Findings Of Fact The Department as the State Land Planning Agency is charged with the responsibility of reviewing the Comprehensive Plans submitted by local governments. Following such review conducted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Department is to determine whether the plan submitted is "in compliance" or "not in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules employed in the review process. McIntosh is a local government which adopted its Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The McIntosh Comprehensive Plan was adopted was received by the Department on July 24, 1992. On September 4, 1992, the Department published Notice of Intent to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules. McIntosh is a town of approximately 450 acres in size, which had a residential population in 1990 of 411 and was projected to increase population by the year 2000 to 418 people. Single family residential and agricultural land uses are the predominant land uses in the community. Petitioner Harris owns property within the incorporated limits of McIntosh. He owns and operates Sportsman Cove, a business located on Orange Lake. Portions of Orange Lake are found within the corporate limits of McIntosh where Harris conducts his business. Harris owns blocks 35 and 36 and portions of blocks 37, 53 and 54 within the corporate limits. His business involves 49 licensed mobile home sites and a number of "RV" sites located on approximately 4.648 acres along the shore of Orange Lake. He also operates a fish camp there. When the Comprehensive Plan was being prepared Harris submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations pertaining to the plan. He is a person affected by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Colwell owns property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh. She owns and operates the McIntosh Fish Camp which has 8 mobile home sites and 5 "RV" sites along the shore line of Orange Lake within the town limits. Colwell submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the process of review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Colwell is a person affected by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The fish camp operations and "RV" sites of Harris and Colwell are classified in the Comprehensive Plan as lakefront commercial. The Stott's own property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh. That ownership includes blocks 1, 2, 13, 14 and 15 constituted of 13.6 acres, a portion of which is located on the shore of Orange Lake. In 1986 part of their property was used as a restaurant for about a year. The Stott's engaged in a bait business for approximately a year beyond that point. In the past prior to the plan adoption, there had been a fish camp located at blocks 1 and 15 with cabins and camper sites. These blocks are located adjacent to Orange Lake and are classified lake front residential in the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of hearing the property was not being operated as a fish camp. In the past lots 2, 13 and 14 had been used by the Stott's for unspecified light industry. The Stotts submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the plan review and adoption process. The Stotts are persons affected by the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The notice that was provided on September 4, 1992 concerning the intent to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance" made mention that the adopted plan would be available for public inspection Monday through Friday, with the exception of legal holidays. The location contemplated for inspection was the McIntosh Town Hall, Clerk's Office, at 5975 Avenue G, McIntosh, Florida. A problem arose concerning the opportunity to inspect the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The problem was occasioned by an illness to the Town Clerk. This influenced petitioners' ability to review the adopted plan and to timely submit their challenges to the decision to find the Plan in compliance. Under the circumstances a slight delay in conforming to the 21 day requirement for filing the petitions in challenge to the Comprehensive Plan is acceptable. With some inconvenience to Petitioners, persons other than the Town Clerk offered assistance in making the adopted plan available for inspection. Nonetheless, petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunity to apprise themselves concerning the contents of the adopted plan when considered in the context of their participation in the overall process for adopting the McIntosh Comprehensive Plan. The complications experienced in reviewing the adopted Comprehensive Plan did not compromise the ability of these petitioners to advance their claims in a setting in which other procedural requirements for plan adoption, review and approval have been met. The inconvenience experienced by the petitioners in reviewing the adopted plan do not evidence a quality of prejudice that should form the basis for deciding that the plan is not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. When the Town Council adopted the plan and established Policy 2.1.4.5 it intended to use the word "abandonment" where the written text found within the adopted plan at Page 2-23 uses the word "suspension." This mistake is evidenced by the minutes of the meeting for adoption where a motion was made to change the word "suspension" to "abandonment." In the course of the hearing the attorney for McIntosh stipulated that this was an error and that the written text would be changed to reflect the proper wording. With that change Policy 2.1.4.5 would read: Provisions in the Land Development Regulations shall discourage the continuance of existing inconsistent land uses within designated land uses. These provisions shall limit the expansion of inconsistent land usage and, upon a 90 days abandonment of the incompatible land use, require reversion to designated land uses. Petitioner Harris is not satisfied that the Figure 2-6, Page 2-11, which is a map of the wetlands within the incorporated town limits, in the Comprehensive Plan, is accurate. He claims that a lobe, which is an RV site on his property known as site 9C is not within the wetlands as shown on that map. He also takes issue with the designation in Figure 2-9, page 2-17, of the future land map which shows this lobe of property as conservation/open space. He perceives this property at site 9C to be uplands. By virtue of his own activities in May 1991 in which he arranged to have a survey performed on his property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh, Harris asserts that site 9C was not found to be wetlands then and is not wetlands now. When McIntosh designated the wetlands in the community through the use of the wetlands map and identified conservation/open space in the future land use map it was acting in accordance with legal requirements incumbent upon it in adopting the Comprehensive Plan. The specific designations of wetlands and conservation/open space areas are based upon appropriate data and analysis. The data was taken from a professionally accepted existing source and was the best available data. The work that was done in preparing the wetland mapping requirements was done by the same consulting firm which Harris had employed in May 1991, that is to say Environmental Service and Permitting, Inc. In preparing the wetlands survey for McIntosh the private consulting firm used ground-truthing, as well as a review of wetland mapping data sources to delineate the wetlands. The data consulted included the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Marion County, U.S.G.S. Quadrangle maps for the Town of McIntosh, as well as a review of the McIntosh Land Planning Agency Drainage Map. Although Harris takes issue with the clarity of some of the maps depicting the lobe of property for his site 9C, the adopted plan is acceptable as it describes wetlands and conservation/open space to include his site 9C. Objective 7.1.1 at Page 7.4 establishes wetland setbacks within the town where it states: The Town of McIntosh shall protect the natural drainage features within and adjacent to the Town limits, by the establishment of the wetland setbacks, and compliance with State Water Quality standards, to be a part of the Land Development Regulation. In furtherance of this Objective, Policy 7.1.1.1 is set out at page 7- 4 where it states: Setbacks shall be established from the limit of wetlands landward to buildings, septic tanks and land coverage. The following setbacks shall be a part of the Land Development Regulations. Buildings shall be set back at a minimum of 75 feet. Septic tanks and drain fields shall be set back at a minimum of 200 feet. Impervious areas shall be set back at a minimum of 50 feet. Drainage Retention Areas shall be set back 25 feet. These set backs were arrived at by the Town Council having heard from the petitioners. In the face of remarks by the petitioners made in the adoption process the council reduced the set backs. While no specific data and analysis was offered to support the set backs, they are within limits which would be recommended by the Department to protect the wetlands resources. According to the Department, from a planning viewpoint, the mere existence of wetlands is sufficient to promote protections through the use of set backs. The set backs found within this Comprehensive Plan are appropriate. Moreover, the set backs associated with the protections of wetlands have the additional benefit of protecting Orange Lake, a Class III Outstanding Florida Water Body, entitled to special water quality protection. Protection of that water body is the responsibility of McIntosh in its comprehensive planning, together with other local governments and environmental regulators. Future land use classifications in the Comprehensive Plan are set out at Page 2-14. Property which abuts Lake Orange is classified as lake front residential and lake front commercial. Lake front residential is defined as: [T]his category allows a maximum of 2 units per acre. Dwelling units includes: single family houses and mobile homes. Maximum coverage of 35% and maximum building height of 35 feet. Lake front commercial is defined as: this category allows fish camps, marinas, and recreational vehicle parks. Maximum coverage of 50% and a maximum building height of 35 feet." These classifications and densities protect natural resources to include the wetlands and Orange Lake and are appropriate. Petitioners Harris and Colwell may take advantage of the lake front commercial for their fish camp operations and "RV" sites. Stott is not entitled to take advantage of the lake front commercial classification in that her property did not include a fish camp and recreational vehicle operations at the time the plan was adopted. Petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the adopted Comprehensive Plan is not "in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules concerning the issues raised in the challenges to the determination to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance."
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which finds the Town of McIntosh Comprehensive Plan to be "in compliance" and dismisses the petitions. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1993, 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 30th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Harris' Facts: This paragraph is not relevant in that it was not alleged in the petition. This paragraph in its various parts concerning available low and moderate income housing and the densities is rejected in its suggestion that the Comprehensive Plan is not acceptable. This paragraph is rejected in its suggestion that the seasonal population for dwelling units affiliated with fish camp operations should cause a reconsideration of the classifications and densities for land use. This paragraph is ejected in its legal conclusion. 5-8 These paragraphs are not relevant in that these issues were not set out in the petition. 9, 10 To the extent that paragraphs 9 and 10 describe concerns about the treatment in the Comprehensive Plan of wetlands and comment critically on wetlands protections, the proposed findings of facts are rejected. Colwell's Facts: The unnumbered facts proposed are subordinate to facts found, with the exception that the changes in Orange Lake described even if true do not persuade that the wetlands protection of Orange Lake contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan is inappropriate. Stott's Facts: 1-2 Paragraphs 1 and 2 are subordinate to facts found. 3-5 Constitute legal argument. 6 It is acknowledged that the Orange Lake is used for fishing. 7-11 To the extent that paragraphs 7 through 11 suggest inappropriate identification and protection of the wetlands through the adopted Comprehensive Plan, the proposed facts are rejected. McIntosh's Facts: A-E, A-C, A-E Are subordinate to facts found with exception that the word "increase" in fact should be "decrease" when describing residential density. Department's Facts: 1, 2 Subordinate to facts found. Subordinate to facts found with exception that the reference to the property being within "unincorporated" limits should read "incorporated" limits. - 6 Subordinate to facts found. Subordinate to facts found with exception to the suggestion that the petitioners had to contact city council members to obtain a copy of the adopted plan in the absence of the clerk. - 20 Subordinate to facts found. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. - 26 Subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Jerry Harris P. O. Box 107 McIntosh, FL 32664 Anna Colwell P. O. Box 135 McIntosh, FL 32664 Thomas C. Stott Marie Stott P. O. Box 551 McIntosh, FL 32664 David Wilcox, Esquire 425 Pleasant Grove Road Inverness, FL 32652 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
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 The issues in this case are: (1) whether City of Miami Ordinance 12911, which amends the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), is a small-scale development amendment, as defined by Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) whether Ordinance 12911 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (Statutes refer to the 2007 codification.)
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following facts are determined: The Property Subject to the FLUM Amendment TRG-MH Venture, LTD. (TRG-MH), is a Florida limited partnership formed for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of property in the southeast corner of a larger, 40- acre parcel owned by Mercy Hospital, Inc. (Mercy). TRG-MH and Mercy have executed a purchase and sale agreement for this corner parcel, which is located at approximately 3663 South Bayshore Drive in the Coconut Grove area of Miami, Florida (the Site). TRG-MH hired an architectural firm, Arquitectonica, to design on the Site a proposed residential development named 300 Grove Bay Residences (the Project). The Site, which currently serves as a paved parking lot for Mercy Hospital employees, measures 6.72 acres. The Site is abutted on the north, northwest, and northeast by the rest of the 40-acre parcel owned by Mercy and used for its hospital, professional offices, and patient and visitor parking. The tallest of these buildings is 146 feet. To the north of Mercy's property and medical complex is another 30-plus acre parcel owned by the Catholic Diocese of Miami and used for La Salle High School and a religious facility, Ermita de la Caridad. Abutting the northern boundary of the La Salle High School property is Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. To the west of the Site are a small convent, an administration building, and a modest-sized assisted living facility. To the west of these buildings is South Bayshore Drive, which is a four-lane road. Single-family residential neighborhoods are west of South Bayshore Drive. The Site is abutted on the southwest, south, southeast and east by Biscayne Bay. Grove Isle, a three-building, 18- story condominium/hotel/marina complex, is located on a small, man-made island (Fair Isle) in the Bay to the south of the Site. It is located approximately 1,300 feet from the Site and is separated from the Site by Bay water. Grove Isle has a future land use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential (M/D Residential) and is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-3). However, Grove Isle is a legal nonconformity because it exceeds the densities allowed in M/D Residential and R-3. To the southwest of the Site, but separated from the Site by Bay water, are single-family and medium-density dwellings, including several multifamily structures. Petitioners Bloch and Steen reside in this neighborhood. No property zoned single-family residential (R-1) abuts the Site. Currently a paved parking lot, the Site has no archeological, environmental, or historical significance. Miami-Dade County had designated all of the City as an "Urban Infill Area." This designation is made in the County's Comprehensive Plan and is implemented in Policy LU-1.1.11 of the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The Parties The Vizcayans, Inc. (The Vizcayans), is a not-for- profit Florida corporation of volunteer members and a paid staff consisting of: an executive director, a membership director, and a controller. The purpose of the organization is to support the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens (Vizcaya), a publicly-owned and operated museum, through contributions and fundraising events. The Vizcayans' office at 3251 South Miami Avenue is located on the grounds of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM Amendment and appeared in person and through lawyers at the City Commission hearings. The Respondent and Intervenors stipulated that The Vizcayans have standing as affected persons under Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to challenge the small-scale development amendment in this proceeding based on allegations that The Vizcayans operate a business in the City. Miami-Dade County owns Vizcaya. By contract, The Vizcayans provides funds annually to Miami-Dade County for use in maintaining Vizcaya's properties and conducting educational programs. Any funds in excess of those owed to the County under the contract are used to pay staff and host fundraisers or are invested for future use. Vizcaya is governed by the County through the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, which is an agency of Miami-Dade County. Jason Bloch and Constance Steen reside in the City and own properties to the southwest of the Site. Glencoe is a not- for-profit corporation of homeowners in the Glencoe neighborhood to the southwest of the Site. Mr. Bloch formed the corporation during the pendency of the application proceedings for the primary purpose of opposing the proposed development of the Site. Bloch, Steen, and Glencoe submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. Grove Isle is a not-for-profit Florida corporation of condominium owners. Grove Isle submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City and Intervenors stipulated to Grove Isle's standing in these proceedings. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City adopted its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, including its FLUM, in 1989. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM have been amended from time to time as allowed by law. TRG-MH is a joint venture limited partnership. Its direct and indirect participants include Ocean Land Equities, Ltd., and The Related Group. TRG-MH contracted to purchase the Site from Mercy and applied to the City for the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. TRG-MH also submitted applications for a change of zoning and MUSP on the Site. The zoning and MUSP applications, and the resulting City ordinance and resolution arising from their approval, are not at issue in this proceeding. Mercy is a not-for-profit Florida corporation that owns and operates Mercy Hospital. Mercy has contracted to sell the Site to TRG-MH. The FLUM Amendment In June 2007, TRG-MH applied to the City for a small- scale development amendment to change the Site's land use designation on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities (M/I) to High Density Multifamily Residential (H/D). TRG-MH submitted its application concurrently with its applications for a zoning change from G/I to R-4 and for a MUSP. According to the FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH was seeking a map amendment for a 6.723-acre parcel of real property. With its FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH submitted a survey prepared and certified by surveyors Fortin, Leavy & Skiles. The survey depicted: the Site, as a parcel with a "net lot area" of 6.723 acres; a Proposed Road, measuring 1.39 acres, that wrapped around the Site on its west and north sides (the Perimeter Road); and a Private Road, also known as Tract "C" or Halissee Street, measuring .95 acres, which accesses the Site and Perimeter Road from South Bayshore Drive. Accompanying the survey was a legal description for the Site, which included a description for the proposed new Perimeter Road abutting the Site. The legal description covered an area comprising 8.11 acres. Also accompanying the application was a traffic analysis showing the impact to existing road networks of traffic resulting from the proposed MUSP application, which sought to build 300 residential units on property currently having no existing residential units. TRG-MH's applications were reviewed by the City's Planning Department and its Planning Advisory Board (PAB). The City's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use designation change. The PAB's 3-3 tie vote operated as to deny the request for a change of the land use designation recommendation. On April 26, 2007, the City Commission voted to approve the FLUM amendment application and, with modifications, the accompanying zoning and MUSP applications. (The City Commission approved the zoning change and MUSP subject to the condition that the size and scale of the Project be reduced by 25 percent across the board. Thus, for example, the height of the tallest of the three condominium buildings was reduced from approximately 411 feet to 310 feet.) The FLUM change was adopted by Ordinance 12911, which the Mayor signed on May 7, 2007. Ordinance 12911 amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation "for the property located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated." Exhibit A to the ordinance was the legal description included on the Fortin, Leavy, Skiles survey. The section of the MCNP entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various future land use categories in the Plan. It describes the Major Institutional future land use category as follows: Major Institutional Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) at 21 (June 2006). The same section describes the H/D Residential, in pertinent part, as follows: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" allow residential structures to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. MCNP at 20 (June 2006). (By way of comparison, M/D Residential is described similarly except that the maximum density is 65 dwelling units per acre.) According to the MCNP, the FLUM land use designations "are arranged following the 'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion, whereby subsequent categories are inclusive of those listed previously, except as otherwise noted." Ordinance 12911 was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required for text changes and large- scale FLUM changes to a comprehensive plan. On June 4 and 6, 2007, Petitioners filed their petitions challenging the FLUM Amendment. Generally, the Petitioners alleged that the FLUM Amendment did not qualify for treatment as a "small-scale" development amendment; was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; was not supported by adequate data and analysis; and was not "in compliance" with Florida's Growth Management Act and its implementing regulations. Scale of the FLUM Amendment A small-scale development amendment may be adopted if the "proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." § 163.3187(1)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. According to the survey and architectural plans on file with the City, the "net lot area" of the Site measures 6.72 acres. The City Zoning Code defines "net lot area" as "[t]he total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights-of- way or other required dedications." § 2502, City Zoning Code. In determining how large (in square feet of floor area) the planned Project could be, the architects were permitted, under the City's zoning regulations, to multiply the "floor area ratio" (FAR) for the High Density Multifamily Residential zoning classification by an area larger than the "net lot area." See § 401, City Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows the maximum square footage to be calculated using the Site's "gross lot area." Id. The City Zoning Code defines "gross lot area," in pertinent part, as "[t]he net area of the lot, as defined herein, plus half of adjoining street rights-of-way and seventy (70) feet of any other public open space such as parks, lakes, rivers, bays, public transit right-of-way and the like." § 2502, City Zoning Code. If the "gross lot area" to be used to calculate the maximum square footage involves properties under different ownership, either the owners must apply jointly for a MUSP, or they must enter a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title. Properties joined by a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title need not have the same land use designation or zoning classification. If a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title is required, it need not be submitted to the City until building permits are sought. At present, no covenant-in-lieu of unity of title has been prepared or executed for the Site. The "gross lot area" used to calculate the Project's maximum square footage of floor area measured 11.44 acres. Thus, the Petitioners argued that the FLUM Amendment "involved a use" of more than 10 acres. But the application requested a land use designation change on only 6.72 acres of land. Because High-Density Multifamily Residential use will not be made of the proposed Perimeter Road, the access road known as Halissee Street, or the proposed Bay Walk, a land use designation change was not required for that acreage. Indeed, according to the amended FLUM, there is no land use designation applied to Halissee or to the northern part of the Perimeter Road. Moreover, use of Halissee Street, the Perimeter Road, and the Bay Walk is not exclusive to the 6.72 acres but will remain shared with Mercy Hospital, its patients and employees, as well as with the public. The Petitioners attempted to prove that a marina was planned to serve the development, which would involve a total use of more than ten acres for residential purposes. Even if a marina was initially contemplated, the application on file with the City does not include one, and there are no approved plans for a marina to be incorporated into the proposed residential development. No marina is required to be developed in connection with the 300 Grove Bay project. Moreover, there was unrebutted evidence that it is highly unlikely that a marina would ever be permitted under the statutes now regulating Biscayne Bay. There is no evidentiary support for including any part of Biscayne Bay in the acreage subject to the small-scale FLUM Amendment because of a possible marina so as to support the Petitioners' claim that Ordinance 12911 should not have been processed as a small-scale amendment. Suitability and Compatibility of FLUM Amendment The Site is a parking lot. It is not environmentally sensitive and has no significant natural or archeological resources that would make it unsuitable for High Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Major Institutional accommodates the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the Mercy Hospital complex, which are compatible with and actually part of Coconut Grove. However, as pointed out by the City and the Intervenors, Major Institutional also allows future land uses that could be less compatible with the surrounding land uses, including the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the residential neighborhoods of Coconut Grove. While a lower density residential future land use would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding uses, the issue in this case is the density allowed by H/D Residential--up to 150 residential units per acre, which Petitioners contend is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and inconsistent with previous efforts to protect Vizcaya and Coconut Grove from the intrusion of high- density residential development. The Petitioners also contend that the FLUM Amendment is not suitable on the bayfront. Suitability on the Bayfront The Petitioners contend that H/D Residential is not suitable on the bayfront for reasons related mostly to aesthetics and views. While it certainly would be possible and reasonable for a community to decide not to allow dense and intense development on significant water bodies, it was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the City has done so, or that H/D Residential is unsuitable on the Site for that reason. 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report The City's 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("2005 EAR") focused on two citywide issues relevant here: (1) the preservation and enhancement of historic and similar resources; and (2) neighborhood integrity and the need to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development. Vizcaya Museum Gardens Industrialist James Deering built Vizcaya in 1916 as a winter home. The land Deering purchased in the early 1900s was developed into a 180-acre estate that included his Mediterranean-style home, Italianate gardens, farms, orchards, and lagoons. The mansion and gardens were designed by three well-known architects and designers and constructed using local materials. When Deering died nine years later in 1925, Vizcaya was left to his heirs, who eventually sold the south gardens and western agricultural fields to the Catholic Diocese. The southern acreage (which included the Site) was later developed into a church (Ermita de la Caridad), a school (La Salle), and medical and hospital facilities (Mercy). The Diocese sold the western acreage, which was eventually developed into single- family-home subdivisions. In the 1950s, the Deering heirs sold the remaining property, consisting of the mansion, gardens, and farm buildings, to Dade County. In 1952, Dade County opened Vizcaya to the public. Since then, the County has operated Vizcaya as a museum, which has welcomed thousands of visitors annually and is a popular site for tourists, social functions, and photo shoots. The Vizcaya mansion and gardens have historical, architectural, and botanical significance. The mansion is an "architectural masterpiece" and an "outstanding example of Italian Renaissance Revival architecture." Vizcaya has been on the National Register of Historical Places since 1977; it was designated as a City Heritage Conservation District in 1984; and, in 1994, it was designated a National Historical Landmark-- one of only three in Miami-Dade County. The southernmost part of Vizcaya's gardens is approximately 1,600 feet from the FLUM Amendment Site, and the mansion is approximately 2,300 feet from the Site. For the specific purpose of objecting to the 300 Grove Bay project, The Vizcayans commissioned the Vizcaya Viewshed Impact Assessment, which is referred to as the "balloon" study, and the Vizcaya View Corridor Study. According to the balloon study, the 300 Grove Bay condominiums would be visible from the balcony on the south side of the mansion. Although the balloon study was based on the original Project building heights and not re-done using the reduced heights in the zoning and MUSP approvals, the Petitioners' witnesses said that the Project would still be visible through the existing landscape, even at the reduced height. The Petitioners' witnesses opined that the development of 300 Grove Bay would "overpower and overshadow" the gardens on the south side of the mansion. No federal, state, or local statutes, rules or ordinances, including those relevant to this proceeding, protect the view corridors of Vizcaya's gardens. Coconut Grove The area known as Coconut Grove was settled in the late 1800s and was considered "off the beaten path" from the City which was incorporated in 1896. Coconut Grove was incorporated as a separate municipality in 1919, but in 1925 it was annexed to the City, as were five other municipalities. Petitioners' witnesses observed that Coconut Grove is the only one of these towns that has continued to retain a unique and recognizable character. Vizcaya and Mercy Hospital, including the parking lot site, are located in the northern area of Coconut Grove. Coconut Grove is primarily, but not entirely, a residential community. Coconut Grove has an active "downtown" business, commercial, and hotel district. The Petitioners maintained that the northern area of Coconut Grove is primarily single-family residential. However, it also includes a non- conforming high-density development (Grove Isle), medium-density residential, Mercy Hospital and its professional buildings, an assisted living facility, a school, a church, and governmental office buildings, as well as two museums (Vizcaya and the Museum of Science). A Coconut Grove Planning Study was commissioned and printed in 1974, but the City never adopted it; therefore, it has no official status. The Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District In 2005, the City adopted by ordinance the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3). See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. According to the Code, a Neighborhood Conservation District is an "umbrella land use designation overlay," which allows for the tailoring of a master plan or of design guidelines for any area that meets certain criteria. See § 800, City Zoning Code. The intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District is to "[p]reserve the historic, heavily landscaped character of Coconut Grove's residential areas and enhance and protect Coconut Grove's natural features such as tree canopy and green space." § 803.1, City Zoning Code. NCD-3 does not specify the High-Density, Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning classification. But that does not mean that NCD-3 does not allow R-4. NCD-3 is enabling legislation that imposes greater restrictions within a geographic "overlay" for the zoning classifications addressed in Section 803.3. So far, NCD-3 has not addressed G/I and R-4 but only Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial Districts. See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. For that reason, the ordinance does not apply to the Site. The "Grovenor Ordinance" The so-called Grovenor Ordinance was the City's response in July 2004 to the construction of a high-density residential project on property in Coconut Grove zoned "G/I Government and Institutional." The Grovenor Ordinance amended subsection of Section 401 of the City's Zoning Code to provide in pertinent part: G/I Government and Institutional Intent and Scale: The government/institutional category allows the development of facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious, or educational activities, major transportation facilities, public utilities, and public and private cemeteries. Uses ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, subject to the same limiting conditions. Intensity: For residential uses: As for the least intense abutting zoning district. . . . * * * Permitted Principal Uses: Governmental and institutional uses as described in the City of Miami Comprehensive Development Plan designation of "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities", however for accessory non-governmental or institutional uses-only such uses as may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abutting zoning district . . . . § 401, City Zoning Code. The Grovenor Ordinance applies to property that is zoned G/I. The City's and Intervenors' witnesses testified that it applies only if G/I-zoned property ceases to be used for governmental or institutional purposes and is used instead for residential purposes. However, from the language of the ordinance itself, it is beyond fair debate that it also applies to G/I-zoned property that is used both for government or institutional uses and for ancillary residential uses. Clearly, without a FLUM change to a higher-density residential zoning category, in Coconut Grove the residential use on the Site would be restricted to the zoning classification of the "least intense abutting zoning district." Since it pertains to zoning, the Grovenor Ordinance does not directly apply to the issue of whether a FLUM amendment is "in compliance." However, it has some bearing on the proper interpretation and application of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP's future land use designations, which is important to the issues for determination in this case. The Pyramid Concept The City and the Intervenors rely heavily on their interpretation of the MCNP's pyramid concept of cumulative future land use designations to support the FLUM Amendment in this case. According to them, the FLUM Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses because high-density multi-family residential use already is a permitted use as a matter of right for land designated "Major Institutional." Similarly, they maintain that, under the "pyramid" concept, high-density multi- family residential use is permitted as a matter of right in all of the commercially designated land in Coconut Grove. But it is beyond fair debate that their interpretation of the "pyramid concept" is incorrect. As indicated, the "'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion" applies "except as otherwise noted." In the Major Institutional future land use category, it is noted that residential facilities with densities equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" (i.e., up to 150 units per acre) are permitted only if "ancillary" to the listed major institutional uses. Similarly, in the General Commercial future land use category, it is noted that high-density residential uses "are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents." If the "pyramid concept" authorized high- density multi-family residential use as a matter of right on land designated either Major Institutional or General Commercial, there would be no reason to limit those uses by notation. Under the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, free-standing high-density multi-family residential use of up to 150 units per acre is not already permitted as of right in either the Major Institutional or the General Commercial land use categories. Compatibility Notwithstanding the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that High Density Multi Family Residential future land use on the Site is incompatible with the surrounding uses or is inappropriate. The lower density residential and other less intense future land uses in the MCNP are buffered from the Site by Biscayne Bay and by Medium Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Vizcaya is buffered from the Site by Mercy Hospital and related medical facilities and by La Salle High School. The compatibility of a specific density of residential development on the Site with less dense residential use in Coconut Grove and with Vizcaya, including issues regarding building height and intrusion into Vizcaya's view corridors, can be addressed through zoning and MUSP proceedings. Data and Analysis Data and analysis is another matter. Because of their incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the City and the Intervenors took the position that the FLUM Amendment constitutes "down-planning" and that the City was not required to perform the same level of analysis as it would have if the amendment sought a designation that permitted uses of greater impact, density, and/or intensity. The experts disagreed on whether "down-planning" is a concept in land use planning that can eliminate or minimize the requirement for data and analysis. In any event, the FLUM Amendment in this case could not be characterized as "down- planning." See Findings 57-59, supra. The MCNP's pyramid concept does not dispense with the need for data and analysis, and the data and analysis in this case was minimal and inadequate. The primary data and analysis in this case was the "Analysis for Land Use Change Request" (Analysis) that resulted from the City staff's review. After identifying the proposed land use designation and the uses permitted on it the Analysis recommended "Approval" of the FLUM Amendment and made four findings in support of "the position that the existing land use pattern in this neighborhood should be changed. These findings are as follows: It is found that the subject property is part of the Mercy Hospital and do [sic] not front South Miami Avenue. It is found that the "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation & Utilities" category allows 150 residential units per acre and the requested "High Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow a maximum density of 150 residential units per acre. It is found that the requested change to "High-Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the property at the above described location and therefore should be changed as part of the MUSP. It is found that MCNP Goal LU-1 maintains a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods, and (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts. Id. (Emphasis in original.) As to the City’s third finding, a particular developer's flexibility is irrelevant to the determination of whether the land use change is consistent with the MCNP. To the extent that flexibility in general could be relevant to the inquiry, the finding was incorrect. While allowing a free- standing high-density residential project that would not otherwise be possible, the FLUM Amendment eliminates all of the non-residential uses permitted within the "Major Institutional" category. The second finding was based on the City's incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP, which led the City to wrongly equate a primary use with an ancillary use and to simply assume no population increase would result from the FLUM Amendment, and that the FLUM Amendment would result in "down-planning." Attached to the City's Analysis was a separate "Concurrency Management Analysis," which addressed in summary form the data and analysis generated by the applicant and by the City's staff to address the "impact of [the] proposed amendment to land use map within a transportation corridor." The "Concurrency Management Analysis" also was predicated on the assumption that the FLUM change to HD Residential would not increase population. Essentially, it assumed without any data or analysis that infrastructure was available for 1,008 people living on the Site, even though the Site is being used as a parking lot at this time. This data and analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. As to transportation, there was additional evidence of a traffic analysis performed by the City in support of the Project’s MUSP. This MUSP traffic analysis utilized a proper starting point of zero population on the Site at this time. It then projected the impact of the addition of 300 units. This was more than the 225 units ultimately approved in the MUSP but did not analyze the much larger potential increases in traffic that would be allowed under the FLUM Amendment, which is not limited to 300 units. There also was no data or analysis to show that limiting the analysis to 300 units was reasonable. It also only looked two years into the future. The MUSP traffic analysis also did not address the 2005 EAR finding that Bayshore Drive will be at level of service F by year 2025, without even any development on the Site. In short, the MUSP traffic analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. The City and Intervenor took the position that the designation of the entire City as an urban infill area meant that every parcel is appropriate for high-density multi-family residential development. This is not correct. It is still necessary to look at comprehensive plan to determine which areas are appropriate for that kind of future land use and to have data and analysis to support it. See Payne et al. v. City of Miami et al., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, *10-13 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007) (on motion for rehearing). For these reasons, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment were inadequate. Inconsistency with City's Comprehensive Plan The Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with any MCNP goals, objectives, or policies. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners did not prove that the FLUM Amendment at issue is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order that the FLUM Amendment adopted by City of Miami Ordinance 12911 is not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jason Gonzalez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney City of Miami Miami Riverside Center, Suite 945 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Patrick J. Goggins, Esquire Patrick J. Goggins, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2811 John Charles Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A. 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6616 H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Stephen J. Darmody, Esquire Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Miami Center - Suite 2400 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4339 Lewis W. Fishman, Esquire Lewis W. Fishman, P.A. Two Datran Center, Suite 1121 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7848 John K. Shubin, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 Southwest First Street, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1610
The Issue Ultimately at issue in this case is whether certain comprehensive plan amendments, adopted by Lee County Ordinance No. 94-30, are "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, many of the subordinate issues raised by parties seeking to have the plan amendments found to be "not in compliance" have been withdrawn, and others have been stricken as not timely raised or for other reasons. The remaining issues are addressed in this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact The FLUM and the Overlay. Lee County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1984. On January 31, 1989, the County adopted an amended version of the 1984 Plan intended to plan for growth up to the year 2010 and to comply with the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements. Essentially, the 1989 Plan was very similar to that drafted in 1984. Some major differences were provision of development timing and concurrency, creation of the privately-funded infrastructure overlay, elimination of the fringe land use category, and a variety of other new goals, objectives, and policies (GOP's). Most of the land use categories in the 1984 Plan were carried forward to the 1989 Plan. Almost all of the land use categories are mixed land use categories that allow residential, commercial and in some cases also light industrial uses without any percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. The DCA took the position that the 1989 Lee Plan was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act and filed a petition under Section 163.3184(10). The Department's objection to the 1989 Plan flowed in large part from the alleged overallocation of land for development by the year 2010 that resulted from the categories in the future land use map series (FLUM). Using the County's data and analysis, the DCA concluded that the 1989 map provided for 70 years of growth, to the year 2060, instead of 20 years, to the year 2010. To resolve the 1989 Plan dispute, the County agreed to adopt a 2010 Overlay and create a Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource future land use (FLUE) category (DRGR). The 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement included the following provisions: Amend the Future Land Use Map series by designating the proposed distribution, extent, and location of the generalized land uses required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a)1.-9. for the year 2010. These designations will include acreage totals and percentage distributions (illustrated by a bar graph) for about 125 discrete sub-districts encompassing all of Lee County, which, once designated, shall be changed only by a formal amendment to the Lee Plan. The data for these designations shall be consistent with the Lee Plan's population pro- jections for the year 2010. This amendment shall be accomplished by the adoption of over- lay or sub-district maps for the entire County using the concepts developed therefor by Thomas H. Roberts of Thomas H. Roberts Associates and presented publicly to the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County on September 12, 1989, and to the Department of Community Affairs on September 22, 1989. Adopt a policy which will provide that no development approvals for any land use category will be issued in any of the sub- districts described above that would cause the acreage total set for that land use category in 2010 to be exceeded. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County created a 2010 Overlay. The County first projected future growth in Lee County to the year 2010, using a basic assumption that historic patterns of growth in Lee County, including historic densities, would continue. The County's 2010 population estimate was 757,370 for the entire unincorporated County. The County then assigned acreage allocations for different land uses allowed in each planning subdistrict. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County adopted the resulting 2010 Overlay, as well as a DRGR FLUE category with a density range of one unit per ten acres, as part of the 1990 remedial plan amendments. The Overlay consisted of Maps 16 and 17, which were added to the FLUM, along with implementing policies in the Future Land Use Element. The 2010 Overlay is, in the words of the 1994 Codification of the Plan, "an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series." Map 16 is a map which divides Lee County into 115 subdistricts. "Map" 17 is not a true map; it is a series of bar tables and pie charts that correspond to acreage allocations for land uses within the subdistricts. Each subdistrict is allocated a specific number of acres for each of the following land uses: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, passive agriculture and vacant. The land use acreage allocations for each Overlay subdistrict are the maximum amount of land which can be developed in that subdistrict. The intent of the 2010 Overlay was to match the amount of development that could be accommodated by the 2010 FLUM with the projected County-wide population for the year 2010. The 2010 Overlay accomplished this in part by assigning percentage distributions, in the form of acreage allocations, to the various uses in the many mixed use categories in the FLUM. Under the Overlay, once the acreage allocation for a particular land use is exhausted, no more acreage can be developed for that land use in that subdistrict unless the Lee Plan is amended. Policy 1.7.6 was adopted to establish an ongoing mandatory review procedure for evaluation and amendment of the 2010 Overlay. On September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments and officially revised the original data and analysis supporting the Plan. As the support documents for the 1990 remedial amendments stated: The future land use map series currently contained in the Future Land Use element of the Lee Plan depicts 18 land use categories and has an estimated 70-year population holding capacity. A future land use map series is re- quired by state law and is also a useful and necessary part of the plan in guiding land use and related decisions. The Year 2010 Overlay makes this map series even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon. * * * In addition to this "pure planning" function of the 2010 Overlay, a regulatory function will be added. No final development orders or building permits for any land use category will be issued in any subdistrict that would cause the acreage total for that category in 2010 to be exceeded. The Dwelling Unit Counts and Projections charts in the support documents for the 1990 amendments demonstrate that the 2010 Overlay was designed to greatly limit the number of dwelling units that could be constructed by 2010 compared to the number allowed by the 2010 FLUM without the Overlay. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments in compliance. However, a citizen challenge to the County's 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments resulted in an Administration Commission Final Order that the amendments were not in compliance and that the County had to take certain remedial actions to bring the Plan amendments into compliance. Final Order, Sheridan v. Lee Co. and DCA, 16 FALR 654 (Fla. Admin. Com. 1994)(the "Sheridan Final Order"). The Sheridan Final Order required the County to apply the 2010 Overlay at the development order stage, rather than at the building permit stage. As a result, no development order could be issued which caused the acreage allocations for any given individual subdistrict to be exceeded. The Sheridan Final Order also held that the County had not properly calculated the amount of development allowed by the 2010 Overlay and adopted the following analysis from the hearing officer's Recommended Order: The calculation of a density allocation ratio is part of the determination whether data and analysis support the residential densities in a plan. The analysis misses the point of the process if the maximum densities authorized by a plan are reduced to reflect historic densities. The question is whether the densities authorized by a plan are supported by data and analysis, not whether data and analysis support densities some- where between the maximum authorized densities and historic densities. Especially where historic densities reflect an inefficient use of land, as is clearly the case in Lee County, analysis of a plan based in part on historic densities invites the repetition of past planning failures. * * * The purpose of the density allocation calculation, as part of the process of determining if the plan is supported by data and analysis, is not to predict the actual density that will occupy the planning jurisdiction at buildout. The purpose of the density allocation calculation is to compare the maximum density allowed by the plan with the projected population, and consider the extent of the overallocation in the light of other factors in the planning jurisdiction, including plan provisions and relevant data and analysis. The ratio is not required to be 1:1 to satisfy the criterion of supporting data and analysis. But the ratio must be ascertainable in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 689. As a result, one of the remedial amendments required by the Administration Commission was: To address the density calculation issue the County shall revise the data and analysis to include the maximum allowable densities in determining the amount of development allowed by the 2010 overlay and to show that the amount of development allowed is based on the expected growth. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 661. The County adopted 2010 Overlay remedial amendments in October, 1994. In December, 1994, the DCA determined that the remedial amendments were in compliance. (The revised data and analysis were not made a part of the record in this case.) On July 1, 1994, the County adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for its Plan and subsequently submitted to the DCA the EAR, along with the proposed EAR-based amendments for the year 2020. Among other things, the proposed EAR-based amendments eliminated the 2010 Overlay. Among other things, the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report objected to the elimination of the 2010 Overlay, taking the position that, without the Overlay, the EAR-based plan had the same allocation-related problems that had been in the 1989 plan. On November 1, 1994, the County adopted a modified version of the EAR- based amendments--still without any Overlay--and submitted these to the DCA, together with its staff response to the DCA's ORC Report. On December 28, 1994, the DCA issued a Statement of Intent to find the EAR-based amendments not in compliance. FLUM Population Accommodation Data and Analysis. The evidence in this case includes data and several different analyses comparing the population accommodated by the plan amendments at issue--i.e., the FLUM without any Overlay--with the population projected for the year 2020. Figure 14. Lee County's proposed population accommodation data and analysis is included in the EAR in Figure 14. Based on Figure 14, the County concluded that the 2020 FLUM accommodates 802,655 persons, or 128 percent of the projected 2020 population (an accommodation ratio of 1.28). Although the FLUM's many mixed use categories do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses, Figure 14 assumes that certain percentages of the many mixed use categories will develop in residential use, based on historic growth patterns. Also based on historic growth patterns, Figure 14 assumes that residential density will be less than the maximum of the standard residential density range allowed in each category although the GOP's allow residential development at much higher densities. Since Figure 14 is based on historic patterns of growth that are expected to continue into the future, Figure 14 appears to predict future growth as accurately as is possible at this time. It probably is the best possible estimate of how Lee County will build out under the proposed amendments. However, the ability to make truely accurate predictions over such a long period of time--25 years--is questionable. Figure 14 assumes that only a fraction of the new Vested Community land use district (Lehigh Acres) will be developed by the end of the planning timeframe. Most of the Vested Community district consists of subdivisions which were approved and platted several years before the adoption of the earliest Lee Plan, and which are vested from the restrictions of the Lee Plan. The Vested Community district contains over 130,000 vested lots which can accommodate at least 271,700 residents. In addition, the Vested Community district contains some land which is not actually vested from the Lee Plan but is allowed to develop at four density units per acre (du/ac). Figure 14 assumes that 45,888 residential units accommodating 95,906 persons will be developed in Lehigh Acres by 2020. There is no goal, objective or policy in the Lee Plan which would prevent the development of more lots vested or allocated in the Vested Community district. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis assumed that the Rural and Outer Islands categories will develop at their maximum residential density of one du/ac. In fact, the Lee Plan includes a Planned Development District Option ("PDDO") which allows: landowners outside the Future Urban Areas to increase allowable densities for development that will be totally independent of county- subsidized facilities and services. (Objective 1.8) The PDDO increases the maximum theoretical residential density of the Rural and Outer Islands districts from 1 du/ac to 6 du/ac. However, due the requirements for use of the PDDO, realistically it cannot be anticipated that much Rural or Outer Islands land will utilize it. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis did not include any residential allocation for the General Interchange category. The General Interchange category allows residential development of 100 residential units at 8 du/ac for every 100,000 square feet of commercial development. If the residential option applied to all 1,436 acres of the General Interchange category, the Lee Plan would accommodate another 13,209 persons in that category. However, for the residential option, the category requires 160 acres under common ownership. Currently, there is only one case in which the requirement is met, and it is a development of regional impact (DRI) that does not allow residential at this time. Figure 14A. Figure 14A is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It was supposed to adjust Figure 14 by assuming the maximum residential density allowed by each land use category in accordance with the Sheridan Final Order. The Figure 14A accommodated population rises to 1,325,568, and the so-called allocation ratio rises to 2.11. Actually, Figure 14A does not take into account the actual maximum residential density in Intensive Development (22 du/ac), Central Urban (15 du/ac), and Urban Community (10 du/ac). Instead, it uses the top of the "standard density range" in those categories. Figure 14 B. Figure 14B also is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It adjusts the Figure 14A analysis by estimating the total residential development allowed by the Vested Community category at 170,732 dwelling units, which will accommodate 356,829 persons. Adding those Vested Community numbers to the Figure 14A numbers, Figure 14B estimates the population accommodated by the 2020 FLUM as 1,586,491 persons, or an accommodation ratio of 2.53. Maximum Theoretical Residential Potential. The DCA proposes an analysis of the data using maximum theoretical residential potential for each land use category. Under the DCA analysis, there is enough land available for residential development accommodate a population of approximately 2.5 million people--401 percent of the expected County population in 2020 or, expressed as a ratio, 4.01. In contrast to Figure 14B, the DCA's preferred analysis takes into account all of the residential development capacity in Lehigh Acres. In addition, it assumes residential development in the Vested Intensive Development part of the Lehigh Vested Community at the maximum density of 14 du/ac and in the Vested Central Urban part at the maximum density of 10 du/ac. These assumptions add to the FLUM population accommodation analysis the capacity to accommodate approximately 246,000 more people, over and above the Figure 14B capacity. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that all Rural and Outer Islands land will utilize PDDO and develop residentially at 6 du/ac. Use of this assumption more than doubles the population accommodation in those categories, adding approximately 500,000 people to the analysis. While theoretically possible, as previously stated, this assumption is unrealistic. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that 13,209 people are accommodated in residential development in the General Interchange category. This assumption, too, is theoretically possible but not realistic. Finally, the DCA's preferred analysis assumes that, although most of Lee County's future land use categories allow a mix of uses, the land will develop at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area--i.e., that no other type of permitted use, such as commercial, parks, schools or even roads would occur in any of the land use categories. Finally, it disregards the actual existence of non-residential uses and residential uses at lower densities; instead, it assumes redevelopment at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area. County's 2010 Overlay Analysis. It seems obvious that deletion of the 2010 Overlay must increase population accommodation, at least up to the year 2010. Up to the time of the final hearing, the DCA had not requested, and no party did, an allocation ratio analysis of the 2010 Overlay similar to the one the DCA prefers for the 2020 FLUM without any Overlay for purposes of making a comparison between the two. The County's chief planner testified that he performed such an analysis during the course of the final hearing using the maximum residential and maximum density assumptions. Neither the details nor the results of the analysis were clear. However, it appears to indicate that the 2010 Overlay accommodated a 2010 population of 1.06 million, apparently including 282,000 assumed to be accommodated in Lehigh Acres, an allocation ratio of 2.11. Assuming that the County's 2010 Overlay analysis included Lehigh, it can be roughly compared to the Figure 14B analysis and the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" analysis by removing the Lehigh component from each. Subtracting the Lehigh component from the County's 2010 Overlay population accommodation analysis results in a 2010 population accommodation of 778,000. Removing the Lehigh component from Figure 14B results in 2020 population accommodation of 1,229,662. Removing the Lehigh component from the DCA's analysis results in 2020 population accommodation of 2,008,927. Meanwhile, the County's projection of future increased by only about 70,000 between 2010 and 2020 for the entire unincorporated county. RGMC Alternative 2010 Overlay Accommodation Analysis and Comparision. RGMC proposes its own alternative analysis for comparing the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay to the population accommodated without it. Using the County's population projection for 2020 of 626,860 in the unincorporated county and the accepted 2.09 people per unit, it can be estimated that approximately 300,000 units will be needed in the year 2020. Subtracting the 127,000 units existing in 1990, approximately 173,000 additional units will be needed over the 30 years from 1990 to 2020 to accommodate the expected population, or approximately 5,800 additional units per year. At that average rate, 116,000 units would be added by the year 2010 (5,800 units per year times 20 years). Adding the new units to the 127,000 units existing in 1990 results in a total of approximately 244,000 units in 2010. Since it is agreed that the Overlay was designed to accommodate, and accommodated, approximately the population expected in the year 2010, it can be estimated that the Overlay accommodated approximately 244,000 units. In the sense that all units accommodated under the 2020 FLUM without the Overlay are available for development before 2010, a rough comparison can be made between the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay and the population accommodated according to the other analysis methodologies: according to Figure 14, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 384,045 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14A, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 634,243 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14B, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 759,086 units for the year 2020; and according to the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" methodology, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 1,201,973 units for the year 2020. Calculation and Use of the "Allocation Ratio". The technique of determining a residential density allocation ratio was described in an article entitled "Expanding the Overallocation of Land Use Categories," which appears in a June, 1995, publication of the Department of Community Affairs called "Community Planning." "Community Planning" is published by the Department of Community Affairs "to provide technical assistance to Florida's counties and cities and implement any requirements of Florida's growth management laws." The article announces how the Department reviews the question of "overallocation" in determining whether a plan is in compliance with statutory and rule requirements regarding urban sprawl. According to the article, the Department suggests that a comprehensive plan should allocate up to 125 percent of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected future population. The article does not explain how the "allocation ratio" should be calculated. The Sheridan Final Order seems to say that maximum densities should be assumed. See Finding 11, above. But neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order indicate what other assumptions should be made. The "Community Planning" article and the Sheridan Final Order also do not specify whether, in calculating the allocation ratio, population accommodation capacity should be compared to the total expected population or to the incremental growth expected in the population. The DCA has accepted a 1.25 allocation ratio applied to the total expected population as being reasonable. A major treatise in this area known as Urban Land Use Planning, Fourth Edition, by Kaiser, Godchalk, and Chapin, suggests that an allocation ratio of up to 2.05 can be considered reasonable; however, when doing so, the authors were evaluating plans with a closer planning horizon (one to five years), and they were comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population. When calculating an allocation ratio for a 20-year planning horizon, they suggest that a 1.20 allocation ratio that compares population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be reasonable. By accepting a 1.25 allocation ratio that compares the population accommodation capacity to the total population expected on a 25-year planning horizon, the DCA seems to have been misapplying the allocation ratio analysis. Clearly, an accommodation ratio comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be much than one comparing to to the total population expected. There was no data and analysis as to exactly how much higher, and it is difficult to say based on the record in this case. However, an example of the difference between the too methodologies is suggested by one of RGMC's alternative analyses. It is known that approximately 300,000 units of residential development will be needed for the population expected in the year 2020. See Finding 36, above. The evidence was that there were approximately 143,000 units existing in 1995, so approximately 157,000 additional units will be needed by the year 2020 to accommodate the expected population. Meanwhile, using the County's Figure 14 assumptions, the FLUM without the Overlay makes 384,045 units available for development by the year 2020, or an accommodation of an additional 241,045 units over what was in existence in 1995. Comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020 would result in an "accommodation ratio" of approximately 1.54, versus the ratio of 1.28 calculated in Figure 14 comparing to total population expected. By way of further examples, using the same method of comparison: Figure 14A's 2.11 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.13, comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020; Figure 14B's 2.53 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.92; and the DCA's "accommodation ratio" of 4.01 would become a ratio of 6.75. It should be noted that the Urban Land Use Planning treatise also speaks of the use of the allocation ratio as a safety factor to provide a choice of location for housing type and to avoid artificially increasing land and housing prices. Rather than being a device merely to avoid the overallocation of land, the safety factor also is said to be necessary to ensure that enough land is allocated and that the limitations of forecasting approaches do not exacerbate the need for affordable housing. It also should be noted that neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order specify that allocation and urban sprawl issues should be determined from the simple calculation of a residential density allocation. To the contrary, the Sheridan Final Order would indicate that, once the allocation ratio is obtained, full consideration should be given to all pertinent factors "in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis." Analyses Not Conducted. The plan amendments do not only eliminate the 2010 Overlay. They also decline to retain the Overlay concept and extend it another ten years to the year 2020. There is no data or analysis in this case comparing the population accommodated by the FLUM without any Overlay to the population that would be accommodated in the year 2020 if the Overlay were extended another ten years to 2020. Such data and analysis would most clearly illuminate the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay, and abandoning the Overlay concept, on the residential allocation of the plan for the year 2020. There may be tens of thousands of, up to perhaps almost a hundred thousand, residential units in DRI's that have been approved but not yet built. There was inadequate data and analysis of how many of the residential units that will be needed by the year 2020 can be supplied in these DRI's. Lehigh Acres. Clearly, Lehigh Acres presents a special problem for Lee County and the DCA. Lehigh Acres was platted in the 1950s and 1960s. It covers approximately 97 square miles, which is slightly more than 62,000 acres. Since its inception, Lehigh has had all the attributes of urban sprawl. It is a large, sprawling, almost entirely residential community that was created in an area remote from urban services. It is characterized by grid patterns of development, a poorly-designed transportation network with large numbers of small local roads and no four-lane roads, huge amounts of land allocated to residential development and a relatively small amount of land allocated to commercial development. The roads in Lehigh are built. Virtually all of Lehigh has been subdivided into relatively small single family residential homesites, and almost all of these homesites have been sold to buyers all over the world. By virtue of the platting and sale of the land into homesites, Lehigh is a vested community. Over the years, the County has considered a number of potential solutions to the Lehigh Acres dilemma. Ultimately, the County decided to take a multi-pronged approach: (1) creating restrictions on additional subdivision and attempting to reduce densities to no more than four units per acre; (2) continuing the privately-funded infrastructure overlay as the means of providing infrastructure in Lehigh; and (3) utilizing sector planning to work toward a better transportation system and larger areas of commercial allocation to create a more balanced community. Based on the new treatment of Lehigh Acres, the County engaged in different assumptions about how Lehigh will build out. In 1989, Lehigh was shown as "central urban" and "urban community," together with the rest of the Lee Plan future land use categories. Under the 2010 Overlay, the County purported to reduce acreage allocations in Lehigh, but in fact there was little impact on residential potential due to vesting. In the EAR-based amendments, Lehigh is shown under "Vested Community," a separate land use category. Through the vested community category, the County attempted to restrict additional subdividing of lots and, with a few limited exceptions, set a maximum density of four units per acre. Based on the different treatment of Lehigh in the Plan, the County projected a population for Lehigh based on the amount of growth actually expected to occur by Year 2020. To do this, the County utilized eight different methodologies and averaged the projections to come up with a 2010 population for Lehigh of 95,906. These assumptions are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Neither the Department's rules nor the "Community Planning" article provide specific guidance as to how vested areas are to be treated in making a calculation of a plan's "allocation ratio." The vast area of Lehigh has the capacity to absorb virtually all the anticipated future population growth in unincorporated Lee County through the year 2020. In fact, it may be appropriate for Lee County to increase overall density in Lehigh if necessary to support the infrastructure and transportation needed to convert Lehigh Acres into a more balanced, multi-use development. Lee County's approach to Lehigh essentially was to attempt to satisfy the Department's desire for an acceptable "allocation ratio" by estimating how many residents will actually live in Lehigh by 2020, assuming the Plan's treatment of Lehigh, and treating those estimates as Lehigh's population accommodation. By studying historic rates of growth, the Lee Planning Division believes that number will be approximately 96,000 people. No evidence was presented by the Department or any intervenor in contradiction of this estimate. The results of the County's approach to Lehigh are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Another approach would be to attempt to reduce residential development in other parts of the County. It would be poor planning to reduce densities "across the board" throughout the County just to achieve a lower allocation ratio. Such an approach could direct population concentration away from urban areas into poorly-served rural areas, thereby discouraging the efficient use of land and encouraging sprawling uses. Depending on the densities, it could direct growth to remote areas of the county. Additionally, if Lee County attemped to limit residential growth based on incorrect assumptions regarding future densities, it could seriously underallocate land uses. Underallocation can greatly inflate land costs to the detriment of the general public. On the other hand, a better approach might be to couple sector planning in Lehigh with a reduction in densities in certain other parts of the County. If successful, such an approach could both create more balanced development in Lehigh Acres and direct future growth to Lehigh and away from coastal high hazard areas (CHHA), DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Commercial Allocations. The 2020 Lee Plan, without the 2010 Overlay, has some guidance for the location of commercial development, especially retail commercial. But it does not have percentage distributions or other objective measurement of the distribution of commercial and other uses allowed in its many mixed land use districts. Policy 6.1.2 of the 2020 Lee Plan consists of site location criteria which apply to retail commercial development, such as shopping centers, restaurants, gas stations, and other commercial development generating large volumes of traffic. Non-retail commercial development, such as office, hotel and motel or wholesale commercial development, may be developed at the identified intersections or anywhere else in the land use categories which allow commercial development. Even retail commercial can be developed at locations which do not meet the location criteria under discretion granted to the Board of County Commissioners. According to Lee County's EAR, the Commercial Site Locations Standards Map (Map 16) identifies 52 full intersections and 15 half-moon intersections which comply with the site location standards for Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. They represent 9,520 acres of land designated for retail commercial development. Using the standard planning conversion rate of 10,000 square feet per acre, average, there is room for approximately 95,000,000 square feet of commercial development in the commercial sites depicted on Map There also may be other intersections which meet the criteria for Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial but are not shown on Map 16. In addition, there are numerous intersections which meet the criteria for Minor Commercial which are not shown on Map 16. Map 16 also does not include Regional Commercial development. The report by Thomas H. Roberts & Associates on Commercial Land Use Needs In Lee County (Jan. 10, 1987), indicates that the retail space ratio in Lee County is 26 square feet per capita. Just counting the 95,000,000 square feet of retail commercial development allowed in the land shown on Map 16, the 2020 Lee Plan has enough retail commercial capacity to accommodate 3.7 million people. Without even considering the non-retail commercial uses that can be developed at any location in the several land use districts which allow commercial uses, or the unknown amount of retail commercial that can be developed at the numerous intersections which meet the Minor Commercial location criteria, the 2020 Lee Plan without the 2010 Overlay allows commercial development far in excess of the amount needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. Industrial Allocation Policy 7.1.4 in the 2020 Lee Plan provides: The [FLUM] shall designate a sufficient quantity of land to accommodate industrial development that will employ 3 percent of the county's population in manufacturing activities by the year 2010. The 2020 FLUM, without the 2010 Overlay, designates 6,062 acres in the Industrial Development category. Three percent of the 2020 County population represents approximately 19,000 people. The 1984 Roberts industrial land analysis for Lee County suggested a ratio of seven industrial workers per acre for industrial related activities. Most industrial land uses employ more workers per acre, and the national average is about 17 employees per acre. But even using the ratio suggested by the Roberts analysis, Lee County would need only approximately 3,000 acres of industrial land to accommodate three percent of the 2020 County population in industrial employment. Analysis in the EAR indicates that enough additional industrial land is needed to serve the needs of municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves and that this additional land accounts for the apparent excess in industrial lands allocated in the county. However, it is not clear from the data and analysis how this determination was made. In addition, light industrial development is permitted in several other mixed land use categories. For example, the existing approximately 2,800 acres of Airport Commerce (AC) located to the northwest of the airport is intended to include light industrial activities. There was no data or analysis as to how much additional industrial use will be made of land in those categories. There are no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution of land uses in the mixed land use districts that allow light industrial use. The Mixed Land Use Districts. As has been seen, the Lee Plan without any Overlay makes extensive use of mixed land use districts without percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. Much of the dispute between the parties as to residential accommodation and allocations of land for commercial and industrial uses results from the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use categories. Although the County predicts development of only a percentage of these districts as residential, it remains possible for much larger percentages to be developed residential. On the other hand, it is possible for practically all of mixed land use districts to develop commercially or even industrially. The 2010 Overlay attempted to address the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use districts by limiting the acreage that could be developed in particular uses by the year 2010. Without the Overlay concept, no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses remain in the plan. Because of the plan's extensive use of mixed use districts, the County's ability to control development through the plan is seriously undermined. Other Urban Sprawl Considerations. Unincorporated Lee County contains approximately 685 square miles. Lehigh Acres and the DRGR areas, combined, are approximately 199 more square miles, 29 percent of the total area of unincorporated Lee County. Except for the growth that will occur in the Vested Community of Lehigh, much of the future growth in Lee County will occur in the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor, which is oriented in a generally North-South direction and contains most of the urbanized areas of the County, including the City of Fort Myers. Because this area is already largely urbanized, most of the growth in it will result in either the expansion of existing urbanized areas or in-fill between existing urban areas. Certificated water and sewer franchise areas also generally coincide with the north/south urban core in which growth is expected to continue. The presence of water and sewer franchise areas in the north/south urban core and in Lehigh Acres encourages utilization of these areas through the ability to provide urban services. The absence of water and sewer franchise areas in other portions of the County will act as a hindrance to development in areas which are undeveloped and either in conservation or agricultural use. A review of County DRI approvals, together with approved development orders, also appears to indicate a trend toward development in the north/south core. The absence of development orders in most of the outlying areas, indicated as either agricultural, vacant, or conservation use, indicate that probably relatively little growth will occur in those areas. Platted subdivisions also appear to show a trend toward development in the north/south urban core. In general, there also appears to be a correlation between existing land uses and those factors which can reasonably be expected to establish future growth trends in the north/south urban core. Growth in the north/south I-75, U.S. 41 corridor across the county line to the south in Collier County tends to encourage similar growth at the southern end of Lee County. Meanwhile, there are hindrances to development across the county line to the east and southeast by virtue of the presence of agricultural lands and regional wetland systems such as the Corkscrew Swamp and the Everglades. The County has also made use of sector planning. The County's sector plans represent extensive and detailed planning studies which in many cases are reflected in both the FLUM and the policies in the Plan. However, currently there is no sector plan for Lehigh Acres. Policy 1.5.5, creating the Vested Community category for Lehigh, states a sector plan for Lehigh will be developed beginning in 1996. In terms of land uses, the Plan seems to be fairly well functionally related, both in terms of what is shown on the FLUM and the relation between the FLUM and the Plan policies themselves. A good example of this is the commercial site location standards, which establish a strong functional relationship between transportation and regional commercial facilities. There is also a good functional relationship between existing land uses. The Plan mixed use categories appear to recognize and attempt to encourage sound functional relationships between home, work, and shopping. The Plan also has compatibility standards that help maintain functional relationships. However, without the Overlay, the many mixed use categories in the Plan do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts. In terms of land use suitability, the County generally appears to be designating for development those areas which are most suitable for development. However, because it allows development of all kinds throughout the County in excess of what is needed by 2020, the Plan allows development in less suitable areas. A variety of methodologies and assumptions leads to the conclusion that the Lee Plan generally is an urban development plan, not a rural development plan. For instance, under the Figure 14 methodology, 80 percent of the population is directed toward urban land uses, and 12 percent into rural. Under Figure 14B, which unrealistically assumes that all of Lehigh Acres will be built out within the planning time frame, 90 percent of the population is directed to urban areas, and only 10 percent to rural. Even assuming that 100 percent of the land will be used for residential purposes, and that all of Lehigh will build out within the planning time frame, 92 percent is directed to urban areas, and only 8 percent to rural. Finally, even assuming 100 percent of the land to residential at maximum densities, and also that all rural land uses will use the PDDO option at six units per acre, only 4 percent of the population will be directed to rural areas in the FLUM. Notwithstanding the overall patterns of growth in Lee County, it clearly is indicated in the Sheridan Final Order that land in Lee County historically has been used inefficiently and that, without the Overlay, the plan allows inefficiency to continue unabated. This is due in large part to the extensive use of mixed land use categories that do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts, together with the overallocation of land that also results in part from their use. By comparing the FLUM's since 1984 with the current Existing Land Use Map (ELUM) (Lee 56), it is apparent that rural designations have not preserved agriculture. Significant parts of county that have been designated rural since 1984 actually have been developed residential or non-agricultural use. In Range (R) 25 East (E), Township (T) 45 South(S), Sections 31 and 32 are residential, while 33 is a golf course. Similarly, R 25 E, T 47 S, Sections 14, 15 and 23 have developed significantly residential and part of Section 14 is now designated Outlying Suburban. In addition, significant residential development has occurred in areas of Pine Island that have been designated rural since 1984. On the other side of the coin, much of the "New Community" still is in rural use (R 35 E, T 45 S, Sections 1, 2, 3, parts of 10, 11, and 12; R 26 E, Sectons 5-8, 17 and 18.) Some "Industrial Development" land is actually still in rural use or vacant--R 25 E, T 46 S, Section 3 west of I-75, and Sections 4- There is significant land that actually is rural or vacant adjacent to wetlands and Estero Bay in R 24 E, T 45 S (Sections 28, 29, and 31-35), together with Sections 3-5, 8-10, and 15 in R 24 E, T 46 S, that are designated for Suburban or Outlying Suburban uses. Land designated rural, open land or fringe in 1984 has been redesignated for urban uses over the years. A large block straddling Daniels Parkway east of the 6 Mile Cypress Strand has been designated Outlying Suburban. Approximately between Buckingham Road, Orange River Boulevard and I-75, rural land has been redesignated as Rural Community Preserve. Large blocks of land, one at the extreme north end of the county between U.S. 41 and I-75, and the other east of I-75 near the river, have gone from rural to Outlying Suburban. A large amount of what was rural and fringe between Bonita Springs and San Carlos Park, west of U.S. 41, has become Suburban and Outlying Suburban. CHHA and Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter. Objective 75.1 of the amended Lee Plan defines and delineates Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) for the first time. Previously, the plan referred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "A Zone," which encompasses somewhat more land than the new CHHA. Policy 75.1.4 of the amended Lee Plan, which formerly applied to the "A Zone," states: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within [CHHA] shall be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In this round of amendments, the County did not consider either reducing density categories, or assigning the minimum allowable densities in categories with a range of densities, in undeveloped land in the CHHA. In prior rounds of amendments, the County reduced densities in areas that would be inundated by Category 1, 2 and 3 hurricanes (which would include CHHA). Assuming maximum allowable densities together with the other Figure 14A assumptions, the density reductions reduced population accommodation by 13,000 units in those areas. Elimination of the 2010 Overlay opened additional land to immediate development in the CHHA. There was no data and analysis on the amount of new land opened to immediate development or the additional population accommodated in the CHHA that would result. Goal 79 in the Lee Plan, as amended, is to "provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.1 of the Lee Plan, as amended, is to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 2000, and to reduce the clearance time portion of evacuation time to 18 hours or less by 2010. Previously, the plan's objective was to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. Lee County has among the best hurricane planning efforts in southwest Florida. Nonetheless, as of the time of the final hearing, evacuation times still exceeded 1987 levels, and clearance times exceeded 18 hours. Little progress had been made toward the previous objective to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. That is why the objective was extended five more years until the year 2000. It may be that the 2010 Overlay was not designed with hurricane evacuation times in mind. It also is true that the County's evacuation plans are updated every three years based on actual development data. But it also is true that additional development in the CHHA due to elimination of the 2010 Overlay may make it more difficult to achieve Objective 79.1, even as amended. Objective 79.2 of the Lee Plan is to make adequate shelter space available by the year 2010 "for the population in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone at risk under a Category 3 storm." There was no data and analysis of the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. There also was no data and analysis of the impact of amending Objective 75.1 and 75.1.4 to reduce the size of the coastal area subject to consideration for land use density reductions on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. Change of Alico Property from DRGR to AC. Another significant FLUM amendment in the EAR-based amendments was to change the designation of 1400 acres of property owned by Alico, Inc., from DRGR to Airport Commerce (AC). Uses allowed in the AC district include light manufacturing and assembly, warehousing, distribution facilities, ground transportation and airport related terminals or transfer facilities, and hospitality services. Suitability. Policy 1.4.5 of the plan, as amended, defines DRGR as "upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" and as "the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." Although previously designated DRGR, more recent data and analysis calls this designation into question. The amendment property does provide some recharge to both the water table (surficial) aquifer and the underlying Sandstone aquifer, but it does not provide above-average groundwater recharge for either aquifer (or any recharge to any of the deeper aquifers). In addition, it is not a good site for the development of a wellfield in either the water table or the Sandstone aquifer. The water table aquifer is not especially thick, and there are too many wetlands on the site for production from the water table aquifer. (Pumping from the water table aquifer next to the airport also could be problematic in that the stability of the soil under the airport could be affected. (Cf. Finding 100, below.) In the Sandstone aquifer, groundwater flows away from the site, making it unsuitable for production. Despite the questions raised by the new data and analysis, the amendment property may still be suitable for designation as DRGR. But that does not necessarily make it unsuitable for AC use. In terms of location, the amendment property is perfectly suited to AC use. I-75 and other AC-designated property is to the immediate west of the amendment property. The Southwest Florida International Airport is to the immediate north of the amendment property. A second runway and a new cargo handling facility are planned for construction to the south of the existing airport runway. When built, the new facilities will practically be touching the northern boundary of the amendment property, and the proposed new south airport access will cross the amendment property and intersect Alico Road, which is the southern boundary of the amendment property. Commercial and industrial use on the property would not pose an unreasonable threat to contaminate either existing or future potable water wells. Theoretically, stormwater from the amendment property could contain contaminants which could eventually migrate to a drinking water well. But the threat of such contamination is small. Permitting criteria adopted and imposed by the South Florida Water Management District will require all construction on this site to conform to surface water quality standards through Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and permitting rules of the Water Management District within Chapter 40, Florida Administrative Code. These rules will require on-site detention and retention of stormwater which will greatly reduce the threat of surface contaminants leaving the property. Additionally, all surface water runoff from the property, and most groundwater, will be intercepted by the Alico Road Canal, which drains in a westerly direction away from any existing drinking water wells. If any contaminants from the amendment property were to enter the groundwater, avoid the Alico Road Canal and leave the property, they would have to migrate a considerable distance to reach a potable water wellhead. The only wellfield pumping, or planned to pump, from the water table aquifer which contaminants possibly could reach would be the existing Gulf Utilities wellfield approximately one mile and a half southeast of the amendment property. Contaminants within the groundwater move at a slower speed than the water itself. Most contaminants move at a much slower speed than the water. Thus, the chances are very slight that contaminants from the amendment property would threaten the Gulf Utilities wellfield. Any metals in the groundwater would attach to soil particles and migrate extremely slowly. Other potential contaminants would eventually break down within the soil as they slowly migrated away from the site. It was estimated that the travel time from the closest portion of the amendment property to the Gulf Utilities well field would be in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 years. If any such contaminants did reach the wellfield they would be in such dilute concentrations that they would pose no health hazard. The only other wellfield that is reasonably close to the proposed site is the Florida Cities well field to the northeast. This wellfield taps the Sandstone aquifer. The Sandstone aquifer is separated from the water table aquifer by an approximately 40 foot thick semi-confining layer. This layer is composed of silt and clay which provides hydraulic separation between the aquifers. There are no known breaches of the semi-confining layer in this area. The direction of flow and the nature of the semi-confining layer also make it extremely unlikely that contaminants from activities on the amendment property and discharged from the site by stormwater could migrate to the Florida Cities water wellfield. The groundwater in the water table aquifer flows generally southwest, and the confining layer has low leakance values. Additionally, safety measures required for the development of the amendment property include the installation of monitoring wells and the requirement to use the best environmental management practices. The data and analysis includes panther sitings in the vicinity of the amendment property. There also is evidence that the amendment property is part of land that has been labeled as "Panther Priority 2." The significance of this label was not clear from the evidence. In any event, while part of the "Panther Priority 2" land, the amendment property clearly also is surrounded by uses not particularly suited for panthers. Currently, rock mining is occurring on property to the east and to the south of the amendment property. Rock mining on the amendment property itself also is allowed under its previous DRGR designation. The airport is immediately to the north, and both other AC property and I-75 are immediately to the west. In light of those developments, the "Panther Priority 2" designation does not make the amendment property unsuitable for AC designation. Need. The County has a legitimate need to diversify its economy so that it is not so dependent on tourism. It is the County's perogative to attempt to develop its regional airport into an international trade center. In view of the suitability of the amendment property for AC, and its projected role in furthering the County's plans to develop its regional airport into an international trade center, the amendment property should be viewed as a valuable economic resource in need of protection. It is appropriate, when trying to protect a resource, to plan for the needs of generations to come. If the amendment is not approved, there is a good chance that the land eventually will be used for a rock mine. Residential use in that location is incompatible with airport noise. A public gun range is a permissible use of DRGR property, but there are no plans for a public gun range on the amendment property, and such a use also would not be compatible so close to the airport and would be unlikely. Although agricultural use as pasture is possible, ultimate use of the property for pasture seems less likely than rock mining. As previously mentioned, the land immediately to the east of the subject parcel and to the south of the subject parcel is being utilized as rock pits. If the amendment property eventually is used for rock mining, the land would be excavated into what becomes deep lakes. In all likelihood, such a use would permanently preempt the land in question from being a commercial resource that could be utilized in conjunction with the airport. Of the 1400 acres of amendment property, approximately 800 acres are jurisdictional wetlands; only about 600 acres of uplands actually can be used for AC purposes. Meanwhile, approximately 173 acres of industrial land has been rezoned to other uses within Lee County between 1990 and the date of the hearing. Another 300 acres of AC are to be incorporated into the new airport expansion. But there was no data or analysis as to how much of those 473 acres consist of wetlands. Utilizing the 1984 Roberts methodology, the County has analyzed the need for industrial land in the County and has concluded that the addition of the amendment property is necessary to meet those requirements. However, as previously mentioned, it is not clear how the County's analysis was conducted or what the actual needs for industrial land in the County are. In addition, several mixed land use categories permit light industrial use but do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution among the mixed uses within those categories. Taken as a whole the data and analysis does not establish that the AC amendment is necessary to meet the need for industrial land in the County. Adequate data and analysis to establish those needs is necessary to determine whether other land where industrial use is permitted should be redesignated if the AC amendment is to be adopted. As previously discussed, Lee County has much more land designated for commercial development than will be needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. See Findings 58-68, above. In support of their position that the AC map amendment is needed in order to meet the demand for airport-related industrial and commercial development that will be generated by the expanding Southwest Florida International Airport, Lee County and Alico point out that international airports serve a larger area than a single County, and that a larger AC district near the Airport will serve the Southwest Florida region. With its new runway and larger terminal with new cargo handling facility, the Airport Authority intends, and the County would like to encourage, a large increase in airfreight handled by the Airport by 2020. Alico prepared a Response to DCA's ORC, which attempted to compare the acreage of approved, large-scale commercial and industrial development near the Orlando International Airport to the amount of acres proposed for Airport Commerce near the Southwest Florida International Airport. However, the Alico Response failed to take into account the amount of approved development near the Orlando Airport which is vacant. According to the Alico Response, the Orlando International Airport handled 233,587 tons of airfreight in 1994. Also according to the Alico Response, 7,152 acres of industrial and commercial development, including ten DRI's, are located near the Orlando Airport. The ten DRI's located near the Orlando Airport include 55,464,770 square feet of approved industrial and commercial development. But as of June of 1995, only 3,386,744 square feet of industrial and commercial development, or 6.11 percent of the approved industrial and commercial square footage, had been constructed. Applying the percentage of approved industrial and commercial in DRI's actually developed by 1995 (6.11 percent) to the acreage approved for industrial and commercial (7,152 acres), it can be determined that 440 acres of existing industrial and commercial development were supporting the 233,587 tons of airfreight handled by the Orlando Airport in 1994. Based upon the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that each acre of industrial and commercial development near an airport supports 534.54 tons of airfreight each year. The Southwest International Airport projects that 196,110 tons of airfreight will be handled by the Airport by 2020. Dividing the projected 2020 tonnage by the 534.54 tons of airfreight per acre from the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that the air freight activities projected for the Southwest Florida International Airport by the year 2020 will support only about 367 acres of AC. The Lee Plan FLUM already includes approximately 2800 acres of AC located to the northwest of the Airport. (It is not clear whether the 300 acres consumed by the runway expansion should be deducted from the 2850 acres of AC said to currently exist.) The existing AC district is essentially undeveloped. The AC which already exists to the northwest of the Airport is more than sufficient to support the airfreight which the Airport expects to handle by 2020. Zemel FLUM Amendment. Background. The Zemels own approximately 8600 acres of land in northwest Lee County. The 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendments which resulted from the settlement between Lee County and DCA, designated Zemel property as DRGR with a residential density of one unit per ten acres. The DRGR designation for the Zemel property was determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Zemel v. Lee County & DCA, 15 FALR 2735 (Fla. Dept. Comm. Aff. 1993), aff'd, 642 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1st DCA 1994). Based in part on data and analysis which were not available at the time of adoption of the DRGR category, a circuit court determined that the Zemel property did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the DRGR category. The circuit court ordered that: The property is hereby restored to the Rural land use classification on the Future Land Use Map of the Lee Plan, including restoration of the subject property's density to 1 du/acre and use of the Planned Development District Option for the property. This action shall not preclude the County from amending its plan, including the 2010 Overlay, as it pertains to the Zemel property, pursuant to Chapter 163, Fla. Stat., subject to constitutional limita- tions and other requirements of law. Placement of Zemel Property in Open Lands Classification The 1994 EAR-based amendments changed the land use designation of the Zemel property to Open Lands. Open Lands is a new category created by the EAR- based amendments in Policy 1.4.4. The residential density allowed in the Open Lands category is one unit per ten acres, except a density of one unit per five acres is permitted if the planned development process is used to prevent adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands (as defined in Policy 77.1.1.4). (Commercial and industrial uses are permitted in the Open Lands category in accordance with the standards in the Rural category.) Of the 8,600 acres owned by Zemel, approximately 1,900 acres are wetlands and 6,700 acres are uplands. Lee County chose the Open Lands category for the Zemel property because it was the least intensive land use category available after the circuit court determined that the DRGR category was not appropriate, and because the County did not wish to exacerbate the overallocation of the FLUM. According to new Policy 1.4.4: Open Lands are upland areas that are located north of Rural and/or sparsely developed areas in Township 43 South. These areas are extremely remote from public services and are characterized by agricultural and low-density residential uses. It was not proven that the Zemel property does not meet the Policy 1.4.4 definition of Open Lands. The Zemel property clearly is in Township 43 South. It is north of areas that can be said to be "sparsely developed." The Zemel property clearly is characterized by agricultural use. Finally, although some of the Zemel property is not "extremely remote" from some public services, all of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from at least some public services, and some of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from all public services. Placement of the Zemel property in the Opens Lands category was based on adequate data and analysis. To the extent that data and analysis in the EAR may have been lacking, the evidence at final hearing included adequate data and analysis. Using the Figure 14 methodology, the County calculated that Open Lands category would accommodate 2,073 people, as compared to 8,293 people at the Rural density. However, assuming development of all of the Zemel property at the one du/ac standard density allowed by the Lee Plan for Rural, 14,003 people (1 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit) would be accommodated. In the case of the Zemel property, such an assumption would be less unrealistic than in many other parts of the County since it is a large, vacant tract. The evidence also was that the Zemel property is one of the few parcels of land in the County in which use of the PDDO is a realistic possibility. Assuming maximum densities under the PDDO, the Zemel property under the Rural designation could accommodate 84,018 people (6 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Under the Open Lands category, even at the maximum density allowed for planned developments, the Zemel property could accommodate only 2,801 people (1 du/5 ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Dependence of Open Lands on Deletion of Overlay Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. Although all of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires," the evidence was that one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. Specifically, there was evidence that the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," was intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay, and to either become effective together or not at all. Otherwise, there would be no development authorized in property redesignated "Open Lands" because there was no land use category called "Open Lands" at the time of adoption of the 2010 overlay, and no express authorization for development of any kind in "Open Lands." Planning Timeframe. Clearly, the EAR-based Lee Plan amendments are intended to plan through the year 2020. The year 2020 was chosen for the amendments to enable the County to make use of the best available demographic projections being generated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for that time frame. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the plan, as amended, retains Map 11. Map 11 depicts "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries." It is the map that was generated in 1989 and used in the 1989 and subsequent plans for the year 2010. However, it was not proven that the map does not accurately depict "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries" for the year 2020. The County concedes that the Community Facilities and Services Element of the plan, as amended, projects waste generation and recycling rates only from 1991 to 2015. The County contends that these projections are easily extrapolated to the year 2020, and no party disputes this. The County's response to the DCA's ORC report indicates that the Hurricane Shelter/Deficit analysis for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element is for shelter needs to the year 2000. However, the County cannot accurately project shelter needs much further in the future. The evidence is that the better practice is to plan for shorter periods of time and continually update the projections. This is what the County does. It was not proven that the County is planning for the wrong timeframe or that its plan is defective for that reason. Other alleged uses of the wrong planning timeframe actually arise from questions as to the allocation of land to meet the needs of the County through the year 2020. There is no question whether the County's intent is to plan for the year 2020. The dispute is whether land has been overallocated. Other Alleged Internal Inconsistency. Amended Objective 100.1 in the Housing Element uses data for the County, including municipalities, in projecting the number of housing units needed for the 2020 timeframe. It is true that EAR Figures 14, 14A and 14B, which analyze the FLUM, identify the number of units which may be accommodated for the unincorporated area. But EAR Figures 12 and 13, which also analyze the FLUM, are directed to the entire county, including municipalities. Besides, it is clear that the County understands its obligation is only to implement affordable housing with respect to the unincorporated county. Water Supply. The Regional Water Supply Master Plan (RWSMP) serves as supporting data for several amended policies in the Potable Water sub-element of the Community Facilities and Services Element. The purpose of the RWSMP was to ensure an adequate, reliable and cost-efficient supply of potable water to meet the current and future needs of Lee County to the Year 2030 and beyond, considering both economic and environmental factors. The County's reliance on implementation of the RWSMP for this purpose is justified. Preparation of the plan was a very complex undertaking. In preparing the population projections on which the Regional Water Supply Master Plan relies, the County's consultant attended the technical staff meetings of the individuals with the Metropolitan Planning Association (MPO) charged with preparing the MPO population projections. The MPO Countywide population projections utilized in the RWSMP were prepared by estimating the number of permanent residents and taking into account a number of other economic characteristics and social characteristics such as the number of children per household, historic and expected natural and State trends, and the degree to which these trends will affect the future of Lee County. The Lee Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plans of the other governmental jurisdictions in Lee County, were utilized in preparing the RWSMP. It was a plainly spelled out requirement for preparation of the Master Plan that it had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of the County and cities in Lee County. The MPO population projections are reasonably accurate, and they are the best available data for purposes of planning water supply. The MPO projections are preferable to the "maximum theoretical" population accommodation used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis. Regardless of the appropriate analysis for purposes of determining whether a plan overallocates land, it would not be appropriate to plan water supply based on unrealistic population projections. The RWSMP uses MPO 2020 population projections that are somewhat different from, but reasonably close, to the 2020 population projections reflected in Figure 14 and used to support the FLUE of the Lee Plan. The special purposes of the RWSMP projections justify the differences. Besides, the differences are not large enough to prove beyond fair debate that the plan is not internally consistent. Wetlands Protection. Prior to the County's adoption of the EAR-based amendments, Goal 84 in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Lee Plan and its objectives and policies included guides for local land development regulations in the protection of wetlands by establishing allowable land uses and their densities, and by establishing design and performance standards for development in wetlands. The County modified Policy 84.1.2 (renumbered 84.1.1) in part by deleting a prohibition against the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or additional drainage features in wetlands. Ditches, canals and dikes could be constructed in wetlands to have beneficial effects. For example, a ditch could be built to increase the hydroperiod of a wetland and result in a benefit. A dike could enhance a mitigation area, which would also result in environmental benefits. Thus, the repeal of this prohibition could benefit wetlands. The 1984 data and analysis contained in the EAR recommended that the prohibition be deleted and instead suggested the use of performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. The EAR-based amendments to the Lee Plan do not include performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. Instead, the County has modified Policy 84.1.1 (renumbered 84.1.2) in part by deleting the following language: Wetland regulations shall be designed to protect, conserve, restore, or preserve water resource systems and attendant biological functions, including: Preventing degradation of water quality and biological productivity. Preventing degradation of freshwater storage capabilities. Preventing damage to property and loss of life due to flooding. Preventing degradation of the viability and diversity of native plants and animals and their habitats. Assuring the conservation of irretrievable or irreversible resources. In place of those performance standards, the EAR-based Policy 84.1.2 provides: The county's wetlands protection regulations will be amended by 1995 to be consistent with the following: In accordance with F.S. 163.3184(6)(c), the county will not undertake an independent review of the impacts to wetlands resulting from development in wetlands that is specifically authorized by a DEP or SWFWMD dredge and fill permit or exemption. No development in wetlands regulated by the State of Florida will be permitted by Lee County without the appropriate state agency permit or authorization. Lee County shall incorporate the terms and conditions of state permits into county permits and shall prosecute violations of state regulations and permit conditions through its code enforcement procedures. Every reasonable effort shall be required to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on wet- lands through the clustering of development and other site planning techniques. On- or off-site mitigation shall only be permitted in accordance with applicable state standards. Mitigation banks and the issuance and use of mitigation bank credits shall be permitted to the extent authorized by applicable state agencies. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County also modified Policy 84.1.4 by deleting language that addressed permitted uses in wetlands and their densities, but that issue is now covered under renumbered Policy 84.1.1. The amendments added to Policy 84.1.4 the following provision: Land uses in uplands will be regulated through the implementation of the Land Development Code to avoid degrading the values and functions of adjoining and nearby wetlands. New Policies 84.1.2 and 84.1.4 in effect defer performance standards covering development in wetlands to the state and water management district permitting processes. The Lee amendments in part are an attempt to avoid duplicating what state agencies accomplish through their permitting programs. The evidence is that the state and water management district permitting processes include newly adopted Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules. These rules consider the type, value, function, size, condition and location of wetlands in determining how to protect them. The ERP rules also require proposed development to avoid or eliminate wetland impacts or, if not possible, to minimize and mitigate for them. The ERP rules also require consideration of the cumulative and long-term adverse impacts of development on wetlands in a comprehensive manner within the same water basin. The DEP and the Southwest Florida Water Management District also have adopted supplemental ERP rules covering only the jurisdiction of that water management district, which includes Lee County. By including a requirement that every state environmental permit shall be incorporated into county permits and that violations of a state permit also are violations of the county permit, the Lee Plan commits the County to assist the State in enforcing environmental permits in Lee County. Through this new emphasis on compliance and enforcement, Lee County will be providing valuable assistance to state environmental protection. Lee County's efforts will assist those agencies by devoting staff to compliance and enforcement efforts. Prior to the EAR-based amendments, the County had two wetland land use categories under the Lee Plan. These were described as the Resource Protection Areas (RPA) and Transition Zones (TZ). Guidelines and standards for permitted uses and development in the RPA and TZ were found in the policies under Objective 84.1 and 84.2, respectively. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County replaced the RPA and TZ categories with a single Wetlands category. This new Wetlands category includes all lands that are identified as wetlands under the statewide definition using the state delineation methodology. The County's definition of "wetlands" in the plan amendments covers more area than the areas previously known as "resource protection" and "transition zones." To that extent, the present amendments to the Lee Plan give greater protection to wetlands than the previous version of the Lee Plan. The Lee Plan, as amended, also contains other GOP's. Taken together, the GOP's ensure the protection of wetlands and their natural functions. Reservation of Future Road Right-of-Way. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County has deleted or amended certain policies in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Lee Plan regarding the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. Deleted Policy 25.1.3 provided that the County would attempt to reserve adequate rights-of-way for state and county roads consistent with state and county plans. The County also deleted Policy 21.1.7, which addressed the possibility of acquiring future rights-of-way through required dedications of land. Policy 21.1.7 provided: The previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs shall not be construed so as to prohibit the adoption of regulations requiring such dedication. However, any such regulations must provide for a rational nexus between the amount of land for which dedication is required and the impact of the development in question, and must also provide that such dedication, when combined with other means which may be used to offset the impact of development (such as, for example, the imposition of impact fees), does not exceed the total impact of the develop- ment in question upon the county's transportation network. The "previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs," referenced in Policy 21.1.7, above, was Policy 21.1.6, which has been renumbered 21.1.5. As modified, that policy provides: In order to acquire rights-of-way and complete the construction of all roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map, voluntary dedications of land and construction of road segments and inter- sections by developers shall be encouraged through relevant provisions in the development regulations and other ordinances as described below: Voluntary dedication of rights-of-way necessary for improvements shown on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map shall be encouraged at the time local development orders are granted. In cases where there are missing segments in the traffic circulation system, developers shall be encouraged to also construct that portion of the thoroughfare that lies within or abuts the development, with appropriate credits granted towards impact fees for roads. However, site-related improvements (see glossary) are not eligible for credits towards impact fees. Policy 21.1.7 provided policy guidance for LDRs in establishing required dedication of future rights-of-way as a means of acquisition, if the County chose to use that measure. Policy 21.1.6 (renumbered 21.1.5) provides policy guidance for LDRs in establishing voluntary dedication of future rights- of-way as another means of acquisition. By deleting Policy 21.1.7, the Lee Plan, as amended, is left with a policy that establishes only the voluntary dedication measure as a means towards acquiring future rights-of-way to facilitate the construction of roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map of the Lee Plan. The County has made these changes because legally it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option after the decision in Joint Ventures, Inc., v. Dept. of Transportation, 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1990). The County's plan does more than just encourage voluntary dedication of rights-of-way. There are numerous policies in the Lee Plan that, taken together, adequately address the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. The following policies relate and achieve right-of-way protection: Policy 1.3, 1.6, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 6.1.5, 16.3.5, 21.1.5, Objective 21.2, Policies 21.2.1, 21.2.3, 21.2.5, 21.2.6, 21.2.7, Policy 23.1.2, 23.1.4, 23.2.3, Policy 25.1.1, and 25.1.3. Under these policies, all new projects receive a review for voluntary dedication as against the Lee County official trafficways map and the facility need identified for the planning horizon of the future traffic circulation element and map. In addition, all new developments are required to mitigate off-site impacts through a payment of impact fees. They are also required to address and mitigate site-related impacts through the provision of site-related improvements at the developer's expense. Payment of impact fees and additional revenues generated through mitigation of site-related impacts, both generate revenues for the capital improvements programming process for purchase of rights-of-way. Accomplishing necessary site-related improvements pursuant to the Lee County program also frequently results in County acquisition of rights-of-way at the developer's expense. Mitigation of site-related impacts, as well as payment of proportional share and impact fees, are generally accomplished through Policy 1.8.3, Subsection 1, Policy 2.3.2, Objective 3.1, Policy 3.1.3, Policy 7.1.2, Policy 14.3.2, Objective 22.1, 23.1, and the policies thereunder, Policy 23.1.1, 23.1.3-.7, 23.2.6, Objective 24.2, Policy 25.1.2, Objective 28.2, and Policy 70.1.1, Subsection A-7. The County's primary method of acquisition of rights-of-way is through the Capital Improvements Element. The Capital Improvements Element does include projected costs to purchase needed rights-of-way. The Lee County Capital Improvements Program is accomplished through Goal 70 of the Lee Plan, which expressly includes acquisition of rights-of-way. Objective 77.3 - Wildlife. Before the EAR-based changes, Objective 77.3 of the Lee Plan was to: "Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system . . .." In pertinent part, the EAR-based amendment deleted the phrase "current complement of." The change does not alter the meaning of the objective. The concept of a baseline expressed by the deleted phrase also is inherent in the words "[m]aintain and enhance" and remains in the amended objective. Policy 77.11.5 - Endangered and Threatened Species. The EAR-based amendments deleted Policy 77.11.5, which stated: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for public acquisition purposes shall be identified within these use areas. The corridor boundaries shall include wetlands, upland buffers, and nearby vegetative communities which are particularly beneficial to the Florida panther and black bear (such as high palmetto and oak hammocks). Data and analysis supports the deletion of the first two sentences. The use areas and public acquisition corridors have been identified. To reflect the new data and analysis, Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2 also were amended to provide for updating of data on sitings and habitat for these species and to encourage state land acquisition programs. The last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 has been transferred and added verbatim to Policy 77.11.2. Related Policy 77.11.4 was also amended to reflect new data and analysis and to provide that, instead of just encouraging the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand, the County shall continue an acquisition that is in progress. The Adoption Ordinance. As mentioned in connection with the Zemel amendment, Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. All of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires." All of the parties except for the Zemels agree that, under Section 8 of the ordinance, the "ultra vires" part of the adopting ordinance is severable from the rest of the ordinance, which remains valid. The Zemels take the positions (1) that the state circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the remainder of the ordinance is valid and (2) that the remainder of the ordinance is invalid. Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30 provided: [I]t is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners . . . to confer the whole or any part of the powers herein provided. If any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any remaining provision of this ordinance. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners that this ordinance would have been adopted had such unconstitutional provisions not been included therein. The evidence was that, notwithstanding Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30, one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. As discussed in connection with the Zemel amendment, the evidence was that one such package consisted of the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," and the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. There also was some less compelling evidence that amendments creating the Commercial Site Location Standards Map, FLUM 16, were intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. No other examples of similar "packages" of plan amendments was shown by the evidence or argued by any party. RGMC's Standing. The Responsible Growth Management Coalition, Inc. (RGMC), was formed in 1988 to insure compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule Chapter 9J-5 and to conserve resources. RGMC has offices in Lee County and conducts educational programs in Lee. In addition, at the time of the hearing, RGMC had 157 members residing throughout Lee County, most or all of whom own property in Lee County. RGMC participated in the process leading to the adoption of the Lee plan amendments in issue in this case and submitted oral or written comments, recommendations or suggestions between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the plan amendments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding that the Lee Plan amendments are not in compliance and requiring as remedial action: That the FLUE's mixed land use categories be amended to include percentage distribution or other objective measurements of the distribution among allowed uses, whether by use of an appropriate 2020 Overlay or by other appropriate means. That a sector plan be adopted for Lehigh Acres, including appropriate plans for provision of infrastructure, to create more balanced development in Lehigh and, to the extent possible, to direct future population growth to Lehigh and away from CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Such a sector plan could include minimum densities and target densities to support mass transit along transit corridors in Lehigh. That consideration be given to increasing densities in central urban areas and along transit corridors while at the same time reducing densities or adopting other plan provisions, such as the prohibition of certain kinds of development, to afford more protection to CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. One example would be the prohibition, or staging, of non-farm development in some or all rural areas. That, in accordance with Policy 75.1.4, undeveloped areas within CHHA be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. That the data and analysis supporting the remedial amendments account for units approved but not built and include both a population accommodation analysis based on maximum densities and an explanation of how the GOP's in the remedial amendments justify the resulting allocation ratio. That the remedial amendments include data and analysis of the impact of the resulting plan, as amended, on hurricane evacuation and clearance times and shelter planning, especially if, as part of remedial amendments, the 2010 Overlay is removed (or replaced). That the remedial amendments be based on data and analysis as to the need for commercial and industrial land, including the Alico amendment property. That the data and analysis extrapolate solid waste projections to 2020. That the sub-elements of the Community Facilities and Services Element (and other parts of the plan, as appropriate) be consistent with and based on data and analysis of future population predictions in light of any remedial amendments to the FLUE and FLUM. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0098GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1995), as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, Ltd., v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: DCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-17. Accepted. 18. There is a legal issue whether Ordinance 94-30 was adopted validly; otherwise, accepted. 19.-28. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected in part: plan includes "guides" (but no "objective measurements"); and Commercial Site Location Standards Map 16 implies that other uses are required elsewhere in the districts where these sites are located. Otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, rejected. (Assumptions are in part "based on" the GOP's, but they also assume less development than permitted by the GOP's.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Characterization "conservative" rejected as argument; otherwise, accepted. 34.-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted as being theoretically possible, but not likely to happen. 37.-38. Accepted. 39. Accepted as approximation of maximum theoretical residential capacity. 40.-46. Accepted. (However, as to 45 and 46, these numbers do not take into account industrial land needed to serve municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves.) First sentence, conclusion of law. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (The plan is "based on" the population projections, but allocates more land than needed to accommodate the population.) First sentence, conclusion of law; second sentence, accepted. 49.-50. Conclusions of law. 51.-52. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 53. First sentence, conclusion of law; second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; last sentence, accepted. 54.-55. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 56. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 57.-58. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; third, accepted (but does not prove non- compliance with the state plan.) First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 63.-64. Accepted. As to b.1. not timely raised; accepted as to b.2. (but easily extrapolated five more years to 2020); otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First two sentences of a. and b., accepted; otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (As to b., the discrepancies are not significant enough to create "internal inconsistency.") First sentence, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; rest, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that deletion of the Overlay "accelerated development." (Rather, it allows--and, under certain conditions, would result it--development of more acreage sooner.) First sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First and third sentences, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are easonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The RWSMP population projections are reasonably close to the Figure 14 projections. See also 66., above.) First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See also 71., above. 74.-77. Accepted. 78. 2850 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); otherwise, accepted. 79.-81. Accepted. 82.-83. Accepted. However, last sentences assume: (1) accurate inventory of developed acres in Orlando comparable to the land uses in AC under the Lee Plan; (2) 2850 acres of AC; and (3) developability of all AC acreage--including wetlands--for AC use. Those assumptions are not, or may not be, reasonable. 84. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See 82.-83. 85.-87. Accepted. However, as to 87., it is noted that the words "area," "surrounded by," and "nearby" are imprecise. Accepted; however, the degree of the sandstone aquifer's "susceptibility" to impacts depends on many factors. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that existing sources cannot produce any more; however, proven that new sources will be required, and otherwise accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that groundwater moves "to" the existing and planned wellfields. Otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. Fourth sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 97.-98. Accepted. Characterization of methodology as "flawed" rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It depends on the use being made of the results of the methodology.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, legal conclusion. (Legally, it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option, and the County's amendments presume that it is not.) Rest, accepted. 102.-105. Accepted. 106. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that voluntary dedication is not "effective" as one of several policies. Otherwise, accepted. 107.-108. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the state regulations are supposed to serve as "guidelines" or "guidance" for LDR's; rather, they are to serve in the place of duplicative County LDR's on the subject. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, appropriate comprehensive planning for wetlands occurs in other parts of the plan; the state regulations take the place of performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. Rest, accepted. (However, state regulations apply to some uplands that adjoin or are near to wetlands.) First sentence, accepted. (They don't guide the establishment of design and performance standard kinds of LDR's for any development in any wetlands; the state regulations take the place of design and performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (that they are the "core wetland policies in the plan.") Third sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. RGMC's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted. 9. Conclusion of law. 10.-15. Subordinate; conclusion of law; argument. 16. Accepted but subordinate. 17.-18. Rejected as not supported by record evidence. 19.-35. Accepted. 35(a). Conclusion of law. 36.-40. Accepted. 40(a). Conclusion of law. 41. Accepted. 41(a). Conclusion of law. 42.-44. Accepted. Accepted; however, the option to consider assignment of the minimum of a range of densities is in parentheses after the primary option to consider reducing densities. Largely argument. The objective and policy is "triggered" by any plan amendment, before and after the change from "A Zone" to "CHHA." See 47. Accepted. 47(a). Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (It is a question of internal consistency.) Accepted. 48(a). Argument and recommended remediation. Accepted. 50.-59. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 60.-62. Accepted. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 65.-66. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are reasonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) 67.-73(a) County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 77.-78. 2800 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); 1000 rejected as 400 low; otherwise, accepted. 79.-81(a). Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 82(a). Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Accepted but "between" is imprecise. Accepted, but not likely. Accepted that two are mutually exclusive; otherwise, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the lands are "adjacent"; otherwise, accepted. 93.-94. Accepted. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that it is "the reasonable professionally acceptable methodology." Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Whether it is appropriate to apply a safety margin factor just to projected new growth can depend on the safety margin factor used and how far out the projection.) Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as being hypothetical argument. (Also, the ratios do not convert to percentages, i.e., 25:1 does not convert to a safety margin factor of 25 percent.) 104.-111(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that "overallocations" occur in the earlier years of the planning timeframe; the relevant inquiry relates to the planning horizon. Also, as to 111., the reference should be to the year 2020. (Also, again the ratios do not convert to percentages.) Otherwise, accepted. 112.-118. Accepted as being paraphrased from part of the Sheridan Final Order. 119.-128. Accepted as being the adjustments to Figure 14B to yield unrealistic "maximum theoretical" capacity. 129.-130. Conclusions of law. 131. Accepted. 132.-133. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The plan does not "propose development"; its projections on which the County bases its facilities and services are more realistic that the "maximum theoretical" capacity projections.) Also, these specific issues were not timely raised, and County motion to strike granted. 134. Accepted. 135.-140. Descriptions of what the various FLUM's show and what development has occurred over the years, accepted as reasonably accurate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there were either official or unofficial "urban expansion lines." (It was not clear from the evidence whether the so-called "Proposed EAR Urban Boundary" shown on Lee Exhibit 53 was either an official or an unofficial "urban expansion line," and there was no other evidence of any "urban expansion lines.") Also, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there was a "failure to maintain" them, or that the Southwest International Airport or the Westinghouse Gateway DRI "breached" the alleged "1988 urban expansion line." (The Westinghouse Gateway DRI was vested prior to 1984, and the regional airport development appears on FLUM's prior to 1988.) Also, development that occurred in earlier years is not particularly probative on the issues in this case (in particular, the amendment eliminating the Overlay). 141.-142. Accepted. 142(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Also, the specific issue of failure to establish an "urban expansion line" is not raised by amendments at issue in this case (in particular, the elimination of the Overlay), and was not timely raised by any party. 143.-146. Densities in land use categories, accepted as reasonably accurate. The rest is rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. The plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance. Primarily, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage of non-urban land uses prior to 2010. They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020. 147.-150. Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. 150(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. Conclusion of law. In part, accepted; in part conclusion of law. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. 154.-160. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It remains to be seen how effective they will be in the long term.) Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage in potential wildlife habitat and corridor areas prior to 2010. (They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. 164.-168. Rejected because issues not raised timely. 169. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. 170.-174. County motion to strike granted. 175.-179. Accepted. 180.-182. Conclusions of law. 183.-184. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 185. Accepted. 186.-188. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 189. First clause, rejected (see 186.-188.); second clause, accepted. 190.-191. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 192.-193. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 194. Conclusion of law. 195.-196. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 197.-198. Except for typographical errors, accepted. (However, the last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 was transferred verbatim to amended Policy 77.11.2.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence to be the entire justification. (Also justified by updated data and analysis--namely, that the habitats have been identified and mapped--and by amended Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2, which respond to the new data and analysis.) Argument. 201.-204. Cumulative. (See 154.-157.) 205.-206. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 207.-208. Accepted. Accepted (although not demonstrated by Lee Exhibit 49). Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not clear from the evidence that the Zemel property is connected to and part of the Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area. Otherwise, accepted. 213.-216. Accepted. 217.-218. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (which is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 219.-222. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate (which, again, is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 223. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected. See 217.-222. Zemels' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted; however, relatively little of the Zemel property abuts either U.S. 41 or Burnt Store Road. 2-10. Accepted. Last clause rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; another option would be to amend the definition. Otherwise, accepted. Last clause, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that they are not "sparsely developed." Otherwise, accepted. 13.-15. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence as to the south; otherwise, accepted but irrelevant to the application of the definition. Accepted; however, not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Zemel property is not north of "sparsely developed areas." (Emphasis added.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rest, accepted in large part and rejected in part as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Clearly, at least a good portion of the Zemel property is "extremely remote" from all existing public services. Some portions of the Zemel property are not "extremely remote" from some public services, but not proven by a preponderance of evidence that at least some public services are not "extremely remote" from all portions of the Zemel property. Also, in addition to existing public services, c) and e) also refer to future public services. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that no agricultural activities have been profitable (only that row crop farming has not); otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (as to second and third sentences, because of the existence of the Open Lands category.) Accepted (although there also are other data and analysis in the record). First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Not all of the statements are "conclusory".) Second, accepted. Third, rejected; see 21., above. 28.-29. Accepted. (However, as to 29., it refers to existing access.) First sentence, accepted. A. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "fails to recognize" the roads in northern Cape Coral (although it clearly does not mention them); otherwise, accepted. B. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "appears to ignore" the water line along U.S. 41 (although it clearly does not mention it); otherwise, accepted. C. - accepted; however, the "proximity" is to a point on the periphery of the property. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence except using the County's methodology. Otherwise, accepted. 33.-34. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The County in effect "borrowed" the DCA's data and analysis.) Rest, accepted. Accepted, assuming the County's methodology; however, there also are other concerns. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. As to the second, there is rural land to the northwest; as to the third, there also is resource protection land in Charlotte County to the north, and the "enclave" is large; as to the fourth, no I-75 boundary would appear to apply to Township 43 even if it might appear to apply to the south. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The analysis compares the costs and difficulty in Yucca Pen to Lehigh and Cape Coral; in terms of such a comparison, the differences are significant.) 40.-45. Accepted. County's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; third, accepted (assuming "actual bona fide business" means a for-profit commercial enterprise.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the DCA "agreed with and relied on" the County's analysis. (The DCA utilized the analysis for purposes of its objection.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the determination was "on a largely subjective basis" (although some determinations necessarily were at least partly subjective); otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay was designed "without policy considerations" or that historic growth trends were "simply extrapolated." (The policy considerations already in the plan were utilized, and an effort was made to predict growth in light of those policy considerations. It is true, however, that the Overlay was not designed to further direct growth patterns within the planning districts and subdistricts.) Accepted (but not particularly probative). 11.-14. Accepted. Rejected in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it implies that the impact of the plan was not taken into consideration in predicting future population. See 9., above. Otherwise, accepted. Firsts sentence, accepted. As to second and third, not clear from the evidence what if anything was submitted in the way of data and analysis for the remedial amendments. They were not introduced in evidence or referred to by any party. As to the last sentence, it is not clear from the evidence exactly how the 2.11 factor was derived or whether it took into account the 2010 population accommodation for Lehigh (282,000 people in this analysis). (T. 1267-1269.) If the 507,000 units of accommodation did not include Lehigh, the total accommodation of 1.06 million also could not have included Lehigh. Accepted. First three sentences, argument. Rest, accepted. 19.-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as unclear what "that allocation" refers to. (Accepted if it means "up to 125 percent"; rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence if it means "200 percent.") 22.-23. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (In addition, a more meaningful comparison would be between the adopted EAR 2020 plan without a 2010 Overlay and a 2020 plan with an overlay extending the 2010 Overlay out another ten years.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rest, accepted (as accurate recitation of testimony) but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 30.-32. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to first sentence, see Sheridan Final Order.) Accepted. First and last sentences, accepted. Rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Such an approach would direct population to Lehigh, which might be the best thing to do. (At this point in time, development of Lehigh under a good Sector Plan might be able to change what was classic urban sprawl under past conditions into well-planned growth under present and future conditions.) It might also direct population to other, non- urban areas if densities were not low enough in them. Finally, Nelson suggested other ways of bring the plan into compliance without the Overlay. 38.-42. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The County did not seek to "match the available land to meet that growth"; rather, it checked to see if what was on the FLUM would "accommodate" (i.e., hold) the population projected for 2020. Last sentence, rejected in that RGMC challenged the opinion in its response to this proposed finding; otherwise, accepted. Rejected that the County "cannot alter the future development" of Lehigh or that Lehigh is "beyond the reach of" the comprehensive plan; otherwise, accepted. The 199 acres is part of the 685 acre total. Otherwise, generally accepted. However, significant additional growth can be expected in coastal areas, and there is rural land both within and outside the so-called "I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; presumably, the existence of this land is the reason the finding is couched in the terms: "the remaining area . . . is largely . . . along the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; and "all future growth . . . will predominantly occur." First and third sentences, conclusion of law; second, accepted. Conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted but subordinate; also, the rule citation is incorrect; in addition, they testified to the effect of removing the Overlay. Second sentence, conclusion of law. Accepted. (The effect of the Overlay is in the extent of the indicators that exist.) Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted; third, conclusion of law; fourth, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear"; also, conclusion of law. 58.-60. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The same conditions exist without the Overlay.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay did not have any "true policy bias or consideration built into it"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, the same conditions exist without the Overlay.) 68.-71. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "removing Cape Coral . . . reduces the FLUM capacity"; rather, it represents a change in the methodology of evaluating the FLUM capacity. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. 74.-78. Accepted. However, it appears that the County's treatment of Lehigh essentially was a device to enable it to have the projected population in the year 2020 treated as if it were the capacity of Lehigh in the year 2020. 79.-81. First sentence of 79, unclear; rest, accepted. However, only certain retail commercial are restricted to the locations on Map 16; others can go either there or elsewhere. 82.-85. Conclusion of law. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the ELUM "represents the growth trends" (rather, it shows what is there now) or that, except for Lehigh, growth only "is occurring in the north/south core." Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First and last sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Barrier" is too strong; "obstacle" or "hindrance" would be accepted.) Otherwise, accepted. 91.-95. Generally, accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as conclusion of law that they are "objective measures" and "responsive to . . . 5(c)"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, accepted (although some higher, urban densities are in coastal areas, and there remains some rural land in the so-called "north/south core"); third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that a "large impact" is "clear"; fourth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the "segmentation" is absolute but otherwise accepted. Except for Lehigh, generally accepted. (What is missing are "objective measures.") Generally, accepted. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "nearly identical." Third sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it necessarily is not excessive. The evidence was that it is not necessarily excessive, but it could be depending on many factors, including whether it was calculated based on total capacity on the planning horizon or incremental growth during the planning timeframe, and the length of the planning horizon. Otherwise, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; last two, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 107.-108. Accepted. 109. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. 110.-117. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The effect of removing the Overlay is to allow more development sooner throughout the County. The effect of the increased development would depend on how it occurs. As to 116 and 117, one purpose of the Overlay was to require a mix of uses in mixed land use districts. First sentence, rejected. See 110-117, above. Rest, accepted. Cumulative. Last sentence, subordinate argument; except for apparent typographical error in third sentence, rest accepted. Last sentence, rejected as unclear from the evidence why there has been no agricultural use; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Significance" depends on other factors as well, including the amount of acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) Assuming that the "127 additional acres" refers to uplands, the rest is accepted. 124.-125. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and, in part, conclusion of law. There was no evidence of any serious risk of a taking. If these were legitimate reasons to redesignate the Alico property AC, it would be questionable if any DRGR would survive. First sentence, accepted (assuming the County's efforts are otherwise "in compliance"; second, subordinate argument; third, cumulative. Accepted. (However, the County's analysis does not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) First four sentences, accepted but irrelevant; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "safe to assume"; last sentence, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that mining would "permanently preempt" commercial use, but accepted that subsequent commercial use would be much less likely; fourth sentence, accepted (except for typos); last sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not clear that it "won't be available," but accepted that it may not, depending on when it is "needed." Rest, accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear" but accepted that it probably "will not pose a significant threat"; third and fourth, accepted; fifth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that there is no recharge, but accepted that recharge is not better than average; rest, accepted. Accepted (with the understanding that the last sentence refers to surface water runoff). First sentence, accepted; second and third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Gulf Utilities-San Carlos wellfield is the only wellfield in the water table aquifer (otherwise, the third sentence is accepted). 134.-136. Accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There also were other internal consistency issues concerning the date.) Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 140.-141. Accepted. 142. Irrelevant; issue not timely raised. 143.-144. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (in that DCA and RGMC did not prove internal inconsistency beyond fair debate); second, third and fourth sentences, accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay); rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 147.-149. Accepted. First two sentences, argument; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; last, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that a reduction in densities is not necessarily positive; rest, accepted. 152.-155. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (assuming it refers to the deleted first sentence of former Policy 84.1.2, now 84.1.1); second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence since its context requires the opposite interpretation. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the report "specifically recommends the amendment . . . in the fashion that Lee County has done." Otherwise, accepted. 159.-160. Accepted (159, based on the plan language and Joyce testimony, as well as the Deadman testimony.) First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; conclusion of law; subordinate. Accepted; subordinate. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 166.-169. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Use of the "allocation ratio" is being determined in this case.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order can be said to be a DCA "publication." Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Joint Exhibit 17 gives some indication of how to apply an "allocation ratio"; accepted that Joint Exhibit 17 does not fully explain how to apply the "allocation ratio." Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order constitutes such evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Atlantic Gulf's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted. 4. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 5.-7. Accepted. 8.-10. In part conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. (The incorporation of the DEP and SWFWMD permitting requirements only replaces former County permitting requirements; other parts of the amended plan's provisions relating to wetlands protection remain in effect.) Alico's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-13. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the phrase "substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" may distinguish DRGR-suitable land from other land by the nature of the aquifer it recharges, not by the relative amounts of recharge. However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that it is in the "area" of "most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. 16.-19. Accepted. Accepted (assuming it refers to the DCA submitting); subordinate. Accepted. 22.-24. Subordinate argument and conclusion of law. 25.-34. Accepted. 35.-36. Accepted; subordinate. Last sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument and conclusion of law. Accepted (except, in s. and u., it should read "Six Mile Cypress Basin.") Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the list is not exhaustive ; otherwise, accepted. 40.-41. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Policy 7.1.1 just says applications are to be "reviewed and evaluated as to" these items; it does not say that "negative impacts" must be "avoided." Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Goal 12 and Standard 12.4 under it are renumbered under the current amendments as Goal 11 and Standard 11.4; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that former Standard 14.1 has been transferred to Policy 7.1.1. under the current amendments. See 40 and 42, above. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that former designation as DRGR is the only reason why water quality and quantity issues arise; second, cumulative. Cumulative. First two sentences, cumulative; rest, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, unclear which fact is "in dispute"; rest, accepted. (The AC amendment property probably would not be developed as a producing wellfield.) First sentence, accepted; second, cumulative. First two clauses of first sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, cumulative; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. 55.-56. Cumulative. 57.-59. Accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, third and fourth sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, argument; rest, accepted. Accepted. 65.-66. In part, cumulative; otherwise, accepted. 67.-70. Accepted. First sentence, argument; middle sentences, accepted; penultimate sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that he made no blanket concession, instead conditioning interception on water table levels; last sentence, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that there's no "realistic way" "you" can do it); rest, accepted. 73.-74. Cumulative. Accepted. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. Beginning, cumulative; last sentence, subordinate argument. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the influence of additional pumping has not been analyzed; last, accepted. Accepted. First two sentences, conclusion of law; last, accepted. Subordinate argument. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the "performance standards" say to maintain current protection and expand protection "to encompass the entire area." Accepted. (However, it is far from clear that the BMP's referred to in Policy 1.2.2 are the same ones referred to in this proposed finding.) Accepted. 87.-88. Subordinate argument. Cumulative or subordinate argument. Unclear what is meant by "several generations of numbers." Otherwise, cumulative. Cumulative. Accepted but subordinate. Accepted. (However, he also raised the question that the County's analysis did not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) 94.-95. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that they conceded need is not based exclusively on resident and seasonal population, not that it is not based at all on it; third, accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument. Accepted. Accepted. (Nor was there testimony that there is a need based on population.) Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law, cumulative, and rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that there was evidence of other motivations for providing the information as well. Accepted. (However, the analysis was limited to Orlando, and Nelson's method resulted in no need found.) Subordinate argument; cumulative. Subordinate argument. Accepted. (As to third sentence, neither did any other witness.) 106.-107. Accepted. Last sentence, subordinate argument; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (or, at least, unclear); rest accepted. Cumulative. 110.-113. Accepted. Cumulative. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted as an excerpt from the dictionary, but argument and conclusion of law that it is the "plain meaning" of the word "need," as used in 9J-5. (Also, citation to Joint Exhibit 11, p. 9, is not understood.) Argument and cumulative. 117.-118. Accepted. 119.-120. Conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 121. Last sentence, accepted. (It is not clear from the evidence that the designation of the property as "Panther Priority 2" on Lee Exhibit 42, introduced by RGMC, means that the County has identified it as being "in need of conservation.") Rest, conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 122.-126. Conclusion of law and cumulative. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not essentially incorporated into the Findings of Fact of this Recommended Order, they were considered to be either subordinate or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jordan, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Bridgette Ffolkes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Timothy Jones, Esquire Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue So. St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Connie C. Durrence, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Charles J. Basinait, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Steven C. Hartsell, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Thomas B. Hart, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Post Office Box 2449 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2449 Michael J. Ciccarone, Esquire Goldberg, Goldstein, & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Greg Smith, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capitol - Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning Administration Commission The Capitol - Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue is whether proposed rules 9J-5.026(3)(d), (7)(b), (7)(c)4. and 6., (8)(a), (9)(a)3., 6., 18., and 19., and 9J- 11.023(2), (4), and (5), and existing Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(80) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged in the Petition for Administrative Hearing to Challenge Proposed Amendments to Chapters 9J-5 and 9J-11, F.A.C. and to Challenge Existing Rule 9J-5.003(80) (Petition).1
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings are made: The Parties Petitioners are not-for-profit organizations whose members own real property throughout the State. A substantial number of their respective members own real property which could be amassed as one or more areas in the RLSA program. Some members of these organizations have taken steps in an effort to have their land designated as an RLSA. On behalf of their respective members, each Petitioner has a substantial interest in public policy relating to land use planning, growth management, and the protection of agricultural, rural, and conservation lands. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (Department), has stipulated to the facts necessary to establish standing for each Petitioner. The Department is the state agency charged with implementing the review provisions of the Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act codified in Sections 163.3164, et seq., Florida Statutes. The Original Statute Creating the RLSA Program Because of the complexity of the subject matter, a recitation of the RLSA program's history is appropriate. In 2001, the Legislature enacted Chapter 2001-279, Laws of Florida, codified as Section 163.3177(11)(d), Florida Statutes, which created the RLSA pilot program. The law became effective on July 1, 2001, and stated: It is the intent of the Legislature that rural land stewardship areas be used to further the following broad principles of rural sustainability: restoration and maintenance of the economic value of rural land; control of urban sprawl; identification and protection of ecosystems, habitats, and natural resources; promotion of rural economic activity; maintenance of the viability of Florida's agriculture economy; and protection of the character of the rural areas of Florida. § 163.3177(11)(d)2., Fla. Stat. (2001). While the eligibility criteria and substantive requirements of the RLSA program have been amended several times, the foregoing principles have remained the same. The statute provides an option, not an exception, under the State's growth management laws for local governments to implement innovative planning and development strategies for large, rural parcels. While having many of the attributes of a traditional "transfer of development rights" program, the RLSA planning process provides additional planning and economic incentives as well as flexibility for the local government to implement this program. The program was best summarized by Secretary Pelham at hearing as follows: The RLSA process is an optional planning process which local governments may elect to use in rural and agricultural areas of the state. Essentially it provides incentives to landowners to preserve or conserve environmental and natural resources and agricultural lands by giving them stewardship credits that may be assigned to those lands to be preserved, but which can be used on other lands through a transfer of those credits to the receiving areas. Tr. at 182. The first step in the RLSA planning process is for the local government to "apply to the Department in writing requesting consideration for authorization to designate a [RLSA]." § 163.3177(11)(d)3., Fla. Stat. (2001). Under the original statute, if the Department chose to authorize a local government to designate an RLSA, it would do so by written agreement with the local government. See § 163.3177(11)(d)4. and (5), Fla. Stat. (2001). Because the original statute was a pilot program, the Department could authorize only five local governments to designate RLSAs. See § 163.3177(11)(d)6., Fla. Stat. (2001). To be eligible for designation as an RLSA under this pilot program, a parcel of land had to be larger than 50,000 acres but not over 250,000 acres; it had to be designated as rural or a substantial equivalent on the future land use map (FLUM); and it had to be located outside the municipal and established urban growth boundaries. See § 163.3177(11)(d)6., Fla. Stat. (2001). For this reason, only counties (and not cities) were eligible to participate in the program. Once it received Department authorization to designate an RLSA, the county was to then propose and adopt a plan amendment designating the RLSA. See § 163.3177(11)(d)6., Fla. Stat. (2001). This plan amendment was to be subject to full review under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, for a compliance determination. Also, the plan amendment was required to specifically address the following: Criteria for the designation of receiving areas within rural land stewardship areas in which innovative planning and development strategies may be applied. Criteria shall at a minimum provide for the following adequacy of suitable land to accommodate development so as to avoid conflict with environmentally sensitive areas, resources, and habitats; compatibility between and transition from higher density uses to lower intensity rural uses; the establishment of receiving area service boundaries which provide for a separation between receiving areas and other land uses within the rural land stewardship area through limitations on the extension of services; and connection of receiving areas with the rest of the rural land stewardship area using rural design and rural road corridors. Goals, objectives, and policies setting forth the innovative planning and development strategies to be applied within rural land stewardship areas pursuant to the provisions of this section. A process for the implementation of innovative planning and development strategies within the rural land stewardship area, including those described in this subsection and s. 9J-5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code, which provide for a functional mix of land uses and which are applied through the adoption by the local government of zoning and land development regulations applicable to the rural land stewardship area. A process which encourages visioning pursuant to s. 163.3167(11) to ensure that innovative planning and development strategies comply with the provisions of this section. The control of sprawl through the use of innovative strategies and creative land use techniques consistent with the provisions of this subsection and rule 9J-5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code. Once the plan amendment was in place, the county was then to implement it through land development regulations. Under the original statute, the county by ordinance was to "assign to the [RLSA] a certain number of credits, to be known as 'transferable rural land use credits' . . . ." These credits would then be transferred to designated receiving areas "solely for the purpose of implementing innovative planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques adopted by the local government pursuant to this section." See § 163.3177(11)(d)8.b., Fla. Stat. (2001). Once transferable rural land use credits were transferred from a parcel, the underlying land uses would be extinguished, the parcel would be limited to agriculture or conservation, and the transfer would be memorialized as a restrictive covenant running with the land. See § 163.3177(11)(d)8.k., Fla. Stat. (2001). The Department was granted the authority to implement this section by rule in the original statute. However, the Department did not adopt rules. No county applied to participate in this pilot program. Amendments to the RLSA Statute The Legislature substantially amended the statute in 2004. See Ch. 2004-372, Laws of Fla. Although the program had no participants as of that time, the Legislature removed the pilot status of the program and the limitation on the number of local governments that may be authorized to designate an RLSA. See § 163.3177(11)(d)1., Fla. Stat. (2004). Although the requirement for a written agreement between the county and the Department was deleted, the requirement for the county's application and Department's authorization prior to the designation of an RLSA remained. See § 163.3177(11)(d)1. and 4., Fla. Stat. (2004). The minimum acreage for an RLSA was reduced to 10,000 acres and the maximum was removed. § 163.3177(11)(d)4., Fla. Stat. (2004). The statute also explicitly recognized that RLSAs could be multi-county. § 163.3177(11)(d)2., Fla. Stat. (2004). In 2005, the Legislature again amended the statute in several respects, one of which was directed to the stewardship credit methodology. See Ch. 2005-290, Laws of Fla. However, the statute still requires that the total amount of credits is to be tied to the "25-year or greater projected population of the rural land stewardship area." Although the statute was amended again in 2006, those amendments have no bearing on the issues in this case. See Ch. 2006-220, Laws of Fla. Designating an RLSA Under the Statute Collier County has been frequently mentioned as a local government with an RLSA program. However, that County's comprehensive plan provisions regarding rural development were not adopted under the RLSA statute; rather, they were adopted by the County in 1999 as conventional plan amendments that were later approved in 2002 by a final order issued by the Administration Commission. Collier County's rural planning program does, however, have some of the same core attributes found in the RLSA program, including the creation of transferable land use credits to enable development in designated receiving areas. The Department closely examined the Collier County program as part of its "Rural Land Stewardship Area Program 2007 Annual Report to the Legislature" (2007 Annual Report). See Joint Exhibit 4. See also § 163.3177(11)(d)8., Fla. Stat. ("[t]he department shall report to the Legislature on an annual basis on the results of implementation of [RLSAs] authorized by the department"). This examination revealed several substantial flaws in the program. First, the Collier County program is extremely complex, with over twenty general attributes that must be examined for every acre of land assigned stewardship credits. This would make it difficult and expensive for small rural counties with limited resources. The Collier County program also assigns the highest stewardship credits to environmentally sensitive lands and appreciably lower values to agricultural land. The result is that development is directed to agricultural areas. For example, eighty-seven percent of the footprint of one receiving area that is currently being developed, known as Ave Maria, was in active agriculture prior to its designation for development. In this respect, the Collier County system is directing development to agricultural lands and not protecting and conserving those lands, which the Department contends contravenes the principles of rural sustainability. Another major concern with the Collier County program is the extent and distribution of receiving areas. The Collier County program does not have any requirements that the receiving area be clustered, thus allowing for the possibility of scattered, sprawling receiving areas throughout eastern Collier County. Also, there appears to be no limit on the footprint of these receiving areas. The original Collier County program envisioned development on only nine to ten percent of the entire area, for a total of approximately 16,800 acres. However, due to the complexity and "flexibility" within the Collier County stewardship credit system, "the maximum development footprint cannot be determined." On September 12, 2006, St. Lucie County adopted plan amendments under the RLSA statute. Later that year, the Department reviewed the amendments and found them to be in compliance. In preparing the 2007 Annual Report, the Department undertook a detailed analysis of the St. Lucie RLSA amendments. Even though the amendments had been previously found to be in compliance, the new analysis revealed several shortcomings in the amendments, including their failure to discuss, analyze, or demonstrate how they further the principles of rural sustainability, a primary focus of the program. Also, the amendments were not supported by an analysis of land use need. Instead of projecting population and need, the RLSA adopted an arbitrary cap of 13,248 dwelling units with "no known planning basis." The St. Lucie RLSA is similar to the Collier County program in two respects: it is very complex, and it places no spacial limits on the footprint of the development area. Due to these shortcomings, the Department has placed little, if any, reliance on the St. Lucie County RLSA amendments as an example of proper planning under the RLSA statute. There is no evidence that any development has occurred under the St. Lucie program, and its most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report dated October 2008 indicated that none may ever occur. In 2007, Highlands and Osceola Counties both applied for and were granted authorization by the Department to designate RLSAs. However, both counties later notified the Department that they would no longer pursue the RLSAs, and the authorizations were withdrawn by the Department. The Rule Development Process In early 2007, the Department became aware of assertions by some landowners that the RLSA program provides for unlimited development within a stewardship area; that RLSA plan amendments were not subject to the growth management provisions in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; and that RLSAs were not subject to a needs analysis, as required by the law. At the same time, the Department received numerous inquiries from large landowners and/or their representatives regarding RLSA proposals, some as large as 750,000 acres, and for two "new towns" with 100,000 and 60,000 dwelling units, respectively. It also became aware of concerns and criticisms leveled against the one adopted RLSA program in St. Lucie County and rural planning efforts in Collier County. The main criticism was that the system being used for RLSA planning was too complex, which resulted in an expensive, consultant- intensive process that lacked transparency and was largely incomprehensible. Based on the above concerns and criticisms, the Department began gathering information in early 2007 in preparation for rulemaking. On July 19, 2007, it conducted its first workshop. Two other workshops were held, and the first draft of proposed rule 9J-5.026 was issued in January 2008. That proposed rule set forth the minimum substantive requirements for RLSA planning. In September 2008, the Department issued its first draft of proposed rule 9J-11.023, which sets forth the procedural requirements for a local government to seek authorization from the Department to designate an RLSA. After receiving comments from interested parties, the Department noticed the rules for adoption and conducted a rule adoption hearing. On January 7, 2009, Petitioners filed a Petition challenging most of the provisions in the proposed rules. See DOAH Case No. 09-0048RP. Based upon that challenge, which raised new issues not previously brought to the attention of the Department, the Department withdrew the rules and made substantial revisions to address these concerns. This rendered moot Petitioners' earlier challenge. After the revised rules were noticed for adoption, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging numerous provisions within the proposed rules as well as one existing rule. The Objections As summarized in their Proposed Final Order, Petitioners contend (a) that proposed rules 9J-11.023(2), (4), and (5) are invalid because they exceed the Department's grant of rulemaking authority;4 (b) that proposed rules 9J-5.026(7)(b), (7)(c)4., 6., (8)(a), and (9)(a)3., 6., 18., and 19. enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented; (c) that proposed rule 9J-5.026(3) is vague and fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions; (d) that proposed rule 9J-5.026(9)(a)18. is arbitrary; and (e) that existing Rule 9J-5.003(80) contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented. The remaining allegations have been voluntarily dismissed. a. Does proposed rule 9J-11.023 exceed the grant of legislative authority? Petitioners first contend that subsections (2) and (4) in their entirety and the words "If authorized to proceed" in the first sentence of subsection (5) of proposed rule 9J-11.023 are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because they exceed the Department's specific grant of legislative authority. The challenged subsections of the proposed rule read as follows: 9J-11.023 Procedure for the Designation of a Rural Land Stewardship Area. * * * (2) Pre-Notification Actions. Prior to giving official notification of intent to designate a RLSA to the Department, the county(ies) shall conduct at least one noticed public workshop to discuss and evaluate the appropriateness of establishing a RLSA. The county(ies) shall invite the Department of Community Affairs, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Affairs, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Transportation, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, affected regional planning council(s), and affected water management district(s) (collectively referred to as the "RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team") to participate in the workshop. Potentially affected landowners and other interested parties shall be given notice and invited to participate in the workshop. The workshop shall address: the statutory process for designating a RLSA; the planning issues that are likely to arise; and the technical assistance that will be available from state and regional agencies if the county(ies) proceed to designate a RLSA. The county(ies) shall provide opportunities for broad public participation in the RLSA process, which may include a series of public meetings or workshops. The county(ies), in coordination with the affected landowners, shall host a site visit of the RLSA for the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team in conjunction with the workshop or after the notification of intent to designate pursuant to paragraph (4)(b). * * * Review of Notification of Intent to Designate. The Department will provide members of the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team with a copy of the notification of intent to designate within five days after receipt of the notification. If a site visit was not made prior to the notification of intent to designate, the Department will contact the county(ies) within ten days after receipt of the notification of intent to arrange a site visit of the proposed RLSA and surrounding lands. The county(ies) shall ensure proper coordination with the affected landowners. The Department will coordinate the scheduling of the site visit with the members of the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team and request their participation in the site visit. Members of the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team shall be asked to provide the Department oral and/or written comments on the proposed RLSA within 30 days of the receipt of the notification of intent to designate or the site visit, if it occurs after the notification. The Department may also request meetings with the members of the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team to discuss and evaluate the notification and site visit. The Department may also request a conference with the county's(ies') staff(s) to discuss issues and questions that have arisen as a result of the site visit, comments from members of the Interagency Technical Advisory Team and other stakeholders, and the Department's evaluation of the RLSA proposal. Not later than 60 days following the receipt of the notification of intent to designate or the site visit, whichever is later, the Department shall issue a written notification to the county(ies). The Department's notification shall authorize the county(ies) to proceed with a plan amendment to designate the RLSA or inform the county(ies) of the Department's decision not to authorize. The decision shall be based on the information contained in or gained from the notification, site visit, other agency comments, and other information received. The Department shall authorize the county(ies) to proceed if it determines that the proposed RLSA meets the threshold eligibility requirements of subsection 9J-5.026(4), F.A.C. and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the RLSA will further the principles of rural sustainability. If the Department decides to authorize the county(ies) to proceed with a plan amendment to designate a RLSA, the notification will set forth the facts on which the authorization is based, and may include recommendations to the county(ies) regarding the RLSA. The notification will not guarantee that a comprehensive plan amendment(s) to designate a RLSA will be found in compliance by the Department. It will only constitute the Department's authorization to designate a RLSA if the necessary comprehensive plan amendment(s) are adopted and found in compliance pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S. If the Department decides not to authorize the county(ies) to proceed with a plan amendment to designate a RLSA, the agency's notification will explain the reasons for the decision. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: If authorized to proceed, the county(ies) may prepare and process a plan amendment(s) that will be reviewed by the Department pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S. The county(ies) may, in preparing the plan amendment(s), establish a local visioning process to facilitate the development of a RLSA plan amendment. The Department encourages the county(ies) to seek and utilize technical assistance from the members of the RLSA Interagency Technical Advisory Team in preparing a RLSA plan amendment. 33. Sections 120.52(8)(b) and 120.54(3)(a)1., Florida Statutes, require that the agency list in the rulemaking notice the purported rulemaking authority for the proposed rule. To comply with this requirement, the Department's rulemaking notice cites Sections 163.3177(9) and (11)(h), Florida Statutes, as the specific authority for adopting the rule and Section 163.3177(11)(d)1., Florida Statutes, as the law being implemented. In its Proposed Final Order, the Department relies on Section 163.3177(11)(h) as the specific statutory authority for rulemaking. It provides that the Department "may adopt rules necessary to implement the provisions of [subsection 163.3177(11)]," including the RLSA provisions found in Section 163.3177(11)(d). On the other hand, the law being implemented is quite lengthy and reads as follows: (11)(d)1. The department, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Department of Environmental Protection, water management districts, and regional planning councils, shall provide assistance to local governments in the implementation of this paragraph and rule 9J-5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code. Implementation of those provisions shall include a process by which the department may authorize local governments to designate all or portions of lands classified in the future land use element as predominately agriculture, rural, open, open-rural, or a substantively equivalent land use, as a rural land stewardship area within which planning and economic incentives are applied to encourage the implementation of innovative and flexible planning techniques, including those contained herein and in rule 9J- 5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code. Assistance may include, but is not limited to: Assistance from the Department of Environmental Protection and water management districts in creating the geographic information systems land cover database and aerial photogrammetry needed to prepare for a [RLSA]; Support for local government implementation of rural land stewardship concepts by providing information and assistance to local governments regarding land acquisition and assistance to local governments regarding land acquisition programs that may be used by the local government programs that may be used by the local government or landowners to leverage the protection of greater acreage and maximize the effectiveness of rural land stewardship areas; and Expansion of the role of the Department of Community Affairs as a resource agency to facilitate establishment of [RLSAs] in smaller rural counties that do not have the staff or planning budgets to create a [RLSA]. Proposed rule 9J-11.023 describes in detail the process by which a local government is to request Department authorization to designate a RLSA. At issue here are provisions in subsections (2), (4), and (5) of the rule that require a local government wishing to designate an RLSA to conduct a public workshop; cover particular topics during the workshop; host a site visit with designated agencies; and based on the information gathered from this process to then allow the Department, in its discretion, to either authorize or not authorize the local government to begin to prepare and process an RLSA amendment. The latter decision is based on whether the local government has shown "a reasonable likelihood that the RLSA will further the principles of rural sustainability." Petitioners contend that there is no specific grant of rulemaking authority that authorizes the Department to mandate these procedures in the rule or to prevent a local government from proposing and processing an RLSA plan amendment. Instead, they contend that the enabling statute only allows the Department to promulgate rules that are "necessary" to implement the RLSA program, those being a requirement that the county provide notice to the Department that it intends to propose a RLSA plan amendment and a description of the subsequent review process by the Department to determine whether the amendment is in compliance. Section 163.3177(11)(d)1., Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to provide "assistance to local governments in the implementation of this paragraph and rule 9J- 5.006(5)(l)." (The cited rule, among other things, encourages "innovative and flexible planning and development strategies" that allow conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses.) The statute also includes specific authority to establish a "process by which the department may authorize local governments to designate all or portions of lands classified in the future land use element (FLUE] as predominately agricultural, rural, open, open-rural, or a substantively equivalent land use, as a [RLSA] . . . ." The rule accomplishes this purpose by requiring state agency technical assistance, establishing the process for a workshop and site visit, requiring that the county's notification describe the basis for the designation, requiring broad public participation, and assuring, by approval or disapproval of the county's preliminary proposal, that the proposed RLSA will promote the principles of rural sustainability. Notably, had the Legislature intended this authorization process to be the same as the existing compliance review process for conventional plan amendments, there would be no need for this statutory language. The proposed rule does not exceed the Department's grant of rulemaking authority. b. Do certain provisions within proposed rule 9J-5.026(7) and (9) enlarge, modify, or contravene the law implemented? Petitioners further contend that proposed rules 9J- 5.026(7)(b), (7)(c)4., 6., (8)(a), and (9)(a)3., 6., 18., and enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented. The challenged rules read as follows: 9J-5.026 Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) * * * Data and Analysis Requirements. * * * Population Projections and Analysis of Land Use Need. Population projections and analysis of land use need shall be prepared in accordance with Rule 9J-5.006, F.A.C., with the following modifications: The amount and extent of allowable development in the RLSA must be based on the 25-year or greater projected population of the RLSA; the anticipated effect of the proposed RLSA must receiving areas, including any committed catalyst projects, infrastructure improvements, or other projects that would attract and support development; the furtherance of the statutory principles of rural sustainability; and the goals, objectives, and policies of the RLSA plan amendment. * * * 4. Land development and other conversion threats whereby rural resources under threat require more incentives via stewardship credits and less threatened resources require lesser incentives. This includes the future threat of low-density sprawl on lands within and surrounding Eligible Receiving Areas; and * * * 6. Values shall be assigned to all of the land in the RLSA. The highest values shall be assigned to the most environmentally valuable land, and to open space and agricultural land where the retention of such lands is a priority. The assignment of values shall be submitted with the RLSA plan amendment as part of the supporting data and analysis. * * * Stewardship Credit System Criteria. (a) Each credit shall represent a defined number of residential units or a defined amount of non-residential square footage. The credit transferee may decide whether to use the credit for a residential or non- residential use in accordance with the land use standards established for the Designated Receiving Area. * * * Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Map. * * * (a) The goals, objectives, and policies shall include the following: * * * 3. Identification of the innovative planning and development strategies to be used within the RLSA, and a process for implementing the strategies, including the adoption of implementing plan amendments, land development regulations, and the issuance of development orders. The process shall include provision for the Department's review of a proposed land development regulation to designate a receiving area for consistency with the RLSA plan amendment. * * * 6. A requirement that Eligible Receiving Areas shall be located on land that is suitable for development and have the lowest land values based on the land values analysis conducted pursuant to paragraph (7)(c). * * * Policies for new towns which comply with the following: As required by subsection 9J-5.003(80) and paragraph 9J-5.006(5)(1), F.A.C., a new town shall be designated on the future land use map. A new town shall be located within a Designated Receiving Area. The plan amendment designating a new town shall include a master development plan that establishes the size of the new town, the amount, location, type, density and intensity of development, and the design standards to be utilized in the new town. Any increase in the density or intensity of land use required to achieve the proposed new town may occur only through the use of stewardship credits assigned or transferred to the Designated Receiving Area either prior to or subsequent to the designation of the new town on the future land use map. New towns shall be surrounded by greenbelts, except for any connecting rural road corridors and to the extent that new towns are adjacent to existing or planned urban development or incorporated areas. A future land use map amendment to designate a new town shall be internally consistent with RLSA provisions of the comprehensive plan. A future land use map amendment to designate a new town shall be accompanied by an amendment to the capital improvements element to incorporate a financially feasible five-year capital improvements schedule for the public facilities necessary to serve the new town and an amendment to the transportation or traffic circulation element to designate any new rural road corridors required to connect the new town with the rest of the RLSA. Provisions to ensure that any use of the underlying densities and intensities of land uses assigned to parcels of land by the county comprehensive plan prior to designation of the RLSA furthers the principles of rural sustainability. * * * The grant of authority for this rule is cited as Sections 163.3177(9) and (11)(h), Florida Statutes, while Sections 163.3177(2), (3), (6)(a), (8), (10)(e), (11)(a), (b), and (d)1., 2., 4., 5., and 6., Florida Statutes, are cited as the laws being implemented. Subsection (2) of the law being implemented provides that "[c]oordination of the several elements of the local comprehensive plan shall be a major objective of the planning process"; subsection (3) is a lengthy provision requiring that a comprehensive plan include a capital improvements element; paragraph (6)(a) describes in detail the matters that must be contained in the FLUE; subsection (8) requires that all elements of the comprehensive plan be based on data appropriate to the element involved; paragraph (10)(e) generally provides that support data and analysis shall not be subject to the compliance review process, but they must be based on appropriate data; paragraph (11)(a) describes the Legislature's recognition of using innovative planning and development strategies; paragraph (11)(b) expresses the intent of the Legislature to allow the conversion of rural lands to other uses, where appropriate, including urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering, and open space provisions, mixed-use development, and sector planning; and subparagraphs (11)(d)1., 2., 4., 5., and 6. describe the statutory process for creating an RLSA. Subsection (7) of the proposed rule sets forth the data and analysis requirements that apply to all RLSA plan amendments, including data and analysis of existing conditions (subparagraphs (7)(a)1. through 10.); population projections and analysis of land use (paragraph (7)(b)); and a land values analysis (subparagraphs (7)(c)1. through 6.). A land use needs analysis is an integral part of the planning process. Paragraph (7)(b) requires that an RLSA amendment be supported by population projections and an analysis of land use need such that the amount and extent of allowable development must be based on the 25-year or greater projected population of the RLSA, other items, and the anticipated effect of proposed RLSA receiving areas. Petitioners contend that this language contravenes Section 163.3177(11)(d)6., Florida Statutes, amended in 2005, which provides in part that the total amount of development "must enable the realization of the long- term vision and goals for the 25-year or greater projected population of the [RLSA], which may take into consideration the anticipated effect of the proposed receiving areas." See Ch. 2005-290, Laws of Fla. Paragraph (7)(b) does not contravene the terms of the statute. As expressed in the law being implemented, the rule directs that the need analysis shall be based upon, among other things, "the anticipated effect of the proposed RLSA receiving areas " As a part of the data and analysis to be supplied, paragraph (7)(c) requires that an RLSA amendment be supported by a land values analysis that considers six components described in subparagraphs 1. through 6. This in turn requires a comprehensive analysis of rural resources that exist within the RLSA. Subparagraph 4. requires that the analysis include the development threats to rural resources and that resources under threat of conversion receive more incentives from stewardship credits than resources under less of a threat. Petitioners contend that the rule contravenes Section 163.3177(11)(d)6.j., Florida Statutes, because it requires a greater value to be assigned to resources under threat of conversion and would result in other rural and natural and agricultural resources which may have a higher intrinsic value being assigned fewer credits. Specifically, the cited statute requires that "the highest number of credits per acre" should be "assigned to the most environmentally valuable land, or, in locations where the retention of open space and agricultural land is a priority, to such lands." The purpose of the rule is straightforward: to protect those resources that are under the greatest threat and those that are most susceptible to harm over time through land development or other changes, including urban sprawl. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the overall analysis does in fact consider all forms of rural resources in determining how the credits will be assigned. The rule implements the statutory directive of attaining the principles of rural sustainability. Subparagraph (7)(c)6. requires, among other things, that the local government submit as a part of the data and analysis supporting the plan amendment "the assignment of values" of all lands in the RLSA. Petitioners contend that assigning values at the time of the amendment "locks in these values" and would require a subsequent plan amendment in contravention of Section 163.3177(11)(d)6., Florida Statutes, which Petitioners argue contemplates the creation of credits after the adoption of the plan amendment. At hearing, however, the Department explained that because conditions will obviously change over time, the land values analysis will be periodically updated and can be changed without a new plan amendment. In their Proposed Final Order, Petitioners concede that given this interpretation of the rule, it "would not be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." See Petitioners' Proposed Final Order, par. 73. Paragraph (8)(a) of the proposed rule requires each stewardship credit to represent either a defined number of residential units or non-residential square footage. Once the credits are created in sending areas, they can be transferred to designated receiving areas to be used to enable development that is consistent with the RLSA goals, objectives, and policies. Petitioners contend that the rule will prohibit mixed-use development in contravention of Section 163.3177(11)(d)4.c., Florida Statutes, which requires that the RLSA goals, policies, and objective provide for a "functional mix of land uses." There is no prohibition of a mix of land uses. In fact, the opposite is true. As clarified by a Department witness, "a mix is essentially required, as you can see from [sub]paragraph (9)(a)17., which describes that a mix of use must be addressed." Tr. at 273. The rule does not contravene the statute. Subsection (9) of the proposed rule generally requires that the RLSA plan amendment contain goals, objectives, policies, and a map. Subparagraphs (9)(a)1. through 21. require that the goals, objectives, and policies identify the innovative planning and development strategies to be used in the RLSA process, including the adoption of implementing plan amendments, land development regulations, and the issuance of development orders. Petitioners allege that subparagraphs 3., 6., 18., and enlarge, modify, or contravene the law implemented. Subparagraph 3. requires "implementing plan amendments" because the Department recognized the fact that the RLSA planning process will consume years or even decades and will require implementing plan amendments to accomplish its purpose. This is especially true here as the RLSA process involves the development of large tracts of land (as much as 100,000 acres or more) that will take years or decades to fully implement and build out. At a minimum, under current law, the "implementing plan amendments" will include a capital improvements element annual update; water supply planning, and the designation of new towns. Except for the requirement that an implementing plan amendment designate a new town pursuant to existing Rule 9J-5.003(80), Petitioners agree that the proposed rule is valid. Because the cited existing rule has been determined to be valid, Petitioners' contention is rejected. See Findings 62-65, infra. Subparagraph 6. provides that the goals, policies, and objectives shall contain "a requirement that the Eligible Receiving Areas shall be located on land that is suitable for development and have the lowest land values on the land values analysis conducted pursuant to paragraph (7)(c)." Petitioners contend that this provision limits the flexibility of local governments to determine the best location for Eligible Receiving Areas and therefore contravenes the provisions in various parts of Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, that emphasize flexibility. The rule implements the principles of rural sustainability contained in Section 163.3177(11)(d)2., Florida Statutes. Only by directing development to land with the lowest environmental, agricultural, and rural resource value will an RLSA protect ecosystems, habitat, natural resources, and the agricultural economy. The rule does not contravene this statute. Subparagraph 18. requires an RLSA plan amendment to include policies for "new towns," including a requirement that a new town be designated on the FLUM. Petitioners contend that the requirement to designate a new town on the FLUM contravenes Section 163.3177(11)(4)(d)4., Florida Statutes, which provides for the implementation of the innovative planning and development strategies included in existing Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) through zoning and land development regulations. At hearing, Petitioners narrowed their argument to this one feature in the rule. Because the Department may lawfully require that new towns be designated on the FLUM, subparagraph 18. is consistent with the statute implemented. See Findings 62-65, infra. Subparagraph 19. requires that RLSA plan amendments contain goals, objectives, and policies "to ensure that any use of the underlying densities and intensities of land uses assigned to parcels of land by the county comprehensive plan prior to designation of the RLSA furthers the principles of rural sustainability." Petitioners contend this provision contravenes Section 163.3177(11)(d)6., Florida Statutes, because it "impinges on existing land use rights which is contrary to one of the statutory principles of rural sustainability, namely the 'restoration and maintenance of the economic value associated with rural lands.'" The rule, however, furthers the principles of rural sustainability, as required by Section 163.3177(11)(d)1., Florida Statutes, since it requires that all lands within an RLSA, whether or not in a Designated Receiving Area, be developed in a manner that furthers those principles. It does not contravene the cited statute. Petitioners also contend that subparagraph 19. contravenes Section 163.3161(9), Florida Statutes, which requires, among other things, that all programs be applied "with sensitivity for private property rights and not be unduly restrictive." Petitioners surmise that the rule may operate to displace underlying density within the RSLA regardless of the use of the RLSA credit system. However, the rule does not displace any underlying density; it only requires that underlying rights be exercised consistent with the RLSA. More specifically, existing densities may be used in any manner that furthers the principles without displacing any of those densities. The rule does not contravene either statute. Is proposed rule 9J-5.026(3) vague and does it have inadequate standards for agency decisions? Petitioners next contend that subsection (3) of proposed rule 9J-5.026, and specifically certain words within the definition of the term "greenbelt," are vague and fail to establish adequate standards for agency decisions. That provision reads as follows: 9J-5.026 Rural Land Stewardship Area (RSLA) * * * (3) Definitions * * * (d) "Greenbelt" means a border of permanently undeveloped land sufficient in size to effectively preclude the expansion of urban development into the surrounding rural lands and to provide an effective buffer to protect the surrounding rural resources from development impacts. A greenbelt is an undeveloped area that surrounds an urban area, a new town, or other urban development and is meant to separate the urban developed area from the surrounding area to provide a border that protects surrounding rural lands from urban development. Petitioners contend that the use of the adjectives "sufficient," "effectively," and "effective" to describe the greenbelt buffer are vague and lack standards to guide agency determinations. In common usage, the word "sufficient" means that the greenbelt is sufficient in size to accomplish its purpose of precluding the expansion of urban development into the surrounding rural lands. Similarly, the word "effectively" means that the use or creation of a buffer to protect urban encroachment on rural lands will be accomplished in an effective manner. Likewise, the word "effective" simply means that the greenbelt achieves the purpose of creating a buffer. These phrases are easily understood by persons of ordinary intelligence, particularly when read in context with other provisions of the rule. See, e.g., Cole Vision Corp., et al. v. Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg., 688 So. 2d 404, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Petitioners contend, however, that the rule fails to explicitly include the standard that site-specific data would be considered in determining the "sufficiency" of a buffer. However, this level of detail is not needed since site-specific information is typically considered and applied by the local government and Department through the planning process and might include, for example, the nature of the urban area, the potential impacts if the urban area is extended, the nature of the surrounding land, and other similar factors. The rule is not so vague or lacks sufficient standards as to be invalid. Is proposed rule 9J-5.026(9)(a)18. arbitrary? Petitioners further contend that subparagraph (9)(a)18. of proposed rule 9J-5.026 is arbitrary. That rule reads as follows: 18. Policies for new towns which comply with the following: As required by subsection 9J-5.003(80) and paragraph 9J-5.006(5)(1), F.A.C., a new town shall be designated on the future land use map. A new town shall be located within a Designated Receiving Area. The plan amendment designating a new town shall include a master development plan that establishes the size of the new town, the amount, location, type, density and intensity of development, and the design standards to be utilized in the new town. Any increase in the density or intensity of land use required to achieve the proposed new town may occur only through the use of stewardship credits assigned or transferred to the Designated Receiving Area either prior to or subsequent to the designation of the new town on the future land use map. New towns shall be surrounded by greenbelts, except for any connecting rural road corridors and to the extent that new towns are adjacent to existing or planned urban development or incorporated areas. A future land use map amendment to designate a new town shall be internally consistent with RLSA provisions of the comprehensive plan. A future land use map amendment to designate a new town shall be accompanied by an amendment to the capital improvements element to incorporate a financially feasible five-year capital improvements schedule for the public facilities necessary to serve the new town and an amendment to the transportation or traffic circulation element to designate any new rural road corridors required to connect the new town with the rest of the RSLA. As noted earlier, this rule sets forth the requirements for policies in the RLSA plan amendment that are applicable to new towns. Petitioners contend that the rule is arbitrary because it "selectively emphasizes" a new town as only one of several innovative and flexible planning strategies set forth in existing Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l). To be arbitrary, a rule must not be supported by logic or the necessary facts. See § 120.52(8)(e), Fla. Stat. Here, the more persuasive evidence shows that new towns are much larger development types; they are more intense than other development forms; and they will likely generate greater impacts. In an RLSA, they take on even more significance since the planning goal is to further the principles of rural sustainability. Collectively, these factors form a sufficient basis and rationale for giving new towns different treatment than other development forms that are smaller, have fewer uses, are less intense, and are more likely to have lesser impacts. The proposed rule is not arbitrary. e. Does existing Rule 9J-5.003(80) contravene the specific provisions of law implemented? Finally, Petitioners have challenged existing Rule 9J- 5.003(80), which became effective in 1994, on the ground that it contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented. That rule defines the term "new town" as follows: (80) "New town" means a new urban activity center designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area, distinct and geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town is of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban area designation. New towns include basic economic activities; all major land use categories; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. New towns are based on a master development plan. The specific authority for the rule, when adopted, was Section 163.3177(9) and (10), while the law being implemented was identified as Sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes. Because Section 163.3178 involves coastal management, and a new town would probably not be located in a coastal zone, it has marginal relevance to this proceeding. The Department relies principally on Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires, among other things, that "various categories of land use shall be shown on a land use map or map series."6 The existing definition provides, in part, that a new town will include "all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial." Because they include numerous land use categories, new towns are by definition a mixed-use land use category. See Fla. Admin. Code 9J-5.006(4)(c). Mixed-use land use categories must be designated on the FLUM. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat.("The future land use plan may designate areas for future planned development use involving combinations of types of uses"). As noted above, a new town is recognized in existing Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) as an innovative and flexible planning option. Because the Legislature referenced this rule provision with approval four times in the RLSA statute, it must be presumed that the Legislature was expressing approval of the existing definition with the mapping requirement. See §§ 163.3177(11)(d)1. (two separate references); 163.3177(11)(d)4.c.; and 163.3177(11)(d)4.e. The rule does not contravene the statute being implemented.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the pleadings and evidence, including the stipulation by counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Marion County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. In this case, the County has adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan, which is the subject of the dispute. Petitioners, Henry and Betty Prominski, are residents of Marion County and own a 16.5 acre tract of land on the southeast bank of Lake Weir in the southeastern portion of the County. The property is more commonly known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Until April 1994, the land was classified in the urban expansion category, which allows up to four residential units per acre. The County adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. After the plan was determined by the DCA to be not in compliance, the County eventually adopted certain remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, one of which changed the land use designation on petitioners' property from urban expansion to urban reserve. Under the new classification, only one residential unit per ten acres is allowed. A cumulative notice of intent to find the plan and remedial amendments in compliance was issued by the DCA on May 30, 1994. During the foregoing process, petitioners timely submitted oral or written objections to the County concerning the plan amendment, and thus they are affected persons within the meaning of the law. On September 14, 1994, the County, through its Staff Vesting Committee, issued Vesting Order No. 94-14, which granted petitioners' application for vesting determination on Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Among other things, the order determined that "the applicant has vested rights to complete the development (known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision) without aggregation of lots providing the applicant continues development activity in good faith." In this regard, petitioners have represented that they intend to "continue development activity in good faith," and they do not intend to vacate their plat. They also recognize that their land is vested from the plan amendment. Despite the lack of any viable issues regarding the development of their property, for the sake of "principle" only, they still wish to contest the de facto reclassification of their property. The foregoing language in the Vesting Order means that petitioners have vested rights to complete the development of their land notwithstanding the change of land use designation from urban expansion to urban reserve. The parties also agree that the effect of the Vesting Order is to vest the property from the comprehensive plan and the restrictions of the urban reserve area. Therefore, within the narrow context of the petition, the thrust of which is that the plan amendment prevents the subdivision's development, the issues raised therein are no longer viable, and petitioners do not have a cognizable interest in the outcome of this proceeding. The controversy is accordingly deemed to be moot.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the petition in this case on the ground the issues raised therein are moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry J. Prominski, Esquire Post Office Box 540 Weirsdale, Florida 32195-0540 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether the FLP is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact Background Miami Corporation, the applicant for the Volusia County Farmton Local Plan, owns two contiguous and sizable tracts of land in Brevard County and Volusia County. Together they comprise the company's Farmton property (the "Farmton Site"). The portion of the Farmton Site in Brevard County is approximately 11,000 acres. The portion in Volusia County is approximately 47,000 acres. Miami Corporation has owned the property since the 1920's. It began silviculture operations onsite in 1952. The Farmton Site continues today to be used mainly for silviculture. In 2003, Miami Corporation began exploring long-term options for alternative uses. One option was bulk sales of large lot tracts, such as 100-acre tracts, to developers to build homes on the lots. Another option was a comprehensive plan amendment applying "smart growth" principles. The company opted for the latter approach. The smart growth comprehensive plan amendment eventually pursued included the creation of a regional wildlife corridor that extends from the headwaters of the St. Johns River to the Ocala National Forest. Before filing the application for the Original Amendment, Miami Corporation organized meetings of private and public stakeholders to gain input. Representatives from Brevard and Volusia Counties, affected municipalities, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWCC"), St. Johns River Water Management District ("SJRWMD"), East Central Florida Regional Planning Council ("ECFRPC"), and conservation organizations participated. After the application of Miami Corporation was filed, the County convened a Peer Review Panel. Chaired by two former Department Secretaries, the panel included nine experts in planning and natural resources fields. The panel made various recommendations that were incorporated into the Farmton Local Plan. Specific recommendations included the creation of a Community Stewardship Organization to protect the most sensitive natural resources. Florida Audubon made additional recommendations to strengthen the conservation measures consistent with mechanisms that experience in other areas of the state had taught Audubon were necessary to achieve conservation measures protective of the area's natural resources that would be perpetual. Due to the scale of the proposed amendment, the County hired an outside transportation engineering firm to review the Farmton Local Plan. In addition, the local plan's natural resource mapping and policies were subjected to two other peer reviews convened by the ECFRPC and University of Florida GeoPlan Center. These reviews included the participation of resource agencies, conservation organizations, and scientists. The County worked closely with Miami Corporation in revising the substantive content of the Farmton Local Plan through over 30 iterations to incorporate recommendations from the peer review process, the Volusia County Growth Management Commission, various County divisions, local governments, state agencies, and conservation organizations. The Brevard County Portion of the Farmton Site The Brevard County portion of the Farmton Site is immediately adjacent to the Volusia County portion of the site. Brevard County adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan regarding the portion of the Farmton Site in Brevard County. The amendment allows urban development. The amendment was challenged followed by a settlement of the case through the adoption of a remedial amendment. Subsequent to the filing of Case No. 10-2419, the amendment and the remedial amendment to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan led to a determination that the Brevard Farmton amendments were in compliance. The amendment as remediated became effective with no further challenges. The effectiveness of the amendment to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan which allows urban-type development was one of several significant events that took place between the 2010 Hearing and the 2011 Hearing. Significant Events Following the filing of proposed recommended orders in Case No. 10-2419, the Department, the County, VGMC, and Miami Corporation moved that the case be placed in abeyance so that settlement discussion could take place. The motion was granted over the objections of the Petitioners in Case No. 10-2419. The settlement discussions led to the Remedial Amendments adopted by the County in April 2011. The Original Amendments and the Remedial Amendments (the "FLP") were determined by the Department to be in compliance. The "in compliance" determination was challenged in a petition filed at the Department on May 16, 2011, by the Petitioners in Case No. 11-2527. The petition was forwarded to DOAH and the case was consolidated with Case No. 10-2419. In the meantime, the Florida Legislature passed chapter 2011-39, Laws of Florida (the "New Law"). The New Law substantially amends chapter 163, including the definition of "in compliance" in section 163.3184(1)(b). It took effect on May 17, 2011, when it was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State's office. The New Law was determined to be fully applicable to the consolidated cases. Prior to the Brevard County amendments taking effect, the Department regarded the Volusia portion of the Farmton Site as isolated and removed from other urban areas. Once the Brevard County Comprehensive amendments allowing urban development were determined to be in compliance and became effective, the Volusia portion of the Farmton Site became adjacent to "an urban area that is its match to the south." Petitioners' Ex. 6, Deposition of Michael McDaniel, at 14. The effectiveness of the Brevard County plan amendments that place an urban area adjacent to the Volusia Farmton Site was significant to the Department in its determination in 2011 that the FLP is in compliance. The Volusia Farmton Site The FLP applies to 46,597 acres in southern Volusia County. The Volusia Farmton Site is rural and much of it is classified as wetlands. No services or public facilities currently exist on the site. It contains abundant habitat for both upland and wetland dependent species. Within the site there are several outparcels owned by other persons or entities on which low density residential development is allowed by the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. More significant to the issues in this proceeding, the Comprehensive Plan allows low density residential development on the remainder of the site as well. The site includes approximately 260 miles of dirt roads that are maintained by Miami Corporation. In good condition, the roads are acceptable for ordinary passenger cars. The Current Plan Prior to the adoption of the FLP by the Original Amendment, the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1990 had been updated twice through the Evaluation and Appraisal Process. The first update occurred in 1998 and the second in 2007. (The updated plan was referred to in hearing as the "Current Plan" and was admitted into evidence as Joint Ex. 1.) The intent of the updates "is to take into account changes to state law and to reflect changing conditions within the community." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 3 of 5. Chapters 1 through 18 of the Current Plan contain elements and sub-elements "which are the basic building blocks of the Plan." Id. There are eleven required elements, the first of which is the Future Land Use Element (the "FLUE"). FLUE Overview Section A. of Chapter 1 of the Current Plan entitled, "Overview," states the following: The Future Land Use Element . . . ensures that physical expansion of the urban areas are managed (1) at a rate to support projected population and economic growth; (2) in a contiguous pattern centered around existing urban areas; and (3) in locations which optimize efficiency in public service delivery and conservation of valuable natural resources. * * * [W]hile it reflects existing urban services capacities and constraints, it also establishes locations where future service improvements will follow. It also reflects and promotes . . . activity in the private land market. * * * New urban growth, predicated on appropriate population projections, environmental suitability, and fiscal feasibility will be encouraged adjacent to the major cities that have a full range of urban services or inside County service areas. County service areas may include undeveloped land inside or near existing unincorporated urban areas where the developer agrees to provide necessary urban services through private means. * * * Regarding public systems, the major assumption is that the area adjacent to existing public infrastructure will be the primary areas for future infrastructure extension. Expansion of existing facilities in a fiscally and environmentally appropriate manner will be the primary option. The intent of this concept is to maximize efficiency of urban services through compact development otherwise consistent with the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. Planned developments include large scale, mixed-use, integrated, compact and distinct urban developments under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. * * * [A]reas that are outside the proposed development areas or contain environmentally sensitive features will receive special attention to ensure proper management of the County's natural resources. In order to further protect the County's natural resources and promote sustainability, the following will be included in the County mission statement: To balance development and the environment through innovative practices that lessen the impact of the development while preserving natural resources and improving the quality of life for present and future generations. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 1, pages 2-3 of 109 (emphasis added). Future Land Use Overlays and Designations Future land use overlays and designations are part of the adopted Future Land Use Policies. Id. at page 4 of 109. The entire Volusia Farmton Site is located within the Comprehensive Plan's overlay area of Natural Resources Management Area ("NRMA"). Approximately 11,000 acres of the site lie within the Environmental Core Overlay ("ECO"). There are three land uses on the Volusia Farmton Site under the Current Plan: Forestry Resources ("FR"), 22,294 acres (approximately); Environmental Systems Corridor ("ESC"), 22,344 acres (approximately); and Agricultural Resources ("AR"), 2,309 acres (approximately). Residential densities on the Farmton Site are different for the three land uses allowed on site but all are "low-density" and all have the same floor area ratio ("FAR"): 0.10. The AR land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per ten acres. The FR land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per twenty acres or one unit per five acres with clustering. The ESC land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 25 acres. The Current Plan would allow 4,692 residential units: 228 in AR; 706 in ESC; and 3,758 in FR. The land designated AR would allow 100,580 square feet of nonresidential development and the land designated FR would allow 719,637 square feet, for a total of 820,217 square feet of non-residential development. Types of Amendments The Current Plan allows four types of amendments: "Mandated," "Administrative," "Development," and "Small Scale." See Joint Ex. 1, 2010 Hearing, Tab 21, p. 5 of 7. The Farmton Local Plan is categorized as a "Development Amendment." A "Development Amendment" is defined by Chapter 21, Section (C)1.c. of the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan" or the "Comprehensive Plan") as: An Amendment which is initiated by the property owner(s) to change the Plan so that a particular development type or land use not otherwise consistent with the Plan, would become consistent following adoption of the amendment. Applicants may be private individuals or a public agency sponsoring an amendment subject to the Comprehensive Plan. Id. Local Plans The FLP is included in the Local Plan section of the Plan's Future Land Use Element. Local Plans in the Comprehensive Plan apply to specific geographic areas and provide a greater level of detail than the Plan in general. The Current Plan includes 13 other Local Plans. Once enacted, "the most detailed portion of the Volusia Comprehensive Plan," tr. 458, will be the FLP. The FLP The Original Amendment The Original Amendment includes one goal, eight related objectives and numerous policies under each of the eight objectives. The Amendment depicts on the Future Land Use Map two new future land use designations: "GreenKey" and "Sustainable Development Area" ("SDA"). The entire site is designated as either GreenKey or SDA. Objective FG 2 in the Amendment states: GreenKey and designated Resource Open Based Space shall be managed for natural resource protection and preservation of interconnected regional wildlife corridors, and conserved in perpetuity. "Resource Based Open Space" ("RBOS") is governed by Policy FG 2.4 of the Original Amendment: Resource Based Open Space. Resource Based Open Space shall be designed within Sustainable Development Area districts to protect and enhance environmental systems. Resource Based Open Space shall not include parcels identified for development (including, but not limited to individual yards), active open space, or civic open space. Resource Based Open Space lands may include areas set aside for ecological preservation, enhancement and restoration, nature trails, conservation education programs, observation decks and similar facilities including lakes used for detention and retention of surface water. Resources [sic] Based Open Space may include, flood plains, wetlands, mitigation areas, vegetative buffers, specialized habitat for flora or fauna, passive recreation areas, water resource development areas, and shall be designed during the development review process. All such lands shall be subject to a conservation management plan, as set forth in FG 2.10 and FG 2.11, and protected in perpetuity by conservation easements. At least 25% of each SDA district shall be Resource Based Open Space. Joint Ex. 7, 2010 Hearing, Tab D-2, pgs. 9 and 10 of 49. The SDAs are primarily altered pine plantation lands. They total approximately 15,000 acres. Within the 15,000 acres of SDA land "are four land use districts which define the uses, densities, and intensities planned for each district." Id. at p. 4 of 49. The four are the Gateway District, Work Place District, Town Center District, and the Villages District. Within GreenKey, the Farmton Local Plan allows the continuation of agricultural uses employing practices regarded as "Best Management Practices" and prohibits residential and nonresidential development. There are two areas in GreenKey with additional natural resource protection standards. They are the Deep Creek Conservation Area which will be conveyed to a Community Stewardship Organization and managed in a primarily natural state and the Southwest Wildlife Corridor which will be managed to maintain habitat for wildlife, particularly for the Florida Black Bear. The FLP includes two long-range planning horizons. The "initial planning horizon" is 2025; "[t]he second planning horizon . . . shall be from 2026 to 2060." Policy FG 1.1, 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, p. 7 of 49. Through 2025, residential and nonresidential development may only occur within the Gateway District, "a distinct geographic area of approximately 821 acres at the northern end of the Farmton Local Plan near SR 442 and I-95." 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, 4 of 49. The development in the Gateway District is limited to a maximum under any circumstances of 4,692 residential units and 820,217 square feet of nonresidential development. See Policies FG 1.1, 1.4. "However, in order to plan for school capacity, there shall be no more than 2,287 dwelling units [in the Gateway District] unless there is a finding of school adequacy issued by the school district." Policy FG 3.4. Through 2060, the Amendment allows a total of 23,100 residential units and 4.7 million square feet of nonresidential development, excluding educational facilities and other institutional uses, within the various SDAs. With the exception of the Gateway District, which is in phase one of development, Policy FG 3.10 requires the development and implementation of a program designed to ensure an adequate number of jobs per residential dwelling unit exists in the SDAs. In phase two and subsequent phases, the development order shall require milestones for achieving the jobs-to-housing ratio target. In the event that the jobs-to-housing ratio drops below 0.65, residential development approvals shall be suspended until a remedial plan can be developed and approved as set forth in an accompanying development order. Policy FG 3.10. Prior to the FLP, the site had been subdivided into approximately 1,700 vested lots pursuant to existing exempt subdivision policies in the Volusia Land Development Code. The Original Amendment extinguished the vested exempt subdivisions as of the effective date of Ordinance 2009-34. The Original Amendment requires all lands designated GreenKey to be placed either in a conservation easement or a conservation covenant. A conservation covenant "is similar to an easement" 2010 Hearing, tr. 1077, "except that its term shall run with the land for an initial term of ten years, which shall automatically be renewed every ten years thereafter so long as the maximum densities and intensities established in the Farmton Local Plan Objective 3 shall remain in effect . . . ." Policy FG 2.15. For example, "Density and Intensity" for the WorkPlace District is described in Policy FG 3.5: "The WorkPlace district shall have a minimum density of eight units per acre and a target density of 18 units per acre. The minimum floor area ratio (FAR) for the nonresidential uses shall be 0.3 FAR." Joint Ex. 7, p. 22 of 49. A covenant under the FLP is converted to a perpetual conservation easement as prescribed in Policy FG 2.15: "At such time as the Master Development of Regional Impact equivalent Master Plan as provided in Objective 8 is approved consistent with the densities and intensities as set forth in Objective 3 in effect [when the FLP is adopted] . . ., a perpetual easement shall be recorded within 60 days." Joint Ex. 7, p. 15 of 49. The FLP requires a minimum amount of land to be set aside for conservation purposes as RBOS. Policy FG 2.4, quoted above, requires that a minimum of 25 percent of SDA land be set aside as RBOS. The RBOS lands will be placed in conservation covenants or easements. Policy FG 2.5 b. requires that a Black Bear Management Plan be developed in consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission consistent with the Commission's Black Bear Habitat Management Guidelines and best available science. The Black Bear Management Plan applies to the Southwest Wildlife Corridor, part of which is on the site in Volusia County and part of which is in Brevard County. GreenKey and RBOS are subject to a mandatory conservation management plan ("CMP") to be funded by the landowner or its successors in interest. The CMP is to be developed by the owner through a task force appointed by the county within one year of the recording of the conservation easement. The CMP is to be "incorporated into the conservation covenants and easement and made enforceable." Policy FG 2.11, 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, p. 12 of 49. Under the FLP, protected wetlands within the SDA will be afforded a wider buffer than was required under Plan prior to the FLP. Through the RBOS designation, additional lands will be preserved and protected by what is in essence a secondary buffer. Under Policy FG 3.2, the footprint of SDAs is "designed to shrink." Tr. 1078. The policy provides: "For the purposes of calculating residential density and . . . FAR within the SDA districts, the density and FAR provision provided in the policies of Objective 3 of this Local Plan shall be calculated based on net SDA Buildable Area. Net SDA Buildable Area shall equal the total SDA district reduced by the minimum 25 percent [RBOS] area and by the minimum 40 percent mandatory Civic Space. Civic Space includes streets, stormwater systems, parks, buffers, water, access easements and other public infrastructure. . . ." Joint Ex. 7, p. 19 of 49. Policy FG 1.6c requires the SDAs to contain RBOS "such that when combined with GreenKey lands more than 36,000 acres or 75 percent of the area with the Farmton Local Plan shall be preserved." Joint Ex. 7, p. 8 of 49. Based on the acreage in GreenKey, RBOS, and buffers required by FG Policy 2.19 for SDA boundaries, wetlands, trails and roads, Sharon Collins, a private biological consultant for Miami Corporation and the primary field biologist onsite, estimated that the minimum amount to be protected under the FLP is 39,265 acres, which equals 80 percent of the total acreage subject to the FLP. b. The Remedial Amendments The County Council of Volusia County's Ordinance 2011- 10 (the "2011 Ordinance") which adopts the Remedial Amendments describes their substance in three sections. See 2011 Joint Ex. 10, page 2 of 3. Section I of the 2011 Ordinance consists of text amendments to: "Chapter 1 Future Land Use Element, Farmton Local Plan, Policies FG 2.4, FG 2.56, FG 2.18, FG 4.14, FG 4.15, FG 4.18, FG 4.20, FG 4.21, FG 5.7, FG 5.8, FG 5.16, and FG 8.1 . . . ." Id. The language of the text amendments referred to in Section I is contained in Exhibit A to the 2011 Ordinance. Sections II and III of the 2011 Ordinance refer to amendments to maps and figures. In Section II, the "Farmton Local Plan-Future Land Use Map" is amended "to include new land use of Mandatory Resource Based Open Space and by expanding the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to include additional lands." Id. Section III adds the "Farmton Local Plan Spine Transportation Network" to the Comprehensive Plan "as a new Figure 2-10 to the transportation map series." Id. The lands under the new land use of Mandatory Resource Based Open Space ("MRBOS") count toward the calculation of the requirement that at least 25 percent of the SDAs taken as a whole be RBOS. The location of all of the RBOS lands have not been determined. They are not shown, therefore, on the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") series. The revised FLUM, however, delineates where the MRBOS lands are located. The MRBOS will be subject to a Black Bear Management Plan. Policy FG 2.5b sets forth that it is to be developed in consultation with the FFWCC consistent with its Black Bear Habitat Management Guidelines and best available science. The Parties Petitioners Petitioner Barbara Herrin is a resident and owner of real property in Volusia County. She submitted comments regarding the Original Amendment during the time period between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. She submitted comments about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. ECARD, one of two Petitioners in Case No. 10-2419 (with Ms. Herrin), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with a membership of approximately 60 members, of which at least 50 are residents of Volusia County. ECARD submitted comments about the Original Amendment during the period of time between the transmittal and final adoption hearings for Ordinance 2009-34. It provided oral comments through counsel at the adoption hearing for Ordinance 2011-10. Sierra Club, one of the two Petitioners in Case No. 11-2527, is a California not-for-profit corporation registered in Florida with approximately 90,000-100,000 members. It has unincorporated state and local chapters. The Florida Chapter has approximately 29,000-30,000 members and the local Volusia County Chapter has approximately 820 members. Three letters containing comments about the Remedial Amendment were submitted to the Volusia County Council by the "Volusia/Flagler Group of Sierra Club and the Northeast Florida Group of Sierra Club," tr. 27, and by the Sierra Club Florida at the public hearing on the Remedial Amendment held in April 2011. All three letters were presented on behalf of Sierra Club. In addition, "[t]he Sierra Club Florida presented comments [at] the same public hearing." Tr. 28. Sierra Club does not own land in Volusia County. It does not own or operate a business in Volusia County. "The Volusia/Flagler Group has [its] own bank account." Tr. 39. Sierra Club has general meetings "in the area" id., to which the public is invited. The Club conducts outings to parks and natural areas "in the area" id., and members appear in public hearings where they speak. Members engage in letter-writing and "various other civic activities." Id. b. Respondents Volusia County (the "County"), a political subdivision of the State, adopted the FLP. Miami Corporation is a Delaware corporation registered in the State of Florida. It is the owner of the property that is the subject of the FLP and was the applicant for the text and map amendments that make up the FLP. Through its representatives, Miami Corporation submitted comments to the County about the Original Amendment during the period of time beginning with its application and through the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. It submitted comments to the County about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. Volusia Growth Management Commission ("VGMC") is a dependent special district of the County created pursuant to Volusia County Charter Section 202.3. Its duties include the review of amendments to local comprehensive plans. VGMC submitted comments to the County about the Original Amendment during the period of time between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. It submitted comments to the County about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. Suitability The Community Planning Act defines "suitability" as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." § 163.3164(45), Fla. Stat. "Compatibility" is defined as "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." § 163.3164(9), Fla. Stat. Future land use map amendments are required to be based upon several analyses. One of them is "[a]n analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site." § 163.3177(6)(a)8.b., Fla. Stat. The future land use plan element is required to include criteria to be used to ensure the protection of natural and historic resources and to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses. See § 163.3177(6)(a)3.f. and g., Fla. Stat. Suitability: Petitioners' Evidence Mr. Pelham, Secretary of the Department at the time the Original Amendment was found by the Department to be not in compliance, testified at the 2011 Hearing that the site of the FLP is not suitable for development of the magnitude and nature allowed by the FLP. Consistent with the definition of suitability, the testimony of Mr. Pelham addressed both land and water. Commencing with water, he described the property as "extremely wet [and] dominated by an extensive system of sloughs, marshes, creeks, [and] swamps . . . ." 2011 Hearing, tr. 249. The property is an important state and regional resource that contains a variety of important wildlife habitats. Much of the property and substantial parts of the SDAs are in the 100-year flood plain. The property is extremely significant to the area's watershed as an area of recharge and a "high aquifer vulnerability area." 2011 Hearing, tr. 249. Mr. Pelham drew support for his opinion on suitability from the Comprehensive Plan. The County finds in the Plan that the lands subject to the FLP consist of "large, relatively uninterrupted expanses of rich natural resource areas." Tr. 250. The County gave the lands the NRMA designation precisely because they should "be protected and maintained because they serve a variety of functions, water-related, habitat area, a source of water, the open space and rural character, . . . [all] very important to Volusia County " Id. Mr. McDaniel testified as to the official position of the Department in 2010: that the property is not suitable for the FLP. Mr. Pelham's testimony in the 2011 hearing echoes and amplifies Mr. McDaniel's testimony. Dr. Smith testified in both the 2010 Hearing and the 2011 Hearing that development at the scale and intensity of the FLP is not suitable for the site for the same reasons given by Mr. Pelham and Mr. McDaniel. Other Analysis of the Character of the Land The FLP is based on an ecological evaluation that uses GIS-based decision support models and is supported by field work of biologist Sharon Collins. The ecological evaluation was reviewed by scientists from state agencies, universities, and conservation organizations. Ms. Collins provided 15 years' worth of data collection and field work on the site. Her first field assessment of the entire site took place between 1995 and 1998, and included wetlands delineation, evaluations of vegetative communities, habitats, historic natural conditions, hydrology, and listed species. Ms. Collins began remapping and reevaluating toward an ecological evaluation in 2005. The efforts led to the issuance of a report prepared for Miami Corporation and submitted in November 2008. The report was revised in July 2009. It is entitled, "GreenKey Project, Ecological Evaluation Assessment Methods" (the "EEAM Report"). See 2011 Hearing, Joint Ex. 5, Tab 10. Section 1.3 of the EEAM Report, entitled "Resource Identification," describes Ms. Collins' collection of data she used to identify habitat on the site. Among the data sources are the "'Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida' (FNAI, 1990)," id. at 3, and the "Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) produced by the Florida Department of Transportation." Id. Other data used in support of the EEAM Report include soils surveys, historic aerial photographs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ("USFWS") and Florida Fish and Wildlife listed species databases, a SJRWMD GIS FLUCCS map and an "exhaustive list" which Ms. Collins detailed at hearing. See 2011 Hearing tr. 1314. After evaluation of the data, Ms. Collins conducted "ground-truthing" or work in the field. Armed with the FLUCCS Map and the infrared aerials, she "went out in the field and did a comprehensive field analysis . . . and ground-truthed what [she] saw in the field with the [data] . . . ." 2010 Hearing tr. 1309. In order to evaluate and rank the various habitats on site, Ms. Collins designed a methodology using seven metrics that target the protection of regionally significant landscapes. She then assigned "ecological value ratings" and groupings of the habitats based on value as described in Section 1.5 of the EEAM Report: The habitat values ranged from a score of 7 to 1, as shown below from highest to lowest value: Crane Swamp and Spruce Creek Swamp (A & B) Buck Lake and Buck Lake Marsh (C) Cow and Deep Creek (D) Large Sloughs--forested and herbaceous E & F) Scrub Uplands (H) Smaller Wetlands--forested and herbaceous (J & K) Salt March (G) Oak and Hardwood Hammocks (I) Natural Pine Flatwoods (L) Harvested Wetlands (O) Hydric Pine Plantation (M) Pine Plantation (N) To provide a simple yet comprehensively applicable natural resource rating that applies and transfers value to the Farmton landscape, the habitats were further reduced to four groups of comparable ecological value and function. Therefore, Habitats A-D were grouped as one, Habitats E&F another, Habitats G-L as one, and the silvicultural habitats--Habitats M-O--as the fourth group. * * * The habitat types with natural resource rating scores around 7.0 (6.93 to 7.0) include Crane/Spruce Creek Swamps, Buck Lake and Marshes, and Cow and Deep Creeks. They are classified as "Regionally Significant Conservation Habitat Areas." They are regionally situated, extending beyond the boundaries of Farmton. The habitat types with natural resource rating values of around 6.0 include the larger sloughs and swamps. They are classified a s "Significant Conservation Habitat Areas." They are generally greater than 100 acres in size, make up a significant portion of the Farmton landscape, provide an interconnected network of wetlands across the property, but remain mostly onsite. The habitat types with natural resource rating values that are midrange around 3 (2.7-3.7) include the scrub uplands, oak and hardwood forests, salt marshes, natural pine flatwoods, and the smaller swamps and sloughs that have been generally embedded within pine plantations onsite. They are classified as "Conservation Habitat Areas." The fourth habitat types are with natural resource rating values of less than 3, with a range from 21.4 to 1.0, include the silvicultural habitats of the hydric and upland plantations as well as the harvested wetlands. They are classified as "Silvicultural Habitat Areas." These habitats are located onsite and are managed for timber, with varying degrees of tree ages, tree densities and site preparation stages, and/or harvesting disturbances. Joint Ex. 5, Tab 10 at 7-8. The EEAM's rankings were used as a basis for the Farmton Plan's design. The most significant natural resources and environmentally sensitive lands according to the EEAM rankings were designated GreenKey to be subject to permanent conservation. Areas which were disturbed or the least environmentally sensitive lands were deemed more suitable for future development and designated as SDA. The FFWCC used its own data to review the Farmton Local Plan. It was the first comprehensive plan amendment (or project) reviewed under the Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project ("CLIP"). In the opinion of Dr. Walsh, a biological administrator with the FFWCC who supervises FFWCC land use consultations with external entities such as local governments and private land owners, the Farmton Local Plan is based on the best available science. In Dr. Walsh's opinion, the FLP provides for the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat and conserves and appropriately plans for protection of endangered and threatened wildlife. Land Use Protections The environmental evaluations are reflected in the FLP policies that require at least 67 percent of the site be designated as GreenKey and 75 percent or at least 36,000 acres of the site be preserved as GreenKey and RBOS. See Policies FG 1.3 and 1.6c, 2010 Hearing, Joint Ex. 7 at pages 7 and 8. Furthermore, Policy FG 2.6 states: As Sustainable Development Area districts are planned for future development, they shall employ Greenprinting decision support models to identify wetlands, flood plains, mitigation areas, vegetative buffers, specialized habitat for flora and fauna, and under-represented natural communities, water resources development areas and trails. Joint Ex. 7, page 11 of 49. The FLP provides additional conservation measures for the most environmentally significant areas. Policy FG 2.5 establishes the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. Policy FG 2.5a establishes the Deep Creek Conservation Area with special levels of protection. The Remedial Amendment creates MRBOS lands and designates them on the Future Land Use Map. The result is that 33,665 acres of the site will be placed into conservation. With RBOS, wetland protections, and associated buffers, 80 percent of the site or 39,265 acres ultimately will be conserved. All lands placed in GreenKey, MRBOS, and RBOS are subject to the CMP approved by the Volusia County Council and ultimately subject to a conservation easement that perpetually protects the lands. See Policy FG 2.10, Joint Ex. 7. Policy FG 8.1 provides: No building permit shall be issued for new development within the SDA districts within five (5) years of the effective date of the Farmton Local Plan. No development order for new construction shall be issued prior to the approval by the county council of the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) described in policies FG 2.10 and 2.11 and the recording of a perpetual conservation easement over all Green Key lands as set forth in policy FG 2.15 with the specific exception of essential public utilities or communication structures. Joint Ex. 10, page 7 of 7. The Council has appointed a CMP Task Force to develop the plan. Natural Resource Management Area The NRMA overlay covers the entire site. It does not prohibit development but subjects it to scrutiny by the County. The NRMA overlay has not successfully prevented habitat fragmentation. Prevention of habitat fragmentation is a basis for the "layered additional protections," 2010 Hearing tr. 1167, of the FLP, including the Environmental Core Overlay Areas ("ECO"). Areas that must be protected are covered by the ECO, which receive the greatest protection in the Current Plan. The ECO covers approximately 11,000 acres of the site. The FLP adds 20,900 acres to the ECO. Without the FLP, and in spite of the NRMA and ECO overlays, existing Current Plan policies allow the Farmton property to be subdivided into approximately 1,700 lots. Significant habitat fragmentation is a potential result. The FR portion of the site, moreover, may develop in a clustered pattern at a density of one unit per 5 acres, as opposed to one unit per 20 acres under Future Land Use Policy 1.2.3.2. There are ranchette subdivisions in the site's vicinity and ranchettes are a feasible development option for the site. The FLP provides stronger natural resource protection than existing policies for the resources it protects. Its more restrictive standards eliminate the potential for development of the most sensitive areas and eliminate vesting of previously vested lots. Policy FG2.1 provides that the FLP is supplemental to NRMA and ECO. If the FLP conflicts with NRMA, the more specific or restrictive policies apply. The FLP is consistent with the current Plan provisions for the NRMA, Environmental Systems Corridor, and ECO. The Florida Black Bear and Regional Wildlife Corridor The Florida Black Bear is a State-designated Threatened Species. See chapter 68A-27. The purpose of the FFWCC in promulgating rules relating to endangered or threatened species is stated at the outset of chapter 68A-27: The purpose . . . is to conserve or improve the status of endangered and threatened species in Florida to effectively reduce the risk of extinction through the use of a science-informed process that is objective and quantifiable, that accurately identifies endangered and threatened species that are in need of special actions to prevent further imperilment, that identifies a framework for developing management strategies and interventions to reduce threats causing imperilment, and that will prevent species from being threatened to such an extent that they become regulated and managed under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. Fla. Admin. Code R. 68A-27.001(1). In June 2010, the FFWCC accepted recommendations of bear experts that it find there is "not a high risk of extinction," 2011 Hearing tr. 626, for the Florida Black Bear. Acceptance of the recommendation was accompanied by the commencement of the adoption of a management plan for the Black Bear. Upon the adoption of such a plan, the FFWCC is expected to de-list the Florida Black Bear from the threatened and endangered species lists. See id. Policy FG 2.5b requires the CMP within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to address habitat requirements for the Florida Black Bear in consultation with FFWCC. The FLP provides for the protection of regional wildlife corridors. Objective FG 2 of the FLP reads: "GreenKey and other Resource Based Open Space shall be managed for natural resource protection and preservation of interconnected regional wildlife corridors, and conserved in perpetuity." Joint Ex. 5, Tab 3 at 8. Nearly the entire Farmton Site constitutes Bear Potential Habitat. See DCA Ex. 4F. The entire site has been identified as Secondary Bear Range, see DCA Ex. 4G, and is roughly within 10 miles of an area of Primary Bear Range to its north and 20 miles of the same area of Primary Bear Range to its west. The area of Secondary Bear Range that includes the Farmton Site also includes urban areas such as the cities of Deland, Orange City, Deltona, and Sanford. Several hundred thousand people live in the secondary range that includes the Farmton site. The area of Secondary Bear Range in which the Farmton Site is located is habitat for the Ocala and St. Johns subpopulations of the Black Bear. While Dr. Hoctor considers the Ocala and St. Johns subpopulations to be separate, David Telesco, the Black Bear Management Program Coordinator for the FFWCC, described them as one subpopulation of bears that range over the Farmton Site, the Secondary Bear Range in which it is located, and nearby Primary Bear Range: This is our largest population of bears, estimated as potentially 1,200 animals. It's also the most densely populated, which means it's the highest quality habitat we have in the state. And our habitat models that we have are showing it as a stable subpopulation. 2011 Hearing, Tr. 625. Bear ranges do not coincide perfectly with bear habitat. Bears may range in areas that are not habitat. Just as in the case of ranges, bear habitats are classified as primary and secondary. Primary and Secondary Bear Habitats are both present on the Farmton Site. In Dr. Hoctor's opinion, to view Secondary Bear Habitat composed of pine plantation (as is the secondary habitat on the Farmton Site), to be more suitable for development would not be accurate or scientifically defensible. "[P]ine plantations are important habitat in and of themselves, plus they're important for . . . connecting all of [the] forested wetlands on [the Farmton] site . . . ." Tr. 475. An array of expert testimony was presented at the 2010 Hearing by Petitioners, the County, and Miami Corporation as to whether the FLP provided adequate wildlife corridors and protection of bear habitat. Dr. Hoctor testified that the Farmton Site is "particularly significant for potentially supporting . . . functional connectivity between the Ocala and Saint Johns [Black Bear] [sub]populations to those that are further south, the Highlands/Glades [sub]populations and Big Cypress [sub]population." Tr. 463. In the past, Florida's Black Bear population was integrated. There was "one [Black Bear] population . . . that occurred throughout the State of Florida." Tr. 465. The several Black Bear populations identified in the state now, however, are genetically distinct due to isolation caused by habitat loss, hunting and poaching. Re-integration will promote genetically healthy populations. Genetically healthy populations are more likely to adapt to future environmental changes and maintenance of connectivity between the subpopulations will promote a genetically healthy population of the Black Bear. A primary method of promoting a genetically healthy population is maintenance or restoration of functional corridors that connect sub-populations of the Black Bear in the state. Functional corridors are necessary to restore a single Black Bear population in the state or a "metapopulation . . . a set of subpopulations that are interacting through disbursal [sic] of individuals between . . . [the] various populations." Tr. 468. Dr. Hoctor opined, "If we're going to have a functional corridor between the populations to the south [south of northern Brevard and southern Volusia Counties] and to the Saint Johns and Ocala populations [to the north], it's more than likely going to have to occur through the Farmton Property." Tr. 467. It is Dr. Hoctor's opinion that functional corridors through the Farmton Property are particularly important to maintenance of the St. Johns subpopulation which consists of only 96 to 170 bears when a viable sub-population of bears is at least 200. Dr. Hoctor regards the wildlife corridors provided by the FLP, both for the Black Bear and other species, to be insufficient to offer adequate protection. They are not wide enough nor do they encompass enough acreage, in his opinion, to provide an adequate home range for a female Black Bear. The FLP allows too many significant road crossings. With regard to the Black Bear and other species, moreover, the FLP, in his opinion, does not sufficiently counter negative edge effects, that is, "negative impacts on natural areas or protected lands . . . from adjacent intensive land uses." Tr. 483. Consistent with action taken in June 2010, the Commission is in the process of adopting a Black Bear Management Plan for Florida. On May 19, 2010, the FFWCC issued a "Draft Black Bear Management Plan for Florida" (the "Draft Plan") which has been up-dated but remains in draft form. The Draft Plan opens with an executive summary, the first paragraph of which follows: The long-term future of Black Bears in Florida currently is uncertain because of their large spatial requirements, the fragmented nature of remaining populations, and increasing human development and activity leading to conflicts. A statewide management plan is needed to conserve this valued wildlife species. * * * This management plan is not intended to set all policies and operations for bears, rather it is intended to form a platform from which policies can be updated and operations can be based. While this plan will set clear guidance and structure for bear conservation in Florida, it will not be a panacea or silver bullet for current issues. In fact, this plan may create more work as key challenges are addressed in implementation. VC/MC Ex. 49. The Draft Plan does not contain any reference to Dr. Hoctor's opinion that the Farmton Site is a critical linkage between the Ocala and St. John's subpopulations and the subpopulations of Black Bear to the south. Randy Kautz, a supervisor of the nongame habitat protection planning section at the FFWCC and its predecessor agency for 20 years, testified that he knew of no agency recommendation to establish a corridor for Black Bears between the Ocala/St. Johns subpopulations and subpopulations of Black Bear to the south. Furthermore, he thought it very unlikely that the subpopulations would become connected if an adequate Black Bear corridor existed on the Farmton Site. He gave several reasons that included man-made disruptions between the subpopulations (such as pasture lands) and natural barriers posed by the St. Johns River, Lake Harney and marshes to the southwest of the Farmton Site over which Black Bears are not likely to traverse. Under the Original Amendment, the Southwest Wildlife Corridor ensures a wildlife corridor approximately one mile in width in the areas closest to the St. Johns River because the science indicated that was the primary regional wildlife corridor for the region. Within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor is the Deep Creek Conservation Area. It is the site's most significant area for regional movement of wildlife and will contribute to a corridor spanning as wide as three miles near the St. Johns River. The Remedial Amendment increases the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to establish a minimum of a one-mile buffer outside the areas planned for development. There are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes a functional wildlife corridor. The Cow Creek Corridor, Southwest Wildlife Corridor, and the corridor along the Volusia-Brevard border exceed a 10:1 ratio of length to width, a favorable ratio for wildlife, and each is a minimum of 900 meters in width. The Southwest Wildlife Corridor, which is 11.81 miles in length, was expanded by the Remedial Amendments to a minimum width of one mile, an average width of 2.26 miles, and a maximum width of 5.3 miles, and has a reduced length-to-width ratio of 5.2:1. The Cow Creek Corridor, which is not a regional wildlife corridor, was increased to 3.86 miles in length, a maximum width of 1.07 miles, a minimum width of 0.63 of a mile, and has a length-to- width ratio of 4.73:1. Respondents provided expert opinions that the FLP's provision of wildlife corridors is consistent with regional long range conservation planning and fits into an ecosystem pattern with wildlife corridors, linkages, and a variety of habitats. Respondents also presented expert opinion that FLP's proposed conservation areas are consistent with Florida wildlife conservation strategy. Other Listed Species and Wildlife Habitat Petitioners allege that the amendment fails to protect native vegetative communities, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and threatened and endangered species. The SOI lists several federally listed species within USFWS consultation areas for the Crested Caracara, the Florida Scrub Jay, and the Everglades Snail Kite. A consultation area includes the bird's dispersal range. Ms. Collins has never seen one of these three bird species on the property during her 15 years onsite, which she attributes to the site's inappropriate habitat for the species. Dr. Smith and Dr. Walsh also testified that it was highly unlikely to find these species on site. If a project is located within a listed species consultation area, the developer is required to meet with the USFWS to address the issue further during the permit process. Other listed species are found or are likely to be found on the site. However, there will be adequate habitat and conservation areas to support them. Gopher tortoises, for example, found within an SDA will be protected by existing County policies. The FLP provides a higher level of protection for listed species and other wildlife than if the site were developed under the current land uses. No development may take place, moreover, until the CMP is approved and incorporated in the development order. Policy FG 2.11 lists numerous minimum criteria for the CMP, including the identification of USFWS consultation areas and known onsite threatened and endangered plants and animals, the protection of habitats of species that are listed, imperiled, and otherwise in need of special protection, and coordination with management plans of adjacent conservation areas. Farmton contains native vegetative communities including mesic flatwoods, scrub flatwoods, and pine flatwoods. These native vegetative communities are predominantly present in the GreenKey conservation areas and will be protected. FAVA and Site-specific Data A Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment Map (the FAVA Floridan Map) for the Floridan Aquifer of the Farmton Site depicts three levels of vulnerability: "More Vulnerable," "Vulnerable," and "Less Vulnerable." See DCA Ex. 4D. Most of the Farmton Site is in the area depicted by the FAVA Floridan Map as "More Vulnerable." All of the SDAs allowed by the FLP to be developed as Gateway, Town Center and Work Place subareas, for example, are depicted as "More Vulnerable." Most of the SDAs allowed by the FLP to be developed as Village subareas are depicted as "More Vulnerable" and the remainder is depicted as "Vulnerable." The FAVA Floridan Map depicts none of the SDAs as "Less Vulnerable." See DCA Ex. 4-D. The FAVA maps supported the Department's determination that the Original Amendment was not in compliance. FAVA maps are used as data by the Department because they depict areas where the aquifer is susceptible to contamination from surface contaminants. In that they "cover broad swaths of the State of Florida, [however] . . . they are not meant to supersede site-specific data." Tr. 1942. Dr. Seereeram, on behalf of Miami Corporation, gathered data specific to the Farmton site. The data included "detailed soil profiles every six inches vertically . . . [to] depths . . . over 100 feet . . . ." Tr. 1941. His site- specific data showed that there are confining layers between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan aquifer that prevent "rapid movement of groundwater from [the surficial] aquifer into the underlying Florida[n] aquifer." Tr. 1941. The site-specific data led Dr. Seereeram to conclude that the Department's concern for contamination potential to the Floridan Aquifer based on the FAVA is misplaced. In light of his site-specific data, Dr. Seereeram's opinion is that the development of the Farmton property will not "pose a threat to the aquifer." Tr. 1942. Dr. Seereeram's opinion, based on the question from counsel, is expressed in terms of "the aquifer." See id. Based on the FAVA maps and the entirely to his testimony with regard to site-specific data, the opinion does not apply to the Surficial Aquifer but only the Floridan Aquifer. The development of the Farmton Site in Volusia County does not pose a threat to contaminate the Floridan Aquifer. Floodplains, Wetlands, and Soil The Farmton Site in Volusia County is predominantly floodplains and wetlands. Petitioners allege that the land uses proposed by the FLP are incompatible with wetland protection and conservation. The Comprehensive Plan's map series depicts a large portion of the County as being located within the 100-year floodplain. A significant part of the SDAs are within the 100- year floodplain. There is no state or federal prohibition of development in a floodplain. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLP describe the floodplain. The Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit development in the 100-year floodplain. The FLP, however, "advises development away from the floodplain, specifically as it relates to schools in the Farmton Local Plan." Tr. 1095-6. Development in floodplains has been allowed by the County subject to elevation of construction to be flood-free upon completion and mitigation via on-site flood storage. The Plan's floodplain policies would apply to development under the FLP and the FLP has policies which relate to floodplains. Policy FG 2.21 in the FLP, for example, requires the following: Floodplains. Impact to the 100-year floodplain shall be minimized. Any impacts must be fully mitigated by providing compensatory storage on-site. Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-3 at 17 of 46. As a result of changes made by the Remedial Amendment, the majority of developable lands within the SDAs are uplands not wetlands. Based on a review of aerial photography, soil surveys, and other data, combined with field work, Ms. Collins concluded that approximately 29 percent of the total SDA acreage can be identified generally as wetlands. The dominant soils in the SDAs are Smyrna fine sand, Immokalee fine sand, Eau Gallie fine sand, and Myakka fine sand. Myakka soil, the soil of the flatwoods, is the most common soil in the state and has been designated as the "state soil." Tr. 1358. There are similar soils on adjacent properties. They are soils "that have had development occur on them." Tr. 1097. All of the soils in the SDAs are suitable for development. Wetlands delineation is not required at the comprehensive plan stage. It will be required prior to approval of development plans or issuance of a development order. The buildable areas within the SDAs will be determined with input from environmental regulation agencies prior to development order approvals. Without the FLP, preserved wetlands would be protected by a fifty-foot buffer. In contrast, Policy FG 2.19d requires all preserved wetland areas within an SDA to be protected by a buffer that averages 75 feet in width and is no less than 50 feet in width. See Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 17 of 49. On GreenKey land, the policy provides enhanced wetland buffer widths of an average of 100 feet with a minimum buffer of 75 feet. See id. "If different buffer widths are required by a permitting agency, the wider buffer shall apply." Id. Policy FG 2.20 states that activities within the FLP "shall be planned to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and the required buffers as described in FG 2.19(d)." Id. No less than 25 percent of each SDA as a whole must be set aside as RBOS, which may include wetlands. See Policies FG2.4 in Joint Ex. 10, Exhibit A, page 1 of 7; and 3.2 in Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2. Per Policy FG 2.8, those open space areas will be determined in consultation with regulatory agencies, Volusia Forever and entities that are parties to the conservation easements required by Policy FG 2.12. See Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2. Policy FG 2.6 requires that, when establishing RBOS, priority "be given to lands on the perimeter of the SDA, which are contiguous to GreenKey lands." Id. at page 11 of 49. In accordance with Policies FG 2.10 and 2.11, those RBOS areas will be added to the conservation easement and be incorporated in the CMP. Policy FG 2.11h requires the CMP to contain "[p]rovisions for significant water resources (such as streams, creeks, natural drainage ways, floodplains, and wetlands) protection, enhancement, and restoration and planned hydrological restoration." Joint Ex. 7, Tab 2-D, page 13 of 49. Wetlands Mitigation Bank In 2000, after a two-year permitting process, approximately 16,337 acres of the Volusia Farmton site was approved for use as a mitigation bank. Of that approved acreage, only 7,030 acres have been placed under a conservation easement and are required to be maintained in perpetuity for conservation purposes. Those 7,030 acres will continue to be preserved under the FLP. The portions of the mitigation bank that have not been placed under conservation easement may not remain within the mitigation bank and may be withdrawn. At the time of the final hearing, an application filed by Miami Corporation was pending before the SJRWMD to modify the mitigation bank permit to withdraw approximately 1,100 acres from areas within the mitigation bank that have not been placed in conservation easement. The lands proposed for removal from the permit are located within the SDA areas. The remaining portions of the mitigation bank would be protected from SDA uses through the 200 foot SDA perimeter buffer and wetland buffer requirements in Policy FG 2.19. Conservation Management Plans Within one year of the effective date of the FLP, the Deep Creek Conservation Area and the permitted Mitigation Bank lands will be placed into permanent conservation easement. Within two years, a CMP will be developed and enforced through the conservation easements. Remaining lands will be protected through a conservation covenant as well as the CMP. The covenant will have a ten-year term and automatically renew until the initial development plan is approved. Upon approval of a development plan consistent with the densities and intensities of the comprehensive plan, those lands will also be converted to a permanent conservation easement. The Remedial Amendment requires that no development can take place until the CMP plan is established and perpetual easements are recorded. Urban Sprawl The Thirteen Statutory Indicators Section 163.3177(6)(a)9 mandates that an amendment to the future land use element discourage urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a provides 13 "primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl . . . ." Evaluation of the indicators "consists of analysis of the plan or plan amendment within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality " See section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a. The 13 indicators are listed in the statute under roman numerals "I" through "XIII." I. The first indicator is promoting, allowing or designating "for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses." The current Plan (without the FLP) allows the site to develop as single residential uses at low densities. The pre- FLP densities allowed on the Farmton Site are one unit per 10 acres, one unit per 20 acres, or one unit per 25 acres depending on the three designations on the site: Agricultural Resource, Forestry Resource or Environmental Systems Corridor. Mixed use is not required, nor is clustering required. The result is a "ranchette pattern of land use." 2010 Hearing, Tr. 1817. Mr. Ivey at the 2010 Hearing described ranchette- style development and the use to which a ranchette would typically be put. He depicted a development pattern dominated by owners of property who want to be in the country to enjoy a country lifestyle. After purchase of the property, the owner typically builds a house, frequently clears the land, constructs a number of outbuildings and grows grass to support cows or goats. In Mr. Ivey's opinion, "if your goal is to protect the environment, [the ranchette pattern of development] does not do it." Tr. 1720. Mr. Pelham opined that, despite the current Plan's allowance of a ranchette style of development on the Farmton Site, the indicator is triggered because the FLP disperses so much low density development over the landscape and in development nodes. Such a pattern, in his opinion, "does result in a significant amount of low density sprawl, compounded by the fact that it's fragmented and distributed out rather than being in a very compact fashion." Tr. 280. In comparison to the ranchette style of development, however, the FLP calls for a mixed-use development much more concentrated than a ranchette type of development and, on balance, more protective of natural resources. The current land uses allow nonresidential development at a floor area ratio of 0.10 but non-residential uses are not required to be included so as to ensure a mix of uses. The current land use could result in an inefficient land use pattern of more than 4,600 residential units, each of which would be entitled to use a septic tank and potable water well. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.2.5 requires either clustering or open space for developments that contain environmentally sensitive lands or critical habitats but includes no minimum standards. The FLP removes residential entitlements from the GreenKey area and clusters residential development into the SDA areas. Since development is not allowed in GreenKey, it is reasonable to evaluate the FLP's density in terms of "net density" rather than "gross density." It is also appropriate to evaluate density based on the various SDAs. Each Village has a minimum density of 3 units per acre and a target density of 10 units per acre. The Town Center has a minimum density of 8 units per acre, a target density of 15 units per acre, and a center town square required density of 24 units per acre. Work Place has a minimum density of 8 units per and a target density of 18 units per acre. Finally, Gateway has a minimum density of 4 units per acre and a target density of 12 units per acre. The weighted average of the minimum densities throughout the SDAs is 3.3 units per acre and their weighted target density is 6.8 units per acre. This density is relatively high compared with developed portions of cities in Volusia County. The City of DeBary has a weighted average density of less than 2 units per acre. The City of Deltona has a weighted average density of 2.68 units per acre, and the City of Edgewater has a weighted average density of 4.89 units per acre. The weighted average maximum density for the residential land use categories in the unincorporated County is only 2.36 units per acre. The FLP also includes requirements for a mix of uses in the Gateway, Town Center, and Village districts. The jobs- to-housing ratio in Policy FG 3.10 also will ensure that development will contain a mix of uses. II. The second indicator is promoting, allowing or designating "significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development." Mr. Pelham found the indicator to be triggered because it designates over 12,000 acres of urban development in a rural area at a significant distance from existing urban development and leapfrogs over undeveloped urban-designated lands. Mr. Pelham holds the opinion despite the match of the FLP by the development that will be allowed under the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan on the Brevard County Farmton Property immediately adjacent to the Farmton Site in Volusia County. In addition to abutting the Brevard County Farmton Property, the Farmton Site abuts the City of Edgewater, and the approved Restoration DRI and Reflections PUD. There are undeveloped publicly managed lands and conservation easements in the vicinity of the Site. In contrast to Mr. Pelham, Mr. Metcalf does not think the indicator is triggered. He sees the FLP with its requirement of a greenbelt designated as GreenKey and RBOS and MRBOS to contain the essential components of an innovative development type known as "urban village." An urban village has the following characteristics: an area with urban density, a mix of uses including all major land use types in a self-contained, clustered, compact form that is transit-supportive and has a grid or modified grid street network and a walkable, unified design, with a defined edge separating urban rural uses. The FLP contains all the components required it to be considered to contain an "urban village" development pattern. III. Mr. Pelham concluded that the third indicator is triggered by the FLP's "fragmented development pattern . . . [with] ribbon strips of nodes, five or six of them, . . . in an isolated area." Tr. 281. In contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the FLP's "node" development pattern does not trigger the indicator. The nodes of development are not in a radial, strip or ribbon pattern. They do not, moreover, emanate from urban development. IV. Mr. Pelham's view that the FLP triggers the Indicator IV focuses on the 12,000 acres of NRMA land, a substantial portion of which will be converted to urban-type development. In contrast, witnesses for Miami Corporation cast the FLP as providing for the conversion of rural lands in a way that protects and conserves a range of natural resources, including wetlands and upland habitats. The indicator, moreover, does not require protection or conservation through preservation. Therefore, it is not triggered in all cases in which there is some use of the resource. GreenKey and MRBOS keep development out of the most environmentally sensitive wetlands and confines development to the SDAs so that wetland encroachment occurs only in wetlands of lower value than others in the area. Designation of areas as RBOS will also conserve natural resources. V. Indicator V refers to failure to adequately protect "adjacent agricultural areas and activities." Petitioners criticize FLP for failure to protect agricultural and forestry areas and activities within the SDAs. The Department of Community Affairs, however, has never applied the indicator to lands internal to an amendment. Policy FG 2.2 allows agricultural activities to continue in the GreenKey using Best Management Practices. Existing agricultural areas adjacent to the Farmton Site are mainly to the west. The FLP includes provision to adequately protect activities within those areas. Policy FG 2.19, for example, requires a minimum buffer of 200 feet around each SDA. Protection of adjacent areas and activities in the areas means Indicator V is not triggered by the FLP. VI. Mr. Pelham offered the opinion that the FLP fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services by allowing a large urban development in a rural area that has no public facilities and services and no plan to provide them. Mr. Metcalf testified that the services to be considered would be law enforcement, fire, emergency medical treatment and solid waste. In assessing Indicator VI, Mr. Metcalf began with the assumption that development under the FLP will increase the population in the service district. He opined that the indicator is not triggered because "[t]he higher [the] population in that service district, the higher the maximum usage of that service." Tr. 808. VII. Mr. Pelham believed the FLP fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services because, whether the developer makes significant payment for them or not, the remote location and type of the development will keep it from benefiting from the efficiencies and advantages of scale it would enjoy if it were more proximate to urban development and more compact. Policy FG 3.6d requires the Town Center to house a majority of civic uses, including public safety facilities. The Spine Transportation Network and its related policies provide a network of roads that disperses traffic designed to avoid overloading with local trips. Water service in Gateway will be provided by extension of infrastructure from the Restoration site. "The extension of those lines would be closer than would be many neighborhoods within existing urban areas." Tr. 809. School capacity for the initial 2,287 units will be concentrated in Gateway. The critical mass that can be achieved through the urban village form of development will support onsite facilities needed by schools, law enforcement and fire departments. The location of the facilities will serve development on the Farmton Site and also nearby ranchettes and all of South Volusia County. Mr. Metcalf's opinion is that that the indicator is not triggered by the FLP. VIII. Mr. Pelham's opinion is that Indicator VIII is triggered. "Many studies have shown that allowing urban development far distances from existing urban development drive up the cost of providing infrastructure." 2011 Hearing, tr. 285. Policies FG 7.1 and 5.13 require development within SDAs to provide infrastructure, including onsite roads, and government services that are fiscally neutral. They also require the developer to pay for its share of off-site transportation impacts on a pro rata basis. Construction of the Spine Transportation Network is required by Policy FG 5.7 to be funded solely by the owner/developer. These policies together with the urban village development pattern led Mr. Metcalf to the opinion that the FLP will not disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services. IX. By establishing SDA areas and buffer requirements in Policy FG 2.19 for perimeter boundaries and wetlands, the FLP establishes clear separations between rural and urban areas. X. The FLP would discourage and inhibit the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities, in Mr. Pelham's opinion, because it will compete with all other urban areas for residential and nonresidential growth. Joel Ivey, who has worked on many amendments to the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan, testified that he was not aware of any areas in the County in need of re-development or any infill areas with which the FLP would interfere. The Petitioners did not identify any areas in which the FLP will discourage development opportunities covered by the indicator. XI. Indicator XI is not triggered. The FLP encourages a functional and attractive mix of uses. It requires a mix of residential and nonresidential uses in the SDA districts, a jobs-to-housing ratio, placing lands in conservation easements, walk-ability, compact development, and a hierarchy of street systems to foster connectivity and pedestrian mobility. XII. Indicator XII is not triggered. The FLP promotes accessibility among linked and related land uses with interlinked multimodal roadways and paths, including the Spine Transportation System, walkways and bike paths. XIII. The FLP preserves significant areas of functional open space. It provides for passive recreation open space in RBOS areas. It provides expanses of functional open space areas for wildlife habitat. The Farmton Site, currently private property used primarily for silviculture that can be developed with more than 4,600 homes, under the FLP will place at least 36,000 acres in functional open space in perpetuity. It will conserve the site's most environmentally-sensitive lands and establish a network of wildlife corridors. Development Patterns and Urban Forms Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b declares that a future land use element or plan amendment "shall be determined" to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that incorporates four or more factors listed in the statute. The development patterns or urban forms are listed by roman numerals, I through VIII. I. The FLP promotes conservation and avoids adverse impacts to the most significant natural resources on site. It does so by placing the most significant natural resources in GreenKey and MRBOS, locating development in the SDAs so as to keep it out of the most ecologically significant areas on the Farmton Site, providing protections to the Southwest Wildlife Corridor, and deeding the Deep Creek Conservation area for permanent preservation. Any development within an SDA will be subject to development controls that first require impacts to wetlands to be avoided. If impacts cannot be avoided, only wetlands of lower ecological significance may be impacted, and the impacts must be mitigated to achieve no net loss in function and value. Policy FG 2.19 includes several buffer requirements. Other natural resource protection mechanisms include Policy FG 2.7 which promotes habitat connectivity and requires RBOS to minimize habitat fragmentation. Policies FG 2.10 and 2.11 require a conservation management plan. Policy FG 2.5 and 2.5b. require a forestry management plan and a bear management plan. II. The FLP promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services based upon findings above. III. The third development pattern is present. The FLP includes several provisions that promote walk-ability and connected communities, including Policies FG 3.1; 3.4g; 3.6e; 3.7a-d, h, and j; 5.1;, 5.3; 5.5; 5.6; and 5.7; and, the Spine Network Map. The SDA district policies provide for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that support a range of housing options and transit options. The FLP requires park-and-ride lots for bus stops, which supports a form of mass transit, and requires multimodal options, such as sidewalks, bike paths and multi-use paths that accommodate different transportation options such as golf carts and bicycles. Policies FG 3.1e (applicable to all SDA districts), 3.4 (Gateway) and 3.7k (Villages) require housing diversity and choice through a mixture of housing types and price points. IV. The fourth development pattern is present as the FLP promotes water and energy conservation. Policy FG 4.2c requires various conservation measures and water neutrality. The multimodal components and employment centers required by the FLP will reduce vehicles miles and promote energy conservation. V. The fifth development pattern is present if the word "preserve" is interpreted to allow agricultural and silviculture activities to continue, rather than mandate that they continue. Policy FG 2.2 allows agriculture activities to continue, but does not require or guarantee that they will continue in perpetuity. Id. Policies 2.2, 2.5a, 2.11g, 2.12f, 2.23, and 3.13 ensure that agriculture may continue. The timberland soils in GreenKey and MRBOS will be preserved. VI. The sixth development pattern is present. Policies 1.3, 1.7, 2.10, 2.11, 2.15, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.8, 2.5, and 2.16 preserve open space and natural lands. The conservation easements for GreenKey will preserve open space in natural lands. MRBOS and RBOS will provide open space areas in natural lands. Parks in RBOS will provide public open space and passive recreational areas. The SDA parks also will provide active recreational areas. VII. The seventh development pattern is present. The residential and non-residential allocations are balanced and are comparable to those in other master-planned communities. The jobs-to-housing ratio requirement in Policy FG 3.10 ensures a 1:1 balance at build-out and provides a mechanism to ensure that the balance does not drop below 0.65 during development. Gateway Policy FG 3.4d appropriately targets interstate commerce given its proximity to the I-95 and State Road 442 Interchange. VIII. The eighth development pattern is present. The FLP remediates the ranchette pattern allowed under the current Plan over the site. It also provides an innovative urban village development pattern, as well as transit oriented development. Internal Inconsistency Future Land Use Element Future Land Use Objective 1.1.3 in the Current Plan states: "Volusia County shall limit urban sprawl by directing urban growth to those areas where public facilities and services are available inside designated service areas and within urban areas." Joint Ex. 1, page 29 of 109. Future Land Use Policy 1.1.3.5 in the current Plan provides that: New urban development shall be located inside an urban designated area where a full range of urban services exist or are planned and with direct access to arterials and mass transit routes sufficient to handle existing and future development. Joint Ex. 1, page 30 of 109. Policy 1.1.3.6 provides: Id. Requests for land use map amendments will be reviewed using the urban sprawl indicators contained in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g). Requests that exhibit a presence of a majority of the indicators shall be concluded as to encourage urban sprawl. Mr. Pelham concluded the FLP was inconsistent with these two policies because the Farmton Site is in a remote, rural area outside of urban areas and away from existing or planned urban services. The basis of the opinion is contradicted by the Farmton amendments to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan now in effect. While rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) no longer exists, Mr. Pelham testified as to why the FLP constitutes urban sprawl. When evaluating whether a plan amendment is consistent with a provision in the plan, including a policy, the plan should be considered "as a whole." Tr. 222. As Mr. Pelham testified, "a common mistake in interpreting comprehensive plans is that policies are lifted out of context, considered in a vacuum without regard to the plan as a whole . . . ." Id. Mr. Pelham's approach is sanctioned by the Current Plan's provision that governs "Plan Interpretation" found in Chapter 21 of the Current Plan entitled "Administration and Interpretation." In particular, it is consistent with a statement that appears in the Introduction of the Current Plan as one of three guidelines or "statements which represent the underlying assumptions which support the Plan preparation." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 3 of 5. That statement is "Guideline Three: The Comprehensive Plan will be construed as a complete document and no specific goal, objective, policy or recommendation shall be used independently." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 4 of 5. Guideline Three is emphasized by its restatement in a quote from the Current Plan's Introduction in the provision governing "Plan Interpretation." See Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 21, page 2 of 7. The Current Plan does not prohibit urban development activities within NRMA. To the contrary, the Current Plan allows "Low Impact Urban," as defined in Policy 12.2.2.1c on lands within NRMA. See Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 12, page 8 of 16. The FLP directs development to certain areas within NRMA and away from the most environmentally sensitive lands in NRMA. There is a fair argument advanced by Miami Corporation, the County and VGMC that the FLP is coordinated with NRMA, is consistent with its objectives as to the bulk of the site and does not conflict with the Current Plan's Objective 12.2.1: "To provide for the protection of areas determined to be environmentally sensitive, and to direct growth away from such areas." Policy 12.2.1.2 requires the County to promote land use activities compatible with NRMA. The policy discusses the land use categories of ESC, FR and Low Impact Urban, among others. The County's planning and development services director for the County construes the uses under ESC, FR, and Low Urban Impact as not the only land uses allowed within NRMA. The critical determination is whether a land use is NRMA-compatible. Consistent with the Current Plan, Policy FG 2.1 states that the whole site is located within NRMA and the NRMA policies apply if they are more protective or stringent than the FLP's policies. The FLP provides more protection for the most environmentally sensitive areas on the Farmton Site than is provided under NRMA. Examples are the FLP requirement for a wider buffer and a minimum of 75 percent open space. Policy 1.3.1.28 forbids amendment of the FLUM not adopted in conjunction with the required Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR") except under five conditions expressed in the policy. The FLUM amendment by the FLP was not in conjunction with an EAR. The five conditions, all of which must be met, therefore, are: Population projections have been revised, and accepted by the County and FDCA; Justification is provided for the expansion of the urban boundary; Compatibility with the character of the area; Availability of the full range of all urban services, including adequate potable water supply and facilities, to accommodate inclusion in an urban area; and, Documentation is provided that urban expansion will not be in conflict with the intent of the Natural Resource Management Area and Environmental Core Overlay. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 1, page 41 of 109. Testimony at the 2010 Hearing established that the County's population projections were rejected by DCA because they were not based on a professional methodology. The projections were not accepted by the Department in the interim between the 2010 and 2011 Hearing. Mr. Pelham testified that "[t]he Department has never accepted them." 2011 Hearing, tr. 242. The Department's planning function, including review of comprehensive plan amendments and compliance determinations, was transferred by the 2011 Legislature to the Department of Economic Opportunity. The Current Plan does not establish an urban service boundary. Mr. Ivey opined that the FLP is compatible with the character of the area because of the 200-foot wide buffers that exist between the SDA and GreenKey areas. The FLP provides for the City of Edgewater and Farmton Water Resources to provide central water and sewer, and there is adequate water supply. The FLP is consistent with NRMA and ECO because it achieves permanent protection of the key ecological resources on-site. The 11,000 acres of land on the Farmton Site under the ECO are entirely preserved. Conservation Element Policies Petitioners allege that the FLP is inconsistent with Conservation Element Policies 12.2.1.1, 12.2.1.2, 12.2.2.5, 12.2.2.7 and 12.2.3.2. The "Overview" section of the Conservation Element opens with the following paragraph: The Conservation Element provides the framework for the preservation, protection, and enhancement, of the County's natural resources. As such, the goals, objectives and policies outlined in this Element are strongly intertwined with other elements in the Comprehensive Plan relating to land use, utilities, recreation and open space, transportation and coastal management. It is the intent of this Element to provide a basis for responsible decision making for the appropriate use of natural resources when confronted by growth and corresponding development, as well as the identification and preservation of ecologically irreplaceable resources. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 12, at page 2 of 16. Objective 12.2.1 is: "To provide for the protection of areas determined to be environmentally sensitive, and direct growth away from such areas." Id. at page 7 of 16. Policy 12.2.1.1, in pertinent part, provides that "existing, relatively uninterrupted expanses of natural resources contained within the County shall be managed as an individual unit, providing natural resources the highest degree of protection in land development decisions and planning. These lands shall comprise the NRMA established in the Future Land Use Element. Mr. Pelham views the FLP as not managing the natural resources on the Farmton Site as a unit because it allows development to occur in eight different nodes of development spread out across the property. The development that is allowed, therefore, is fragmented. Mr. Pelham, moreover, sees the FLP as far less protective than the Current Plan because it does not retain protection of the NRMA. By eliminating low-density land use classifications in the SDAs, and replacing it with a large city, the effect on the more protective NRMA designation in his view, is that the FLP "retains the shell and takes out the meat." Tr. 271. In contrast, experts for the County and Miami Corporation see just the opposite. By confining development in the SDAs, which have additional internal protections provided by RBOS and MRBOS designations, and preserving in perpetuity up to 80 percent of the Farmton Site with special protections for wildlife corridors, the FLP provides permanent protection for the most environmentally-sensitive land on site. Policy 12.2.1.2 establishes the three low-density categories that currently apply in the NRMA area: ESC, FR and Low Impact Urban. Replacing the low density use classifications with the FLP has the benefit of protecting the Farmton Site from ranchette-type development with the urban village development pattern that provides the conservation benefit of permanent protection of the most environmentally sensitive lands on site. Objective 12.2.2 is "[t]o minimize, and eliminate where reasonably achievable, impacts to ecological communities which degrade their natural physical and biological functions as a result of land development activities." Id. at page 8 of 16. Policy 12.2.2.5 provides, "The County shall require clustering of dwelling units and/or open space for land development projects which contain environmentally sensitive lands and critical habitats within its project boundaries, in order to preserve these resources." Id. The policy is the most detailed rural clustering plan in Florida. The FLP is viewed by Mr. Pelham as inconsistent with the policy because of the allocation of multiple development nodes spread out over the Farmton Site. Ms. McGee sees a distinction in the language of the policy when compared to the FLP. "The important distinction is that this policy specifically refers to land development projects versus land planning projects." (emphasis added). Tr. 445. Petitioners contend there is no inconsistency because the aim of the policy is achieved since the most environmentally sensitive land is preserved in perpetuity by the FLP, functional and natural open space is set aside, and wetland buffers are provided in the FLP. Policy 12.2.2.7 requires the County to coordinate with appropriate governmental entities to protect environmentally sensitive lands that extend into adjacent counties and municipalities. Michael McDaniel testified at the 2010 hearing that the FLP allows the Gateway development to be adjacent to a 3,500 acre conservation area designated by the City of Edgewater as part of the Restoration DRI. Development allowed by the FLP in the Gateway SDA was determined by DCA initially to be not compatible with the resources in the conservation area and the designation of the area by the City of Edgewater. The Original Amendment, therefore, failed to reflect the intergovernmental coordination required by the policy in his view. At his deposition conducted prior to the 2011 Hearing, Mr. McDaniel testified that after the Remedial Amendments the Gateway Project would still be just south of the conservation land designated by the City and that nothing specific had been done in the Remedial Amendments to address the inconsistency with the policy. Policy FG 3.4 in the FLP includes several provisions relating to coordination with adjacent jurisdictions, two of which specifically refer to the Restoration DRI. Policy FG 2.11q requires the Farmton conservation management plan to be coordinated with the natural resource protection measures within the RBOS and Conservation Areas of Restoration. This requirement will ensure maximum open space connectivity between the Restoration development and any development in the northern portions of the Farmton site. On the southern end of the Restoration site (just to the north of the Farmton Site) is an area designated to be used for utilities. That area directly adjoins one of the three Gateway SDAs. The Restoration site includes a significant amount of degraded areas in need of restoration. East and west of the Gateway SDAs, there will be broad corridors that connect with the Restoration site. The Restoration DRI is subject to a conservation management plan requirement that can be coordinated with the FLP's CMP. During the Original Amendment process, the County coordinated with the City of Edgewater. As a result of discussions between the County and the City, the FLP incorporates policies to address common water supply issues and future coordination. The City has no objection to the FLP. The Amendment is internally consistent with Conservation Policy 12.2.2.7. Objective 12.2.3 is "[t]o eliminate any net loss of wetlands and prevent the functional values of such wetlands to be degraded as a result of land development decisions." Policy 12.2.3.2, in pertinent part, provides that "[p]roposed activities within the NRMA . . . shall avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and their associated natural, physical and biological functions, except in cases where it can be demonstrated to be in the overriding public interest." The policy also calls for mitigation in cases of overriding public interest. Wetland features are present in abundance and interspersed throughout the Farmton Site. Respondents contend that a reasonable interpretation of the policy is that it applies to projects at the time of decisions on applications for development orders rather than planning decisions such as adoption of the FLP. Since the policy, under the interpretation, does not apply to the FLP, the policy cannot be inconsistent with it. Public School Facilities Public School Facilities Element Policy 3.1.4.3 requires a finding by the School Board that adequate school capacity will either be timely planned or constructed if there is inadequate capacity at the time of a land use change. Petitioners contend that FLP Policies FG 6.1 and 6.2 are inconsistent with Public School Facilities Element 3.1.4.3. The FLP was coordinated with the Volusia County School District ("School Board"). The School Board reviewed the proposed FLP and revised its school provisions. At the time of the Original Amendment, the School Board, based on its independent data and analysis, determined that there is adequate school capacity for a maximum of 2,287 residential units through 2025. Based on school capacity, Policy FG 1.4 limits residential development through 2025 to 2,287 units in the Gateway district. The policy further restricts residential density in the Gateway district to a maximum of 4,692 units. "[A]ny increase in the density of the Gateway district above the 2,287 units [for which there is adequate school capacity now] and up to 4,692 units [the number of units allowed] shall not be effective until such time as the school district has issued a finding of school adequacy." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, at page 7 of 49. Policies FG 6.1 and 6.2 reiterate the 2,287 unit cap and do not allow additional residential units until the School Board finds adequate capacity to provide for additional units. Other FLP Policies "Fiscal neutrality means the costs of additional school district and local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the SDA districts shall be funded by properties within the approved SDA districts." Joint Ex. 7, Policy FG 7.1, page 42 of 49. Policy FG 7.1 requires each development within an SDA to provide adequate infrastructure that meets or improves level of service standards or will result in a fiscal benefit to the County and its municipalities. Policy FG 5.13 authorizes mitigation for offsite transportation impacts through proportionate fair-share or proportionate share payments. The policy requires proportionate fair-share or proportionate share payments to mitigate the offsite transportation impacts. State law authorizes proportionate-share contributions or construction to satisfy transportation concurrency requirements of a local comprehensive plan under certain circumstances. See § 163.3180(5)(h)3. There is no definition in chapter 163 of "fiscal neutrality." Nor is there a requirement that a developer pay for more than its pro rata share of impacts. Capital Improvements Element/Public Facilities With regard to "capital improvements and public facilities," Petitioners make three allegations that the FLP is not in compliance. First, Petitioners allege the FLP fails to demonstrate the availability of public facilities and services, as required by sections 163.3177(3)(a), 163.3177(6)(a)2.d., and 163.3177(6)(a)8.a. Second, pointing to sections 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. and 163.3177(6)(a)3.e., they allege that the FLP improperly defers data and analysis on which to base the adequacy of public facilities and services. Third, they allege the revised water supply data and analysis used to support the Remedial Amendments do not demonstrate the availability of sufficient water supplies. The term "public facilities" is defined in section 163.3164(38). It "means major capital improvements, including transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational facilities." Section 163.3177(1)(f), requires all mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments to be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. requires the future land use element and plan amendments to be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area as applicable including the availability of water supplies, public facilities and services. FLUM amendments are required by section 163.317(6)(a)8.a. to be based on an analysis of the availability of facilities and services. The FLP is supported by adequate public facility data and analysis. The data and analysis supporting the Original Amendment includes transportation network maps that generally depict and project external roadways and transportation improvements that will need to be built to serve development under the Amendment through 2025 and through 2060. It also includes an evaluation of current and future roadway level of service standards. The Original Amendment includes data and analysis that evaluate potable water and sanitary sewer demand. The water and sewer analysis includes separate charts for build-out in 2025 and in 2060 which assume maximum residential potential and expected nonresidential development types. The data and analysis evaluate impacts of development under the FLP in the short term and in the long term. A transportation analysis was submitted as part of the proposed Amendment package that evaluates impacts on the level of service standards of roadways through 2014 (5 years from the submission of the original Amendment) and 2025. Tables 12 and 13 of the analysis identify roadway improvements needed to maintain level of service standards in 2014 and 2025, respectively, assuming maximum development under the existing land uses and under the Amendment. The transportation analysis assumes full maximum development potential under the Amendment, not realistic growth projections. The analysis therefore evaluates 4,692 residential units and 820,217 square feet of nonresidential development, the maximum development potential under the current land uses. The original water demand analysis applies the Amendment's water conservation policies, as encouraged by the SJRWMD. That analysis estimates a water demand of 1.36 million GPD in 2025 and 6.714 million GPD in 2060. Another water demand analysis compares onsite development scenarios for ranchettes, a commercial nursery, and development under the FLP. The analysis demonstrates development under the FLP would use substantially less water than would development of ranchettes and a commercial nursery. The Remedial Amendments include revised water supply data and analysis that was requested by, and coordinated with, the SJRWD to more closely reflect the water conservation policies in the FLP. The Original Amendment's water supply analysis assumes usage of 250 GPD per residential unit, whereas the Remedial Amendments' revised water supply data and analysis assume a reduced usage of 175 GPD per residential unit. The SJRWMD accepted the revised data and analysis. Petitioners dispute the data and analysis' use of 175 GPD as underestimating demand, but they do not dispute the data and analysis' nonresidential usage rates. The use of 175 GPD is professionally accepted and the data and analysis demonstrate the availability of adequate potable water supplies. The estimated usage of 175 GPD is achievable under the FLP's conservation measures and is a conservative rate based on the FLP's provision for many multi- family units which have a lower GPD than single family units. Applying either 250 GPD or 175 GPD, the site's groundwater source of potable water, estimated to be 9.6 million GPD, will be adequate to provide potable water for maximum residential and nonresidential development under the Amendment while meeting the contractual obligation to provide 2.75 million GPD to the city of Titusville. Petitioners also dispute the reclaimed water analysis assumption in the revised water supply data and analysis that 20 percent of the SDAs will be covered with stormwater facilities. "Twenty percent of the developed landscaped is a lot of land devoted to stormwater treatment." Tr. 142. Mr. Diamond, Petitioners' expert, suggested an assumption of seven to eight percent of the SDAs devoted to stormwater treatment is more appropriate. Civil engineer Mark Dowst, however, demonstrated the 20 percent assumption is based on his experience designing hundreds of stormwater systems and is professionally acceptable. The general range, in his opinion, is 12 to 15 percent. In areas with flood plains or a high water table, such as the Farmton Site, the amount of land devoted to stormwater treatment must be more than the general range. The School District determined there was adequate school capacity through 2025 for a maximum of 2,287 residential units authorized under the current land uses. The School District also found the Amendment addresses and protects the School District's interests. Based on the School District's finding, Policy FG 1.4 limits residential development through 2025 to 2,287 units within the Gateway district until the School District issues a finding there is additional capacity. Policy FG 6.2 recognizes the School Board has not determined there is capacity for more than 2,287 units and therefore "no finding of school adequacy can be issued until and unless the Interlocal Agreement is amended to allow school capacity to be provided within the concurrency service area in which the Farmton Local Plan is located." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 40 of 49. The Amendment reacts appropriately to relevant school capacity data and analysis. Petitioners did not demonstrate how the FLP is inconsistent with applicable public facility requirements. They did not demonstrate that the FLP triggers a need under the New Act to amend the Capital Improvements Element. In order to encourage the efficient use of public facilities, section 163.3177(3)(a) mandates that the comprehensive plan contain a capital improvements element designed to consider the location of public facilities that covers at least a 5-year period and that sets forth: "A schedule of capital improvements [the "CIS"] which includes any publicly funded projects of federal, state or local government, and which may include privately funded projects for which the local government has no fiscal responsibility. Projects necessary to ensure that any adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained for the 5-year period must be identified as either funded or unfunded and given a level of priority for funding." § 163.3177(3)(a)4. Policy FG 8.1 prohibits the issuance of any building permit within five years of the Amendment's effective date. This provision clarifies that the Capital Improvement Schedule ("CIS") need not be amended yet. There is no requirement the CIS include public facilities that are privately owned or operated, or are owned or operated by a different local government. None of the infrastructure to be provided by Farmton Water Resources LLC or the City of Edgewater under the numerous policies under Objective 4 need be included in the CIS. The evidence shows it is not realistic to expect development impacts to occur within five years from the adoption of the Remedial Amendments on February 18, 2011. Section 163.3177(3)(b) requires that the capital improvements element be reviewed annually. The CIS will be amended in the future as needed based on projected public facility impacts of future development proposals. Section 163.3177(3)(a) requires less detail for long-range public facility planning than for the five year CIS. The Amendment includes an adequate amount of detail for long range planning for public facilities. Policy FG 4.14 authorizes Farmton Water Resources, LLC, and the City of Edgewater to provide water to the site. Policy FG 4.19 identifies the City of Edgewater as the provider of potable water and wastewater for Gateway. The data and analysis include a utility service area map showing the service area. Policy FG 4.18 requires Farmton Water Resources, LLC, to provide off-site and on-site potable water, nonpotable water, and wastewater. That policy and Policy FG 4.21j list various infrastructure improvements that will be needed to provide those services. At this time, it is not possible to identify where public facilities will be located or their costs. Policy FG 8.3 requires all SDA development to undergo master development-of-regional impact review process, which will ensure infrastructure, including transportation, schools, stormwater, and water supply, to be a condition of the master DRI development order. Policy FG 8.7 includes a requirement that each increment of development address the adequacy of public facilities and services such that they are available to accommodate development and maintain or improve level of service standards. The master DRI requirement is a reasonable strategy to ensure infrastructure will keep pace with development. Water Supply Petitioners contend that the increased development allowed under the FLP was not anticipated by the water supply plan of the SJRWMD, or of any local government, and that a concurrent water supply plan amendment is required. They further argue this omission demonstrates the FLP is not based on the availability of water supplies. Petitioners also allege the Amendment is inconsistent with the Plan’s Potable Water Sub- Element Policies 7.1.3.1 and 7.1.3.3. Those issues were raised by the Department and SJRWMD, but were resolved to their satisfaction in the Remedial Amendments. SJRWMD proposed Remedial Policies FG 4.14, 4.15, 4.18, and 4.21. The Remedial Amendments also included additional data and analysis, which was accepted by SJRWMD. The Original Amendment is supported by data and analysis demonstrating there is a new source of potable water located on the site. The new water source is groundwater contained within the Upper Floridan aquifer and is of potable water quality. The potable water supply analysis demonstrates the new source of potable water is adequate to supply more than enough potable water to supply development under the FLP. The supply is conservatively estimated to be able to produce a sustainable 9.6 million GPD, while the projected demand for development under the FLP is estimated to be 6.76 million GPD. Future land use plan amendments must be based on data regarding the area including "[t]he availability of water supplies . . . ." see § 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. Adequate potable water supply must be shown to be available but need not yet be a permitted source. Regardless of whether the new groundwater source is identified in a regional or local water supply plan, the FLP is supported by a demonstration of an adequate water supply, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. Non-inclusion in a water supply plan does not negate the fact that a new source of potable water has been discovered and demonstrated to be available. Section 163.3177(6)(c) requires each water management district to adopt a regional water supply plan every five years and for each local government to incorporate relevant facilities contained in the regional plan into its comprehensive plan by adopting a local water supply plan within eighteen months after the regional water supply is adopted. The FLP was adopted between updates of the SJRWMD regional water supply plan and local water supply plan updates. The SJRWMD plan was required to be adopted in 2005, but was not adopted until February 2006. The mandatory five-year update for the SJRWMD was due in the fall of 2010, but has been delayed. The County’s required water supply facilities work plan was adopted on June 8, 2009. There is no requirement for the county to amend its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan before the SJRWMD amends its regional water supply plan. Potable Water Sub-Element Policy 7.1.3.3 requires the County to review its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan annually and update it as necessary. The FLP recognizes the County’s obligation to later amend its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and is consistent with it. Policy FG 4.15 requires Farmton Water Resources, LLC, to coordinate with the County, municipalities and the SJRWMD to propose additions to their applicable water supply work plans. The unchanged portion of revised Policy FG 4.18 expressly requires projects to be included in the annual updates as those projects are identified and approved. There is no statutory requirement that such availability be included in a water supply project list until the county and regional water supply plans are updated. Nonetheless, the report prepared by Dr. Seereeram demonstrated through data and analysis that sufficient on-site water will be available. Potable Water Sub-Element Policy 7.1.3.1 requires the County to maintain a Water Supply Facilities Work Plan that is coordinated with the SJRWMD water supply plan. The FLP is consistent with this policy because Policy 7.1.3.1 does not address the situation posed in this case by the delay of the update to the SJRWMD water supply plan. Policy FG 4.18, moreover, requires coordination after that update is made. Section 163.3177(6)(c) is silent as to the need to identify potable water projects between water supply amendment cycles, and as to the format a local government must use to identify water supply projects. Petitioners did not demonstrate the FLP is required to include amendments to the water supply plan, as opposed to a later update of the water supply plan, as required by Policy FG 4.18. They also did not demonstrate what legal requirement necessitates additional information, beyond the identity of the water source and its demonstrated adequacy, in order for the Amendment to be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis to demonstrate the availability of a water supply. Public Schools The County is required by section 163.3177(6)(a)7 to identify the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use. The School District is responsible for identifying sites for future schools. In keeping with its responsibility, the School District has mapped future school sites needed through 2025. It has not planned, however, for new school sites needed through 2060. Objective 3.2.2 governs and requires establishment of "School Concurrency Service Areas," Joint Ex. 1, ch. 3, page 6 of 12. They are areas "within which an evaluation is made of whether adequate school capacity is available based on the adopted level of service standard." Id. Policy 3.2.2.8 requires "[r]equests to develop properties within the central school concurrency service areas at residential densities and intensities greater than the current land use or zoning designations . . . . [to] be done via a comprehensive plan amendment consistent with the Volusia County Charter provision 206 regarding school planning." Id. at page 7 of 12. Section 206 required the county council not later than September 30, 2007, to adopt an ordinance to the effect that any plan amendment allowing increased residential density "may be effective only if adequate public schools can be timely planned and constructed to serve the projected increase in school population." DCA Ex. 10. The policy further requires the amendment to demonstrate how school capacity will be met consistent with the terms of the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning, effective July 2007, and Section 206 of the Volusia County Charter. The FLP is consistent with Public Schools Policy 3.2.2.8 because it limits residential development to 2,287 units until there is a School District finding of additional capacity. Policy FG 8.3g. requires each increment of development in the master development order to include provision for schools, thus further ensuring adequate public schools will be timely built and available to serve all future development. The use of a plan amendment to include limitations on development based upon the availability of public facilities has been accepted by the Department. Policy FG 6.2 requires an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement before the School District can find there is additional capacity. This policy is coordinated and consistent with Policy FG 3.2.2.8's requirement that plan amendments be consistent with the Interlocal Agreement. A plan amendment creates an internal inconsistency when it has the effect of conflicting with an existing provision of the comprehensive plan, but if an amendment expressly creates an exception or waiver to a general rule set forth in the plan, it does not create an internal inconsistency. Related school concurrency Public Schools Objective 3.2.1 requires the County to "ensure that the capacity of schools is sufficient to support residential subdivisions and site plans at the adopted level of service standard within the period covered by the five-year schedule of capital improvements." Joint Ex. 1, ch. 3, page 5 of 12. Since school concurrency is a five-year planning concern and no development should occur within the next five years, there is no inconsistency between the FLP and Policy FG 3.2.2.8. Policy FG 3.1.4.1 requires the County to "take into consideration" School District comments and findings on the availability of adequate school capacity in its evaluation of plan amendments. The FLP is consistent with this policy. The County not only took the School District's comments and findings into consideration, but the FLP limits development to current and future findings of adequate school capacity made by the School District through Policy FG 1.4. Objective FG 6 in the FLP governs "School Planning and Concurrency." It states: "The Sustainable Development Area districts shall be designed and planned to ensure that the educational facilities are integral components within the community and that adequate school capacity can be timely planned and constructed to serve the anticipated population." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 39 of 49. The school policies that implement Objective FG 6, Policies FG 6.1 through 6.8, were drafted by the School District and are based on the best available data and analysis about future school sites, which currently is available from the School District only through 2025. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners contend that Policies FG 2.16 and FG 3.10 (untouched after the Original Amendment), and Policies FG 2.4, 2.5, and 2.18 (as revised by the Remedial Amendments) fail to establish the meaningful and predictable standards required by section 163.3177 (1). The statute, in pertinent part, provides: The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. Policy FG 2.16 requires a Community Stewardship Organization ("CSO") to be established and governed by seven directors. The policy provides the CSO's governance board of directors is to be composed of seven members, four of whom must be representative of statewide or national non-profit environmental/conservation organizations in existence at the time of the adoption of the FLP such as the Nature Conservancy, Florida Audubon Society, Trust for Public Lands, and the Florida Wildlife Federation. The owner shall be represented on the board, and the other two members may include representatives of public agencies, stakeholders and public citizens who participated in the development of the FLP. The policy also lists various functions the CSO may or must perform, including taking title to the GreenKey and RBOS areas or co-holding a conservation easement. The CSO is mandated to participate in development of the CMP. The policy also requires all current and future deeds of the Deep Creek Conservation Area, which is within the West Mitigation Bank, to be conveyed to the CSO. Policy FG 2.16 identifies specific activities for the CSO to undertake, and contains meaningful and predictable standards to guide the CSO's composition and actions. Policy FG 3.10 requires a jobs-to-housing ratio of one job per one residential unit. The policy also states Gateway development shall be Phase One and is exempt from the ratio requirement. Development orders for subsequent phases must include milestones for achieving the ratio. The ratio must be monitored at least annually. If the ratio falls below 0.65 (0.65 job for each housing unit), the policy requires development approvals to cease until a remedial plan is developed and approved. Policies FG 8.3j and Policy FG 8.4j require any development orders to include provisions to implement the jobs to housing ratio. Policy FG 3.10 does not allow the remedial plan to achieve any other ratio. A plain reading of Policy FG 3.10 as a whole, including the requirement to monitor compliance with the ratio, reveals it to be a remedial plan that must achieve the 1:1 ratio referred to in the policy. Policy FG 3.10 identifies specific strategies to achieve a balance of housing and employment opportunities, and contains meaningful and predictable standards to guide its implementation. There is no requirement for a CSO and there are no compliance criteria to guide the composition and roles of entities such as the CSO, nor does the law require or provide criteria for jobs to housing ratio. Policy FG 2.4 was revised by the Remedial Amendment to create MRBOS areas and depict them on Map Figure 1-12N so as to provide certainty as to where certain portions of RBOS lands will be located. MRBOS lands have the effect of expanding the GreenKey designated areas for the Cow Creek Corridor and the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. The Policy states MRBOS lands will not be subject to the RBOS public access plan, but will be subject to the Black Bear management plan. The Remedial Amendment's details for the new MRBOS areas are predictable and meaningful. The changes to Policy FG 2.5 clarify that the Southwest Wildlife Corridor must be "consistent with a forestry management plan designed to provide prescribed fire, promote dense understory vegetation such as palmetto and [be] consistent with the Black Bear Management Plan" as required in original Policy 2.5b. Petitioners did not present any competent substantial evidence that this guidance for the forestry management plan does not provide adequate meaningful and predictable standards. Policy FG 2.18, "Transportations Policies and Natural Resource Protection," addresses the arterial roads that traverse the GreenKey lands and provides design guidance to avoid and minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and the movement of wildlife. Section "a" of the policy, which was unchanged by the Remedial Amendment, includes the following non-exhaustive list of tools to minimize this conflict: landscaping techniques, fencing, speed limits, wildlife overpasses or underpasses, bridges, and elevating roadways. This section applies to the three arterial roads shown on the Spine Network Map; Williamson Boulevard, Maytown Road, and Arterial A. The proposed general alignment of Williamson Boulevard does not intrude into the boundaries of the Deep Creek Conservation Area, the Cow Creek Corridor, the Power Line corridor, or the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. Williamson Boulevard runs through, and connects, the largest Gateway SDA and the Work Place, Town Center, and the easternmost village. The Remedial Amendment revises Policy FG 2.18 by creating Sections "b" and "c." Section "b" provides mandatory guidelines that apply only to Maytown Road and Arterial A and requires their design to be based on "best available science" as determined by the FFWCC. Section "c" encourages additional guidelines for Maytown Road and Arterial A subject to the discretion of the roadway designers. As a whole, Policy FG 2.18 provides meaningful and predictable guidance for the designers of the roadways. There are no minimum standards in the New Law for the design of roadways to minimize conflicts with wildlife. With proper implementation, the guidelines in Policy FG 2.18 are reasonably expected to produce the defined outcome of a roadway network that will minimize conflict with wildlife. Audubon’s Charles Lee testified the policies were based on the model policies in the Wekiva Parkway Plan. Mr. Telesco of the FFWCC testified the policies were in line with FDOT policies. Further, the phrase "to the extent practicable" is a known conservation standard taken from the Endangered Species Act. Policies FG 2.4, 2.5, 2.16, 2.18, and 3.10 provide an adequate amount detail for a comprehensive plan amendment, as required by section 163.3177(1).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a Final Order that determines the Farmton Local Plan incorporated into the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan through amendments adopted by Volusia County Council Ordinance Nos. 2009-34 and 2011-10 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 24th day of January, 2012.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this proceeding is whether a future land use map (“FLUM”) amendment, adopted by Hillsborough County on October 27, 1994, as part of its Comprehensive Plan update for the planning time frame through 2015 (variously referred to as the “Comprehensive Plan” or "CPU-2015"), that changed the future land use category on a 253 acre parcel1 in Northwest Hillsborough County ("the Geraci Parcel") from Regional Commercial ("RC") to Community Mixed Use-12 ("CMU-12") complies with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: PARTIES Petitioners Nick and Peter Geraci are the fee simple owners of a parcel of land comprising approximately 450 acres located on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Dale Mabry Highway and Van Dyke Road, two hundred fifty-three (253) acres of which are at issue in this proceeding. Advance Leasing is a Florida corporation that was a contract vendee for a portion of the Geracis’ property intended for development as a “super regional” or “regional scale” mall, and was the applicant in the amended applications for DRI approval of that mall. Hillsborough County’s motion to dismiss Advance Leasing as a party for failure to establish standing as an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was granted at the final hearing. Advance Leasing failed to establish that it was an entity that either owned or operated a business within Hillsborough County or owned property in Hillsborough County as of October 27, 1994. Respondent DCA is the state land planning agency, with responsibility to review plan amendments under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187 and 163.3189, Florida Statutes, and to determine compliance with the relevant provisions. Respondent Hillsborough County is a local government with responsibility to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan and any required amendments thereto pursuant to Sections 163.3167, 163.3171 and 163.3174, Florida Statutes. The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners makes the final, legislative decision on all Comprehensive Plan amendments in Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County Charter Section 9.09 specifies that a single local planning agency, created by special law, "shall have responsibility for Comprehensive Planning and related activities[.]" The Hillsborough County Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, as amended by Chapter 97-351, Laws of Florida, designates the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission”) as Hillsborough County's local planning agency. The Planning Commission is charged with preparing Comprehensive Plans and making recommendations to the public bodies for Hillsborough County and the incorporated municipalities within Hillsborough County. The role of the Planning Commission is advisory and its recommendations are not binding upon Hillsborough County. Intervenors Sierra Club and Dr. Richard and Bonnie Hoffman have established their standing to participate in this proceeding as "affected persons" pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Sierra Club represents numerous members who reside in Hillsborough County, and also operates a business within the boundaries of Hillsborough County by way of its local affiliate. The Hoffmans own property within Hillsborough County. Both Sierra Club and the Hoffmans participated in the local government proceedings in accordance with Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding the portion of CPU-2015 challenged by the Petition to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1998.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the City of Edgewater’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O-10, and revised in part by the remedial amendments in Ordinance Number 2010-O-01 (“Plan Amendments”), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments and to determine whether amendments are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The City is a municipality in Volusia County and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Hammock Creek is a Delaware limited liability company registered with the State of Florida. It owns the property that is the subject of the Plan Amendments. Through its representatives, Hammock Creek submitted comments to the Edgewater City Council at the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendments. Petitioner Richard Burgess resides in the City, owns real property in the City, and operates a business in the City. At the public hearings on the original amendment package adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O-10, Petitioner made comments on behalf of Edgewater Citizens Alliance for Responsible Development, Inc. (ECARD), as its vice-president. ECARD was an intervenor in this proceeding, but voluntarily dismissed its petition before the final hearing. Petitioner submitted written comments on his own behalf at the adoption hearing for the remedial amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-O-01. The Plan Amendments The Plan Amendments create a new land use category, the Restoration Sustainable Community Development District (“Restoration SCD”), which is described in a new Restoration SCD Sub-Element of the FLUE: The Restoration SCD is the result of a conscious planning approach based on the most current New Urbanist research and advanced practices. The compact development pattern is designed to and shall provide for a diverse community with distinct place types and multiple experiences that are appealing to residents, employees, and visitors. It shall provide for walkability, a broad range of inclusive household demographics, the ability to connect the community directly to a natural experience, transit ready design, and a high level of environmental stewardship and planning. * * * In order to facilitate this vision, the City shall recognize that density is important to the restoration SCD outcome, but no more important than the mixing of uses, the development of a diverse population through the provision of housing choice and employment centers, the connection of streets and the design of structures and spaces on a human scale. The Restoration SCD land use category applies to 5,187 acres of land on the west side of Interstate 95 that are owned by Hammock Creek. The Restoration SCD site is not currently being used, but in the past was used for silviculture. The Restoration SCD site was annexed into the City in 2005, but is being assigned a future land use designation for the first time. The Volusia County land use categories for the property are Environmental Systems Corridor, which allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 25 acres, and Forestry Resource, which allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 20 acres, or up to one unit per five acres with clustering. The Restoration SCD Sub-Element includes the Restoration SCD Conservation/Development Areas Map, which divides the site into three areas: Conservation, SCD Conservation/Restoration, and SCD Community Development. The SCD Community Development area is also referred to as the “Build Envelope” because it is the only area where development can occur. The Build Envelope is approximately 25 percent of the total land area. At least 50 percent of the Restoration SCD site is required to be permanently protected open space. The SCD District is integrally related to a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) proposed for the lands that are the subject of the Plan Amendments. The Resolution SCD includes several of the development controls listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(j) which discourage urban sprawl, including: open space requirements; clustering; the establishment of minimum development density and intensity; phasing of urban land use types, densities, and intensities; traditional neighborhood development form; buffering; planned unit development requirements; restriction of the expansion of the urban area; and jobs-to-housing balance requirements. Edgewater is a relatively old Florida City that was developed with strip commercial along the highway and other development forms that were typical before the enactment of Chapter 163 and the requirement for comprehensive planning. The Restoration SCD introduces modern development principles and forms. Within each element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, there are data and analysis summaries. There is also a separate section entitled “Population Projections.” The Plan Amendments revise or add information to some of these data and analysis summaries. The Plan Amendments also include some “housekeeping” changes that delete obsolete portions of the Comprehensive Plan and extend several planning horizons in the plan from 2010 to 2020. Mixed Uses Petitioner contends that the Restoration SCD lacks adequate policies to implement the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mixed uses, or other objective measurement, and the density or intensity of each use as required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c). Restoration SCD is the future land use designation for the entire site. Policy 3.1.1 describes seven subcategories of uses within Restoration SCD: Residential, Mixed-Use Town Center, Work Place, Transit-Ready Corridor, Utility Infrastructure Site, Schools, and Open Space. Various policies of the Restoration SCD Sub-Element establish minimum and maximum percentages for the subcategories of uses. Table I-4 in the Plan Amendments shows the various land uses, their densities and intensities, and their acreages. The Restoration SCD land use designation has an overall residential density cap of 8,500 residential units and a non-residential intensity cap of 3,300,000 square feet. Policy 7.1.1 ensures a continuing balance of residential and non-residential development by tying the number of residential building permits that can be issued to the square footage of non-residential development that has been constructed. For example, residential units cannot exceed 1,500 until 180,000 square feet of non-residential uses have been constructed. Format Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments are not consistent with the format requirements of Rule 9J-5.005(1) because the sources, dates, and other information associated with tables, figures, and other materials included in the Plan Amendments are not identified. Exhibit A to the new Restoration SCD Sub-Element does not show a source, preparation date or name of the preparer. FLUE Table I-3 shows a source and name of the preparer, but not a preparation date. FLUE Table I-4 shows a source, a preparation date, and name of the preparer. Within the Population Projections section of the Comprehensive Plan, Table P-1 shows a source, but not a preparation date or name of the preparer. Table P-2, Figures P-1 and P-2, and Tables P-3 through P-5 do not show sources, preparation dates, or names of the preparers. Tables P-6 and P-7 show sources and names of the preparers, but no preparation dates. Table P-9 does not show a source, preparation date, or name of the preparer. Within the Housing Element, Tables III-13 through III- 15 and Tables III-17 through III-20 show sources and names of the preparers, but no preparation dates. The tables and figures that Petitioner objects to are included in the Comprehensive Plan as supporting data and analysis. They are not parts of goals, objectives, or policies. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e) requires that maps include major natural and man-made geographic features and city and county boundaries. The Resolution SCD Conservation/Development Areas Map does not show geographic features or government boundaries. There are other maps in the FLUE that show natural and man-made geographic features and city and county boundaries. Policies 1.1.1 and 3.1.1 refer to Map “H”, which is part of the DRI Development Order. Petitioner objects to the omission of Map “H” from the Comprehensive Plan. The Director of the Department’s Division of Community Planning stated that it is not the practice of the Department to treat a format error or omission as requiring a determination that a plan amendment is not in compliance. Adoption by Reference Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments adopt regulations and other materials by reference, but not in accordance with Rule 9J-5.005(2)(g), which requires that the reference “identify the title and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted.” Petitioner asserts that the following provisions include inadequate adoptions by reference: Policy 1.1.1, Policy 3.1.1, Objective 4.1, Policy 4.1.3, Policy 4.1.7, Policy 4.1.11, Goal 5, Policy 6.1.1, Policy 8.1.4, Policy 9.1.1, Policy 10.1.1, Policy 11.1.1, Policy 11.1.4, and Policy 12.1.6. Policies 1.1.1 and 3.1.1, Objective 4.1, and Policies 4.1, 4.1.3, 4.1.7, and 4.1.11 refer to state, regional, and federal laws or regulatory programs, but they do not purport to adopt these laws and programs by reference. The purpose of these provisions is not for the City to apply or have any role in the regulatory process or decision-making associated with the referenced laws and programs. The wording of these provisions is consistent with the City’s assertion that its intent is merely to provide notice of related permitting programs with which the developer will have to comply. Goal 5 refers to New Urbanism and other land use design principles as described in the literature of the Congress of New Urbanism, the Urban Land Institute and similar organizations, but the goal does not purport to adopt this literature by reference. The goal states that design policies will be adopted by the City in the future. No specific design principles are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Goal 5. Policy 6.1.1 refers to affordable housing and defines the term as a percentage of Volusia County’s Average Median Income. The policy does not purport to adopt any materials by reference. Policies 8.1.4 and 11.1.1 refer to design principles which are to be adopted in the future. The policy does not purport to adopt this literature by reference. No specific design principles are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Policies 8.1.4 or 11.1.1. Policy 9.1.1 addresses school concurrency and refers to a Capacity Enhancement Agreement (“CEA”) entered into by the City, the developer, and the Volusia County School Board to ensure that schools are timely planned and constructed to serve the student population. The policy does not purport to adopt the CEA by reference. Petitioner did not show that the CEA is not self-executing. Policy 10.1.1 refers to “green” development practices that meet the certification programs of the United States Green Building Coalition or the Florida Green Building Code, which will be incorporated into the DRI Development Order. The policy does not purport to adopt these certification programs by reference. No specific green design practices are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Policy 10.1.1. Policy 11.1.4 refers to vehicle trips as calculated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. This is the standard manual used by all traffic engineers. The policy does not purport to adopt the manual by reference. Planning Timeframes Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments cause the Comprehensive Plan to be internally inconsistent because there are different planning horizons in the Plan. The Plan Amendments extend several planning horizons to 2020, but the planning horizon in the Recreation and Open Space Element remains 2010, the water supply work plan has a planning horizon of 2018, and the Public School Facilities Element has a planning horizon of 2025. Petitioner did not identify an adverse effect created by the different planning horizons. The City is currently preparing its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)-based amendments. The EAR process is statutorily mandated, periodic review and update of the entire Comprehensive Plan. It is the logical process for reviewing and revising planning horizons in the plan. Conservation Element and Housing Element Data Petitioner contends that the support documentation that is included as part of the Conservation Element is not the best available data. However, Petitioner did not produce better data, except for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s more recent listed species rules, or show how better data do not support the Plan Amendments. Similarly, Petitioner contends that some of the support documentation that is included as part of the Housing Element is not the best available data. Petitioner did not produce better data or show how better data do not support the Plan Amendments. Need Petitioner contends that the best available data do not show a need for the residential and nonresidential land uses allowed by the Plan Amendments. The Population Projections section in the Comprehensive shows a projected City population of 34,481 by 2020. The Department determined that the 2020 population forecast was reasonable. It is not the practice of the Department to require local governments to update their population projections every time an amendment is adopted. The 2020 population projection is derived from forecasts of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research BEBR. BEBR forecasts county populations, from which city population projections must be extrapolated. BEBR frequently under-forecasts population growth for cities. BEBR forecasts do not account for localized factors that can change the attractiveness of a particular area to prospective new residents and, therefore, stimulate population growth. Applying an “allocation factor,” the Department determined that the number of residential units allowed by the Plan Amendments was reasonably in line with the 2020 forecast. An allocation factor is a multiplier applied to account for factors that prevent the full or efficient use of densities allowed by a FLUM. In addition, population projections are not the sole consideration in determining the need for a plan amendment. In the case of the Restoration SCD, higher densities and intensities are necessary as a part of the intended development form. Higher densities and intensities are also necessary to achieve the objectives of Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, including the encouragement of transit-oriented and energy-efficient communities. A need analysis for non-residential land uses in the Resolution SCD was not conducted by the City because the non- residential uses are intended to serve and be integrated with the residential uses, and are required to be developed in pace with the residential development. The Department found this approach acceptable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order finding that the amendments to the City of Edgewater’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O- 10 and revised by Ordinance Number 2010-O-01, are “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2010.
The Issue The issue in Case 08-1144GM is whether Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP or Plan) Amendment 7-20, called the "Land Protection Incentives" (LPI) Amendment (LPIA), which was adopted by Ordinance 777 on December 11, 2007, and amended by Ordinance 795 on April 29, 2008, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1 The issue in Case 08-1465GM is whether Martin County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 7-22, called the "Secondary Urban Service District" (SUSD) Amendment (SUSDA), which was adopted by Ordinance 781 on December 11, 2007, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners' Standing FOF and MCCA objected to the LPIA and the SUSDA during the time period from transmittal to adoption of those amendments.3 FOF FOF is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1986, shortly after Florida’s Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation (Growth Management) Act was enacted to monitor the Act's implementation. FOF engages in legislative, legal, and grassroots advocacy for sustainable comprehensive land use planning in Florida. It conducts membership meetings, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings open to the general public, and initiates or participates in litigation or administrative proceedings concerning amendments to local comprehensive plans. Its main office is in Tallahassee, where several employees work. It also has a branch office in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, where one employee works. It has no office or employees in Martin County. There was no evidence that FOF has applied for or obtained any license or permit to operate a business in Martin County; nor was there any evidence as to the requirements for obtaining such a license or permit. FOF has approximately 3,500 members; approximately 550 members live or own property in Martin County. FOF does not have a continuous presence in Martin County, other than its members who live and own property there, but it continuously monitors comprehensive planning and related growth management issues in Martin County and from time to time engages in activities in Martin County. Since 1990, FOF was involved in the Loxahatchee Greenways project, a major river corridor running through Martin County; was involved in the protection of Jonathan Dickinson State Park, which is in Martin County; undertook its Palm Beach and Martin County Green Initiative (which addressed housing, legal, transportation, and other planning issues in Martin County and resulted in the distribution of educational materials on Martin County planning issues); opposed specific local development proposals; supported a sales tax referendum to buy and preserve environmentally- sensitive lands; collaborated with the County planning department to update the housing element of the County Comprehensive Plan; assisted with a local affordable housing initiative; published a booklet on comprehensive planning in the County; and conducted a public survey of County residents assessing attitudes about planning. FOF staff members speak at and participate in annual growth management forums in Martin County, which are attended by a substantial number of its members. FOF has regularly commented in person and in writing to the Martin County Commission on proposed CGMP changes. FOF also has previously participated as a party in administrative hearings conducted in the County concerning the CGMP, during which its president has testified as an expert planner. The relief requested by FOF in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. MCCA MCCA is a Florida not-for-profit corporation created in 1997. It is a membership-based organization of 120 individuals and 14 other organizations. MCCA itself does not own real property in Martin County. However, at least 38 individual members reside and own real property in the County, and at least one organizational member (Audubon of Martin County) owns real property in the County. MCCA does not maintain an office or have paid employees. It operates through its members, who volunteer. MCCA's Articles of Incorporation state that it was formed "to conserve the natural resources of Martin County, to protect the native flora and fauna of Martin County, [and] to maintain and improve the quality of life for all of the residents of Martin County." It engages in various forms of lobbying and advocacy for or against amendments to Martin County's Comprehensive Plan, including initiation or participation in litigation and administrative proceedings. It conducts membership meetings in the County, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings in the County that are open to the general public (including an annual growth management meeting with FOF and an annual awards luncheon with local conservation groups), and works with member organizations on issues relating to the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), including petition drives. The relief requested by MCCA in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan The CGMP establishes two "urban service districts" in the County, a Primary Urban Service District (PUSD) and a Secondary Urban Service District (SUSD). See CGMP, § 4.4.G. The PUSD has been part of the Plan since it was first adopted in 1982, while the SUSD was added during the major revision of the Plan in 1990. Approximately 65,702 acres (101 square miles) are located within the PUSD. The PUSD encompasses most of the eastern coastal area of the County surrounding four incorporated municipalities, (Stuart, Sewall's Point, Jupiter Island, and Ocean Breeze Park), plus an isolated inland area known as Indiantown. Approximately 9,621 acres (14 square miles) are located within the SUSD. All land within the SUSD is immediately adjacent to land within the PUSD, but is split into several discontinuous sections so that some of the land along the western border of the PUSD abuts land outside the urban service districts. The County's purpose for having urban service districts is to "regulate urban sprawl tendencies by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available, or are programmed to be available at the levels of service adopted in [the Plan]." CGMP, § 4.4.G. The Plan further provides: Objective: Martin County shall concentrate higher densities and intensities of development within the strategically located [PUSDs], as delineated, including commercial or industrial uses as well as residential development exceeding a density of two units per acre . . . . * * * b. Policy: Martin County shall require that new residential development containing one-half acre or smaller lots, commercial uses, and industrial uses shall be located within the [PUSD]. * * * Objective 2. Martin County shall concentrate rural and estate densities not exceeding one unit per gross acre within the [SUSDs] where a reduced level of public facility needs are programmed to be available at the base level of service adopted in the Capital Improvements Element. a. Policy: Martin County shall designate land uses within the [SUSD] in order to provide for the use and extension of urban services in an efficient and economical manner, and consistent with the reduced intensity of urban services normally associated with densities of one unit per gross acre (Estate Density RE-1A) and one unit per two gross acres (Rural Density). . . . * * * f. Policy: In areas designated as [SUSD], where development is proposed that would contain one- half acre lots, or commercial and industrial uses, a change to a [PUSD] designation must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a land use amendment . . . . The Plan thus generally establishes residential density for land within the PUSD at 2 or more dwelling units per acre, and for land within the SUSD at 1 dwelling unit per acre to 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. The remaining land within the County that is not within the PUSD or SUSD is generally referred to as "outside" the urban service districts. There are approximately 269,034 acres of such land. The vast majority of such land (approximately 210,379 acres) is designated in the Plan for "agricultural" use. Most of the other land outside the urban service districts is designated for either "public conservation" or "public utilities" See CGMP, § 4.4.L., § 4.4.M.1.a., i., and j. The Plan currently allows residential use of land outside the urban service boundaries that is designated for agricultural use but limits it to either 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, known as "agricultural ranchette," or 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. See CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.& c. The Plan further specifies for the latter that: Residential development in the agricultural area is restricted to one-single family residence per gross 20-acre tract. [N]o development shall be permitted which divides landholdings into lots, parcels or other units of less than 20 gross acres. Acreage may be split for bona fide agricultural uses into parcels no smaller than 20 gross acres. . . . Residential subdivisions at a density or intensity or greater than one single- family dwelling unit per 20 gross acre lot shall not be allowed. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.) Throughout the Plan, residential development on lots of 2 acres or more is consistently referred to as "rural" development (even within the SUSD), while residential development on smaller lots is consistently referred to as "urban" and must be in either the PUSD or SUSD. It was undisputed that the County's adoption of such a distinction between urban and rural residential lots was a professionally acceptable planning practice. Preservation of the County's agricultural lands is a goal of the Plan. See CGMP, § 4.4.L.1. It is also later stated in a policy related to the allocation of land: Through its planning, capital improvements, cooperative extension, regulatory and intergovernmental coordination activities, Martin County shall continue to protect agriculture as a viable economic use of land. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.b.) Preservation of conservation and open space areas within the County is the subject of an entire element of the Plan. See CGMP, Chap. 9.4 The County's goal is "to effectively manage, conserve, and preserve the natural resources of Martin County, giving consideration to an equitable balance of public and private property rights. These resources include air, water, soils, habitat, fisheries, and wildlife, with special emphasis on restoring the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon." CGMP, § 9.4.A. Preservation of conservation and open space areas is also addressed in numerous other objectives and policies throughout the several elements of the Plan and is a predominant theme of the entire Plan. The provision of "urban public facilities and services" is expressly limited by a policy to the County's urban service districts "in order to preserve agricultural lands and provide maximum protection to the farmer from encroachment by urban uses." CGMP, § 4.4.L.1.a. The Plan defines the term "public urban facilities and services" as "regional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network." CGMP, § 4.1.B.4. However, the term is often used in the Plan in a rearranged or abbreviated manner, such as "urban public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G.1.f.(7)), "public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G and § 4.4.G.1.f.), "public services and facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.c.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), or merely "public facilities (§ 4.4.G.1.) or "urban services " (§ 4.4.G.2.a.). LPIA Provisions The LPIA adds a new objective and new policies under the Future Land Use Element goal addressing "natural resource protection," which provides: Martin County shall protect all the natural resource systems of the County from the adverse impacts of development, provide for continued growth in population and economy and recognize the inter-relationship between the maintenance of urban support infrastructure in waste management, air and water quality, and the coastal zone environmental quality. (CGMP, § 4.4.E.) To the existing 6 objectives under that goal, the LPIA adds a seventh which states: Martin County shall create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007. For the purposes of Section 4.4.E.7., and supporting paragraphs, the definition of open space, found in Section 9.4.A.11., CGMP, shall not include roads, highways and their median strips and berms. This objective is intended to encourage the conveyance of fee simple title of land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local environmental or governmental agencies or land trusts. Lands listed for acquisition include, but are not be limited to [sic], land designated for public acquisition under the Save Our Rivers program, the Indian River Lagoon, North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program. The overall purpose of the LPIA is to encourage the owners of tracts of land outside the urban service districts that are at least 500 acres to choose a different pattern of development than the Plan now allows, by allowing a substantial reduction in the minimum lot size so that the development may be "clustered" on a smaller "footprint" within the overall tract of land, but only if at least 50% of the entire tract is "set aside" permanently for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and stripped of its potential for future development. This approach, it is hoped, will make it easier and cheaper for the County and other governmental entities to acquire the large tracts of land they desire to use for the CERP and other conservation projects. The LPIA does not allow for more development than is allowed under the Plan currently. It allows the same amount of development to be arranged on a tract of land in a different pattern than is currently allowed. It accomplishes this primarily through the combination of a change in the minimum lot size from "20 acres" to "over 2 acres" with a new allowance for "clustering" the smaller lots on a portion of an overall tract of land rather than having an equal number of larger lots spread throughout the entire tract of land. The LPIA adopts six policies to accomplish the new objective: Policy (7)a. provides for the protection of the land "set aside" to be conveyed or subject to an easement in favor of a combination of the County, the South Florida Water Management District, and a third entity, chosen from among the other governmental or not-for-profit conservation- oriented organizational entities listed in the policy. Policy (7)b. requires that a combination of a comprehensive plan amendment and a PUD agreement be used for the change in the development characteristics of the land. The PUD agreement would address the portion of the tract subject to development and not "set aside," while the plan amendment would address (at a minimum) the remaining portion of the tract which is permanently "set aside" for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and would no longer have any potential for residential development. Policy (7)c. provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the comprehensive plan amendment, such as any required change in land use designation for the set-aside portion of the tract of land, and if it remains designated for agricultural use, the removal of any potential for development. Policy (7)d. primarily provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the PUD agreement, setting minimum requirements to be met such as the tract having to be a minimum of 500 acres in size; the development being "fiscally neutral to existing taxpayers"; the lots having to be more than 2 acres in size; the inability to develop in environmentally sensitive areas on the tract; and the acknowledgment of a permanent restriction against any future increase of density on the tract. The policy also essentially repeats some of the requirements enunciated in the second and third policies regarding the conveyance of title or easement and the required comprehensive plan amendment, and addresses who pays the closing costs for the set-aside portion of the tract. Policy (7)e. establishes additional requirements specifically applicable to land that has been "listed for acquisition by state, regional, or local agencies as part of an established conservation program." Policy (7)f. enumerates the "site specific benefits" that the second policy states the County must consider when deciding whether to approve an application for development under the optional pattern allowed by the LPIA, such as whether more than the minimum 50% of the tract will be "set aside" permanently, whether the location fills "gaps in natural systems, wildlife corridors, greenways and trails," or whether buffers are provided along roads "to limit access and to protect vistas." The LPIA requirement for at least 50% of an entire tract being set aside for one of the three public purposes, when coupled with other requirements of the Plan such as establishment of construction setback distances, preservation of wetlands and creation of buffers around wetlands, preservation of certain uplands, would result in more than 50% of an undeveloped tract of land remaining in an undeveloped state and at least 50% of agricultural land remaining in agricultural use. Meaning and Predictability of LPIA Standards Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards in numerous respects. No Guide to Location and Pattern of Development Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards essentially because it does not identify the lands to be preserved and developed, leaving the results up to the choice of landowners to make proposals and Martin County's case-by-case decisions on future development proposals. See PPRO, ¶¶52-53. However, the goals of the LPIA are quite clear, and there is no basis to speculate that Martin County will make decisions contrary to those goals--for example, by approving PUDs or agricultural uses on the most environmentally-sensitive part of tract, ignoring the importance of environmentally-sensitive and agricultural lands and the impact of development patterns on them, and ignoring the impact of the pattern of development under the LPIA on rural character. Petitioners also criticize the LPIA for not being clear "whether a subject property must be in single ownership." (PPRO, ¶61.) However, it is not clear why that omission would be pertinent. Undefined Increase in Maximum Density Petitioners contend that, in four ways, the LPIA increases maximum density in the Agricultural category without defining the amount of the increase. Waiver of Density Limits Clearly, the LPIA exempts the PUD option from "the agricultural land use policies in Section 4.4.M.1.a. pertaining to the 20 acre lot size . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(8). Contrary to Petitioners' contention, that does not eliminate density standards. Residential lots must be greater than two acres. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(3). Maintenance of Residential Capacity Petitioners contend the LPIA increases density because its objective is to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. (Emphasis added.) Petitioners complain that County-wide residential capacity on that date is not identified and that the objective requires residential capacity in Agricultural lands to increase as it decreases elsewhere in the County. This interpretation is unreasonable. The County's interpretation, that residential units lost by preservation are to be maintained by clustering on the remaining Agricultural lands, is more reasonable. Transfer of Wetland Density Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by allowing transfer of wetland density in the Agricultural future land use category. See LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). Under the Plan before the LPIA, up to half of wetland density can be transferred to uplands in a PUD. See CGMP § 9.4A7.b.(8). PUDs were not allowed in Agricultural lands before the LPIA. But Petitioners did not prove that allowing the transfer and clustering of residential units into a PUD on Agricultural lands under the LPIA would change the total number of residential units already allowed in Agricultural lands (at one unit per 20 acres). Alleged Failure to Remove Density from All Non-PUD Land Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by not stripping residential units from all so-called non-PUD land. Contrary to this contention, the more reasonable interpretation is that land not set aside for permanent preservation in a proposal made under the LPIA must be part of the proposed PUD. In any event, even if an LPIA proposal could include land that is neither set aside for preservation nor part of the PUD land, no residential units is such land would be transferred to the PUD, and failure to strip such land of its residential units would not affect the total number of units associated with the LPIA proposal. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA allows text amendments to increase density on land set aside for preservation under the LPIA because it specifies that such land must be changed on the FLUM and will not be eligible for "any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. Even if text amendments are not prohibited, they would apply to all land in a particular land use category, not just to land set aside under the LPIA. Subsequent Plan Amendments Not Required for PUD Petitioners contend that the LPIA "is unclear as to whether a PUD can be approved without a subsequent plan amendment specifically authorizing the two-acre lot subdivision site plan." PPRO, ¶80. This contention supposedly arises from the language of LPIA § 4.4.E.7.c.: "The Comprehensive Plan amendment that is part of a joint Plan Amendment and concurrent PUD application submitted under this objective must address the land use designation on the land set aside in perpetuity as contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and/or agricultural land uses in the following manner: . . . ." (Emphasis added in PPRO, ¶82.) The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. It ignores LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7): "The Comprehensive Plan amendment filed concurrently with the PUD application shall allow the site-specific clustering of density in one portion of the total subject site, including the transfer of full density of any wetlands on the site, at a density that shall not exceed one unit per twenty acres for the total site prior to conveyance. . . . The Plan amendment shall further specify that neither the land conveyed nor the land controlled by the PUD agreement shall be eligible for any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." While LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7) discusses land that is conveyed, it is reasonably clear that a Plan amendment addressing the PUD also would be required for lands that are set aside using one of the other mechanisms specified in the LPIA. Public Benefit Criteria Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.b. and f. gives the County "unfettered discretion to reject or approve a PUD 'for any reason.'" PPRO, ¶90. Those sections provide that approval of a PUD will be based on consideration of "significant site-specific public benefits," some of which are listed. While it is true that the LPIA gives the County discretion to grant or approve a PUD based on its consideration of those factors, Petitioners did not prove "unfettered discretion." First, minimum requirements under the LPIA first must be met. Second, the list of public benefits gives some guidance as to the kinds of additional public benefits that will justify approval of a PUD. Petitioners did not prove that a comprehensive plan provision allowing for PUD zoning need be any more specific to be implemented in a consistent manner. Protection of Land Set Aside Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to protect land set aside under the LPIA because it does not identify the land most appropriate for preservation or require that it be set aside. This contention ignores the objective to encourage conveyance of "land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of established conservation programs" which "include, but are not be [sic] limited to land designated for public acquisition under" several named public acquisition programs. LPIA § 4.4.E.7. It also ignores the policy: "No development in the PUD shall be allowed on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(4). It also ignores the policy that "PUDs that include land listed for acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of an established conservation program shall be subject to . . . additional requirements": including fee simple conveyance of at least half of such land; and no development in the PUD on such land "unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities and the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.e.(1)-(2). In addition, various means of protecting such lands are several of the listed "additional significant site-specific benefits" of a PUD proposal to be considered in the approval process. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.f. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to "require set-aside lands to be contiguous to other farmland, open space, or natural lands" and "contiguous, functional, and connected to adjacent and regional systems." PPRO, ¶¶102-98 [sic]. These contentions ignore the objective to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses. . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. They also ignore that land in public acquisition programs ideally is contiguous to other open space and natural lands. Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶97 [sic] that it is necessary to specify the public acquisition programs for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to define the "perpetual easement" mechanism allowed in LPIA Section 4.E.7.a. for setting aside land in lieu of fee simple conveyance. See PPRO, ¶103. This contention ignores the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(5) to use perpetual easements as a means of enforcing the prohibition against increasing residential density or intensity of use by FLUM amendments, as well as the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(6) to use perpetual easements "to restrict future uses and ensure the government agencies or other entities holding fee simple title do not sell or develop the property inconsistent with this policy or the approved uses within the PUD Agreement." Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶103 that it is necessary to further define "perpetual easement" for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend in PPRO ¶¶105 and 107 that the LPIA fails to define the "agricultural uses" to be preserved in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) and allows the County to "specify allowed uses" without limitation and with "no certainty that farmland will be protected as farmland by easement." (Emphasis in PPRO ¶105.) Petitioners contend that everything allowed in the Agricultural category under the Plan will be allowed. See PPRO ¶107. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, it is reasonably clear that, while the language of LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) contains a typographical error, the policy clearly is to maintain existing agricultural uses, not to allow intensification of agricultural use or expansion into "non-farm" uses that might be allowed in the Agricultural category. Alleged Threat to IRL and CERP Lands Petitioners contend that, by making development under its PUD option more marketable, the LPIA will encourage PUDs that do not protect and that fragment IRL and CERP lands. Petitioners did not prove that such a result is likely. Petitioners contend that the adverse impacts on IRL and CERP lands is more than speculation in part because of the wording of the policy in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(2), which is misstated in PPRO ¶114 and actually states: "If the land to be protected and maintained in perpetuity is land that is part of the North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program, the plan amendment must include a future land use amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation to Institutional-Public Conservation." The language used in the policy is poor. But Petitioners' interpretation--that only land set aside for protection that is part of all of the described CERP projects will be protected--is absurd since no such land exists. That interpretation and Petitioners' interpretation that no IRL lands are protected under the LPIA ignore and are contrary to the language and intent of the objective stated in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7. and of the policies stated in Section 4.4.E.7.a., c.(1), and d.(5). The County's interpretation, that CERP and IRL lands are eligible for protection, is more reasonable. Definition of Critical Habitat Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) does not provide a meaningful or predictable standard because the term "critical to the support of listed plant or animal species" is not better defined. Actually, PUD development is prohibited "on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species." While the policy could have been better defined, Petitioners did not prove that a better definition is necessary for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that, regardless of the "critical habitat" definition, the policy language in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) by prohibiting PUD development "on land listed for acquisition . . . unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities " Actually, the policy continues to state that the exception only applies if "the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." Petitioners' interpretation, that the policy allows PUD development on virtually all Agricultural lands, is unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the LPIA. The County's interpretation is more reasonable and is reasonably clear. It allows for distinctions among the various kinds of agricultural activities, which the Plan already recognizes. See, e.g., CGMP § 4.2.A.6.b.(8) ("Many low intensity agricultural uses such as range (pasture) land can be compatible with environmentally significant resource areas.") For these reasons, Petitioners did not prove that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4), or that the LPIA cannot be implemented in a consistent manner. LPIA and Urban Sprawl In part based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA's objective and policy language, Petitioners contend that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the LPIA no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the LPIA encourages urban sprawl. In part because the interpretations were unreasonable, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. Even if the LPIA results in a proliferation of PUDs with clusters of residences on lots slightly larger than two acres, which is the minimum lot size, it would not equate to urban (or suburban) sprawl. Assuming PUDs based on 500-acre tracts, it would result in a cluster of 25 homes within a 500-acre rural area. The LPIA does not plan for the extension of urban services to those homes and does not provide for or allow any new commercial or industrial development. Both the LPIA and the rest of the CGMP include provisions, most notably those related to the urban service districts, to reasonably ensure that urban sprawl will not result. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the first primary indicator of urban sprawl in Florida Administrative Code Rule5 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction for low-intensity, low density or single use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the second primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[p]romotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development"). The development promoted, allowed, or designated by the LPIA is not "urban" and does not "leap over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." It allowed for development already promoted, allowed, and designated to arrange itself differently in a rural area. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the third primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (designation of urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fourth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (promotes premature conversion of rural land to other uses, thereby failing to adequately protect and conserve natural resources). To the contrary, its primary purpose is to protect and conserve natural resources and rural land. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fifth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to adequately protect "adjacent agricultural areas" as well as "passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers either the sixth or seventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to maximize use of existing and future public facilities and services). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the eighth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[a]llows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the ninth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the tenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[d]iscourages or inhibits infill development or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities"). Although LPIA PUDs obviously would not be infill or redevelopment, it was not proven that they will discourage or inhibit infill and redevelopment. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the eleventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the twelfth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in poor accessibility among linked or related uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the thirteenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space"). The LPIA does not exacerbate the two already-existing indicators of urban sprawl, but Petitioners still contend that the indicators are triggered by the LPIA essentially because development will proceed more quickly under the LPIA. This contention was not proven. Even if it were, Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl or that the CGMP, as amended by the LPIA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. LPIA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis because the County explained it as a necessary response to the proliferation of 20-acre ranchette developments whereas only 75 have been built and only 15 have certificates of occupancy. Actually, the ranchette developments were only one reason for the LPIA, and the data and analysis showed 13 approved developments as of mid-September 2007, and three more approvals plus two pending applications for approval a year later. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA implements some but not all of the recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA does not conform to some recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. However, Petitioners base their contentions largely on unreasonable interpretations of the language of the objective and policies of the LPIA. In addition, the data and analysis they point to essentially reflect merely that planners disagree on the best plan for the Agricultural lands. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA is not identical to the Atlantic Ridge project amendment. While all agree that the Atlantic Ridge project is a resounding success story, it is unique. The obvious and understandable inability to instantaneously duplicate Atlantic Ridge to the greatest extent possible in the Agricultural lands should not prevent the County from taking any action in its direction, such as the LPIA. Taken together, the data and analysis are adequate to support the LPIA. LPIA and TCRPC Regional Policy Plan Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). The TCRPC's SRPP was not introduced in evidence, but the TCRPC's Executive Director testified and sponsored the TCRPC's report on the LPIA and the SUSDA. The TCRPC's findings on consistency with its SRPP were not contradicted. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2, which are to determine areas that are environmentally significant and to map, acquire, and manage them. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Goal 1.1, which requires sustainable countryside development in urban enclaves, such as towns and villages, with mixed-use and appropriate densities between 4-10 units per acre, on strategically selected locations while preserving contiguous, targeted land identified through SRPP Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1, which is to increase the clarity of local land use plans so that preferred forms of development can be pre-approved. Instead, the LPIA uses the case-by-case PUD approval process to determine the ultimate development patterns for the Agricultural lands. The inconsistency with SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1 is the only LPIA inconsistency not already equally present in the existing CGMP. The TCRPC's concern as to the other inconsistencies is that the LPIA will make residential development in the Agricultural lands more marketable and increase the rate of residential growth in a manner inconsistent with SRPP Goal 1.1 and Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. Internal Consistency of the LPIA Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Sections 1.6 and 1.11.A. for being inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP. CGMP Section 1.6 states that "elements of the [CGMP] shall be consistent and coordinated with policies of [various entities, including the TCRPC]. Petitioners did not prove that the County does not interpret that provision to require internal consistency and coordination with the other entities' policies, or that such an interpretation would be incorrect. CGMP Section 1.11.A. refers to amendment procedures. Essentially, it states that plan amendments must be "in compliance." There was no evidence that the County intended it to require strict and absolute consistency with the TCRPC's SRPP, or any evidence to prove that it would be incorrect for the County to interpret it not to. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K., which also refers to amendment procedure. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K. for not having concurrently-processed land development regulations (LDRs) since concurrently-processed LDRs are only required "[t]o the extent necessary to implement a proposed amendment," and Petitioners did not prove that concurrently-processed LDRs are necessary. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with numerous other provisions of the CGMP. These contentions were not proven. Most, if not all, were based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA. SUSDA Provisions The SUSDA amends the text of the future land use element, the sanitary sewer services element, and the potable water services element of the Plan. As amended, the Plan would allow owners of real property within the SUSD to apply for connection to regional water and sewer service rather than be limited to using individual potable water wells and individual septic tanks, provided all costs of connection to the public services would be paid by the owner. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.g. expressly states: The County Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Martin County that regional water and sewer services be made available to properties within the [SUSD], in order to: (1) Protect our natural resources . . . from the negative impacts of onsite sewage disposal (septic) systems and private wells to serve individual residential units; (2) Provide fire protection; [and] (3) Provide safe drinking water. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.h. requires that the extension of any such services to properties within the SUSD must have Board approval, which cannot occur unless the Board finds that certain enumerated criteria have been met, including: Regional utility services may be provided to properties within the [SUSD] upon the request of the affected property owner, and upon payment of the required costs for connection to the regional system. Such services may only be provided by a regional utility, public or private, within a service area shown on Figure 11-2. Package plants for the provision of utility service are prohibited except under the provisions of the [CGMP]. The regional utility must demonstrate the treatment facility has capacity for the proposed connection and priority has been given to projects within the [PUSD]. Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in the residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]. Property lying outside the Urban Service Districts . . . shall not receive utility service from a regional wastewater system. Extension of utility service outside the Urban Service Districts shall be prohibited. Development within the [SUSD] shall maintain lot sizes that exceed one-half acres. The SUSDA also contains new charts added to both the sanitary sewer services element and the potable water services element that display the numerical capacity of the regional water and sewer systems to handle additional customers upon extension of lines to the SUSD. See SUSDA Tables 10-3 through 10-6 and 11- 12 through 11-15. There was no credible evidence of any likelihood that the adoption of the SUSDA would allow the further extensions of water and sewer lines from the SUSD to properties outside the urban service districts. The testimony offered by Petitioners was speculative at best and depended upon an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting such extension of services. See SUSDA §§ 4.4.G.2.h.(6)-(7) and 4.5.H. Meaning and Predictability of SUSDA Standards Petitioners contend that the SUSDA's standards are not meaningful or predictable because of the undefined term "central water and sewer" in the policy in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a. Petitioners contend that "central water and sewer" can be interpreted to mean something other than a regional utility, and that the SUSDA can be interpreted to allow regional utility, package plant, and other similar types of utility systems serving two or more houses outside the urban services districts. Petitioners' interpretations are unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the SUSDA. Petitioners' evidence was speculative and depended on an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting package treatment plants in the SUSD. See SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(3) and § 4.5.H. In addition, the evidence was that package treatment plants may no longer be economically feasible. The County's interpretation is more reasonable--"central water and sewer," as used in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., means the provision of regional utility services by Martin County in the SUSD, and no such facilities may be provided outside the urban service districts. SUSDA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the data and analysis do not support the SUSDA essentially because they do not establish "any actual health, safety, or welfare problems." PPRO, ¶208. The absence of proof of actual health, safety, or welfare problems is not fatal in view of the rest of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA. Since the creation of the SUSD in 1992, development in the PUSD has resulted in the extension of water and sewer lines up to the border between the PUSD and the SUSD. In effect, the intended SUSD transition area has transitioned. Meanwhile, the regional water and sewer utilities serving the County now have the necessary capacity to serve the PUSD and the SUSD. Improved fire protection in the SUSD is a benefit of regional water service, allowing installation of community fire hydrants. Without it, developers in the SUSD must rely on installed sprinklers and emergency generators and water drawn from nearby lakes or installed water tanks. While regional water service can fail temporarily in major storms, and the data and analysis did not include actual instances of fire damage cause by the lack of regional water service in the SUSD, regional water service generally provides more reliable and less costly fire protection. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit potable water wells, regional water service generally is better, more reliable, and less costly. The data and analysis did include actual instances of home owners having to install expensive water treatment systems due to increasing chloride levels in their potable water wells. Connection to regional water service would eliminate those costs and concerns. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit septic tanks systems for onsite sewage treatment (i.e., systems that meet environmental and health standards), such systems can fail if improperly installed, maintained, and repaired. If they fail, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can leach into and harm the groundwater and nearby surface waters. The North Fork of the Loxahatchee River, which is nutrient-impaired, probably would benefit from elimination of septic tanks. Regional sewer service generally is better for the environmental and public health. The data and analysis suggest that allowing regional water and sewer service in the SUSD, with the SUSDA's requirement for developers to pay the cost of installation, probably will save the County money in the long run. It will be a significant cost to the County if it has to install water and sewer lines post-development. Petitioners attack the credibility of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA because regional water and sewer service is optional in the SUSD. But there were data and analysis that, even if regional water and sewer service in the SUSD is preferable, there are valid reasons to make it optional at this time. Alleged Environmental Impact of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part from a proliferation of package treatment plants in the SUSD, which is discouraged in CGMP Section 4.4. See PPRO, ¶¶221, 223. This contention is based on Petitioners' unreasonable interpretations of two sentences of the SUSDA. SUSDA Section 4.5.G. prohibits interim water systems outside the urban service districts and allows them, with conditions, in the PUSD where connection to a regional utility is not feasible. Petitioners interpret these two sentences to mean that interim water systems are allowed, without conditions, in the SUSD. The County's interpretation is more reasonable. Since the SUSDA makes connection to the regional utilities optional, there is no need for interim water systems in the SUSDA, and the SUSDA should not be construed to allow them there. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part essentially because increased development results in increased pollution. See PPRO, ¶228. To the extent true, it would be equally or more true of similar development without regional water and sewer services. SUSDA and Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend, in part due to their unreasonable interpretations of the objective in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the SUSDA, no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. In part due to the unreasonableness of Petitioners' interpretation of the SUSDA, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. It is unlikely that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl. Petitioners also contend that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl simply by allowing denser development in the 5,000- 6,000 acres of the SUSDA not yet developed. This contention is contrary to the SUSDA policy: "Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]." SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(5). Even if the SUSDA increased density in the SUSDA, increase in density itself does not promote urban sprawl. To the contrary, it is possible for increased density to discourage urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that increasing density in the SUSDA itself encourages urban sprawl or that, with the SUSDA, the CGMP will discourage urban sprawl less. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will create pressures to develop areas that border the SUSD, leaping over areas suitable for urban development. See PPRO, ¶¶236-237. This contention actually devalues the very urban service district concept Petitioners seek to defend and can be said about any urban district boundary. Currently, there are many places where the PUSD borders the Agricultural lands. The pressures created by the SUSDA will be no greater than the pressures that have existed in those places all along. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will increase costs to the County essentially because, notwithstanding SUSDA's requirement that developers pay the cost of connection, development will not pay for itself in the long run (taking into account costs of operations, maintenance, and repair.) To the extent true, it can be said of all development and does not prove that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that the SUSDA triggers any of the indicators of urban sprawl; did not prove that the SUSDA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl; and did not prove that the CGMP, as amended by the SUSDA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Internal Consistency of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA is internally inconsistent with CGMP Section 4.4.G.1.i., which gives priority in the provision and funding of water and sewer services to the PUSD, essentially because the data and analysis ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met through 2025. The lack of data and analysis at present to ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met beyond 2025 does not prove that priority will not be given to the needs of the PUSD.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the LPIA and the SUSDA are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2009.
