population concentrations" is not defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The only policy referring to "directing" related to Objective CM 10B is Policy CM 10.6, which states: The City shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas by not locating water line extensions in the coastal high hazard area, beyond that which is necessary to service planned zoning densities as identified on the Future Land Use Map. The remaining policies related to this Objective involve the placement of transportation and infrastructure, expenditures for flood control, and the operation of roads in a CHHA; none of these issues were raised in these proceedings. In fact, other than the reference to placement of water line extensions in Policy CM 10.6, there is no provision establishing standards for what would constitute direction away from a CHHA. The only area on the Property designated a CHHA is near Bear Creek.6 The Ordinance does not increase density in any part of the CHHA portion of the Property. PGSP's planning expert, Charles Gauthier, equated a population concentration as an area with high density. He argued the Ordinance 5 "CM" means Coastal Management in the Comprehensive Plan. 6 Mr. Kilborn testified that in reviewing the property for compliance with the Plan related to CHHA, there was no study or analysis provided to the City by Petitioner or others showing flooding or hazard impacts for the non-CHHA portion of the Property. violated Policy 10.6 because it increased the density of the area on the Property adjacent to the CHHA. At one point, Mr. Gauthier seemed to say this policy encourages higher density future land use categories only in the "central core or spine of the City." Mr. Gauthier maintained the increase in density on the non-CHHA portion of the Property frustrated this policy because only land in the central part of St. Petersburg should experience density increases. PGSP's reasoning would imply any increase in density near any CHHA and not near the "central core" would violate Policy CM 10.6. Elizabeth Abernethy, Director of the Planning Department, testified that "population concentrations" as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan are not simply increases in density. Rather, the City core had a concentration of high-density categories yielding approximate 80 to 120 dwelling units per acre; she would not characterize 15 or even 30 units per acre as a "high density" much less a "population concentration." Although she concurred that there are "population concentrations" in St. Petersburg centered in its urban core, she disagreed with Petitioner's expert that increased density on the Property created a "population concentration" near the CHHA or Bear Creek area. There was no competent evidence as to where any water line extensions would be located if the Property's Future Land Use Category were to change from RU and Industrial to RM. The City's interpretation of "population concentration" as used in CM 10.6 is reasonable, and therefore, the City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance with CM 10.6 is fairly debatable. Consistency with LU 3.47 Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.4 states: The Land Use Plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement, proper buffering, and the use of physical and natural separators. 7 "LU" refers to Future Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner focuses on compatible land use transition as only a function of density. PGSP argues a parcel categorized as RM (15 unity density) cannot abut an RU (7.5 unit density) categorized parcel because it violates Policy LU 3.4. Rather, it argues the RLM (10 unit density) category should have been used instead. It claims the City "leap-frogged" categories instead of using a "one step" up or down approach. PGSP's expert admits that a direct step down between plan categories is not explicitly required under the Comprehensive Plan language but argues other language related to "limited variation" required the single step. The plain language of Policy LU 3.4, however, simply requires an "orderly land use arrangement." It does not explicitly or implicitly state that the City must use a "step up" approach when determining the appropriate Future Land Use category. Furthermore, PGSP relied on its density calculation of 30 dwelling units per acre to argue that with the surrounding adjacent land density of 7.5 units per acre, there would be a 400% increase in planned residential density. As stated above, the maximum possible density under the Amendment is 21 dwelling units per acre. Moreover, the City points out that that the mobile home park to the south of the Property has an actual density of approximately 20 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the transition from 20 to 21 is an orderly land use arrangement as contemplated by Policy LU 3.4. The FLUM also does not reflect a perfect one up or down transition pattern throughout St. Petersburg. Rather, it shows areas categorized RM abutting areas categorized RU and RLM. In fact, there is an area designated RM which abuts RU parcels within 800 feet of the Property. The City presented adequate evidence establishing the change from Institutional to a residential category fits with surrounding residential use. Moreover, it established that natural and physical barriers on the Property, including creeks and right of ways, provide transition as contemplated by Policy LU 3.4. PGSP does not explain why these barriers are inadequate. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is inconsistent with Policy LU 3.4. Consistency with Objective Policy LU 3.6 Policy LU 3.6 states: Land use planning decisions shall weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas where changes of use or intensity of development are contemplated. PGSP argues the increase in density as a result of the change in categories from RU to RM is inconsistent with the "character" of the surrounding neighborhood, which is made up of single-family homes. Again, PGSP's argument relies heavily on the density calculation of 30 units per acre. As stated above, this density is only available with a change to the underlying zoning to NTM, which was not sought by the Church in its application. The maximum density applicable to the RM portions of the Property is 21 dwelling units per acre. As stated above, the City established there are other instances of RM abutting RU in the same neighborhood, approximately 800 feet from the Property. Ms. Abernathy testified that, based on the City's historic development pattern, RM is the appropriate transitional category next to RU on a major street (such as 64th Street South) under the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Abernethy further testified that residential single-family use adjoining either residential multi-family or commercial uses in the City is a "very common development pattern." Therefore, the RM designation is not inconsistent with Policy LU 3.6. Moreover, the RM designation provides for a primary residential use, which the Institutional designation does not. Although PGSP focused solely on density as the grounds for evaluating the "established character of the neighborhood," the City established that several other considerations go into its analysis related to Policy LU 3.6. Beyond looking at existing and proposed densities of the Future Land Use categories, City staff considers the occurrences and relationships between the uses of the property (i.e., residential versus institutional; or residential versus residential) and the existence of similar patterns in the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, the surrounding areas included other areas designated RM and the mobile home park. Determination of the character of the neighborhood was also based on a study of the existing road network and the potential impacts on traffic due to the Amendment. The street classification of 64th Street South as a Future Major was a key consideration in determining whether the changes in the Property were consistent with the character of the surrounding area because that street is the Property's frontage and only access point. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is inconsistent with Policy LU 3.6. Data and Analysis PGSP also claims the City did not rely on relevant and appropriate data and analysis in adopting the Ordinance and Amendment. PGSP, however, did not conduct or provide the City with any studies.8 Daniel Porter, PGSP's expert in real estate, did not provide a comparative market analysis of the neighborhood or any other industry- recognized report. He proffered only opinion testimony based on email responses from four nearby residents, only one of which alluded to any issues with selling a home in the area. 8 PGSP retained Mr. Gauthier for this administrative proceeding; he did not testify or prepare a report to the Planning Commission or the City Council. Petitioner's members presented no opposing reports or studies beyond lay opinion testimony during the public hearing. Mr. Gauthier testified that in calculating his density and formulating his opinions, he used the City's map set and GIS data from the City's website.9 In contrast, the City relied on several data sources in reaching its conclusions regarding compliance in the Staff Report, in the presentations at the City Council meeting, and at the final hearing. These sources include the Comprehensive Plan and maps; LDRs; GIS aerials and maps; application materials; a narrative from the property owner; plat records; the Pinellas Countywide Plan Rules; and an outside Traffic Impact Statement by a traffic engineering firm, Kimley-Horn. In addition to the Kimley-Horn report, Tom Whalen, the City's transportation planning expert, performed an analysis related to 64th Street South, which was included in the Staff Report. He also testified at the final hearing regarding his sources for that data, including a City-conducted traffic count, use of the Florida Department of Transportation's level of service tables, and the Forward Pinellas Countywide Rules. At the final hearing, the City also presented demonstrative exhibits in the form of enlarged maps illustrating the surrounding neighborhood, the Property, and similar development patterns of RM and RU designations across the City. Regarding the density calculation, the City introduced and explained the reasons and sources supporting its maximum density figure of 21 dwelling units per acre. This included the Pinellas Countywide Plan Rules, the Comprehensive Plan, and LDRs.10 The City established the Ordinance and Amendment are based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the character of the land. 9 "GIS" is Geographic Information Systems. 10 Moreover, Mr. Kilborn explained that exact density calculations would be finalized during the site plan review process, which involves further surveys and engineering measurements. Petitioner failed to prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and/or that the City's response to that data and analysis was not appropriate. Ultimate Findings PGSP did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City has provided a preponderance of the evidence, which is both competent and substantial, which supports the findings in the Staff Report and the City Council's adoption of the Ordinance. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining the City of St. Petersburg Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ordinance 739-L, is "in compliance" as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert N. Hartsell, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Jacqueline Kovilaritch, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Florida One 4th Street North, 10th Floor St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-2842 Michael J. Dema, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Sarah M. Hayter, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Shai Ozery, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Heather Judd, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Dane Eagle, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the pleadings and evidence, including the stipulation by counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Marion County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. In this case, the County has adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan, which is the subject of the dispute. Petitioners, Henry and Betty Prominski, are residents of Marion County and own a 16.5 acre tract of land on the southeast bank of Lake Weir in the southeastern portion of the County. The property is more commonly known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Until April 1994, the land was classified in the urban expansion category, which allows up to four residential units per acre. The County adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. After the plan was determined by the DCA to be not in compliance, the County eventually adopted certain remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, one of which changed the land use designation on petitioners' property from urban expansion to urban reserve. Under the new classification, only one residential unit per ten acres is allowed. A cumulative notice of intent to find the plan and remedial amendments in compliance was issued by the DCA on May 30, 1994. During the foregoing process, petitioners timely submitted oral or written objections to the County concerning the plan amendment, and thus they are affected persons within the meaning of the law. On September 14, 1994, the County, through its Staff Vesting Committee, issued Vesting Order No. 94-14, which granted petitioners' application for vesting determination on Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Among other things, the order determined that "the applicant has vested rights to complete the development (known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision) without aggregation of lots providing the applicant continues development activity in good faith." In this regard, petitioners have represented that they intend to "continue development activity in good faith," and they do not intend to vacate their plat. They also recognize that their land is vested from the plan amendment. Despite the lack of any viable issues regarding the development of their property, for the sake of "principle" only, they still wish to contest the de facto reclassification of their property. The foregoing language in the Vesting Order means that petitioners have vested rights to complete the development of their land notwithstanding the change of land use designation from urban expansion to urban reserve. The parties also agree that the effect of the Vesting Order is to vest the property from the comprehensive plan and the restrictions of the urban reserve area. Therefore, within the narrow context of the petition, the thrust of which is that the plan amendment prevents the subdivision's development, the issues raised therein are no longer viable, and petitioners do not have a cognizable interest in the outcome of this proceeding. The controversy is accordingly deemed to be moot.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the petition in this case on the ground the issues raised therein are moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry J. Prominski, Esquire Post Office Box 540 Weirsdale, Florida 32195-0540 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Marion County's small- scale comprehensive plan amendment 01-S27 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). Specifically, Petitioners contend that the amendment is: (1) inconsistent with goals, objectives, and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan--specifically, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Objectives 1 and 2, and Policies 2.7 and 2.8; and (2) inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5), which requires that proliferation of urban sprawl be discouraged. (Other contentions are inapplicable. See Conclusions of Law, infra.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioners all reside in the Sherman Oaks subdivision in Marion County, Florida. Sherman Oaks is adjacent to and northwest of the parcel which is the subject of the County's small-scale comprehensive plan amendment 01- S27 (Plan Amendment). This "Amendment Parcel" consists of 2.375 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of State Road 40 (oriented east-west at that location) and NW 80th Avenue (oriented north-south at that location) (the Intersection) near Ocala, Florida. The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation for the Amendment Parcel from Urban Reserve to Commercial. Pertinent History of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The County originally adopted its Comprehensive Plan in January 1992. Because of an objection by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) that the original Comprehensive Plan allocated too much land area to the Urban area, the County adopted remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, which added a new land use classification, Urban Reserve. The Comprehensive Plan defines the Urban Reserve land use classification as follows: This classification provides for the expansion of an urban service area or an urban expansion area in a timely manner. The underlying land uses in this classification shall be those of the rural lands until, through the Plan Amendment process, these areas are designated as Urban Expansion Area or Urban Service Area on the Future Land Map series. Commercial land use designation falls within the generalized Urban Area category in the County's Comprehensive Plan. From the date of the adoption of remedial amendments in 1994 through this date the Amendment Parcel has had a land use designation of Urban Reserve. The Amendment Parcel is part of a larger parcel of land designated Urban Reserve which extends for approximately a mile to the west of the Amendment Parcel, half a mile to the south of the Amendment Parcel, and greater than two miles to the north of the Amendment Parcel. (There also is some Medium Density Residential, which falls with the generalized Urban Area land use category, approximately two miles north of the Amendment Parcel; this is a major residential development called Golden Ocala). All of the property on the east side of the Intersection for approximately half a mile on either side of State Road 40 has had a land use designation of Urban Expansion, which allows urban and commercial uses, since 1992. Marion County has extensive areas in the western half of the County designated as Rural Land. Approximately a mile west of the Amendment Parcel, the property along the north and south sides of State Road 40 changes land use designation from Urban Reserve to Rural Land. Prior to adoption of the County’s Comprehensive Plan in 1992, the Amendment Parcel had a general retail zoning classification of B-2 (Community Business), which has remained in place since the date of the Comprehensive Plan adoption. The Plan Amendment would allow the Intervenor to make immediate use of the Amendment Parcel under its existing zoning classification of Community Business. The County’s Comprehensive Plan also contains a land use classification of Rural Activity Center (RAC) for existing commercial nodes in the Rural Land area. According to the definition in the Comprehensive Plan, this classification: provides for the utilization of mixed-use areas and the infilling of those areas under appropriate circumstances. Rural Activity Centers provide for a nodal-type development pattern. When the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1992, the County identified a number of RACs and included them on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The Intersection was not made a RAC in 1992 because it was surrounded by Urban Expansion lands that were changed to Urban Reserve in 1994. Otherwise, it probably would have been designated a RAC because there already was commercial development on the east side of the Intersection in 1992. Designation as a RAC would have allowed Intervenor to make use of its B-2 (Community Business) zoning classification from 1992 forward. The evidence was not clear why Castro's Corner at the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and County Road 225A was designated a RAC. It is not now surrounded by Rural Lands; however, from the evidence presented, it is possible that Castro's Corner was surrounded by Rural Lands at the time it was designated a RAC. Pertinent History of the Amendment Parcel In light of the see-saw history of decision-making on applications for comprehensive plan amendments affecting the Amendment Parcel since 1998, it is not surprising that Petitioners are perplexed by this Plan Amendment. In 1998 application was made to change the land use designation from Urban Reserve to Commercial on a parcel that included the Amendment Parcel and approximately seven additional acres lying immediately to the west of the Amendment Parcel, for a total of 9.9 acres, with the entire application parcel having frontage on State Road 40. The County's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use amendment. Staff's report stated that the proposed Commercial land use designation would "continue the formation of a commercial node at the intersection . . . consistent with FLUE Policy 2.7"; would "coordinate development with sufficient roadway capacity and access management procedures, and available water and sanitary sewer facilities as required by FLUE Policy 2.8"; was "compatible with the existing commercial uses on the east side of the intersection"; and was "generally compatible with the areas's [sic] topography, soils and environmental features." Staff's report concluded that the recommendation for approval was based on findings that the request would "not adversely affect the public interest"; was "consistent with the identified objectives and policies in the Marion County Comprehensive Plan"; and was "compatible with the surrounding land uses." The County's Planning Commission agreed with planning staff's recommendation and voted 7-0 for approval, but the County Commission denied the application. In 2000 the Amendment Parcel was included in another application for a land use designation change from Urban Reserve to Commercial on 13.88 acres in the northwest quadrant of the Intersection. This time, the Planning Department recommended denial. As to compatibility with the goals, objectives, and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan, staff's recommendation was based on findings that the proposed amendment was "not compact and contiguous to the Urban Area (FLUE Policy 2.18)"; did "not preserves [sic] the county's rural areas while allowing the provision of basic services by directing growth to existing urban areas and commercial nodes (FLUE Objective 3.0)"; "does not coordinate development with availability of public facilities such as centralized potable water and sanitary sewage facilities (FLUE Policy 2.18)"; "does not promote the efficient use of resources and discourage scattered development and sprawl because it is not located in an area of increasing urban residential development and commercial development (FLUE Policy 2.7)"; and "does not encourage development that is functional and compatible with the existing land uses adjacent and in the surrounding area (FLUE Policy 1.21)." As to consistency with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5 urban sprawl indicators, staff found that the proposed amendment "promote[d] the development of low-intensity, low-density, or single use development"; "promote[d] urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development"; did "not protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities"; allowed "for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increases 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"; did "not encourage development which would, by it's [sic] location, provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses"; did "not encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses"; and "encourage[d] development which would result in the loss of significant amounts of open space." The report concluded that it was based on findings that "[g]ranting the amendment will adversely affect the public interest"; the "proposed amendment is not compatible with land uses in the surrounding area"; and "[g]ranting the amendment is not consistent with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the Marion County Comprehensive Plan." The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial. The application was withdrawn prior to the transmittal hearing before the County Commission. In August 2001, Intervenor submitted an application to change the land use on the property it owns at the Intersection (containing 2.85 acres) from Urban Reserve Area to Commercial. The southern boundary of the original application parcel consisted of 275 feet of frontage on the north side of State Road 40. The eastern boundary of the original application parcel fronted on NW 80th Avenue, with 459 feet of frontage. The County's Planning Department recommended that Intervenor's application be denied. The stated basis for the recommendation was that the proposed plan amendment represented "an extension of urban type land use into the rural area" and that "[d]evelopment of the property as commercial was not compatible with adjacent land uses." Planning staff took the position that the proposed Commercial land use designation did "not encourage compact, contiguous development (FLUE Objective 2)"; did "not preserve the County's rural character (FLUE Policy 2.7)"; did "not coordinate development with sufficient roadway capacity (FLUE Policy 2.8)"; and was "not compatible with the existing adjacent uses (FLUE Objective 1)." Staff also took the position that the proposed Commercial land use designation application would "promote urban sprawl as specified in the Urban Sprawl Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)" because it was "not compatible with surrounding land use designations"; "discourage[d] a functional mix of uses"; and "discourage[d] [sic?] a land use pattern that disproportionately increases local government's fiscal burden of providing necessary public services." In conclusion, staff based its recommendation on findings that the application would "adversely affect the public interest"; was "not consistent with the identified objectives and policies in the Marion County Comprehensive Plan"; and was "not compatible with the surrounding land uses." The Planning Commission heard Intervenor's presentation and comments from objecting property owners, including Petitioners, and voted 4-3 to deny the application. At a public hearing conducted on December 11, 2001, the County Commission heard Intervenor's presentation and comments from objecting property owners, including Petitioners. During the hearing, at the suggestion of the Commission, Intervenor agreed to amend the application to reduce the total amount of property for which the land use change was requested from the original entire parcel of 2.85 acres to a smaller 2.375 acre parcel (now the Amendment Parcel). The purpose of the reduction in the size of the Amendment Parcel was to exclude a heavily treed area on the north boundary of the original application parcel to create a buffer for residential property owners residing to the north and northwest of the Amendment Parcel. Intervenor also agreed to allow parallel access across the back (north) of the Amendment Parcel to the property fronting State Road 40 to the west, in the event of future development of those properties. After amendment of the application, the County Commission voted 5-0 to approve. Amendment Parcel Characteristics and Surroundings. Both State Road 40 and 80th Avenue in the area of the Intersection are heavily traveled and frequently congested. The Intersection is signalized, and traffic backs up for long distances during busy times when the light is red. The Amendment Parcel and the land to the west between State Road 40 and Sherman Oaks to the north is vacant. The property in the northeast quadrant of the Intersection has a land use designation of Urban Expansion, which allows commercial usage. The property in this quadrant of the Intersection is already commercially developed. There is a combination convenience store/restaurant building at the immediate Intersection. To the north of that parcel along 80th Avenue is Golden Hills Mobile Home Park and the sewage treatment facility serving the mobile home park. The southeast quadrant of the Intersection also has an Urban Expansion land use designation and is also already commercially developed. A prior convenience/general store at the immediate southeast corner of the Intersection has been torn down, and a temporary fruit stand currently occupies the immediate corner. This quadrant of the Intersection also includes a two-story building with retail businesses on the first floor. The property in the southwest quadrant of the Intersection, lying immediately to the south of the Amendment Parcel, has an Urban Reserve land use designation but is currently used as part of an operating horse farm. While it may not completely explain the swings in the decision-making of the County's planning staff, the County Planning Commission, and the County Commission with respect to northwest quadrant of the Intersection, the evidence was that traffic on both State Road 40 and 80th Avenue increased substantially in the five years preceding the County Commission's decision to approve Intervenor's amended application. During this time period, 80th Avenue to the south of the Intersection was extended farther southward to State Road 200, which was widened to six lanes during the same time period. In addition, the Marion County school system constructed a combination high school/middle school on SW 80th Avenue approximately two to three miles south of the Intersection, generating additional traffic. As a result of these changes (together with general growth in the County), 80th Avenue has become a major north/south corridor road in western Marion County, both to the north and to the south of State Road 40. In addition, there was discussion at the County Commission hearing on the Plan Amendment about the initiation by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) of a four- laning road improvement project on State Road 40, including at the Intersection and to the east and west of this Intersection. It was represented that, while the project was not within FDOT's three-year work program, FDOT was in the process of acquiring large parcels for needed drainage retention areas for the project, including a parcel to the west of the Amendment Parcel and a parcel encompassing most of the southeast corner of the Intersection. At final hearing in this case, written communications from FDOT regarding the project confirmed that FDOT had initiated the process of design and right-of-way acquisition for the project but did not have a finalized project time line. A preliminary project time line prepared by FDOT showed construction more than two years away, but the time line also established that the FDOT four-laning project on State Road 40 is underway. The prospect of four-laning State Road 40 played a part in the County Commission's thinking that the timing was right to change the land use designation of the Amendment Parcel to Commercial. Intervenor's Alleged Inaccurate Representations The County's application form cautions applicants that false statements on the application could result in denial. However, it was not proven that denial is mandatory in the case of any inaccuracy. Rather, the evidence was that information in the application can be corrected and supplemented during the review process. Intervenor's application contained inaccurate representations as to the proximity of some public facilities in relation to the Amendment Parcel. Petitioners made no attempt to prove the significance of those inaccuracies, except as to centralized water and sewer water facilities. Intervenor's application stated that the nearest centralized water and sewer facilities were those at the Golden Hills Mobile Home Park on the east side of NW 80th Avenue. The application also stated, as part of its justification, that private central water and sewer was available. The evidence proved that the Golden Hills sewage treatment facilities are presently inadequate for use by the mobile home park itself and are being upgraded to meet current needs of the park. The facilities probably would not be available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel. While the Golden Hills sewage treatment facilities likely will not be available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel, the evidence was that the County is working with a large development called Golden Ocala, located approximately five miles north of the Amendment Parcel, for construction of a regional wastewater treatment plant to serve that development. If built, the regional facility might have capacity available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel. Intervenor's application and presentation to the County Commission on December 11, 2001, stated that the Amendment Parcel is undeveloped and that there is no existing agricultural use on the parcel. While these statements were not proven to be untrue, Petitioners presented evidence that hay was grown on the Amendment Parcel from the late 1980's through spring 2001. Three crops of hay were harvested each year. Each harvest consisted of approximately 18-20 bales; each bale brought approximately $45. Petitioners questioned the accuracy of representations as to the natural buffer strip between the Amendment Parcel and Sherman Oaks. Petitioners did not dispute the existence of relatively dense trees in the buffer strip. However, they are concerned that the line of trees does not extend to the west all the way to the entrance to Sherman Oaks off State Road 40; if additional commercial development occurs to the west on State Road 40, there will not be a similar natural buffer. Petitioners also point out that the trees in the natural buffer strip are not thick enough to form an impregnable barrier to access, light, and sound. They concede, however, that the natural buffer is helpful and that there is no similar natural buffer between them and commercial development to the east across NW 80th Avenue. Petitioners concede that the 75-foot buffer strip is wide enough to contain the entire natural buffer. However, they thought the buffer strip would have to be 90 feet wide to contain the drip lines of all the trees so as to protect their root systems. They conceded that the building setback line probably would prohibit construction of buildings within the drip line of the trees but were uncertain as to whether the setback line would apply to parking lots and driveways. Petitioners' evidence was insufficient to prove that the 75- foot buffer was not enough to protect the natural buffer. Petitioners' evidence was sufficient to prove that, during the presentation before the County Commission, Intervenor's representative may have misspoken or exaggerated on some points (e.g., the timing of FDOT's widening of State Road 40, the distance between the Amendment Parcel and the entrance to Sherman Oaks, and the extent of past and existing commercial development at the Intersection). But the evidence was that the County Commission questioned the information presented by Intervenor, and information also was presented by Petitioners and the County's planning staff; considering all the information presented, it was not proven that the County Commission based its decision on misinformation. At the final hearing, Petitioners raised the issue of stormwater runoff. Petitioners questioned whether stormwater can be managed on the Amendment Parcel without adversely impacting Sherman Oaks. Evidence presented by Petitioners proved that topography would make onsite stormwater management difficult. Natural runoff appears to flow in a northeasterly direction towards an already-stressed stormwater facility within Sherman Oaks. Intervenor suggested that the site could be "tilted" by grading to reverse natural runoff flow so as to contain runoff in the southwestern or western part of the site. Petitioners suggested that "tilting" may not be permissible due to the relatively shallow depth to limerock under the Amendment Parcel site, but Petitioners' evidence was not sufficient to prove that drainage could not be addressed onsite through "tilting." Petitioners also questioned the accuracy of traffic counts presented in the Planning Department's staff report on Intervenor's application. Staff used 2000 traffic counts that did not take into account all of the increased traffic as a result of the opening of the new school south of the Amendment Parcel. But the County's Planning Director explained that the traffic analysis required for a land use designation change does not have to be as rigorous and accurate as the analysis required at the time of concurrency determination. At that time, Intervenor probably will be required to conduct a detailed and up-to-date traffic analysis that would take into account actual traffic counts related to the new school. Other Pertinent Comprehensive Plan Provisions. Objective 1 of the County's FLUE states: Upon Plan adoption, growth and development will be coordinated by ensuring the appropriate compatibility with adjacent uses, topography, soil conditions, and the availability of services and facilities through the preparation, adoption, implementation and enforcement of innovative land development regulations, including mixed use techniques. Objective 2 of the County's FLUE states: In order to promote the efficient use of resources and to discourage scattered development and sprawl, Marion County shall establish and encourage development within Urban Areas. This will discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, encourage infill and facilitate the provision of urban services through: Land Development Regulations that specify standards which allow higher intensities of land use in areas where adequate services are available and where specific design criteria are met, and future land uses are coordinated with appropriate topography conditions and soil types. A generalized Future Land Use Map which designates an appropriate amount of acreage in each land use category that reflects projected needs, existing development patterns, environmental suitability, availability of infrastructure, and community values. Policy 2.7 of the County's FLUE states: The County shall discourage scattered and highway strip commercial development by requiring the development of such uses at existing commercial intersections, other commercial nodes and town centers of mixed uses. Policy 2.8 of the County's FLUE states: The following performance criteria shall be followed when providing for the location of commercial and industrial land uses within the designated Urban Area: Protection of the development from natural hazards by locating development away from areas that have natural hazards or that may contain sensitive natural resources; Require concurrency be met to ensure adequate services from available public utilities and other urban services; Minimize environmental impacts by ensuring all appropriate permits are obtained and adhered to; Prevent over allocation of commercial land by requiring the adherence to needed acreage based on population projections; and Provide buffering from other land uses to minimize conflicts. Objective 4 of the Stormwater Management Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element states: Marion County's land development regulations shall implement procedures to ensure that, at the time a development permit is issued, adequate stormwater management facility capacity is available or the developer will be required to construct storm water facilities within his development according to County standards. Policy 4.1 of the Stormwater Management Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element provides some detail as to required content of the procedures, including a requirement: In addition, developers will comply where applicable with the Water Management districts flood control criteria for stormwater quantity and quality. (Citations omitted.) Policy 4.3 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element provides in pertinent part: The County's land development regulations shall provide for issuance of development permits within the identified wastewater service areas consistent with the following guidelines: * * * c. Where public wastewater treatment facilities are required, they shall be available concurrent with the impacts of development. Facilities which meet county specifications and the level of service standards for the service areas will be provided by the developer in the interim and will be connected to central facilities when they become available . . .. Internal Consistency. Petitioners presented no evidence that the Plan Amendment did not adhere to "needed acreage based on population projections." Consistent with the pertinent provisions of the County's Comprehensive Plan itself, the County's Planning Department Director testified that the County's Comprehensive Plan encourages the planning concept of nodal commercial development (allowing commercial development on all four corners of an intersection). This planning technique allows clustered commercial development in commercial nodes, locating in outlying areas, to provide localized commercial services for residents. Notwithstanding testimony that Petitioners probably would not patronize retail stores at the Intersection, the expert testimony was that commercial node development is intended to assist in reducing trips and average trip lengths by providing limited commercial services to area residents without necessitating their travel to a centralized commercial area. In the County’s Comprehensive Plan, the concept of commercial node development in non-urban areas is the basis for the RAC land use designation. See Finding of Fact 7, supra. Both of the County's witnesses testified that commercial development of all four quadrants of the Intersection is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan policy of encouraging commercial node development because it has long-existing partial commercial development, is signalized, and provides access in all directions. The evidence did not prove that the County's Comprehensive Plan requires traffic, sanitary sewer, or drainage (or any other) concurrency at the time of the adoption of a plan amendment. The County has adopted in its Land Development Code a concurrency management system requiring that concurrency be established prior to the issuance of a development order (such as a building permit). The evidence was that determining capacity and concurrency at the development order stage in the development process is standard and customary, and is used in a number of jurisdictions in the state. Regardless of the land use classification and zoning classification of the Amendment Parcel, when the Intervenor initiates application for approval of an actual development order, the Intervenor will be required under the County's Land Development Code to establish concurrency, including traffic, sanitary sewer, and drainage concurrency. There was some evidence to support the contentions of some Petitioners that commercial development of the Amendment Parcel would not be compatible with residential and rural land uses in the area and that that NW 80th Avenue is a "line of demarcation" between urban uses and rural uses. But Petitioners failed to prove those contentions by the greater weight of the evidence, including the 1998 recommendations of the County Planning Department staff and Planning Commission to approve a land use change to Commercial west of NW 80th Avenue. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan's designation of land west of NW and SW 80th initially as Urban Expansion in 1992 and as Urban Reserve in 1994 anticipated ultimate urban development of this Intersection, as well as properties approximately a mile to the west of the Intersection. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan designated two RACs to the west of the Amendment Parcel on State Road 40 (between the Amendment Parcel and the City of Dunnellon). The first RAC is three miles to the west of the Amendment Parcel, and the second RAC is seven miles to the west of the Amendment Parcel. The evidence was that the Intersection would have been a RAC had it not been designated Urban Expansion and then Urban Reserve. Finally, at least one Petitioner conceded the point and contested only the timing of commercial development of the Amendment Parcel. Alleged Urban Sprawl. Petitioners presented no analysis of urban sprawl indicators. They also presented no evidence that the Plan Amendment allocated commercial land in excess of demonstrated need in the County. As found, the Amendment Parcel is across NW 80th Avenue from existing commercial and other urban development; in addition, provision of nodal commercial development is intended to counter at least some symptoms of urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding that Marion County's small-scale amendment 01-S27 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary M. Bartlett 8080 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Robert S. Inglis 8078 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Helen Thomas 8130 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Paul and Joan Lussier 8071 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Wanda Negron 8076 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire Marion County's Attorney's Office 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471 Steven Gray, Esquire Hart & Gray 125 Northeast First Avenue, Suite 1 Ocala, Florida 34470 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the petitions of Sierra Club, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Background Hillsborough County adopted its comprehensive plan on July 12, 1989. The County adopted Plan Amendments 90-I, 90-II, and 91-I on August 6, 1990, December 18, 1990, and August 28, 1991, respectively. The plan as so amended is referred to as the Plan. 3/ The Plan is the subject of these cases. The Plan is accompanied by data and analysis. The data and analysis of greatest significance are contained in the two- volume compilation of the Plan and other portions of Sierra Club Exhibit 1, which is the Plan and supporting data and analysis. Sierra Club Exhibit 1, which was prepared by Hillsborough County, includes background documents organized by elements, as well as oversized maps. Unless indicated to the contrary, the oversized maps are approximately 24" by 21" and are drawn on a scale of 1"= 2 miles. Many of the oversized maps bear numbers. Reference to such oversized maps shall be as follows: "Oversized Map [number]." Data and analysis from Sierra Club Exhibit 1 shall be referred to as "Data and Analysis." The Plan consists largely of goals, objectives, and policies. In addition to such operative provisions, Hillsborough County also adopted, as part of the operative provisions of the Plan, other sections contained in the two- volume compilation of the Plan. For example, each element of the Plan relevant to the present cases includes operative provisions under sections entitled, "Implementation" and "Definitions." Other important operative provisions are sections entitled "Land Use Plan Categories" and "Legal Status of the Plan" in the Future Land Use Element and "Costs and Revisions by Type of Public Facility," "Programs to Ensure Implementation," and "Requirements for Capital Improvements Implementation" in the Capital Improvements Element. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) filed a petition on September 20, 1989, alleging that the original plan was not in compliance with the growth management law. This petition initiated DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM. Various parties challenging the plan intervened in DOAH Case No. 89- 5157GM. The Sierra Club, Inc. (Sierra Club) filed its petition to intervene on December 8, 1989. The petition incorporates the allegations of DCA and alleges additional grounds for a determination of noncompliance. As a result of the execution of a settlement agreement, DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM was abated. After Hillsborough County adopted settlement amendments on August 6, 1990, DCA determined that the plan amendments were in compliance. On or about September 21, 1990, DCA issued a Notice of Intent, which was published on or about September 23. On October 12, 1990, Sierra Club filed a petition challenging the plan amendments adopted in connection with the settlement agreement. This petition initiated DOAH Case No. 90- 6639GM. The allegations are the same as those raised by Sierra Club in DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM in its Second Amended Petition- in-Intervention, which was filed October 17, 1990. By Order entered October 30, 1990, DOAH Case Nos. 89- 5157GM and 90- 6639GM were consolidated for hearing. On April 15, 1991, Big Bend Area Group, Inc. (Big Bend) filed a petition to intervene to challenge the plan. A Second Amended Motion for Leave to Intervene was granted. Despite the allegations of noncompliance, Big Bend's proposed recommended order requests that the Plan be determined to be in compliance. Sierra Club and Big Bend each has members who reside in Hillsborough County. Each party submitted the required oral or written objections during the relevant review and adoption period. The County conducted the required hearings, gave adequate notice of the hearings, and otherwise substantially complied with the requirements of public participation. Data and Analysis General Hillsborough County is located on the Gulf Coast. The western boundary of the County abuts Tampa Bay and Pinellas County. Pasco County and a small part of Polk County are to the north, Polk County is to the east, and Manatee County is to the south. The only incorporated municipalities in Hillsborough County are Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City. Tampa is at the north end of Tampa Bay and extends through the westcentral part of the County almost to the Pasco County line. Temple Terrace abuts the northeast boundary of Tampa. About 14 miles east of Tampa is Plant City, which is in the northeast part of Hillsborough County. The two cities are linked by Interstate (I-) 4, which runs from Daytona Beach to Tampa. In Tampa, I-4 intersects with I-275, which crosses upper Tampa Bay, runs south through Pinellas County, and spans the mouth of Tampa Bay before entering Manatee County. I-75 also runs through Hillsborough County. From the Pasco County line, where I-275 divides and proceeds southwest into downtown Tampa, I-75 runs generally due south. The path of I-75 lies just east of downtown, where the road turns southwest at a point north of the Little Manatee River. From there, I-75 parallels the shoreline of Tampa Bay until entering Manatee County. Other important roads in Hillsborough County include SR 60, which runs east-west through the center of the County and connects Tampa and Clearwater. US 301 runs along the Hillsborough River in the northeast part of the County, and then turns due south midway between Temple Terrace on the west and Lake Thonotosassa on the east. At this point, US 301 crosses I- 75 and runs due south, recrossing I-75 about three miles north of the Alafia River and just south of SR 60. US 41 runs due south from the Pasco County line into the center of Tampa and then turns east, before continuing south, parallel to the shoreline, varying from one-half to three miles inland from Tampa Bay. Natural Resources General The Data and Analysis accompanying the Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element (CARE) describe the County's natural resources, past land use practices, and planning challenges: Hillsborough County, by virtue of its subtropical climate and variable hydrology and geology, supports a rich and diverse complement of natural resources. The County borders the largest estuary in the State, Tampa Bay . . .. The County is underlain by the Floridan aquifer, the largest and highest quality potable water aquifer in the State, as well as by some of the richest phosphate deposits in the world. The karst topography of the County has created a mosaic of solution sinks and depressions which contain a wide variety of wetland flora and fauna, while the higher well-drained elevations support rare xeric hammocks and scrub habitat. Over the past century, however, development has slowly destroyed and degraded the rich natural resources of the County. The unregulated filling of wetlands, discharge of pollutants, mining of phosphate deposits, clearing of forests, dredging of bay bottoms, channelizing of streams and rivers, and overpumping of groundwater supplies has irretrievably destroyed or altered much of the original natural resource base. Environmental legislation passed at the federal, state, regional and local levels over the past two decades has done much to stem the tide of this destruction; however, advance planning and further safeguards will be needed to ensure the preservation and conservation of the County's remaining natural resources for future generations. Hillsborough County is experiencing a high rate of population growth. Between 1970 and 1980, Hillsborough County's population grew from an estimated 490,265 to 646,939, an increase of 32 percent This population size ranked fourth among counties in the state. . . . Future population projections for Hillsborough County . . . generally show that the population of Hillsborough County may continue to increase, if the high estimate occurs, or may level off if the lower estimate proves more accurate. . . . Hillsborough County's population is concentrated primarily within the cities of Tampa and Temple Terrace. However, during the five year period of 1980 through 1985, the majority of the population growth for the County has taken place away from these areas. Population has decreased in portions of the City of Tampa and increased in the previously less populated portions of the County. The Future Land Use Element of the [Plan] identifies the major center of future growth as the I-75 corridor. If the upper population projections are realized over the next 15 years, directed growth into this area will threaten the integrity of many of the County's most valuable natural resources, including the three major river corridors, areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential, and sensitive estuarine wetlands. The [CARE] is needed to identify these potential problems and to set forth a plan and policy direction for ensuring environmental protection and orderly economic growth under all projected population scenarios. CARE, pages 2-3. Acknowledging the environmental degradation that has resulted from land use planning that has traditionally ignored natural features of the land and water systems, the Data and Analysis state: In past decades, land use decisions were based primarily upon socio-economic and demographic factors, with little considera- tion given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land. As a result, urban land uses were often allowed to replace or permanently alter environmentally sensitive lands and natural systems. With a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions if the natural attributes and functions of the environment are to be maintained for future generations. Policies and regulations that appropriately preserve or conserve valuable natural resources while allowing for orderly economic growth are needed. CARE, page 73. 2. Tampa Bay Estuarine System The Tampa Bay estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water having a free connection with the Gulf of Mexico and within which sea water is measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage. ... [T]he Tampa Bay estuary is a zone of transition between fresh and salt water with unique and valuable ecological characteristics. Coastal Management and Port (Coastal) Element, page 13. The estuarine system includes tidal freshwater habitats as well as mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass meadows along the shallow bottom and estuarine fringe. The functions of the estuarine system are described as follows: Because of their unique physical and chemical properties, estuaries are among the most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems in the world. Tidal wetland vegetation at the headwaters of estuaries trap silt and absorb excess nutrients resulting from land drainage, thus buffering the coastal ecosystem somewhat from upland sources of pollution. Tidal wetland vegetation also protects upland areas by stabilizing coastal sediments and preventing erosion from storm events. The real importance of estuarine plant communities such as mangrove forests, salt marshes, and seagrass beds lies in the vital functions they perform in the aquatic ecosystem. First and foremost is their role in converting sunlight and nutrients into food usable by marine animals, thus forming the base of the aquatic food chain. . . . Although relatively little of this plant material is eaten directly by higher animals, it is broken down into detritus by micro- organisms and consumed by small crustaceans and other animals which are, in turn, eaten by larger fishes and so on up the food web . . . . In addition to serving as a food source, estuarine wetland vegetation provides shelter and nursery areas for the young of many economically important species such as shrimp, seatrout, mullet, and red drum (redfish). . . . [I]t is estimated that nearly 98% of the most economically important fisheries species taken along the Gulf of Mexico coast are directly dependent upon estuarine habitat during some portion of their life cycle. . . . Coastal Element, pages 13-14. Florida's largest open water estuary, Tampa Bay covers about 400 square miles. Coastal Element Figure 6 depicts the Tampa Bay estuary, including its subdivisions. Old Tampa Bay separates Tampa and Pinellas County and forms the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County. Hillsborough Bay extends from Tampa to Apollo Beach and forms the shoreline of central Hillsborough County, as well as the northern part of south Hillsborough County. The Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers empty into Hillsborough Bay, which joins McKay Bay at Tampa. Middle Tampa Bay, which forms the shoreline of most of south Hillsborough, runs from the southern ends of Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay down to the southern ends of Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. The Little Manatee River empties into Middle Tampa Bay. A variety of nonfish wildlife is dependent upon the waters of Tampa Bay. In addition to the 100-200 bottlenose dolphin in Tampa Bay, as many as 55 West Indian manatees reside in the bay in the winter, congregating around industrial thermal discharges. The largest group--42--was found at the mouth of the Alafia River, which is the only designated State Manatee Sanctuary in Tampa Bay. About one-third of the laughing gull population in the southeastern United States breeds in the Tampa Bay region, as does nearly one-third of the brown pelicans in Florida. McKay Bay is an important feeding area for a variety of birds. General water quality in Tampa Bay is "good to excellent," but is "declining" in Old Tampa Bay and "undesirable" in Hillsborough Bay, including McKay Bay. Coastal Element, page 15. Both Hillsborough Bay and Old Tampa Bay receive little tidal flushing due to natural conditions, so they are not "particularly well suited for the discharge of municipal and industrial wastes, and . . . the continued flow of freshwater to Tampa Bay, especially Hillsborough Bay, is essential to maintain good circulation and flushing." Coastal Element, page 19. The water quality in Middle Tampa Bay ranges from "fair to good," but is periodically influenced by water from Hillsborough Bay. Water quality in and near the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is "excellent or good," except for occasional "fair to poor" conditions due to seasonal discharges from the Little Manatee River or periodically "poor" conditions due to malfunctioning septic tanks near Cockroach Bay. Coastal Element, page 15. "One of the most pristine biologically productive areas remaining in Tampa Bay," Cockroach Bay is part of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, which is shown in Coastal Element Figure 17. Coastal Element, page 48. The only aquatic preserve in Hillsborough County, Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve runs from submerged lands along the Little Manatee River upstream to US 301. From the mouth of the Little Manatee River, the preserve runs along the Tampa Bay shoreline past Cockroach Bay, which is about three miles south of the mouth of the Little Manatee River, to the Manatee County line. Noting that the Governor and Cabinet approved the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan in 1987, the Data and Analysis acknowledge that "[s]uccessful implementation of this plan depends upon the cooperation of Hillsborough County." Coastal Element, page 48. The decline of water quality in Tampa Bay has had a predictably devastating effect upon commercially valuable fish in the area. "[O]nce the State's most productive and diverse estuarine system" with a diversity and abundance of marine life [in the 1960's] not exceeded by any other estuary between the Chesapeake Bay and the Laguna Madre of Texas, . . . [t]he productivity of Tampa Bay in terms of commercially valuable fisheries has . . . declined dramatically in recent decades due to man's influence on the Bay. Coastal Element, page 21. According to Coastal Element Figure 15, shellfish landings in Tampa Bay have declined from 20 million pounds in the mid 1950's to early 1960's to two million pounds in 1978. Finfish landings have declined from a high of 4.5 million pounds in 1964 to 1.75 million pounds in 1978. Five economically important shellfish species occur in Tampa Bay: bait shrimp, stone crab, blue crab, oysters, and quahog clams. By the mid 1950's, degraded water quality had eliminated from the estuary the bay scallop, which had formerly flourished in these estuarine waters. By 1970, degraded water quality "essentially eliminated" commercial harvesting of oysters, which had accounted for 500,000 pounds annually at the turn of last century. Coastal Element, page 22. Poor water quality has left bait shrimp and stone crabs as the only remaining commercially viable shellfish left in Tampa Bay. Areas approved for shellfishing are restricted to lower Tampa Bay where better flushing takes place. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is conditionally approved, but "has been closed periodically due to coliform contamination from nearby septic systems and is being considered for permanent closure by the Florida Department of Natural Resources." Coastal Element, page 22. The majority of the recreational fish landings in Tampa Bay consist of spotted seatrout, red drum, and snook. These fish are also declining in numbers. Many species of birds in Tampa Bay have suffered population declines due in part to red tides, parasite outbreaks, dredge and fill operations, pesticide use, and oil spills. However, the reddish egret and roseate spoonbill have recently returned to Tampa Bay. Accompanying the decline in animal species has been a decline in estuarine plant species, such as seagrass meadows. The "catastrophic loss of seagrasses in Tampa Bay," which is attributable primarily to water quality degradation, is taking place at accelerating rates. About 81% of the seagrass meadows, which once covered 76,500 acres of Tampa Bay bottom, have been lost. Coastal Element, page 20. Tampa Bay is undergoing eutrophication. The process of eutrophication, or increasing concentrations of nutrients, has already led to algal blooms, noxious odors, decreases in water clarity, declines in dissolved oxygen, and periodic fish kills. Excessive nutrient levels have resulted in phytoplankton blooms in the water column and excessive epiphytic growth of macroalgae on the leaves of seagrasses, leaving insufficient sunlight for the growth and reproduction of seagrasses that help trap nutrients. The destruction of seagrasses is further hastened by widespread increases in water column turbidity caused by harbor- and channel-deepening projects, which, with boat prop dredging, also destroy seagrass. The loss of critical nutrient-trapping vegetation has simultaneously taken place in wetlands and upland adjacent to Tampa Bay, such as in the destruction of as much as 44% of the original emergent wetlands, which comprise salt marshes and mangrove forests. In the process of development, these wetlands have been dredged and filled, thereby removing the intertidal substrata necessary for these vegetative communities. Likewise, the loss of freshwater wetlands along rivers and streams has deprived the estuarine system of useful organic matter and filtration. Dredging and filling activities have dramatically changed the features of the Tampa Bay estuarine system. The extent of the system itself has been reduced by 3.6%, or 13.15 square miles, primarily by filling shallow tidal wetlands for the development of causeways, residences, power plants, and port facilities. Port development is responsible for about 60% of the reduction of the estuary due to the construction of channels, filled sites, and disposal sites for dredged materials. Dredge and fill projects routinely permitted in the 1950's and 1960's are no longer permitted. But expansion and maintenance of the Port of Tampa will generate annually about one million cubic yards of dredged material from the channel and port. Present disposal sites may be exhausted in 25 years, and the Data and Analysis recommend that the dredged material be considered for wetlands mitigation and restoration. The primary factors contributing to the eutrophic degradation of the water quality of Tampa Bay are, in addition to dredging and filling, the discharge of inadequately treated domestic and industrial wastewater and inadequately treated urban and agricultural runoff. In 1980, point sources contributed 2.35 and 3.58 million pounds of phosphorous and nitrogen, respectively, to Tampa Bay. The Alafia River carried 75% of the water contributed by permitted point discharges because the Alafia absorbs discharges from extensive phosphate mining operations in Polk County. Not surprisingly, the highest concentrations of organic carbon and nitrogen and total phosphate are in the sediments at the mouth of the Alafia River. But domestic wastewater treatment plants discharging directly into Tampa Bay accounted for 78% and 84% of the annual phosphorous and nitrogen loadings, respectively. The degraded water quality in Old Tampa Bay and especially Hillsborough Bay is due largely to sewage and industrial wastes. Old Tampa Bay continues to suffer from the discharge of inadequately treated domestic waste. However, the water quality in Hillsborough Bay improved substantially after over $100 million was spent to upgrade Tampa's Hookers Point sewage treatment facility in 1979 from primary to advanced or tertiary treatment. Only one of the six County regional wastewater treatment facilities fails to meet advanced water treatment standards, but "numerous subregional and interim plants" fail to meet these standards. Coastal Element, page 24. According to the Data and Analysis, passage of the Grizzle-Figg bill in 1986 "currently requires that all sewage treatment plants discharging into Tampa Bay attain advanced wastewater treatment standards." Coastal Element, page 24. Upon compliance with the Grizzle-Figg law, nutrient loadings into Tampa Bay will decrease and "a net reduction . . . is possible as interim package plants are ultimately phased out or upgraded." Id. Regarding wastewater discharges generally, including industrial wastewater, a major reduction in nutrient loadings since 1980 has been realized from the use of alternative effluent disposal methods (such as spray irrigation and deep-well injection), municipal and industrial water reuse, upgrading of treatment capabilities, and phosphate land reclamation projects. Nutrient loadings from stormwater runoff will "most likely be a more intractable problem" than inadequately treated domestic wastewater. Coastal Element, page 24. Runoff from streets, parking lots, and lawns may contribute up to 25% of the biochemical oxygen demand, 35% of the suspended solids, and 15% of the nitrogen loading. Referring to state rules regulating stormwater, 4/ the Data and Analysis anticipate that the state- imposed standards on stormwater runoff will become more stringent, so there should not be significant increases in stormwater nutrient loadings into the bay. However: little can be done to reduce current loading rates, as retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities is most likely economically prohibitive. Retrofitting will probably only occur on a piecemeal basis as redevelopment occurs in previously urbanized areas. Coastal Element, page 24. Unsound land use practices introducing high levels of nutrients into Tampa Bay exacerbate background conditions that predate either all or recent development activity. The Data and Analysis caution that "there may always be a significant reservoir of nitrogen and phosphorous in Bay sediments to contribute to water quality problems in upper Tampa Bay." Coastal Element, page 16. The Data and Analysis explain: even with advanced wastewater treatment and improved stormwater management, localized pockets of polluted sediments in the Bay may still release excessive nutrients into the water column and cause water quality problems. The ultimate solution to this problem may involve the removal of excessively enriched sediments by dredging or the capping of polluted sediments with clean fill material. Coastal Element, page 24. Other unsound land use practices, such as the diversion of river flows and structural drainage improvements, greatly impact Tampa Bay in another respect not directly related to the eutrophication process. The Tampa Bay estuary and its dependent fish and shellfish rely upon the freshwater flow into the bay. Areas of the estuary with the lowest salinity, as well as low- salinity tidal marshes, are often the most productive nursery habitat for many marine and estuary species. The timing of the freshwater infusions are naturally correlated to the spawning periods of the fish. The salinity regimes of Tampa Bay may be disturbed by upstream demands for freshwater and the alternating excessive and insufficient flows of freshwater due to structural drainage improvements that hasten the natural drainage of uplands immediately following major storm events, leaving less water to drain slowly to the bay during relatively drier periods. Reviewing "numerous studies" that, for the past 30 years, "have documented the deterioration of water quality and habitat values of the estuary," the Data and Analysis attribute the environmental degradation of Tampa Bay to: direct habitat destruction from dredging and filling, and the hardening of shorelines for coastal development; degradation of water quality and eutrophication resulting from the discharge of municipal and industrial effluents, and stormwater runoff; and the reduction of natural freshwater inputs due to the impoundment and withdrawals from rivers and streams. Coastal Element, page 48. Concluding that "piecemeal urbanization" around Tampa Bay has resulted in its "broadscale environmental degradation," the Data and Analysis warn: "Without proper management and the proper balance between public and private uses, Tampa Bay could become a major liability rather than the area's main asset." Coastal Element, page 48. The Data and Analysis advise that the protection and restoration of the Tampa Bay estuary requires a "comprehensive, coordinated and holistic management approach." Id. 3. Rivers Covering 1072 square miles, Hillsborough County comprises five physiographic provinces, which reflect topography and soils. The physiographic provinces are Coastal Swamps, Gulf Coast Lowlands, Zephyrhills Gap, Polk Upland, and a small portion of the DeSoto Plain. Elevations range from sea level in the Coastal Swamps and Gulf Coast Lowlands, which separate the Polk Upland from the Tampa Bay estuary, to 160 feet above sea level in the Polk Upland at the Polk County line. CARE Figure 4 displays the topographic contours of Hillsborough County. The County's major rivers and drainage features are, from north to south, the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers. Each of these rivers empties into Tampa Bay. The three major river basins together with six smaller basins transport, on average, more than 1.2 billion gallons per day of freshwater into Tampa Bay. This is almost 80% of the freshwater flow into the bay. CARE Figure 11 shows the major rivers and drainage basins in Hillsborough County. A fourth river, the Palm River, once drained lands between the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers. Emptying into McKay Bay, the Palm River was "completely channelized and controlled" by 1970 and is now known as the Tampa Bypass Canal. Coastal Element, page 18. The Hillsborough River begins in the Green Swamp and flows southwest through Tampa and into the bay. Traveling nearly 54 miles, the river is supplied by many artesian springs, which supply the river with water from the Floridan aquifer. The natural drainage basin of the river is 690 square miles, including 120 square miles in Hillsborough County. The upper Hillsborough River is a Class I water, which means that it is suitable as a source of potable water. The lower Hillsborough River is a Class III waterbody, which means that it is suitable for propagation of fish and wildlife. The part of the river passing through the Hillsborough River State Park in the northeast area of the County is also designated as an Outstanding Florida Water. Two dams span the Hillsborough River. The upper dam is just north and east of I-75 near Fletcher Avenue. This dam, which is under the jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, is used for flood-control purposes. The lower dam is at 30th Street in Tampa and is operated by the City of Tampa to form a reservoir from which potable water is taken. Flow of the river ranges from 9.5 billion gallons per day during the wet season to under 30 million gallons per day at the end of the spring dry season. The average flow into Tampa's reservoir is 368 million gallons per day. Of the 55.5 linear miles of shoreline (both banks) along the Hillsborough River in the unincorporated County, 17.6 miles are private and 37.9 miles are public. The predominant land uses are rural, agricultural, and conservation. The riverbanks are in their native state with no seawalls and few boat docks or ramps, except for canoe access. The Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers originate in the Polk Upland and receive water from widely branching tributaries. The Alafia River begins in Polk County and runs west to Gibsonton and into the bay at a point about five miles south of Tampa. The Alafia drains a 420 square mile drainage basin. The average flow at the mouth of the river is million gallons per day. In general, the water quality of the Alafia River is "poor." CARE, page 13. A Class III waterbody, the river's entire corridor is rural or suburban, and much of its original floodplain wetlands are still intact. Phosphate mining has damaged the quality of the river's headwaters. The Little Manatee River begins in southeast Hillsborough County and flows west by Ruskin and into the bay at a point about ten miles south of Gibsonton. The Little Manatee River drains about 225 square miles. The average flow of the Little Manatee River is over 150 million gallons per day. Florida Power and Light pumps water from the river to supply an off-stream reservoir for cooling a thermonuclear power plant. The water quality of the Little Manatee River is "generally good." CARE, page 14. The river, which is a Class III waterbody, is designated an Outstanding Florida Water for its western two-thirds, with the portion of the river west of US 301 designated as an aquatic preserve. The river is more pristine than the other County rivers due to its "relatively unimpacted floodplains, swamps and tributaries." Id. However, the river is threatened by phosphate mining in its upper reaches. Rich deposits of phosphate matrix lie near the surface along the river's bed, and the easy extraction makes these areas extremely attractive for future mining. Id. In contrast to the well-developed stream systems of northeast, central, and southern Hillsborough County, northwest Hillsborough County has relatively few such streams. Rain in this area rapidly infiltrates the surficial soils through shallow creeks and solution features. The Data and Analysis concede that "surface water quality in Hillsborough County has been degraded due to a variety of unregulated water uses and adjacent land uses." CARE, page 54. The most prominent sources of water pollution have been discharges of wastewater, mining operations, and urban and agricultural runoff. The Data and Analysis recommend "[b]etter compliance with existing point and non-point source and stormwater regulations" and the consideration of "more stringent regulations for septic tank discharges." Id. 4. Floodplains and Drainage Over 30% of Hillsborough County is within the 100 year floodplain. The floodplains, which have been mapped throughout the County by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are depicted on Oversized Map 9. Major portions of the 100 year floodplain cover the coastal high hazard area 5/ and the Hillsborough River valley in northeast Hillsborough County. Floodplains cover perhaps a quarter of northwest Hillsborough County, including an extensive area north of Tampa where I-275 and I-75 join at the Pasco County line. Considerable floodplains encompass the corridors of the Alafia River and its major tributary and the Little Manatee River, all of which extend into phosphate mining areas of east- central and southeast Hillsborough County. The County has adopted a flood-control ordinance. But this ordinance "does not provide the County with a comprehensive flood plain management program . . . for maintaining wildlife habitat protection, aquifer recharge protection and water quality benefits." CARE, page 20. The Data and Analysis discuss the floodplains and their functions: Lands that are naturally subject to flooding serve valuable functions in the regional hydrologic and ecological system. Flood- prone lands provide temporary natural storage of runoff from upland areas and overflow from water bodies. By temporarily detaining surface water, flood-prone lands help to regulate the timing, velocity and levels of flood discharges and enable the recharge of groundwater resources. In addition, flood- prone lands help to maintain water quality and provide habitat that is vital to the sustenance of fish and wildlife populations. Those lands that are most frequently flooded, i.e., wetlands, are the most important in terms of providing these functions, but less frequently flooded areas are also important for handling more severe floods and providing other natural benefits. The maintenance of natural storage is extremely important for regional water management. . . . During times of abundant rainfall, . . . rivers and lakes overflow their normal banks and occupy the floodplain. The floodplain provides storage for this additional water. Even a greater volume of water is stored in areas outside of the floodplain of established lakes and rivers. Cypress heads, swamps, marshes and isolated topographic depressions provide a large portion of the natural storage in this area. . . . By temporarily storing and retarding the flow of flood waters, flood-prone lands also help to regulate the velocity and timing of flood discharges. Runoff in southwest Florida is usually intercepted by wetlands or topographic depressions. When these areas are full, the overflow moves slowly through shallow swales and linear depressions toward streams and water bodies. Obstructions to flow such as logs, rocks, trees, undergrowth and meanders in the watercourse reduce the rate of flow and thereby help to minimize the level and velocity of downstream flooding. Flood-prone areas are also important sites for groundwater recharge. The water table aquifer is directly dependent on the levels of water in such low-lying areas as cypress heads, sinkholes, swales and floodplains. When these areas are flooded, they may help recharge the water table aquifer. Then, during dry periods, the water table aquifer may provide part or all of the base flow to rivers and streams. Water stored in the water table also serves to recharge the Floridan aquifer by percolating downward through breaches in impermeable layers. ... Another important benefit of natural flood- prone lands is in the maintenance of water quality. Water tends to travel slowly across flooded lands, giving suspended sediments time to settle and thereby clarifying water before it enters or returns to a watercourse or water body. . . . The stems, leaves and branches of plants in flooded areas, together with flooded soils, provide an enormous surface area for biological and chemical processes. Micro- organisms on these surfaces initiate complex chemical reactions involving nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals and other pollutants. The roots of indigenous plants also absorb and remove nutrients from the water. Flood-prone lands, particularly wetlands, thus act like a giant biological filter. . . . Flood-prone lands also play a regional ecological role that depends upon periodic inundation. Wetlands and bottomland hardwood forest are the most biologically diverse and productive areas in Florida, other than estuaries. They support a wide variety of plants, which provide vital habitat for . . . game and fur-bearing animals . . . and for such endangered and threatened species, such as the wood stork. Much of the food for game fish comes from wetlands and floodplains along the shores of rivers and lakes. Juvenile fish, in particular, tend to hide and feed in these areas. There would be drastic reductions in the number of species, the number of fish per acre and the pounds of fish per acre if these areas were eliminated. Periodic inundation, alternating with periods of relative dryness, is vital to the maintenance of these ecological systems. Flood-prone lands tend to have rich, organic soils with a high capacity to retain water. The micro-organisms and plant communities associated with these soils support a complex food chain. High water tables and regular flooding are necessary to maintain organic soils. Regular flooding is needed to bring additional rich sediments into flooded areas and make them accessible to foraging fish. In addition, flood water transports out of flooded lands a load of detritus, nutrients, minerals and sediments that is vital to maintaining the productivity of estuarine systems. CARE, pages 14-15. Describing the consequences of poor land use planning in floodplains, the Data and Analysis continue: Improperly designed and executed land development interferes with the natural functions described above. Water resources and related land resources can thereby be degraded and unnecessary expense, loss of property, personal injury and loss of life can result. Building in flood-prone areas is particularly unwise. When floods recur, which is inevitable, considerable damage to houses, roads, utilities and other structures results. . . . Roadbeds are often weakened, undermined or washed away by flood waters. Electrical, telephone, and cable television lines are seldom designed to be submerged. Flood waters can enter sewage lines, causing them to overflow and contaminate an area or overload the capacity of treatment facilities. . . . . . . The storage and detention capacity of a watershed can also be reduced by drainage improvements, such as clearing and straightening natural watercourses, constructing new channels, and creating impervious surfaces. . . . * * * Reducing the capacity of a watershed to detain and store flood waters has several harmful effects on water and related resources, in addition to those associated with increased flooding. Variations in the flow of rivers and streams become more accentuated. Flood discharges peak more quickly and at higher elevations, but less water flows during dry periods and they extend for longer periods of time. The effects of both drought and flood are thus enhanced. Consumptive water suppliers, riverine aquatic life and estuarine processes, all of which depend on natural flow, may be disrupted. Recharge of groundwater is reduced by draining surface water from recharge areas or by covering them with impervious surfaces. The total amount of runoff discharged is thus increased and the amount of water stored in aquifers and available for consumptive use or to maintain streams flows is correspondingly diminished. Development of natural storage and detention areas also tends to cause degradation of water quality. Wetlands, vegetated swales and floodplain forests act as giant biological filters. If these filters are destroyed or bypassed, pollutants are discharged directly into open water systems. CARE, pages 15-16. As typified by its flood-control ordinance, the County has traditionally pursued the structural approach to floodplain management and drainage generally. This approach consists of building systems of channels, dams, levees, and other structures to hold back flood waters or rapidly carry them elsewhere. However, the Data and Analysis identify serious shortcomings in the structural approach to floodplain management and drainage. In addition to problems involving cost and relocating flood damage, the structural approach substantially degrades other values and functions of flood-prone lands and natural watercourses. Water quality protection, groundwater recharge, maintenance of base flows, estuarine salinity regulation, detrital production and export, fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural resource functions are frequently impaired by the construction of structural works. CARE, page 17. The Data and Analysis set forth a number of guidelines for a comprehensive floodplain management program "to prevent flood damage and minimize interference with the beneficial functioning of flood-prone lands." CARE, page 17. The first guideline to floodplain management is to avoid building in areas likely to be damaged by flooding. The Data and Analysis recommend the use of the ten year floodplain for this purpose. The second guideline to floodplain management is to avoid interfering with the beneficial functions of floodprone lands, which are "storage, conveyance, groundwater recharge, maintenance of minimum flows and levels, water quality maintenance and habitat for fish and wildlife." CARE, page 18. In a discussion not limited to the ten year floodplain, the Data and Analysis advise: Buildings, fill, roads and other structures that displace or obstruct the flow of surface waters should not be located in flood-prone areas. In addition, these areas should generally not be drained and their natural vegetation should be maintained. Id. With respect to the environmental benefits inherent in the second guideline, the Data and Analysis discuss each of the functions separately. For storage functions, the Data and Analysis note that floodwaters are stored by floodplains contiguous to water bodies and wetlands considerably removed from water bodies, but connected to them by cypress strands, marshy sloughs, and the underground water table. Thus, "[i]n order to preserve storage, it is necessary to prevent building in these storage areas, diverting [building] instead to upland sites." CARE, page 18. For conveyance functions, the Data and Analysis observe that obstructions, such as buildings and roads, to the flow of floodwater cause flooding upstream of the obstruction. Thus, "[i]n order to preserve the conveyance capacity of flood-prone lands it is necessary to restrict building in these areas." CARE, page 18-19. For groundwater recharge functions, the Data and Analysis relate recharge to storage and conveyance. If water that would otherwise percolate downward into groundwater is blocked by impervious surfaces, removed by drainage works, or displaced by fill, the water contributes to increased flooding downstream. "Filling of flood-prone lands or drainage of them should therefore be restricted." CARE, page 19. For minimum flows and levels, the Data and Analysis recognize that the management of maximum flows--i.e., floodwaters--"is integrally related to minimum flows." By increasing floodwater flows, such as by reducing natural storage and conveyance through structural flood control, "there will be less water in storage in wetlands and groundwater to supply minimum flows." The reduction of minimum flows and levels adversely impacts "navigation, recreation, water supply, dilution of pollutants, estuarine systems and fish and wildlife." CARE, page 19. For water quality, the Data and Analysis acknowledge the "major role" of frequently flooded lands in water quality. Pollutants are removed from storage waters when they are stored in natural floodplains or wetlands. "Cleaning, filling or draining these areas will cause degradation of water quality and should be restricted." CARE, page 19. For fish and wildlife habitat, the Data and Analysis note the importance of floodprone lands as habitat. Maintenance of this function "frequently depends on maintenance of the natural hydrologic regime or is consistent with maintenance of the area's hydrologic values." CARE, page 19. The third guideline to floodplain management is to avoid alterations of the natural rate, quantity, and pattern of surface waters. Applicable to both "flood-prone lands and more upland sites," this guideline advises that the "rate, volume, timing and location of discharge of surface water should generally not be altered from predevelopment conditions." In this case, surface water includes floodwater. CARE, page 19. Acknowledging the increasing stress upon wetlands and floodplains from "increased growth pressure in the more marginally developable portions of the County," the Data and Analysis advise that: [w]here wetland or floodplain encroachment is unavoidable, a scientifically defensible and effective compensatory mechanism is needed to ensure than no net loss of wetland acreage occurs. Where feasible, previously altered wetlands should be restored or recreated to increase overall viable wetland acreage. CARE, page 56. The Data and Analysis set a level of service standard for stormwater, but only in terms of existing, structural stormwater management facilities, such as channels, canals, and ditches. The standard relates to the quantity but not quality of stormwater runoff. The stormwater level of service standard thus illustrates the traditional structural approach to drainage that ignores water quality, groundwater recharge, base flow, salinity requirements, detrital food supplies, and habitat values. Dealing strictly with how fast and how much floodwater can be conveyed, ultimately to Tampa Bay, the stormwater standard describes the rainfall event that a particular stormwater facility, such as a ditch, can accommodate without causing floodwaters to rise above a specified level. The selected rainfall event is expressed in terms of frequency and duration, such as the 10 year/24 hour duration storm event. The level of flooding is expressed by degree. Level A, which is the most restrictive, means "no significant street flooding." Level B is "no major residential yard flooding." Acknowledging that the level of service standard for stormwater facilities "consists primarily of attempting to minimize and alleviate flooding . . . in developed areas . . .," the Introduction to the Stormwater Management (Stormwater) Element promises: the overall [Stormwater Management] Program will be expanded to include not only the quantity aspects, but the quality aspects of stormwater runoff. Stormwater Element, page 18. The Data and Analysis likewise agree that the qualitative aspect of stormwater runoff must be addressed: Much attention has, in recent years, been focused on the quality aspects of stormwater management regulations relative to the establishment of regulations and corresponding design criteria for new development. The application of these regulations must continue in order to minimize the potential for "new" water quality degradation, and the design criteria must be refined to increase the effectiveness of treatment systems as technology advances. However, existing water quality problems may not be correctable without the effective maintenance of existing stormwater treatment systems, and perhaps more importantly, without the retrofitting of older public and private stormwater management systems with stormwater management technologies. . . . The use of wetlands should be promoted as a natural means of providing stormwater treatment, and the direct discharge of untreated stormwater runoff to the Florida Aquifer must be minimized. Stormwater Element, page 20. 5. Soils The soils in Hillsborough County are depicted in CARE Figure 9 and Oversized Map 10. In addition to mine pits and dumps, which are located south and east of Plant City, the maps show that the County soils are poorly drained to very poorly drained, moderately well drained to poorly drained, and well drained. The largest area of well-drained soils lies east of I-75 from US 301, which is south of the Hillsborough River, to just north of the Alafia River. The two other areas of well- drained soils are an area east of Tampa and south of Temple Terrace and the Little Manatee River valley upstream to US 301. The soils surrounding the Alafia River and its major tributaries are predominantly poorly and very poorly drained, as are the soils at the upper end of the Little Manatee River. The entire coastal fringe of the County abutting the east side of Tampa Bay is also poorly and very poorly drained for a distance of about one mile inland, as is the coastal fringe between Tampa and Pinellas County. Other poor to very poorly drained areas include several areas of northwest Hillsborough County, an area in north-central Hillsborough County where I-75 and I-275 join, the Hillsborough River corridor, and an L-shaped area straddling Big Bend Road between I-75 and US 301. Except in extreme cases, such as wetland soils, soil limitations can generally be alleviated for development purposes. Moderate limitations require more extensive alterations to the soils than do minor limitations. "Severe limitations may require the removal of the natural material and replacement with a more suitable soil type." CARE, page 7. However: [t]he use of septic systems for the treatment and disposal of sewage effluent may . . . be significantly limited by site specific soil conditions. The location of septic systems in improper soils may result in several undesirable effects. If the soils have wetness and poor permeability then the discharged effluent will not percolate properly and may runoff into, and contaminate, adjacent surface waters. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve has been closed to shellfishing numerous times in recent years due to improperly sited and maintained septic tanks in the Ruskin area. CARE, page 7. Conversely, "[i]n areas of excessively well-drained sand, septic effluent can migrate too rapidly for purification processes to occur, and carry contaminants into the groundwater supply." CARE, page 8. The surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifers are all subject to contamination by this means. 6. Geology Southeast Hillsborough County contains significant phosphate deposits. This area is the northwest extent of the Central Florida Phosphate District, which is located in Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, and Hardee Counties. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 show that phosphate mines are located in southeast Hillsborough County, at the headwaters of the Little Manatee River and a major tributary of the Alafia River. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 show another phosphate mining area in eastcentral Hillsborough County adjacent to the headwaters of the Alafia River or another of its major tributaries. Providing "hundreds" of jobs in the Tampa Bay area in mining, shipping, marketing, and processing, the phosphate industry produces a "net capital inflow to Hillsborough County," although the text fails to identify what cost items associated with phosphate mining are netted. CARE, page 8. CARE Table 2 indicates that there are five major phosphate mining operations in the County involving 26,326 mineable acres and 5772 mined acres. Due to current market conditions, the only active mine accounts for 2510 mineable acres, 2890 mined acres, and 6933 total acres. The Data and Analysis warn: "phosphate mining severely complicates land use considerations in the central and southeast portions of the County. Large areas of known deposits are held by private companies for future mining." Id. In addition to the space demanded by clay settling ponds, which may consume a one square mile area for a single mine, a typically mining operation involves the "complete disruption" of up to 400 acres annually. The disruption involves the "on-site natural vegetation, drainage, and soil characteristics." Id. Mining may also result in the drawdown of groundwater supplies in the vicinity. Phosphate mining exposes the leach zone, which contains the greatest concentration of uranium. This process increases the risk that the radioactive material will enter the air or water. Heavy water demands in the mining process involve the removal of water from the surficial aquifer and return of used water, possibly with excessive radionuclides, to the Floridan aquifer. After the strip mining operations are completed: Reclamation and restoration of mined lands is extremely important for long-term land use planning in Hillsborough County. The vast acreages of mined trenches and slime ponds are virtually useless for long time periods unless effective reclamation measures are implemented. CARE, page 9. Recent reclamation techniques include surface contouring, use of original topsoil and vegetation types, and restoration of original drainage patterns. The Florida Department of Natural Resources and Hillsborough County both impose reclamation requirements. Noting the economic benefits bestowed on the Tampa Bay region from phosphate mining, the Data and Analysis nevertheless observe: the relatively unregulated mining industry of the past was also responsible for significant environmental damage, including the destruction of wetlands and floodplains, and the siltation and eutrophication of rivers and streams. In addition, large tracts of land have been committed to the maintenance of clay settling ponds and non-productive reclamation areas. Improved State and local regulation of the phosphate industry in recent years has reduced operational impacts on the environment. However, more effective and productive methods of reclamation, and greater enforcement of reclamation requirements, may be needed. CARE, page 63. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 depict the location of numerous sand mines and shell mines, as well as one peat mine. Limestone deposits in the northeast part of Hillsborough County are near the surface and may be the subject of future limestone mining for use as road base, fill, concrete, and asphalt. Another mineral present in commercially significant quantities is sand. In areas underlain by limestone deposits, sinkholes may form, especially in northern and eastern Hillsborough County. The collapse of the limestone formation, which results in the sinkhole, is associated with reduced water tables. "Sinkhole areas are generally unsuitable for development." CARE, page 6. CARE Figure 8 depicts areas of observed and potential sinkhole development. 7. Groundwater The three aquifer systems present in most of Hillsborough County are the surficial, intermediate, and Floridan. The Floridan aquifer is the most productive freshwater aquifer system in Hillsborough County. The surficial aquifer runs through most of Hillsborough County. The water table in the County generally follows the topography, and groundwater flow is west and south. The average depth to the water table is five feet. Fluctuating seasonally less than five feet, the water table is lowest in April or May and highest in September. The surficial aquifer supplies the least amount of water in the County. An intermediate aquifer system forms from the Alafia River basin south in the County. The top of the intermediate aquifer is near sea level, and the intermediate aquifer system thickens to about 200 feet near the Manatee County line. The water quality in the intermediate aquifer is generally good and is primarily used for domestic water supply in extreme south Hillsborough County. The aquifer is most productive in the east and south part of the County, although the phosphate mines in southeast Hillsborough County use the intermediate aquifer as the injection zone for dewatering surficial deposits. The most suitable areas for groundwater development are the extreme northeast and southeast areas of the County. The Floridan aquifer is the major source of groundwater in the County. About 175 million gallons per day of the total 178.2 million gallons per day of groundwater withdrawals in Hillsborough County are taken from the Floridan aquifer. The top of the aquifer ranges from near land surface in the north part of the County to about 200 feet below sea level in the south part of the County. The aquifer thickness ranges from less than 1000 feet in the north part of the County to more than 1200 feet in the south part of the County. The water of the Floridan aquifer is more mineralized than the water of the surficial or intermediate aquifer. Concentrations of chloride exceed 250 mg/l near the coast, but are less than 25 mg/l in east and southeast Hillsborough County. Of the total groundwater withdrawn in the County, about 58%, or 103.3 million gallons per day, is devoted to agriculture. Other uses include 43.7 million gallons per day for public supply, 21.2 million gallons per day for industrial use, and 6.5 million gallons per day for rural use. 8. Aquifer Recharge Aquifer recharge is the "replenishment of water in an aquifer system." CARE, page 23. Hillsborough County contains no areas of high natural aquifer recharge. Areas of high natural aquifer recharge, where annual recharge rates range from 10-20 inches per year, are rare in Florida, representing only about 15% of the entire state. In terms of natural recharge rates, the County contains areas characterized by very low and very low to moderate recharge. The areas of very low to moderate recharge, in which the annual recharge rate is from 2-10 inches, are depicted in CARE Figure 14 and cover the northwest corner of the County, smaller areas in the northcentral and northeast areas of the County, and a large area in northeast Hillsborough County. The large recharge area in the northeast part of the County corresponds to the 100 year floodplain associated with the Hillsborough River basin; this is the largest contiguous 100 year floodplain in the County. Despite the absence of high natural recharge areas, the County contains areas highly susceptible to contamination of the Floridan aquifer. CARE Figure 15 shows three highly susceptible areas. One of these areas is the north half of northwest Hillsborough County. This area contains wellfields located along Gunn Highway and SR 597. The easternmost extent of this area is just east of the intersection of I-275 and I-75. Most of the highly susceptible areas in the northwest part of the County are in areas of very low to moderate natural groundwater recharge. Another area highly susceptible to contamination of the Floridan aquifer is in northeast Hillsborough County, north of I-4 and mostly east of US 301. This area includes two mining areas, but neither is a phosphate mine. The third area of high susceptibility to contamination of the Floridan aquifer runs from an area between Lake Thonotosassa and Plant City southwest through the parcels designated Light Industrial north of Gibsonton. Although similar contamination maps for the surficial and intermediate aquifer systems were not included, the surficial aquifer is highly susceptible to contamination due largely to its proximity to the surface, and the intermediate aquifer is less susceptible to contamination. The Data and Analysis warn that "[d]evelopment in areas of high recharge/contamination potential may . . . pose unacceptable threats to the long-term water quantity and quality within the aquifer system." CARE, page 58. Potable water supplies are also threatened by "the proliferation of improperly sited, constructed and maintained septic tanks." Id. CARE Figure 16 displays potential sources of contamination of the groundwater and surface water. The only potential source of contamination in the recharge area associated with the Hillsborough River basin is an active landfill situated at the southern edge of the recharge area, just southeast of Lake Thonotosassa. However, three active landfills and seven sewage treatment plants have been situated in the large recharge area in the northwest corner of the County, although these ten sites are southwest of existing public supply wells. 9. Sanitary Sewer An unnumbered oversized map entitled Hillsborough County Wastewater Element shows existing and proposed wastewater service areas and collection lines; the projected facilities are shown as of 1994 and 2010. Oversized Map 3, which is entitled Potable Water and Wastewater Facilities, also shows existing and proposed wastewater service areas as of 1994 and 2010. Sanitary Sewerage (Sewer) Element Figure 1 depicts the same information on a smaller scale, although the earlier year of projection is 1995, not 1994. Another unnumbered oversized map accompanying the Plan shows the location of domestic wastewater treatment plants, but the date of the map is omitted. In terms of the existing collection and conveyance system, Sewer Element Figure 1 depicts a central sewer system considerably more proposed than existing in the area south of the Alafia River. No sewer lines exist south of the Alafia River except for a one-mile segment along Big Bend Road east of US and west of Balm-Riverview Road; a little more than a half-mile segment on the peninsula extending from Apollo Beach; a half- mile segment southeast of the preceding segment, about midway between the shoreline and US 41; and roughly five miles of lines along SR 674 between I-75 and just east of US 301. In contrast to the seven miles of existing sewer lines described in the preceding paragraph, Sewer Element Figure 1 indicates that the area south of the Alafia River is proposed to receive another 30 miles of lines by 1994 and another 30 miles of lines by 2010. In other words, the County intends to expand the central sewer system by almost tenfold over 20 years in the area south of the Alafia River. Four to six sewage treatment plants are operating close to the Alafia River, and two such plants are operating close to the Little Manatee River. In addition, two sewage treatment plants and an active landfill are also operating between the two rivers, located west of US 41 and east of the shore of Tampa Bay. The Data and Analysis report that one of the assumptions in the Sewer Element is that all regional and subregional wastewater treatment plants will use advanced wastewater treatment except the Van Dyke plant, which uses secondary wastewater treatment. The Data and Analysis also indicate that, as sewer connections are made, interim and private wastewater plants will be phased out. The Data and Analysis recognize the risk that septic tanks pose to potable water supplies: "As more and more quantities of potable water are needed to supply the County and as urbanization of previously rural areas occurs, the possible dangers due to septic tanks systems contaminating potable water supplies increases." Sewer Element, page 14. As noted below, the Plan distinguishes among Urban, Suburban, and Rural general service levels. 6/ For sanitary sewer, Rural services means "there would most likely be no service connection to an area treatment plant." Sewer Element, page 3. For sanitary sewer, Urban or Suburban service means "there would most likely be current or planned service connection to an area treatment plant." Sewer Element, page 4. Only in "intense urban areas" can the Plan assure "there would be service connection to an area treatment plant." Id. Sewer Element Table 1 discloses that the design capacity of wastewater treatment plants--both publicly and privately owned--is 42.163 million gallons per day with 46% of the capacity in the northwest service area, 42% of the capacity in the central service area, and 12% of the capacity in the south service area. The Data and Analysis indicate that the County has embarked on an "vigorous construction program aimed at meeting the existing commitments within its service areas and providing capacity capable of accommodating growth through 1995." Sewer Element, page 5. However, the construction of treatment facilities has proceeded faster than the construction of collection and transmission lines. 9. Potable Water Oversized Map 3 shows the location of existing water lines, proposed water lines through 1994, proposed water lines through 2010, and water service area boundaries. Potable Water Element Figure 1 depicts on a smaller scale the same information, plus the location of the water service area boundaries in 1995 and 2010. In general, water lines cover a considerable portion of the northwest and central parts of Hillsborough County, appearing in all parts of the County to serve all land that is both designated Suburban Density Residential and contiguous to areas designated for greater densities. Again, as in the case of central sewer, the part of Hillsborough County south of the Alafia River is not as well served. Twelve miles of line run along US 301, south from the Alafia River to SR 674. About seven miles of line run west on SR 674 to a point about two miles east of the mouth of the Little Manatee River. About five miles of line cover the Ruskin area directly northeast of the previously described terminus, and one mile of line proceeds south toward the Little Manatee River. Closer to Tampa Bay, about seven miles of water line run along US 41 south from the Alafia River to a point a couple of miles south of Big Bend Road, stopping about three and one- half miles north of the nearest existing line in Ruskin. About eight miles of line run just south of, and parallel to, the Alafia River. Another five miles of water line run from the Alafia River south, along the scenic corridor (evidently a railroad line to be converted into a two- lane road, at least part of which may be known as the Jim Selvey Highway) running parallel to, and about one mile west of, the boundary between Rural and Suburban designations between SR 640 and the line extending east of the end of Big Bend Road. 7/ Oversized Map 3 discloses that the County can provide central water service to relatively little of the area south of the Alafia River within the Urban and Suburban areas. As is the case with central sewer, the County's plans for new central water service project the majority of construction activity toward the end of the 20-year period. Although starting with considerably more water line mileage--about 47 miles--than sewer line mileage south of the Alafia River, the County plans only about eight new miles in this area by 1994, but over 90 new miles by 2010. For potable water service, a Rural service area "would most likely be served by a system of private wells." Potable Water Element, page 3. Urban or Suburban service means "there would most likely be current or planned service connecting to this area." Potable Water Element, page 4. Again, as in the case of sewer service, a guarantee of central water service applies only to intensive urban service, where "there would be service connecting to this area." Id. After detailed analysis, the Data and Analysis conclude that the County will require 235-318 million gallons per day of water in 2000. Responsibility in coordinating water supplies in the Tampa Bay area has been assigned to the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA). According to CARE Figure 19, Hillsborough County will run short of potable water by the early 1990's and need water supplies from the WCRWSA. CARE, page 28. Due to assumptions of increased water usage in Pasco and Pinellas Counties, "there is concern that the 'safe yield' limit of regional groundwater aquifers may be approached in the foreseeable future." Id. The Data and Analysis report that additional water for the fast-growing southcentral area will come from a "planned" wellfield in northeast Brandon. Potable Water Element, page 9. CARE Figure 18 shows the location of major public supply reservoirs and water wells of more than 100,000 gallons per day. Oversized Map 18, which is dated February, 1990, depicts a 200-foot radius for each major public supply well. The greatest concentration of public supply water wells is in northwest Hillsborough County, especially the northern half of this area. Based on rough projections, the Data and Analysis warn that there is a "need to develop and communicate accurate water supply and safe yield projections to ensure sound water use planning. In addition, [there is a] need to immediately conserve existing water supplies and to develop new supplies." Id. In the meantime, potential water sources are threatened by development: The quantity and quality of groundwater resources may also be adversely impacted by land development. Because of the dry, well- drained soils, many of the most important aquifer recharge areas in the County are considered to be the most desirable sites for development. However, the increase in impervious surface cover associated with land development may, in theory, reduce the amount of water available to recharge groundwater aquifers by increasing the amount of surface runoff and evaporation. In addition, pollution discharges to groundwater, including septic drainfields, leaking underground storage tanks, etc., percolate rapidly through the topsoil and into the underlying rock in such areas, and may pose a significant contamination threat to existing and future water supplies. CARE, page 28. Water conservation will help extend existing potable water supplies. Residential water use may be reduced by 15% to 70% by conservation measures. Agricultural water use may be reduced by better irrigation practices, reducing losses to seepage, and using the lowest quality water necessary. Only 33 of the 267 wastewater treatment plants in the County presently use direct wastewater reuse options. The Data and Analysis recommend the exploration of this option. With respect to potable water sources, the Data and Analysis also consider desalinization. About 70 such plants currently operate in Florida. The reverse osmosis method of desalinization appears to be a particularly viable alternative for Hillsborough County. Noting the inevitability of new demands for potable water from population growth, the Data and Analysis warn that "significant increases in impervious surfaces may actually decrease the recharge potential and the available water supply below historically reliable levels." CARE, page 61. Excessive groundwater withdrawals in Hillsborough County have historically dewatered wetlands and surface waters; excessive groundwater withdrawals in other coastal areas in Florida have historically resulted in saltwater intrusion. Thus, the Data and Analysis recommend the establishment of "'safe yield' groundwater withdrawal limitations." Id. Until the development of more sophisticated means, the Data and Analysis recommend the use of the "Water Budget Concept" to estimate probable limits on potable water supply and demand. Id. 10. Natural Habitats Because of the size, location, and estuarine shoreline of Hillsborough County, representatives of over half of the major plant communities in Florida are found in the County. The 14 major plant communities found in Hillsborough County are: pine flatwoods, dry prairies, sand pine scrub, sandhills, xeric hammocks, mesic hammocks, hardwood swamps, cypress swamps, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, coastal marshes, mangrove swamps, coastal strand, and marine grassbeds. With the exception of marine grassbeds, these habitats are depicted on the multicolor fold-out map entitled "Natural Systems and Land Use Cover Inventory," which is identified as CARE Figure 20 in the Plan. Coastal Figure 11 depicts the established extent of seagrass meadows in Tampa Bay. Coastal Figure 14 shows the location in Tampa Bay of different classes of waters. The waters adjacent to the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County are Class II waters that are closed to shellfish harvesting. The waters from about a mile south of Apollo Beach to Manatee County are also Class II waters with shellfish harvesting approved in the area of Cockroach Bay. The remaining waters are Class III. Coastal Figure 13 depicts the location of emergent wetlands along the fringe of Tampa Bay. Concentrations of emergent wetlands are notable south of Apollo Beach and upstream varying distances along the fringes of the three major rivers and the former Palm River. Emergent wetlands also fringe the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County. Most of the County's natural habitat has been lost to urban, agricultural, and industrial development, which has altered over half of the original freshwater wetlands and over three-quarters of the uplands. The trend of habitat destruction, though abated by wetland protection laws, continues to apply to the upland habitats of xeric and mesic hammocks. Supplementing CARE Figure 20 are Oversized Map 8, which depicts "major natural systems" based on CARE Figure 20, and CARE Table 11, which indicates where, by specific habitat, each of the endangered, threatened, or special-concern plant or animal species may be expected to occur. The Data and Analysis acknowledge that the rapidly growing human population and its associated urbanization has resulted in a substantial loss of natural wildlife habitat, especially in the coastal portions of the County, while the cumulative impacts of development continue to divide and isolate large contiguous natural areas. . . . As a result of habitat destruction and alteration, the natural populations of many wildlife species have declined dramatically. . . . comprehensive wildlife protection and management program is needed to inventory populations of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern, and to inventory significant and essential wildlife habitat and protect those areas in the future. Coastal Element, page 68. The pine flatwoods habitat is characterized by long- leaf pines on drier sites and slash pine on wetter sites. Despite overlap between the understories of the two types of pine flatwoods communities, saw palmetto predominates in slash pine flatwoods and wiregrass predominates in long-leaf pine flatwoods. Pine flatwoods depend on fire to eliminate hardwood competition. Longleaf pine flatwoods are more susceptible to lack of water than are slash pine flatwoods. In the absence of fire, the pine flatwoods community is replaced by a mixed hardwood and pine forest. Various species that are endangered, threatened, or of special concern are associated with the pine flatwoods habitat. These species include the Florida golden aster, eastern indigo snake, short-tailed snake, gopher tortoise, gopher frog, Florida pine snake, peregrine falcon, Southern bald eagle, Southeastern American kestrel, red-cockaded woodpecker, scrub jay, and Sherman's fox squirrel. Originally, 70% of Hillsborough County was vegetated by pine flatwoods, but now only 5% of the County is pine flatwoods. The level surface, thick understory, and poorly drained soils of the pine flatwoods tend to retain and slowly release surface water, so the pine flatwoods enhance surface water quality and reduce downstream flooding. Dry prairies are treeless plains, often hosting scattered bayheads, cypress ponds, freshwater marshes, and wet prairies. Dry prairies resemble pine flatwoods without the overstory and perform similar functions in terms of surface water drainage. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species using dry prairies include those using the pine flatwoods plus the Florida sandhill crane and burrowing owl. Sand pine scrub is found mostly on relict dunes or other marine features found along present and former shorelines. Sand pine forms the overstory, and scrubby oaks compose a thick, often clumped understory. Large areas of bare sand are present in the habitat of the sand pine scrub, which requires fires to release the pine seeds. Without fires, the sand pine scrub habitat evolves into a xeric oak scrub habitat. The rare sand pine scrub community hosts many of the endangered, threatened, or special-concern species found in the pine flatwoods habitat. Supporting the highest number of such species, the sand pine scrub habitat's extremely dry environment sustains highly specialized plants and animals that could survive nowhere else. The unique adaptations of species to the sand pine scrub environment generates much scientific research of this unusual habitat, which is easily disturbed by human activities. The rapid percolation typical of the deep sandy soils of the sand pine scrub makes the community an important aquifer recharge area that is also vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Featuring more organic material in its sandy soils, the sandhill community, like the sand pine scrub community, is uncommon in Hillsborough County. Longleaf pines form the overstory of the sandhill habitat, unless, due to fire suppression and logging, xeric oaks, like turkey oak and bluejack oak, have been permitted to grow sufficiently to form the overstory. In the absence of the pines, the community is known as the xeric oak scrub. Longleaf pines require frequent fires to control hardwood competition, as does wiregrass, which, when present, prevents the germination of hardwood seeds and serves to convey fires over large areas. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species of the sandhill habitat are similar to those of the pine flatwoods. The plant and animal species using the sandhill habitat are, like those using the sand pine scrub habitat, adapted to high temperatures and drought. These plant and animal species are often found nowhere else but in the sandhills, which, like the sand pine scrub community, allows rapid percolation of water. The well-drained soils render the area useful for natural recharge of the aquifer, but also vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Xeric hammocks feature live oaks in well-drained, deep sand. Providing habitat for many of the species using the pine flatwoods, the xeric hammock canopy provides a microclimate of cooler, moister conditions and supplies good natural recharge to the aquifer. Mesic hammocks are the climax community of the area and contain a wide diversity of plant species. Trees include the Southern Magnolia, laurel oak, American holly, dogwood, pignut hickory, and live oak. Endangered, threatened, or special- concern species using the habitat are Auricled Spleenwort, Eastern indigo snake, peregrine falcon, Southern bald eagle, Southeastern American kestrel, and Sherman's fox squirrel. Not dependent upon fire, mesic hammocks efficiently use solar heat and recycle nutrients. Mesic hammocks are adaptable to development if native vegetation, including groundcover, is retained. Hardwood swamps, which are also known as floodplain swamps, riverine swamps, and hydric hammocks, border rivers and lake basins where the ground is saturated or submerged during part of the year. The wettest part of these swamp forests features bald cypress or black gum trees. In higher areas, the trees typically include sweet gum, red maple, water oak, American elm, water hickory, and laurel oak. Hardwood swamps rely upon periodic flooding, absent which other communities will replace the hardwood swamps. Endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with hardwood swamps are the American alligator, Suwanee cooter, peregrine falcon, wood stork, Southern bald eagle, little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and limpkin. "The hardwood swamp is extremely important for water quality and quantity enhancement." CARE, page 38. The hardwood swamp also retains and slowly releases floodwaters, which, among other things, allows suspended material to settle out. The swamp vegetation then removes excess nutrients and produces detritus for downstream swamps, such as estuaries. Cypress swamps are found along river or lake margins or interspersed through pine flatwoods or dry prairies. Bald cypress is the dominant tree along lakes and streams, and pond cypress occurs in cypress heads or domes. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with cypress swamps are the same as those associated with hardwood swamps. Especially when found in pine flatwoods or dry prairies, cypress swamps are important to wildlife because of their cooler, wetter environment. Cypress domes function as natural retention ponds. Cypress swamps along rivers and lakes absorb nutrients and store floodwaters. Freshwater marshes and wet prairies are herbaceous plant communities on sites where the soil is saturated or covered with water for at least one month during the growing season. Wet prairies contain shallower water, more grasses, and fewer tall emergents than do marshes. Fire recycles nutrients back into the soil and removes older, less productive plant growth. Flooding also reduces competition. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species are the same as those using the cypress swamps except that the freshwater marshes and wet prairies host the Florida sandhill crane and roseate spoonbill, but not the limpkin. Freshwater marshes and wet prairies are the most important vegetative communities functioning as a natural filter for rivers and lakes. The ability to retain water allows freshwater marshes and wet prairies to moderate the severity of floods and droughts. But the freshwater marshes and wet prairies have suffered most from agricultural and urban development. Wet prairies in particular are susceptible to damage from recreation vehicle use, horseback riding, and foot traffic. Among the many species using freshwater marshes and wet prairies as habitat, the sandhill crane depends on this community for nesting habitat. Coastal marshes are located on low-energy shorelines and are interspersed with mangroves. Coastal marshes may be found along tidal rivers. Tides contribute to the high productivity of the coastal marshes, as tidal waters provide food to, and remove waste from, the organisms found in the coastal marshes. Endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with coastal marshes are the American alligator, peregrine falcon, wood stork, Southern bald eagle, redish egret, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and roseate spoonbill. With the mangrove swamp, the coastal marsh is the "key to the extremely high levels of biological productivity found in estuaries such as Tampa Bay." CARE, page 40. Marsh grasses convert sunlight and nutrients into plant tissue, which decomposes once the plant dies and becomes available to a number of detritus-feeding organisms. These organisms are themselves food for large animals. Coastal marshes also serve as nurseries for young fish, stabilize shorelines, filter out nutrients, and trap sediments. Mangrove swamps also occur along low-energy shorelines. The mangrove community "provides much of the driving force behind the productivity of bordering estuaries." CARE, page 41. Leaves from the mangroves fall into the water, supplying food to organisms as large as mullet. Mangrove swamps host the same animals as do coastal marshes except for the absence of alligators and presence of brown pelicans. The environmental values of the mangrove swamps are the same as the values of coastal marshes. The coastal strand includes beaches and coastal dunes. Prime examples of this type of habitat in Hillsborough County are Egmont Key and the larger islands in Cockroach Bay and at the mouth of the Little Manatee River. Marine grassbeds are found in estuaries and consist of vast meadows of different types of seagrasses. Having evolved from terrestrial forms, seagrasses contain roots, stems, leaves, and flowers and are able to grow in soft, sandy, or muddy sediments. Species of seagrasses found in Tampa Bay are limited to a water depth of about six feet, which is the average depth through which light can presently penetrate. Fast-growing seagrasses trap material from the land, absorb nutrients, and convey animal and plant products to the open sea. 11. Coastal Area The County's "most significant surface water resource" is Tampa Bay. CARE, page 10. In northwest Hillsborough County, the coastal area, which is also known as the coastal zone, consists of a strip of land about five miles wide running from the shoreline between Tampa and the Pinellas County line in the northwest part of the County. The coastal area for central and south Hillsborough County encompasses a band of land of about similar width running from the Tampa line south along US 301 across the Alafia River, then south from the Alafia River along I-75 to the Little Manatee River, where the boundary runs west to US 41, and then south along US 41 to the Manatee County line. Coastal Figure 16 locates coastal marine resources in and adjacent to Tampa Bay. Two locations of wading birds are in the northwest part of Hillsborough County. The only resources depicted between Tampa and the Alafia River are shorebirds in the Bay. At the Alafia River are wading birds, shorebirds, and pelicans. Wading birds and shorebirds are located in the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, as are manatee and oyster beds. The Data and Analysis describe the different land use planning challenges in the coastal area: coastal land issues are unique primarily due to the intense competing and often incompatible use demands, serious environmental constraints or impacts and the limited supply of shoreline lands. Coastal Element, page 3. The intent of the Plan is that coastal land use should be dominated by those uses which can only take place in or near the shoreline. This concept, by which water- dependent and water-related uses receive priority, stems from logic furthered by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act .. .. Coastal Element, page 2. According to Coastal Element Table 2, the coastal area comprises 20,946 acres of developed land and 54,011 acres of undeveloped land. The developed land includes 12,343 acres of residential (75% single family detached), 4638 acres of community facilities (75% utilities and recreation/open space), 2095 acres of commercial (equal amounts of heavy and light commercial), and 1870 acres of industrial. The undeveloped land includes 24,388 acres of natural land (including 16,533 acres of woodlands and wetlands), 29,025 acres of agriculture, and 598 acres of mines (consisting of 299 acres of active mines, 75 acres of reclaimed mines, and 224 acres of unreclaimed mines). Many of the residential uses in the coastal area are on floodprone lands or land formed from dredge and fill operations. Many of these residential areas are in the unincorporated areas of Town and Country, Clair Mel City, Apollo Beach, and Bahia Beach. The problems common to these areas are periodic flooding, cumulative adverse impacts to wetlands, soil erosion, non-functioning septic systems, high potential for surface water pollution, potential for salt water intrusion, and reduced public access to the shoreline. Coastal Element, page 4. Most commercial development in the coastal area is of the neighborhood, rather than regional, variety. Commercial uses have generally followed rather than preceded residential development in the coastal area. However, in the Hillsborough Avenue/Memorial Highway area, which is in the coastal area between Tampa and Pinellas County, extensive commercial activity serves Town and County and the area off SR 580 (Hillsborough Avenue) toward Pinellas County. Much of the County's heavy industry is located in the coastal area due to proximity to the port. Agriculture is treated as undeveloped land, although only one-third of agricultural uses are merely fenced pastureland. In any event, "urban growth is steadily displacing [agricultural and vacant land] uses forcing agricultural activities to move to more inland parts of the County." Coastal Element, page 5. The largest uses within the category of community facilities in the coastal area are electric power generating and transmission facilities. The next largest is recreation/open space. Both of these uses are water dependent. The coastal natural areas provide vital shoreline habitat and protect against storm surge. The Data and Analysis warn: Displacement of these natural areas by continued urban development will result in a net reduction of water quality within Tampa Bay and tidal rivers and creeks, loss of vital wildlife habitat, a diminished sense of open space, and the exposure of property and human life to the dangers of storm surge. Coastal Element, page 6. In discussing potential conflicts in potential shoreline land uses, the Data and Analysis note that more coastal areas that are vacant, recreational, or agricultural have been designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Low Density Residential, Recreation and Open Space, or Natural Preservation. The development of the coastal area has resulted in the elimination of natural shoreline vegetative communities such as mangroves and wetlands. The Data and Analysis acknowledge the "urgency to more effectively manage coastal zone natural resources and direct urban development into areas more appropriate for such growth." Coastal Element, page 7. The Data and Analysis also note that stormwater runoff into Tampa Bay and its tributaries may constitute the "greatest impact to marine habitat." Id. According to the Data and Analysis, the main uses that are neither water-dependent nor water-related are commercial and industrial uses that "could function just as well inland as in a coastal location" and "intense urban residential." Coastal Element, page 9. The Data and Analysis endorse the trend toward displacing agricultural uses in the Apollo Beach/Ruskin area west of I-75 between the Alafia River and the Manatee County line. The Data and Analysis approve of the increased concentration of development closer to the amenities of the coastal area without using the coastal zone for non-water-dependent uses. Oversized Maps 11 and 12 respectively show the location of archaeological sites and historic resources. Oversized Map 11 indicates by Florida Master Site File number the location of at least 200 archaeological sites. Due to the presence of numerous archaeological sites in the coastal area, the County "needs to establish a method to protect, preserve, and restore its historic resources." Coastal Element, page 13. Because the County has not adopted a local preservation ordinance, the Data and Analysis admit that "historic resource management efforts are not clearly defined." Coastal Element, page 60. However, the Data and Analysis indicate that provisions in the Future Land Use Element and Coastal Element will preserve the historic resources in the coastal area. 12. Coastal High Hazard Area and Hurricane Planning The entire Tampa Bay region: has been identified by the National Weather Service as one of the most hurricane- vulnerable areas of the United States, with the potential for large scale loss of life. Coastal Element, page 37. The vulnerability of the County and its residents to hurricanes is due to geography and land use. The proximity of large numbers of persons near Tampa Bay and residing in low- lying areas or mobile homes increases the risk of loss of life and property. The hurricane vulnerability analysis is based on the 100 year storm event or Category 3 hurricane, which produces winds of 111-130 miles per hour and storm surge of 12-18 feet above normal. The Data and Analysis define the hurricane vulnerability zone as the area from which persons must be evacuated in the event of a Category 3 hurricane. The Data and Analysis also identify the coastal high hazard area, which is the area from which persons must be evacuated in the event of the less intense Category 1 hurricane. The coastal high hazard area is also the velocity zone shown on maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Coastal Element Figure 18 depicts the coastal high hazard area as a strip of land fringing Tampa Bay. The northwest section of the coastal high hazard area between Pinellas County and Tampa is nearly one mile wide. The width of the coastal high hazard area from Tampa to Manatee County ranges from nonexistent to about 1.5 miles, and even more at the Little Manatee River, but averages about one mile. The Data and Analysis recognize the special planning issues that apply to the coastal high hazard area: The issue with respect to development in the coastal high hazard area is the protection of residents and the public expenditure of funds for areas that are subject to severe flooding from storm surge and rainfall and structure damage as a result of high winds. In addition to limiting development, the permitted development shall be designed to mitigate problems associated with stormwater runoff, wastewater treatment, and septic tanks. Coastal Element, page 61. Dealing with the provision of infrastructure in the coastal area, the Data and Analysis ask, but do not answer, the following questions: Does the provision of infrastructure encourage development of coastal areas? Should all citizens be required to bear the burden of increased public infrastructure cost in coastal areas? As development and redevelopment pressures continue in the coastal areas these questions and others must be answered. Coastal Element, page 64. Analysis of the County's hurricane preparedness requires consideration of the availability of shelters. The County has 46 primary shelters that, at the applicable ratio of 20 square feet per shelter resident, can accommodate about 59,000 persons. Unfortunately, about 60,000 of the 175,000 evacuees sought shelter space during Hurricane Elena, which, during the Labor Day weekend of 1985, came within 80 miles from the mouth of Tampa Bay. In any event, there is sufficient shelter space through 1995. Although secondary shelter space may be sufficient for awhile, the County will need more shelter space by 2000. Present estimated clearance times for hurricane evacuation range from 11-16 hours, depending upon the storm and evacuation conditions. After evaluating pre-landfall hazards, such as the inundation of low-lying evacuation routes, the clearance times are increased by 10 hours, so the range is 21-26 hours. Persons with special needs, which could enlarge the time needed for evacuation, have been encouraged to register with the County. The Data and Analysis inventory the hospitals and nursing homes whose occupants would need to evacuate in the event of a hurricane. Six of the 21 nursing homes and four of the 17 hospitals would be vulnerable to storm surge in a Category 3 storm. Tampa General, which is a County-operated facility, is subject to storm surge in a Category 1 storm, and the Data and Analysis warn that expansion plans should be carefully reviewed. Finding that clearance times of 11 and 16 hours are "acceptable," the Data and Analysis caution that the clearance times may increase as population increases in the Tampa Bay region. Options to be considered include exploration of vertical evacuation, discouragement of evacuation by nonvulnerable residents, expansion of road capacity, and imposition of the requirement that mobile home parks construct on-site shelter space. A variety of public infrastructure is contained in the coastal high hazard area. These public facilities include roads, bridges, and causeways; sanitary sewer facilities; potable water facilities; and shoreline protection structures. Private facilities include electric generating units and substations. The County does not own a sanitary sewer plant in the coastal high hazard area. But the County uses about 12% of the capacity of Tampa's Hookers Point plant, which is in the coastal high hazard area. The County owns three potable water facilities in the coastal high hazard area. A pump station and two elevated storage tanks are in the Apollo Beach area. In view of the vulnerability of parts of the County to a hurricane: government is responsible for ensuring that human life is protected and property damage is minimized in food-prone and coastal high hazard areas; that land use and development patterns are consistent with the vulnerable nature of the coastal high hazard and inland flood-prone areas; and that natural systems and vegetation that serve to reduce the impacts of severe weather are protected and preserved. In order to accomplish these ends, Hillsborough County must consider available options to reduce or limit exposure in the [coastal high hazard area]; develop guidelines/procedures for development in the [coastal high hazard area]; propose alternatives to reduce clearance times or reduce deficit public shelter space; and develop methods to redirect population concentrations away from the [coastal high hazard area]. Coastal Element, page 42. The Data and Analysis consider the question of post- hurricane redevelopment, which has not been an issue in the County since 1921, which marked the last time that a hurricane made landfall in Hillsborough County. After addressing the extent to which public funds might be available to assist in rebuilding infrastructure, the Data and Analysis confront the underlying issue whether infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area should be rebuilt in place or relocated outside the coastal high hazard area. The Data and Analysis conclude: A decision-making framework needs to be established by the County in order to determine if the infrastructure or facilities should be relocated, have structural modifications or be replaced. Coastal Element, page 45. The Data and Analysis recommend that decisions concerning redeveloping infrastructure be guided by the following factors: costs, environmental impacts, mitigative impacts, growth management consistency, impacts on the public, timeliness, legal issues, availability of funds, and necessity of infrastructure. 13. Air Quality The air quality in the Tampa urban area "is among the state's most polluted," but "severe conditions are often localized and short lived, due to prevailing winds and the area's non-confining topography." CARE, page 46. However, the Data and Analysis admit that "[a]ir quality in the Tampa Bay region . . . is degraded and in need of improvement relative to certain air pollutants." CARE, page 51. Of the six pollutants for which federal and state attainment standards exist, Hillsborough County is classified as non-attainment for ozone, for which automobile exhausts are indirectly responsible, and particulate matter. But point sources, especially power plants, are also responsible for air pollution. Since the mid 1970's, all criteria pollutants except ozone have decreased in the County. The Data and Analysis recommend "more stringent regulations and better compliance with existing regulations." CARE, page 52. Urban Sprawl Planning Strategy The Data and Analysis disclose that the County has adopted two major planning strategies. The Plan creates nodes and corridors and provides a range of lifestyles from the Urban to the Suburban to the Rural. The specific details of these planning strategies are found in the operative provisions of the Plan, which are set forth in the following section. However, the Data and Analysis offer a brief overview of the County's two major planning strategies. A node is 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." Future Land Use Element (FLUE), page 8. The Data and Analysis explain that the Plan contains four types of nodes: high intensity nodes, which are for high intensity commercial uses, high density residential uses, and high concentration of government centers; mixed use regional nodes, which are for regional shopping centers, major office and employment areas, and sports and recreational complexes; community center nodes, which are focal points for surrounding neighborhoods; and neighborhood nodes, which are smaller scale community centers. Once nodes become established, "corridors" are intended to connect two or more nodes. Presently, the road network is the sole type of corridor. But mass transit may one day offer an alternative type of corridor. As part of the second major planning strategy, the Plan offers residents a variety of lifestyle options, primarily by varying residential densities. Population growth in Hillsborough County has historically radiated out from the central business district of Tampa. The emergence of nodes outside Tampa has altered this development pattern. The Plan's treatment of rural areas reflects the philosophy that "[r]ural areas need not be treated only as undeveloped lands waiting to become urban." FLUE, page 9. The Data and Analysis report that the Plan seeks to preserve the pastoral nature of the rural lifestyle by ensuring the availability of large lots for residential development. The size of the lots is in part driven by the absence of central water and sewer, so that individual wells and septic tanks will necessarily serve most rural development. In addition to providing small scale commercial uses at appropriate locations, the Data and Analysis recognize that the Plan must also ensure the preservation of unstructured open space, as well as competing rural uses, such as agriculture, that may not harmonize completely with adjacent residential development. The Data and Analysis describe the suburban residential option as part of a "gradual transition of land uses from very rural to more suburban blending into the urban environment." FLUE, page 10. Suburban areas would be accompanied by greater intensities of commercial uses and more extensive public facilities, as compared to the commercial uses and public facilities serving rural areas. The Data and Analysis describe densities of two or three dwelling units per acre on outlying suburban areas, gradually increasing to two to six dwelling units per acre on suburban areas closer to urban areas, and finally attaining even higher densities adjacent to the urban areas. Open space remains "quite important" for suburban areas and could be attained partially through clustering dwelling units. Id. The urban areas facilitate the provision of "very specialized public and private services that could not be justified anywhere else." FLUE, page 11. The Data and Analysis state: If the urban areas are permitted to increase their concentrations, it will lessen some of the development pressures in other areas of the County. One distinct advantage of intense urban development is that the potential, negative impacts of development upon the natural environment can be controlled more effectively. Additionally, the provision of public facilities is much more cost effective in the intense urban areas. Id. The Data and Analysis recognize the role of planning to ensure the attainment of the planning goals of the County: Hillsborough County has and will continue to experience a high population growth rate. Residential, commercial and industrial land development is expanding rapidly, and the County has been unable to keep pace with the demand for public facilities. The rapid rate of development has had many adverse impacts upon the environment, transportation, public facilities, historic resources and community design. . . . An overall, general guide to development outlining basic considerations during the development process is needed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Hillsborough County. FLUE, page 12. The Data and Analysis recognize that "much of the newer residential development is designed as enclaves with little or no functional linkages to the surrounding areas." FLUE, page 22. Addressing the linkage of residential to commercial uses, the Data and Analysis add: Commercial development has followed the sprawl of residential development into the County. Commercial strip development has been allowed to proceed relatively unchecked along the major arterials in the County creating undue congestion and safety hazards. A strong need was identified to develop a logical and functional method to determine the location and amount of future commercial development without interrupting the market system. FLUE, page 25. The Data and Analysis also address industrial and public facility land uses. The identification of specific areas for industrial development "will create a desirable development pattern that effectively maximizes the use of the land." FLUE, page 28. And the requirement that public facilities be available to serve new development "will create greater concentrations of land uses in the future." FLUE, page 27. 2. Existing Land Uses The Data and Analysis set forth the existing land uses by type and acreage. Using a total acreage for the County of 605,282 acres, the table of existing land uses by acreage, which is at page XVIII-B of the FLUE background document, divides developed land into four general categories: residential, commercial, industrial, and community facilities. Residential existing land uses total 73,104 acres. The total includes 55,546 acres of single family detached with an average density of 1.7 dwelling units per acre, 9709 acres of mobile home with an average density of 1.3 dwelling units per acre, 3643 acres of mobile home park with an average density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre, and 3006 acres of single family attached and multifamily with an average density of just under 12 dwelling units per acre. Commercial existing land uses total 8143 acres, consisting of 3613 acres of light commercial, 3029 acres of heavy commercial, 770 acres of transient lodging, and 731 acres of business and professional offices. Industrial existing land uses total 4122 acres, consisting of 1889 acres of heavy industrial, 1178 acres of warehouse and distribution, and 1055 acres of light industrial. Community facilities existing land uses, which consist of utilities, schools, and recreation/open space, total 19,439 acres, including 7981 acres of recreation/open space and 5200 acres of utilities. The remaining 500,474 acres in the County are divided into Natural, Agriculture, and Mining existing land uses. Natural existing land uses total 182,082 acres, consisting of 133,939 acres of woodlands and wetlands, 26,745 acres of vacant land in urban areas, and 21,398 acres of water. Agriculture existing land uses total 292,129 acres, including 104,870 acres of fenced pastureland, 103,773 acres of general agriculture, 40,600 acres of groves or orchards, and 38,867 acres of row crops. Mining existing land uses total 26,263 acres, consisting of 10,551 acres of active mines, 8655 acres of unreclaimed mined out areas, 6717 acres of reclaimed mines, and 340 acres of resource extraction. The County has prepared or obtained numerous existing land use maps (ELUM), either as small-scale maps contained in the two-volume compilation or as Oversized Maps. Most of the ELUM's have been described above. The ELUM's depict the Tampa Bay estuarine system including beaches and shores; rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, and harbors; wetlands; minerals, soils, and sinkholes; natural systems and land use cover; areas of natural aquifer recharge and potential groundwater contamination; and various public facilities. ELUM's not previously described include Oversized Map 6, which is dated September, 1988, and is entitled Major Health and Education Facilities. Another Oversized Map dated February 1, 1988, shows the same types of facilities. Existing land uses are shown by a variety of maps. CARE Figure 20, which is the color map showing vegetative cover, provides some information as to the location of disturbed and undisturbed natural areas. Coastal Figure 1 shows existing land uses, but only for the coastal area. Those parts of the coastal high hazard area shown as vacant or agricultural or that otherwise received designations allowing higher densities or intensities are identified in Paragraphs 772 et seq. Most detailed is Oversized Map 2, which is the 1985 Generalized Land Use map. Oversized Map 2 shows the location of existing land uses by the following categories: agricultural and vacant, low density residential, medium and high density residential, commercial, industrial, major public, mining, and natural. As noted above, existing, major public supply wells are depicted on CARE Figure 18 and Oversized Map 18. The latter map also depicts 200-foot radii for "well protection areas." Oversized Map 18 also appears to depicts planned water wells, such as a cluster of four wells northeast of Brandon, which were omitted from CARE Figure 18. Other wells are also depicted on Oversized Map 18, but not CARE Figure 18, which thus appears to have been limited to existing wells. 3. Future Land Uses Under Plan The Data and Analysis accompanying the FLUE acknowledge that "[t]here are very few compact centers where commercial and residential uses interact positively in unincorporated Hillsborough County." FLUE, page 7. The projected population for unincorporated Hillsborough County in 2010 is 932,800, according to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. About 458,236 persons were projected to be residing, in 2010, in housing units existing in 1988. By land use category, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, the County has 283,195 vacant acres on which residential development is permitted under the Plan. The following table sets forth, by category, the vacant acreage, permitted maximum density (expressed as a ratio of dwelling units per gross acre), and population capacity. 8/ Land Use Category Density Vacant Acres Pop. Capacity Agricultural/Mining 1:20 66,122 9,092 Agricultural 1:10 20,162 5,545 Rural Agricultural 1:5 65,115 35,813 Rural Estate 1:2.5 8,617 9,479 Rural Residential 1:1 18,533 50,968 Rural Residential Plan 1:5 7,325 4,029 Low Sub. Density Resid. 2:1 14,388 79,134 Low Sub. Density Resid. Plan 1:5 20,326 11,179 Suburban Density Resid. 4:1 24,667 271,337 Low Density Residential 6:1 10,625 175,313 Low Medium Density Resid. 9:1 945 16,755 Medium Density Residential 12:1 1,290 30,496 High Density Residential 20:1 765 30,141 Urban Level 1 12:1 17,850 421,974 Urban Level 2 20:1 4,495 177,103 Urban Level 3 50:1 1,760 173,360 TOTALS 283,195 1,501,718 Dividing the total population capacity of 1,501,718 persons by the projected population of 932,800, the Plan has overallocated density by a factor of 1.61. Nonresidential uses for which the Plan allocates land include industrial and commercial uses. The industrial uses and respective acreages in the Plan are Light Industrial (12,789), Light Industrial--Planned (746), and Heavy Industrial (4721). The commercial uses and respective acreages in the Plan are Community Commercial (5538), Regional Commercial (678), Community Office (294), and Research Corporate Park (1411). The industrial uses cover a total of 18,256 acres, or 3.04% of the total of 600,409 acres in Hillsborough County. The commercial uses cover a total of 7921 acres, or a little more than 1% of the total acreage in the County. If the acreage designated as Urban Level 1, 2, and 3 is treated as commercial, then the total commercial acreage equals 8.79% of the County. The remaining categories on the Future Land Use Map and respective acreages are: Natural Preservation--23,313 acres; Environmentally Sensitive Areas--81,880 acres; Water--6026 acres; Recreation/Open Space--2310 acres; and Public/Semi- Public--4142 acres. Excluding the Public/Semi-Public category, the remaining four categories, which by varying degrees involve open space, constitute 113,526 acres, or about 19% of the County. In addition to the matter of density allocations, the use of land involves the places where the County has chosen to locate its densities. CARE Figure 2 shows the location of the population in 1985. For unincorporated Hillsborough County, only about 45,000 persons lived south of the Alafia River with about two-thirds living west of I-75. Roughly 150,000 persons lived in northwest Hillsborough County, and another 150,000 persons lived in central Hillsborough County between the Alafia River and I-4. The remaining (as shown on Figure 2) 50,000 persons lived east of I-75 and north of I-4 in northcentral and northeast Hillsborough County. Oversized Map 14 shows areas of density changes effected by the Plan and revisions to a pre-1985 Act plan applicable to I-75 and south Hillsborough County that took place shortly before the adoption of the Plan and were incorporated into the Plan. Oversized Map 14 discloses large areas of density increases in the following locations, among others: the part of the coastal high hazard area between Cockroach Bay and the mouth of the Little Manatee River; an area immediately across US 41 from the previously described area and bounded by the Little Manatee River on the north and I-75 on the east; almost the entire I-75 corridor that is designated nearly exclusively Urban Level 1 and Urban Level 3; a large expanse of land designated mostly Low Suburban Density Residential Planned along the railroad right-of-way that is to be converted into a two-lane road, at least part of which is to be known as the Jim Selvey Highway; an area of Medium Density Residential just north of the mouth of the Little Manatee River near Ruskin; the northcentral area from I-75 and I-275 to the Hillsborough River; and relatively large portions of the north and west halves of northwest Hillsborough County, including almost the entire northwest corner of the County to Gunn Highway (east of Keystone Lake). Oversized Map 13 is the Vacant Land Suitability Analysis, which shows the location of critical lands or soils with very severe limitations, presumably with reference to the location of predominantly vacant lands. The range of soils with very severe limitations includes the entire coastal high hazard area, much of the corridors of the Little Manatee and Alafia Rivers, the Hillsborough River valley, several areas of about 1.5 square miles each in northwest Hillsborough County, much of the land north of the northernmost extent of Tampa and just east of I-275, and an L-shaped area east of I-75 and straddling Big Bend Road, as well as area just to the south of the L-shaped area. Lands of varying degrees of sensitivity are located throughout the areas of very severely limited soils. Locations of the two most critical classes of land are widely distributed among the phosphate mining area in southeast Hillsborough County and along the major southern tributary of the Alafia River, near Cockroach Bay and the mouth of the Little Manatee River, at the southeast and northwest ends of the coastal high hazard area of northwest Hillsborough County, just east of I-275 and I-75, in the Hillsborough River valley, and along the Alafia River and its northern tributary. Locations of the two less critical classes of land, but nevertheless sensitive or very sensitive, include areas along Big Bend Road at I-75, east of I-75 north of Big Bend Road, and in the northwest corner and northern half of northwest Hillsborough County. 4. Use of Public Facilities Under Plan Acknowledging that high population growth has contributed to many of Hillsborough County's problems, such as "infrastructure inadequacies," the Data and Analysis concede: The extension of public facilities has lagged behind the unincorporated County's rapid growth. One of the consequences of growth outpacing the provision of services and facilities is the development of outlying large lot residential with onsite water and sewer facilities (septic tanks, wells). The historic lack of services has continued to strain the county's fiscal ability to respond to these needs, and there will be a greater need for more intensive functional planning and action by county government. FLUE, pages 6-7. Part of the difficulty in matching population growth with public facilities has been due to historic land use patterns. The Data and Analysis note: There are very few compact centers where commercial and residential uses interact positively in unincorporated Hillsborough County. Threshold population densities needed to support many services do not exist in most parts of the County. The cost of providing services such as water, sewer, roads, mass transit, schools, fire and police protection are much higher per capita in low density areas than in more urban areas. Concentration of new development in areas with adequate levels of service for public facilities will create a more effective and efficient utilization of man-made and natural resources and encourage the full use and immediate expansion of existing public facilities while protecting large areas of the natural environment from encroachment. The concentration of new development in areas with adequate levels of service will also fulfill the requirement of subsection 9J-5.006(3)(b)7 to discourage urban sprawl. FLUE, page 7. Protection of Natural Resources Under Plan The Data and Analysis link effective land use planning with the protection of the County's natural resources and preservation of County residents' quality of life: . . . growth will continue to challenge and threaten the natural environment as daily development decisions confront the long-range need to preserve and protect irreplaceable natural environmental systems. Unplanned, rapid population growth will degrade the unincorporated county's environment. Development will encroach upon valuable wellfields and wildlife habitat and may further pollute the County's freshwater aquifers. One of the County's major needs is to assure the protection and viability of green open spaces and environmentally significant areas, which are crucial to the community's quality of life and economic health. The unincorporated County's potential to maintain and improve the quality of life for its residents will be contingent upon its ability to adequately serve existing and future demands for services. FLUE, page 7. 6. Protection of Agriculture Under Plan The Data and Analysis contain a position paper concerning agricultural issues. The paper reports that agriculture is the County's single largest industry, and Hillsborough County is the third largest agricultural county in the state. According to the position paper, the trend in agriculture in Hillsborough County has been toward increased productivity through improved technology and transition to the production of more profitable commodities. The position paper argues that the viability of agriculture is not dependent upon the maintenance of low residential densities to discourage the conversion of agricultural land to residential uses. Advocating reliance upon free-market forces to maintain the competitiveness between agricultural and residential uses, the position paper concedes that a density of one dwelling unit per five acres is "not low enough to discourage sale of the property for five acre ranchettes[, which] promote high consumption of land for housing and remove the land for agricultural production." FLUE Background Document, page XLVII. Plan Provisions The FLUM The subject cases present two problems regarding the FLUM. The first problem is to identify what constitutes the FLUM. The second problem is to determine the significance of one of the major designations on the FLUM: Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In its proposed recommended order, the County asserts that the FLUM consists of a series of maps. 9/ This assertion is groundless. Neither the Plan nor the adoption ordinance provides any basis whatsoever for finding that the FLUM comprises all of the maps and figures contained in Sierra Club Exhibit A local government must adopt operative provisions, such as a FLUM or goals, objectives, or policies. Hillsborough County did not adopt all of the Oversized Maps or the maps and figures in the two-volume compilation of the Plan. Hillsborough County adopted the Plan in Ordinance No. 89-28. The ordinance delineates the scope of the operative provisions of the Plan by noting that the Data and Analysis, or "background information," are not part of the operative provisions of the Plan: Material identified as background information in the Table of Contents for each Element, including data, analysis, surveys and studies, shall not be deemed a part of the Comprehensive Plan as provided in Subsection 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes. The Plan clearly includes among its operative provisions a FLUM. Several provisions describe the role of the FLUM and, in so doing, help identify what the County adopted as the FLUM. In the Introduction to the FLUE, the Data and Analysis state: "The policies of [the FLUE] are presented in written form, and they are graphically represented on the Future Land Use Map." FLUE, page 5. The Data and Analysis elaborate: The [FLUE] consists of two parts: Goals, Objectives and Policies; and a Future Land Use Map (Land Use Graphic), a copy of which is attached, and incorporated hereby by reference. FLUE, page 11. Operative provisions of the Plan likewise recognize the FLUM and its role as part of the operative provisions of the Plan. For instance, the Plan Implementation section of the FLUE begins: The primary tool of implementation for the [FLUE] are the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Plan Categories. These are followed by other implementation tools that further define the intent of the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Plan Categories. They include: locational criteria for neighborhood commercial uses; criteria for development within designated scenic corridors; and density credits. The Future Land Use Map is a graphic illustration of the county's policy governing the determination of its pattern of development in the unincorporated areas of Hillsborough County through the year 2010. The map is adopted for use as an integral part of the [FLUE]. It depicts, using colors, patterns, and symbols, the locations of certain land uses and man-made features and the general boundaries of major natural features. The Future Land Use Map shall be used to make an initial determination regarding the permissible locations for various land uses and the maximum possible levels of residential densities and/or non-residential intensities, subject to any special density provisions and exceptions of the [FLUE] text. Additionally, each regulation or regulatory decision and each development proposal shall comply with all applicable provisions within the . . . Plan. FLUE, page 54. The Legal Status of the Plan section of the FLUE adds: The Future Land Use Map is an integral part of this [FLUE], and it shall be used to determine the permissible locations for various land uses and the maximum possible levels of residential densities and/or non- residential intensities. The goals, objectives and policies of this [FLUE] shall provide guidance in making these determinations. FLUE, page 129. The FLUM at least includes a multicolor map entitled 2010 Land Use Plan Map. The multicolor map depicts the location of various future land uses, man-made features, and natural resources. The importance of the multicolor map is underscored by its relatively large scale of 1" = 1 mile. The only maps drawn on such a large scale are a black and white copy of the multicolor map and a green map, which is discussed below. The Oversized Maps discussed in this recommended order are drawn to a scale of 1" = 2 miles. The question remains, however, whether the FLUM includes maps or figures in addition to the multicolor map. The FLUE defines the FLUM as: The graphic aid intended to depict the spatial distribution of various uses of the land in the County by land use category, subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and the exceptions and provisions of the [FLUE] text and applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 137. Consistent with the discussion of the FLUM contained in the Plan Implementation section of the FLUE, the multicolor map is the only map that depicts future land uses by colors, patterns, and symbols. No other map uses colors except for CARE Figure 20, which is the Natural Systems and Land Use Cover Inventory. CARE Figure 20 is obviously an ELUM with no designation of future land uses. With the exception of the green map discussed below, no other map uses any color whatsoever. The above-cited Plan references to the FLUM are in the singular. The FLUM is identified in the singular throughout the Data and Analysis set forth in the two-volume compilation of the Plan. See, e.g., FLUE pages 55, 56, 69, 70, 75, 94, and 137. 10/ With one exception, operative provisions of the Plan also refer to the FLUM in the singular. See, e.g., FLUE Policies A-3.2, B- 6.2, B- 6.7, B-7.9, and C-31 and Coastal Policy 7.1. But see CARE Policy 19.8, which requires the County to identify "Resource Protection Areas" on the Future Land Use Map "series." DCA referred to a single FLUM when DCA issued the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) concerning the Plan as first transmitted. The County prepared detailed responses to the objections, recommendations, and comments. Three responses refer at length to the FLUM and refer to it in the singular, rather than as a map series. Hillsborough County Exhibit 35, responses 4, 8, and 26. Response 29 to the ORC answers the objection that the FLUM (in the singular) omits existing and planned waterwells, the cones of influence for such waterwells, and wetlands. The response states: Cones of influence have not been identified for Hillsborough County. Objective 5 of the [CARE] and its subsequent policies outline the County's strategy with regard to protecting its wellfields. Because of the multitude of wetlands in Hillsborough County and the lack of exact mapping capability, the "E" area on the land use plan map is indicative of major areas of hydric soils (per USDA Soil Conservation Services, Soil Suitability Atlas for Hillsborough County, Florida) of a scale to be seen on the map. Actual wetlands must be delineated by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County prior to site development. Minerals and Soils are indicated on Figures 9 and 10 of the [CARE] of the Plan. The rest of the parameters will all be included on the revised existing land use map. Despite the confusion in the last two sentences of the response between the nature of ELUM's and FLUM's, the response is consistent in its presumption of a single FLUM, rather than a map series. Until the commencement of Plan litigation, 11/ the County did not consider the FLUM to be more than the multicolor map. Repeatedly, the County had opportunities--outside of the Plan and adoption ordinance--to identify the FLUM. Repeatedly, the County did not confer the FLUM status upon any map other than the multicolor map. Oversized Map 18 is an important example of the Plan identifying a map, but not adopting it as part of the FLUM. Describing Oversized Map 18, CARE Policy 5.8 states: By 1993, the County shall have developed and implemented a comprehensive wellfield protection program, which includes but is not limited to the determination and mapping of zones of contribution (also known as cones of influence) surrounding public wellfields and the adoption and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance which protects these areas. In the interim, the County shall use the best available information to identify these areas. See map 18, Interim Wellfield Protection Areas . . .. CARE Policy 5.8 assigns Oversized Map 18 to the Data and Analysis, rather than the operative part of the Plan. The County's intent to relegate Oversized Map 18 to the Data and Analysis is restated in the March 14, 1990, cover letter from the County Planning Director transmitting the settlement amendments to DCA. The letter states: "The documents are incorporated by reference for background for informational purposes only." Oversized Map 18 is the first of the listed documents. The Plan deals similarly with other maps and figures; as better information becomes available, the graphic aids that are part of the Data and Analysis may change--without the requirement of a Plan amendment. For example, CARE Policy 5.2 mentions the DRASTIC maps, which indicate areas susceptible to groundwater contamination. In language similar to CARE Policy 5.8, Policy 5.2 states that the County will use the "best available information" concerning groundwater contamination areas and then mentions the graphic aid. Another possible FLUM is a black-and-white map with green and dotted green areas on a scale of 1" = 1 mile. The green colors are overlaid on a black-and-white version of the multicolor map. The green map contains a special legend for the green areas. The solid green areas depict "Environmentally Sensitive Areas." The dotted green areas depict "Environmentally Sensitive Areas Which Are Potentially Significant Wildlife Habitat." Notwithstanding the many references to the FLUM in the singular, the Plan anticipates the possible amendment of the FLUM or the addition of an overlay to show the location of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. CARE Policy 14.2 states: By 1991, the County shall identify and map natural plant communities which are determined to provide significant wildlife habitat in Hillsborough County. The natural systems and land use cover inventory map ([CARE] Figure 20), produced by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, shall serve as the basis for this effort. Areas of significant wildlife habitat shall be indicated as environmentally sensitive areas on the Future Land Use Map or map overlay. The green map may be the map or overlay promised by CARE Policy 14.2. 12/ However, for purposes of these cases, the green map is not part of the FLUM. The green map had not been adopted by August 1, 1991, or even by the time of the final hearing. Transcript, pages 1095 and 1105; County's Proposed Recommended Order, Paragraph 180. In view of the considerable confusion surrounding the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, as explained below, it would be unfair to overlook this fact and treat the green map as part of the operative provisions of the Plan. Because of the clear understanding that the Plan included only amendments through August 1, 1991, the parties presumably did not take the opportunity to litigate the significance of the designations contained on the green map. Even though the County did not adopt the green map as part of the FLUM, for the purpose of these cases, it remains necessary to consider the effect of the Environmentally Significant Areas designation. The designation is found on the multicolor map (i.e., the FLUM) as well as the green map. Also, the green map is an important part of the Data and Analysis. The problem is to determine what does it mean for an area to bear the designation of Environmentally Significant Areas. Part of the confusion surrounding the Environmentally Significant Areas designation is due to its dual nature as an overlay, like Scenic Corridors, and underlying designation, like Suburban Density Residential or Light Industrial. An overlay typically depicts an area that, notwithstanding its underlying designation, is subject to special land use conditions in the Plan. Any underlying designation may and usually is subject to other provisions of a comprehensive plan, but an overlay ensures that these conditions are not overlooked and may elevate them in importance. The Environmentally Significant Areas designation on the multicolor map is never an overlay. For each area on the multicolor map designated Environmentally Significant Areas, there is no other designation. For this reason alone, the Environmentally Significant Areas designation itself should regulate land uses in some meaningful fashion; otherwise, areas so designated would lack generally applicable guidelines concerning permissible densities and intensities. However, according to the County Planning Director, the Environmentally Significant Areas does not regulate land uses. The Planning Director prepared a cover letter dated September 4, 1991, to DCA accompanying the first round of Plan amendments in 1991. The letter explains why the County was amending the Plan to redesignate certain County-owned, environmentally sensitive land from Environmentally Significant Areas to Natural Preservation. The letter states: We still recommend that these areas be changed to Natural/Preservation, since the "E" [Environmentally Significant Areas] designation is an identification only land use category to indicate that environmentally sensitive lands may be located on site. However, that category in and of itself does not regulate land uses on a site. The Natural/Preservation category is very restrictive and does not permit development on a site. Sierra Club Exhibit 1. From the letter, it appears that the County's intent was to use the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation merely to indicate the general location of critical natural resources, rather than to assign specific densities and intensities. In other words, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation was to be merely an overlay showing some of the natural resources required by Chapter 9J-5 to be shown on the FLUM. If any land use restrictions applied to land with an Environmentally Sensitive Areas overlay, the Planning Director's letter implies that the restrictions were not imposed by textual Plan provisions defining land uses under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation. Under this interpretation, land use restrictions could be imposed by textual Plan provisions that, although never mentioning Environmentally Sensitive Areas, govern natural resources included within such areas, such as wetlands, wildlife habitat, or sand pine scrub habitat. Clearly, the Planning Director is correct in writing that one purpose of the Environmentally Significant Areas designation is to indicate the location of environmentally sensitive lands. The real question is whether the Planning Director is correct in his assertion that the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is merely locational and not regulatory. This would mean that all of the land designated Environmentally Significant Areas on the multicolor map bears only a designation indicative of the location of certain natural resources, but lacks an effective, generalized land use designation. The Plan defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas; in fact, it does so twice. The CARE defines "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" as: Lands which, by virtue of some qualifying environmental characteristic (e.g. wildlife habitat) are regulated by either the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, or any other governmental agency empowered by law for such regulation. These include Conservation and Preservation Areas as defined in the [CARE]. CARE, page 97. The CARE defines "Conservation Areas" as: Environmentally sensitive areas which include the following: --Natural shorelines (other than those included in preservation areas); --Class III Waters; --Freshwater marshes and wet prairies; --Sand-pine scrub; --Hardwood swamps; --Cypress swamps; --Significant wildlife habitat. CARE, page 96. The CARE defines "Preservation Areas" as: Environmentally sensitive areas which include the following: --Aquatic preserves; --Essential wildlife habitat; --Class I and II Waters: --Marine grassbeds; --Coastal strand; --Coastal marshes; --Mangrove swamps; and --State wilderness areas. CARE, page 99. "Significant wildlife habitat" is "[c]ontiguous stands of natural plant communities which have the potential to support healthy and diverse populations of wildlife and which have been identified on the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission natural systems and land use cover inventory map." CARE, page 100. "Essential Wildlife Habitat" is "[l]and or water bodies which, through the provision of breeding or feeding habitat, are necessary to the survival of endangered or threatened species, or species of special concern." CARE, page 97. The FLUE defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas as: This land use category is used to designate those major, privately owned lands which are environmentally sensitive. These areas include Conservation Areas and Preservation Areas, as defined in the [CARE]. Development in these areas may be is [sic] restricted by federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations. Development projects will be evaluated for compliance with the [CARE] and [Coastal Element]. The Environmentally Sensitive Area designations on the Future Land Use Plan map are very generalized, and include primarily wetland areas. The designations are not exhaustive of all sites. On-site evaluation will be necessary for specific project review. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the [FLUE], [CARE], and [Coastal Element], applicable development regulations, and established locational criteria for specific land use. FLUE, page 136-37. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE 13/ does not repeat the typographical error in the preceding Plan provision, in which the Plan warns that development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas "may be is" restricted by federal, state, or local law. The definition of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation in the Land Use Plan Categories section omits the "is," implying more strongly that some development may take place on Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE, page 126. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE equates in two respects the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation with the Natural Preservation, Scenic Corridors, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations. In each of these five designations, residential densities and commercial or industrial intensities (expressed as maximum floor area ratios) are "not applicable." For the Natural Preservation, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations, the "not applicable" statement reflects the fact that residential, commercial, and industrial uses are prohibited by the land use designation in question. However, for the Scenic Corridors designation, which operates more as an overlay, the Plan provides no such prohibition, instead requiring special attention to aesthetic features of development in these areas. Thus, the "not applicable" language applicable to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not answer the question whether the designation is regulatory or merely locational and, if the former, what land uses are thereby regulated and how. The question whether the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation operates as a locational overlay, as suggested by the Planning Director's letter of September 4, 1991, seems to be answered by the Table of Residential Densities in the Implementation section of the FLUE. For the Scenic Corridor designation, the Table of Residential Densities indicates that the maximum residential density allowed is, instead of a ratio, "Overlay--Scaled to Area." But for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the Table of Residential Densities states that "no residential uses [are] allowed" for Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE, page 62. The Table of Residential Densities gives the same response for the Natural Preservation, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations. The failure of the Table of Residential Densities to assign any residential density to Environmentally Sensitive Areas is not inadvertent. The Data and Analysis indicate that, in calculating density allocations, the vast acreage designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas was not given any residential density. In the FLUE Background Document at page XXVIII, a table listing all of the FLUM designations shows no density for the 81,880 acres of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which account for 13.64% of acreage of the County and is the second largest designation following 89,267 acres designated Agricultural/Rural. The density allocation table preceding page XXX contains no entry for Environmentally Sensitive Areas, although much if not all of the area so designated is vacant (or as the County classifies land, vacant or agricultural). The omission of residential uses in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as contained in the Table of Residential Densities, suggests that the designation carries a regulatory force beyond the locational character identified by the Planning Director in his letter of September 4, 1991. Natural resources included within the definition of Environmentally Sensitive Areas are wetlands, sand pine scrub, wildlife habitat essential for the breeding or nesting of endangered, threatened, or special-concern species, and contiguous stands of natural plant communities with the potential to support healthy and diverse communities of wildlife. Some of these natural resources are not themselves unconditionally protected by textual Plan provisions. But if the Environmentally Sensitive Areas containing these natural resources are not assigned any residential uses, as the Table of Residential Densities implies, then the designation itself must preclude the conversion of these sensitive areas to residential uses. On the other hand, the textual Plan provisions contemplate some development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas because of various provisions requiring compensatory replacement following the loss of the natural resources to development. Despite implying that development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas may be permitted, as long as it complies with Plan provisions, the Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE states that the typical use of areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas is "Conservation." Although not the same typical use as that set forth for Natural Preservation areas, which are limited to "Open space or passive nature parks," the definition of "Conservation Uses" is restrictive: Activities within land areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources of environmental quality and includes areas designated for such purposes as flood control, protection of quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, floodplain management, fisheries management, or protection of vegetative communities or wildlife habitat. FLUE, page 135. At times in the Plan, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation appears to be merely locational. At times, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation appears to be regulatory. In the latter case, portions of the Plan suggest that the designation prohibits development, and portions of the Plan suggest only that the designation, standing alone, carries with it some degree of protection from development. FLUE Policy A-8.2 says as much: "Development shall be required to protect the Conservation and Preservation areas " But even if the Plan were interpreted to impose a regulatory functional upon the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the failure of the Plan to specify clearly the land use restrictions generally applicable to the designation leaves open to doubt the land uses permitted on over 13% of Hillsborough County. And if some residential development were permitted in areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, then the density allocation ratios have been calculated without regard to the density-bearing capacity of over 13% of the County. The FLUE definition of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which states that development "may be is" restricted in such areas, may represent a unique, though inadvertent, disclosure of the County's ambivalence toward the degree of protection to extend to Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Perhaps in the belief that land use restrictions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas would emanate from federal, state, regional, or even other local governmental entities, 14/ the County has left to speculation the meaning of the critically important Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation. The only clear significance of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is the role of areas bearing such a designation in calculating residential densities or commercial or industrial intensities. The acreage on which residential densities are calculated does not generally include Conservation or Preservation Areas or water bodies. (As noted above, Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation "include[s]" Conservation and Preservation Areas.) But the calculation of gross residential density may include acreage consisting of certain man-made waterbodies and certain Conservation and Preservation Areas. The qualification for Conservation and Preservation Areas is that the maximum area of such land (or wetland) is 25% of the total residential acreage. FLUE, pages 64-66. A similar provision applies for the calculation of floor area ratios or gross nonresidential intensity. FLUE, pages 67- 68. Illustrations in the FLUE apply the density formula described in the preceding paragraph. For example, if the proposed project consists of 80 acres, including 20 acres of land (or wetland) designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the total acreage upon which residential densities could be calculated would be 75 acres. This result is reached by starting with the 60 acres of proposed residential use that are not designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Twenty-five percent of 60 acres is 15 acres, which is the maximum acreage designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas that is eligible to be included in the calculation of gross residential density. The designation given the 60 acres would allow a density, such as 4:1, which, when applied to 75 acres, yields 300 dwelling units. The implied presumption of the density formula--stated nowhere in the Plan--is that areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas acquire their actual land use restrictions, in terms of densities or intensities, from the adjoining lands. The intent of the density credit allowed for areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas is to protect the subject natural resources. FLUE Policy A-8.4 provides for density credits for development that is "sensitive to, preserves and maintains the integrity of wetlands [and] significant wildlife habitat." Again, though, the degree and type of protection are unclear. The density formula may be interpreted to prohibit inferentially any disturbance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In other words, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas acreage used in calculating the density bonus or perhaps the entire Environmentally Sensitive Areas acreage (even if some acreage were excluded from the calculation due to the 25% limitation) could not be disturbed by development. However, another interpretation is possible. The density formula, which is mandatorily imposed on all proposed projects containing Environmentally Sensitive Areas, does not, by its terms, prescribe where the resulting development is to be located. In the example above, the density formula effectively reduced the density of a project by 20 dwelling units (80 acres X 4 vs. 75 acres X 4). But the formula does not explicitly prohibit the location of some of the 300 permitted units in areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 15/ If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not prohibit development, some degree of protection would be theoretically possible by reducing the actual density occupying the parcel containing Environmentally Sensitive Areas while still not actually prohibiting the location of dwelling units on all Environmentally Sensitive Areas. It is difficult to infer from the density formula whether the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is intended to prohibit the development of areas so designated or, if not, to what extent the designation restricts development of such areas. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not regulate land uses so as to prohibit the development of areas so designated, the formula provides some protection to Environmentally Sensitive Areas by increasing the chance that such areas may be less densely populated, but also supplies the basis on which densities or intensities for areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas are to be inferred. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation regulates land uses so as to prohibit the development of areas so designated, the formula can be interpreted as providing some compensation by allowing the use of some of the foregone development rights in adjoining areas under common ownership that are not designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The question whether the density formula, as well as the closely related intensity formula, prohibit the development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas can be approached by considering another density formula. The upland forest density credit incentive, which is identified in FLUE Policy A-8.3, is described in detail in the Implementation section of the FLUE. The failure of the density formula, as well as the intensity formula, to prohibit the disturbance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas stands in contrast to the protection extended by the upland forest density credit incentive. The upland forest density credit incentive provides a bonus of 25% more density than otherwise allowed by a specific designation to the extent of the upland forest 16/ acreage preserved by the project. In other words, a 100-acre parcel designated at 1:1 might include 25 acres of upland forests within the single residential designation covering the entire 100 acres. If the proposed project preserved the 25 acres of upland forest from development, the 25 dwelling units attributable to the 25 acres are increased to 31.25 dwelling units and raise the total number of dwelling units to 106.25. Unlike the density and intensity formulas, the upland forest density credit incentive requires the landowner to record a conservation easement for the 25 acres of upland forest, so that this land may never be developed. FLUE, pages 71-73. The different approaches of the density and intensity formulas, on the one hand, and the upland forest density credit incentive, on the other hand, may arise partly from the fact that the latter formula is an incentive for which a landowner may qualify voluntarily. Upland forests would generally not be preserved by the Plan in the absence of the utilization of the upland forest density credit incentive. Regardless of their effect in preserving Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the density and intensity formulas are not optional; they are imposed whenever a proposed development contains Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Part of the discussion of the upland forest density incentive credit may shed some light on the meaning of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, especially as it concerns the density and intensity formulas. The upland forest density incentive credit repeatedly refers to the density formula as involving wetlands or the protection of wetlands. Although wetlands make up a substantial part of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, numerous uplands also qualify as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Qualifying uplands include significant and essential wildlife habitat, as well as sand pine scrub (which is also included as an upland forest). Possibly the County incorrectly assumed that the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation was limited to wetlands, or perhaps the designation was so limited in an earlier draft of the Plan. In either event, the County may have assumed that federal, state, regional, and other local restrictions against disturbing wetlands would effectively prevent the development of such Environmentally Sensitive Areas, or at least clearly regulate the extent to which such areas could be disturbed. As noted above, however, the Plan itself must supply such regulation through a generalized land use designation. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is poorly integrated into the Plan. Plan provisions, including the density and intensity formulas, repeatedly address "wetlands" or "Conservation" or "Preservation" Areas, rather than Environmentally Sensitive Areas. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation were not intended to regulate land uses and prohibit all development, but were merely locational as indicated by the Planning Director, then the Plan is deficient in failing to assign a regulatory land use designation to over 80,000 acres, or 13.64%, of the County. For these vast areas, in any event, the Plan provides no direct, and arguably not even any indirect, guidance as to what densities or intensities are permitted on Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from the Plan concerning that Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is that it is, at least, locational. The designation shows where Conservation and Preservation Areas are located. The designation also serves to provide some protection to Environmentally Sensitive Areas through the density and intensity formulas. However, it may not be reasonably concluded that the density and intensity formulas prohibit the destruction of Environmentally Sensitive Areas by development. Nor can it be reasonably concluded that other provisions of the Plan preserve Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as such, from destruction or alteration by development. The full extent of the meaning of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is lost in ambiguity. The FLUM does not identify existing and future potable water wellfields. The FLUM fails even to show the location of existing major public supply wellfields, as depicted in CARE Figure 18 and Oversized Map 18. The FLUM does not identify cones of influence for the existing wellfields to the extent known. Figures 32 and 33 of Sierra Club Exhibit 12 pertain to four wellfields located entirely in Hillsborough County and two wellfields located partly in the County. For these wellfields, which are located in the northern part of the County, Figures 32 and 33 respectively portray a wide-ranging decline in water table elevations and potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer due to wellfield pumpage. This information corresponds to drawdown depth of the source from which each wellfield draws its water. Even if these data sources are rejected in favor of the much more limited 200-foot protection zones outlined in Oversized Map 18, the County has failed to adopt Oversized Map 18 as part of the FLUM, as described in the preceding section. The FLUM does not identify historic resources or historically significant properties meriting protection. Oversized Maps 11 and 12 depict respectively Archaeological Sites and Historic Resources. However, these maps are not part of the FLUM. The FLUM does not depict the 100 year floodplain. Oversized Map 9 depicts the 100 year floodplain, massive amounts of which lie outside the future land use designations of Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Natural Preservation. But Oversized Map 9 is not part of the FLUM. The FLUM does not depict the minerals and soils of the County, except to the extent that minerals are contained in a general land use designation. CARE Figure 9 depicts soils and mine pits. Oversized Maps 8 and 10 also depict soils and mine lands. However, these maps are not part of the FLUM. The FLUM depicts wetlands. The designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the FLUM (i.e., the multicolor map) includes wetlands. The FLUM depicts public facilities under the category of Major Public/Semi-Public and Electric Power Generating Facilities. The former category shows the location of, among other things, "churches, hospitals, schools, clubs and utility and transportation facilities." FLUE, page 122. The Plan Natural Resources CARE Objective 2 is: By 1995, the water quality of natural surface water bodies in Hillsborough County which do not meet or exceed state water quality standards for their designated use shall be improved or restored. CARE Policy 2.1 provides: The County shall not support the reclassification of any surface water body within County boundaries to acknowledge lower water quality conditions, unless necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. Where economically feasible, the County shall support the reclassification of surface water bodies to accommodate higher standards, where it can be demonstrated that improved water quality conditions will prevail in the future. The CARE defines "economically feasible" as follows: "Where the benefit to the public outweighs the cost of the action, and is within the County's capability to fund." CARE, page 96. CARE Policy 2.2 addresses the problem of wastewater discharges: The County shall require that all domestic wastewater treatment plans discharging effluent into Tampa Bay or its tributaries provide advanced wastewater treatment, or if specific alternative criteria developed by the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program can only be met by removing a surface water discharge, such a program shall be implemented, where economically feasible and in accordance with Policy 2.3 below. CARE Policy 2.3 requires the County to "continue to develop and promote environmentally acceptable effluent disposal alternatives to surface water discharge, including, but not limited to, reuse for irrigation and industrial purposes." Dealing with the problem of short-term solutions to sewage disposal, CARE Policy 2.4 states: To reduce the need for interim domestic wastewater treatment plants, the County shall plan for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities to serve areas designated for higher densities in the . . . Plan. CARE Policy 2.6 provides that, "where economically feasible," the County "shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to developed areas where persistent water quality problems are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic treatment systems." CARE Policy 2.7 further addresses the issue of septic tanks by providing that, by 1990, the County shall "request or initiate" agreements with third parties to develop "scientifically defensible siting criteria, performance standards, and density limitations for septic systems, to ensure protection of surface water quality." The policy adds that the County shall "request . . . special criteria and standards . . . for those septic systems to be located in areas adjacent to Class I and Class II Waters and Outstanding Florida Waters." The policy concludes with the promise that, within one year after the development of the criteria and standards, the County "shall amend appropriate development regulations" accordingly. CARE Policy 2.8 provides in part: Where economically and environmentally feasible, [a nutrient monitoring and control program for agriculture to be developed after 1995] shall require the implementation of Best Management Practices for controlling nutrient loadings, including retrofitting if needed to meet specific alternative criteria as established by the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program. The CARE defines "environmentally feasible" as follows: "Where the physical conditions or the necessity to protect natural resources do not preclude the action." CARE, page 97. CARE Policy 2.10 states: By 1991, the County shall require that existing developments planned for expansion, modification or replacement provide or support stormwater treatment improvements within the affected drainage basin where treatment facilities are lacking. Where economically and environmentally feasible, the County shall require retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities in urbanized areas lacking such facilities. CARE Objective 3 is "no net loss of wetland acreage." The objective requires the County to "seek to achieve a measurable annual increase in restored wetland acreage," which shall be achieved by 1995 "through the restoration of degraded natural wetlands, until all economically and environmentally feasible wetland restoration is accomplished." CARE Policy 3.1 states that the County shall "continue to conserve and protect wetlands from detrimental physical and hydrological alteration and shall continue to allow wetland encroachment only as a last resort when reasonable use of the property is otherwise unavailable." CARE Policy 3.2 provides in part: Channelization or hardening (e.g., paving, piping) of natural streamcourses shall be prohibited except in cases of overriding public interest. The CARE defines "overriding public interest" as: "Actions required by local, state, or federal government, necessary for the promotion of public safety, health or general welfare." CARE, page 99. CARE Policy 3.6 is for the County to continue to promote through the development review process the use of desirable native wetland habitat species for the creation of wetland habitat and for biologically enhancing filtration and treatment of pollutants in newly constructed stormwater retention and detention ponds. CARE Objective 4 is: The County shall continue to prevent net loss of 100-year floodplain storage volume in Hillsborough County. By 1995, the County shall protect and conserve natural wildlife habitat attributes where they exist within the 100-year floodplains of major rivers and streams. CARE Policy 4.1 is for the County to amend its floodplain management regulations to "protect natural floodwater assimilating capacity [and] also protect fish and wildlife attributes where they exist within the 100-year floodplains of riverine systems." CARE Objective 5 is for the County to ensure compliance with state groundwater standards. CARE Policy 5.2 provides that, until the Southwest Florida Water Management District maps high aquifer recharge/contamination potential areas at a sufficient resolution, the County shall consider the best available hydrogeological information (e.g. SWFWMD DRASTIC maps), and may require the collection of site specific hydrogeologic data, such as soils borings and differences in head between the upper aquifers, when assessing the impacts of proposed land use changes and developments in areas of suspected high aquifer recharge/contamination potential. When required, this information shall be used in the determination of land use decisions, on a case-by-case basis. CARE Policy 5.5 refers to the high resolution mapping of recharge/contamination areas, as well as a study that the County will request the Southwest Florida Water Management District to conduct as to the effect of impervious surfaces on recharge. The policy states that, within one year after these tasks are completed: The County shall develop a comprehensive set of land use development regulations and performance standards for development activities proposed within areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential. Such regulations and performance standards may include, but not be limited to, control of land use type and densities, impervious surface limitations, and discharge to groundwater controls. CARE Policy 5.8 focuses on a wellfield protection program, which shall be "developed and implemented" by 1993. The task shall include the "determination and mapping of zones of contribution (also known as cones of influence) surrounding public wellfields and the adoption and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance which protects these areas." In the meantime, CARE Policy 5.8 requires the County to use the best available information to identify these areas [cones of influence]. See map 18, Interim Wellfield Protection Areas for Public Water Supply Wells in Unincorporated Hillsborough County, Florida (Zones of Contribution Map). The County shall also adopt and implement an interim ordinance which sets forth a procedure, using the best available information, for reviewing development proposals which might adversely impact the zones of contribution surrounding public wellfields. CARE Policy 5.9 states: Through the land development review process, the County shall continue to regulate activities which would breach the confining layers of the Floridan aquifer by prohibiting land excavations that would breach the confining layers. CARE Policy 5.11 is identical to CARE Policy 2.7 except that CARE Policy 5.11 deals with groundwater pollution, rather than surface water pollution, and CARE Policy 5.11 provides that the County shall request the development of special septic-tank siting criteria and standards for areas of "demonstrated high recharge/contamination potential." CARE Policy 5.13 is for the County to "increase requested assistance" from the Southwest Florida Water Management District to ensure that excessive consumptive use of groundwater or excessive drainage does not "significantly lower water tables or surface water levels, reduce base flows, or increase current levels of saltwater intrusion." CARE Policy 5.15 prohibits the County from supporting the use of deep-well injection of effluent or waste disposal "except where it can be demonstrated that the capacity for receiving injection is sufficiently large and that such disposal will have no adverse effect upon existing or potential potable water aquifers." CARE Objective 6 is for the County to meet future water needs through the "conservation, reuse, and enhancement of groundwater and surface water supplies, and shall prevent significant environmental degradation due to excessive groundwater withdrawals." CARE Policy 6.1 is for the County to request that the Southwest Florida Water Management District and WCRWSA develop a regional water budget to calculate more accurately water supplies and demands. CARE Policy 6.2 is for the County, by 1992, to "adopt and implement a Water Reuse Ordinance which maximizes the use of treated sewage effluent for residential and recreational irrigation purposes, where such reuse can be demonstrated to be environmentally acceptable and no threat to public health." CARE Policy 6.4 is: The County shall require the use of the lowest quality water reasonably and feasibly available, which is safe for public health and the environment and suitable to a given use, in order to reduce the unnecessary use of potable water. CARE Policy 6.8 is for the County, by 1992, to develop, in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, a water conservation program, including enforcement of specific building code requirements for water saving devices. CARE Policy 6.9 is for the County, by 1992, to evaluate the implementation of a user fee rate for potable water in order to discourage nonessential uses of potable water. CARE Policy 6.10 requires that the County, "through the land development review process, restrict the substantial lowering of the water table to meet stormwater treatment or storage requirements." CARE 6.11 requires that the County, "through the land development review process, . . . promote the use of xeriscape landscaping and low-volume irrigation " CARE Policy 6.12 is for the County, by 1995, to develop legal and financial mechanisms "to purchase, to the extent reasonably feasible, development or mineral rights, easements and partial or complete title to lands necessary to safeguard the public water supply." Suggested mechanisms include the transfer of development rights and tax benefits. CARE Policy 6.13 addresses groundwater recharge and stormwater management: By 1992, a program to improve groundwater recharge through the use of private and public stormwater management facilities will be developed and implemented. This program may require, among other things, that predevelopment groundwater recharge volumes and rates be maintained on site after development, if the site is located in an area of known or identified average annual aquifer recharge potential of at least two surface inches of water; and will include restrictions on the lowering of groundwater levels to meet stormwater management regulations. In the interim, where practical, and where feasible from a water quality standpoint, new development will be encouraged to consider retention of stormwater rather than stormwater detention in these areas. CARE Objective 7 is for the County to "continue to provide opportunity for and require the prudent operation of mining activities " CARE Policy 7.1 requires "sequential land use" in mineral-rich areas. The CARE defines "sequential land use" as "[a] practice whereby lands overlaying valuable mineral resources are protected from intensive urban development until such minerals can be mined, and that land reclaimed for a viable economic use." CARE Policy 7.2 requires the "phasing of mineral extraction to ensure that limited land areas are affected by excavation and settling ponds at one time and that reclamation occurs in the most effective manner." CARE Policy 8.1 requires the County, by 1991, to "identify environmentally sensitive areas which are not capable of being effectively restored following mineral extraction." CARE Policy 8.2 provides: The County shall restrict mining in areas which are ecologically unsuitable for the extraction of minerals, as identified in the natural systems and land use cover inventory, unless it can be demonstrated that such areas can be effectively restored utilizing the best available technology. CARE Policy 8.3 states: The County shall continue to prohibit mineral extraction within the 25-year floodplain, and shall restrict mining activities in the 100- year floodplain, of rivers and streams. CARE Policy 8.4 is: By 1992, the County shall prohibit mineral extraction in essential wildlife habitats which are documented, in accordance with the terms of Objective 14 and related policies thereunder, to support threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern, and from which such species cannot be effectively relocated. CARE Policies 8.5 and 8.6 require the use of the best available technology in restoring natural land forms and vegetative communities and minimizing natural resource impacts. CARE Policy 8.8 provides that the County shall continue to require proof of "long-term financial responsibility for the reclamation of mined lands." CARE Objective 9 requires the County to "protect the public health, safety and welfare from the adverse impacts of mining activities." CARE Policy 9.1 is for the continued requirement of "appropriate setbacks" between mining and adjacent land uses. CARE Objective 10 is for the County to "continue to regulate the location and operation of land excavation to minimize negative impacts on surrounding properties, ensure that land excavations are appropriately reclaimed, and encourage the productive reuse of such areas." CARE Policy 10.1 is for the County to "continue to prohibit land excavation activities which adversely impact surface or groundwater levels on surrounding property." CARE Policy 10.2 states that the County "shall require reclamation and reuse plans to ensure environmentally acceptable and economically viable reuses of land excavations." CARE Policy 10.3 demands that the County, by 1993, require the "preparation of wetland/lake management plans for the reclamation of land excavation projects to be reclaimed as lakes to ensure that such areas become viable and productive aquatic systems." CARE Policy 10.4 is for the County to "encourage" recreational development of reclaimed land excavations. CARE Policy 10.6 states that the County shall require setbacks between land excavations and adjacent land uses to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. CARE Policy 10.7 provides that, by 1992, the County shall prohibit land excavations in "essential wildlife habitats documented in accordance with the provisions of Objective 14 as supporting endangered, threatened, [or special- concern] species and from which such species cannot be effectively relocated." CARE Objective 11 is that the County shall "continue to require soil conservation and protection during land alteration and development activities." CARE Policy 11.1 provides that, during the land development review process, the County shall "recommend" the appropriate use of soils and shall require site-specific analyses when the use appears to be incompatible with the soils. CARE Policy 11.3 states that, during the land development review process, the County shall "continue to evaluate and utilize, where appropriate, soil capability analyses for flood hazard, stability, permeability, and other relevant soil characteristics when permitting new development." CARE Objective 14 is for the County to "protect significant wildlife habitat, and . . . prevent any further net loss of essential wildlife habitat . . .." CARE Policy 14.1 promises the initiation of the development and implementation of a wildlife and wildlife habitat protection and management program. CARE Policy 14.3 requires the County, by 1993, in consultation with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, to "identify and map areas of essential wildlife habitat." CARE Policy 14.5 compels the County, by 1991, to develop and implement a program to "conserve and protect significant wildlife habitat from development activities." The program may include transfers of development rights, clustering and setback requirements, conservation easements, leaseback operations, fee simple purchases, land or mitigation banking, and tax incentives. CARE Policy 14.6 states: By 1992, the County shall restrict development activities which adversely affect areas identified and mapped as essential wildlife habitat. Where development activities are proposed in such areas the County may require site-specific wildlife surveys and other field documentation, as needed, to assess potential impacts. CARE Policy 14.7 provides: During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall consider the effects of development on significant wildlife habitat, to protect wildlife corridors from fragmentation. Where necessary to prevent fragmentation of wildlife corridors, the County shall require the preservation of wildlife corridors within developments. CARE Objective 15 states: Populations of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern occurring within Hillsborough County shall be maintained. Where feasible and appropriate, the abundance and distribution of populations of such species shall be increased. CARE Policy 15.1 is for the County, by 1991, to consult with and consider the recommendations of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in determining whether to issue development orders and, if so, what conditions to impose where development would impact endangered, threatened, or special- concern species. Conditions "shall ensure the maintenance and, where environmentally and economically feasible, increase the abundance and distribution of populations of such species." CARE Objective 16 is to "continue existing programs to minimize the spread of exotic nuisance species" and implement management plans for newly acquired natural preserve lands to reduce by 90% the extent of exotic nuisance plants. The objective requires the County to "conserve and use and continue to require the conservation and use of native plant species in the developed landscape." The objective adds that the County shall "continue to protect Conservation and Preservation Areas." CARE Policy 16.2 is for the County to "continue to require the use of native plant species in the landscaping of new development projects." Respectively addressing Conservation and Preservation Areas, CARE Policies 16.5 and 16.6 provide that, "except in cases of overriding public interest," the County shall, in the land use planning and development review processes, "protect [Conservation/Preservation] Areas from activities that would significantly damage the natural integrity, character, or ecological balance of said areas." CARE Objective 17 states: By 1995, the acreage of publicly owned or otherwise protected (through private ownership) natural preserve lands in the County shall be increased by at least 15,000 acres (which is approximately 50% more than 1988 acreage). The County shall seek to continue increasing the acreage of natural preserve lands and to ensure their protection and proper use. CARE Policy 17.1 is for the County, by 1990, to seek public approval by referendum to continue to levy an ad valorem tax for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. CARE Policy 17.6 requires the County to provide multiple-use opportunities for County-owned natural reserve lands so as to protect and conserve natural resources. CARE Policy 17.8 requires the County, during the land use planning and development review processes, to "restrict incompatible development activities adjacent to publicly owned or managed natural preserves." CARE Objective 18 provides: The County shall seek to measurably improve the management of all natural preserves within County boundaries by implementing the following policies[.] CARE Policy 18.2 is for the County to initiate with the Florida Department of Natural Resources an agreement "to ensure that the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is maintained in its essentially natural condition and protected from development that would adversely affect the environmental integrity of the Preserve." CARE Policy 18.3 is for the County to "establish a scientifically defensible protective buffer zone between the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and adjacent upland land uses to prevent degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetative habitats." CARE Policy 18.8 requires the County to "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to "fully implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan " CARE Objective 19 states: The County shall continue to amend land development regulations which ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment under all projected growth scenarios. CARE Policy 19.1 is for the County, by 1991, to initiate agreements with the Southwest Florida Water Management District or appropriate university to scientifically determine environmentally safe construction setback and buffer distances from wetlands, floodplains and water bodies (e.g. SJRWMD Wekiva River study). Within one year after completion of this study, the County shall use the results of the study to amend the County's Land Alteration and Landscaping Ordinance and Zoning Code, if such setbacks and buffer distances are determined to be warranted by the study. Until such study is completed and used to amend County ordinances, all current setbacks shall remain in effect. CARE Policy 19.2 states: By 1992, the County shall develop a comprehensive program, which may include tax incentives and transfer of development rights, to encourage the clustering of development away from environmentally sensitive areas, essential wildlife habitat or economically important agricultural or mineral resources. CARE Policy 19.3 provides: During the development review process, the County shall promote the preservation of representative examples of upland native plant communities by encouraging the use of the upland forest density credit incentive provision of the [FLUE]. CARE Policy 19.4 states that the County will consider developing a review process to provide incentives for planned unit developments that provide environmental benefits beyond what are required by law. CARE Policy 19.5 provides that the County will review its land development regulations to "better address the cumulative impact [of development] on the environment." CARE Policy 19.6 is: The County shall continue to encourage infilling and growth within identified and environmentally acceptable "activity centers," and shall discourage urban sprawl. CARE Policy 19.7 is for the County, in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, to consider adopting appropriate modifications to current land development regulations which will reduce the removal of natural upland vegetation caused by site filling and will maintain natural drainage patterns and water table levels, where feasible. CARE Policy 19.8 states: The County shall identify Resource Protection Areas on the Future Land Use Map series. Specific policy directives which provide for special protective measures for all Resource Protection Areas, except Lake Thonotosassa, are located in one or more of the following elements: [CARE], Coastal . . ., and [FLUE]. See the definition of Resource Protection areas for both general and specific policy references. Policies which provide for special protective measures specially for Lake Thonotosassa shall be developed and included in the [Plan] after completion and approval of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan for Lake Thonotosassa by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The CARE defines "Resource Protection Areas" as: Land or water bodies which are ecologically or economically significant natural resources for which special protective measures have been, or need to be established. Resource Protection Areas include the following [in each case, general citations to applicable elements of the Plan have been omitted]: --Hillsborough River and major tributaries; --Alafia River and major tributaries; --Little Manatee River and major tributaries; --Tampa Bay and associated tidal wetlands; --Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve; --Lake Thonotosassa; --Significant and essential wildlife habitat; --Areas of high aquifer recharge/ contamination potential; --Public potable water wellfields and their cones of influence; --Areas of major phosphate deposits. CARE, pages 99-100. Goal A of the Stormwater Element is to "[m]inimize the hazards of flooding attributable to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 1 is to "[e]valuate the storage and discharge characteristics of existing stormwater conveyance, detention and retention systems, and identify existing and potential future flooding concerns." Stormwater Element Policy 1.1 is to complete, by 1996, a comprehensive stormwater management master plan. Stormwater Element Objective 2 is to "[d]evelop and implement programs to control flooding attributable to, and to maximize the usefulness of, stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Policy 2.8 states: Total flood volume compensation will continue to be required for new developments which encroach into and displace 100-year flood storage or floodplain areas. Further, by [fiscal year 19]91, a program to control encroachment within 100-year flood conveyance areas will be developed and implemented. Stormwater Element Policy 2.10 provides that, by 1992, the County shall develop and implement a program to "improve groundwater recharge through the use of private and public stormwater management facilities." Stormwater Element Policy 2.11 states that new development will continue to be encouraged, through application of existing local regulations, to maintain, with minimal disturbance to natural characteristics, those streams, lakes wetlands, and estuaries for which stormwater conveyance and/or attenuation potential is significant. Stormwater Element Policy 2.15 provides: The use of detention facilities will be the preferred alternative to improving conveyance to alleviate flooding problems, where physically and environmentally practical and economically feasible. All flood control projects will seek to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, impacts to wetland habitat, water quality and groundwater recharge functions. Where impacts are unavoidable, the projects will include measures to compensate for these lost functions. Goal B of the Stormwater Element is to "[m]inimize the degradation of water quality attributed to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 4 is to "[i]dentify and evaluate the sources of water quality degradation which are related to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 5 is to "[i]mplement programs that will maintain or improve the quality of stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Policy 5.1 is to develop and begin to implement, by 1995, a program "to improve, "where economically feasible, the problem areas identified" in stormwater data- collection projects. The County will then require the use of Best Management Practices for "minimizing contributions of poor quality stormwater runoff to both groundwater and surface water bodies." Stormwater Element Policy 5.5 provides for the use of wetlands for stormwater treatment when effective pretreatment can ensure that the use of the wetlands will maintain or restore their long-term natural viability. Stormwater Element Policy 5.6 states that new stormwater management facilities may not discharge untreated stormwater runoff into the Floridan aquifer and that existing facilities that do so discharge into the Floridan aquifer will be modified where "economically feasible and physically practical." The goal of the Sewer Element is to "[p]rotect the [public] health, safety and welfare" and "protect and conserve the natural resources of Hillsborough County." Sewer Element Policy 1.1 is: Wastewater treatment facilities, prior to discharging to surface waters or natural wetlands, shall meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards. "Advanced Waste Treatment" is defined in the Sewer Element as "defined in Chapter 403.086, Florida Statutes or as amended in the future." Sewer Element, page 26. Sewer Element Policy 1.2 requires that "[w]astewater treatment facilities, prior to discharging to a managed artificial wetland or an irrigation system, shall meet or exceed Advanced Secondary Treatment Standards." "Advanced Secondary Treatment Standards" are defined as "[s]econdary waste treatment plus deep-bed dual media filtration." Sewer Element Objective 2 is to "[p]rotect and conserve the potable water resources, both groundwater and surface water, of Hillsborough County and continue to utilize and expand, where viable, existing recovered water reuse systems." Sewer Element Policy 2.1 requires later phases of developments with recovered water systems to use such systems. Sewer Element Policy 2.3 requires that, by 1992, the County implement by ordinance "mandatory recovered water reuse." Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility of existing and future sources of wastewater adversely impacting groundwater, surface waters and quality of life." Sewer Element Policy 7.1 is to "[c]ontinue to require that septic tank systems connect to the County system where a County system is available unless undue hardship is proven." Sewer Element Policy 7.2 is to "re-examine the maximum allowable density for septic tank systems within various areas of Hillsborough County" not later than one year following completion of a study presently underway pursuant to the Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983. In the same timeframe, Sewer Element Policy 7.3 requires that the County develop a "program to identify existing septic tank systems . . . that have a high potential for contaminating groundwater or the aquifer." The first goal of the FLUE is to: Ensure that the character and location of land uses optimizes the combined potentials for economic benefit and the enjoyment and the protection of natural resources while minimizing the threat to health, safety and welfare posed by hazards, nuisances, incompatible land uses, and environmental degradation. FLUE Objective A-1 is: Development orders shall not be issued unless development is compatible with the physical conditions of the land, including, but not limited to, topographical and soil conditions, and development mitigates those adverse impacts that it creates upon the physical conditions of the land that may affect the health, safety and/or welfare of the people who live and work within those particular areas. FLUE Policy A-1.2 states that "[s]oil capability analyses for flood hazards, stability, permeability and other relevant soil characteristics shall be considered when planning for new development." FLUE Policy A-1.3 adds: "Development shall be prohibited in areas where the on-site sewage disposal facilities would be located on soils unsuitable for such uses, unless the soils on the site can be altered to meet state and local environmental land use regulations." FLUE Policy A-1.4 provides that development within areas designated as "volume or peak sensitive" shall be subject to "higher performance standards to mitigate stormwater runoff." The Plan defines "Peak Sensitive Lands" as "[l]and that is prone to flooding because the outfall is inadequate to handle the water flow." FLUE, page 142. The Plan defines "Volume Sensitive Lands" as: Lands that drain into areas that do not have a positive outfall. Positive outfall is the condition when the natural or man-made stormwater conveyance system that drains the land is functioning adequately. This includes man-made swales, waterways or other means of conveyance systems. This does not include sheet flow. FLUE, page 147. FLUE Policy A-1.5 requires: "All development within the 100 year floodplain shall be in strict conformance with all development regulations that have jurisdiction development regulations." Certain future land use designations bear directly upon the natural resources of the County. Other future land use designations, although affecting natural resources, will be addressed in the following sections concerning urban sprawl and the coastal high hazard area. Three designations are especially important in protecting natural resources. They are Natural Preservation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Major Recreation and Open Space. The Natural Preservation designation is used to designate major publicly owned or managed lands for primarily conservation purposes. Typically, these lands are environmentally unique, irreplaceable or valued ecological resources. Some of these lands may be suitable for compatible recreational use. FLUE, page 142. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Natural Preservation designation as follows: To recognize public lands of significant environmental importance set aside for primarily conservation purposes. No residential is permitted except for county facilities determined necessary to serve as a caretaker of the recreational or environmental property. All other development is prohibited in these areas except for compatible recreational development. Educational uses shall be limited to those which utilize the natural amenities found on the site, i.e., the study of flora [or] fauna . . .. FLUE, page 125. FLUE Policy A-3.1 promises that the County will study the possibility of adopting land development regulations providing for a transfer of development rights from land that is under consideration for Natural Preservation designation, as well as land under a Rural designation that is in long-term agricultural use. FLUE Policy A-3.2 prohibits, in Natural Preservation designations, any "new development [or] expansion [or] replacement of existing development[,] unless development is undertaken by federal, State or local government in the public interest, and the impacts are mitigated." The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation has been discussed at length in the preceding section. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation as follows: To designate those privately owned lands that are environmentally sensitive and classified as Conservation or Preservation Areas as defined in the [CARE]. Development in these areas may be restricted by federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations. Development projects will be evaluated for compliance with the [CARE] and Coastal [Element]. The use of Environmentally Sensitive Areas for residential density credits is described in the [FLUE]. The Environmentally Sensitive Area designations on the Land Use Plan Map are very generalized and may not be exhaustive of all sites. On- site evaluation will be necessary for specific project review. FLUE, page 126. The Major Recreation and Open Space designation is used to designate, geographically on the Future Land Use Plan Map and/or textually in the [FLUE], those major existing park, recreation, and/or open space facilities available for public use, including those which may be privately owned, and for which the primary purpose is not conservation. This land use category is not intended for use in designating those lands used for calculating densities for residential projects as described in the "Density Credits" provision in the "Implementation Section["] of the [FLUE] or in designating those similarly used lands that are accessory to non-residential projects. This future land use plan classification is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies and the exceptions and provisions of the [FLUE], each of the other elements in the [Plan], and to all applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 143. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Recreation and Open Space designation as follows: To designate major existing parks and recreational facilities (regional, district, or community level), for which the primary purpose is not conservation. A more complete mapping of existing and proposed or needed parks is a function of the Recreation and Open Space Element. No residential is permitted except for county facilities determined necessary to serve as an employee serving the function of a caretaker of the property. FLUE, page 123. FLUE Policy A-3.4 states that "[r]ecreational development must be compatible with and sensitive to the surrounding natural systems." Numerous provisions in the FLUE address natural resources, without referring to the Natural Preservation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Major Recreation and Open Space designations. FLUE Objective A-8 provides: Development must mitigate the adverse impacts upon the natural, environmental systems as described and required within the [CARE] and [Coastal Element]. FLUE Policy A-8.1 states: "The natural environment shall be protected, in part, by encouraging future population growth into existing urbanized areas." FLUE Policies A-8.2, A- 8.3, and A-8.4, which have been discussed above, provide for the protection of Conservation and Preservation Areas and describe the upland forest density credit incentive and density formulas regarding Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE Policies A-8.5 and A-8.6 promise protection, "by a system of performance standards" left undefined in the Plan, for areas with "high potential for groundwater contamination" and "high aquifer recharge," respectively. FLUE Policy A-8.8 is to [r]equire that the littoral zones and photic zones of man-made stormwater management systems be designed to provide physical and chemical filtration of stormwater consistent with adopted levels in the [Plan] and subsequently adopted development regulations, [as well as] provide for wildlife habitat (primarily wading birds). FLUE Policy A-8.9 offers the use of publicly owned land designated as Major Public/Semi-Public for "appropriate multiple uses, such as parks, stormwater management systems and preservation of natural habitats." FLUE Policy A-8.10 is to "[e]ncourage the use of pervious pavement" through land development regulations. FLUE Policy A-8.11 requires the County to identify, during the rezoning process, any land that has been identified for possible acquisition by the Environmental Land Acquisition and Protection Program. FLUE Policy A-8.12 states the County "shall protect significant wildlife habitat." FLUE Policy A-8.13 provides that the County will "[p]reserve wetlands by discouraging the use of mitigation, dredge and fill and similar development activities by revising the development regulations to strictly limit such practices." FLUE Objective B-9 is to "[p]rotect environmentally sensitive areas from degradation or damage from agricultural activities by establishing regulatory activities." FLUE Policy B-9.2 is to "[e]stablish protective controls, which could include animal 'density' limits[,] on those grazing lands having environmentally sensitive areas subject to damage or degradation from over-grazing by pre- identified grazing species." FLUE Objective B-10 is to "[p]rotect the water supply needed by agriculture through regulatory mechanisms." FLUE Policy B-10.1 is to "[r]equire adoption or conversion to water conservation techniques that are beneficial for aquifer recharge and the maintenance of near normal water tables." FLUE Policy B-10.2 is to establish a phased-in program of water conservation. Addressing the County's rivers, the second goal of the FLUE, which appears at the beginning of the River Resources section, is: To make the rivers of Hillsborough County cleaner, safer and more attractive, protect the natural functions and wildlife habitats in the river corridors and promote the economic and recreational benefits provided by these water bodies. FLUE Objective C-1 is, by 1995, to "maintain or improve the quality of water in [County] rivers where the water quality does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for [their] designated use." FLUE Policy C-1.1 states: The developer of any project along the rivers shall provide stormwater management systems which filter out pollutants before the stormwater enters the rivers, in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the Southwest Florida Water Management District rules including the exemption provisions of these rules. New drainage outfalls along the rivers shall be designed with stormwater treatment facilities rather than discharging stormwater directly into the rivers. Where environmentally feasible, the stormwater discharge from a detention pond shall flow into the rivers through a vegetated swale. FLUE Policy C-1.2 "[p]rohibit[s] discharges of raw sewage to the rivers and tributaries." FLUE Policy C-1.3 "[p]rohibit[s] any solid waste landfills and hazardous material facilities in unincorporated Hillsborough County that may adversely affect the rivers and tributaries." FLUE Objective C-2 is: By 1990, the County will require the preservation of natural shorelines and reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization. . . . FLUE Policy C-2.1 states: "Shore alteration which would harden riverbanks shall be prohibited, except in cases of overriding public interest." FLUE Policy C-2.2 requires the improvement of publicly owned or controlled lands by the "restoration of vegetated riverbanks." FLUE Policy C-2.3 requires the conservation and preservation of natural riverbanks and natural levees, except in cases of overriding public interest. FLUE Objective C-4 provides that, by 1992, the County will "establish standards for development in river corridors." FLUE Policy C-4.1 prohibits the construction of new overhead utilities within 250 feet of the rivers unless underground placement is environmentally or technically unsound. FLUE Objective C-5 provides that, by 1991, the County will "require the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats and archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-5.4 requires the County to "restrict development activities in the river corridors which would adversely affect significant and essential wildlife habitat, in accordance with the terms of Objective 14 and related policies thereunder of the [CARE]." FLUE Policy C-6.1 prohibits the removal, within 100 feet of the rivers, of healthy, native trees of five inches diameter at breast height unless "reasonable property utilization is not possible without tree removal or in cases of overriding public interest." The third, fourth, and fifth goals in the FLUE pertain to the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers, respectively. The third goal in the FLUE is "[t]o make the Hillsborough River cleaner, safer and more attractive." FLUE Objective C-7 is, by 1995, to "improve the quality of water in the river where it does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for its designated use, and protect this major source of drinking water." FLUE Policy C-7.2 states: The construction, reconstruction, extension, or alteration of any privy, cesspool, septic tank, drain field, or other sewage disposal device within . . . 200 feet, measured from the mean annual flood line, of the Hillsborough River and its tributaries from the Pasco County line, to the city limits of the City of Tampa, shall be prohibited. This policy shall not prohibit recommended maintenance of existing septic systems if no alternative means of sewerage treatment is available. FLUE Policy C-7.3 is to "[p]revent further destruction of desirable natural vegetative buffers along the Hillsborough River and its tributaries." FLUE Policy C-7.4 is to: Prevent potential contamination by effluent disposal from a wastewater treatment plant within the drainage basin by requiring advanced treatment and viral reduction of all sewage in the drainage basin which is part of an effluent disposal program. FLUE Objective C-8 is, by 1990, to "reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization." FLUE Policy C-9.1 provides: "New marinas shall be prohibited on the upper Hillsborough River." "To prevent riverbank erosion, protect wildlife habitat, and ensure public safety," FLUE Policy C-9.6 requires that the part of the Hillsborough River north of 56th Street be posted with "idle speed, no wake" signs. FLUE Objective C-10 is, by 1992, to "establish standards for development in the river corridor." FLUE Policy C- 10.2 states: "No additional areas shall be designated with industrial land use plan categories within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-10.3 requires the County to establish a new future land use designation or zoning classification to be known as "Riverfront." Land use guidelines that "should be addressed" in the new classification include performance standards precluding uses that pollute the river or eliminate visual access by the public, lowering densities for vacant private parcels along the upper river, and prohibiting heavy activities such as parking lots, truck service roads, loading docks, warehouses, manufacturing plants, ship building and repair, and dredging equipment operators. FLUE Objective C-11 is, by 1992, to "implement construction and placement standards for ramps, docks, and seawalls." FLUE Objective C-12 is, by 1994, to "manage the Hillsborough River as an important community asset and provide appropriate public access to this valuable natural amenity." FLUE Objective C-13 is, by 1991, to "preserve and enhance wildlife habitats and preserve archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-13.1 states: "Draining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks[,] shall be prohibited within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Objective C-14 states: By 1990, preserve the rural character of the Upper Hillsborough River by discouraging additional development except for those sites improved or developed that are dedicated to passive recreational pursuits within the river corridor. . . . FLUE Policy C-14.1 states: "The upper Hillsborough River shall be managed as a wildlife habitat corridor to provide an area for wildlife passage." FLUE Policy C-14.3 prohibits in the upper Hillsborough River "additional boat docks and ramps," but not canoe launches. FLUE Policy C-14.4 prohibits, within 500 feet of the upper Hillsborough River and its tributaries, parking lots and service roads. The fourth goal in the FLUE addresses the Alafia River. The goal is: "To preserve, protect and promote the Alafia River and its natural resources and recreational benefits." FLUE Objective C-15 is: By 1995, to maintain water quality, and improve water quality where it does not meet or exceed State water quality standards for its designated use, thereby protecting and improving the habitat for marine life. . . . FLUE Objective C-16 is: "By 1991, preserve and restore natural vegetation, and wildlife habitats and preserve archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-16.1 states: Draining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks, which comprise the riverine swamp system shall be prohibited within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-16.2 provides: Encourage the reclamation of mined lands along the Alafia River with native vegetation and encourage public acquisition for wildlife corridors, where appropriate. FLUE Objective C-17 is, by 1991, to "protect terrestrial and marine wildlife and their habitats." FLUE Policy C-17.1 requires the County to post reduced speed signs in areas of known manatee habitation. FLUE Objective C-18 is, by 1995, to "minimize river use conflict and mitigate public nuisances that adversely affect inhabitants along the river." FLUE Policy C-18.1 recognizes the river as important for canoeing as well as other recreational pursuits. FLUE Objective C-19 is, by 1990, to "preserve the natural shoreline and prevent further channelization." FLUE Policy C-19.1 "[p]rohibit[s] backfilling of waterfront properties or extension of these lots through artificial means." FLUE Objective C-20 is, by 1992, to "establish standards for development within the river corridor." FLUE Policy C-20.3 states: Septic tank and drainfield installation shall be prohibited within 200 feet of the Alafia River and its tributaries except in such cases where the 200-foot criterion cannot be met because of lot size. In such cases, placement and construction of such facilities shall be in accordance with State law and shall prevent adverse impact to water quality. FLUE Policy C-20.4 states: "No additional heavy industrial land use designations shall be located within 500 feet of the river." The fifth goal in the FLUE pertains to the Little Manatee River. The goal is: "To recognize and maintain this unique water resource which provides economic and recreational opportunities as well as vital wildlife habitat." FLUE Objective C-21 states: By 1995, water quality in each appropriate water classification found in the Little Manatee River will be maintained or improved where it does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for its designated use. ... FLUE Policy C-21.1, which generally prohibits the installation of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Little Manatee River and its tributaries, is otherwise identical to FLUE Policy C-20.3, which applies to the Alafia River. FLUE Objective C-22 is, by 1991, to "preserve wildlife habitats and archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-22.1 provides that the County shall "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to "fully implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan." FLUE Policy C-22.2 prohibits "[d]raining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks, . . . within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-22.3 states that, until scientifically defensible setbacks and buffers are determined: clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 feet of the Environmental Protection Commission wetland jurisdictional line or within 100 feet of the mean and ordinary high water line, whichever is greater, shall be restricted in urban and suburban land use categories. FLUE Policy C-22.4 is to protect manatees by "posting reduced speed signs in areas of known manatee habitation." FLUE Objective C-23 is, by 1990, to: minimize urban encroachment upon the river bank by encouraging the establishment of a "green" river corridor. River corridor preservation can best be achieved through protection of the shoreline, and associated wetlands and uplands. . . . FLUE Policy C-23.1 states: "No heavy industrial land use designations shall be located within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-23.2 provides: "The Little Manatee River shall be recognized as providing important wildlife habitat and managed as a corridor for wildlife passage." FLUE Policy C-23.3 states: "The Little Manatee River shall be recognized as an important recreational resource." FLUE Policy C-23.4 adds: Recreation facilities in the Little Manatee River corridor shall be designed to minimize impacts upon essential and significant wildlife habitat. This is to be achieved by encouraging passive river corridor use, such as hiking, picnicking, nature study, photography, fishing, and canoeing. FLUE Policy C-23.5 prohibits parking lots and service roads within 500 feet of the Little Manatee River and its tributaries east of US 41. FLUE Objective C-24 is, by 1990, to "develop additional policies and strategies addressing the uniqueness and proper protection and use of the Little Manatee River." FLUE Policy C-24.2 states: "Appropriate provisions from the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan shall be considered for incorporation as policies in this plan." Policy C-24.3 promises the evaluation of the need for establishing a new land use category or zoning overlay "to ensure proper protection and use of the Little Manatee River and associated natural resources." FLUE Objective C-30 provides: Regulations and performance standards shall be developed to ensure that water quality and quantity, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitats, rivers and creeks are protected from degradation by development. FLUE Policy C-30.2 states that the County "shall require the location and design of public roads and bridges within stream riverine corridors to minimize impacts adverse to wildlife habitats and vegetative communities." FLUE Policy C-30.4 provides: Designate as River Corridor Overlay Districts, riverine corridors within the Urban Level land use categories, which meet the following criteria in addition to the policies related to River Corridor Overlay Districts under the "River Resources" section within the [FLUE]. The qualifying criteria are that the water must be of Class III standards, the water body must provide "ecological benefits," most of the part of the water body proposed for designation must have a natural shore, and a 25 year floodplain map for the part of the water body proposed for designation must be available for public inspection. FLUE Policy C-30.6 provides: Restrict clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 feet of the Environmental Protection Commission wetland jurisdictional line of rivers and creeks designated as River Corridor Overlay Districts or within 100 feet of the mean and ordinary high water line of such rivers and creeks, whichever is greater. If no beneficial use of the property is possible without clearing or filling within this area, impose conditions which will mitigate the adverse impact of these activities on wildlife habitat, native vegetation and natural stormwater filtration systems. FLUE Policy C-30.7 is to "[e]ncourage the use of stilted structures rather than fill to meet flood elevation construction requirements within the River Corridor Overlay District." FLUE Policy C-30.8 is to "[r]estrict hardened shores (seawalls) within the River Corridor Overlay district to areas threatened by severe erosion." The Coastal Element addresses natural resources in the coastal area of the County. Coastal Element Policy 1.3 requires the County to reduce the need for interim wastewater treatment plants by planning for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities to serve areas designated for higher densities. Coastal Element Policy 1.4 provides that the County shall "continue to develop and use environmentally acceptable effluent disposal alternatives to surface water discharge to Tampa Bay and its tributaries, including but not limited to reuse for irrigation and industrial purposes." Coastal Element Policy 1.7 states: Where economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to coastal areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic treatment systems. Coastal Element Policy 1.11 provides: By 1991, the County shall require that existing developments planned for expansion, modification or replacement in the coastal area provide or support stormwater treatment improvements within the affected drainage basin where treatment facilities are lacking. Where economically and environmentally feasible, the County shall require retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities in urbanized coastal areas lacking such facilities. Coastal Element Policy 1.12 states: Where economically and environmentally feasible and consistent with the Surface Water Improvement Management Plan for Tampa Bay, the County shall consider dredging and removal of polluted estuarine sediments, and clean filling deep dredged areas, as a means of improving adjacent estuarine water quality. 2. Coastal High Hazard Area and Hazard Mitigation The only FLUE provision addressing the coastal area and coastal hazards is FLUE Policy A-1.6, which promises: Performance standards for new developments shall be established within coastal areas, as identified in the [Coastal Element], in order to protect the population in the coastal areas, and to minimize property damage in the event of a hurricane. Capital Improvements Element (CIE) 1.D.2 provides that the levels of service for public facilities, as set forth in the CIE, are subject to overriding conditions and limitations contained in the Coastal Element. In addition, CIE Objective 5 states: "The County shall protect the coastline and avoid loss of life and property in coastal areas by minimizing land development and public facilities in coastal areas. [Rule] 9J- 5.016(3)(b)2." CIE Policy 5.A states: "Publicly funded infrastructure shall not be constructed within the coastal high hazard area unless the expenditure is for: 5.A.1: Restoration or enhancement of natural resources or public access; 5.A.2: Land application of treated effluent disposal (irrigation) on public and private open spaces; 5.A.3: Flood-proofing water and sanitary sewer facilities; 5.A.4: The development or improvement of public roads and bridges which are on the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization long range plan or the facility will serve a crucial need by ameliorating the evacuation time of residents of the County; 5.A.5: Reconstruction of seawalls that are essential to the protection of only existing public facilities or infrastructure; 5.A.6: A public facility of overriding public concern as determined by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners; 5.A.7: The retrofitting of stormwater management facilities for water quality enhancement of stormwater runoff; or 5.A.8: Port facilities. Coastal Element Policy 6.1 defines the coastal high hazard area as the part of the County included in the Federal Emergency Management Agency V Zone and the area requiring evacuation during a Category 1 hurricane event. A Category 1 hurricane is characterized by winds of 74-95 miles per hour, which will cause damage primarily to foliage and unanchored mobile homes; storm surge 6-8 feet above normal; and inundation of low-lying coastal roads. Coastal Element, page 85. Coastal Element Objective 6 is to: Restrict development of residential population centers in the coastal high hazard area and require all development to meet standards established for the coastal area. Coastal Element Policy 6.2 requires that "[n]ew development within the coastal high hazard area shall be subject to a formal site plan review process." The process shall require owner-supplied data as to the impact of the proposed development upon existing infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area, evacuation clearance times, and shelter space. Coastal Element Policy 6.3 states that new development or "substantial expansions" of existing uses, except for government facilities, shall be approved through "a planned unit development process" if the development consists of commercial or industrial development on more than five acres of land or residential development exceeding the requirements of a "minor subdivision," as defined in the land development regulations. Policy 6.3 adds that developments within the coastal high hazard area and the I-75 corridor shall be subject to the more restrictive requirements. Coastal Element Policy 6.5 prohibits the development of "manufactured home communities" in the coastal high hazard area unless they meet the standards of the Southern Standard Building Code. Coastal Element Policy 6.6 is that, by 1994, the County shall, by land development regulations, require the underground installation of all utility lines in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 is that, except for cases of "undue hardship," "[t]he use of septic tanks for new development shall be prohibited in the coastal high hazard area." Coastal Element Objective 7 is to ensure the "orderly development and use" of the Port of Tampa by giving "priority to locating water-dependent and water-related land uses along the shoreline of the coastal area." Coastal Element Policy 7.1 provides that the County, by 1993, will amend the "Future Land Use Element and Map" to create a new future land use designation for "marine-related land uses." The designation will include criteria for siting water-dependent and water-related land uses. Coastal Element Policy 7.5 prohibits the development of new sites for heavy industrial uses along the shoreline of the coastal area unless the uses are "water-dependent or water- related or unless an overriding public interest is demonstrated." Coastal Element Objective 10 is: "Limit public expenditures for infrastructure and facilities in the coastal high hazard area." Coastal Element Policy 10.3 provides: "Wastewater treatment facilities shall not be constructed within the coastal high hazard area unless the expenditure meets the criteria of Policy 10.2." Coastal Element Policy 10.2 is the same as CIE Policy 5.A. Coastal Element Policy 13.1 states: "Interim wastewater treatment plants shall not be permitted in the coastal high hazard area except where the County service will be available within five (5) years." Coastal Element Policy 13.2 provides that the County will not assume jurisdiction for maintaining roadways in the coastal high hazard area unless the roadway is on the future Traffic Circulation Map. Coastal Element Policy 13.3 states that, by the 1993 hurricane season, the County shall complete an inventory of existing infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area and develop a program to relocate or retrofit such facilities where feasible and as replacement becomes necessary. Coastal Element Policy 13.4 is that the County "shall ensure" that future development and redevelopment within the coastal high hazard area is "consistent with coastal resource protection and will not increase clearance times along evacuation routes." Coastal Element Policy 13.6 is that the County shall not approve any "new solid waste or hazardous waste management sites" in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 12.2 is that the County, by the 1992 hurricane season: shall prepare a post-disaster redevelopment plan which will address long-term development, repair, and redevelopment activities, and which will include measures to restrict and eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 12.5 provides that, by the 1992 hurricane season, the County "shall adopt a redevelopment decision-making matrix for deciding whether public infrastructure should be rebuilt, relocated, or structurally modified." Coastal Element Objective 11 provides: Through the year 2010 the County shall maintain the clearance times identified in the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 1988 Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Study. Any proposed development shall not increase these clearance times. Coastal Element Policy 11.2 adopts a level of service standard of 20 square feet per person for shelter space. Coastal Element Policy 11.5 states that, by 1991, the development review process shall consider the effect of a proposed development in the hurricane vulnerability zone, which includes the coastal high hazard area, on evacuation clearance times and the number of persons requiring shelter. Coastal Element Policy 11.7 provides that each new mobile home park "not located" in the hurricane vulnerability zone shall include a building for use as a hurricane shelter. 3. Urban Sprawl FLUE Policy A-2.1 states: "Development shall not exceed the densities and intensities established within the [Plan]." According to the Implementation section of the FLUE, "[i]t is the intent of the [FLUE] to permit the maximum densities allowed within each land use plan category." FLUE, page 55. Many of the future land use categories of the Plan and their densities are set forth at Paragraph 219 above. The remaining categories and any permitted residential densities (expressed as dwelling units per gross acre) are: Community Commercial (20:1); Commercial--Office (20:1); Regional Commercial (20:1); Electrical Power Generating Facility (1:5); Scenic Corridor Overlay; Research/Corporate Park; Light Industrial; Light Industrial-- Planned; Heavy Industrial; Natural Preservation; Major Recreation and Open Space; Major Public/Semi-Public; and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (uses described in preceding section). The Land Use Plan section of the FLUE discusses each of the future land use designations in terms of service level, typical uses, density (applicable to residential uses only), maximum floor area (applicable to commercial, office, and industrial uses only), and intent of designation. The densities have been set forth above. Six designations fall exclusively under the Rural service level. These are Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, Rural Residential, and Rural Residential Planned. The typical uses of Agricultural/Mining include: farms, ranches, feed lots, residential uses, rural scale neighborhood commercial uses, offices, industrial uses related to agricultural uses, and mining related activities. Non-residential uses shall meet established locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 98. The maximum floor area for Agricultural/Mining is: Rural scale neighborhood commercial, office or industrial up to 40,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, 17/ whichever is less intense. Actual space footage limit is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, page 98. The intent of Agricultural/Mining is: To designate either those areas of long term agricultural character, or those areas currently involved in agricultural productivity, or other rural uses. This category will also permit residential, rural scale neighborhood commercial, office, and industrial uses in those areas meeting established locational criteria. As long as no subdivision of land is involved, group quarters, temporary housing, rehabilitation centers and residential uses for agricultural/rural related activities can be exempt from the density limitations subject to the [FLUE] and applicable development regulations. In addition, mining activities and commercial and industrial uses directly related to or serving the local mining activities may be permitted in appropriate locations, in conformance with adopted [land development] regulations. Commercial and office above 5000 sq. ft.[,] multi-purpose projects and multi-use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 98. The typical uses, maximum floor area, and intent of Agricultural and Agricultural/Rural are the same as those stated for Agricultural/Mining. Densities are the main difference among the Agricultural/Mining (1:20), Agricultural (1:10), and Agricultural/Rural (1:5) designations. In addition to allowing a density of 1:2.5, the Rural Estate category differs in other respects from the other categories classified as rural in terms of service level. Typical uses for Rural Estate add "multi-purpose projects" and omit "feed lots," "industrial uses related to agricultural uses," and "mining related activities." Maximum floor area substitutes "multi-purpose projects" for "industrial." The intent of Rural Estate is: To designate areas that are best suited for agricultural development, usually defined as located on Short-Term Agricultural Lands, and for compatible rural residential uses. Other uses including rural scale neighborhood commercial, office and multi-purpose projects may be permitted when complying with the [FLUE] and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for specific land use. Commercial and office above 5000 sq. ft., multi-purpose projects and multi-use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 101. The typical uses and intent of Rural/Residential and Rural/Residential Planned are the same as those stated for Rural Estate, except the Rural/Residential Planned also allows community commercial uses and clustered mixed use. A planned zoning district is required for the Rural/Residential Planned designation if the proposed commercial or office use is over 3000 square feet. The densities are different among the three designations. The Rural/Residential allows 1:1. Rural/Residential Planned allows the same density if the project is a Planned Village Concept on at least 160 acres; otherwise, the allowable density is 1:5. The maximum density for Rural/Residential Planned is allowable only if clustering and mixed uses are proposed. The concepts of mixed use and clustering specified for the Rural/Residential Planned are explained as follows: Mixed use . . . must demonstrate integration, scale, diversity and internal relationships of uses on site as well as provide shopping and job opportunities, significant internal trip capture and appropriately scaled residential uses. Land development regulations shall specify the thresholds for shopping, job creation and trip capture rates for developments appropriate to the scale of the project. Clustering . . . will be demonstrated through higher than typical residential net densities. Land development regulations shall provide thresholds for net densities required relative to project size and location, and will be used to determine allowable gross density. FLUE, page 103. The Suburban service level contains two designations: Low Suburban Density Residential and Low Suburban Density Residential Planned. The typical uses of Low Suburban Density Residential are: Residential, suburban scale neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects. Non-residential uses shall meet locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 104. The typical uses of Low Suburban Density Residential Planned are the same except they include suburban scale community commercial and clustered mixed use projects. The maximum floor area of Low Suburban Density Residential is: Suburban scale neighborhood commercial, office, or multi-purpose projects limited to 110,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, whichever is less intense. Actual space footage limit is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, page 104. The maximum floor area of Low Suburban Density Residential Planned is the same except the floor area ratio is .5, which governs certain mixed use projects: Mixed use projects utilizing the Planned Village Concept are not limited by square footages but may develop up to .5 FAR. Square footages will be limited by the scale and relationship within the project. In addition, mixed use projects utilizing the Planned Village Concept shall not be limited by the locational criteria found elsewhere for neighborhood commercial uses. Mixed use projects shall demonstrate internal relationships and pedestrian integration among uses. FLUE, page 105. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential designation is: To designate areas that are best suited for non-urban density residential development requiring a limited level of urban services, including in appropriate locations lots large enough to safely accommodate private wells and septic tanks or a combination of septic tanks and public water. Some areas, because of environmental or soil conditions, would be appropriate for only public water and sewer in this designation. In addition, suburban level neighborhood commercial, office and multi-purpose projects serving the non-urban areas may be permitted, subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for such land use. Commercial and office uses above 3000 sq. ft. and all multi-purpose and mixed use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 104. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned appears erroneous, as it repeats the intent of the Rural/Residential Planned designation, including "rural residential uses" and "rural scale" commercial uses. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned should probably state: "non-urban density residential development requiring a limited level of urban services" and the "suburban scale" commercial uses, which is the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential. The Implementation section of the FLUE probably should have stated the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation is the same as the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential designation except to add "suburban level community commercial, clustered mixed use, and multi-purpose projects." The densities for Low Suburban Density Residential and Low Suburban Density Residential Planned are both 2:1. However, this density is applicable to the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned only if the proposed project is a Planned Village Concept on at least 160 acres. Otherwise, the density for Low Suburban Density Residential Planned is 1:5. The Low Suburban Density Residential Planned density contains the same description of mixed use and clustering as is found in the Rural/Residential Planned designation. There are 14 designations exclusively within the Urban service level. The two lowest densities, among categories that are predominantly residential, are Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential, which are, respectively, 4:1 and 6:1. Each density contains the following condition: This maximum residential density is provided only as a limit for application in situations which represent an ideal set of circumstances with regard to the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses, existing and/or approved, and with regard to the adequacy and availability of public facilities. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. The typical uses for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential are identical: Residential, urban scale neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose and mixed use projects. Non-residential uses shall meet established locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. Disregarding another apparent typographical error, 18/ the maximum floor area for each designation is identical: Urban scale neighborhood commercial, office, multi-purpose or mixed use projects limited to 175,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, whichever is less intense. Actual square footage limitation is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. Disregarding two more likely typographical errors, 19/ the intent for each designation is also identical, except for the bracketed notation that applies only to Low Urban Density Residential: To designate areas that are suitable for low density residential development. In addition, urban scale neighborhood commercial, office, multi-purpose and mixed use projects serving the area may be permitted subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for specific land use. Multi-purpose, mixed use projects and any development above 3.0 [5.0] dwelling units per gross acre on a site larger than 10 acres shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. The next three designations in the Urban service level are Low/Medium Density Urban Residential, Medium Density Urban Residential, and High Density Urban Residential, which provide densities, respectively, of 9:1, 12:1, and 20:1. 20/ Each density is subject to the condition quoted above for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential concerning ideally suited circumstances. Ignoring one typographical error in the case of the High Density Urban Residential designation, 21/ the typical uses for each of the three designations are also identical, except for a minor distinction in language, with those stated for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential. The maximum floor areas for each of the three designations are identical to those stated for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential except that the floor area ratio for High Density Urban Residential is 0.75, not 0.25. The intent of each of the three designations is the same as the intent of the Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential designations with a minor change in language. The only differences are that the primary intent in each case is to designate an area suitable for the type of residential development suggested by the category's name, such as low-medium density. Also, a planned zoning district is required for each of the three designations if the proposed development is denser than 8:1 for Low/Medium Density Urban Residential, 10:1 for Medium Density Urban Residential, and 16:1 for High Density Urban Residential. The last three designations exclusively within the Urban service classification that are projected to contain significant residential uses are Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3 with respective densities of 12:1, 20:1, and 50:1. Each density contains the following condition: The maximum residential density is provided only as a limit for application in situations in which all Goals, Objectives, and Policies and applicable development regulations are being complied with, especially those regarding compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses, existing and/or approved, and with regard to the adequacy and availability of public facilities. FLUE, pages 111, 112, and 113. The typical uses for Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3 are identical: Mixed use development. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 111, 112, and 113. The maximum floor area ratios are 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 for Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The intent of the Urban Level 1 designation is: The UL1 category may be located within three miles of I-75, bounded at the limits of the urban level category by existing or proposed arterial roads. This category of land use shall serve as a transitional area which emphasizes compatibility with adjacent plan categories. The UL1 area shall be more suburban in intensity and density of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities become available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for commercial uses shall be prohibited. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 111. The intent of the Urban Level 2 designation is: The UL2 category shall be compatible with adjacent urban land use categories such as UL1, UL3, research corporate park, and medium density residential. The UL2 areas shall be urban in intensity and density of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities are made available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for nonresidential uses to arterials shall be prohibited. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 112. The intent of the Urban Level 3 designation is: The UL3 category shall form a regional activity center which incorporates internal road systems, building clustering and mixing of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities are made available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for nonresidential uses to arterials shall be prohibited. The UL3 category should be surrounded by other urban level plan categories and be located at high level transit lines. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 113. Three commercial designations in the Urban service classification that are not expected to contain substantial residential development are Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Regional Commercial. Each of these designations carries a density of 20:1 and contains a condition similar to that contained in Urban Level 1, 2, and 3 regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses and availability of adequate public facilities. The typical uses of Community Commercial are: Sale of convenience goods and personal services, general merchandising, furniture, sales restaurants, bars, offices, hotels, motels, banks, theaters, auto sales, compatible residential uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 114. The maximum floor area of the Community Commercial is 300,000 square feet or .35 FAR, whichever is less intense. The intent of Community Commercial is: To designate areas typically located within low density residential, low-medium density residential, medium density residential and/ or high density residential land use categories in order to provide a variety of commercial and office uses to serve large areas and which are oriented to auto traffic. Neighborhood commercial and office activities will be allowed provided they meet the applicable development regulations. Due to potential intensity of activities, planned grouping [is] strongly encouraged. Compatible residential development up to 20.0 dwelling units per gross acre, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments may be permitted in this category in appropriate locations according to applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 114. The typical uses of Commercial Office are: Community Commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 115. The maximum floor area of Commercial Office is: General--0.75 FAR up to a maximum of 600,000 square feet, however, the commercial component cannot exceed 300,000 square feet, subject to applicable land development regulations. FLUE, page 115. The intent of Commercial Office is: "To recognize existing commercial and office centers and provide for future development opportunities." FLUE, page 115. The typical uses of Regional Commercial are: Shopping malls to include one or more major department stores. Community Commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 116. The maximum floor area of Regional Commercial is "1.0 FAR, subject to applicable land development regulations." FLUE, page 116. The intent of Regional Commercial is: "To recognize existing regional commercial centers and provide for future development opportunities." Id. The three remaining designations exclusively in the Urban service level do not permit any residential uses. They are Research/Corporate Park, Light Industrial, and Light Industrial Planned. The typical uses of Research/Corporate Park are: Research and development activities, related educational facilities, electronic components production, light restricted manufacturing and warehousing, offices, corporate headquarters, and related uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, recreational facilities, and rural scale retail establishments. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. or 20% of the project's land area. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 117. The maximum floor area of Research/Corporate Park is "1.0 FAR." The intent of Research/Corporate Park is: To provide opportunity for research and high technology and similar manufacturing and light warehousing uses to serve Hillsborough County and the Tampa Bay region. Development in this category has integrated internal and external design requirements including heavy buffering and landscaping, high visibility linear footage on arterials, interstates, and expressways, and locations adjacent to employment markets. Research/Corporate Parks will be permitted to be developed throughout the county provided they meet the requirements of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element, and applicable development regulations. Proposed developments at locations not shown on the Land Use Plan Map may be considered through the Plan amendment process. Support neighborhood commercial uses may be permitted for up to 20% of the total land area. The development of the neighborhood commercial uses shall be integrated and appropriately scaled to other project uses. All development in this category shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 117. The typical uses for Light Industrial and Light Industrial Planned are: Food products storage, furniture or apparel manufacturing (except plastics or fiberglass), packaging plants, wholesaling, storage of nonhazardous materials, offices, research/corporate parks as the predominant uses and subordinate uses or services such as hotels, motels, restaurants, rural scale retail establishments, and recreational facilities. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 118 and 119. The maximum floor area of Light Industrial and Light Industrial Planned is ".5 FAR." FLUE, pages 118 and 119. The intent of Light Industrial is: This land use category is used to designate, geographically on the Land Use Plan Map and/ or textually in the Land Use Element, those areas in the County potentially suitable for industrial activities that create a minimal degree of impact to the surrounding environment, particularly in terms of non- objection[able] levels of noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and land use category descriptions related to industrial activities. [Convenience] commercial uses shall be limited to same criteria of size and location as rural scale neighborhood commercial. Any industrial development above a .4 FAR shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 118. The intent of Light Industrial Planned restates the first sentence of the intent of the Light Industrial and adds: This land use plan category will be used in high volume transportation corridors that have high visibility where impacts to adjacent development need to be minimized. The adjacent use compatibility issues are a major concern, and new development and substantial expansion of existing uses shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 119. The remaining seven designations are in a service level identified as "Urban or Rural." Two of them involve industrial uses. They are Heavy Industrial and Electric Power Generating Facility. The Heavy Industrial designation allows no residential uses. The typical uses of Heavy Industrial are: Phosphate and other chemical plants, plastics and fiberglass products processing, port related uses, storage of hazardous materials and liquids, offices, existing electric generating plants and expansions thereof, and related uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, establishments, recreational facilities and rural scale retail establishments. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. maximum. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 120. The maximum floor area of Heavy Industrial is: .5 FAR. FAR's not to be applied to processing, storage and other uses characterized by outdoor storage. FLUE, page 120. The intent of Heavy Industrial is the same as the intent of the Light Industrial except that, in the case of Heavy Industrial, the activities "may have objectionable accompanying effects such as noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor." FLUE, page 120. The Electric Power Generating Facility designation allows a residential density of 1:5. The typical uses are: "All new Electrical Power Generating Facilities and related uses and all uses allowed in the Agricultural/Rural (A/R) land use plan classification." FLUE, page 121. The maximum floor area of the Electrical Power Generating Facility is: 0.5 FAR. FAR's not to be applied to processing, storage and other uses characterized by outdoor storage. Development permitted in this designation is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the [Plan], applicable development regulations and established locational criteria for specific land uses. FLUE, page 121. The intent of Electrical Power Generating Facility is: This land use category is used to designate geographically on the Future Land Use Map and textually in the [FLUE] those areas that are potentially suitable for the construction and operation of future electric power generating facilities consistent with the infrastructure needs of the population and subject to the requirements of the [Plan] and all other Federal, State and Local Laws, policies and permits. The uses authorized in the Agricultural/Rural (A/R) land use plan category are also authorized. New development of uses associated with an electrical power generating facility shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process. An application to rezone land for an Electrical Power Generating Facility may only be filed after submission of an application to the State under the Power Plant Siting Act. If the Siting Board denies the Siting, then the zoning shall revert to the underlying Zoning in existence at the time of application. FLUE, page 121. The five remaining designations are Major Public/Semi- Public, Major Recreation and Open Space, Scenic Corridor, Natural Preservation, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The typical uses of Major Public/Semi-Public, which is intended to "recognize major existing and programmed public facilities," are "[m]ajor government-owned facilities and other public uses [and] semi-public uses generally available for public use, [such as] churches, hospitals, schools, clubs and utility and transportation facilities." However, "[t]he Land Use Plan Map only shows major existing facilities." FLUE, page 122. The typical uses of Major Recreation and Open Space are "[m]ajor parks and recreational facilities which are publicly or privately owned and operated for recreational uses and are available to the public." However, the designation shows only "major existing parks and recreational facilities" as the Recreation and Open Space Element contains maps of "existing and proposed or needed parks." FLUE, page 123. The intent of the Scenic Corridor is to create a designation "applied to road corridors . . . determined to have scenic qualities of local or countywide significance." FLUE, page 124. In addition to preserving or enhancing the aesthetic appearance of roads through buffering, landscaping, and control of nonresidential uses, the Scenic Corridor designation is intended to preserve or expand a system of roadways that will begin to form a boulevard system to connect different communities within unincorporated Hillsborough County. The boulevard system will also form a system of connections between parks and recreational areas of the county. FLUE, page 92. The typical uses of Natural Preservation are "[o]pen space or passive nature parks." The intent of the designation is to "recognize public lands of significant environmental importance set aside for primarily conservation purposes." The Natural Preservation designation excludes other uses except residential sufficient for a caretaker, "compatible recreational development," and limited educational uses. FLUE, page 125. FLUE Policy A-3.2 states: No new development nor expansion nor replacement of existing development shall be permitted within areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as Natural Preservation Areas, unless development is undertaken by federal, State or local government in the public interest, and the impacts are mitigated. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation has been discussed above. 22/ The Implementation section of the FLUE describes the locational criteria and development standards for Rural-, Suburban-, and Urban-scale neighborhood commercial uses, which may be approved in various land use categories. Different development standards also apply for community commercial uses. The development standards for neighborhood commercial uses require, among other things, a location within a commercial node at the intersection of least one collector or higher planned roadway and maximum square footage based on a matrix focusing on land use designation and roadway classification. FLUE, pages 75- 76. Additional requirements are imposed based on whether the use is Urban-, Suburban-, or Rural-scale. The relationship of the land use categories to the FLUM is explained in the Implementation section: The land use plan categories shown on the Future Land Use Map are named according to their predominant land use or maximum level of intensity intended for that category of land use. Other uses may be permitted in any land use category as described within the individual plan category descriptions. Specific locations for other such uses are not shown graphically because to do so would predetermine locations of individual uses, particularly neighborhood-related uses, at a level of detail beyond the scope of the Future Land Use Map. All uses shall be reviewed for conformance with all applicable provisions contained within the [Plan] and with applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 55. Various policies pertain to designated densities in the Plan and FLUM. FLUE Policy A-3.3 states: "Gradual transitions of intensities and between different land uses shall be encouraged." FLUE Policy A-3.1 provides in part: "Land development regulations shall be studied to determine whether to include provisions for the transfer of development rights which ... provide for the transfer of development rights to receiving zones where infill is indicated." The Implementation section of the FLUE provides a density credit for certain in-fill development. FLUE, page 69. The Implementation section also contains various density and intensity bonuses for the development of affordable housing. FLUE, pages 73a-73b. FLUE Policy B-3.6 pursues infilling by treating as a single dwelling unit "an accessory residential unit associated with an owner occupied single family residence." Several provisions in the FLUE concern the provision of public facilities. FLUE Objective A-5 is: All new development and redevelopment shall be serviced with potable water, sewerage, stormwater management facilities, solid waste disposal and parks that meet or exceed the adopted levels of service established by Hillsborough County. FLUE Policy A-5.2 establishes the concurrency requirement as follows: The public facilities that are needed to serve future development shall be provided by the applicant seeking a development permit and/or the County, in a timely manner that is concurrent with the impacts of development as defined in the [CIE]. FLUE Objective C-29 provides: Public facilities and services that meet or exceed existing or established County levels of service shall be provided in advance of, or concurrent with, the impacts of development. FLUE Policy C-29.1 is to: Ensure that public facilities operating at adopted levels of service are available when Certificates of Occupancy are issued by: Anticipating development and planning the Capital Improvements Program accordingly; Requiring conditions on development approvals that phase development with the availability of facilities; Allowing developers to improve or provide public facilities at their own expense; Entering into public-private partnerships, when appropriate, to provide public facilities. CIE Policy 3.C states: The Board of County Commissioners find that the impacts of development on public facilities within Hillsborough County occur at the same time as development authorized by a final development order as defined in Policy 1.A.3.a. The County shall determine, prior to the issuance of final development orders, whether or not there is sufficient capacity of Category A and Category B 23/ public facilities to meet the standards for Levels of Service for existing population and the proposed development concurrent with the proposed development. For the purpose of this policy, "concurrent with" shall be defined as follows: 3.C.1: No final development order shall be issued by the County after January 31, 1990, unless there shall be sufficient capacity of Category A and Category B public facilities to meet the standards for Levels of Service for the existing population and for the proposed development according to the following deadlines: a: Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity for the following public facilities: 3.C.1.a.(1): Potable water. 3.C.1.a.(2): Sanitary sewer. 3.C.1.a.(3): Solid waste. 3.C.1.a.(4): Stormwater management. 3.C.1.b: Prior to the completion of the same County fiscal year as the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity for arterial and collector roads. 3.C.1.c: For parks and recreation facilities, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity or within a year of the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity if the necessary facilities are the subject of a binding executed contract or are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement which requires the commencement of actual construction of the facilities within one (1) year of the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity. CIE Policy 3.C.2 states that a favorable capacity determination, following mandatory review of a development order, remains valid for two years. CIE Policy 3.C.4 indicates that the levels of service determinations shall be applied on a County-wide basis for solid waste disposal and regional parks. Levels of service determinations for facilities involving arterial and collector roads and mass transit shall be made by "[a]djoining sites and areas affected by the project based on individual analysis of the proposed development." Levels of service determinations for stormwater management systems shall be by major drainage basin. Levels of service determinations for district or neighborhood parks shall be by the relevant planning area. Levels of service determinations for potable water systems and sanitary sewer systems shall be by treatment plant service area, except that individual transmission (water) or collection (sewer) system limitations shall not result in closing the entire area to development if plant capacity remains. CIE Policy 1.C.1.a adopts level of service standards for all County arterial and collector roads by listing road segments and maximum volume-to- capacity ratios. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b adopts level of service standards for stormwater management systems, which include "significant canals, channels, ditches, pipeline/culvert enclosures of open systems, and appurtenant structures at crossings/control points." CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(1) sets the adopted level of service for any existing system as the existing level of service until the system is physically upgraded and the Plan is amended to reflect the upgrade. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(2) states that the ultimate level of service for major stormwater conveyance systems is generally the 25 year/24-hour duration storm at flood level B except the more rigorous flood level A applies to new development and a less rigorous five year storm event applies for systems discharging into Tampa's stormwater conveyance system, which is designed to meet the demands of only the five year storm event. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(6) sets stormwater level of service standards based on flood capacity for other stormwater systems--i.e., sewer/swales and detention ponds/lakes/storage areas. CIE Policy 1.C.1.c sets the potable water level of service standard at 140 gallons daily per person. CIE Policy 1.C.1.d sets the sewage level of service standard at 100 gallons daily per person plus 23.8% for nonresidential sewage. CIE Policies 1.C.1.f-1.C.2 set level of service standards for solid waste, parks and recreation facilities, mass transit, and non-County maintained public facilities. FLUE Policy A-5.3 addresses the concurrency monitoring system: Areas that have excess and deficient capacities for public facilities in unincorporated Hillsborough County shall be identified, and this information shall be updated no less than once a year. Development will be encouraged in areas with excess capacities for public facilities, and discouraged in areas with deficient capacities for public facilities unless these facilities can be provided concurrently with development and consistent with the [Plan], County Regulations and adopted levels of service for public facilities. The monitoring and enforcement aspects of the concurrency management system are detailed in the CIE's Implementation section, which is part of the adopted Plan. The Implementation section assures: "no final development order shall be issued which results in a reduction in the Levels of Service below the standard adopted in Policy 1.C.1 for Category A public facilities and Policy 1.C.2 for Category B public facilities." CIE, page 25. The concurrency determination is based on a monitoring program that calls for, among other things, annual reports on the capacity and actual levels of service of public facilities for which concurrency is required. The monitoring program requires a separate record of the cumulative impacts of all development orders approved year-to-date. CIE, page 27. FLUE Policy A-5.6 states: Public facilities and utilities shall be located to consider: (a) maximizing the efficiency of services provided; (b) minimizing their cost; and (c) minimizing their impacts upon the natural environment. FLUE Policy A-5.7 identifies procedures, such as development phasing and utility oversizing, "so that the location and timing of new development can be closely coordinated with local government's ability to provide public facilities." FLUE Policy A-5.8 adds that the County shall promote partnerships among governmental and private entities "to identify and build needed public facilities among the partners in proportion to the benefits accruing to each of them." Specifically addressing transportation facilities, FLUE Objective A-6 states: All new development and redevelopment shall be serviced with roads that meet or exceed the adopted levels of service established by Hillsborough County. FLUE Policy A-6.1 is to: Coordinate land use and transportation plans to provide for locally adopted levels of service consistent with the Transportation and Capital Improvements Elements . . .. FLUE Objective A-7 is: The concept plan is the overall, conceptual basis for the long range, Comprehensive Plan, and all plan amendments must be consistent with, and further the intent of the concept plan, which advocates nodal clusters of growth connected by corridors that efficiently move goods and people between each of the nodes. FLUE Policy A-7.3 states: The development of a variety of employment centers shall be encouraged at adopted locations, as defined by the concept plan and applicable development regulations, to provide employment opportunities throughout existing and planned development areas. The Implementation section of the FLUE describes the concept plan involving nodal development. The purpose of the nodal activity centers is to "begin to form an urban structure that encourages the cohesiveness of the neighborhood unit while facilitating the connection and interdependence of the region as a whole." FLUE, page 57. The Implementation section describes four types of nodes. The most intense is the high intensity node, which is limited to the Central Business District of Tampa. The next most intense is the mixed use regional node, which designates existing and future regional shopping centers, major office and employment areas, higher education institutions, and professional sports and recreation complexes. The mixed use regional nodes include the West Shore Business District, Urban Level 3 Regional Activity Center in the I-75 corridor west of Brandon, University of South Florida area, and Tampa Palms at CR 581 and I-75. Less intense than the mixed use regional node is the community center node, which "will designate and emphasize a focal point for surrounding neighborhoods that will include a variety of public facilities and services including commercial and office development." FLUE, page 57. The community center nodes include numerous named areas. Least intense is the neighborhood node, which designates areas "appropriate for some higher intensity residential development with the density tied to a relationship with the scale of existing surrounding development." FLUE, page 58. There are numerous existing and potential neighborhood nodes. FLUE Policy A-7.6 states: Scattered, unplanned, low density development without provisions for facilities and services at levels adopted in the [Plan] in locations not consistent with the overall concepts of the [Plan] shall be prohibited. To qualify for densities in excess of 1:5 in areas designated Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned, FLUE Policy A-7.7 requires residential development to conform to the requirements contained in the FLUE Implementation section, such as clustering, on-site job opportunities, internal trip capture, and shopping opportunities. FLUE Policy A-7.8 explains that the clustering and mixed use requirements imposed upon development in areas designated Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned are intended: to prevent urban sprawl, provide for the efficient provision of infrastructure, and preservation of open space and the environment. Clustering and Mixed Use shall be encouraged in the other suburban and rural plans categories. FLUE Policy A-7.10 states that developments in areas designated as Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned and involving at least 160 acres, if proceeding under the Planned Village concept, "shall be served by a central wastewater system (i.e. franchise, interim plant, community plant, county/municipal regional or sub-regional service, or other privately owned central systems)." Housing Element Objective 1.3 states: By 1992, establish guidelines for locating low and moderate income housing accessible to employment centers, mass transit systems, shopping and cultural, educational, medical and recreational facilities. Housing Element Policy 1.3.5 provides: By 1992, proactive public land investment initiatives along with incentives for private developments shall be explored, and implemented which include but are not limited to the following: disposition of surplus public land with developer incentives, public land assembly, disposition, and developer incentives in a comprehensive redevelopment framework and/or neighborhood rehabilitation plans; supplementary public initiatives to support private land assembly and affordable housing development; and the creation of a public-private partnership corporation to undertake land investment and facilitate private development of affordable housing in desirable locations. Housing Element Policy 1.3.6 states: "The County shall pursue federal and state funding sources for infrastructure improvements and for the construction or rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing." FLUE Objective B-4 addresses the locational criteria by which commercial uses will be permitted under the Plan. The objective states: Locational criteria for neighborhood serving commercial uses shall be implemented to scale development consistent with the character of the areas and to the availability of public facilities and the market. FLUE Policy B-4.1 states that the amount of neighborhood-serving commercial uses permitted in an area shall be consistent with the table adopted in the Implementation Section of the [FLUE] relating to land use density and the functional classification of the road network. FLUE Policy B-4.6 is: "Scattered, unplanned commercial development shall be discouraged, and commercial concentration shall be encouraged." FLUE Policy B-4.7 adds: "Commercial development should be designed to decrease the need for motorized vehicle trips by designing convenient, safe, non- motorized access." FLUE Policy B-4.8 provides: The expansion of existing strip commercial areas shall be prohibited, except in accordance with infill provisions in existing neighborhood commercial areas, and office or higher density residential development shall be considered as a viable alternative when in accordance with applicable development regulations. FLUE Policy B-5.1 addresses the redevelopment of commercial areas: "The redevelopment or revitalization of rundown strip commercial areas shall be encouraged through incentives such as the use of residential density credits for infill development that could include mixed use development." Further refining the guidelines for commercial redevelopment, FLUE Policy B-5.3 states: The redevelopment of appropriate commercial areas to include residential and/or office development that will reduce the number of transportation trips by increasing a project's internal capture rate shall be encouraged through incentives such as the use of residential density credits for infill development. FLUE Objective B-6 promises ongoing studies to identify the areas suitable for different types of industrial uses. FLUE Policy B-6.2 states that light industrial uses-- specifically, research and development--shall be encouraged to locate within the I-75 corridor, adjacent to the Tampa International Airport, and within the I-4 corridor. FLUE Policy B-6.5 provides: Expansion or new development of non- industrially designated land uses in industrially designated areas shall be prohibited unless the use is determined to be an accessory and complementary use to the industrial area. Applicable development regulations shall contain standards and/or criteria for location and intensity of these types of non-industrial uses. The intent is to ensure the availability of lands for industrial development, and to ensure that such subordinate uses will be in conjunction with the surrounding industrial area, as long as the industrial uses in the area are the predominant uses. FLUE Policy B-6.7 states: "Future industrial development shall be concentrated within industrial and mixed use areas as defined on the Future Land Use Map." Addressing agriculture, FLUE Objective B-7 states: Hillsborough County shall take active measures to foster the economic viability of agricultural activities by recognizing and providing for [their] unique characteristics in land use planning and land development regulations. FLUE Policy B-7.1 is to "[p]romote the development and maintenance of Plant City and Ruskin as agricultural market centers that strengthen the agricultural economy, encouraging agricultural uses within and around both communities." FLUE Policy B-7.2 is to "[a]llow agriculture as a viable use both prior and subsequent to the mining of land designated or approved for mining purposes." FLUE Policy B-7.5 warns: Anyone seeking the maximum long-term protection for long-term agricultural activities either should locate these activities on land in the Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate and Rural Residential designated land use categories or should seek having these designations placed on their current location. FLUE Policy B-7.6 advises: "Anyone seeking to farm until it is more feasible to develop the property non- agriculturally should locate and remain in non-rural designated areas." FLUE Policy B-7.7 guarantees, for areas designated Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, and Agricultural/Rural, that minimum acreages needed for viable agriculture will remain after clustering is approved. FLUE Policy B-7.9 is to defer charging an on-going agriculturally used property designated Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, or Rural Residential for public water or sewer tie-ins until actual connections are made or the designation is changed to a non- rural land use category. FLUE Objective B-8 deals with the question of compatibility between agricultural and nonagricultural uses in areas designated other than Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, and Rural Residential. FLUE Policy B-8.4 is to "[d]iscourage the location of new non- agricultural uses adjacent to pre-existing agricultural uses in rural land use categories." FLUE Objective C-25 addresses the need for "urban level densities" to encourage single and mixed uses in the I-75 corridor. FLUE Policy C-25.2 is to: "Encourage provision of affordable housing within mixed use developments through public and private sector initiatives." FLUE Policy C-25.3 is to limit the maximum density to 8:1 in the Urban Level 1 area between Tampa and the Pasco county line. FLUE Policy C-25.5 is to encourage access to urban level development on county arterials rather than state highways. FLUE Objective C-27 states: Employment centers shall be planned throughout the I-75 corridor, and residential opportunities shall be permitted in each of the plan categories within the I-75 corridor in order to promote opportunities for all segments of the population to live and work within the corridor, regardless of age, sex, race and income. FLUE Policy C-27.2 is to: "Encourage the provision and integration of low and moderate income housing dispersed throughout the urban level categories." FLUE Objective C-28 states: "Mass transit opportunities shall be expanded within the I-75 corridor." FLUE Objective C-31 is: By 1991, the County shall pursue the Regional Activity Center designation for the area within the I-75 corridor defined as that area consisting of the Urban Level 3 land use plan category on the Future Land Use Plan Map. FLUE Policy C-31.2 is for the County to develop incentives for development to locate within the Regional Activity Center. Suggested incentives are transferable development rights, increased densities and intensities, priority public facility funding, and special taxing districts. FLUE Objectives C-32 and C-33 establish corridors for I-4 and North Dale Mabry, respectively. In the I-4 corridor, light industrial uses are encouraged. In the North Dale Mabry corridor, clustered commercial, such as shopping centers, are encouraged over "scattered unplanned commercial development." 4. Funding and Financial Feasibility 615. CIE Objective 2 is: Provide needed public facilities that are within the ability of the County to fund the facilities. . . from County revenues, development's proportionate share contributions, and grants or gift[s] from other sources. [Rule] 9J-5.016(3)(b)5. CIE Policy 2.A states: The estimated costs of all needed capital improvements shall not exceed conservative estimates of revenues from sources that are available to the County pursuant to current statutes, and which have not been rejected by referendum, if a referendum is required to enact a source of revenue. [Rule] 9J- 5.016(3)(c)1.f. CIE Policy 2.B provides: "Existing and future development shall both pay for the costs of needed public facilities." CIE Policy 2.B.1.a states: Existing development shall pay for some or all of the capital improvements that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, some or all of the replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities, and may pay a portion of the cost of capital improvements needed by future development. CIE Policy 2.B.1.b adds: "Existing development's payments may take the form of user fees, special assessments and taxes." Addressing future development, CIE Policy 2.B.2.a provides: The County will allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents so that current residents will not subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new development. CIE Policy 2.B.2.b states: Future development's payments may take the form of, but are not limited to, voluntary contributions for the benefit of any public facility, impact fees, capacity fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, and future payments of user fees, special assessments and taxes. Future development shall not pay impact fees for the portion of any capital improvement that reduces or eliminates existing deficiencies. The Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements contained in the CIE discloses planned capital expenditures, as they were known in June and July, 1989. The Five-Year Schedule indicates that, for the five-year period ending with fiscal year end 1994, the following capital costs are projected by public facility type: roads--$273,668,000; parks--$28,611,000; water--$10,798,000; sewer--$55,848,000; stormwater-- $29,345,000; and solid waste--$16,250,000. The total of these capital expenditures is $414,520,000. For each project, the Five-Year Schedule describes the general funding source. The CIE contains a section entitled Costs and Revenues by Type of Public Facility, which is an adopted part of the Plan. The Costs and Revenues section, which was prepared in December, 1990, states: The [CIE] is 100% financed by revenue sources that are available to the County under current law, therefore the Element is financially feasible, as required by the Florida Administrative Code. There is no "unfunded" portion of the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The Costs and Revenues section identifies each of the public facilities for which concurrency is required, the total expenditures planned for each public facility for the five-year capital planning period, and general sources of revenue by facility type. The costs and revenues by public facility type are: roads--$193,684,000; parks--$17,865,000; water-- $9,265,000; sewer--$76,179,000; drainage--$25,000,000; and solid waste--$16,250,000. The total of these capital expenditures is $362,097,000. Evidently, budget cutbacks took place in the 18 months between the adoption of the Five Year Schedule in mid 1989 and the adoption of the Costs and Revenues section in December, 1990. 5. Transportation Level of Service Standards Transportation Element Policy 1.1.1 sets minimum peak hour level of service standards for County roads, subject to lower standards for certain roads listed in CIE Policy 1.C.1.a. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 sets minimum peak hour level of service standards for State roads, subject to lower standards for certain roads listed in Transportation Element Table 2. 24/ Transportation Element Tables 1 and 2 show that 58 of the 147 state road segments in Hillsborough County are operating below the level of service standards generally adopted in Policy 1.1.4. These standards are D for all Urban state roads except for minor arterials, which are E, and C for all Rural state roads except for minor arterials, which are D. Table 1 shows that, by 1995, an additional 33 state road segments will be operating below the generally adopted level of service standard. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 concludes: "No development orders will be issued that would further reduce the current level of service on those roads listed in Table 2 of this element except where the development is vested under law." Transportation Element Figure 4 shows the location of all roads operating at level of service F. None is south of the Alafia River. The impaired roads are entirely in northwest and northcentral Hillsborough County. Among the road segments operating below the generally applicable level of service standards for state roads are four of the 11 segments of SR 574 (Buffalo/King), 10 of the 15 segments of SR 597 (Dale Mabry Highway), four of the five segments of SR 580 (Hillsborough Ave.), seven of the 10 segments of I- 275, seven of the eight segments of I-4, and four of the five segments of US 41 (Nebraska Ave. portion only). Much less impacted state road segments include I- 75, which has no segment operating below its adopted level of service standards; US 301, which has two of nine segments operating below its adopted level of service standards; and US 41 (southern sections), which has no segment operating below its adopted level of service standards. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 states that state roads operating below adopted level of service standards are "backlogged" or "constrained" and shall have a level of service standard established by the volume-to-capacity ratio listed for each road on Table 2. The Data and Analysis discuss the transportation problems confronting Hillsborough County. Many of the impaired road segments are scheduled for capital improvements in the Florida Department of Transportation five year work program. One key exception is Dale Mabry Highway, which will remain at level of service F even after planned work is completed. Transportation Element, page 24. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.7 promises that, within one year after adoption of the Plan, the County will enter into an agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation to identify actions that the County will take to "maintain the existing average operating conditions" on backlogged or constrained state roads. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.14 provides that Hillsborough County will, by 1990, initiate studies to identify State and County road corridors not capable of undergoing further capacity-increasing improvements and are thus suitable for designation as constrained corridors. 6. Vested Rights and Developments of Regional Impact The Legal Status of the Plan, which is part of the FLUE, addresses vested rights. The Legal Status section requires the County to develop an administrative process by which vested rights can be determined. The Legal Status section preconditions a finding of vested rights upon the following: That the person owned the parcel proposed for development at the date of the adoption of this [Plan], or the person had a contract or option to purchase the parcel on such date, or that it would be inequitable, unjust or fundamentally unfair to deny an application for vested rights where the person acquired ownership prior to February 1, 1990; and That there was a valid, unexpired act of any agency or authority of Hillsborough County government upon which the person reasonably relied in good faith; and That the person, in reliance upon this act of government, has made a substantial change in position or had incurred extensive obligations or expenses; and That it would be inequitable, unjust or fundamentally unfair to destroy the rights acquired by the person. In making this determination, the County may consider a number of factors, including but not limited to consideration of whether actual construction has commenced and whether the expense or obligation incurred is unique to the development previously approved and is not reasonably usable for a development permitted by the [Plan] and land development regulations. FLUE, page 128. Ensuing provisions of the Legal Status section identify various vested rights based on whether a development is exempted from concurrency. The Legal Status section also addresses certain development orders under developments of regional impact (DRI). Between the Plan adoption date and February 1, 1990, the County will approve buildout of not more than a "limited stage" of the total proposed DRI. Generally, the buildout approval will be limited to the part of the proposed development that has received Site Development Approval within two years following the expiration of the development order's initial appeal period. The Legal Status section authorizes the approval of additional development stages beyond the two-year limit if the development application had been received by the County prior to the Plan adoption date, the developer made substantial expenditures before Plan adoption in conducting a transportation analysis, and the transportation analysis focused on impacts occurring beyond the two-year limit. Development activity following the approved initial stage shall be subject to the Plan, including the concurrency requirements. The Legal Status section also recognizes the practice of "pipelining." The Legal Status section states: "While 'pipelining' will remain a permitted transportation mitigation option, the Board of County Commissioners will closely scrutinize its use." FLUE, page 129. Miscellaneous Intergovernmental Coordination Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) Objective 1 states: By 1990, Hillsborough County shall establish new and review existing coordination mechanisms that will evaluate and address its comprehensive plan and programs and their effects on the comprehensive plans developed for the adjacent local governments, school board, and other units of local government providing services but not having regulatory authority over use of land and the State, by an annual county-wide forum sponsored by The Planning Commission. Assistance for this effort shall be requested from regional and state agencies by The Planning Commission, as needed. ICE Objective 3 requires the County, by 1991, "to address through coordination mechanisms the impact of development proposed in the [Plan] upon development in adjacent jurisdictions, the region and the state." Dual Planning Timeframes The Plan contains dual planning timeframes. Overall, the Plan contains a 20-year planning timeframe. However, shorter planning periods are addressed, such as the five-year period covered in the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. Regional Plan Provisions The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has adopted a regional plan known as the Future of the Region: A Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region dated July 1, 1987 (Regional Plan). The Regional Plan, which applies to unincorporated Hillsborough County, is divided into goals and policies. Regional Goal 8.1 is: "By 1990, there will be an ample supply of water to meet all projected reasonable and beneficial uses in the Tampa Bay region." Policy 8.1.4 states: "Land use planning and development decisions shall consider the impact on surface and groundwater quality." Regional Goal 8.5 is: "By 1991, the region will increase the protection of major public water supplies and wellfields." Policy 8.5.1 states: "Prime groundwater recharge areas and cones of influence of existing and future major public water supplies and well fields shall be identified and mapped." Regional Goal 8.7 is: "By 1991, new developments in the region will be required to use the best management practices and/or procedures to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff." Policy 8.7.1 requires the development of programs to ensure water reclamation and reuse with respect to wastewater and stormwater. Regional Goal 8.8 is: "By 1995, existing developments will be required to make measurable progress toward meeting stormwater standards." Policy 8.8.1 provides: "Local governments should upgrade or retrofit drainage systems in urbanized areas to include stormwater treatment for water quality." Policy 8.8.4 requires that agricultural runoff "shall be handled with Best Management Practices to minimize its impact upon receiving waters." Regional Goal 8.9 is: "By 1995, there shall be an increase in the effectiveness of programs protecting or enhancing the ecological function of natural systems (aquatic, wetland and terrestrial systems)." Policy 8.9.1 is to develop regional and local programs "to identify, protect and conserve the natural character and function of area lakes, streams, estuaries, wetlands, floodplain areas, and upland areas." Policy 8.9.2 directs that local government comprehensive plans shall incorporate the following: a) adoption of criteria for work in lake, riverine and wetland systems which will protect water quality, wildlife habitat and natural hydrological functioning of these areas; b) conservation of valuable upland habitat and wetland systems; c) preservation of habitat for endangered and threatened species; d) establish ecological minimum flow criteria and hydroperiod for surface waters; e) utilization of biological treatment methods and natural areas, such as wetlands, for stormwater treatment in areas of development/redevelopment to the maximum feasible extent. Regional Goal 8.10 is: "By 1991, land use practices will reduce the disruption of natural floodplain functions." Policy 8.10.1 states: "Regulations should be developed to promote appropriate land use practices compatible with floodplain areas and provide for performance standards for these land uses." Regional Goal 9.1 is: "By 1990, coastal zone areas will have increased vegetation, enhanced beach systems and improved environmental quality." Policy 9.1.2 provides: "The protection of coastal vegetative communities, coastal wildlife habitats, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development shall be required." Regional Goal 9.3 is: "By 1995, aquatic preserves in the Tampa Bay region will be more productive than 1985 levels and have a significant improvement in quality over 1985 measurements." Policy 9.3.3 requires buffer zones or other appropriate protection "between pristine aquatic preserves and adjacent upland uses to prevent degradation of water quality, shoreline and marine habitats." Regional Goal 9.4 is: "By 1991, all marine resources will be protected from contamination from human-induced processes." Policy 9.4.1 states: To protect sensitive marine resources from immediate and near future degradation resulting from improper development practices and recreational misuse, priority shall be given to water dependent uses or other types of shoreline development such as marina, light industry, ports and shoreline compatible commerce. Policy 9.4.2 states that the exploration and development of mineral resources "shall only proceed in an ecologically sound manner which does not threaten marine, aquatic, and estuarine resources." Policy 9.4.5 provides: "Dredging or spoiling of undisturbed bay bottom shall be prohibited. " Regional Goal 9.5 is: "By 1995, there will be at least a 5 percent increase in productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources." Policy 9.5.1 states: "Long-term productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources shall be increased and restored through estuary and intertidal protection." Regional Goal 9.6 is: "By 1990, coastal area will be protected by local government controls and other building regulations that will enhance the character and function of barrier islands and other environmentally sensitive areas." Policy 9.6.1 states: "Land and water uses shall be compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources." Policy 9.6.2 provides: "The use of government funds to subsidize development should be prohibited in high-hazard coastal areas." Policy 9.6.3 is to identify coastal high hazard areas "where the expenditure of public funds to subsidize development shall be prohibited." Policy 9.6.4 states: "The use of public funds to rebuild public facilities damaged by hurricanes or other storms shall be limited to facilities essential only for public health and safety." Regional Goal 10.1 is: "By 1995, the Tampa Bay region's conservation areas will have increased environmental quality and functional characteristics that provide suitable habitat to all wildlife and flora indigenous to the region." Policy 10.1.1 states: "Protect the habitats and plant communities that tend to be least in abundance and most productive or unique." Policy 10.2.2 states: The hydrologic continuity and water quality of identified isolated wetlands shall be protected. Development activities or other land disturbances in the drainage area of the wetlands shall minimize alterations to the surface or subsurface flow of water into and from the wetland and shall not cause impairment of the water quality or the plant and wildlife habitat value of the wetland. Policy 10.2.3 requires "water users, such as agriculture and mining," to prepare mitigation plans "to minimize unavoidable impacts to nearby wetlands." Policy 10.2.4 requires: Mitigation measures shall be developed to provide water quality benefits and plant and animal habitat equivalent to the wetland destroyed or altered. Newly created wetlands should include at least 1:1 mitigation using the same type or more productive vegetation with at least an 80-85 percent natural cover rate, over a 2 to 5 year period. Regional Goal 10.3 is: "By 1993, regional preservation areas will be protected by regulations or practices from further development and will be preserved and/or restored to their natural state." Policy 10.3.1 states, in part: "Preservation areas, such as marine grass beds . . . and other vital or critical natural systems, shall be protected from any further development except in cases of overriding public interest." Policy 10.3.3 provides: "Unique upland communities and habitats in identified preservation areas should be protected from development that would significantly alter their character. Preservation and restoration of these communities shall be required." Regional Goal 10.4 is: "By 1991, development in the 100 year floodplains should be strictly regulated." Policy 10.4.1 allows new channelization only as a "last resort" in flood protection for existing development. Policy 10.4.4 prohibits channelization solely to create new lands for development. Policy 10.4.2 prohibits locating new development in river floodways (i.e., the area of highest velocity during flow) except in cases of overriding public interest. Policy 10.4.3 requires that new development in the flood fringe (i.e., the area of the floodplain outside the floodway) meet flood hazard construction requirements. Regional Goal 10.5 is: "By 1991, new or rebuilt development within the 25 year floodplain will not contribute adverse water quality impacts from stormwater runoff." Policy 10.5.2 states: "Development along all river floodplains shall be low density with adequate setbacks to maintain existing areas of natural habitat." Regional Goal 10.6 is that, by 1995, there shall be "measurable indications" of greater commitment from local governments and private parties to "conserve, protect, and enhance" populations and habitats of endangered, threatened, and special-concern species. Policy 10.6.1 recommends the adoption of incentives to encourage the preservation of native habitats. Policy 10.6.2 states: Identified areas that contain viable populations of, or suitable habitats for, species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern . . . shall be classified as environmentally sensitive, preservation, or conservation areas with future development limited to land uses compatible with the listed species. Regional Goal 10.8 is: "By 1991, there will be marked changes in land rearrangement and vegetation clearing practices that do not degrade the region's natural drainage and percolation patterns." Policy 10.8.1 requires the use of buffer zones between agricultural lands and water bodies. Regional Goal 10.9 is: "By 1995, the region's forested and woodland areas will not have decreased in size by more than 3 percent, or have any less characteristics than present in 1988." Policy 10.9.1 requires the addition to local government comprehensive plans of forest preservation plans for significant woodlands or forests. Policy 10.9.2 states that the forest preservation strategy shall consist of mapping of forests and woodlands, identifying those forest or woodland areas that are wetlands or habitat protection areas, and providing incentives for the conversion of other land uses to forested conditions. Policy 10.9.3 states that wildlife corridors should be maintained. Regional Goal 16.8 is: "As an ongoing goal, all dredge and fill activities shall be carried out only when necessary and in a manner least harmful to the surrounding environment." Policy 16.8.1 provides: Any project including unavoidable destruction of habitat shall mitigate all lost wetland habitat on a 1:1 in-kind basis, at minimum. Mitigation shall include monitoring with assurance of an 80-85% natural cover area after 2-5 years. Policy 16.8.2 states: "Unique and irreplaceable natural resources shall be protected from adverse effects." This policy is intended to apply to dredge and fill projects, as is clear from the standard by which compliance is to be measured, which is the "amount of dredging or filling within unique and irreplaceable natural resources." Regional Goal 13.6 is: "By 1995, groundwater contamination due to inappropriately located or improperly used septic tanks shall be eliminated." Policy 13.6.2 provides: "Permitting process criteria for septic tanks and their fields shall take into consideration adverse impacts on water quality and aquatic resources." Policy 13.6.4 requires a survey locating "septic tanks associated with all commercial and industrial activities" and an "evaluation . . . concerning potential adverse effects on groundwater resources, water supply wells, and ground water recharge potential." Regional Goal 13.9 is: "By 1995, water quality will be improved by the control of point and non-point discharges into surface waters." Policy 13.9.2 states: "Domestic sewage and industrial discharges shall be required to achieve best practical technological standards and to implement reuse systems to minimize pollution discharge." Regional Goal 13.10 is: "By 1995, the number of project-specific 'package plants' shall be reduced from 1988 levels." Encouraging private cost- sharing in the construction of regional wastewater facilities and the development of requirements for connecting package-plant systems to regional systems when available, Policy 13.10.1 also provides: When necessary, project-specific "package plants" shall be allowed but only where a detailed hydrogeological analysis of the site determines low potential for groundwater contamination from hazardous wastes or other pollutants. Regional Goal 14.4 is: "By 1991, mining practices will be designed to fully protect the natural environment from the adverse effects of resource extraction." Policy 14.4.1 states: "There shall be no mining in areas which are geographically or hydrologically unsuitable for the extraction of minerals or in areas which are crucial to the provision of essential public services." Policy 14.4.2 provides: "There shall be no mining in the 25-year floodplain." Policy 14.4.3 states: The mining of environmentally sensitive areas shall be avoided unless it can be demonstrated that technology associated with reclamation and restoration can restore those areas. Mining and reclamation procedures shall minimize permanent changes in natural systems and the permanent loss of environmental resources. The best available technology and practices shall be used to re-establish the land forms, land uses, and natural vegetation associations that existed prior to mining of the land to the extent feasible and desirable. Policy 14.4.4 provides that the portion of mining areas that contain endangered or threatened wildlife species shall be protected. Policy 14.4.5 states that mining and processing shall be conducted so as to "protect, manage and more efficiently utilize water resources." Regional Goal 16.1 is for ten percent of DRI's to be located in designated regional activity centers between 1986 and 1990. Regional Goal 16.2 is: "As an ongoing goal, new urban development, including in-fill, will occur on land which has the capacity to accommodate growth in terms of environmental and infrastructural impacts." Policy 16.2.1 states: "Contiguous development and the orderly extension and expansion of public facilities are necessary." Policy 16.2.2 encourages the location of higher density developments within existing urban areas where public facilities are available. Regional Goal 16.5 is: By 1991, the integrity and quality of life will be maintained in existing residential areas and will be required of new residential developments through the continued revision and adoption of local government comprehensive plans, environmental and land use regulations. Policy 16.5.1 provides that residential areas shall be located and designed to protect from "natural and manmade hazards such as flooding, excessive traffic, subsidence, noxious odors and noise." Policy 16.5.2 states: "Residential land uses shall be encouraged in a manner which is compatible with the type and scale of surrounding land uses." Policy 16.5.4 encourages local governments to locate high density residential areas near regional activity centers and reduce densities elsewhere to "facilitate the restriction of urban sprawl [and] use of mass transit." Policy 16.5.5 encourages mixed use developments with buffering of residential areas. Policy 16.5.6 recommends the location of shopping facilities, recreation areas, schools, and parks within high density residential areas. Regional Goal 16.6 is: By 1991, commercial development, compatible with environmental and economic resources, will occur in a planned and orderly fashion through the continued revision and adoption of local government comprehensive plans, environmental and land use regulations. Policy 16.6.1 states: Commercial land uses shall be located in a manner which ensures compatibility with the type and scale of surrounding land uses and where existing or programmed public facilities will not be overburdened. Policy 16.6.2 is to locate regional commercial areas in planned centers to ensure compatibility and "efficiency of economic and natural resources." Policy 16.6.3 "strongly discourage[s]" strip commercial development, which "compounds traffic and land use conflicts." Regional Goal 16.7 is the same as Regional Goal 16.6, except that Goal 16.7 applies to industrial uses. Policy 16.7.1 is to locate industrial areas near adequate transportation for materials, labor, and products. Policy 16.7.5 encourages the redevelopment of urbanized industrial locations near major transportation facilities, such as ports and airports. Regional Goal 22.1 is: "By 1991, the Tampa Bay region shall balance the needs of agricultural and nonagricultural land uses." Policy 22.1.1 encourages the "preservation and utilization of agriculture land for agriculture uses." Policy 22.1.3 provides: "The recognition of agriculture as a form of land use and a category on land use plan maps, not simply as a holding zone, is encouraged, where appropriate." Policy 22.1.6 recommends: "Agriculture should be recognized as a major contributor to the region's economic base, and should be retained where possible to maintain the diversification of the region's economy." Regional Goal 22.2 is: "By 1991, agricultural practices will be implemented to reduce the amount of pesticides and other agriculturally based pollutants in surface waters, groundwater and sediments." Policy 17.1.1 states: To relieve pressure on existing public facilities, programs such as temporary density bonuses, special zoning designations and public acquisition of tax-delinquent property should be developed to encourage infilling of vacant urban lands. Policy 17.1.5 provides: "Capital improvements programs should maximize the development of existing systems before allocating funds to support public facilities in undeveloped areas." Regional Goal 17.2 is: "By 1991, the planning of public facilities will serve as a proactive growth management tool." Policy 17.2.1 requires that the location of public facilities "shall be used to guide urban development" and the "rate of private development should be commensurate with a reasonable rate of expansion of public and semi-public facilities." Policy 17.2.2 recommends the advance acquisition of sites for potential public and semi-public facilities. Regional Goal 19.1 is: As an ongoing goal, planning for and maintenance of an integrated transportation system including highway, air, mass transit, rail, water, and pipeline systems, which efficiently services the need for movement of all people and goods within the region and between the region and outside world[,] will continue to be implemented. Policy 19.1.2 is to reduce dependency upon the private automobile by providing an adequate mass transit system. Policy 19.1.3 states: "The transportation system should promote the efficient use of energy resources and improvement of the region's air quality." Policy 19.8.8 states: An operational Level of Service (LOS) D peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in urbanized areas. An operational LOS C peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in rural areas. However, Policy 19.8.9 provides: An operation Level of Service (LOS) E peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in Special Transportation areas as agreed upon by the FDOT, the appropriate MPO, the regional planning council, and the local government. Policy 19.8.14 states: Pipelining shall be an acceptable and sufficient DRI transportation impact mitigation for existing and future DRIs provided that all the following provisions are met: Project approvals shall be phased and shall not exceed five years. Subsequent approvals shall be subject to further analysis and additional pipeline mitigation. Roadway improvement to be pipelined shall: be selected from the list of existing or proposed regional transportation facilities substantially affected by the development identified by the [regional planning council] during the DRI review. preferably be consistent with MPO and FDOT long-range plans. receive concurrence from the local government and [regional planning council] with review and comment by MPO and FDOT. The developer fair share pipeline contribution shall be equalto or exceed an amount calculated pursuant to DCA pipeline transportation policy. The developer shall receive credit against impact fees, pursuant to law. Local government, based upon traffic analysis or studies, and/or long range planning, may authorize alternative pipelining approaches and conditions, to those established in subparagraph 1 above, provided that such variations are technically appropriate and that the basis for, and the conditions of, such variations are specifically set forth in the Development Order. Regional Goal 11.1 is: "By 1995, land use-related airborne contaminants will be reduced within the region by a measurable percentage." Policy 11.1.1 is for each local government to develop procedures to assess air quality impacts from non-DRI development, such as strip shopping centers, that have a cumulative impact on traffic flow. Policy 11.1.4 is to "[i]nitiate control measures where construction, mining and other activities where heavy vehicular traffic and/or meteorological conditions result in significant air pollution." Regional Goal 11.2 is: "By 1992, the regional will maintain ambient sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, ozone, and total suspended particulate levels that are equal to or better than the state and federal standards." Regional Goal 11.6 is: "By 1992, transportation related air quality impacts that adversely impact ambient air quality will be reduced." Policy 11.6.1 states that the metropolitan planning organizations and others entities involved in transportation planning "shall give priority to traffic flow improvements that reduce air pollution, particularly in areas that exceed ambient standards." Regional Goal 12.3 is: "As an ongoing goal, the most energy efficient and economically feasible means shall be utilized in construction, operation and maintenance of the region's transportation system." Policy 12.3.1 recommends consideration of incentives such as development or expansion of mass transit, "park and ride" programs, and public awareness of mass transit options. Regional Goal 20.2 is: "By 1990, the region's governments shall increase their efficiency and effectiveness." State Plan Provisions The state comprehensive plan is set forth at Sections 187.201 et seq., Florida Statutes. Section 187.201(8)(b)12 states: "Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." Section 187.201(10)(b)5 provides: "Promote the use of agricultural practices which are compatible with the protection of wildlife and natural systems." Section 187.201(23) states the goal of agricultural policies as follows: Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Section 187.201(16) states the goal of land use policies as follows: In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Section 187.201(18)(b)1 and 3 provides: Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. Allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents. Section 187.201(16)(b)2 states: "Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats." Section 187.201(20)(b)2 provides: "Coordinate transportation investments in major travel corridors to enhance system efficiency and minimize adverse environmental impacts." Section 187.201(20)(b)9 states: "Ensure that the transportation system provides Florida's citizens and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions." Section 187.201(11) states the following goal: "Florida shall reduce its energy requirements through enhanced conservation and efficiency measures in all end-use sectors, while at the same time promoting an increased use of renewable energy resources." Section 187.201(11)(b)2 adds: "Ensure that developments and transportation systems are consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality." Section 187.201(12)(b)4 provides: "Ensure energy efficiency in transportation design and planning and increase the availability of more efficient modes of transportation." Section 187.201(12)(b)5 states: "Reduce the need for new power plants by encouraging end-use efficiency, reducing peak demand, and using cost-effective alternatives." Section 187.201(5)(b)4 states: "Reduce the cost of housing construction by eliminating unnecessary regulatory practices which add to the cost of housing." Section 187.201(21)(b)4 and 12 provides: "Eliminate regulatory activities that are not tied to specific public and natural resource protection needs" and "Discourage undue expansion of state government and make every effort to streamline state government in a cost effective-manner. Ultimate Findings of Fact Minimum Criteria of Data and Analysis Sufficiency of Data and Analysis (Issues 1-9) As to Issue 1, the ELUM's show existing and planned water wells, their cones of influence, historic resources, floodplains, wetlands, minerals, and soils. The ELUM's show many important existing public facilities, such as roads, potable water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, and schools. The depiction of power line rights of way and power generating facilities is less clear, although major public and industrial uses are indicated. As to Issues 2 and 3, the Data and Analysis describe at length the fisheries, wildlife, marine habitats, and vegetative communities that are found in Hillsborough County. The text and CARE Table 11 identify endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with each habitat. As to Issue 3, for each of the vegetative communities or habitats found in Hillsborough County, the Data and Analysis identify various uses, known pollution problems, and potential for conservation, use, or protection. As to Issue 4, the Data and Analysis discuss the suitability of soils for septic tanks. The discussion notes the problems associated with the placement of septic tanks on poorly drained soils, as well as excessively drained soils. The Data and Analysis identify the parts of the County with such soils, especially the poorly drained coastal soils of the coastal high hazard area. As to Issues 4 and 5, the Data and Analysis acknowledge that septic tank failures have adversely affected the water quality of Cockroach Bay. The discussion of the impact of septic tanks in other parts of the Tampa Bay estuary is less specific geographically. But the Data and Analysis generally recognize the role of inadequately treated domestic wastewater and inadequately treated stormwater runoff in the eutrophication of Tampa Bay. As to Issue 6, the Data and Analysis consider the potential for conservation, use, and protection of all surface waters in Hillsborough County, including Tampa Bay. As to Issue 7, the Data and Analysis identify and analyze existing and future water needs and sources and natural groundwater recharge areas. Although Hillsborough County contains no areas of prime recharge to the Floridan aquifer nor of high natural recharge to any aquifer, the Data and Analysis identify locations of very low to moderate natural aquifer recharge and areas of high susceptibility to groundwater contamination. As to Issue 8, the Data and Analysis contain land use suitability analyses in which various land uses are correlated to natural features, including natural resources. Oversized Map 13 locates very severely limited soils and critical and sensitive lands in relation to vacant lands. Other ELUM's more specifically locate and analyze vacant lands, floodplains, wetlands, historic resources, minerals, soils, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, estuarine systems, recharge areas, areas highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination, water wells, vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources appropriately considered in analyzing potential land uses for vacant land. The Data and Analysis textually analyze the suitability of various types of land for different land uses. In some cases, the analysis is incomplete, such as with respect to suitable land uses within the cones of influence of water wells or adjacent to wellfields. Even for such resources, however, the Data and Analysis support the inference that activities involving considerable water consumption or wastewater production, like traditional phosphate mining operations, should not be located in close proximity to water wellfields. The Data and Analysis explicitly identify the risk to groundwater posed by impervious surfaces and groundwater contamination such as from septic drainfields and leaking underground storage tanks. Thus, suitable land uses may at least be inferred with respect to areas of natural moderate aquifer recharge or artificially high aquifer recharge due to wellfield drawdowns. As to Issue 9, Coastal Element Figure 18 identifies the coastal high hazard area in Hillsborough County. 2. Supporting Data and Analysis (Issues 10-14) As to Issue 10, the failure of the Plan to require retrofitting of existing, deficient stormwater management systems is supported by the Data and Analysis. In the first place, the Plan addresses retrofitting to a significant extent. Coastal Element Policy 13.3, which deals with all infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area, commits the County to preparing, by the 1993 hurricane season, a program to relocate or retrofit public facilities where feasible. Where economically and environmentally feasible, CARE Policy 2.10 and Coastal Element Policy 1.11 provide for the retrofitting of urbanized areas lacking stormwater management facilities. CARE Policy 2.8 contains similar provisions regarding agricultural runoff. The Plan provisions cited in the preceding paragraph are supported by the Data and Analysis. Existing stormwater problems are sufficiently serious that the Data and Analysis question whether water quality problems can be corrected without retrofitting stormwater management systems. Stormwater Element, page 20. However, the Data and Analysis recognize that economic reality may limit retrofitting to redevelopment. The failure of the Plan to require retrofitting of stormwater systems generally is supported by the Data and Analysis, at least in the absence of stronger evidence that, without retrofitting in unincorporated Hillsborough County, the water quality problems in Tampa Bay cannot be effectively addressed. The other part of Issue 10 concerns the failure of the Plan to set a stormwater level of service standard in terms of water quality. This part of Issue 10 addresses the means by which the performance of stormwater management systems will be evaluated, regardless whether the systems are installed at the time of development or redevelopment. The failure of the Plan in this regard is dramatic. First, the Plan provides for a stormwater level of service standard strictly in terms of flood control. The stormwater level of service standard, which is stated in CIE Policy 1.C.1.b, defines storm events and their duration and then specifies the extent to which the stormwater facilities may flood in such events. Other Plan provisions address aspects of stormwater management other than mere flood control--even mentioning water quality. But these provisions lack the measurable and enforceable performance standards characteristic of level of service standards. 25/ The Data and Analysis offer no support for the Plan's preoccupation, when setting a level of service standard, with stormwater solely in terms of flood control, to the exclusion of other factors that affect the quality of receiving waters, such as runoff rate, quality, and hydroperiods. To the contrary, the stormwater level of service standard in the Plan is repugnant to the Data and Analysis. The Data and Analysis clearly identify the role of inadequately treated stormwater runoff in the eutrophication of Tampa Bay. One quarter of the biological oxygen demand and 35% of the suspended solids discharged into the bay are attributable to stormwater runoff. Important gains have been made in reducing the nutrient loading of the bay by inadequately treated domestic and industrial wastewater, such as through the enhancement of treatment levels at wastewater treatment plants or the implementation of wastewater reuse programs. But the Data and Analysis concede that nutrient loading from stormwater runoff will remain a more intractable program. Coastal Element, page 24. The problem is exacerbated by inadequate compliance with existing stormwater regulations. CARE, page 54. For areas within the substantial floodplains of Hillsborough County, and even to a certain extent for areas outside the floodplains, the stormwater issue is best approached from the perspective of floodplain management. The natural drainage of floodplains regulates the timing, velocity, and levels of flood discharges, as well as water quality through the processes of sediment detention and chemical filtration. CARE, pages 14-15. Stormwater management systems using only a structural approach to effect flood control destroy the natural drainage function of the floodplain. Structural improvements include such projects as channelizing natural watercourses (like the Palm River) and constructing new channels, dams, levees, and other structures to hold back floodwaters or rapidly convey them elsewhere. Consequently, flood discharges tend to peak more quickly. By increasing maximum flow, the flood-control structures decrease filtration, groundwater recharge, habitat maintenance, detrital production and export, maintenance of base flow (as minimum flows during later dry periods cannot draw upon water previously stored in the unaltered floodplains), and estuarine salinity regulation. CARE, pages 15-17. In short, the Data and Analysis disclose that a stormwater management program whose performance is evaluated exclusively in terms of flood control, such as that contained in the Plan, has systemic environmental implications whose economic costs are probably incalculable. The Data and Analysis identify the obvious planning considerations that underlie the establishment of a viable stormwater level of service standard. The third guideline for floodplain management is to avoid alterations to the natural rate, quality, and pattern of surface waters. Expressly applying the guideline to floodplains and "more upland sites," the Data and Analysis advise that the "rate, volume, timing and location of discharge of surface water should generally not be altered from predevelopment conditions." CARE, page 19. See also Stormwater Element, page 20. Yet, the best that the County offers, after acknowledging its preoccupation with flood control in setting the stormwater level of service standard, is to promise that a stormwater management program--deferred to land development regulations--will eventually address stormwater runoff in terms of quality, not merely quantity. Stormwater Element, page 43. As to the part of Issue 10 addressing the level of service standard, the Plan's stormwater standard is, to the exclusion of fair debate, not supported by the Data and Analysis because it fails to require that, for new development, redevelopment, and expansions of existing development, as "development" is defined in the Plan, postdevelopment stormwater urban and agricultural runoff shall be the same as (or, where appropriate, better than) predevelopment runoff in terms of volume, quality, rate, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. If the Plan fails to amend its stormwater level of service standard in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph, many future land use designations, in addition to those discussed below, are, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsuitable and lack support from the Data and Analysis. The permitted densities and intensities, especially in the 100 year floodplain, will contribute dramatically to the degradation of natural drainage patterns in the County and ultimately to the degradation of Tampa Bay. Absent modification of the stormwater level of service standard to address urban and agricultural runoff in terms of volume, quality, rate, hydroperiod, and drainage basin, the Data and Analysis would not support Plan provisions that allowed any development, as that term is defined in the Plan, in the 100 year floodplain if such development's urban or agricultural runoff altered predevelopment drainage conditions in terms of its rate, volume, quality, timing, or location of discharge. As to Issues 11-14, assuming that the Plan is amended to broaden the scope of the stormwater level of service standard in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph, the Plan is generally supported by the land use suitability analysis. However, there are 11 exceptions. First, in terms of urban sprawl, the overall densities in the Plan are supported by the Data and Analysis, at least to the extent that there is no indication of urban sprawl. The density allocation ratio of 1.61:1 is not an especially strong indicator of sprawl in this case. 26/ Several factors are important in evaluating a density allocation ratio, such as whether historic buildouts have been considered (not in this case) and the duration of the planning timeframe (20 years). Probably the most important consideration, though, is the location of the residential uses. A density allocation ratio of 3:1 generated by 100,000 acres of 1:1 residential is far more suggestive of inefficient use of land than the same ratio generated by 5000 acres of 20:1 residential in an existing or planned mixed use urban area, assuming the provision of adequate public facilities, protection of natural resources, and protection of agriculture. The Plan's two planning strategies involve the concentration of density in the I-75 corridor, with decreasing densities radiating outward, and the development of nodes where suitably scaled commercial uses are located in close proximity to residential uses. These two strategies have been effectively implemented in the Plan to counter urban sprawl. There is no plausible evidence in the record that the allocated intensities or acreage, in terms of commercial or industrial uses, are indicative of urban sprawl. As the Data and Analysis note, commercial development has historically followed residential development, not preceded it. An underallocation of commercial and industrial future land uses arguably invites sprawl by interfering with the development of functionally related land uses. There is no place for commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational land uses once residential development has consumed the entire landscape, with respect to which adequate commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses have not been timely reserved. In addition, allocation ratios for commercial and industrial uses are problematic, regardless whether expressed in acreage, which is necessarily a very gross measure of the intensity that is eventually built out, or floor area ratios, which are more precise but much more difficult to predict based on designated acreages of vacant land. Therefore, the overallocation of commercial and industrial uses does not serve as a useful beginning point for analysis, at least in the absence of proof of historic overbuilding with resulting disruption in the efficient use of land or public facilities or loss of natural resources or agriculture. As noted above, the key factor with respect to commercial and industrial uses is location. Through various devices, the Plan effectively pursues mixed land use patterns that will encourage the location of residential, commercial, and industrial, as well as institutional and recreational, uses in a functionally related manner. Notwithstanding the finding that the Plan designations are supported by the Data and Analysis in terms of urban sprawl, the Data and Analysis do not support specific designations involving considerable acreage, even assuming that the stormwater level of service standard will be broadened to include the above- cited factors in addition to flood control. The Data and Analysis recount the consequences of years of land use decisions based "primarily on socio-economic and demographic factors, with little consideration given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land." But the Data and Analysis promise that, "[w]ith a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions . . .." CARE, page 73. For the 11 areas described below, socio-economic and demographic factors have again outweighed the natural carrying capacity of the land. The 11 areas have received unsuitable designations for which the Data and Analysis offer no or inadequate support. For each of these areas, the Plan has assigned designations whose excessive densities and/or intensities generally jeopardize important natural resources or life and property in the coastal high hazard area. A future land use is suitable if the designation is supported by the Data and Analysis. For the vast majority of areas, the Data and Analysis would support designations assigning a range of densities and/or intensities. The question whether a designation is supported by the Data and Analysis requires consideration of, among other factors, the nature of the density or intensity inherent in the designation of the subject area, the data and analysis concerning the nature of the natural resources affected by the subject designation (including off-site resources), the data and analysis concerning when and what type of public facilities will be available to service the subject area, the data and analysis indicating how the designated uses may impact natural resources, and operative Plan provisions that may or may not offer protection to the natural resources in question. 27/ The Plan assigns unsuitable designations to five areas in northwest and north Hillsborough County. The Data and Analysis fail to support two of these designations to the exclusion of fair debate and three of the designations by a mere preponderance of the evidence. One relatively small area whose designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis is designated Low Suburban Density Residential (2:1) at the southeast end of Keystone Lake. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Low Suburban Density Residential on the FLUM. This area is immediately north and west of Gunn Highway at Van Dyke Road. Shown as largely agricultural or vacant on Oversized Map 2, the area received an increase in density in the Plan, according to Oversized Map 14. The only area designated at a Suburban density in the northwest corner of northwest Hillsborough County, the area is the site of one or more major public supply water wells. By contrast, areas containing groups of wells just south of Keystone Lake and at the extreme northwest corner of the County are designated Natural Preservation, as is an area at the southwest corner of SR 597 and Van Dyke Road, about four miles east of the area in question. The area designated Low Suburban Density Residential occupies an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge and is very susceptible to groundwater contamination. The subject area is included in the 1995 central water service area, but excluded from even the 2010 central sewer service area, according to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1. The absence of effective Plan provisions protecting wellfields, cones of influence, and recharge areas further undermines the Low Suburban Density Residential designation of an area in such close proximity to a major public supply water well and in an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge. The increased density for this area threatens a major wellfield with encroaching development, as predicted in the Data and Analysis. FLUE, page 7. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support the density and intensity assigned by the Plan to two, much larger areas in the northern half of northwest Hillsborough County. The extent of the subject areas corresponds to the areas whose densities were increased, according to Oversized Map 14 (excluding only the above-described Low Suburban Density Residential area). The western area of the two is a contiguous block surrounding Keystone Lake and proceeding east and west of the major public supply water wells about 1-2 miles south of Keystone Lake. This area extends to the northwest corner of Hillsborough County, except for the very corner, which is Natural Preservation. The eastern area is a contiguous block almost entirely west of SR 597, but crossing SR 597 at the southeast corner. This area abuts Pasco County on the north and an area of density decrease on the south. These two areas of increased density and intensity surround (or in some cases slightly encroach upon) the four largest collections of major public supply water wells in northwest Hillsborough County, as shown on Oversized Map Representing perhaps half of such collections of major public supply water wells in the entire County, these wells represent a very important source of potable water, especially for a County in which demand is now exceeding supply. The two areas in question are in areas of relatively good natural aquifer recharge and areas of high vulnerability to groundwater contamination. The Plan supplies no performance standards for activities that may introduce contaminants into the portion of the aquifer from which a major public supply water well draws. As the Data and Analysis note, increasing areas of impervious surface may reduce recharge and groundwater supplies. A considerable amount of the eastern area lies in the 100 year floodplain, which runs throughout both areas. The eastern area also includes a significant section of soils with very severe limitations, according to Oversized Map 13 and CARE Figure 9. The green map indicates two overlay areas of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. One of these areas is in the southwest corner of the eastern area, and the other covers the part of the eastern area designated Regional Commercial. The western area contains numerous sites described by Oversized Map 13 as Very Sensitive Lands and most of one significant section of soils with very severe limitations, according to Oversized Map 13 and CARE Figure 9. According to CARE Figure 20, the western area contains significant amounts of dry prairie and cypress swamps. According to the green map, the western areas's potentially significant wildlife habitat takes the form of two narrow corridors running east-west, although the northern one may have been excluded from the area receiving increased density. As noted above, contiguous wildlife corridors receive firm protection under the Plan. The designations are completely different for the two areas. The western area contains entirely Rural Residential (1:1) and Rural Estate Residential (1:2.5), except for small areas of Environmentally Significant Areas. The more densely designated eastern area contains mostly Low Suburban Density Residential (2:1) and smaller, but significant, amounts of Suburban Density Residential (4:1). Each of these areas would, under the Plan, host commercial uses scaled to their respective Rural and Suburban densities. But the southeast corner of the eastern area is designated Regional Commercial (20:1) and contains major natural systems according to Oversized Map 8. The natural systems appear to be dry prairie and cypress swamps on CARE Figure 20. According to Oversized Map 2, this corner is agricultural or vacant with natural area in its center. The unsuitability of the designations given both the eastern and western areas is about equal. Although the western area received less density, according to Sewer Element Figure 1, the western area is almost entirely outside the area that will be served by central sewer, even by 2010. Most of the western area will be served by central water by 2010, with a substantial area to be served by 1995, according to Potable Water Element Figure 1. By contrast, the eastern area already has some central sewer lines and what little area will not be within the 1995 central sewer boundary will be included in the 2010 boundary. The situation is identical with respect to central water. The unsuitability of the designations of the eastern and western areas is unaffected by the fact, as shown by Oversized Map 15, that the Plan brought portions of these areas into conformance with existing zoning. Zoning conforms to Plan designations. The Plan provides, where appropriate, for vested rights. The remedy for nonconforming zoning is to recognize vested rights, not to increase densities and intensities over wide areas to an extent not supported by the Data and Analysis. The key fact is that, for both the western and eastern areas, the Plan has designated excessive densities and intensities in areas containing sensitive and much-needed groundwater resources. And while increasing these densities and intensities, the County has not, at the same time, adopted effective Plan provisions ensuring the protection of wellfields, their cones of influence, natural recharge areas, and the natural functions of floodplains from the adverse impacts of development. Another area whose designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis is an area of about 2.5 square miles designated Urban Level 1 Limited (8:1) immediately east of I-275 and I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Urban Level 1 Limited on the FLUM. The 2.5 square mile area is the only Urban Level designation that is not contiguous to the Urban Level designations constituting the I-75 corridor, except for a small Urban Level-1 "island" surrounded by Natural Preservation. 28/ The 2.5 square mile area designated Urban Level 1 Limited is separated from the remainder of the I-75 corridor by several miles of area designated Natural Preservation. Nor is the 2.5 square mile area bounded by existing or proposed arterial roads, as is required of Urban Level 1 areas. According to Oversized Map 4, the only arterial or higher roads in or near the 2.5 square mile area are I-75 on the west boundary (to which access is limited) and an arterial on the east boundary. There are no roads on the north and south boundaries, nor will there be by 2010, according to Oversized Map 4. Almost the entire 2.5 square mile area is overlaid with Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to the green map. The northern half of the 2.5 square mile area is in the 100 year floodplain. The eastern and western thirds of the area consist of very poorly drained soils. The northern two-thirds of the area occupy an area of very low to moderate recharge, which is the highest recharge in Hillsborough County. Most of the western half of the area is in the area most susceptible to groundwater contamination. The eastern third appears to be entirely dry prairie and cypress swamps, through which a major tributary of the Hillsborough River runs. Oversized Map 8 shows nearly the entire parcel (less a small area at the western end) to be part of major natural systems. Oversized Map 2 shows that the 2.5 square mile areas is entirely agricultural or vacant. Despite this unusual confluence of natural features, the 2.5 square mile area, which is permanently separated from Tampa by a Natural Preserve protecting the Hillsborough River, received a density increase in connection with the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. The 2.5 square mile area is entirely omitted from even the 2010 central water and sewer service areas, according to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1. The failure of Plan provisions to ensure the protection of the natural functions of floodplains and recharge areas exacerbates the unsuitability of the Urban designation for the 2.5 square mile area. The meaning of Urban Level 1 Limited is explained by FLUE Policy C-25.3, which limits the density in the 2.5 square mile area to 8:1. But even this "reduced" density fails to indicate that this remote area will undergo development suitable for the unusual range of natural resources present in the area. The circumstances suggest that the Urban Level 1 Limited designation cannot facilitate the development in this remote area of the kind of viable mixed uses for which Urban designations are intended. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support the density assigned by the Plan to a much larger L-shaped area designated Suburban Density Residential (4:1) extending from the 2.5 square mile area to just across CR 579. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Suburban Density Residential on the FLUM. The Suburban Density Residential L-shaped area, which is about 12 square miles, contains three major public supply water wells at its southeast corner. The green map overlays more than three quarters of the 12 square mile area with Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. The 12 square mile area abuts the above- described 2.5 square mile area on the northwest, Tampa on the southwest and nearly all of the south, Pasco County and Agricultural/Rural (1:5) on the north, and Agriculture (1:10) on the east. According to CARE Figure 20, the portions of the 12 square mile area overlaid with the designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat are dry prairie and cypress swamps, as is almost two- thirds of the land south of the subject area under the jurisdiction of the City of Tampa. According to CARE Figure 14, the western half of the 12 square mile area is in an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge, but only a very small part of the subject area is in an area of high vulnerability to groundwater contamination. However, a large collection of major public supply water wells is in the Natural Preservation area just south of the extension of Tampa abutting the south boundary of the 12 square mile area. The closest wells are about one mile south of the southern boundary of the 12 square mile area. According to Oversized Map 13, the only part of the 12 square mile parcel with poor soils is the extreme northwest corner. Oversized Map 2 shows that the entire 12 square mile area that is not shown as natural areas is agricultural or vacant, as is the area of Tampa immediately south of the subject area. According to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1, the 12 square mile area is not scheduled to receive central water or sewer by 2010. The remaining areas whose designations are not supported by the Data and Analysis are in the vicinity of the coastal high hazard area in south Hillsborough County and in the Urban designations and one Light Industrial designation along the I-75 corridor south of the Alafia River. The Plan assigns designations to two areas in or near the coastal high hazard area that, to the exclusion of fair debate, are not supported by the Data and Analysis. The Plan also assigns designations to four areas in (or adjoining, in the case of the Light Industrial area) the I-75 corridor south of the Alafia River that are not supported by the Data and Analysis to the exclusion of fair debate, in one area, and by a mere preponderance of the evidence in the other three areas. The coastal high hazard area begins at the Manatee County line and runs along US 41. At a point due east of Cockroach Bay, the line turns toward the bay and continues to run in a more northerly direction until it approaches the Little Manatee River. At this point, the coastal high hazard line follows the winding river to the east, then south, crossing US 41 before proceeding again north. The line runs along US 41 until, at the north end of Ruskin, the line cuts again toward the bay. After running north again for about one mile, the line returns to US 41, then proceeds west of US 41, in a north-northeasterly direction, until it almost intersects the bay at Apollo Beach. North of Apollo Beach, the line mostly follows US 41 to the Alafia River at Gibsonton. Oversized Map 14 discloses density increases in part of the coastal high hazard area between Cockroach Bay and the Little Manatee River. Initiated by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan, an irregularly shaped area about three square miles west of US 41 received a density increase. The Plan then increased the density of a smaller portion of the eastern end of the three square mile area. The extent of the subject area, which is only partly in the coastal high hazard area, corresponds to the area whose density was increased, according to Oversized Map 14, and that is presently designated, in the FLUM, as Low Suburban Density Residential Planned (2:1 if certain clustering and mixed use requirements are met; otherwise 1:5). Oversized Map 2 shows that the entire area so designated is entirely agricultural or vacant, except for a shell mine, three small, isolated areas of low density residential, and some small commercial uses along US 41. The density increase for the portion of the three square mile area lying in the coastal high hazard area is clearly unsupported by the Data and Analysis, which acknowledge the need to reduce, not raise, densities in this critical area in order to save lives and property. However, much of the three square mile area is outside of the coastal high hazard area and the unsuitability of the designation lies in the assigned density, not in the increase of density. About a third of the three square mile area is in the 100 year floodplain. Relatively little of it contains major natural systems or Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to Oversized Map 8 and the green map. And none of the area is subject to recharge or significantly vulnerable to groundwater contamination. However, the three square mile area is bordered on three sides by three critical resources that remain in relatively pristine condition: Cockroach Bay, the Little Manatee River, and the portion of Tampa Bay connecting the river and Cockroach Bay. The entire shoreline along the three square mile area joins Hillsborough County's only aquatic preserve. Coastal Figure 11 indicates that the coast from just south of Apollo Beach to the Manatee County line, and especially from the Little Manatee River to Cockroach Bay, is the only location where seagrass meadows remain along the waters of unincorporated Hillsborough County, except for a smaller expanse of interspersed meadows along the shore of northwest Hillsborough County. These are also Class II waters. CARE Figure 9 shows that the western half of the three square mile area is dominated by very poorly drained soils. The Data and Analysis note that area septic tank failures have contributed to the pollution of Cockroach Bay and possible loss of the last shoreline location in the County at which shellfish harvesting is approved, although only conditionally. Significantly, in view of the poorly drained soils and history of septic tank failures, Sewer Element Figure 1 shows no existing or proposed sewer lines for the three square mile area, which inexplicably is nonetheless included in the 2010 central sewer service area. The area is due to receive central water lines by 2010. Given the critical and fragile nature of the area of Cockroach Bay and the Little Manatee River, as described by the Data and Analysis, the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation, which, with the I-75 and South County plan amendments, represented an increased density for the three square mile area, is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, supported by the Data and Analysis. The failure of the Plan to direct population concentrations away from the coastal high hazard area and ensure the protection of the natural functions of the 100 year floodplain exacerbates the unsuitability of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation for the three square mile area. Just north of the Little Manatee River at Ruskin, Oversized Map 14 discloses another area of density increase, again initiated by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. This area is designated Medium Density Residential (12:1) and extends two miles east-west by an average of one-half mile north-south. The southwest corner of the one square mile area abuts a portion of the Little Manatee River, and nearly the entire south boundary of the area abuts a tributary of the Little Manatee River. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Medium Density Residential on the FLUM. The entire square mile area lies west of US 41 and in the coastal high hazard area. The designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis for this reason alone. According to Oversized Map 2, the southern half of the square mile area is already in low and medium density residential, except for the western end that is agricultural or vacant. However, most of the northern half is agricultural or vacant. According to Oversized Map 13, the entire square mile area contains soils with very severe limitations and some critical lands. The entire area occupies the 100 year floodplain. And the area is not due to receive central sewer until 1995 or central water at all, although it is in the 1995 central water service area. Even absent the fact that the square mile area is in the coastal high hazard area, the Medium Density Residential designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The remaining four areas in the County whose designations are unsupported by the Data and Analysis are in the I-75 corridor, except for one of the areas that extends into an adjoining Light Industrial area. Nearly the entire contiguous corridor received higher densities as a result of the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. However, the four areas in question all lie south of the Alafia River. The first area is about 3.25 square miles at the southernmost end of the I-75 corridor, south of SR 674. Triangularly shaped, this area, which is Urban Level 1 (12:1), is bounded on the east and north by I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Urban Level 1 south of SR 674 and I-75. The southern boundary of the triangular area represents an anomaly for the I-75 corridor; it abuts Rural Residential (1:1). Except for the portion of the north end of the I-75 corridor surrounding a Rural Residential "island" and the northernmost end of the I-75 corridor, which abuts the vast Natural Preservation area of the Hillsborough River valley, no other part of the I-75 corridor abuts land that is not designated at least Suburban. Contrary to the requirements for Urban Level 1 designations, the triangular area is not bound by existing or proposed arterials. The triangular area also abuts a Natural Preservation area at its southeast corner. The Little Manatee River is less than one-half mile from the southern boundary of the subject area. The southernmost mile of the subject area encompasses tributaries of the Little Manatee River. The northern half of the subject area adjoins Suburban Density Residential (4:1) and Low Medium Density Residential (9:1) on the east and Low Urban Density Residential (6:1) and Urban Level-2 (20:1) across I-75 on the west. The northern point of the subject area is in the vicinity of the I-75/SR 674 interchange. The triangular area is free from major natural systems or Environmentally Significant Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to Oversized Map 5 and the green map. However, most of the southernmost mile of the subject area is within the 100 year floodplain. Oversized Map 2 reports that the subject area is predominantly agricultural or vacant, although it has interspersed, isolated low density and some medium density residential uses, mostly in the northeast portion. The triangular area is not scheduled for any central sewer lines until after 1995, and then the line will be limited to about one-half mile south of SR 674 along I-75. The area will be better served, by 2010, by central water. Given the Plan's failure to protect adequately floodplains and the proximity of the Little Manatee River, the evidence shows, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the Urban Level-1 designation of the southernmost mile of the triangular area is not supported by the Data and Analysis. The designation given to the remainder of the triangular area is not unsupported by the Data and Analysis. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support predominantly Urban Level 1 densities and intensities in two areas in the vicinity of I-75 and Big Bend Road. One of the areas in question is a Z-shaped linear area that largely tracks, but is not limited to, a strip of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The strip begins at US 301 and a proposed westerly extension of SR 672. The area, which is limited to the Urban I-75 corridor, proceeds in a west- northwesterly direction to just east of I-75, runs north along the east side of I-75 to a point about one mile south of the Alafia River, and, now becoming Bullfrog Creek, turns west and crosses I-75 until it leaves the I-75 Urban Level corridor. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the areas in the vicinity of the Z-shaped area that are within any of the three following categories: the 100 year floodplain according to Oversized Map 9, Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the FLUM, or Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the green map. The lower half of the Z-shaped area occupies very severely limited soils. The upper half contains critical and very sensitive lands. According to Oversized Map 14, almost the entire Z-shaped area received increased densities due to the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, existing uses of considerable portions of the Z-shaped area are natural areas and agricultural or vacant. CARE Figure 20 indicates that Bullfrog Creek is largely open water until it turns south just east of I-75, at which point a series of hardwood swamps extend through the remainder of the Z-shaped area to the south. The Z-shaped area, which runs about eight miles, has long been recognized as environmentally sensitive and generally unsuitable for development. 29/ The narrow band of Environmentally Sensitive Areas is afforded uncertain protection under the Plan. Moreover, the Urban Level 1 designation extends to portions of the Z-shaped area that are in the 100 year floodplain and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to the green map. In the absence of stronger Plan provisions protecting the 100 year floodplain, as well as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Urban Level 1 designation given the Z-shaped area is, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The unsuitability of the designation is underscored by the operation of the density and intensity formulas, which would allow even more intense and dense uses in close proximity, even assuming that development were prohibited in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas themselves. Two other areas bearing unsuitable designations are also in the vicinity of Big Bend Road and I-75. Unlike the remainder of the contiguous I-75 corridor, these areas mark significant expanses of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. One area runs from the southeast corner of the interchange along I-75 south past a proposed extension of Balm-Picnic Road or SR 672, where the area expands to an area of about one mile north-south by two miles east-west, with the western end crossing I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area shown on the green map as Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. The subject area is designated exclusively Urban Level 1 except for a small area designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The upper portion of the subject area overlaps the part of the Z- shaped area running north-south just south of Big Bend Road. According to CARE Figure 20, the remainder of the narrower part of the subject area is wetlands. The wider portion of the subject area is predominantly dry prairie. According to Oversized Map 14, the entire subject area received increased density in the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, the existing uses of the entire subject area are natural areas and agricultural or vacant. The Urban Level-1 designation given the subject area is, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The allowable densities and intensities contradict the acknowledgement in the Data and Analysis of the need to protect these natural resources and frustrate other Plan provisions that extend some protection to these natural resources. The other area extends northwest of the intersection of Big Bend Road and I-75. The subject area runs about 1.5 miles north of the intersection, then widens to the west to encompass a portion of the Light Industrial designation between the I-75 corridor on the east and, on the west, Tampa Bay and the large Heavy Industrial area north of Apollo Beach. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area shown on the green map as Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. Except for the Light Industrial designation, the entire subject area is designated Urban Level 1 with a small area of Urban Level 2. According to CARE Figure 20, almost all of the subject area is wetlands, possibly with some pine flatwoods. Part of the subject area received a density increase by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, the existing uses of all of the subject area are natural area and agricultural or vacant, with a narrow corridor of major public area. The Urban Level 1 and 2 designations assigned to the subject area are, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis for the same reasons set forth with respect to the preceding area. General Minimum Criteria Public Participation (Issue 15) As to Issue 15, the County adopted the Plan, including all amendments, in a manner consistent with the requirements of public participation. Contents of FLUM and Plan (Issues 16-36) FLUM (Issue 16) As to Issue 16, the FLUM depicts minerals in the Agricultural/Mining designation and various public uses in the Major Public/Semi-Public designation. Regardless of the ambiguity surrounding the significance of the designation, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designated on the FLUM (i.e., the multicolor map) adequately show the location of wetlands. However, to the exclusion of fair debate, the FLUM is not consistent with the criterion of the depiction of existing and planned waterwells, cones of influence, historic resources or historically significant properties meriting protection, floodplains, or soils. All of these resources are depicted on ELUM's, but the County elected not to include these resources on the FLUM as part of the operative provisions of its Plan. Plan Provisions Regarding Natural Resources (Issues 17-22) As to Issue 17, the Plan contains objectives coordinating future land uses with topography, soils, and the availability of public facilities. Regarding topography and soils, FLUE Objective A-1 prohibits the issuance of development orders unless the development is "compatible with the physical conditions of the land, including, but not limited to, topographical and soil conditions . . .." FLUE Objective A-8 requires development to mitigate adverse impacts to natural systems. Regarding topography, FLUE Objective 4 is to protect the 100 year floodplain's storage volume. Somewhat vaguely, CARE Objective 19 is to amend land development regulations to "ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment " Regarding the stormwater management aspects of topography, Stormwater Element Objective 4 is to identify and evaluate the sources of water quality degradation attributable to stormwater runoff. Stormwater Objective 5 is to maintain or improve the quality of stormwater runoff. Regarding soils, CARE Objective 11 requires soil conservation during land alteration and development activities. Although not objectives, two policies address the suitability of soils. CARE Policy 11.1 provides that, during the land development review process, the County shall "recommend" the appropriate use of soils and shall require site-specific analyses when land uses appear incompatible with soils. CARE Policy 11.3 states that, during the land development process, the County shall use soil capability analyses for flood hazard, stability, permeability, and other soil characteristics. Regarding mining, CARE Objective 7 requires the "prudent operation" of mining activities. CARE Objective 9 is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the adverse impacts of mining. CARE Objective 10 requires the County to regulate the location and operation of land excavation to minimize negative impacts on surrounding land uses and ensure the reclamation and productive reuse of excavated lands. Regarding public facilities, FLUE Objective A-5 is that all development and redevelopment shall be serviced at the adopted level of service standards by all public facilities for which concurrency is required. FLUE Objective C-29 requires that the needed public facilities be provided concurrent with the impacts of development. Although there are several instances where specific land use designations are unsuitable in terms of, among other factors, topography, soils, and the provision of public facilities, the Plan contains sufficient provisions to attain consistency with the criterion of an objective coordinating future land uses with topography, soils, and public facilities. As to Issue 18, numerous Plan provisions address numerous natural resources, as well as water sources. The rules cited in Issue 18 require one or more objectives ensuring the protection of natural resources, such as Tampa Bay and its tributaries, and one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting water sources. 30/ For the purpose of Issue 18, natural resources have been identified as Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, rivers (primarily the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers), surface waters generally, floodplains, wetlands, rare upland habitats, and wildlife habitat. Findings concerning soils are set forth above. The water sources have been divided into the following categories: wellfields and cones of influence, aquifer recharge, groundwater, water conservation, and septic tanks. Obviously, wellfields, cones of influence, and aquifer recharge areas are natural resources, and floodplains, wetlands, and the Hillsborough River (whose surface waters are an important potable water source) are related to water sources. There is thus considerable overlap in the following discussion of these categories. Regarding surface water generally, including Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, and the rivers, CARE Objective 2 promises that the water quality of natural surface water bodies shall be improved or restored if they do not at least meet state water quality standards. Unfortunately, CARE Objective 2 is not operative until 1995. If the objective had assured compliance with water quality standards, a deferred date of 1995 would have been suitable because the entire improvement cannot take place instantaneously. However, the intermediate end of CARE Objective 2 is much more modest; the water quality of substandard water bodies must only be improved. And the improvement--any improvement--is not required until 1995. The main threats to Tampa Bay also apply to surface water quality generally: inadequately treated wastewater and inadequately treated stormwater. The Plan does not generally ensure the protection of surface water through the objectives and relevant policies concerning stormwater. Stormwater Objective 5 is to implement programs to maintain or improve stormwater. The natural resources in question are not protected by maintaining the water quality of stormwater; they are not even protected by improving the water quality of stormwater absent a measurable goal. The failure of the stormwater objectives is exacerbated by the Plan's failure to set stormwater level of service standards in terms other than flood control. The Plan addresses to a much greater extent the protection of surface water through the objectives and relevant policies concerning wastewater. Sewer Element Objective 1 is for all wastewater treatment facilities to produce effluent of sufficiently high quality to meet or exceed all regulatory standards. Sewer Element Policy 1.1 requires that all wastewater discharged into surface waters or wetlands meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards. Sewer Element Objective 2 promises to assist in the wastewater problem by continuing to require the use and expansion of existing recovered water reuse systems. Sewer Element Objective 4 requires that central sewer facilities be provided to remedy current deficiencies in the system and to meet projected demands, based on the sewer level of service standard. Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility" that existing and future wastewater adversely impacts surface waters. The objective is not especially amenable to measurement. Sewer Element Policy 7.1 is useful, though, because it requires that septic tank users hook up to the County system when it becomes available, except in cases of undue hardship. Sewer Element Policy 4.8 also prohibits septic tanks in the coastal high hazard area except in cases of undue hardship. CARE Policy 2.6 promises better wastewater treatment in areas where septic tanks fail, at least where economically feasible. And CARE Policy 2.4 indicates that the County plans to supply regional wastewater treatment in the more densely populated areas. However, other policies under Sewer Element Objective 7 are less effective. Sewer Element Policy 7.2 promises that, within one year after the completion of a pending septic tank study, the County will reexamine the maximum usable density for septic tanks. Sewer Element Policy 7.3 promises, in the same timeframe, a program to identify existing septic tank systems with a high potential for contaminating groundwater. Regarding Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Objective 3 is to "maintain, and enhance where environmentally and economically feasible, the abundance and diversity of living marine resources in Tampa Bay." FLUE Objective C-30 requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that "water quality and quantity" are protected from degradation from development. CARE Objective 19 promises that the County shall continue to amend its land development regulations to "ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment." In addition to relegating the regulatory mechanism to land development regulations, CARE Objective 19 does not state a specific, measurable, intermediate end that can be achieved. Coastal Element Policy 2.1 is to conserve and protect tidal wetlands from detrimental physical and hydrological alteration and prohibit unmitigated encroachment into tidal wetlands. Coastal Element Policy 2.2 prohibits channelization or hardening of natural coastal shorelines and tidal creeks except in cases of overriding public interest. Coastal Element Policy 2.6 prohibits development activities on submerged lands containing significant seagrass habitat and seeks the restoration of seagrass coverage. Coastal Element Policy 2.7 requires land developments within the coastal area to preserve those portions of native upland plant communities necessary to provide an effective buffer for coastal wetlands. Coastal Element Policy 2.9 is to review and "restrict as appropriate" proposed development adjacent to the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to ensure that water quality, shoreline, or estuarine habitat degradation does not occur due to development. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 prohibits the use of septic tanks for new development in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 7.4 forbids the development of water- related uses by dredging and filling wetlands or the natural shoreline. CARE Policy 19.8 requires the County to identify Resource Protection Areas on the FLUM. Resource Protection Areas include Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, the three main rivers, significant and essential wildlife habitat, areas of high aquifer recharge/groundwater contamination potential, public supply wellfields and their cones of influence, and areas containing major phosphate deposits. CARE, pages 99-100. For Tampa Bay, the CARE definition of Resource Protection Areas refers the reader to the Coastal Element. Coastal Element Objective 1 is identical to CARE Objective 2. Coastal Element Objective 1 addresses only the water quality of those parts of Tampa Bay and its tributaries not meeting state standards. By 1995, these waters will be improved or restored. In addition to failing to address the protection of those parts of Tampa Bay meeting or exceeding state standards, this objective promises only, as to substandard waters, that some improvement is to take place starting in 1995. As is the case with surface waters generally, the Plan contains various provisions adequately addressing wastewater. CARE Policy 2.2 and Coastal Element Policy 1.2 require Advanced Wastewater Treatment for all surface water discharge from all domestic wastewater treatment plants discharging into Tampa Bay or any of its tributaries. Coastal Element Policy 1.4 is to continue to develop and use effluent-disposal alternatives, such as reused water for agricultural and industrial uses, rather than surface water discharge into Tampa Bay and its tributaries. Coastal Element Policy 1.7 provides that, where it is economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment in areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic tank systems. Again, the Plan offers less protection to Tampa Bay from inadequately treated stormwater runoff. However, addressing another source of excessive nutrients in Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Policy 1.12 provides for the dredging and removal of polluted estuarine sediments and their replacement with clean fill, where economically and environmentally feasible. Regarding the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers, numerous goals, objectives, and policies in the FLUE provide protection for these resources. FLUE Goal 3 is to make the Hillsborough River cleaner. FLUE Objective C-7 is to protect the Hillsborough River as a major source of drinking water. Somewhat less effective are FLUE Objectives C-10 and C-12. Objective C-10 requires the County, by 1992, to establish development standards for the river corridor. Objective C-12 requires the County, by 1994, to manage the Hillsborough River as an important community asset. FLUE Policy C-9.1 prohibits new marinas in the upper Hillsborough River. FLUE Objective C-14 is to discourage additional development on the upper Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-14.1 requires the County to manage the upper Hillsborough River as a wildlife corridor. FLUE Objective C-13 requires the County to preserve and enhance wildlife habitats associated with the Hillsborough River. Because of the Hillsborough River's status as a source of surface potable water, it receives additional protection from CARE Objective 6, which requires the conservation, reuse, and enhancement of surface water supplies. Various policies add to the protection extended the Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-7.2 prohibits new septic tanks within 200 feet of the Hillsborough River, although, unlike similar provisions concerning the Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers, this prohibition is not extended to tributaries. FLUE Policy C-7.4 requires Advanced Wastewater Treatment for wastewater treatment discharging anywhere in the Hillsborough River drainage basin. FLUE Policy C-7.3 prevents further destruction of the natural vegetative buffers along the Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-10.2 prohibits the designation of new industrial land uses within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-13.1 prohibits the alteration of wetlands within 500 feet of the river. Regarding the Alafia River, FLUE Goal 4 is to preserve, protect, and promote the Alafia River and its natural resources and recreational benefits. FLUE Objective C-15 requires the County to maintain the water quality of this already impaired waterbody, but only by 1995. FLUE Objectives C-16 and C-17 require the County, by 1991, to preserve and restore native vegetation and wildlife habitats and protect wildlife, presumably along the Alafia River. FLUE Policy C-16.1 prohibits the alteration of wetlands within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-16.2 requires the County to "encourage" the reclamation of mined lands along the river with native vegetation. FLUE Objective C-20 requires the County, by 1992, to establish development standards for the corridor of the Alafia River. FLUE Policy C-20.4 prohibits the designation of "heavy" industrial land uses within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-20.3 prohibits the location of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Alafia River or its tributaries, except when required due to lot size and adverse impacts can be prevented. Regarding the Little Manatee River, FLUE Goal 5 is to recognize and maintain the river as a unique water resource, which provides vital wildlife habitat. As in the case of FLUE Objective C-15 regarding the Alafia River, FLUE Objective C-21 defers until 1995 the objective of maintaining or improving water quality where it does not meet state standards. FLUE Objective C-22 is to preserve wildlife habitats, presumably in association with the Little Manatee River. FLUE Objective C-23 is, by 1990, to establish a green river corridor for the river, although whatever protection is to be afforded by these provisions, if adopted in the Plan, appears already to be included in the Plan, given that the deadline in Objective C-23 had already passed by the time of the final hearing. The same is true for FLUE Objective C- 24, which is, by 1990, to develop additional policies addressing the uniqueness of the Little Manatee River. FLUE Policy C-21.1 prohibits the installation of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Little Manatee River unless required due to lot size and adverse impacts to the water can be prevented. FLUE Policy C-22.2 prohibits alteration of the wetlands within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-23.1 prohibits the designation of "heavy" industrial within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-22.3 only "restricts" the clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 or 100 feet of the river in Urban or Suburban designations. However, FLUE Policy C-23.2 is to manage the Little Manatee River as a wildlife corridor. Various Plan provisions apply to rivers generally. Some of these provisions restate objectives or policies adopted for one of the three major rivers. For instance, FLUE Objective C-1 is, by 1995, to maintain or improve the water quality of rivers not meeting state standards. FLUE Objective C-4 is, by 1992, to set standards for development in river corridors. Other provisions provide additional protection. FLUE Objective C-2 is to preserve natural shorelines and reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization. FLUE Objective C-30 requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that rivers are protected from degradation from development. FLUE Policy C-30.6 is to "restrict" the clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 or 100 feet of rivers. FLUE Policy C-6.1 generally prohibits the removal, within 100 feet of rivers, of any trees of at least five inches diameter at breast height. FLUE Policy C-1.3 prohibits the siting of solid waste or hazardous landfills that would adversely affect any river. Significantly, FLUE Policy C- 1.1 requires that development along the rivers install stormwater management systems to filter pollutants, although the extent of filtration is not specified. Regarding Cockroach Bay, the Plan offers some protection because, as an aquatic preserve, the bay is an Environmentally Sensitive Area. However, regardless of the extent of protection afforded by this designation to land- based areas, it is relatively unimportant as a regulatory mechanism over a water preserve, except to the extent that the designation is extended over adjacent land areas. Much of the land around the bay is designated Natural Preservation, which is afforded effective protection, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which is not. However, as noted above, Coastal Element Objective 3 requires the County at least to maintain the abundance and diversity of living marine resources in Tampa Bay. Underscoring the relationship between Cockroach Bay and Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Policy 3.1 is for the County to resist proposals to close permanently the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to shellfishing and to improve water quality to maintain the viability of shellfishing by implementing Coastal Objective 1 and its policies. However, as noted above, Coastal Objective 1 addresses only waters not meeting state standards and requires only that, by 1995, these water be improved. Cockroach Bay may receive some protection from FLUE Objective C-30, which requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that water quality and quantity are protected from degradation from development. In somewhat vague terms, CARE Objective 18 is for the County to "seek to measurably improve" the management of natural preserves, which include Cockroach Bay. Rather than exercise its jurisdiction, however, the County, in CARE Policy 18.2, promises only to initiate an agreement with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to ensure that Cockroach Bay is maintained in its natural condition. Equally ineffective, CARE Policy 18.3 is for the County, at no specified time, to establish a scientifically defensible buffer zone to prevent degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetative habitats in Cockroach Bay. CARE Policy 18.8, FLUE Policy C-22.1, and Coastal Element Policy 4.5 promise that the County will "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Regarding floodplains, CARE Objective 4 is no "net loss of 100-year floodplain storage volume." CARE Policy 4.1 promises, by 1995, land development regulations to "not only protect natural floodwater assimilating capacity but also protect fish and wildlife attributes where they exist within the 100 year floodplains of riverine systems." CARE Policy 4.2 explains that the County shall prohibit "unmitigated" encroachment into the 100 year floodplain. CARE Policy 8.3 "prohibit[s]" mining in the 25 year floodplain and "restrict[s]" mining in the 100 year floodplain. Although still in terms of storage volume of the floodplain, Stormwater Element Policy 2.8 promises, by 1991, a "program to control encroachment into the 100 year floodplain." Regarding wetlands, CARE Objective 3 is "no net loss of wetland acreage." The objective states further that the County shall seek to achieve a "measurable annual increase in restored wetland acreage." CARE Policy 3.1 requires the County to continue to "conserve and protect" wetlands from "detrimental physical and hydrological alteration" and "allow wetland encroachment only as a last resort when reasonable use of the property is otherwise unavailable." CARE Objective 16 is to continue to protect and conserve Conservation and Preservation Areas, which include a variety of wetland habitats. Regarding rare upland habitats, CARE Objective 16 offers some protection, as sand pine scrub is a Conservation Area and significant and essential wildlife habitat are, respectively, Conservation and Preservation Areas. CARE Policies 16.5 and 16.6 are to protect Conservation and Preservation Areas, respectively, from activities that would "significantly damage the natural integrity, character or ecological balance of said areas, except in cases of overriding public interest." CARE Objective 17 is to increase the amount of acreage designated as Natural Preservation by 15,000 acres by 1995. Also, the upland forest density credit incentive assists in promoting the preservation of rare upland habitats. Despite the ambiguity surrounding the types of land uses allowed by the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the Plan protects the wetlands and rare upland habitats. Regarding wildlife habitat, CARE Objective 14 is to "prevent any further net loss of essential wildlife habitat" and to "protect significant wildlife habitat." CARE Objective 15 is to maintain existing populations of endangered, threatened, and special-concern species and, where "feasible and appropriate," to increase the "abundance and distribution" of such species. FLUE Objective C-5 is, by 1991, to "require the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats." CARE Objective 4 is, by 1995, to protect wildlife habitat in the 100 year floodplain. CARE Policy 14.7 is to require the preservation of wildlife corridors within developments when necessary to prevent fragmentation. CARE Policies 8.4 and 10.7 prohibit mining and land excavation, respectively, in essential wildlife habitats unless relocation of the affected species is feasible. On balance, despite the noted shortcomings, the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources. Regarding the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of existing and planned water sources, the resources and functions generally involve wellfields and their cones of influence, aquifers and recharge, groundwater contamination, water conservation and reuse, and wastewater discharges including septic tanks. Regarding wellfields and their cones of influence, the Plan fails to include an objective providing for the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of these water sources. CARE Policy 5.8 promises wellfield protection by 1993, and even then only through land development regulations. In the meantime, CARE Policy 5.8 provides for an interim land development regulation establishing a procedure for reviewing the impact of land development proposals on cones of influence. The policy fails even to suggest any standards to guide this procedural ordinance. The Plan contains no objectives addressing aquifers and their recharge. Stormwater Element Policy 5.6 prohibits new discharge of untreated stormwater to the Floridan aquifer, and existing stormwater facilities so discharging into the Floridan aquifer will be modified if economically feasible and physically practical. The remaining policies are largely ineffective in protecting natural aquifer recharge function. CARE Policy 6.13 suggests that, by 1992, a program will be implemented to improve groundwater recharge through stormwater management, and the program "may require" that predevelopment groundwater recharge volumes and rates be maintained postdevelopment. CARE Policy 5.2 notes the need for additional information regarding areas of relatively high natural recharge and allows the County to require developers to provide site-specific hydrogeological information. But the policy does not suggest what standards would be applied in making ensuing land use decisions on what it concedes is a "case-by-case" basis. CARE Policy 5.5 promises that, within a year after the completion of high-resolution mapping of areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential, the County will develop land development regulations and performance standards that "may include" such strategies as "control of land use types and densities, impervious surface limitations, and discharge to groundwater controls." Whatever regulation may eventually be imposed has no guidance from the Plan and will be relegated to the land development regulations. Similarly lacking regulatory provisions, Sewer Element Policy 7.3 promises that, within a year after completion of a pending study, the County will develop a "program" to identify areas with septic tanks with the potential to contaminate groundwater. CARE Policy 5.9 at least prohibits activities that would breach the confining beds of the Floridan aquifer. 31/ Though lacking as to the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of the recharge process, the Plan addresses more adequately groundwater. CARE Objective 6 is to conserve, reuse, and enhance groundwater and prevent excessive withdrawals from groundwater. CARE Objective 5 is to ensure compliance with state groundwater standards. Like CARE Policy 2.7, which applies to surface water protection, CARE Policy 5.11 says that the County will ask other agencies to develop septic tank siting criteria and then will add the criteria to County land development regulations. CARE Policy 5.15 indicates that the County will not support deep well injection of effluent unless the process will have no adverse effect upon existing or potential potable water aquifers. More effective, Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility of existing and future sources of wastewater adversely impacting groundwater." Also, Sewer Element Policy 7.1 requires septic tank users to connect to central sewer when it becomes available, in the absence of undue hardship. And FLUE Policy A-1.3 prohibits development dependent upon on-site sewage disposal systems, if the soils are unsuitable, unless the soils can be altered to comply with state law. Regarding water conservation, Sewer Element Objective 2 is to "protect and conserve the potable water resources, both groundwater and surface water" and expand recovered water reuse systems. As noted above, CARE Objective 6 requires the "conservation, reuse, and enhancement of groundwater and surface water supplies" to meet potable water demands. CARE Policies 6.2 and 6.4 require the use of recovered water under certain circumstances. FLUE Objective B-10 is to protect the agricultural water supply through regulations. As compared to whether the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources, the question is closer as to whether the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting water sources. The Hillsborough River is adequately protected. Groundwater is directly addressed, although aquifer recharge receives little direct attention. Wellfields and cones of influence are not directly addressed. However, on balance, the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources. As to Issue 19, however, the Plan is, to the exclusion of fair debate, not consistent with the criterion of one or more policies addressing implementation activities to protect water quality by restricting activities known to affect adversely the quality and quantity of identified water sources, including cones of influence, water recharge areas, and water wells. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Plan does not address in any detail water wells, cones of influence, or water recharge areas. Although the Plan is nevertheless able to attain consistency with a criterion of an objective to protect, conserve, and appropriately use water sources, the Plan's relevant provisions are too vague to attain consistency with a criterion of policies to restrict activities affecting adversely cones of influence, water wells, and aquifer recharge areas. As to Issues 20-21, the Plan contains policies addressing implementation activities restricting activities known to affect adversely the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife and protecting native vegetative communities. It is unnecessary to consider the extent to which the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation protects native vegetative communities and the habitat that some of these communities provide to endangered and threatened species. Other Plan provisions, including the density and intensity formulas and the upland forest density credit incentive, offer sufficient protection to these vegetative communities for the Plan to attain consistency with the criteria requiring specific policies. Coastal Hazards (Issues 22-23) As to Issue 22, the Plan is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, consistent with the criterion of an objective directing population concentrations away from coastal high hazard areas. Coastal Element Objective 6 is to "[r]estrict development of residential population centers" in the coastal high hazard area. CARE Objective 5 is to avoid loss of life and property by "minimizing land development" in coastal areas. As used in the Plan, "restrict" does not mean "prohibit." 32/ Restrict appears to mean merely regulate. And without standards to guide regulation, an objective to restrict, or minimize, is vague and undefined. The meaning of the criterion is clear and its importance is indisputable for one of the most hurricane vulnerable regions in the United States. Obviously, the County itself does not interpret Plan language to "restrict" and "minimize" development as synonymous with the criterion to "direct population concentrations away from." Allowing higher densities in the coastal high hazard area and new intense uses in vacant or agricultural areas within the coastal high hazard area, the Plan reflects the County's reasonable interpretation of Coastal Element Objective 6. The language of Objective 6 and the apparent interpretation of the language by the County mean that the County is required only to attempt to restrain the rate of growth in intensity and density in the coastal high hazard area. This is not tantamount to directing population concentrations away from this hazardous area. Plan provisions to maintain hurricane evacuation times may not direct population concentrations from the coastal high hazard area because evacuation times can be reduced by other means, such as road and bridge capacity improvements. The missing objective must reduce densities and labor-intensive and capital-intensive intensities in the coastal high hazard area. As to Issue 23, the Plan contains a policy identifying regulatory techniques for septic tanks as part of general hazard mitigation to reduce the exposure of life and property in part of the coastal area to natural hazards. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 prohibits, except in cases of "undue hardship," the use of septic tanks for new development in the coastal high hazard area. There is no similar provision governing septic tanks in the larger coastal area, of which the coastal high hazard area is only a part. However, Coastal Element Policy 1.3 requires the County to plan for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities for coastal areas planned for higher densities, thereby reducing the use of interim wastewater treatment alternatives. Coastal Element Policy 1.7 provides, where economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to coastal areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are attributable to malfunctioning septic tanks. Public Facilities (Issues 24-31) As to Issue 24, the Plan establishes peak hour level of service standards for state roads and explains why the adopted level of service standards for certain roads are below the generally applicable standards. As to Issue 25, the Plan appears to govern all action taken by Hillsborough County concerning development and development orders. The four major provisions concerning vesting are reasonable and do not extend unnecessarily the recognition of vested rights. As to Issue 26, the Plan contains a policy addressing programs and activities for the provision of public facilities for development authorized by development orders issued prior to the adoption of the Plan. CIE Policy 1.D.1 requires the County, in determining the scope of capital improvements needed for concurrency, to take into account "demand that is likely to occur from previously issued development orders as well as future growth." As to Issues 27 and 28, the Plan's allowance of pipelining road impact fees in connection with DRI development orders does not necessarily violate concurrency. The Regional Plan allows pipelining, although the County's Plan fails to incorporate the restrictive conditions set forth in Regional Plan Policy 19.8.14. CIE Policy 3.C.4 already provides for considerable flexibility in the selection of affected areas when making concurrency determinations for roads. Reasonable flexibility in identifying the range of roads impacted by a DRI and applying DRI road impact fees does not mean that the resulting developments will violate concurrency. Nonvested DRI's remain subject to the Plan, including the concurrency monitoring and enforcement provisions, and their failure to satisfy these provisions should result in the denial of a development order. As to Issue 29, the Plan contains policies providing for concurrency with respect to developments for which development orders were issued prior to the adoption of the Plan and new developments that are to be assessed a pro rata share of the costs of public facility improvements necessitated by the new development. As noted above, CIE Policy 1.D.1 takes into account the demand for public facilities from development orders issued before the adoption of the Plan. CIE Policy 2.B.1.a provides further that existing development shall pay for at least some of the capital improvements to reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies. CIE Objective 2 addresses the sources of funds for infrastructure, including "County revenues, development's proportionate share contributions, and grants or gift[s] from other source[s]." CIE Policy 2.B.2.a provides that the County will "allocate the cost of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents so that current residents will not subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new development." As to Issue 30, the above-described Plan provisions, together with the five year schedule of capital improvements, establish funding mechanisms to correct existing deficiencies in required public facilities. As to Issue 31, the Plan is consistent with the requirement of financial feasibility based on the schedules of capital improvements and sources of revenues. The $52.4 million discrepancy between the cost of capital improvements in the Five Year Schedule and the Table of Costs and Revenues, which were prepared 18 months apart, does not prove lack of financial feasibility. In the absence of additional evidence, it is equally likely that the County displayed financial prudence in scaling back capital outlays to meet emerging revenue shortfalls. Urban Sprawl (Issues 32-35) As to Issue 32, the FLUM generally depicts urban and rural land uses with one major exception. To the exclusion of fair debate, there is no clear indication as to what land uses are permissible on lands designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas. As to Issue 33, the Plan contains provisions to discourage urban sprawl. The Plan generally provides for a viable mixture of residential and commercial uses in the concept underlying the Plan and the use of nodes. With the exception of the areas whose designations are not supported by the Data and Analysis, urban and rural land uses are separated. Regarding urban sprawl, various Plan provisions, such as FLUE Policies A- 7.6 and B-4.6, discourage urban sprawl and encourage the efficient use of land and provision of public facilities and the protection of natural resources and agriculture. As to Issue 34, the Plan contains provisions, regarding the protection of rural and agricultural lands, designating agricultural uses on the FLUM; setting objectives to conserve, appropriately use, and protect soils and natural vegetative communities; and setting policies to protect and conserve the natural functions of soils, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, floodplains, harbors, and wetlands. The agricultural uses are primarily assigned to Rural designations, and the Rural designations generally specify densities that are low enough to promote agricultural uses. Plan provisions describe the extent to which agricultural uses may be located in Urban and Suburban designations. Some of the natural resources receive more protection than others, such as floodplains, but in general, and especially in the context of protecting rural and agricultural lands, the Plan is consistent with the cited criteria. Miscellaneous (Issues 35-36) As to Issue 35, the Plan contains provisions adequately addressing intergovernmental coordination. As to Issue 36, the Plan contains dual planning timeframes. One timeframe, as shown on the five year schedule of capital improvements, is five years, and the other, as shown on the FLUM, is 20 years. Minimum Criterion of Internal Consistency (Issues 37-38) As to Issue 37, the Plan is, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with respect to, on the one hand, Plan provisions to protect natural resources, which are identified as Conservation and Preservation Areas in the Plan, and, on the other hand, the failure to provide Environmentally Sensitive Areas with a designation that regulates land uses. The Plan is generally internally consistent with respect to the permitted densities and intensities and Plan provisions to protect natural resources. However, there are two major exceptions to this finding. First, if the stormwater level of service standard is not expanded in the manner described above, all designations allowing further development within the 100 year floodplain are, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with Plan provisions to protect natural resources, unless the development in the 100 year floodplain is prohibited from altering predevelopment drainage conditions in terms of rate, volume, quality, timing, or location of discharge. Second, even if the stormwater level of service standard is appropriately broadened, the densities and intensities determined, to the exclusion of fair debate, to be unsuitable or unsupported by the Data and Analysis are, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with Plan provisions to protect natural resources. This applies to the second and third clauses of Issue 37. The Plan is internally consistent with respect to the discouragement of urban sprawl and the adopted level of service standards for roads and the use of dual planning timeframes. As to Issue 38, the Plan is internally consistent with respect to the discouragement of urban sprawl and the Plan provisions requiring developers to pay a pro rata share of the cost of public facilities necessitated by their development. Minimum Criterion of Consistency with Regional Plan (Issue 39) As to Issue 39, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the Regional Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the Regional Plan's provisions requiring the discouragement of urban sprawl, identification of the coastal high hazard area, prohibition against publicly subsidized development in the coastal high hazard area (the Regional Plan lacks a provision requiring the direction of population away from the coastal high hazard area), adoption of road level of service standards, achievement of energy-efficient design of transportation facilities, enhancement of governmental efficiency, and attainment of compliance with national air quality standards. With respect to the Regional Plan's provisions for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, the Plan is consistent in some respects and, to the exclusion of fair debate, inconsistent in other respects. The inconsistencies have all been addressed above in connection with inconsistencies with other criteria of Chapter 9J-5. These inconsistencies are the inadequate stormwater level of service standard, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goal 8.7; in the absence of the expanded stormwater level of service standard discussed above, the inadequate protection of the 100 year floodplain, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goals 8.10, 10.4, and 10.5 and related policies; the inadequate protection extended to public supply potable water wellfields and their cones of influence and aquifer recharge, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goals 8.1 and 8.5 and related policies. Minimum Criterion of Consistency with State Plan (Issues 40-41) As to Issue 40, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the State Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the discouragement of urban sprawl, promotion of agricultural activities that are compatible with the protection of natural resources, reduction of the cost of housing construction by the elimination of costly regulatory practices, coordination of transportation improvements to enhance system efficiency and minimize environmental impacts, assurance that transportation improvements are consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality and efficient use of energy and transportation modes, elimination of regulatory activities not tied to the needs of specific public and natural resource protection, reduction of the need for new power plants by encouraging end-use energy efficiency, and attainment of compliance with all national air quality standards. With respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the elimination of the discharge of inadequately treated stormwater runoff and wastewater into the waters of the state, the Plan is consistent with respect to wastewater, but, to the exclusion of fair debate, inconsistent with respect to stormwater due to the above-noted deficiencies concerning the stormwater level of service standard. As to Issue 41, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the State Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the development of a system of incentives and disincentives to encourage a separation of urban and rural uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats (notwithstanding general shortcomings regarding the protection of water supplies and specific unsuitable designations jeopardizing potentially significant wildlife habitat), promotion of agriculture, provision of incentives for developing land so as to maximize the uses of existing public facilities, allocation of the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents, and assurance that the transportation system provides Florida's residents and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions. With respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the direction of growth into areas that already have or will soon have the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner, the Plan is generally consistent. However, the Plan is inconsistent with this provision of the State Plan, to the exclusion of fair debate, with respect to those five areas for which unsuitable designations were demonstrated to the exclusion of fair debate, and the Plan is inconsistent with this provision of the State Plan, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, with respect to those six areas for which unsuitable designations were demonstrated by a mere preponderance of the evidence..
Recommendation 317
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.
