Findings Of Fact During 1974, Beker Phosphate Corporation applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County for a development order approving proposed phosphate mine operations. Beker is seeking to engage in phosphate mining on over ten thousand acres of land located in Manatee County in the watersheds of the Manatee and Myakka Rivers. The TBRPC is the regional planning agency which reviews development of regional impact applications in Manatee County. On December 9, 1974, the TBRPC recommended that the proposed mine be approved with modifications. On January 28, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County issued a DRI Development Order. The order approved the application submitted by Beker subject to thirteen specified conditions which are set out in the order. A copy of this development order was received in evidence at the final hearing as a Appellant's Exhibit 3. Neither the Division of State Planning nor any appropriate regional planning agency appealed the development order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Sarasota County did attempt to appeal the order; however, on June 17, 1975, the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission accepted the Hearing Officer's recommended order and dismissed the appeal. This action was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal. Sarasota County v. Beker Phosphate Corporation, 322 So.2d 655 (1975). In its application for development order, Beker had proposed to construct two secondary dams prior to commencing mining activities. One of these was to be constructed on the East fork of the Manatee River, and one on Wingate Creek. The dams were located down stream from initial waste clay settling areas. One of the purposes of the secondary dams was to serve as a back up system in the event that there was a break in the primary dam. In approving the application, the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County required that the secondary dams be constructed prior to the commencement of mining activities. The primary motivation of Manatee County in requiring construction of the secondary dams was not protection from leaks in the primary dam system, but rather a desire to plan for the County's long term water needs. The Board anticipates that a reservoir would eventually be constructed behind the secondary dams, and that these reservoirs would serve the long-term water needs of the people of Manatee County. Since the secondary dams were to be constructed in wetland areas, Beker needed to obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation in order to construct the dams. An application was submitted. On November 29, 1976, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the application. Beker subsequently petitioned for a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1976 Supp). The request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. A final hearing was scheduled, but due to subsequent action taken by the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, and due to this proceeding, the hearing was postponed and the case has been held in abeyance since April 5, 1977. No formal hearing has been conducted with respect to the application to construct the secondary dams, and no final order has been issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation. While the Department of Environmental Regulation matter was pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings Mr. Louis Driggers, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County, became concerned that the proceeding could have an adverse effect upon the county's long-range desire to construct a reservoir which would serve water supply needs. Mr. Driggers had a conference with Secretary Landers of the Department of Environmental Regulation, and learned that the agency's initial objections to the secondary dams were that the dams themselves would cause destruction of wetlands areas, and that since the primary dams were being constructed in accordance with Department of Environmental Regulation Rules and Regulations, there would be no need for the secondary dams. This opinion was set out in a letter from Mr. Landers to Mr. Driggers dated March 14, 1977 (Beker Exhibit 1). Mr. Driggers subsequently relayed this information to other members of the Board of County Commissioners, and on April 12, 1977, the Board adopted a resolution modifying a portion of the DRI development order which it had issued on January 28, 1975. The earlier order was specifically amended to delete the requirement that the secondary dams be constructed prior to the beginning of mining operations. The requirement that the secondary dams be constructed has not been altogether deleted; however, it is no longer a purpose of the dams to provide any secondary protection from a putative phosphate spill. The dams now have as their primary purpose long-range water supply and flood control. Manatee County is in effect now able to insist that Beker construct the dams at any time that the county so desires, assuming that all proper permits can be obtained. It is unlikely that the county will ever request that a secondary dam be constructed in Wingate Creek in the Myakka River watershed. The Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County did not submit the issues resolved in the April 12 order to the appropriate regional planning agency, and did not, through its order specifically consider all of the potential regional impacts of the order. The Commission concluded that the amendment did not constitute a substantial deviation from the original development order. Following entry of the order the SWFRPC filed this appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The SWFRPC, and Sarasota County contend that the April 12 amendment constitutes a substantial deviation from the original development order, and that the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County should have entered the order only after conducting all of the proceedings contemplated in Florida Statutes Chapter 380. Beker Phosphate, Manatee County, and the TBRPC contend that the April 12 order does not constitute a substantial deviation from the original development order. Testimony presented at the hearing related primarily to the secondary dam originally proposed for construction in Wingate Creek in the Myakka River watershed. An initial waste clay settling area with a capacity of 8,848 acre- feet is proposed for construction primarily within the Myakka River watershed adjacent to Wingate Creek. Phosphate slimes would be stored above ground and permitted to settle in this area. The proposed secondary dam would have been located approximately three miles downstream from the settling area. The secondary dam would have had a capacity of 260 acre-feet. The secondary dam would thus have the capacity to contain a limited spill from the primary settling area. The secondary dam would provide no protection from a complete destruction or break down of the dams surrounding the primary settling area, or of any spill from the primary area greater than 260 acre-feet. Such a spill would result in destruction of the secondary dam. Spills of less than 40 acre- feet of material from the primary settling area would have no substantial impact on areas below the secondary dam whether the dam was constructed or not. Spills of a volume between 40 acre-feet and 260 acre-feet could, without the construction of secondary dams, have an impact upon areas below the secondary dams. Turbidity caused by such a spill, and deleterious substances contained in the slime could result in substantial environmental impacts, including destruction of vegetation, and short-term and long-term fish kills at least as far down the system as upper Myakka Lake, which is located in Sarasota County. No evidence was presented to indicate that a spill of from 40 to 260 acre-feet from the primary settling area is likely or more than a mere hypothetical possibility. The only testimony respecting the likelihood of any spill was that if the dams surrounding the primary settling area were constructed in accordance with Department of Environmental Regulation Rules and Regulations, and were properly inspected, there is no likelihood of a breakdown in the dams or of a spill. Argument was presented at the hearing to the effect that phosphate slimes could escape the settling area, or other areas within the mining operation, but there was no evidence to that effect, and certainly no evidence that such leakages or minor spills would be as large as 40 acre-feet. Deletion of the requirement for construction of secondary dams prior to commencement of mining activities as set out in the January 28, 1975 development order, would constitute a substantial deviation from that order only if there were some likelihood of a breakdown in the dams surrounding the primary settling area, or of some leakage at some point in the mining operations that would result in a spill of from 40 to 260 acre-feet of material into the Myakka watershed. No evidence was offered that would serve to establish even the remotest likelihood of such an event. The evidence does, however, establish that construction of the secondary dam in Wingate Creek would have adverse environmental consequences. The construction would take place in a viable wetlands area. The natural flow of water through the Myakka watershed would be disturbed. Construction of the dam would appear to constitute a concession that more than 4 acres of valuable and viable flood plain along Wingate Creek would be given up for the sake of the phosphate mining operations. It is possible that without the dams the result of any spill could be confined to a smaller area than that surrounded by the secondary dams. Without the dams the normal flow of water through the system will not be disturbed, and areas below the primary settling area can remain in their natural condition.
The Issue Whether an amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Roger Thornberry, Georgette Lundquist, Steven Brodkin, Ruby Daniels, Rosalie Prestarri, and James Giedman, reside in and own property within Lee County. Petitioners submitted oral and written comments to Lee County concerning the challenged Plan Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendment. Respondent, Lee County (the County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and maintain a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes (2015). Intervenors, RH Venture II, LLC; RH Venture III, LLC; and Greenpointe Communities, LLC (Greenpointe), are the owners and developers of the property which is subject to the Plan Amendment. Intervenors are the applicants for the Plan Amendment. The Lee County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) allocates future land uses based on community plans for 22 distinct communities within the County. The Fort Myers Shores planning community is located in eastern Lee County. Within Fort Myers Shores is a sub-community planning area known as Caloosahatchee Shores, which is located south of the Caloosahatchee River, east of Interstate 75 (I-75), and west of Hickey’s Creek. The southern boundary of Caloosahatchee Shores is the Orange River and State Road 82. Caloosahatchee Shores contains a mixture of future land use designations. The majority of the land is designated Suburban, Sub-Outlying Suburban, Rural, or Urban Community. The subject property is located in Caloosahatchee Shores within an existing 1,978-acre mixed-use golf community known as River Hall. Most of the existing development in River Hall was completed between 2004 and 2009 by the original developer, Landmar Group, which was then owned by Crescent Resources. Crescent Resources declared bankruptcy in 2009. Those portions of River Hall subject to the Plan Amendment were acquired by Greenpointe in 2010. The property subject to the Plan Amendment is approximately 585 acres of non-contiguous land within the existing mixed-use development. All of the property subject to the Plan Amendment is located within the Rural future land use category. The Plan Amendment changes the future land use category of the subject property from Rural to Sub-Outlying Suburban.2/ The density of development allowed in Rural is one dwelling unit per acre and the density of development allowed in Sub-Outlying Suburban is two units per acre. In 2001, the Lee County Board of County Commissioners (Lee County Commission) adopted procedures to encourage community planning aimed at specific neighborhood interests within the County. A coalition of property owners in Caloosahatchee Shores developed the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Plan (Community Plan) between 2001 and 2003. The Community Plan was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan in 2003 and is codified as Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Goal 21 and its implementing objectives and policies. FLUE Goal 21 reads as follows: GOAL 21: CALOOSAHATCHEE SHORES: To protect the existing character, natural resources and quality of life in Caloosahatchee Shores, while promoting new development, redevelopment and maintaining a more rural identity for the neighborhoods east of I-75 by establishing minimum aesthetic requirements, planning the location and intensity of future commercial and residential uses, and providing incentives for redevelopment, mixed use development and pedestrian safe environments. This Goal and subsequent objectives and policies apply to the Caloosahatchee Shores boundaries as depicted on Map 1, page 2 of 8 in the Appendix. The Community Plan was amended in 2007 and again in 2009. Policy 21.1.5 was added to the Community Plan in 2009, and reads as follows: POLICY 21.1.5: One important aspect of the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Plan goal is to retain its’ [sic] rural character and rural land use where it currently exists. Therefore no land use map amendments to the remaining rural lands category will be permitted after May 15, 2009, unless a finding of overriding public necessity is made by three members of the Board of County Commissioners. It is undisputed that the Plan Amendment removes land from the Rural land use category. It is undisputed that the Lee County Commission did not make a finding of an “overriding public necessity” when it adopted the Plan Amendment. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 21.1.5 because the Lee County Commission did not make the requisite finding of an “overriding public necessity” to remove property from the Rural land use category.3/ Respondent and Intervenors argue that Policy 21.1.5 does not apply to the Plan Amendment because the existing development on the property subject to the Plan Amendment is not rural in either character or land use. Respondent and Intervenors introduced abundant evidence to establish that the property subject to the Plan Amendment is suburban development served by the full spectrum of urban services and devoid of any of the trappings of rural development, such as large-lot residential and agricultural uses. Respondent and Intervenors advocate an interpretation of Policy 21.1.5 which requires a finding of “overriding public necessity” only if a plan amendment removes property that exhibits rural character or rural land use from the Rural land use category. The County offered the testimony of Brandon Dunn, one of its principal planners. Mr. Dunn characterized the Policy as an “if/then statement”: if property in the Rural land use category (subject to a plan amendment) exhibits rural character and rural land use, then a finding of “overriding public necessity” is required. Under Mr. Dunn’s analysis, Policy 21.1.5 does not apply to the Plan Amendment because River Hall is a suburban community. Intervenors’ planning expert, Dr. David Depew, testified that the first sentence narrows the application of the second. Dr. Depew testified that the first sentence indicates “we aren’t talking about the category per se.”4/ Under Dr. Depew’s reading, the second sentence only applies to plan amendments which exhibit rural character or rural land use, rather than all plan amendments removing property from the Rural land use category. Neither Mr. Dunn’s nor Dr. Depew’s opinion is persuasive.5/ The interpretation advanced by both Respondent and Intervenors adds language to the second sentence of Policy 21.1.5 limiting its application to only those plan amendments which exhibit rural character and rural land use. The plain language of Policy 21.1.5 contains no such limitation. The policy directs the County to make a finding of an “overriding public necessity” as a prerequisite to removing land from the Rural land use category in Caloosahatchee Shores. The first sentence of Policy 21.1.5 does not constitute a limitation on the directive for a finding of an “overriding public necessity.”
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 Lee County Plan Amendment, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 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 1st day of December, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Background The Parties Respondent, City of Hialeah (City), 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 plans and amendments thereto. Petitioners, Edmond J. Gong and Dana L. Clay (petitioners), reside in Coconut Grove, Florida and own at least two parcels of property within the City. The parties have stipulated that petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to challenge the remedial amendment in issue here. The Nature of the Dispute In 1991 and 1992, the City adopted three sets of land use amendments to its comprehensive plan known as amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1. Each set of amendments generated objections by the DCA, and the matters were later sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings and were assigned Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM, respectively. Petitioners did not participate in any of these proceedings. To resolve the objections raised by the DCA, the City and DCA negotiated a stipulated settlement agreement in December 1993, which was executed by the City on January 28, 1994. Pursuant to that agreement, on April 21, 1994, the City adopted a remedial amendment (Ordinance 94-27) known as amendment 94R-1. After reviewing the amendment, on June 2, 1994, the DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent to find such amendment in compliance. On June 7, 1994, the South Florida Regional Planning Council also found the amendment to be in compliance. Finally, on July 11, 1994, the DCA's motion to dismiss Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM was granted. Petitioners, who participated in the local hearings concerning the adoption of amendment 94R-1, timely filed their petition for administrative hearing on June 23, 1994, challenging the propriety of that amendment for various reasons. The petition was assigned Case No. 94-3506GM. Although petitioners failed to plead any procedural issues in the initial petition, respondents have agreed that petitioners may raise certain procedural objections regarding amendment 94R-1 since the procedural issues were raised in their objections and comments filed with the City during the adoption process of the amendment. Procedurally, petitioners argue that the local government did not comply with all statutory requirements in noticing its proposed approval of the settlement stipulation and its later intent to adopt an ordinance. As to the DCA, petitioners argue that the state agency did not comply with the law in publishing its cumulative notice of intent on June 2, 1994, and that the notice contained erroneous rule citations and lacked a geographical map. Substantively, petitioners complain that before final approval of amendment 94R- 1 was given, the local government and DCA did not consider the enactment of Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, which created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district known as the Blockbuster Park Special District, and they did not consider the traffic impacts of a recently opened connector to Interstate 75 and an interchange within the City that connects traffic from the connector to the Florida Turnpike. Finally, they contend that the amendment improperly redesignated more than ten acres of land from residential to commercial land use. Amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1 involve ten amendments to the plan, all originally found not to be in compliance by the DCA. To cure three of those deficiencies, the City rescinded three ordinances leaving seven plan amendments to be remediated. Petitioners challenge the validity of these seven amendments but none change the use on their property. In reality, though, petitioners rely principally on their procedural objections in seeking to have a determination made that the amendment is not in compliance. Were the Notice Requirements Met? After the DCA and City reached an agreement in principle to resolve the DCA's objections to the plan amendments, a settlement agreement was prepared for execution by the City's mayor and DCA Secretary. Before the mayor could sign the agreement, however, the City Council's approval and authorization were required. Such approval and authorization to sign the agreement came in the form of a resolution adopted at a public hearing held on January 25, 1994. The agreement was later signed by the mayor and DCA Secretary on January 28 and March 3, 1994, respectively. The City had originally intended to consider the item at its January 11, 1994 meeting. Timely publication of notice was given for that meeting on December 27, 1993, in the regular edition of The Miami Herald, a newspaper of general paid circulation published daily in Dade County. At the January 11 meeting, however, the City discussed the matter but then deferred final action on the item until its next meeting on January 25, 1994. Accordingly, it republished a notice of its January 25 meeting in the Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section of the Herald. The Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section is an insert in the Herald each Thursday and Sunday and contains news pertaining to the northwest portion of Dade County, including the City. Because all copies of the Herald delivered and sold in northwest Dade County contain this particular Neighbors insert, the City complied with the requirement that the advertisement be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation within the jurisdiction of the City. Since petitioners reside and work outside of northwest Dade County, they say they did not receive the Neighbors insert in their paper and thus they were not aware of the January 25 hearing. There is no requirement, however, that the advertisement be published in other parts of Dade County. It is noted that even though they should have received notice of the January 11 hearing through the advertisement published in the regular edition of the Herald on December 27, 1993, they did not attend the hearing. The four-inch notice published on page 15 of the January 16, 1994 edition of the Neighbors section reads as follows: At its regular meeting of January 25, 1994, the Hialeah City Council will consider the following Resolution in addition to other business. Members of the public are invited to attend; the meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at Hialeah City Hall, 501 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, Florida. RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIALEAH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER A STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CASE NOS. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM AND 92-7517GM, ENTITLED "DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS VS. CITY OF HIALEAH" NOW CONSOLIDATED BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPART- MENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. Applicable state law (s. 163.3184(16), F.S.) called for the notice to be published at least ten days prior to the hearing. In addition, general provision 3 of the settlement agreement provided in part as follows: This agreement has been approved by the governing body at a public hearing advertised in an adver- tisement published at least 10 but not more than 15 days prior to the hearing in the format prescribed for advertisements in Section 163.3184(15)(c) and Section 163.3187. Assuming the day of the hearing is not counted in computing the ten days, the City would have had to publish the notice by Saturday, January 15, 1994, in order to meet the ten-day requirement. Because the Neighbors section was not published on Saturdays, but rather only on Thursdays and Sundays, the City opted to publish the notice on Sunday, January 16, 1994, or just nine days before the hearing. This was necessary since the item was deferred at the January 11 hearing, and the City presumably was unable to meet the deadline for having an ad published only two days later in the Thursday, January 13, 1994 edition of Neighbors. Even so, petitioners were unable to show any prejudice by virtue of the City failing to meet the ten-day notice requirement. The settlement agreement called for the City to adopt certain remedial amendments by ordinance. These amendments are contained in Ordinance No. 94-27. Although state law (s. 163.3184(16)(d), F. S.) requires that the City hold only one advertised public hearing on a compliance amendment at the adoption stage, in accordance with the City Charter, two hearings were scheduled for that purpose on March 22 and April 12, 1994. A single one-quarter page advertisement in the regular edition of the Herald was published on March 17, 1994, or five days before the first hearing. The law (s. 163.3184(15)(b)2., F. S.) also requires that the hearing be "approximately 5 days after the day that the second (i. e., adoption stage) advertisement is published." The advertisement referred to both hearing dates and noted that their purpose was "to receive comments from interested parties on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the City of Hialeah and the Florida Department of Community Affairs related to the 1990 and 1991 Cycles I and II plan amendments to Hialeah's Comprehensive Plan." The advertisement also contained a list of the ten plan amendments and a map showing the portion of the City affected by each of those amendments. Although petitioners contended that the map was illegible in some respects, they nonetheless read the notice in the newspaper and attended both hearings to voice their objections to the ordinance. Notwithstanding petitioners' objections, on April 12, 1994, the City adopted the ordinance. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the City complied with the notice requirements for both hearings. Assuming arguendo that the statutory notice requirements were not strictly met, petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were prejudiced by such an error. After reviewing the ordinance, on June 2, 1994, the DCA published in the Neighbors section of the Herald a cumulative notice of intent to find the plan amendments and remedial plan amendment in compliance. The advertisement was one-quarter page in size, identified the plan amendments in issue, advised readers that the amendments were in compliance, gave a location where such amendments and comments could be reviewed, and offered a point of entry to affected persons. Therefore, its content was sufficient to inform the public of the action being taken. The DCA concedes that in the notice, however, it cited rule 9J-11.012(8) as the provision dealing with the contents of a petition to challenge the amendments found to be in compliance when in fact the correct citation should have been rule 9J-11.012(7). There is no section (8) in the rule. The notice also cited former rule 22I-6.010 as the rule dealing with intervention when in fact that rule has been renumbered as rule 60Q-2.010. Even so, petitioners were unable to show how they were prejudiced by these minor errors, especially since they knew the nature of the action being proposed by the DCA, and they timely filed their petition for hearing to challenge the amendment. The DCA policy is to publish its notice of intent to find an amendment in compliance in the same local newspaper as the local government uses for its publication. The DCA also pointed out that by advertising in the Neighbors section as opposed to the regular edition of the Herald, it saved several thousand dollars. Therefore, the DCA used the Neighbors section of the Herald. At the same time, the DCA has never included in its advertisement a map showing the location of the land use changes being proposed. This is because the local government advertisements have already included a map, and the DCA notice is simply for the purpose of advising the public which ordinances are in or out of compliance. In the absence of any showing of prejudice, and in view of petitioners' failure to demonstrate to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment as a whole is incompatible with, does not further or take action in the direction of realizing, the goals of the law, the cited procedural errors are insufficient to support a finding that amendment 94R-1 is not in compliance. The plan amendment Since 1986, petitioners have owned two parcels of undeveloped property in the southern one-half and northwestern one-quarter of Tract 24 of Section 28, which is located in the western part of the City. The property consists of approximately six acres located at the northeastern intersection of West 76th Street and the Hialeah-Hialeah Gardens Boulevard. The property has been designated on the future land use map as low density (single-family) residential, which allows up to twelve units per acre. Petitioners have not specifically pled or shown how amendment 94R-1 adversely affects their property. Instead, they simply argue that the plan amendment is not in compliance because the City did not consider the impacts of "drastically changed circumstances" before adopting the remedial ordinance, and the City improperly reclassified a small tract of land. These claims will be considered below. Effective June 3, 1994, Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, became law. That law created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district more commonly known as Blockbuster Park. That legislation, however, is not relevant to this proceeding for several reasons. First, there is no mechanism to consider multijurisdictional impacts in the local planning process. Second, the special act did not become law until after the amendment process here had been completed. Since the City was only required to consider the best available data present at the time the amendment was being reviewed and adopted, consideration of the special law was neither necessary or appropriate. Third, the act itself does not authorize a development. If and when a development order is approved, the City can update its plan to take into account any impacts from the project. As to the contention that the City and DCA failed to take into account the six-lane connector road completed on December 31, 1993, or two years after the plan amendments were adopted, the impact of the connector road is identified and discussed on pages 21 and 23C of the future land use element contained in the remedial amendments. At hearing, it was further explained that the connector road is a limited access regional road under the control of Dade County, and not the City. This means that there is no access to the connector from properties which front on the road, and local access will be limited to three major road intersections. No land use changes along the road have been proposed, and the City has adequately addressed the circulation map requirements in the plan and how the internal circulation routes would be compatible with the major connectors. This being so, it is found that the City and DCA gave adequate planning consideration to the connector. Finally, petitioners contended that certain land was improperly redesignated from single-family residential to multi-family and commercial use. They complain that this is inappropriate since the land is close to a school and does not lie near a major intersection. The evidence shows, however, that such redesignation was appropriate since the land is located at an intersection and lies just across the street from an existing five-acre commercial tract. Moreover, the multi-family part of the tract will serve as a buffer between the commercial use at the intersection and the existing single-family use to the south. Then, too, the proximity of a nearby school to the west will serve to reduce trip time for persons shopping in the area while dropping off or picking up children from the school. Finally, some types of commercial use in residential neighborhoods can serve valid planning purposes, and the City has already established a pattern of having some schools located near commercially designated property. The redesignation is found to be reasonable and based on appropriate planning considerations. Although no proof was submitted by petitioners regarding any other parts of the plan amendment, respondents demonstrated that all remaining parts are supported by adequate data and analysis and are in compliance. Accordingly, petitioners have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that remedial amendment 94R-1 is not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining the City of Hialeah comprehensive plan amendment to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1994, 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 11th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3506GM Petitioners: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4-20. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5-8. 21-24. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 27-29. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. 32-35. Rejected as irrelevant. 36-38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 39-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent DCA: 1-12. Covered in preliminary statement. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 13. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 16-19. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6-8. 20-22. Partially accepted in finding of 9. 23-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 31-55. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-17. Respondent City: Because the City's proposed recommended order was not timely filed, the undersigned has considered the contents of the proposed order but has not made specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact. See Sunrise Community, Inc. v. DHRS, 14 F.A.L.R. 5162 (DHRS, 1992), affirmed 619 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edmond J. Gong Ms. Dana L. Clay 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 370 Miami, FL 33126 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 William M. Grodnick, Esquire 501 Palm Avenue, 4th Floor Hialeah, FL 33010 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether certain portions of Amendment RU-27 to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, as adopted in Sarasota County Ordinance 96- 027, are in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, GROWTH-RESTRAINT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION, INC. (GEO), is a non-profit environmental advocacy organization. By stipulation, GEO is an “affected person” as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, ENVIRONMENTAL CONFEDERATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. (ECOSWF), is a Florida non-profit corporation which has a number of corporate and individual members in Sarasota whose corporate purposes may be affected by RU-27. ECOSWF has engaged in a variety of advocacy and educational activities in Sarasota County and submitted oral comments to Sarasota County during the adoption of RU-27. Petitioner, MIAKKA COMMUNITY CLUB, INC. (MCC), is a non- profit community corporation whose members primarily reside in Sarasota County. By stipulation MCC is an “affected person” as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner REBECCA AYECH (AYECH) owns property and resides in Sarasota County and submitted oral and written comments to Sarasota County on RU-27. By stipulation AYECH is an “affected person” as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DEPARTMENT) is the State land planning agency, with responsibility to review plan amendments under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3189, Florida Statutes. Respondent SARASOTA COUNTY (COUNTY) is a local government with responsibility to prepare a comprehensive plan and any required amendments thereto pursuant to Sections 163.3167, 163.3171, Florida Statutes. The Challenged Amendment Ordinance 96-27, also known as amendment RU-27, was adopted by Sarasota County on April 30, 1996. RU-27 substantially revised the future land use element (FLUE) and future land use map (FLUM). Sarasota County is approximately 563 square miles in size. The revisions to the FLUM contained in RU-27 as a whole substantially affect approximately 305,000 acres. Petitioners’ only challenge to RU-27 as a whole is that the plan improperly fails to incorporate a five-year time frame for land use. In all other respects, Petitioners’ challenge is limited to two parcels of land comprising approximately 200 acres located immediately east of I-75 and immediately north of Fruitville Road. These parcels are identified as “A” and “C” on page 5 of Petitioners’ Exhibit 40. On the pre-amendment FLUM, Parcels A and C are designated semi-rural. “Semi-rural” provides for residential densities up to one unit per two acres. The post-amendment FLUM provided for the following land uses for parcels A and C: the western half of Parcel A was "major employment center/interstate regional office park" (MEC/IROP) and the eastern half was "moderate density residential" (MDR); the northern (approximate) third of Parcel C was "moderate density residential" (MDR), and the southern two thirds was "major employment center" (MEC). MEC is described in the FLUE as: Coordinated development of industrial, commercial, service and governmental uses within a park-like setting" which is encouraged in MEC. Commercial general uses, which are customarily accessory and incidental to the primary uses allowed within a MEC may be permitted, provided that such commercial uses are located and oriented internally, are consistent with an adopted Critical Area Plan or Development of Regional Impact, are located at least 300 feet from the boundary and do not exceed five percent of the total land area. Class A quality type development is encouraged, particularly along 1-75 pursuant to FLUE Policy 3.3.5. MDR-type residential densities can be allowed in the MEC districts up to 25 of the area consistent with FLUE Policy 3.1.2. All development within an MEC must be consistent with an adopted critical area plan for the property under FLUE Policy 3.3.3. Implementing Zoning Categories for MEC are: PCD, PID, I, ILW, GU and PRD. MEC/IROP FLUE policies permit "planned office parks including high technology research and development centers" pursuant to FLUE Policy 3.3.4. All development within an MEC/IROP must be consistent with an adopted critical area plan for the property under FLUE Policy 3.3.3. Implementing Zoning Categories for MEC/IROP are: PCD, PID, I, ILW, GU and PRD. MDR as described in the FLUE Policy 3.1.1 is development within the Urban Service Area (USA) having "gross densities equal to or greater than two dwelling units per acre and less than five dwelling units per acre." Implementing Zoning Categories for MDR are: RSFI, RSF2, RSF3, RSF4, RMH and PRD. Subject Properties Parcels A and C had initially been identified as a "study area" in the transmitted version of RU-27. At the adoption stage public hearing the Sarasota County Planning Department staff presented recommendations as to the designation of Parcels A and C and the extension of the Urban Service Area to encompass those parcels. At the time of the adoption of RU-27, Parcel A was substantially undeveloped, and consisted of about 60-70% pine flatwoods; 35% mesic hammock; and three small freshwater wetlands. There was a dolomite waste water treatment facility in the northwest corner. Further, a two-lane paved road oriented north-south ran inside of the western boundary, connecting the mining operation to the north with Fruitville Road to the south and then west to 1-75. At the time of the adoption of RU-27, Parcel C was mostly cleared open land with approximately a dozen houses and other structures. Adjacent Area At the time of RU-27's adoption, immediately north of Parcel A was a Florida Power and Light Company transmission line and easement, and north of the easement was a series of mining operations and a Development of Regional Impact industrial and office park development. At the time of RU-27's adoption, east of Parcel A was a low density residential area known as the Fox Creek housing development, generally developed with five-acre parcels. At the time of RU-27's adoption, east of Parcel C was a high density area known as the "Sun `N Fun" recreational vehicle and mobile home park. At the time of RU-27's adoption, across Fruitville Road and to the south of Parcel C was what is known as the "celery fields" parcel. The celery fields have been obtained by Sarasota County as a regional stormwater facility. At the time of RU-27's adoption, south of Fruitville Road on both sides of 1-75 were major employment centers with warehousing and industrial uses. At the time of RU-27's adoption, west of 1-75 and North of Richardson Road was a multi-family residential development under construction. At the time of RU-27's adoption, at the immediate northeast corner of 1-75 and Fruitville Road, was a MEC. It was established in 1993 in Amendment RU-15. The FLUM amendments changed the land use designation on the parcel to the immediate north of the previously existing MEC from semi-rural to MEC. Petitioners do not challenge this change. Parcel C is contiguous to the eastern boundary of the previously-existing MEC. A 24-inch force main water pipeline is scheduled to be constructed along Coburn Road, running along the western boundary of Parcel A, and a new water pumping station is planned for the northern corner of Parcel A. Potable water is available to Parcels A and C. A sanitary sewer (wastewater) pipeline is scheduled to be built by Sarasota County along the north, west and south boundaries of Parcel A. An analysis of the planning for the MEC and MEC/IROP land uses is set forth at pages 30-34 of RU-27. The Department's Compliance Review and Finding On or about December 8, 1995, Sarasota County transmitted a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan including amendment to the FLUE and FLUM. Sarasota County requested that the Department apply the Objections, Recommendations and Comments review process. The Department reviewed the proposed amendment, and notified the County on or about March 1, 1996, that the Department had seven objections to the proposed amendment under Chapter 163 and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. None of the objections pertained to Parcels A or C directly. In addition, the Department objected based upon alleged inconsistencies with the Regional Policy Plan, Goal 7, Regional Issue F and Goal 9, Regional Issue E; and based upon inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Goal 7, Policies 24 and 25 and Goal 9 Policy 3. None of the state or regional agencies which commented on RU-27 to the Department at the transmittal or adoption stage registered any objections to RU-27. The Florida Department of Transportation reviewed the amendment and had no objections. The Southwest Florida Water Management District reviewed RU-27 and registered no objections. The District commented that the proposed amendment did not address the District's pending Southern Water Use Caution Area rule and its potential effects on land use and development within the County. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council reviewed the proposed RU-27 amendment and determined it to be consistent with the Regional Policy Plan. The Department of Environmental Protection offered no comments or objections to the amendment. On or about April 30, 1996, the County transmitted the adopted amendment (Ordinance RU-27) to the Department. RU-27 was a major revision of the FLUE. Sarasota County made changes in the transmitted version of RU-27 in the adoption stage, including changes to the FLUM. Among the changes to the transmitted amendment were: updated (to 1995) population estimates and projections; development capacity calculations; existing land use and cover maps, "minor corrections to the FLUM," updating of the FLUM "to show recent government acquisitions and changes to the FLUM that affected specific relatively small areas," and minor changes to several policies. The Department determined that the plan amendment adopted in Ordinance RU-27 was in compliance. The Department published notice of intent to find Ordinance RU-27 in compliance on June 26, 1995, in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Petitioners filed a timely Petition challenging the Department’s intent to find Ordinance RU-27 in compliance. In Paragraph 4.a. of the Petition, Non-Compliance with Section 163.3177, it is alleged that the subject portion of RU-27 violates Section 163.3171, Florida Statutes, because (1) it causes the FLUM not to be based on the projected population of Sarasota County; (2) it allows urban sprawl into new areas without correcting public facilities deficiencies; (3) it fails to recognize important environmental features (messic hammock, wetlands, pine flatwoods); and (4) it fails to account for I-75 as an evacuation route when it is projected to be severely over- stressed for evacuation purposes. The evidence fails to establish any requirement that the designation of each parcel be mathematically justified in the plan or the effect of the designations at issue on the demographic analyses supporting the plan. As part of the plan amendment process, Sarasota County analyzed the growth trends in the northern versus the southern half of the county, and found that the northern half of the county had limited residential capacity for the next ten years, with a projected buildout by 2006. The limited supply justified an additional amount of additional residential capacity. The evidence fails to establish the existence of any public facilities deficiencies that would be affected by the amendment. Native habitats receive protection from other provisions of the comprehensive plan during the development review process, even under the designations applied in RU-27. The evidence fails to establish that the amendment would have any adverse impact on I-75’s ability to carry traffic in an emergency. The subject area is not a hurricane evacuation zone, but is planned to serve as a safe area to absorb evacuees from other coastal regions of the county. Timing of RU-27 vs. the EAR Petitioners allege that the subject portion of the amendment violates Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, because it was transmitted and adopted prior to the adoption of Sarasota County’s Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). Sarasota County’s EAR was adopted on February 20, 1996. RU-27 was adopted on April 30, 1996. Sarasota County notified the Regional Planning Council that RU-27 was an EAR-based amendment, but did not specifically notify the Department. The Department, however, considered and reviewed RU-27 as an EAR-based amendment. Other local governments have failed to specifically designate EAR-based amendments in the past. On such occasions the Department has contacted the local governments to ascertain the status of such amendments during the Department’s review process. Alleged Inconsistency with State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners allege that the amendment "does not comply" with the following parts of the State Comprehensive Plan: 187.201(8), (10), (17), (18), (20), (23), (24), Florida Statutes. The evidence fails to establish any inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council found the amendment to be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the more specific and credible expert opinion is that the designations of the parcels at issue are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. The evidence fails to establish the existing Future Land Use Element was not based on appropriate data and analysis, or that the entirety of RU-27 was not based on appropriate data and analysis. The evidence fails to establish that the data supporting the amendment were not collected and applied in professionally accepted manner. A consultant’s study prepared for the County in 1989 had estimated the unadjusted demand for new office park development in the I-75 corridor to consume approximately 640 acres by the year 2010. These data, prepared for an I-75 Corridor Plan, were incorporated into the 1989 update of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on this information, the County had designated 770 acres of MEC/IROP land to allow for environmental constraints. Although located at an I-75 interchange, Parcels A and C had not been designated for Urban uses in part because of drainage problems and the habitat located on parts of Parcel A. Because of recent drainage improvements in this area and more stringent environmental site planning requirements incorporated into the plan after 1989, this particular location has improved substantially as to its suitability for MEC/IROP development. By designating a portion of this site for MEC/IROP uses, RU-27 increased the supply of MEC/IROP land by approximately 60 to 70 acres. No other MEC/IROP lands were added by RU-27, resulting in a total available supply of approximately 840 to 850 acres. When compared with the 1989 consultant’s study, the total MEC/IROP acreage exceeds absolute demand by approximately 33 percent. The MDR contained within the subject parcels amounts to approximately 120 acres. At the maximum possible density of five units per acre, 600 residential units could be constructed on these parcels, or 540 units more than the maximum allowable under the previous Semi-Rural designation. The total urban residential capacity of the urban-designated area in RU-27 is 43,912 units, meaning that the new urban development permitted on these parcels constitutes a maximum or 1.23 percent of the total number of potential units. Based on the County’s existing land use controls and other constraints, the County projects that such lands will actually develop at even lower densities than the maximum allowed within the FLUM designations. The actual zoning density applied in Sarasota County is less than Future Land Use designation, except in the rural area. In the text of the RU-27 amendment, the County justified the need for the designation of the MDR at this particular location as being to “serve as a transition between lands designated as Major Employment Center and existing Semi- Rural Development.” Population Projections Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.005(2)(e) and 9J-5.006(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, in that it is not based on required population projections. RU-27 is based upon residential as well as seasonal population projections. The MDR areas designated on Parcels A and C by RU-27 were intended to provide a buffer between the newly-created MEC and MEC/IROP land uses on those parcels and existing residential development. Petitioners essentially challenge the changed land uses on Parcels A and C to new residential MDR capacity based upon the allegation that the expansion of the Urban Service Area to include the parcels is "over-allocated" because it exceeds the 133% market flexibility factor. The evidence, however, fails to show that the land uses designated for Parcels A and C is inconsistent with the projected population growth, particularly in light of the faster growth rate in the northern portion of Sarasota County. Planning Time Frames Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rule 9J-5.005(4), Florida Administrative Code, because the FLUE does not contain a five-year planning time frame. The challenged portions of the amendment (Parcels A and C) do not specifically relate to the planning time frame requirement, however, it is clear that the plan as amended contains at least two planning time frames, 1995-2005 time frame associated with the Urban Service Area and provision of capital improvements, and 1995-2010 for long-range capital improvements planning. Internal Consistency with Goals, Objectives, Policies Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rule 9J-5.005 (5), Florida Administrative Code, due to alleged internal inconsistency between the two FLUM changes and the following parts of the FLUE (as amended by RU-27). (1) Analysis. The Petition refers to portions of the Analysis section: "Development Capacity of the Urban Area"; "Coordination of Capital Improvements and band Uses"; "Planning for Residential Uses"; "Planning for Industrial Uses"; and "Summary." The evidence does not establish that the changed land uses on Parcels A and C are inconsistent with the totality of the data and analysis which the County considered. The County Commission designated Parcels A, B and C as a "study area", there was a pre-existing MEC on a contiguous parcel, and Parcel B was an urban enclave proximate to the Interstate. The map depicting the urban planning area did not include Parcels A and C; however, the map was intended to include the pre-RU-27 urban areas as a basis for beginning work on the amendment. The evidence does not establish an inconsistency between the Analysis Section and Parcels A and C. (2) Intent. The Petition did not identify any specific provision of the Intent section alleged to be insistent with the FLUM designation of the two parcels. The Intent Section does not set forth goals, objectives or policy as meant by Rule 9J- 5.005(5)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence does not establish an inconsistency between the Intent Section and the designation of the two parcels at issue. (3) Policy 1.2.1. This policy requires that potential land use incompatibilities be mitigated through certain design techniques. This policy applies to the issuance of development orders and rezonings, not plan amendments. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 1.2.1. (4) Policy 2.2.1. This policy requires that development orders be conditioned on adequate levels of service. A plan amendment, however, is not a development order. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 2.2.1. (5) Policy 2.2.2. This policy requires that public expenditures for infrastructure and services be concentrated to serve areas within the Urban Services Area (USA) boundary. The parcels in question are within the USA boundary. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 2.2.2. (6) Policy 2.3.1. This policy calls for a minimum dwelling unit potential within the USA boundary of 133% of the projected housing demand. Parcels A and C are within the USA, therefore no inconsistency exists. (7) Policy 2.3.2. This policy provides that the Future Urban areas will be considered for inclusion within the USA, based on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 2.3.2. (8) Policy 2.3.4. This policy explains that the FLUM “establishes a long-range maximum limit on the possible intensity of land use,” but not a minimum. The designation of Parcels A and C in this regard is consistent with Policy 2.3.4. (9) Goal 3. This goal calls for the orderly development of lands needed to accommodate the projected population growth. . . .” The designation of Parcels A and C reflects a balanced approach to population growth in the northern part of Sarasota County. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Goal 3. (10) Policy 3.1.1. This policy provides guidelines for the application of the residential density ranges provided in the comprehensive plan to subsequent development orders. The designation of Parcels A and C is not a development order. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 3.1.1. (11) Policy 3.1.7. This policy requires the County to amend and adopt appropriate ordinances and plans to promote mixed use, pedestrian and bicycle friendly communities within two years. Within the context of RU-27, the designation of Parcels A and C provides a reasonable plan to promote the mixed use of this property and incorporate the area in an orderly manner. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 3.1.7. (12) Objective 4.1. Objective 4.1 provides for the establishment and implementation of planning programs to address development and redevelopment opportunities. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Objective 4.1. (13) Policy 4.1.7. This policy calls for the development and preparation of a subsequent overall plan for the areas east of I-75 in Sarasota County. The policy does not prohibit or otherwise limit the uses previously designated or the uses set forth in RU-27. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 4.1.7. (14) Appendix I. Appendix I contains the capacity methodology and the designation of the two parcels at issue. The Petition did not allege that the methodology contained in Appendix I failed to comply with Chapter 163 or Rule 9J-5, and there is no showing of an internal inconsistency. Concurrency Petitioners allege that the subject portion of the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.0055 and 9J- 5.006(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, because all required public facilities will not be available concurrent to the development permitted by RU-27. There is no evidence of any inadequacy of the plan’s existing concurrency management systems or their consistency with state statute or rule. There are no existing public facilities deficiencies at Parcels A and C. The designation of Parcels A and C in the amendment would not exacerbate any existing public facilities deficiencies. While the designation of Parcels A and C would have some impact on roads, sanitary sewers, stormwater management, and other facilities and services, the evidence does not establish that required facilities will not be available concurrent to development. Urban Sprawl Petitioners allege that the subject portion of the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)8 and 9J- 5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, because it allows and encourages urban sprawl. There is no existing or historic problem of urban sprawl in Sarasota County. Sarasota County has historically provided only the capacity needed to support the population projections. RU-27 established the urban service area for Sarasota County. The change in land use for the subject properties in RU-27 did not cause urban sprawl. Sarasota County has for planning purposes a “tight” plan, in that it contains effective land use controls, works well within the planning timeframes, and contains a much lower allocation of new land for growth than other land use plans reviewed and approved by the Department. The approximate 200 acres of Parcels A and C do not constitute a “substantial area” of Sarasota County. Parcels A and C do not constitute a substantial area of the FLUM, which encompasses approximately 305,000 acres. As determined by the planning reviewers, the changes to the adopted FLUM pertain to relatively small areas. The changes to the FLUM for Parcels A and C substantially represent an “urban to urban” change. The rule indicators of urban sprawl are not implicated by the changed land use of Parcels A and C. Sarasota County’s plan has effective development controls in place to mitigate for or discourage urban sprawl. The new FLUM categories for Parcels A and C are not properly characterized as “low intensity” or “single-use development.” The new FLUM categories for Parcels A and C are not properly characterized as “in excess of demonstrated need.” The new land uses for Parcels A and C constitute "nodal development" which is not urban sprawl and not “radial strip development.” The new land uses for Parcels A and C do not constitute “leapfrog” development, but constituted “infill” of the existing and surrounding development to Parcels A and C. 102 The amended land uses for Parcels A and C do not reflect premature, poorly-planned development. Parcels A and C do not have adjacent active agricultural areas with which to conflict. Regional Policy Plan Petitioners claim that the amendment does not comply with the following parts of the Regional Policy Plan: Goal 1-9; Policy 10; Goal 11-25; and Policy 1e. The Department and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council determined that the amendment is consistent with the Regional Policy Plan. There is no evidence of record regarding any inconsistency with the Southwest Florida Regional Policy Plan.
The Issue May this appeal be dismissed as moot due to the impossibility of the development order being granted?
Findings Of Fact This case involves Florida Rock's May 20, 1992, application for a development order to the Citrus County Department of Development Services (LDDS or Department) for a mining operation. Sometime after 1980, the real property at issue had been designated "extractive" on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Citrus County's 1986 Comprehensive Plan designated Florida Rock's real property as "extractive." In 1990, after the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs challenged the "extractive" designation in the County's 1989 plan amendments, the site continued to be designated "extractive." Citrus County simultaneously enacted its Citrus County Land Development Code (LDC or Code). At all such times, zoning and all maps also embraced the same "extractive" designation. Citrus County maintains two sets of land use maps. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP or Comprehensive Plan) has a FLUM (a generalized land use map) and the LDC has attached to it atlas maps on a smaller scale. The LDC maps are identical to the county tax assessor tax maps and show individual parcels/lots of record. Such parcels defined by the Comprehensive Plan and LDC text have a land use designation as associated with each. Mining operations are permitted on real property designated "extractive." Under the LDC, when an application is submitted, it must be reviewed for completeness and the applicant notified within three days of whether the application is deemed complete or incomplete. If the application is deemed incomplete, the applicant must be advised of how the application should be amended or supplemented in order to be deemed complete for technical review. The applicant then may amend or supplement the application. Once a determination of completeness has been made, a technical review must be completed by each member of the technical review team within ten days, and thereafter, a series of committee meetings and public hearings may follow. During this portion of the procedure, amendments to the application may be required before the development order is ultimately granted or denied. Citrus County's land use amendment process began on April 10, 1992, before Florida Rock's application was submitted to the LDDS. Florida Rock had actual notice on April 10, 1992, that a change in its property designation from "extractive" to "rural residential" was pending, but no moratorium on development orders was imposed. Thus, the "rush to the Commission" began.1 On May 20, 1992, Florida Rock's application for a development order to permit mining on its real property was submitted to the Citrus County LDDS. The Department made four sequential determinations of incompleteness. At no time did Florida Rock ever amend its application or submit any supplemental material. On December 22, 1992, Citrus County's Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 92-A73, to change the designation of the subject real property on the Comprehensive Plan from "extractive" to "rural residential." The ordinance does not recite any retroactive effect. No moratorium on development orders was imposed. Mining operations are prohibited on real property designated as "rural residential." On December 28, 1992, the Department made the determination of incompleteness which gave rise to this instant proceeding. Florida Rock has not affirmatively plead and has not proven that the Department made any of its incompleteness determinations arbitrarily, capriciously, discriminatorily, in bad faith or solely for purposes of delaying the process of a technical review on the merits of the project. In the absence of any formal allegation and affirmative proof, no improper motive or improper purpose by the Department can be found.2 The December 28, 1992, determination of incompleteness noted, in the following terms, the refusal of the applicant to supply certain assurances: The applicant is exempt from Section 4344 of the LDC only in regards to the bonafide [sic] agricultural or forestry purposes. Commercial forestry involves the harvesting or marketable timber not the wholesale clearing of all vegetation. Therefore, the impact on protected trees as defined by Section 4342.A and 4344.B needs to be addressed as it regards compliance with Section 4344 of the LDC. The application needs to reflect how this will be accomplished. Contrary to your statement, this item was previously referenced as Item 11 in my letter of May 29, 1992. While vegetative removal of unprotected trees as defined in Section 4343.A.6. of the LDC is acceptable, the issue of protected trees as defined in Section 4344.B of the LDC is still unaddressed in your application submittal. The submitted site plan indicates a setback of less than the 3000 feet from residentially committed areas as required by Section 4525.A.8.1 and 4531.E.1. of the LDC regarding expansion of existing mines. Interpretation of the LDC is addressed in Section 1410 of the LDC and so the attached interpretation is not applicable. Please revise your site plan to reflect this set back or resubmit your application after vesting pursuant to Section 3160 through 3163 of the LDC has been determined. Pursuant to Section 380.06(4)(b)F.S., Citrus County believes that Florida Rock Industries operations within Hernando/Citrus Counties may exceed DRI threshold. Therefore, please provide a letter from DCA resolving this matter. In regard to your position that DCA has not formally requested a binding letter, please note that the above referenced citation specifies the state land planning agency or local government with jurisdiction over the land on which a development is proposed may require a developer to obtain a binding letter. Based on information made available to this Department, we believe a determination is called for. In regards to the requested items 23 through 34 of my letter of May 29, 1992, please be advised that Section 4659.F. of the LDC requires proof of compliance with all applicable Citrus County regulations and policies. This includes the Comprehensive Plan (C.O. 89-04) and its amendments. The information requested is to assure that the proposed development will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. None of the reasons listed in the December 28, 1992, determination of incompleteness specifically stated that Florida Rock could not qualify for a development order for mining because its real property had just become designated by the December 22, 1992, ordinance as "rural residential," instead of "extractive." Indeed, the December 28, 1992, determination of incompleteness did not mention the ordinance change at all. However, its fourth paragraph concerns the requirement that an applicant establish its real property's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The County has taken the position that, without using the terms "extractive use" or "rural residential," paragraph four encompasses the change of ordinance as well as all matters pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan. Under the statutes in effect on December 22, 1992, Ordinance 92-A73 was not effective until filed with the Secretary of State. (See the face of the ordinance). The exact date of its filing was not stipulated, but it was agreed that filing occurred sometime in December 1992. Under Florida's growth management process, the newly adopted ordinance also was transmitted to the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, which would then issue a report before the new ordinance became part of the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan.3 On January 3, 1993, Florida Rock challenged, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, the new ordinance as it progressed through the Florida Department of Community Affairs' review process. On January 19, 1993, Citrus County's LDDS sent a letter to Florida Rock, further interpreting its December 28, 1992, determination of incompleteness. That letter also made no specific mention of the ordinance amendment and did not amend the fourth paragraph of the incompleteness determination. It provided, in pertinent part: For the record, my letter of December 28, 1992, was not a "Denial" but rather a determination of incompleteness pursuant to Section 2222.B.1 of the Land Development Code. In response to your question of January 12, 1993, I was not persuaded by your argument in regards to access by way of Parcel 22100 lying in Section 36, Township 20 South, Range 19 East, but did recognize the driveway onto County Road 581. Florida Rock declined to amend its application or supply the information requested. On January 26, 1993, Florida Rock initiated the instant administrative appeal of the December 28, 1992, determination of incompleteness. However, by agreement of Florida Rock and Citrus County, the appeal was abated until January 13, 1999 (see the Preliminary Statement), when it was transferred from a local hearing officer to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Florida Rock's challenge of the ordinance before the Florida Department of Community Affairs also did not progress in a timely manner. On February 6, 1998, Florida Rock's challenge to the new ordinance was dismissed. The effect thereof is that the Florida Department of Community Affairs has found, and entered a Final Order pronouncing, Citrus County Ordinance 92-A73 to be in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, pertaining to Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act. That Final Order, as final agency action, was not appealed. By any interpretation, Citrus County's Comprehensive Plan, embracing the new ordinance's land use designation of Florida Rock's property as "rural residential" has been in effect since February 1998, as have been coordinated zoning, FLUM, and LDC atlas maps. Since December 22, 1992, the ordinance has designated Florida Rock's proposed site as "rural residential," which precludes the proposed mining operation. Since February 1998, the Comprehensive Plan, FLUM, and LDC atlas maps have all embraced, and currently all of them now embrace, the ordinance, and all of them prohibit mining or "extractive use" of the real property in issue.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Citrus County Department of Land Development Services enter a final order dismissing the appeal for mootness. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 4th day of June, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: The City of Oakland Park and Its Roadways The City of Oakland Park is an incorporated municipality located in Broward County, Florida. It is situated in the geographic center of the County. A six-lane divided expressway, I-95, runs north/south through the middle of the City. Among the major east/west thoroughfares in the City is Oakland Park Boulevard. It is a six-lane divided roadway that is functionally classified by the Florida Department of Transportation as an urban principal arterial. The roadway is lined almost exclusively with commercial development. I-95 can be accessed at Oakland Park Boulevard. The Stroks' Property and Its Surroundings Mr. and Mrs. Strok own 20.709 acres of contiguous land in the City. The land is among the few remaining undeveloped properties in the City. The Stroks' property abuts Oakland Park Boulevard to the south. Its southernmost point is a relatively short distance to the west of the Oakland Park Boulevard/I-95 interchange. At present, Oakland Park Boulevard provides the only vehicular access to the Stroks' property. Commercial development lies immediately to the east and to the west of that portion of the Stroks' property fronting on Oakland Park Boulevard. Further north on the property's western boundary is a residential neighborhood of single family homes. Single family homes also lie to the east of the Stroks' property north of Oakland Park Boulevard, but they are separated from the property by a canal. Oakland Park Boulevard, in the vicinity of the Stroks' property (Segment 366), is heavily travelled. Currently, it is operating well over its capacity and therefore, according to standards utilized by the Florida Department of Transportation, is providing a Level of Service (LOS) of "F." There are no formal plans at the moment to expend public funds on capital improvements that would increase the capacity of Oakland Park Boulevard. Whether the Stroks' property is ultimately used primarily for commercial purposes or for single family residential purposes, the development of the property will increase the traffic volume on this segment of Oakland Park Boulevard, as well as other roadway segments in the County that are now operating over capacity, but are not programmed for any capital improvements. As a general rule, however, commercial development generates more traffic than single family residential development. The City's 1989 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map The City adopted its 1989 comprehensive plan on April 5, 1989. Adopted as part of the plan was a Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which was based upon appropriate surveys, studies and data concerning the area. Over Petitioners' objections, all but a small portion of the Stroks' property was designated for commercial use on the FLUM. 1/ Under the City's two prior comprehensive plans, the Stroks' entire property was designated for commercial use. "Commercial uses" are defined in Chapter IV, Section 1.32 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan as "activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental and distribution of products, or performance of services." Furthermore, Chapter IV, Section 3.02(C) of the plan provides as follows with respect to lands designated for commercial use on the FLUM: Each parcel of land within an area designated in a commercial land use category by the City's land Use Plan Map must be zoned in a zoning district which permits any one or more of the following uses, but no other uses: Retail uses. Office and business uses. Wholesale, storage, light fabricating and warehouses uses, if deemed appropriate by the City. Hotels, motels and similar lodging. Recreation and open space, cemeteries, and commercial recreation uses. Community facilities and utilities. a. Special Residential Facility Category (2) development . . . . b. Special Residential Facility Category (3) development . . . . Non-residential agriculture uses. Residential uses are permitted in the same structure as a commercial use provided that the local government entity applies flexibility and reserve units to the parcel and: The residential floor area does not exceed 50% of the total floor area of the building; or The first floor is totally confined to commercial uses. Recreational vehicle park sites at a maximum density of ten (10) sites per gross acre if permanent location of recreational vehicles on the site is permitted by the City land development regulations, or twenty (20) sites per gross acre if such permanent location is prohibited by the local land development regulations, subject to allocation by the City government entity of available flexibility or reserve units. Transportation and communication facilities. The decision to designate in the City's 1989 comprehensive plan almost all of the Stroks' property for commercial use was not made without consideration of the adverse impact commercial development would have on traffic in the vicinity of the Stroks' property. Although it was recognized that such development would add more traffic to the already congested roadways in the area than would single family residential development, the prevailing view was that the additional traffic that would be generated by commercial development, as compared to that which would be generated by single family residential development, would be relatively insignificant. The designation of the major portion of the Stroks' property for commercial use is not inherently incompatible with the designations assigned other parcels of property in the surrounding area. The Stroks' property was designated for commercial use under Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan. The Broward County Charter mandates that the land use plans of the County's incorporated municipalities be in substantial conformity with the County's land use plan. Goals, Objectives and Policies The City's 1989 comprehensive plan also includes various goals, objectives and policies. Those of particular significance to the instant case provide in pertinent part as follows: Goal 1- Protect and enhance the single family residential, multiple-family residential, non-residential and natural resource areas of Oakland Park. Objective 1.1- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, revise the development code to assure that all new development . . . avoids traffic problems now impacting the City . . . . Policy 1.1.5- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the development code shall be amended to specify that no development permit shall be issued unless assurance is given that the public facilities necessitated by the project (in order to meet level of service standards specified in the Traffic Circulation, Recreation and Infrastructure policies) will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development. A concurrency management system shall be included that specifies the latest DCA and City criteria for what constitutes "assurance" in addition to budgeted projects or signed development agreements. Goal 2- To develop an overall transportation circulation system which will provide for the transportation needs of all sectors of the community in a safe, efficient, cost effective and aesthetically pleasing manner. Objective 2.1- Provide for a safe, convenient and efficient motorized and non-motorized transportation system. Policy 2.1.1- Monitor annual traffic accident frequencies by location. Policy 2.2.2- Improve selective enforcement at high accident locations. Policy 2.1.4- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, provide safe and convenient on-site traffic flow through development review procedures. Policy 2.1.7- Reduce the amount of through traffic on local streets and collectors through the implementation, within three years of plan adoption, of a Local Area Traffic Management Program (LATMP) . . . . Policy 2.1.11- Improve the efficiency of traffic flow on existing roadways by implementing the policies of Objective 2.1. Objective 2.2- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, coordinate the traffic circulation system with existing and future land uses as shown on the Future Land Use Map. Policy 2.2.1- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide a Development Management System that will allow development to occur in concurrence with the Future Land Use Map and in concert with development of the traffic circulation system. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "D" on all arterial and collector roadways where existing plus committed traffic allows, and maintain traffic conditions on all other roadways segments. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "C" on all local roadways. LOS shall be based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and the FDOT Generalized Daily and Peak Hour Level of Service Maximum Volumes. Other methods may be utilized but are subject to technical review and acceptance by the City. Policy 2.2.2- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of local roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "C" or better. This list may be based on the February 21,1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development or other sources as appropriate. Policy 2.2.3- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.4- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "D" or better. This list shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. Policy 2.2.5- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.6- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is a scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Planned Improvement Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.7- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.3, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions and the scheduled 2010 improvement will be able to operate at LOS "D" once constructed. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.8- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is no scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. 2/ Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Constrained Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.9- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.5, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. Policy 2.2.10- The City will annually update existing traffic counts and review updated Broward County Trips assignments. Based on the update the City may reclassify any roadway segment within the City. The City may also reclassify a roadway segment if development from outside the City has effected traffic conditions within the City. Policy 2.2.11- Subsequent to plan adoption, modify the land development regulations such that after 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, require trip generation studies from all proposed development within the City and traffic impact studies for developments generating more than 10% of adjacent roadway capacity and allow development contingent upon the provision of LOS Standards. Objective 2.4- Provide for the protection of existing and future rights of way from building encroachment. Policy 2.4.2- Modify land development regulations to ensure consistency with the Broward County Trafficways Plan right-of-way requirements during development review activities. Goal 9- To ensure the orderly and efficient provision of all public services and facilities necessary to serve existing and future local population needs. Objective 9.2- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that development or redevelopment proposals are approved consistent with existing service availability or coincident with the programmed provision of additional services at the adopted level of service standards and meets existing and future facility needs. Policy 9.2.1- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, revise development procedures to review development proposals cognizant of the City's adopted level of service standards, existing levels of service and where appropriate, the timeframe for implementation of additional facility improvements. Policy 9.2.2- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, condition the approval of proposed development or redevelopment projects on the basis of project related needs being concurrently available at the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Policy 9.2.3- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, allow for phasing of development related infrastructure improvements concurrently with project impacts on public facilities. Policy 9.2.4- The Level of Service (LOS) for capital facilities shall be: * * * for Arterials and Collectors- LOS "D" or "Maintain" for Local Roadways- LOS "C" ADT, PSDT and PKHR Objective 9.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that private developers participate on a proportionate share basis in any facility improvement costs necessary to maintain LOS standards. Policy 9.3.2- Establish a preference for the actual construction of adjacent site road improvements in lieu of impact fee payments. Policy 9.3.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, establish in the land development regulations a process for assessing new development on a pro rata share of the costs necessary to finance public facility improvements in order to maintain the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Development Review Requirements Chapter IV, Section 4 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan prescribes development review requirements. It provides in pertinent part as follows: Following the effective date of the Land Use Plan, the City shall not grant a permit for a proposed development unless the City has determined that public facilities are adequate to serve the needs of the proposed development or unless the developer agrees in writing that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the proposed development until public facilities are adequate to serve its needs. Public facilities may be determined to be adequate to serve the needs of a proposed development when the following conditions are met. Traffic circulation . . . public facilities and services will be available to meet established level of service standards, consistent with Chapter 163.3203(g) Florida Statutes and the concurrence management policies included within this Plan. Local streets and roads will provide safe, adequate access between buildings within the proposed development and the trafficways identified on the Broward County Trafficways Plan prior to occupancy. Capital Improvements Implementation Chapter VII of the plan deals with the subject of capital improvements implementation. It contains a section which addresses the matter of level of service standards. This section provides in pertinent part as follows: The minimum criteria for Comprehensive Plans requires that Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park be included for public facilities described in the plan. The Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park are provided in the following Table 2. Subsequent to the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, all future development approvals will be conditioned upon the provision of services at the local level of service standards. Table 2 sets forth the following level of service standards for roadways: Principal Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Minor Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Collectors- LOS "C"- AADT, 3/ PSDT 4/ PKHR 5/ Submission and Approval of the Stroks' Plat On June 6, 1989, the Stroks submitted to the County Commission for its approval a final plat of their property. The plat reflected the Stroks' plan to have 15 single family dwelling units, 180,000 square feet of office space and 36,000 square feet of commercial space constructed on the property. County staff analyzed the plat to ascertain the impact that the proposed development would have on traffic. In performing their analysis, they relied on the County's TRIPS computer model. Broward County assesses impact fees against a developer where it is projected that a development will add traffic to road segments in the County that are over-capacity, but are planned for improvement. The TRIPS computer model is used to determine the amount of the assessment. County staff did a TRIPS run on the Stroks' plat on September 13, 1989 and determined that the development proposed in the plat would generate a total of 6,879 trips on road segments throughout the County, including over-capacity road segments that were not planned for improvement, as well as over-capacity road segments that were planned for improvement. 6/ The County Commission approved the Stroks' plat on September 19, 1989. A short time earlier, the City Council had also approved the plat. Petitioners' Motives Petitioners are all residents of the City of Oakland Park. In filing their petitions challenging the City's 1989 comprehensive plan, they were motivated only by a desire to improve the quality of life in their city. They had no ulterior motive. They filed the petitions because they felt that it was in the best interest of the City that they do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs issue a final order finding that the City of Oakland Park's 1989 comprehensive plan is "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of th Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1990.
The Issue The issues in this case are (1) whether the City of Panama City's (the City) Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 04-20S adopted by Ordinance No. 1985 (the Plan Amendment) is "in compliance," as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and (2) whether the petition challenging the Plan Amendment should be dismissed as untimely.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Robert E. Moore owns a home and resides at 1310 Kristanna Drive, Panama City, Florida. The northwestern property line of Mr. Moore's home is adjacent to the northeastern corner of the Property. JE 7; PE 98-B at RM.2 There is an approximate 100-foot-wide Bay County maintained canal or drainage ditch (canal) that forms the northern boundary of the Property, see Endnote 1 and PE 50 at 7, which runs in an east-to-west direction at the northern portion of his home. This canal eventually leads to North Bay to the west.3 Goose Bayou is located south of the Property. Mr. Moore taught respiratory care at Gulf Coast Community College for approximately 23 years and is retired. His residence was affected by a hurricane which passed through the area in September 2004. He noticed water appearing half-way up his driveway, which is not on the canal. He is concerned with the placement of additional homes in this area in light of his experience with the water level after the recent storm event. (Generally, Mr. Moore stated that there is a two- foot difference between low and high tide in this area. T 133, 137.) Mr. Moore, as well as the other Petitioners, made oral and written comments to the City Commission during the Plan Amendment adoption hearings. See City's Unilateral Pre-Hearing Stipulation at 5, paragraph E.4.; T 213. The St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association (RMA) was established in 1986 and is a citizen's organization devoted to the preservation of the quality of St. Andrews Bay and its surrounding ecosystems. T 194. (St. Andrews Bay is a larger body of water which includes North and West Bay and Goose Bayou. See generally JE 12, Map 1.) The RMA has approximately 100 members. The RMA uses, but does not own, an office on the Panama City Marine Institute campus located within the City. The RMA occasionally conducts seminars or conferences and offers several programs for citizens, e.g., sea turtle nest watch, a water sampling program (Baywatch), and a sea grass watch program. The RMA meets every month except during the summer. T 195-196. The RMA opposes the Plan Amendment, in part, because of concerns with the effect of development on what Ms. Shaffer characterized as the "pine islands." Linda Anne Yori owns and resides in a house at 908 Ashwood Circle, Panama City, Florida, which is "just off Kristanna" Drive and to the east. See PE 98-C at the blue X. She teaches middle school science at a local public school. She has observed the Property, and generally described the Property, and vacant property to the north, as "upland hammock with salt marsh." T 209. In general, Ms. Yori opposes the Plan Amendment because she "believe[d] the environmental impact would be too great." Mary Rose Smith owns and resides in a house on Ashwood Circle, Panama City, Florida, two houses away from Ms. Yori's residence. Ms. Smith regularly jogs throughout the neighborhood. She believed that there are approximately 400 homes in Candlewick Acres and six vacant lots remaining. T 214- 215. As a result of recent hurricanes in the area, she observed flooding approximately half-a-mile upland along Kristanna Drive from the west-end to the east (half a mile to the turn off to Ashwood). PE 98-D at the blue 1/2 designation and blue line. While she cannot say for certain where the water came from, she believed the water "came from the bay or the bayou." T 220. The Bay County Audubon Society (BCAS) conducts membership and board meetings within the City limits and also owns a piece of property in the City. BCAS has approximately 400 members. Members live within the City. BCAS is concerned with the environment and with "the density of the proposed development" and "access to the pine islands." T 409-411. The City is the local government unit responsible for approving the Plan Amendment at issue in this proceeding. § 163.3187(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The Application, Review, and Adoption of the Plan Amendment On or about May 11, 2004, James H. Slonina, P.E., the president of Panhandle Engineering, Inc., filed an application on behalf of Robert H. and Barbara B. Hansman, requesting the City to annex "approximately 9.9 acres including lots, paved roadways and bridged drives" and further requested a land use designation to allow proposed residential development." The Property, see Endnote 1, is designated on a Bay County parcel map. A flood zone map is also included, but lacks clarity. The Property is vacant. JE 13. The purpose of the annexation and request for land use designation "is to accommodate the development of a 13+/- lot single-family residential waterfront development adjacent to North Shore Subdivisions." The application also stated: To support the residential home sites, there are adequate adjacent public roadways and utilities. Due to the unique physical configuration of the property, traditional RLD lot standards may not [sic] applicable. While we would prefer to pursue an RLD-1 designation, the application is submitted contingent upon confirmation of an appropriate land use designation and an approval of the proposed project. If another course of action is available, which would allow for the development of 13+/- single-family residential lots on 9.9 acres, please advise. JE 13. (It is represented throughout this record that the land use designation is requested for approximately 6.8 acres rather that approximately 9.9 acres. See, e.g., JE 7 at 1; JE 11 at 12-13.) The application was reviewed, in part, by Mr. Thomasson. JE 7. The staff report4 dated July 30, 2004, stated that the request is to amend the City's FLUM from Conservation (as previously designated by Bay County) to RLD with a Zoning District classification of RLD-1. (The staff report referred to several permitted uses under RLD-1. JE 7 at 2. The permitted uses for RLD-1 are those contained in the City's "Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code (LDRC)" at section 4-6.1.2.a. JE 4 at IV:8-9. However, the propriety of the RLD-1 Zoning District classification for the Property is not at issue in this proceeding. T 266.) The staff report also stated that the Property "is currently zoned conservation, abuts property to the North that is designated conservation Land Use category in the County and is just North of an existing Special Conservation Treatment Zone," which is indicated on a map on page 1 of the staff report. JE 7 at 1. The staff report stated that "[w]ater and sewer infrastructure and other urban services are available to this property." See T 286-287, 301-303, 307-308; JE 7 at 1. Under the background section, it is stated that "[t]he property has been seen as environmentally significant and has been the object of an effort to purchase for perpetual protection by a local land trust organization. It is adjacent to an existing development to the East." Id. The Plan provides that an RLD land use district "is intended to provide areas for the preservation of development of low-density neighborhoods consisting of single-family dwelling units on individual lots" with a density of "[n]o more than five dwelling units per acre." The allowed intensity is "[n]o more than 40% lot coverage as determined by dividing the impervious areas by the gross area of the site or lot." JE 3 at 1-2. The staff report contained findings of fact with citations to the Plan, including the Future Land Use Element, the Coastal Management Element, and the Conservation Element. References to the LDRC are also provided. See also T 285-311, 315-317, 320-321; JE 7 at 2-3. Thereafter, specific findings are made: Staff finds that this property, as a part of the St. Andrews estuary, serves as a breeding, nursery, feeding and refuge are for numerous marine creatures, birds and upland wildlife. The three pine and oak hammacks [sic] are a few of a rare estuarian resource. The marsh throughout the area serves as home for seagrass and other marine organisms that are integral with the biodiversity of the estuary. There also exists a [sic] archaeological sites [sic] consisting of an ancient Indian midden that has already been classified by the Director of the Florida State Division of Historical Resources as deservant [sic] of mitigation and potentially eligible for the National Historic Registry (see attached documentation). The site overall has a biotic community of nearly 90% of it [sic] total area. Staff findings are that this proposed Land Use Amendment is inconsistent with the above listed mandates of the Comp Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed Land Use is inconsistent with the LDR Code, in that it is not in harmony with the Comp Plan (Subsection 2-5.5.6.e. above), as well as the requirements of the environmental protection standards of Section 5-5. This decision hinges on the whether the City intends to enforce it's [sic] environmental protection standards of the Comp Plan and the LDR Code and if the site is seen as environmentally significant. JE 7 at 4 (italics in original). Ultimately, staff recommended approval only with the following conditions: 1.) that the fullness of the subject property be designated as a Conservation Special Treatment Zone [CSTZ][5] and that the pine and oak hammacks [sic](as referred to as "Pine Islands" in the Bay County Comp Plan) are prohibited from being developed; and 2.) that the area of the subject property that is beyond the mean high tide of the mainland portion, which specifically means the marshes/wetlands and the oak and pine hammacks [sic], shall be placed in a conservation easement and dedicated to either the City, or a third-party land trust or conservancy. JE 7 at 4. (Mr. Hammons, the City Manager, disagreed with the staff report, in part, because there was no data to support several findings. T 119-124.) On August 9, 2004, the Planning Board of Panama City met in regular session to consider the application. The request was to approve a small scale land use amendment to the FLUM of the Plan from Conservation (under the Bay County Comprehensive Plan) to RLD with a zoning classification of RLD-1 for the Property. JE 11 at 2. But see Finding of Fact 15. Mr. Fred Webb and Dr. Frasier Bingham were present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Webb advised that the Bingham's and the Webb's owned the property which consisted of approximately 6.5 acres of uplands. But see Finding of Fact 29 regarding the ownership of the Property. In part, Mr. Webb stated that the grass beds would not be impacted and that there was no legitimate environmental complaint. Dr. Bingham stated that he is an ecologist, specializing in shallow water ecology. JE 11 at 3. He said his family had purchased the upland property in 1948 and the submerged land in the 1960s. Beginning in 1991, Dr. Bingham stated he tried to get the government to purchase the property, but to no avail. He also recounted attempts to obtain permits from DEP and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). See, e.g., PE 60, 63-64.6 He believed that the bridge problem, identified by the Corps had been solved. JE 11 at 3 and 13. (There is no persuasive evidence in this record that the Corps has approved any permits for development of the Property.) Mr. Webb stated that all maintenance to the bridges and other utilities would be the responsibility of the association (for the developed Property) and not the City and that the City would only be responsible for police and fire. Id. at 4. Mr. Thomasson addressed the Planning Board. JE 11 at The staff report previously mentioned is incorporated in the minutes. Staff felt that the CSTZ designation would be the most appropriate designation due to the environmental issues and that the RLD-1 designation would be the least intense land use available under the Plan. Board member Pritchard inquired whether the application was incomplete "as it doesn't address the environmental issues." Mr. Thomasson stated the applicant did not believe there would be any environmental impact, while staff believed the property to be environmentally significant. JE 11 at 8. Dr. Bingham again addressed the Planning Board to refute the staff's findings of fact. Dr. Bingham said that "the wetlands would not be impacted, the grass beds would not be impacted, and the stormwater runoff already goes into the grass beds, which are, in his opinion, fine grass beds" and that "that 13 houses would not have any significant impact." He indicated that soils were not at issue and that the "property is sandy, not special." Id. at 9. Mr. Webb indicated that "they had evaluated the environmental aspects and added the raised bridges, swales, etc." JE 11 at 9. Numerous individuals spoke in opposition to the request. Apparently, by a show of hands "a large majority of those present were in opposition to the request." JE 11 at 12. It appears that two persons spoke in favor of the request. Id. at 9-11. Mr. Webb confirmed that the application requested approval of the land use designation and annexation for 6.8 acres. JE 11 at 12. He also advised that a limited liability corporation owned the 6.8 acres, while there are different owners of other parcels. Mr. Webb indicated that "only the uplands on the islands were being annexed," although "he was not sure the properties were 'islands' in legal terms." Id. at 13. Mr. Webb indicated that he was willing to indemnify the City against any legal expenses arising from this request. Id. The requested land use change was approved by a vote of three to two. Id. at 14. On September 28, 2004, the City Commission considered Ordinance No. 1985 pertaining to the requested land use designation change and Ordinance No. 1995 pertaining to the annexation of the Property. These Ordinances were read by title only as a first reading. JE 10 at 293-294. During this meeting, the minutes (JE 10) reflect that Mr. Webb stated that they would only be developing the upland islands and proposed to use bridges, which he says "the environmental regulatory community has considered to have almost no environmental impact. He said that the addition of thirteen single family residential homes to an area that has seven hundred homes will not materially affect level of service." JE 10 at 289. Several of the people who appeared before the Planning Board also appeared opposing the application for annexation and land use designation change. JE 10 at 290. Mr. Martin Jacobson, Planning and Zoning Manager for Bay County filed a formal letter of objection to the annexation. Id. Mr. Fred Beauchemin opposed the annexation and responded to eleven items which were discussed by Mr. Webb and Dr. Bingham during the Planning Board meeting, including representations of impacts to grass beds, wildlife resources, and soils. JE 10 at 290-292. Mr. Webb continued to feel that there would not be any destruction of the marshes. Id. at 292. Dr. Bingham again noted that he is a shallow water marine ecologist and felt that he was informed about the environmental situation on the Property. Id. at 293. After brief discussion by some of the Commissioners, Ordinance Nos. 1985 and 1995 were approved by a vote of three to two. JE 10 at 293-294. By a letter dated November 9, 2004, Daniel Shaw, A.I.C.P., memorialized the October 5, 2004, Bay County Commission's unanimous decision to contest the potential annexation of and land use change to the Property, referring to several provisions of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. T 228; PE 69. Mr. Shaw opined that "[c]learly, development proposed for the annexed Pine Islands violates the County's Comprehensive Plan." PE 69 at 2. He further stated: What's more the proposed annexation also violates the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Policy 5-5.2, 5-5.3 related to preservation of Environmentally Significant Resources would prohibit the proposed development. The property is a part of the St. Andrews estuary, and serves as a breeding/refuge area for numerous marine creatures, birds and wildlife. The three pine and oak hammocks are a truly rare estuarine resource for Bay County and for the State of Florida. The marshlands contain valuable sea grass beds and are home to numerous marine creatures, which are integral to the biodiversity of the estuary. Finally, the property contains valuable archeological sites, consisting of ancient Indian middens that are classified by the State Division of Historical resources, and potentially eligible for the National Historic Register. I would concur with staff's memorandum of August 9, 2004, which cites numerous other examples of where the development would violate the City's plan. PE 69 at 2 (emphasis in original). Mr. Shaw also stated that the Property is located in the coastal high hazard area, within a "V" zone for flood regulations.7 He stated that "[t]hese designations argue for prohibiting development for public safety and infrastructure investment purposes." Again, Mr. Shaw stated that Bay County opposed the potential annexation and subsequent land use reclassification. PE 69 at 3. Mr. Shaw also testified during the final hearing and reaffirmed his prior position. T 232-245. Mr. Shaw stated that the Property, prior to annexation by the City, was designated Conservation under the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, which allows for limited residential use and the preservation of pine islands (an outright prohibition).8 He was not qualified, however, to make a determination whether any portion of the Property is a pine island. T 247. Mr. Shaw thinks that Bay County allows up to 15 units per acre in the coastal high hazard area. T 254. On November 9, 2004, the City Commission met and considered a final reading of Ordinance Nos. 1985 and 1995. Several people appeared opposing both ordinances including Mr. Moore, Ms. Smith, Ms. Yori, and others. JE 8 at 3-14; JE 9 at 3-5. Mr. Webb again addressed the City Commission and stated, in part, that "nothing in the marsh would be touched." He also indicated that he would fully indemnify the City in the event of a lawsuit. JE 8 at 14-21; JE 9 at 5. Dr. Bingham also addressed the Commission. JE 8 at He stated that he has designed an environmentally friendly community of 13 home sites. He indicated that he had a Ph.D. in shallow water marine ecology and attended Florida State University and the University of Miami. He said that he was thoroughly familiar with the Panama City area and had worked with a large list of groups as an ecologist. He reiterated that the homes sites will take up 6.8 acres and will be entirely uplands and no marshes or swamps. He said that he is trying to use one fifth of the property that he owns and "there are no wetlands involved in this particular operation that will be damaged." JE 8 at 23. He also indicated that there will be raised bridges constructed on the Property, and according to him, were suggested by the Corps. Id. After brief comments by several Commissioners, the Commission approved the annexation and land use designation change by a vote of three to two. JE 8 at 26-27, 30-31. Toward the end of the November 9, 2004, hearing, the City Attorney, Rowlett Bryant, advised that the minutes of the September 28, 2004, Commission meeting would be included with the minutes of the November 9, 2004, public hearing. In other words, the November 9, 2004, Commission meeting was the public hearing held on the application for the annexation and the land use designation change. JE 8 at 27-30. Mr. Bryant also noted that the Ordinance No. 1985, related to the land use designation, would be RLD-1 and that the prior reference to Special Treatment Conservation Zone in the title of Ordinance No. 1985, considered on September 28, 2004, was a recommendation of staff and was deleted from Ordinance No. 1985, which was approved by the City Commission on November 9, 2004. JE 8 at 31-32. Ordinance No. 1985, in fact, changed the land use designation of the Property (approximately 6.8 acres) "from Conservation (a Bay County Land Use designation) to Residential- Low Density-1 as described in Small Scale Amendment 04-S20." JE 1 at 2. However, Petitioners and the City agree that "[t]he city assigned a future land use map designation to the parcel of Residential Low Density in Ordinance No. 1985." See T 11, lines 10-23; Petitioners' Prehearing Stipulation at 2, IV.2. Data and Analysis As more fully discussed in the Conclusions of Law, "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth; the projected population of the area; the character of undeveloped land; the availability of public services; the need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non-conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community; the capability of uses on lands adjacent to or closely approximate to military installations; and, in rural communities, the need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy." § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2) provides for "land use analysis requirements" and requires, in part, that the future land use element "be based upon the following analyses which support the comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection 9J-5.005(2) F.A.C." Subsection 9J-5.006(2)(b) requires "[a]n analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability for use, including where available: 1. Gross vacant or undeveloped land area, as indicated in paragraph (1)(b); 2. Soils; 3. Topography; 4. Natural resources; and 5. Historic resources." Further, "all goals, objectives, policies, standards, finding 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 on 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." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2)(a)(emphasis added). "Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such as the United States Census, State Data Center, State University System of Florida, regional planning councils, water management districts, or existing technical studies. The data shall be the best available existing data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2)(c). Petitioners question whether the record contains relevant and appropriate data, which was existing and available on or before November 9, 2004, to support the Plan Amendment. Petitioners further question whether the analysis of that data is adequate. The application, JE 13, requested approval of annexation of and a change in the land use designation for, as amended, approximately 6.8 acres. Aside from identifying the parcel in question, in relation to Goose Bayou and the subdivision to the east, the application does not contain adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment. Mr. Slonina, a professional engineer and expert in civil engineering, testified during the final hearing as to the due diligence he and his firm performed in support of filing the application with the City. T 424. Mr. Slonina has been on the Property many times. T 456. As part of the due diligence, Mr. Slonina analyzed the area proposed for development on the Property, which are the upland areas, and, in part, stated that these areas are primarily free draining sands and have fairly high percolation rates. T 425, 453. He also characterized upland areas as fairly clean sands and satisfactory for development in this area based on his experience. He also examined the upland and wetland soils to determine suitability for a "post and beam timbered bridge system" that would be pile supported over the wetlands bridging upland areas. He opined that the soils on the uplands were nothing unique and were suitable for low density residential and suitable to support the bridge system he described. T 428, 442, 458-459. See also P 50, Attachment A. Regarding utilities which might be available to the Property, during the due diligence phase, he identified, from utility maps, the location of the closest water and sewer which could serve the Property, adjacent to the Property to the east. He also analyzed the ability of fire protection to be provided to the Property and concluded that it was feasible. T 428-432, 460-461. See also JE 7 at 1 regarding "utility and other urban services availability" and P 50 at 14-16 for a discussion of "utilities." Mr. Slonina also opined that a stormwater system could reasonably be designed for the Property and that it was feasible to design a stormwater system that would capture stormwater runoff before it went into the bayou. T 432-435. Mr. Slonina examined flood zone information and determined that the Property was "very typical" and that the flood zone information available would not preclude residential development on the Property. T 434-435, 450. But see Endnote 7. From a traffic concurrency standpoint, he examined traffic engineering data on trip generation for 13 single-family homes and determined that there was adequate capacity for that additional loading on "the only roadway that connects to the [P]roperty." His traffic impact analysis was limited "through the residential streets." T 435-436, 439-441. Mark O. Friedemann, is the executive vice-president at the Phoenix Environmental Group, Inc., an environmental consulting firm. T 466. Mr. Friedemann was retained on or about January 7, 2005, by the City's counsel for the purpose of "doing a basic assessment of the property and whether it was suitable for some type of development, residential in particular." T 474-475. Prior to conducting a survey of the Property, aerial photographs, data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, and various maps were reviewed. Id. Mr. Friedemann and an assistant conducted a field survey of the Property on January 12, 2005. They collected basic water quality data, observed wildlife, conducted several soil observations pits, looked for scat, and examined the vegetative community on the Property. T 476. For the purpose of the survey, the Property was divided into areas 1 through 4, which are labeled on CE 5, Figure 2. T 478. These upland areas were the major focus of the assessment along with the interior (wetland/marsh) areas. T 478, 565. CE 5 at 2, Figure 2. Mr. Friedemann and his assistant arrived on the Property at approximately 9:00 am on January 12, 2005, during low tide. They left the Property as the tide was starting to return. T 517, 532, 548. Area one is a rectangular portion of the Property, which runs north to south and forms most of the eastern boundary of the Property and is adjacent to Candlewick Acres. Area two is another upland area which is in the northwest portion of the Property and west of area one. Area three is in the southwest portion of the Property and southwest of area two. Area four is a small upland portion, which is almost due south of area one in the southeastern portion of the Property. CE 5 at 2, Figure 2; see also Endnote 6. Mr. Friedemann accessed area two from area one by walking along a path/spoil pile, which runs east to west and forms part of the northern boundary of the Property (the approximately 100 foot canal is north of and adjacent to the path/spoil pile). He walked to area three by stepping across a small rivulet of no more than a foot in width. He walked to area four from area three, stepping over another small tidal- influenced rivulet that passed between areas three and four. He approached area one from area four walking across "a rather high area." Mr. Friedemann "did not get the impression that area two was surrounded" by wetlands, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. T 479-481, 500, 517, 556-557. He stated that area three would be surrounded, but was unsure about area four. T 556-559. Some of the areas photographed would be potentially inundated during high tide. T 521-525. Mr. Friedemann's report also contained, in part: water quality data taken on January 12, 2005; and a list of species seen on the same date; a recent undated aerial of the Property and surrounding area, downloaded from the DEP website, which was also magnified; and several aerials (dated 1953, 1962, 1967, 1974, 1978, and 1986) of the Property including the surrounding areas. Mr. Friedemann opined, based on his review of aerials, that there may have been a timber operation ongoing on the Property in the past although he would not hazard a guess. T 540. The report also included several photographs taken of the four areas, during the site visit on January 12, 2005. CE 5 at x-xxii. Although he did not "review any set of plans," or have any opinion regarding any specific development proposal, Mr. Friedemann opined that based on his observations in the field, "there is a viable project that could be built on this parcel."9 T 482, 501-502, 511, 520. Mr. Friedemann provided an analysis of the Property by and through his testimony regarding photographs taken of the Property during his site visit. From a biological or ecological perspective, he did not observe anything on the Property which would preclude residential development. He further opined that what he observed was not unique in the panhandle of Florida. T 501-502. Mr. Friedemann did not conduct a wetland delineation of the Property. T 556. However, the record contains an infrared Conceptual Site Plan dated October 22, 2002, indicating vacant land to the north of the Property, and residential areas to the east of the Property and east of the vacant parcels to the north. This particular site plan provided for the approximate wetland boundaries of the Property identified as south parcel (4). PE 98-D and PE 50 at Exhibit 1. Mr. Friedemann indicated that he had not observed the Property during a hurricane, during periods of high wind, or during periods of a combination of high wind and high tide. He agreed that the tides in the United States can be lower during the winter than they are during the spring and that the highest tides may be experienced during the spring called neap tides. T 532-533. Mr. Friedemann was also referred to a December 30, 2004, document apparently prepared by Panhandle Engineering, Inc., sheet number 2 of 4, CE 16, which delineated 13 lots. T 533. See Endnote 6. (City Exhibit 16 was admitted into evidence as an authentic document; however, there was no testimony regarding the preparation of this document. T 535-537.) Comparing sheet 2 of 4 with Figure two of CE 5, area two is depicted as being surrounded by rush marsh and connected to area one and area three by drawn-in bridges. Compare PE 50, Attachment E, Sheet 1 of 2, dated July 31, 1998, depicting the Property with 13 lots configured, interspersed with a "conservation area" designation and Attachment A, Figure 4., Project Base Map, depicting upland areas on the Property, interspersed with a "marsh" designation with PE 98-D south parcel (4) and "approximate wetland boundary. See also Endnote Mr. Friedemann stated that the indication of rush marsh on sheet number 2 of 4 did not comport with his observations of the Property during his site visit. He was unaware of this drawing. T 534-538. Gail Easley, A.I.C.P., an expert in urban and regional planning, opined that the Plan Amendment was consistent with various provisions of the City's Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the West Florida Regional Strategic Policy Plan. She also opined the Plan Amendment was supported by data and analysis regarding the suitability of the Property for the RLD land use designation. In support, Ms. Easley stated in part: Understanding that the amendment is not really permitting the use, but understanding that the amendment establishes the uses that are allowed as I testified earlier, the suitability data that is available in addition to the data and analysis here in the Comprehensive Plan includes the information from Panhandle Engineering about, more specifically about the availability of facilities and services and the suitability of soils for use of residential low density, as well as the analysis contained in Mr. Friedemann's report regarding environmental issues and the suitability of this site for residential low density. So I found plenty of evaluation of suitability. T 586. See also T 610-611. Ms. Easley also opined that the Plan Amendment does not threaten coastal and natural resources in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006, 9J-5.012, and 9J- 5.013, and Sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, because she considered the data and analysis in the Plan, "as well as the suitability and capability [sic] analysis that were submitted by Panhandle Engineering and Mr. Friedemann demonstrated that there was not a violation of these provisions." T 617. Ms. Easley also stated that there was adequate data to support a need for residential (RLD) development on the Property. See, e.g., T 584-585, 621-622, 629-630, 632-634. See also JE 3 at Future Land Use Data, 1-1 - 1-10. During cross-examination, Ms. Easley was asked to identify the particular Panhandle Engineering report which she reviewed to support her opinion. The report is not in evidence. However, Ms. Easley stated: "It was a report that they prepared that addressed issues of suitability of the site with regard to the availability of water, the availability of sewer, the capacity for water and sewer, soil conditions on the site, and traffic situations on the site. I'm sorry, I do not recall the date of that particular suitability analysis, but it was prepared by Panhandle Engineering, and I reviewed it as a part of my analysis." T 626. Ms. Easley was also asked to provide the source of her data and analysis about environmental conditions on the site and she replied: "Two places, there is information in the City's data and analysis with regard to the vacant land analysis, as well as general environmental conditions in or around the City, I reviewed that data and analysis that I mentioned earlier. I also saw information specific to this parcel from Mr. Friedemann's report." T 627. Ms. Easley indicated that there was no specific data and analysis contained in the City's Plan about the Property, although the Plan referenced areas adjacent to the City. T 628. Ms. Easley reiterated that natural resources are considered during the plan amendment process. It also occurs during permitting. T 642. She again stated: "The suitability analysis was contained in two different reports. As I testified earlier, Mr. Slonina's report from Panhandle Engineering addressed soils and soil suitability. And Mr. Friedemann's report looked at other kinds of environmental issues. I reviewed both of those reports and determined that suitability analysis had been preformed to support the plan amendment." T 643. According to Ms. Easley, if there were environmental reasons creating an inconsistency with Rule 9J-5, then such reasons could serve as a basis for denial. T 643. (Ms. Easley also opined that a land use change to the FLUM "is an assignment of a land use category and the associated density and intensity, it is not a development activity." See T 587, 651.) Mark Llewellyn, P.E., is the president of Genesis Group. In October 2002, Genesis Group completed a planning and engineering analysis (Genesis Report)10 for Chandler and Associates, who, in turn, had a contract with the DEP to prepare an appraisal report for the Goose Bayou Marsh Property.11 The Goose Bayou Marsh Property included four parcels, including the south parcel (4), which is the Property in question, two north parcels (2 and 3), and the middle parcel (1), which is north and northeast of and adjacent (the west one- third) to the Property. All the parcels are vacant. See PE 98- D, which also appears at PE 50, Exhibit 1. Mr. Llewellyn identified three peninsular islands on the Property (south parcel 4)(PE 98-D at the blue X's), which roughly correspond with areas one and two in Mr. Friedemann's report at CE 5 at 2, Figure 2. T 160-161. See also Endnote 6. The two eastern peninsular islands (area one) are connected to the upland to the east, Candlewick Acres. The third peninsular island, located in the northwest corner of the Property, can be accessed, according to Mr. Llewellyn, by a berm or other geographical feature to the north of the Property and south of the drainage canal. Id. See also T 397. There is one larger upland island and a smaller upland island toward the southwest and southern portions of the Property, which appear to be surrounded by wetlands, waters of the state, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. T 160-164. Each peninsular island and upland island is less than 20 acres. Mr. Llewellyn's analysis is consistent with the approximate wetland boundaries identified in the Conceptual Site Plan, PE 98-D. Mr. Llewellyn opined that the Property could be developed as a single-family development without having an impact on the Property if it is designed and maintained properly. T 157, 172. See also Endnote 6. The Genesis Report provided an analysis of the four parcels. Apparently the south parcel (4), the Property, contained approximately 16.2 acres as follows: wetlands 9.8+/- acres; upland islands 3.5+/- acres; peninsula uplands 2.9+/- acres; or 6.4+/- acres of total uplands. T 163; PE 50 at 12. Parcels 1-4 are analyzed in light of several factors, including but not limited, to the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan. The following is an analysis of the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan as applied to the north parcels (2 and 3): The Bay County Comprehensive Management Plan identifies the North Parcel's Future Land Use Designation as Conservation. The purpose of this land use is to identify public and private lands held for conservation of natural features. Allowable uses for this designation are natural resource protection, flood control, wildlife habitat protection, passive of recreation, silviculture and residential densities up to 2DU/acre. Commercial development is prohibited for properties with this land use designation. Additionally, the upland islands located on these parcels fit the definition for "Pine Islands" as defined in the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. A Pine Island is defined as a small upland area generally 20 acres or less, usually characterized by typical pine flatwood vegetation, which are surrounded by waters of the State, wetlands, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. The Bay County Comprehensive Plan prohibits development on any "Pine Island". This means that it will be extremely difficult to develop the upland areas located on this parcel. PE 50 at 2. See also PE 50 at 2 (II.B.) and 13 (IV.B.) regarding the Panama City Future Land Use. (The Genesis Report was prepared approximately two years prior to the City's annexation of the Property. The City did not annex the vacant land to the north (parcels 1-3), which is part of the subject of the Genesis Report.) Regarding the analysis of parcels 1, and 4, the Property, and referring to the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan, it is noted that "[t]he same issues apply to this parcel." PE 50 at 7 and 13. The Genesis Report discussed wetlands on the Property: The wetlands within the property consist of estuarine salt marshes, which are connected to Goose Bayou and West Bay. According to an environmental assessment prepared by Biological Research Associates (BRA) the marshes are tidally influenced and dominated by black rush. Other species include seaside goldenrod, seashore dropseed grass, sea purslane, glasswort, salt grass, marsh hay cord grass, sea lavender, Chinese tallow, saw grass, cork wood, and saltbrush. Additionally, the salt marsh is habitat for two listed bird species; the snowy egret and the little blue heron (see Attachment A). As previously stated, a wetland delineation has been completed for this parcel and accepted by FDEP and ACOE. PE 50 at 13. The Genesis Report also provided a brief discussion of flood plain and cultural resource considerations, and also provided an analysis of site planning and engineering, including access, utilities, owner site plan/lot lay out, and probable development costs. PE 50 at 13-15. Regarding south parcel 4, the Property, the Genesis Report concluded, in part, that "[t]his parcel has limited development potential." A cost estimate is provided. It is also concluded that water and sewer could be provided without incurring significant increases in development costs. "Development of the upland islands would require bridges, which significantly increases the development cost. There is no guarantee that the development within the wetlands would be permitted at this time." PE 50 at 16. The Genesis Report also included a report prepared by Biological Research Associates, which appears as Attachment A to PE 50. Mark Andrew Barth, vice president/senior ecologist for Biological Research Associates, was one of the two signatories to a section of the Genesis Report and also testified during the final hearing. T 175; PE 50, Attachment A. He reiterated that they prepared a preliminary environmental assessment for a proposed acquisition by a State agency. T 176, 180. (While unclear, it appears that his study area included the approximate western one-third of the Property, see, e.g., T 189; PE 50, Attachment A, Figures 1, 3-4, although other portions of the Property were studied. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 93.) Referring to PE 98-C and the Property (outlined in black) and the vacant land to the north outlined in red, Mr. Barth testified that they are "mainly comprised of salt marsh and scattered pine dominated islands." According to Mr. Barth, the term "pine islands," "describes isolated upland patches within the salt marsh." T 177. The salt marshes consist of vegetation that extends beyond the water level usually in very shallow water. T 178. The Property is part of an estuary system, Goose Bayou, for example. Id. See also T 381; JE 12 at IV-14-16 and Map 1. The salt marsh is inundated by saline or marine water as opposed to fresh water. T 178. One of the most significant features of an estuary system "is providing nursery grounds and habitat for marine and estuarine fish and wildlife." T 179. Mr. Barth considered the Property, south parcel 4, PE 98-D, to be environmentally sensitive in light of the combination of estuarine and upland areas which are undisturbed. T 185-186. Mr. Barth did not have enough information to assess specific impacts to the surrounding salt marsh and water in light of a proposed development on the Property. He felt it depended on the type of development. T 182. "Middens" have been found on the south side of the Property, in and around area 3 (CE 5 at 2, Figure 2). See, e.g., T 558-559; PE 50, Genesis Report at 13 and Attachment A at 6-7 and Attachment E, Figure 4, Project Base Map and Figure 5, PBY139 Base Map. Ultimate Findings of Fact Regarding Adequacy of Data and Analysis Ultimately, whether the Plan Amendment is based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis is a close question. This is particularly true here where critical portions of Mr. Friedemann's analysis are based on information, e.g., Mr. Friedemann's photographs, collection of water quality samples, and observations of the Property (species seen and terrain), which post-dated the City's adoption of the Plan Amendment on November 9, 2004. As a result, his analysis of this information has been disregarded, notwithstanding the lack of an objection to the admissibility of his report, CE 5. See Conclusions of Law 110-114. (Mr. Friedemann also provided several aerials of the Property and surrounding area which pre-date the date of adoption of the Plan Amendment and have been considered along with his analysis of this data.) Also, to the extent that Ms. Easley relied on Mr. Friedemann's report (CE 5) and the post- adoption information collected by Mr. Friedemann and his analysis of that information, her opinions have also been disregarded. Nevertheless, Petitioners have the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment is not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis, which Petitioners have not done. Accordingly, based on a review of the entire record in this proceeding, it is ultimately concluded that the Plan Amendment is based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis, except as otherwise stated herein. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.006(2), and 9J-5.012-.013. Consistency with the City's Plan, the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the City's Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the City's Plan: Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.1.10; Coastal Management Element Goal 1, Objective 5.1, and Policies 5.1.1 and 5.1.3.3, and Goal 3; and Conservation Element Goal 1, Policies 6.6.2, 6.6.2.3, and 6.6.2.4. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the LDRC: subsections 2- 5.5.6, 5-5.1, 5-5.2, 5-5.3, and 5-5.6.3.e. Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, and the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation on the Property to RLD. The Plan Amendment is not a development order. See Strand v. Escambia County, Case No. 03-2980GM, 2003 WL 23012209, at *4 (DOAH Dec. 23, 2003; DCA Jan. 28, 2004), aff'd, 894 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). It does not authorize any development to occur on the Property. Further, a special treatment zone, as used in the City's Plan, is not a FLUM land use district. Based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the various Plan provisions at issue, the Plan Amendment does not alter or interfere with the City's ability to maintain the quality of coastal resources; restrict the City's ability to maintain regulatory or management techniques intended to protect coastal wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitat, and living marine resources, for example, or prohibit the construction of docks, piers, wharves, or similar structures; interfere with the City's ability to provide for or have available adequate areas for public waterfront access or to provide the circumstances necessary for the conservation, protection, and use of natural resources; or interfere with the City's ability to enforce guidelines in its LDRCs related to, for example, the protection and conservation of the natural functions of existing soils, wetlands, marine resources, estuarine shoreline, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, or flood zones. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with cited portions of the City's Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Further, the Plan Amendment need not be consistent with the City's LDRCs because it is not the subject of "in compliance" review.12
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order concluding that the Plan Amendment, adopted by the City of Panama City in Ordinance No. 1985, is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 2005.
The Issue Have the Intervenors timely challenged the Hamilton County adoption of its comprehensive plan under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes? If allowed to pursue their challenge, what is their burden of proof? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, (1991), the "fairly debatable" standard? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes, (1991) the "preponderance" standard? Did Hamilton County (the County) fail to adopt its comprehensive plan within sixty (60) days from the receipt of written comments from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as required by Section 163.3184(7), Florida Statutes (1991)? If it did, was that failure jurisdictional thereby voiding the adoption process? Within the adopted plan, is Policy V.2.13 requiring special permits for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities and for their placement in areas designated agricultural and located with the rural area of Hamilton County, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1991) and the North Central Florida Regional Policy Plan? Within the adopted plan is Policy 1.15.1 prohibiting the disposal of medical, bio-hazardous, hazardous or solid waste by incineration or by other methods which produce air pollution, other than by facilities permitted, legally sited and operated as of July 23, 1991, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the North Central Regional Policy Plan? More particularly must these policies meet and do they meet the requirements for surveys, studies and data set forth in Section 163.3177(6)(a),(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes (1991) and Rule 9J-5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact In December, 1990, Hamilton County prepared a proposed comprehensive plan. That proposal was submitted to the Department in accordance with Section 163.3184(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Within the Conservation Element of the proposed plan the County included Policy V.2.13, which stated: The County shall only allow hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities as special permits within areas designated agricultural and located within the rural area of the County. Further, the County's land development regulations shall include conditions for such approval of a hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facility as a special permit regarding the location, site design, buffer requirements, access to principal arterials and major intersections, requirements for appropriate public facilities, and require- ments which consider wind currents in relationship to population centers, which will direct any incinerated materials or noxious odors from these population centers. In no case shall a hazardous or bio-medical waste treatment facility be located within an Environmentally Sensitive Area as designated within this Comprehensive Plan. Policy V.2.13 was associated with Objective V.2 which states: The County shall include within the land development regulations, by 1992, provisions for the conservation, appropriate use and protection of the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources, water recharge areas and potable water wells. There was no specific data and analysis in the proposed plan directed to Policy V.2.13. Other policies associated with Objective V.2 addressed water issues. In the data and analysis which the County submitted to DCA with its proposed comprehensive plan the County did identify known pollution problems. This included a reference to point discharges for wastewater, non-point sources of water pollution, point air pollution sources and non-point sources of air pollution. None of the known activities were associated with hazardous and bio- medical waste treatment facilities. The data and analysis associated with the Conversation Element in the proposed plan also identified watersheds, wetlands, lakes, flood prone areas, and current water sources. The data and analysis further discussed the circumstances related to watersheds, wetlands, rivers, lakes, flood prone areas and air quality as the County perceived the existing conditions for those topics. Finally, the data and analysis spoke to the issue of projected water needs. No mention was made concerning how the aforementioned data and analysis would be considered in granting special permits for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities. On April 14, 1991, DCA transmitted its comments to the County concerning the proposed comprehensive plan and supporting data and analysis, together with its objections and recommendations for modifications to the proposed comprehensive plan. This activity was in accordance with Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes. The report that was transmitted is known as the "ORC" Report. The County received the ORC Report on April 22, 1991. The ORC Report made a number of objections to the objectives and policies set forth in the Conservation Element to the proposed comprehensive plan and recommendations for modifications to the same. The ORC Report specifically objected to Policy V.2.13 wherein the DCA stated: Policy V.2.13 does not describe the 'special permits' concerning hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities within agricultural areas, does not define the extent of the buffers, and does not prohibit these facilities in conser- vation areas. The general recommendation to improve Policy V.2.13, among policies found within the Conservation Element, was to this effect: Provide data and analysis to support the above- referenced policies. Revise the policies to identify the specific implementation programs or activities that will be undertaken by the County to achieve the goal and objectives with which the policies are associated. Eliminate or define all conditional and vague language. Revise the Future Land Use Map to support the revised policies. The County then held two public hearings related to the adoption of a comprehensive plan. See Section 163.3184(15), Florida Statutes (1991). The first public hearing was held on June 18, 1991. At that time no decision was reached to adopt a comprehensive plan. The public hearing was adjourned. On July 23, 1991, the County reconvened the public hearing related to the comprehensive plan adoption. Following the second public hearing associated with the plan adoption, the County in the person of its Board of County Commissioners who had conducted the public hearings, adopted a comprehensive plan for Hamilton County. The adopted comprehensive plan was transmitted to DCA on July 30, 1991. The transmittal letter supporting the adopted comprehensive plan noted that the comprehensive plan was adopted on July 23, 1991. The transmittal letter pointed out the changes to the adopted comprehensive plan which were not reviewed by DCA when DCA considered the proposed comprehensive plan. As with the proposed comprehensive plan, the County submitted data and analysis with the adopted comprehensive plan pointing out the data and analysis accompanying the adopted comprehensive plan which had not been reviewed by the DCA when it considered data and analysis supporting the proposed comprehensive plan. Within the conservation element to the adopted comprehensive plan Objective V.2 remained as set forth in the proposed comprehensive plan. Certain policies associated with Objective V.2 had changed. However, Objective V.2. and its associated policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan continued to address water issues. In particular, Policy V.2.13 did not change with the plan adoption. Additional data and analysis submitted by the County supporting the Conservation Element to the adopted comprehensive plan deleted the Suwannee River State Park as a conservation area. Specific references were made to Jumping Gully Creek, Swift Creek, Hunter Creek and the Withlacoochee River and activities associated with those water bodies. However, as with the proposed plan it was not explained how the County intended to use the original and additional data and analysis in deciding special permit issues for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities. When the County adopted its comprehensive plan it added an objective and a policy that had not been included with the proposed comprehensive plan in the category of objectives and policies for both urban development areas and rural areas in the Future Land Use Element. New Objective I.15 stated: Residential areas shall be protected from uses which cause or result in greater than average noise, hazards or odors. The associated Policy I.15.1 stated: No medical, bio-hazardous, hazardous, or solid waste shall be disposed of by incineration or by any other method which produces air pollution emissions subject to permitting by the Department of Environmental Regulation within Hamilton County, unless the use or facility was permitted and otherwise legally sited and operated as of July 23, 1991. The supporting data and analysis which the County provided the Department with the adopted comprehensive plan did not address Objective I.15 nor Policy I.15.1, with the exception that residential land use projections are described. The adopted plan provided specific information concerning future residential land use. That description was supported by a residential land use need methodology and analysis of future residential land use needed. As with the proposed plan, the adopted plan included a reference to industrial land use within the Future Land Use Element. In both the proposed plan and the adopted plan in Policy 1.3.1 it was stated: Lands classified as industrial consist of areas used for the manufacturing, assembly processing or storage of products. Industrial development may be approved in areas of the County not designated industrial on the Future Land Use Plan upon submission and approval of a development plan which shall include at the least: an industrial site plan; traffic plan; and traffic impact studies; provisions for the construction and maintenance of a wastewater treatment system meeting requirements of the State of Florida for that use; and a submission of a Future Land Use Plan Map amendment to Industrial classification. Industrial uses shall be limited to an intensity of less than or equal to 1.0 floor area ratio. The data and analysis associated with industrial land use which had been provided with the proposed comprehensive plan remained consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan when describing the methodology for identifying projected industrial land use. The comments in the data and analysis supporting the proposed and adopted plans indicated: Projecting the need for additional acreage for industrial use cannot be approached using a methodology similar to those used for residential and commercial Future Land Use needs. This is due to the fact that there is no direct relationship between population and industrial location. The additional future acreages for industrial location are anticipated to occur on a site specific basis as needed at the time industrial activities are proposed. Within the adopted comprehensive plan, Future Land Use Element related to urban development areas and rural areas is found the general industrial land use classification. The general industrial land use designations are located in the central area of the county to the southwest of the City of Jasper along County Road 249. There is an additional limited industrial land use classification within the urban development area and rural area category. It identifies industrial opportunities at interchanges on Interstate 75. At these interchanges, upon submission of a site plan that comports with development standards, with due regard for safety and adequate access, light industrial development is allowed which does not require an air emission permit from the State of Florida. Industrial land use designations as well as other land use designations were based upon an analysis of the amount and character of undeveloped land in the county, reliable population projections and growth patterns anticipated for the area, together with the availability of the public services to accommodate the projected population. The adopted comprehensive plan includes a Future Land Use Map and Map Series found within the Future Land Use Element of the adopted plan which depicts industrial land use. Intervenors' property carries a general industrial classification in the future land use designation in the adopted plan. Intervenors' property is not located on the Interstate 75 corridor and therefore would not be considered for this special industrial land use classification. The North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (the Council) assisted the County in preparing its proposed and adopted plans. The Council staff were engaged in that process as early as 1986. From that point forward the Council staff conducted field surveys relating to land use, compiled data from existing data sources and reviewed population projections and growth patterns in Hamilton County. The Council staff compiled information concerning public facilities, recreational and solid waste facilities, information relating to physical capacity for those facilities and information concerning the financing of capital projects. In anticipation of the requirements set forth in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, the Council staff conducted field surveys of existing land use to determine the character of undeveloped land in the county. The staff reviewed the population projections of the University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research. These activities were designed to assist the County in analyzing the amount of land necessary to accommodate projected growth and the availability of public services. The Council staff was responsible for preparing the proposed plan statement related to goals, objectives, and policies. The staff also prepared the Future Land Use Plan Map. The documents prepared by the Council staff were subject to review and workshops were held to consider those matters. Modifications were brought about through public comments presented at the workshops. The Council staff prepared an evaluation, appraisal and review report to examine the success of previously adopted comprehensive plans. Following the conduct of workshops the public sessions for plan adoption were held on June 18, and July 23, 1991. As representative for the County, the Council staff invited the Department to send representatives to attend the public hearing sessions. The Department was represented at those sessions. In the public hearings related to the plan adoption, there was considerable public testimony expressing concern about health and environmental impacts involved with the incineration of bio-medical waste. In particular, remarks were made about air emissions of mercury and dioxins and the disposal of ash residue from the incineration process. Documents were also presented by members of the public who opposed waste incineration. One document was from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, entitled Seminar-Medical and Institutional Waste Incineration: Regulations, Management, Technology, Emissions and Operations. Another document was entitled Hazardous Waste News #82, June 20, 1988, identified as a weekly news and resource for citizens fighting toxins. A third document was entitled "Facts" related to definitions within Section 403.703, Florida Statutes and observations from the author of this document concerning Intervenors intended operations of a bio-medical incineration facility in Hamilton County. Finally, there was a document from the Hamilton County School Board calling for a buffer zone between any school in the county and facilities which incinerated or otherwise disposed of substances through incineration or other disposal means which would create air emissions from the destruction of solid waste, hazardous substances, bio-hazardous waste and biological waste as defined within Section 403.703, Florida Statutes. The Hamilton County School Board also expressed a desire to completely prohibit the incineration or other disposal of those substances which were generated outside Hamilton County. The EPA document spoke in terms of the emissions from incinerators as being particulate and gaseous emissions. The particulate emissions being constituted of char and soot and minerals in the form of metals, silicates and salts. The gaseous emissions referred to in the EPA document were constituted of combustible emissions such as hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, PCDD and PCDF and noncombustible emissions, such as nitrogen oxides, HCLs, hazardous compounds such as POHCs, products of incomplete combustion such as dioxins, and uncondensed volatile metals in excess air. Dr. Ralph Dougherty, an expert in environmental mass spectrometry, analytical chemistry and the chemistry of waste incineration, provided expert testimony concerning the significance of some of the information provided to the County in its public sessions. This testimony was presented at the administrative hearing. Dr. Dougherty did not attend the public hearing associated with the plan adoption. Dr. Dougherty in addressing the waste stream that is created by bio- medical waste described how the incineration process in destroying polyvinyl chloride, PVC plastic, saran wrap and neoprene converted those materials to chlorinated organics such as dioxin. As Dr. Dougherty established, dioxins are very hazardous substances. Kenneth Krantz appeared for the Intervenors at the public sessions for the plan adoption. At that time Basic Energy Corporation was known as TSI Southeast, Inc. (TSI). He provided written information to the county commissioners concerning the TSI bio-medical waste disposal business intended to be located in Hamilton County. TSI took no issue with Objective I.15 which was adopted on July 23, 1991. Intervenors proposed different text for policy I.15.1 and requested adoption of two additional policies I.15.2 and I.15.3 which would place some restrictions on solid waste disposal but would allow an opportunity for operating the TSI facility in the county. Information provided by Krantz in the public sessions indicated that TSI intended to operate a business to incinerate solid, bio-medical and solid municipal waste, together with a waste recycling area, Pelletizer area and turbine-generator area. Krantz addressed the county commissioners concerning county building permit information about the facility, permitting by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. Information was provided concerning square footage for buildings within the overall TSI facility. Information was provided by TSI concerning the intended pollution control systems as being constituted of fabric filters and dry-lime injection systems, together with a detailed description of pending permit applications before the Department of Environmental Regulation for additional incineration units. Information provided by TSI addressed the expected constituents of the air emissions to include carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, organics such as dioxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and particulate matter. A site location map and schematic showing the flow within the waste stream was also provided. TSI also provided information at the public sessions about the Intervenors anticipated emissions rates for two previously permitted units and the third and fourth units that were being considered by the Department of Environmental Regulation. This data about emission rates included a comprehensive listing of anticipated emissions by pollutant type to include projected measurements of omissions for units one and two which would deal with medical waste combustion and units three and four which would deal with medical waste combustion and possibly refuse-derived fuel (RDF). As commented on by members of the public who appeared at the public sessions for adopting the plan, information provided by the Intervenors verified that significant amounts of pollutants would be discharged into the air through Intervenors' operations. TSI provided information concerning the modeling that was done to measure concentration levels for the expected pollutants. Information was provided concerning the incineration process and the manner in which calculations were made concerning expected emissions levels. Information was provided concerning anticipated annual and short term emission rates for the four units intended to be operated by the TSI. The technical information about the intended TSI facility was through documents that appeared to be from an engineering consulting firm. All information provided in the public sessions that has been described was properly available to the county commissioners when adopting the plan. The information provided at the public sessions which has been described was not presented to the Department with the adopted plan. As stated, on July 30, 1991, the County submitted its plan to the Department to determine if the adopted plan was in compliance with the requirements of law. See Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes (1991). On September 12, 1991, DCA issued a notice of intent to find the adopted plan, not "in compliance". See Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes (1991). Pursuant to that provision, DCA filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings setting forth the reasons for its decision to find the adopted plan not "in compliance". That petition was filed on September 23, 1991. The DCA took no issue with Policies I.15.1 and V.2.13. On February 20, 1992, Intervenors petitioned to intervene in the not "in compliance" case. As identified in the statement of issues, the Intervenors were and continue to be opposed to the adoption of Policies I.15.1 and V.2.13. On March 17, 1992, an order was entered which granted the Intervenors leave to intervene. Intervenors own property in Hamilton County. As contemplated by Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes (1993), DCA and the County engaged in settlement discussions. This culminated in a stipulated settlement agreement executed by DCA and County on November 24, 1993. The stipulated settlement agreement is referred to in the statute as a compliance agreement. Intervenors did not join in the settlement. On January 18, 1994, the County adopted the remedial amendments, referred to in the statute as plan amendments pursuant to a compliance agreement called for by the compliance agreement. The remedial plan amendments were submitted to the Department for consideration. On March 10, 1994, DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent addressing the compliance agreement amendments and the plan. DCA gave notice that it attended to find the plan and remedial comprehensive plan amendments/compliance agreement amendments "in compliance" with Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding that the Intervenors did not submit further pleadings within 21 days of the publication of the cumulative notice of intent, the Intervenors were allowed to proceed with their challenge to the plan that was not the subject of the compliance agreement leading to the compliance agreement amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Hamilton County comprehensive plan to be "in compliance" with the exception that Policy V.2.13 is only "in compliance" in its latter sentence, the remaining language in Policy V.2.13 is not "in compliance". DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1995. APPENDIX "A" CASE NO. 91-6038GM The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding by the parties: Intervenors' Facts: Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 2 is contrary to facts found. The remaining sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 3 is rejected in its suggestion that there is a perpetual ban on bio-hazardous waste incineration. It is otherwise not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Intervenors' Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is not relevant. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the date of adoption was January 18, 1994. Paragraphs 15 through 22 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 23 is not relevant. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 27 through 31 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 32 through 38 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 39 and 40 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 41 is rejected to the extent that it is suggested that it constitutes agency policy. Paragraphs 42 through the first phrase in 49 are subordinate to facts found. The latter phrase in Paragraph 49 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 50 through 58 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 59 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 60 through 75 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 76 through 82 are rejected as not constituting allowable analysis of data presented in support of the plan adoption. Paragraphs 83 and 84 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 85 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 86 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 87 through 91 are rejected to the extent that it is suggested that some lesser standard is involved with consideration of data for optional plan elements as opposed to mandatory plan elements. See Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes (1991) and Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes (1993). Paragraph 92 is acknowledged but did not form the basis for fact finding in the recommended order. Paragraph 93 is rejected as intended to interpret Policy I.15.1 as an absolute prohibition against waste incineration in the County. Paragraph 94 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 95 through 102 are not relevant. Paragraphs 103 through 105 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 106 through 108 are subordinate to facts found with the exception of the rejection of Policy V.2.13 in part. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Jordan, Esquire Terrell L. Arline, Esquire Suzanne Schmith, Certified Legal Intern Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 John H. McCormick, Esquire Post Office Box O Jasper, FL 32052 William L. Hyde, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli and Stewart, P.A. 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Donald J. Schutz, Esquire Suite 415 535 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Linda L. Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted through Alachua County Ordinance Number 03-05 on August 26, 2003, are "in compliance," as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Parties The Board is a local government charged with the responsibility of adopting and enforcing a comprehensive plan as provided in the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2003)(the "Act"). In this Recommended Order, "the Board" will refer to the elected Board of County Commissioners. "The County" will refer to Alachua County staff, as well as to the County as a litigant in these proceedings. The Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency with the authority to administer and enforce the Act. David and December McSherry are residents of the County, own and operate a business, and own property in the County. The McSherrys made comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. The McSherrys are "affected persons" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and have standing to bring this proceeding. Dr. Adams owns property and resides in the County. Dr. Adams submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Dr. Adams is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Dr. Kathy Cantwell owns property and resides in the County. Dr. Cantwell submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Dr. Cantwell is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Holly Jensen owns property and resides in the County. Ms. Jensen submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Ms. Jensen is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Sierra Club, Inc., is a California nonprofit organization that advocates ecological conservation in the County through its Florida chapter and the Suwannee-St. Johns Group. Sierra Club and a substantial number of its members conduct a business in the County by maintaining a local website, raising funds, participating in governmental meetings and decisions, soliciting and obtaining membership, distributing publications, purchasing, selling and delivering merchandise and goods and services, holding conferences and meetings, maintaining local representatives, distributing information and newsletters, and organizing members and other citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances. Sierra Club provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Sierra Club is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. SAC is a Florida nonprofit organization that advocates ecological conservation and principles of sustainability in the County. The organization and a substantial number of its members conduct a business in the County by maintaining a local website that is a forum for local comment, raising funds, participating in governmental meetings and decisions, soliciting and obtaining membership, and distributing publications. SAC provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. SAC is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. Each of the Jonesville Petitioners owns property and operates businesses in the County. Each of the Jonesville Petitioners provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. The Jonesville Petitioners are "affected persons" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and have standing to bring this proceeding. PRPV is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that was created for the purpose of representing landowners of rural and agricultural land, participating with local and state government in the development of reasonable land use regulations, and protecting values of rural properties in the County. A substantial number of PRPV's members reside in, own property in, or own or operate businesses in the County. PRPV submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. PRPV is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. BANCF is a Florida corporation that was created for the purpose of educating and advocating on behalf of its members, who are primarily engaged in the residential and commercial construction industry in the County and who are citizens residing in, and businesses located in the County. A substantial number of BANCF's members reside in, own property in, or own or operate businesses in the County. BANCF submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the respective transmittal and adoption periods. BANCF is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. Background and Procedural Issues The Board adopted the Plan in 1991. In 1998, the Board adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR") for the Plan. Subsection 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes (2003), requires each local government to adopt an EAR once every seven years, assessing its progress in implementing its comprehensive plan. The local government must then amend its comprehensive plan to reflect the data and analysis and recommendations in the EAR. § 163.3191(10), Fla. Stat. (2003). In August 2001, the Board adopted amendments to the Plan and transmitted them to DCA, and to the other agencies enumerated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-11.009(6), for review and comment. On November 30, 2001, DCA completed its review of the amendments and issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments document (commonly referred to as an "ORC Report") to the County pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-11.010. On April 8, 2002, the Board adopted the 2002 Plan Update, addressing the objections raised in the ORC Report. By letter dated May 31, 2002, DCA notified the Board that it had completed its review of the 2002 Plan Update and determined that it met the Act's requirements for "compliance," as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). DCA published notice of its intent to find the 2002 Plan Update in compliance in The Gainesville Sun on June 3, 2002. On June 24, 2002, PRPV and others filed a petition challenging DCA's determination that the 2002 Plan Update was in compliance. The Petition was forwarded to DOAH on July 5, 2002. BANCF was granted intervenor status, in alignment with PRPV, on July 11, 2002. On July 25, 2002, the PRPV Petitioners joined by BANCF, filed a request for mediation pursuant to Subsection 163.3189(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). On August 1, 2002, the Board filed a response agreeing to participate in mediation. In the instant proceeding, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners have alleged several irregularities in the mediation process. They allege that despite the requirements of Subsection 163.3184(16)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), regarding mediation, "the McSherry Petitioners found that they were not given adequate notices of [mediation] meetings and proposals, that the method in which the mediator ran the meetings denied them a reasonable opportunity to participate, that they were not included in negotiation meetings, and that negotiation meetings were not open to the public, and that when the public did attend meetings the public was not allowed to comment." The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners allege that they were systematically frozen out of the mediation process, which resulted in a settlement agreement favorable to PRPV and BANCF. However, the facts established at the hearing did not support these allegations. One particular complaint by the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners is that the mediator, Robert Cambric of DCA, split the mediation into two simultaneous meetings, one on land use and one on environmental issues, making it impossible for an individual or a small group to follow all the issues under discussion. This situation did occur at one mediation session on December 12, 2002. Ms. McSherry and Dr. Adams complained about this arrangement, and it was not repeated by Mr. Cambric. Richard Drummond, the County's growth management director, testified that no agreements were reached at the December 12, 2002, sessions; rather, participants were given "homework assignments" to complete for the next mediation session. Mr. Drummond's testimony is supported by the fact that the mediation process continued for another six months after this disputed meeting. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners were allowed to participate in the mediation sessions even before they were formally granted intervention in the underlying proceeding. No evidence was presented to establish that secret meetings were held. The evidence demonstrated that County staff, at the Board's direction, attempted to negotiate a tentative settlement. On several occasions, the Board held public meetings at which extensive public comment was elicited and during which the Board directed staff regarding its position on issues. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners actively participated in these public meetings, and were represented at all the mediation sessions. No evidence was presented that the mediator acted less than capably and professionally during the mediation process. Mediation sessions were open to the press and public, though participation at the sessions was limited to the parties, which included the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners. Every person who requested individual notice of mediation sessions was included on an electronic mail distribution list and received notice. The Board's meetings on the mediation were publicly noticed, and extensive public comment was taken. Beginning in December 2002, a spreadsheet matrix was circulated that outlined the positions of the County and of the PRPV Petitioners on the narrowing list of issues that remained in dispute. As the mediation entered February 2003 and the County and PRPV inched closer to settlement, it became apparent that the County's position on many issues was beginning to diverge from that of its aligned Intervenors, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners. Mr. Cambric, the mediator, offered to meet with Dr. Adams and Dr. Cantwell6/ in order to flesh out their issue positions for inclusion in a separate "intervenors" column of the spreadsheet matrix. On or about March 5, 2003, Mr. Cambric, Richard Drummond, and other County staff persons held the proposed meeting with Dr. Adams, Dr. Cantwell and the McSherrys. A revised matrix was circulated on March 11, 2003, that included a separate column setting forth Intervenors' position. On March 20, 2003, the matrix was further amended to add a separate column for the McSherrys, whose positions on some issues deviated from the positions of Dr. Adams, SAC, and the Sierra Club. It is clear from the documentary evidence and the testimony of various witnesses that the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners felt a degree of betrayal in the County's reaching a settlement with PRPV. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish their allegations that they were denied adequate participation in the process. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend that the driving force in the settlement of PRPV's challenge was a change in the makeup of the Board in the wake of a primary election held on September 10, 2002. The political situation in Alachua County is obviously relevant to the concerns of the parties, but is beyond the scope of this proceeding. There is no need for detailed findings of fact concerning the Board elections or the positions taken by candidates for office in the County. Finally, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend that jilted Intervenors; i.e., those who supported the County's initial litigation position in defense of the 2002 Plan Update and then opposed the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, should be allowed, by virtue of the realignment of parties pursuant to Subsection 163.3184(16)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), to step into the shoes of the original Petitioners and attack the 2002 Plan Update, as well as the 2003 Amendments. This contention was rejected at the hearing for reasons explained in the Conclusions of Law below. Extensive evidence, testimonial and documentary, was taken regarding the 2002 Plan Update. However, findings of fact concerning the 2002 Plan Update are confined to its interplay with the 2003 Amendments and to issues of internal consistency raised thereby. The Jonesville Petitioners raised procedural issues regarding the concluding phase of the mediation. On July 11, 2003, the Jonesville Petitioners filed a motion to intervene in the challenge to the 2002 Plan Update. Their concern was that the revised definition of "strategic ecosystem" in the proposed 2003 Amendments would adversely affect the value and/or development potential of their properties. At the hearing, the Jonesville Petitioners contended that they were not given adequate notice of the proposed change to the definition of "strategic ecosystem." Policy 1.1.2 of the Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element of the 1991 Plan required the County "to provide notification to all property owners whose land use may be restricted due to proposed conservation or preservation designation in the Comprehensive Plan prior to official designation in the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan." The evidence established that the County complied with this policy, providing notice by mail in April 2003 to all owners of property proposed to be mapped as part of a "strategic ecosystem" site by the 2003 Amendments. The notice informed the property owners that their properties had been identified within the mapped areas and invited the property owners to attend one of a series of late-April 2003 informational workshops regarding the map. The Jonesville Petitioners received the mailed notices. The Board held a public hearing on approval of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement on July 15, 2003, and a public hearing on August 26, 2003, to adopt the 2003 Amendments. The Jonesville Petitioners had actual knowledge of the public hearings in July and August to approve the agreement and adopt the 2003 Amendments and were represented at those hearings. At the hearing in the instant proceeding, the Jonesville Petitioners complained that they submitted extensive site investigation reports to the Board at the July 15, 2003, demonstrating that their properties should not be considered "strategic ecosystems," but that they were allowed only three minutes to make their presentation at the hearing. There was no requirement that the Board allow lengthy, fact- intensive presentations concerning specific parcels of land during the public hearing to adopt the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Nonetheless, the evidence established that the Jonesville Petitioners, like the other parties to the underlying litigation, would have been allowed more than three minutes had they requested it before the hearing. There was also no requirement that the County staff or the Board make a detailed response to the Jonesville Petitioners' site reports prior to the Board's adoption of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement or the 2003 Amendments. Further, as is more fully explored below in the findings as to the 2003 Amendments, the information provided by the Jonesville Petitioners was more appropriate to a land development scenario than to the large- scale comprehensive plan amendment process that the County was undertaking. In conclusion, it is found that neither the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners nor the Jonesville Petitioners demonstrated that their procedural rights under the Act or its implementing rules were violated by the process employed by the County during the mediation and when adopting the 2003 Amendments. 2003 FLUE Amendments Gated Communities and Cul-de-Sacs FLUE Objective 1.2 in the 2002 Plan Update states: Provide for adequate future urban residential development that includes a full range of housing types and densities to serve different segments of the housing market, designed to be integrated and connected with surrounding neighborhoods and the community, with opportunities for recreation and other mixed uses within walking or bicycling distance. The 2003 Amendments included the following changes to FLUE Policy 1.2.1.17/: Residential areas shall be designed to provide for an interconnected system of internal circulation, including the provision of streets dedicated to the public connecting the residential area to the major street system. New development shall not restrict preclude public access to the development or include cul de sacs. Residential areas shall also be designed to provide for substantial interconnectivity between adjacent developments and within developments, except where such connectivity is precluded by constraints resulting from physical layout of existing development or environmental features. If connectivity is precluded by such constraints, cul de sacs may be considered for those roads subject to such constraints. The land development regulations shall detail the requirements for public access and substantial interconnectivity based on standards such as a connectivity index, maximum separations between connections to adjacent developments, and rules relative to hours, operations, and public safety considerations for any restriction of access through use of gates. FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 was new to the 2002 Plan Update. Its purpose is to assist in discouraging urban sprawl by encouraging street connectivity, thus, moving the County away from a development pattern of isolated residential subdivisions with only one or two points of ingress/egress. Adding connectivity features allows pedestrian or bicycle travel between subdivisions and disperses the flow of vehicular traffic by providing more points of entry to arterial roads. All of the parties agreed that interconnectivity is a positive value. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners criticize amended Policy 1.2.1.1 for failing to define "substantial interconnectivity" and, therefore, providing no meaningful standards by which to determine whether a new residential development provides "substantial interconnectivity." They point out that the policy leaves it to subsequent land development regulations ("LDRs") to define the term, but provides little guidance and essentially standardless discretion to the drafters of the LDRs. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners' chief concern was that a lax regulatory regime could define a single connecting road as "substantial interconnectivity" and, thereby, defeat the clear intent of the policy. Similarly, they observed that Amended Policy 1.2.1.1 refers to a "connectivity index," but provides no definition or guidance as to the meaning of the term, again leaving the LDR drafters limitless discretion. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners suggest that the seeds for lax regulation are planted in the policy through its requirement that the LDRs provide for "maximum separations between connections to adjacent developments." They argue that, if the goal is to provide for interconnected developments, then the LDRs should logically provide for minimum, not maximum, separations between connections. This argument is rejected simply as a matter of logic because providing for maximum separations in the LDRs is precisely what can ensure interconnectivity.8/ Finally, the McSherry Petitioners argue that the amended policy's allowance of gated communities is in direct contradiction to its mandate that "[n]ew development should not preclude public access to the development." They contend that LDRs providing rules for "hours, operations, and public safety considerations for any restriction of access through use of gates" would create an internal inconsistency within FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1. The County presented testimony from Richard Drummond stating that amended FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 strengthens existing Plan provisions for interconnectivity by adding the requirement for "substantial interconnectivity," and by adding a requirement that new development not preclude public access. Robert Pennock, PRPV's expert witness on local government comprehensive planning, with an emphasis on urban sprawl, testified that the term "substantial," in the context of FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 and in combination with other policies in the Plan, is a meaningful qualifier indicating the County's intent that its future development pattern will not be a patchwork of isolated subdivisions with a single connection to an arterial road. Mr. Pennock pointed out that a degree of common sense must be applied to the use of the term in the development of LDRs and that it must be acknowledged that the details of the LDRs will be developed by professional planners. Mr. Pennock's comments regarding common sense and good faith on the part of the regulators points out the chief flaw in the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners' argument that a lax regulatory regime could employ the terms "substantial interconnectivity" and "connectivity index" in such a way as to allow developers to do whatever they wish. The argument fails to explain why such a hypothetical "bad regulator" could not twist the Sierra Club's favored term, "connectivity," in the same fashion. If one accepts the hypothetical premise of the "bad regulator" poised to do the bidding of residential developers regardless of any other considerations, then the text of the Plan will hardly matter; the bad regulator will find a way around the Plan's language. In fact, "substantial interconnectivity" is no more or less vague a term than "connectivity." As Mr. Pennock testified, these terms have meaning in the planning profession, and it must be accepted that the County will draft meaningful LDRs to implement FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1, including the challenged terms. In summary, the Sierra Club Petitioners did not establish that an outright ban on gated communities or cul-de- sacs is necessary for the County to have an efficient road network, meet applicable levels of service or Rule 9J-5 requirements, or that such a ban has ever been imposed elsewhere in Florida. It is at least fairly debatable that 2003 FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 appropriately responds to the data and analysis and provides adequate guidance for development of LDRs. Clustering Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(14) defines "clustering" as "the grouping together of structures and infrastructure on a portion of a development site." Clustering is a planning and development technique that transfers the allowable development density onto smaller lots on a portion of the property to be developed, in a tighter development pattern, that reduces road and infrastructure costs and that sets aside the remainder of the property for conservation, agriculture, or general open space. Residential cluster development is generally promoted as a means of conserving open space, rural character, and important environmental resources in new housing developments. According to the County's "Supporting Data and Analysis for Comprehensive Plan Amendments Updating the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020" (the "Data and Analysis"), clustering is a "means to protect the characteristics and features of rural areas, while allowing for rural residential lifestyles." FLUE Policy 7.2.8 of the 1991 Plan required clustering in new rural residential subdivisions with 25 or more lots and made no provision to allow clustering for smaller subdivisions. Proposed clustered developments were required to seek permits as Planned Unit Developments, a lengthy and complicated zoning process that included review by County staff, recommendations by the Board, and final approval or denial by the Board at a public hearing. Every witness who testified on the subject agreed that the clustering provision of the 1991 Plan had been a failure. Only two proposed developments have sought permits as clustered developments, and both were denied. The County approved the construction of phased subdivisions, with each phase containing fewer than 25 lots and built to the base rural density of one unit per five acres. Smaller subdivisions were designed to fall below the 25-lot threshold for clustering. Richard Drummond noted that the 1991 Plan would not allow the developer of these smaller subdivisions to cluster even if he so desired. These subdivisions tend to be platted in such a way that each lot owner also owns a small part of the natural resources found in the subdivision, complicating any efforts by the County to preserve those resources. The consensus of the expert opinion was that clustering failed because developers tend to be conservative in designing subdivisions. Clustering is a new pattern for development, and 1991 FLUE Policy 7.2.8 offered insufficient incentive to developers to take the risk of building and marketing nontraditional developments and left them the option of sizing their developments to avoid the clustering requirement. In the 2002 Plan Update, proposed FLUE Policy 6.2.9 addressed the reluctance of developers to cluster by removing their option to avoid clustering by downsizing their projects. The policy would have required clustering in all new rural residential subdivisions. The 2003 Amendments softened the policy as follows: Policy 6.2.9 Clustering The preferred design for Nnew rural residential subdivisions shall be is that they be clustered in order to protect the characteristics and features of rural areas through the following goals: Protect natural and historic resources. Support continued agricultural activities by preserving viable soils and effective land masses. Minimize land use conflicts. Provide recreational and habitat corridors through linked open space networks. Achieve flexibility, efficiency, and cost reduction in the provision of services and infrastructure. Reduce natural hazard risks to life and property. The 2003 Amendments maintain the clustering requirement for new developments containing 25 or more lots, but attempt to provide more incentives to developers to use clustering in developments of any size. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10, relating to allowable density and intensity of new development, provides for a "density bonus" as follows, in relevant part: The overall development density shall not exceed the maximum gross density of one dwelling unit per five acres for the Rural/Agriculture land use category, except as a result of incentive bonuses for clustering as provided under item 4 below, subject to the resource protection standards in the Conservation and Open Space Element. These standards include the following requirements: * * * 4. As an incentive to cluster new residential subdivisions, if a new residential subdivision in the Rural/Agriculture area is clustered with a minimum of 50% of the development in open space, a total of 2 units in addition to the number of units based on the gross density of 1 unit per 5 acres are allowed, plus 1 additional unit per every 10 acres of conservation area set aside as open space; plus 1 additional unit per every 20 acres non-conservation area set aside as open space. As a further incentive, the 2003 Amendments delete the Planned Unit Development aspect of clustered subdivision approval, expediting the zoning approval process. Under the clustering provisions of the 1991 Plan, rural subdivisions with more than 25 lots were required to set aside 80 percent of their area as open space. The 2003 Amendments reduce this open space set-aside to 50 percent. Richard Drummond persuasively noted that there is no practical reduction in the set-aside, because very few people subjected themselves to the clustering requirement of the 1991 Plan. Also, the 1991 Plan expressly disclaimed any intent that the open spaces remain undeveloped in perpetuity. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.12.4 provides that all future development in designated open space areas is prohibited and requires the filing of a legal instrument that runs with the land establishing that the open space will be maintained and remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Conservation is the highest priority among the open space uses recognized by the 2003 Amendments' provisions on rural development. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.5 requires clustering for a new development of more than 25 lots, then goes on to provide that a new development of fewer than 25 lots must either cluster or employ a development plan "that assures the permanent protection of natural resources consistent with the requirements of the [COSE]." 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.5 further provides that the LDRs will detail the requirements for "management and permanent protection of the ecological value of natural resources in those developments that are not clustered, through legally enforceable mechanisms" that provide protections equivalent to those provided in clustered subdivisions. The Sierra Club Petitioners attacked the 2003 clustering provisions as being inconsistent with the 2002 Data and Analysis, which emphasize that urban sprawl is a major threat to the County's rural agricultural landscape. The Data and Analysis indicated "a rapid rate of conversion of the rural area to allow low density development," and concluded that "the rural land character is threatened by the piece-meal development of residential uses." Sierra Club places special emphasis on a 1992 report sponsored by the American Farmland Trust, Florida's Growth Management Plans: Will Agriculture Survive?, summarized and discussed in the 2002 Data and Analysis as follows: This report noted that the degree to which rural low density residential zones are effective in conserving farmland is directly related to the minimum lot size required for each residence. The larger the minimum lot size, the more effective the zone is in conserving farmland. The current policy [in the 1991 Plan] allowing residential development on 5 acre lots in the rural area is totally ineffective, according to this report. The minimum lot sizes can be rated as follows according to their effectiveness in conserving farmland: under 4.9 acres totally ineffective 5 to 9.9 acres generally ineffective acres moderately ineffective to 20 acres moderately effective 20.1 to 40 acres generally effective over 40 acres highly effective In the six years, 1995-2000, the average numbers for single family and mobile home permits issued by lot size in unincorporated Alachua County were as follows: Less than 3 acres 162 average yearly 3 to 8 acres 182 average yearly 8 to 12 acres 72 average yearly 12 to 20 acres 35 average yearly Total 20 acres or less 511 average yearly[9/] Relying on the quoted section of the Data and Analysis, Sierra Club argues that only mandatory clustering of subdivisions in the rural area can fulfill the goal of protecting the characteristics and features of the rural area. Sierra Club correctly notes that, in adopting the 2003 Amendments, the County provided no additional data and analysis to demonstrate that the density bonuses added to the Plan would lead to clustering under 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.9, which eliminated mandatory clustering and simply made it the "preferred design." Sierra Club contends that the County was required to offer some expert testimony to indicate that density bonuses provided in 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10 would actually cause landowners to choose clustering. Alternatively, Sierra Club argues that if voluntary density-bonus clustering occurred, it could lead to considerably more dwelling units in rural areas than under the 1991 Plan. For example, if a 20-acre parcel with four 5-acre lots were clustered to leave ten acres of conservation area, then a total of seven units would be permitted for the parcel: four units based on the allowed rural density of one unit per five acres; two units as a bonus for leaving 50 percent of the development in open space; and one additional unit for setting aside ten acres of conservation area. Thus, seven units would be permitted, compared with four units that would have been allowed without the bonuses, and these seven would be situated on the ten unpreserved acres on lots with an average size of 1.43 acres. Sierra Club contends that these "ranchettes" would not meet the objective of maintaining viable agriculture and of providing a separation between urban and rural land uses. Thus, Sierra Club argues that, under any view, the 2003 Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 6.1: Rural areas shall protect rural and agriculture areas in a manner consistent with the retention of agriculture, open space, and rural character, and the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and efficient use of public services and facilities. Richard Drummond contended that it is impossible at this point to say that the 2003 Amendments dealing with incentive clustering will not work. He conceded that the density bonuses provided in 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10.4 could be too much or not enough, but that the only way to know is to try it in practice, then use the experience to adjust the incentives in future plan cycles. Mr. Drummond credibly testified that given the lack of clustering that occurred under the mandatory provision of the 1991 Plan, it is a virtual certainty that there will be more clustered development under the 2003 Amendments. Sierra Club's criticism that density-bonus clustering will not have a great impact on the density of development in the rural area is well taken, but beside the point. The very 2002 Data and Analysis upon which Sierra Club bases its argument notes that "rural cluster subdivisions are simply an internal transfer of density involving the same number of dwellings." In other words, the chief purpose of clustering is not to affect overall density of development, but to arrange that development on the land in a more environmentally sensitive, aesthetically pleasing way than traditional grid-style platting of lots. The density bonuses offered by the 2003 Amendments will not notably alter the overall density of rural development, but that is not their main purpose. The County hopes that the density bonuses will provide sufficient incentive for developers to avail themselves of the clustering option. The County did not dispute Sierra Club's argument that the 2002 Data and Analysis support the mandatory clustering for all new development that was adopted in the 2002 Plan Update. However, the County does contend that the 2002 Data and Analysis do not require mandatory clustering as the only way to achieve the goals of retaining the rural character and preserving the environmentally sensitive areas of rural lands. The County is correct that the 2002 Data and Analysis provides a generally positive assessment of clustering, but nowhere forces a reader to conclude that mandatory clustering is required. Even accepting the Data and Analysis suggestion that allowing residential development on five-acre lots in the rural area is "totally ineffective" in conserving farmland and that controls show some effectiveness only when the minimum lot size is increased to ten acres, the fact remains that conserving farmland is not the sole value served by the clustering provision, nor should it be the sole measure of the provision's success. In addition to farmland conservation, 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.9 cites protection of natural and historic resources, minimization of land use conflicts, provision of recreational and habitat corridors through linked open-space networks, achievement of flexibility, efficiency, cost reduction in the provision of services and infrastructure, and reduction of natural hazard risks to life and property as goals of the clustering provisions. While it may be true that lot sizes of more than 40 acres would be "highly effective" in conserving farmland, Alachua County seeks to balance all of the stated goals in its clustering provision and has arrived at a reasonable formula for achieving at least some progress on each of the goals. The County pointed out that Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) identifies clustering as an "innovative and flexible" planning strategy, but does not mandate clustering. Given the County's history of failure with one form of mandatory clustering, it is not unreasonable that it would attempt the application of an incentive program as an alternative. Urban Cluster/Urban Services Line10/ The 2003 Amendments amended the Future Land Use Map series ("FLUM"), a necessary part of the FLUE pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(4). FLUE General Strategy 1 provides that the Plan must: Minimize the conversion of land from rural to urban uses by maximizing the efficient use of available urban infrastructure, while preserving environmentally sensitive areas, according to the following: Designate and maintain on the [FLUM] an urban cluster that sets a boundary for urban growth. Provide incentives for higher average densities for residential development and mixed uses in the urban cluster, including density bonus and transfer of development rights. Provide a range of urban residential densities with the highest densities located in or near urban activity centers, and lower densities located in outlying rural areas or areas of the County which have physical limitations to development. . . . The "Urban Cluster" is defined as: An area on the [FLUM] for urban development, which includes residential densities ranging from one unit per acre to 24 units per acre or greater, non- residential development, and is generally served by urban services. The Urban Cluster designation on the FLUM sets a boundary for urban growth in order to maximize the efficient use of available urban infrastructure and to preserve environmentally sensitive areas to minimize urban sprawl. The 2002 Plan Update uses the Urban Cluster to differentiate between urban and rural uses and encourages higher densities in the Urban Cluster in order to use land efficiently. To further the efficient use of land, the 2002 Plan Update also established an "urban services line" ("USL") within the Urban Cluster. FLUE Policy 7.1.3.A describes the USL as follows: In order to phase development for the Urban Cluster and promote efficient use of land and infrastructure and minimize sprawl, an urban services line is designated in the Future Land Use Map series. The line identifies the limits of the area within the Urban Cluster within which phased development shall be promoted through the year 2010. The USL's ten-year planning period, through 2010, is shorter than the planning period for the Urban Cluster, which is through 2020. The purpose of USL is to provide better timing of development within the urban area, to encourage redevelopment and direct new development to areas where infrastructure exists or will be available. The 2003 Amendments expanded the Urban Cluster as part of the FLUM series. The 2003 Amendments also expanded the USL within the Urban Cluster on the FLUM series. The appropriate size for the USL and the Urban Cluster depends on the amount of land needed for projected population growth. FLUE Policy 7.1.3 establishes the process for determining the need for additional developable land to accommodate the projected population as follows: As part of the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan and any proposed amendments to the Urban Cluster, determine a sufficient and nonexcessive amount of land within the Urban Cluster to accommodate urban uses for a ten year and twenty year time frame. The determination (methodology is shown in Appendix A)[11/] shall be based on a comparison of: a forecast need for land for urban residential and non-residential development based on projected population, average household size, a residential vacancy rate, and a market factor. The market factor for the ten year time frame shall be 2.0. The market factor for the 20 year time frame shall be 1.5. land available in the Urban Cluster for urban residential and non-residential uses. Mapping of environmentally sensitive areas shall be utilized as a factor for determining land availability. If the land comparison shows that the land available is less than the forecast need for land, the following measures shall be considered: revisions to density standards and land development regulations, or other measures, to accommodate greater population within the existing Urban Cluster. coordination with municipalities regarding possible reallocation of forecast need to the incorporated areas. phased expansion of the Urban Cluster. If the forecast need for one type of land use exceeds the supply of land for that particular use, a revision to the allocation of land uses within the Urban Cluster shall be considered before the Urban Cluster is expanded. If this methodology determines expansion of the Urban Cluster is warranted, the evaluation of appropriate location shall be subject to analysis including the following economic, infrastructure, transportation, conservation and recreation criteria: rural character and viable agriculture land and the potential impact of expansion of the Urban Cluster on existing agricultural uses. economic development considerations including affordable housing. relationship to existing and planned future urban services and infrastructure. access to the regional transportation network and multi-modal transportation systems. Conservation and Preservation land uses. planned recreation/open space or greenway systems. Thus, FLUE Policy 7.1.3 provides a three-step process for determining "a sufficient and nonexcessive amount of land" to accommodate urban uses. First, there must be a calculation of the estimated need for land to accommodate the projected population. The second step is to calculate the amount of vacant land currently available for urban residential use. Third, a comparison is made between the need for and the availability of vacant land to determine whether and how the FLUM should be amended. In calculating need, the County built into its formula a safety factor to ensure sufficient land for the future population over the projected time period. The real estate market requires some excess capacity to prevent scarcity-driven price increases, and the County, therefore, included a "market factor" in determining the amount of land that should be designated for development. The 2002 Data and Analysis explained the principle as follows: A market factor is included in the calculation to allow for a measure of flexibility between supply and demand. A sufficient market factor allows flexibility in the siting of development, thereby helping ensure that developers can find locations favored by the market. Market factor is a multiplier used in developing a forecast of future land use needs, specifically housing, to allow for market choice. The market factor results in additional developable land in the urban cluster and thereby can have a positive effect on housing affordability. The market factor also addresses market uncertainty with respect to the accuracy of market predictions, for example if some landowners withhold their land from development. The market factor ensures that enough land is set aside for residential purposes to accommodate these residential support activities-- parks, easements for utilities, churches, to name a few. Across the country the range in factors is as low as 1.15 (Portland, Oregon) to over 2.0 (several Florida locations). Alachua County has used the market factor 2.0 for calculations for the year 2010 and the market factor 1.5 for the year 2020. The County multiplied the number of new dwelling units needed over the 2010 and 2020 planning horizons by the market factors chosen for those periods to arrive at a "total capacity needed" number. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contended that the market factors chosen by the County were too high and that 1.25 was a more reasonable figure for the County. Mr. Pennock, PRPV's planning expert, testified that there is no "final magic answer" to the question of the market factor number. He stated that 1.25 is a "conservative" market factor, and that 2.0 is a professionally acceptable number. It is found that the County's market factors of 2.0 for the year 2010 and 1.5 for the year 2020 were reasonable, in light of all the evidence. After determining the amount of land needed over the planning horizon, the second step in the County's formula is to determine the amount of vacant land currently available for urban residential use. In order to determine the amount of land currently available, there must be a calculation of the number of units per acre available for future residential development. The two components of this calculation are, first, the number of acres presently within the Urban Cluster or USL, and second, the residential dwelling unit density allowed within that acreage. FLUE Objective 1.3 provides that "[g]ross residential densities shall be established to serve as a guideline for evaluating development in Alachua County." FLUE Policy 1.3.2 classifies the densities as follows: The following classification of gross residential densities shall serve as a standard for evaluating development in Alachua County, unless specific provisions are otherwise provided in the Plan. a. Urban Residential Densities - Areas designated on the [FLUM] for gross residential densities of one unit per acre or greater shall be considered as urban in character. There shall be four gross residential density ranges as follows: Low Density One to Four dwelling units per acre Medium Density Greater than Four to less or equal to Eight dwelling units per acre Medium-High Greater than Eight to less than or equal to 14 dwelling units per acre High Density Greater than 14 to less than or equal to 24 dwelling units per acre The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend there was already an excess of acres available for development relative to need for the projected population, even before the 2003 Amendments expanded the Urban Cluster and the USL. They point to the 2002 FLUE Data and Analysis, which explained that the need calculations resulted in a finding that there were 7,396 acres available for urban development beyond the projected need in the Urban Cluster through the year 2010, and 4,378 acres beyond the projected need in the Urban Cluster through the year 2020. The 2002 Data and Analysis concluded: "Therefore there is no need in both 2010 and 2020 for modification of the area designated for urban development." Nonetheless, the 2003 Amendments added an additional 434 acres to the Urban Cluster, thereby increasing the available acres for development to 8,370. Richard Drummond explained that the County discovered, after the EAR process and the adoption of the 2002 Plan Update, that some of the population projections for the unincorporated areas were in error. The County also found miscalculations in terms of the existing housing stock. Mr. Drummond stated that the 2002 projections did not reflect the impact that the Plan's new environmental and floodplain policies could have on existing development capacity, or the fact that some private property owners had made it known their land would not be available for development. Mr. Drummond emphasized that the final need projections reflected the methodology that the County chose to employ and conceded that other methodologies could be used to arrive at different projections. The Sierra Club Petitioners have set forth at some length the methodologies they believe should have been employed by the County as regards establishment of the Urban Cluster and USL. At the outset, the Sierra Club Petitioners have challenged the County's methodology for calculating the number of needed dwelling units and corresponding acreage. They contend that the County calculated an excessive amount of acreage based on outdated historical data, rather than on the maximum gross residential densities allowed under the updated Plan. In making its acreage calculations, the County assumed that the low density residential areas would have an average density of 1.6 dwelling units per acre ("DU/acre"). Sierra Club contends that the County placed undue reliance on historical evidence that the density trends in the low density category was 1.34 DU/acre from 1980-1990, and 1.6 DU/acre from 1991-1997, when the County's own EAR provided more recent evidence that the objective of 2.0 DU/acre was being achieved. Mr. Drummond testified that a goal of the 2002 Plan Update was to increase the density of development within the low-density range. Sierra Club contends that using higher densities in the calculations of needed acreage would better support that goal and that the County was, therefore, required to base its calculations of the land presently available to serve the projected need on the maximum available density. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that basing the projections on historical trends "perpetuates old planning mistakes," and is internally inconsistent with FLUE General Strategy 1's requirement that the Plan provide "incentives for higher average densities for residential development and mixed uses in the urban cluster." They conclude that the maximum available density of 4.0 DU/acre should have been the County's basis for allocating acreage in the low density category, rather than the historically-based 1.6 dwelling units per acre presented by the County. The Sierra Club Petitioners offered a detailed recalculation of the "needed acres" for the Urban Cluster and the USL based on a density of 4.0 DU/acre, rather than 1.6 DU/acre, concluding that Alachua County overestimated the needed land by 2,737 acres in the low-density residential category. They performed a similar recalculation of need in the medium-high and high-density residential categories based on the maximum allowable density, rather than the historic "average density" used by the County. It is not necessary to set out the recalculation here because it is found that the Sierra Club Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the methodology employed by Alachua County to project the acreage needed for development in 2010 and 2020 was so unreasonable as to be beyond fair debate, or that their substituted methodology was correct and accurate beyond fair debate. The Sierra Club Petitioners may be correct in their contention that the Plan's goal of increasing densities in low-density residential developments would be better supported by use of maximum allowable densities in the need projections. There is little doubt that reducing the acreage available for development would force more compact development in the Urban Cluster, but there is no indication that the County's projections present an unreasonable risk of urban sprawl. Both Richard Drummond and Mr. Pennock discussed other Plan goals, such as avoiding a distortion of the real estate market caused by allocating too little land for development, that the Sierra Club Petitioners' methodology arguably does not address or would even subvert. In arriving at its methodology, Alachua County necessarily struck a balance in its priorities. Richard Drummond candidly testified that there were other ways to arrive at the need projections. The Sierra Club Petitioners reasonably disagree with that balance and believe that the community would be better served through tighter controls on expansion of urban development. This is a disagreement to be resolved through the political process and is certainly not beyond "fair debate" for either side of the argument in the context of this administrative proceeding. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the "development factor" employed in the calculation of capacity needed within the Urban Cluster and USL also contributes to inflating the estimate. As part of the formula used to calculate the land needed to accommodate the projected population, Alachua County applied a "development factor" of 0.5 to the residential units available on vacant land identified as "strategic ecosystems" or wetland areas, thus halving the available acreage in those areas. The 0.5 development factor was applied in recognition of the Plan's policies requiring that 50 percent of such lands be preserved from development. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that the County's reasoning ignores FLUE Policy 6.2.10, which allows the landowner to cluster the total number of available residential units for an entire parcel on the developable 50 percent of the property. Thus, while 50 percent of the property is placed in conservation with no dwelling units, the dwelling units for the total acreage can be built on the remaining 50 percent of the property. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that this methodology leads to an understatement of the acreage available for development and, thereby, underestimates the number of available dwelling units. Mr. Drummond explained that the "development factor" is intended to account for several contingencies. Some property owners might not choose to cluster and, therefore, would not develop the remaining 50 percent at the maximum density. More than 50 percent of some properties might be set aside after their boundaries are ground-truthed.12/ Because of such contingencies, the County decided to adjust the calculations so that its estimate would include the net acreage that would be fully available for development. This rationale could lead to some excess of vacant residential lands if a significant number of the conservation/wetlands properties are developed to their maximum density, but it cannot be deemed wrong beyond fair debate for Alachua County to seek certainty under its formula. FLUE Policy 7.1.3.d, set out in full above, requires the County to evaluate the appropriate location for expansion of the Urban Cluster according to the criteria set forth therein. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that Alachua County did not provide data and analysis to demonstrate compliance with these locational standards in its 2003 Amendment to the FLUM for the Urban Cluster. The 2002 FLUE Data and Analysis provide that development outside of the USL "must provide a full compliment of urban services." Mr. Drummond testified that because the 2002 Plan Update requires that all new development in the urban area must hook up to central water and sewer services,13/ the 2002 USL was based on proximity to those services, which became "the primary indicator for the rational progression of urban development." The Sierra Club Petitioners have challenged the 2003 Amendments' expansion of the USL to include all land in "common ownership" outside of the parcels on the 2002 FLUM map. According to Mr. Drummond, the common ownership included parcels where there was "a legal relationship between the corporate entities that owned the property." The Sierra Club Petitioners claim that the County "failed to demonstrate that the method of including all parcels within common ownership within the expanded Urban Cluster or [USL] was a professionally acceptable methodology." The Sierra Club Petitioners assert that the effect of this change is to add property within the USL regardless of proximity to existing infrastructure in contravention of 2002 FLUE Policy 7.1.3(d). It is found that the County's recognition of properties under common ownership in setting the USL, where at least part of the property meets all criteria for inclusion within the USL, appears on its face to be a sensible amendment. In this proceeding, the burden was not on the County to demonstrate that its methodology was "professionally acceptable." Rather, the burden was on Petitioners to demonstrate that the methodology did not meet the "fairly debatable" standard of acceptability. Petitioners failed to make that demonstration as to this issue. The Sierra Club Petitioners claim that because the expansion of the USL in the 2003 Amendments was based on availability of central water and sewer, it is internally inconsistent with other provisions of the Plan. FLUE Principle 2 requires the Plan to "[b]ase new development upon the provision of necessary services and infrastructure." FLUE General Strategy 1.f. provides that the Plan should: Minimize the conversion of land from rural to urban uses by maximizing the efficient use of available urban infrastructure, while preserving environmentally sensitive areas, according to the following: * * * f. Time development approval in conjunction with the economic and efficient provision of supporting community facilities, urban services, and infrastructure, such as streets, utilities, police and fire protection service, emergency medical service, mass transit, public schools, recreation and open space, in coordination with the Capital Improvements Element. The Sierra Club Petitioners assert that the County has failed to comply with these provisions because it based the expansion of the Urban Cluster and the USL on only one form of infrastructure, central sewer and water, while ignoring the availability of "supporting community facilities, urban services, and infrastructure" such as schools, police and fire protection, emergency medical service, mass transit, and recreation and open space. The evidence does not support this assertion beyond fair debate. The USL is a timing and phasing mechanism for development within the Urban Cluster over a ten-year planning horizon and is intended to encourage redevelopment and to direct new development to areas where public infrastructure exists or will be available. To the east, the County has located the USL coterminously with the Urban Cluster in order to promote redevelopment in the east Gainesville area. To the west, the USL is located a quarter-mile outward from existing and planned central water and sewer lines, without splitting ownership lines on individual parcels, except that in an area to the southwest near Archer Road, the USL is located a half- mile from existing and planned central water and sewer lines in order to promote this area as a future transit corridor. It is at least fairly debatable that the establishment and location of the USL is supported by appropriate data and analysis and that the County considered other infrastructure factors in drawing the lines of its urban boundaries. Water and Sewer Line Extensions In the 1991 Plan, Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Element ("PWSSE") Policy 8.2 provided, in relevant part: Proposed extensions of potable water and sanitary sewer lines outside of the urban service area designated by the [FLUE] shall be subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. . . . The 2002 Plan Update renumbered the quoted provision as PWSSE Policy 3.5 and changed the term "urban service area" to "Urban Services Line," but otherwise left the text unamended. The 2003 Amendments changed the term "Urban Services Line" to "Urban Cluster." The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the effect of the latter change is to allow the extension of water and sewer outside the USL, but within the Urban Cluster without the approval of the Board. They point out that the City of Gainesville owns and operates Gainesville Regional Utilities ("GRU") and that Alachua County historically has had little to no control over the pattern of development based on utility service. Mr. Drummond conceded that allowing the utility provider to dictate the pattern of development led to low- density sprawl. Thus, the Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the 2003 Amendment to PWSSE Policy 3.5 weakens the ability of the County to control growth through the phasing envisioned by the USL, because the County has no control over how the growth is "phased" when it lacks control over utilities. The County replies that the 2003 Amendments' change of "Urban Services Line" to "Urban Cluster" merely corrects a scrivener's error. Mr. Drummond testified that the 2002 Plan Update version of PWSSE Policy 3.5, requiring Board approval of water and sewer extensions outside the USL, unintentionally conflicted with FLUE Policy 7.1.3.B, which provides a mechanism for development to occur outside the USL but within the Urban Cluster without Board approval. The 2003 Amendment corrected the error and brought PWSSE Policy 3.5 into harmony with FLUE Policy 7.1.3.B. It is found that the 2003 Amendment to PWSSE Policy 3.5 does not represent a substantive change to the Plan. As to Petitioner's "lack of control" critique, the County responds that the City of Gainesville's Plan calls for coordination with the County's Plan when proposing utility line extensions. Mr. Drummond testified that the City of Gainesville's Plan recognizes that GRU will extend its utility lines in the unincorporated area in a manner consistent with the County's Plan. It is at least fairly debatable that the 2003 Amendments are supported by data and analysis and do not inappropriately delegate planning authority to the City of Gainesville or GRU. 2003 COSE Amendments Strategic Ecosystems The 1991 Plan employed the term "conservation area" to describe properties meriting special protection, including areas with significant geologic features such as springs and caves, wetlands, areas subject to 100-year flooding, and surface waters and their transitional zones. The 2002 Plan Update recognized both "primary" and "secondary" conservation areas. 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.1 provided: Primary conservation areas shall consist of natural resources that, because of their ecological value, uniqueness and particular sensitivity to development activities, require stringent protective measures to sustain their ecological integrity. These areas shall include: Wetlands; Surface waters; Wellfield protection areas; Listed species habitat; Significant geologic features; and Strategic ecosystems.[14/] "Strategic ecosystem" was a new term added by the 2002 Plan Update and was defined in the 2002 COSE definitions as follows: Outstanding examples of ecosystems that are intact or capable of restoration and that require conservation or management to maintain important reserves of biodiversity at landscape, natural community and species specific levels. Strategic ecosystems are greater than 20 acres in size and contain one or more natural ecological communities, including but not limited to scrub, sandhill, xeric hammock, upland pine forest, upland mixed forest, mesic hammock, prairie hammock, wet prairie, seepage slope, slope forest, mesic flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, floodplain forest, baygall, wet flatwoods, and hydric hammock. The natural resources that comprise strategic ecosystems are identified through means including, but not limited to: the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's "Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System" (1994), as supplemented with "Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled Life in Florida" (2000); FDEP's "Statewide Ecological Network," contained in The Greenways System Planning Project (1998); the Florida Natural Areas Inventory; and Golder's "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" (1996). 2002 COSE Objective 4.10, not amended in 2003, provides that it is the County's objective to "[p]rotect, conserve, enhance, and manage the ecological integrity of strategic ecosystems in Alachua County." The 2002 COSE Policies implementing Objective 4.10, which were all new to the 2002 Plan Update, provided: Policy 4.10.1 Conserve ecosystems that are determined to be strategic based on an overall assessment of the following characteristics: Natural ecological communities that exhibit: Native biodiversity within or across natural ecological communities. Ecological integrity. Rarity. Functional connectedness. Plant and animal species habitat that is: Documented for listed species. Documented for species with large home ranges. Documented as a special wildlife migration or aggregation site for activities such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting, or over-wintering. High in vegetation quality and species diversity. Low in non-native invasive species. Size, shape, and landscape features that allow the ecosystem to be restored to or maintained in good condition with regular management activities, such as prescribed burning, removal of exotic vegetation, or hydrological restoration. Policy 4.10.2 Strategies shall be implemented through the land use planning and development review process to ensure that each strategic ecosystem is evaluated and protected based on the integrity of the ecological unit. Policy 4.10.3 The County shall create special area plans in cooperation with landowners to establish specific guidelines for strategic ecosystems prior to approval of land use change, zoning change, or development approval. The County shall devise a schedule for creating special area plans, based on current development pressures and anticipated priorities. The County shall create special area plans for each strategic ecosystem, in accordance with the schedule and with the standards under Objective 3.6.[15/] If an applicant seeks development prior to the County's creation of a special area plan for a particular strategic ecosystem, the applicant has two avenues for pursuing development. A special area study may be conducted at the applicant's expense. Alternatively, if the applicant demonstrates that the ecological integrity of the strategic ecosystem will be sufficiently protected, the applicant may proceed according to the clustering provisions in policies under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUE]. Policy 4.10.4 Management strategies for strategic ecosystems shall be developed with landowners in conjunction with special area plans and may include, but are not limited to: Prescribed burning. Control of invasive species. Silvicultural activities according to BMPs [best management practices], with particular emphasis on maintenance and improvement of water quality, biological health, and the function of natural systems. Reduction in the intensity of site preparation activities, including bedding and herbicide application. Provision for listed species habitat needs, including restricting, at appropriate times, intrusions into sensitive feeding and breeding areas. Cooperative efforts and agreements to help promote or conduct certain management activities, such as cleanups, maintenance, public education, observation, monitoring, and reporting. Land acquisition. Policy 4.10.5 Clustering shall be required so that at least 80% of each strategic ecosystem is preserved as undeveloped area. Development shall be designed in accordance with the standards under Objective 3.6 of this Element. In the rural area, development shall also comply with standards under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUM]. Policy 4.10.6 The County shall provide regulatory flexibility to facilitate planning across multiple parcels that protects the integrity of the strategic ecosystem as an ecological unit. Existing cluster and PUD ordinances shall be revised to enhance long-term protection of strategic ecosystems. Policy 4.10.7 The County shall work with owners of agricultural and silvicultural lands to retain the ecological integrity and ecological value of strategic ecosystems through management plans and incentives. A management plan shall be required before any activity occurs in a strategic ecosystem that has not been used for agriculture or silviculture within the last 20 years, in accordance with the following: The management plan shall provide for retention of the ecological integrity and ecological value of the strategic ecosystem. The management plan shall be submitted to Alachua County for review and approval by appropriately qualified technical staff. The management plan may be satisfied by Forest Stewardship Council certification, land acquisition, or participation in a conservation program sponsored by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Passive recreational and ecotourism activities shall be encouraged where consistent with protection of the ecological integrity of the strategic ecosystem. The County shall, through community outreach and collaboration, facilitate participation of landowners in forestry certification programs, land acquisition programs, and federal and state cost-share conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, and the Farmland Protection Program. Policy 4.10.8 Alachua County shall implement an ordinance that specifically addresses the preservation of strategic ecosystems, significant plant and wildlife habitat, habitat corridors, and vegetative communities. The 2003 Amendments deleted 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.2, which had defined "secondary" conservation areas. The 2003 Amendments amended 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.1, set forth above, by deleting the first word, "Primary." The effect of these amendments is that the policy now simply defines "conservation areas" without distinction as to their being "primary" or "secondary." The 2003 Amendments also deleted "Wellfield protection areas" from the definition of "conservation areas," replacing it with "100-year floodplains." Finally, the 2003 Amendments changed the definition of "strategic ecosystem" to read: Outstanding examples of ecosystems that are intact or capable of restoration and that require conservation or management to maintain important reserves of biodiversity at landscape, natural community and species specific levels. Strategic ecosystems are greater than 20 acres in size and contain one or more natural ecological communities, including but not limited to scrub, sandhill, xeric hammock, upland pine forest, upland mixed forest, mesic hammock, prairie hammock, wet prairie, seepage slope, slope forest, mesic flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, floodplain forest, baygall, wet flatwoods, and hydric hammock. The natural resources that comprise strategic ecosystems are identified through means including, but not limited to: the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's "Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System"(1994), as supplemented with "Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled Life in Florida"(2000); FDEP's "Statewide Ecological Network," contained in The Greenways System Planning Project (1998); the Florida Natural Areas Inventory; and Sites that are identified in the KBN/Golder's Associates report, "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" (1996). The 2003 Amendments amended the 2002 COSE Policies implementing Objective 4.10 as follows: Policy 4.10.1 Conserve strategic ecosystems that are determined through ground-truthing using the KBN/Golder report as a guide to be strategic maintain or enhance biodiversity based on an overall assessment of the following characteristics: Natural ecological communities that exhibit: Native biodiversity within or across natural ecological communities. Ecological integrity. Rarity. Functional connectedness. Plant and animal species habitat that is: Documented for listed species. Documented for species with large home ranges. Documented as a special wildlife migration or aggregation site for activities such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting, or over-wintering. High in vegetation quality and species diversity. Low in non-native invasive species. Size, shape, and landscape features that allow the ecosystem to be restored to or maintained in good condition with regular management activities, such as prescribed burning, removal of exotic vegetation, or hydrological restoration. The Alachua County 2001 digital orthophotographic series (for purposes of this policy, the date of this photography is March 1, 2001) shall presumptively establish the baseline condition of the strategic ecosystem property as of the effective date of this policy. The County shall adopt land development regulations that set forth additional guidance for the determination of whether and the extent to which strategic ecosystems exist on a property. * * * Policy 4.10.4 Management strategies for strategic ecosystems shall be developed with landowners in conjunction with special area plans or cluster developments and may include, but are not limited to: Prescribed burning. Control of invasive species. Silvicultural activies according to BMPs [best management practices], with particular emphasis on maintenance and improvement of water quality, biological health, and the function of natural systems. Reduction in the intensity of site preparation activities, including bedding and herbicide application. Provision for listed species habitat needs, including restricting, at appropriate times, intrusions into sensitive feeding and breeding areas. Cooperative efforts and agreements to help promote or conduct certain management activities, such as cleanups, maintenance, public education, observation, monitoring, and reporting. Land acquisition. * * * Policy 4.10.5 Clustering shall be required so that at least 80% of each strategic ecosystem is preserved as undeveloped area. Development shall be designed in accordance with the standards under Objective 3.6 of this Element. In the rural area, development shall also comply with standards under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUM]. Policy 4.10.5 Each strategic ecosystem shall be preserved as undeveloped area, not to exceed 50% of the upland portion of the property without landowner consent and in accordance with the following: Upland areas required to be protected pursuant to policies for significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall be counted in calculation of the 50% limitation, however, the extent of protection of significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall not be reduced by this limitation. This limitation shall not apply to 100-year floodplains and wellfield protection areas, which are addressed independently through policies under Objectives 4.8 and 4.5, respectively. This limitation shall not restrict in any way state and federal agency protections. The remaining Policies implementing 2002 COSE Objective 4.10 were not amended by the 2003 Amendments. Thus, the definition of "strategic ecosystem" was amended from an identification of sites based upon the characteristics of their ecological communities to a question of whether a given property is found on a "strategic ecosystems" map sourced from the "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" prepared by KBN/Golder Associates (the "KBN/Golder Report"). In 1986, the County retained the Gainesville firm of KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. ("KBN") to conduct a survey of potential ecologically significant upland properties. The purpose of the survey, completed in 1987, was to provide information on important upland sites for planning purposes, principally to complete the Conservation Element of what would become the 1991 Plan, and to assist the Alachua County Conservation and Recreation Areas Task Force in greenbelt planning. In November 1996, the County commissioned KBN, now a subsidiary of Golder Associates, to produce the KBN/Golder Report, which built upon the 1987 survey to compile the most extensive study to date of ecological communities in the County. The stated purpose of the KBN/Golder Report was to "identify, inventory, map, describe, and evaluate the most significant biological communities, both upland and wetland, in private ownership in Alachua County and make recommendations for protecting these natural resources." A total of 47 sites were identified and ranked based on their quality of vegetation and landscape ecology, their status as habitats for endangered species and wildlife in general, their hydrology, and their management potential. The 1996 KBN/Golder Report was more comprehensive than its predecessor study in that it covered a larger area, evaluated wetlands as well as uplands, and included mapping of ecological connections and biological communities. KBN/Golder accumulated and evaluated a wide range of data in the process of preparing the Report including: the 1987 KBN survey; a 1995 set of infrared aerial photographs provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District ("SJRWMD"), as well as a 1986 set of infrareds provided by the Alachua County Department of Environmental Services; a 1994 set of black and white aerial photographs provided by the Alachua County Property Appraiser's Office; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWCC") habitat distribution maps; SJRWMD wetlands vegetation maps; Florida Natural Areas Inventory natural community/plant community classification categories; and SJRWMD and Suwannee River Water Management District Floridan Aquifer recharge maps. The KBN/Golder Report described its methodology and limitations as follows: The inventories were done by David Clayton and Bob Simons, working separately. Landowners were contacted where access was necessary for the survey work, and those lands where access was denied were inventoried using aerial photographs, outside sources of information, and whatever information could be obtained by observations from the property boundary. Initially, a review was made of the USGS topographic quadrangle maps (various dates) and aerial photographs... to determine access, location of communities, drainage features, and karst features. Next, vehicle or pedestrian surveys of all accessible areas were used to get an overall view; to discern as many biocommunities as possible; to look for exotic species, listed species, or signs of habitat for listed species; and to evaluate the overall wildlife habitat and the condition of the communities. Specific sites were chosen to inventory in more detail. Limitations for this survey were the large number of sites, the vast acreage, and the restricted time available. Thousands of acres on 47 sites were surveyed within 8 weeks, necessitating limited survey time on the larger sites. Terrestrial species were emphasized because 90 percent of the area surveyed is terrestrial. The Jonesville Petitioners contested the validity of the 2003 Amendments regarding strategic ecosystems on several grounds. Common to all these grounds is a disagreement on the meaning of the strategic ecosystems definition and its interplay with COSE Objective 4.10 and its implementing policies, as amended by the 2003 Amendments. The Jonesville Petitioners argue that defining the term "strategic ecosystem" by way of the map in the KBN/Golder Report is fatally flawed because it provides no flexibility. If a property is identified on the KBN/Golder Report map, then it is a strategic ecosystem subject to the restrictions of COSE Objective 4.10, without regard to the facts on the ground. The definition makes no provision for ground-truthing the property prior to inclusion in the strategic ecosystem category. The County responds that 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for more detailed identification of strategic ecosystems through ground-truthing, using the KBN/Golder Report as a guide. 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 also provides that the County's LDRs will provide additional guidance to determine whether and to what extent, strategic ecosystems exist on a property. The Jonesville Petitioners answer that there is a fundamental conflict in the policy's purported use of the KBN/Golder Report as a "guide" to delineating strategic ecosystems, when the definition provides that identification on the KBN/Golder Report is all that is required to establish a property as a strategic ecosystem. Subsequently adopted LDRs cannot provide guidance as to whether strategic ecosystems exist on a property; by definition, the KBN/Golder Report map determines whether there are strategic ecosystems. The Jonesville Petitioners argue that the only correct way to take a property out of the strategic ecosystem category would be to amend the adopted KBN/Golder Report map, thus amending the definition of "strategic ecosystem." The Jonesville Petitioners' argument fundamentally concedes that, if the definition were to provide for ground- truthing based on the characteristics set forth in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1, it would be unexceptionable. However, they point out that 2003 COSE Objective 4.10 and its policies apply to all "strategic ecosystems," that "strategic ecosystems" are also subject to regulation as "conservation areas" under COSE Policy 3.1.1, and that the ground-truthing provided by 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 does nothing to change the definition. Under this definitional scheme, a landowner whose property is identified on the KBN/Golder Report map can do nothing to take his property out of the strategic ecosystems definition, short of petitioning the County to amend its Plan, and is subject to all COSE provisions dealing with strategic ecosystems. The undersigned agrees with the Jonesville Petitioners that the County would have been better served to refine its definition of "strategic ecosystem" to include the standards set forth in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. The undersigned does not agree that the County's failure to do so invalidates the definition under the "fairly debatable" standard, given the County's interpretation of the interplay among the applicable policies. By using the KBN/Golder Report map to set the boundaries of strategic ecosystems, the County attempted to delineate reasonably large, contiguous areas, rather than create a "swiss cheese" pattern of intermixed conservation and non-conservation lands; i.e., designating isolated pockets of conservation within a large non-conservation area, or vice versa. The County made a general determination that strategic ecosystem site boundaries should be delineated with simple straight lines, rather than by the edges of land features, such as vegetative cover. The County reasonably decided that a straight boundary, such as a section line is easier to administer and more easily communicated to the public than a natural feature such as vegetation, which would require a survey and is often characterized by a gradual change, rather than the sharp demarcation necessary for a boundary. The County recognized that under this approach, strategic ecosystems would include some areas neither particularly environmentally sensitive, nor valuable as habitat. 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for ground-truthing to further refine the delineation of the boundaries of the strategic ecosystem properties to more specifically identify the most environmentally sensitive portions of the property and to assist in the determination of appropriate protection measures. Under the COSE Objective 4.10 policies, set forth in full above, the County will use the KBN/Golder Report map and the more detailed information provided by additional ground-truthing to identify the least environmentally sensitive portion of the strategic ecosystem property, so that any development can be directed and clustered there, and away from the most environmentally sensitive portion of the property. The landowner will retain the right to transfer the same number of residential units as allowed by the density limits of the underlying land use classification to the least sensitive portion of the property, notwithstanding the strategic ecosystems designation. The County's explanation of the interplay among the Plan provisions effectively addresses the concerns of the Jonesville Petitioners regarding "erroneously mapped" parcels, i.e., parcels that are identified on the KBN/Golder Report map, but that, in fact, are not environmentally sensitive. The Jonesville Petitioners are technically correct that because identification on the KBN/Golder Report map defines a property as a strategic ecosystem, subsequent ground-truthing does nothing to remove the property from that definition. However, the Jonesville Petitioners' argument depends on a reading of the Plan that is not merely literal, but blinkered. One must accept that the definition is absolutely controlling and that if a property is on the KBN/Golder Report map, then every individual plan provision referencing "strategic ecosystem" will apply to the property regardless of the natural characteristics found on the ground. A fair reading of the 2003 Amendments makes it clear that the definition of "strategic ecosystem" is the beginning of the analysis, not the end. The County acknowledged that, while the data on the KBN/Golder Report map are professionally accepted for general planning purposes, the data are not detailed enough for regulatory purposes on the level of individual parcels. Thus, once the map designates a property as a strategic ecosystem, 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 requires ground- truthing to determine whether and to what extent that strategic ecosystem is subject to conservation. Later adopted LDRs will provide additional guidance "for the determination of whether and the extent to which strategic ecosystems exist on a property." This treatment is similar to that found in 2002 COSE Policy 3.3.4 regarding conservation and preservation areas on the FLUM generally: Site Specific Delineation: The parcel- specific boundaries of preservation and conservation areas shall be verified by ground surveys conducted in the course of special studies or development review. County-initiated mapping efforts shall be performed at the County's expense, except when an applicant seeks land use change, zoning change, or development approval prior to the completion of the County's mapping efforts, consistent with [COSE] policies 3.4.2 and 4.10.3. Conservation policies shall be applied based on the resulting site specific delineation. The referenced 2002 COSE Policy 3.4.2 provides: Where site specific analysis or verification is required to determine the presence of natural resources protected under this Element, the cost of such analysis or verification shall be borne by the applicant. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that there is an internal inconsistency in the fact that the definition of strategic ecosystem does not include the criteria found in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. However, the parameters used by KBN/Golder Report to score and rank the sites that appear on the map include: vegetation value (species diversity, presence of exotics); endangered species habitat value (plant and animal); wildlife habitat value; hydrology; landscape ecology (community diversity, ecological quality, community rarity, functional connectedness); and management potential. These parameters are consistent with the characteristics listed in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. The Jonesville Petitioners point out that the design of the KBN/Golder Report map was such that no parcel less than 20 acres in size was identified, resulting in the omission of thousands of acres countywide that possess the characteristics identified in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 as indicative of strategic ecosystems. The Jonesville Petitioners claim that this presents an internal inconsistency in the Plan, because the COSE policies would protect only 25 percent of those unmapped properties (under 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12 addressing upland habitat), rather than the 50 percent protected by the strategic ecosystems policies. This alleged inconsistency is simply another example of the County's reasonable policy choice to focus its conservation efforts on larger, more contiguous properties, rather than a myriad of small-acreage lands. Even the 2002 definition of "strategic ecosystem," not challenged by the Jonesville Petitioners, limited strategic ecosystems to properties greater than 20 acres in size. The smaller sites will remain subject to regulation on a site-specific basis as they are proposed for development. The Jonesville Petitioners appear to insist, absent any pending development applications with the County or even any present plans to develop, on their right to have the Plan and its incorporated maps provide them with a definitive, binding delineation of their properties and, thus, their development potential. This claim is unrealistic, given that such a general right would require County staff to ground- truth hundreds of thousands of acres countywide before a conservation land use category could be established at all. The KBN/Golder Report map is sufficient to place landowners, such as the Jonesville Petitioners, on notice of their need to inquire as to the status of their properties prior to the initiation of development activities. Parcel- specific regulation requires parcel-specific ground-truthing, and 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for such ground-truthing. Further, 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.3 provides that the County will create special area plans for strategic ecosystems "based on current development pressures and anticipated priorities." It further provides that an applicant in the position of the Jonesville Petitioners may pay for its own special area plan, should it not wish to wait on the County to complete its plan process. Finally, the Jonesville Petitioners attack 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1's use of the Alachua County 2001 digital orthophotographic series dated March 1, 2001, to "presumptively establish the baseline condition of the strategic ecosystem property as of the effective date of this policy." They contend that it is uncertain how the County will treat properties on which the owners have altered ecosystems in the period between the 2001 orthophotographs and 2003 adoption of the new COSE policies and that the policy would have a retroactive impact of dubious constitutionality if the County were to require restoration of those properties to their 2001 state. This valid concern of the Jonesville Petitioners is prematurely raised in this proceeding. The evidence at hearing failed to demonstrate that the County would not allow a landowner to provide information through the development review process to demonstrate that the condition of the property had changed after March 1, 2001, and prior to the effective date of the 2003 Amendments. In summary, it is found that the mere fact that the County determined that the definition of "strategic ecosystem" shall consist of the identification of properties on the KBN/Golder Report map is a fairly debatable decision, given the manner in which that definition is put into effect through amended COSE Objective 4.10 and its implementing policies. The Jonesville Petitioners entered reports prepared by their environmental consultant concerning particular properties and their unsuitability for designation as strategic ecosystems and presented extensive testimony on the subject. The County presented testimony as to each of the Jonesville Petitioners' properties to support the County's contention that they are indeed strategic ecosystems. Each of the Jonesville properties is a small portion of a much larger parcel on the KBN/Golder Report strategic ecosystems map. It is unnecessary to make detailed findings of fact as to the environmental quality of these properties. As the findings above indicate, the appropriate time to consider the qualities of particular properties will be during the special area planning process and/or the development review process.16/ Uplands Habitat 2002 COSE Objective 4.9, titled "Biodiversity," provides: Maintain and enhance plant and animal species diversity and distribution within Alachua County by protecting significant plant and wildlife habitats, providing for habitat corridors, and preventing habitat fragmentation. The 2002 Plan Update provisions implementing COSE Objective 4.9 provided as follows: Policy 4.9.1 A critical portion of each significant plant and wildlife habitat type in Alachua County shall be protected. Protection shall be accomplished using all available methods, including land acquisition, incentives and requirements for the provision of conservation or preservation areas, habitat corridors, greenways, and common open space. Policy 4.9.2 During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall minimize the effects of development on significant plant and wildlife habitat. All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25% of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site. The habitat to be conserved shall be selected based on the quality and viability of the habitat. The County shall work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside. Conserved habitat shall be located and maintained in areas with intact canopy, understory and groundcover in functional, clustered arrangement which maximizes use by wildlife and maintains the long-term viability of native upland plant communities. Linkages to habitat corridors and greenways shall be required where available. The County shall have the authority to accept alternatives to onsite conservation that provide for the long-term protection and management of significant plant and wildlife habitat of equal or greater habitat value that would not have otherwise been preserved. The land development regulations shall establish criteria for determining which projects warrant the use of alternatives to onsite conservation. Criteria may include but are not limited to: the size of the development site, habitat quality, uniqueness, connectivity, management opportunities, and adjacent uses. Off-site conservation shall not be permitted for listed species habitat that is capable of being managed or restored on- site as a high quality natural plant or animal community or communities. This requirement is not intended to limit the effect of other resource-specific protective measures in this element, such as clustering and buffers. Policy 4.9.3 The County shall require the development and implementation of management plans for all significant plant and wildlife habitat that is to be protected. The management plan shall be prepared at the expense of the developer by an appropriately qualified professional and provide for the following: Removal of invasive vegetation and debris. Replanting with native vegetation as necessary. Maintenance of biodiversity, with special emphasis on protection of listed plant and animal species. Any additional measures determined to be necessary to protect and maintain the functions and values of the habitat conservation areas while ensuring protection from wildfire. Policy 4.9.4[17/] The County shall consult with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services or other appropriate agencies prior to authorizing development that could result in potential adverse impacts to any listed species. The County shall utilize these recommendations to provide specific requirements regarding development where these species are encountered. Conditions of approval shall ensure the maintenance and, where feasible and appropriate, increase the abundance and distribution of populations of listed species. Policy 4.9.5 The use of listed plant and wildlife species habitat shall be restricted to that which is compatible with the requirements of listed species. Development activities[18/] that would threaten the life or habitat of any listed species shall not be permitted. Policy 4.9.6 The County shall prohibit the alteration of natural shorelines or degradation of water quality where listed species feed or breed, through the establishment of buffers as set out in [COSE] Policy 3.6.8. The County shall encourage the restoration of degraded shorelines when possible. Policy 4.9.7[19/] The County shall periodically review monitoring data from federal, state, regional, and local agencies to determine the status of listed species habitats in Alachua County. The County shall use this information to maintain and provide, for the convenience of the public, a table of listed species and listed species habitats in Alachua County. Policy 4.9.8 The County shall recommend specific management and recovery strategies for listed species, as they are developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and shall assist in their implementation. These management techniques shall be incorporated into the land development regulations, as well as the management plans of County-owned preservation areas. Policy 4.9.9 Wildlife habitat enhancement and management programs in urban areas shall be promoted through such techniques as designation of bird sanctuary areas where rookeries or other significant bird populations exist and landscaping schemes for stormwater detention and retention areas that maintain native vegetation and establish littoral zones which encourages wildlife usage. Policy 4.9.10 The County shall develop incentives designed to encourage private land owners to manage land holdings for wildlife attributes. Policy 4.9.11 The County shall establish and preserve habitat corridors that connect significant plant and wildlife habitats throughout the County. The County shall perform an objective analysis to determine the appropriateness of habitat corridors, how extensive they should be, the location of potential corridors, what fiscal resources are available for implementation, and economic incentives for property owners to voluntarily participate in formation of a habitat corridor program. The 2003 Amendments changed 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2 as follows: During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall minimize the effects of development on significant plant and wildlife habitat. All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25% of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site, subject to the limitation in 4.9.12. The habitat to be conserved shall be selected based on the quality and viability of the habitat. The County shall work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside. . . . The 2003 Amendments added a new COSE Policy 4.9.12, which reads as follows: Policy 4.9.12 Upland habitat protections under Objective 4.9 shall be limited as follows: No more than 25% of the upland portion of a property may be required to be set aside for preservation pursuant to policies under this Objective without landowner consent. Upland areas required to be protected pursuant to policies for significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall be counted in calculation of the 25% limitation, however, the extent of protection of significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall not be reduced by this limitation. This limitation shall not apply to 100-year floodplains and wellfield protection areas, which are addressed independently through policies under Objectives 4.8 [Flood Plains and Floodways] and 4.5 [Groundwater], respectively. This limitation shall not restrict in any state and federal agency protections. For purposes of applying this limitation, a property shall include all contiguous land under common ownership or control. Properties may not be disaggregated, processed in piecemeal fashion, reviewed or developed in any manner that results in lesser upland protections than would otherwise be required under this Objective. The Sierra Club Petitioners challenged these uplands policies on several grounds. The 2002 Plan Update, as amended in 2003, provides two kinds of protection to uplands. The most highly protected upland is one established as part of a strategic ecosystem. Under 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.5, up to 50 percent of the upland portion of a strategic ecosystem can be preserved as undeveloped area without the landowner's consent. A lesser level of protection is afforded to "significant plant and wildlife habitat." The 2002 Plan Update defines "significant habitat" as "contiguous stands of natural upland plant communities which have been documented to support, and which have the potential to maintain, healthy and diverse populations of plants or wildlife." Under 2003 COSE Policies 4.9.2 and 4.9.12, up to 25 percent of the upland portion of "significant plant and wildlife habitat" may be set aside for preservation without the landowner's consent. Neither the strategic ecosystems provision nor the significant plant and wildlife habitat provision purports to restrict or lessen any protections afforded by state or federal law. The Sierra Club Petitioners complain that the 2003 Amendments modify the categories and levels of upland protection which had been adopted in the 2002 Plan Update, that these modifications weaken the environmental protection provided to upland vegetative communities and habitats, and that the modifications are based on legislative settlement of the 2002 administrative challenge, not on any science or new data or analysis. The 2002 Plan Update was supported by the 1998 EAR and the 2002 Data and Analysis documents. On December 10, 2002, during the settlement process that culminated in the 2003 Amendments, Alachua County's environmental protection director, Chris Bird, produced a memorandum titled "Response to Questions Raised on Conservation Issues in the 12/2/02 Special [Board] Comp Plan Meeting," referred to hereinafter as "the Bird Memo." As of December 2, 2002, mediation had commenced in the 2002 administrative challenge, but the parties had yet to crystallize their respective positions into what would become the 2003 Amendments. As indicated by its full title, the Bird Memo contains the County staff's explanation of the basis for the conservation policies in the 2002 Amendments. The memo sets forth citations to and quotes from the 2002 Data and Analysis, and supplements this with its own comments on the propriety or necessity for the changes to the 1991 Plan made by the 2002 Amendments. The Sierra Club Petitioners point out that the Bird Memo offers a clear explanation as to how the 2002 Plan Update was based on the 1998 EAR and the 2002 Data and Analysis. They contend that there is no equivalent documentation in the record of this case that explains how the 2003 Amendments were based on the Data and Analysis. In answer to the question, "What's wrong with the old [1991] Comprehensive Plan and why do we have to change it?," the Bird Memo stated: Of 70 measurable objectives set forth for the Conservation portion of the [1998] EAR, less than a third of those objectives were met without caveat. At least 10 objectives were not met, and another 40 objectives were only partially met, met in limited fashion, or were in need of revision/update. The Bird Memo noted that the 1998 EAR made the following recommendations under the heading, "Permitted Uses in Conservation Areas": Review and revise requirements for development in ecologically sensitive/environmentally significant areas. Using the PUD[20/] or a modified Cluster Ordinance, consider the following modifications at a minimum: (1) modify the comprehensive plan to include additional natural communities identified in the 1996 ecological inventory [i.e., the KBN/Golder study]; (2) require clustering for all development and eliminate the 20-acre parcel threshold; (3) require stricter long-term protection for Conservation areas and significant natural communities; (4) increase the 50% minimum set-aside; (5) include incentives/requirements for permanent set-aside arrangements. The Bird Memo went on to set forth staff's recommendation as to what "stricter long-term protection for conservation areas and significant natural communities" necessitates for "significant habitat": Significant habitat is defined in the [2002] Comprehensive Plan update as contiguous stands of natural upland plant communities that support and maintain healthy and diverse populations of plants or wildlife. Sandhill and xeric hammock are two examples. Industrial pine plantations are not significant habitat because they are not natural communities. FAC 9J-5 requires that the Conservation Element include objectives and policies that conserve and protect native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat from destruction by development activities. The Plan update approaches this protection at two scales: strategic ecosystems are important at a larger geographical scale; significant habitat and listed species habitat are important at smaller scales. The purpose is to identify and protect natural systems and their fundamental building blocks before they are in the "emergency room" at the brink of crisis, when they can still be preserved for the future in healthy form. To accomplish this, the largest remaining wild areas are afforded the greatest protection (80% preservation of strategic ecosystems), while the smaller but significant natural habitat areas are afforded lesser but still meaningful protection (25% preservation of significant habitat). There is no percentage associated with listed species habitat protection, but protection is determined on a case-by-case basis depending on species and site characteristics. The requirement for 25% preservation of native habitat is clearly less than what is needed to stop habitat and species declines, but represents a compromise.[21/] This percentage was chosen in order to provide for the conditions necessary to preserve some degree of ecological integrity while accommodating the needs of development. . . . The Sierra Club Petitioners concede that some of the quoted conservation recommendations were adopted in the 2003 Amendments, e.g., the map of the KBN/Golder Report inventory lands was adopted as the initial definition of strategic ecosystems and incentives for clustering are provided. However, they contend that most of the staff's conservation recommendations are not reflected in the 2003 Amendments, e.g., clustering is not required for all development in ecologically sensitive and/or environmentally significant areas; the 20-acre parcel threshold for ecosystem protection is not eliminated; 50 percent minimum set-asides are not increased; species on the Florida Natural Areas Inventory ("FNAI") endangered species list but not on federal or state lists are not protected in wetland buffers; the recommended minimum default buffer is not used; and no minimum protection is required for either listed species habitat or significant habitat. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the 25 percent maximum upland preservation introduced by 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12 destroys the impact of 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.5, which under the 2002 Plan Update would have protected the habitat of any "listed species" on a case-by-case determination of what was reasonable and necessary for the species on the particular site, apparently without regard to the amount of a given tract that would be turned over to preservation against the wishes of the landowner. "Listed species" is defined in the 2003 Amendments as: Those species of plants and animals listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or species of special concern by an official state or federal plant or wildlife agency, or the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI, includes species ranked as S1, S2, or S3), or the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA). These species are targeted for protection for a number of reasons, e.g., they are in imminent danger of extinction, are rapidly declining in number or habitat, or have an inherent vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, or human disturbance which puts them at risk of extinction. This contention is rejected because it neglects to factor in the express limitation expressed in 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12.c. that the 25 percent limitation "shall not restrict in any way state and federal agency protections." Such "protections" include federal and state listed species protections, meaning that the 25 percent limitation cannot function as a brake on listed species protection. The Sierra Club Petitioners make too much of the distinction between 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2's language, "All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25 percent of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site," and 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12's language, "No more than 25 percent of the upland portion of a property may be required to be set aside for preservation pursuant to policies under this Objective without landowner consent." They appear to assume that the former provision would allow the County to impose draconian development limitations without regard to the property rights of landowners. In the undersigned's view, the distinction is not so great, particularly in light of 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2.1's direction to the County to "work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside." (Emphasis added.) The express reference to a "25% set aside" indicates that Alachua County did not anticipate forcing landowners to cede more than that amount of their property even under the 2002 Plan Update. It is found that the Sierra Club Petitioners overstate the necessary impact of the Bird Memo as "Data and Analysis." Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2), indeed, requires that plan amendments be "based upon relevant and appropriate data," and further explains that to be "based on 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." However, the Sierra Club Petitioners essentially contend that the Board was bound to enact each recommendation of the Bird Memo in every particular or stand in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). To accept this contention would be to make the elected officials of Alachua County subservient to their own hired staff, an exact reversal of the comprehensive planning process. It is found that the County has reacted to the data and analysis of the Bird Memo "in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data." There is no question that the 2002 Plan Update, as amended by the 2003 Amendments, for the first time "establish[es] an integrated approach to the protection of natural communities and their associated values in Alachua County," in contrast to the fragmented approach of the 1991 Plan. See COSE Data and Analysis, Biodiversity, p. 38. The 2003 Amendments address and, to some degree, adopt every element raised by staff in the Bird Memo. The 2003 Amendments do not adopt the terms of the Bird Memo to the letter as urged by the Sierra Club Petitioners, but the County was not required to do so. It is at least fairly debatable that the COSE uplands policies are supported by data and analysis and provide adequate guidance for the development of LDRs. Wetland Buffers Under the 1991 Plan, standards for natural vegetative buffers around surface waters and wetlands consisted of a minimum 75-foot buffer for Outstanding Florida Waters and a 35-foot buffer for all other surface waters and wetlands. The 2002 Plan Update's version of COSE Policy 3.6.8, referenced in Policy 4.9.6 above, provided detailed new buffer requirements as follows: Policy 3.6.8 Development occurring along the edges of conservation and preservation areas shall be designed to protect and minimize the impact of development on conservation areas through the use of natural vegetative buffers. Buffer width shall be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on what is demonstrated to be scientifically necessary to protect natural ecosystems from significant adverse impact. This determination shall be made in consideration of at least the following factors: Type of development and associated potential for adverse site-specific and off-site impacts; Natural community type and associated hydrologic or management requirements; Buffer area characteristics and function; Presence of listed species of plants and animals. Absent scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate, the following buffer widths shall apply for the resources set forth in the table below. Protected Resource Buffer Distance (feet)** Surface waters and wetlands that do not include the resources listed below 75* Outstanding Florida Waters 200* Areas where listed plant or animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland 300* from the surface water or wetland Public water supply well 200 * Buffer widths are recommended based on the report, "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," prepared by Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. in collaboration with Mark T. Brown, Ph.D., University of Florida Center for Wetlands and Water Resources, and Richard Hamann, Esq., University of Florida College of Law, January 2000. ** If the buffer precludes all economically viable use of a particular property, development may be allowed within the buffer in accordance with [COSE] policy 3.6.5, and where applicable, [COSE] policies 4.6.6 and 4.7.4. Buffers shall be measured from the outer edge of the protected resource. The 2003 Amendments made no changes to the text of COSE Policy 3.6.8, but changed the table of buffer widths as follows: Protected Resource Buffer Distance (feet)** Surface waters and wetlands less than or equal to 0.5 acre that do not include OFWs or listed animal species as described elsewhere in this table 50 average, 35 minimum Surface waters and wetlands greater than 0.5 acre that do not include the resources listed below OFWs or listed animal species as described elsewhere in this table 75* 75 average, 50 minimum Areas where federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species listed plant or animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland 300* from the surface water or wetland 100 average, 75 minimum Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWS) 200* 150 average, 100 minimum Public water supply well 200 * Buffer widths are recommended based on the report, "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," prepared by Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. in collaboration with Mark T. Brown, Ph.D., University of Florida Center for Wetlands and Water Resources, and Richard Hamann, Esq., University of Florida College of Law, January 2000. ** If the buffer precludes all economically viable use of a particular property, development may be allowed within the buffer in accordance with [COSE] policy 3.6.5, and where applicable, [COSE] policies 4.6.6 and 4.7.4. The referenced COSE Policy 3.6.5, introduced in the 2002 Plan Update and not amended in 2003, provides: Development on land that includes conservation areas shall be sited and designed according to the following standards and consistent with policies under Objective 6.2 [Rural/Agriculture] of the [FLUE] in the rural area: The preservation of conservation areas shall be required on all development sites to the greatest extent possible, consistent with standards which are outlined subsequently in [the COSE]. Density or intensity shall be transferred from conservation areas to non- conservation portions of the property, to adjoining property under common ownership or management and within a unified development, or to other development receivership areas, at a rate consistent with that of the underlying zoning district, but not to exceed the maximum density allowed by the land use designation. When there are no non-conservation areas to which density or intensity may be transferred, the development shall be clustered in the portion of the site that will result in least environmental impact. When connection to central sewer is not required, septic wastes shall be disposed of according to the Comprehensive Plan, land development regulations, and health department standards, and without adversely affecting ecosystem health. Existing landscape connections to other conservation areas shall be maintained so that fragmentation is avoided. The referenced COSE Policy 4.6.6, under Objective dealing with "Surface Water Systems," was introduced in the 2002 Plan Update, was not amended in 2003, and provides: The following activities may be allowed within the buffer subject to standards that regulate environmental impacts: Agricultural and silvicultural operations consistent with Objective 5.5 [Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices]; Water dependent facilities; Minimal impact activities; Activities that serve the overriding public interest; and Development allowed through implementation of [COSE] policy 3.6.5.3, provided that the development impact area shall not exceed the rate of 1/2 acre per ten acres of conservation area, including the footprint of principal and accessory structures and parking, allowing for reasonable access. 175. The referenced COSE Policy 4.7.4, under Objective dealing with "Wetland Ecosystems," was introduced in the 2002 Plan Update and amended in 2003 as indicated below: Development activity shall not be authorized in wetlands or wetland buffers except when all of the following conditions are met: The applicant has taken every reasonable step to avoid adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant has taken every reasonable step to minimize adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant has provided appropriate mitigation for adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant shows that one of the following circumstances applies: Minimal impact activity; or Overriding public interest; or All economically beneficial or productive use of the property is otherwise precluded. The development impact area shall not exceed the rate of 1/2 acre per ten acres of conservation area, including the footprint of principal and accessory structures and parking, allowing for reasonable access. Notwithstanding the above, mitigated impact may be allowed to any isolated poor quality wetland that is less than 0.25 acre in size, provided the total impact area is not greater than or equal to 0.25 acre per development. Poor quality shall be defined in the land development regulations based on factors relative to ecological value. The 2002 Data and Analysis clearly concluded that the 35-foot buffers in the 1991 Plan were inadequate to protect the natural functions of the affected wetlands. The Bird Memo summarized the data as follows: The Conservation/Aquifer Recharge portion of the EAR, as well as the data and analysis supporting the Comprehensive Plan update, are replete with documentation of the inadequacy of the current 35-foot buffer for wetlands and surface waters in Alachua County. Inadequacy is demonstrated by documentation of at least the following nine facts: (1) the direct loss of the extent and quality of wetlands, (2) the degradation of wetland functions, (3) no change in declining water quality trends since implementation of 35-foot buffers, high sediment loads in surface waters, elevated nutrient concentrations in surface waters, groundwater, and springs, poor surface water systems health documented by macroinvertebrate sampling, poor hydrology, including lake drawdown problems, (8) the continued loss, degradation and fragmentation of wildlife habitat in Alachua County, and (9) the decline of native species concurrent with the spread of invasive non-native species. The Bird Memo also contained appendices that included 11 pages of specific citations from the Data and Analysis discussing the inadequacy of the 35-foot buffers and supporting larger buffer widths. The buffers in 2002 COSE Policy 3.6.8 were based on the Data and Analysis in the 2000 Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc., report titled "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," ("JEA Report"). The Bird Memo summarized the JEA Report's findings and Alachua County's response, as follows: Upland vegetative buffers are widely regarded as necessary to protect wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. However, buffer size requirements typically have been established by political acceptability, rather than scientific merit. This often leads to insufficiently buffered aquatic resources and the false perception that the resources are being properly protected from potential impacts. Numerous scientific studies have shown that relatively wide buffers (150 to more than 300 feet) are necessary to protect wetlands. (JEA et al. 2000) A dilemma exists. Undersized buffers may place aquatic and wetland resources at risk, while buffers that are sufficiently large to provide full protection may unrealistically deny landowners use of their land. Therefore, it is important to determine the minimum buffer width necessary for protection of most of the resources, or the most sensitive of the resources. Three goals have been identified and used to determine buffer sizes: protection of wildlife habitat; minimization of sediment transport into wetlands; and minimization of groundwater drawdown in wetlands. The JEA report (2000) concludes that a minimum of 300 feet is necessary to reasonably protect a viably functioning wetland ecosystem. A 300-foot buffer would protect approximately 50% of the wetland-dependent wildlife species in freshwater wetlands, and protect water quality from sedimentation by course [sic] and fine sands. In some site-specific cases, such as with silt or clay soils, or from large draw-down structures, a greater buffer distance would be necessary to protect the wetland. Any reduction in the buffer width below 300 feet can impose adverse impacts to the wetland, particularly to the wetland- dependent wildlife species that require a wide surrounding upland area in which to feed, forage, and use as protection from human disturbance. Lesser alternatives would still provide some protection to wetlands; however, any reduction can result in adverse impacts to wildlife populations, as well as degradation of water quality from deposition of fine sediments. The County has chosen an alternative to one large buffer distance. This alternative is intended to provide flexibility while accommodating private property concerns. The Sierra Club Petitioners emphasize the JEA Report's conclusion that "a minimum of 300 feet is necessary to reasonably protect a viably functioning wetland ecosystem." They note that the language of 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 provides that "[a]bsent scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate," a 100-foot average, 75-foot minimum natural vegetative "default" buffer would apply in "areas where federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland." They conclude that providing only a 75-100 foot "default" buffer in an area documented to contain threatened or endangered species habitat within 300 feet would result in the destruction of that habitat between the 75- to 100-foot buffer zone and the 300-foot extent of the documented habitat. This is another instance in which the Sierra Club Petitioners' conclusion requires an assumption of bad faith on the part of the County regulatory authorities. Whether the default buffer is 300 feet or 75 feet, that default buffer applies only in the absence of "scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate." The Sierra Club Petitioners correctly note Michael Drummond's testimony that, under the 1991 Plan, the default buffers were often employed where the existence of wetland- dependent species was suspected, but not verified. Mr. Drummond also testified that application of a 100-foot buffer would not be adequate for listed species. However, Mr. Drummond's testimony does not demonstrate that the County would ignore scientific information demonstrating the presence of endangered species and apply the default buffers regardless of those species' habitat requirements. The undersigned does not agree that it is beyond fair debate that Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.013(2)(c)5. requires the County to apply the default buffers in habitats where there is a "high potential" for endangered species to occur, but where the species have not been documented. The cited Rule requires the COSE to contain policies that address implementation activities for the "[r]estriction of activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife." 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8 complies with the language of the rule by addressing known adverse affects. Alachua County was entitled to make a policy choice not to go farther and address potential adverse effects caused by inadequate buffers in areas that endangered species might inhabit.22/ There is no question that the Sierra Club's policy preference would result in greater protection of endangered species and their habitats, actual or potential. However, this fact alone does not compel the County to enact stricter provisions than the relevant statutes and rules require. The Sierra Club Petitioners' focus on the "300 foot minimum buffer" language in the Bird Memo led them to overlook the fact that the Data and Analysis support 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8, as well as the version in the 2002 Plan Update. The Bird Memo itself recognizes the County's choice of "an alternative to one large buffer distance . . . to provide flexibility while accommodating private property concerns." The Bird Memo expressly recognized that the scientifically preferable wide buffers "may unrealistically deny landowners use of their land." 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8 reasonably balances the interests noted in the Bird Memo by providing for a site- specific determination of the proper buffer width based on the scientific information at hand. Application of the default buffer is always contingent upon the absence of scientific information.23/ The Sierra Club Petitioners also challenge the 2003 Amendment's change of language in the table of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 from "listed plant or animal species" to "federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species." They argue that the evidence showed that limiting the buffer protection in COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 to only federally and/or state regulated species, rather than to all "listed species" as defined in the 2002 Plan as amended, would exclude approximately 14 species from the threatened and endangered species protection of the buffer provision. The 2002 Plan, as amended in 2003, defines "Listed Species" as follows: Those species of plants and animals listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or species of special concern by an official state or federal plant or wildlife agency, or the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI, includes species ranked as S1, S2, or S3), or the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA). These species are targeted for protection for a number of reasons, e.g. they are in imminent danger of extinction, are rapidly declining in number or habitat, or have an inherent vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, or human disturbance which puts them at risk of extinction. The Bird Memo explains the inclusion of the FNAI and, until the 2003 Amendments, the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals ("FCREPA") lists as follows: The use of FNAI and FCREPA sources does not make the list of protected species significantly broader than the list generated from using federal and state agency lists. Rather, it makes protection efforts more accurate and timely because they are based on scientific judgment responsive to changing natural conditions, rather than political listing decisions which can take years in the making. The use of these data sources to identify species for special protection is considered by many ecological professionals, including state and water management district personnel, as the best available data for the purpose of recognizing plants and animals in decline in the state and in Alachua County. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that there was no basis in either the 2002 Plan Update or the Data and Analysis for 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 to exclude the FNAI-listed species from the protection they receive at every other point in the Plan where endangered and threatened species protections apply or to exclude non-vertebrates from the buffering provisions of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2. In response, the County initially points out that the category of buffers for listed species was new to the 2002 Plan Update. The County notes that the 1991 Plan essentially deferred to federal and state agencies in the regulation of plants and wildlife and that in crafting the 2002 Plan Update, the County decided to broaden conservation areas to include the habitat of FNAI-listed species. The County incidentally observes that FNAI is a scientific organization with no regulatory function whatever. The County argues that there is no conflict between its decision to generally broaden conservation areas and its decision to create a new wetland buffer category for federal and state-regulated species. The undersigned agrees that it is at least fairly debatable that the County was not required to apply its "listed species" definition to the buffering provision of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2. The Sierra Club Petitioners simply failed to demonstrate the necessary connection between the definition and the buffer category that might establish an internal inconsistency. The mere fact that the 2002 Plan Update employed the term "listed plant or animal species" in the buffer table does not establish a presumption of correctness. The Bird Memo states that the FNAI and FCREPA lists provide "the best available data for the purpose of recognizing plants and animals in decline," and thus supports the County's decision to reference the FNAI list in its "listed species" definition, but does not require the County to include the list for purposes of defining a buffer category. In further defense of 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8, the County notes that the policy provides flexibility to respond to the needs of individual species by allowing for "buffer averaging," which permits the buffer area to be distributed in a varying width around the wetland, subject to the minimum widths contained in the table. In addition to the increased buffers, the County substantially improved its protection of wetlands by strengthened requirements in proposed COSE Policies 3.6.1324/ and 4.7.4 for avoidance and minimization of impacts. Avoidance and minimization is also facilitated by proposed Policy 3.6.5, which provides for transfers of densities or clustering. The County notes that the updated Plan contains multiple layers of wetlands protection. COSE Policy 4.7.1 provides that wetlands of all sizes are to be regulated, without exception. COSE Policy 4.7.4 limits the development impact area to the ratio of one-half acre of impact to each ten acres of conservation area. If wetland impacts cannot be avoided or minimized, then the strengthened mitigation requirements of COSE Policy 4.7.7 must be met, including a minimum ratio of 5:1 mitigation area to impacted area, a requirement that the mitigation areas be within the County and no mitigation credits for onsite preservation of wetlands, which are required to be protected in any event. Preservation of wetlands and/or other surface waters or uplands cannot be counted as "mitigation" if federal, state, water management district, or local regulations already require protection of the resource in question. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that the County appropriately responded to the Data and Analysis by its policies on surface waters and wetlands. D. Agricultural Uses The Jonesville Petitioners criticized 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2,25/ which provides: In primary and secondary conservation areas, the following uses, if otherwise consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, generally shall be permitted to the extent that they do not significantly alter the natural functions of the conservation area: Public and private conservation, recreation and open space uses. Public and private wildlife preserves, game management and refuge areas. Water conservation and retention/detention areas that are determined to be appropriate for stormwater management. Agricultural uses, employing latest applicable best management practices. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that the quoted policy creates an internal inconsistency in the Plan. The inconsistency is said to stem from a conflict between the County's desire to sustain the ecological integrity of natural resource areas that due to their ecological value, uniqueness and particular sensitivity to development activities, require stringent protective measures, and the fact that some of the uses to be permitted in conservation areas, particularly agricultural uses, can be incompatible with the preservation of ecological integrity as defined in the Plan. While there was some expert testimony as to the difficulty of reconciling agricultural and recreational uses with conservation, the weight of the evidence did not demonstrate such an inherent incompatibility as to establish an internal inconsistency in the Plan. The listed uses are to be permitted "to the extent that they do not significantly alter the natural functions of the conservation area," and there was no showing that this qualification is unenforceable by its terms. The County also pointed out that its authority to regulate agricultural activities by way of development controls is limited by statute. The "Florida Right to Farm Act," Section 823.14, Florida Statutes (2003), provides, in relevant part: (6) Limitation on duplication of government regulation.-- It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate duplication of regulatory authority over farm operations as expressed in this subsection. Except as otherwise provided for in this section and s. 487.051(2)[pesticide regulation], and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local government may not adopt any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to s. 193.461 [property tax assessments of agricultural lands], where such activity is regulated through implemented best-management practices or interim measures developed by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or water management districts and adopted under chapter 120 as part of a statewide or regional program. . . . (Emphasis added.) More recently, the Legislature passed the "Agricultural Lands and Practices Act," Section 163.3162, Florida Statutes (2003), effective July 1, 2003, subsection (4) of which provides: Duplication of regulation.-- Except as otherwise provided in this section and s. 487.051(2), and notwithstanding any other law, including any provision of chapter 125 or this chapter, a county may not exercise any of its powers to adopt any ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to s. 193.461, if such activity is regulated through implemented best management practices, interim measures, or regulations developed by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or a water management district and adopted under chapter 120 as part of a statewide or regional program; or if such activity is expressly regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (Emphasis added.) The Jonesville Petitioners also raised the specter of sham agricultural uses being used as a cover for the conversion of environmentally sensitive properties to residential development. Richard Drummond candidly acknowledged that such conversions could occur if the County were insufficiently diligent as to events on the ground, but also testified that the County did what it could, within the statutory constraints set forth above, to ensure that the updated Plan would circumvent such covert efforts. Both statutes quoted above restrict a local government's ability to restrict a "bona fide farm operation," but neither statute defines the term "bona fide farm operation." In the 2002 COSE definitions, Alachua County provided a definition of "bona fide agricultural purposes" to mean: Good faith commercial agricultural use of the land, provided the land is classified for assessment purposes by the property appraiser as "agricultural" pursuant to Chapter 193, Florida Statutes. In determining whether the use of the land for agricultural purposes is bona fide, the following factors may be taken into consideration: The length of time the land has been so utilized; Whether the use has been continuous; The purchase price paid; Size, as it relates to specific agricultural use; Whether an indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently and adequately for the land in accordance with accepted commercial agricultural practices, including, without limitation, fertilizing, liming, tilling, mowing, reforesting, and other accepted agricultural practices; Whether such land us under lease and, if so, the effective length, terms, and conditions of the lease; and Such other factors as may from time to time become applicable. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 creates an internal inconsistency with 2002 FLUE Policies 6.2.10, 6.2.12, 6.2.13, and 6.2.15. The permitted uses delineated in 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 do not list residential activity as a permitted use in conservation areas. The cited 2002 FLUE Policies all contemplate some residential development in "strategic ecosystems," which are included in the definition of conservation areas. The Jonesville Petitioners also note that, within 2002 FLUE Policy 6.2.12, silviculture, common water supply systems, and common septic system drainfields are listed as potential uses in conservation areas that are designated as "open space" in clustered rural residential subdivisions, yet none of these uses is listed as permitted in 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2. They assert that the definition, treatment, and application of the terms "agriculture" and "silviculture" within the 2003 COSE plan amendments create inconsistency and lack of predictability in the application and treatment of the related policies. As to the last point, the County credibly responds that the COSE definition of "agriculture" includes silviculture and that silviculture is considered in the Plan as a subset of agriculture, except in those instances in which some external factor requires a distinction. For example, Objective 5.5, "Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices," and its implementing policies recognize that agriculture and silviculture have distinct best management practices. It is not unreasonable for the County to interpret 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 as permitting silvicultural uses in conservation areas within the constraints applied to agricultural uses, where the COSE definition of "agriculture" includes silviculture. As to residential development and its concomitant common water supply and septic systems, it is evident from the FLUE Policies cited by the Jonesville Petitioners, as well as 2003 FLUE Policies 1.3.1e and 6.2.11 and 2002 COSE Policies 3.6.5, 4.10.3.3, and 4.10.4 to 4.10.6, that the Plan will allow for residential development of the least environmentally sensitive portion of a strategic ecosystems property by means of clustering, gross residential density limits, transfers of density, and other design techniques intended to protect ecosystems and private property rights. There is no inconsistency with 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 because that policy does not purport to contain the exclusive list of uses allowed in conservation areas, as indicated by its own text and that of the very next policy, 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.3: Primary and secondary cConservation areas shall be developed only in a manner consistent with protection of the ecological integrity of natural resources, and in accordance with standards which are outlined subsequently in this Element. The COSE Definitions provide the following meaning for the term "development activity": Any dredging, filling, excavation, construction of new structures, expansion of existing structures, installation of utilities, roads, personal wireless service facilities, stormwater management systems, septic tanks, bulkheading, land clearing, tree cutting, mechanized vegetation removal and the disposal of solid or liquid waste. Clearly, 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 lists certain uses that "generally shall be permitted," but when read in context with other Plan provisions, does not necessarily forbid residential development on certain properties defined as conservation areas. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that the County appropriately responded to the Data and Analysis by its policies affecting agricultural uses and their impact on conservation. The alleged internal consistencies in these policies were not demonstrated beyond fair debate. Level of Service 2003 Transportation Policy 1.1.2 and Capital Improvements Policy 1.2.4 raise the level of service ("LOS") for rural collector roads from LOS D in the 1991 Plan to LOS C, which is the standard recommended by the Florida Department of Transportation for rural collector roads. The McSherry Petitioners challenged this amendment because the 2002 Plan Update had upgraded the rural collector roads to LOS B. However, the proper point of comparison is from the 1991 Plan to the 2003 Amendments. Further, the evidence produced at hearing did not demonstrate that a higher LOS than C is required for protection of the state or county transportation network. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments regarding the LOS for rural collector roads were adequately supported by data and analysis. Conclusion It is found that, as to the 2003 Amendments in their entirety, the County used the best available data and reacted to it appropriately for planning purposes by applying professionally acceptable analysis in review and application of that data.
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 the 2003 Alachua County Amendments to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of October, 2004.
