The Issue Whether the Department of Community Affairs (Department) should be precluded from prosecuting the instant challenge to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) of Metropolitan Dade County (Metro-Dade, Dade County or County), as amended by Ordinance No. 90-28, on the ground that it did not comply with the statutory prerequisites to instituting such a challenge? Whether the Redland Citizens Association, Inc., the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, Evelyn B. Sutton, Martin Motes, Frances L. Mitchell, Rod Jude, Bruce Rohde and Carol Rist (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Objectors") are "affected persons," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, entitled to intervene in this matter and pursue their challenge to the CDMP, as amended by Ordinance No. 90-28? Whether Carol Rist's motion to amend her petition for leave to intervene in this matter should be granted? Whether the challenged amendments made to the CDMP through the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-28, specifically those resulting from the approval of Applications 39, 40 and 47, have rendered the CDMP not "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes? Whether John H. Wellenhofer is entitled to an award of fees and costs against the Department pursuant to Section 163.3184(12), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Metropolitan Dade County: A General Overview Metropolitan Dade County is one of Florida's coastal counties. It is located in the southeastern part of the state and is bordered by Broward County on the north, by Monroe County on the south and southwest, by Collier County on the northwest and by the Atlantic Ocean on the east. Within the boundaries of Metropolitan Dade County are 1,413,629 acres, or approximately 2,209 square miles, of land and water. The major natural features of the County are the Florida Everglades National Park, tropical vegetation, an Atlantic Ocean coastline with several peninsulas and inlets, including Biscayne National Park at Biscayne Bay, and several barrier islands and reefs. The County contains several bodies of water, including various lakes, rivers and streams. Among the most noteworthy water bodies are the Intracoastal Waterway in the eastern part of the County and the expansive wetland systems and their accompanying wildlife habitat located primarily in the western part of the County. Among the major man-made features of the County are I Florida Turnpike, the Metrorail System, canals, causeways connecting Miami Beach and the barrier islands to the mainland, Miami International Airport, Kendall Airport, and Homestead Air Force Base. Metropolitan Dade County is Florida's most populous county with a population approaching two million people. On average, Dade County's population has grown by approximately 36,000 persons per year since the 1970's. There are 26 incorporated municipalities located in Metropolitan Dade County, including the City of Miami, whose downtown area may be viewed as the principal focal point of the entire metropolitan area. Metropolitan Dade County Home Rule Amendment, Charter and Selected Ordinances In 1956, the statewide electorate adopted Article VIII, Section 11 of the 1885 Florida Constitution granting "the electors of Dade County, Florida, . . . power to adopt, revise, and amend from time to time a home rule charter of government for Dade County, Florida, under which the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County shall be the governing body." 4/ The following year, the electors of the County adopted such a home rule charter (Charter). Section 1.01 of the Charter provides that the "Board of County Commissioners shall be the legislative and governing body of the county and shall have the power to carry on a central metropolitan government." The power to "[p]repare and enforce comprehensive plans for the development of the county" is expressly mentioned in Section 1.01 as within the Board's authority. Other powers of the Board specifically enumerated in Section 1.01 include the power to provide, regulate, develop and enforce master plans for the control of traffic; to provide and regulate sewage collection and disposal, waste collection and disposal and water supply programs; to establish and administer drainage programs; to establish and administer conservation programs; and to establish and administer housing programs. Section 4.07 of the Charter establishes a Department of Planning as a unit of central metropolitan County government. This section provides as follows: The department of planning shall be headed by a planning director appointed by the County Manager. The planning director shall be qual- ified in the field of planning by special training and experience. Under the supervision of the Manager and with the advice of the Planning Advisory Board elsewhere provided for in this Charter, the planning director shall among other things: Conduct studies of county population, land use, facilities, resources, and needs and other factors which influence the county's development, and on the basis of such studies prepare such official and other maps and re- ports as, taken together, constitute a master plan for the welfare, recreational, economic, and physical development of the county. Prepare for review by the Planning Advi- sory Board, and for adoption by the Board of County Commissioners, zoning, subdivision, and related regulations for the unincorporated areas of the county and minimum standards governing zoning, subdivision, and related re- gulations for the municipalities; and prepare recommendations to effectuate the master plan and to coordinate the county's proposed capital improvements with the master plan. Review the municipal systems of planning, zoning, subdivision, and related regulations and make recommendations thereon with a view to coordinating such municipal systems with one another and with those of the county. By ordinance, codified in Section 2-106.1 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, the Department of Planning has been designated as the County's local planning agency "responsible for the preparation of the Comprehensive Development master plan for the county." Section 4.08(A) of the Charter directs the Board of County Commissioners to, "by ordinance create a Planning Advisory Board." The Board has done so. The Planning Advisory Board (PAB), as established by the Board, is a nine-member body. The members of the PAB are citizens appointed by the Board. Section 5.02 of the Charter describes the powers that may be exercised by the County's municipalities. It provides as follows: Each municipality shall have the authority to exercise all powers relating to local affairs not inconsistent with this Charter. Each municipality may provide for higher standards of zoning, service and regulation than those provided for by the Board of County Commis- sioners in order that its individual character and standards may be preserved for its citizens. Comprehensive Planning in the County: An Historical Perspective Metropolitan Dade County's first Comprehensive Development Master Plan was adopted by the Board in 1965. This initial version of the CDMP was based upon the unrealistic projection that the County would have two and one half million residents at the planning horizon. To accommodate this projected population, it provided for a spread pattern of low density residential growth, served by numerous expressways. Substantial changes to the CDMP were made in 1975 based upon a lower, more realistic population projection and a consideration of environmental and infrastructure constraints. The result was a plan that provided for a more compact form of urban development concentrated around nodes of activity in the eastern portions of the County. The 1975 version of the CDMP introduced the concept of an urban development boundary. The urban development boundary (UDB) was, and remains to this date, an important part of the plan's urban containment strategy. As its name suggests, the UDB is a line drawn on the plan's future land use map (FLUM) that indicates where urban development will be permitted to reach by the end of the planning period. Since 1975, the CDMP has been amended on various occasions. On eight of these occasions, including most recently in 1990, the amendments have included an expansion of the area inside the UDB. As a result of these amendments, the area inside the UDB has increased by more than 32,000 acres. Notwithstanding the various amendments that have been made to the CDMP, its overall approach, focus and direction have remained essentially the same since 1975. Since 1975, the CDMP's policies have "encourage[d] in-filling, redevelopment, and contiguous development in order to lessen urban sprawl and the associated transportation and energy costs." For years, the CDMP has required the coordination of development with services, the protection of agriculture as a viable economic use of land, the encouragement of a broad spectrum of housing allowing for choice of location, the protection of communities from encroachment by incompatible uses, and a wide variety of other goals, objectives and policies which remain the foundation of the CDMP. The 1988 CDMP In December 1988, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 88-110 entitled "The Master Plan Amendatory Ordinance" (Amendatory Ordinance). The Amendatory Ordinance revised and reformatted the CDMP in an effort to comply with changes made to the state's growth management laws in 1985. The CDMP's primary planning horizon was extended by the Amendatory Ordinance to the year 2000. Like the current version, the version of the CDMP adopted in 1988 (1988 CDMP) had an statement of legislative intent and the following eleven separate elements, containing goals, objectives and policies and other textual material, as well as maps depicting future conditions, including a future land use map: land use; traffic circulation; mass transit; port and aviation; housing; conservation; water, sewer and solid waste; recreation and open space; coastal management; intergovernmental coordination; and capital improvements. Prior to the adoption of the Amendatory Ordinance, the County's Planning Department prepared a "support component," containing background data and analyses, for each of the foregoing elements. These "support components" were used in the formulation of the 1988 CDMP and they were transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for the Department's consideration during the compliance review process. The 1988 CDMP: Land Use Element "Support Component" The "support component" for the 1988 CDMP land use element (LUSC) was a 232-page document that analyzed existing and future land uses in Dade County, including the amount of land that would be needed and available to accommodate anticipated growth, the County's projected population, the environmental characteristics of the County's undeveloped land, the availability of urban services in the County, and those areas in need of redevelopment. According to the LUSC, as of 1985, of the County's 1,413,629 acres, 86,111.5 acres (6.09%) were devoted to residential uses, 9,389.1 acres (.66%) were devoted to commercial uses, 770.3 acres (.05%) were devoted to hotels, motels and other transient uses, 15,128.9 acres (1.07%) were devoted to industrial uses, 8,967.6 acres (.63%) were devoted to institutional uses, 660,620.7 acres (46.73%) were devoted to parks and recreational open space, 5/ 69,091.3 acres (4.89%) were devoted to transportation, communications and utilities, 93,187.6 acres (6.59%) were devoted to agriculture, 18,268.9 acres (1.29%) were inland waters, 162,640.0 acres (11.51%) were coastal waters, and 289,453.2 acres (20.48%) were undeveloped or vacant. Of this undeveloped or vacant land, 149,823.5 acres (10.55%) were environmentally sensitive. The LUSC examined the pattern of growth in Dade County over the years and reported that, in the 1970's and 1980's, growth occurred primarily in the unincorporated area on the western fringe of the urbanized portion of the County. According the LUSC, this pattern of growth is anticipated to "persist throughout the remainder of this century and beyond." This projection was accompanied by the following explanation: Urban development opportunities are limited on the coastal ridge and on the barrier islands because there is little remaining developable land. It is on the western fringes that land is available. In Dade County these western growth areas extend from the Broward line to the farm lands and open areas of South Dade. With respect to what the future holds for the "urban interior," the following was stated: In the County's urban interior, its central city areas, growth will be modest or nonexis- tent. In most of these areas there is little remaining developable land and projected de- clines in average household size will offset whatever new development occurs. The Downtown area . . . is projected to show some modest gains in the 1990s and beyond, as downtown development efforts succeed in attracting more residents to the County's heart. The LUSC also contained an analysis performed by the Planning Department of the supply of vacant land available for development and the demand that would exist for such land on a countywide and sub-area basis during the planning period. 6/ In determining the supply of land available for residential development, the Planning Department considered the development potential of only vacant and agricultural land inside the UDB, as it existed prior to the adoption of the 1988 CDMP (pre-1988 UDB). Neither redevelopment opportunities, nor the residential capacity of land outside the pre-UDB, were taken into consideration. For each tract of vacant and agricultural land inside the pre- 1988 UDB, the Planning Department ascertained the number of units that would be able to be built, employing a methodology that was described as follows in the LUSC: This determination is based on the current [pre-1988] CDMP Land Use Plan density classi- fication, with numerous exceptions: In areas where no neighborhood or municipal plan has been adopted since the CDMP map classification was established for the parcel, existing zoning is used if greater than agricultural use (AU) or general use (GU). Where the existing zoning is used and land is zoned and platted for single family use, the development capacity of this land is determined by counting the vacant platted lots. In addi- tion, whenever the density of zoned land is further limited by covenants or approved site plans, those conditions are reflected. Where land is unplatted and zoned for estate den- sity residential, but is designated on the CDMP in a higher residential density category and is substantially surrounded by land that is zoned or designated for higher residential density, the land is assigned the density of the surrounding development. Similarly, small parcels zoned AU or GU are assigned a zoning classification comparable to surrounding de- velopment. AU and GU parcels 10 acres or larger are assigned the Plan density appli- cable to the area. In places where neighbor- hood or municipal plans have been adopted or completed since the CDMP classification was established for the parcel and the neighborhood or municipal plan shows a higher use or den- sity, the neighborhood or municipal plan density is used in estimating the development capacity. In instances where the existing zoning permits greater development than the neighborhood or municipal plan proposes, the zoned density is utilized. The gross supply for each area is discounted by a factor of 6 percent to reflect the finding that 6 percent of land in fully developed areas is typically vacant at any given time. The methodology employed by the Planning Department to determine the supply of land available in the County to accommodate growth is professionally accepted. To determine the demand that would exist for residential land during the planning period, the Planning Department first estimated the 1985 countywide population and then projected what the countywide population would be in the years 2000 and 2010. In so doing, it utilized a component methodology, which examined the three components of population change --births, deaths and migration. This methodology is professionally accepted. The Planning Department also made population estimates and projections for each of the minor statistical areas (MSAs) in the County. In making these estimates and projections, it used an extrapolation methodology that is professionally accepted. 7/ Pursuant to this methodology, a portion of the countywide projected population was allocated to each MSA based upon such factors as long- term subarea growth trends, estimates of current subarea population and existing subarea housing units, and subarea development capacity. The Planning Department estimated that the 1985 countywide population was 1,771,000 and it projected that the countywide population would be 2,102,000 by the year 2000 and 2,331,000 by the year 2010. Its population estimates and projections for MSA 6.1 and MSA 6.2, which collectively comprise an area of the County on the western urban fringe known as West Kendall, and MSA 7.2, which is part of the South Dade area of the County, were as follows: 1985- MSA 6.1: 76,961; MSA 6.2: 36,820; MSA 7.2: 32,791; year 2000- MSA 6.1: 135,932; MSA 6.2: 94,628; MSA 7.2: 44,127; year 2010- MSA 6.1: 162,611; MSA 6.2: 124,414; MSA 7.2: 52,518. It was noted in the LUSC that the West Kendall area was the "fastest growing part of Dade County in the 1970's and early 1980's" and that this area was "projected to account for about 38% of the County's growth" from 1985 to 1990. MSA 7.2 was described in the LUSC as among the "rapidly developing areas" of the County. The countywide and MSA population estimates and projections made by the Planning Department not only appeared in the LUSC, but they were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and included in the future land use element of the 1988 CDMP. After making these population estimates and projections, the Planning Department sought to ascertain the future demand for new housing in the County. As it explained in the LUSC: This projection is a function of the projected population increase. The methodology assumes that the mix of housing units in that area will remain as it is currently and that house- hold sizes will decline slowly. Residential unit requirements are derived from the pro- jected increase in households with a 5 percent allowance for vacancy of dwelling units. The Planning Department projected that countywide demand would be 9,150 total units annually until 1990, 10,731 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 10,983 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 11,449 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005 and 11,734 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010. For MSA 6.2 and 7.2, the Planning Department's demand projections were as follows: MSA 6.2- 1,498 total units annually until 1990, 1,739 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 1,630 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 1,453 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005, and 1,288 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010; MSA 7.2- 269 total units annually until 1990, 309 total units annually between 1990 and 1995, 332 total units annually between 1995 and the year 2000, 360 total units annually between the year 2000 and the year 2005, and 373 total units annually between the year 2005 and the year 2010. Having projected future housing demand, the Planning Department then compared the projected demand to the supply of available residential land and concluded that, assuming no additional residential capacity was added, there was a sufficient aggregate supply of single-family and multifamily housing units inside the pre-1988 UDB to accommodate projected growth until the year 2008. 8/ With respect to MSA 6.2 and MSA 7.2, the Planning Department concluded that the former had sufficient residential capacity to last until the year 2001 and that the latter's supply of residential land would be depleted a year earlier. Notwithstanding its conclusion that there was a sufficient supply of residential land inside the pre-1988 UDB to last until the year 2008, the Planning Department recommended that the 1988 version of the CDMP provide even more residential capacity within the UDB. 9/ It explained its position on the matter as follows in the LUSC: [The urban development boundary] contains sufficient capacities to sustain single family development until 2004 and multi-family development until 2014. However, it is recognized that decisions regarding the development and purchase of residences involve complexities that trans- cend the single consideration of the presence of vacant zoned land. Market conditions, neighborhood pressure, transportation or service deficiencies, and investment deci- sions can impede development of vacant parcels. 10/ The proposed land use plan for 2000 and 2010 includes substantially more additional land than indicated above to insure that no short- ages will occur. . . . [T]he proposed LUP map for 2000 and 2010 in- cludes capacities for an additional 23,590 single family-type dwelling units in the area located between the 1990 urban development boundary of the comprehensive plan LUP map which is currently in effect, and the pro- posed year 2000 UDB of the proposed plan map. The Planning Department also inventoried the supply of land available for industrial and commercial development in the County. As reported in the LUSC, it determined that, as of 1985, the County had almost a 50-year supply of industrial land and a 16.6-year supply of commercial land. It further determined, and reported in the LUSC, that, as of 1985, MSA 6.2 had a 5.1-year supply of commercial land and a 92.5-year supply of industrial land and that MSA 7.2 had a 10.1-year supply of commercial land and a 48.7-year supply of industrial land. The 1988 CDMP: Compliance Review and Stipulated Settlement Agreement The 1988 CDMP was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs for its review. On January 30, 1989, the Department issued its statement of intent to find the 1988 CDMP not "in compliance." The Department's objection to the plan concerned the low level of service standards the plan established for certain roadways. The Department subsequently, by petition, referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Thereafter, the Department and County entered into a stipulated settlement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the County was to make certain changes to the 1988 CDMP to satisfy the concerns expressed by the Department in its statement of intent. The changes involved the 1988 CDMP's capital improvements element and its traffic circulation element. The County was to amend the capital improvements element to incorporate the primary components of the County's existing concurrency management system. The traffic circulation element was to be amended to establish three geographical zones or "tiers." One of the zones, the area inside the UDB east of the Palmetto Expressway (N.W. 77th Avenue), was to be denominated the "Urban Infill Area." 11/ The level of service standards for roadways in the Urban Infill Area were to be lower than those for roadways in the other two zones. Although these level of service standards for roadways in the Urban Infill Area were extremely low, and may have been unacceptable under other circumstances, it was felt that they were necessary, at least on a temporary basis, to promote infill development and encourage the use of mass transit, including the County's rapid rail system, which is underutilized. The agreement provided that if the County made these changes, the Department would find the 1988 CDMP, as amended in accordance with the agreement, "in compliance" and would recommend to the Administration Commission that the compliance proceeding that had been initiated by the Department be dismissed without the imposition of any sanctions. The County made the changes described the settlement agreement by adopting Ordinance No. 90-37. On June 14, 1990, the Department published its notice of intent to find the 1988 CDMP, as amended by Ordinance No. 90-37, "in compliance." This finding was made notwithstanding that the LUSC indicated that there was enough land inside the pre-1988 UDB to accommodate residential development well beyond the year 2000 and there had been, as a result of the Amendatory Ordinance's westward extension of the UDB and its redesignation of certain lands inside the realigned UDB, an addition to the existing supply of land available for residential development. The 1989-1990 CDMP Amendment Application Cycle A total of 71 applications to amend the CDMP were filed during the 1989-1990 CDMP amendment application cycle (Amendment Cycle). Twenty-seven of these applications were filed by private citizens as authorized by County ordinance. The remaining applications were filed by the Planning Department. Of the 27 privately filed applications, 25 requested changes to the FLUM and two requested changes to the text of the CDMP's land use element. The Planning Director filed a like number of applications to amend the FLUM. Application 39 Among the privately filed applications was Application 39, which was submitted by John H. Wellenhofer. The subject of Application 39 was a 25-acre parcel of land owned by Wellenhofer (Wellenhofer's property). Wellenhofer's property is in Study Area G and MSA 6.2. It is bounded on the north by Southwest 116th Street, on the south by Southwest 118th Street, on the east by Southwest 142nd Avenue and on the west by Southwest 144th Avenue. The property was located near, but inside, the UDB as established by the 1988 CDMP (1988 UDB). Through Application 39, Wellenhofer requested that the land use designation of his property on the FLUM be changed from "industrial and office" to "low density residential" (up to six dwelling units per gross acre). Application 39 and the Tamiami Airport The southern boundary of Wellenhofer's property lies two blocks, or approximately 660 feet, to the north of Tamiami Airport. The Tamiami Airport, which was opened in 1967, serves as a general aviation reliever for Miami International Airport. Tamiami is 1,380 acres in size and is the busiest general aviation airport in the County. The aircraft that use Tamiami are light aircraft, principally single and twin propeller driven airplanes. Tamiami does not, and in any event is not equipped to, handle commercial aircraft. Tamiami has three runways: (1) the north runway (9L-27R), an east- west runway; (2) the south runway (9R-27L), a parallel east-west runway; and the diagonal runway (13-31), a northwest-southeast runway. The north runway, which is the runway closest to Wellenhofer's property, lacks facilities to permit navigation by instrument for flights at night or in inclement weather. The flight pattern for the north runway is an oval shape. Wellenhofer's property is not under any portion of this flight pattern, nor is it under the flight patterns for the other two runways. It lies in the center of the oval created by the flight pattern for the north runway. It should be noted, however, that there are instances where aircraft, for one reason or another, deviate from these flight patterns. Residential communities in the vicinity of Tamiami already exist. A recent proposal to lengthen the south runway was opposed by a large number of the residents of these communities. In the face of such opposition, no action was taken on the proposal. Because of the noise generated by airport operations, residential uses in the area surrounding an airport may be incompatible with those operations. 12/ The CDMP recognizes that there is the potential for such land use incompatibility. It mandates that the federal government's 65/75 LDN contour standard contained in 14 C.F.R., Part 150, be used to determine if a particular residential use in the vicinity of an airport would be incompatible with the operations at that airport. The noise contour at 65 LDN for the north runway at Tamiami does not leave the airport property and barely leaves the runway itself. That is not to say, however, that one standing on Wellenhofer's property cannot hear the sound of aircraft using the airport. Wellenhofer's property is separated from Tamiami by land that is designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. An identical 660 foot, "industrial and office" buffer separates the airport from the residential lands that lie to the south of the western end of the airport. The area immediately to the north, to the south and to the east of Tamiami is denominated an "employment center" in the CDMP. Accordingly, a substantial amount of land in this area, particularly to the east of the airport, has been designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. Land immediately to the west of the site of current airport operations at Tamiami is designated on the FLUM for "transportation-terminals" use. Immediately west of this land is a large expanse of land, outside the UDB, which is designated on the FLUM for "agriculture" use. The CDMP's port and aviation facilities element indicates that "future aviation facility improvements are proposed to be made on or adjacent to the sites of existing airports" in the County and that the "westward 1,900 foot extension of the southern runway at Tamiami Airport" is one such proposed improvement that will be the subject of future consideration. Application 40 Another application filed by a private applicant during the Amendment Cycle was Application 40. It was submitted by the Suchmans. The subject of Application 40 was 320 acres of land (Application 40 property) located in Study Area G and MSA 6.2 and bounded on the north by Southwest 136th Street, on the south by Southwest 152nd Street, on the east by Southwest 157th Avenue and the Black Creek Canal, and on the west by Southwest 162nd Avenue. This land was located outside, but contiguous to on the north and east, the 1988 UDB. Immediately to the north of the Application 40 property is land that is shown on the FLUM as part of the western end of the Tamiami Airport. The CSX railroad tracks run parallel to the southern perimeter of the airport and they bisect the Application 40 property. The land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is north of the railroad tracks is designated on the FLUM for "industrial and office" use. The land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is south of the railroad tracks is designated on the FLUM for "low density residential communities" use. The land immediately to the south and the west of the Application 40 property is designated on the FLUM for "agriculture" use. At the time of the filing of Application 40, the area immediately surrounding the Application 40 property was undeveloped and in agricultural use. By the time of the formal hearing in the instant case, however, residential development was underway on a portion of the land immediately to the east of the Application 40 property which is south of the railroad tracks. Further to the east is a large scale residential development known as "Country Walk." The Suchmans own 190 acres of the Application 40 property. All but 30 acres of the land they own is on the western side of the property. The Suchmans first acquired an interest in the property in 1973 or 1974. They are in the real estate business and they purchased the property for investment purposes. While the Suchmans are not involved in the agricultural business, over the years they have leased their land to tenants who have used it for agricultural purposes. Since about 1987, it has become increasingly difficult, albeit not impossible, for the Suchmans to find such tenants. At least up until the time of the formal hearing in the instant case, their property was being actively farmed. The Suchmans, through Application 40, originally sought to have the land use designation of the Application 40 property north of the railroad tracks changed from "agriculture" to "industrial and office" and to have the land use designation of the remaining 280 acres of the property changed from "agriculture" to "low density residential." 13/ Subsequently, at the final adoption hearing, they amended their application. The Suchmans' amended application sought redesignation only of that land within the boundaries of the Application 40 property that the Suchmans owned: the western 20 acres of the Application 40 property north of the railroad tracks (from "agriculture" to "industrial and office" use); and 170 acres of the remaining land (from "agriculture" to "low density residential"). Under the amended application, the 130 acres of the Application 40 property not owned by the Suchmans was to remain designated for "agriculture" use. 14/ In addition to seeking the redesignation of their land, the Suchmans' application, in both its original and amended form, requested that the 1988 UDB be extended to encompass all 320 acres of the Application 40 property. Application 47 Application 47 was also filed by a private applicant. It was submitted by Alajuela N.V. The subject of Application 47 was an 160-acre tract of land (Application 47 property) located in Study Area I and MSA 7.2 and bounded by Southwest 264th Street on the north, Southwest 272nd Street on the south, Southwest 157th Avenue on the east and Southwest 162nd Avenue on the west. This land was located outside, but contiguous to on the south and east, the 1988 UDB. Immediately to the south and to the east of the Application 47 property is land designated on the FLUM for "estate density residential communities" use (up to 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre). The land immediately to the north and to the west of the Application 47 property is designated "agriculture" on the FLUM. Through its application, Alajuela N.V. requested that the land use designation on the FLUM of the Application 47 property be changed from "agriculture" to "estate density residential" 15/ and that the 1988 UDB be extended to encompass this property. Alajuela N.V. owns the entire western half of the Application 47 property. The eastern 80 acres is divided into a number of parcels, the majority of which are under five acres, with different owners. The eastern half of the Application 47 property contains 15 acres of Dade County pine forest. The Application 47 property lies approximately three-quarters of a mile both to the west and north of the U.S. 1 corridor in South Dade, which, according to the LUSC, "[s]ince 1970 . . . [has] experienced particularly heavy development and intensification of land use." This puts it on the southern fringe of an area of South Dade known as the Redlands. While the boundaries of the Redlands are not precise, it is generally understood to range from Southwest 184th Street on the north to the urbanizing areas of the City of Homestead on the south and from U.S. 1 on the east to a meandering line on the west where predominantly mixed agricultural and residential uses end and large-scale agricultural operations generally uninterrupted by residential development begin. While there is significant agricultural activity in the Redlands, primarily involving grove and nursery operations, 16/ an increasing residential trend has been established, particularly on the urbanizing fringes of the area and on parcels less than five acres in size that, because of the grandfathering provisions of the CDMP, are not subject to the restriction imposed by the CDMP that lands designated for "agriculture" use not be used for residential development in excess of one unit per five acres. Residential developments lying south of the Application 47 property constitute the urbanizing area of the City of Homestead. Homestead is a CDMP- designated activity center and, according to the LUSC, it was the fastest growing municipality in Dade County during the period from 1970 to 1987. Homestead's northern jurisdictional limits lie approximately two miles south of the Application 47 property. A substantial portion of the land between the Application 47 property and Homestead is presently undeveloped. The Application 47 property is approximately four and one half miles, by road, from the Homestead Air Force Base, a CDMP-designated employment center. Also in proximity to the Application 47 property are the Homestead/Florida City Enterprise Zone; the Villages of Homestead, which is a 7,000 acre development of regional impact; and commercial and industrial development along the U.S. 1 corridor in South Dade. 17/ The land immediately surrounding the Application 47 property is currently being used primarily for agricultural purposes, however, there is also residential development, as well as vacant land in the area. The western half of the Application 47 property is presently in active agricultural use. The eastern half of the Application 47 property is also the site of agricultural activity. Unlike the western half of the property, however, the eastern half is not used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Residences are located in this half of the property. Other Applications of Note Application 58, which was filed by the Planning Department, sought an amendment to the text of the land use element which would allow new agricultural uses in utility easements and right-of-way areas inside the UDB. Application 62 was another application filed by the Planning Department. Through Application 62, the Planning Department sought to have the Board of County Commissioners update and revise the countywide and MSA population estimates and the MSA population projections for the years 2000 and 2010 that had been adopted as part of the CDMP's land use element in 1988. In Application 62, the Planning Department recommended that the 1985 countywide and MSA population estimates found in the CDMP be replaced by 1989 estimates, including the following: countywide- 1,894,999; MSA 6.1- 92,715; MSA 6.2- 50,841; and MSA 7.2- 33,511. With respect to the population projections adopted in 1988, the Planning Department requested that they be modified to reflect a different distribution of the projected countywide population. The proposed modifications, as they pertained to MSA 6.1, MSA 6.2 and MSA 7.2, were as follows: year 2000- MSA 6.1: 137,612; MSA 6.2: 89,404; MSA 7.2: 42,012; year 2010- MSA 6.1: 175,504; MSA 6.2: 124,380; MSA 7.2: 53,823. In making these modified projections, the Planning Department utilized the same professionally accepted methodology it had used to make the projections that had been adopted in 1988. The Planning Department did not propose in Application 62 that any material change be made to the year 2000 or the year 2010 countywide population projections. A third application filed by the Planning Department was Application This application sought to have the Board of County Commissioners amend the text of the land use element to provide for the establishment of Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs) by the adoption of land use regulations. Under the proposed amendment, TNDs, designed to provide a mix of employment opportunities, to offer a full range of housing types, and to discourage internal automobile use, among other objectives, would be permitted in areas designated for residential use on the FLUM. Planning Department's Preliminary Recommendations Report On August 25, 1989, the Planning Department prepared, for the benefit of the Board of County Commissioners, and published a two-volume report (PR Report) containing its initial recommendations on the 71 applications filed during the Amendment Cycle, as well as the background information and analyses upon which those recommendations were based. In its PR Report, the Planning Department analyzed, among other things, the amount of land that was needed and available to accommodate anticipated growth. In conducting its analysis, the Planning Department employed essentially the same, professionally accepted methodology, previously described in this Recommended Order, that it had used in 1988. The population estimates and projections upon which it relied were the updated and revised estimates and projections that were the subject of Application 62. The Planning Department estimated that in 1989 the County's residential capacity was 247,438 total dwelling units (134,333 single-family units and 113,105 multifamily units). Countywide demand was projected to be 9,157 total dwelling units a year from 1989 to 1995, 10,920 total dwelling units a year from 1995 to the year 2000, 11,440 total dwelling units a year from the year 2000 to the year 2005, and 11,601 total dwelling units a year from the year 2005 to the year 2010. Under this scenario, in the year 2010, there would remain a residential capacity of 22,689 total dwelling units. According to the Planning Department's analysis, this remaining countywide residential capacity would be depleted in the year 2012 (depletion year). The Planning Department forecast an earlier depletion year, 2009, for single-family units. In addition to analyzing countywide residential capacity, the Planning Department conducted an analysis of the amount of land that was available in the County for commercial and industrial development. The Planning Department's analysis revealed that the County had sufficient commercial capacity to last until the year 2008 and that it had sufficient industrial capacity to last until the year 2041. The Planning Department analyzed residential, commercial and industrial capacity, not only on a countywide basis, but on a subarea basis as well. This subarea analysis yielded the following forecast as to Study Areas G and I and MSAs 6.2 and 7.2: Study Area G- depletion year for residential land: year 2005 (all dwelling units), year 2006 (single-family units), and year 2005 (multifamily units); depletion year for commercial land: year 2003; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2076. Study Area I- depletion year for residential land: year 2019 (all dwelling units), year 2016 (single-family units), and year 2030 (multifamily units); depletion year for commercial land: year 2015; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2091. MSA 6.2- depletion year for residential land: year 2006 (all dwelling units), year 2002 (single-family units), and year 2025 (multifamily units); 18/ depletion year for commercial land: 1995; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2075. MSA 7.2- depletion year for commercial land: year 2009; and depletion year for industrial land: year 2078. In its PR Report, the Planning Department also surveyed the environmental, physical and archaeological/historic conditions in each study area of the County, with particular emphasis on the lands that were the subject of the various applications to amend the FLUM (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "application properties"). The PR Report noted that Study Area G, "a large area (approx. 81 sq. mi.) located along the westerly fringe of southwestern Dade County," was characterized by the following environmental, physical and archaeological/historical conditions: Study Area G encompasses the western portions of the Snapper Creek (C-2), C-100 and Black Creek (C-1) canal drainage basins. Natural ground elevations range from five to six feet msl in the northwestern portion of the area to ten to fifteen feet in the part of the Study area generally south of SW 120 Street. Similarly, there is a gradient in the soil conditions from the NW to the SE. In the NW quarter of the area, generally west of 144 Avenue and north of Kendall Drive, the limerock substrate is covered with seasonally flooded Everglades peats and mucks. The southern and eastern three quarters of the study area is generally characterized by well drained rocklands interspersed with poorly drained marls in the former transverse glades. Where organic soils exist, they must be re- moved prior to filling to meet County flood criteria. Therefore as much as four feet of fill may be required to meet the County cri- teria in the northwestern part of this area. The average groundwater table elevations range from above five feet in the northwest to four feet in the southeast. Therefore, the area of Bird Drive and much of the area north of Kendall Drive west of SW 137 Avenue has tradi- tionally experienced considerable flooding and drainage problems. * * * Approximately 70 percent (5,522 acres) of the Bird Drive Basin is vegetated with native wet- land wet prairie, shrub and tree island habi- tats. However, 3,083 acres are heavily or moderately invaded by the exotic tree, Malaleuca. In 1987 the County initiated a Special Area Management Planning (SAMP) pro- cess for this area to develop a wetlands miti- gation plan and funding proposals that will facilitate development in some portions of the Bird Drive Everglades Basin. The poten- tial presence of a new 140-million gallon per day (mgd) Biscayne Aquifer water wellfield in the western part of the Bird Drive Basin has made the feasibility of on-site wetland miti- gation highly questionable for the Basin area. Therefore, the County is exploring several off-site mitigation options as part of the SAMP. Proposals to develop in this Basin are presently constrained by language in the adopted components of the CDMP which tie de- velopment orders to the conclusion of the SAMP, unless the applicants can demonstrate vested rights. * * * In the portion of the study area south of Kendall Drive, the most significant environ- mental resources are stands of native pinelands. There are several environmentally sensitive pinelands in Study Area G, however, none of the properties included in applications 34-4 contain significant natural, historical o archaeological resources. . . . Table 1G of the PR Report contained the following information regarding the specific environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of Wellenhofer's property and the Application 40 property: Wellenhofer's Property: Soils- rockdale/rockland; drainage characteristics of soils- good; elevation: eight feet; drainage basin- C-100; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; natural forest communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The Application 40 Property: Soils- rockdale, marl; depth of organic soils (marl)- one foot; drainage characteristics: good; elevation: eight feet; drainage basin: Black Creek Canal; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; natural forest communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of Study Area I, "a large (approx. 164 sq. mi.) region of south Dade County," were described as follows in the PR Report: Study Area I includes portions of CDMP Envi- ronmental Protection Subarea A, Biscayne National Park; Subarea D, the C-111 Wetlands; Subarea E; the Southeast wetlands; and Subarea F, Coastal Wetlands and Hammocks. These areas have been so designated because they contain important, relatively unstressed high-quality wetlands, which provide important water quality and wildlife values. Study Area I also includes a large part of CDMP Open Land Subarea 5. In most of the area east of Krome Avenue and west of U.S. 1, natural ground elevations range from ten to fifteen feet msl on the ridge and from five to ten feet in the former sloughs. The area east of the Turnpike and south of Florida City is less than five feet mean sea level. The highest average groundwater levels are at or above the ground surface throughout most of the area east of the Turnpike Extension and south of Florida City. Saltwater intrusion in the Aquifer extends two to five miles inland in this low lying area. In the area west of the Turnpike and east of Levees-31N and 31W, the soils are rocklands except in the former sloughs where marls pre- dominate. East of the Turnpike and south of Florida City, marls are the dominant soil type except along the coast where peats occur. The Black Creek (C-1), C-102, Mowry (C-103), North Canal, Florida City and C-111 canal sys- tems drain much of the northern and eastern portion of this study area. The area east of the Turnpike has recurring flooding and drainage problems due to its low elevation and flat gradient. The western portions of the C-102, C-103 and much of the C-111 drainage basins have limited flood protection. There is no flood protection in the area south of the Florida City Canal east of US 1 or in most of the area west of US 1 and south of Ingraham Highway. . . . * * * This study area also includes most of the environmentally sensitive natural forest com- munities that remain in Dade County. Appli- cation 47 contains a 15-acre pineland which presently receives maximum protection because it is outside the UDB and zoned AU. At the most, 20 percent of the pineland could be re- moved under the provisions of Chapter 24-60 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. . . . Table 1I of the PR Report contained the following additional information regarding the specific environmental, physical and archaeological/historic characteristics of the Application 47 property: Soils- rockland; drainage characteristics of soils- good; elevation: eleven to twelve feet; drainage basin- C-103; wetlands permits required- none; native wetland communities- none; endangered species- none; within wellfield protection area?- no; archaeological/historic resources- none. The PR Report also provided general information regarding existing land uses within each study area and more detailed information regarding existing land uses within and adjacent to each application property. The following was said with respect to existing land use patterns within Study Areas G and I: Study Area G- About half of this study area is suburban in character while the other half is primarily agriculture or undeveloped. The study area also contains a special agricul- tural area known as "horse country" for eques- trian related activities. The urbanizing portion is primarily residential with support- ing commercial and industrial activities. Residential areas include a range of housing from detached, single dwelling units to attached, multiple dwelling units at medium density. The area also contains two major recreation facilities-- Metrozoo and a county park. The major concentration of commercial activities has occurred along major thoroughfares such as North Kendall Drive. Some industries and offices are clustered in the vicinity of Tamiami Airport, a major general aviation facility located in the study area. Study Area I- This study area includes var- ious types of agricultural activities and rural development as well as suburban develop- ment largely oriented to US 1. The suburban development is primarily residential with supporting commercial uses. Although most of the housing is detached, single dwelling units, residential areas also include attached, multiple dwelling units at medium density. There are also several districts for industries and offices, some of which are oriented to expressway and railway systems. More than half of this study area is used for agriculture or is undeveloped. Much of the area is floodplain and the eastern fringe is subject to coastal flooding. Some of these areas are used for parks, preserves and water management areas. The area also contains several wellfields for public water supply, which are located inland from the coast and a major military installation-- Homestead Air Force Base. The PR Report stated the following with respect to the existing land uses within and adjacent to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property: Wellenhofer's Property: The area, which con- tains 25 acres, is being used for agricultural purposes. Land located in the vicinity to the south and west is also being used for agriculture while zoned IU-C. The land on the north side is being developed for residential purposes. Boys Town home is located immediately to the west. The site is located one quarter mile north of Tamiami Airport. . . . The Application 40 Property: The area, which contains 320 acres, is being used for agricul- tural purposes. . . . Land in the vicinity on all four sides is also being used for agriculture. Tamiami Airport is located to the northeast of this site. The Application 47 Property: Most of the land in this area is being used for agriculture. The remainder is being used for rural residences or is vacant. The vacant parcels are zoned for agriculture (AU). Land in the vicinity on all sides has the same character. It is primarily agriculture with scattered rural residences or vacant parcels. These vacant parcels are also zoned for agri- culture (AU). The PR Report examined not only existing land use patterns, but future development patterns as well. The future development pattern set forth in the 1988 CDMP for Study Areas G and I were described in the PR Report as follows: Study Area G- The future land use pattern adopted for this area provides primarily for continued residential uses at low, and low-medium densities, with industrial and office development bordering the Tamiami airport. Nodes of commercial uses are pro- vided for at certain major intersections cen- trally located to serve the resident popula- tion. The western portions of the Study Area are slated for continued agricultural produc- tion, while the extreme northwest corner of the Area is designated as Open Land to pro- tect the West Wellfield. Study Area I- The future development pattern established for this area provides for mixed residential infilling (primarily estate, low density and low-medium-density, with some medium-high density located along SW 200 Street east of US 1). Commercial infilling is provided for along both sides of US 1 and along SW 312 Street. Major industrial areas are established south of SW 312 Street and west of 142 Avenue, west of SW 177 Avenue in the Homestead-Florida City area, north and south of 248 Street west of US 1 and south of SW 184 Street between US 1 and the HEFT [Homestead Extension to the Florida Turnpike]. The areas outside of, but contiguous to, the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) are, for the most part, designated Agriculture, with land to the south and east designated as Open Land graduating to Environmental Protec- tion designations further south. . . . The PR Report also contained an evaluation of the current and future condition of public services in each study area, including an analysis, where possible, of each application's impact on these services. The public services addressed were roadways, transit, schools, parks, water, sewer, solid waste, and fire and rescue. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on roadways were described as follows in the PR Report: Application 39: [Application 39 will result] in reduced peak hour trips affecting the year 2010 network in this [study] area. None of the roads within the area of this application were projected to operate worse than LOS D in the year 2010. Application 40: Due to its proximity to SW 177 Avenue, the combined 1422 peak hour trips generated by this amendment primarily impact SW 177 Avenue, which is already projected to operate at LOS F. The long term adopted standard for this road is LOS C. Even without this application the road does not meet this adopted standard. Application 47: Application 47 . . . if de- veloped would generate approximately 171 residential based peak hour trips in 2010. . . . Generally, this application would have negligible impacts on the LOS traffic conditions in 2010. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on transit were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: In general, no signi- ficant amount of transit trips would be generated by the amendment applications in this Study Area [G], even though a number of the applications (i.e. . . . 39, 40, ) are located in areas projected to have service improvements by 2010. Therefore, no additional service improvements are warranted beyond those that will be required to serve the area in general for 2010. Application 47: [N]o significant amount of transit trips would be generated by Applica- tion . . . 47. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on schools were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: It is estimated that the applications [in Study Area G] would in- crease the student population by [a total of] 2,784 students. . . . Application 40 would generate 874 additional students; . . . The other applications for residential use [including Application 39] would generate less than a hundred new students each. Application 47: If Application 47 were ap- proved, it would generate an additional 239 students at all grade levels. The greatest impact would be felt at the elementary school level, where an additional 129 students would have to be accommodated. Redland Elementary, which is the elementary school that would pro- bably serve the subject Application Area, is operating at a utilization rate of 163 percent. Additional classrooms are planned for construc- tion at Redland Elementary over the next few years, raising this school's number of Exist- ing Satisfactory Student Stations (ESSS) from 523 to 901. In addition, a relief school for Redland Elementary is to be built in this area by mid-1993, providing an additional 885 SSS. The projected impacts of Applications 39, 40 (in its original form) and 47 on parks were described as follows in the PR Report: Applications 39 and 40: Study Area G cur- rently meets the park level of service stan- dard (LOS) and is expected to meet the LOS in the year 2000. . . Despite the rapid popula- tion growth in the area, the LOS has remained above standard in part because of recreational facilities and open space that are provided in the planned residential developments which characterize the Study Area. Approval of those applications requesting new residential uses in Study Area G could result in a lowering of the LOS for parks if new park land is not provided. Application 47: By the year 2000, MSA 7.2 is expected to fall below standard if no addi- tional parks are provided. * * * Application 47 lies within MSA 7.2 which is currently above the LOS standard but is expected to fall below standard if no addi- tional park land is provided. The PR Report indicated that the fire and rescue response times to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property were four minutes, 13 minutes, and three to four minutes, respectively, and that roadway accessibility to all three sites was good. With respect to the Application 40 property, the PR Report further noted that it "would be serviced by the planned Richmond Station after its completion in 1992-93," which would reduce the response time to the site to no more than six minutes. Water and sewer service in Study Areas G and I was described as follows in the PR Report: Study Area G: Water and sewer service is provided to Study Area G by WASAD [Metro- politan Dade County Water and Sewer Authority Department]. The area is characterized by large residential developments which have been built over the past decade. Water and sewer service was constructed by area devel- opers in many cases, and most of the developed area is served. . . . . [T]he 'Horse Country' area west of the Turnpike is not connected to either water or sewer. Potable Water Supply Water is supplied to Study Area G by WASAD's Alexander Orr Water Treatment Facility. This facility's current design rating is 178 MGD, and the historical maximum day water demand has been 146 MGD. . . . The Orr facility currently produces water which meets all federal, state and county drinking water standards. WASAD has recently made improve- ments to the Alexander Orr facility and devel- oped a long term expansion program. By 1990, it is expected that the plant will attain a rated capacity of 220 MGD. A major improvement to the distribution system in this Study Area is the completion of the 36/48 inch main which extends along SW 137 Avenue from SW 122 Street to SW 184 Street. In conjunction with other improvements, the system in this area is being connected to the South Miami Heights and the Orr Treatment Plants, providing adequate capacity for the southern portion of Study Area G. Improvements that are scheduled for 1989-90 include the extension of the 36 inch water main along Kendall Drive to SW 157 Avenue, and continued construction of the 96 inch raw water main that will deliver water from the new West Wellfield to the Alexander Orr Treat- ment Plant. Sewer Study Area G is served by the South District Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility. This facility has a current design capacity of 75 MGD. Based on a 12-month running average daily flow for this plant was 75 MGD. . . . Expansions to the South District facility are programmed for completion in 1994 to increase the design capacity to 112.5 MGD. Sewage effluent produced by this plant also conforms to federal, state and county effluent standards and is disposed of via deep well injection. Study Area I: Most of Study Area I is in agri- cultural use and relies primarily on private wells and septic tanks. WASAD serves the devel- oped areas in unincorporated Dade County. Florida City provides water service within the city limits and sewer service is provided by WASAD. A portion of the study area is also served by the City of Homestead. Homestead's franchised service area extends a short dis- tance outside the City limits: it is bounded irregularly on the East, on the West by SW 192 Avenue, by the City limits on the South, and on the North by SW 296 Street. Water distri- bution and sewage collection systems are main- tained by the Air Force to serve Homestead Air Force Base. Potable Water Supply The northeast corner of the Study Area is con- nected to WASAD's regional water supply system and is served by the Alexander Orr Treatment Plant. . . . [T]he served area south of SW 248 Street is not yet connected to the regional system. This area is served by the former Rex Utility system, which is now owned by WASAD, and by the City of Homestead. The Rex system has a rated capacity of 16.2 mgd and a maximum water demand of 8.81 mgd. The Homestead plant has a rated capacity of 9.9 mgd and a maximum demand of 7.7 mgd. . . . Water produced by these treatment plants meets federal, state, and county drinking water standards. A major improvement scheduled for this area is a 48 inch main which will run south along SW 127 Avenue from 248 Street to SW 280 Street to connect the existing systems to the Alexander Orr Treatment Plant. Upon completion of this main in 1990 or 1991, the . . . treatment plants of the Rex system will be phased out. . . . Sewer Florida City and the unincorporated portion of Study Area I are served by the South District Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility, which has a current design capacity of 75 mgd and an average daily flow of 84.2% of rated capacity. Expansions to the South District facility, programmed for completion in 1994, will increase the design capacity to 112.5 mgd. Sewage effluent treated by this plant conforms to the federal, state and county effluent stan- dards and is disposed of via deep-well injection. . . . The only remaining sewage treatment plant in Dade County is operated by the City of Homestead. The plant is designed to treat 2.25 mgd and its capacity is in the process of being evaluated by the Florida Department of Environmental Regula- tion. The Homestead system currently operates under an agreement to divert a portion of its wastewater to WASAD for treatment and disposal. . . . The following was indicated in the PR Report concerning the water and sewer service available to Wellenhofer's property, the Application 40 property and the Application 47 Property: Wellenhofer's property: distance to nearest water main- 1320 feet; diameter of this main- 12 inches; location of this main- SW 112th Street and SW 142nd Avenue; distance to nearest sewer main- 4000 feet; location of this main- SW 112th Street and SW 137th Avenue. The Application 40 Property: distance to nearest water main- 0 feet; diameter of this main- 24 inches; location of this main; SW 152nd Street and SW 157th Avenue; distance to nearest sewer main- one mile; location of this main- SW 136th Street and SW 147th Avenue. The Application 47 Property: distance to near- est water main- 2640 feet; diameter of this main- 12 inches; location of this main- SW 157th Avenue and 280th Street; distance to nearest sewer main- 3960 feet; location of this main- SW 157th Avenue and SW 284th Street. 19/ The significance of the availability of water and sewer service to a particular application property was described as follows in the PR Report: Although specific requirements under Chapter 24 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County vary with land use, most new development in Dade County is required to connect to the public water or sewer system, or to both. The timing of new development is heavily depen- dent on the availability of these services. Where water and sewer service does not exist and is not planned, the services may be pro- vided by the developer. When construction is completed, the facilities are donated to the utility. The proximity of an application area to exist- ing or programmed water and sewer lines is an important indicator of whether or not the area is likely to develop within the 2000 time frame of the Urban Development boundary. . . . The following observations were made in the PR report regarding solid waste services in the County: The Metro-Dade Department of Solid Waste Management provides both collection and dis- posal services for Dade County. The Department is responsible for the final dis- posal of solid waste generated anywhere in the County and for residential collection in the urbanized portions of unincorporated Dade County. Residents in sparsely developed areas of the County are responsible for delivering their waste to a proper disposal site. In general, industrial and commercial businesses often use private haulers who can provide customized service that is not available from the County. . . . Countywide, the solid waste disposal system has sufficient capacity to maintain the adopted level of service of 7 pounds per person per day through 1995. The Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) The Board of County Commissioners took preliminary action on the applications filed during the Amendment Cycle and transmitted to the Department its proposed amendment to the CDMP. Accompanying the proposed amendment was the PR Report. The Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) on February 2, 1990. A copy of the ORC, accompanied by a cover letter, was sent to the Mayor of Metropolitan Dade County, the Honorable Stephen P. Clark, that same day. The cover letter advised the Mayor that if he "would like the Department to participate in the public hearing for amendment adoption, such request should be received by the Department, certified mail, at least 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing date." The following were the statements made in the ORC that referenced Applications 39, 40 and 47: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OBJECTIONS * * * Analysis 1. 9J-5.006(2)(b) The analysis of the character of the existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to deter- mine its suitability for use does not support the plan amendments that propose to extend the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) by 845 acres. The analysis demonstrates that the UDB as cur- rently delineated ensures an adequate supply of each land use will be available for the planning timeframe. In addition, the existing analysis identifies this region as environmen- tally sensitive and not suitable for urban uses. Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the adopted Metro-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) or include analysis that would justify extension of the UDB for urban uses while not causing adverse impacts to the environmentally sensitive lands in the East Everglades Area. 2. 9J-5.006(2)(c)2. The analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, as re- vised in Amendment 62, does not support plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which propose to extend the UDB by an additional 845 acres. The analysis demonstrates that there is ade- quate amount of land uses designated within the current UDB to accommodate the projected population within the planning timeframe. Therefore, the extension of the UDB into the East Everglades area would encourage urban sprawl. Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to be consistent with the analysis. The plan amendments must justify the proposed need for additional land outside of the current UDB to accommodate the projected population. 3. 9J-5.006(2)(e) The analysis of the proposed development of flood prone areas does not support plan amend- ments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which would extend the UDB by 845 acres. The new growth would be directed into the flood prone areas on the eastern edge of the Everglades. . . . Recommendation Revise the plan amendments to not extend the UDB and to either retain the existing land uses or designate land uses that are compat- ible with the environmentally sensitive nature of . . . the Everglades region. Goals, Objectives and Policies 4. 9J-5.006(3)(b)1. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Objective 1, page I-1, which states that decisions regarding the location of future land use in Dade County will be based on the physical and financial feasibility for providing services as adopted in the CDMP. The analysis demonstrates that the County has not planned on providing services outside the existing UDB; therefore the extension of the UDB at this time would appear to be premature. Recommendation Revise the amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the CDMP. * * * 8. 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Objective 3, page I-4, which states that the urban growth shall emphasize concentration around centers of activity rather than sprawl. The analysis of the land needed to accommodate the projected population demonstrates that there will be an adequate supply of vacant land within the UDB for the duration of the planning timeframe. Recommendation Revise the amendments to retain the UDB as currently delineated in the CDMP. * * * 12. 9J-5.006(3)(c)3. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47, which would extend the UDB by 845 acres, are incon- sistent with Policy 1B, page I-1, which states that the County will first provide services for the area within the UDB. The amendments are located outside of the existing UDB and the analysis demonstrates that there is no need to extend the UDB for residential or industrial land uses. Recommendation Retain the UDB as currently delineated. * * * Future Land Use Map(s) 14. 9J-5.006(4)(a) Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which entail the extension of the Urban Development boundary are not supported by the data and analysis. The designation of residential uses is not supported by the analysis which shows an adequate supply of residential land for the planning timeframe. . . . These ex- tensions would be premature according to the data and analysis submitted with the plan amendments and would increase development pressure toward the Everglades. Recommendation Retain the Urban Development Boundary as cur- rently delineated. Encourage new residential development in the Urban Infill Area where the infrastructure already exists to support higher densities and where the CDMP has speci- fically made commitments to direct development in order to discourage urban sprawl and to pro- tect the environmental integrity of the Ever- glades. * * * PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES A. OBJECTIONS * * * Goals, Objectives and Policies 1. 9J-5.009(3)(c)1. Plan amendments 38 and 39, which would change industrial/office land use to low density resi- dential, are inconsistent with Policy 4C, page IV-4, which supports zoning that would protect existing and proposed aviation flight paths. These amendments would promote the encroachment of residential land uses into the Tamiami Airport area guaranteeing a future conflict of land uses. Recommendation Retain the existing land uses or propose land uses that would be compatible with the existing airport and the surrounding supporting aviation industries. * * * SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, POTABLE WATER, AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT A. OBJECTIONS Goals, Objectives, and Policies 1. 9J-5.011(2)(b)3. Plan amendments 18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 which entail the extension of the Urban Development boundary are inconsistent with Objective 1 and Policy 1A, page VII-1, which state that the area within the UDB shall have first priority for urban services as a measure to discourage urban sprawl. The designation of residential uses is not supported by the analysis which shows an adequate supply of residential land for the planning timeframe. . . . These extensions would be premature according to the data and analysis submitted with the plan amendments and would increase development pressure toward the Everglades. Recommendation Retain the Urban Development boundary as cur- rently delineated. Encourage new residential development in the Urban Infill Area where the infrastructure already exists to support higher densities and where the CDMP has speci- fically made commitments to direct development in order to discourage urban sprawl and protect the environmental integrity of the Everglades. The ORC also addressed the proposed plan amendment's consistency with the State of Florida Comprehensive Plan (State Plan) and the Regional Plan for South Florida (Regional Plan), which was prepared and adopted by the South Florida Regional Planning Council. The following was alleged with respect to the proposed amendment's consistency with the State Plan: STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.021 The proposed Comprehensive Development Master Plan amendments are not consistent with and fail to address adequately the following sub- sections of s. 187.201, F.S. (1988 Supplement), State Comprehensive Plan policies: Housing (5)(b)3., which requires the supply of safe, affordable and sanitary housing for low and moderate income persons and the elderly, because the proposed amendments would change existing residential uses, that would be feasible for affordable housing, to non-residential uses; and Water Resources (8)(b)4., which requires the protection and use of natural water systems in lieu of struc- tural alternatives and restore modified sys- tems, because the proposed amendments would create land uses which would encroach upon wellfield protection areas; and Coastal and Marine Resources (9)(b)4., which requires the protection of coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of develop- ment, because of the proposed amendment to change definitions which would give residen- tial densities to submerged marine lands; and Natural Systems and Recreational Lands (10)(b)7., which requires the County to pro- tect and restore the ecological functions of wetland systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic and recreational value, because the proposed amendments would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area and potentially permit noncompatible land uses within wetland study areas and wellfield pro- tection areas; and (10)(b)8., which requires promotion of res- toration of the Everglades system and of the hydrological and ecological functions of de- graded or substantially disrupted surface waters, because of the proposed amendment which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area; and Land Use (16)(b)2., which requires incentives and dis- incentives which encourage a separation of urban and rural land uses, because the pro- posed amendments would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area which would encourage urban sprawl; and Public Facilities (18)(b)1., which requires incentive for devel- oping land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities, because the pro- posed amendments would remove residential uses along arterials and reduce the effectiveness of the mass transit system. The ORC contained the following recommendation concerning what needed to be done, in the Department's view, to cure these alleged inconsistencies: The proposed comprehensive plan amendments must be revised to include specific, measur- able objectives and implementing policies, supported by adequate data and analysis, that are consistent with the above-referenced poli- cies of the State Comprehensive Plan. The following was alleged in the ORC concerning the proposed amendment's consistency with the Regional Plan: REGIONAL POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.021(1) The proposed Comprehensive Development Master Plan amendments are not consistent with and fail to address adequately the following subsections of the Regional Plan for South Florida: Policy 57.1.2., which requires giving priority to development in areas within which adequate services are either programmed or available, because of the proposed amendments which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area; and Policy 64.2.1, which requires that land use around the airport be strictly controlled to prevent unnecessary social or economic con- flicts and costs, because of the proposed amendments which would place residential uses in close proximity to Tamiami Airport; and Policy 69.1.1., which encourages appropriate activities to ensure the continued viability of agriculture, because the proposed amend- ments which would expand the UDB into the East Everglades Area. The ORC contained the following recommendation concerning what needed to be done, in the Department's view, to cure these alleged inconsistencies: The proposed comprehensive plan amendments must be revised to include specific, measur- able objectives and policies, supported by adequate data and analysis, that are consis- tent with the policies of the Regional Plan for South Florida. Under the heading of "Internal Consistency" in the ORC, the following remarks were made: INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OBJECTIONS 1. 9J-5.005(5)(b) Each map depicting future conditions in the plan (including the future land use map) must reflect goals, objectives and policies in each element, as those goals, objectives and policies exist or are modified to meet the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., Chapter 163, F.S., the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, F.S.) and the comprehensive regional policy plan, as recommended in this report. Recommendation Ensure that future conditions maps are modi- fied to reflect goals, objectives and policies in each element. COMMENTS See individual elements. Those objections, recommendations and comments made in the ORC that are not recited above specifically referenced applications other than Applications 39, 40 and 47. The Planning Department's Response to the ORC On March 21, 1990, the Planning Department published a written response to the ORC (Response). In its Response, the Planning Department concurred with the position that Applications 39, 40 and 47 should not be approved, but it took issue with certain statements made in the ORC relating to these applications. The Planning Department pointed out that the "East Everglades was the area located west of the L-31 Everglades containment levee and south of the Tamiami Trail," and that "[A]pplications [18, 37, 40, 41 and 47 we]re no closer than two miles [to the east] of the East Everglades" and did not extend to any areas designated "environmental protection" on the FLUM. The Planning Department further noted that the Application 40 property and the Application 47 property were not subject to recurring flooding. With respect to the lone objection in the ORC which specifically mentioned Application 39, the Planning Department observed that it "incorrectly cite[d] Policy 4C [of the Port and Aviation Facilities Element of the CDMP]; it should be Policy 4D." The Planning Department added that, although the Department had not so indicated, Application 39 was "also inconsistent with Objective 8 of the Port and Aviation Element which seeks to maximize compatibility between airports and the surrounding communities." Combined Recommendations of the Planning Department and the PAB On February 27, 1990, and February 28, 1990, respectively, following a joint public hearing held on February 23, 1990, the Planning Department, acting in its capacity as the local planning agency, and the PAB adopted resolutions containing their recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the final action to be taken on the applications filed during the Amendment Cycle. Thereafter, prior to the final adoption hearing, the Planning Department published a document entitled "Combined Recommendations of the Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department (Local Planning Agency) and the Planning Advisory Board" (CR Report), which set forth these recommendations, and summarized the rationale upon which they were based. Both the Planning Department and PAB recommended that Application 39 be denied. According to the CR Report, these recommendations were based upon the following considerations: The south boundary of this site is located only two blocks from the Kendall-Tamiami Execu- tive Airport. The application area is within the area designated on County comprehensive plans as industrial/commercial since 1965 to insure airport/community compatibility. The continued non-residential designation of this area also conforms to the standard adopted in 1989 by the State Legislature (but vetoed by the Governor because of unrelated funding pro- visions) which provided that "residential construction should not be permitted within an area contiguous to an airport measuring one-half of the length of the longest runway on either side of each runway centerline." The Aviation Department estimates that the housing proposed in the application area would be subject to more than ten times ambient noise levels which would result in many complaints from occupants. For example, virtually all of the 5,200 petitioners concerned about perceived airport noise impacts of the recently rejected runway extension lived further from the airport than would the occupants of housing proposed within the area. Approval of this application would conflict with the need for the County to protect its airport, and with the need to retain opportunity sites for employment activities in west Kendall. The Planning Department recommended that Application 40 be denied. According to the CR Report, this recommendation was based upon the following considerations: This Application is located in the Agri- cultural area west of Black Creek Canal. The Agricultural Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners established that Canal as the Agricultural area boundary in this area of the County, to be amended for urban development only at such time as there is a documented need. The Planning Department believes that the need does not yet exist. 20/ Approval of this Application would be premature. The CDMP currently contains within the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB), enough land countywide to sustain projected industrial needs well beyond the year 2010, and residential needs to the year 2015. Within this Study Area there is also enough industrial land to accommodate projected residential growth beyond the year 2010 and to accommodate projected residential growth until the year 2005. While current projections indicate that the single family supply west of the Turnpike between Kendall Drive and Eureka Drive does not contain much surplus beyond the year 2000, the CDMP provides alternative loca- tions, including an abundance of supply in the Turnpike corridor south of Cutler Ridge. The Planning Department will closely monitor growth trends in the various subareas of the County and will recommend adjustments when warranted in the future. The PAB recommended that Application 40 be approved. The CR Report indicated that the PAB's reasoning with respect to this matter was as follows: Because this is the area where people want to live, sprawl is justified and the urban devel- opment boundary should be expanded. In re- sponse to DCA's objections, the PAB noted that services are available adjacent to this Appli- cation. Both the Planning Department and PAB recommended the denial of Application 47. The following reasons were given in the CR Report for their recommendations: The area is currently designated Agricul- ture on the Land Use Plan map, and is used for agricultural purposes. The Agricultural Land Use Plan adopted by the Board of County Commis- sioners recommends that the area designated Agriculture should not be redesignated for urban use until there is a documented need for more urban land. Approval of this Application would be very premature. The CDMP currently contains enough land within the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary in this Study Area to accommodate projected demand well beyond the year 2010. Similarly, in the area west of US 1 there is enough land for single-family type residences to accommodate projected demand through the year 2010. There is no current need to promote urban development of this Application area. This site contains fifteen acres of Dade County pine forest listed in Dade County's forest land inventory as having high environ- mental quality. It should not be prematurely urbanized. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Department's Participation On March 12, 1990, Mayor Clark mailed, by United States Express Mail, a letter to the Department requesting that it participate in the hearing at which final action would be taken by the Board of County Commissioners on the outstanding applications filed during the Amendment Cycle. The body of the letter read as follows: The Board of County Commissioners requests that the Florida Department of Community Affairs participate in its hearing to address biennial applications requesting amendments to the 2000-2010 Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) for Metropolitan Dade County. This request is made pursuant to Section 9J-11.011(2) of the Florida Adminis- trative Code and Section 2-116.1(4) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. The public hearing will be held on Monday, March 26, 1990, at 9:00 AM in the Commission Chambers, 111 N.W. 1 Street, Miami. If neces- sary, this hearing will be continued on Tuesday, March 27, 1990, in the Commission Chambers. The purpose of this hearing is to afford the Board of County Commissioners an opportunity to hear the applicants explain their applica- tions and to receive public comments on the applications, on the "Objections, Recommenda- tions, and Comments" report submitted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, and on the recommendations of the Planning Advi- sory Board and of the Local Planning Agency. At the conclusion of this hearing, the Board of County Commissioners will take final action to approve, approve with change, or deny each of the applications. Should you or your staff need any assistance or additional information regarding this hearing, please contact Mr. Robert Usherson, Chief, Metropolitan Planning Division, Metro-Dade Planning Department, at (305)375-2835, (Suncom) 445-2835. The Department, by letter, advised Mayor Clark that it would send a Department representative to "participate" in the hearing. The body of the letter read as follows: In response to your request of March 12, 1990, the Department of Community Affairs will send a representative to participate in the March 26, 1990, public hearing to adopt the proposed Metro Dade County comprehensive plan amendments. The Department's representative is authorized to restate our position as expressed in the Department's February 3, 1990 [sic] Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, and to listen to all parties. It is the Department's position that the adoption public hearing is not the proper forum for modifying the Depart- ment's position or approving proposed revisions to the comprehensive plan. The Department's representative will be without authority to modify the Department's position or approve proposals discussed at the public hearing. The Department's representative will be authorized, however, to comment on proposals to resolve objections included in the report. Final approval of any proposal may only be granted by the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. The Department's role with respect to approv- ing proposed revisions will begin upon adop- tion and submittal of the comprehensive plan, pursuant to Chapter 9J-11.011, Florida Admin- istrative Code. If I may be of further assis- tance in this matter, please contact me at (904)488-9210. The Department representative selected to attend the final adoption hearing was Harry Schmertman, a Planner IV with the Department. Schmertman had not been involved in the preparation of the ORC. He reviewed the report, however, before attending the hearing. Schmertman arrived at the Commission Chambers on the morning of March 26, 1990, prior to the commencement of the hearing. Upon his arrival, he spoke with the County's Planning Director and requested that he be recognized at the outset of the hearing. The Planning Director responded that "the Mayor would take care of that." Following this conversation, Schmertman took a seat "[a]pproximately five or six rows back [from the front] in the center of the auditorium." Thereafter, the hearing formally convened. Shortly after the commencement of the hearing, before any applications were discussed, Mayor Clark introduced Schmertman and indicated that he was attending the hearing on behalf of the Department. Immediately following the Mayor's introduction of Schmertman, the Chairman of the PAB, Lester Goldstein, presented the PAB's recommendations to the Board. During his presentation, Goldstein expressed disappointment over the various factual inaccuracies in the Department's ORC. Schmertman did not respond to Goldstein's comments, nor did he at any time attempt to modify or explain any statement or position taken by the Department in the ORC. Indeed, he made no public remarks while in attendance at the hearing. While Schmertman did not address the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing, at no time during the hearing was he asked to do so. Furthermore, the members of the Board gave no indication that they did not understand, and therefore needed clarification of, the Department's position on the applications under consideration. At around 4:30 p.m., before the conclusion of the hearing on that day, Schmertman left the Commission Chambers to return to Tallahassee. Neither he, nor any other Department representative, was present for the remainder of the hearing on that day or for the continuation of the hearing on the following day, when public discussion and debate ended and a formal vote was taken on each of the pending applications. 21/ Schmertman did not tell anyone that he was leaving the Commission Chambers. He reasonably believed, however, that there was no need to announce his departure because he was "in a very obvious location . . . and was very visible leaving." No member of the Board, nor any other County representative, asked Schmertman, as he was leaving, to remain until the conclusion of the hearing. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Objectors' Participation The Redland Citizen Association, Inc. (RCA) is a nonprofit Florida corporation, which has as its stated purpose and primary activity the preservation and promotion of the agrarian character and lifestyle of the Redlands area of South Dade. The RCA engages in fundraising to obtain the financial resources necessary to accomplish this objective. The RCA has approximately 700 to 800 members, all of whom reside in or around the Redlands in Dade County. At all times material hereto, Martin Motes has been a member of the RCA, resided in a home that he owns in the Redlands, and owned and operated a wholesale orchid nursery business located on property adjacent to his residence, three quarters of a mile north of the Application 47 property. Motes appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the RCA and its members, including himself, he expressed opposition to Application 47. He argued that the change sought through this application was "premature" and constituted an "unwarranted and unwanted" extension of urban development into a viable agricultural area. Neither Motes, nor any other representative of the RCA, objected to any application other than Application 47. 22/ The Sierra Club is a nonprofit national organization organized for the following purpose: To explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth, to practice and promote the re- sponsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources, to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment, and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives. The Sierra Club, Miami Group, is a local division of the national organization specifically chartered to include residents of both Dade and Monroe Counties. It has a Dade County address. At all times material hereto Bruce Rohde has been a member of the Sierra Club and resided in a home that he owns in Dade County. Rohde appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the Sierra Club and its members, including himself, he expressed opposition to Applications 40 and 47, among others. He contended that the extensions of the UDB requested through Applications 40 and 47 were "premature." Neither Rohde, nor any other representative of the Sierra Club, objected to Application 39. The League of Women Voters of the United States is a national organization. The League of Women Voters of Florida is a state organization. The League of Women Voters of Dade County, Inc. (League) is a nonprofit Florida corporation affiliated with the national and state organizations. The League's purpose, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation, is as follows: [T]o promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government and to take action on govern- mental measures and policies in the public interest in conformity with the principles of The League of Women Voters of the United States and The League of Women Voters of Florida. It engages in fundraising to obtain the financial resources necessary to accomplish this objective. The League rents office space in Dade County out of which it conducts its operations. 23/ At all times material hereto, Carol Rist has been a member of the League, resided in a home that she owns in Dade County, and owned and operated a Dade County business. Rist appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. On behalf of the League and its members, including herself, she expressed opposition to various applications, including Applications 39, 40 and 47. With respect to Applications 40 and 47, her arguments were similar to those advanced by Rohde at the hearing. As to Application 39, she contended that Wellenhofer's property was too close to the airport to be used for residential purposes and that it was a desirable site for the location of an office complex to which residents of the West Kendall area would be able to commute. 24/ At all times material hereto, Evelyn B. Sutton has resided in a home that she owns in the eastern half of the Application 47 property. Sutton appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. She expressed her opposition to Application 47, contending that its approval would have an adverse impact upon the unique agrarian character and lifestyle of the Redlands. She did not object to any application other than Application 47. At all times material hereto, Frances L. Mitchell has resided in a home that she owns in the eastern half of the Application 47 property. Mitchell and some of her neighbors retained an attorney, who appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation on their behalf. The attorney advised the Board that his clients were in opposition to Application 47 because it was "premature" and represented unneeded "leapfrog residential development in the heart of the Redlands." Neither Mitchell, her attorney, nor any other representative acting on her behalf, objected to any application other than Application 47. At all times material hereto, Rod Jude has resided in a home that he owns in Dade County and owned and operated a Dade County wholesale nursery business. Jude appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. He expressed his opposition to Application 40, arguing that there was no demonstrated need for the conversion of the Application 40 property to non-agricultural uses. Jude also objected to Applications 37, 41 and 42. He did not address either Application 39 or Application 47. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Applicants' Participation Jeffrey E. Lehrman, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 39 on behalf of Wellenhofer. In addition to making an oral presentation, Lehrman gave the members of the Board written materials. During his presentation, Lehrman stated, among other things, the following: Application 39 represented infill, not leapfrog, development; such development would not adversely impact upon, nor would it be adversely impacted by, the Tamiami Airport; there had been significant residential development in the area around Wellenhofer's property in recent years; the approval of Application 39 would not interfere with any existing flight patterns; Wellenhofer's property was not under an existing flight path, but rather was in a "hole-in-the-doughnut" and therefore was distinguishable from properties that were the subject of other applications; Tamiami's north runway was an auxiliary runway unequipped to handle operations at night and in bad weather; the applicable 65/75 LDN noise contour did not intrude upon Wellenhofer's property; the new statute that the Planning Department had referenced in recommending denial of Application 39 had been vetoed by the Governor and therefore was really no statute at all; helicopter training took place on the south, rather than the north, side of the airport; and if Application 39 was approved, a buffer of industrial land would still exist between Wellenhofer's property and the airport. Thomas Carlos, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 40 on behalf of the Suchmans. Carlos was assisted by James Holland, a professional planner with the firm of Post, Buckley, Shuh and Jernigan (Post Buckley), Jack Schnettler, a professional traffic engineer with Post Buckley, Richard Tobin, President of Strategy Research Corporation, Inc. (SRC), a national research firm with offices in Florida, and Richard Roth, Vice- President of SRC in charge of planning research studies. During his opening remarks, Carlos advised the County Commission that the Suchmans had executed a covenant obligating themselves to developing their property in accordance with the Traditional Neighborhood Development concept. He then introduced Holland to the Commission. During his presentation, Holland did, among other things, the following: summarized the contents of Table 1G of the PR Report relating to the environmental, physical and archaeological/historic conditions that existed on the Application 40 property; contrasted the Application 40 property with the undeveloped lands in MSA 6.1 already within the UDB which, he argued, had marginal development potential because of undesirable environmental constraints; opined that, as a consequence of these impediments to development in MSA 6.1, MSA 6.2 would experience an increase in demand; showed a graphic depicting land use patterns in and around the Application 40 property, including the amount of land available for residential development in the area; displayed another graphic showing future Urban Services Areas in unincorporated Dade County, including the Tamiami area; in conjunction with the these graphics, argued that the residential development of the Application 40 property was in furtherance of the Tamiami area's designation as an employment center; quoted from a Planning Department report that suggested that development around the Tamiami Airport would reduce metropolitan transportation needs; asserted that the use of the Application 40 property for residential purposes would comply with federal guidelines as well as those found in the CDMP; in support of this assertion, presented a graphic illustrating that no part of the proposed residential portion of the Application 40 property would be included in the 65/75 LDN contours which measure the noise generated by airport operations; and described the urban services which were available or programmed to serve the Application 40 property. Jack Schnettler's presentation addressed traffic and transit issues. He presented a graphic showing the existing and programmed transportation network in the vicinity of the Application 40 property and highlighted particular improvement projects that he considered worthy of note. In describing the this transportation network, he commented that it augmented the employment center character of the area. Schnettler expressed the view that the property would be adequately served by transit and roadways. In addition, he disagreed with the Planning Department's forecast that approval of Application 40 would adversely impact upon the level of service on Southwest 177th Avenue, which, he noted, was located one and half miles to the west of the application property. Tobin and Roth briefly summarized a written report that SRC had prepared for the Suchmans and other private applicants (SRC Report). The report analyzed housing demand in the West Kendall area. The SRC Report concluded that the supply of residential land in MSA 6.2 25/ would be depleted in the year 2004 under a low case scenario, in 1998 under a medium case scenario, and in 1996 under a high case scenario, which the report opined, without explanation or reasonable justification, was "the one most likely to occur." As noted above, in its PR Report, the Planning Department had projected a depletion year of 2006, which the SRC Report criticized as being "out of touch with reality." In making its projections, SRC compared the yearly average of new housing units built and sold in MSA 6.2 from 1980 to 1984, which was a down period for the housing industry in Dade County, to the yearly average of new housing units build and sold in MSA 6.2 from 1985 to 1988, which was a boom period for the housing industry in the County. The information used by SRC regarding the number of housing units constructed and sold during these years was obtained from the Dade County Tax Assessor's office. Under the low case scenario, SRC assumed that housing demand in MSA 6.2 would remain constant at its 1985 to 1988 yearly average of 1,780 units. Under the medium case scenario, SRC assumed that the rate of housing demand would increase by about 35% over the 1985 to 1988 experience (which was 70% above the 1980 to 1984 experience). Under the high case scenario, SRC assumed that the 70% increase in housing demand between 1980 to 1984 and 1985 to 1988 would continue unabated until the supply of residential land was depleted, an assumption that is even more unrealistic than the assumptions underlying low and medium case scenarios. SRC reached these conclusions without analyzing housing demand on a countywide basis. Neither did it rely upon any population projections, notwithstanding that housing demand is driven by population growth. Furthermore, it did not take into consideration the cyclical fluctuations that characterize the housing market, nor did it account for vacant units in its projections. A professionally accepted methodology is one that is replicable, transparent, documented, free of error and inaccuracies, based upon assumptions that are clearly stated and reasonable and designed to avoid improbable and unlikely outcomes given past trends. In projecting housing demand for MSA 6.2., SRC did not utilize a methodology meeting these requirements. In addition to the oral presentations made by Carlos, Holland, Schnettler, Tobin and Roth, the Suchmans also presented to the Board of County Commissioners a written memorandum authored by Carlos and David S. Goldwich, Esquire, with attachments, including a copy of the SRC Report, copies of excerpts from Planning Department publications, and a copy of a recent article appearing in "New Miami Magazine," which reported that "Dade farmers, mostly by shifting production to new areas to the west actually increased total acres under tillage from 78,263 in 1981 to 84,534 in 1987" and that "Dade agricultural acreage [was] not expected to shrink substantially, despite encroachments by developers." The memorandum made many of the same arguments that were advanced by those who spoke on behalf of the Suchmans at the final adoption hearing. Robert Traurig, Esquire, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing and made a presentation in support of Application 47 on behalf of Alajuela N.V. During his presentation, Traurig stated, among other things, the following: the Application 47 property was contiguous to the 1988 UDB; the failure to include the property within the UDB was an oversight that should be corrected; there was significant residential development surrounding the property in all directions; the area in which the property is located was an area in transition; it was changing from an agricultural area to one that was predominantly residential in character; as demonstrated by the recent development in the area, there was a demand for housing in this part of the County; most of the people who wanted to live in this area could not afford the five-acre estates allowed on property designated for "agricultural" use under the CDMP; the redesignation of the Application 47 property sought by Alajuela N.V. would not have an adverse impact on the agricultural industry in the County; such redesignation was not premature nor would it result in leapfrog development; there were no environmental impediments to the development of the Application 47 property; the elevation of the property was 11 feet above sea level and drainage was good; there were no wetlands on the site; the tree colony on the eastern half of the property would be protected by County ordinance; and there were roadways, parks, fire service and other urban services available to serve the property. The Final Adoption Hearing: The Aviation Director's Comments At the request of Commissioner Hawkins, Rick Elder, the County's Aviation Director, commented on four application properties in Study Area G that were in close proximity to the Tamiami Airport, including Wellenhofer's property. Elder stated that there were no flight patterns over Wellenhofer's property. With respect to noise, he noted that Wellenhofer's property was not within the 65/75 LDN contour. Elder did not indicate that he had any safety concerns regarding Application 39. The Final Adoption Hearing: Debate and Vote by the Board Following the conclusion of that portion of the final adoption hearing devoted to public discussion and debate on March 27, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners considered and voted on each of the pending applications. At the request of Commissioner Hawkins, the first application to be considered and voted on by the Board was the TND application, Application 71. The Board voted to approve Application 71. The remaining applications were considered and voted on in sequential order. During the Commissioners' debate on Application 39 and other applications in the vicinity of Tamiami Airport, Commissioner Gersten expressed the view that, with respect to these applications, neither noise nor safety should be a concern. Commissioner Schreiber concurred. Commissioner Valdes remarked that, although he was opposed to the other applications under consideration, he was not opposed to Application 39 because the property that was the subject of the application was not, according to Aviation Director Elder, under a flight pattern. Commissioner Dusseau indicated his opposition to Application 39. He argued that there was no need for residential development on Wellenhofer's property and that it was preferable to retain its "industrial and office" land use designation to further the creation of an activity center around the airport. Application 39 was approved by a five to three vote. When Application 40 came up for consideration, Commissioner Hawkins recommended that the application be modified. While he did not object to the extension of the UDB to include the Application 40 property, he suggested that only the application property owned by the Suchmans be redesignated for residential use. He explained that, not only would this modification eliminate concerns generated by the application regarding compatibility with airport operations, it would set the stage for the development of a TND in the West Kendall area. Commissioner Hawkins noted that the County Commission had long wanted to have a TND in this area and that the Suchmans were willing to develop their property as a TND if it was redesignated for residential use. Commissioner Dusseau responded to these comments by indicating that he favored the TND concept, but that he did not believe that the Suchmans property was where such a TND should be located. Application 40, as modified pursuant to Commissioner Hawkins' recommendation, initially failed to win approval on a tie vote. On the motion of Commissioner Winn, Application 40, as so modified, was reconsidered. On reconsideration, it was approved by a six to two vote. Application 47 was also approved by a six to two vote. Application 58, which proposed to allow new commercial agricultural uses within the UDB, and Application 62, with its revised population estimates and projections, were among the other applications that were approved by the Board of County Commissioners at the final adoption hearing. Of the applications seeking an extension of the UDB, only Applications 40 and 47 were approved. A total of 49 applications, either in their original form or as modified, were approved by the Board. The majority of these applications, like Applications 39, 40 and 47, sought to change one or more land use designations on the FLUM. Other approved applications, in addition to Applications 39, 40 and 47, that sought to have the Board of County Commissioners change a non- residential land use to a residential land use were Applications 12, 13, 14, 26, 28 and 44. 26/ Approximately 410 acres of land were redesignated on the FLUM from non-residential to residential land uses as a result of the approval of Applications 12, 13, 14, 26, 28, 39, 40, 44 and 47. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications will be able to develop at the maximum residential densities indicated on the FLUM, these redesignations will have increased the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 1930 dwelling units. 208. The approval of Applications 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 23, 27, 29, 45 and 46 resulted in the redesignation on the FLUM of approximately 115 acres of land from residential to non-residential land uses. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications would have been able to develop at the maximum residential densities indicated on the FLUM, these redesignations may be said to have reduced the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 910 dwelling units. Applications 5, 6, 19, 22 and 24 sought to have land designated on the FLUM for "low density residential" use redesignated for "office/residential" use. Applications 8, 15 and 16 sought to have land designated on the FLUM "medium density residential" redesignated "office/residential." These eight applications were all approved. Approximately 105 acres of land were redesignated "office/residential" as a result of the approval of these eight applications. Assuming that the properties that were the subject of these applications would have been able to develop at their maximum pre-approval residential densities, as indicated on the FLUM, and further assuming that, after these redesignations, they will be developed as office sites exclusively, these redesignations may be said to have reduced the supply of residential land in the County by approximately 1960 dwelling units. If the assumption were made that these redesignated properties will experience both office and residential development 27/ and that the residential development will amount to one half the number of dwelling units that would have been constructed had the property not been redesignated, the reduction in the supply of residential land resulting from these redesignations instead would be 980 dwelling units. It is unlikely, however, that as many as 980 dwelling units will be built on these properties. There were other applications, in addition to those specifically mentioned above, that sought FLUM redesignations and were approved by the Board of County Commissioners, however, they involved a change from one non- residential land use to another non-residential land use and therefore did not have a direct impact on the supply of residential land in the County. When viewed collectively, the changes made by the Board of County Commissioners to the FLUM during the Amendment Cycle have not been shown to have resulted in any appreciable increase in the supply of residential land in the County as a whole. That is not to say, however, that the Board's actions did not serve to increase the supply of residential land in certain areas of the County. For instance, by virtue of its approval of Applications 40 and 47, the Board added to the supply of residential land on the urban fringe in Study Area G and Study Area I, respectively. Following its vote on each of the pending applications, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 90-28, which amended the CDMP in a manner consistent with Board's actions on these applications. (The CDMP, as so amended, will be referred to as the "1990 CDMP." Ordinance No. 90-28 will be referred to as the 1990 Plan Amendment.) The CDMP, as Amended by Ordinance No. 90-28: Key Provisions Statement of Legislative Intent The 1990 CDMP contains a Statement of Legislative Intent. It provides as follows: This Statement expresses the legislative in- tent of the Board of County Commissioners with regard to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). This statement is applicable to the CDMP in its entirety and is declared to be incorporated by reference into each element thereof. Nothing in the CDMP shall be construed or applied to constitute a temporary or permanent taking of private property or the abrogation of vested rights as determined to exist by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. The CDMP shall not be construed to preempt considerations of fundamental fairness that may arise from a strict application of the Plan. Accordingly, the Plan shall not be deemed to require any particular action where the Plan is incomplete or internally inconsistent, or that would constitute a taking of private property without due process or fair compensa- tion, or would deny equal protection of the laws. The CDMP is intended to set general guide- lines and principles concerning its purposes and contents. The CDMP is not a substitute for land development regulations. The CDMP contains long-range policies for Dade County. Numerous policies contained in the CDMP must be implemented through the County's land development regulations. Neces- sary revisions will be made to the County's land development regulations by the date required by Section 163.3202, FS. Other policies of the plan propose the establishment of new administrative programs, the modifica- tion of existing programs, or other administra- tive actions. It is the intent of Dade County that these actions and programs be initiated by the date that Dade County adopts its next Evaluation and Appraisal (EAR) report, unless another date is specifically established in the Plan. The CDMP is not intended to preempt the processes whereby applications may be filed for relief from land development regulations. Rather, it is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that such applications be filed, considered and finally determined, and that administrative remedies exhausted, where a strict application of the CDMP would contravene the legislative intent as expressed herein. The Board recognizes that a particular application may bring into conflict, and neces- sitate a choice between, different goals, prior- ities, objectives, and provisions of the CDMP. While it is the intent of the Board that the land use element be afforded a high priority, other elements must be taken into consideration in light of the Board's responsibility to pro- vide for the multitude of needs of a large heavily populated and diverse community. This is especially true with regard to the siting of public facilities. Recognizing that County Boards and agencies will be required to balance competing policies and objectives of the CDMP, it is the intention of the County Commission that such boards and agencies consider the overall intention of the CDMP as well as portions particularly applicable to a matter under consideration in order to ensure that the CDMP, as applied, will protect the public health, safety and welfare. The term "shall" as used in the CDMP shall be construed as mandatory, subject, however, to this Statement of Legislative Intent. The term "should" shall be construed as directory. The FLUM The FLUM is an integral part of the 1990 CDMP's future land use element. It shows the proposed distribution, extent and location of permitted land uses for the entire land area of Dade County and, in so doing, reflects the CDMP's goals, policies and objectives, to the extent possible. In addition to a year 2000 UDB, the FLUM also has a year 2010 Urban Expansion Area Boundary. There are 18 land use categories represented on the FLUM: estate density residential communities; low density residential communities; low-medium density residential communities; medium density residential communities; medium-high density residential communities; high density residential communities; industrial and office; restricted industrial and office; business and office; office/residential; institutional and public facility; parks and recreation; agriculture; open lands; environmental protection; environmentally protected parks; transportation; and terminals. The FLUM also depicts activity centers, expressways, major and minor roadways, levees, canals and other bodies of water. The following advisement is set forth on the face of the FLUM: This plan map is not a zoning map! Within each map category on this plan map, numerous land uses, zoning districts and housing types may occur. This plan map may be interpreted only as provided in the plan text entitled "Inter- pretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element." That text provides necessary definitions and standards for allow- able land uses, densities or intensities of use for each map category and for interpretation and application of the plan as a whole. That text must be interpreted in its entirety in interpreting any one plan map category, and no provision shall be used in isolation from the remainder. The land use plan map (LUP), in conjunction with all other adopted components of the Com- prehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), will govern all development-related actions taken or authorized by Metropolitan Dade County. The LUP Map reflects municipal land use policies adopted in municipal comprehen- sive plans. However, this plan does not supersede local land use authority of incor- porated municipal governments currently auth- orized in accordance with the Metro-Dade Charter. For further guidance on future land uses authorized within incorporated municipal- ities, consult the local comprehensive plan adopted by the pertinent municipality. The Interpretative Text That portion of the 1990 CDMP entitled "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element" (Interpretive Text) provides in pertinent part as follows with respect to the residential land use categories shown on the FLUM: Residential Communities The areas designated Residential Communities on the LUP map permit housing types ranging from detached single-family to attached multi- family structures including manufactured housing and mobile home parks. The residen- tial communities designations indicate the overall residential density for the area. Also permitted in residential communities, in keeping with the Plan's objectives and poli- cies, are secondary neighborhood and community serving uses such as schools, parks, and houses of worship. Some additional uses such as day care centers, foster care and group housing facilities and similar uses, and neighborhood serving institutional and utility uses may also be permitted in residential com- munities in keeping with the circumstances and conditions outlined in this section, and with the objectives and policies of this plan. * * * The Land Use Plan Map includes six residential density categories which are depicted on the Plan map by different symbols/colors. Each category is defined in terms of its maximum allowable gross residential density. Develop- ment at lower than maximum density is allowed and may be required where conditions warrant. For example, in instances where a large portion of the "gross residential acreage" is not a part of the "net" residential building area, the necessity to limit the height and scale of the buildings to that compatible with the sur- rounding area may limit the gross density. The categories do not have a bottom limit or min- imum required density; all categories include the full range of density from one dwelling unit per five acres up to the stated maximum for the category. . . . Estate Density. This density range is typi- cally characterized by detached estates which utilize only a small portion of the total par- cel. Clustering, and a variety of housing types may, however, be authorized. The maxi- mum density allowed in this category is 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Low Density. A larger number of units is allowed in this category than in the Estate density. The maximum density allowed is 6 dwelling units per gross acre. This density category is generally characterized by single family type housing, e.g., single family detached, cluster, zero lot line, and town- houses. It could possibly include low-rise apartments with extensive surrounding open space providing that the maximum gross den- sity is not exceeded. Low-Medium Density. This category allows up to 13 dwelling units per gross acre. The types of housing typically found in areas designated low-medium density include single family homes, townhomes, and low-rise apart- ments. Medium Density. This Density Category allows up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. The type of housing structures typically permitted in this category include townhouses, low-rise and medium rise apartments. Medium-High Density. This category accommo- dates apartment buildings ranging up to 60 dwelling units per gross acre. In this cate- gory, the height of buildings, and therefore, the attainment of densities approaching the maximum, depends to a great extent on the dimensions of the site, conditions such as location and availability of services, ability to provide sufficient off-street parking, and the compatibility with, and impact of the development on surrounding areas. High Density. This category permits up to 125 dwelling units per gross acre. This den- sity is only found in a few areas located within certain municipalities where land costs are very high and where services will be able to meet the demands. * * * Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs). Traditional neighborhood developments which incorporate a broad mixture of uses under specific design standards may also be ap- proved in Residential Communities in the manner specifically authorized in this sub- section. The purpose of the traditional neighborhood development is to enable the creation of new communities that offer social and architectural quality, characteristic of early American town planning. Many of these early models, developed prior to 1940, offer insight into the design of coherently planned communities. The concept is patterned after those inherent in these earlier developments and provides a design clarity through a hierarchy of streets, a focus towards pedes- trian activity, low scale community buildings and open squares as the focal point of the neighborhood. The County shall adopt land use regulations that incorporate the objectives of a traditional neighborhood development concept. . . 28/ Within areas designated on the LUP map as Res- idential Communities, a mixed use Traditional Neighborhood Development permitting business, office, industrial, artisanal, home occupa- tions, and other uses authorized by this subsection may be approved providing that the following criteria are met: The minimum contiguous land area is 40 acres and is not located within the Estate density category; and The site is under single-ownership at the time the master development plan or equivalent is approved; and Residential density does not exceed the density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, except that a maximum density of ten dwelling units per acre may be approved in the Low Density category; and Public open spaces such as squares or parks comprise a minimum of five acres or five percent of the developed area, whichever is greater; and Civic uses, such as meeting halls, schools, day care centers and cultural facilities com- prise a minimum of two percent of the developed area; and Business, office and industrial uses, that are separate from residential mixed uses do not exceed seven percent of the gross land area; and Where the TND borders or is adjacent to land that is designated Estate, Low Density or Low-Medium Residential and land so designated is used for residences or is vacant, the sep- arate business, office, and industrial uses identified in item No. 6 above, and those business, office, and industrial uses mixed with other uses shall not be permitted within 175 feet of the TND boundary and all non-residential components of such uses shall be acoustically and visually screened from said bordering or adjacent land; and when a TND borders land designated Agriculture or Open Land said business, office or industrial uses shall not be permitted within 330 feet of said TND boundary; and Residential, and residential uses mixed with shop-front, artisanal and home occupation uses comprise the remainder of the developed area; and In calculating gross residential density uses listed in item No. 6 shall be excluded, all other uses may be used to determine the maximum permitted density. The Interpretive Text provides that, with respect to the "office/residential" land use category, "[u]ses allowed in this category include both professional and clerical offices and residential uses." The following is stated in the Interpretative Text in pertinent part with respect to the "agriculture" land use category: Agriculture The area designated as "Agriculture" contains the best agricultural land remaining in Dade County. 29/ The principal uses in this area should be agriculture, uses ancillary to and directly supportive of agriculture such as packing houses on compatible sites, and farm residences. Uses ancillary to, and necessary to support the rural residential community of the agricultural area may also be approved, including houses of worship and local schools. In order to protect the agricultural industry it is important that uses incompatible with agriculture, and uses and facilities that support or encourage urban development are not allowed in this area. Residential development that occurs in this area is allowed at a density of no more than one unit per five acres. 30/ Creation of new parcels smaller than five acres for residential use may be approved in the Agriculture area only if the immediate area surrounding the subject parcel on three or more sides is predominantly parcelized in a similar manner, and if a division of the sub- ject land would not precipitate additional land division in the area. No business or industrial use should be approved in the area designated Agriculture unless the use is directly supportive of local agricultural production, is located on an existing arterial roadway, and has adequate water supply and sewage disposal in accordance with Chapter 24 of the County Code, and the development order specifies the approved use(s). Other uses compatible with agriculture and with the rural residential character may be approved in the Agriculture area only if deemed to be a public necessity, or if deemed to be in the public interest and no suitable site for the use exists outside the Agriculture area. Existing quar- rying and ancillary uses in the Agriculture area may continue operation and be considered for approval of expansion. Also included in the Agriculture area are enclaves of estate density residential use approved and grandfathered by zoning, owner- ship patterns and platting activities which predate this Plan. The grandfather provisions of Sections 33-196, 33-280, and 33-280.1 of the Dade County Code shall continue to apply to this area except that lots smaller than 15,000 square feet in area are not grandfathered hereby. Moreover, all existing lawful uses and existing zoning are deemed to be consistent with this Plan unless such a use or zoning: (a) is found through a subsequent planning study, as provided in Land Use Policy 5D, to be inconsistent with the foregoing grandfather provisions or with the criteria set forth below; and (b) the implementation of such a finding will not result in a temporary or permanent taking or in the abrogation of vested rights as deter- mined by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. . . . Also deemed to be consistent with this Plan are uses and zoning districts which have been approved by a final judicial decree which has declared this Plan to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to a specific piece of property. This paragraph does not, however, authorize the approval or expansion of any use inconsistent with this plan. To the contrary it is the intent of this Plan to contain and prevent the expansion of inconsistent development in the Agriculture area. Activity centers are described in the Interpretative Text as "high- intensity design unified areas which will contain a concentration of different urban functions integrated both horizontally and vertically." The Interpretative Text contains the following discussion regarding the UDB: Urban Development Boundary The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is in- cluded on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2000 from the areas where it should not occur. Development orders permitting urban development will generally be approved within the UDB at some time through the year 2000 provided that level-of-service standards for necessary public facilities will be met. Adequate countywide development capacity will be maintained within the UDB by expanding the UDB when the need for such expansion is deter- mined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process. The CDMP seeks to facilitate the necessary service improvements within the UDB to accom- modate the land uses indicated on the LUP map within the year 2000 time frame. Accordingly, public expenditures for urban service and infrastructure improvements shall be focused on the area within the UDB, and urban infra- structure is discouraged outside the UDB. In particular, the construction of new roads, or the extension, widening and paving of existing arterial or collector roadways to serve areas outside the UDB at public expense will be per- mitted only if such roadways are shown on the LUP map and in the Traffic Circulation Element. The entire unincorporated area within the UDB is eligible to receive and utilize Severable Use Rights (SURs) in accordance with provi- sions of chapter 33-B, Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Accordingly, certain developments as specified in Chapter 33-B may be entitled to density or floor area bonuses as authorized by Chapter 33-B. No new commercial agricultural use of property may be established within the Urban Development Boundary, except on property designated Agri- culture on the LUP map or zoned AU (agricultural) or GU (interim). 31/ All property within the Urban Development Boundary not designated Agri- culture or zoned AU or GU shall not be permit- ted to be used for the establishment of any new commercial agricultural use. An additional exception is that land in utility easements or rights-of-way may be approved for new commercial agricultural uses where the use would be compat- ible with, and would have no unfavorable effect on, the surrounding area. Commercial agricultural uses include, without limitation, all uses of property associated with commercial horticulture; floriculture; viticulture; forestry; dairy; livestock; poultry; apiculture; pisciculture, when the property is used principally for the production of tropical fish; all forms of farm production; and all other such uses, except retail nurseries and retail greenhouses. Inci- dental agricultural use of property specifi- cally authorized by zoning which is otherwise consistent with the LUP map does not constitute commercial agriculture within the meaning of this provision. The Urban Expansion Area is described as follows in the Interpretative Text: The Land Use Map also contains a year 2010 Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Boundary. The UEA is comprised of that area located between the 2000 UDB and the 2010 UEA Boundary. The Urban Expansion Area is the area where cur- rent projections indicate that further urban development beyond the 2000 UDB is likely to be warranted some time between the year 2000 and 2010. Until these areas are brought within the year 2000 UDB through the Plan review and amendment process, they are allowed to be used in a manner consistent with the provisions set forth for lands designated as "Agriculture" or the applicable "Open Land" area. Urban infrastructure and services should be planned for eventual extension into the UEA, sometime between the years 2000 and 2010. However, if water or sewer lines or major roadway improvements are extended beyond the UEA in order to serve a necessary public facility that has been approved consistent with the Comprehensive Development Master Plan, these improvements should be sized or restric- ted to accommodate only the needs of the public facility. The significance of the UDB and UEA Boundary is explained in the Interpretative Text as follows: Critical in achieving the desired pattern of development is the adherence to the 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) and 2010 Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Boundary. Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities, the CDMP has since its inception provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined. In this regard the UDB serves as an urban services boundary in addition to a land use boundary. Consistency with the CDMP will ensure that actions of one single-purpose agency does not foster development that could cause other agencies to respond in kind and provide facil- ities in unanticipated locations. Such uncoor- dinated single-purpose decision making can be fiscally damaging to government and can undermine other comprehensive plan objectives. The subject of plan amendments is also addressed in the Interpretative Text, which states the following on the subject: It is recognized that the development capacity of the area within the UDB and UEA will vary with time. Part of the supply will be util- ized and additional supply will be added from time-to-time through the approval of Plan Amendments. Some land will be built upon at densities which are higher than permitted by existing zoning because rezonings will occur in the future, and some development will occur at densities lower than that permitted by zoning. Moreover, impediments can arise to the utilization, at maximum potential densities, of all lands within the boundaries. In some urbanized areas, it may be difficult to acquire sufficiently large parcels of land. In other areas, neighborhood opposition to proposed developments could alter the assumed density or character of a particular area. Because the development capacity of the LUP map fluc- tuates with time, it will be reevaluated on a periodic basis as part of the Plan review and amendment process. The Interpretative Text enumerates the following as the "long- standing concepts embodied in Dade County's CDMP:" Control the extent and phasing of urban development in order to coordinate development with programmed provision of public services. Preserve and conserve land with valuable environmental characteristics, recreation uses, or scenic appeal. Encourage development in areas most suit- able due to soil conditions, water table level, vegetation type, and degree of flood hazard. Restrict development in particularly sensitive and unique natural areas. Maximize public ownership of beaches and shorelands within the Coastal Area to insure their preservation, conservation or public use. Minimize consumption of energy for trans- portation purposes and the amount of air pol- lution from transportation sources by encour- aging a more compact urban form. Shape the pattern of urban development to maximize the efficiency of existing public facilities and support the introduction of new public facilities or services such as improved mass transit systems. Preserve sound and stable residential neighborhoods. Rejuvenate decayed areas by promoting redevelopment, rehabilitation, infilling, and the development of activity centers containing a mixture of land uses. Promote development of concentrated activity centers of different sizes and char- acter to provide economies of scale and effi- ciencies of transportation and other services for both the public and private sectors. Redirect higher intensity development towards activity centers of areas of high countywide accessibility. Allocate suitable and sufficient sites for industrial and business districts to accommodate future employment needs. Prohibit new residential development and other noise sensitive activities from locations near airport noise impact zones. Avoid excessive scattering of industrial or commercial employment locations. Encourage agriculture as a viable economic use of suitable lands. The Goal and Selected Objectives and Policies of the Future Land Use Element The following is the goal of the future land use element (FLUE) of the 1990 CDMP: Provide the best possible distribution of land use, by type and density, to meet the physical, social, cultural and economic needs of the present and future resident and tourist popu- lation in a manner that will maintain or improve the quality of the natural and man-made environ- ment and amenities, and ensure the timely and efficient provision of services. The following are among the objectives and policies found in the 1990 CDMP's FLUE: Objective 1 Decisions regarding the location, extent and intensity of future land use in Dade County, and urban expansion in particular, will be based upon the physical and financial feasi- bility of providing, by the year 2000, all urbanized areas with services at Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the minimum adopted in the Capital Improvements Element. Policies 1A. All development orders authorizing new, or significant expansion of existing urban lands uses, shall be contingent upon the pro- vision of services at the Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the LOS standards specified in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE). Metro required by Chapter 163.3202, Florida Statutes (F.S.), implement the requirements of Section 163.3202(2)(g), F.S. 1B. Priority in the provision of services and facilities and the allocation of financial re- sources for services and facilities in Dade County shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority in allocations for services and facilities shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). * * * Objective 3 The location and configuration of Dade County's urban growth from 1989 through the year 2010 shall emphasize concentration around centers of activity, renewal and rehabilitation of blighted areas, and contiguous urban expansion when warranted, rather than sprawl. Policies 3A. High intensity, well designed activity centers shall be facilitated by Metro-Dade County at locations having high countywide multimodal accessibility. * * * 3C. Metro-Dade shall approve infill devel- opment on vacant sites in currently urbanized areas, and redevelopment of substandard or underdeveloped environmentally suitable urban areas contiguous to existing urban development where all necessary urban services and facili- ties are projected to have capacity to accom- modate additional demand. 3D. Metro-Dade shall seek to prevent discon- tinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe particularly in the Agriculture Areas, through its biennial CDMP amendment process, regulatory and capital improvements programs and intergovernmental coordination activities. * * * 3H. Public facility and service providers shall give priority to eliminating any infra- structure deficiencies which would impede rehabilitation or renewal of blighted areas. 3I. In formulating or amending development regulations, Dade County shall avoid creating disincentives to redevelopment of blighted areas. Where redevelopment occurs within the urban area, requirements for contributions toward provision of public facilities may be moderated where underutilized facilities or surplus capacities exist, and credit toward required infrastructure contributions may be given for the increment of development replaced by redevelopment. * * * Objective 5 Dade County shall, by the year 2000, reduce the number of land uses which are inconsistent with the uses designated on the LUP map and interpretative text, or with the character of the surrounding community. Policies 5A. Uses designated on the LUP map and inter- pretative text, which generate or cause to generate significant noise, dust, odor, vibra- tion, or truck or rail traffic, shall be pro- tected from damaging encroachment by future approval of new incompatible uses such as residential uses. 5B. Residential neighborhoods shall be pro- tected from intrusion by uses that would disrupt or degrade the health, safety, tran- quility and overall welfare of the neighbor- hood by creating such impacts as excessive noise, light, glare, odor, vibration, dust, or traffic. 5C. Complementary, but potentially incompat- ible uses shall be permitted on sites with functional neighborhoods, communities or dis- tricts only where proper design solutions can and will be used to integrate the compatible and complementary elements and buffer any potentially incompatible elements. Objective 6 Upon the adoption of this plan, all public and private activity regarding the use, development and redevelopment of land and the provision of urban services and infrastructure shall be consistent with the goal, objectives and poli- cies of this Element, with the adopted Population Estimates and Projections, and with the future uses provided by the adopted Land Use Plan (LUP) map and accompanying text entitled "Interpreta- tion of the Land Use Plan Map," as balanced with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of all Ele- ments of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies 6A. The textual material entitled "Interpre- tation of the Land Use Plan Map" contained in this Element establishes standards for allowable land uses, and densities or intensities of use for each land use category identified on the adopted Land Use Plan (LUP) map, and is declared to be an extension of these adopted Land Use Policies. 6B. All development orders authorizing a new land use or development, or redevelopment, or significant expansion of an existing use shall be contingent upon an affirmative finding that the development or use conforms to, and is consistent with the goal, objectives and poli- cies of the CDMP including the adopted LUP map and accompanying "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map." 6C. All planning activities pertaining to development and redevelopment in Dade County shall be consistent with the "Population Esti- mates and Projections" contained in this Element, and with the locations and extent of future land uses as identified by the LUP map and its interpretative text. 6D. The area population projections shown on the map of "Population Estimates and Projec- tions" shall be used to guide public and private entities in planning for urban devel- opment and redevelopment and to guide the location, timing, and capacity of all urban services and facilities. Objective 7 Beginning in 1989 Dade County shall maintain a process for periodic amendment to the Land Use Plan map, consistent with the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies of this Plan, which will provide that the Land Use Plan Map accommodates urban expansion at projected countywide rates. Policies 7A. Activity centers, industrial complexes, regional shopping centers, large-scale office centers and other concentrations of signifi- cant employment shall be recognized as poten- tial structuring elements of the Metropolitan area and shall be sited on the basis of metro- politan-scale considerations at locations with good countywide multi-modal accessibility. 7B. Distribution of neighborhood or community serving retail sales uses and personal and pro- fessional offices throughout the urban area shall reflect the spatial distribution of the residential population, among other salient social, economic and physical considerations. 7C. Residential development shall occur in locations that are suitable as reflected by such factors as the following: recent trends in location and design of residential units; projected availability of service and infra- structure capacity; proximity and accessi- bility to employment, commercial and cultural centers; avoidance of natural resource degra- dation; and maintenance or creation of amenities. 7D. In conducting its planning, regulatory, and capital improvements and intergovernmental coordination activities, Dade County shall seek to facilitate planning of residential areas as neighborhoods which include recrea- tional, educational and other public facilities, houses of worship, and safe and convenient cir- culation of automotive, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 7E. Through its planning, regulatory, capital improvements and intergovernmental coordination activities, Dade County shall continue to pro- tect agriculture as a viable economic use of land in Dade County. * * * 7G. Necessary utility facilities may be lo- cated throughout Dade County in all land use categories as provided in the "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map" text. 7H. The maintenance of internal consistency among all Elements of the CDMP shall be a prime consideration in evaluating all requests for amendment to any Element of the Plan. Among other considerations, the LUP map shall not be amended to provide for additional urban expansion unless traffic circulation, mass transit, water, sewer, solid waste, drainage and park and recreation facilities necessary to serve the area are included in the plan and the associated funding programs are demonstra- ted to be viable. 7I. Applications requesting amendments to the CDMP Land Use Plan map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Ob- jectives and Policies of all Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; Enhance or impede provision of services at adopted LOS standards. Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses; and Enhance or degrade environmental or histor- ical resources, features or systems of County significance. Objective 8 Dade County shall continue to maintain in the Code of Metropolitan Dade County and adminis- trative regulations, and shall enhance as nec- essary, by the date required by Section 163.3203, F.S., provisions which ensure that future land use and development in Dade County is consistent with the CDMP. * * * 8D. Dade County shall continue to investigate, maintain and enhance methods, standards and reg- ulatory approaches which facilitate sound com- patible mixing of uses in projects and communi- ties. 8E. Dade County shall enhance and formalize its standards for defining and ensuring compatibility among proximate uses, and requirements for buffer- ing. Factors that will continue to be considered in determining compatibility include, but are not limited to noise, lighting, shadows, access, traffic, parking, height, bulk, landscaping, hours of operation, buffering and safety. Objective 9 Energy efficient development shall be accom- plished through metropolitan land use patterns, site planning, landscaping, building design, and development of multimodal transportation systems. Policies 9A. Dade County shall facilitate contiguous urban development, infill, redevelopment of substandard or underdeveloped urban areas, high intensity activity centers, mass transit supportive development, and mixed use projects to promote energy conservation. Selected Goals, Objectives and Policies of Other Elements The following is the goal of the 1990 CDMP's traffic circulation element: Develop, operate and maintain a safe, efficient and economical traffic circulation system in Metropolitan Dade County that provides ease of mobility to all people and for all goods, is consistent with desired land use patterns, conserves energy, and protects the natural environment. Policy 4C. of the traffic circulation element provides as follows: Dade County's priority in construction, main- tenance, and reconstruction of roadways, and the allocation of financial resources, shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary of the Land Use Plan Map. Second priority in transportation allocations shall support the staged develop- ment of the urbanizing portions of the County within the Urban Expansion Area. Transporta- tion improvements which encourage development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements which are necessary for public safety and which serve the localized needs of these non-urban areas. The following are among the objectives and policies of the 1990 CDMP's aviation subelement: Objective 4 Minimize air space interactions and obstruc- tions to assure the safety of aviation users and operators and residents of Dade County. Policies * * * 4D. Support zoning that would protect exis- ting and proposed aviation flight paths con- sistent with federal agency guidelines. 4E. Seek federal agency cooperation in pro- tecting future air space from development obstructions. * * * Objective 8 Maximize compatibility between airports and the surrounding communities. Policies * * * 8B. Dade County shall implement Federal Aviation Administration FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Studies completed for appro- priate airports through the Land Use Element of the Dade County Comprehensive Master Plan, the Dade County Zoning Ordinance, and the South Florida Building Code to provide for land use compatibility in the vicinity of these air- ports. Objective 6 and Policy 6A. of the 1990 CDMP's housing element provide as follows: Objective 6 Increase residential accessibility to public facilities, services, and employment centers throughout the County to include parks and other recreational amenities. Policies 6A. Utilize existing planning and programming mechanisms to insure that new residential devel- opment occurs only if it is coordinated with plans for the provision of an adequate level of services and facilities. Policy 6C. of the 1990 CDMP's conservation, aquifer recharge and drainage element provides as follows: Areas in Dade County having soils with good potential for agricultural use without addi- tional drainage of wetlands shall be protected from premature urban encroachment until the need for such urban conversion is demonstrated. Objective 1 and Policy 1A. of the 1990 CDMP's water, sewer and solid waste element provide as follows: Objective 1 In order to serve those areas where growth is encouraged and discourage urban sprawl, the County shall plan and provide for potable water supply, sanitary sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal services on a countywide basis in concert and in conformance with the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. Policies 1A. The area within the Urban Development Boundary of the adopted Land Use Plan Map shall have the first priority in providing potable water supply, sanitary sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal services, and for commit- ting financial resources to these services. Future development in the designated Urban Expansion Area shall have second priority in planning or investments for these services. Investments in public water and sewer service shall be avoided in those areas designated for Agriculture, Open Space, or Environmental Protection on the Land Use Plan map, except where essential to eliminate or prevent a threat to the public health or safety. Objectives 3, 4 and 5 and Policies 3B., 4A., 4B. and 5A. of the 1990 CDMP's capital improvements element provide as follows: Objective 3 Upon adoption of this Plan land use decisions will be made in the context of available fiscal resources such that scheduling and providing capital facilities for new development will not degrade adopted service levels. Policies * * * 3B. Service and facility impacts of new de- velopment must be identified and quantified so that sufficient public facilities will be planned and programmed to be available when needed. All development orders authorizing new, or significant expansion of existing urban land uses, shall be contingent upon the provision of services at the Levels of Service (LOS) which meet or exceed the adopted LOS standards. * * * Objective 4 Levels of service standards for those services listed in the CIE will be upgraded and main- tained at adopted levels. Policies 4A. By the date set in Section 163.3202 F.S., Dade County shall formalize requirements that all new development regardless of size which benefits from the provision of public facili- ties and infrastructure will bear an equitable share of the costs of such facilities, make contribution in kind or transfer land, in amounts necessary to accommodate the impact of proposed development. 4B. Appropriate funding mechanisms will be adopted and applied by Dade County in order to assure the fiscal resources to maintain acceptable levels of service. Such funding mechanisms include special tax districts, municipal taxing service units, local option taxes, user fees, local gas taxes, general obligation bonds, impact fees, and special purpose authorities among others. * * * Objective 5 Upon the adoption of this plan development approvals will strictly adhere to all adopted growth management and land development regu- lations and will include specific reference to the means by which public facilities and infrastructure will be provided. Policies 5A. As a priority, previously approved de- velopment will be properly served prior to new development approvals under the provisions of this Plan. First priority will be to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority in investments for services and facilities shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban ser- vices and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service localized needs. This element also includes a five-year schedule of capital improvements. Transmittal of Plan Amendment to the Department On or about April 3, 1990, the County Manager transmitted to the Department Ordinance No. 90-28, along with other documentation, including the written material that the Suchmans had submitted in support of their application, as well as a document prepared by the Planning Department which purported to provide "a synopsis of the information received by the Board of County Commissioners as bases for approving the applications subject to DCA objections." The Planning Department's synopsis stated the following with respect to Applications 39, 40 and 47: Application No. 39 The flight path for training flights around Tamiami-Kendall Airport circle around this application site but do not directly fly over this site. This application represents urban infill rather than leap frog development. Approval of residential use on this site will allow people to live in close proximity to the employment center around the Tamiami-Kendall Airport. Application No. 40 The site will be used for a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND). A covenant was provided to ensure this. Services are available on sites immediately to the east. The area is not flood prone, or environmen- tally sensitive in any way. Extensive testimony and documentation was received which casts doubt on the accuracy of the Planning Department's estimates and pro- jections of growth in this area. (See enclosed exhibits). This site is nearby the industrial and office employment center which is developing around the Tamiami-Kendall Airport, therefore, urbanization of this site complements and supports the policy of promoting development around activity centers. The extension of the Coral Reef Drive corridor provides an alternative to the Kendall Drive corridor as a location for additional urban development. * * * Application 47 The site is bordered on the east and south by the year 2000 Urban Development Boundary (UDB). It is in the logical path of future urban development. To the south is the urban- izing area of Homestead. Pockets of estate residential homes and zoning exist in the area designated Agricul- ture to the north and west of this site. There are not level of service problems in the area. The area is not flood prone. The specific density of estate residences to be built on this site is not established by approving the CDMP amendment; that will be decided at a future zoning hearing. The transmittal package sent by the County Manager was received by the Department on April 6, 1990. Suchmans' Request to Receive Notice of the Department's Action By letter dated March 30, 1990, David Goldwich, Esquire, counsel for the Suchmans, requested that the Department send him a copy of the "notice of intent to find the CDMP Application No. 40 in compliance or not in compliance with Chapter 163." The Department responded to Goldwich's letter by sending him a letter, dated April 17, 1990, in which it promised to provide him with a copy of the notice of intent when it was issued. The Department's Compliance Determination: Notice and Statement of Intent In reviewing the County's 1990 Plan Amendment, the Department treated each approved application as a separate amendment to the CDMP. Following its review of these approved applications, the Department issued its notice of intent "to find the amendment(s) adopted by Ordinance 90- 28, Amendment Nos. 39, 40 and 47 NOT IN COMPLIANCE and Amendment Nos. 1 to 9, 11 to 16, 19, 22 to 24, 26 to 29, 44 to 46, 49, 51, 53 and 55 to 71 IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, F.S." On or about May 15, 1990, the Department sent a copy of the notice of intent to the Miami Herald, along with a letter requesting that the notice be published in the May 21, 1990, edition of the Herald. Through no fault of the Department's, the notice was published in the May 24, 1990, edition of the Herald, instead of the May 21, 1990, edition as the Department had requested. The Department mailed a copy of the notice of intent to the Suchmans' counsel, 32/ although it was never received. By letter dated May 18, 1990, to Mayor Clark, the Department advised the County of its compliance determination. On May 21, 1990, the Department issued a statement of intent in which it explained the bases for its determination that "Amendment Nos. 39, 40 and 47 [were] NOT IN COMPLIANCE." In its statement of intent, the Department alleged that "Amendments 40 and 47 are not supported by an adequate suitability analysis of the vacant land to which they apply, or an adequate analysis documenting the need for the UDB expansion [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a), 9J- 5.006(2)(b) and 9J-5.006(2)(c), F.A.C.;" "Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with other provisions in the plan (including but not limited to Objectives 1, 3 and 7, Policies 1A, 1B, 3D, and 7G and implementing procedures on p. 33 and 34 of the Future Land Use Element) concerning discouraging urban sprawl and prioritizing public facilities within the UDB [in violation of] Rules 9J- 5.005(5)(a), 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. and 9J-5.011(2)(b)3., F.A.C.;" "Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with Objective 7, Policies 7E, H and I, and implementing procedures on p. 34 and 35 of the Future Land Use Element, and other provisions of the plan concerning future expansion of the UDB [in violation of] Rules 9J- 5.005(5)(a) and (b), F.A.C.;" "Amendments" 40 and 47 result in "an internal inconsistency because [they] negate the intended effect [of the settlement agreement between the Department and the County] of allowing roadway degradation in existing urban areas, which is to encourage development and redevelopment in such areas, promote public transportation and discourage urban sprawl" and, consequently, these amendments are in violation of "Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)7. and 9J-5.011(3)(b)3., F.A.C.;" "[A]mendments 40 and 47 are not supported by data analysis which justifies changing the agricultural land use to industrial or residential land use [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006(2)(c), F.A.C.;" "Amendment" 39 "inappropriately places a residential area within a proposed aviation flight path which is inconsistent with Objective 4 and Policy 4D in the Port and Aviation Element of the Dade Comprehensive Plan [in violation of] Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b), 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and 9J- 5.006(3)(c)2., F.A.C.; "Amendments" 40 and 47 cause the CDMP to be inconsistent with Goal (16)(a) and Policies (16)(b)(2) and 18(b)(1) of the State Comprehensive Plan, as well as Policies 57.1.2 and 69.1.1 of the South Florida Regional Policy Plan; and "Amendment" 39 causes the CDMP to be inconsistent with Policy 69.1.1 of the South Florida Regional Policy Plan. Referral to the Division: The Department's Petition and Amended Petition On June 8, 1990, the Department filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Appended to the petition were copies of the Department's notice of intent and its statement of intent. The Department alleged in the petition that the "plan amendments" made by the County through the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-28 were: not in compliance because they contain the "inconsistent provisions" described in the Statement of Intent and for the following additional reasons: Amendment 39 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5, 6 and 7 and Policies 5B, 7C, 7D, and 7I-3 of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (6), F.A.C. Amendment 40 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D, of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendment 47 is inconsistent with Objectives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D of the plan's Future Land Use Element. On June 19, 1990, the Department filed an amended petition with the Division. That portion of the original petition excerpted above was modified to read as follows in the amended petition: The plan amendments are not in compliance because they contain the "inconsistent provisions" de- scribed in the Statement of Intent and for the following additional reasons: Amendment 40 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6, and Policies 5B, 7A, 7B, 7C, and 7D, of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendment 47 is inconsistent with Objec- tives 5 and 6 and Policies 5B, 7C and 7D of the plan's Future Land Use Element. Rules 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with the following provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Goal (16)(a) and Policies (16)(b)1 and 2; Downtown Revitalization Goal (17)(a) and Policy (17)(b)1; Public Facilities Goal (18)(a) and Poli- cies (18)(b)1 and 2; Economy Policies (22)(b) 3 and 12; Agriculture Goal (23)(a). The Objectors' Petition for Leave to Intervene and Rist's Amended Petition On June 26, 1990, the Objectors filed with the Division a joint petition for leave to intervene in this matter. The petition incorporated the allegations that the Department had made in the original petition it had filed with the Division, as well as the recommendations that the Dade County Planning Department had made with respect to Applications 39, 40 and 47. In addition, the Objectors alleged the following in their petition regarding these approved applications: [S]aid amendments 39, 40, and 47 are inconsis- tent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Sec- tion 187.201, F.S., specifically subsections 16a, 16b1, 16b2, 17a, 17b1, 18a, 18b1, 18b2, 20a, 22b3, 22b12, and 23a. Briefly put, the amendments fail, inter alia, to preserve natural resources; fail to maintain and expand agriculture; fail to encourage the separation of rural and urban life; provide for incompatible neighboring uses; promote urban sprawl; waste public and private assets; and fail to aid in a state transpor- tation system. * * * The amendments are not supported by data showing a need for the uses approved [and] thus violate Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. On December 10, 1990, at the outset of the final hearing in the instant case, Objector Rist requested permission to file an amended petition which contained the following additional allegations not found in the Objectors' joint petition for leave to intervene: Amendments 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with "Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element" pages I-35 through 39 and not pages 33 through 35 of the Future Land Use Element as erroneously cited in the original petition. It is alleged that amendment 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with Policies 3A, 3H, 5A, and 7A of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments 39, 40 and 47 do not reflect and are inconsistent with Policy 6C of the Con- servation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendment 39 does not reflect and is incon- sistent with Objective 8 of the Ports and Avia- tion Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments 40 and 47 are inconsistent with Policy 23(b)2 of the State Comprehensive Plan. Miscellaneous Findings: The State Comprehensive Plan The State Comprehensive Plan addresses issues of statewide importance. The following are among the more than 300 individual goals and policies which comprise the State Comprehensive Plan: LAND USE.- Goal.- In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhanc- ing the quality of life of the state, develop- ment shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Policies.- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives, and disin- centives which encourages a separation or urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. * * * DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.- Goal.- In recognition of the importance of Florida's developing and redeveloping down- towns to the state's ability to use existing infrastructure and to accommodate growth in an orderly, efficient and environmentally accept- able manner, Florida shall encourage the cen- tralization of commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and cultural activities within downtown areas. Policies.- 1. Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. * * * PUBLIC FACILITIES.- Goal.- Florida shall protect the sub- stantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Policies.- Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing pub- lic facilities. Promote rehabilitation and reuse of exis- ting facilities, structures, and buildings as an alternative to new construction. * * * (20) TRANSPORTATION.- (a) Goal.- Florida shall direct future trans- portation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass tran- sit, and other transportation modes. * * * THE ECONOMY.- Goal.- Florida shall promote an economic climate which provides economic stability, max- imizes job opportunities, and increases per capita income for its residents. Policies.- * * * Maintain, as one of the state's primary economic assets, the environment, including clean air and water, beaches, forests, historic landmarks, and agricultural and natural resour- ces. * * * 12. Encourage the development of a business climate that provides opportunities for the growth and expansion of existing state indus- tries, particularly those industries which are compatible with Florida's environment. * * * AGRICULTURE.- Goal.- Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and re- lated industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and inter- national marketplace. Policies. Ensure that goals and policies contained in state and regional plans are not interpreted to permanently restrict the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. Encourage diversification within the agri- culture industry, especially to reduce the vulnerability of communities that are largely reliant upon agriculture for either income or employment. Miscellaneous Findings: The Regional Plan for South Florida The South Florida Regional Planning Council has adopted a Regional Plan for South Florida to guide future development in Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties. The following are among the more than 650 individual goals and policies found in the Regional Plan: Regional Goal: 57.1 New development will not be permitted in areas where public facilities do not already exist, are not programmed, or cannot economic- ally be provided. Regional Policies: * * * 57.1.2 Give priority to development in areas that are in need of redevelopment and in areas within which adequate support services are either programmed or available Regional Goal: 58.1 Beginning in 1987, all land use plans and development regulations shall consider the compatibility of adjacent land uses, and the impacts of land uses on the surrounding environment. Regional Policies: * * * 58.1.7 Encourage the compatibility of adja- cent land uses. * * * Regional Policies: 64.2.1 Land use in and around air- and sea-ports must be strictly controlled to allow future increased operations, to optimize volume, and to prevent unnecessary social or economic conflicts and costs. * * * Regional Goal: The 1990-1995 rate of loss of agricul- tural land to urban uses should be reduced by 10 percent from the 1980-1985 rate. Regional Policies: Encourage activities that maintain an economic/regulatory climate to ensure the con- tinued viability of agricultural interests when those interests are balanced against other concerns. The Regional Plan contains the following "background" information regarding the goal and policies pertaining to agriculture: Agriculture is one of Florida's most important industries. Traditional agriculture (citrus, vegetables and melons, livestock, poultry, greenhouse and nursery, field and other crops) contributed 27 billion dollars to Florida's economy in 1984. The agricultural vitality of South Florida stems from its climate which allows crops to be grown throughout the year, and the production of unique crops such as mangoes. In 1980, 126,785 acres of land, 4.7 percent of the total area in South Florida, was in cropland, pasture and range land, and forest land. This represents 0.5 percent of all such land in the State. Agricultural land is rapidly being lost. . . . When compared to Broward County, Dade County generates a significantly larger share of the economic activity due to agriculture in the Region. 33/ Current 1986 figures show 85,000 acres in agriculture, producing a large variety of crops. These include: tomatoes, snap beans, Irish potatoes, squash, tropical vegetables, sweet corn and fruits such as limes, mangoes and avocados. The markets for these fruits and vegetables are mainly in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, and Canada. Dade County is the largest producer of toma- toes, snap beans, and squash, of any county in the State of Florida. Over 90 percent of limes and mangoes produced in the United States are grown in Dade County. Dade County has the largest ornamental nursery industry of any county in the State of Florida. The main reason for Dade's success in agriculture is South Florida's climate. Vegetables are pro- duced in mid-winter when no other areas in the U.S. are producing. These crops provide fresh produce for the country's markets. It is significant to note that Dade County ranks last in the State for average farm size (59 acres) but is fifth in the State for market value of agricultural products. Agriculture is profitable on a per acre basis because the climate allows for double cropping. . . . In 1983, the agricultural industry produced less than 1 percent of total earnings in the South Florida region. The importance of this sector cannot be measured in dollar terms alone. The general public tends to view agriculture as a transitional land use. The benefits of maintaining the agricultural economy, however, are significant. Agricultural land can provide open space between areas with urban uses, it can serve as a watershed where water is collec- ted and later used in a farm or non-farm use, it can provide a habitat for wildlife, and it can provide unique beauty. New technology and agricultural practices are also providing new opportunities for disposing of sewage sludge on agricultural lands, benefitting both the rural and urban sectors. . . . Agricultural research activities have already yielded many benefits to South Florida agri- culture. Progress has been made in developing: more efficient irrigation systems, integrated pest management, improved strains of crops in production, as well as new crops to put into production. The findings of agricultural research can continue to improve the conser- vation, production, and marketing techniques available to South Florida farmers. South Florida farmers are experiencing many of the same problems that farmers in other high growth areas are facing. 34/ Land in South Florida that is suitable for agricul- tural use is also highly suitable for urban uses. Given the geographic configuration of the Florida Peninsula agricultural areas are never far removed from urban areas. Urban growth and the pressures of suburbanization are constantly felt by the Region's farmers. 35/ Many problems arise when agricultural and urban land uses interface. Non-farm residents complain because of farm noise, smells, and such practices as fertilizer and pesticide spraying. Nuisance suits and ordinances that prohibit certain farm practices create pressures that reduce the profitability and desirability to farm. 36/ Farm land conversion to urban uses is a serious problem in our Region. 37/ Analysis of prop- erty appraiser data shows the reduction in net agricultural acreage between 1980-1985 to be 18 percent for the Region. This figure applies mainly to agricultural land in Broward County. According to the Dade County Cooperative Exten- sion Service, net agricultural acreage has re- mained stable for the past 20 years. 38/ This is because land rezoned for urban uses has been replaced by other lands converted for agricul- tural use. This represents another problem. As agricultural land is converted to urban uses, agriculture may be pushed into wetlands, wild- life habitats, and other fragile ecosystems. Miscellaneous Findings: Urban Sprawl In November, 1989, the Department of Community Affairs published a Technical Memorandum (Volume IV, Number 4) which was designed "to help local governments and interested parties understand the requirements for discouraging urban sprawl that must be met to comply with Florida's planning requirements." The memorandum defines "urban sprawl" as "scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection." According to the memorandum, "urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following inefficient land use patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density, single-dimensional development." These land use patterns are described in the memorandum as follows: Leapfrog development occurs when new develop- ment is sited away from an existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels located in or closer to the urban area that are suitable for development. It typically results in scattered, discontinuous growth patterns in rural areas which are frequently not appro- priate for urban development. * * * Leapfrog development is not usually mixed-use, multi-dimensional development. Consequently, it works against the creation of vibrant com- munities, creates much greater dependence on automobile transportation, and results in an inefficient use of land resources. Strip or ribbon development involves the loca- tion of high amounts of commercial, retail, office and often multi-family residential de- velopment in a linear pattern along both sides of major arterial roadways. * * * Low-density, single-dimensional development consists of single land uses, typically low-density residential, spread over large land areas. Frequently, the land is in rural, forestry, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive areas that should be protected from urban development. This land-intensive devel- opment pattern, stemming from uncontrolled, poorly planned, and premature development, tends to place an undue burden on external infrastructure and major transportation connectors by not providing a complementary mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Sprawling single-use development hinders the evolution of vibrant communities, reinforces dependence upon personal automobile use, generates higher public costs for facilities and services, promotes an inefficient and unattractive use of developable land, and frequently destroys significant environmental and natural resources. The memorandum's description of "urban sprawl" is consistent with the definition most commonly employed by professional planners. Indicators of sprawl mentioned in the memorandum include the following: The amount of residential land and densities depicted on the future land use map signifi- cantly exceed the projected need for residen- tial land use by type during the planning period. In discussing this indicator, the memorandum advised that "[a]ny plan in which the amount of land designated to receive development totals more than 125 percent of the amount needed to accommodate projected need will be closely scrutinized by the DCA." In order to ascertain whether development meets the definition of "urban sprawl" used by the Department, it may be necessary to determine whether the area involved is "rural" or on the "urban fringe." The memorandum suggests that such a determination may be based upon the area's population density. According to the memorandum, areas should be classified as follows based upon their population densities Density per square mile: Classification 0-200 Rural 201-500 Exurban 501-1000 Suburban 1001-2000 Medium [Urban] Density 2001-5000 High [Urban] Density 5000+ Highest Urban Density Among the specific techniques recommended in the memorandum to curb "urban sprawl" are establishing "urban service areas and urban growth boundaries," "[p]romoting urban infill development and redevelopment," and imposing "mixed-use and clustering requirements." With respect the latter technique, the memorandum states as follows: One of the most important and critical tech- niques for discouraging sprawl is strong mixed use policies which require residential and nonresidential uses to be located in reason- ably close proximity to each other. Such policies should promote an attractive, func- tionally and physically integrated mix of commercial, office, retail, residential (including affordable housing), and recrea- tional land uses. Development designed in this manner can even occur away from existing urban areas and not represent urban sprawl if it consists of a complementary mix of residen- tial and nonresidential land uses at medium to high densities, promotes high levels of inter- nal capture, does not rely on rural arterials for local traffic movements, and encourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The tradi- tional neighborhood development district code is an example of how this concept can be implemented.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order in Case No. 90-3599GM finding that Metropolitan Dade County's 1990 Plan Amendment is "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of December, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 26th day of December, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment No. 04-2 (Plan Amendment) to the City of Cocoa's (City) Comprehensive Plan (Plan), adopted by Ordinance No. 39- 2004, is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing The Hunters own and reside on property located on Friday Road in the unincorporated area of the County. Their property abuts on two sides of the northeastern portion of the subject property. FSNE 47 at "H." The Kellgrens own and reside on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Friday and James Road in the unincorporated area of the County, abutting the southeast corner of the south Plan Amendment parcel. FSNE 47 at "KR." The Kellgrens also own and operate two businesses on Cox Road located on property they own which is located within the boundaries of the City. FSNE 47 at "KB." The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City is a municipality located within the County. The DCA is the state land planning agency charged with responsibility for reviewing comprehensive plans and plan amendments under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. FSN and Hagen-Nicholson are Florida limited liability companies and are the owners of the subject property voluntarily annexed by the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 31-2004 and is subject to the Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 39-2004. All Petitioners submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the City during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment on August 24, 2004, and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendment on December 14, 2004. At the final hearing, the parties stipulated that the Petitioners are "affected persons" within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, with standing to participate as parties in this administrative proceeding.3 See Endnote 17. The Challenges Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is not "in compliance" on several grounds: lack of need, urban sprawl, inadequate data and analysis relative to traffic and land use need, violation of the intergovernmental coordination element of the City's Plan, incompatibility, internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with the Regional and State Plans, and failure to provide for adequate public participation during the transmittal hearing. The Plan Amendment Ordinance No. 39-2004 makes two changes to the Plan. First, the text of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan was amended to establish a new future land use category called "very low density residential areas." 4 Second, the FLUM was amended to change the designated future land use from "Residential 1 and Neighborhood Commercial (County)" to "Very- Low Density Residential (City)." FSNE 52 at Section 5. The Plan Amendment covers approximately 605.16 acres, although the City annexed approximately 766.27 acres, which included "both real property and rights-of-way." Id. at page 1 of 4; PE 8.f. at page 3 of 18. See also DCAE 2. The Subject Property The subject property consists of a rectangular parcel adjacent to and north of State Road (SR) 528, bounded by Interstate 95 (I-95) on the west; a triangular parcel adjacent to and southeast of the north rectangular parcel and similarly bounded on the south by SR 528; and a second rectangular parcel, due south of the north parcel and adjacent to and south of SR 528 and bounded by I-95 on the west and James Road on the south and a portion of Friday Road on the east. PE 17. There is no direct access from the subject property to I-95 and SR 528. The future land uses north of the subject property include Residential 1:2.5 (County); Residential 1 (County) to the south; Residential 1:2.5 (County) to the east of the north parcel; Residential 1 (County) to the east of south parcel; and Planned Industrial Park (County) and Industrial (City) further to the east; and Residential 1:2.5 (County) to the west of I-95. PE 80. The existing land uses to the north and south are single-family residential and vacant land; to the east, vacant land, heavy and light industrial uses; and to the west, I-95, single-family residential, and vacant land. Prior to being annexed by the City in August 2004, the subject property was located in the unincorporated portion of the County. The two rectangular portions (approximately 560.95 acres) were designated as "Residential 1" on the County FLUM, allowing one unit per acre. The approximate eastern half of the triangular portion (44.21 of acres) was designated as "Neighborhood Commercial." PE 80. There is an existing borrow pit (approximately 19-20 acres) located on the eastern one-third of the triangular portion. PE 17. Approximately 145.35 acres of wetlands, now designated Conservation, permeate the subject property. PE 8.F., page 4 of 18 and Exhibits 3 and 4; FSNE 52. There are approximately 459.81 acres (605.16 total acres - 145.35 acres of wetlands) of developable upland on the subject property. See DCAE 2. The Plan Amendment proposes a maximum development potential of approximately 1,839 dwelling units (459.81 acres X 4 dwelling units).5 There is a conflict in the evidence regarding the potential maximum development of the subject property under the County Plan. The City suggested approximately 2,358 dwelling units. See PE 8.f. at pages 4-6 of 18. The City's analysis yielded a maximum of 701 dwelling units for the portion of the subject property designated as Residential 1 and 1,657 dwelling units (including application of the density bonus) for that portion of the subject property designated "Neighborhood Commercial." The City assumed there could be 37.5 units per acre (which included a density bonus) developed on the 44.21 acre tract designated "Neighborhood Commercial." Id. Petitioners suggested a maximum of approximately 817 dwelling units could have been built on the subject property if the subject property were developed with the "density bonus" under the County's Plan. See Petitioners' Joint Proposed Recommended Order at 21, paragraph 25 and n.5. There is also a conflict in the evidence regarding the potential development of commercial uses (under the County's Plan) on the portion of the triangular parcel designated as "Neighborhood Commercial." Id. Based upon conflicting evidence, it is resolved that the maximum potential number of dwelling units which could have been developed on the subject property under the County's Plan is overstated. However, this finding does not alter the ultimate findings made herein regarding whether the Plan Amendment is "in compliance." Need The "need" question is founded in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires that "[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 [and] the projected population of the area . . ." This requirement is repeated in the statute's implementing rule which provides that "[t]he comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(2)(e). Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c) requires "[a]n analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including: [t]he categories of land use and their densities or intensities of use; [t]he estimated gross acreage needed by category; and [a] description of the methodology used." Also, "need" is one of the factors to be considered in any urban sprawl analysis. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. On December 14, 2004, the City adopted the Plan Amendment and responded to the objections raised in the DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report.6 During the plan amendment review process, the proposed residential land use density for the subject property was reduced from up to seven dwelling units per acre as originally proposed to "four units per acre with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) bonus of up to five units per acre," and, ultimately as adopted by the City Council, to "[a] maximum density of 4 units per acre." FSNE 52, Exhibit A; T II 631-632. The City has two needs -- a need for vacant developable land, and a need for middle-income housing. The City differs from many other municipalities in the County because the City's population declined almost 7.4 percent from the period of 1990 to 2000.7 Every city in the County, with the exception of the City of Cocoa and one other city, has experienced population growth. The City's Director of Community Development testified that the City had become hyper-inelastic -- it had stopped growing, and started shrinking. In response to this problem, the City adopted goals in 2002 which included annexation, housing, and residential development. Because of the goals that had been adopted and implemented, from 2002 to the time of the administrative hearing, the City's population rose approximately 7.25 percent. With the Plan Amendment, the City could capture increasing populations in the surrounding areas. In the summer of 2003, the City held a housing task force with private developers. The private developers explained that they were not developing in the City because even though there was vacant land, there were environmental constraints on the land. The vacant land consisted of large amounts of wetlands, with some of the wetlands located in flood plains. In the comprehensive plan adoption package sent to the DCA, the City included a map indicating the vacant land and a map indicating the extensive wetlands located on the vacant land. (The vacant land analysis identified the amount of land potentially available for development, without stating the specific number of available acres. Based upon the testimony at final hearing, excluding the subject property, there are approximately 223-230 acres of developable land within the City limits.) Furthermore, the City provided the DCA with population figures based on BEBR. Rule 9J-5 does not provide a specific requirement as to how a local government must demonstrate how much vacant land is located within its boundaries. Rather, Rule 9J-5 permits a local government to demonstrate how much vacant land is located within it boundaries in several ways, i.e., textually, raw data, or graphically. The DCA used the maps submitted by the City as well as the information submitted that the City's population was declining to make a determination that the City had demonstrated a need for the property. A needs analysis typically consists of an examination of the projected population over the planning time period, the land uses that exist within the local government, the amounts of the land uses, and then a determination of whether the local government has enough land to meet the projected population. However, a quantitative analysis is not the only way to perform a needs analysis. A city's plan for its future and the way it wants to grow is also considered. The City's use of population figures based on BEBR estimates and a map which demonstrated the vacant land was professionally acceptable. In other words, by using BEBR estimates and a map, the City did not use a "methodology" without approval by the DCA. If a plan amendment area had been surrounded by vacant land, then the issue of need is more prevalent. Hagen-Nicholson's planning expert performed a needs analysis. The calculation of the need is done with supply and demand. Supply is land, and demand is population growth. At the time the City began the plan amendment process, the City had approximately 223-230 acres of low-density residential land available. For demand, he determined that over the past three years, there were 113 building permits issued for new homes. The mathematical computation provides for the vacant land to be fully utilized within 5.9 years at an allocation of 1:1. Using the 1:1 ratio is not necessarily a practical ratio because there may be property that is not on the market for sale. When applying a vacant-land multiplier that is used in Orange County -- 2.4, the City would only have a three-year supply of vacant land. When dealing with a comprehensive plan, there should be a 10- to 20-year supply of land. The City's housing element provides that the City is required to provide housing for all current residents as well as anticipated future residents. As of 2002, 94 percent of its housing stock was valued at $100,000 or less, and 47 percent was valued at $50,000 or less. Accordingly, the City does not have adequate available middle-income housing and the Plan Amendment may meet this need. Urban Sprawl The Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment constitutes urban sprawl. This contention is primarily based upon the assertion that the Plan Amendment is located in a rural area, and the assertion that the Plan Amendment triggers several of the 13 indicators of urban sprawl in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(111) defines "rural areas" as "low density areas characterized by social, economic and institutional activities which may be largely based on agricultural uses or the extraction of natural resources in unprocessed form, or areas containing large proportions of undeveloped, unimproved, or low density property." As noted herein, the subject property is vacant and, prior to the adoption of the Plan Amendment, was designated as "Residential 1" (and a portion as "Neighborhood Commercial") under the County's Plan. It is surrounded by developed residential lands and infrastructure such as water, sewer, and roads. The surrounding areas are not undeveloped or unimproved. The area is a low density, but it is an urban low density, not a rural low density. FSN's expert planner, Gerald Langston, performed a study of the surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the Plan Amendment site (study area), including the unincorporated area of the County. Although the lands immediately to the north and south of the parcels are designated one unit per 2.5 acres and one unit per one acre, respectively, under the County's Plan, approximately 49 percent of the parcels in the study area are between one and 1.25 acres in size and approximately 30 percent are a little less than an acre. Three percent are over five acres. In other words, approximately 80 percent of the parcels are less than 1.25 acres in size. T III 819-820. Mr. Langston also studied census data and determined that the demographics of the area are not rural. It is a very rapidly growing area, with an urban development pattern that is basically built-out. (Within the study area, after deducting the 605 acres of the subject property, approximately 21 percent of the acreage is vacant or undeveloped. Stated otherwise, approximately 80 percent is developed. T III 827.) One of the County's experts, Edward Williams, did a general analysis of the lot sizes in the area. He testified that the area is rural with lot sizes of one unit per 2.5 acres. He reviewed photographs of the area and pointed out the lack of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and lack of quarter-acre lots. However, he did not obtain any census data specific to the Plan Amendment property or to the surrounding area, and could not describe the percent distribution of lot sizes in the surrounding area. He believed that the area is agricultural and rural, but did not analyze the social and economic characteristics of the area surrounding the subject property.8 According to the County's Plan, the subject property is located in an area where the County is planning to provide future water and sewer. Additionally, a map in the County's Plan suggests that the area is actually not suitable for well and septic tanks. The subject property is within the City's water and sewer area and the City has adequate water and sewer capacity to service the subject property. The area surrounding the subject property is not rural under Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(111), but rather consists of urban low-density residential development. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. Indicator 1 is not implicated. The subject property is surrounded by developed residential land and is not a substantial area of the City. The subject property will have a single use, but the introduction of another land use or mixed- use development would be incompatible with the surrounding area and not appropriate. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. Indicator 2 is not implicated, as the area is urban, and the Plan Amendment is not leaping over undeveloped lands. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)3. Indicator 3 is not present. The subject property is an area of vacant land surrounded by developed lands. The subject property is infill development. The Plan Amendment does not promote, allow or designate urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns emanating from existing urban developments. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)4. Indicator 4 is not present. The subject property is not a rural area with agricultural uses, and the wetlands on site are designated as Conservation and thus are protected. The Plan Amendment is not premature or poorly planned, as the surrounding area is already developed and the property is infill. The subject property is surrounded by infrastructure including water and sewer, and roads. The City has the capacity to provide water and sewer to the site. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)6. Indicator 6 is not present, as water, sanitary sewer, and reclaimed water lines have already been extended to the area. The Plan Amendment will add customers to facilities that have the capacity to handle them. By increasing the number of users in the system, the operational efficiency is increased. Therefore, the Plan Amendment maximizes the use of existing public facilities and services. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)7. The Plan Amendment does not fail to maximize the use of future public facilities and services. The facilities that exist in the area were built for future growth, and not connecting to them would be a failure to maximize the public investment that has already been made. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)8. Extending existing facilities and services to the property covered by the Plan Amendment will increase costs, but not disproportionately so. Water and sewer are close to the subject area, and the roads have capacity. Extending water and sewer at one unit per acre would be more costly and less efficient than for four units per acre. With respect to law enforcement, fire and emergency response services, this indicator is present to some extent. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)9. Indicator 9 does not apply, as there are no rural or agricultural uses in the area. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)10. The City has adopted a community redevelopment plan in the downtown neighborhood. The City can promote middle income housing with the Plan Amendment while at the same time pursue redevelopment in the downtown area. The two are not mutually exclusive. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)11. The Plan Amendment provides for a single residential use and does not encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. However, putting commercial or industrial uses on the subject property does not make good planning sense as the area is not appropriate for a mix of uses. In summary, the Plan Amendment does not meet the definition of "urban sprawl." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.003(134). The Plan Amendment is not in a rural area; it is surrounded by residential development. Public facilities are very close, and the Plan Amendment is within the City's service area. The Plan Amendment does not "leapfrog" since there are no large tracts of undeveloped land between the City and the Plan Amendment property. It is not scattered development; it is infill. While it is true that it is a low density use and a single use, the area is not appropriate for mixed-use, retail, commercial or an extremely high residential density. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5 requires a consideration of the context in which the plan amendment is being proposed. Land use types within the jurisdiction and in proximate areas outside the jurisdiction will be evaluated. Local conditions, including the existing pattern of development and extra-jurisdictional and regional growth characteristics, should be considered as well. The consideration of the parcels surrounding the Plan Amendment was important. The City considered the fact that other cities and the County as a whole are experiencing population growth. In considering how the City has grown in the past and its development pattern, how the area around the City has grown and its development pattern and population projections, the Plan Amendment is not urban sprawl. Transportation Facilities The City submitted data and analysis relative to traffic impacts in a study prepared by Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. (TPD). PE 83. The TPD traffic study was accomplished in accordance with the County's concurrency management procedures and based on adopted Levels of Service (LOS). After the City's re-submittal to the DCA, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had no comments or concerns about transportation impacts. DCAE 2, FDOT analysis. Although the Plan Amendment would allow for more traffic to be generated, increased traffic does not necessarily render a plan amendment not in compliance. A broad brush approach is taken at the comprehensive planning stage. A compliance determination does not consider details such as the design of the roads, or whether roads have guardrails. The issue is whether there is enough capacity to maintain the adopted LOS. Adequate Capacity There is adequate capacity on the surrounding roads to accommodate the trips generated by the Plan Amendment. The TPD traffic study forecasted traffic demands and the impact on available capacity along roadways affected by the subject property and concluded that "all road segments will operate within their adopted LOS with excess traffic capacity available for future development" and "there will be adequate capacity to accommodate the trip generation" contemplated by the Plan Amendment. PE 83. The projected traffic generated by the subject property between now and the year 2010 will not cause any of the roadways to exceed capacity. Based on the TPD traffic study, the County agreed that the anticipated trips generated would not exceed the adopted LOS and that there is available capacity on the road segments affected by the project. Although Petitioners raised multiple traffic issues in their respective amended petitions, Petitioners mainly presented testimony that anticipated development of the subject property will cause increased traffic on County roads which will lead to increased safety concerns. Safety Concerns on James Road The County presented evidence regarding existing and potential safety concerns on several road segments including James Road, which may result from anticipated development of the subject property. The County's main safety concern (with development of the south parcel) is the segment of James Road between Friday Road and Cox Road because of a steep canal that runs along mainly the north side of James Road for approximately one mile. The County's safety concerns relating to James Road only apply to the southern property; thus any increase in traffic on the northern property, including the triangular portion, does not impact safety on James Road. The safety problems relating to James Road exist currently and existed in 2004. Mr. Denninghoff testified that the anticipated increased traffic as a result of the Plan Amendment will expose additional traffic to the existing hazardous conditions on James Road beyond what was planned. The safety concerns with James Road could be resolved by installation of a guardrail, improved and additional street lights, and rumble strips on the road before the stop signs. The County has not added guardrails to James Road. These safety improvements are needed now. Maintenance Costs for County Roads Besides safety, another issue raised by the County during the hearing regarding transportation issues was the anticipated increase in wear and tear on the County roads resulting in increased costs to the County. Residents of the subject property will pay impact fees, which may be utilized for improvements to capacity, operational improvements at intersections, including the safety improvements mentioned above, for new facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, but not maintenance. The impact fee is paid directly to the County. By ordinance, the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners approves the expenditures of the impact fees collected. The County will receive approximately $2.6 million in impact fees from the development of the subject property. The impact fees collected by the County could be utilized to fund safety measures because they are related to capacity improvements. No development was approved by the Plan Amendment. Pursuant to the City's Code and Plan, traffic impacts of a development are reviewed in more detail after the plan amendment process, specifically, during the development process. Petitioners' concerns are premature. Development orders are the result of the subdivision and site plan approval process. Prior to the approval of the final PUD, or the issuance of building permits, the City will examine whether the necessary public facilities are operating within the adopted levels of service. When the developer applies for permits to develop the subject property, the City will review issues concerning traffic. The developer will submit an updated traffic study, which will be reviewed by the City and the County. The County is responsible for issuing driveway permits. Transportation Element Objective 2.3 of the City's Plan provides that "[d]evelopment shall bear the full burden of the cost of roadway improvements necessitated by impacts to the roadway network caused by traffic generated by said development through the adopted site approval process." The City's Plan also provides that new development will not be permitted unless mitigative measures are undertaken to address level of service impacts caused by development. Intergovernmental Coordination The City's Plan contains an Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE). The Plan Amendment does not make any changes to that element. Petitioners presented documentary evidence through Mr. Williams' report alleging that the City violated the ICE in its Plan. However, the evidence shows that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with any intergovernmental coordination requirements in the City's Plan. Intergovernmental coordination does not mean that one local government must acquiesce to a request from an adjacent local government. Intergovernmental coordination requires information sharing, and there are numerous objectives and policies in the City's Plan addressing the City's responsibility to coordinate with the County regarding development impacts at the appropriate time. Most of the policies and requirements for intergovernmental coordination in the City's Plan are driven by the subdivision site plan approval process. The City coordinated with the County, as the City provided a copy of its annexation report to the County in July of 2004. The City manager invited the County manager to discuss the report with City staff, but the County did not respond. The City also used the County's concurrency management procedures in analyzing traffic, and reduced the density from seven to four units per acre based in part upon the County's comments during the review process. Compatibility With Surrounding Areas Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) provides: "[c]ompatibility means 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." The residential development contemplated by the Plan Amendment is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The subject property is surrounded by urban residential development and existing public infrastructure. The City studied the area surrounding the Plan Amendment, and determined that it was developed in an urban and suburban manner. To be compatible with the surrounding areas, the City developed the VLDR category allowing four units to the acre on the subject property. The County's future land use for the property to the north of the Plan Amendment is designated residential to be developed at one dwelling per 2.5 acres. However, Hagen- Nicholson's expert testified that it has been developed more intensely, with some lots developed at less than an acre. The County's future land use to the south of the Plan Amendment is one unit an acre. The area to the south, however, is less intensely developed -- it is developed at 1.5 units to the acre. The County allowed areas of three units to the acre and five units to the acre to be developed in the middle of the area to the south of the Plan Amendment. Hagen-Nicholson's planning expert testified that the County's planning of the area to the south of the Plan Amendment is the cause of urban sprawl. The Plan Amendment allows a hole in the donut to be filled in so that in the future, there is not pressure to develop homes in a leapfrog fashion two to three miles away. In this case, residential next to residential is compatible. The Plan Amendment is compatible with adjacent development. Internal Consistency Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is not internally consistent with several provisions of the adopted City Plan. Specifically, the report of Petitioners' planning expert alleges that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with the City's Policies and/or Objectives 1.1.1.2, 1.1.1.8, 1.1.2.3, 1.1.2.5, 1.1.3, 2.1.1, 2.3, 2.3.1.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.5, 2.6.2, 2.6.4, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.5.2, 4.2.6.3, 4.3.4.1, 9.4.4, 9.8, 9.8.1, and 9.8.2. The City's Director of Community Development testified that the Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the City's Plan and that Petitioners' expert was applying the site plan approval process to the Plan Amendment. The majority of the policies or objectives cited in the report of Petitioners' expert pertain to later stages of the development process, not the plan amendment process. For instance, Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with Policy 4.2.6.3 because there is no mention in the development agreement concerning who is responsible for the costs of providing the extension of lines, alteration of lift station and the cost of plant capacity for providing wastewater service. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 4.2.6.3 because the developer's agreement for the subject property provides that the developer is required to comply with all city, local, county, state, and federal requirements. Additionally, allegations concerning Policies 1.1.2.5, 1.1.2.6, 2.4.1, and 2.4.5 are premature because they pertain to setback requirements and issues which pertain to later stages of the development process. Policies 4.2.4.4 and 4.2.5.2 pertain to septic tanks and locating waste water package plants. These Policies do not pertain to the Plan Amendment. FSN's planning expert testified that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the City's Plan and that the Plan Amendment will benefit the City as a whole. The DCA's senior planner also testified that several of the Policies which Petitioners alleged that were inconsistent with the Plan Amendment were premature because they pertain to the development stage, not to the plan amendment stage. The Plan Amendment is consistent with Policies and Objectives 1.1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.4, 2.9.1, 2.9.3, 4.1, 4.1.1.5, 4.1.3.1, 4.1.5, 9.4.4, 8.1.2, 8.2.1, 9.8.1, 9.8.2, and 9.8. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the provisions they cited. Regional and State Plans Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: for the purpose of determining whether local comprehensive plans are consistent with the state comprehensive plan and the appropriate regional policy plan, a local plan shall be consistent with such plans if the local plan is "compatible with" and "furthers" such plans. The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in conflict with the state comprehensive plan or appropriate regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan. For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with the state comprehensive plan or the appropriate regional policy plan, the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans. Strategic Regional Policy Plan A determination of whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) is based on an assessment of the SRPP as a whole. § 163.3177(10)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioners did not present evidence that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the SRPP as a whole. Petitioners' expert opined that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with certain provisions of the SRPP. The report only discussed several policies in an isolated fashion and did not consider the SRPP as a whole. Nevertheless, the Plan Amendment is consistent with the SRPP as a whole, and is consistent with the specific provisions with which Petitioners' report alleged inconsistencies. Specifically, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the SRPP Policy 6.1 because the area is already urban. Additionally, the Plan Amendment is in an area that has existing commercial uses nearby. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policies 6.4 and 6.5 because both of these policies pertain to rural areas. The subject property and the surrounding areas are not rural. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.16 because it is based upon area-wide projections and forecasts. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.17 because it does not adopt a policy providing that there shall be no informal mediation processes, or that informal mediation shall not be used. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.19 regarding the encouragement of public participation. Overall, the City encouraged public participation. The City has the capacity and ability to develop its downtown area and to promote infill at the same time. Accordingly, the Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.21. The Plan Amendment concerns the issue of deciding a future land use. SRPP Policy 5.17 1.a., which pertains to addressing transportation impacts of a development project in one jurisdiction on an adjacent jurisdiction, will be addressed at the appropriate stage of the development process. SRPP Policy 5.23 pertains to equitable cost participation guiding development approval decisions. It does not pertain to the Plan Amendment because there is no transportation capacity improvements required by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 7.3 because the area encompassing the Plan Amendment is already included in the City's approved future service area. Petitioners' report set forth an allegation that SRPP Policies 7.5, 7.9., 7.10, and 7.19 "would all be in conflict with the city of Cocoa proposed amendment." The Plan Amendment is consistent with these SRPP Policies. FSN's planning expert testified that the SRPP uses directive verbs that are intended to be suggestions and recommendations to a local government, not requirements. He provided testimony that since the subject area is urban, and not rural, the SRPP does not impact this Plan Amendment because it provides for protection of regional natural resources, and promotes intergovernmental coordination. Hagen Nicholson's expert also testified that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the SRPP. The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council did not raise any concerns to the Plan Amendment violating the SRPP. Finally, the Plan Amendment actually furthers SRPP Policies 4.23, 4.2.4, 6.1.4, 7.1, 7.4, and 7.5. State Comprehensive Plan A determination of whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan (State Plan) is based on an assessment of the State Plan as a whole. Petitioners alleged in paragraphs 39, 46, 59, and 65 of the Amended Petition that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 187.201(18)(b) and 187.201(21) of the State Plan. However, they did not present persuasive evidence that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the State Plan as a whole. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the State Plan as a whole, and, in particular, Sections 187.201(18)(b) and 187.201(21), Florida Statutes. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment furthers the State Plan goal to "increase the affordability and availability of housing for low-income and moderate-income persons. . . ." See § 187.201(4), Fla. Stat. It furthers the State Plan goal set forth in Section 187.201(9), Florida Statutes, because the Plan Amendment protects the wetlands by designating them as Conservation areas. Finally, it furthers the State Plan goal set forth in Section 187.201(15), Florida Statutes, because the Plan Amendment preserves environmentally sensitive areas. Public Participation9 Petitioners alleged that public participation was not provided with respect to the August 24, 2004, transmittal hearing, primarily because the City allegedly refused to allow citizens access to the hearing and the opportunity to speak during the hearing. At the administrative hearing in this matter, following denial of the DCA's motion in limine, the issue was narrowed to the question of whether the August 24, 2004, hearing was the type contemplated by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, with the ultimate issue being whether or not that will impact whether the Plan Amendment is "in compliance." The issues identified in footnote 1 of Petitioners' Hunters and Kellgrens' Amended Petition are not at issue. Council meetings have an order of discussion. During "delegations," only City residents, employees, and water customers may speak. The City Council is authorized to set aside up to 30 minutes of each regular Council meeting limited to hearing from only residents and taxpayers of the City. After the delegations portion, the consent agenda is considered, and then the public hearings portion follows. Under the public hearings portion, any person may speak. Speaker cards are filled out, passed on to the Mayor, and the Mayor calls the names from the cards. On August 17, 2004, the City published a Notice of Future Land Use and Zoning Change in the Florida Today Newspaper. The notice stated that a public hearing would be held by the City Council in their chambers at 7:00 p.m. on August 24, 2004, on subjects including the proposed plan amendment and re-zoning of the subject property. The notice also stated that the hearing was a public hearing, that all interested persons may attend and that members of the public are encouraged to comment on the proposed ordinance at the meeting. The parties stipulated that the August 24, 2004, hearing was properly advertised and noticed.10 According to the transcript of the City Council meeting on August 24, 2004, the meeting, including the transmittal hearing portion, began at 7:15 p.m. Several hundred people showed up and were outside of the building at 6:00 p.m. The City's planner testified that he did not have any expectation that there would be that many people there. The turn-out was so large that not everyone could fit in the Council chambers. The capacity of the room is either 91 or 93 based upon fire department regulations. The first issues discussed related to the annexation of the property subject to the proposed plan amendment. There was also discussion regarding the re-zoning and the proposed plan amendment. PE 14 at 3-48. Thereafter, Mayor Parrish stated that "it would be appropriate to have a public hearing regarding these three ordinances." Id. at 48. The Mayor asked everyone to fill out speaker cards.11 The City Attorney stated that there were speaker cards about three to four inches thick; "about two hundred plus cards of people who want to speak." Id. at 49, 51. Mayor Parrish stated: I know. There is no way we can hear them in one night. Also, we have to go by the concerns and the citizens that we hear and I doubt there are this many ideas that is going to be expressed tonight. If we don't duplicate something that we have already heard, we might be able to bring them down a little bit. If we can elect representative to speak on behalf of other names that can be given possibly as a way to cut down on that. We also have heard from planning and zoning and have spoken with the members of planning and zoning. We have minutes from the meetings. We have copies of presentation that were given at that meeting and letters and phone calls and e-mails, and so, we have got a good sense of the concerns that were expressed that night and since that night. We do want to hear from everyone we possibly can. The criteria for a public hearing are basically three minutes for a speaker and representatives of recognized groups shall be limited to ten minutes. So if you have somebody that can speak on behalf of a group of people they can have ten minutes and possibly get everything expressed that maybe a larger group would take longer than the ten minutes. A total debate on a single issue is limited to 30 minutes. Since we have three issues -- Id. at 49-51. See also PE 14 at 53-54. The public hearing portion of the transmittal hearing did not get underway until approximately 8:30 p.m. Id. at 51. The City Council typically allows 30 minutes for the public hearings portion, but decided to extend the time to 90 minutes, id. at 53, and later went beyond that limit to accommodate more speakers.12 After several persons began expressing their opposition to the items, including the proposed plan amendment, id. at 58-82, the Mayor stated that the comments were "starting to get a little bit repetitive" on several issues and requested the attendees to try "to narrow it down to some other issues that maybe haven't been brought up so far." Id. at 82. Other speakers followed, id. at 82-128, when the Mayor stated that they were "going to run over with just the cards" that she had and inquired whether they wanted to extend the time. It was decided to "hear the three or ten depending upon how long." Id. at 129. Again, others spoke when a police officer said "[w]e have a few more[,] [a]re you done?" The Mayor responded: "We are past time. I'm trying to finish the ones that I have up here that are saying that they are in line." Id. at 140. Councilman Anderson wished to cut off public comment and Councilwoman Collins provided a second "because of how late it is -- 11 o'clock Mayor." Id. at 141. Without ruling on the request, Stacy Ranger, a representative of the County, spoke and focused on the annexation issue, including neighborhood compatibility. Id. at 141-146. Thereafter, Mr. Titkanich was granted permission to respond to comments. Id. at 147-157. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Id. at 158. After some discussion, a motion to extend the meeting not more than one hour was approved. This motion was made sometime after Councilwoman Collins announced how late it was - 11 p.m. Id. at 176-177.13 Ultimately, the Council voted four to one in favor of Ordinance No. 39-2004. Id. at 181-182. Mr. Kellgren testified that he arrived at the hearing location around 6:00 p.m. There was a large crowd of several hundred people outside. He filled out a speaker's card, but could not get into the building. He waited outside and tried to observe what was going on. He left the hearing around 9:30 p.m. because he did not see the point in staying any longer; he could not get in and could not hear anything. His speaker's card was not marked "NR" or "No Response." PE 36. Although Mr. Kellgren was not able to get into the building to speak, he had retained lawyer Kimberly Rezanka to represent him and his wife at the August 24, 2004, hearing. During the hearing, Ms. Rezanka spoke to the City Council on behalf of the Kellgrens and several other individuals.14 (Mr. Kellgren attended the P&ZB hearing and opposed the proposed plan amendment and rezoning.) After the transmittal hearing, Mr. Kellgren sent two letters to the DCA's Plan Review Administrator expressing concerns regarding the proposed plan amendment. One letter was signed by Mr. Kellgren and others. No complaint was made regarding the conduct of the transmittal hearing. PE 81-82; T II 358. Ms. Hunter arrived at the City Council's August 24, 2004, meeting around 5:30 p.m. (She attended the P&ZB hearing and spoke.) She testified that she was not allowed to go inside the building because she was not a City resident. She wrote comments opposing the proposed plan amendment on her speaker's card -- "7 houses per acre would be ridiculous Against [two underscored lines] rezoning of property at Friday [&] James in Cocoa - 1 house per acre only!!". She wrote this information on the card so her intentions would be known. The upper-right hand corner of her card is marked "NR," although she did not write these letters on the card. She left the public hearing around 9:30 p.m., because she had to work the next day and take care of her children. She knew that the hearing was still going on and acknowledged that her name could have been called after she left. She did not go to the December 14, 2004, adoption hearing. Brian Seaman lives in Canaveral Groves, which is in the unincorporated area of the County and east of the north parcel. FSNE at "BS." He arrived at 6:00 p.m. He testified that he was not allowed in because he was not a City resident. He filled out a speaker's card, but believes that his name was not called. His card was not marked "No Response" or "NR." He testified he remained at the public hearing until approximately 11:45 p.m., when he was told of the Council's vote. See Endnote (He attended the P&ZB hearing and later attended the December adoption hearing held at the Civic Center. He did not speak at those hearings because the issues that were of concern to him had already been raised by others.) The public hearing portion of the transmittal hearing lasted over three hours. There is evidence that names on the speaker cards (CE 10), such as Mr. Seaman, were not called. There is also evidence that there was no response for many of the names as reflected on the cards.15 Nevertheless, citizens spoke during the public hearing portion of the transmittal hearing. Notwithstanding the large turn out, the Mayor and Council took measures to accommodate the larger-than-expected crowd and public comment was received. The City Council learned from the experience and conducted the adoption hearing at the Civic Center. No issues are raised regarding the adequacy of the adoption hearing. There is no persuasive evidence that any person was deprived of the opportunity to submit written objections, comments, or recommendations to the Council prior to, during, or after the Council's consideration of the proposed plan amendment (during the transmittal hearing). The DCA's expert planner, Erin Dorn, testified that Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.004 requires local governments to adopt procedures for public participation. Once the DCA receives an amendment package from a local government, it goes to the plan processing team (PPT). The PPT checks the package for "completeness" to make sure that it includes all information required by law. The PPT does not review the plan amendment. Once the package is complete, it is sent to the planning review team for a substantive review. Review of a plan amendment includes public facilities, natural resources, and transportation. Review of a plan amendment does not include a review of whether every person who wanted to attend the hearing was permitted to do so, or a review of the number of people who attended. Such aspects of public participation are not considered by the PPT, and necessarily the DCA when reviewing a plan amendment for a compliance determination. The DCA received letters from citizens, voicing concerns regarding the Plan Amendment.16
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 Plan Amendment adopted by the City through Ordinance No. 39-2004 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2006, 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 3rd day of July, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments for the Bay County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Diane C. Brown resides and owns property within the County, and she submitted written and oral comments to the County during the adoption process of Ordinance No. 09-36. The County is a local government that administers its Plan and adopted the Ordinance which approved the changes being contested here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. The EAR Process The County's first Plan was adopted in 1990 and then amended through the EAR process in 1999. As required by law, on September 5, 2006, the County adopted another EAR and in 2007 a Supplement to the EAR. See County Ex. 1C and 1D. The EAR and Supplement were found to be sufficient by the Department on December 21, 2007. See County Ex. 1E. After the EAR-based amendments were adopted by the County and transmitted to the Department for its review, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. After making revisions to the amendments in response to the ORC, on October 20, 2009, the County enacted Ordinance No. 09-36, which adopted the final version of the EAR-based amendments known as "Charting Our Course to 2020." See County Ex. 1B. On December 15, 2009, the Department issued its notice of intent determining that the EAR-based amendments were in compliance. See County Ex. 1F. Notice of this determination was published in the Panama City News Herald the following day. See County Ex. 1G. The EAR is a large document comprised of five sections: Overview Special Topics; Issues; Element Reviews; Recommended Changes; and a series of Maps. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes, requires that the County amend its comprehensive plan "based" on the recommendations in the report; subsection (2) also requires that the County update the comprehensive plan based on the components of that subsection. The EAR-based amendments are extensive in nature, and include amendments to all 13 chapters in the Plan. However, many provisions in the 1999 version of the Plan were left unchanged, while many revisions were simply a renumbering of a provision, a transfer of a provision to another element, a change in the format, or an otherwise minor and non-substantive change. Although the EAR discusses a number of issues and concerns in the first three sections of the report, the EAR- based amendments must only be based on the recommended changes. See § 163.3191(10), Fla. Stat. Therefore, it was unnecessary for the County to react through the amendment process to the discussions in the Issues and Element Reviews portions of the EAR. For example, the EAR discusses air quality and mercury but made no specific recommendations to amend the Plan to address either subject. Also, nothing in chapter 163 or Department rules requires that the County implement changes to the Plan that parrot each specific recommendation to the letter. So long as the revisions are "based" on an area of concern in the recommendations, the statutory requirement has been satisfied. Section Four of the EAR contains the "Recommended EAR- Based Actions and Corrective Measures Section 163.3191(2)(i)." See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 1-9. Paragraph (2)(i) of the statute requires that the EAR include "[t]he identification of any actions or corrective measures, including whether plan amendments are anticipated to address the major issues identified and analyzed in the report." Section Four indicates that it was intended to respond to the requirements of this paragraph. Id. at p. 1. Finally, the only issue in this proceeding is whether the EAR-based amendments are in compliance. Therefore, criticisms regarding the level of detail in the EAR and Supplement, and whether the County adequately addressed a particular issue in those documents, are not relevant. A determination that the EAR was sufficient in all respects was made by the Department on December 21, 2007. In her Amended Petition, Petitioner raises numerous allegations regarding the EAR-based amendments. They can be generally summarized as allegations that various text amendments, including entire elements or sub-elements, are inconsistent with statutory and rule provisions or are internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions, and that the County failed to properly react to changes recommended in the EAR. Because this is a challenge to an in-compliance determination by the Department, Petitioner must show that even though there is evidence to support the propriety of these amendments, no reasonable person would agree that the amendments are in compliance. See Conclusion of Law 90, infra. Objections Administrative Procedures - Chapter 1 Petitioner contends that new policy 1.4.1(4) is inconsistent with sections 163.3181 and 187.201(25)(a) and (b)6., which generally require or encourage effective citizen participation, and rule 9J-5.004, which requires a local government to adopt procedures for public participation. She also contends the County should not have deleted policy 1.4.2, which required the County to provide notices (by mail and sign postings) beyond those required by chapter 163. The new policy simply provides that notice of public hearings be provided for in accordance with chapter 163. There is no statutory or rule requirement that more stringent notice requirements be incorporated into a plan. The new notice requirements are consistent with the above statutes and rule. It is fairly debatable that the changes to the Administrative Procedures part of the Plan are in compliance. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) - Chapter 3 Petitioner has challenged (a) one policy that creates a new planning area; (b) the County's failure to adopt new energy standards in the FLUE; and (c) the adoption of new development standards for two land use categories in Table 3A of the FLUE. Table 3A describes each land use category in the Plan, including its purpose, service area, designation criteria, allowable uses, density, intensity, and development restrictions. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-5 through 3-17. These contentions are discussed separately below. Southport Neighborhood Planning Area New FLUE policy 3.4.8 creates the Southport Neighborhood Planning Area (Southport), a self-sustaining community with a functional mix of uses. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-20 and 21. The effect of the amendment is simply to identify Southport as a potential planning area that includes a mixture of uses. This follows the EAR recommendations to create "new areas where residents are allowed to work, shop, live, and recreate within one relatively compact area while preserving the rural and low density land uses in the area[,]" and to create "higher density rural development." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 2. Southport is located north of the greater Panama City area in an unincorporated part of the County near or adjacent to the proposed new intersection of County Road 388 and State Road 77. Southport is also identified in new policy 3.2.5(8) as a Special Treatment Zone (STZ) that is designated as an overlay on the Future Land Use Map Series. Id. at p. 3-5. (There are seven STZs in the Plan that act as overlay districts on the FLUM. Overlays do not convey development rights.) Petitioner contends that policy 3.4.8 is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(a) and (d), (8), and (9)(b) and (e), and rules 9J-5.005(2), (5), and (7), 9J-5.006(5), and 9J-5.013. More precisely, Petitioner generally contends that the amendment will encourage urban sprawl; that there is no need for the additional development; that there are no central water and wastewater facilities available to serve that area; that there is no mechanism for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation of the policy; that it will impact nearby natural resources; that it allows increased density standards in the area; and that it is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Most of the data and analysis that support the establishment of the new planning area are in the EAR. They are found in the Introduction and Overview portion of Section One and the FLUE portion of Section 3 of the Element Reviews. The County Director of Planning also indicated that the County relied upon other data as well. Although the new policy allows an increase in maximum residential density from five to 15 dwelling units per acre, paragraph (b) of the policy specifically requires that "all new development [be] served by central water and sewer." Petitioner's expert opined that the new community will create urban sprawl. However, Southport is located within the suburban service area of the County, which already allows densities of up to five dwelling units per acre; it is currently developed with low-density residential uses; and it is becoming more urban in nature. Given these considerations, it is fairly debatable that Southport will not encourage urban sprawl. The new STZ specifically excludes the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Therefore, concerns that the new policy will potentially threaten the water quantity and quality in that reservoir are not credited. In addition, there are other provisions within the Plan that are designed to protect the reservoir. Petitioner criticized the County's failure to perform a suitability analysis before adopting the amendment. However, a suitability study is performed when a land use change is proposed. Policy 3.4.8 is not an amendment to the FLUM. In fact, the Plan notes that "[n]othing in this policy shall be interpreted as changing the land use category of any parcel of the [FLUM]." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-21. In determining the need for this amendment, the County took into consideration the fact that except for the Beaches STZ, the EAR-based amendments delete residential uses as an allowed use in commercially-designated lands. The number of potential residential units removed from the commercial land use category far exceeds the potential number of residential units that could be developed at Southport. Thus, the new amendment will not result in an increase in residential units. Petitioner also contends that the County should have based its needs analysis using Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) estimates. The County's population projections are found in the Introduction portion of the EAR and while they make reference to BEBR estimates, they are not based exclusively on those data. See County Ex. 1C, § 1, pp. 2 and 3. However, there was no evidence that the estimates used by the County are not professionally acceptable. Where there are two acceptable methodologies used by the parties, the Department is not required to evaluate whether one is better than the other. See § 163.3177(10)(e), Fla. Stat. ("the Department shall not evaluate whether one accepted methodology is better than another"). The County's estimates are professionally acceptable for determining need. The other objections to the amendment have been considered and found to be without merit. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendment is in compliance. Neighborhood Commercial - Table 3A The purpose of this commercial category is to "provide areas for the convenience of residential neighborhoods so as to generate a functional mix of land uses and reduce traffic congestion." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-15. Allowable uses include, among others, supermarket centers, restaurants, public facilities, and other similar uses. The County amended the intensity standard for this category by allowing development that is "[n]o more than 50-feet in height." Id. Petitioner asserts that the new 50-foot height limitation for commercial buildings results in the amendment being inconsistent with rule 9J-5.006 because it is not based on adequate data and analysis. Petitioner further argues that the standard is internally inconsistent with FLUE objective 3.9 and policy 3.9.1 and Housing Element objective 8.5, which relate to compatibility. Finally, Petitioner alleges that it will cause unsustainable density in the category and create new demands for public services. The EAR contains a section that analyzes data regarding residential development in commercial land use categories. See County Ex. 1C, § 2. There is, then, data and analysis that support the amendment. The 50-foot height limitation actually limits the intensity that would normally be allowed under current Land Development Regulations (LDRs) if this limitation were not in the Plan. Therefore, it will not increase the intensity of development within this district. Because the Plan specifically provides that the category is for "areas [with] low-intensity commercial uses that will be compatible with adjacent or surrounding residential uses," and such uses must be located "outside subdivisions . . . unless intended to be included in the subdivisions," compatibility issues with adjacent residential areas should not arise. Petitioner failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendment is not in compliance. Seasonal/Resort - Table 3A This land use category is designed for transient occupancy (temporary seasonal visitors and tourists) under chapter 509, rather than permanent residents. It is limited to areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used in the tourist trade. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3- The category includes a new intensity standard for buildings of "[n]o more than 230-feet in height." Id. Petitioner contends that this intensity standard is inconsistent with section 163.3177(6)(d), (8), and (9) and rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), 9J-5.006, and 9J-5.013. These provisions require that an amendment protect natural resources, that it be based on the best available data and analysis, and that it be internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Petitioner also points out that the land use category is located in or adjacent to the Coastal High Hazard Area, that the amendment allows an increase in density, and this results in an inconsistency with statutes and rules pertaining to hurricane evacuation zones. Prior to the adoption of the EAR-based amendments, there was no intensity standard in the Plan for this land use category and all development was governed by LDRs. Pursuant to a recommendation by the Department in its ORC, the new standard was incorporated into the Plan. Before making a decision on the specific height limitation, the County considered existing condominium construction on the beach, current LDR standards for the district, and whether the new standard would create an internal inconsistency with other Plan provisions. Therefore, it is fair to find that adequate data were considered and analyzed. The new height limitation is the same as the maximum height restriction found in the Seasonal Resort zoning district, which now applies to new construction in the district. Because condominiums and hotels that do not exceed 230 feet in height are now allowed within the district, and may actually exceed that height if approved by the County, the amendment is not expected to increase density or otherwise affect hurricane evacuation planning. Historically, transient visitors/tourists are the first to leave the area if a hurricane threatens the coast. Petitioner also contends that the amendment will create compatibility problems between existing one- or two-story residential dwellings in the district and high-rise condominiums, and that the County failed to adequately consider that issue. However, before a condominium or other similar structure may be built, the County requires that the developer provide a statement of compatibility. It is fairly debatable that the new intensity standard is in compliance. Energy Issues Petitioner alleges that the new amendments do not adequately address energy issues, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a). That statute requires, among many other things, that the FLUE be based upon "energy-efficient land use patterns accounting for existing and future electric power generation and transmission systems; [and] greenhouse gas reduction strategies." However, amendments to objective 3.11 and policy 3.11.5, which relate to energy-efficient land use patterns, adequately respond to these concerns. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-27 and 3-28. In addition, new Transportation Element policy 4.10.3 will result in energy savings and reduce greenhouse gases by reducing idle times of vehicular traffic. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, p. 4-12. It is fairly debatable that the energy portions of the Plan are in compliance, and they promote energy efficient land use patterns and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the statute. Transportation Element - Chapter 4 The EAR contains 14 recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 2-4. Item 2 recommends generally that bike paths be installed in or next to certain areas and roadways. Id. at p. 2. Petitioner contends that this recommendation was not implemented because it is not included in the Recreation and Open Space Element. However, one section of the Transportation Element is devoted to Bicycle and Pedestrian Ways and includes objectives 4.14 and 4.15 and policies 4.14.1 and 4.15.1, which respond to the recommendation. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, pp. 4-14 and 4-15. In addition, the General Strategy portion of the element requires the County to install alternative transportation systems where a demonstrated need exists. Id. at p. 4-1. Petitioner contends that by limiting bike paths only to where there is a demonstrated need, the County has not fully responded to the recommendation. This argument is illogical and has been rejected. It is fairly debatable that the above amendments are in compliance. Groundwater Aquifer Recharge - Chapter 5F As required by section 163.3177(6)(c), the County has adopted a natural groundwater aquifer recharge element. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5F. The goal of this sub-element, as amended, is to "[s]afeguard the functions of the natural groundwater recharge areas within the County to protect the water quality and quantity in the Floridan Aquifer." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The EAR contains three recommended changes for this part of the Plan: that the County update its data and analysis to identify areas of high and/or critical recharge for the Floridan aquifer; that it include in the data and analysis an examination of existing LDRs which affect land uses and development activities in high recharge areas and note any gaps that could be filled through the LDRs; and that it include within the data and analysis a study of potential impacts of increased development in high recharge areas, including reasonable development standards for those areas. See County Ex. 1C, §4, pp. 4-5. Petitioner contends that "the objectives and policies pertaining to protecting water recharge areas" are inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(7) and rules 9J-5.5.011 and 9J-5.013, which require that the Plan protect groundwater; that they violate section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(7), which require measurable objectives for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation; and that the County violated section 163.3191(10) by failing to respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. In response to the EAR, in July 2009, the County prepared a watershed report entitled "Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Lake Watershed," which was based on a watershed management model used by County expert witness Peene. See County Ex. 4. The model used for that report is the same model used by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The study was also based on data and analysis prepared by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The purpose of the analysis was to look at potential future land use changes in the Deer Point watershed and assess their ultimate impact upon the Deer Point Reservoir, which is the primary public water supply for the County. The model examined the entire Deer Point watershed, which is a much larger area than the Deer Point Lake Protection Zone, and it assumed various flows from rain, springs, and other sources coming into the Deer Point Reservoir. The study was in direct response to a recommendation in the EAR that the County undertake a study to determine if additional standards were needed to better protect the County's drinking water supply and the St. Andrews estuary. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. Another recommendation was that the study be incorporated by reference into the data and analysis of the Plan and be used as a basis for any amendments to the Plan that might be necessary. Id. at p. 6. Pursuant to that recommendation, the report was incorporated by reference into Objective 5F.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The evidence supports a finding that the report is based on a professionally accepted methodology and is responsive to the EAR. The model evaluated certain future land use scenarios and predicted the level of pollutants that would run off of different land uses into the Deer Point Reservoir. Based on this analysis, Dr. Peene recommended that the County adopt certain measures to protect the groundwater in the basin from fertilizers, stormwater, and pesticides. He also recommended that best management practices be used, that septic tanks be replaced, and that any new growth be on a centralized wastewater treatment plant. Petitioner's expert criticized the report as not sufficiently delineating the karst features or the karst plain within the basin. However, the report addresses that issue. See County Ex. 4, p. 2-36. Also, Map 13 in the EAR identifies the Karst Regions in the County. See County Ex. 1C, § 5, Map 13. One of the recommendations in the EAR was to amend all goals, policies, and objectives in the Plan "to better protect the Deer Point watershed in areas not included within the Deer Point Reservoir Special Treatment Zone, and [to] consider expanding the zone to include additional areas important to preserving the quantity and quality of water entering the reservoir." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Besides amending the sub-element's goal, see Finding of Fact 31, supra, the County amended objective 5F.1 to read as follows: By 2010 protect groundwater resources by identifying and mapping all Areas of High Aquifer Recharge Potential to the Floridan Aquifer in Bay County by using the data and analysis contained in the Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Watershed, prepared by Applied Technology and Management, Inc., dated July 2009. In addition, policy 5F-1.1 requires that the County use "the map of High Aquifer Recharge Areas to establish an Ecosystem Management overlay in the Conservation Element where specific land use regulations pertaining to aquifer water quality and quantity shall apply." Also, policy 5F-1.2 requires the identification of the Dougherty Karst Region. Finally, the EAR and Map 13A were incorporated by reference into the Plan by policy 1.1.4.4. These amendments sufficiently respond to the recommendations in the EAR. While Petitioner's expert criticized the sufficiency of the EAR, and he did not believe the report adequately addressed the issue of karsts, the expert did not establish that the study was professionally unacceptable or otherwise flawed. His criticism of the County's deletion of language in the vision statement of the sub-element that would restrict development density and intensity in areas known to have high groundwater aquifer potential is misplaced. An amendment to a vision statement is not a compliance issue, and nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to limit "density and intensity" in high aquifer recharge areas. On this issue, the EAR recommended that the County's drinking water supply be protected by using "scientifically defensible development standards." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. The amendments accomplish this result. Petitioner also contends that while new policy 5F.3 and related policies are "good," the County should have collected additional data and analysis on the existence of swallets, which are places where streams flow underground. Again, nothing in chapter 163 or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to consider swallets. Also, a contention that policy 5F3.2 allows solid waste disposal facilities in high recharge areas is without merit. The policy requires that the County continue to follow chapter 62-7 regulations (implemented by DEP) to protect water quality of the aquifers. In addition, a moratorium on construction and demolition landfills has been adopted, and current LDRs prohibit landfills within the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Petitioner also criticized the sufficiency of policy 5F.4, which requires the implementation of LDRs that limit land uses around high aquifer recharge areas. The evidence establishes that the new policy is sufficient to achieve this purpose. It is at least fairly debatable that the new amendments protect the natural resources, are based on the best available data and analysis, include measurable objectives for overseeing the amendments, and respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. Conservation Element - Chapter 6 The purpose of this element is to conserve the natural resources of the County. Petitioner contends that "many of the amendments [to this chapter] are not consistent with applicable rules and statutes, and that a number of recommendations in the EAR pertaining to the Conservation Element were not implemented as required by Section 163.3191(10)." These contentions are discussed below. Air pollution While the EAR discusses air pollution, there were no specific recommendations to amend the plan to address air quality. See County Ex. 1C, Element Reviews, Ch. 6, pp. 1 and Petitioner contends, however, that current Plan objective 6.3, which was not amended, is not protecting air quality and should have been revised to correct major air quality problems in the County, including "the deposition of atmospheric mercury caused by fossil fuel burning power plants and incinerators." Objective 6.3 requires the County to maintain or improve air quality levels, while related policies 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 require that the County's facilities will be constructed and operated in accordance with state and federal standards. The policies also require that the County work through state and federal agencies to eliminate unlawful sources of air pollution. Notably, the County does not regulate emissions or air pollution, as that responsibility lies within the jurisdiction of other state and federal agencies. It is fairly debatable that the County reacted to the EAR in an appropriate manner. Policies and Objectives in Chapter 6 Petitioner contends that policy 6.1.1 is inconsistent with section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(2) because: it is not supported by adequate data and analysis; it does not implement the EAR recommendations, as required by section 163.3191(10); it is inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(b) and (f) because it results in "inconsistent application of policies intended to guide local land use decision[s]"; it is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(9) and (10) and rule 9J- 5.013 because it fails to adequately protect natural resources, including isolated wetlands; and it is internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Policy 6.1.1 provides that as a subdivision of the State, the County "will, to the maximum extent practicable, rely upon state laws and regulations to meet the conservation goals and objectives of this Plan." Item 9 in the recommended changes recommends that the County should resolve the ambiguities and inconsistencies between various policies and objectives which rely on the jurisdiction of state laws and regulation on the one hand, and objective 6.11 and implementing policies, which appear to extend wetland jurisdiction to all wetlands, including isolated wetlands not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. The real issue involves isolated wetlands, which at the time of the EAR were not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The EAR did not recommend a specific solution, but only to resolve any apparent "ambiguity." Through amendments to policy 6.11.3, which implements objective 6.11, the County reacted to the recommendation. These amendments clarify the Plan and provide that wetlands in the County will be subject to the Plan if they are also regulated by state and federal agencies. Any ambiguity as to the Plan's application to isolated wetlands was resolved by the adoption of new rules by the Northwest Florida Water Management District, which extend that entity's jurisdiction to isolated wetlands. See Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-346. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick, who explained that the Plan now defers to the wetland regulations of state and federal agencies. Therefore, any inconsistencies or ambiguities have been resolved. Petitioner contends that objective 6.2 and implementing policy 6.2.1 are inconsistent with statutes and a rule which require protection of natural resources because they focus on "significant" natural resources, and not all natural resources. With the exception of one minor change to the policy, the objective and policy were not amended, and the EAR did not recommend that either be revised. Also, testimony established that existing regulations are applied uniformly throughout the County, and not to selected habitat. Finally, the existing objective and related policies already protect rare and endangered species in the County. Objective 6.3 requires that the County "maintain or improve air quality levels." For the reasons cited in Finding of Fact 45, the objective is in compliance. Objective 6.5 requires the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality consistent with state water quality standards, while policy 6.5.1 delineates the measures that the County will take to achieve that objective. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-4 and 6-5. Except for one minor change to paragraph (3) of the policy (which is not in issue), neither provision was revised. Also, the EAR did not recommend any changes to either provision. Notwithstanding Petitioner's contention to the contrary, the County was not required to revise the objective or policy. Policy 6.5.2 requires that the County "protect seagrass beds in those areas under County jurisdiction" by implementing certain enforcement measures. County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-5. The policy was only amended in minor respects during the EAR process. Petitioner contends that the County failed to amend the policy, as required by the EAR, and this failure results in no protection to natural resources. However, the EAR only discusses the policy in the Issues section. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 7. While the EAR emphasizes the importance of seagrass beds to marine and estuarine productivity, it has no recommended changes to the objective or policy. Even so, the County amended policy 6.5.2(5) by requiring the initiation of a seagrass monitoring program using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping by 2012. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. It is at least fairly debatable that the objective and policy are in compliance. Objective 6.6 requires the County to "protect, conserve and appropriately use Outstanding Florida Waters, Class I waters and Class II waters." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. Its purpose is to ensure the quality and safety of the County's primary drinking water supply. Id. The objective was not amended and remains unchanged since 1999. Except for a recommendation that the County give a land use designation to water bodies, there were no recommended changes for this objective or related policies in the EAR. Because land use designations are for land, and not water, the County logically did not assign a land use to any water bodies. Petitioner contends that the objective and related policies are not based on the best available data and analysis and are not measurable, and that they fail to protect Lake Powell, an Outstanding Florida Water, whose quality has been declining over the years. Because no changes were recommended, it was unnecessary to amend the objective and policies. Therefore, Petitioner's objections are misplaced. Notably, the Plan already contains provisions specifically directed to protecting Lake Powell. See, e.g., policy 6.6.1(1), which requires the County to specifically enforce LDRs for Lake Powell, and objective 6.21, which requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-6 and 6-24. Petitioner's expert also criticized the objective and related policies on the ground the County did not adequately identify karst areas in the region. However, nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to collect new data on the existence of karst areas. Petitioner also points out that objective 6.6 and policy 6.6.1 are designed to protect Deer Point Lake but were not amended, as required by the EAR, and they fail to adequately protect that water body. For the reasons expressed in Finding of Fact 55, this contention has been rejected. Objective 6.7, which was not amended, provides that the County "[c]onserve and manage natural resources on a systemwide basis rather than piecemeal." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-8. Related policies, which were not amended except in one minor respect, require that the County implement programs in "Ecosystem Management Areas." These areas are illustrated on Map 6.1 of chapter 6. Petitioner contends that even though they were not amended, the objective and policies are not supported by adequate data and analysis, they fail to contain measurable standards, and they are not responsive to a recommendation in the EAR. Because no changes were made to these provisions, and the EAR does not recommend any specific changes, the contentions are rejected. The 17 water bodies comprising the Sand Hill Lakes are identified in policy 6.9.1. Policy 6.9.3, which also implements objective 6.9, continues the practice of prohibiting development with a density of greater than one unit per ten acres on land immediately adjacent to any of the Sand Hills Lakes outside designated Rural Communities. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6- (The three Rural Communities in the County have been designated as a STZ and are described in FLUE policy 3.4.4.) The policy has been amended by adding new language providing that "[p]roposed developments not immediately adjacent to, but within 1320 feet of a Sand Hill Lake, and outside of a designated Rural Community, will provide, prior to approval, an analysis indicating that the development will not be too dense or intense to sustain the lake." Id. Other related policies are unchanged. The amendment was in response to a recommendation in the EAR that all goals, objectives, and policies be amended to more clearly define the area around the Sand Hill Lakes within which densities and intensities of land must be limited to ensure protection of the lakes. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Petitioner contends that the amended policy is inconsistent with various statutes and rules because it contains no specific standards for site suitability assessment and does not restrict density bordering on the lake; it does not implement the EAR; it is not based on EAR data and analysis; and it does not contain procedures for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of all policies. Policy 6.9.3 applies to agricultural areas outside of rural communities where the maximum density is now one dwelling unit per ten acres, and to properties that are designated as agriculture timber, which allows one dwelling unit per 20 acres. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, it does not change the established densities on those land use categories. Before a property owner can convert a land use affected by the policy, the applicant will be required to provide an analysis that the new development will not be too intense or dense to sustain the lake. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendment responds to the EAR recommendation, that it will not increase density, that it is based on sufficient data and analysis in the EAR, and that adequate standards are contained in the policies to ensure proper implementation. Objective 6.11 requires the County to "[p]rotect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-14. A challenge to an amendment to policy 6.11.3(3), which relates to setbacks or buffers for wetlands, has already been addressed in Case No. 10-0859GM. Policy 6.11.3 provides that in order "[t]o protect and ensure an overall no net loss of wetlands," the County will employ the measures described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the policy. Petitioner contends that by using the standards employed by state and federal agencies for wetlands in paragraph (2), the County has abdicated its responsibility to protect natural resources. However, as previously discussed, the recent assumption of jurisdiction over isolated wetlands by the Northwest Florida Water Management District allows the County to extend these measures to all wetlands in the County. Petitioner also contends that the term "no net loss" in policy 6.11.3 is not measurable. Through its GIS system, though, the County can monitor any loss of wetlands. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick. In addition, the County will know at the development order phase whether any federal or state agency requires mitigation to offset impacts to wetlands. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendments to policy 6.11.3 will protect all wetlands, including isolated wetlands. Objective 6.12 requires that by the year 2012, the County will "develop a GIS layer that provides baseline information on the County's existing wetlands. This database will be predicated on the USFWS [United States Fish and Wildlife Service] National Wetlands Inventory (Cowardin et al 1979) hierarchy of coastal and inland (wetlands) represented in North Florida. This inventory shall be developed through a comprehensive planning process which includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-15. Related policies 6.12.1, 6.12.2, and 6.12.3 require that the County (a) use the GIS database to identify, classify, and monitor wetlands; (b) adopt LDRs which further the objective and policies; and (c) track in the GIS database the dredge and fill permits issued by DEP. Id. Petitioner criticizes the County's decision to wait until 2012 to develop a GIS layer; contends that policy 6.12.2 improperly defers to LDRs; asserts that the policy lacks meaningful standards; and contends it is not responsive to the EAR. The evidence presented on these issues supports a finding that it is at least fairly debatable that the amendments are in compliance. The EAR-based amendments deleted objective 6.13, together with the underlying policies, which related to floodplains, and created new provisions on that subject in the Stormwater Management Sub-Element in Chapter 5E. This change was made because the County concluded that floodplain issues should more appropriately be located in the stormwater chapter. The natural resource values of floodplains are still protected by objective 5E-9 and related policies, which require that state water quality standards are maintained or improved through the County's stormwater management programs. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5E, p. 5E-7. Also, "flood zones" are retained as a listed "significant natural resource" in Conservation Element policy 6.2.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-3. It is at least fairly debatable that the transfer of the floodplain provisions to a new element does not diminish protection of that resource. Finally, Objective 6.21 (formerly numbered as 6.23) requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." Except for renumbering this objective, this provision was not amended, and there is no specific recommendation in the EAR that it be revised. Therefore, the contentions that the existing policy are not in compliance are not credited. Coastal Management Element - Chapter 7 The recommended changes for this element of the Plan are found on pages 7 and 8 of Section 4 of the EAR. In her Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends that the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County did not follow the recommendations in items 1, 2, and 4. Those items generally recommended that the County update the data and analysis supporting the element to reflect current conditions for, among other things, impaired waters. This was done by the County. Accordingly, the County adequately responded to the recommendations. Petitioner also contends that policy 7.1.1 improperly deferred protection of coastal resources to the LDRs. The policy reads as follows: 7.1.1: Comply with development provisions established in the [LDRs] for The Coastal Planning Area (Chapter 10, Section 1003.2 of the Bay County [LDRs] adopted September 21, 2004) which is hereby defined as all land and water seaward of the landward section line of those sections of land and water areas seaward of the hurricane evacuation zone. County witness Crelling established, however, that there are numerous other policies in the element that govern the protection of natural resources. Petitioner contends that no changes were made to provide additional guidance in policy 7.2.1 (formerly numbered as 7.3.1) to improve estuarine water quality even though multiple water bodies are listed as impaired. Except for a few clarifying changes, no revisions were made to the policy. Policy 7.2.1 does not reduce the protection for impaired waters. The minor rewording of the policy makes clear that the protective measures enumerated in the policy "will be taken" by the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality. It is fairly debatable that the element and new objectives and policies are in compliance. Petitioner contends that amended objective 7.2 (formerly numbered as 7.3) will lead to less protection of water quality. The objective requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve estuarine water quality by regulating such sources of pollution and constructing capital improvements to reduce or eliminate known pollutants." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-2. Its purpose is to regulate all known potential sources of estuarine pollution. The evidence fails to establish that the amended objective will reduce the protection of water quality. Policy 7.3.1 was amended to delete the requirement that areas with significant dunes be identified and mapped and to provide instead that the County may impose special conditions on development in dune areas as a part of the development approval process. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-4. This change was made because the EAR recommended that a requirement to map and identify dune systems be deleted due to the "extremely dynamic nature of beach and dune systems." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 7. A similar provision in the Conservation Element was transferred to the Coastal Management Element to respond to the recommended change. The County adequately responded to the recommendation. Petitioner contends that amended policy 7.3.2 (formerly numbered as 7.4.1) does not include sufficient standards to protect significant dunes. The amended policy requires that where damage to dunes is unavoidable, the significant dunes must be restored and revegetated to at least predevelopment conditions. It is at least fairly debatable that the standards in the policy are sufficient to protect dunes. In summary, the evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the revisions to chapter 7 are not in compliance. Housing Element - Chapter 8 Petitioner contends the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County failed to react to recommendations in the EAR; and that new objective 8.16 and related policies 8.16.1, 8.16.2, and 8.16.3 are inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(e) and rules 9J-5.005(6) and (7) because they fail to identify how the provisions will be implemented and thus lack specific measurable objectives and procedures for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation. Petitioner focused on item 4 in the Recommended Changes for the Housing Element. That recommendation reads as follows: 4. The revised data and analysis should also include a detailed analysis and recommendations regarding what constitutes affordable housing, the various state and federal programs available to assist in providing it; where it should be located to maximize utilization of existing schools, medical facilities, other supporting infrastructure, and employment centers taking into consideration the costs of real property; and what the likely demand will be through the planning horizon. The objectives and policies should then be revised consistent with the recommendation of the analysis, including the creation of additional incentives, identification on the Future Land Use Map of areas suited for affordable housing, and, possibly amending the County Land Development Regulations to require the provision of affordable housing if no other alternatives exist. County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 8. Item 1 of the Recommended Changes states that "[t]he County should implement those policies within the Housing Element which proactively address affordable housing, and in particular Policy 8.15.1 outlining density bonuses, reduced fees, and streamlined permitting, to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing." Id. Policy 8.15.1 was amended to conform to this recommendation. The new objective and policies address incentives for the development of affordable housing. While item 4 is not specifically addressed, the new objective and policies address the County's housing concern as a whole, as described in the Recommended Changes. Also, the new objective and policies contain sufficient specificity to provide guidance to a user of the Plan. It is fairly debatable that the element as a whole, and the new objective and policies, are in compliance. Intergovernmental Coordination Element - Chapter 10 Although discussed in the Element Reviews portion of the EAR, there are no recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 3, pp. 1-5. Petitioner contends that because the County deleted objective 10.5, the entire element conflicts with the EAR recommendations, and it is inconsistent with two goals in the state comprehensive plan, sections 163.3177(6)(h)1. and (9)(b) and (h), and rules 9J-5.015 and 9J-5.013(2)(b)8. The deleted provision required the County to "establish countywide resource protection standards for the conservation of locally significant environmental resources." Besides deleting this objective, the County also deleted objective 10.1, which provided that the County "will take the lead role toward the creation of an 'intergovernmental forum' as a means to promote coordination between various jurisdictions and agencies." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 10, p. 10-1. To support her argument, Petitioner relies upon a concern in the Issues part of the EAR that states that "countywide resource protection standards have not been established" and that "consistency of regulation between jurisdictions" must be observed. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 45. Mr. Jacobson, the County Planning and Zoning Director, pointed out that the County currently has numerous interlocal agreements with various municipalities and does not require authorization from the Plan to adopt these agreements. Objective 10.5 was deleted because the County cannot implement its regulations in the various municipalities, and protection of natural resources is addressed in other portions of the Plan. He also noted that the "intergovernmental forum" discussed in deleted objective 10-1 is not required by any statute or rule. It is at least fairly debatable that the element is in compliance and does not violate any statute or rule. (i) Capital Improvements Element - Chapter 11 Petitioner contends that the County failed to implement three recommended changes in the EAR and therefore the entire element is in violation of section 163.3191(10). Those recommendations include an updating of information on the County's current revenue streams, debts, commitments and contingencies, and other financial matters; a revision of policy 11.6.1 to be consistent with Recreation and Open Space Element policy 9.71 with regard to recreational levels of service (LOS); and the development of a five-year schedule of capital improvements. See County Ex. 1, § 4, p.9. Policy 11.6.1 has been substantially revised through the EAR process. Table 11.1 in the policy establishes new LOSs, including one for local parks, regional parks, and beach access points. The County has also adopted an updated five-year Capital Improvement Plan. See County Ex. 36. That exhibit includes a LOS Analysis for recreational services. The same exhibit contains a breakdown of financial matters related to capital improvements. It is fairly debatable that the element is in compliance. Petitioner also contends that objective 11.1 and policy 11.1.1 are not in compliance. Both provisions remain unchanged from the 1999 Plan, and the EAR did not recommend that either provision be amended. The contention is therefore rejected. Other Issues All other issues not specifically addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit, contrary to the more persuasive evidence, or not subject to a challenge in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the EAR-based amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 09-36 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn all reside in the City of Cocoa (Cocoa or City). Petitioners Hendry both reside in Cocoa. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (the Act). Cocoa is located entirely within Brevard County, which is within the jurisdiction of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (the Regional Planning Council). The resident population of Cocoa is presently about 18,000 persons. The City encompasses over 4500 acres and abuts the Indian River, which is also identified as the Indian River Lagoon. Preparation of Proposed Plan By Ordinance 6-86, which was adopted on March 25, 1986, the Cocoa City Council designated the Cocoa Planning and Zoning Board as the local planning agency under the Act. The Planning and Zoning Board thereby became responsible for preparing the Cocoa comprehensive plan required by the Act (the Plan), conducting public hearings on the Plan, and recommending the Plan to City Council for adoption. In February, 1987, Cocoa entered into a contract with the Regional Planning Council for assistance in preparing the Plan. Pursuant to the contract, the Regional Planning Council drafted all elements of the Plan except the Potable Water Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and related portions of the Capital Improvements Element, which CH2M Hill prepared; the Wastewater Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and related portions of the Capital Improvements Element, which Camp, Dresser and McKee prepared; and the Solid Waste Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and related portions of the Capital Improvements Element, which the City prepared. On November 7, 1987, a 4 1/4" by 3" display advertisement in the Florida Today newspaper announced that Cocoa had begun to prepare an update of its comprehensive plan in conformance with the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act. The advertisement stated that the preparation of the update "will have the effect of regulating the use of lands within the municipal limits of the City of Cocoa." The advertisement advised that copies of documents prepared during the updating process would be on file in the City's Community Improvement Department. The advertisement added that the public would be informed of public meetings through the news media and bulletins posted at City Hall. The Florida Today newspaper is a standard-sized newspaper of general paid circulation in Brevard County and of general interest and readership in Cocoa. The newspaper is published at least five times a week. All advertisements described herein appeared in the Florida Today newspaper and adequately identified the location of the advertised meeting or documents. On November 17, 1987, a 1 1/4" by 2 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on November 18, 1987, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing preliminary drafts of the Traffic Circulation and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Plan. The advertisement stated that copies of the relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. On November 18, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the Traffic Circulation and Recreation and Open Space Elements. On November 28, 1987, a 1 1/4" by 2 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on December 2, 1987, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing preliminary drafts of the Housing and Conservation Elements of the Plan. The advertisement stated that copies of the relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. On December 2, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the Housing and Conservation Elements. There is some evidence to suggest that discussion of the Conservation Element was carried over to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on December 9, 1987. On January 9, 1988, a 1 1/4" by 2 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on January 13, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and the Coastal Management Element. The advertisement stated that copies of the relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. On January 13, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and the Coastal Management Element. On February 25, 1988, a 1 1/4" by 5 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced meetings of the Planning and Zoning Board on March 9, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. and the City Council on March 22, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of hearing all interested persons on the Future Land Use and Capital Improvements Elements of the Plan. The advertisement stated that copies of relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. The record is unclear as to whether these meetings took place, although the Planning and Zoning Board met on March 23, 1988, and discussed the Future Land Use, Intergovernmental, and "Capital Facilities" Elements, as well as the "Sanitary Sewer" Subelement of the Public Facilities Element. On March 28, 1988, a 4 1/4" by 3" display advertisement described the planning process in the same manner as did the November 7 display advertisement. The March 28 advertisement announced that the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council would hold joint workshops on March 29, 30, and 31, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. to discuss "public facilities, coastal management, housing, transportation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental coordination, capital improvement and future land use elements." The advertisement stated that copies of relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. The record is unclear as to whether these meetings took place as scheduled, although, at minimum, it appears that the March 29 meeting took place. On April 23, 1988, at 5:15 p.m., the Planning and Zoning Board commenced a special meeting with the following persons present: six members and the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board, four members of the City Council and the Mayor, the City Manager and Assistant City Manager, the Community Improvement Administrator, a City planner, and four representatives of the Regional Planning Council. The purpose of the meeting was to consider the Future Land Use, Traffic Circulation, Housing, Public Facilities, Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and Open Space, Intergovernmental Coordination, and Capital Improvements Elements of the Plan. The Future Land Use Element was unavailable, so the City Council postponed the discussion of this element until a later date. At the April 13 meeting, Rochelle Lawandales, the Community Improvement Administrator, stated that no formal action would be taken at the workshop, but that the Plan would go before the City Council on April 26, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. during a public hearing. At the conclusion of the April 26 hearing, the City Council would be expected to authorize staff to submit the Plan to DCA. The April 13 meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. On April 19, 1988, at 5:15 p.m., the Planning and Zoning Board began a special meeting with largely the same persons who attended the April 13 meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map. The discussion culminated in the consensus that the Planning and Zoning Board would recommend that the City Council transmit the Plan to DCA. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Transmittal of Proposed Plan to DCA On April 19, 1988, a 6 1/2" by 10 1/2" display advertisement with a large-type headline appeared on page 5 of Section B of the newspaper. The advertisement, which was in the form prescribed by Section 163.3184(15)(c), Florida Statutes, announced that the City Council proposed to change the use of land within the City and that on April 26, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. the City Council would conduct a public hearing on the Plan proposed to be sent to DCA (Proposed Plan). The advertisement contained a large map of Cocoa with major street names indicated, listed the nine major elements of the Proposed Plan, and advised that interested persons could submit written comments or attend the public hearing to be heard regarding the transmittal of the Proposed Plan to DCA. The advertisement stated that the City Council would not give final approval to changes proposed at the hearing, which was described as part of the process designed to lead to the eventual adoption of the Plan. On April 26, 1988, the City Council conducted a public hearing. Following receipt of public comment, which was relatively limited, Mayor Dollye Robinson closed the public hearing, and the City Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 88-17, which authorizes the transmittal of the Proposed Plan to DCA. On May 1, 1988, DCA received the City of Cocoa-- Comprehensive Plan, which consists of two volumes. Volume I is Background Analysis. Volume II is Goals, Objectives, and Policies. DCA also received a document containing population estimates for Cocoa and an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), dated April, 1988, assessing the performance of the Cocoa comprehensive plan adopted under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. (The Proposed Plan and Plan are unrelated to the comprehensive plan assessed in the EAR.) On May 8, 1988, a 4 1/4" by 3" display advertisement announced that the Proposed Plan and supporting documentation were available for review at the public library and city hall. Proposed Plan: Goals, Objectives, and Policies General The Act requires that each comprehensive plan contain eight or nine major elements: Capital Improvements; Future Land Use; Traffic Circulation; Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge (identified as the Public Facilities Element in the Proposed Plan and Plan); Conservation; Recreation and Open Space; Housing; Intergovernmental Coordination; and, if applicable, Coastal Management. Each element comprises goals, objectives, and policies, which respectively represent long-term ends, criteria by which progress toward the goals can be measured, and programs and activities by which the goals are to be achieved. The goals, objectives, and policies in the Proposed Plan are largely carried over to the Plan. Future Land Use Element and Map The Proposed Plan contains two objectives under the Future Land Use Element. They are: Objective 1.1: Future growth and development will be managed through the preparation, adop- tion, implementation and enforcement of land development regulations. Objective 1.2: Future development and redevel- opment activities shall be directed in appro- priate areas as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, consistent with sound planning principles, minimal natural constraints, and the goals, objectives, and policies provided in the . . . Plan. Policy 1.1 of the Future Land Use Element provides in part: The City will adopt land development regula- tions that shall contain specific and detailed provisions required to implement the . . . Plan and which: * * * Regulate the use of land and water consis- tent with this element and ensure the compati- bility of adjacent land uses and provide for open space; Protect the wetland areas identified in the conservation element and future land use element; Regulate areas subject to seasonal and periodic flooding and provide for drainage and stormwater management; * * * H) Provide that development orders and permits shall not be issued which would result in a reduction of the adopted level of service standards. The Future Land Use Map, which is part of the Proposed Plan, depicts eight land use categories: low-, medium-, and high-density residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, open space and recreational, and activity center. Policy 1.2 specifies a maximum density of seven units per acre for low- density residential and 15 units per acre for medium-density residential. The Future Land Use Map in the Proposed Plan depicts four large parcels as open space. These are north of Michigan Avenue, just west of U.S. Route 1; south of Michigan Avenue, just west of U.S. Route 1; north and west of the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Range Road; and east of the north end of Range Road and west of the largest unincorporated enclave surrounded by the City. According to the two Existing Land Use Maps contained in the Background Analysis, which is described in Paragraphs 47-67 below, the four large parcels designated as open space on the Future Land Use Map are wetlands, except for a small strip that is probably a park and is described further in Paragraph 127 below. The four open spaces constitute nearly all of the existing wetlands in the City. Neither the Future Land Use Map in the Proposed Plan nor either of the Existing Land Use Maps in the Background Analysis depicts any historical resources. Housing Element The Housing Element of the Proposed Plan contains the following provisions with respect to historic properties: Objective 3.1.4: Housing designated histori- cally significant will continue to be preserved and protected, and the quality of existing homes and neighborhoods will be maintained or improved. Policy 3.1.4.4: Assist owners of designated historically significant housing to apply for and utilize state and federal assistance programs. Policy 3.1.4.7: The City will aid in the identification of historically significant housing and structures. Public Facilities Element The Public Facilities Element of the Proposed Plan provides the following level of service standards for drainage: design storm event--five year frequency/24-hour duration event; on-site stormwater management--retention of first one inch of rainfall runoff or, with respect to drainage areas under 100 acres with under 80% impervious surface, retention of first one-half inch of runoff; stormwater quantity--no greater than pre-development stormwater runoff flow rates, quantities, peaks, and velocities; and stormwater quality--no degradation of existing water quality condition in receiving water bodies. The Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element of the Proposed Plan contains seven objectives. Three of the objectives focus upon floodplains and wetlands: Objective 4.3.5: To reduce existing flooding problems and to prevent additional flooding problems from being created as a result of future development. Objective 4.3.6: To ensure the protection and preservation of existing wetlands as viable components of the City's surface water management systems, to include the establish- ment or maintenance of desirable hydroperiods, water quality conditions, and natural ecosystems. Objective 4.3.7: To ensure that proper and adequate surface water management facilities are provided in response to identified needs. Several policies under Objectives 4.3.5, 4.3.6, and 4.3.7 describe the data still needed by the City to determine its drainage needs and the means by which Cocoa intends to attain the overall goals of the subelement: Policy 4.3.2.5: Efforts will be undertaken to eliminate existing points of direct stormwater discharge into receiving surface waterbodies, where possible, based on the following procedure: engineering studies will be initiated for the purpose of identifying the comparative nonpoint pollution impacts of each direct discharge point, and determining relative priorities for corrective actions (or "retrofit" projects) to be undertaken, based on the extent of-- --adverse impacts on entire receiving waterbody --system retrofitting required to eliminate or minimize the adverse impacts --projected benefits to be accomplished --overall implementation feasibility facility design studies will be initiated for those direct discharge points determined to have the highest priority. The estimated costs of individual corrective action projects will be included as components of the Capital Improvements Program. Policy 4.3.5.2: Drainage needs assessment investigations will be initiated for areas within the City which have been identified as experiencing flooding problems, for the purpose of identifying actions necessary to alleviate the problems. Policy 4.3.5.3: Based on the findings of the drainage needs assessment investigations, engineering studies will be initiated to develop solutions to the identified flooding problems, with the cost estimates being included in the Capital Improvements Program. Policy 4.3.6.1: Public infrastructure improvements that encourage the development of wetlands will be avoided except in the case of overriding public interest, with appropriate measures being taken to discourage development in affected wetland areas. Policy 4.3.6.2: The City will review its land development and zoning ordinances, regulations and standards with the intent being to remove any requirements which might encourage develop- ment in wetland areas. Policies 4.3.7.1 and 4.3.7.2 promise an inventory of Cocoa's surface water management system followed by an engineering study of the system components to identify the extent of excess or deficient surface water flow or storage capacity. The final policy in this subelement states: Policy 4.3.7.9: Flood control for new develop- ment will be accomplished through the limita- tion of fill in the 100-year floodplain. In cases where there are no alternatives to fill in the floodplain, compensatory storage for such fill will be provided through excavation in adjacent upland areas (above the 100-year floodplain) of a volume equivalent to the loss of storage within the 100-year floodplain resulting from the placement of fill, where such compensatory storage can be accomplished in an environmentally sound and economically feasible manner. Coastal Management Element The Coastal Management Element of the Proposed Plan does not refer to coastal wetlands or historic resources. It does not contain any analysis of the effects on estuarine water quality of existing drainage systems and nonpoint source pollution such as that carried by stormwater runoff. Conservation Element The Conservation Element of the Proposed Plan contains nine subelements. Several of these subelements contain objectives or policies addressing wetlands, floodplains, and stormwater drainage. The Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Subelement of the Conservation Element provides: Policy 6.4.2: Areas of natural habitat within the 100 year floodplain shall be given priority consideration in the identification of lands which address passive recreational demand and open space objectives. Policy 6.4.3: In order to reduce the adverse consequences of floodplain development and simultaneously encourage the conservation of natural habitat, the City's Flood Damage Prevention ordinance shall be amended to discourage construction in the floodplain by requiring the provision of compensatory storage for fill placed within the floodplain. Policy 6.4.7: The City shall not approve any development which would significantly and adversely alter the ecological functions of freshwater wetlands or deepwater habitat. Ecological functions include: (a) provision of wildlife and fisheries habitat; (b) main- tenance of in-stream flows and lake levels during periods of high and/or low rainfall; (c) erosion control; and (d) water quality enhancement. The Fisheries and Estuarine Habitat Subelement of the Conservation Element provides: Objective 6.5: The City shall protect the ecological well being of the Indian River Lagoon from adverse activities or impacts, so as to maintain or enhance the abundance and diversity of estuarine habitat and species. Policy 6.5.2: The city shall establish site design standards and regulations for the control of stormwater runoff to insure the adequate treatment of stormwater from all new development or redevelopment prior to its discharge to surface waters. Policy 6.5.3: The City shall take steps to identify means for reducing the volume of untreated stormwater discharged to surface waters, and shall develop a program to take corrective action, to the greatest extent feasible. The Water Quality Protection Subelement of the Conservation Element contains similar provisions with respect to the control of stormwater runoff and development of corrective programs. The Floodplain Management Subelement of the Conservation Element states: Objective 6.8: The City shall protect the flood storage and conveyance functions of the 100 year floodplain. Policy 6.8.1: In order to reduce the adverse consequences of floodplain development and simultaneously encourage the conservation of natural habitat, the City's Flood Damage Prevention ordinance shall be amended to discourage construction in the floodplain by requiring the provision of compensatory storage for fill placed within the floodplain. Policy 6.8.2: Developers shall be encouraged to incorporate those portions of sites which are within the 100 year floodplain as open space preservation. Policy 6.8.3: The City shall promote wetlands preservation and non-structural floodplain management by encouraging the use of isolated wetlands as detention areas, where such use is consistent with good engineering practice and does not significantly degrade the ecological value of wetlands. Pre-treatment of stormwater runoff by diversion of the "first flush" shall be required prior to discharge to wetland detention areas. Policy 6.8.4: The City shall encourage public and private agencies . . . in acquiring floodplains. Recreation and Open Space Element The Recreation and Open Space Element of the Proposed Plan provides: Goal 7.2: Ensure the conservation of open space areas in the City to provide aesthe- tically pleasing buffer areas, to serve as wildlife habitats, to act as groundwater recharge areas, to give definition to the urban area, and to enhance and promote natural resources. Policy 7.2.1.2: Designate conservation areas within the City as part of the future land use map in order to preserve open space and fulfill objectives discussed in this element and the Conservation Element. Capital Improvements Element The Capital Improvements Element of the Proposed Plan provides: Objective 9.1: The Capital Improvements Element will establish adopted levels of service for public facilities and capital improvement projects which the City will undertake. The Five-Year Schedule of Improvements will identify projects which a) meet existing deficiencies; b) provide repair or replacement of existing facilities; [and] c) accommodate desired future growth. Objective 9.2: All land use decisions which impact the Capital Improvements Element or Future Land Use Element will be coordinated by the City Manager, or his designee, in conjunction with the City's Planning and Zoning Board, and approved by City Council. Objective 9.3: Annual review of the Capital Improvements Element will be included in the City's budget process. As part of this review the Finance Department shall be responsible for: (1) addressing the fiscal impact of capital improvement projects on revenue and expenditures, and (2) updating the fiscal assessment section of the Capital Improvements Element. Objective 9.4: Public facility improvements that are needed to support new growth will maintain adopted levels of service. Improve- ments to public facilities which result from the impact of new development will require equitable cost participation by the developer. Policy 9.4.1: The City Manager shall initiate impact analysis of proposed development projects to determine the impact of the development on the City's fiscal operations and LOS [i.e., levels of service] for public facilities. Objective 9.5: The City will not approve development which requires public facility improvements that exceed the City's ability to provide these in accordance with the adopted LOS standards. Policy 9.5.1: Before a development is approved, the City Manager or his designee will determine that any needed public facility improvements do not exceed the City's funding capacity. Policy 9.5.2: Development approved prior to the adoption of this Plan which requires improvements to public facilities will be included in the Five-Year Schedule of Improvements with a funding priority designation. The Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements in the Proposed Plan includes only four projects: ongoing resurfacing and repair of roads, possible four-laning one specific road, expanding the wastewater treatment plant, and extensive, detailed work to the potable water system. I. Monitoring and Evaluation Provisions regarding Monitoring and Evaluation follow the goals, objectives, and policies in Volume II of the City of Cocoa--Comprehensive Plan. Concerning the public participation requirement, this section states in relevant part: In cases in which the proposed ordinance deals with more than five percent (5%) of the total land area of the municipality the council shall provide for public notice and hearings as follows: The council shall hold two (2) advertised public hearings on the proposed ordinance. Both hearings shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday and the first shall be held approxi- mately seven (7) days after the day that the first advertisement is published. The second hearing shall be held approximately two (2) weeks after the first hearing and shall be advertised approximately five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The day, time and place at which the second public hearing will be held shall be announced at the first public hearing. [This section is virtually identical to the language contained in Section 163.3184(15)(c), Florida Statutes.] [This section allows notice by mailing instead of advertising.] (Laws of Fla., Ch. 59-1186, Art. V, Section 9; Ord. No. 4-80, Section, [sic] 4-8-80) Proposed Plan: Background Analysis Future Land Use Element and Map The Future Land Use Element of the Background Analysis explains the purpose of the Future Land Use Map: The future location and distribution of land use are shown on the Future Land Use map. This map identifies appropriate types of land uses if all vacant land were to be utilized within the ten year planning horizon. Once the Future Land Use map is adopted, all development regulations in effect subsequent to its adoption must be consistent with it. Land development regulations in particular, shall rely on the map for their rational basis. (Future Land Use Element, Background Analysis, p. 1-3.) The Future Land Use Element of the Background Analysis states that the existing land use in Cocoa in 1987 includes about 389 acres of wetlands, or 8.6%, out of a total of 4520 acres. (Future Land Use Element, Background Analysis, Table 1-2.) Public Facilities Element The Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element of the Background Analysis describes Cocoa's drainage as flowing equally into two waterbodies: the Indian River Lagoon on the east and the St. Johns River on the west. Of the five main drainage areas within Cocoa, three are part of the Indian River Lagoon Watershed and two are part of the St. Johns River Watershed. The map of Drainage Areas/Facilities, which is part of the Drainage Subelement, depicts each of the five drainage areas. Drainage Area III is bounded on the east by the high relict dune line just east of U.S. Route 1, on the west by Clearlake Road, on the south by Dixon Boulevard, and on the north by a low ridgeline in the vicinity of Industrial Park Road. Drainage Area III encompasses the wetlands bisected by Michigan Avenue, just west of U.S. Route 1. These wetlands, which are about 3000 feet from the Indian River, are part of a series of linear marshes running north-south and representing the "major repository" of stormwater drainage from contributing portions of Drainage Area The Background Analysis reports that these marshes function effectively as a surface water management area. Although on the landward side of the dune line, Drainage Area III is within the Indian River Lagoon Watershed because excess water in the area reverse flows into the lagoon during periods of very wet weather. According to the map of Vegetative Cover and Wildlife in the Background Analysis, seagrasses cover either the southeastern portion of the open space/wetlands south of Michigan Avenue or the adjacent land designated as medium-density residential. Noting historical encroachment on these wetlands, the Background Analysis concludes that continued encroachment will reduce the size of the storage capacity and increase the likelihood of outflow into the Indian River Lagoon. Drainage Area IV includes the wetlands found between the north end of Range Road and the largest unincorporated enclave within the City. These wetlands, which drain into the St. Johns River, are the site of Little Mud Lake. According to the Water Quality Protection Subelement of the Background Analysis, Little Mud Lake is largely a willow marsh with little or no open water. What water remains is probably of poor quality. However, the Background Analysis observes that the lack of adequate water quality data for all waterbodies in the City is itself a problem. Drainage Area V includes the largest contiguous wetlands within the City, which is the area north and west of the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Range Road. This area, which drains into the St. Johns River, surrounds Big Mud Lake, whose water quality is probably in poor condition, according to the Background Analysis. The Drainage Subelement of the Background Analysis acknowledges that the surface drainage systems for Cocoa have not been comprehensively inventoried since June, 1968. However, Drainage Area III is known to contribute about 29% of the stormwater runoff-generated pollutant loadings from the City to the Indian River Lagoon in the vicinity of the City. Although the wetlands serve as natural treatment and storage units, "[t]he continued loss of wetland areas will result in a corresponding decline in the overall effectiveness of the remaining wetlands to remove pollutants." (Drainage Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 4-30.) By way of comparison, Drainage III loads the Indian River Lagoon in the vicinity of the City with more than double the poundage of suspended solids than does the Jerry Sellers wastewater treatment plant in Cocoa. As to Drainage Area V, the Drainage Subelement warns that the salutary effect of Big Mud Lake, which serves as a natural treatment unit for stormwater pollutants, will be lost once the lake reaches its assimilative capacity to absorb or fix incoming loads of pollutants. According to the Water Quality Subelement of the Background Analysis, Big Mud Lake is probably eutrophic and "reduction of stormwater pollution . . . is probably the only means to restore [it]." (Water Quality Protection Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-62.) The Drainage Subelement concludes, however, that the impact of stormwater runoff-generated loadings is not expected to increase significantly and may even be reduced due to stormwater treatment requirements and stormwater retrofitting projects. However, existing stormwater treatment facilities serve only about 5.5% of the land area within the City, which depends heavily upon existing natural treatment systems for the management and control of stormwater problems. The Drainage Subelement offers 13 recommendations. Four of the first five recommendations suggest an inventory of existing stormwater drainage systems, evaluation of the effectiveness of current strategies, and projection of the impact of future growth on flow volumes. The fourth recommendation reads: Efforts should be undertaken to ensure the protection and preservation of existing wetlands in Drainage Areas #3, 4 and 5, with a priority being placed on the wetlands in Drainage Area #3. Applicable actions include modifications to existing zoning classifica- tions and provisions, land development regu- lations, stormwater, runoff treatment requirements, and other regulatory measures, as well as the possible acquisition of conservation or drainage easements in the wetland areas. (Drainage Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 4-37 and 4-38.) The Floodplain Management Subelement of the Conservation Element of the Background Analysis defines floodplains as those areas that become inundated by water on a recurring basis. The 100 year floodplain is an area that stands a 1% chance in any year that it will be subject to such inundation. The subelement notes that the addition of fill in the floodplains may raise flood elevations to an extent that flooding results to structures previously thought to be outside the floodplain. According to the Floodplain Management Subelement, 745 acres or 16% of the area of the City is located within the 100 year floodplain. Only 66 acres or about 9% of these floodplains are currently developed. Wetlands occupy 120 acres or 16.1% of the 100 year floodplain in the City. In assessing the future needs of Cocoa with respect to floodplains, the Floodplain Management Subelement expressly assumes that the "areas currently supporting open water or wetlands are clearly safe from development." (Floodplain Management Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-72.) This subelement concerns itself with the "several adverse consequences" of the development of the remaining 510 acres of undeveloped wetland upland within the 100 year floodplain. The Background Analysis warns that development within the 100 year floodplain "would be dependent upon the proper functioning of all drainage systems needed to overcome soils limitations" or else less severe storm events might result in recurrent flooding. Id. The Floodplains Subelement concludes that adverse consequences, such as flooding existing homes, can best be avoided by "limiting any development which requires the placement of fill" and encouraging the use of nonwetland upland floodplains as open space. Again concerning itself exclusively with nonwetland uplands within the 100 year floodplain, the subelement recommends "minimal development, such as very low density single family homes," to avoid future infrastructure problems due to flooding existing structures. (Floodplain Management Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-73.) Recreation and Open Space Element The Recreation and Open Space Element of the Background Analysis acknowledges that lands designated as open space may include wetlands. Conservation Element The Fisheries and Estuarine Subelement of the Conservation Element describes the Indian River Lagoon as a tidal estuary, whose brackish waters are an important resource for commercial and recreational fishing. The subelement notes that considerable amounts of seagrass cover have been lost, presumably due to human-induced environmental changes. One of the causes of the loss of seagrasses, which are a crucial component in the ecological food web of the estuary, is the discharge of inadequately treated stormwater. The Fisheries and Estuarine Subelement concludes that the pollutant discharges, which include stormwater, must be "reversed" if the estuarine resources are to be "maintained." The subelement contains a recommendation that existing drainage systems be improved and projects feasible only through dredging and filling of wetlands be prohibited, except for projects of overriding public interest. (Fisheries and Estuarine Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-50.) Coastal Management Element The Coastal Resources Subelement of the Coastal Management Element of the Background Analysis defines the coastal area for the subelement as the entire City. (Coastal Resources Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 5-5.) The subelement reports that shellfish were once harvested commercially through the entire Indian River Lagoon. However, due to the effects of urban and agricultural development, shellfish harvesting in the lagoonal waters adjacent to Cocoa is either restricted or prohibited. The subelement notes that the manatee, which is the only endangered mammal regularly inhabiting the Indian River, suffers from the loss of seagrasses, upon which the manatee grazes. The Coastal Resources Subelement states that the Indian River Lagoon receives little tidal flushing due to its distance from Sebastian Inlet. Thus, whatever pollutants are discharged into the lagoon remain indefinitely. In general, the water quality of the lagoon, according to one source cited in the Background Analysis, ranges from fair to poor. According to another source cited in the Background Analysis, the water quality is poor. The subelement reports that, by November, 1988, Cocoa was projected to complete the expansion of the Jerry Sellers wastewater treatment plant, whose effluent flows into the lagoon. The expansion was to increase the capacity of the plant by 80% of its present capacity. (Coastal Resources Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 5-10.) The Coastal Resources Subelement discloses that the Indian River Lagoons Field Committee was commissioned in 1985 to assist in the preparation of an integrated management plan for the lagoon, which extends over 156 miles through five counties and 40 municipalities. One of the committee's general recommendations is that local governments should include in their comprehensive plans the committee's recommendations for floodplain and critical area protection. (Coastal Resources Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 5-34.) Objections, Recommendations, and Comments of DCA Findings of Other Agencies Upon receipt of the Proposed Plan and supporting documents, DCA distributed them to various state, regional, and local agencies for comment, as part of the intergovernmental review process mandated by Section 163.3184(4) and (5), Florida Statutes. The Act gives these agencies 45 days within which to send their comments to DCA, which has an additional 45 days within which to transmit its objections, recommendations, and comments (ORC) to the local government submitting the plan. In the present case, DCA received responses from the Divisions of State Lands and Resource Management of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR); Comprehensive Planning Division of Brevard County; Regional Planning Council; Bureau of Historic Preservation of the Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State (the Department of State); Planning Department of the St. Johns River Water Management District (the Water Management District); Bureaus of Air Quality, Wastewater Management and Grants, Groundwater Protection, and Waste Planning and Regulation and Sections of Coastal Management and Drinking Water of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER); Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; and District 5-- Division of Planning and Programming of the Department of Transportation. DNR commented upon Policy 1.1.C, which as noted above in Paragraph 28 above provides that the City will adopt land development regulations to protect the wetlands identified in the Conservation and Future Land Use Elements. DNR stated that the policy "needs to project a long-term land use program to insure the protection of natural resources." DNR objected that the Coastal Management Element "contains no goal or objective addressing the protection, conservation, or enhancement of remaining coastal wetlands, living marine resources, . . . wildlife habitat, or the maintenance or improvement of estuarine environmental quality." The Regional Planning Council reported that Objective 6.4 in the Conservation Element lacks policies addressing the need to protect upland habitat adjacent to regionally significant wetlands, as required by Policy 43.8 in the plan of the Regional Planning Council. In a letter signed by Secretary of State Jim Smith, the Department of State determined that the Proposed Plan was inconsistent with the historic preservation aspects of the state comprehensive plan and failed to meet the requirements of the Act "regarding the identification of known historical resources . . . and . . . establishment of policies, goals, and objectives for historic preservation." The Department of State stated that Objective 3.1.4 of the Housing Element, which is quoted in Paragraph 33 above, lacks a specific plan of action for achieving its stated goal of preserving housing designated as historically significant. The Department of State faulted the Coastal Management Element for its failure to mention historical structures or archaeological sites and the Future Land Use Element and Map for their omission of known historical resources. The Water Management District stated that the Proposed Plan is "deficient with respect to water-related goals, objectives and policies required by Chapter 9J-5." With respect to the Future Land Use Element, the Water Management District noted the absence of objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources and policies to provide for drainage and stormwater management. The Water Management District found several items missing from the Coastal Management Element. These items included an inventory of the effect of the future land uses on natural resources; objectives protecting coastal wetlands, resources, and habitats; objectives addressing estuarine environmental quality; policies limiting the impacts of development upon wetlands; and policies identifying techniques for the protection of the Indian River Lagoon. The Water Management District concluded that this element did not appear to follow the requirements of Chapter 9J-5 as closely as did the other elements of the Proposed Plan. The Water Management District also objected to the Conservation Element on the grounds that it lacked specificity for the protection of existing natural resources and time frames for the treatment of untreated stormwater discharges, fisheries, wildlife, and wildlife habitats. DER commented generally that the Proposed Plan "appears to have important weaknesses." Referring to the Future Land Use and Capital Improvements Elements, DER noted the need for a number of studies regarding drainage, but the absence of any funds allocated for this purpose. DER also commented generally that "much of the work that identified potential areas for conservation, such as mapping the areas subject to flooding and areas with poor soil suitability or wetlands, was not carefully incorporated into the Future Land Use Element." DER objected that the Future Land Use Element is not based upon analyses of the effect of development and redevelopment of flood-prone areas and the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land to determine its suitability for use. DER stated that the Future Land Use Element insufficiently analyzes the wetlands and floodplains identified elsewhere in the Proposed Plan. Findings of DCA General On August 5, 1988, DCA mailed to Cocoa the ORC, which contained 139 objections, the above-described objections and comments of the other state, regional, and local agencies, and general background information concerning the Act and the planning process. The ORC explains that objections relate to specific requirements of the Act or Chapter 9J-5. Each objection includes a recommendation of "one approach that might be taken" to address the objection. A comment is advisory in nature and does not form the basis of a determination of noncompliance. The ORC states that the City's public participation procedures are in violation of Rule 9J-5.004(2)(c) and (e). The objections states that the procedures lack provisions to assure that the public has opportunities to provide written comments and would receive responses to their comments. The ORC recommends that the City revise the procedures to include the necessary provisions. The ORC states that the format of the goals, objectives, and policies are in violation of Rules 9J-5.003(32), (57), and (64) and 9J-5.005(6). The objection states: Goals which do not state a long-term end towards which programs or activities are directed are not acceptable. Objectives which are not measurable, not supported by the data and analysis and are stated in an unspecific, tentative and/or conditional manner are unacceptable. Policies which are tentative or conditional, or do not describe the activities, programs and land development regulations which will implement the plan, are unacceptable. The accompanying recommendation adds: A goal must be written to state a long-term desired result [citation omitted]. Objectives must be written in a way that provides specific measurable intermediate ends that mark progress toward a goal [citation omitted]. A measure such as a quantity, percentage, etc. and a definite time period for its accomplishment should be included in the objectives. Policies answer the question of "how" by specifying the clearly defined actions (programs and activities) local governments will take to achieve each objective and ultimately the identified goal [citation omitted]. If desired, local governments may choose to assign the measurability to a policy . . .. [DCA] is primarily concerned that local governments provide the basis for assessing the effectiveness of their plan. When writing objectives and policies, avoid vague words and phrases (e.g., "adequate," "sufficient," "minimize," and "adverse impacts"), terms which nullify the strength of the statement (e.g., "consider" or "encourage"), or advisory words. "Should" implies an advisory statement which is inappropriate in an adopted portion of the plan. Using the term "shall" provides direction in implementing the plan and will make later evaluation and update of the plan an effective process. . . . The use of words like "ensure" and "encourage" leaves the what and how questions unanswered. [A]n objective cannot be phrased to "maintain or improve," one or the other actions might be set as an objective, but not both. Objectives and policies which are written using phrases such as "if needed," "whenever possible" and "where feasible and appropriate," or other vague words or phrases make the statements unacceptable because the conditional criteria making them specifically operational, have not been stated. 2. Future Land Use Element and Map Included in the background information accompanying the ORC is the following statement from DCA concerning the purpose of the future land use element: The purpose of the future land use element is the designation of future land use patterns as reflected in the goals, objectives and policies of all the comprehensive plan elements. Depicting the future land use patterns on the future land use map serves to (1) anticipate and resolve land use compatibility issues, and (2) provide the information necessary to determine the needed location and capacity of public facilities. (Major Issues--Local Government Comprehensive Planning, p. 3.) The ORC contains three objections and recommendations with respect to the data and four objections and recommendations with respect to the analysis contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Background Analysis. These objections cover the failure of both Existing Land Use Maps to depict natural and historic resources, which is in violation of Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a)6. and 11. The ORC contains seven objections and recommendations with respect to the goals, objectives, and policies under the Future Land Use Element of the Proposed Plan and three objections and a comment with respect to the Future Land Use Map. Two of the objections pertain to the two objectives of the Future Land Use Element. These objections, which are recited above in Paragraph 27, generally provide for the management of future growth through the implementation of unspecified land development regulations and require the direction of future development and redevelopment into appropriate areas as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. The ORC states that these objectives are unmeasurable and unsupported by the data and analysis in the Background Analysis, which is in violation of Rule 9J-5.005(3)(b). Another objection is that the Future Land Use Element of the Proposed Plan lacks objectives addressing the requirements set forth in the following rules: Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)1.-8. These rules require, among other things, the coordination of future land uses with the appropriate topography, soil, conditions, and availability of facilities and services; and the protection of natural and historic resources. DCA also objects in the ORC to Policy 1.1, which is recited at Paragraph 28 above and calls for land development regulations protecting wetlands and regulating areas subject to flooding, among other items. The ORC states that Policy 1.1 fails to satisfy the definition of a policy set forth in Rule 9J-5.003(64) because it fails to specify how the programs and implementation activities would be conducted. The ORC asserts that Policy 1.1 is unsupported by the necessary data and analysis, in violation of Rules 9J-5.005(1)(a)6. and 10., 9J-5.005(1)((b)3. and 4., and 9J-5.005(2)(a). The missing data and analysis include: the uses of conservation and undeveloped land; the presence on existing land use maps of wetlands and floodplains; and the availability of any facilities and services, as identified in the Drainage Subelement, to serve existing land uses. The ORC states that the Future Land Use Element lacks policies addressing the requirements set forth in Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)3. and 8. The former subsection requires a policy addressing implementation activities directed toward providing facilities and services to meet locally established level of service standards concurrent with the impacts of development. The latter subsection requires a policy addressing implementation activities directed toward identifying, designating, and protecting historically significant properties. As to the Future Land Use Map, the ORC identifies deficiencies similar to those cited regarding the Future Land Use Element with respect to a lack of support by the data and analysis. The deficiencies in the data and analysis include the failure to show all required land use categories, including conservation and historic resources, which are required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a); failure to show one land use category, the redevelopment area, that is described in the text; and omission of all required natural resources, such as floodplains and wetlands, which is in violation of Rule 9J-5.006(4)(b). Noting that the legend on the Future Land Use Map states that the map is intended as an adjunct to the Plan, DCA comments that the legend should reflect that the map will be adopted as part of the Plan. 3. Housing Element One of the objections to the data underlying the Housing Element in the Background Analysis is that they do not include an inventory of historically significant housing listed in the Florida Master Site File, housing designated as historically significant by a City ordinance, or the location of the single house that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. All of this information is required by Rule 9J-5.010(1)(g). The ORC contains an objection to Objective 3.1.4, which is set forth in Paragraph 33 above. The ORC states that this objective, which promises the preservation of historically significant property, is unmeasurable. 4. Public Facilities Element The ORC sets forth six objections to the data and analysis underlying the Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element of the Background Analysis. These objections point out the absence of data and analysis concerning the following items: the design capacity of the drainage facilities, which information is required by Rule 9J-5.011(1)(e)3.; the existing level of service standard provided by the drainage facilities, which information is required by Rule 9J-5.011(1)(e)5.; and the projected facility capacity, including surpluses and deficiencies, for the second increment of the planning period, which information is required by Rule 9J-5.011(1)(f)3. The ORC states that Objectives 4.3.5, 4.3.6, and 4.3.7 are unmeasurable and, as to Objectives 4.3.6 and 4.3.7, unspecific. These objectives, which are quoted in Paragraph 35 above, respectively deal with flood control, wetlands protection, and adequate surface water management facilities. The ORC is also critical of Policy 4.3.6.1, which is set forth in Paragraph 36 above and promises that the City will avoid infrastructure improvements that encourage wetlands development. DCA recommends that the Drainage Subelement show how the City will conduct the programs and implementing activities to avoid such infrastructure improvements. 5. Coastal Management Element Among the objections to the data underlying the Coastal Management Element of the Background Analysis is that the element lacks any inventory, analysis, or mapping of historic resources, which are required by Rule 9J- 5.012(2)(c). The ORC cites the failure of the Coastal Management Element to include policies addressing the requirements of Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1.-3., 8.-10., 13., and 14. These subsections require policies that, among other things, limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitat, and living marine resources; restore or enhance disturbed or degraded natural resources, including wetlands, estuaries, and drainage systems; regulate floodplains, stormwater management, and land use to reduce the risk of loss of human life and property as a result of natural hazards; protect historic resources by, among other things, identifying historic sites and establishing performance standards for the development and sensitive reuse of historic resources; and generally establish priorities for shoreline land uses. 6. Conservation Element The ORC contains an objection to Objective 6.5 of the Fisheries and Estuarine Habitat Subelement of the Conservation Element of the Proposed Plan. DCA finds this objective, which is cited in Paragraph 40 above and requires the protection of the Indian River Lagoon, to be unmeasurable and unspecific. The ORC states that the Conservation Element lacks policies to protect existing natural resources and designate environmentally sensitive lands for protection, which are required by Rule 9J-5.013(2)(c)7. and 9. 7. Capital Improvements Element The ORC notes one objection and recommendation to the data underlying the Capital Improvements Element of the Background Analysis. The objection states: Because data and analysis requirements were missing in the Drainage . . . Subelement, capital improvement needs cannot be adequately evaluated. Capital improvement needs for [this subelement] cannot be assumed to be nonexistent. The ORC states seven objections and recommendations to the analysis underlying the Capital Improvements Element of the Background Analysis. These objections generally concern a lack of information about costs and revenues. The ORC contains objections to Objectives 9.1, 9.2, and 9.7 as unmeasurable and, with respect to Objectives 9.2 and 9.7, unspecific. These objectives, which are quoted at Paragraph 44 above, deal generally with funding capital improvements required by level of service standards. The ORC cites the absence of an objective addressing the requirements of Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)5. This rule requires an objective showing the local government's ability to provide or require the provision of the needed improvements identified in the Plan's other elements. The rule also requires an objective showing the local government's ability to manage the land development process so that the public facility needs created by previously issued development orders do not exceed the ability of the local government to fund or require the funding of capital improvements. DCA also objects to numerous policies in the Capital Improvements Element on the grounds that they are not measurable. 8. Miscellaneous DCA objects in the ORC that the Proposed Plan lacks goals, objectives, and policies that further numerous policies of the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan of the Regional Planning Council. Review of ORC and Adoption of Plan Review of ORC Within a few days after receiving the ORC from DCA, Cocoa forwarded the relevant portions of the Proposed Plan to the consultants who had prepared them for the preparation of responses and revisions. On or about August 31, Cocoa received the responses and revisions from the consultants. As noted in Paragraph 46 above, the procedures in effect at this time were those contained in Ordinance No. 4-80. On August 23, 1988, the City Council postponed until its next meeting consideration of a new ordinance establishing procedures for adopting amendments to the Proposed Plan. On August 31, 1988, a 1 1/4" by 8 1/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on September 14, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose, among other things, of recommending to the City Council changes to the nine elements of the Proposed Plan. The advertisement stated that the City Council will consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board during its regularly scheduled meeting on September 27, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. The advertisement advised that the Plan documents, including the Future Land Use Map, were available for public inspection at the Community Improvement "Office." On September 1, 1988, a 6 1/2" by 10 1/2" display advertisement provided the same information as that contained in the advertisement published the prior day. The display advertisement stated: The City urges any citizen to review the Plan documents and submit written or oral comments at any time during the process. Such comments will be presented during the hearing along with response as appropriate. All citizens will be given the opportunity to review the documents, have legal notification, submit written or oral comments, and receive appropriate responses to items related to elements to be adopted by the City as the City's Comprehensive Plan. The display advertisement bore a large, boldface headline in block print, stating: "NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE." The advertisement contained a large map of the City. A 6 1/2" by 4" version of the same advertisement appeared elsewhere in the same edition of the newspaper. At the regular meeting of the City Council on September 13, 1988, Ms. Koons, on behalf of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn, complained about the limited opportunities for public participation, in part caused by the lack of current information available to the public. In response, the City Council announced the dates of September 27 and October 4, 5, or 6 for the adoption hearings for the Plan. Richard Amari, the City Attorney, reminded everyone that the Act gives local governments only 60 days following the issuance of the ORC within which to adopt the Plan. He said that Cocoa was not trying to bypass public participation, but had to comply with the law. At the September 13 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-31, which became effective the same date. The resolution provides in relevant part: Section 1. The City will advertise pursuant to Florida State Statutes and Department of Community Affairs Rule 9J-5. Section 2. The City will post notices of its public hearings in City Hall, Library and Police Department regarding consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 3. The City will provide in its ads encouragement for written and oral comments by the public which written comment will be made part of the public record. Section 4. The City Manager or his designee will assure that responses to written comments received during the process will be given either at the public hearings as appropriate or written responses may be given upon request. Section 5. The plan documents are available for public inspection at City Hall in Rooms 208 & 202, and the Cocoa Public Library during normal business hours. Section 6. This Resolution shall govern activities engaged in by the Planning and Zoning Board acting as the Local Planning Agency during its public hearing on September 14, 1988, and continued from time to time; and by the City Council at its Public Hearing on September 27 as may be continued from time to time. On September 14, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing concerning, among other items, the Plan. The scarcity of Plan documents, especially the Future Land Use Map, limited the amount of meaningful participation by members of the audience and, to a lesser extent, the Board. The Future Land Use Map is a color-coded document. A black and white photocopy of the map incompletely depicts the various land uses shown on the map. An ongoing problem through the planning process was that these color maps, which were prepared for the City by the Regional Planning Council, were not generally available to the public. However, during most if not all of the process, Ms. Lawandales maintained in the Community Improvement Department a large color map, which was generally current. Part of the problem was the City's inability or unwillingness to incur the cost and suffer the inconvenience of printing new maps every time that there was a change in the use assigned to a parcel. Such changes were frequent in the final weeks before adoption of the Plan. At the September 14 meeting, for instance, there was already a handwritten list of 20 numbered proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map. Item 10 of the proposed changes converts from open space to medium- density residential most of the southeast quarter of the open area located north of Michigan Avenue and west of U.S. Route 1, which is part of the linear marsh wetlands within Drainage Area III. The September 14 meeting was a scene of some confusion due to the above-described documents. One Board member moved that the public be given at least those documents that the Board had. The motion failed. In part due to time constraints and limited staff resources, the Board decided instead to copy for the public only the maps and revisions and responses to the goals, objectives, and policies. The meeting adjourned by a 4-2 vote before considering the Future Land Use Map. Two Board members remained after the meeting to share their Future Land Use Maps with the audience. A few days later, City staff persons compiled a large notebook with a complete set of documents related to the Plan and distributed these notebooks to the members of the City Council. These documents consisted of the goals, objectives, and policies of the Proposed Plan; the unrevised Background Analysis; the responses and revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies as a result of the ORC; the EAR; and possibly other documents. On September 18, 1988, a 10 1/2" by 6 1/2" display advertisement announced three workshops and two public hearings to be held by the City Council. The workshops were set for September 19 at 7:00 p.m., September 20 at 5:00 p.m., and September 22 at 6:30 p.m. The first workshop would cover the Public Facilities, "Transportation" (i.e., Traffic Circulation), and Capital Improvements Elements. The second workshop would cover the Coastal Management, Conservation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements. The third workshop would cover the Future Land Use, Housing, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. The advertisement stated: "The general purpose of the workshops is to receive public comments and review the Comprehensive Plan." Some local residents were aware of the three workshops at least one day prior to the publication of the advertisement. The same advertisement announced that the public hearings would take place on September 27, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. and October 4, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. The advertisement stated: The purpose of these hearings is to receive public comments and recommendations on a Comprehensive Plan, and to review and adopt an ordinance adopting the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the requirements of growth management and land development legislation adopted by the Florida Legislature in 1985 and 1986. On September 19, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council jointly conducted a workshop on the Public Facilities, Traffic Circulation, and Capital Improvements Elements. Mayor Robinson acknowledged the receipt of a petition of residents from two subdivisions in opposition to changes to their neighborhoods by the Plan. Mayor Robinson informed the audience that the Future Land Use Map would be discussed at the September 22 meeting. The format of the September 19 workshop, as well as the two other workshops, was that City staff would first address an issue, followed, in order, by City Council members, Planning and Zoning Board members, and lastly the audience. City staffpersons at the September 19 workshop identified a list of 38 recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. Item 10 from the September 14 list was renumbered as Item 7. Item 6 on the September 19 list encompasses what remained of the eastern half the open space north of Michigan Avenue. The recommendation is to designate this wetlands area commercial. The northern tip of the linear marsh wetlands area south of Michigan Avenue and west of U.S. Route 1 is proposed to be redesignated commercial in new Item 10. Item 11 proposes that the remainder of this open space/wetlands be redesignated medium- density residential. The recommended changes appearing at the September 19 workshop substantially eliminate the two other open space/wetlands, as well. Item 33 recommends low-density residential for most of the southern half of the open space/wetlands located between Range Road and the largest unincorporated enclave within the City. Item 34 recommends medium-density residential for most of the northern half of the same open space/wetlands. According to the Soils Map contained in the Background Analysis, the northern portion of Little Mud Lake is in the medium-density residential area and the southern portion of the lake is in the low-density residential area. After these two changes, about one quarter of the original open space/wetlands between Range Road and the unincorporated enclave retains the originally proposed designation as open space. The remaining open space is an L-shaped strip immediately adjacent to the unincorporated area within the City. According to the Existing Land Use Map in the Background Analysis, the portion of the L-shaped strip running north-south is devoted to recreational uses, such as a park. Items 37 and 38 recommend the complete elimination of the largest open space/wetlands, which is located north and west of the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Range Road and is within Drainage Area IV. Item 37 proposes that nearly all of this open space/wetlands, including Big Mud Lake, be redesignated low-density residential. Item 38 proposes that the western portion of this open space/wetlands be redesignated medium-density residential. On September 20, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council jointly conducted a workshop on the Coastal Management, Conservation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements. Discussion included the redesignation of the open space/wetlands in the vicinity of Michigan Avenue from open space to medium-density residential and commercial. At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council agreed to add another parcel to the list of recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. On September 22, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council jointly conducted a workshop on the Housing, Future Land Use, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. Ms. Koons, on behalf of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn, objected at this workshop to the Future Land Use Element, as well as other matters. Petitioner Houston herself spoke against the Future Land Use Map. A Future Land Use Map was present at this workshop. This map, reflecting the latest addition, showed 39 numbered areas marked in black. The numbers corresponded to the list of recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. The City Council authorized during the workshop the addition of two more proposed changes. The September 22 workshop marked the last involvement of the Planning and Zoning Board in the planning process. The Board never formally recommended the Plan and supporting documents to the City Council for adoption. However, by the end of the meeting, none of the Board members expressed any remaining objections to the Plan and supporting documents, and most if not all Board members had no serious objections to the Plan. A formal recommendation was therefore unnecessary. Adoption Hearings On September 23, 1988, a display advertisement nearly identical in size and content to that published on September 18 stated that the City Council would conduct public hearings on September 27, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. and October 4, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. on changes in the use of land within the City limits. A similar display advertisement on September 29, 1988, announced the October 4 public hearing. The City Council received a list of 41 proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map at the September 27 hearing and approved the addition of a another property, as well as unrelated revisions to the Wastewater Element. In a presentation to the City Council, Ms. Lawandales referred to a set of revisions to the Future Land Use Element. These revisions were not the same as those prepared by the Regional Planning Council. Ms. Lawandales referred in her presentation to a set of revisions that add only two short clauses to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element. At the October 4, 1988, public hearing, the City Council received written objections from Ms. Koons, on behalf of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn, in the form of an eight-page letter. Given the detail and scope of the letter and lack of time, the City Council and staff were justifiably unable to offer a response until after the hearing, which concluded with the adoption of the Plan. During the hearing, the City Council approved the addition of five more properties to the list of 42 recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. At the conclusion of the October 4 hearing, the City Council adopted the Plan by adopting Ordinance No. 20-88, which in relevant part provides: Whereas, after months of careful review and a public hearing the Planning and Zoning Board sitting as the Local Planning Agency has recommended adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan in substantially the form presented; and Whereas, the City Council has received objections, recommendations, and comments from the [Regional Planning Council, DCA], and various other agencies; and * * * Whereas, the City Council has made certain amendments in the proposed new Comprehensive Plan in light of [public comments], as well as the comments, recommendations, and objections of the [Regional Planning Council, DCA], and various other State agencies; * * * Now, therefore, be it enacted by the City Council of the City of Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida, that: Section 1. That Section 15-4 of the City Code of Cocoa is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-4 Adoption of Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan consists of the one (1) volume book entitled Comprehensive Plan--City of Cocoa, Volume II, April 1988, which Comprehensive Plan consists of (i) Goals, Objectives and Policies for nine (9) elements, including Future Land Use, Traffic Circulation, Housing, Public Facilities, Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and Open Space, Intergovernmental Coordination and Capital Improvements, (ii) Procedures of Monitoring and Evaluation, (iii) Requirements for Consistency of the Local Comprehensive Plan, and (iv) Population estimates and projections utilized as basis for the plan documents, plus the Evaluation and Appraisal Report dated April, 1988. Section 2. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference is the City's Comprehensive Plan as referenced in Section 1 of this Ordinance, which Comprehensive Plan is hereby adopted as the official comprehensive plan for and of the City. * * * Section 4. Ordinances and Resolutions in Conflict. All Ordinances or Resolutions or parts thereof that may be determined to be in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. The City's Comprehensive Plan approved with the adoption of Ordinance No. 11-80 of July 8, 1980, all as the same may have been amended from time to time, be and the same is hereby repealed. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. Adopted by the Council of the City of Cocoa, in regular meeting assembled, on the 4th day of October, 1988. The ordinance is signed by Mayor Robinson, whose signature is attested by the City Clerk. The review and adoption proceedings ended with the October 4 hearing. At no time during these proceedings did Petitioner David P. Hendry, Sr. or Loula P. Hendry submit oral or written objections to the Plan or Proposed Plan. On or about August 13, 1988, Petitioner David P. Hendry, Sr. sent a letter dated July 31, 1988, to Cocoa and numerous other state and local officials. In the letter, he objected to a marina project that was under consideration. However, these comments did not constitute objections to the Plan or Proposed Plan, of which Petitioners Hendry were unaware until after it had been adopted by the City and determined to be in compliance by DCA. The Contents of the Plan General Besides the goals, objectives, and policies, the Plan consists of the EAR (described in Paragraphs 157-169), Resolution No. 88-31 (described in Paragraph 115), population data (described in Paragraph 170), a section entitled "Consistency of the Local Plan with the State Comprehensive Plan" (described in Paragraph 171), and a section entitled "Monitoring and Evaluation (described in Paragraph 46). The Plan is also supported by the data and analysis contained in the Background Analysis, portions of which are described in Paragraphs 47-67 above. The City submitted revisions to the Background Analysis, portions of which are described in Paragraphs 172-180 below. Goals, Objectives, and Policies The goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan are those of the Proposed Plan, as revised by the City Council. The revisions are as follows: 47 changes to the Future Land Use Map, as identified in Austin Exhibit 10; numerous revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Proposed Plan, as identified in Austin Exhibit 10; two revisions to the proposed Future Land Use Element, as identified in Cocoa Exhibit 4; and revisions to the Solid Waste and "Sanitary Sewer" (i.e., Wastewater) Subelements of the Public Facilities Element, as identified in Cocoa Exhibit 4. There are no other revisions, additions or deletions affecting the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan. The revisions described in Paragraph 181 below were never adopted by the City and are not part of the Plan. Responses, which are set forth in Austin Exhibit 10, are explanations offered by the City in response to objections and recommendations of DCA; responses do not contain any goals, objectives, or policies. Future Land Use Element and Map One response concerning the Future Land Use Element explains that objections in the ORC to missing data have been satisfied by a revision of the underlying data and analysis. However, as to objections with respect to the failure of the Future Land Use Map to depict conservation and natural resources, the response is that "no . . . conservation or historic resource land use categories are applicable for the city." However, the revised analysis underlying the Future Land Use Element includes a map of the Cocoa Historic District. The response to the objection that the Future Land Use Map fails to show all required natural resources is: "Wetlands are not a designated future land use." The revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element include revised Objectives 1.1 and 1.2, which are set forth in their proposed form in Paragraph 27 above. These revisions require that the City accomplish the tasks described in the two objectives within one year of Plan submittal. The revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element contain four new objectives. Objectives 1.3 and 1.4 respectively deal with the elimination by the year 2000 of blight and existing land uses that are inconsistent with the Future Land Use "Plan." Objective 1.5 states that within one year of Plan submittal all development activities "will be consistent with and supportive of the Plan's objectives for protecting natural and historic resources." Objective 1.6 states that within one year of Plan submission land development regulations will provide for the availability of sufficient land area for the siting of public facilities. The revisions contain several new policies. New Policy 1.1.3 allows the City to issue development orders only if the necessary public facilities, operating at the adopted levels of service, are available concurrent with the impacts of the development. New Policy 1.5.1 states that the City will identify its historical resources and maintain an updated file of historically significant properties. New Policy 1.5.3 provides that the City will protect its cultural, historic, and archaeological resources by helping to educate the public of the value of such resources, considering the establishment of a historic district, and purchasing development rights to preserve historically significant properties. Revisions also clarify that open space/residential areas on the Future Land Use Map will be used for park, recreational, and ancillary uses, except as required for other public purposes. 2. Housing Element The City Council adopted several revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Housing Element. Objective 3.1.4, which in its original form is set forth in Paragraph 33 above, is revised to provide that the quality of existing homes and neighborhoods will, at a minimum, be maintained, rather than maintained or improved. Policy 3.1.4.7, which is also set forth in Paragraph 33, is revised to add that the City will perform an annual review of historically significant housing units in order, as previously provided, to aid in the identification of historically significant housing and structures. 3. Public Facilities Element Objectives 4.3.5, 4.3.6, and 4.3.7 are revised as follows with the new language underlined: Objective 4.3.5: To reduce existing flooding problems and to prevent additional flooding problems from being created as a result of future development through actions identified in needs assessments and engineering studies, with the actions being undertaken on a priority basis as determined in the engineering studies, with individual prioritized actions being initiated no later than one year following the completion of the engineering studies, consistent with the schedule of actions contained in the Comprehensive Improvements Plan [sic]. Objective 4.3.6: To ensure the protection and preservation of existing wetlands as viable components of the City's surface water management systems, to include the establishment or maintenance of desirable hydroperiods, water quality conditions, and natural ecosystems applicable ordinances (including design criteria and standards) will be submitted for adoption consideration no later than October 1, 1990, with final adoption within one year following the initial submittal. Objective 4.3.7: To ensure the proper and adequate surface water management facilities are provided in response to identified needs existing deficiencies and needs will be determined, cost and time requirements of corrective actions will be identified, and alternative sources of revenue will be evaluated, with the above information being compiled into a Surface Water Management Plan for the entire City and any external service areas by October 1, 1995. The revision of another objective reiterates the intention of the City to perform engineering studies in the future to gain information necessary to drainage planning: Objective 4.3.2: To protect, preserve or improve the quality of surface drainage waters being discharged from existing and future drainage systems in the City so that such discharges do not contribute to the degradation of water quality conditions in receiving waterbodies or prevent the improvement of degraded conditions, and promote the continuance or establishment of healthy, balanced natural environments through the implementation of ordinances, engineering studies, inspection programs, and coordinative actions with regulatory agencies, with such activities being initiated no later than October 1, 1992. Revisions to several policies show an increasing recognition of the need to plan for drainage and the role of wetlands in such a plan: Policy 4.3.2.6: Proposed development plans will be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that new development does not adversely impact surrounding properties by altering drainage patterns and water storage capabilities so that increased volumes of water are discharged onto the properties or that surface drainage flows from the properties are not impeded or retarded so as to create or contribute to flooding or diminished land usage, unless such lands have been purchased or designated by the City for surface water storage purposes. Policy 4.3.4.3: The City will actively participate in the preparation and implementa- tion of applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plans being undertaken by the [Water Management District] which will [replacing "would"] involve or include land areas in the City or waterbodies affected by drainage from the City. Policy 4.3.6.1: Public infrastructure improvements that encourage the development of wetlands will be avoided except in the case of overriding public interest, for the purpose of protecting and preserving wetland areas with appropriate measures such as ordinances and development standards being used [replacing "taken"] to control [replacing "discourage"] development in affected wetland areas. Policy 4.3.6.3: The City will review its existing land development design criteria, and revise if necessary, to provide for and encourage the incorporation of existing wetlands into land development plans for the use of "free services" offered by the natural areas provided that: --intrinsic natural wetland values, functions and hydroperiods are not adversely affected, --the wetland is maintained in its natural condition, and --the wetland is protected from future development. 4. Coastal Management Element The revisions add a new goal, objective, and policies that provide: Goal 5.3: The natural resources of the City's coastal area shall be preserved, protected or enhanced to provide the highest possible environmental quality for recreation and the propagation of fisheries and wildlife. Objective 5.3.1: The City shall protect, and restore where necessary, the following natural resources and environmental attributes within its control: air quality, endangered species and their habitat, native vegetation and wildlife, fisheries and estuarine habitat, water quality, and floodplains. New Policy 5.3.1.1 incorporates Objectives 6.1 and 6.2-6.9 and the policies thereunder. The revisions contain another new objective and policies under the new goal described above. Policy 5.3.2.3 states that the City will conform its plan and development criteria to the guidelines set forth in yet-to-be identified resource protection plans to the extent "legally permissible." Policy 5.3.2.4 states that the City shall notify the Resources Council of East Florida and the Indian River Aquatic Preserve of all proposed activities that the City Council considers will directly affect the coastal zone, including changes in stormwater discharge, vegetation removal, or dredge and fill operations. 5. Conservation Element Objective 6.5 of the Fisheries and Estuarine Habitat Subelement, which is quoted in its original form in Paragraph 40 above, is revised as follows: Objective 6.5: By 1993, the abundance and diversity of submerged aquatic vegetation and fish species found in the City's lakes, and in the Indian River within the zone between the Cocoa shoreline and the Intracoastal Waterway, shall be as great, or greater, than they were in 1988. The City cites eight policies under Objectives 6.4 and 6.8 in response to the objection that the Proposed Plan lacks policies addressing the protection of existing natural resources and designating for protection environmentally sensitive land. 6. Recreation and Open Space Element The revisions to the Recreation and Open Space Element contain a new objective concerning open space: Objective 7.2.1: Within one year of Plan submittal the land development regulations will include provisions for addressing the open space needs of the City. 7. Capital Improvements Element The revisions to the Capital Improvements Element include requirements that the City satisfy the requirements of Objectives 9.1 and 9.2, which are set forth in Paragraph 44 above, by 1989 and 1990, respectively. The City revised Objective 9.1 to require, by 1989, the incorporation of levels of service standards into land development regulations. Also, the City added the following language to Objective 9.5, which is quoted in its original form at Paragraph 44 above: "Public Facility needs created by development orders issued prior to Plan adoption will not exceed the ability of the City to fund or provide needed capital improvements." Evaluation and Appraisal Report The EAR, which is referenced in Paragraph 24 above, evaluates the success of an earlier, unrelated comprehensive plan previously adopted by the City. The EAR begins with an introductory section commenting about the area and problems facing the City. The introduction notes that the City has significant undeveloped lands, especially in the northwest section of Cocoa. A large part of these lands is the single open space/wetlands north of Michigan Avenue and west of Range Road. The EAR states: "Much of the land is not developable due to natural constraints; however, primary residential growth will occur in this area in the future." The introduction also recognizes that "drainage is still a major concern" due to the "extensive amount of new development and alteration of some natural drainage systems, as well as continued drainage problems from older development." Among the solutions noted in the introduction are the requirement of retention and detention areas in new developments. Concerning conservation and protection of the coastal zone, the introduction states: The City of Cocoa has continued to seek to protect the integrity of the flood hazard areas as significant development has not occurred in these areas as of this date. Maintaining these areas for natural functions, it will decrease the possibility of flooding and associated problems during heavy cycles of rain. This also adds to the water quality of the area. The major portion of the EAR is devoted to an evaluation of the success of the prior comprehensive plan. Several relevant portions of this self-assessment, which was updated on September 27, 1988, are set forth in the following paragraphs. Objective 2 under Open Space was to "develop flood plain controls which will allow for the protection of some open space around Cocoa's lakes and low areas in the event of development." The result: not accomplished. Objectives 2 and 3 under the Conservation/Coastal Element were to use the City's water retention ordinance to control surface drainage from new developments and continue to make needed drainage improvements. The results: the first objective was accomplished and the second objective was not accomplished as of April, 1988. However, as to the second objective, as of September 27, 1988, "a drainage improvement program has been initiated." Objective 3 under the Land and Vegetation Resources was to control the amount of filling that could occur in new development to ensure proper drainage in surrounding areas. The result: not accomplished in April, 1988, and partly accomplished by September 27, 1988. Objective 1 under Drainage was to develop a citywide Master Drainage Plan with priorities and cost estimates for drainage improvements needed in Cocoa. The result: not accomplished. Objective 3 under Drainage was to control activities in flood prone areas in an effort to prevent a detrimental impact on areawide drainage patterns. The result: not accomplished. Objective 4 was to encourage, as feasible, the use of natural filtration, detention, and retention to reduce runoff-associated drainage problems. The result: accomplished. Objective 11 under Intergovernmental Coordination was to adhere to statewide plans and programs designed to control nonpoint sources of water pollution and prevent alteration of areawide drainage patterns. Result: not accomplished. Miscellaneous The Plan includes the population history and estimates that had been provided with the transmittal of the Proposed Plan in April, 1988. This document is included in Cocoa Exhibit 4. The Plan includes the Consistency of the Local Comprehensive Plan with the State Comprehensive Plan that had been provided in April, 1988, at the end of the City of Cocoa--Comprehensive Plan, Volume II . This document is a cross-index between provisions of the Plan and the state comprehensive plan. Background Analysis In reply to objections and recommendations in the ORC pertaining to the Background Analysis, the City supplemented its data and analysis through revisions. Shortly after the Plan had been adopted and transmitted, the City sent to DCA the revisions to the data and analysis and responses to the objections and recommendations concerning data and analysis. Future Land Use Element and Map In response to the objection that the data omitted conservation uses and historic resources, the City states that there are "no conservation uses" and supplies a map depicting existing historic resources. Elaborating upon the historic resources, the City mentions a survey of historic structures that took place in November, 1987. The resulting list of 72 structures is depicted on a map, which is included in the response and entitled, "Cocoa Historic District." An inventory of the properties is included. In a narrative response to an objection to the absence of an analysis of the need for redevelopment, the City describes its earlier redevelopment efforts, which include the adoption of a redevelopment plan, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes. Noting the objectives of the redevelopment plan as to the elimination of slums and blighted conditions, the narrative concludes: "These goals should be retained and reiterated in the goals, objectives and policies section of the Comprehensive Plan." 2. Housing Element The revised Background Analysis contains a long narrative concerning housing. At the end, the City states that it should take "appropriate measures" to preserve and protect the Porcher House, which is the only structure in the City listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and maintain the quality of older neighborhoods in order to preserve other potentially significant property. 3. Drainage Subelement Responding to an objection that the data and analysis fail to include the capacity allocated to meet the City's drainage needs for the ten-year planning horizon, the City added the following language: However, information is not currently available for future allocation and usage during the ten-year planning period. The available information is insufficient to accurately determine the proportion of design capacities currently being used to handle runoff and groundwater flows in the drainage system components. 4. Capital Improvements Element Elaborating upon its earlier responses to the objections to the Drainage Subelement of the Background Analysis, the City states that "[t]here are no planned capital improvements for the drainage system." The City refers to attached materials in response to numerous objections to the omission from the analysis of future revenue and expenditures available for needed capital improvements. However, such material was not included with the revisions and responses. 5. Coastal Management Element The glossary added to the Background Analysis by the revisions reiterates the statement in the original Background Analysis, noted at Paragraph 65 above, that the coastal area for the Coastal Resources Subelement is the entire City. (The reference to "Rockledge" is a typographical error; the Regional Planning Council, which drafted the Background Analysis and revisions, was working at the same time on the Rockledge comprehensive plan.) (Responses to DCA Comments, p. 12-6.) 6. Miscellaneous In responding to objections to the data and analysis concerning the consistency of the Plan with the plan of the Regional Planning Council, the City cites a new Objective 6.3 with new Policies 6.3.1-6.3.5 and 6.4.9. These items, which generally deal with ensuring the persistence through 1998 of the 1990- level distribution and abundance of endangered and threatened species and their habitats in the City, were neither considered nor adopted by the City Council. Objective 6.3 and Policies 6.3.1-6.3.5 and 6.4.9 are therefore not part of the Plan. Determination of Compliance by DCA After receiving the Plan and supporting documents shortly after October 4, 1988, DCA analyzed the revisions and responses in light of the 139 objections and recommendations contained in the ORC. At the conclusion of the analysis, DCA found that 28 of the revisions and responses were inadequate. These findings are set forth in the Preliminary Findings on the Cocoa Comprehensive Plan, which is dated November 16, 1988. On November 26, 1988, DCA published, by way of a 10 1/2" by 6 1/2" advertisement, its Notice of Intent to Find the City of Cocoa Comprehensive Plan in Compliance. The advertisement complies with the statutory requirements. Ultimate Findings as to Public Participation The public participated in the comprehensive planning process to the fullest extent possible. The City Council adopted procedures to provide effective public participation, including notice to real property owners of all official action affecting the use of their property. Any deficiency in the procedures is immaterial. The Planning and Zoning Board duly discharged its responsibilities as the local planning agency under the Act. The City Council and Planning and Zoning Board amply advertised their many public hearings and provided reasonable opportunity for written comments and open discussion. Comments from the public appear to have received fair consideration. The City disseminated proposals and other information as broadly as possible, although certain materials were available at times only to staff and not the City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, or public. The City was confronted with a substantial task involving the identification, consideration, and resolution of complex technical and legal questions. The City prudently delegated much of the work to City staff and outside consultants. The Act generates severe time pressures, especially on the local government, which has only 60 days to digest the ORC and adopt a plan. Once the City received the ORC, about half of the 60 days was spent by the staff and outside consultants in drafting proposed revisions and responses. Neither City Council or the Planning and Zoning Board could realistically commence public meetings until the members had reviewed the work of the consultants and staff. Critical land use decisions such as those involved in the adoption of a comprehensive plan are politically sensitive. The land use decisions in this case generated considerable controversy in the community. Members of the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Board could not reasonably be expected to commence public meetings before they were aware of what revisions and responses were being proposed by their experts. The greatest shortcoming in the public participation process involved the ongoing proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map and the inability or unwillingness of the City to disseminate in a timely manner updated maps reflecting these proposed changes. Broader and more timely dissemination of the proposed changes would have facilitated more careful consideration of the effects of redesignating the uses of large parcels of land. However, the real target of the frustrations expressed with the public participation process is with the resulting land use decisions, not the process itself. Even in light of the shortcomings with respect to the revisions to the Future Land Use Map, the public participated in the process to the fullest extent possible under the circumstances described above. Ultimate Findings as to Consistency Drainage, Wetlands, and Floodplains Internal Consistency The Plan is internally inconsistent with respect to drainage, wetlands, and floodplains. These inconsistencies render the Plan inconsistent in the related matters of protecting the estuarine waters of the Indian River Lagoon; fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation habitat; and general water quality. In general, the inconsistencies result from the conflict between Plan provisions protecting wetlands, restricting floodplain development, and ensuring adequate drainage, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the elimination of nearly all of the existing open space/wetlands from, and the failure to depict wetlands as a natural resource on, the Future Land Use Map. Many Plan provisions assure the protection of wetlands, adequacy of drainage, and restriction of development in the floodplains, as well as the protection of the estuarine waters of the Indian River, various habitats, and general water quality. For instance, Policy 1.1.B protects the wetlands identified in the Conservation and Future Land Use Elements. Objective 1.5 requires that development activities will be consistent with and supportive of the Plan's objectives for protecting natural resources. Objective 4.3.6 promises ordinances to ensure the protection of wetlands. Policy 4.3.6.1 restricts public infrastructure funds that encourage the development of the wetlands. Goal 5.3 and Objective 5.3.1 provide for the protection and restoration of estuarine habitats and floodplains. Policy 6.4.7 prohibits any development that significantly and adversely alters the function of the wetlands. Objective 6.5 requires that the condition of the Indian River, in terms of its ability to support numbers and types of aquatic vegetation and fish, be maintained or improved between now and 1993. Policy 6.5.3 requires that the City take steps to reduce the volume of untreated stormwater. Objective 6.8 ensures the protection of the flood storage and conveyance capacities of the 100 year floodplain. However, the protection guaranteed wetlands, floodplains, and drainage is contradicted by the treatment of wetlands in The Future Land Use Map. The map is a critical component of the Plan. According to both Objective 1.2 and the Background Analysis, the Future Land Use Map will provide the rationale for all future land use decisions when the City implements the Plan with land development regulations. The Future Land Use Map is at least as important as goals, objectives, or policies in setting the course for future development and redevelopment in Cocoa. The Future Land Use Map subordinates all but a small section of the wetlands in the City to residential and commercial land uses. The City could have extended effective protection to the wetlands by reserving them a place in Cocoa's future. First, the City could have shown them as a natural resource on the Future Land Use Map. Second, the City could have shown them as a conservation land use on the Future Land Use Map. The failure to take these steps was not inadvertent. The ORC pointed out both of these omissions. In the Proposed Plan, the City chose to designate the wetlands as open space, which provided some protection. Even so, DCA objected to the omission of a conservation land use category from the Future Land Use Map, as required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a). The City's response: "No . . . conservation . . .land use categories are applicable for the city." DCA also objected to the failure to show on the Future Land Use Map all required natural resources, which include wetlands under Rule 9J-5.006(4)(b). The City's response, which betrays a failure to comprehend the difference between a land use category and a natural resource: "Wetlands are not a designated future land use." These "explanations" are hardly consistent with overall protection of the wetlands or, specifically, with such provisions as are contained in Policy 7.2.1.2, which provides that the City will "[d]esignate conservation areas . . . as part of the future land use map in order to preserve open space and fulfill . . . [Conservation Element] objectives." As the Future Land Use Map presently stands, the City will soon adopt land development regulations consistent with the use of nearly all of its wetlands for low- and medium-density residential and commercial purposes. Following the adoption of these land development regulations, it will be too late to protect the wetlands as a system, which is how they function in providing drainage, habitat, and water filtration. Absent designation as a conservation area or open space, the wetlands can be preserved, at most, as isolated, poorly functioning remnants carved out of large-scale development plans. Wetlands are vital to the efforts of the City in the areas of drainage, flood control, and water quality. Two factors exacerbate the above- described inconsistencies in the Plan. First, the drainage system suffers from known deficiencies, and, at the same time, the City has failed to achieve certain significant objectives of its prior comprehensive plan with respect to drainage, flood control, and nonpoint sources of water pollution, such as stormwater runoff. Second, the data are inadequate concerning the City's drainage needs and capacity, as well as the precise role of the wetlands as to drainage and conservation. Although eliminating open space/wetlands as a land use category and declining to depict wetlands and floodplains as a natural resource, the City acknowledges several significant shortcomings in its drainage system and efforts to protect floodplains and wetlands. The City has failed to accomplish goals of earlier comprehensive plans to adopt a citywide Master Drainage Plan and obtain cost estimates for drainage improvements. It has even failed to adhere to statewide plans to control nonpoint sources of water pollution and prevent alteration of drainage patterns. A drainage improvement program, initiated between April and October, 1988, begins on an inauspicious note with the elimination of nearly all of the open space/wetlands from the Future Land Use Map. There are signs that the natural drainage system offered by local waterbodies and wetlands may be reaching or exceeding its capacity. There is clear evidence of at least isolated failures of vital parts of the natural drainage system. For example, Big Mud Lake has been exploited to its limit as a receptacle for untreated stormwater and is probably eutrophic. Suffering from untreated stormwater runoff, the Indian River has lost the vitality needed to maintain a harvestable shellfish population. The water quality of both of these waterbodies is not good. It is difficult to correlate Plan provisions protecting wetlands, ensuring adequate drainage, and preserving water quality with the nonrecognition of wetlands in the Future Land Use Map, especially in view of the City's admitted lack of knowledge concerning the needs and capacities of its drainage system. Besides repeated references in the Background Analysis to a lack of data concerning important aspects of the drainage system, the goals, objectives, and policies reflect the need for considerably more information in this area. For instance, Objectives 4.3.2 and 4.3.5 identify "needs assessments," "engineering studies," and "inspection programs" with respect to flooding and drainage that will be conducted in the future. Objective 4.3.7 ties in this work with the promise of the preparation of a surface water management plan, by October 1, 1995, to determine "existing deficiencies and needs," "cost and time requirements of corrective actions," and "sources of revenue." Policies 4.3.2.5, 4.3.5.2, 4.3.5.3, 4.3.7.1, and 4.3.7.2 also promise engineering studies to take place in the future in order to gather more information concerning drainage and the effect of stormwater on receiving waterbodies. The Background Analysis notes that no complete inventory of the drainage system has taken place for 20 years. The City requires these studies in order to determine what to do about a deficient drainage system for which no improvements are presently planned. Objective 4.3.7 acknowledges that the City has not included any improvements to its drainage or stormwater management systems for at least the initial five-year planning timeframe covered by the Plan. The Five Year Schedule of Improvements reflects no such expenditures, and the Background Analysis states that no such expenditures are planned for the next five years. As a result of the elimination of the open space/wetlands, many provisions concerning drainage and floodplain are no longer supported by the data and analysis in material respects. The data reveal the critical role of the wetlands and 100 year floodplain in the present performance of the drainage system. However, as noted above, the data also reveal that insufficient information is presently available upon which to justify the residential and commercial development of the wetlands, especially in the face of ongoing development in the 100 year floodplain. The broad promises of adequate drainage, floodplain protection, and maintenance or enhancement of the estuarine waters of the Indian River are inconsistent with the elimination of nearly all of the open space/wetlands from the Future Land Use Map and even the presence of significant development of wetlands and vacant floodplains. Under the circumstances, the Plan is internally inconsistent in its treatment of wetlands, drainage, and floodplains and, as a result of these inconsistencies, in its treatment of estuarine waters, the above-described habitats, and general water quality. The elimination from the Future Land Use Map of the open spaces hosting nearly all of the wetlands, coupled with the refusal to designate the wetlands and floodplains as natural resources on the map, are not merely inconsistent but mutually exclusive with Plan provisions protecting the above-named resources and ensuring adequate drainage. These Plan provisions lack support by the data and analysis contained in the Background Analysis. Under these conditions and in view of the failure of the City to allocate funds for improvements in the drainage system, including stormwater runoff, the Plan also lacks economic feasibility with respect to drainage and stormwater treatment. 2. Consistency with the Regional Plan Several "issues" identified in the plan of the Regional Planning Council are devoted to wetlands, drainage, and floodplains. Each of these issues contains a goal, background summary, and policies. Issue 38 of the regional plan deals with the protection of water resources. After acknowledging that stormwater runoff may be the largest surface water quality problem facing the region, Policies 38.3 and 38.5 urge local governments to divert the "first flush" of stormwater to retention facilities. The policies recommend that the local governments employ the most efficient and cost-effective pollutant control techniques available and wet detention facilities, including isolated wetlands. The goal of Issue 39 is to reduce dependence on structural means of floodplain management and optimize maintenance of water-dependent natural systems. The regional plan states that wetlands assimilate nutrients and trap sediment from stormwater, as well as physically retard the movement of surface water. Policy 39.7 advises that "[n]atural, isolated wetlands should be incorporated in surface water management systems as detention facilities, where . . . practical and appropriate, as an alternative to filling or excavating such wetlands." Policy 39.8 adds: "Floodplains which are relatively undisturbed should be protected and preserved " The goal of Issue 40 is the protection and preservation of the region's coastal areas. The regional plan defines the "coastal zone" as "within the watersheds of coastal estuaries," including the Indian River. The background summary recognizes the adverse effects of stormwater runoff on the Indian River, which is one of two major estuaries draining the region's coastal zone. These effects include the introduction of fresh water, which kills sensitive aquatic organisms like clams and oysters, and heavy metals and other pollutants. Policy 40.1 states in part: Proposed activities which would destroy or degrade the function of coastal wetlands . . . should not be permitted except where such activities are clearly in the public interest and there is no practical alternative which reduces or avoids impacts to wetlands. The redesignation of the four open spaces and the elimination of wetlands as a future land use is inconsistent with Policy 40.1. The use of the advisory word "should" in Policies 38.3, 38.5, 39.7, and 39.8 militates against a finding of inconsistency based upon a small number of specific provisions containing little more than recommendations. On balance, the Plan is not inconsistent with the policies of the regional plan. 3. Consistency with the State Plan Under the category of water resources, the state plan includes the following policies at Section 187.201(8)(b), Florida Statutes: 2. Identify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentive for their conservation. 4. Protect and use natural water systems in lieu of structural alternatives and restore modified systems. 8. Encourage the development of a strict floodplain management program by state and local governments designed to preserve hydrologically significant wetlands and other natural floodplain features. 10. Protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity in the state. 12. Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated . . . stormwater runoff into the waters of the state. Under the category of natural systems and recreational lands, the state plan includes the following policies at Section 187.201(10)(b), Florida Statutes: Conserve . . . wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife to maintain their environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values. 7. Protect and restore the ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic, and recreational value. The above-cited policies are clear and specific. On balance, the Plan's treatment of wetlands, drainage, and floodplains, as well as estuarine waters, fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation habitats, and water quality, is inconsistent with the above-described policies of the state plan. On balance, the Plan is incompatible with and fails to further the state plan. The Plan is therefore inconsistent with the state plan. Historic Resources Internal Consistency The Plan is internally consistent with respect to historic resources. No material inconsistency exists with respect to the identification and protection afforded historic resources by the Plan. All relevant provisions of the Plan are oriented toward the protection of historic resources. Objective 3.1.4 promises the protection and preservation of historically significant housing. Policy 3.1.4.7 states that the City will identify historically significant housing and structures annually. Policy 1.5.3 provides that the City will protect historic resources by the education of the public, consideration of the establishment of an historic district, and purchase of development rights. Objective 1.5 states that in one year all development must be consistent with the Plan's objectives for the protection of historic resources. The above-described objectives and policies are supported by the data and analysis. As revised, the Background Analysis contains a map entitled the Cocoa historic district and an inventory of the 72 properties depicted on the map. Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a)10., Florida Administrative Code, requires the inclusion in the Future Land Use Map of historically significant properties meriting protection and the boundaries of any historic district. In the responses to the ORC, the City states that "no . . . historic resource land use categories are applicable for the city." There is some conflict between the acknowledgement of an historic district and claim that no historic resource land use categories are applicable for the city. However, on balance, the inconsistency is immaterial. Unlike the situation with respect to wetlands, drainage, and floodplains, the Plan provisions protecting historic resources can be carried out without the designation of an historic district on the Future Land Use Map. 2. Consistency with the Regional Plan Two "issues" of the plan of the Regional Planning Council are devoted to historic resources. Issue 61 concerns access to cultural and historical resources. Issue 62 concerns the development of cultural and historical programs. Policy 61.1 states that historical resources "shall" be properly identified and evaluated and "should" be protected and preserved. Policy 61.3 states that local governments should adhere to the requirements of the Act regarding the inclusion of known historically sensitive resources in existing and future land use maps and the treatment of historical resources in the coastal management element, where applicable. Policy 61.5 provides that the local government "shall," "to the maximum practical extent," avoid or reduce adverse impacts of adjacent land uses on historical sites listed or eligible for listing on the Florida Master Site File or National Register of Historic Places. Policy 62.5 states that historic resources listed or eligible for listing on the Florida Master Site File or National Register of Historic Places "shall be taken into consideration" in all capital improvement projects. The Plan could have gone farther to promote the preservation of historic resources, especially from the adverse impact of nearby development and redevelopment. The most obvious way in which to achieve this goal would be through the designation of an historic land use category. However, on balance, the Plan is not inconsistent with the policies of the regional plan. 3. Consistency with the State Plan Under the category of cultural and historical resources, the state plan includes the following policies under Section 187.201(19)(b), Florida Statutes: 3. Ensure the identification, evaluation, and protection of archaeological folk heritage and historic resources properties of the state's diverse ethnic population. Encourage the rehabilitation and sensitive, adaptive use of historic properties through technical assistance and economic incentive programs. Ensure that historic resources are taken into consideration in the planning of all capital programs and projects at all level of government and that such programs and projects are carried out in a manner which recognizes the preservation of historic resources. The Plan's treatment of historic resources is consistent with the above-described policies of the state plan. Redevelopment Plan The omission of the redevelopment plan earlier adopted by the City, the failure to describe in the Plan redevelopment programs, activities, and land development regulations, and the exclusion from the Coastal Management Element of a redevelopment component did not render the Plan inconsistent internally or with the regional or state plans.
Conclusions Jurisdiction 86 Standing 88 The Act 91 Public Participation 91 Elements Required of All Plans 94 General 94 Future Land Use Element and Map 96 Public Facilities Element 97 Conservation Element 99 Housing Element 100 Capital Improvements Element 100 Coastal Management Element 101 Miscellaneous Elements 104 Determination of Noncompliance 105 General 105 Wetlands, Drainage, and Floodplains 106 Historic Resources 108 Remedial Action 108 RECOMMENDATION 108
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Community Affairs determine that the Plan is not in compliance and, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes, submit this Recommended Order to the Administration Commission for entry of an appropriate final order. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 1989. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-6338GM AND 89-0291GM Treatment Accorded the Proposed Findings of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn 1-16 Adopted. 17 Adopted in substance. However, Ms. Lawandales maintained in her office a color-coded map through much, if not all, of the planning process. 18-19 Rejected as subordinate. 20-21 Adopted. Rejected to the extent that the finding suggests that the Planning and Zoning Board did not intend that the City Council adopt the Plan. Although the Planning and Zoning Board did not formally recommend adoption by the City Council, the Board intended that the City Council adopt the Plan. Adopted. Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. First four sentences adopted or adopted in substance. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. 26-27 Adopted in substance. 28-30 Rejected as subordinate. 31-33 Adopted in substance. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in substance. 38-40 Rejected as irrelevant. 41 Rejected as subordinate. 42-43 Adopted. 44-46 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted. Adopted in substance. 49-51 Rejected as irrelevant. 52 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 53-54 Rejected as recitation of testimony. 55 Adopted. 56-58 Rejected as irrelevant, except that the proposed finding that DCA found the Plan to be in compliance after using a balancing test is adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 61-62 Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. 65-66 Rejected as irrelevant. 67-69 and 71 Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not finding of fact. 72-83 Rejected as irrelevant and against the greater weight of the evidence. 84-86 Rejected as irrelevant. Specific objectives and policies are insufficiently specific and, in certain respects, various Plan provisions represent nothing more than an intent to plan at a later date. However, such deficiencies must be evaluated in the context of all of the provisions of the entire Plan. After doing so, the only places at which the lack of specificity and deferral of planning are generate unlawful inconsistencies have been described in the recommended order. 87-91 Adopted or adopted in substance except that last sentence of Paragraph 91 is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 92-93 Rejected as irrelevant. 94 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 95-98 Rejected as irrelevant. 99 and 111 Rejected as recitation of evidence. 100-110 and 112 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence. 113 Rejected as not finding of fact as to the expertise of the witness. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence as to the inconsistency in the Plan's treatment of historic resources. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioners Hendry There are no rulings on the proposed findings of Petitioners Hendry due to the fact that it has been determined that they lack standing. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of DCA 1-4 Adopted. 5-18 Rejected as legal argument. 19-40 Adopted. 41 Rejected as irrelevant. 42-56 Adopted. 57 First sentence rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence adopted. 58-69 Adopted. 70 Adopted in substance. 71-72 Adopted. 73 First sentence adopted. Second sentence rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 74-75 Adopted in substance. Adopted. Rejected as legal argument. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Cocoa I-IV Adopted or adopted in substance. Adopted except that Paragraphs B and C are rejected as legal argument. Adopted except that Paragraphs B.5, B.7, B.13, and B.14 are rejected as irrelevant and Paragraph B.8.f is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Adopted or adopted in substance except that Paragraph G is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Judith E. Koons Attorney at Law Central Florida Legal Services, Inc. 1149 Lake Drive, Suite 201 Cocoa, FL 32922 David P. Hendry, pro se 17 Riverside Drive, #2 Cocoa, FL 32922 David J. Russ, Senior Attorney Rhoda P. Glasco, Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Bradly Roger Bettin Amari, Theriac, Roberts & Runyons 96 Willard Street, Suite 302 Cocoa, FL 32922 Thomas G. Pelham Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Laurence Keesey General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDERS ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION OMEGA AUSTIN, BEATRICE HOUSTON, and MARY DORN, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 89-31 DOAH CASE NO. 88-6338GM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS and CITY OF COCOA, Respondents. / DAVID P. HENDRY, SR. and LOULA P. HENDRY, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 89-31 DOAH CASE NO. 88-0291GM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS and CITY OF COCOA, Respondents. /
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 05S-01 (the Plan Amendment) adopted by Polk County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 05-004 is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,1 and whether Petitioner, Citizens for Proper Planning, Inc. (CPPI), has standing as an “affected person” as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The ECRA is a local special district governmental agency established pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, and is composed of a seven-member board of directors. The boundaries of the Eloise Community Redevelopment Area include an area consisting of approximately 665 acres within the unincorporated Eloise area of Polk County (the Redevelopment Area). The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area. See JE 8A. The ECRA meets once a month, except July, when they do not normally meet. Its purpose is to discuss and implement the ECRA Redevelopment Plan’s six objectives within the Redevelopment Area. The ECRA opposed the Plan Amendment by and through its attorney and submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County regarding the Plan Amendment during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. As a part of its presentation to the County regarding the Plan Amendment, the ECRA delivered to the County, ECRA Resolution No. R-05-01, objecting to the Plan Amendment. The parties agree that the ECRA has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Bruce Bachman (Mr. Bachman), resides in Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida. His residence is located outside of the Redevelopment Area and is approximately three (3) miles from the Subject Property. He is employed as the operator (since 1980) and general manager of Phoenix Industries, LLP, (Phoenix), located at 621 Snively Avenue, County Road (CR) 655 in Eloise, which is adjacent to and across the street from the Subject Property. Mr. Bachman has served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA since 1998. Phoenix operates a warehousing and distribution complex for dry, refrigerated, and frozen food products east of Snively Avenue and across the street from the Subject Property. The Phoenix property stretches north and south within an elongated area within the Redevelopment Area, and is open 24-hours a day, seven days a week.2 See JE 8A at "30". (The railroad, designated with a red line, runs north and south through the Phoenix property. JE 8A.) Phoenix has spent approximately $115,000 changing the angles of its buildings and moving docks so that trucks could maneuver on the property, and not have to enter Snively Avenue to do so. Mr. Bachman is involved with the Eloise residential area and the Redevelopment Area generally and his contributions to the Eloise area are well-noted in the record. His work with the community includes working with the students at Snively Elementary School. Individually, and on behalf of the ECRA, Mr. Bachman submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Bachman has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Johnny Brooks (Mr. Brooks), resides at 143 8th Street, Eloise, Polk County, Florida, approximately three (3) blocks southwest from the Subject Property. His home is located within the main residential component of the Redevelopment Area. He was born in Eloise (on 5th Street) and has lived, with his wife, at the 8th Street address for 41 years. Mr. Brooks also serves as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA. Although disabled, Mr. Brooks is an active member of the Eloise Community. For example, he and his wife conduct a “homework club” at the Eloise Community Resource Center (opened in 2002) located between 7th and 8th Streets and Snively Avenue, which is east and down the block from his residence. JE 8A at "2". They also use the computer lab at the resource center for adult education. They use the neighborhood Snively/Brooks Park, JE 8A at "4", approximately one block south of the Brooks' residence and west of the Snively Elementary School, JE 8A at "3", for, among other activities, Easter egg hunts and Christmas parties. Mr. Brooks is also involved in the Eloise Neighborhood Association, which offers adult computer classes, GED classes, and classes in English as a Second Language. He and his family use other resources within the Redevelopment Area, such as the Snively Elementary School, and a post office, JE 8A at "1", which is located approximately one block north of the Subject Property between 4th and 5th Streets, near Snively Avenue. Mr. Brooks attends the Eloise United Methodist Church (built in 1966-1967), which is located on land designated as Industrial (IND) on the FLUM. 3 JE 8A at "10". This church is located on the southwest side of Snively Avenue, and approximately five or six blocks south of the Subject Property and approximately two blocks south of the Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park.4 Mr. Brooks submitted oral comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Brooks has standing in this proceeding. CPPI is an organization comprised of approximately two hundred members, located throughout Polk County, Florida. CPPI has been an existing corporation since 2002. No application, request to join or payment of dues is currently required for membership. According to its executive chairperson, Jean Reed, its purpose is to "better plan for our growth in Polk County." Ms. Reed lives approximately one mile east of Eloise and four of five of the CPPI Board of Directors live within a mile of Eloise. All CPPI members live in the County. CPPI had been involved in County hearings and an administrative hearing involving a small scale comprehensive plan amendment. The organization currently encourages donations and plans to charge dues next year. CPPI submitted oral comments, recommendations and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. No evidence was presented to show that CPPI owns real property within the County. The County and the Intervenor dispute CPPI’s standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, empowered to adopt, implement, and amend its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the laws of Florida. Intervenor, Don C. Smith (Smith or Intervenor), owns the Subject Property. He purchased the Subject Property of 9.9 acres, which is part of a contiguous 20-acre site, in May of 2003. Mr. Smith learned that the Subject Property had an RL-4 land use designation just prior to his purchase of the Subject Property. The parties agree that Mr. Smith has standing in this proceeding. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area The Redevelopment Area consists of approximately 665 acres. EE 2, Plan at 30. It is generally bounded by the CSX railroad to the north of US 17; by Lake Lulu and Shell Road on the east; by Snively Avenue (CR 655) on the south; and by Wahneta Canal and a portion of Wahneta farms on the west. JE 8A.5 (Snively Avenue is a four-lane undivided, major collector highway, but is not a buffer.) Both historically and presently, the Redevelopment Area has been composed of mixed uses in an urban area. Under the FLUM, there are eight separate land uses within the Redevelopment Area: Industrial (IND), Business Park Center (BPC- 2), High Impact Commercial (HIC), Institutional (INST-1), Community Activity Center (CAC), Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Low-1 (RL-1), and Residential Low-4 (RL-4). JE 8A. Beginning at the northern portion of the Redevelopment Area and moving from west to east, south of the CSX railroad and approximately one block south of US 17, the land uses designated on the FLUM are HIC, CAC, and HIC. Moving southward and east of Snively Avenue, the land use designation for a triangular portion of land is BPC-2. The land use designation adjacent to and immediately south of the BPC-2 designation and east of Snively Avenue is designated as IND. The IND designation covers the land in a southerly direction until Snively Avenue intersects with Croton Road. The land to the east and adjacent to the BPC-2 and IND designations is designated as RL-1. There is a small portion of land near Shell and Croton Roads at the southern boundary of the Redevelopment Area designated as Residential Suburban (RS). (The RS designation continues to the east outside of the Redevelopment Area. Lake Lulu is to the east of the eastern RL-1 and RS designations.) There is also land designated as RL-1 west of Snively Avenue, bisected by Unnamed Street, extending west of Wahneta Canal and south-southwest of the Snively Elementary School/Snively-Brooks Park area, to the southwestern boundary of the Redevelopment Area.6 The Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park are located in the INST-1 land use designation.7 JE 8A. Approximately 150 children walk to and from this elementary school (with another 60 to middle and high schools outside the Redevelopment Area), utilizing the sidewalk bordering the western portion of Snively Avenue. The majority of the children attending the elementary school reside in the RL-4 designated area (mainly between 1st and 9th Streets). Mr. Smith agreed that the elementary school was in close proximity to the Subject Property. Mr. Smith testified that after meetings with the ECRA, he moved the fence in front of the Subject Property and business back ten feet so that the children could have more room to walk down the street. He also instructed his drivers of big trucks and heavy equipment not to enter the Subject Property during times when the children are going to and from school. There are several school crossings, crossing Snively Avenue. There is a bus stop at 5th Street and Snively Avenue for children attending middle and high school. JE 8A at "6". There are also bus stops on 7th Street and in front of the elementary school. JE 8A at "5" and "7". Except for the residential portions of the CAC and BPC-2 areas, the primary residential area of the Redevelopment Area is generally bounded by US 17 and 1st Street on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, and to just north of Snively Elementary School and 9th Street on the south. JE 8A; EE 2, Plan at 6 and Figure 2. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area Uses 1. In General The Redevelopment Area, for at least the last 40 years, has supported a wide variety of industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential uses. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Smith testified that the Redevelopment Area has supported these mixed uses and has historically been defined by the interrelationship of these various uses with the predominant industrial activities within its boundaries. In the past, the established residential area (RL-4) was once a successful working-class neighborhood which primarily provided homes to those workers who were employed in the citrus plants located within the industrial classified areas. That residential area is now blighted and provides housing for low and moderate income families. Though well established, the RL-4 residential area contains a substantial number of vacant lots within that residential designated area. 2. Redevelopment Area Problems and Redevelopment During the early 1980’s, Eloise was a troubled community, suffering, for example, from theft and vandalism. The community had difficulty finding minority contractors willing to work at Phoenix because of the problems associated with the community. By the early 1990s, the residential area of the Redevelopment Area had deteriorated to such an extent that the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HND), an agency of the County, became actively involved in the redevelopment of the community. In 1992, the Eloise Neighborhood Association was formed. In 1996, a Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan was commissioned by HND. This plan was prepared by County staff. Also in 1996, the HND and the Eloise Neighborhood Association prepared the Eloise Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan, which “focused on the 138 acres generally bounded by the CSX Railroad on the east, the railroad and US 17 on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, to just south of the Snively Elementary School. Its recommendations included improved social services, land use changes, housing programs and infrastructure improvements.” In 1998, a Declaration of Slum and Blight was adopted by the Board through Resolutions Nos. 98-08 and 98-66, which, respectively, made a finding of blighting conditions in Eloise and adopted a redevelopment plan for Eloise. As a result, the ERCA was created pursuant to Section 163.356, Florida Statutes, to rehabilitate, conserve, and/or redevelop the Redevelopment Area. In 2000, the Board, pursuant to Section 163.360, Florida Statutes, adopted Ordinance No. 00-33, approving of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan as the Community Development Plan for the Redevelopment Area. It was the purpose and intent of the Board that the Eloise Redevelopment Plan be implemented in the Redevelopment Area. The Board made numerous findings in Ordinance No. 00- 33 including a determination that “[t]he Plan conforms to the general plan of the county as a whole” and that “[t]he Plan conforms to the Polk County Comprehensive Plan.” The Board also determined that “[t]he need for housing accommodations has increased in the area.” The Eloise Redevelopment Plan has not been adopted as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the Plan Amendment need not be consistent with the Eloise Redevelopment Plan to be “in compliance.” The May 2000, Eloise Redevelopment Plan describes the then existing ownership patterns such that “[t]he existing Eloise residential neighborhood between 1st and 9th Streets is subdivided into platted, fifty-foot wide lots. Most are 100-125 feet in depth. Lots along 9th Street abutting the school are platted as 70-foot wide lots. The ownership pattern in this area typically follows the lot lines. Most are individually owned lots. (See Figure 6).” EE 2, Plan at 16. Particularly relevant here, it is also stated: “Lots 33 and 34 [part of the Subject Property] are each approximately 9 acres and are owned by Alterman Transport Corporation (ATC). The site is currently used for storage and, in the past, was zoned GI [General Industrial] and R-3. In the current Comprehensive Plan, however, this site is planned for Residential Suburban (RS) to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The trucks are a legal-nonconforming use and may continue but any future development shall comply with the RS land use district.” EE 2, Plan at 16. The Eloise Redevelopment Plan also recommended that the Alterman Trucking Annex, also known as the Alterman Transportation Corporation, be developed for up to 75 single- family homes by the end of 2004. EE 2, Plan at 32; JE 3 at 3 of (The Subject Property was also formerly known as the Alterman Motor Freight Terminal. JE 2, 8/10/2004 site map.) In 2001, the County also changed the classification of the Subject Property from RS to RL-4 pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. See Finding of Fact 54. In addition to the creation of the ECRA, the County, through the HND, has attempted to revitalize the Redevelopment Area. Since 1993, HND has spent approximately $4.4 million dollars in these efforts. These funds have been spent on community policing ($424,790), slum and blight clearing ($47,428), housing rehabilitation ($186,807), parks and recreation ($149,982), water/sewer/drainage ($1,094,677), construction of the Eloise Community Center ($2,147,037), replacement of five homes ($314,138), and rehabilitation and repair of five homes ($46,819). As part of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan, many additional infrastructure improvements have been proposed, such as fire hydrants, turnaround areas for emergency vehicles and fire trucks, storm water installation, and sewer for the Residential Area of Eloise between 1st and 9th Streets and between Snively Avenue and the canal. The proposed projects for water, sewer, and storm water include 350 parcels to be served in this Residential Area. The construction of the Eloise Community Center has been the most costly expense in these efforts. After the County obtained this parcel from Phoenix Industries, it was discovered that the land was contaminated and more than $400,000 was spent on environmental clean-up costs for this property. The ECRA and the County have made progress in the area of code enforcement. Furthermore, crime has been cut in half and a drinking ordinance was passed by the County upon request of the ECRA and the Eloise Neighborhood Association. Eloise, with the County's cooperation, also initiated a Community- Oriented Policing program. There has been an increase in construction in the area, both on the residential and commercial/industrial side of Snively Avenue. The ECRA has also been working on a beautification strategy. For example, Phoenix spent $35,000 for landscaping, removing barbed wire, installing an irrigation system, and installing an attractive entrance to its facilities. Further beautification is planned for other areas along Snively Avenue, the main gateway to the area from US 17, and improvements to Snively Elementary School, for which the ECRA allocated up to $10,000. Currently, the socio-economic status of the families living within the residential portion of the Redevelopment Area is low and moderate income. But, as noted above, the area is being revitalized, including the addition of several Habitat for Humanity-built homes. Mr. Bachman confirmed that "[t]hings have changed now," including the employment of minorities and an increase in diversity at the elementary school. The Subject Property The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area on the southwest side of Snively Avenue between 5th and 6th Streets. JE 8A. The Subject Property consists of approximately 9.9 acres, which is part of a 20-acre parcel owned by Mr. Smith. Tr. 261. (There is a vacant parcel not subject to the Plan Amendment, also acquired by Mr. Smith at the same time, adjacent to and west of the Subject Property, which appears to be within a flood zone area. JE 8A at “46”. The canal serves as the western border for this parcel.) Currently, there are ten to eleven residences along 5th Street, north of the Subject Property, and ten residences between the Subject Property and 6th Street, south of the Subject Property. See EE 7. There does not appear to be any appreciable distance between these residences and the Subject Property. Aside from the residential homes north and south of the Subject Property, there are also retail, auto repair, and other commercial uses which border on Snively Avenue. See, e.g., IE 1, aerial with 15 photographs; JE 3 at 5 of 27; Tr. 295-297; JE 8A. According to Mr. Smith, he requested the land use designation change to cure the non-conforming status of the Subject Property. All operations on the Subject Property had ceased for less than one year when he purchased the Subject Property. The Subject Property has historically and, except as noted above, continuously been utilized since the late 1960’s for industrial-type purposes, including motor freight activities which include loading and unloading citrus trucks, racking, truck repair, and truck weighing. These activities would not necessarily be restricted to an Industrial land use designation;8 the current use of the Subject Property as a motor freight terminal is also permitted within a BPC-2 land use designation. There has been no substantial change in the use of the Subject Property since 1980.9 Mr. Brooks testified that while he was growing up in Eloise, the Subject Property "was primarily truck parking for the citrus plant." He "worked for the scale house back in the late 60's before the plant went down and all [they] did was like park the trucks there for unloading and which would be in the citrus plant itself." However, he never knew the Subject Property "to be an industrial park itself," during the late 1960's. Historically, Mr. Snively, who died in 1957, owned several different businesses across the street from the Subject Property, including a fresh fruit packing house, JE 8A at "20", juice plant, JE 8A at "21", concentrate plant, JE 8A at “22”. The plant closed in 1969 or 1970. In and around 1972, during the summer, Mr. Smith worked for the Snively operation when they parked their citrus trucks on the Subject Property and then for the Alterman operation on-site when he loaded and unloaded trucks. Under the County's zoning ordinance adopted in November 1970, the Subject Property, along with the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property southeast and adjacent to Snively Elementary School, were zoned as General Industrial (GI). Like the Subject Property, this industrial area is located east and immediately adjacent to property classified as residential (RS) (although the property is presently undeveloped). By an amendment to the FLUM adopted by Ordinance No. 91-06 on April 19, 1991, the Subject Property was classified as RS, rather than IND.10 At the same time, the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property immediately adjacent to Snively Elementary all maintained their Industrial classification. The May 2000 Eloise Redevelopment Plan recommended, in part, consideration of "a plan amendment from RS to RL-4 for the properties north of Snively [Elementary] School and west of Snively Avenue" which included the Subject Property. EE 2, Plan at 38. On July 11, 2001, the County adopted Ordinance No. 01- 45, which changed the land use designation on the FLUM from RS to RL-4, for all of the property (including the Subject Property) between 1st Street and just south of 9th Street and between Snively Avenue on the east and the canal on the west. EE 1 at map page 2. The land use designation for the Snively- Brooks Park was also changed to INST-1 from IND. Other land use designations were changed pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. EE 1. See also Tr. 130-136, 139-140. The FLUM changes implemented strategies set forth in the Eloise Redevelopment Plan and adopted recommended changes to the FLUM. See Tr. 163. The RL-4 designated property is located immediately adjacent to and on the north, west, and south sides of the Subject Property. JE 8A. Across Snively Avenue from the RL-4 property is the industrial area which was previously used in the citrus industry and which is currently used by Phoenix warehousing and trucking activities. JE 8A. "The purpose of the [RL-4] District is to provide areas for low density residential needs of residents in urban areas who desire areas with smaller lots, a minimum of 6,000 square feet." § 204A7., Land Development Code (LDC). The County and Mr. Smith contend that the Subject Property was mistakenly or erroneously classified as RS in 1991 and RL-4 in 2001. However, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that no mistake or error was made in 1991 or 2001 based, in part, on the chronology of events regarding the land use changes mentioned above. Merle H. Bishop, A.I.C.P., the current Director of Growth Management for the County, has been an employee of Polk County for 30 years, and was involved in the adoption of the original Comprehensive Plan in 1991. In preparing land use designations for the initial FLUM, he used aerial photographs primarily and the existing zoning at the time. Since that time, he and staff have discovered errors in mapping the land uses of property, including industrial. Typically, the errors have been corrected when presented to the Board for comprehensive plan changes to the FLUM. Mr. Bishop testified that pursuant to a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, the County desired to “recognize industrial uses.” Tr. 444-445. According to Mr. Bishop, an active industrial use would only be eliminated with good reason, i.e., such as it was a remote and isolated industrial use. Tr. 455. According to Mr. Bishop, the Subject Property, the southern parcel by the elementary school, and the Phoenix Industries property made up a major industrial use area. Tr. 456. Although Mr. Bishop stated the Subject Property "would have been" designated as Industrial in 1991 given its use, Tr. 511-512, Mr. Bishop could not "say whether or not [they] missed this on the map when [they] mapped it. I mean it appears -- I mean, when you look at the map, it's very general; or whether there was an intention to not map it." Tr. 483-484. Mr. Bishop did not testify persuasively that the Board, in 1991 or in 2001, erroneously designated the Subject Property as RS and then RL-4. The February 2, 2005, staff report, mentions the applicant’s contention that a mapping error occurred, but implicitly rejects this argument. JE 3 at 11 and 12 of 27. Staff stated: The site has recently changed ownership and the current property owner wants the non-conforming uses to become conforming uses. Recognizing the existing use will enable to [sic] owner to continue utilizing the site as it has historically been used and allow the redevelopment of the property as needed. In addition, the use has remained the same since the early 1970’s according to the applicant. The applicant also states that Policy 2.113-A2 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the [FLUM] Series shall include all major existing industrial areas; since the property has historically been used for industrial uses, the recognition of the site will correct the County’s mapping error. On the other hand, staff and the ECRA has [sic] indicated, for this and the prior requested land use change (CPA 04A-05), that the impacts to the residential neighborhood is [sic] more significant than the redevelopment of the site for commercial or industrial uses. The County worked with the residents, business owners, and land owners in the area to develop a redevelopment plan, in which, the site was intentionally made non-conforming by the community and the County in order to create separation between the industrial uses across the street from the residential uses on the west side of CR 655 (Rifle Range Road [sic]). Therefore, the applicant’s primary argument for recognizing the historical use is not relevant. JE 3 at 12 of 27. Mr. Bishop was not directly involved with the staff review although he participated at the pubic hearing before the Board. If the Subject Property were vacant, Mr. Bishop would not recommend an Industrial land use designation. He supports the land use change because of the existing (at the time) use of the Subject Property and to have the property be a conforming use. Tr. 506-507. The history of industrial-type use on both the Subject Property and other sites in the Redevelopment Area has been a subject of significant concern. Although no tests have been conducted to determine whether the Subject Property is contaminated, Dr. Cherry testified that as a result of its long industrial use, it is likely that contamination will be present, which would render its use for residential purposes not realistic. Tr. 221-223. Since the subject property is located near the property upon which the community center was constructed and both parcels were part of a larger industrial area and utilized for similar uses, Dr. Cherry suspects that the Subject Property will likewise be contaminated. Tr. 222. If the Subject Property is contaminated, it is Dr. Cherry's opinion that there will be insufficient funds to clean the area. Tr. 219. Consequently, Dr. Cherry opined that if the Subject Property could not be used for industrial purposes, it would likely be unable to be developed as residential and most likely would be abandoned, thereby becoming a “brownfield.” This would significantly burden the redevelopment efforts in the Redevelopment Area. However, the Subject Property has not been declared a “brownfield” and no finding can be made regarding the environmental condition of the Subject Property based upon the record of this case. The Small Scale Plan Amendment Application and Adoption On or about August 10, 2004, Mr. Smith filed an application requesting the County to re-designate the land use of the Subject Property from RL-4 to IND. JE 2. According to the “Narrative Summary,” “[t]his change will provide for the continuation of historical motor freight uses and provide for optional industrial uses.” Id. On January 4, 2005, the County published Notice in a newspaper of local circulation providing that the Board would consider the adoption of the Plan Amendment at its meeting of January 19, 2005. At the January 19, 2005, meeting, the County tabled consideration of the Plan Amendment to its meeting of February 2, 2005. The Polk County Planning Division Staff report is dated February 2, 2005. This report contains a detailed analysis of the application. The Planning Division recommended denial of the Plan Amendment. (The report indicates that the Planning Commission recommended approval (3 to 1 vote) of the Plan Amendment.) The Planning Division found, in part, that "the proposed development request IS NOT compatible with surrounding land uses and general character of the area of the residential uses on the southern side of Snively Avenue (CR 655) and IS NOT consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan for a land use change to Industrial (IND) because it would likely intrude into the existing residential neighborhood, allow for more intensive uses to be developed next to existing homes, and not be consistent with the approved Eloise Redevelopment Plan." (Emphasis is original). On February 2, 2005, the Board voted to adopt the Plan Amendment by the adoption of Ordinance No. 05-004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order concluding that the Plan Amendment adopted by Polk County Ordinance No. 05-004 is not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 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 8th day of July, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the Metropolitan Dade County comprehensive plan adopted as Item No. 6, Ordinance No. 94-192, is "in compliance", as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Village of Key Biscayne (hereinafter referred to as the "Village"), is a local government (a municipal corporation) located within Dade County, Florida. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department, among other things, is charged with responsibility for the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Respondent, Metropolitan Dade County (hereinafter referred to as "Dade County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Dade County is responsible under the Act for the preparation, processing, and review of land use plans and amendments thereto within its jurisdiction. Intervenor, Marine Exhibition Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Marine"), is the applicant for the amendment which is at issue in this case. Marine is the owner of the Miami Seaquarium (hereinafter referred to as the "Seaquarium"), a saltwater oceanarium and tourist attraction located in Dade County, Florida. The Village's Standing. The Seaquarium is located on Virginia Key, an island located in Biscayne Bay. The Seaquarium is connected with the mainland of Dade County by the Rickenbacker Causeway. The Village is located on Key Biscayne. Key Biscayne is an island located in Biscayne Bay. Key Biscayne is connected to Virginia Key. Key Biscayne is connected with the mainland of Dade County through Virginia Key. The Rickenbacker Causeway runs through Virginia Key, past the Seaquarium, over a bridge onto Key Biscayne. The Causeway becomes Crandon Boulevard, which runs to and through the Village and ends at Cape Florida, at the southeastern corner of Key Biscayne. Virginia Key and Key Biscayne are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Dade County. The closest Village boundary to the Seaquarium is located approximately 2 and 1/4 to 2 and 1/2 miles from the Seaquarium property. The Village is located completely within Dade County's jurisdictional boundaries. The Village, therefore, owns property located in Dade County. The Village conducts all of its business within its city limits, located on Key Biscayne. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the plan amendment at issue in this proceedings will "produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure" of the Village or will create a "substantial impact on areas designed for protection or special treatment within the [Village's] jurisdiction." See Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Village raised objections by oral and written comments concerning the proposed amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Amendment"), at public hearings during the period of time commencing with the transmittal hearing and ending when the Proposed Amendment was adopted by Dade County. The Village's objections and comments did not include objections or comments concerning density and intensity standards. The Seaquarium. The Seaquarium is located on thirty-seven acres. The property is owned by Dade County and has been subject to a long-term lease to Marine. Dade County also owns all structures erected on the site and all marine mammals. The Seaquarium has been in operation at its present site since 1954. The Seaquarium has a history of providing entertainment, educational and recreational uses to residents and visitors to Dade County. Existing uses of the Seaquarium include approximately ten marine mammal exhibits and corresponding shows featuring these mammals, a marina, theme-oriented gift shops and restaurants. Educational activities at the Seaquarium include: (a) a program to train teachers in marine science and student field trips (over 75,000 students attend the past year) in cooperation with Dade County and Broward County, Florida; (b) the largest manatee rehabilitation and recapture program in the United States; (c) an internship program with the Mast Academy, a magnet school for gifted high school students; and (d) research and development exchange programs with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (hereinafter referred to as "NOAA"). Florida Quality Development Designation. Marine decided to improve its facilities at the Seaquarium through a project it labeled "Seaquarium Village." Marine initially sought and obtained a designation from the Department of the Seaquarium Village as a Florida Quality Development (hereinafter referred to as "FQD"), pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Seaquarium Village project was subsequently challenged by the Village pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. The Village alleged that Seaquarium Village was not consistent with Dade County's comprehensive plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Third District Court of Appeal entered an opinion on November 9, 1993, finding that the project was inconsistent with the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). Village of Key Biscayne v. Dade County, 627 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. den., 639 So.2d 976 (1994). The Proposed Amendment. The Plan includes a Land Use Element. The Land Use Element identifies locations in Dade County where various land uses, including intensities of use, will be allowed during the period for which the Plan applies. The land uses are also depicted on the Future Land Use Map. One of the land uses provided for in the Plan is the "Parks and Recreation" land use. The Seaquarium is located within the "Parks and Recreation" Land Use Plan map category of the Plan. The Plan includes the following descriptive text concerning the "Parks and Recreation" Land Use Plan map category: Certain commercial activities that are supportive of the recreational uses and complementary to the resources of the park, such as marine supply stores, fuel docks or tennis and golf clubhouses may be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category. Other commercial recreational, entertainment or cultural uses may also be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category where complementary to the site and its resources. Marine filed an application in November of 1993 with Dade County seeking approval of a modification of the "Parks and Recreation" land use category for the site of the Seaquarium. The proposed modification ultimately adopted by Dade County, after Dade County and Marine cooperated to agree on the proposed language, provides for the addition of the following language immediately after the descriptive text quoted in finding of fact 24: [Included in the category is the Seaquarium, a unique tourist attraction with a long history of educational, entertainment, and recreational benefit both to residents of Dade County and to visitors. Notwithstanding any other provisions in the Parks and Recreation section of the Land Use Plan Element, in order to continue and to enhance its contributions to the community, this facility may be authorized to renovate, expand, and increase the variety of its educa- tional, recreational and entertainment attractions. Accordingly, the following additional uses may be permitted at the Seaquarium site: recreational and educational uses, restaurants, gift shops, marine or water amusements, and environmentally- related theaters.] 1/ The Proposed Amendment does not apply to any Parks and Recreation site other than the Seaquarium site. Following transmittal of the Proposed Amendment to the Department, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments report (hereinafter referred to as the "ORC"), on or about September 1, 1994. In the ORC the Department objected, in relevant part, to the lack of adequate data and analysis to demonstrate the compatibility of the Proposed Amendment with the surrounding land uses and raised questions concerning whether the proposed project was in a Coastal High Hazard Area. In response to the ORC, Dade County provided the following information to the Department: (a) the record of the transmittal and adoption hearings; (b) Chapter 9J-11 deliverables; (c) information on the surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the Seaquarium; (d) the Seaquarium FQD; (d) the Seaquarium ADA; and (e) information concerning coastal high-hazard area. The proposed Seaquarium modification of the Parks and Recreation Land Use Element was adopted by Dade County on October 13, 1994, by Ordinance No. 94- 192. In December, 1994, after review of the Proposed Amendment and the additional information provided by Dade County, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Find the Proposed Amendment in Compliance. The decision of the Department was challenged by the Village on or about December 30, 1994. Intensity or Density of Use. The Act provides the following regarding the Future Land Use plan element required to be included in all comprehensive plans: . . . designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. . . . Each land use category shall be defined in terms of the types of uses included and specific standards for the density or intensity of use. . . . Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. See also Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., Florida Administrative Code. The requirement of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, concerning densities and intensities applies to all comprehensive plans and amendments thereto. "Densities" and "intensities" are objective methods of determining the extent to which land may be utilized. "Densities" are usually expressed in terms of the number of units allowed per acre of land. Rule 9J-5.003(33), Florida Administrative Code, defines "density" as "an objective measurement of the number of people or residential units allowed per unit of land, such as residents or employees per acre." This definition of "density" was first adopted by rule in 1994. Densities are usually associated with residential uses. "Density" requirements are not relevant to the Proposed Amendment because it does not involve residential use of land. "Intensities" are most often expressed in terms of spatial uses, such as the amount of allowable floor space, lot coverage, or height. Rule 9J- 5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code, defines "intensity" as "an objective measurement of the extent to which land may be developed or used, including the consumption or use of the space above, on natural resources; and the measurement of the use or demand on facilities and services." This definition of "intensity" was first adopted by rule in 1994. The purpose of requiring density and intensity standards is to promote intelligent planning which allows for the measurement of developments on natural resources and infrastructure capacity, and allows the evaluation of compatibility with surrounding land uses. Initial Approval of the Plan. The Plan was submitted to the Department for initial review in 1988. The Plan was one of the first comprehensive plans reviewed pursuant to the Act by the Department. At the time of the Department's initial review of the Plan, there was no definition of density or intensity provided by rule. The definitions of density and intensity included in Rules 9J-5.003(33) and (63), Florida Administrative Code, were not adopted until 1994. The Parks and Recreation category of the Plan, when originally submitted for review, was required to include an intensity standard. The Plan's definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category did not, however, contain a specific restriction on intensity of use such as a floor area ratio, maximum lot coverage, or height restriction. Rather than include a specific intensity restriction in the Plan, Dade County elected to describe the types of nonresidential uses which would be allowed under the Parks and Recreation land use category. Dade County restricted allowable uses to those which are complementary to the site and its natural resources. Dade County believed that its description of allowable uses constituted an adequate intensity standard, providing an objective measurement of the extent that land could be developed, the use and demand on natural resources, and the use and demand on facilities and services. Dade County is the largest county in Florida. It includes approximately 2000 to 2100 square miles. Dade County, therefore, elected to emphasize its natural resources and public service impacts on a "macromanagement" basis. The Parks and Recreation land use category included in the Plan allows a wide range of park and recreational uses, including "neighborhood parks, area parks, metropolitan parks, regional and state parks, including Everglades National Park, [and] tourist attractions such as the Seaquarium, Metro Zoo, [and] Viscaya . . . ." Transcript, Vol. III, Page 402. The Department approved the Plan without objection, recommendation or comment with regard to the definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category. The "Baby Seal Policy". The Department's policy concerning the application of the Act to growth management plans has evolved since the initial plans were reviewed. The Department has recognized that some of the plans it initially approved may be "less than perfect". In recognition of this problem, the Department found it necessary to develope a policy to deal with plans that do not comply with the Department's interpretation of the Act now that the Department has more experience interpreting and applying the Act. The Department's response to the problem of dealing with plans that may not comply with the Act, but have previously been approved, is referred to as the "Baby Seal Policy". This policy has been described as follows: Local government A's comprehensive plan provides that ten baby seals may be killed over the planning period while local government B's plan provides that no baby seals may be killed. Both plans are initially approved by the Department. Subsequently, the Department adopts a rule that prohibits the killing of baby seals. Local government A then amends its plan to allow the killing of eight baby seals rather than ten. Local government B also amends its plan to allow the killing of two baby seals. In applying the "Baby Seal Policy" the Department would approve local government's amendment because it moves local government A's plan closer to complying the prohibition against killing baby seals. Local government B's amendment would not be approved, however, because it moves its plan further from complying with the prohibition. The Department's Baby Seal Policy was developed so that the Department can comply with the requirement of Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code, that the Department consider as part of its review of plan amendments whether an amendment makes substantial progress towards consistency with applicable requirements of the rules and the Act. Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code, requires consideration during the review of a proposed plan amendment of the following: Whether the provision at issue constitutes substantial progress over existing provisions regarding consistency with and furtherance of Chapter 163, the State Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Regional Policy Plan and this Chapter, where the existing provisions are in a plan or plan amendment previously found in compliance. The Department's "Baby Seal Policy" encourages local governments to adopt amendments to previously approved plans (which may not be in compliance with all provisions of the Act and/or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code), which bring those plans closer to being in compliance with the Act and/or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. I. Application of the Baby Seal Policy to the Proposed Amendment. The Department recognizes that the Parks and Recreation land use category of the Plan may not be in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, because it does not provide for the type of intensity standard now required by Rule 9J-5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code. The Proposed Amendment, however, continues Dade County's choice of describing the Parks and Recreation land use category by specifying the types of allowable uses at the Seaquarium. There is no doubt that the Proposed Amendment includes uses allowable on the Seaquarium site which, when read alone and without regard to the Plan's overall definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category, are broad. The Proposed Amendment clearly does not include the type of intensity standard now required by Rule 9J-5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code. The Proposed Amendment does, however, provide more detail as to the allowable uses on the Seaquarium site than currently included in the Parks and Recreation land use category. Consequently, the Proposed Amendment does provide greater certainty for indentifying the potential impacts of development at the Seaquarium site than the current definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category. The Proposed Amendment does, therefore, move the Plan in the direction of compliance with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, in furtherance of the Baby Seal Policy and as required by Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Internal Consistency. Internal consistency between and within elements of a growth management plan is required by the Act. Internal consistency must be maintained when a plan is amended. Without consistency in the provisions of a plan, it will not be clear what actions are allowable and unallowable under a plan. The Proposed Amendment provides that certain modifications of the Seaquarium site will be allowable under the Plan "[n]otwithstanding any other provisions in the Parks and Recreation Section of the Land Use Plan Element . . . ." This language creates a clearly designated exception to, or deviation from, other requirements of the Land Use Plan Element. A clearly specified exception to, or deviation from, a provision in a plan does not create an inconsistency. The evidence failed to prove that the Proposed Amendment creates an internal inconsistency with the Plan. Data and Analysis. Plan amendments must be supported by data and analysis. Rules 9J- 5.005(2) and 9J-5.006(2), Florida Administrative Code. Dade County provided, in addition to information concerning the surrounding area and coastal high hazard areas requested by the Department, the FQD and the Application for Development Approval (hereinafter referred to as the "ADA"), to the Department in support of the Proposed Amendment. While the FQD and the ADA pertain to a specifically proposed development, these documents contain data concerning the Seaquarium site, the only site to which the Proposed Amendment applies. Although the Proposed Amendment is not limited to the project approved in the FQD or the portion of the ADA which relates expressly to the project approved in the FQD, the ADA contains information concerning the only site to which the Proposed Amendment applies. That information, or data, and the analysis thereof is relevant to a determination of whether the Proposed Amendment should be approved. The information contained in the ADA is useful in estimating the impacts of the types of development that are permissible pursuant to the Proposed Amendment and not just the impacts of the development addressed in the FQD. The FQD and the ADA also provide information concerning what type of project may reasonably be expected at the Seaquarium site. Much of the pertinent data contained in the ADA also constitutes the best information available concerning the Seaquarium site and, therefore, the subject of the Proposed Amendment. While the only expert witness called by the Village, Mr. David Russ, opined that the FQD does not constitute the data and analysis required in support of the Proposed Amendment, Mr. Russ did not give a similar opinion concerning the ADA. Nor had Mr. Russ read the ADA. Non-development specific data provided to the Department in the ADA included information concerning services and facilities related to development at the site. In particular, data is included in the ADA concerning traffic and emergency services (proposed traffic improvements, trips, the existing roadway network, the applicable level of service and projected background traffic). Data was also provided in the ADA concerning wastewater, drainage and potable water (existing water distribution and transmission systems, pervious and impervious conditions), and solid waste. Data and analysis concerning the natural resources of the Seaquarium site was also included in the ADA. Existing on-site vegetation and wildlife are inventoried and information concerning air quality and wetlands is provided. Data and analysis concerning historical and archeological resources is also provided in the ADA. Question 12 of the ADA provides information concerning the need for renovation and expansion of the Seaquarium site. Data and analysis concerning the need for redevelopment of the site was unrefuted by competent, substantial evidence. The Department was also provided with data and analysis concerning the area which surrounds the site. Surrounding uses included the University of Miami Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, the United States National Marine Fisheries Laboratory Station and offices, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration offices, the Mast Academy, the City of Miami Marine Stadium and the Metro Dade County Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Seaquarium and redevelopment which would be allowable pursuant to the Proposed Amendment are compatible with these surrounding uses. The Village's suggestion that the data and analysis provided to the Department in the FQD and the ADA (which had not been read by the Village's expert witness) was not sufficient because the FQD pertains to a specific project is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The FQD and, more importantly, the ADA contain sufficient data and analysis to support the allowable land uses of the Proposed Amendment. In addition to suggesting that the data and analysis provided to the Department is insufficient because the data and analysis relates to a specific project, the Village has argued that insufficient data and analysis has been provided with regard to intensity of use. This argument is essentially an extension of the Village's argument concerning the lack of an intensity standard. There is as much, or more, data and analysis provided with the Proposed Amendment concerning intensity of use as there is to support the existing Parks and Recreation land use category. The data and analysis to support the Parks and Recreation land use category which is presumed to exist, may also be relied upon in reviewing a plan amendment. Additionally, the data and analysis provided as a part of the ADA is sufficient to support the maximum intensity of use allowable pursuant to the Proposed Amendment. The evidence failed to prove that there was not adequate data and analysis to support a determination that the Proposed Amendment is "in compliance".
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing Pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, filed by the Village of Key Biscayne. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1996.*
The Issue The issue is whether Polk County's small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Ordinance No. 03-03 on January 22, 2003, as later amended by Ordinance No. 03-19 on March 15, 2003, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Berry is the owner of a tract of land located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road (County Road 540-A) and Pollard Road in Section 16, Township 29, Range 26 in the eastern part of unincorporated Polk County, Florida. The property lies south of the City of Winter Haven, east-southeast of the City of Eagle Lake, less than a mile south of Lake Eloise (on which Cypress Gardens is located), and west of U.S. Highway 27. Because Berry owns property within the County, and submitted oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the challenged amendment, it has standing to participate in this action. On July 19, 2002, Berry filed an application with the County Planning Department seeking to change the land use on 9.99 acres (or just below the threshold of 10.0 acres for a small scale amendment) from RL-1 to Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC) to include approximately 4.95 acres of various neighborhood specialty shops such as a grocery store, drug store, convenience store, and dry cleaners, with the remaining acreage used as a mini-warehouse self-storage facility. In September 2002, Berry amended its application by seeking to change 3.93 acres from RL-1 to CC and 6.06 acres from RL-1 to BPC-1. The application was assigned Case File No. CPA2003S- 02. Under the County's review process, the application is first reviewed by the County Development Review Committee (Committee), then by the County Planning Commission (CPC), which either accepts or rejects the Committee's recommendation, and finally by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), which either adopts the amendment, adopts the amendment as amended by the Board, or rejects the amendment. After conducting a preliminary review of the application, on September 16, 2002, the Committee conducted a public hearing and voted to recommend approval. The matter was then transmitted to the CPC, which conducted a meeting on October 9, 2002, and recommended that the Board approve the amendment. On January 22, 2003, by a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted CPA2003S-02 changing the designation on the FLUM of the County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) as proposed by Berry. This was confirmed by the County's adoption of Ordinance No. 03-03. On February 21, 2003, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the Berry amendment. The matter was again placed on the Board's agenda on March 19, 2003, after the County discovered that Ordinance No. 03-03 had inadvertently changed the land use on the entire parcel to CC rather a mix of CC and BPC-1. In addition, there were minor errors in the legal description of both the 3.93 and 6.06-acre parcels. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 03-19 was enacted to correct those errors. A second Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings (with essentially the same allegations, but also adding an allegation that the same property had been improperly subject to two small scale amendments within a 12- month period) was filed by Petitioners on March 19, 2003, challenging the action taken in Ordinance No. 03-19. At the outset of the final hearing, Petitioners voluntarily dismissed two allegations contained in their Petition. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioners have further narrowed the issues by addressing only the following allegations: that the property which is the subject of this proceeding exceeds 10.0 acres in size and therefore cannot qualify as a small scale amendment; and that the amendment violates Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policies 2.102-A1, 2.113-B-3, 2.113-B-4, 2.110-C3, and 2.113-B-1 and is thus internally inconsistent with the Plan. These issues will be discussed separately below. All other allegations contained in the second Petition and the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation are deemed to have been withdrawn or abandoned. Because the change in the FLUM was filed and approved as a small scale plan amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003),1 a compliance review of the amendment was not made by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. Standing of Petitioners Durham is a realtor/developer who owns property within 250 feet of Berry's property and resides at 10 Lake Eloise Lane, Southeast, Winter Haven, Florida. He made oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment. As such, he qualifies as an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and has standing to bring this action. CPPI began as an association in November 2002 and was later incorporated in February 2003. Presently, it has around 100 members, all of whom reside in the County. According to its chairperson, its purpose is to "help educate and inform residents of Polk County . . . towards growth matters that may affect their daily lives." The organization "encourages donations" from its members; it was scheduled to have conducted its first annual meeting on January 10, 2004; and members prepared and circulated petitions opposing the amendment to residents of the area in December 2002 and January 2003. At least one member of CPPI made written and oral comments on its behalf to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment in March 2003. There is no evidence, however, that CPPI (as opposed to its individual members) owns property or owns or operates a business within the County. Therefore, it lacks standing to file a petition. The land and surrounding uses Berry owns a triangle-shaped parcel of land (the parent parcel) totaling around 14 acres which fronts on Eagle Lake Loop Road (a 24-foot wide urban collector road) to the north, Pollard Road (a local road) to the east, and a CSX railroad track, with right-of-way, on its western side. (Pollard Road dead ends at Eagle Lake Loop Road, and another collector road, Eloise Loop Road, continues to the north from the intersection). Pollard Road provides access to eight nearby single-family homes, which lie south of the Berry property and front on Pollard Road, and eventually terminates at the City of Winter Haven's Sewage Treatment Plant (an institutional use), which lies slightly more than a mile south of the site. To the west of the site directly across the railroad tracks and fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road is additional property owned by Berry and on which were once located the original Berry corporate offices. The Berry office buildings are now used, at least partially, by other tenants. Although the land across the railroad tracks is classified as Residential Suburban (RS), the property can be used for offices since the buildings were constructed, and office use began, prior to the adoption of the Plan. Directly across Pollard Road to the east is a vacant 10-acre tract of land owned by the Baptist Ridge Association, which intends to construct a church on the property. Berry's property is now classified as RL-1, a land use classification which "is characterized by single-family dwelling units, duplex units, and small-scale multi-family units." Since at least the 1950s, however, or long before the County adopted its Plan, the property has been used primarily for agriculture purposes (citrus groves); therefore, Berry is grandfathered to continue this non-conforming use on its property. Presently, the entire tract of land is undeveloped and largely covered by an orange grove, which Berry describes as "past maturation and is declining." Citrus trucks and trailers have been parked on the extreme northwestern corner of the parent parcel and are used in conjunction with the citrus operation. Except for the former Berry offices, a nearby beauty salon operating out of a house, and a convenience store about three-quarters of a mile away, which all began operation before the Plan was adopted and are grandfathered as non- conforming uses, and the City of Winter Haven's large tract of institutional land to the south, all of the property within slightly less than a one-mile radius of the Berry property is classified in various residential land use categories with only residential uses. The Amendment As noted above, Berry has owned the subject property for many years. In 1987, Berry (then under the name of Jack M. Berry, Sr.) made application with the County for a zoning change on the property from Rural Conservation (RC) to Commercial (C-3) to allow typical commercial uses. The application was ultimately denied by the County on the ground, among others, that the zoning district being proposed was inconsistent with the Plan, "given the residential development pattern in the area." At least partly on the theory that the area has changed substantially in the last 15 years, Berry has filed (and the County has approved) an application seeking to change the land use on the property to commercial uses. Berry has carved out of the parent parcel two smaller parcels totaling 9.99 acres in size and seeks to change the land use on the northern parcel (3.93 acres) to CC and the land use on the southern parcel (6.06 acres) to BPC-1. The remaining land in the parent parcel, which consists of a 0.43-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the northwestern corner of the parent parcel and now used by citrus trucks, and a vacant 2.74-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the southern end, will remain R-1. (However, all parties agree that if the amendment is approved, these remaining parcels will be unsuitable for residential development.) In addition, strips of land ranging from 22 to 28 feet in width which front on Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road will be dedicated to the County for right-of-way and have not been included in the 9.99-acre amendment. Presumably, the proposed change is being done in this manner so that the total acreage is less than 10.0 acres, which qualifies the application to be processed as a small scale development amendment rather than a regular plan amendment and subject to DCA review and approval. If the change is approved, the northern part of the parcel (3.93 acres) will be changed to CC to develop convenience commercial uses. Under the Plan, the most typical tenant in this category is a convenience store, while other typical tenants include laundry, dry cleaning, barber, restaurant, gas station, and office uses. The southern (and larger) portion of the tract will be changed to BPC-1. The most typical tenant in this category is "[o]ne or more light- assembly plants, or warehouse facilities," which include a mini-warehouse storage facility. Other typical tenants described in the Plan are offices, distribution centers, research and development firms, and high-density residential, with proper buffering. (Berry says it intends to build a mini-warehouse facility on the southern parcel; however, any of the above described uses could be placed on the property if the change is approved.) Petitioners' Objections In broad terms, Petitioners have contended that the small scale amendment actually involves a use of more than 10 acres since the strips of land being dedicated as right-of-way to the County must be counted as a part of the land being amended. They also contend that the plan amendment violates five FLUE policies and is therefore internally inconsistent with the Plan. A small scale development amendment can only be adopted if "[t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." See § 163.3187(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. The parties have agreed that the legal description of the parcel subject to the change includes only 9.99 acres, or less than the 10-acre threshold. However, prior to the development of the site, Berry intends to dedicate to the County two strips of land, one fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road (28 feet wide), and the other on Pollard Road (22 feet wide), for future right-of-way for some public purpose. Petitioners contend that the right-of-way constitutes essential infrastructure for the development and must be included as a part of the amendment. If this land is added to the amendment, the total acreage would obviously exceed 10.0 acres. The dedicated land is not "essential infrastructure" needed for the development activities on the land, since two roadways (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road) already exist on the northern and eastern boundaries of the property, and they are sufficient in size to provide ingress to, and egress from, the property. Instead, the County will "bank" the land in the event some form of right-of-way activity is needed in the future. It is noted that Eagle Lake Loop Road was recently widened to 24 feet, and it is not anticipated that a further widening will occur for a number of years. There is nothing in the Plan which requires an applicant for an amendment to include all of its property in a proposed amendment, or prevents an applicant from leaving a residual piece of property out of the application. Therefore, Berry was not required to include in the amendment the right- of-way or the two smaller residual pieces of property that will remain R-1. Finally, assuming arguendo that Petitioners' contention is correct, that is, that an applicant must include right-of-way land dedicated to the local government in the total acreage calculation, Berry could still lawfully comply with the 10-acre threshold by simply reducing the other acreage being changed to CC or BPC by the amount of land being dedicated to the local government for right-of-way. Therefore, it is found that Berry has not improperly excluded from the amendment land necessary for essential infrastructure so as to violate Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioners. Policy 2.102-A1 requires compatibility between adjacent uses. More specifically, it provides that: Land shall be developed so that adjacent uses are compatible with each other, pursuant to the requirements of other Policies in this Future Land Use Element, so that one or more of the following provisions are accomplished: there have been provisions made which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses; incompatible uses are made to be more compatible to each other through limiting the intensity and scale of the more intense use; uses are transitioned through a gradual scaling of different land use activities through the use of innovative development techniques such as a Planned Unit Development. Therefore, as the Plan is now written, so long as Berry develops the land in a manner which accomplishes at least one of the three "provisions" in paragraphs a - c of the policy, so as to make the adjacent uses compatible, the proposed land use change is permissible. As noted above, except for a few non-conforming uses adjacent to, or near the property, virtually all of the area around the Berry property is designated for residential use. The area to the north and northeast is developed with up-scale (with some homes ranging to as high as $1 million in value), low density, large lot, single-family residential subdivisions, including Harbour Estates, Cedar Cove, Cypress Cove, Gaines Cove, and Valhalla. To the east of the site are more subdivisions, including Eloise Place, Skidmore, Cypress Point, Lake Eloise Estates, Eloise Pointe Estates, a mobile home park, and Little Lake Estates. The lands to the south are primarily agriculture and in active citrus groves, with eight single-family homes on Pollard Road. Finally, a church will be built on the property directly across the street from the Berry property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road. The County Planning Director agrees that a convenience store (which is an authorized use on CC land), standing alone, is incompatible with adjacent single-family residences. Given this acknowledgement, and the fact that a non-binding, proposed site plan submitted by Berry with its application does not provide for any buffering between the commercial uses and the residential areas, Petitioners contend that none of the conditions required for compatibility in paragraphs a through c have been met, and thus the policy has been violated. The County has made clear, however, that when a final site plan is submitted, there must be "provisions [in the site plan] . . . which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses," as required by the policy. Assuming that this is done at the site plan stage, at least one of the three provisions will be accomplished, thereby satisfying the compatibility requirement. This being so, the plan amendment does not violate the policy and in this respect is not internally inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioners next contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.110-C3, which contains locational criteria for CC property. One such criterion requires that "Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads." Because the property is at a T-shaped intersection (as opposed to a traditional cross intersection with four directions for traffic to move off the site), Petitioners assert that the property is not located at an "intersection" within the meaning of the policy. Eagle Lake Loop Road, on which the northern boundary of the property fronts, is designated as an urban collector road. That road forms an intersection with Pollard Road (a local road) and Eloise Loop Road (also an urban collector road), which meets Eagle Lake Loop Road from the north at the intersection, and then makes a 90 degree turn to the east. (When Eagle Lake Loop Road continues to the east beyond the intersection, it turns into Eloise Loop Road, and later into Thompson Nursery Road, until it eventually intersects with U.S. Highway 17.) There is no dispute that the two collector roads (Eagle Loop Lake Road and Eloise Loop Road) form a T intersection, rather than a traditional cross intersection. For many years, however, the County has considered a T intersection and a cross intersection to be the same in terms of satisfying Plan requirements. Indeed, at the present time, at least four other CC designated properties within the County are located at T intersections. The County's interpretation of the policy is consistent with sound planning principles, is reasonable and logical, and is more persuasive than the contrary view offered by Petitioners. Accordingly, it is found that the amendment does not conflict with Policy 2.110- C3. Petitioners also contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.113-B-3, which provides that "Business-Park Centers shall be located with consideration being given to regional transportation issues, and should be located at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line." (Emphasis added.) The use of the word "should" (rather than "shall") is intended to state a preference, but not an absolute requirement, that BPC lands be located at the intersections of arterial roads. According to the County's Planning Director, this is because "most cases that come [before the County] don't meet the ideal situation" of satisfying every requirement, and the County has used this permissive language to give itself some degree of flexibility in handling cases that do not meet every Plan requirement. Therefore, even though it is preferable that BPC land be located at the intersection of arterial roads, this requirement is not mandatory, and the County has the flexibility to approve a BPC land use change at property not sited at the intersection of arterial roads. In contrast to the permissive language described above, Policy 2.113-B-4 provides that development within a Business-Park Center shall conform to certain development criteria, including one that Business-Park Centers shall have frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves an arterial roadway. Business-Park Centers shall incorporate the use of frontage roads or shared ingress/egress facilities wherever practical. In this case, the closest arterial roadway to Berry's property is State Road 17 to the west, which is four miles away, while State Road 60, another arterial roadway, is approximately six miles to the south. These arterial roads must be accessed, at least at the beginning of the trip, by Eagle Lake Loop Road, a two-lane, 24-foot wide urban collector that runs through predominately residential neighborhoods with some homes having fences within a foot or two from the road. The County interprets the requirement that BPC land have "direct access to an arterial road" to be satisfied if the property fronts on a collector road, which then provides access to an arterial road. Under the County's interpretation, the requirement is met since Eagle Lake Loop Road provides access (albeit 4 to 6 miles away) to State Roads 17 and 60. The County says it has consistently interpreted this provision in this manner for at least ten years, and has approved other applications for changes to BPC when those parcels were located on urban collector roads. (The distance between these other BPC parcels and the arterial roads is not of record, however.) While Policy 2.113-B-1 provides that Business-Park Centers are "not intended to accommodate major commercial or other high-traffic producing facilities," they "are intended to promote employment opportunities within the region by allowing for the establishment of office parks, research and development parks, areas for light-industrial facilities, distribution centers, and mixed-use employment parks." The same policy provides that they must have a usable area of 10 acres or more, have a service-area radius of 20 miles or more, be supported by a population of 150,000 or more people, and have a gross leasable area of 500,000 to 2,000,000 square feet. Given this description of their purpose and characteristics, and the wide range of commercial activities that are allowed on Business-Park Center lands, it is not surprising that Policy 2.113-B-3 provides that BPC lands should be located "at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line," while Policy 2.113-B-4 requires that they "have direct frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves on an arterial roadway." When reading these provisions as a whole, it is unreasonable to conclude, as the County does, that "direct access" contemplates a drive of over 4 miles, partly on a narrow two- lane road, in order to reach an arterial road. Accordingly, on this issue, Petitioners' evidence is the most persuasive, and it is found that the plan amendment conflicts with Policy 2.113-B-4 and in this respect is internally inconsistent with the Plan. Policy 2.110-C3 sets forth the following location criteria for Convenience Centers: LOCATION CRITERIA Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads. There shall be the following traveling distance, on public roads, between the center of Convenience Center and the center of any other Convenience Center, or other higher- level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor, or Commercial Enclave providing for the same convenience shopping needs: One (1) mile within the UDA and UGA Two (2) miles within the SDA and UEA This required separation may be reduced if: The higher-level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor or Commercial Enclave within the required distance separation is over 80 percent developed; or the proposed Convenience Center market- area radius, minimum population support is over 5,000 people. Petitioners contend that this policy has been violated in two respects: the Berry property is not located at the intersection of arterial roads; and there is an existing convenience center located within 0.8 mile of the Barry property, and Berry cannot qualify for a reduction in the required separation, as described in paragraphs a and b. For the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 30-32, it is found that the Berry property is located at the intersection of two collector roads (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Eloise Loop Road) and that a T intersection satisfies the requirements of the policy. As to the second contention, the Berry property is located within an UGA (Urban Growth Area), and an existing convenience store is located at the intersection of Rifle Range Road and Eagle Lake Loop Road, or less than a mile west of Berry's property. The land use on the property on which the store sits was recently changed (in December 2003) to BPC, which does not allow a convenience store. However, the store is a non-conforming use, having been located at that site before the Plan was adopted. The locational requirement in Policy 2.110-C-3 that CC lands within the UGA be located at least a mile apart is not the least bit vague or ambiguous: CC designated lands (and not individual convenience stores, as Petitioners suggest) must be separated by at least a mile, unless one of the two criteria for reducing this separation is met. Because there is no CC land within a one-mile radius of the Berry land, the policy has not been violated. Policy 2.113-B-1 sets forth the following relevant characteristic for Business-Park Centers: General characteristics of Business-Park Centers are: Usable Area 10 acres or more There is no dispute that the useable area for the BPC land is only 6.06 acres, or approximately 60 percent of the required acreage. Petitioners contend that the amendment violates the foregoing policy because the useable area on Barry's property is much less than "10 acres or more." While the former County Planning Director conceded that the 10-acre usable area requirement is "mandatory," he justified the amendment on the ground that the 6.06 acres "approximates" 10 acres, and thus satisfies the policy. In the same vein, the current County Planning Director asserted that if Berry was proposing a stand-alone BPC, it would have been required to have 10 usable acres. In this case, though, he pointed out that the Berry property will be used for a nonresidential mixed use (BPC and CC) totaling almost 10 acres, and therefore Berry has satisfied the requirement. The Planning Director admitted, however, that nothing in the Plan specifically allows this type of exception. He justified the County's action on the theory that the Plan "doesn't anticipate every situation that comes in," and "interpretations have to be made of the comprehensive plan and how it's applied." The requirement that Business-Park Centers have a usable area of 10 or more acres is clear and unambiguous, was characterized as being "mandatory," and is not subject to any exceptions in the Plan. This being so, the County's interpretation is found to be unreasonable and contrary to the plain language in the policy, and in this respect the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with the Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Polk County by Ordinance No. 03-03, as amended by Ordinance No. 03-19, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Background The Parties Respondent, City of Hialeah (City), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive plans and amendments thereto. Petitioners, Edmond J. Gong and Dana L. Clay (petitioners), reside in Coconut Grove, Florida and own at least two parcels of property within the City. The parties have stipulated that petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to challenge the remedial amendment in issue here. The Nature of the Dispute In 1991 and 1992, the City adopted three sets of land use amendments to its comprehensive plan known as amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1. Each set of amendments generated objections by the DCA, and the matters were later sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings and were assigned Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM, respectively. Petitioners did not participate in any of these proceedings. To resolve the objections raised by the DCA, the City and DCA negotiated a stipulated settlement agreement in December 1993, which was executed by the City on January 28, 1994. Pursuant to that agreement, on April 21, 1994, the City adopted a remedial amendment (Ordinance 94-27) known as amendment 94R-1. After reviewing the amendment, on June 2, 1994, the DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent to find such amendment in compliance. On June 7, 1994, the South Florida Regional Planning Council also found the amendment to be in compliance. Finally, on July 11, 1994, the DCA's motion to dismiss Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM was granted. Petitioners, who participated in the local hearings concerning the adoption of amendment 94R-1, timely filed their petition for administrative hearing on June 23, 1994, challenging the propriety of that amendment for various reasons. The petition was assigned Case No. 94-3506GM. Although petitioners failed to plead any procedural issues in the initial petition, respondents have agreed that petitioners may raise certain procedural objections regarding amendment 94R-1 since the procedural issues were raised in their objections and comments filed with the City during the adoption process of the amendment. Procedurally, petitioners argue that the local government did not comply with all statutory requirements in noticing its proposed approval of the settlement stipulation and its later intent to adopt an ordinance. As to the DCA, petitioners argue that the state agency did not comply with the law in publishing its cumulative notice of intent on June 2, 1994, and that the notice contained erroneous rule citations and lacked a geographical map. Substantively, petitioners complain that before final approval of amendment 94R- 1 was given, the local government and DCA did not consider the enactment of Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, which created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district known as the Blockbuster Park Special District, and they did not consider the traffic impacts of a recently opened connector to Interstate 75 and an interchange within the City that connects traffic from the connector to the Florida Turnpike. Finally, they contend that the amendment improperly redesignated more than ten acres of land from residential to commercial land use. Amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1 involve ten amendments to the plan, all originally found not to be in compliance by the DCA. To cure three of those deficiencies, the City rescinded three ordinances leaving seven plan amendments to be remediated. Petitioners challenge the validity of these seven amendments but none change the use on their property. In reality, though, petitioners rely principally on their procedural objections in seeking to have a determination made that the amendment is not in compliance. Were the Notice Requirements Met? After the DCA and City reached an agreement in principle to resolve the DCA's objections to the plan amendments, a settlement agreement was prepared for execution by the City's mayor and DCA Secretary. Before the mayor could sign the agreement, however, the City Council's approval and authorization were required. Such approval and authorization to sign the agreement came in the form of a resolution adopted at a public hearing held on January 25, 1994. The agreement was later signed by the mayor and DCA Secretary on January 28 and March 3, 1994, respectively. The City had originally intended to consider the item at its January 11, 1994 meeting. Timely publication of notice was given for that meeting on December 27, 1993, in the regular edition of The Miami Herald, a newspaper of general paid circulation published daily in Dade County. At the January 11 meeting, however, the City discussed the matter but then deferred final action on the item until its next meeting on January 25, 1994. Accordingly, it republished a notice of its January 25 meeting in the Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section of the Herald. The Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section is an insert in the Herald each Thursday and Sunday and contains news pertaining to the northwest portion of Dade County, including the City. Because all copies of the Herald delivered and sold in northwest Dade County contain this particular Neighbors insert, the City complied with the requirement that the advertisement be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation within the jurisdiction of the City. Since petitioners reside and work outside of northwest Dade County, they say they did not receive the Neighbors insert in their paper and thus they were not aware of the January 25 hearing. There is no requirement, however, that the advertisement be published in other parts of Dade County. It is noted that even though they should have received notice of the January 11 hearing through the advertisement published in the regular edition of the Herald on December 27, 1993, they did not attend the hearing. The four-inch notice published on page 15 of the January 16, 1994 edition of the Neighbors section reads as follows: At its regular meeting of January 25, 1994, the Hialeah City Council will consider the following Resolution in addition to other business. Members of the public are invited to attend; the meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at Hialeah City Hall, 501 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, Florida. RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIALEAH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER A STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CASE NOS. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM AND 92-7517GM, ENTITLED "DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS VS. CITY OF HIALEAH" NOW CONSOLIDATED BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPART- MENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. Applicable state law (s. 163.3184(16), F.S.) called for the notice to be published at least ten days prior to the hearing. In addition, general provision 3 of the settlement agreement provided in part as follows: This agreement has been approved by the governing body at a public hearing advertised in an adver- tisement published at least 10 but not more than 15 days prior to the hearing in the format prescribed for advertisements in Section 163.3184(15)(c) and Section 163.3187. Assuming the day of the hearing is not counted in computing the ten days, the City would have had to publish the notice by Saturday, January 15, 1994, in order to meet the ten-day requirement. Because the Neighbors section was not published on Saturdays, but rather only on Thursdays and Sundays, the City opted to publish the notice on Sunday, January 16, 1994, or just nine days before the hearing. This was necessary since the item was deferred at the January 11 hearing, and the City presumably was unable to meet the deadline for having an ad published only two days later in the Thursday, January 13, 1994 edition of Neighbors. Even so, petitioners were unable to show any prejudice by virtue of the City failing to meet the ten-day notice requirement. The settlement agreement called for the City to adopt certain remedial amendments by ordinance. These amendments are contained in Ordinance No. 94-27. Although state law (s. 163.3184(16)(d), F. S.) requires that the City hold only one advertised public hearing on a compliance amendment at the adoption stage, in accordance with the City Charter, two hearings were scheduled for that purpose on March 22 and April 12, 1994. A single one-quarter page advertisement in the regular edition of the Herald was published on March 17, 1994, or five days before the first hearing. The law (s. 163.3184(15)(b)2., F. S.) also requires that the hearing be "approximately 5 days after the day that the second (i. e., adoption stage) advertisement is published." The advertisement referred to both hearing dates and noted that their purpose was "to receive comments from interested parties on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the City of Hialeah and the Florida Department of Community Affairs related to the 1990 and 1991 Cycles I and II plan amendments to Hialeah's Comprehensive Plan." The advertisement also contained a list of the ten plan amendments and a map showing the portion of the City affected by each of those amendments. Although petitioners contended that the map was illegible in some respects, they nonetheless read the notice in the newspaper and attended both hearings to voice their objections to the ordinance. Notwithstanding petitioners' objections, on April 12, 1994, the City adopted the ordinance. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the City complied with the notice requirements for both hearings. Assuming arguendo that the statutory notice requirements were not strictly met, petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were prejudiced by such an error. After reviewing the ordinance, on June 2, 1994, the DCA published in the Neighbors section of the Herald a cumulative notice of intent to find the plan amendments and remedial plan amendment in compliance. The advertisement was one-quarter page in size, identified the plan amendments in issue, advised readers that the amendments were in compliance, gave a location where such amendments and comments could be reviewed, and offered a point of entry to affected persons. Therefore, its content was sufficient to inform the public of the action being taken. The DCA concedes that in the notice, however, it cited rule 9J-11.012(8) as the provision dealing with the contents of a petition to challenge the amendments found to be in compliance when in fact the correct citation should have been rule 9J-11.012(7). There is no section (8) in the rule. The notice also cited former rule 22I-6.010 as the rule dealing with intervention when in fact that rule has been renumbered as rule 60Q-2.010. Even so, petitioners were unable to show how they were prejudiced by these minor errors, especially since they knew the nature of the action being proposed by the DCA, and they timely filed their petition for hearing to challenge the amendment. The DCA policy is to publish its notice of intent to find an amendment in compliance in the same local newspaper as the local government uses for its publication. The DCA also pointed out that by advertising in the Neighbors section as opposed to the regular edition of the Herald, it saved several thousand dollars. Therefore, the DCA used the Neighbors section of the Herald. At the same time, the DCA has never included in its advertisement a map showing the location of the land use changes being proposed. This is because the local government advertisements have already included a map, and the DCA notice is simply for the purpose of advising the public which ordinances are in or out of compliance. In the absence of any showing of prejudice, and in view of petitioners' failure to demonstrate to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment as a whole is incompatible with, does not further or take action in the direction of realizing, the goals of the law, the cited procedural errors are insufficient to support a finding that amendment 94R-1 is not in compliance. The plan amendment Since 1986, petitioners have owned two parcels of undeveloped property in the southern one-half and northwestern one-quarter of Tract 24 of Section 28, which is located in the western part of the City. The property consists of approximately six acres located at the northeastern intersection of West 76th Street and the Hialeah-Hialeah Gardens Boulevard. The property has been designated on the future land use map as low density (single-family) residential, which allows up to twelve units per acre. Petitioners have not specifically pled or shown how amendment 94R-1 adversely affects their property. Instead, they simply argue that the plan amendment is not in compliance because the City did not consider the impacts of "drastically changed circumstances" before adopting the remedial ordinance, and the City improperly reclassified a small tract of land. These claims will be considered below. Effective June 3, 1994, Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, became law. That law created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district more commonly known as Blockbuster Park. That legislation, however, is not relevant to this proceeding for several reasons. First, there is no mechanism to consider multijurisdictional impacts in the local planning process. Second, the special act did not become law until after the amendment process here had been completed. Since the City was only required to consider the best available data present at the time the amendment was being reviewed and adopted, consideration of the special law was neither necessary or appropriate. Third, the act itself does not authorize a development. If and when a development order is approved, the City can update its plan to take into account any impacts from the project. As to the contention that the City and DCA failed to take into account the six-lane connector road completed on December 31, 1993, or two years after the plan amendments were adopted, the impact of the connector road is identified and discussed on pages 21 and 23C of the future land use element contained in the remedial amendments. At hearing, it was further explained that the connector road is a limited access regional road under the control of Dade County, and not the City. This means that there is no access to the connector from properties which front on the road, and local access will be limited to three major road intersections. No land use changes along the road have been proposed, and the City has adequately addressed the circulation map requirements in the plan and how the internal circulation routes would be compatible with the major connectors. This being so, it is found that the City and DCA gave adequate planning consideration to the connector. Finally, petitioners contended that certain land was improperly redesignated from single-family residential to multi-family and commercial use. They complain that this is inappropriate since the land is close to a school and does not lie near a major intersection. The evidence shows, however, that such redesignation was appropriate since the land is located at an intersection and lies just across the street from an existing five-acre commercial tract. Moreover, the multi-family part of the tract will serve as a buffer between the commercial use at the intersection and the existing single-family use to the south. Then, too, the proximity of a nearby school to the west will serve to reduce trip time for persons shopping in the area while dropping off or picking up children from the school. Finally, some types of commercial use in residential neighborhoods can serve valid planning purposes, and the City has already established a pattern of having some schools located near commercially designated property. The redesignation is found to be reasonable and based on appropriate planning considerations. Although no proof was submitted by petitioners regarding any other parts of the plan amendment, respondents demonstrated that all remaining parts are supported by adequate data and analysis and are in compliance. Accordingly, petitioners have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that remedial amendment 94R-1 is not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining the City of Hialeah comprehensive plan amendment to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3506GM Petitioners: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4-20. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5-8. 21-24. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 27-29. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. 32-35. Rejected as irrelevant. 36-38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 39-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent DCA: 1-12. Covered in preliminary statement. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 13. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 16-19. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6-8. 20-22. Partially accepted in finding of 9. 23-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 31-55. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-17. Respondent City: Because the City's proposed recommended order was not timely filed, the undersigned has considered the contents of the proposed order but has not made specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact. See Sunrise Community, Inc. v. DHRS, 14 F.A.L.R. 5162 (DHRS, 1992), affirmed 619 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edmond J. Gong Ms. Dana L. Clay 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 370 Miami, FL 33126 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 William M. Grodnick, Esquire 501 Palm Avenue, 4th Floor Hialeah, FL 33010 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue The issue is whether a text amendment to the general description of the Commercial land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) of Respondent, City of Jacksonville (City), adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-401-E on June 22, 2010, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipal entity and is responsible for enacting and amending its Plan. Since 2007, the City has participated in the Pilot Program for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. Except for amendments based on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report or amendments based on new statutory requirements that specifically require that they be adopted under the "traditional" procedure described in section 163.3184, and small-scale amendments, all other amendments must be adopted under that process. Under the Pilot Program, municipalities have "reduced state oversight of local comprehensive planning," and plan amendments may be enacted in "an alternative, expedited plan amendment adoption and review process." § 163.32465, Fla. Stat. Although the City must send a transmittal package to the Department of Community Affairs (Department) and other designated agencies for their preliminary review, the Department does not issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report or a notice of intent. Instead, the Department "may provide comments regarding the amendment or amendments to the local government." Id. It may also initiate an administrative proceeding to challenge whether an amendment is in compliance. Id. In this case, the Department did not file adverse comments or initiate a challenge to the City's amendment. Clifton Curtis Horton owns real property located at 7175 Blanding Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Horton Enterprises, Inc., is a Florida corporation that owns and operates a "strip club" known as "New Solid Gold" located on Mr. Horton's property. The club is an "adult entertainment establishment" as defined by the Jacksonville Municipal Code (JMC). See §§ 150.103(c) and 656.1101, JMC. History Preceding the Amendment In order to operate an adult entertainment facility within the City, the facility must have both a correct land use and zoning classification. The location must also satisfy certain distance limitations from schools (2,500 feet), other adult entertainment businesses (1,000 feet), churches (1,000 feet), residences (500 feet), and businesses selling alcohol (500 feet). See § 656.1103(a)(1)-(4), JMC; § 847.0134, Fla. Stat. Prior to 2005, adult entertainment facilities were an authorized use in the Heavy Industrial (HI) land use category. In 2005, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2005-1240-E, which approved a text amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's 2010 Plan adding the following language to the Community/General Commercial (C/GC) land use category: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right only in Zoning District CCG-2." See Respondent's Exhibit D. That classification is the primary zoning district within the C/GC land use category. The Ordinance also deleted the following language from the HI land use category: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right." Id. The purpose of the amendment was to change the permissible land use designation for adult entertainment facilities from HI to C/GC with a further condition that the property must also have a CCG-2 zoning classification. At the same time, the City enacted Ordinance No. 2005-743-E, which adopted a new zoning requirement that any adult entertainment facility whose location was not in conformity with the revised land use/zoning scheme must close or relocate within five years, or no later than November 10, 2010. See § 656.725(k), JMC. Because New Solid Gold did not conform to these new requirements, it would have to close or relocate within the five-year timeframe. On an undisclosed date, Horton Enterprises, Inc., and two other plaintiffs (one who operated another adult entertainment facility in the City and one who wished to open a new facility) filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the City's adult zoning scheme and seeking to enjoin the five-year amortization requirement, as applied to them. See Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n v. City of Jacksonville, Case No. 3:05-cv-1267-J-34JRK (U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Fla.). On September 30, 2009, the United States District Court entered a 33-page Order generally determining that, with one exception not relevant here, the City's zoning and land use scheme was permissible. See Petitioners' Exhibit V. On November 3, 2009, that Order was appealed by Petitioners to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit where the case remains pending at this time. The parties' Stipulation indicates that oral argument before that Court was scheduled during the week of December 13, 2010. An Order of the lower court memorialized an agreement by the parties that the five- year time period for complying with the new requirements are stayed until the federal litigation is concluded. See Petitioners' Exhibit JJ. The Court's Order also noted that an "ambiguity" in the Plan arose because the City failed to "remove the language in the general description of the Commercial land use designations acknowledging its intention to locate adult entertainment facilities in the HI category." Id. at 19. This occurred because when adopting the new amendments, the City overlooked conflicting language in the general description of the Commercial land use designations in the FLUE. However, the Court resolved the ambiguity in favor of the City on the theory that the conflicting language was contrary to the City's overall legislative intent in adopting the new land use/zoning scheme and could be disregarded. Id. Thereafter, a new amendment process was begun by the City to delete the conflicting language. This culminated in the present dispute. The Transmittal Amendment - 2010-35-E To eliminate the ambiguity, the City proposed to amend the FLUE by deleting the following language from the general description of the Commercial land use designations: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right in the heavy industrial land use category, but not in commercial." This amendment was numbered as Ordinance No. 2010-35-E. A public workshop was conducted by the City's Planning and Development Department on December 14, 2009. Thereafter, public hearings were conducted by the City Planning Commission on February 11, 2010; by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on February 17, 2010; and by the full City Council on February 9 and 23, 2010. It became effective upon the Mayor signing the Ordinance on February 26, 2010. Although the Ordinance inadvertently referenced section 163.3184 as the statutory authority for its adoption, it also stated that the amendment was being transmitted for review "through the State's Pilot Program." See Petitioners' Exhibit E. As required by the Pilot Program, copies of the amendment were then transmitted to the Department and seven other agencies. No adverse comments were received from any agency. It is undisputed that Petitioners did not attend the the workshop or any hearing, and they did not submit written or oral comments concerning the proposed amendment. When the process for adopting Ordinance No. 2010-35-E began, the City's 2030 Plan was still being reviewed by the Department and had not yet become effective. Consequently, at the Department's direction, the Ordinance referenced the City's then-effective 2010 Plan as the Plan being amended. On February 3, 2010, the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan became effective, replacing the 2010 Plan. However, the 2030 Plan contained the same conflicting language. Notice of the public hearings for Ordinance No. 2010- 35-E (and other plan amendments adopted at the same time) was published in the Daily Record on January 29, 2010, a local newspaper that the City has used for advertising plan amendments since at least 2003. The parties agree that the legal advertisements complied with the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. Besides the above notice, an additional notice regarding Ordinance No. 2010-35-E was published in the Florida Times Union on January 31, 2010. The parties agree that this advertisement did not meet the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. but was published by the City for the purpose of providing additional public notice and to broaden the coverage of the plan amendment. The Adoption Amendment - 2010-401-E Because the 2030 Plan contained the same conflicting language in the Commercial land use descriptions, on May 25, 2010, a draft of Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was introduced at City Council for the purpose of deleting this language. Except for referencing the latest Plan, the language in Ordinance Nos. 2010-35-E and 2010-401-E was identical. While somewhat unusual, this procedure was authorized by the Department because the 2030 Plan became effective during the middle of the amendment process. A copy of the draft Ordinance and schedule for the upcoming hearings on that Ordinance was emailed by the City's counsel to Petitioners' counsel on June 4, 2010. See Petitioners' Exhibit FF. Public hearings on Ordinance No. 2010-401-E were conducted by the Planning Commission on June 10, 2010; by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on June 15, 2010; and by the full City Council on June 8 and 22, 2010. All of the meetings occurred after Petitioners' counsel was given a schedule of the hearings. The amendment became effective upon the Mayor signing the Ordinance on June 24, 2010. Notice of the public hearings for Ordinance No. 2010- 401-E was published in the Daily Record on May 28, 2010. The parties agree that the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. were met. An additional notice of the public hearings was published in the Florida Times Union on May 30, 2010. The parties agree that this legal advertisement did not meet the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., but was published by the City for the purpose of providing additional public notice and to broaden the coverage of the plan amendment. Ordinance No. 2010-401-E, as originally proposed, incorrectly referenced section 163.3184, rather than the Pilot Program, as the statutory authority for adopting the amendment. During the hearing conducted by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on June 15, 2010, an amendment to Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was proposed changing the statutory authority to section 163.32465. The City proposed the same amendment for 19 other plan amendments being considered at the same hearing. The amendment was minor in nature and had no effect on the substance of the Ordinance. It is undisputed that Petitioners did not appear or submit written or oral comments at any public hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2010-401-E. On July 21, 2010, Petitioners timely filed their Petition with DOAH challenging Ordinance No. 2010-401-E. Their objections, as later refined in the Stipulation, are both procedural and substantive in nature and are discussed separately below. Petitioners' Objections Substantive Objections As stated in the Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the amendment is not in compliance because it "is inconsistent with the balance of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and underlying municipal policies, since it forces adult uses into zones which permit residential and educational uses." To support this claim, Petitioners point out that the C/GC land use category permits a wide range of uses, including commercial uses in close proximity to sensitive uses, such as schools, churches, and residential areas. Petitioners characterize the current range of uses in C/GC as "an excellent planning approach to downtown Jacksonville" and one that promotes a well-reasoned, mixed-use development in the urban area. Because Ordinance No. 2010-401-E "forces" adult uses into the C/GC category where, despite the distance limitations, they will have to co-exist with sensitive uses, Petitioners contend the amendment is inconsistent with Policy (15)(b)3. and Goal (16) of the State Comprehensive Plan, which generally encourage orderly, efficient, and functional development in the urban areas of the City. Further, they assert it would contradict the City's "policy" of separating adult uses from residences, businesses, and schools. Petitioners' primary fear is that if they are required to relocate from HI to C/GC where sensitive uses are allowed, this will generate more complaints from schools, churches, and residents, and result in further zoning changes by the City and more forced relocations. As explained by Mr. Killingsworth, Director of the City's Planning and Development Department, Ordinance No. 2010- 401-E does not change the permitted uses in the Commercial or HI land use categories. Those changes in permitted uses were made by Ordinance No. 2005-1240-E in 2005 and are now being litigated in federal court. The purpose of the new amendment is simply "to clear up an inconsistency [noted by the federal court but told that it could be disregarded] that existed in the comprehensive plan." Mr. Killingsworth added that even if the language remained in the Plan, it would have no regulatory weight since the actual language in the C/GC and HI categories, and not the "header" or general description that precedes the category, governs the uses allowed in those designations. Assuming arguendo that the new amendment constitutes a change in permitted uses, the City established that from a use standpoint, adult entertainment facilities (like businesses selling alcohol) are more consistent with the C/GC land use category with the appropriate distance limitations from schools, churches, and residential areas. Further, the placement of adult entertainment facilities on property with a C/GC designation will not necessarily result in their being closer to residential property, as the City currently has a "great deal" of HI land directly adjacent to residential properties, as well as grandfathered enclaves of residential areas within the HI category. The City also established that the HI category is set aside for uses that generate physical or environmental impacts, which are significantly different from the "impacts" of a strip club. Finally, while a plan amendment compliance determination does not turn on zoning issues, it is noteworthy that the CCG-2 zoning district is the City's most intensive commercial district, and that very few schools (all grandfathered) remain within that zoning classification. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the amendment is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and internally consistent with the "balance of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan." Procedural Objections Petitioners' principal argument is that the City did not publish a notice for either Ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation, as described in section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., or in the proper location of the newspaper; that these deficiencies violate both state law and a Department rule regarding notice for the adoption of this type of plan amendment; and that these procedural errors require a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. They also contend that because the legal notice did not strictly comply with sections 163.3184(15)(e) and 166.041(3)(c)2.b., both Ordinances are void ab initio.2 As noted above, the City has published legal notices for plan amendments in the Daily Record since at least 2003. The newspaper is published daily Monday through Friday; it has been published continuously for 98 years; it is published wholly in English; it is mailed to 37 zip codes throughout the City and around 20 zip codes outside the City; most of its revenue is derived from classified and legal advertisements; it is considered by the United States Postal Service to be a general circulation newspaper; it is available in newsstands throughout the City; and although much of the newspaper is directed to the business, legal, and financial communities, the newspaper also routinely contains articles and editorial content regarding special events, sporting news, political news, educational programs, and other matters of general interest pertaining to the City that would be of interest to the general public and not just one professional or occupational group. Its publisher acknowledges that the newspaper is a "Chapter 50 periodical," referring to chapter 50 and specifically section 50.031, which describes the minimum standards for newspapers that can be utilized for publishing certain legal notices. Also, its website states that it covers political, business, and legal news and developments in the greater Jacksonville area with an emphasis on downtown. Although Petitioners contend that the legal notice was published in a portion of the Daily Record where other legal notices and classified advertisements appear, as proscribed by section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., and is thus defective, this allegation was not raised in the Petition or specifically in the parties' Stipulation. Therefore, the issue has been waived. Both proposed recommended orders are largely devoted to the issue of whether the Daily Record is a newspaper of general paid circulation as defined in section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. For the reasons expressed in the Conclusions of Law, it is unnecessary to decide that question in order to resolve the notice issue. Petitioners received written notice that the City intended to adopt Ordinance No. 2010-401-E prior to the public hearings, along with a copy of the draft Ordinance and "everything" in the City's file. They also received a copy of all scheduled hearings during the adoption process. See Petitioners' Exhibits EE and FF. Therefore, notwithstanding any alleged deficiency in the published legal notice, they were on notice that the City intended to adopt the plan amendment; they were aware of the dates on which public hearings would be conducted; and they had an opportunity to submit oral or written comments in opposition to the amendment and to otherwise participate in the adoption process. Given these facts, even assuming arguendo that the publication of the legal notice in the Daily Record constitutes a procedural error, there is no evidence that Petitioners were substantially prejudiced in any way. Petitioners also contend that reference by the City to section 163.3184, rather than the Pilot Program, in the draft ordinance during the preliminary stages of the amendment process is a procedural error that rises to the level of requiring a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. This argument is rejected as the error was minor in nature, it was corrected shortly after Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was introduced, it did not affect the substance of the amendment, and it would not confuse a member of the public who was tracking the amendment as to the timing and forum in which to file a challenge. In Petitioners' case, they cannot claim to be confused since they timely filed a Petition with DOAH, as required by section 163.32465(6)(a). Finally, intertwined with the procedural arguments is the issue of whether Petitioners are affected persons and thus have standing to challenge the plan amendment. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners (or their representative) did not attend any meeting regarding the adoption of either Ordinance. Petitioners argue, however, that emails between the parties in May and June 2010, and a telephone conference call on June 3, 2010, involving Petitioners' counsel and the City's then Deputy General Counsel, equate to the submission of written and oral comments regarding the amendment. The parties have stipulated that the following written communications between Petitioners and the City occurred in May and June 2010: Petitioners made a public records request regarding the amendment on May 21, 2010, to Cheryl Brown, Council Secretary/Director, seeking various public documents relating to Ordinance No. 2010-35-E, transmitted by electronic mail and facsimile. On May 27, 2010, counsel for Petitioners exchanged emails with Assistant General Counsel Dylan Reingold regarding pending document requests relating to Ordinance No. 2010-35-E, and Mr. Reingold provided a number of responsive documents. On June 3, 2010, Cindy A. Laquidara, then Deputy General Counsel (but now General Counsel), sent an email to Petitioners' counsel stating: "Below please find the schedule for the passage of the comp plan changes. Call me with questions or to discuss. Take care." On June 4, 2010, counsel for Petitioners exchanged a series of emails with Assistant General Counsel Reingold regarding the status of Ordinance Nos. 2010-35-E and 2010-401-E, as well as the review of the proposed plan amendment by the Department of Community Affairs. On June 4, 2010, Jessica Aponte, a legal assistant with counsel for Petitioners' office, exchanged emails with Jessica Stephens, legislative assistant, regarding the proofs of publication for the legal advertisements relating to Ordinance No. 2010- 35-E. The affidavits of Petitioners' counsel (Petitioners' Exhibits KK and LL) regarding a conversation with the City's then Deputy General Counsel would normally be treated as hearsay and could not, by themselves, be used as a basis for a finding of fact. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. However, the parties have stipulated that they may be used in lieu of live testimony by Petitioners' counsel. See Stipulation, p. 17. The affidavits indicate that the reason for the conference call was "that [Petitioners] were trying to reach a mutually acceptable approach with the City by which enforcement of the City of Jacksonville's amortization ordinance against [them] . . . would be deferred pending the outcome of the appeal to the Eleventh Circuit." Petitioners' Exhibits KK and LL. During that call, counsel also advised the City's counsel that "there were [procedural] problems with the enactment of the subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that they would likely be filing challenges to its enactment." Id.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-401-E is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 2011.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the petitions of Sierra Club, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Background Hillsborough County adopted its comprehensive plan on July 12, 1989. The County adopted Plan Amendments 90-I, 90-II, and 91-I on August 6, 1990, December 18, 1990, and August 28, 1991, respectively. The plan as so amended is referred to as the Plan. 3/ The Plan is the subject of these cases. The Plan is accompanied by data and analysis. The data and analysis of greatest significance are contained in the two- volume compilation of the Plan and other portions of Sierra Club Exhibit 1, which is the Plan and supporting data and analysis. Sierra Club Exhibit 1, which was prepared by Hillsborough County, includes background documents organized by elements, as well as oversized maps. Unless indicated to the contrary, the oversized maps are approximately 24" by 21" and are drawn on a scale of 1"= 2 miles. Many of the oversized maps bear numbers. Reference to such oversized maps shall be as follows: "Oversized Map [number]." Data and analysis from Sierra Club Exhibit 1 shall be referred to as "Data and Analysis." The Plan consists largely of goals, objectives, and policies. In addition to such operative provisions, Hillsborough County also adopted, as part of the operative provisions of the Plan, other sections contained in the two- volume compilation of the Plan. For example, each element of the Plan relevant to the present cases includes operative provisions under sections entitled, "Implementation" and "Definitions." Other important operative provisions are sections entitled "Land Use Plan Categories" and "Legal Status of the Plan" in the Future Land Use Element and "Costs and Revisions by Type of Public Facility," "Programs to Ensure Implementation," and "Requirements for Capital Improvements Implementation" in the Capital Improvements Element. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) filed a petition on September 20, 1989, alleging that the original plan was not in compliance with the growth management law. This petition initiated DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM. Various parties challenging the plan intervened in DOAH Case No. 89- 5157GM. The Sierra Club, Inc. (Sierra Club) filed its petition to intervene on December 8, 1989. The petition incorporates the allegations of DCA and alleges additional grounds for a determination of noncompliance. As a result of the execution of a settlement agreement, DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM was abated. After Hillsborough County adopted settlement amendments on August 6, 1990, DCA determined that the plan amendments were in compliance. On or about September 21, 1990, DCA issued a Notice of Intent, which was published on or about September 23. On October 12, 1990, Sierra Club filed a petition challenging the plan amendments adopted in connection with the settlement agreement. This petition initiated DOAH Case No. 90- 6639GM. The allegations are the same as those raised by Sierra Club in DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM in its Second Amended Petition- in-Intervention, which was filed October 17, 1990. By Order entered October 30, 1990, DOAH Case Nos. 89- 5157GM and 90- 6639GM were consolidated for hearing. On April 15, 1991, Big Bend Area Group, Inc. (Big Bend) filed a petition to intervene to challenge the plan. A Second Amended Motion for Leave to Intervene was granted. Despite the allegations of noncompliance, Big Bend's proposed recommended order requests that the Plan be determined to be in compliance. Sierra Club and Big Bend each has members who reside in Hillsborough County. Each party submitted the required oral or written objections during the relevant review and adoption period. The County conducted the required hearings, gave adequate notice of the hearings, and otherwise substantially complied with the requirements of public participation. Data and Analysis General Hillsborough County is located on the Gulf Coast. The western boundary of the County abuts Tampa Bay and Pinellas County. Pasco County and a small part of Polk County are to the north, Polk County is to the east, and Manatee County is to the south. The only incorporated municipalities in Hillsborough County are Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City. Tampa is at the north end of Tampa Bay and extends through the westcentral part of the County almost to the Pasco County line. Temple Terrace abuts the northeast boundary of Tampa. About 14 miles east of Tampa is Plant City, which is in the northeast part of Hillsborough County. The two cities are linked by Interstate (I-) 4, which runs from Daytona Beach to Tampa. In Tampa, I-4 intersects with I-275, which crosses upper Tampa Bay, runs south through Pinellas County, and spans the mouth of Tampa Bay before entering Manatee County. I-75 also runs through Hillsborough County. From the Pasco County line, where I-275 divides and proceeds southwest into downtown Tampa, I-75 runs generally due south. The path of I-75 lies just east of downtown, where the road turns southwest at a point north of the Little Manatee River. From there, I-75 parallels the shoreline of Tampa Bay until entering Manatee County. Other important roads in Hillsborough County include SR 60, which runs east-west through the center of the County and connects Tampa and Clearwater. US 301 runs along the Hillsborough River in the northeast part of the County, and then turns due south midway between Temple Terrace on the west and Lake Thonotosassa on the east. At this point, US 301 crosses I- 75 and runs due south, recrossing I-75 about three miles north of the Alafia River and just south of SR 60. US 41 runs due south from the Pasco County line into the center of Tampa and then turns east, before continuing south, parallel to the shoreline, varying from one-half to three miles inland from Tampa Bay. Natural Resources General The Data and Analysis accompanying the Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element (CARE) describe the County's natural resources, past land use practices, and planning challenges: Hillsborough County, by virtue of its subtropical climate and variable hydrology and geology, supports a rich and diverse complement of natural resources. The County borders the largest estuary in the State, Tampa Bay . . .. The County is underlain by the Floridan aquifer, the largest and highest quality potable water aquifer in the State, as well as by some of the richest phosphate deposits in the world. The karst topography of the County has created a mosaic of solution sinks and depressions which contain a wide variety of wetland flora and fauna, while the higher well-drained elevations support rare xeric hammocks and scrub habitat. Over the past century, however, development has slowly destroyed and degraded the rich natural resources of the County. The unregulated filling of wetlands, discharge of pollutants, mining of phosphate deposits, clearing of forests, dredging of bay bottoms, channelizing of streams and rivers, and overpumping of groundwater supplies has irretrievably destroyed or altered much of the original natural resource base. Environmental legislation passed at the federal, state, regional and local levels over the past two decades has done much to stem the tide of this destruction; however, advance planning and further safeguards will be needed to ensure the preservation and conservation of the County's remaining natural resources for future generations. Hillsborough County is experiencing a high rate of population growth. Between 1970 and 1980, Hillsborough County's population grew from an estimated 490,265 to 646,939, an increase of 32 percent This population size ranked fourth among counties in the state. . . . Future population projections for Hillsborough County . . . generally show that the population of Hillsborough County may continue to increase, if the high estimate occurs, or may level off if the lower estimate proves more accurate. . . . Hillsborough County's population is concentrated primarily within the cities of Tampa and Temple Terrace. However, during the five year period of 1980 through 1985, the majority of the population growth for the County has taken place away from these areas. Population has decreased in portions of the City of Tampa and increased in the previously less populated portions of the County. The Future Land Use Element of the [Plan] identifies the major center of future growth as the I-75 corridor. If the upper population projections are realized over the next 15 years, directed growth into this area will threaten the integrity of many of the County's most valuable natural resources, including the three major river corridors, areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential, and sensitive estuarine wetlands. The [CARE] is needed to identify these potential problems and to set forth a plan and policy direction for ensuring environmental protection and orderly economic growth under all projected population scenarios. CARE, pages 2-3. Acknowledging the environmental degradation that has resulted from land use planning that has traditionally ignored natural features of the land and water systems, the Data and Analysis state: In past decades, land use decisions were based primarily upon socio-economic and demographic factors, with little considera- tion given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land. As a result, urban land uses were often allowed to replace or permanently alter environmentally sensitive lands and natural systems. With a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions if the natural attributes and functions of the environment are to be maintained for future generations. Policies and regulations that appropriately preserve or conserve valuable natural resources while allowing for orderly economic growth are needed. CARE, page 73. 2. Tampa Bay Estuarine System The Tampa Bay estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water having a free connection with the Gulf of Mexico and within which sea water is measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage. ... [T]he Tampa Bay estuary is a zone of transition between fresh and salt water with unique and valuable ecological characteristics. Coastal Management and Port (Coastal) Element, page 13. The estuarine system includes tidal freshwater habitats as well as mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass meadows along the shallow bottom and estuarine fringe. The functions of the estuarine system are described as follows: Because of their unique physical and chemical properties, estuaries are among the most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems in the world. Tidal wetland vegetation at the headwaters of estuaries trap silt and absorb excess nutrients resulting from land drainage, thus buffering the coastal ecosystem somewhat from upland sources of pollution. Tidal wetland vegetation also protects upland areas by stabilizing coastal sediments and preventing erosion from storm events. The real importance of estuarine plant communities such as mangrove forests, salt marshes, and seagrass beds lies in the vital functions they perform in the aquatic ecosystem. First and foremost is their role in converting sunlight and nutrients into food usable by marine animals, thus forming the base of the aquatic food chain. . . . Although relatively little of this plant material is eaten directly by higher animals, it is broken down into detritus by micro- organisms and consumed by small crustaceans and other animals which are, in turn, eaten by larger fishes and so on up the food web . . . . In addition to serving as a food source, estuarine wetland vegetation provides shelter and nursery areas for the young of many economically important species such as shrimp, seatrout, mullet, and red drum (redfish). . . . [I]t is estimated that nearly 98% of the most economically important fisheries species taken along the Gulf of Mexico coast are directly dependent upon estuarine habitat during some portion of their life cycle. . . . Coastal Element, pages 13-14. Florida's largest open water estuary, Tampa Bay covers about 400 square miles. Coastal Element Figure 6 depicts the Tampa Bay estuary, including its subdivisions. Old Tampa Bay separates Tampa and Pinellas County and forms the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County. Hillsborough Bay extends from Tampa to Apollo Beach and forms the shoreline of central Hillsborough County, as well as the northern part of south Hillsborough County. The Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers empty into Hillsborough Bay, which joins McKay Bay at Tampa. Middle Tampa Bay, which forms the shoreline of most of south Hillsborough, runs from the southern ends of Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay down to the southern ends of Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. The Little Manatee River empties into Middle Tampa Bay. A variety of nonfish wildlife is dependent upon the waters of Tampa Bay. In addition to the 100-200 bottlenose dolphin in Tampa Bay, as many as 55 West Indian manatees reside in the bay in the winter, congregating around industrial thermal discharges. The largest group--42--was found at the mouth of the Alafia River, which is the only designated State Manatee Sanctuary in Tampa Bay. About one-third of the laughing gull population in the southeastern United States breeds in the Tampa Bay region, as does nearly one-third of the brown pelicans in Florida. McKay Bay is an important feeding area for a variety of birds. General water quality in Tampa Bay is "good to excellent," but is "declining" in Old Tampa Bay and "undesirable" in Hillsborough Bay, including McKay Bay. Coastal Element, page 15. Both Hillsborough Bay and Old Tampa Bay receive little tidal flushing due to natural conditions, so they are not "particularly well suited for the discharge of municipal and industrial wastes, and . . . the continued flow of freshwater to Tampa Bay, especially Hillsborough Bay, is essential to maintain good circulation and flushing." Coastal Element, page 19. The water quality in Middle Tampa Bay ranges from "fair to good," but is periodically influenced by water from Hillsborough Bay. Water quality in and near the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is "excellent or good," except for occasional "fair to poor" conditions due to seasonal discharges from the Little Manatee River or periodically "poor" conditions due to malfunctioning septic tanks near Cockroach Bay. Coastal Element, page 15. "One of the most pristine biologically productive areas remaining in Tampa Bay," Cockroach Bay is part of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, which is shown in Coastal Element Figure 17. Coastal Element, page 48. The only aquatic preserve in Hillsborough County, Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve runs from submerged lands along the Little Manatee River upstream to US 301. From the mouth of the Little Manatee River, the preserve runs along the Tampa Bay shoreline past Cockroach Bay, which is about three miles south of the mouth of the Little Manatee River, to the Manatee County line. Noting that the Governor and Cabinet approved the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan in 1987, the Data and Analysis acknowledge that "[s]uccessful implementation of this plan depends upon the cooperation of Hillsborough County." Coastal Element, page 48. The decline of water quality in Tampa Bay has had a predictably devastating effect upon commercially valuable fish in the area. "[O]nce the State's most productive and diverse estuarine system" with a diversity and abundance of marine life [in the 1960's] not exceeded by any other estuary between the Chesapeake Bay and the Laguna Madre of Texas, . . . [t]he productivity of Tampa Bay in terms of commercially valuable fisheries has . . . declined dramatically in recent decades due to man's influence on the Bay. Coastal Element, page 21. According to Coastal Element Figure 15, shellfish landings in Tampa Bay have declined from 20 million pounds in the mid 1950's to early 1960's to two million pounds in 1978. Finfish landings have declined from a high of 4.5 million pounds in 1964 to 1.75 million pounds in 1978. Five economically important shellfish species occur in Tampa Bay: bait shrimp, stone crab, blue crab, oysters, and quahog clams. By the mid 1950's, degraded water quality had eliminated from the estuary the bay scallop, which had formerly flourished in these estuarine waters. By 1970, degraded water quality "essentially eliminated" commercial harvesting of oysters, which had accounted for 500,000 pounds annually at the turn of last century. Coastal Element, page 22. Poor water quality has left bait shrimp and stone crabs as the only remaining commercially viable shellfish left in Tampa Bay. Areas approved for shellfishing are restricted to lower Tampa Bay where better flushing takes place. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is conditionally approved, but "has been closed periodically due to coliform contamination from nearby septic systems and is being considered for permanent closure by the Florida Department of Natural Resources." Coastal Element, page 22. The majority of the recreational fish landings in Tampa Bay consist of spotted seatrout, red drum, and snook. These fish are also declining in numbers. Many species of birds in Tampa Bay have suffered population declines due in part to red tides, parasite outbreaks, dredge and fill operations, pesticide use, and oil spills. However, the reddish egret and roseate spoonbill have recently returned to Tampa Bay. Accompanying the decline in animal species has been a decline in estuarine plant species, such as seagrass meadows. The "catastrophic loss of seagrasses in Tampa Bay," which is attributable primarily to water quality degradation, is taking place at accelerating rates. About 81% of the seagrass meadows, which once covered 76,500 acres of Tampa Bay bottom, have been lost. Coastal Element, page 20. Tampa Bay is undergoing eutrophication. The process of eutrophication, or increasing concentrations of nutrients, has already led to algal blooms, noxious odors, decreases in water clarity, declines in dissolved oxygen, and periodic fish kills. Excessive nutrient levels have resulted in phytoplankton blooms in the water column and excessive epiphytic growth of macroalgae on the leaves of seagrasses, leaving insufficient sunlight for the growth and reproduction of seagrasses that help trap nutrients. The destruction of seagrasses is further hastened by widespread increases in water column turbidity caused by harbor- and channel-deepening projects, which, with boat prop dredging, also destroy seagrass. The loss of critical nutrient-trapping vegetation has simultaneously taken place in wetlands and upland adjacent to Tampa Bay, such as in the destruction of as much as 44% of the original emergent wetlands, which comprise salt marshes and mangrove forests. In the process of development, these wetlands have been dredged and filled, thereby removing the intertidal substrata necessary for these vegetative communities. Likewise, the loss of freshwater wetlands along rivers and streams has deprived the estuarine system of useful organic matter and filtration. Dredging and filling activities have dramatically changed the features of the Tampa Bay estuarine system. The extent of the system itself has been reduced by 3.6%, or 13.15 square miles, primarily by filling shallow tidal wetlands for the development of causeways, residences, power plants, and port facilities. Port development is responsible for about 60% of the reduction of the estuary due to the construction of channels, filled sites, and disposal sites for dredged materials. Dredge and fill projects routinely permitted in the 1950's and 1960's are no longer permitted. But expansion and maintenance of the Port of Tampa will generate annually about one million cubic yards of dredged material from the channel and port. Present disposal sites may be exhausted in 25 years, and the Data and Analysis recommend that the dredged material be considered for wetlands mitigation and restoration. The primary factors contributing to the eutrophic degradation of the water quality of Tampa Bay are, in addition to dredging and filling, the discharge of inadequately treated domestic and industrial wastewater and inadequately treated urban and agricultural runoff. In 1980, point sources contributed 2.35 and 3.58 million pounds of phosphorous and nitrogen, respectively, to Tampa Bay. The Alafia River carried 75% of the water contributed by permitted point discharges because the Alafia absorbs discharges from extensive phosphate mining operations in Polk County. Not surprisingly, the highest concentrations of organic carbon and nitrogen and total phosphate are in the sediments at the mouth of the Alafia River. But domestic wastewater treatment plants discharging directly into Tampa Bay accounted for 78% and 84% of the annual phosphorous and nitrogen loadings, respectively. The degraded water quality in Old Tampa Bay and especially Hillsborough Bay is due largely to sewage and industrial wastes. Old Tampa Bay continues to suffer from the discharge of inadequately treated domestic waste. However, the water quality in Hillsborough Bay improved substantially after over $100 million was spent to upgrade Tampa's Hookers Point sewage treatment facility in 1979 from primary to advanced or tertiary treatment. Only one of the six County regional wastewater treatment facilities fails to meet advanced water treatment standards, but "numerous subregional and interim plants" fail to meet these standards. Coastal Element, page 24. According to the Data and Analysis, passage of the Grizzle-Figg bill in 1986 "currently requires that all sewage treatment plants discharging into Tampa Bay attain advanced wastewater treatment standards." Coastal Element, page 24. Upon compliance with the Grizzle-Figg law, nutrient loadings into Tampa Bay will decrease and "a net reduction . . . is possible as interim package plants are ultimately phased out or upgraded." Id. Regarding wastewater discharges generally, including industrial wastewater, a major reduction in nutrient loadings since 1980 has been realized from the use of alternative effluent disposal methods (such as spray irrigation and deep-well injection), municipal and industrial water reuse, upgrading of treatment capabilities, and phosphate land reclamation projects. Nutrient loadings from stormwater runoff will "most likely be a more intractable problem" than inadequately treated domestic wastewater. Coastal Element, page 24. Runoff from streets, parking lots, and lawns may contribute up to 25% of the biochemical oxygen demand, 35% of the suspended solids, and 15% of the nitrogen loading. Referring to state rules regulating stormwater, 4/ the Data and Analysis anticipate that the state- imposed standards on stormwater runoff will become more stringent, so there should not be significant increases in stormwater nutrient loadings into the bay. However: little can be done to reduce current loading rates, as retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities is most likely economically prohibitive. Retrofitting will probably only occur on a piecemeal basis as redevelopment occurs in previously urbanized areas. Coastal Element, page 24. Unsound land use practices introducing high levels of nutrients into Tampa Bay exacerbate background conditions that predate either all or recent development activity. The Data and Analysis caution that "there may always be a significant reservoir of nitrogen and phosphorous in Bay sediments to contribute to water quality problems in upper Tampa Bay." Coastal Element, page 16. The Data and Analysis explain: even with advanced wastewater treatment and improved stormwater management, localized pockets of polluted sediments in the Bay may still release excessive nutrients into the water column and cause water quality problems. The ultimate solution to this problem may involve the removal of excessively enriched sediments by dredging or the capping of polluted sediments with clean fill material. Coastal Element, page 24. Other unsound land use practices, such as the diversion of river flows and structural drainage improvements, greatly impact Tampa Bay in another respect not directly related to the eutrophication process. The Tampa Bay estuary and its dependent fish and shellfish rely upon the freshwater flow into the bay. Areas of the estuary with the lowest salinity, as well as low- salinity tidal marshes, are often the most productive nursery habitat for many marine and estuary species. The timing of the freshwater infusions are naturally correlated to the spawning periods of the fish. The salinity regimes of Tampa Bay may be disturbed by upstream demands for freshwater and the alternating excessive and insufficient flows of freshwater due to structural drainage improvements that hasten the natural drainage of uplands immediately following major storm events, leaving less water to drain slowly to the bay during relatively drier periods. Reviewing "numerous studies" that, for the past 30 years, "have documented the deterioration of water quality and habitat values of the estuary," the Data and Analysis attribute the environmental degradation of Tampa Bay to: direct habitat destruction from dredging and filling, and the hardening of shorelines for coastal development; degradation of water quality and eutrophication resulting from the discharge of municipal and industrial effluents, and stormwater runoff; and the reduction of natural freshwater inputs due to the impoundment and withdrawals from rivers and streams. Coastal Element, page 48. Concluding that "piecemeal urbanization" around Tampa Bay has resulted in its "broadscale environmental degradation," the Data and Analysis warn: "Without proper management and the proper balance between public and private uses, Tampa Bay could become a major liability rather than the area's main asset." Coastal Element, page 48. The Data and Analysis advise that the protection and restoration of the Tampa Bay estuary requires a "comprehensive, coordinated and holistic management approach." Id. 3. Rivers Covering 1072 square miles, Hillsborough County comprises five physiographic provinces, which reflect topography and soils. The physiographic provinces are Coastal Swamps, Gulf Coast Lowlands, Zephyrhills Gap, Polk Upland, and a small portion of the DeSoto Plain. Elevations range from sea level in the Coastal Swamps and Gulf Coast Lowlands, which separate the Polk Upland from the Tampa Bay estuary, to 160 feet above sea level in the Polk Upland at the Polk County line. CARE Figure 4 displays the topographic contours of Hillsborough County. The County's major rivers and drainage features are, from north to south, the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers. Each of these rivers empties into Tampa Bay. The three major river basins together with six smaller basins transport, on average, more than 1.2 billion gallons per day of freshwater into Tampa Bay. This is almost 80% of the freshwater flow into the bay. CARE Figure 11 shows the major rivers and drainage basins in Hillsborough County. A fourth river, the Palm River, once drained lands between the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers. Emptying into McKay Bay, the Palm River was "completely channelized and controlled" by 1970 and is now known as the Tampa Bypass Canal. Coastal Element, page 18. The Hillsborough River begins in the Green Swamp and flows southwest through Tampa and into the bay. Traveling nearly 54 miles, the river is supplied by many artesian springs, which supply the river with water from the Floridan aquifer. The natural drainage basin of the river is 690 square miles, including 120 square miles in Hillsborough County. The upper Hillsborough River is a Class I water, which means that it is suitable as a source of potable water. The lower Hillsborough River is a Class III waterbody, which means that it is suitable for propagation of fish and wildlife. The part of the river passing through the Hillsborough River State Park in the northeast area of the County is also designated as an Outstanding Florida Water. Two dams span the Hillsborough River. The upper dam is just north and east of I-75 near Fletcher Avenue. This dam, which is under the jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, is used for flood-control purposes. The lower dam is at 30th Street in Tampa and is operated by the City of Tampa to form a reservoir from which potable water is taken. Flow of the river ranges from 9.5 billion gallons per day during the wet season to under 30 million gallons per day at the end of the spring dry season. The average flow into Tampa's reservoir is 368 million gallons per day. Of the 55.5 linear miles of shoreline (both banks) along the Hillsborough River in the unincorporated County, 17.6 miles are private and 37.9 miles are public. The predominant land uses are rural, agricultural, and conservation. The riverbanks are in their native state with no seawalls and few boat docks or ramps, except for canoe access. The Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers originate in the Polk Upland and receive water from widely branching tributaries. The Alafia River begins in Polk County and runs west to Gibsonton and into the bay at a point about five miles south of Tampa. The Alafia drains a 420 square mile drainage basin. The average flow at the mouth of the river is million gallons per day. In general, the water quality of the Alafia River is "poor." CARE, page 13. A Class III waterbody, the river's entire corridor is rural or suburban, and much of its original floodplain wetlands are still intact. Phosphate mining has damaged the quality of the river's headwaters. The Little Manatee River begins in southeast Hillsborough County and flows west by Ruskin and into the bay at a point about ten miles south of Gibsonton. The Little Manatee River drains about 225 square miles. The average flow of the Little Manatee River is over 150 million gallons per day. Florida Power and Light pumps water from the river to supply an off-stream reservoir for cooling a thermonuclear power plant. The water quality of the Little Manatee River is "generally good." CARE, page 14. The river, which is a Class III waterbody, is designated an Outstanding Florida Water for its western two-thirds, with the portion of the river west of US 301 designated as an aquatic preserve. The river is more pristine than the other County rivers due to its "relatively unimpacted floodplains, swamps and tributaries." Id. However, the river is threatened by phosphate mining in its upper reaches. Rich deposits of phosphate matrix lie near the surface along the river's bed, and the easy extraction makes these areas extremely attractive for future mining. Id. In contrast to the well-developed stream systems of northeast, central, and southern Hillsborough County, northwest Hillsborough County has relatively few such streams. Rain in this area rapidly infiltrates the surficial soils through shallow creeks and solution features. The Data and Analysis concede that "surface water quality in Hillsborough County has been degraded due to a variety of unregulated water uses and adjacent land uses." CARE, page 54. The most prominent sources of water pollution have been discharges of wastewater, mining operations, and urban and agricultural runoff. The Data and Analysis recommend "[b]etter compliance with existing point and non-point source and stormwater regulations" and the consideration of "more stringent regulations for septic tank discharges." Id. 4. Floodplains and Drainage Over 30% of Hillsborough County is within the 100 year floodplain. The floodplains, which have been mapped throughout the County by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are depicted on Oversized Map 9. Major portions of the 100 year floodplain cover the coastal high hazard area 5/ and the Hillsborough River valley in northeast Hillsborough County. Floodplains cover perhaps a quarter of northwest Hillsborough County, including an extensive area north of Tampa where I-275 and I-75 join at the Pasco County line. Considerable floodplains encompass the corridors of the Alafia River and its major tributary and the Little Manatee River, all of which extend into phosphate mining areas of east- central and southeast Hillsborough County. The County has adopted a flood-control ordinance. But this ordinance "does not provide the County with a comprehensive flood plain management program . . . for maintaining wildlife habitat protection, aquifer recharge protection and water quality benefits." CARE, page 20. The Data and Analysis discuss the floodplains and their functions: Lands that are naturally subject to flooding serve valuable functions in the regional hydrologic and ecological system. Flood- prone lands provide temporary natural storage of runoff from upland areas and overflow from water bodies. By temporarily detaining surface water, flood-prone lands help to regulate the timing, velocity and levels of flood discharges and enable the recharge of groundwater resources. In addition, flood- prone lands help to maintain water quality and provide habitat that is vital to the sustenance of fish and wildlife populations. Those lands that are most frequently flooded, i.e., wetlands, are the most important in terms of providing these functions, but less frequently flooded areas are also important for handling more severe floods and providing other natural benefits. The maintenance of natural storage is extremely important for regional water management. . . . During times of abundant rainfall, . . . rivers and lakes overflow their normal banks and occupy the floodplain. The floodplain provides storage for this additional water. Even a greater volume of water is stored in areas outside of the floodplain of established lakes and rivers. Cypress heads, swamps, marshes and isolated topographic depressions provide a large portion of the natural storage in this area. . . . By temporarily storing and retarding the flow of flood waters, flood-prone lands also help to regulate the velocity and timing of flood discharges. Runoff in southwest Florida is usually intercepted by wetlands or topographic depressions. When these areas are full, the overflow moves slowly through shallow swales and linear depressions toward streams and water bodies. Obstructions to flow such as logs, rocks, trees, undergrowth and meanders in the watercourse reduce the rate of flow and thereby help to minimize the level and velocity of downstream flooding. Flood-prone areas are also important sites for groundwater recharge. The water table aquifer is directly dependent on the levels of water in such low-lying areas as cypress heads, sinkholes, swales and floodplains. When these areas are flooded, they may help recharge the water table aquifer. Then, during dry periods, the water table aquifer may provide part or all of the base flow to rivers and streams. Water stored in the water table also serves to recharge the Floridan aquifer by percolating downward through breaches in impermeable layers. ... Another important benefit of natural flood- prone lands is in the maintenance of water quality. Water tends to travel slowly across flooded lands, giving suspended sediments time to settle and thereby clarifying water before it enters or returns to a watercourse or water body. . . . The stems, leaves and branches of plants in flooded areas, together with flooded soils, provide an enormous surface area for biological and chemical processes. Micro- organisms on these surfaces initiate complex chemical reactions involving nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals and other pollutants. The roots of indigenous plants also absorb and remove nutrients from the water. Flood-prone lands, particularly wetlands, thus act like a giant biological filter. . . . Flood-prone lands also play a regional ecological role that depends upon periodic inundation. Wetlands and bottomland hardwood forest are the most biologically diverse and productive areas in Florida, other than estuaries. They support a wide variety of plants, which provide vital habitat for . . . game and fur-bearing animals . . . and for such endangered and threatened species, such as the wood stork. Much of the food for game fish comes from wetlands and floodplains along the shores of rivers and lakes. Juvenile fish, in particular, tend to hide and feed in these areas. There would be drastic reductions in the number of species, the number of fish per acre and the pounds of fish per acre if these areas were eliminated. Periodic inundation, alternating with periods of relative dryness, is vital to the maintenance of these ecological systems. Flood-prone lands tend to have rich, organic soils with a high capacity to retain water. The micro-organisms and plant communities associated with these soils support a complex food chain. High water tables and regular flooding are necessary to maintain organic soils. Regular flooding is needed to bring additional rich sediments into flooded areas and make them accessible to foraging fish. In addition, flood water transports out of flooded lands a load of detritus, nutrients, minerals and sediments that is vital to maintaining the productivity of estuarine systems. CARE, pages 14-15. Describing the consequences of poor land use planning in floodplains, the Data and Analysis continue: Improperly designed and executed land development interferes with the natural functions described above. Water resources and related land resources can thereby be degraded and unnecessary expense, loss of property, personal injury and loss of life can result. Building in flood-prone areas is particularly unwise. When floods recur, which is inevitable, considerable damage to houses, roads, utilities and other structures results. . . . Roadbeds are often weakened, undermined or washed away by flood waters. Electrical, telephone, and cable television lines are seldom designed to be submerged. Flood waters can enter sewage lines, causing them to overflow and contaminate an area or overload the capacity of treatment facilities. . . . . . . The storage and detention capacity of a watershed can also be reduced by drainage improvements, such as clearing and straightening natural watercourses, constructing new channels, and creating impervious surfaces. . . . * * * Reducing the capacity of a watershed to detain and store flood waters has several harmful effects on water and related resources, in addition to those associated with increased flooding. Variations in the flow of rivers and streams become more accentuated. Flood discharges peak more quickly and at higher elevations, but less water flows during dry periods and they extend for longer periods of time. The effects of both drought and flood are thus enhanced. Consumptive water suppliers, riverine aquatic life and estuarine processes, all of which depend on natural flow, may be disrupted. Recharge of groundwater is reduced by draining surface water from recharge areas or by covering them with impervious surfaces. The total amount of runoff discharged is thus increased and the amount of water stored in aquifers and available for consumptive use or to maintain streams flows is correspondingly diminished. Development of natural storage and detention areas also tends to cause degradation of water quality. Wetlands, vegetated swales and floodplain forests act as giant biological filters. If these filters are destroyed or bypassed, pollutants are discharged directly into open water systems. CARE, pages 15-16. As typified by its flood-control ordinance, the County has traditionally pursued the structural approach to floodplain management and drainage generally. This approach consists of building systems of channels, dams, levees, and other structures to hold back flood waters or rapidly carry them elsewhere. However, the Data and Analysis identify serious shortcomings in the structural approach to floodplain management and drainage. In addition to problems involving cost and relocating flood damage, the structural approach substantially degrades other values and functions of flood-prone lands and natural watercourses. Water quality protection, groundwater recharge, maintenance of base flows, estuarine salinity regulation, detrital production and export, fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural resource functions are frequently impaired by the construction of structural works. CARE, page 17. The Data and Analysis set forth a number of guidelines for a comprehensive floodplain management program "to prevent flood damage and minimize interference with the beneficial functioning of flood-prone lands." CARE, page 17. The first guideline to floodplain management is to avoid building in areas likely to be damaged by flooding. The Data and Analysis recommend the use of the ten year floodplain for this purpose. The second guideline to floodplain management is to avoid interfering with the beneficial functions of floodprone lands, which are "storage, conveyance, groundwater recharge, maintenance of minimum flows and levels, water quality maintenance and habitat for fish and wildlife." CARE, page 18. In a discussion not limited to the ten year floodplain, the Data and Analysis advise: Buildings, fill, roads and other structures that displace or obstruct the flow of surface waters should not be located in flood-prone areas. In addition, these areas should generally not be drained and their natural vegetation should be maintained. Id. With respect to the environmental benefits inherent in the second guideline, the Data and Analysis discuss each of the functions separately. For storage functions, the Data and Analysis note that floodwaters are stored by floodplains contiguous to water bodies and wetlands considerably removed from water bodies, but connected to them by cypress strands, marshy sloughs, and the underground water table. Thus, "[i]n order to preserve storage, it is necessary to prevent building in these storage areas, diverting [building] instead to upland sites." CARE, page 18. For conveyance functions, the Data and Analysis observe that obstructions, such as buildings and roads, to the flow of floodwater cause flooding upstream of the obstruction. Thus, "[i]n order to preserve the conveyance capacity of flood-prone lands it is necessary to restrict building in these areas." CARE, page 18-19. For groundwater recharge functions, the Data and Analysis relate recharge to storage and conveyance. If water that would otherwise percolate downward into groundwater is blocked by impervious surfaces, removed by drainage works, or displaced by fill, the water contributes to increased flooding downstream. "Filling of flood-prone lands or drainage of them should therefore be restricted." CARE, page 19. For minimum flows and levels, the Data and Analysis recognize that the management of maximum flows--i.e., floodwaters--"is integrally related to minimum flows." By increasing floodwater flows, such as by reducing natural storage and conveyance through structural flood control, "there will be less water in storage in wetlands and groundwater to supply minimum flows." The reduction of minimum flows and levels adversely impacts "navigation, recreation, water supply, dilution of pollutants, estuarine systems and fish and wildlife." CARE, page 19. For water quality, the Data and Analysis acknowledge the "major role" of frequently flooded lands in water quality. Pollutants are removed from storage waters when they are stored in natural floodplains or wetlands. "Cleaning, filling or draining these areas will cause degradation of water quality and should be restricted." CARE, page 19. For fish and wildlife habitat, the Data and Analysis note the importance of floodprone lands as habitat. Maintenance of this function "frequently depends on maintenance of the natural hydrologic regime or is consistent with maintenance of the area's hydrologic values." CARE, page 19. The third guideline to floodplain management is to avoid alterations of the natural rate, quantity, and pattern of surface waters. Applicable to both "flood-prone lands and more upland sites," this guideline advises that the "rate, volume, timing and location of discharge of surface water should generally not be altered from predevelopment conditions." In this case, surface water includes floodwater. CARE, page 19. Acknowledging the increasing stress upon wetlands and floodplains from "increased growth pressure in the more marginally developable portions of the County," the Data and Analysis advise that: [w]here wetland or floodplain encroachment is unavoidable, a scientifically defensible and effective compensatory mechanism is needed to ensure than no net loss of wetland acreage occurs. Where feasible, previously altered wetlands should be restored or recreated to increase overall viable wetland acreage. CARE, page 56. The Data and Analysis set a level of service standard for stormwater, but only in terms of existing, structural stormwater management facilities, such as channels, canals, and ditches. The standard relates to the quantity but not quality of stormwater runoff. The stormwater level of service standard thus illustrates the traditional structural approach to drainage that ignores water quality, groundwater recharge, base flow, salinity requirements, detrital food supplies, and habitat values. Dealing strictly with how fast and how much floodwater can be conveyed, ultimately to Tampa Bay, the stormwater standard describes the rainfall event that a particular stormwater facility, such as a ditch, can accommodate without causing floodwaters to rise above a specified level. The selected rainfall event is expressed in terms of frequency and duration, such as the 10 year/24 hour duration storm event. The level of flooding is expressed by degree. Level A, which is the most restrictive, means "no significant street flooding." Level B is "no major residential yard flooding." Acknowledging that the level of service standard for stormwater facilities "consists primarily of attempting to minimize and alleviate flooding . . . in developed areas . . .," the Introduction to the Stormwater Management (Stormwater) Element promises: the overall [Stormwater Management] Program will be expanded to include not only the quantity aspects, but the quality aspects of stormwater runoff. Stormwater Element, page 18. The Data and Analysis likewise agree that the qualitative aspect of stormwater runoff must be addressed: Much attention has, in recent years, been focused on the quality aspects of stormwater management regulations relative to the establishment of regulations and corresponding design criteria for new development. The application of these regulations must continue in order to minimize the potential for "new" water quality degradation, and the design criteria must be refined to increase the effectiveness of treatment systems as technology advances. However, existing water quality problems may not be correctable without the effective maintenance of existing stormwater treatment systems, and perhaps more importantly, without the retrofitting of older public and private stormwater management systems with stormwater management technologies. . . . The use of wetlands should be promoted as a natural means of providing stormwater treatment, and the direct discharge of untreated stormwater runoff to the Florida Aquifer must be minimized. Stormwater Element, page 20. 5. Soils The soils in Hillsborough County are depicted in CARE Figure 9 and Oversized Map 10. In addition to mine pits and dumps, which are located south and east of Plant City, the maps show that the County soils are poorly drained to very poorly drained, moderately well drained to poorly drained, and well drained. The largest area of well-drained soils lies east of I-75 from US 301, which is south of the Hillsborough River, to just north of the Alafia River. The two other areas of well- drained soils are an area east of Tampa and south of Temple Terrace and the Little Manatee River valley upstream to US 301. The soils surrounding the Alafia River and its major tributaries are predominantly poorly and very poorly drained, as are the soils at the upper end of the Little Manatee River. The entire coastal fringe of the County abutting the east side of Tampa Bay is also poorly and very poorly drained for a distance of about one mile inland, as is the coastal fringe between Tampa and Pinellas County. Other poor to very poorly drained areas include several areas of northwest Hillsborough County, an area in north-central Hillsborough County where I-75 and I-275 join, the Hillsborough River corridor, and an L-shaped area straddling Big Bend Road between I-75 and US 301. Except in extreme cases, such as wetland soils, soil limitations can generally be alleviated for development purposes. Moderate limitations require more extensive alterations to the soils than do minor limitations. "Severe limitations may require the removal of the natural material and replacement with a more suitable soil type." CARE, page 7. However: [t]he use of septic systems for the treatment and disposal of sewage effluent may . . . be significantly limited by site specific soil conditions. The location of septic systems in improper soils may result in several undesirable effects. If the soils have wetness and poor permeability then the discharged effluent will not percolate properly and may runoff into, and contaminate, adjacent surface waters. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve has been closed to shellfishing numerous times in recent years due to improperly sited and maintained septic tanks in the Ruskin area. CARE, page 7. Conversely, "[i]n areas of excessively well-drained sand, septic effluent can migrate too rapidly for purification processes to occur, and carry contaminants into the groundwater supply." CARE, page 8. The surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifers are all subject to contamination by this means. 6. Geology Southeast Hillsborough County contains significant phosphate deposits. This area is the northwest extent of the Central Florida Phosphate District, which is located in Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, and Hardee Counties. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 show that phosphate mines are located in southeast Hillsborough County, at the headwaters of the Little Manatee River and a major tributary of the Alafia River. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 show another phosphate mining area in eastcentral Hillsborough County adjacent to the headwaters of the Alafia River or another of its major tributaries. Providing "hundreds" of jobs in the Tampa Bay area in mining, shipping, marketing, and processing, the phosphate industry produces a "net capital inflow to Hillsborough County," although the text fails to identify what cost items associated with phosphate mining are netted. CARE, page 8. CARE Table 2 indicates that there are five major phosphate mining operations in the County involving 26,326 mineable acres and 5772 mined acres. Due to current market conditions, the only active mine accounts for 2510 mineable acres, 2890 mined acres, and 6933 total acres. The Data and Analysis warn: "phosphate mining severely complicates land use considerations in the central and southeast portions of the County. Large areas of known deposits are held by private companies for future mining." Id. In addition to the space demanded by clay settling ponds, which may consume a one square mile area for a single mine, a typically mining operation involves the "complete disruption" of up to 400 acres annually. The disruption involves the "on-site natural vegetation, drainage, and soil characteristics." Id. Mining may also result in the drawdown of groundwater supplies in the vicinity. Phosphate mining exposes the leach zone, which contains the greatest concentration of uranium. This process increases the risk that the radioactive material will enter the air or water. Heavy water demands in the mining process involve the removal of water from the surficial aquifer and return of used water, possibly with excessive radionuclides, to the Floridan aquifer. After the strip mining operations are completed: Reclamation and restoration of mined lands is extremely important for long-term land use planning in Hillsborough County. The vast acreages of mined trenches and slime ponds are virtually useless for long time periods unless effective reclamation measures are implemented. CARE, page 9. Recent reclamation techniques include surface contouring, use of original topsoil and vegetation types, and restoration of original drainage patterns. The Florida Department of Natural Resources and Hillsborough County both impose reclamation requirements. Noting the economic benefits bestowed on the Tampa Bay region from phosphate mining, the Data and Analysis nevertheless observe: the relatively unregulated mining industry of the past was also responsible for significant environmental damage, including the destruction of wetlands and floodplains, and the siltation and eutrophication of rivers and streams. In addition, large tracts of land have been committed to the maintenance of clay settling ponds and non-productive reclamation areas. Improved State and local regulation of the phosphate industry in recent years has reduced operational impacts on the environment. However, more effective and productive methods of reclamation, and greater enforcement of reclamation requirements, may be needed. CARE, page 63. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 depict the location of numerous sand mines and shell mines, as well as one peat mine. Limestone deposits in the northeast part of Hillsborough County are near the surface and may be the subject of future limestone mining for use as road base, fill, concrete, and asphalt. Another mineral present in commercially significant quantities is sand. In areas underlain by limestone deposits, sinkholes may form, especially in northern and eastern Hillsborough County. The collapse of the limestone formation, which results in the sinkhole, is associated with reduced water tables. "Sinkhole areas are generally unsuitable for development." CARE, page 6. CARE Figure 8 depicts areas of observed and potential sinkhole development. 7. Groundwater The three aquifer systems present in most of Hillsborough County are the surficial, intermediate, and Floridan. The Floridan aquifer is the most productive freshwater aquifer system in Hillsborough County. The surficial aquifer runs through most of Hillsborough County. The water table in the County generally follows the topography, and groundwater flow is west and south. The average depth to the water table is five feet. Fluctuating seasonally less than five feet, the water table is lowest in April or May and highest in September. The surficial aquifer supplies the least amount of water in the County. An intermediate aquifer system forms from the Alafia River basin south in the County. The top of the intermediate aquifer is near sea level, and the intermediate aquifer system thickens to about 200 feet near the Manatee County line. The water quality in the intermediate aquifer is generally good and is primarily used for domestic water supply in extreme south Hillsborough County. The aquifer is most productive in the east and south part of the County, although the phosphate mines in southeast Hillsborough County use the intermediate aquifer as the injection zone for dewatering surficial deposits. The most suitable areas for groundwater development are the extreme northeast and southeast areas of the County. The Floridan aquifer is the major source of groundwater in the County. About 175 million gallons per day of the total 178.2 million gallons per day of groundwater withdrawals in Hillsborough County are taken from the Floridan aquifer. The top of the aquifer ranges from near land surface in the north part of the County to about 200 feet below sea level in the south part of the County. The aquifer thickness ranges from less than 1000 feet in the north part of the County to more than 1200 feet in the south part of the County. The water of the Floridan aquifer is more mineralized than the water of the surficial or intermediate aquifer. Concentrations of chloride exceed 250 mg/l near the coast, but are less than 25 mg/l in east and southeast Hillsborough County. Of the total groundwater withdrawn in the County, about 58%, or 103.3 million gallons per day, is devoted to agriculture. Other uses include 43.7 million gallons per day for public supply, 21.2 million gallons per day for industrial use, and 6.5 million gallons per day for rural use. 8. Aquifer Recharge Aquifer recharge is the "replenishment of water in an aquifer system." CARE, page 23. Hillsborough County contains no areas of high natural aquifer recharge. Areas of high natural aquifer recharge, where annual recharge rates range from 10-20 inches per year, are rare in Florida, representing only about 15% of the entire state. In terms of natural recharge rates, the County contains areas characterized by very low and very low to moderate recharge. The areas of very low to moderate recharge, in which the annual recharge rate is from 2-10 inches, are depicted in CARE Figure 14 and cover the northwest corner of the County, smaller areas in the northcentral and northeast areas of the County, and a large area in northeast Hillsborough County. The large recharge area in the northeast part of the County corresponds to the 100 year floodplain associated with the Hillsborough River basin; this is the largest contiguous 100 year floodplain in the County. Despite the absence of high natural recharge areas, the County contains areas highly susceptible to contamination of the Floridan aquifer. CARE Figure 15 shows three highly susceptible areas. One of these areas is the north half of northwest Hillsborough County. This area contains wellfields located along Gunn Highway and SR 597. The easternmost extent of this area is just east of the intersection of I-275 and I-75. Most of the highly susceptible areas in the northwest part of the County are in areas of very low to moderate natural groundwater recharge. Another area highly susceptible to contamination of the Floridan aquifer is in northeast Hillsborough County, north of I-4 and mostly east of US 301. This area includes two mining areas, but neither is a phosphate mine. The third area of high susceptibility to contamination of the Floridan aquifer runs from an area between Lake Thonotosassa and Plant City southwest through the parcels designated Light Industrial north of Gibsonton. Although similar contamination maps for the surficial and intermediate aquifer systems were not included, the surficial aquifer is highly susceptible to contamination due largely to its proximity to the surface, and the intermediate aquifer is less susceptible to contamination. The Data and Analysis warn that "[d]evelopment in areas of high recharge/contamination potential may . . . pose unacceptable threats to the long-term water quantity and quality within the aquifer system." CARE, page 58. Potable water supplies are also threatened by "the proliferation of improperly sited, constructed and maintained septic tanks." Id. CARE Figure 16 displays potential sources of contamination of the groundwater and surface water. The only potential source of contamination in the recharge area associated with the Hillsborough River basin is an active landfill situated at the southern edge of the recharge area, just southeast of Lake Thonotosassa. However, three active landfills and seven sewage treatment plants have been situated in the large recharge area in the northwest corner of the County, although these ten sites are southwest of existing public supply wells. 9. Sanitary Sewer An unnumbered oversized map entitled Hillsborough County Wastewater Element shows existing and proposed wastewater service areas and collection lines; the projected facilities are shown as of 1994 and 2010. Oversized Map 3, which is entitled Potable Water and Wastewater Facilities, also shows existing and proposed wastewater service areas as of 1994 and 2010. Sanitary Sewerage (Sewer) Element Figure 1 depicts the same information on a smaller scale, although the earlier year of projection is 1995, not 1994. Another unnumbered oversized map accompanying the Plan shows the location of domestic wastewater treatment plants, but the date of the map is omitted. In terms of the existing collection and conveyance system, Sewer Element Figure 1 depicts a central sewer system considerably more proposed than existing in the area south of the Alafia River. No sewer lines exist south of the Alafia River except for a one-mile segment along Big Bend Road east of US and west of Balm-Riverview Road; a little more than a half-mile segment on the peninsula extending from Apollo Beach; a half- mile segment southeast of the preceding segment, about midway between the shoreline and US 41; and roughly five miles of lines along SR 674 between I-75 and just east of US 301. In contrast to the seven miles of existing sewer lines described in the preceding paragraph, Sewer Element Figure 1 indicates that the area south of the Alafia River is proposed to receive another 30 miles of lines by 1994 and another 30 miles of lines by 2010. In other words, the County intends to expand the central sewer system by almost tenfold over 20 years in the area south of the Alafia River. Four to six sewage treatment plants are operating close to the Alafia River, and two such plants are operating close to the Little Manatee River. In addition, two sewage treatment plants and an active landfill are also operating between the two rivers, located west of US 41 and east of the shore of Tampa Bay. The Data and Analysis report that one of the assumptions in the Sewer Element is that all regional and subregional wastewater treatment plants will use advanced wastewater treatment except the Van Dyke plant, which uses secondary wastewater treatment. The Data and Analysis also indicate that, as sewer connections are made, interim and private wastewater plants will be phased out. The Data and Analysis recognize the risk that septic tanks pose to potable water supplies: "As more and more quantities of potable water are needed to supply the County and as urbanization of previously rural areas occurs, the possible dangers due to septic tanks systems contaminating potable water supplies increases." Sewer Element, page 14. As noted below, the Plan distinguishes among Urban, Suburban, and Rural general service levels. 6/ For sanitary sewer, Rural services means "there would most likely be no service connection to an area treatment plant." Sewer Element, page 3. For sanitary sewer, Urban or Suburban service means "there would most likely be current or planned service connection to an area treatment plant." Sewer Element, page 4. Only in "intense urban areas" can the Plan assure "there would be service connection to an area treatment plant." Id. Sewer Element Table 1 discloses that the design capacity of wastewater treatment plants--both publicly and privately owned--is 42.163 million gallons per day with 46% of the capacity in the northwest service area, 42% of the capacity in the central service area, and 12% of the capacity in the south service area. The Data and Analysis indicate that the County has embarked on an "vigorous construction program aimed at meeting the existing commitments within its service areas and providing capacity capable of accommodating growth through 1995." Sewer Element, page 5. However, the construction of treatment facilities has proceeded faster than the construction of collection and transmission lines. 9. Potable Water Oversized Map 3 shows the location of existing water lines, proposed water lines through 1994, proposed water lines through 2010, and water service area boundaries. Potable Water Element Figure 1 depicts on a smaller scale the same information, plus the location of the water service area boundaries in 1995 and 2010. In general, water lines cover a considerable portion of the northwest and central parts of Hillsborough County, appearing in all parts of the County to serve all land that is both designated Suburban Density Residential and contiguous to areas designated for greater densities. Again, as in the case of central sewer, the part of Hillsborough County south of the Alafia River is not as well served. Twelve miles of line run along US 301, south from the Alafia River to SR 674. About seven miles of line run west on SR 674 to a point about two miles east of the mouth of the Little Manatee River. About five miles of line cover the Ruskin area directly northeast of the previously described terminus, and one mile of line proceeds south toward the Little Manatee River. Closer to Tampa Bay, about seven miles of water line run along US 41 south from the Alafia River to a point a couple of miles south of Big Bend Road, stopping about three and one- half miles north of the nearest existing line in Ruskin. About eight miles of line run just south of, and parallel to, the Alafia River. Another five miles of water line run from the Alafia River south, along the scenic corridor (evidently a railroad line to be converted into a two- lane road, at least part of which may be known as the Jim Selvey Highway) running parallel to, and about one mile west of, the boundary between Rural and Suburban designations between SR 640 and the line extending east of the end of Big Bend Road. 7/ Oversized Map 3 discloses that the County can provide central water service to relatively little of the area south of the Alafia River within the Urban and Suburban areas. As is the case with central sewer, the County's plans for new central water service project the majority of construction activity toward the end of the 20-year period. Although starting with considerably more water line mileage--about 47 miles--than sewer line mileage south of the Alafia River, the County plans only about eight new miles in this area by 1994, but over 90 new miles by 2010. For potable water service, a Rural service area "would most likely be served by a system of private wells." Potable Water Element, page 3. Urban or Suburban service means "there would most likely be current or planned service connecting to this area." Potable Water Element, page 4. Again, as in the case of sewer service, a guarantee of central water service applies only to intensive urban service, where "there would be service connecting to this area." Id. After detailed analysis, the Data and Analysis conclude that the County will require 235-318 million gallons per day of water in 2000. Responsibility in coordinating water supplies in the Tampa Bay area has been assigned to the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA). According to CARE Figure 19, Hillsborough County will run short of potable water by the early 1990's and need water supplies from the WCRWSA. CARE, page 28. Due to assumptions of increased water usage in Pasco and Pinellas Counties, "there is concern that the 'safe yield' limit of regional groundwater aquifers may be approached in the foreseeable future." Id. The Data and Analysis report that additional water for the fast-growing southcentral area will come from a "planned" wellfield in northeast Brandon. Potable Water Element, page 9. CARE Figure 18 shows the location of major public supply reservoirs and water wells of more than 100,000 gallons per day. Oversized Map 18, which is dated February, 1990, depicts a 200-foot radius for each major public supply well. The greatest concentration of public supply water wells is in northwest Hillsborough County, especially the northern half of this area. Based on rough projections, the Data and Analysis warn that there is a "need to develop and communicate accurate water supply and safe yield projections to ensure sound water use planning. In addition, [there is a] need to immediately conserve existing water supplies and to develop new supplies." Id. In the meantime, potential water sources are threatened by development: The quantity and quality of groundwater resources may also be adversely impacted by land development. Because of the dry, well- drained soils, many of the most important aquifer recharge areas in the County are considered to be the most desirable sites for development. However, the increase in impervious surface cover associated with land development may, in theory, reduce the amount of water available to recharge groundwater aquifers by increasing the amount of surface runoff and evaporation. In addition, pollution discharges to groundwater, including septic drainfields, leaking underground storage tanks, etc., percolate rapidly through the topsoil and into the underlying rock in such areas, and may pose a significant contamination threat to existing and future water supplies. CARE, page 28. Water conservation will help extend existing potable water supplies. Residential water use may be reduced by 15% to 70% by conservation measures. Agricultural water use may be reduced by better irrigation practices, reducing losses to seepage, and using the lowest quality water necessary. Only 33 of the 267 wastewater treatment plants in the County presently use direct wastewater reuse options. The Data and Analysis recommend the exploration of this option. With respect to potable water sources, the Data and Analysis also consider desalinization. About 70 such plants currently operate in Florida. The reverse osmosis method of desalinization appears to be a particularly viable alternative for Hillsborough County. Noting the inevitability of new demands for potable water from population growth, the Data and Analysis warn that "significant increases in impervious surfaces may actually decrease the recharge potential and the available water supply below historically reliable levels." CARE, page 61. Excessive groundwater withdrawals in Hillsborough County have historically dewatered wetlands and surface waters; excessive groundwater withdrawals in other coastal areas in Florida have historically resulted in saltwater intrusion. Thus, the Data and Analysis recommend the establishment of "'safe yield' groundwater withdrawal limitations." Id. Until the development of more sophisticated means, the Data and Analysis recommend the use of the "Water Budget Concept" to estimate probable limits on potable water supply and demand. Id. 10. Natural Habitats Because of the size, location, and estuarine shoreline of Hillsborough County, representatives of over half of the major plant communities in Florida are found in the County. The 14 major plant communities found in Hillsborough County are: pine flatwoods, dry prairies, sand pine scrub, sandhills, xeric hammocks, mesic hammocks, hardwood swamps, cypress swamps, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, coastal marshes, mangrove swamps, coastal strand, and marine grassbeds. With the exception of marine grassbeds, these habitats are depicted on the multicolor fold-out map entitled "Natural Systems and Land Use Cover Inventory," which is identified as CARE Figure 20 in the Plan. Coastal Figure 11 depicts the established extent of seagrass meadows in Tampa Bay. Coastal Figure 14 shows the location in Tampa Bay of different classes of waters. The waters adjacent to the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County are Class II waters that are closed to shellfish harvesting. The waters from about a mile south of Apollo Beach to Manatee County are also Class II waters with shellfish harvesting approved in the area of Cockroach Bay. The remaining waters are Class III. Coastal Figure 13 depicts the location of emergent wetlands along the fringe of Tampa Bay. Concentrations of emergent wetlands are notable south of Apollo Beach and upstream varying distances along the fringes of the three major rivers and the former Palm River. Emergent wetlands also fringe the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County. Most of the County's natural habitat has been lost to urban, agricultural, and industrial development, which has altered over half of the original freshwater wetlands and over three-quarters of the uplands. The trend of habitat destruction, though abated by wetland protection laws, continues to apply to the upland habitats of xeric and mesic hammocks. Supplementing CARE Figure 20 are Oversized Map 8, which depicts "major natural systems" based on CARE Figure 20, and CARE Table 11, which indicates where, by specific habitat, each of the endangered, threatened, or special-concern plant or animal species may be expected to occur. The Data and Analysis acknowledge that the rapidly growing human population and its associated urbanization has resulted in a substantial loss of natural wildlife habitat, especially in the coastal portions of the County, while the cumulative impacts of development continue to divide and isolate large contiguous natural areas. . . . As a result of habitat destruction and alteration, the natural populations of many wildlife species have declined dramatically. . . . comprehensive wildlife protection and management program is needed to inventory populations of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern, and to inventory significant and essential wildlife habitat and protect those areas in the future. Coastal Element, page 68. The pine flatwoods habitat is characterized by long- leaf pines on drier sites and slash pine on wetter sites. Despite overlap between the understories of the two types of pine flatwoods communities, saw palmetto predominates in slash pine flatwoods and wiregrass predominates in long-leaf pine flatwoods. Pine flatwoods depend on fire to eliminate hardwood competition. Longleaf pine flatwoods are more susceptible to lack of water than are slash pine flatwoods. In the absence of fire, the pine flatwoods community is replaced by a mixed hardwood and pine forest. Various species that are endangered, threatened, or of special concern are associated with the pine flatwoods habitat. These species include the Florida golden aster, eastern indigo snake, short-tailed snake, gopher tortoise, gopher frog, Florida pine snake, peregrine falcon, Southern bald eagle, Southeastern American kestrel, red-cockaded woodpecker, scrub jay, and Sherman's fox squirrel. Originally, 70% of Hillsborough County was vegetated by pine flatwoods, but now only 5% of the County is pine flatwoods. The level surface, thick understory, and poorly drained soils of the pine flatwoods tend to retain and slowly release surface water, so the pine flatwoods enhance surface water quality and reduce downstream flooding. Dry prairies are treeless plains, often hosting scattered bayheads, cypress ponds, freshwater marshes, and wet prairies. Dry prairies resemble pine flatwoods without the overstory and perform similar functions in terms of surface water drainage. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species using dry prairies include those using the pine flatwoods plus the Florida sandhill crane and burrowing owl. Sand pine scrub is found mostly on relict dunes or other marine features found along present and former shorelines. Sand pine forms the overstory, and scrubby oaks compose a thick, often clumped understory. Large areas of bare sand are present in the habitat of the sand pine scrub, which requires fires to release the pine seeds. Without fires, the sand pine scrub habitat evolves into a xeric oak scrub habitat. The rare sand pine scrub community hosts many of the endangered, threatened, or special-concern species found in the pine flatwoods habitat. Supporting the highest number of such species, the sand pine scrub habitat's extremely dry environment sustains highly specialized plants and animals that could survive nowhere else. The unique adaptations of species to the sand pine scrub environment generates much scientific research of this unusual habitat, which is easily disturbed by human activities. The rapid percolation typical of the deep sandy soils of the sand pine scrub makes the community an important aquifer recharge area that is also vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Featuring more organic material in its sandy soils, the sandhill community, like the sand pine scrub community, is uncommon in Hillsborough County. Longleaf pines form the overstory of the sandhill habitat, unless, due to fire suppression and logging, xeric oaks, like turkey oak and bluejack oak, have been permitted to grow sufficiently to form the overstory. In the absence of the pines, the community is known as the xeric oak scrub. Longleaf pines require frequent fires to control hardwood competition, as does wiregrass, which, when present, prevents the germination of hardwood seeds and serves to convey fires over large areas. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species of the sandhill habitat are similar to those of the pine flatwoods. The plant and animal species using the sandhill habitat are, like those using the sand pine scrub habitat, adapted to high temperatures and drought. These plant and animal species are often found nowhere else but in the sandhills, which, like the sand pine scrub community, allows rapid percolation of water. The well-drained soils render the area useful for natural recharge of the aquifer, but also vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Xeric hammocks feature live oaks in well-drained, deep sand. Providing habitat for many of the species using the pine flatwoods, the xeric hammock canopy provides a microclimate of cooler, moister conditions and supplies good natural recharge to the aquifer. Mesic hammocks are the climax community of the area and contain a wide diversity of plant species. Trees include the Southern Magnolia, laurel oak, American holly, dogwood, pignut hickory, and live oak. Endangered, threatened, or special- concern species using the habitat are Auricled Spleenwort, Eastern indigo snake, peregrine falcon, Southern bald eagle, Southeastern American kestrel, and Sherman's fox squirrel. Not dependent upon fire, mesic hammocks efficiently use solar heat and recycle nutrients. Mesic hammocks are adaptable to development if native vegetation, including groundcover, is retained. Hardwood swamps, which are also known as floodplain swamps, riverine swamps, and hydric hammocks, border rivers and lake basins where the ground is saturated or submerged during part of the year. The wettest part of these swamp forests features bald cypress or black gum trees. In higher areas, the trees typically include sweet gum, red maple, water oak, American elm, water hickory, and laurel oak. Hardwood swamps rely upon periodic flooding, absent which other communities will replace the hardwood swamps. Endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with hardwood swamps are the American alligator, Suwanee cooter, peregrine falcon, wood stork, Southern bald eagle, little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and limpkin. "The hardwood swamp is extremely important for water quality and quantity enhancement." CARE, page 38. The hardwood swamp also retains and slowly releases floodwaters, which, among other things, allows suspended material to settle out. The swamp vegetation then removes excess nutrients and produces detritus for downstream swamps, such as estuaries. Cypress swamps are found along river or lake margins or interspersed through pine flatwoods or dry prairies. Bald cypress is the dominant tree along lakes and streams, and pond cypress occurs in cypress heads or domes. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with cypress swamps are the same as those associated with hardwood swamps. Especially when found in pine flatwoods or dry prairies, cypress swamps are important to wildlife because of their cooler, wetter environment. Cypress domes function as natural retention ponds. Cypress swamps along rivers and lakes absorb nutrients and store floodwaters. Freshwater marshes and wet prairies are herbaceous plant communities on sites where the soil is saturated or covered with water for at least one month during the growing season. Wet prairies contain shallower water, more grasses, and fewer tall emergents than do marshes. Fire recycles nutrients back into the soil and removes older, less productive plant growth. Flooding also reduces competition. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species are the same as those using the cypress swamps except that the freshwater marshes and wet prairies host the Florida sandhill crane and roseate spoonbill, but not the limpkin. Freshwater marshes and wet prairies are the most important vegetative communities functioning as a natural filter for rivers and lakes. The ability to retain water allows freshwater marshes and wet prairies to moderate the severity of floods and droughts. But the freshwater marshes and wet prairies have suffered most from agricultural and urban development. Wet prairies in particular are susceptible to damage from recreation vehicle use, horseback riding, and foot traffic. Among the many species using freshwater marshes and wet prairies as habitat, the sandhill crane depends on this community for nesting habitat. Coastal marshes are located on low-energy shorelines and are interspersed with mangroves. Coastal marshes may be found along tidal rivers. Tides contribute to the high productivity of the coastal marshes, as tidal waters provide food to, and remove waste from, the organisms found in the coastal marshes. Endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with coastal marshes are the American alligator, peregrine falcon, wood stork, Southern bald eagle, redish egret, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and roseate spoonbill. With the mangrove swamp, the coastal marsh is the "key to the extremely high levels of biological productivity found in estuaries such as Tampa Bay." CARE, page 40. Marsh grasses convert sunlight and nutrients into plant tissue, which decomposes once the plant dies and becomes available to a number of detritus-feeding organisms. These organisms are themselves food for large animals. Coastal marshes also serve as nurseries for young fish, stabilize shorelines, filter out nutrients, and trap sediments. Mangrove swamps also occur along low-energy shorelines. The mangrove community "provides much of the driving force behind the productivity of bordering estuaries." CARE, page 41. Leaves from the mangroves fall into the water, supplying food to organisms as large as mullet. Mangrove swamps host the same animals as do coastal marshes except for the absence of alligators and presence of brown pelicans. The environmental values of the mangrove swamps are the same as the values of coastal marshes. The coastal strand includes beaches and coastal dunes. Prime examples of this type of habitat in Hillsborough County are Egmont Key and the larger islands in Cockroach Bay and at the mouth of the Little Manatee River. Marine grassbeds are found in estuaries and consist of vast meadows of different types of seagrasses. Having evolved from terrestrial forms, seagrasses contain roots, stems, leaves, and flowers and are able to grow in soft, sandy, or muddy sediments. Species of seagrasses found in Tampa Bay are limited to a water depth of about six feet, which is the average depth through which light can presently penetrate. Fast-growing seagrasses trap material from the land, absorb nutrients, and convey animal and plant products to the open sea. 11. Coastal Area The County's "most significant surface water resource" is Tampa Bay. CARE, page 10. In northwest Hillsborough County, the coastal area, which is also known as the coastal zone, consists of a strip of land about five miles wide running from the shoreline between Tampa and the Pinellas County line in the northwest part of the County. The coastal area for central and south Hillsborough County encompasses a band of land of about similar width running from the Tampa line south along US 301 across the Alafia River, then south from the Alafia River along I-75 to the Little Manatee River, where the boundary runs west to US 41, and then south along US 41 to the Manatee County line. Coastal Figure 16 locates coastal marine resources in and adjacent to Tampa Bay. Two locations of wading birds are in the northwest part of Hillsborough County. The only resources depicted between Tampa and the Alafia River are shorebirds in the Bay. At the Alafia River are wading birds, shorebirds, and pelicans. Wading birds and shorebirds are located in the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, as are manatee and oyster beds. The Data and Analysis describe the different land use planning challenges in the coastal area: coastal land issues are unique primarily due to the intense competing and often incompatible use demands, serious environmental constraints or impacts and the limited supply of shoreline lands. Coastal Element, page 3. The intent of the Plan is that coastal land use should be dominated by those uses which can only take place in or near the shoreline. This concept, by which water- dependent and water-related uses receive priority, stems from logic furthered by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act .. .. Coastal Element, page 2. According to Coastal Element Table 2, the coastal area comprises 20,946 acres of developed land and 54,011 acres of undeveloped land. The developed land includes 12,343 acres of residential (75% single family detached), 4638 acres of community facilities (75% utilities and recreation/open space), 2095 acres of commercial (equal amounts of heavy and light commercial), and 1870 acres of industrial. The undeveloped land includes 24,388 acres of natural land (including 16,533 acres of woodlands and wetlands), 29,025 acres of agriculture, and 598 acres of mines (consisting of 299 acres of active mines, 75 acres of reclaimed mines, and 224 acres of unreclaimed mines). Many of the residential uses in the coastal area are on floodprone lands or land formed from dredge and fill operations. Many of these residential areas are in the unincorporated areas of Town and Country, Clair Mel City, Apollo Beach, and Bahia Beach. The problems common to these areas are periodic flooding, cumulative adverse impacts to wetlands, soil erosion, non-functioning septic systems, high potential for surface water pollution, potential for salt water intrusion, and reduced public access to the shoreline. Coastal Element, page 4. Most commercial development in the coastal area is of the neighborhood, rather than regional, variety. Commercial uses have generally followed rather than preceded residential development in the coastal area. However, in the Hillsborough Avenue/Memorial Highway area, which is in the coastal area between Tampa and Pinellas County, extensive commercial activity serves Town and County and the area off SR 580 (Hillsborough Avenue) toward Pinellas County. Much of the County's heavy industry is located in the coastal area due to proximity to the port. Agriculture is treated as undeveloped land, although only one-third of agricultural uses are merely fenced pastureland. In any event, "urban growth is steadily displacing [agricultural and vacant land] uses forcing agricultural activities to move to more inland parts of the County." Coastal Element, page 5. The largest uses within the category of community facilities in the coastal area are electric power generating and transmission facilities. The next largest is recreation/open space. Both of these uses are water dependent. The coastal natural areas provide vital shoreline habitat and protect against storm surge. The Data and Analysis warn: Displacement of these natural areas by continued urban development will result in a net reduction of water quality within Tampa Bay and tidal rivers and creeks, loss of vital wildlife habitat, a diminished sense of open space, and the exposure of property and human life to the dangers of storm surge. Coastal Element, page 6. In discussing potential conflicts in potential shoreline land uses, the Data and Analysis note that more coastal areas that are vacant, recreational, or agricultural have been designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Low Density Residential, Recreation and Open Space, or Natural Preservation. The development of the coastal area has resulted in the elimination of natural shoreline vegetative communities such as mangroves and wetlands. The Data and Analysis acknowledge the "urgency to more effectively manage coastal zone natural resources and direct urban development into areas more appropriate for such growth." Coastal Element, page 7. The Data and Analysis also note that stormwater runoff into Tampa Bay and its tributaries may constitute the "greatest impact to marine habitat." Id. According to the Data and Analysis, the main uses that are neither water-dependent nor water-related are commercial and industrial uses that "could function just as well inland as in a coastal location" and "intense urban residential." Coastal Element, page 9. The Data and Analysis endorse the trend toward displacing agricultural uses in the Apollo Beach/Ruskin area west of I-75 between the Alafia River and the Manatee County line. The Data and Analysis approve of the increased concentration of development closer to the amenities of the coastal area without using the coastal zone for non-water-dependent uses. Oversized Maps 11 and 12 respectively show the location of archaeological sites and historic resources. Oversized Map 11 indicates by Florida Master Site File number the location of at least 200 archaeological sites. Due to the presence of numerous archaeological sites in the coastal area, the County "needs to establish a method to protect, preserve, and restore its historic resources." Coastal Element, page 13. Because the County has not adopted a local preservation ordinance, the Data and Analysis admit that "historic resource management efforts are not clearly defined." Coastal Element, page 60. However, the Data and Analysis indicate that provisions in the Future Land Use Element and Coastal Element will preserve the historic resources in the coastal area. 12. Coastal High Hazard Area and Hurricane Planning The entire Tampa Bay region: has been identified by the National Weather Service as one of the most hurricane- vulnerable areas of the United States, with the potential for large scale loss of life. Coastal Element, page 37. The vulnerability of the County and its residents to hurricanes is due to geography and land use. The proximity of large numbers of persons near Tampa Bay and residing in low- lying areas or mobile homes increases the risk of loss of life and property. The hurricane vulnerability analysis is based on the 100 year storm event or Category 3 hurricane, which produces winds of 111-130 miles per hour and storm surge of 12-18 feet above normal. The Data and Analysis define the hurricane vulnerability zone as the area from which persons must be evacuated in the event of a Category 3 hurricane. The Data and Analysis also identify the coastal high hazard area, which is the area from which persons must be evacuated in the event of the less intense Category 1 hurricane. The coastal high hazard area is also the velocity zone shown on maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Coastal Element Figure 18 depicts the coastal high hazard area as a strip of land fringing Tampa Bay. The northwest section of the coastal high hazard area between Pinellas County and Tampa is nearly one mile wide. The width of the coastal high hazard area from Tampa to Manatee County ranges from nonexistent to about 1.5 miles, and even more at the Little Manatee River, but averages about one mile. The Data and Analysis recognize the special planning issues that apply to the coastal high hazard area: The issue with respect to development in the coastal high hazard area is the protection of residents and the public expenditure of funds for areas that are subject to severe flooding from storm surge and rainfall and structure damage as a result of high winds. In addition to limiting development, the permitted development shall be designed to mitigate problems associated with stormwater runoff, wastewater treatment, and septic tanks. Coastal Element, page 61. Dealing with the provision of infrastructure in the coastal area, the Data and Analysis ask, but do not answer, the following questions: Does the provision of infrastructure encourage development of coastal areas? Should all citizens be required to bear the burden of increased public infrastructure cost in coastal areas? As development and redevelopment pressures continue in the coastal areas these questions and others must be answered. Coastal Element, page 64. Analysis of the County's hurricane preparedness requires consideration of the availability of shelters. The County has 46 primary shelters that, at the applicable ratio of 20 square feet per shelter resident, can accommodate about 59,000 persons. Unfortunately, about 60,000 of the 175,000 evacuees sought shelter space during Hurricane Elena, which, during the Labor Day weekend of 1985, came within 80 miles from the mouth of Tampa Bay. In any event, there is sufficient shelter space through 1995. Although secondary shelter space may be sufficient for awhile, the County will need more shelter space by 2000. Present estimated clearance times for hurricane evacuation range from 11-16 hours, depending upon the storm and evacuation conditions. After evaluating pre-landfall hazards, such as the inundation of low-lying evacuation routes, the clearance times are increased by 10 hours, so the range is 21-26 hours. Persons with special needs, which could enlarge the time needed for evacuation, have been encouraged to register with the County. The Data and Analysis inventory the hospitals and nursing homes whose occupants would need to evacuate in the event of a hurricane. Six of the 21 nursing homes and four of the 17 hospitals would be vulnerable to storm surge in a Category 3 storm. Tampa General, which is a County-operated facility, is subject to storm surge in a Category 1 storm, and the Data and Analysis warn that expansion plans should be carefully reviewed. Finding that clearance times of 11 and 16 hours are "acceptable," the Data and Analysis caution that the clearance times may increase as population increases in the Tampa Bay region. Options to be considered include exploration of vertical evacuation, discouragement of evacuation by nonvulnerable residents, expansion of road capacity, and imposition of the requirement that mobile home parks construct on-site shelter space. A variety of public infrastructure is contained in the coastal high hazard area. These public facilities include roads, bridges, and causeways; sanitary sewer facilities; potable water facilities; and shoreline protection structures. Private facilities include electric generating units and substations. The County does not own a sanitary sewer plant in the coastal high hazard area. But the County uses about 12% of the capacity of Tampa's Hookers Point plant, which is in the coastal high hazard area. The County owns three potable water facilities in the coastal high hazard area. A pump station and two elevated storage tanks are in the Apollo Beach area. In view of the vulnerability of parts of the County to a hurricane: government is responsible for ensuring that human life is protected and property damage is minimized in food-prone and coastal high hazard areas; that land use and development patterns are consistent with the vulnerable nature of the coastal high hazard and inland flood-prone areas; and that natural systems and vegetation that serve to reduce the impacts of severe weather are protected and preserved. In order to accomplish these ends, Hillsborough County must consider available options to reduce or limit exposure in the [coastal high hazard area]; develop guidelines/procedures for development in the [coastal high hazard area]; propose alternatives to reduce clearance times or reduce deficit public shelter space; and develop methods to redirect population concentrations away from the [coastal high hazard area]. Coastal Element, page 42. The Data and Analysis consider the question of post- hurricane redevelopment, which has not been an issue in the County since 1921, which marked the last time that a hurricane made landfall in Hillsborough County. After addressing the extent to which public funds might be available to assist in rebuilding infrastructure, the Data and Analysis confront the underlying issue whether infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area should be rebuilt in place or relocated outside the coastal high hazard area. The Data and Analysis conclude: A decision-making framework needs to be established by the County in order to determine if the infrastructure or facilities should be relocated, have structural modifications or be replaced. Coastal Element, page 45. The Data and Analysis recommend that decisions concerning redeveloping infrastructure be guided by the following factors: costs, environmental impacts, mitigative impacts, growth management consistency, impacts on the public, timeliness, legal issues, availability of funds, and necessity of infrastructure. 13. Air Quality The air quality in the Tampa urban area "is among the state's most polluted," but "severe conditions are often localized and short lived, due to prevailing winds and the area's non-confining topography." CARE, page 46. However, the Data and Analysis admit that "[a]ir quality in the Tampa Bay region . . . is degraded and in need of improvement relative to certain air pollutants." CARE, page 51. Of the six pollutants for which federal and state attainment standards exist, Hillsborough County is classified as non-attainment for ozone, for which automobile exhausts are indirectly responsible, and particulate matter. But point sources, especially power plants, are also responsible for air pollution. Since the mid 1970's, all criteria pollutants except ozone have decreased in the County. The Data and Analysis recommend "more stringent regulations and better compliance with existing regulations." CARE, page 52. Urban Sprawl Planning Strategy The Data and Analysis disclose that the County has adopted two major planning strategies. The Plan creates nodes and corridors and provides a range of lifestyles from the Urban to the Suburban to the Rural. The specific details of these planning strategies are found in the operative provisions of the Plan, which are set forth in the following section. However, the Data and Analysis offer a brief overview of the County's two major planning strategies. A node is a "focal point within the context of a larger, contiguous area surrounding it. It is an area of concentrated activity that attracts people from outside its boundaries for purposes of interaction within that area." Future Land Use Element (FLUE), page 8. The Data and Analysis explain that the Plan contains four types of nodes: high intensity nodes, which are for high intensity commercial uses, high density residential uses, and high concentration of government centers; mixed use regional nodes, which are for regional shopping centers, major office and employment areas, and sports and recreational complexes; community center nodes, which are focal points for surrounding neighborhoods; and neighborhood nodes, which are smaller scale community centers. Once nodes become established, "corridors" are intended to connect two or more nodes. Presently, the road network is the sole type of corridor. But mass transit may one day offer an alternative type of corridor. As part of the second major planning strategy, the Plan offers residents a variety of lifestyle options, primarily by varying residential densities. Population growth in Hillsborough County has historically radiated out from the central business district of Tampa. The emergence of nodes outside Tampa has altered this development pattern. The Plan's treatment of rural areas reflects the philosophy that "[r]ural areas need not be treated only as undeveloped lands waiting to become urban." FLUE, page 9. The Data and Analysis report that the Plan seeks to preserve the pastoral nature of the rural lifestyle by ensuring the availability of large lots for residential development. The size of the lots is in part driven by the absence of central water and sewer, so that individual wells and septic tanks will necessarily serve most rural development. In addition to providing small scale commercial uses at appropriate locations, the Data and Analysis recognize that the Plan must also ensure the preservation of unstructured open space, as well as competing rural uses, such as agriculture, that may not harmonize completely with adjacent residential development. The Data and Analysis describe the suburban residential option as part of a "gradual transition of land uses from very rural to more suburban blending into the urban environment." FLUE, page 10. Suburban areas would be accompanied by greater intensities of commercial uses and more extensive public facilities, as compared to the commercial uses and public facilities serving rural areas. The Data and Analysis describe densities of two or three dwelling units per acre on outlying suburban areas, gradually increasing to two to six dwelling units per acre on suburban areas closer to urban areas, and finally attaining even higher densities adjacent to the urban areas. Open space remains "quite important" for suburban areas and could be attained partially through clustering dwelling units. Id. The urban areas facilitate the provision of "very specialized public and private services that could not be justified anywhere else." FLUE, page 11. The Data and Analysis state: If the urban areas are permitted to increase their concentrations, it will lessen some of the development pressures in other areas of the County. One distinct advantage of intense urban development is that the potential, negative impacts of development upon the natural environment can be controlled more effectively. Additionally, the provision of public facilities is much more cost effective in the intense urban areas. Id. The Data and Analysis recognize the role of planning to ensure the attainment of the planning goals of the County: Hillsborough County has and will continue to experience a high population growth rate. Residential, commercial and industrial land development is expanding rapidly, and the County has been unable to keep pace with the demand for public facilities. The rapid rate of development has had many adverse impacts upon the environment, transportation, public facilities, historic resources and community design. . . . An overall, general guide to development outlining basic considerations during the development process is needed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Hillsborough County. FLUE, page 12. The Data and Analysis recognize that "much of the newer residential development is designed as enclaves with little or no functional linkages to the surrounding areas." FLUE, page 22. Addressing the linkage of residential to commercial uses, the Data and Analysis add: Commercial development has followed the sprawl of residential development into the County. Commercial strip development has been allowed to proceed relatively unchecked along the major arterials in the County creating undue congestion and safety hazards. A strong need was identified to develop a logical and functional method to determine the location and amount of future commercial development without interrupting the market system. FLUE, page 25. The Data and Analysis also address industrial and public facility land uses. The identification of specific areas for industrial development "will create a desirable development pattern that effectively maximizes the use of the land." FLUE, page 28. And the requirement that public facilities be available to serve new development "will create greater concentrations of land uses in the future." FLUE, page 27. 2. Existing Land Uses The Data and Analysis set forth the existing land uses by type and acreage. Using a total acreage for the County of 605,282 acres, the table of existing land uses by acreage, which is at page XVIII-B of the FLUE background document, divides developed land into four general categories: residential, commercial, industrial, and community facilities. Residential existing land uses total 73,104 acres. The total includes 55,546 acres of single family detached with an average density of 1.7 dwelling units per acre, 9709 acres of mobile home with an average density of 1.3 dwelling units per acre, 3643 acres of mobile home park with an average density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre, and 3006 acres of single family attached and multifamily with an average density of just under 12 dwelling units per acre. Commercial existing land uses total 8143 acres, consisting of 3613 acres of light commercial, 3029 acres of heavy commercial, 770 acres of transient lodging, and 731 acres of business and professional offices. Industrial existing land uses total 4122 acres, consisting of 1889 acres of heavy industrial, 1178 acres of warehouse and distribution, and 1055 acres of light industrial. Community facilities existing land uses, which consist of utilities, schools, and recreation/open space, total 19,439 acres, including 7981 acres of recreation/open space and 5200 acres of utilities. The remaining 500,474 acres in the County are divided into Natural, Agriculture, and Mining existing land uses. Natural existing land uses total 182,082 acres, consisting of 133,939 acres of woodlands and wetlands, 26,745 acres of vacant land in urban areas, and 21,398 acres of water. Agriculture existing land uses total 292,129 acres, including 104,870 acres of fenced pastureland, 103,773 acres of general agriculture, 40,600 acres of groves or orchards, and 38,867 acres of row crops. Mining existing land uses total 26,263 acres, consisting of 10,551 acres of active mines, 8655 acres of unreclaimed mined out areas, 6717 acres of reclaimed mines, and 340 acres of resource extraction. The County has prepared or obtained numerous existing land use maps (ELUM), either as small-scale maps contained in the two-volume compilation or as Oversized Maps. Most of the ELUM's have been described above. The ELUM's depict the Tampa Bay estuarine system including beaches and shores; rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, and harbors; wetlands; minerals, soils, and sinkholes; natural systems and land use cover; areas of natural aquifer recharge and potential groundwater contamination; and various public facilities. ELUM's not previously described include Oversized Map 6, which is dated September, 1988, and is entitled Major Health and Education Facilities. Another Oversized Map dated February 1, 1988, shows the same types of facilities. Existing land uses are shown by a variety of maps. CARE Figure 20, which is the color map showing vegetative cover, provides some information as to the location of disturbed and undisturbed natural areas. Coastal Figure 1 shows existing land uses, but only for the coastal area. Those parts of the coastal high hazard area shown as vacant or agricultural or that otherwise received designations allowing higher densities or intensities are identified in Paragraphs 772 et seq. Most detailed is Oversized Map 2, which is the 1985 Generalized Land Use map. Oversized Map 2 shows the location of existing land uses by the following categories: agricultural and vacant, low density residential, medium and high density residential, commercial, industrial, major public, mining, and natural. As noted above, existing, major public supply wells are depicted on CARE Figure 18 and Oversized Map 18. The latter map also depicts 200-foot radii for "well protection areas." Oversized Map 18 also appears to depicts planned water wells, such as a cluster of four wells northeast of Brandon, which were omitted from CARE Figure 18. Other wells are also depicted on Oversized Map 18, but not CARE Figure 18, which thus appears to have been limited to existing wells. 3. Future Land Uses Under Plan The Data and Analysis accompanying the FLUE acknowledge that "[t]here are very few compact centers where commercial and residential uses interact positively in unincorporated Hillsborough County." FLUE, page 7. The projected population for unincorporated Hillsborough County in 2010 is 932,800, according to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. About 458,236 persons were projected to be residing, in 2010, in housing units existing in 1988. By land use category, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, the County has 283,195 vacant acres on which residential development is permitted under the Plan. The following table sets forth, by category, the vacant acreage, permitted maximum density (expressed as a ratio of dwelling units per gross acre), and population capacity. 8/ Land Use Category Density Vacant Acres Pop. Capacity Agricultural/Mining 1:20 66,122 9,092 Agricultural 1:10 20,162 5,545 Rural Agricultural 1:5 65,115 35,813 Rural Estate 1:2.5 8,617 9,479 Rural Residential 1:1 18,533 50,968 Rural Residential Plan 1:5 7,325 4,029 Low Sub. Density Resid. 2:1 14,388 79,134 Low Sub. Density Resid. Plan 1:5 20,326 11,179 Suburban Density Resid. 4:1 24,667 271,337 Low Density Residential 6:1 10,625 175,313 Low Medium Density Resid. 9:1 945 16,755 Medium Density Residential 12:1 1,290 30,496 High Density Residential 20:1 765 30,141 Urban Level 1 12:1 17,850 421,974 Urban Level 2 20:1 4,495 177,103 Urban Level 3 50:1 1,760 173,360 TOTALS 283,195 1,501,718 Dividing the total population capacity of 1,501,718 persons by the projected population of 932,800, the Plan has overallocated density by a factor of 1.61. Nonresidential uses for which the Plan allocates land include industrial and commercial uses. The industrial uses and respective acreages in the Plan are Light Industrial (12,789), Light Industrial--Planned (746), and Heavy Industrial (4721). The commercial uses and respective acreages in the Plan are Community Commercial (5538), Regional Commercial (678), Community Office (294), and Research Corporate Park (1411). The industrial uses cover a total of 18,256 acres, or 3.04% of the total of 600,409 acres in Hillsborough County. The commercial uses cover a total of 7921 acres, or a little more than 1% of the total acreage in the County. If the acreage designated as Urban Level 1, 2, and 3 is treated as commercial, then the total commercial acreage equals 8.79% of the County. The remaining categories on the Future Land Use Map and respective acreages are: Natural Preservation--23,313 acres; Environmentally Sensitive Areas--81,880 acres; Water--6026 acres; Recreation/Open Space--2310 acres; and Public/Semi- Public--4142 acres. Excluding the Public/Semi-Public category, the remaining four categories, which by varying degrees involve open space, constitute 113,526 acres, or about 19% of the County. In addition to the matter of density allocations, the use of land involves the places where the County has chosen to locate its densities. CARE Figure 2 shows the location of the population in 1985. For unincorporated Hillsborough County, only about 45,000 persons lived south of the Alafia River with about two-thirds living west of I-75. Roughly 150,000 persons lived in northwest Hillsborough County, and another 150,000 persons lived in central Hillsborough County between the Alafia River and I-4. The remaining (as shown on Figure 2) 50,000 persons lived east of I-75 and north of I-4 in northcentral and northeast Hillsborough County. Oversized Map 14 shows areas of density changes effected by the Plan and revisions to a pre-1985 Act plan applicable to I-75 and south Hillsborough County that took place shortly before the adoption of the Plan and were incorporated into the Plan. Oversized Map 14 discloses large areas of density increases in the following locations, among others: the part of the coastal high hazard area between Cockroach Bay and the mouth of the Little Manatee River; an area immediately across US 41 from the previously described area and bounded by the Little Manatee River on the north and I-75 on the east; almost the entire I-75 corridor that is designated nearly exclusively Urban Level 1 and Urban Level 3; a large expanse of land designated mostly Low Suburban Density Residential Planned along the railroad right-of-way that is to be converted into a two-lane road, at least part of which is to be known as the Jim Selvey Highway; an area of Medium Density Residential just north of the mouth of the Little Manatee River near Ruskin; the northcentral area from I-75 and I-275 to the Hillsborough River; and relatively large portions of the north and west halves of northwest Hillsborough County, including almost the entire northwest corner of the County to Gunn Highway (east of Keystone Lake). Oversized Map 13 is the Vacant Land Suitability Analysis, which shows the location of critical lands or soils with very severe limitations, presumably with reference to the location of predominantly vacant lands. The range of soils with very severe limitations includes the entire coastal high hazard area, much of the corridors of the Little Manatee and Alafia Rivers, the Hillsborough River valley, several areas of about 1.5 square miles each in northwest Hillsborough County, much of the land north of the northernmost extent of Tampa and just east of I-275, and an L-shaped area east of I-75 and straddling Big Bend Road, as well as area just to the south of the L-shaped area. Lands of varying degrees of sensitivity are located throughout the areas of very severely limited soils. Locations of the two most critical classes of land are widely distributed among the phosphate mining area in southeast Hillsborough County and along the major southern tributary of the Alafia River, near Cockroach Bay and the mouth of the Little Manatee River, at the southeast and northwest ends of the coastal high hazard area of northwest Hillsborough County, just east of I-275 and I-75, in the Hillsborough River valley, and along the Alafia River and its northern tributary. Locations of the two less critical classes of land, but nevertheless sensitive or very sensitive, include areas along Big Bend Road at I-75, east of I-75 north of Big Bend Road, and in the northwest corner and northern half of northwest Hillsborough County. 4. Use of Public Facilities Under Plan Acknowledging that high population growth has contributed to many of Hillsborough County's problems, such as "infrastructure inadequacies," the Data and Analysis concede: The extension of public facilities has lagged behind the unincorporated County's rapid growth. One of the consequences of growth outpacing the provision of services and facilities is the development of outlying large lot residential with onsite water and sewer facilities (septic tanks, wells). The historic lack of services has continued to strain the county's fiscal ability to respond to these needs, and there will be a greater need for more intensive functional planning and action by county government. FLUE, pages 6-7. Part of the difficulty in matching population growth with public facilities has been due to historic land use patterns. The Data and Analysis note: There are very few compact centers where commercial and residential uses interact positively in unincorporated Hillsborough County. Threshold population densities needed to support many services do not exist in most parts of the County. The cost of providing services such as water, sewer, roads, mass transit, schools, fire and police protection are much higher per capita in low density areas than in more urban areas. Concentration of new development in areas with adequate levels of service for public facilities will create a more effective and efficient utilization of man-made and natural resources and encourage the full use and immediate expansion of existing public facilities while protecting large areas of the natural environment from encroachment. The concentration of new development in areas with adequate levels of service will also fulfill the requirement of subsection 9J-5.006(3)(b)7 to discourage urban sprawl. FLUE, page 7. Protection of Natural Resources Under Plan The Data and Analysis link effective land use planning with the protection of the County's natural resources and preservation of County residents' quality of life: . . . growth will continue to challenge and threaten the natural environment as daily development decisions confront the long-range need to preserve and protect irreplaceable natural environmental systems. Unplanned, rapid population growth will degrade the unincorporated county's environment. Development will encroach upon valuable wellfields and wildlife habitat and may further pollute the County's freshwater aquifers. One of the County's major needs is to assure the protection and viability of green open spaces and environmentally significant areas, which are crucial to the community's quality of life and economic health. The unincorporated County's potential to maintain and improve the quality of life for its residents will be contingent upon its ability to adequately serve existing and future demands for services. FLUE, page 7. 6. Protection of Agriculture Under Plan The Data and Analysis contain a position paper concerning agricultural issues. The paper reports that agriculture is the County's single largest industry, and Hillsborough County is the third largest agricultural county in the state. According to the position paper, the trend in agriculture in Hillsborough County has been toward increased productivity through improved technology and transition to the production of more profitable commodities. The position paper argues that the viability of agriculture is not dependent upon the maintenance of low residential densities to discourage the conversion of agricultural land to residential uses. Advocating reliance upon free-market forces to maintain the competitiveness between agricultural and residential uses, the position paper concedes that a density of one dwelling unit per five acres is "not low enough to discourage sale of the property for five acre ranchettes[, which] promote high consumption of land for housing and remove the land for agricultural production." FLUE Background Document, page XLVII. Plan Provisions The FLUM The subject cases present two problems regarding the FLUM. The first problem is to identify what constitutes the FLUM. The second problem is to determine the significance of one of the major designations on the FLUM: Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In its proposed recommended order, the County asserts that the FLUM consists of a series of maps. 9/ This assertion is groundless. Neither the Plan nor the adoption ordinance provides any basis whatsoever for finding that the FLUM comprises all of the maps and figures contained in Sierra Club Exhibit A local government must adopt operative provisions, such as a FLUM or goals, objectives, or policies. Hillsborough County did not adopt all of the Oversized Maps or the maps and figures in the two-volume compilation of the Plan. Hillsborough County adopted the Plan in Ordinance No. 89-28. The ordinance delineates the scope of the operative provisions of the Plan by noting that the Data and Analysis, or "background information," are not part of the operative provisions of the Plan: Material identified as background information in the Table of Contents for each Element, including data, analysis, surveys and studies, shall not be deemed a part of the Comprehensive Plan as provided in Subsection 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes. The Plan clearly includes among its operative provisions a FLUM. Several provisions describe the role of the FLUM and, in so doing, help identify what the County adopted as the FLUM. In the Introduction to the FLUE, the Data and Analysis state: "The policies of [the FLUE] are presented in written form, and they are graphically represented on the Future Land Use Map." FLUE, page 5. The Data and Analysis elaborate: The [FLUE] consists of two parts: Goals, Objectives and Policies; and a Future Land Use Map (Land Use Graphic), a copy of which is attached, and incorporated hereby by reference. FLUE, page 11. Operative provisions of the Plan likewise recognize the FLUM and its role as part of the operative provisions of the Plan. For instance, the Plan Implementation section of the FLUE begins: The primary tool of implementation for the [FLUE] are the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Plan Categories. These are followed by other implementation tools that further define the intent of the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Plan Categories. They include: locational criteria for neighborhood commercial uses; criteria for development within designated scenic corridors; and density credits. The Future Land Use Map is a graphic illustration of the county's policy governing the determination of its pattern of development in the unincorporated areas of Hillsborough County through the year 2010. The map is adopted for use as an integral part of the [FLUE]. It depicts, using colors, patterns, and symbols, the locations of certain land uses and man-made features and the general boundaries of major natural features. The Future Land Use Map shall be used to make an initial determination regarding the permissible locations for various land uses and the maximum possible levels of residential densities and/or non-residential intensities, subject to any special density provisions and exceptions of the [FLUE] text. Additionally, each regulation or regulatory decision and each development proposal shall comply with all applicable provisions within the . . . Plan. FLUE, page 54. The Legal Status of the Plan section of the FLUE adds: The Future Land Use Map is an integral part of this [FLUE], and it shall be used to determine the permissible locations for various land uses and the maximum possible levels of residential densities and/or non- residential intensities. The goals, objectives and policies of this [FLUE] shall provide guidance in making these determinations. FLUE, page 129. The FLUM at least includes a multicolor map entitled 2010 Land Use Plan Map. The multicolor map depicts the location of various future land uses, man-made features, and natural resources. The importance of the multicolor map is underscored by its relatively large scale of 1" = 1 mile. The only maps drawn on such a large scale are a black and white copy of the multicolor map and a green map, which is discussed below. The Oversized Maps discussed in this recommended order are drawn to a scale of 1" = 2 miles. The question remains, however, whether the FLUM includes maps or figures in addition to the multicolor map. The FLUE defines the FLUM as: The graphic aid intended to depict the spatial distribution of various uses of the land in the County by land use category, subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and the exceptions and provisions of the [FLUE] text and applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 137. Consistent with the discussion of the FLUM contained in the Plan Implementation section of the FLUE, the multicolor map is the only map that depicts future land uses by colors, patterns, and symbols. No other map uses colors except for CARE Figure 20, which is the Natural Systems and Land Use Cover Inventory. CARE Figure 20 is obviously an ELUM with no designation of future land uses. With the exception of the green map discussed below, no other map uses any color whatsoever. The above-cited Plan references to the FLUM are in the singular. The FLUM is identified in the singular throughout the Data and Analysis set forth in the two-volume compilation of the Plan. See, e.g., FLUE pages 55, 56, 69, 70, 75, 94, and 137. 10/ With one exception, operative provisions of the Plan also refer to the FLUM in the singular. See, e.g., FLUE Policies A-3.2, B- 6.2, B- 6.7, B-7.9, and C-31 and Coastal Policy 7.1. But see CARE Policy 19.8, which requires the County to identify "Resource Protection Areas" on the Future Land Use Map "series." DCA referred to a single FLUM when DCA issued the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) concerning the Plan as first transmitted. The County prepared detailed responses to the objections, recommendations, and comments. Three responses refer at length to the FLUM and refer to it in the singular, rather than as a map series. Hillsborough County Exhibit 35, responses 4, 8, and 26. Response 29 to the ORC answers the objection that the FLUM (in the singular) omits existing and planned waterwells, the cones of influence for such waterwells, and wetlands. The response states: Cones of influence have not been identified for Hillsborough County. Objective 5 of the [CARE] and its subsequent policies outline the County's strategy with regard to protecting its wellfields. Because of the multitude of wetlands in Hillsborough County and the lack of exact mapping capability, the "E" area on the land use plan map is indicative of major areas of hydric soils (per USDA Soil Conservation Services, Soil Suitability Atlas for Hillsborough County, Florida) of a scale to be seen on the map. Actual wetlands must be delineated by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County prior to site development. Minerals and Soils are indicated on Figures 9 and 10 of the [CARE] of the Plan. The rest of the parameters will all be included on the revised existing land use map. Despite the confusion in the last two sentences of the response between the nature of ELUM's and FLUM's, the response is consistent in its presumption of a single FLUM, rather than a map series. Until the commencement of Plan litigation, 11/ the County did not consider the FLUM to be more than the multicolor map. Repeatedly, the County had opportunities--outside of the Plan and adoption ordinance--to identify the FLUM. Repeatedly, the County did not confer the FLUM status upon any map other than the multicolor map. Oversized Map 18 is an important example of the Plan identifying a map, but not adopting it as part of the FLUM. Describing Oversized Map 18, CARE Policy 5.8 states: By 1993, the County shall have developed and implemented a comprehensive wellfield protection program, which includes but is not limited to the determination and mapping of zones of contribution (also known as cones of influence) surrounding public wellfields and the adoption and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance which protects these areas. In the interim, the County shall use the best available information to identify these areas. See map 18, Interim Wellfield Protection Areas . . .. CARE Policy 5.8 assigns Oversized Map 18 to the Data and Analysis, rather than the operative part of the Plan. The County's intent to relegate Oversized Map 18 to the Data and Analysis is restated in the March 14, 1990, cover letter from the County Planning Director transmitting the settlement amendments to DCA. The letter states: "The documents are incorporated by reference for background for informational purposes only." Oversized Map 18 is the first of the listed documents. The Plan deals similarly with other maps and figures; as better information becomes available, the graphic aids that are part of the Data and Analysis may change--without the requirement of a Plan amendment. For example, CARE Policy 5.2 mentions the DRASTIC maps, which indicate areas susceptible to groundwater contamination. In language similar to CARE Policy 5.8, Policy 5.2 states that the County will use the "best available information" concerning groundwater contamination areas and then mentions the graphic aid. Another possible FLUM is a black-and-white map with green and dotted green areas on a scale of 1" = 1 mile. The green colors are overlaid on a black-and-white version of the multicolor map. The green map contains a special legend for the green areas. The solid green areas depict "Environmentally Sensitive Areas." The dotted green areas depict "Environmentally Sensitive Areas Which Are Potentially Significant Wildlife Habitat." Notwithstanding the many references to the FLUM in the singular, the Plan anticipates the possible amendment of the FLUM or the addition of an overlay to show the location of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. CARE Policy 14.2 states: By 1991, the County shall identify and map natural plant communities which are determined to provide significant wildlife habitat in Hillsborough County. The natural systems and land use cover inventory map ([CARE] Figure 20), produced by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, shall serve as the basis for this effort. Areas of significant wildlife habitat shall be indicated as environmentally sensitive areas on the Future Land Use Map or map overlay. The green map may be the map or overlay promised by CARE Policy 14.2. 12/ However, for purposes of these cases, the green map is not part of the FLUM. The green map had not been adopted by August 1, 1991, or even by the time of the final hearing. Transcript, pages 1095 and 1105; County's Proposed Recommended Order, Paragraph 180. In view of the considerable confusion surrounding the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, as explained below, it would be unfair to overlook this fact and treat the green map as part of the operative provisions of the Plan. Because of the clear understanding that the Plan included only amendments through August 1, 1991, the parties presumably did not take the opportunity to litigate the significance of the designations contained on the green map. Even though the County did not adopt the green map as part of the FLUM, for the purpose of these cases, it remains necessary to consider the effect of the Environmentally Significant Areas designation. The designation is found on the multicolor map (i.e., the FLUM) as well as the green map. Also, the green map is an important part of the Data and Analysis. The problem is to determine what does it mean for an area to bear the designation of Environmentally Significant Areas. Part of the confusion surrounding the Environmentally Significant Areas designation is due to its dual nature as an overlay, like Scenic Corridors, and underlying designation, like Suburban Density Residential or Light Industrial. An overlay typically depicts an area that, notwithstanding its underlying designation, is subject to special land use conditions in the Plan. Any underlying designation may and usually is subject to other provisions of a comprehensive plan, but an overlay ensures that these conditions are not overlooked and may elevate them in importance. The Environmentally Significant Areas designation on the multicolor map is never an overlay. For each area on the multicolor map designated Environmentally Significant Areas, there is no other designation. For this reason alone, the Environmentally Significant Areas designation itself should regulate land uses in some meaningful fashion; otherwise, areas so designated would lack generally applicable guidelines concerning permissible densities and intensities. However, according to the County Planning Director, the Environmentally Significant Areas does not regulate land uses. The Planning Director prepared a cover letter dated September 4, 1991, to DCA accompanying the first round of Plan amendments in 1991. The letter explains why the County was amending the Plan to redesignate certain County-owned, environmentally sensitive land from Environmentally Significant Areas to Natural Preservation. The letter states: We still recommend that these areas be changed to Natural/Preservation, since the "E" [Environmentally Significant Areas] designation is an identification only land use category to indicate that environmentally sensitive lands may be located on site. However, that category in and of itself does not regulate land uses on a site. The Natural/Preservation category is very restrictive and does not permit development on a site. Sierra Club Exhibit 1. From the letter, it appears that the County's intent was to use the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation merely to indicate the general location of critical natural resources, rather than to assign specific densities and intensities. In other words, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation was to be merely an overlay showing some of the natural resources required by Chapter 9J-5 to be shown on the FLUM. If any land use restrictions applied to land with an Environmentally Sensitive Areas overlay, the Planning Director's letter implies that the restrictions were not imposed by textual Plan provisions defining land uses under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation. Under this interpretation, land use restrictions could be imposed by textual Plan provisions that, although never mentioning Environmentally Sensitive Areas, govern natural resources included within such areas, such as wetlands, wildlife habitat, or sand pine scrub habitat. Clearly, the Planning Director is correct in writing that one purpose of the Environmentally Significant Areas designation is to indicate the location of environmentally sensitive lands. The real question is whether the Planning Director is correct in his assertion that the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is merely locational and not regulatory. This would mean that all of the land designated Environmentally Significant Areas on the multicolor map bears only a designation indicative of the location of certain natural resources, but lacks an effective, generalized land use designation. The Plan defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas; in fact, it does so twice. The CARE defines "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" as: Lands which, by virtue of some qualifying environmental characteristic (e.g. wildlife habitat) are regulated by either the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, or any other governmental agency empowered by law for such regulation. These include Conservation and Preservation Areas as defined in the [CARE]. CARE, page 97. The CARE defines "Conservation Areas" as: Environmentally sensitive areas which include the following: --Natural shorelines (other than those included in preservation areas); --Class III Waters; --Freshwater marshes and wet prairies; --Sand-pine scrub; --Hardwood swamps; --Cypress swamps; --Significant wildlife habitat. CARE, page 96. The CARE defines "Preservation Areas" as: Environmentally sensitive areas which include the following: --Aquatic preserves; --Essential wildlife habitat; --Class I and II Waters: --Marine grassbeds; --Coastal strand; --Coastal marshes; --Mangrove swamps; and --State wilderness areas. CARE, page 99. "Significant wildlife habitat" is "[c]ontiguous stands of natural plant communities which have the potential to support healthy and diverse populations of wildlife and which have been identified on the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission natural systems and land use cover inventory map." CARE, page 100. "Essential Wildlife Habitat" is "[l]and or water bodies which, through the provision of breeding or feeding habitat, are necessary to the survival of endangered or threatened species, or species of special concern." CARE, page 97. The FLUE defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas as: This land use category is used to designate those major, privately owned lands which are environmentally sensitive. These areas include Conservation Areas and Preservation Areas, as defined in the [CARE]. Development in these areas may be is [sic] restricted by federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations. Development projects will be evaluated for compliance with the [CARE] and [Coastal Element]. The Environmentally Sensitive Area designations on the Future Land Use Plan map are very generalized, and include primarily wetland areas. The designations are not exhaustive of all sites. On-site evaluation will be necessary for specific project review. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the [FLUE], [CARE], and [Coastal Element], applicable development regulations, and established locational criteria for specific land use. FLUE, page 136-37. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE 13/ does not repeat the typographical error in the preceding Plan provision, in which the Plan warns that development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas "may be is" restricted by federal, state, or local law. The definition of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation in the Land Use Plan Categories section omits the "is," implying more strongly that some development may take place on Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE, page 126. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE equates in two respects the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation with the Natural Preservation, Scenic Corridors, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations. In each of these five designations, residential densities and commercial or industrial intensities (expressed as maximum floor area ratios) are "not applicable." For the Natural Preservation, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations, the "not applicable" statement reflects the fact that residential, commercial, and industrial uses are prohibited by the land use designation in question. However, for the Scenic Corridors designation, which operates more as an overlay, the Plan provides no such prohibition, instead requiring special attention to aesthetic features of development in these areas. Thus, the "not applicable" language applicable to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not answer the question whether the designation is regulatory or merely locational and, if the former, what land uses are thereby regulated and how. The question whether the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation operates as a locational overlay, as suggested by the Planning Director's letter of September 4, 1991, seems to be answered by the Table of Residential Densities in the Implementation section of the FLUE. For the Scenic Corridor designation, the Table of Residential Densities indicates that the maximum residential density allowed is, instead of a ratio, "Overlay--Scaled to Area." But for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the Table of Residential Densities states that "no residential uses [are] allowed" for Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE, page 62. The Table of Residential Densities gives the same response for the Natural Preservation, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations. The failure of the Table of Residential Densities to assign any residential density to Environmentally Sensitive Areas is not inadvertent. The Data and Analysis indicate that, in calculating density allocations, the vast acreage designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas was not given any residential density. In the FLUE Background Document at page XXVIII, a table listing all of the FLUM designations shows no density for the 81,880 acres of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which account for 13.64% of acreage of the County and is the second largest designation following 89,267 acres designated Agricultural/Rural. The density allocation table preceding page XXX contains no entry for Environmentally Sensitive Areas, although much if not all of the area so designated is vacant (or as the County classifies land, vacant or agricultural). The omission of residential uses in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as contained in the Table of Residential Densities, suggests that the designation carries a regulatory force beyond the locational character identified by the Planning Director in his letter of September 4, 1991. Natural resources included within the definition of Environmentally Sensitive Areas are wetlands, sand pine scrub, wildlife habitat essential for the breeding or nesting of endangered, threatened, or special-concern species, and contiguous stands of natural plant communities with the potential to support healthy and diverse communities of wildlife. Some of these natural resources are not themselves unconditionally protected by textual Plan provisions. But if the Environmentally Sensitive Areas containing these natural resources are not assigned any residential uses, as the Table of Residential Densities implies, then the designation itself must preclude the conversion of these sensitive areas to residential uses. On the other hand, the textual Plan provisions contemplate some development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas because of various provisions requiring compensatory replacement following the loss of the natural resources to development. Despite implying that development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas may be permitted, as long as it complies with Plan provisions, the Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE states that the typical use of areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas is "Conservation." Although not the same typical use as that set forth for Natural Preservation areas, which are limited to "Open space or passive nature parks," the definition of "Conservation Uses" is restrictive: Activities within land areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources of environmental quality and includes areas designated for such purposes as flood control, protection of quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, floodplain management, fisheries management, or protection of vegetative communities or wildlife habitat. FLUE, page 135. At times in the Plan, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation appears to be merely locational. At times, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation appears to be regulatory. In the latter case, portions of the Plan suggest that the designation prohibits development, and portions of the Plan suggest only that the designation, standing alone, carries with it some degree of protection from development. FLUE Policy A-8.2 says as much: "Development shall be required to protect the Conservation and Preservation areas " But even if the Plan were interpreted to impose a regulatory functional upon the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the failure of the Plan to specify clearly the land use restrictions generally applicable to the designation leaves open to doubt the land uses permitted on over 13% of Hillsborough County. And if some residential development were permitted in areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, then the density allocation ratios have been calculated without regard to the density-bearing capacity of over 13% of the County. The FLUE definition of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which states that development "may be is" restricted in such areas, may represent a unique, though inadvertent, disclosure of the County's ambivalence toward the degree of protection to extend to Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Perhaps in the belief that land use restrictions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas would emanate from federal, state, regional, or even other local governmental entities, 14/ the County has left to speculation the meaning of the critically important Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation. The only clear significance of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is the role of areas bearing such a designation in calculating residential densities or commercial or industrial intensities. The acreage on which residential densities are calculated does not generally include Conservation or Preservation Areas or water bodies. (As noted above, Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation "include[s]" Conservation and Preservation Areas.) But the calculation of gross residential density may include acreage consisting of certain man-made waterbodies and certain Conservation and Preservation Areas. The qualification for Conservation and Preservation Areas is that the maximum area of such land (or wetland) is 25% of the total residential acreage. FLUE, pages 64-66. A similar provision applies for the calculation of floor area ratios or gross nonresidential intensity. FLUE, pages 67- 68. Illustrations in the FLUE apply the density formula described in the preceding paragraph. For example, if the proposed project consists of 80 acres, including 20 acres of land (or wetland) designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the total acreage upon which residential densities could be calculated would be 75 acres. This result is reached by starting with the 60 acres of proposed residential use that are not designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Twenty-five percent of 60 acres is 15 acres, which is the maximum acreage designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas that is eligible to be included in the calculation of gross residential density. The designation given the 60 acres would allow a density, such as 4:1, which, when applied to 75 acres, yields 300 dwelling units. The implied presumption of the density formula--stated nowhere in the Plan--is that areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas acquire their actual land use restrictions, in terms of densities or intensities, from the adjoining lands. The intent of the density credit allowed for areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas is to protect the subject natural resources. FLUE Policy A-8.4 provides for density credits for development that is "sensitive to, preserves and maintains the integrity of wetlands [and] significant wildlife habitat." Again, though, the degree and type of protection are unclear. The density formula may be interpreted to prohibit inferentially any disturbance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In other words, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas acreage used in calculating the density bonus or perhaps the entire Environmentally Sensitive Areas acreage (even if some acreage were excluded from the calculation due to the 25% limitation) could not be disturbed by development. However, another interpretation is possible. The density formula, which is mandatorily imposed on all proposed projects containing Environmentally Sensitive Areas, does not, by its terms, prescribe where the resulting development is to be located. In the example above, the density formula effectively reduced the density of a project by 20 dwelling units (80 acres X 4 vs. 75 acres X 4). But the formula does not explicitly prohibit the location of some of the 300 permitted units in areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 15/ If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not prohibit development, some degree of protection would be theoretically possible by reducing the actual density occupying the parcel containing Environmentally Sensitive Areas while still not actually prohibiting the location of dwelling units on all Environmentally Sensitive Areas. It is difficult to infer from the density formula whether the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is intended to prohibit the development of areas so designated or, if not, to what extent the designation restricts development of such areas. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not regulate land uses so as to prohibit the development of areas so designated, the formula provides some protection to Environmentally Sensitive Areas by increasing the chance that such areas may be less densely populated, but also supplies the basis on which densities or intensities for areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas are to be inferred. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation regulates land uses so as to prohibit the development of areas so designated, the formula can be interpreted as providing some compensation by allowing the use of some of the foregone development rights in adjoining areas under common ownership that are not designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The question whether the density formula, as well as the closely related intensity formula, prohibit the development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas can be approached by considering another density formula. The upland forest density credit incentive, which is identified in FLUE Policy A-8.3, is described in detail in the Implementation section of the FLUE. The failure of the density formula, as well as the intensity formula, to prohibit the disturbance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas stands in contrast to the protection extended by the upland forest density credit incentive. The upland forest density credit incentive provides a bonus of 25% more density than otherwise allowed by a specific designation to the extent of the upland forest 16/ acreage preserved by the project. In other words, a 100-acre parcel designated at 1:1 might include 25 acres of upland forests within the single residential designation covering the entire 100 acres. If the proposed project preserved the 25 acres of upland forest from development, the 25 dwelling units attributable to the 25 acres are increased to 31.25 dwelling units and raise the total number of dwelling units to 106.25. Unlike the density and intensity formulas, the upland forest density credit incentive requires the landowner to record a conservation easement for the 25 acres of upland forest, so that this land may never be developed. FLUE, pages 71-73. The different approaches of the density and intensity formulas, on the one hand, and the upland forest density credit incentive, on the other hand, may arise partly from the fact that the latter formula is an incentive for which a landowner may qualify voluntarily. Upland forests would generally not be preserved by the Plan in the absence of the utilization of the upland forest density credit incentive. Regardless of their effect in preserving Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the density and intensity formulas are not optional; they are imposed whenever a proposed development contains Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Part of the discussion of the upland forest density incentive credit may shed some light on the meaning of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, especially as it concerns the density and intensity formulas. The upland forest density incentive credit repeatedly refers to the density formula as involving wetlands or the protection of wetlands. Although wetlands make up a substantial part of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, numerous uplands also qualify as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Qualifying uplands include significant and essential wildlife habitat, as well as sand pine scrub (which is also included as an upland forest). Possibly the County incorrectly assumed that the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation was limited to wetlands, or perhaps the designation was so limited in an earlier draft of the Plan. In either event, the County may have assumed that federal, state, regional, and other local restrictions against disturbing wetlands would effectively prevent the development of such Environmentally Sensitive Areas, or at least clearly regulate the extent to which such areas could be disturbed. As noted above, however, the Plan itself must supply such regulation through a generalized land use designation. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is poorly integrated into the Plan. Plan provisions, including the density and intensity formulas, repeatedly address "wetlands" or "Conservation" or "Preservation" Areas, rather than Environmentally Sensitive Areas. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation were not intended to regulate land uses and prohibit all development, but were merely locational as indicated by the Planning Director, then the Plan is deficient in failing to assign a regulatory land use designation to over 80,000 acres, or 13.64%, of the County. For these vast areas, in any event, the Plan provides no direct, and arguably not even any indirect, guidance as to what densities or intensities are permitted on Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from the Plan concerning that Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is that it is, at least, locational. The designation shows where Conservation and Preservation Areas are located. The designation also serves to provide some protection to Environmentally Sensitive Areas through the density and intensity formulas. However, it may not be reasonably concluded that the density and intensity formulas prohibit the destruction of Environmentally Sensitive Areas by development. Nor can it be reasonably concluded that other provisions of the Plan preserve Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as such, from destruction or alteration by development. The full extent of the meaning of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is lost in ambiguity. The FLUM does not identify existing and future potable water wellfields. The FLUM fails even to show the location of existing major public supply wellfields, as depicted in CARE Figure 18 and Oversized Map 18. The FLUM does not identify cones of influence for the existing wellfields to the extent known. Figures 32 and 33 of Sierra Club Exhibit 12 pertain to four wellfields located entirely in Hillsborough County and two wellfields located partly in the County. For these wellfields, which are located in the northern part of the County, Figures 32 and 33 respectively portray a wide-ranging decline in water table elevations and potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer due to wellfield pumpage. This information corresponds to drawdown depth of the source from which each wellfield draws its water. Even if these data sources are rejected in favor of the much more limited 200-foot protection zones outlined in Oversized Map 18, the County has failed to adopt Oversized Map 18 as part of the FLUM, as described in the preceding section. The FLUM does not identify historic resources or historically significant properties meriting protection. Oversized Maps 11 and 12 depict respectively Archaeological Sites and Historic Resources. However, these maps are not part of the FLUM. The FLUM does not depict the 100 year floodplain. Oversized Map 9 depicts the 100 year floodplain, massive amounts of which lie outside the future land use designations of Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Natural Preservation. But Oversized Map 9 is not part of the FLUM. The FLUM does not depict the minerals and soils of the County, except to the extent that minerals are contained in a general land use designation. CARE Figure 9 depicts soils and mine pits. Oversized Maps 8 and 10 also depict soils and mine lands. However, these maps are not part of the FLUM. The FLUM depicts wetlands. The designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the FLUM (i.e., the multicolor map) includes wetlands. The FLUM depicts public facilities under the category of Major Public/Semi-Public and Electric Power Generating Facilities. The former category shows the location of, among other things, "churches, hospitals, schools, clubs and utility and transportation facilities." FLUE, page 122. The Plan Natural Resources CARE Objective 2 is: By 1995, the water quality of natural surface water bodies in Hillsborough County which do not meet or exceed state water quality standards for their designated use shall be improved or restored. CARE Policy 2.1 provides: The County shall not support the reclassification of any surface water body within County boundaries to acknowledge lower water quality conditions, unless necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. Where economically feasible, the County shall support the reclassification of surface water bodies to accommodate higher standards, where it can be demonstrated that improved water quality conditions will prevail in the future. The CARE defines "economically feasible" as follows: "Where the benefit to the public outweighs the cost of the action, and is within the County's capability to fund." CARE, page 96. CARE Policy 2.2 addresses the problem of wastewater discharges: The County shall require that all domestic wastewater treatment plans discharging effluent into Tampa Bay or its tributaries provide advanced wastewater treatment, or if specific alternative criteria developed by the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program can only be met by removing a surface water discharge, such a program shall be implemented, where economically feasible and in accordance with Policy 2.3 below. CARE Policy 2.3 requires the County to "continue to develop and promote environmentally acceptable effluent disposal alternatives to surface water discharge, including, but not limited to, reuse for irrigation and industrial purposes." Dealing with the problem of short-term solutions to sewage disposal, CARE Policy 2.4 states: To reduce the need for interim domestic wastewater treatment plants, the County shall plan for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities to serve areas designated for higher densities in the . . . Plan. CARE Policy 2.6 provides that, "where economically feasible," the County "shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to developed areas where persistent water quality problems are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic treatment systems." CARE Policy 2.7 further addresses the issue of septic tanks by providing that, by 1990, the County shall "request or initiate" agreements with third parties to develop "scientifically defensible siting criteria, performance standards, and density limitations for septic systems, to ensure protection of surface water quality." The policy adds that the County shall "request . . . special criteria and standards . . . for those septic systems to be located in areas adjacent to Class I and Class II Waters and Outstanding Florida Waters." The policy concludes with the promise that, within one year after the development of the criteria and standards, the County "shall amend appropriate development regulations" accordingly. CARE Policy 2.8 provides in part: Where economically and environmentally feasible, [a nutrient monitoring and control program for agriculture to be developed after 1995] shall require the implementation of Best Management Practices for controlling nutrient loadings, including retrofitting if needed to meet specific alternative criteria as established by the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program. The CARE defines "environmentally feasible" as follows: "Where the physical conditions or the necessity to protect natural resources do not preclude the action." CARE, page 97. CARE Policy 2.10 states: By 1991, the County shall require that existing developments planned for expansion, modification or replacement provide or support stormwater treatment improvements within the affected drainage basin where treatment facilities are lacking. Where economically and environmentally feasible, the County shall require retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities in urbanized areas lacking such facilities. CARE Objective 3 is "no net loss of wetland acreage." The objective requires the County to "seek to achieve a measurable annual increase in restored wetland acreage," which shall be achieved by 1995 "through the restoration of degraded natural wetlands, until all economically and environmentally feasible wetland restoration is accomplished." CARE Policy 3.1 states that the County shall "continue to conserve and protect wetlands from detrimental physical and hydrological alteration and shall continue to allow wetland encroachment only as a last resort when reasonable use of the property is otherwise unavailable." CARE Policy 3.2 provides in part: Channelization or hardening (e.g., paving, piping) of natural streamcourses shall be prohibited except in cases of overriding public interest. The CARE defines "overriding public interest" as: "Actions required by local, state, or federal government, necessary for the promotion of public safety, health or general welfare." CARE, page 99. CARE Policy 3.6 is for the County to continue to promote through the development review process the use of desirable native wetland habitat species for the creation of wetland habitat and for biologically enhancing filtration and treatment of pollutants in newly constructed stormwater retention and detention ponds. CARE Objective 4 is: The County shall continue to prevent net loss of 100-year floodplain storage volume in Hillsborough County. By 1995, the County shall protect and conserve natural wildlife habitat attributes where they exist within the 100-year floodplains of major rivers and streams. CARE Policy 4.1 is for the County to amend its floodplain management regulations to "protect natural floodwater assimilating capacity [and] also protect fish and wildlife attributes where they exist within the 100-year floodplains of riverine systems." CARE Objective 5 is for the County to ensure compliance with state groundwater standards. CARE Policy 5.2 provides that, until the Southwest Florida Water Management District maps high aquifer recharge/contamination potential areas at a sufficient resolution, the County shall consider the best available hydrogeological information (e.g. SWFWMD DRASTIC maps), and may require the collection of site specific hydrogeologic data, such as soils borings and differences in head between the upper aquifers, when assessing the impacts of proposed land use changes and developments in areas of suspected high aquifer recharge/contamination potential. When required, this information shall be used in the determination of land use decisions, on a case-by-case basis. CARE Policy 5.5 refers to the high resolution mapping of recharge/contamination areas, as well as a study that the County will request the Southwest Florida Water Management District to conduct as to the effect of impervious surfaces on recharge. The policy states that, within one year after these tasks are completed: The County shall develop a comprehensive set of land use development regulations and performance standards for development activities proposed within areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential. Such regulations and performance standards may include, but not be limited to, control of land use type and densities, impervious surface limitations, and discharge to groundwater controls. CARE Policy 5.8 focuses on a wellfield protection program, which shall be "developed and implemented" by 1993. The task shall include the "determination and mapping of zones of contribution (also known as cones of influence) surrounding public wellfields and the adoption and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance which protects these areas." In the meantime, CARE Policy 5.8 requires the County to use the best available information to identify these areas [cones of influence]. See map 18, Interim Wellfield Protection Areas for Public Water Supply Wells in Unincorporated Hillsborough County, Florida (Zones of Contribution Map). The County shall also adopt and implement an interim ordinance which sets forth a procedure, using the best available information, for reviewing development proposals which might adversely impact the zones of contribution surrounding public wellfields. CARE Policy 5.9 states: Through the land development review process, the County shall continue to regulate activities which would breach the confining layers of the Floridan aquifer by prohibiting land excavations that would breach the confining layers. CARE Policy 5.11 is identical to CARE Policy 2.7 except that CARE Policy 5.11 deals with groundwater pollution, rather than surface water pollution, and CARE Policy 5.11 provides that the County shall request the development of special septic-tank siting criteria and standards for areas of "demonstrated high recharge/contamination potential." CARE Policy 5.13 is for the County to "increase requested assistance" from the Southwest Florida Water Management District to ensure that excessive consumptive use of groundwater or excessive drainage does not "significantly lower water tables or surface water levels, reduce base flows, or increase current levels of saltwater intrusion." CARE Policy 5.15 prohibits the County from supporting the use of deep-well injection of effluent or waste disposal "except where it can be demonstrated that the capacity for receiving injection is sufficiently large and that such disposal will have no adverse effect upon existing or potential potable water aquifers." CARE Objective 6 is for the County to meet future water needs through the "conservation, reuse, and enhancement of groundwater and surface water supplies, and shall prevent significant environmental degradation due to excessive groundwater withdrawals." CARE Policy 6.1 is for the County to request that the Southwest Florida Water Management District and WCRWSA develop a regional water budget to calculate more accurately water supplies and demands. CARE Policy 6.2 is for the County, by 1992, to "adopt and implement a Water Reuse Ordinance which maximizes the use of treated sewage effluent for residential and recreational irrigation purposes, where such reuse can be demonstrated to be environmentally acceptable and no threat to public health." CARE Policy 6.4 is: The County shall require the use of the lowest quality water reasonably and feasibly available, which is safe for public health and the environment and suitable to a given use, in order to reduce the unnecessary use of potable water. CARE Policy 6.8 is for the County, by 1992, to develop, in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, a water conservation program, including enforcement of specific building code requirements for water saving devices. CARE Policy 6.9 is for the County, by 1992, to evaluate the implementation of a user fee rate for potable water in order to discourage nonessential uses of potable water. CARE Policy 6.10 requires that the County, "through the land development review process, restrict the substantial lowering of the water table to meet stormwater treatment or storage requirements." CARE 6.11 requires that the County, "through the land development review process, . . . promote the use of xeriscape landscaping and low-volume irrigation " CARE Policy 6.12 is for the County, by 1995, to develop legal and financial mechanisms "to purchase, to the extent reasonably feasible, development or mineral rights, easements and partial or complete title to lands necessary to safeguard the public water supply." Suggested mechanisms include the transfer of development rights and tax benefits. CARE Policy 6.13 addresses groundwater recharge and stormwater management: By 1992, a program to improve groundwater recharge through the use of private and public stormwater management facilities will be developed and implemented. This program may require, among other things, that predevelopment groundwater recharge volumes and rates be maintained on site after development, if the site is located in an area of known or identified average annual aquifer recharge potential of at least two surface inches of water; and will include restrictions on the lowering of groundwater levels to meet stormwater management regulations. In the interim, where practical, and where feasible from a water quality standpoint, new development will be encouraged to consider retention of stormwater rather than stormwater detention in these areas. CARE Objective 7 is for the County to "continue to provide opportunity for and require the prudent operation of mining activities " CARE Policy 7.1 requires "sequential land use" in mineral-rich areas. The CARE defines "sequential land use" as "[a] practice whereby lands overlaying valuable mineral resources are protected from intensive urban development until such minerals can be mined, and that land reclaimed for a viable economic use." CARE Policy 7.2 requires the "phasing of mineral extraction to ensure that limited land areas are affected by excavation and settling ponds at one time and that reclamation occurs in the most effective manner." CARE Policy 8.1 requires the County, by 1991, to "identify environmentally sensitive areas which are not capable of being effectively restored following mineral extraction." CARE Policy 8.2 provides: The County shall restrict mining in areas which are ecologically unsuitable for the extraction of minerals, as identified in the natural systems and land use cover inventory, unless it can be demonstrated that such areas can be effectively restored utilizing the best available technology. CARE Policy 8.3 states: The County shall continue to prohibit mineral extraction within the 25-year floodplain, and shall restrict mining activities in the 100- year floodplain, of rivers and streams. CARE Policy 8.4 is: By 1992, the County shall prohibit mineral extraction in essential wildlife habitats which are documented, in accordance with the terms of Objective 14 and related policies thereunder, to support threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern, and from which such species cannot be effectively relocated. CARE Policies 8.5 and 8.6 require the use of the best available technology in restoring natural land forms and vegetative communities and minimizing natural resource impacts. CARE Policy 8.8 provides that the County shall continue to require proof of "long-term financial responsibility for the reclamation of mined lands." CARE Objective 9 requires the County to "protect the public health, safety and welfare from the adverse impacts of mining activities." CARE Policy 9.1 is for the continued requirement of "appropriate setbacks" between mining and adjacent land uses. CARE Objective 10 is for the County to "continue to regulate the location and operation of land excavation to minimize negative impacts on surrounding properties, ensure that land excavations are appropriately reclaimed, and encourage the productive reuse of such areas." CARE Policy 10.1 is for the County to "continue to prohibit land excavation activities which adversely impact surface or groundwater levels on surrounding property." CARE Policy 10.2 states that the County "shall require reclamation and reuse plans to ensure environmentally acceptable and economically viable reuses of land excavations." CARE Policy 10.3 demands that the County, by 1993, require the "preparation of wetland/lake management plans for the reclamation of land excavation projects to be reclaimed as lakes to ensure that such areas become viable and productive aquatic systems." CARE Policy 10.4 is for the County to "encourage" recreational development of reclaimed land excavations. CARE Policy 10.6 states that the County shall require setbacks between land excavations and adjacent land uses to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. CARE Policy 10.7 provides that, by 1992, the County shall prohibit land excavations in "essential wildlife habitats documented in accordance with the provisions of Objective 14 as supporting endangered, threatened, [or special- concern] species and from which such species cannot be effectively relocated." CARE Objective 11 is that the County shall "continue to require soil conservation and protection during land alteration and development activities." CARE Policy 11.1 provides that, during the land development review process, the County shall "recommend" the appropriate use of soils and shall require site-specific analyses when the use appears to be incompatible with the soils. CARE Policy 11.3 states that, during the land development review process, the County shall "continue to evaluate and utilize, where appropriate, soil capability analyses for flood hazard, stability, permeability, and other relevant soil characteristics when permitting new development." CARE Objective 14 is for the County to "protect significant wildlife habitat, and . . . prevent any further net loss of essential wildlife habitat . . .." CARE Policy 14.1 promises the initiation of the development and implementation of a wildlife and wildlife habitat protection and management program. CARE Policy 14.3 requires the County, by 1993, in consultation with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, to "identify and map areas of essential wildlife habitat." CARE Policy 14.5 compels the County, by 1991, to develop and implement a program to "conserve and protect significant wildlife habitat from development activities." The program may include transfers of development rights, clustering and setback requirements, conservation easements, leaseback operations, fee simple purchases, land or mitigation banking, and tax incentives. CARE Policy 14.6 states: By 1992, the County shall restrict development activities which adversely affect areas identified and mapped as essential wildlife habitat. Where development activities are proposed in such areas the County may require site-specific wildlife surveys and other field documentation, as needed, to assess potential impacts. CARE Policy 14.7 provides: During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall consider the effects of development on significant wildlife habitat, to protect wildlife corridors from fragmentation. Where necessary to prevent fragmentation of wildlife corridors, the County shall require the preservation of wildlife corridors within developments. CARE Objective 15 states: Populations of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern occurring within Hillsborough County shall be maintained. Where feasible and appropriate, the abundance and distribution of populations of such species shall be increased. CARE Policy 15.1 is for the County, by 1991, to consult with and consider the recommendations of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in determining whether to issue development orders and, if so, what conditions to impose where development would impact endangered, threatened, or special- concern species. Conditions "shall ensure the maintenance and, where environmentally and economically feasible, increase the abundance and distribution of populations of such species." CARE Objective 16 is to "continue existing programs to minimize the spread of exotic nuisance species" and implement management plans for newly acquired natural preserve lands to reduce by 90% the extent of exotic nuisance plants. The objective requires the County to "conserve and use and continue to require the conservation and use of native plant species in the developed landscape." The objective adds that the County shall "continue to protect Conservation and Preservation Areas." CARE Policy 16.2 is for the County to "continue to require the use of native plant species in the landscaping of new development projects." Respectively addressing Conservation and Preservation Areas, CARE Policies 16.5 and 16.6 provide that, "except in cases of overriding public interest," the County shall, in the land use planning and development review processes, "protect [Conservation/Preservation] Areas from activities that would significantly damage the natural integrity, character, or ecological balance of said areas." CARE Objective 17 states: By 1995, the acreage of publicly owned or otherwise protected (through private ownership) natural preserve lands in the County shall be increased by at least 15,000 acres (which is approximately 50% more than 1988 acreage). The County shall seek to continue increasing the acreage of natural preserve lands and to ensure their protection and proper use. CARE Policy 17.1 is for the County, by 1990, to seek public approval by referendum to continue to levy an ad valorem tax for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. CARE Policy 17.6 requires the County to provide multiple-use opportunities for County-owned natural reserve lands so as to protect and conserve natural resources. CARE Policy 17.8 requires the County, during the land use planning and development review processes, to "restrict incompatible development activities adjacent to publicly owned or managed natural preserves." CARE Objective 18 provides: The County shall seek to measurably improve the management of all natural preserves within County boundaries by implementing the following policies[.] CARE Policy 18.2 is for the County to initiate with the Florida Department of Natural Resources an agreement "to ensure that the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is maintained in its essentially natural condition and protected from development that would adversely affect the environmental integrity of the Preserve." CARE Policy 18.3 is for the County to "establish a scientifically defensible protective buffer zone between the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and adjacent upland land uses to prevent degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetative habitats." CARE Policy 18.8 requires the County to "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to "fully implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan " CARE Objective 19 states: The County shall continue to amend land development regulations which ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment under all projected growth scenarios. CARE Policy 19.1 is for the County, by 1991, to initiate agreements with the Southwest Florida Water Management District or appropriate university to scientifically determine environmentally safe construction setback and buffer distances from wetlands, floodplains and water bodies (e.g. SJRWMD Wekiva River study). Within one year after completion of this study, the County shall use the results of the study to amend the County's Land Alteration and Landscaping Ordinance and Zoning Code, if such setbacks and buffer distances are determined to be warranted by the study. Until such study is completed and used to amend County ordinances, all current setbacks shall remain in effect. CARE Policy 19.2 states: By 1992, the County shall develop a comprehensive program, which may include tax incentives and transfer of development rights, to encourage the clustering of development away from environmentally sensitive areas, essential wildlife habitat or economically important agricultural or mineral resources. CARE Policy 19.3 provides: During the development review process, the County shall promote the preservation of representative examples of upland native plant communities by encouraging the use of the upland forest density credit incentive provision of the [FLUE]. CARE Policy 19.4 states that the County will consider developing a review process to provide incentives for planned unit developments that provide environmental benefits beyond what are required by law. CARE Policy 19.5 provides that the County will review its land development regulations to "better address the cumulative impact [of development] on the environment." CARE Policy 19.6 is: The County shall continue to encourage infilling and growth within identified and environmentally acceptable "activity centers," and shall discourage urban sprawl. CARE Policy 19.7 is for the County, in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, to consider adopting appropriate modifications to current land development regulations which will reduce the removal of natural upland vegetation caused by site filling and will maintain natural drainage patterns and water table levels, where feasible. CARE Policy 19.8 states: The County shall identify Resource Protection Areas on the Future Land Use Map series. Specific policy directives which provide for special protective measures for all Resource Protection Areas, except Lake Thonotosassa, are located in one or more of the following elements: [CARE], Coastal . . ., and [FLUE]. See the definition of Resource Protection areas for both general and specific policy references. Policies which provide for special protective measures specially for Lake Thonotosassa shall be developed and included in the [Plan] after completion and approval of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan for Lake Thonotosassa by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The CARE defines "Resource Protection Areas" as: Land or water bodies which are ecologically or economically significant natural resources for which special protective measures have been, or need to be established. Resource Protection Areas include the following [in each case, general citations to applicable elements of the Plan have been omitted]: --Hillsborough River and major tributaries; --Alafia River and major tributaries; --Little Manatee River and major tributaries; --Tampa Bay and associated tidal wetlands; --Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve; --Lake Thonotosassa; --Significant and essential wildlife habitat; --Areas of high aquifer recharge/ contamination potential; --Public potable water wellfields and their cones of influence; --Areas of major phosphate deposits. CARE, pages 99-100. Goal A of the Stormwater Element is to "[m]inimize the hazards of flooding attributable to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 1 is to "[e]valuate the storage and discharge characteristics of existing stormwater conveyance, detention and retention systems, and identify existing and potential future flooding concerns." Stormwater Element Policy 1.1 is to complete, by 1996, a comprehensive stormwater management master plan. Stormwater Element Objective 2 is to "[d]evelop and implement programs to control flooding attributable to, and to maximize the usefulness of, stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Policy 2.8 states: Total flood volume compensation will continue to be required for new developments which encroach into and displace 100-year flood storage or floodplain areas. Further, by [fiscal year 19]91, a program to control encroachment within 100-year flood conveyance areas will be developed and implemented. Stormwater Element Policy 2.10 provides that, by 1992, the County shall develop and implement a program to "improve groundwater recharge through the use of private and public stormwater management facilities." Stormwater Element Policy 2.11 states that new development will continue to be encouraged, through application of existing local regulations, to maintain, with minimal disturbance to natural characteristics, those streams, lakes wetlands, and estuaries for which stormwater conveyance and/or attenuation potential is significant. Stormwater Element Policy 2.15 provides: The use of detention facilities will be the preferred alternative to improving conveyance to alleviate flooding problems, where physically and environmentally practical and economically feasible. All flood control projects will seek to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, impacts to wetland habitat, water quality and groundwater recharge functions. Where impacts are unavoidable, the projects will include measures to compensate for these lost functions. Goal B of the Stormwater Element is to "[m]inimize the degradation of water quality attributed to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 4 is to "[i]dentify and evaluate the sources of water quality degradation which are related to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 5 is to "[i]mplement programs that will maintain or improve the quality of stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Policy 5.1 is to develop and begin to implement, by 1995, a program "to improve, "where economically feasible, the problem areas identified" in stormwater data- collection projects. The County will then require the use of Best Management Practices for "minimizing contributions of poor quality stormwater runoff to both groundwater and surface water bodies." Stormwater Element Policy 5.5 provides for the use of wetlands for stormwater treatment when effective pretreatment can ensure that the use of the wetlands will maintain or restore their long-term natural viability. Stormwater Element Policy 5.6 states that new stormwater management facilities may not discharge untreated stormwater runoff into the Floridan aquifer and that existing facilities that do so discharge into the Floridan aquifer will be modified where "economically feasible and physically practical." The goal of the Sewer Element is to "[p]rotect the [public] health, safety and welfare" and "protect and conserve the natural resources of Hillsborough County." Sewer Element Policy 1.1 is: Wastewater treatment facilities, prior to discharging to surface waters or natural wetlands, shall meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards. "Advanced Waste Treatment" is defined in the Sewer Element as "defined in Chapter 403.086, Florida Statutes or as amended in the future." Sewer Element, page 26. Sewer Element Policy 1.2 requires that "[w]astewater treatment facilities, prior to discharging to a managed artificial wetland or an irrigation system, shall meet or exceed Advanced Secondary Treatment Standards." "Advanced Secondary Treatment Standards" are defined as "[s]econdary waste treatment plus deep-bed dual media filtration." Sewer Element Objective 2 is to "[p]rotect and conserve the potable water resources, both groundwater and surface water, of Hillsborough County and continue to utilize and expand, where viable, existing recovered water reuse systems." Sewer Element Policy 2.1 requires later phases of developments with recovered water systems to use such systems. Sewer Element Policy 2.3 requires that, by 1992, the County implement by ordinance "mandatory recovered water reuse." Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility of existing and future sources of wastewater adversely impacting groundwater, surface waters and quality of life." Sewer Element Policy 7.1 is to "[c]ontinue to require that septic tank systems connect to the County system where a County system is available unless undue hardship is proven." Sewer Element Policy 7.2 is to "re-examine the maximum allowable density for septic tank systems within various areas of Hillsborough County" not later than one year following completion of a study presently underway pursuant to the Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983. In the same timeframe, Sewer Element Policy 7.3 requires that the County develop a "program to identify existing septic tank systems . . . that have a high potential for contaminating groundwater or the aquifer." The first goal of the FLUE is to: Ensure that the character and location of land uses optimizes the combined potentials for economic benefit and the enjoyment and the protection of natural resources while minimizing the threat to health, safety and welfare posed by hazards, nuisances, incompatible land uses, and environmental degradation. FLUE Objective A-1 is: Development orders shall not be issued unless development is compatible with the physical conditions of the land, including, but not limited to, topographical and soil conditions, and development mitigates those adverse impacts that it creates upon the physical conditions of the land that may affect the health, safety and/or welfare of the people who live and work within those particular areas. FLUE Policy A-1.2 states that "[s]oil capability analyses for flood hazards, stability, permeability and other relevant soil characteristics shall be considered when planning for new development." FLUE Policy A-1.3 adds: "Development shall be prohibited in areas where the on-site sewage disposal facilities would be located on soils unsuitable for such uses, unless the soils on the site can be altered to meet state and local environmental land use regulations." FLUE Policy A-1.4 provides that development within areas designated as "volume or peak sensitive" shall be subject to "higher performance standards to mitigate stormwater runoff." The Plan defines "Peak Sensitive Lands" as "[l]and that is prone to flooding because the outfall is inadequate to handle the water flow." FLUE, page 142. The Plan defines "Volume Sensitive Lands" as: Lands that drain into areas that do not have a positive outfall. Positive outfall is the condition when the natural or man-made stormwater conveyance system that drains the land is functioning adequately. This includes man-made swales, waterways or other means of conveyance systems. This does not include sheet flow. FLUE, page 147. FLUE Policy A-1.5 requires: "All development within the 100 year floodplain shall be in strict conformance with all development regulations that have jurisdiction development regulations." Certain future land use designations bear directly upon the natural resources of the County. Other future land use designations, although affecting natural resources, will be addressed in the following sections concerning urban sprawl and the coastal high hazard area. Three designations are especially important in protecting natural resources. They are Natural Preservation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Major Recreation and Open Space. The Natural Preservation designation is used to designate major publicly owned or managed lands for primarily conservation purposes. Typically, these lands are environmentally unique, irreplaceable or valued ecological resources. Some of these lands may be suitable for compatible recreational use. FLUE, page 142. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Natural Preservation designation as follows: To recognize public lands of significant environmental importance set aside for primarily conservation purposes. No residential is permitted except for county facilities determined necessary to serve as a caretaker of the recreational or environmental property. All other development is prohibited in these areas except for compatible recreational development. Educational uses shall be limited to those which utilize the natural amenities found on the site, i.e., the study of flora [or] fauna . . .. FLUE, page 125. FLUE Policy A-3.1 promises that the County will study the possibility of adopting land development regulations providing for a transfer of development rights from land that is under consideration for Natural Preservation designation, as well as land under a Rural designation that is in long-term agricultural use. FLUE Policy A-3.2 prohibits, in Natural Preservation designations, any "new development [or] expansion [or] replacement of existing development[,] unless development is undertaken by federal, State or local government in the public interest, and the impacts are mitigated." The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation has been discussed at length in the preceding section. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation as follows: To designate those privately owned lands that are environmentally sensitive and classified as Conservation or Preservation Areas as defined in the [CARE]. Development in these areas may be restricted by federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations. Development projects will be evaluated for compliance with the [CARE] and Coastal [Element]. The use of Environmentally Sensitive Areas for residential density credits is described in the [FLUE]. The Environmentally Sensitive Area designations on the Land Use Plan Map are very generalized and may not be exhaustive of all sites. On- site evaluation will be necessary for specific project review. FLUE, page 126. The Major Recreation and Open Space designation is used to designate, geographically on the Future Land Use Plan Map and/or textually in the [FLUE], those major existing park, recreation, and/or open space facilities available for public use, including those which may be privately owned, and for which the primary purpose is not conservation. This land use category is not intended for use in designating those lands used for calculating densities for residential projects as described in the "Density Credits" provision in the "Implementation Section["] of the [FLUE] or in designating those similarly used lands that are accessory to non-residential projects. This future land use plan classification is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies and the exceptions and provisions of the [FLUE], each of the other elements in the [Plan], and to all applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 143. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Recreation and Open Space designation as follows: To designate major existing parks and recreational facilities (regional, district, or community level), for which the primary purpose is not conservation. A more complete mapping of existing and proposed or needed parks is a function of the Recreation and Open Space Element. No residential is permitted except for county facilities determined necessary to serve as an employee serving the function of a caretaker of the property. FLUE, page 123. FLUE Policy A-3.4 states that "[r]ecreational development must be compatible with and sensitive to the surrounding natural systems." Numerous provisions in the FLUE address natural resources, without referring to the Natural Preservation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Major Recreation and Open Space designations. FLUE Objective A-8 provides: Development must mitigate the adverse impacts upon the natural, environmental systems as described and required within the [CARE] and [Coastal Element]. FLUE Policy A-8.1 states: "The natural environment shall be protected, in part, by encouraging future population growth into existing urbanized areas." FLUE Policies A-8.2, A- 8.3, and A-8.4, which have been discussed above, provide for the protection of Conservation and Preservation Areas and describe the upland forest density credit incentive and density formulas regarding Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE Policies A-8.5 and A-8.6 promise protection, "by a system of performance standards" left undefined in the Plan, for areas with "high potential for groundwater contamination" and "high aquifer recharge," respectively. FLUE Policy A-8.8 is to [r]equire that the littoral zones and photic zones of man-made stormwater management systems be designed to provide physical and chemical filtration of stormwater consistent with adopted levels in the [Plan] and subsequently adopted development regulations, [as well as] provide for wildlife habitat (primarily wading birds). FLUE Policy A-8.9 offers the use of publicly owned land designated as Major Public/Semi-Public for "appropriate multiple uses, such as parks, stormwater management systems and preservation of natural habitats." FLUE Policy A-8.10 is to "[e]ncourage the use of pervious pavement" through land development regulations. FLUE Policy A-8.11 requires the County to identify, during the rezoning process, any land that has been identified for possible acquisition by the Environmental Land Acquisition and Protection Program. FLUE Policy A-8.12 states the County "shall protect significant wildlife habitat." FLUE Policy A-8.13 provides that the County will "[p]reserve wetlands by discouraging the use of mitigation, dredge and fill and similar development activities by revising the development regulations to strictly limit such practices." FLUE Objective B-9 is to "[p]rotect environmentally sensitive areas from degradation or damage from agricultural activities by establishing regulatory activities." FLUE Policy B-9.2 is to "[e]stablish protective controls, which could include animal 'density' limits[,] on those grazing lands having environmentally sensitive areas subject to damage or degradation from over-grazing by pre- identified grazing species." FLUE Objective B-10 is to "[p]rotect the water supply needed by agriculture through regulatory mechanisms." FLUE Policy B-10.1 is to "[r]equire adoption or conversion to water conservation techniques that are beneficial for aquifer recharge and the maintenance of near normal water tables." FLUE Policy B-10.2 is to establish a phased-in program of water conservation. Addressing the County's rivers, the second goal of the FLUE, which appears at the beginning of the River Resources section, is: To make the rivers of Hillsborough County cleaner, safer and more attractive, protect the natural functions and wildlife habitats in the river corridors and promote the economic and recreational benefits provided by these water bodies. FLUE Objective C-1 is, by 1995, to "maintain or improve the quality of water in [County] rivers where the water quality does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for [their] designated use." FLUE Policy C-1.1 states: The developer of any project along the rivers shall provide stormwater management systems which filter out pollutants before the stormwater enters the rivers, in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the Southwest Florida Water Management District rules including the exemption provisions of these rules. New drainage outfalls along the rivers shall be designed with stormwater treatment facilities rather than discharging stormwater directly into the rivers. Where environmentally feasible, the stormwater discharge from a detention pond shall flow into the rivers through a vegetated swale. FLUE Policy C-1.2 "[p]rohibit[s] discharges of raw sewage to the rivers and tributaries." FLUE Policy C-1.3 "[p]rohibit[s] any solid waste landfills and hazardous material facilities in unincorporated Hillsborough County that may adversely affect the rivers and tributaries." FLUE Objective C-2 is: By 1990, the County will require the preservation of natural shorelines and reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization. . . . FLUE Policy C-2.1 states: "Shore alteration which would harden riverbanks shall be prohibited, except in cases of overriding public interest." FLUE Policy C-2.2 requires the improvement of publicly owned or controlled lands by the "restoration of vegetated riverbanks." FLUE Policy C-2.3 requires the conservation and preservation of natural riverbanks and natural levees, except in cases of overriding public interest. FLUE Objective C-4 provides that, by 1992, the County will "establish standards for development in river corridors." FLUE Policy C-4.1 prohibits the construction of new overhead utilities within 250 feet of the rivers unless underground placement is environmentally or technically unsound. FLUE Objective C-5 provides that, by 1991, the County will "require the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats and archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-5.4 requires the County to "restrict development activities in the river corridors which would adversely affect significant and essential wildlife habitat, in accordance with the terms of Objective 14 and related policies thereunder of the [CARE]." FLUE Policy C-6.1 prohibits the removal, within 100 feet of the rivers, of healthy, native trees of five inches diameter at breast height unless "reasonable property utilization is not possible without tree removal or in cases of overriding public interest." The third, fourth, and fifth goals in the FLUE pertain to the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers, respectively. The third goal in the FLUE is "[t]o make the Hillsborough River cleaner, safer and more attractive." FLUE Objective C-7 is, by 1995, to "improve the quality of water in the river where it does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for its designated use, and protect this major source of drinking water." FLUE Policy C-7.2 states: The construction, reconstruction, extension, or alteration of any privy, cesspool, septic tank, drain field, or other sewage disposal device within . . . 200 feet, measured from the mean annual flood line, of the Hillsborough River and its tributaries from the Pasco County line, to the city limits of the City of Tampa, shall be prohibited. This policy shall not prohibit recommended maintenance of existing septic systems if no alternative means of sewerage treatment is available. FLUE Policy C-7.3 is to "[p]revent further destruction of desirable natural vegetative buffers along the Hillsborough River and its tributaries." FLUE Policy C-7.4 is to: Prevent potential contamination by effluent disposal from a wastewater treatment plant within the drainage basin by requiring advanced treatment and viral reduction of all sewage in the drainage basin which is part of an effluent disposal program. FLUE Objective C-8 is, by 1990, to "reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization." FLUE Policy C-9.1 provides: "New marinas shall be prohibited on the upper Hillsborough River." "To prevent riverbank erosion, protect wildlife habitat, and ensure public safety," FLUE Policy C-9.6 requires that the part of the Hillsborough River north of 56th Street be posted with "idle speed, no wake" signs. FLUE Objective C-10 is, by 1992, to "establish standards for development in the river corridor." FLUE Policy C- 10.2 states: "No additional areas shall be designated with industrial land use plan categories within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-10.3 requires the County to establish a new future land use designation or zoning classification to be known as "Riverfront." Land use guidelines that "should be addressed" in the new classification include performance standards precluding uses that pollute the river or eliminate visual access by the public, lowering densities for vacant private parcels along the upper river, and prohibiting heavy activities such as parking lots, truck service roads, loading docks, warehouses, manufacturing plants, ship building and repair, and dredging equipment operators. FLUE Objective C-11 is, by 1992, to "implement construction and placement standards for ramps, docks, and seawalls." FLUE Objective C-12 is, by 1994, to "manage the Hillsborough River as an important community asset and provide appropriate public access to this valuable natural amenity." FLUE Objective C-13 is, by 1991, to "preserve and enhance wildlife habitats and preserve archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-13.1 states: "Draining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks[,] shall be prohibited within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Objective C-14 states: By 1990, preserve the rural character of the Upper Hillsborough River by discouraging additional development except for those sites improved or developed that are dedicated to passive recreational pursuits within the river corridor. . . . FLUE Policy C-14.1 states: "The upper Hillsborough River shall be managed as a wildlife habitat corridor to provide an area for wildlife passage." FLUE Policy C-14.3 prohibits in the upper Hillsborough River "additional boat docks and ramps," but not canoe launches. FLUE Policy C-14.4 prohibits, within 500 feet of the upper Hillsborough River and its tributaries, parking lots and service roads. The fourth goal in the FLUE addresses the Alafia River. The goal is: "To preserve, protect and promote the Alafia River and its natural resources and recreational benefits." FLUE Objective C-15 is: By 1995, to maintain water quality, and improve water quality where it does not meet or exceed State water quality standards for its designated use, thereby protecting and improving the habitat for marine life. . . . FLUE Objective C-16 is: "By 1991, preserve and restore natural vegetation, and wildlife habitats and preserve archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-16.1 states: Draining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks, which comprise the riverine swamp system shall be prohibited within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-16.2 provides: Encourage the reclamation of mined lands along the Alafia River with native vegetation and encourage public acquisition for wildlife corridors, where appropriate. FLUE Objective C-17 is, by 1991, to "protect terrestrial and marine wildlife and their habitats." FLUE Policy C-17.1 requires the County to post reduced speed signs in areas of known manatee habitation. FLUE Objective C-18 is, by 1995, to "minimize river use conflict and mitigate public nuisances that adversely affect inhabitants along the river." FLUE Policy C-18.1 recognizes the river as important for canoeing as well as other recreational pursuits. FLUE Objective C-19 is, by 1990, to "preserve the natural shoreline and prevent further channelization." FLUE Policy C-19.1 "[p]rohibit[s] backfilling of waterfront properties or extension of these lots through artificial means." FLUE Objective C-20 is, by 1992, to "establish standards for development within the river corridor." FLUE Policy C-20.3 states: Septic tank and drainfield installation shall be prohibited within 200 feet of the Alafia River and its tributaries except in such cases where the 200-foot criterion cannot be met because of lot size. In such cases, placement and construction of such facilities shall be in accordance with State law and shall prevent adverse impact to water quality. FLUE Policy C-20.4 states: "No additional heavy industrial land use designations shall be located within 500 feet of the river." The fifth goal in the FLUE pertains to the Little Manatee River. The goal is: "To recognize and maintain this unique water resource which provides economic and recreational opportunities as well as vital wildlife habitat." FLUE Objective C-21 states: By 1995, water quality in each appropriate water classification found in the Little Manatee River will be maintained or improved where it does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for its designated use. ... FLUE Policy C-21.1, which generally prohibits the installation of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Little Manatee River and its tributaries, is otherwise identical to FLUE Policy C-20.3, which applies to the Alafia River. FLUE Objective C-22 is, by 1991, to "preserve wildlife habitats and archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-22.1 provides that the County shall "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to "fully implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan." FLUE Policy C-22.2 prohibits "[d]raining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks, . . . within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-22.3 states that, until scientifically defensible setbacks and buffers are determined: clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 feet of the Environmental Protection Commission wetland jurisdictional line or within 100 feet of the mean and ordinary high water line, whichever is greater, shall be restricted in urban and suburban land use categories. FLUE Policy C-22.4 is to protect manatees by "posting reduced speed signs in areas of known manatee habitation." FLUE Objective C-23 is, by 1990, to: minimize urban encroachment upon the river bank by encouraging the establishment of a "green" river corridor. River corridor preservation can best be achieved through protection of the shoreline, and associated wetlands and uplands. . . . FLUE Policy C-23.1 states: "No heavy industrial land use designations shall be located within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-23.2 provides: "The Little Manatee River shall be recognized as providing important wildlife habitat and managed as a corridor for wildlife passage." FLUE Policy C-23.3 states: "The Little Manatee River shall be recognized as an important recreational resource." FLUE Policy C-23.4 adds: Recreation facilities in the Little Manatee River corridor shall be designed to minimize impacts upon essential and significant wildlife habitat. This is to be achieved by encouraging passive river corridor use, such as hiking, picnicking, nature study, photography, fishing, and canoeing. FLUE Policy C-23.5 prohibits parking lots and service roads within 500 feet of the Little Manatee River and its tributaries east of US 41. FLUE Objective C-24 is, by 1990, to "develop additional policies and strategies addressing the uniqueness and proper protection and use of the Little Manatee River." FLUE Policy C-24.2 states: "Appropriate provisions from the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan shall be considered for incorporation as policies in this plan." Policy C-24.3 promises the evaluation of the need for establishing a new land use category or zoning overlay "to ensure proper protection and use of the Little Manatee River and associated natural resources." FLUE Objective C-30 provides: Regulations and performance standards shall be developed to ensure that water quality and quantity, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitats, rivers and creeks are protected from degradation by development. FLUE Policy C-30.2 states that the County "shall require the location and design of public roads and bridges within stream riverine corridors to minimize impacts adverse to wildlife habitats and vegetative communities." FLUE Policy C-30.4 provides: Designate as River Corridor Overlay Districts, riverine corridors within the Urban Level land use categories, which meet the following criteria in addition to the policies related to River Corridor Overlay Districts under the "River Resources" section within the [FLUE]. The qualifying criteria are that the water must be of Class III standards, the water body must provide "ecological benefits," most of the part of the water body proposed for designation must have a natural shore, and a 25 year floodplain map for the part of the water body proposed for designation must be available for public inspection. FLUE Policy C-30.6 provides: Restrict clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 feet of the Environmental Protection Commission wetland jurisdictional line of rivers and creeks designated as River Corridor Overlay Districts or within 100 feet of the mean and ordinary high water line of such rivers and creeks, whichever is greater. If no beneficial use of the property is possible without clearing or filling within this area, impose conditions which will mitigate the adverse impact of these activities on wildlife habitat, native vegetation and natural stormwater filtration systems. FLUE Policy C-30.7 is to "[e]ncourage the use of stilted structures rather than fill to meet flood elevation construction requirements within the River Corridor Overlay District." FLUE Policy C-30.8 is to "[r]estrict hardened shores (seawalls) within the River Corridor Overlay district to areas threatened by severe erosion." The Coastal Element addresses natural resources in the coastal area of the County. Coastal Element Policy 1.3 requires the County to reduce the need for interim wastewater treatment plants by planning for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities to serve areas designated for higher densities. Coastal Element Policy 1.4 provides that the County shall "continue to develop and use environmentally acceptable effluent disposal alternatives to surface water discharge to Tampa Bay and its tributaries, including but not limited to reuse for irrigation and industrial purposes." Coastal Element Policy 1.7 states: Where economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to coastal areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic treatment systems. Coastal Element Policy 1.11 provides: By 1991, the County shall require that existing developments planned for expansion, modification or replacement in the coastal area provide or support stormwater treatment improvements within the affected drainage basin where treatment facilities are lacking. Where economically and environmentally feasible, the County shall require retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities in urbanized coastal areas lacking such facilities. Coastal Element Policy 1.12 states: Where economically and environmentally feasible and consistent with the Surface Water Improvement Management Plan for Tampa Bay, the County shall consider dredging and removal of polluted estuarine sediments, and clean filling deep dredged areas, as a means of improving adjacent estuarine water quality. 2. Coastal High Hazard Area and Hazard Mitigation The only FLUE provision addressing the coastal area and coastal hazards is FLUE Policy A-1.6, which promises: Performance standards for new developments shall be established within coastal areas, as identified in the [Coastal Element], in order to protect the population in the coastal areas, and to minimize property damage in the event of a hurricane. Capital Improvements Element (CIE) 1.D.2 provides that the levels of service for public facilities, as set forth in the CIE, are subject to overriding conditions and limitations contained in the Coastal Element. In addition, CIE Objective 5 states: "The County shall protect the coastline and avoid loss of life and property in coastal areas by minimizing land development and public facilities in coastal areas. [Rule] 9J- 5.016(3)(b)2." CIE Policy 5.A states: "Publicly funded infrastructure shall not be constructed within the coastal high hazard area unless the expenditure is for: 5.A.1: Restoration or enhancement of natural resources or public access; 5.A.2: Land application of treated effluent disposal (irrigation) on public and private open spaces; 5.A.3: Flood-proofing water and sanitary sewer facilities; 5.A.4: The development or improvement of public roads and bridges which are on the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization long range plan or the facility will serve a crucial need by ameliorating the evacuation time of residents of the County; 5.A.5: Reconstruction of seawalls that are essential to the protection of only existing public facilities or infrastructure; 5.A.6: A public facility of overriding public concern as determined by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners; 5.A.7: The retrofitting of stormwater management facilities for water quality enhancement of stormwater runoff; or 5.A.8: Port facilities. Coastal Element Policy 6.1 defines the coastal high hazard area as the part of the County included in the Federal Emergency Management Agency V Zone and the area requiring evacuation during a Category 1 hurricane event. A Category 1 hurricane is characterized by winds of 74-95 miles per hour, which will cause damage primarily to foliage and unanchored mobile homes; storm surge 6-8 feet above normal; and inundation of low-lying coastal roads. Coastal Element, page 85. Coastal Element Objective 6 is to: Restrict development of residential population centers in the coastal high hazard area and require all development to meet standards established for the coastal area. Coastal Element Policy 6.2 requires that "[n]ew development within the coastal high hazard area shall be subject to a formal site plan review process." The process shall require owner-supplied data as to the impact of the proposed development upon existing infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area, evacuation clearance times, and shelter space. Coastal Element Policy 6.3 states that new development or "substantial expansions" of existing uses, except for government facilities, shall be approved through "a planned unit development process" if the development consists of commercial or industrial development on more than five acres of land or residential development exceeding the requirements of a "minor subdivision," as defined in the land development regulations. Policy 6.3 adds that developments within the coastal high hazard area and the I-75 corridor shall be subject to the more restrictive requirements. Coastal Element Policy 6.5 prohibits the development of "manufactured home communities" in the coastal high hazard area unless they meet the standards of the Southern Standard Building Code. Coastal Element Policy 6.6 is that, by 1994, the County shall, by land development regulations, require the underground installation of all utility lines in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 is that, except for cases of "undue hardship," "[t]he use of septic tanks for new development shall be prohibited in the coastal high hazard area." Coastal Element Objective 7 is to ensure the "orderly development and use" of the Port of Tampa by giving "priority to locating water-dependent and water-related land uses along the shoreline of the coastal area." Coastal Element Policy 7.1 provides that the County, by 1993, will amend the "Future Land Use Element and Map" to create a new future land use designation for "marine-related land uses." The designation will include criteria for siting water-dependent and water-related land uses. Coastal Element Policy 7.5 prohibits the development of new sites for heavy industrial uses along the shoreline of the coastal area unless the uses are "water-dependent or water- related or unless an overriding public interest is demonstrated." Coastal Element Objective 10 is: "Limit public expenditures for infrastructure and facilities in the coastal high hazard area." Coastal Element Policy 10.3 provides: "Wastewater treatment facilities shall not be constructed within the coastal high hazard area unless the expenditure meets the criteria of Policy 10.2." Coastal Element Policy 10.2 is the same as CIE Policy 5.A. Coastal Element Policy 13.1 states: "Interim wastewater treatment plants shall not be permitted in the coastal high hazard area except where the County service will be available within five (5) years." Coastal Element Policy 13.2 provides that the County will not assume jurisdiction for maintaining roadways in the coastal high hazard area unless the roadway is on the future Traffic Circulation Map. Coastal Element Policy 13.3 states that, by the 1993 hurricane season, the County shall complete an inventory of existing infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area and develop a program to relocate or retrofit such facilities where feasible and as replacement becomes necessary. Coastal Element Policy 13.4 is that the County "shall ensure" that future development and redevelopment within the coastal high hazard area is "consistent with coastal resource protection and will not increase clearance times along evacuation routes." Coastal Element Policy 13.6 is that the County shall not approve any "new solid waste or hazardous waste management sites" in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 12.2 is that the County, by the 1992 hurricane season: shall prepare a post-disaster redevelopment plan which will address long-term development, repair, and redevelopment activities, and which will include measures to restrict and eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 12.5 provides that, by the 1992 hurricane season, the County "shall adopt a redevelopment decision-making matrix for deciding whether public infrastructure should be rebuilt, relocated, or structurally modified." Coastal Element Objective 11 provides: Through the year 2010 the County shall maintain the clearance times identified in the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 1988 Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Study. Any proposed development shall not increase these clearance times. Coastal Element Policy 11.2 adopts a level of service standard of 20 square feet per person for shelter space. Coastal Element Policy 11.5 states that, by 1991, the development review process shall consider the effect of a proposed development in the hurricane vulnerability zone, which includes the coastal high hazard area, on evacuation clearance times and the number of persons requiring shelter. Coastal Element Policy 11.7 provides that each new mobile home park "not located" in the hurricane vulnerability zone shall include a building for use as a hurricane shelter. 3. Urban Sprawl FLUE Policy A-2.1 states: "Development shall not exceed the densities and intensities established within the [Plan]." According to the Implementation section of the FLUE, "[i]t is the intent of the [FLUE] to permit the maximum densities allowed within each land use plan category." FLUE, page 55. Many of the future land use categories of the Plan and their densities are set forth at Paragraph 219 above. The remaining categories and any permitted residential densities (expressed as dwelling units per gross acre) are: Community Commercial (20:1); Commercial--Office (20:1); Regional Commercial (20:1); Electrical Power Generating Facility (1:5); Scenic Corridor Overlay; Research/Corporate Park; Light Industrial; Light Industrial-- Planned; Heavy Industrial; Natural Preservation; Major Recreation and Open Space; Major Public/Semi-Public; and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (uses described in preceding section). The Land Use Plan section of the FLUE discusses each of the future land use designations in terms of service level, typical uses, density (applicable to residential uses only), maximum floor area (applicable to commercial, office, and industrial uses only), and intent of designation. The densities have been set forth above. Six designations fall exclusively under the Rural service level. These are Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, Rural Residential, and Rural Residential Planned. The typical uses of Agricultural/Mining include: farms, ranches, feed lots, residential uses, rural scale neighborhood commercial uses, offices, industrial uses related to agricultural uses, and mining related activities. Non-residential uses shall meet established locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 98. The maximum floor area for Agricultural/Mining is: Rural scale neighborhood commercial, office or industrial up to 40,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, 17/ whichever is less intense. Actual space footage limit is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, page 98. The intent of Agricultural/Mining is: To designate either those areas of long term agricultural character, or those areas currently involved in agricultural productivity, or other rural uses. This category will also permit residential, rural scale neighborhood commercial, office, and industrial uses in those areas meeting established locational criteria. As long as no subdivision of land is involved, group quarters, temporary housing, rehabilitation centers and residential uses for agricultural/rural related activities can be exempt from the density limitations subject to the [FLUE] and applicable development regulations. In addition, mining activities and commercial and industrial uses directly related to or serving the local mining activities may be permitted in appropriate locations, in conformance with adopted [land development] regulations. Commercial and office above 5000 sq. ft.[,] multi-purpose projects and multi-use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 98. The typical uses, maximum floor area, and intent of Agricultural and Agricultural/Rural are the same as those stated for Agricultural/Mining. Densities are the main difference among the Agricultural/Mining (1:20), Agricultural (1:10), and Agricultural/Rural (1:5) designations. In addition to allowing a density of 1:2.5, the Rural Estate category differs in other respects from the other categories classified as rural in terms of service level. Typical uses for Rural Estate add "multi-purpose projects" and omit "feed lots," "industrial uses related to agricultural uses," and "mining related activities." Maximum floor area substitutes "multi-purpose projects" for "industrial." The intent of Rural Estate is: To designate areas that are best suited for agricultural development, usually defined as located on Short-Term Agricultural Lands, and for compatible rural residential uses. Other uses including rural scale neighborhood commercial, office and multi-purpose projects may be permitted when complying with the [FLUE] and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for specific land use. Commercial and office above 5000 sq. ft., multi-purpose projects and multi-use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 101. The typical uses and intent of Rural/Residential and Rural/Residential Planned are the same as those stated for Rural Estate, except the Rural/Residential Planned also allows community commercial uses and clustered mixed use. A planned zoning district is required for the Rural/Residential Planned designation if the proposed commercial or office use is over 3000 square feet. The densities are different among the three designations. The Rural/Residential allows 1:1. Rural/Residential Planned allows the same density if the project is a Planned Village Concept on at least 160 acres; otherwise, the allowable density is 1:5. The maximum density for Rural/Residential Planned is allowable only if clustering and mixed uses are proposed. The concepts of mixed use and clustering specified for the Rural/Residential Planned are explained as follows: Mixed use . . . must demonstrate integration, scale, diversity and internal relationships of uses on site as well as provide shopping and job opportunities, significant internal trip capture and appropriately scaled residential uses. Land development regulations shall specify the thresholds for shopping, job creation and trip capture rates for developments appropriate to the scale of the project. Clustering . . . will be demonstrated through higher than typical residential net densities. Land development regulations shall provide thresholds for net densities required relative to project size and location, and will be used to determine allowable gross density. FLUE, page 103. The Suburban service level contains two designations: Low Suburban Density Residential and Low Suburban Density Residential Planned. The typical uses of Low Suburban Density Residential are: Residential, suburban scale neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects. Non-residential uses shall meet locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 104. The typical uses of Low Suburban Density Residential Planned are the same except they include suburban scale community commercial and clustered mixed use projects. The maximum floor area of Low Suburban Density Residential is: Suburban scale neighborhood commercial, office, or multi-purpose projects limited to 110,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, whichever is less intense. Actual space footage limit is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, page 104. The maximum floor area of Low Suburban Density Residential Planned is the same except the floor area ratio is .5, which governs certain mixed use projects: Mixed use projects utilizing the Planned Village Concept are not limited by square footages but may develop up to .5 FAR. Square footages will be limited by the scale and relationship within the project. In addition, mixed use projects utilizing the Planned Village Concept shall not be limited by the locational criteria found elsewhere for neighborhood commercial uses. Mixed use projects shall demonstrate internal relationships and pedestrian integration among uses. FLUE, page 105. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential designation is: To designate areas that are best suited for non-urban density residential development requiring a limited level of urban services, including in appropriate locations lots large enough to safely accommodate private wells and septic tanks or a combination of septic tanks and public water. Some areas, because of environmental or soil conditions, would be appropriate for only public water and sewer in this designation. In addition, suburban level neighborhood commercial, office and multi-purpose projects serving the non-urban areas may be permitted, subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for such land use. Commercial and office uses above 3000 sq. ft. and all multi-purpose and mixed use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 104. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned appears erroneous, as it repeats the intent of the Rural/Residential Planned designation, including "rural residential uses" and "rural scale" commercial uses. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned should probably state: "non-urban density residential development requiring a limited level of urban services" and the "suburban scale" commercial uses, which is the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential. The Implementation section of the FLUE probably should have stated the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation is the same as the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential designation except to add "suburban level community commercial, clustered mixed use, and multi-purpose projects." The densities for Low Suburban Density Residential and Low Suburban Density Residential Planned are both 2:1. However, this density is applicable to the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned only if the proposed project is a Planned Village Concept on at least 160 acres. Otherwise, the density for Low Suburban Density Residential Planned is 1:5. The Low Suburban Density Residential Planned density contains the same description of mixed use and clustering as is found in the Rural/Residential Planned designation. There are 14 designations exclusively within the Urban service level. The two lowest densities, among categories that are predominantly residential, are Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential, which are, respectively, 4:1 and 6:1. Each density contains the following condition: This maximum residential density is provided only as a limit for application in situations which represent an ideal set of circumstances with regard to the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses, existing and/or approved, and with regard to the adequacy and availability of public facilities. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. The typical uses for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential are identical: Residential, urban scale neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose and mixed use projects. Non-residential uses shall meet established locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. Disregarding another apparent typographical error, 18/ the maximum floor area for each designation is identical: Urban scale neighborhood commercial, office, multi-purpose or mixed use projects limited to 175,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, whichever is less intense. Actual square footage limitation is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. Disregarding two more likely typographical errors, 19/ the intent for each designation is also identical, except for the bracketed notation that applies only to Low Urban Density Residential: To designate areas that are suitable for low density residential development. In addition, urban scale neighborhood commercial, office, multi-purpose and mixed use projects serving the area may be permitted subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for specific land use. Multi-purpose, mixed use projects and any development above 3.0 [5.0] dwelling units per gross acre on a site larger than 10 acres shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. The next three designations in the Urban service level are Low/Medium Density Urban Residential, Medium Density Urban Residential, and High Density Urban Residential, which provide densities, respectively, of 9:1, 12:1, and 20:1. 20/ Each density is subject to the condition quoted above for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential concerning ideally suited circumstances. Ignoring one typographical error in the case of the High Density Urban Residential designation, 21/ the typical uses for each of the three designations are also identical, except for a minor distinction in language, with those stated for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential. The maximum floor areas for each of the three designations are identical to those stated for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential except that the floor area ratio for High Density Urban Residential is 0.75, not 0.25. The intent of each of the three designations is the same as the intent of the Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential designations with a minor change in language. The only differences are that the primary intent in each case is to designate an area suitable for the type of residential development suggested by the category's name, such as low-medium density. Also, a planned zoning district is required for each of the three designations if the proposed development is denser than 8:1 for Low/Medium Density Urban Residential, 10:1 for Medium Density Urban Residential, and 16:1 for High Density Urban Residential. The last three designations exclusively within the Urban service classification that are projected to contain significant residential uses are Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3 with respective densities of 12:1, 20:1, and 50:1. Each density contains the following condition: The maximum residential density is provided only as a limit for application in situations in which all Goals, Objectives, and Policies and applicable development regulations are being complied with, especially those regarding compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses, existing and/or approved, and with regard to the adequacy and availability of public facilities. FLUE, pages 111, 112, and 113. The typical uses for Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3 are identical: Mixed use development. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 111, 112, and 113. The maximum floor area ratios are 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 for Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The intent of the Urban Level 1 designation is: The UL1 category may be located within three miles of I-75, bounded at the limits of the urban level category by existing or proposed arterial roads. This category of land use shall serve as a transitional area which emphasizes compatibility with adjacent plan categories. The UL1 area shall be more suburban in intensity and density of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities become available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for commercial uses shall be prohibited. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 111. The intent of the Urban Level 2 designation is: The UL2 category shall be compatible with adjacent urban land use categories such as UL1, UL3, research corporate park, and medium density residential. The UL2 areas shall be urban in intensity and density of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities are made available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for nonresidential uses to arterials shall be prohibited. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 112. The intent of the Urban Level 3 designation is: The UL3 category shall form a regional activity center which incorporates internal road systems, building clustering and mixing of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities are made available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for nonresidential uses to arterials shall be prohibited. The UL3 category should be surrounded by other urban level plan categories and be located at high level transit lines. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 113. Three commercial designations in the Urban service classification that are not expected to contain substantial residential development are Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Regional Commercial. Each of these designations carries a density of 20:1 and contains a condition similar to that contained in Urban Level 1, 2, and 3 regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses and availability of adequate public facilities. The typical uses of Community Commercial are: Sale of convenience goods and personal services, general merchandising, furniture, sales restaurants, bars, offices, hotels, motels, banks, theaters, auto sales, compatible residential uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 114. The maximum floor area of the Community Commercial is 300,000 square feet or .35 FAR, whichever is less intense. The intent of Community Commercial is: To designate areas typically located within low density residential, low-medium density residential, medium density residential and/ or high density residential land use categories in order to provide a variety of commercial and office uses to serve large areas and which are oriented to auto traffic. Neighborhood commercial and office activities will be allowed provided they meet the applicable development regulations. Due to potential intensity of activities, planned grouping [is] strongly encouraged. Compatible residential development up to 20.0 dwelling units per gross acre, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments may be permitted in this category in appropriate locations according to applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 114. The typical uses of Commercial Office are: Community Commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 115. The maximum floor area of Commercial Office is: General--0.75 FAR up to a maximum of 600,000 square feet, however, the commercial component cannot exceed 300,000 square feet, subject to applicable land development regulations. FLUE, page 115. The intent of Commercial Office is: "To recognize existing commercial and office centers and provide for future development opportunities." FLUE, page 115. The typical uses of Regional Commercial are: Shopping malls to include one or more major department stores. Community Commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 116. The maximum floor area of Regional Commercial is "1.0 FAR, subject to applicable land development regulations." FLUE, page 116. The intent of Regional Commercial is: "To recognize existing regional commercial centers and provide for future development opportunities." Id. The three remaining designations exclusively in the Urban service level do not permit any residential uses. They are Research/Corporate Park, Light Industrial, and Light Industrial Planned. The typical uses of Research/Corporate Park are: Research and development activities, related educational facilities, electronic components production, light restricted manufacturing and warehousing, offices, corporate headquarters, and related uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, recreational facilities, and rural scale retail establishments. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. or 20% of the project's land area. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 117. The maximum floor area of Research/Corporate Park is "1.0 FAR." The intent of Research/Corporate Park is: To provide opportunity for research and high technology and similar manufacturing and light warehousing uses to serve Hillsborough County and the Tampa Bay region. Development in this category has integrated internal and external design requirements including heavy buffering and landscaping, high visibility linear footage on arterials, interstates, and expressways, and locations adjacent to employment markets. Research/Corporate Parks will be permitted to be developed throughout the county provided they meet the requirements of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element, and applicable development regulations. Proposed developments at locations not shown on the Land Use Plan Map may be considered through the Plan amendment process. Support neighborhood commercial uses may be permitted for up to 20% of the total land area. The development of the neighborhood commercial uses shall be integrated and appropriately scaled to other project uses. All development in this category shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 117. The typical uses for Light Industrial and Light Industrial Planned are: Food products storage, furniture or apparel manufacturing (except plastics or fiberglass), packaging plants, wholesaling, storage of nonhazardous materials, offices, research/corporate parks as the predominant uses and subordinate uses or services such as hotels, motels, restaurants, rural scale retail establishments, and recreational facilities. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 118 and 119. The maximum floor area of Light Industrial and Light Industrial Planned is ".5 FAR." FLUE, pages 118 and 119. The intent of Light Industrial is: This land use category is used to designate, geographically on the Land Use Plan Map and/ or textually in the Land Use Element, those areas in the County potentially suitable for industrial activities that create a minimal degree of impact to the surrounding environment, particularly in terms of non- objection[able] levels of noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and land use category descriptions related to industrial activities. [Convenience] commercial uses shall be limited to same criteria of size and location as rural scale neighborhood commercial. Any industrial development above a .4 FAR shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 118. The intent of Light Industrial Planned restates the first sentence of the intent of the Light Industrial and adds: This land use plan category will be used in high volume transportation corridors that have high visibility where impacts to adjacent development need to be minimized. The adjacent use compatibility issues are a major concern, and new development and substantial expansion of existing uses shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 119. The remaining seven designations are in a service level identified as "Urban or Rural." Two of them involve industrial uses. They are Heavy Industrial and Electric Power Generating Facility. The Heavy Industrial designation allows no residential uses. The typical uses of Heavy Industrial are: Phosphate and other chemical plants, plastics and fiberglass products processing, port related uses, storage of hazardous materials and liquids, offices, existing electric generating plants and expansions thereof, and related uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, establishments, recreational facilities and rural scale retail establishments. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. maximum. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 120. The maximum floor area of Heavy Industrial is: .5 FAR. FAR's not to be applied to processing, storage and other uses characterized by outdoor storage. FLUE, page 120. The intent of Heavy Industrial is the same as the intent of the Light Industrial except that, in the case of Heavy Industrial, the activities "may have objectionable accompanying effects such as noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor." FLUE, page 120. The Electric Power Generating Facility designation allows a residential density of 1:5. The typical uses are: "All new Electrical Power Generating Facilities and related uses and all uses allowed in the Agricultural/Rural (A/R) land use plan classification." FLUE, page 121. The maximum floor area of the Electrical Power Generating Facility is: 0.5 FAR. FAR's not to be applied to processing, storage and other uses characterized by outdoor storage. Development permitted in this designation is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the [Plan], applicable development regulations and established locational criteria for specific land uses. FLUE, page 121. The intent of Electrical Power Generating Facility is: This land use category is used to designate geographically on the Future Land Use Map and textually in the [FLUE] those areas that are potentially suitable for the construction and operation of future electric power generating facilities consistent with the infrastructure needs of the population and subject to the requirements of the [Plan] and all other Federal, State and Local Laws, policies and permits. The uses authorized in the Agricultural/Rural (A/R) land use plan category are also authorized. New development of uses associated with an electrical power generating facility shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process. An application to rezone land for an Electrical Power Generating Facility may only be filed after submission of an application to the State under the Power Plant Siting Act. If the Siting Board denies the Siting, then the zoning shall revert to the underlying Zoning in existence at the time of application. FLUE, page 121. The five remaining designations are Major Public/Semi- Public, Major Recreation and Open Space, Scenic Corridor, Natural Preservation, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The typical uses of Major Public/Semi-Public, which is intended to "recognize major existing and programmed public facilities," are "[m]ajor government-owned facilities and other public uses [and] semi-public uses generally available for public use, [such as] churches, hospitals, schools, clubs and utility and transportation facilities." However, "[t]he Land Use Plan Map only shows major existing facilities." FLUE, page 122. The typical uses of Major Recreation and Open Space are "[m]ajor parks and recreational facilities which are publicly or privately owned and operated for recreational uses and are available to the public." However, the designation shows only "major existing parks and recreational facilities" as the Recreation and Open Space Element contains maps of "existing and proposed or needed parks." FLUE, page 123. The intent of the Scenic Corridor is to create a designation "applied to road corridors . . . determined to have scenic qualities of local or countywide significance." FLUE, page 124. In addition to preserving or enhancing the aesthetic appearance of roads through buffering, landscaping, and control of nonresidential uses, the Scenic Corridor designation is intended to preserve or expand a system of roadways that will begin to form a boulevard system to connect different communities within unincorporated Hillsborough County. The boulevard system will also form a system of connections between parks and recreational areas of the county. FLUE, page 92. The typical uses of Natural Preservation are "[o]pen space or passive nature parks." The intent of the designation is to "recognize public lands of significant environmental importance set aside for primarily conservation purposes." The Natural Preservation designation excludes other uses except residential sufficient for a caretaker, "compatible recreational development," and limited educational uses. FLUE, page 125. FLUE Policy A-3.2 states: No new development nor expansion nor replacement of existing development shall be permitted within areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as Natural Preservation Areas, unless development is undertaken by federal, State or local government in the public interest, and the impacts are mitigated. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation has been discussed above. 22/ The Implementation section of the FLUE describes the locational criteria and development standards for Rural-, Suburban-, and Urban-scale neighborhood commercial uses, which may be approved in various land use categories. Different development standards also apply for community commercial uses. The development standards for neighborhood commercial uses require, among other things, a location within a commercial node at the intersection of least one collector or higher planned roadway and maximum square footage based on a matrix focusing on land use designation and roadway classification. FLUE, pages 75- 76. Additional requirements are imposed based on whether the use is Urban-, Suburban-, or Rural-scale. The relationship of the land use categories to the FLUM is explained in the Implementation section: The land use plan categories shown on the Future Land Use Map are named according to their predominant land use or maximum level of intensity intended for that category of land use. Other uses may be permitted in any land use category as described within the individual plan category descriptions. Specific locations for other such uses are not shown graphically because to do so would predetermine locations of individual uses, particularly neighborhood-related uses, at a level of detail beyond the scope of the Future Land Use Map. All uses shall be reviewed for conformance with all applicable provisions contained within the [Plan] and with applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 55. Various policies pertain to designated densities in the Plan and FLUM. FLUE Policy A-3.3 states: "Gradual transitions of intensities and between different land uses shall be encouraged." FLUE Policy A-3.1 provides in part: "Land development regulations shall be studied to determine whether to include provisions for the transfer of development rights which ... provide for the transfer of development rights to receiving zones where infill is indicated." The Implementation section of the FLUE provides a density credit for certain in-fill development. FLUE, page 69. The Implementation section also contains various density and intensity bonuses for the development of affordable housing. FLUE, pages 73a-73b. FLUE Policy B-3.6 pursues infilling by treating as a single dwelling unit "an accessory residential unit associated with an owner occupied single family residence." Several provisions in the FLUE concern the provision of public facilities. FLUE Objective A-5 is: All new development and redevelopment shall be serviced with potable water, sewerage, stormwater management facilities, solid waste disposal and parks that meet or exceed the adopted levels of service established by Hillsborough County. FLUE Policy A-5.2 establishes the concurrency requirement as follows: The public facilities that are needed to serve future development shall be provided by the applicant seeking a development permit and/or the County, in a timely manner that is concurrent with the impacts of development as defined in the [CIE]. FLUE Objective C-29 provides: Public facilities and services that meet or exceed existing or established County levels of service shall be provided in advance of, or concurrent with, the impacts of development. FLUE Policy C-29.1 is to: Ensure that public facilities operating at adopted levels of service are available when Certificates of Occupancy are issued by: Anticipating development and planning the Capital Improvements Program accordingly; Requiring conditions on development approvals that phase development with the availability of facilities; Allowing developers to improve or provide public facilities at their own expense; Entering into public-private partnerships, when appropriate, to provide public facilities. CIE Policy 3.C states: The Board of County Commissioners find that the impacts of development on public facilities within Hillsborough County occur at the same time as development authorized by a final development order as defined in Policy 1.A.3.a. The County shall determine, prior to the issuance of final development orders, whether or not there is sufficient capacity of Category A and Category B 23/ public facilities to meet the standards for Levels of Service for existing population and the proposed development concurrent with the proposed development. For the purpose of this policy, "concurrent with" shall be defined as follows: 3.C.1: No final development order shall be issued by the County after January 31, 1990, unless there shall be sufficient capacity of Category A and Category B public facilities to meet the standards for Levels of Service for the existing population and for the proposed development according to the following deadlines: a: Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity for the following public facilities: 3.C.1.a.(1): Potable water. 3.C.1.a.(2): Sanitary sewer. 3.C.1.a.(3): Solid waste. 3.C.1.a.(4): Stormwater management. 3.C.1.b: Prior to the completion of the same County fiscal year as the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity for arterial and collector roads. 3.C.1.c: For parks and recreation facilities, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity or within a year of the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity if the necessary facilities are the subject of a binding executed contract or are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement which requires the commencement of actual construction of the facilities within one (1) year of the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity. CIE Policy 3.C.2 states that a favorable capacity determination, following mandatory review of a development order, remains valid for two years. CIE Policy 3.C.4 indicates that the levels of service determinations shall be applied on a County-wide basis for solid waste disposal and regional parks. Levels of service determinations for facilities involving arterial and collector roads and mass transit shall be made by "[a]djoining sites and areas affected by the project based on individual analysis of the proposed development." Levels of service determinations for stormwater management systems shall be by major drainage basin. Levels of service determinations for district or neighborhood parks shall be by the relevant planning area. Levels of service determinations for potable water systems and sanitary sewer systems shall be by treatment plant service area, except that individual transmission (water) or collection (sewer) system limitations shall not result in closing the entire area to development if plant capacity remains. CIE Policy 1.C.1.a adopts level of service standards for all County arterial and collector roads by listing road segments and maximum volume-to- capacity ratios. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b adopts level of service standards for stormwater management systems, which include "significant canals, channels, ditches, pipeline/culvert enclosures of open systems, and appurtenant structures at crossings/control points." CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(1) sets the adopted level of service for any existing system as the existing level of service until the system is physically upgraded and the Plan is amended to reflect the upgrade. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(2) states that the ultimate level of service for major stormwater conveyance systems is generally the 25 year/24-hour duration storm at flood level B except the more rigorous flood level A applies to new development and a less rigorous five year storm event applies for systems discharging into Tampa's stormwater conveyance system, which is designed to meet the demands of only the five year storm event. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(6) sets stormwater level of service standards based on flood capacity for other stormwater systems--i.e., sewer/swales and detention ponds/lakes/storage areas. CIE Policy 1.C.1.c sets the potable water level of service standard at 140 gallons daily per person. CIE Policy 1.C.1.d sets the sewage level of service standard at 100 gallons daily per person plus 23.8% for nonresidential sewage. CIE Policies 1.C.1.f-1.C.2 set level of service standards for solid waste, parks and recreation facilities, mass transit, and non-County maintained public facilities. FLUE Policy A-5.3 addresses the concurrency monitoring system: Areas that have excess and deficient capacities for public facilities in unincorporated Hillsborough County shall be identified, and this information shall be updated no less than once a year. Development will be encouraged in areas with excess capacities for public facilities, and discouraged in areas with deficient capacities for public facilities unless these facilities can be provided concurrently with development and consistent with the [Plan], County Regulations and adopted levels of service for public facilities. The monitoring and enforcement aspects of the concurrency management system are detailed in the CIE's Implementation section, which is part of the adopted Plan. The Implementation section assures: "no final development order shall be issued which results in a reduction in the Levels of Service below the standard adopted in Policy 1.C.1 for Category A public facilities and Policy 1.C.2 for Category B public facilities." CIE, page 25. The concurrency determination is based on a monitoring program that calls for, among other things, annual reports on the capacity and actual levels of service of public facilities for which concurrency is required. The monitoring program requires a separate record of the cumulative impacts of all development orders approved year-to-date. CIE, page 27. FLUE Policy A-5.6 states: Public facilities and utilities shall be located to consider: (a) maximizing the efficiency of services provided; (b) minimizing their cost; and (c) minimizing their impacts upon the natural environment. FLUE Policy A-5.7 identifies procedures, such as development phasing and utility oversizing, "so that the location and timing of new development can be closely coordinated with local government's ability to provide public facilities." FLUE Policy A-5.8 adds that the County shall promote partnerships among governmental and private entities "to identify and build needed public facilities among the partners in proportion to the benefits accruing to each of them." Specifically addressing transportation facilities, FLUE Objective A-6 states: All new development and redevelopment shall be serviced with roads that meet or exceed the adopted levels of service established by Hillsborough County. FLUE Policy A-6.1 is to: Coordinate land use and transportation plans to provide for locally adopted levels of service consistent with the Transportation and Capital Improvements Elements . . .. FLUE Objective A-7 is: The concept plan is the overall, conceptual basis for the long range, Comprehensive Plan, and all plan amendments must be consistent with, and further the intent of the concept plan, which advocates nodal clusters of growth connected by corridors that efficiently move goods and people between each of the nodes. FLUE Policy A-7.3 states: The development of a variety of employment centers shall be encouraged at adopted locations, as defined by the concept plan and applicable development regulations, to provide employment opportunities throughout existing and planned development areas. The Implementation section of the FLUE describes the concept plan involving nodal development. The purpose of the nodal activity centers is to "begin to form an urban structure that encourages the cohesiveness of the neighborhood unit while facilitating the connection and interdependence of the region as a whole." FLUE, page 57. The Implementation section describes four types of nodes. The most intense is the high intensity node, which is limited to the Central Business District of Tampa. The next most intense is the mixed use regional node, which designates existing and future regional shopping centers, major office and employment areas, higher education institutions, and professional sports and recreation complexes. The mixed use regional nodes include the West Shore Business District, Urban Level 3 Regional Activity Center in the I-75 corridor west of Brandon, University of South Florida area, and Tampa Palms at CR 581 and I-75. Less intense than the mixed use regional node is the community center node, which "will designate and emphasize a focal point for surrounding neighborhoods that will include a variety of public facilities and services including commercial and office development." FLUE, page 57. The community center nodes include numerous named areas. Least intense is the neighborhood node, which designates areas "appropriate for some higher intensity residential development with the density tied to a relationship with the scale of existing surrounding development." FLUE, page 58. There are numerous existing and potential neighborhood nodes. FLUE Policy A-7.6 states: Scattered, unplanned, low density development without provisions for facilities and services at levels adopted in the [Plan] in locations not consistent with the overall concepts of the [Plan] shall be prohibited. To qualify for densities in excess of 1:5 in areas designated Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned, FLUE Policy A-7.7 requires residential development to conform to the requirements contained in the FLUE Implementation section, such as clustering, on-site job opportunities, internal trip capture, and shopping opportunities. FLUE Policy A-7.8 explains that the clustering and mixed use requirements imposed upon development in areas designated Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned are intended: to prevent urban sprawl, provide for the efficient provision of infrastructure, and preservation of open space and the environment. Clustering and Mixed Use shall be encouraged in the other suburban and rural plans categories. FLUE Policy A-7.10 states that developments in areas designated as Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned and involving at least 160 acres, if proceeding under the Planned Village concept, "shall be served by a central wastewater system (i.e. franchise, interim plant, community plant, county/municipal regional or sub-regional service, or other privately owned central systems)." Housing Element Objective 1.3 states: By 1992, establish guidelines for locating low and moderate income housing accessible to employment centers, mass transit systems, shopping and cultural, educational, medical and recreational facilities. Housing Element Policy 1.3.5 provides: By 1992, proactive public land investment initiatives along with incentives for private developments shall be explored, and implemented which include but are not limited to the following: disposition of surplus public land with developer incentives, public land assembly, disposition, and developer incentives in a comprehensive redevelopment framework and/or neighborhood rehabilitation plans; supplementary public initiatives to support private land assembly and affordable housing development; and the creation of a public-private partnership corporation to undertake land investment and facilitate private development of affordable housing in desirable locations. Housing Element Policy 1.3.6 states: "The County shall pursue federal and state funding sources for infrastructure improvements and for the construction or rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing." FLUE Objective B-4 addresses the locational criteria by which commercial uses will be permitted under the Plan. The objective states: Locational criteria for neighborhood serving commercial uses shall be implemented to scale development consistent with the character of the areas and to the availability of public facilities and the market. FLUE Policy B-4.1 states that the amount of neighborhood-serving commercial uses permitted in an area shall be consistent with the table adopted in the Implementation Section of the [FLUE] relating to land use density and the functional classification of the road network. FLUE Policy B-4.6 is: "Scattered, unplanned commercial development shall be discouraged, and commercial concentration shall be encouraged." FLUE Policy B-4.7 adds: "Commercial development should be designed to decrease the need for motorized vehicle trips by designing convenient, safe, non- motorized access." FLUE Policy B-4.8 provides: The expansion of existing strip commercial areas shall be prohibited, except in accordance with infill provisions in existing neighborhood commercial areas, and office or higher density residential development shall be considered as a viable alternative when in accordance with applicable development regulations. FLUE Policy B-5.1 addresses the redevelopment of commercial areas: "The redevelopment or revitalization of rundown strip commercial areas shall be encouraged through incentives such as the use of residential density credits for infill development that could include mixed use development." Further refining the guidelines for commercial redevelopment, FLUE Policy B-5.3 states: The redevelopment of appropriate commercial areas to include residential and/or office development that will reduce the number of transportation trips by increasing a project's internal capture rate shall be encouraged through incentives such as the use of residential density credits for infill development. FLUE Objective B-6 promises ongoing studies to identify the areas suitable for different types of industrial uses. FLUE Policy B-6.2 states that light industrial uses-- specifically, research and development--shall be encouraged to locate within the I-75 corridor, adjacent to the Tampa International Airport, and within the I-4 corridor. FLUE Policy B-6.5 provides: Expansion or new development of non- industrially designated land uses in industrially designated areas shall be prohibited unless the use is determined to be an accessory and complementary use to the industrial area. Applicable development regulations shall contain standards and/or criteria for location and intensity of these types of non-industrial uses. The intent is to ensure the availability of lands for industrial development, and to ensure that such subordinate uses will be in conjunction with the surrounding industrial area, as long as the industrial uses in the area are the predominant uses. FLUE Policy B-6.7 states: "Future industrial development shall be concentrated within industrial and mixed use areas as defined on the Future Land Use Map." Addressing agriculture, FLUE Objective B-7 states: Hillsborough County shall take active measures to foster the economic viability of agricultural activities by recognizing and providing for [their] unique characteristics in land use planning and land development regulations. FLUE Policy B-7.1 is to "[p]romote the development and maintenance of Plant City and Ruskin as agricultural market centers that strengthen the agricultural economy, encouraging agricultural uses within and around both communities." FLUE Policy B-7.2 is to "[a]llow agriculture as a viable use both prior and subsequent to the mining of land designated or approved for mining purposes." FLUE Policy B-7.5 warns: Anyone seeking the maximum long-term protection for long-term agricultural activities either should locate these activities on land in the Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate and Rural Residential designated land use categories or should seek having these designations placed on their current location. FLUE Policy B-7.6 advises: "Anyone seeking to farm until it is more feasible to develop the property non- agriculturally should locate and remain in non-rural designated areas." FLUE Policy B-7.7 guarantees, for areas designated Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, and Agricultural/Rural, that minimum acreages needed for viable agriculture will remain after clustering is approved. FLUE Policy B-7.9 is to defer charging an on-going agriculturally used property designated Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, or Rural Residential for public water or sewer tie-ins until actual connections are made or the designation is changed to a non- rural land use category. FLUE Objective B-8 deals with the question of compatibility between agricultural and nonagricultural uses in areas designated other than Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, and Rural Residential. FLUE Policy B-8.4 is to "[d]iscourage the location of new non- agricultural uses adjacent to pre-existing agricultural uses in rural land use categories." FLUE Objective C-25 addresses the need for "urban level densities" to encourage single and mixed uses in the I-75 corridor. FLUE Policy C-25.2 is to: "Encourage provision of affordable housing within mixed use developments through public and private sector initiatives." FLUE Policy C-25.3 is to limit the maximum density to 8:1 in the Urban Level 1 area between Tampa and the Pasco county line. FLUE Policy C-25.5 is to encourage access to urban level development on county arterials rather than state highways. FLUE Objective C-27 states: Employment centers shall be planned throughout the I-75 corridor, and residential opportunities shall be permitted in each of the plan categories within the I-75 corridor in order to promote opportunities for all segments of the population to live and work within the corridor, regardless of age, sex, race and income. FLUE Policy C-27.2 is to: "Encourage the provision and integration of low and moderate income housing dispersed throughout the urban level categories." FLUE Objective C-28 states: "Mass transit opportunities shall be expanded within the I-75 corridor." FLUE Objective C-31 is: By 1991, the County shall pursue the Regional Activity Center designation for the area within the I-75 corridor defined as that area consisting of the Urban Level 3 land use plan category on the Future Land Use Plan Map. FLUE Policy C-31.2 is for the County to develop incentives for development to locate within the Regional Activity Center. Suggested incentives are transferable development rights, increased densities and intensities, priority public facility funding, and special taxing districts. FLUE Objectives C-32 and C-33 establish corridors for I-4 and North Dale Mabry, respectively. In the I-4 corridor, light industrial uses are encouraged. In the North Dale Mabry corridor, clustered commercial, such as shopping centers, are encouraged over "scattered unplanned commercial development." 4. Funding and Financial Feasibility 615. CIE Objective 2 is: Provide needed public facilities that are within the ability of the County to fund the facilities. . . from County revenues, development's proportionate share contributions, and grants or gift[s] from other sources. [Rule] 9J-5.016(3)(b)5. CIE Policy 2.A states: The estimated costs of all needed capital improvements shall not exceed conservative estimates of revenues from sources that are available to the County pursuant to current statutes, and which have not been rejected by referendum, if a referendum is required to enact a source of revenue. [Rule] 9J- 5.016(3)(c)1.f. CIE Policy 2.B provides: "Existing and future development shall both pay for the costs of needed public facilities." CIE Policy 2.B.1.a states: Existing development shall pay for some or all of the capital improvements that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, some or all of the replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities, and may pay a portion of the cost of capital improvements needed by future development. CIE Policy 2.B.1.b adds: "Existing development's payments may take the form of user fees, special assessments and taxes." Addressing future development, CIE Policy 2.B.2.a provides: The County will allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents so that current residents will not subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new development. CIE Policy 2.B.2.b states: Future development's payments may take the form of, but are not limited to, voluntary contributions for the benefit of any public facility, impact fees, capacity fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, and future payments of user fees, special assessments and taxes. Future development shall not pay impact fees for the portion of any capital improvement that reduces or eliminates existing deficiencies. The Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements contained in the CIE discloses planned capital expenditures, as they were known in June and July, 1989. The Five-Year Schedule indicates that, for the five-year period ending with fiscal year end 1994, the following capital costs are projected by public facility type: roads--$273,668,000; parks--$28,611,000; water--$10,798,000; sewer--$55,848,000; stormwater-- $29,345,000; and solid waste--$16,250,000. The total of these capital expenditures is $414,520,000. For each project, the Five-Year Schedule describes the general funding source. The CIE contains a section entitled Costs and Revenues by Type of Public Facility, which is an adopted part of the Plan. The Costs and Revenues section, which was prepared in December, 1990, states: The [CIE] is 100% financed by revenue sources that are available to the County under current law, therefore the Element is financially feasible, as required by the Florida Administrative Code. There is no "unfunded" portion of the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The Costs and Revenues section identifies each of the public facilities for which concurrency is required, the total expenditures planned for each public facility for the five-year capital planning period, and general sources of revenue by facility type. The costs and revenues by public facility type are: roads--$193,684,000; parks--$17,865,000; water-- $9,265,000; sewer--$76,179,000; drainage--$25,000,000; and solid waste--$16,250,000. The total of these capital expenditures is $362,097,000. Evidently, budget cutbacks took place in the 18 months between the adoption of the Five Year Schedule in mid 1989 and the adoption of the Costs and Revenues section in December, 1990. 5. Transportation Level of Service Standards Transportation Element Policy 1.1.1 sets minimum peak hour level of service standards for County roads, subject to lower standards for certain roads listed in CIE Policy 1.C.1.a. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 sets minimum peak hour level of service standards for State roads, subject to lower standards for certain roads listed in Transportation Element Table 2. 24/ Transportation Element Tables 1 and 2 show that 58 of the 147 state road segments in Hillsborough County are operating below the level of service standards generally adopted in Policy 1.1.4. These standards are D for all Urban state roads except for minor arterials, which are E, and C for all Rural state roads except for minor arterials, which are D. Table 1 shows that, by 1995, an additional 33 state road segments will be operating below the generally adopted level of service standard. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 concludes: "No development orders will be issued that would further reduce the current level of service on those roads listed in Table 2 of this element except where the development is vested under law." Transportation Element Figure 4 shows the location of all roads operating at level of service F. None is south of the Alafia River. The impaired roads are entirely in northwest and northcentral Hillsborough County. Among the road segments operating below the generally applicable level of service standards for state roads are four of the 11 segments of SR 574 (Buffalo/King), 10 of the 15 segments of SR 597 (Dale Mabry Highway), four of the five segments of SR 580 (Hillsborough Ave.), seven of the 10 segments of I- 275, seven of the eight segments of I-4, and four of the five segments of US 41 (Nebraska Ave. portion only). Much less impacted state road segments include I- 75, which has no segment operating below its adopted level of service standards; US 301, which has two of nine segments operating below its adopted level of service standards; and US 41 (southern sections), which has no segment operating below its adopted level of service standards. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 states that state roads operating below adopted level of service standards are "backlogged" or "constrained" and shall have a level of service standard established by the volume-to-capacity ratio listed for each road on Table 2. The Data and Analysis discuss the transportation problems confronting Hillsborough County. Many of the impaired road segments are scheduled for capital improvements in the Florida Department of Transportation five year work program. One key exception is Dale Mabry Highway, which will remain at level of service F even after planned work is completed. Transportation Element, page 24. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.7 promises that, within one year after adoption of the Plan, the County will enter into an agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation to identify actions that the County will take to "maintain the existing average operating conditions" on backlogged or constrained state roads. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.14 provides that Hillsborough County will, by 1990, initiate studies to identify State and County road corridors not capable of undergoing further capacity-increasing improvements and are thus suitable for designation as constrained corridors. 6. Vested Rights and Developments of Regional Impact The Legal Status of the Plan, which is part of the FLUE, addresses vested rights. The Legal Status section requires the County to develop an administrative process by which vested rights can be determined. The Legal Status section preconditions a finding of vested rights upon the following: That the person owned the parcel proposed for development at the date of the adoption of this [Plan], or the person had a contract or option to purchase the parcel on such date, or that it would be inequitable, unjust or fundamentally unfair to deny an application for vested rights where the person acquired ownership prior to February 1, 1990; and That there was a valid, unexpired act of any agency or authority of Hillsborough County government upon which the person reasonably relied in good faith; and That the person, in reliance upon this act of government, has made a substantial change in position or had incurred extensive obligations or expenses; and That it would be inequitable, unjust or fundamentally unfair to destroy the rights acquired by the person. In making this determination, the County may consider a number of factors, including but not limited to consideration of whether actual construction has commenced and whether the expense or obligation incurred is unique to the development previously approved and is not reasonably usable for a development permitted by the [Plan] and land development regulations. FLUE, page 128. Ensuing provisions of the Legal Status section identify various vested rights based on whether a development is exempted from concurrency. The Legal Status section also addresses certain development orders under developments of regional impact (DRI). Between the Plan adoption date and February 1, 1990, the County will approve buildout of not more than a "limited stage" of the total proposed DRI. Generally, the buildout approval will be limited to the part of the proposed development that has received Site Development Approval within two years following the expiration of the development order's initial appeal period. The Legal Status section authorizes the approval of additional development stages beyond the two-year limit if the development application had been received by the County prior to the Plan adoption date, the developer made substantial expenditures before Plan adoption in conducting a transportation analysis, and the transportation analysis focused on impacts occurring beyond the two-year limit. Development activity following the approved initial stage shall be subject to the Plan, including the concurrency requirements. The Legal Status section also recognizes the practice of "pipelining." The Legal Status section states: "While 'pipelining' will remain a permitted transportation mitigation option, the Board of County Commissioners will closely scrutinize its use." FLUE, page 129. Miscellaneous Intergovernmental Coordination Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) Objective 1 states: By 1990, Hillsborough County shall establish new and review existing coordination mechanisms that will evaluate and address its comprehensive plan and programs and their effects on the comprehensive plans developed for the adjacent local governments, school board, and other units of local government providing services but not having regulatory authority over use of land and the State, by an annual county-wide forum sponsored by The Planning Commission. Assistance for this effort shall be requested from regional and state agencies by The Planning Commission, as needed. ICE Objective 3 requires the County, by 1991, "to address through coordination mechanisms the impact of development proposed in the [Plan] upon development in adjacent jurisdictions, the region and the state." Dual Planning Timeframes The Plan contains dual planning timeframes. Overall, the Plan contains a 20-year planning timeframe. However, shorter planning periods are addressed, such as the five-year period covered in the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. Regional Plan Provisions The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has adopted a regional plan known as the Future of the Region: A Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region dated July 1, 1987 (Regional Plan). The Regional Plan, which applies to unincorporated Hillsborough County, is divided into goals and policies. Regional Goal 8.1 is: "By 1990, there will be an ample supply of water to meet all projected reasonable and beneficial uses in the Tampa Bay region." Policy 8.1.4 states: "Land use planning and development decisions shall consider the impact on surface and groundwater quality." Regional Goal 8.5 is: "By 1991, the region will increase the protection of major public water supplies and wellfields." Policy 8.5.1 states: "Prime groundwater recharge areas and cones of influence of existing and future major public water supplies and well fields shall be identified and mapped." Regional Goal 8.7 is: "By 1991, new developments in the region will be required to use the best management practices and/or procedures to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff." Policy 8.7.1 requires the development of programs to ensure water reclamation and reuse with respect to wastewater and stormwater. Regional Goal 8.8 is: "By 1995, existing developments will be required to make measurable progress toward meeting stormwater standards." Policy 8.8.1 provides: "Local governments should upgrade or retrofit drainage systems in urbanized areas to include stormwater treatment for water quality." Policy 8.8.4 requires that agricultural runoff "shall be handled with Best Management Practices to minimize its impact upon receiving waters." Regional Goal 8.9 is: "By 1995, there shall be an increase in the effectiveness of programs protecting or enhancing the ecological function of natural systems (aquatic, wetland and terrestrial systems)." Policy 8.9.1 is to develop regional and local programs "to identify, protect and conserve the natural character and function of area lakes, streams, estuaries, wetlands, floodplain areas, and upland areas." Policy 8.9.2 directs that local government comprehensive plans shall incorporate the following: a) adoption of criteria for work in lake, riverine and wetland systems which will protect water quality, wildlife habitat and natural hydrological functioning of these areas; b) conservation of valuable upland habitat and wetland systems; c) preservation of habitat for endangered and threatened species; d) establish ecological minimum flow criteria and hydroperiod for surface waters; e) utilization of biological treatment methods and natural areas, such as wetlands, for stormwater treatment in areas of development/redevelopment to the maximum feasible extent. Regional Goal 8.10 is: "By 1991, land use practices will reduce the disruption of natural floodplain functions." Policy 8.10.1 states: "Regulations should be developed to promote appropriate land use practices compatible with floodplain areas and provide for performance standards for these land uses." Regional Goal 9.1 is: "By 1990, coastal zone areas will have increased vegetation, enhanced beach systems and improved environmental quality." Policy 9.1.2 provides: "The protection of coastal vegetative communities, coastal wildlife habitats, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development shall be required." Regional Goal 9.3 is: "By 1995, aquatic preserves in the Tampa Bay region will be more productive than 1985 levels and have a significant improvement in quality over 1985 measurements." Policy 9.3.3 requires buffer zones or other appropriate protection "between pristine aquatic preserves and adjacent upland uses to prevent degradation of water quality, shoreline and marine habitats." Regional Goal 9.4 is: "By 1991, all marine resources will be protected from contamination from human-induced processes." Policy 9.4.1 states: To protect sensitive marine resources from immediate and near future degradation resulting from improper development practices and recreational misuse, priority shall be given to water dependent uses or other types of shoreline development such as marina, light industry, ports and shoreline compatible commerce. Policy 9.4.2 states that the exploration and development of mineral resources "shall only proceed in an ecologically sound manner which does not threaten marine, aquatic, and estuarine resources." Policy 9.4.5 provides: "Dredging or spoiling of undisturbed bay bottom shall be prohibited. " Regional Goal 9.5 is: "By 1995, there will be at least a 5 percent increase in productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources." Policy 9.5.1 states: "Long-term productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources shall be increased and restored through estuary and intertidal protection." Regional Goal 9.6 is: "By 1990, coastal area will be protected by local government controls and other building regulations that will enhance the character and function of barrier islands and other environmentally sensitive areas." Policy 9.6.1 states: "Land and water uses shall be compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources." Policy 9.6.2 provides: "The use of government funds to subsidize development should be prohibited in high-hazard coastal areas." Policy 9.6.3 is to identify coastal high hazard areas "where the expenditure of public funds to subsidize development shall be prohibited." Policy 9.6.4 states: "The use of public funds to rebuild public facilities damaged by hurricanes or other storms shall be limited to facilities essential only for public health and safety." Regional Goal 10.1 is: "By 1995, the Tampa Bay region's conservation areas will have increased environmental quality and functional characteristics that provide suitable habitat to all wildlife and flora indigenous to the region." Policy 10.1.1 states: "Protect the habitats and plant communities that tend to be least in abundance and most productive or unique." Policy 10.2.2 states: The hydrologic continuity and water quality of identified isolated wetlands shall be protected. Development activities or other land disturbances in the drainage area of the wetlands shall minimize alterations to the surface or subsurface flow of water into and from the wetland and shall not cause impairment of the water quality or the plant and wildlife habitat value of the wetland. Policy 10.2.3 requires "water users, such as agriculture and mining," to prepare mitigation plans "to minimize unavoidable impacts to nearby wetlands." Policy 10.2.4 requires: Mitigation measures shall be developed to provide water quality benefits and plant and animal habitat equivalent to the wetland destroyed or altered. Newly created wetlands should include at least 1:1 mitigation using the same type or more productive vegetation with at least an 80-85 percent natural cover rate, over a 2 to 5 year period. Regional Goal 10.3 is: "By 1993, regional preservation areas will be protected by regulations or practices from further development and will be preserved and/or restored to their natural state." Policy 10.3.1 states, in part: "Preservation areas, such as marine grass beds . . . and other vital or critical natural systems, shall be protected from any further development except in cases of overriding public interest." Policy 10.3.3 provides: "Unique upland communities and habitats in identified preservation areas should be protected from development that would significantly alter their character. Preservation and restoration of these communities shall be required." Regional Goal 10.4 is: "By 1991, development in the 100 year floodplains should be strictly regulated." Policy 10.4.1 allows new channelization only as a "last resort" in flood protection for existing development. Policy 10.4.4 prohibits channelization solely to create new lands for development. Policy 10.4.2 prohibits locating new development in river floodways (i.e., the area of highest velocity during flow) except in cases of overriding public interest. Policy 10.4.3 requires that new development in the flood fringe (i.e., the area of the floodplain outside the floodway) meet flood hazard construction requirements. Regional Goal 10.5 is: "By 1991, new or rebuilt development within the 25 year floodplain will not contribute adverse water quality impacts from stormwater runoff." Policy 10.5.2 states: "Development along all river floodplains shall be low density with adequate setbacks to maintain existing areas of natural habitat." Regional Goal 10.6 is that, by 1995, there shall be "measurable indications" of greater commitment from local governments and private parties to "conserve, protect, and enhance" populations and habitats of endangered, threatened, and special-concern species. Policy 10.6.1 recommends the adoption of incentives to encourage the preservation of native habitats. Policy 10.6.2 states: Identified areas that contain viable populations of, or suitable habitats for, species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern . . . shall be classified as environmentally sensitive, preservation, or conservation areas with future development limited to land uses compatible with the listed species. Regional Goal 10.8 is: "By 1991, there will be marked changes in land rearrangement and vegetation clearing practices that do not degrade the region's natural drainage and percolation patterns." Policy 10.8.1 requires the use of buffer zones between agricultural lands and water bodies. Regional Goal 10.9 is: "By 1995, the region's forested and woodland areas will not have decreased in size by more than 3 percent, or have any less characteristics than present in 1988." Policy 10.9.1 requires the addition to local government comprehensive plans of forest preservation plans for significant woodlands or forests. Policy 10.9.2 states that the forest preservation strategy shall consist of mapping of forests and woodlands, identifying those forest or woodland areas that are wetlands or habitat protection areas, and providing incentives for the conversion of other land uses to forested conditions. Policy 10.9.3 states that wildlife corridors should be maintained. Regional Goal 16.8 is: "As an ongoing goal, all dredge and fill activities shall be carried out only when necessary and in a manner least harmful to the surrounding environment." Policy 16.8.1 provides: Any project including unavoidable destruction of habitat shall mitigate all lost wetland habitat on a 1:1 in-kind basis, at minimum. Mitigation shall include monitoring with assurance of an 80-85% natural cover area after 2-5 years. Policy 16.8.2 states: "Unique and irreplaceable natural resources shall be protected from adverse effects." This policy is intended to apply to dredge and fill projects, as is clear from the standard by which compliance is to be measured, which is the "amount of dredging or filling within unique and irreplaceable natural resources." Regional Goal 13.6 is: "By 1995, groundwater contamination due to inappropriately located or improperly used septic tanks shall be eliminated." Policy 13.6.2 provides: "Permitting process criteria for septic tanks and their fields shall take into consideration adverse impacts on water quality and aquatic resources." Policy 13.6.4 requires a survey locating "septic tanks associated with all commercial and industrial activities" and an "evaluation . . . concerning potential adverse effects on groundwater resources, water supply wells, and ground water recharge potential." Regional Goal 13.9 is: "By 1995, water quality will be improved by the control of point and non-point discharges into surface waters." Policy 13.9.2 states: "Domestic sewage and industrial discharges shall be required to achieve best practical technological standards and to implement reuse systems to minimize pollution discharge." Regional Goal 13.10 is: "By 1995, the number of project-specific 'package plants' shall be reduced from 1988 levels." Encouraging private cost- sharing in the construction of regional wastewater facilities and the development of requirements for connecting package-plant systems to regional systems when available, Policy 13.10.1 also provides: When necessary, project-specific "package plants" shall be allowed but only where a detailed hydrogeological analysis of the site determines low potential for groundwater contamination from hazardous wastes or other pollutants. Regional Goal 14.4 is: "By 1991, mining practices will be designed to fully protect the natural environment from the adverse effects of resource extraction." Policy 14.4.1 states: "There shall be no mining in areas which are geographically or hydrologically unsuitable for the extraction of minerals or in areas which are crucial to the provision of essential public services." Policy 14.4.2 provides: "There shall be no mining in the 25-year floodplain." Policy 14.4.3 states: The mining of environmentally sensitive areas shall be avoided unless it can be demonstrated that technology associated with reclamation and restoration can restore those areas. Mining and reclamation procedures shall minimize permanent changes in natural systems and the permanent loss of environmental resources. The best available technology and practices shall be used to re-establish the land forms, land uses, and natural vegetation associations that existed prior to mining of the land to the extent feasible and desirable. Policy 14.4.4 provides that the portion of mining areas that contain endangered or threatened wildlife species shall be protected. Policy 14.4.5 states that mining and processing shall be conducted so as to "protect, manage and more efficiently utilize water resources." Regional Goal 16.1 is for ten percent of DRI's to be located in designated regional activity centers between 1986 and 1990. Regional Goal 16.2 is: "As an ongoing goal, new urban development, including in-fill, will occur on land which has the capacity to accommodate growth in terms of environmental and infrastructural impacts." Policy 16.2.1 states: "Contiguous development and the orderly extension and expansion of public facilities are necessary." Policy 16.2.2 encourages the location of higher density developments within existing urban areas where public facilities are available. Regional Goal 16.5 is: By 1991, the integrity and quality of life will be maintained in existing residential areas and will be required of new residential developments through the continued revision and adoption of local government comprehensive plans, environmental and land use regulations. Policy 16.5.1 provides that residential areas shall be located and designed to protect from "natural and manmade hazards such as flooding, excessive traffic, subsidence, noxious odors and noise." Policy 16.5.2 states: "Residential land uses shall be encouraged in a manner which is compatible with the type and scale of surrounding land uses." Policy 16.5.4 encourages local governments to locate high density residential areas near regional activity centers and reduce densities elsewhere to "facilitate the restriction of urban sprawl [and] use of mass transit." Policy 16.5.5 encourages mixed use developments with buffering of residential areas. Policy 16.5.6 recommends the location of shopping facilities, recreation areas, schools, and parks within high density residential areas. Regional Goal 16.6 is: By 1991, commercial development, compatible with environmental and economic resources, will occur in a planned and orderly fashion through the continued revision and adoption of local government comprehensive plans, environmental and land use regulations. Policy 16.6.1 states: Commercial land uses shall be located in a manner which ensures compatibility with the type and scale of surrounding land uses and where existing or programmed public facilities will not be overburdened. Policy 16.6.2 is to locate regional commercial areas in planned centers to ensure compatibility and "efficiency of economic and natural resources." Policy 16.6.3 "strongly discourage[s]" strip commercial development, which "compounds traffic and land use conflicts." Regional Goal 16.7 is the same as Regional Goal 16.6, except that Goal 16.7 applies to industrial uses. Policy 16.7.1 is to locate industrial areas near adequate transportation for materials, labor, and products. Policy 16.7.5 encourages the redevelopment of urbanized industrial locations near major transportation facilities, such as ports and airports. Regional Goal 22.1 is: "By 1991, the Tampa Bay region shall balance the needs of agricultural and nonagricultural land uses." Policy 22.1.1 encourages the "preservation and utilization of agriculture land for agriculture uses." Policy 22.1.3 provides: "The recognition of agriculture as a form of land use and a category on land use plan maps, not simply as a holding zone, is encouraged, where appropriate." Policy 22.1.6 recommends: "Agriculture should be recognized as a major contributor to the region's economic base, and should be retained where possible to maintain the diversification of the region's economy." Regional Goal 22.2 is: "By 1991, agricultural practices will be implemented to reduce the amount of pesticides and other agriculturally based pollutants in surface waters, groundwater and sediments." Policy 17.1.1 states: To relieve pressure on existing public facilities, programs such as temporary density bonuses, special zoning designations and public acquisition of tax-delinquent property should be developed to encourage infilling of vacant urban lands. Policy 17.1.5 provides: "Capital improvements programs should maximize the development of existing systems before allocating funds to support public facilities in undeveloped areas." Regional Goal 17.2 is: "By 1991, the planning of public facilities will serve as a proactive growth management tool." Policy 17.2.1 requires that the location of public facilities "shall be used to guide urban development" and the "rate of private development should be commensurate with a reasonable rate of expansion of public and semi-public facilities." Policy 17.2.2 recommends the advance acquisition of sites for potential public and semi-public facilities. Regional Goal 19.1 is: As an ongoing goal, planning for and maintenance of an integrated transportation system including highway, air, mass transit, rail, water, and pipeline systems, which efficiently services the need for movement of all people and goods within the region and between the region and outside world[,] will continue to be implemented. Policy 19.1.2 is to reduce dependency upon the private automobile by providing an adequate mass transit system. Policy 19.1.3 states: "The transportation system should promote the efficient use of energy resources and improvement of the region's air quality." Policy 19.8.8 states: An operational Level of Service (LOS) D peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in urbanized areas. An operational LOS C peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in rural areas. However, Policy 19.8.9 provides: An operation Level of Service (LOS) E peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in Special Transportation areas as agreed upon by the FDOT, the appropriate MPO, the regional planning council, and the local government. Policy 19.8.14 states: Pipelining shall be an acceptable and sufficient DRI transportation impact mitigation for existing and future DRIs provided that all the following provisions are met: Project approvals shall be phased and shall not exceed five years. Subsequent approvals shall be subject to further analysis and additional pipeline mitigation. Roadway improvement to be pipelined shall: be selected from the list of existing or proposed regional transportation facilities substantially affected by the development identified by the [regional planning council] during the DRI review. preferably be consistent with MPO and FDOT long-range plans. receive concurrence from the local government and [regional planning council] with review and comment by MPO and FDOT. The developer fair share pipeline contribution shall be equalto or exceed an amount calculated pursuant to DCA pipeline transportation policy. The developer shall receive credit against impact fees, pursuant to law. Local government, based upon traffic analysis or studies, and/or long range planning, may authorize alternative pipelining approaches and conditions, to those established in subparagraph 1 above, provided that such variations are technically appropriate and that the basis for, and the conditions of, such variations are specifically set forth in the Development Order. Regional Goal 11.1 is: "By 1995, land use-related airborne contaminants will be reduced within the region by a measurable percentage." Policy 11.1.1 is for each local government to develop procedures to assess air quality impacts from non-DRI development, such as strip shopping centers, that have a cumulative impact on traffic flow. Policy 11.1.4 is to "[i]nitiate control measures where construction, mining and other activities where heavy vehicular traffic and/or meteorological conditions result in significant air pollution." Regional Goal 11.2 is: "By 1992, the regional will maintain ambient sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, ozone, and total suspended particulate levels that are equal to or better than the state and federal standards." Regional Goal 11.6 is: "By 1992, transportation related air quality impacts that adversely impact ambient air quality will be reduced." Policy 11.6.1 states that the metropolitan planning organizations and others entities involved in transportation planning "shall give priority to traffic flow improvements that reduce air pollution, particularly in areas that exceed ambient standards." Regional Goal 12.3 is: "As an ongoing goal, the most energy efficient and economically feasible means shall be utilized in construction, operation and maintenance of the region's transportation system." Policy 12.3.1 recommends consideration of incentives such as development or expansion of mass transit, "park and ride" programs, and public awareness of mass transit options. Regional Goal 20.2 is: "By 1990, the region's governments shall increase their efficiency and effectiveness." State Plan Provisions The state comprehensive plan is set forth at Sections 187.201 et seq., Florida Statutes. Section 187.201(8)(b)12 states: "Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." Section 187.201(10)(b)5 provides: "Promote the use of agricultural practices which are compatible with the protection of wildlife and natural systems." Section 187.201(23) states the goal of agricultural policies as follows: Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Section 187.201(16) states the goal of land use policies as follows: In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Section 187.201(18)(b)1 and 3 provides: Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. Allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents. Section 187.201(16)(b)2 states: "Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats." Section 187.201(20)(b)2 provides: "Coordinate transportation investments in major travel corridors to enhance system efficiency and minimize adverse environmental impacts." Section 187.201(20)(b)9 states: "Ensure that the transportation system provides Florida's citizens and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions." Section 187.201(11) states the following goal: "Florida shall reduce its energy requirements through enhanced conservation and efficiency measures in all end-use sectors, while at the same time promoting an increased use of renewable energy resources." Section 187.201(11)(b)2 adds: "Ensure that developments and transportation systems are consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality." Section 187.201(12)(b)4 provides: "Ensure energy efficiency in transportation design and planning and increase the availability of more efficient modes of transportation." Section 187.201(12)(b)5 states: "Reduce the need for new power plants by encouraging end-use efficiency, reducing peak demand, and using cost-effective alternatives." Section 187.201(5)(b)4 states: "Reduce the cost of housing construction by eliminating unnecessary regulatory practices which add to the cost of housing." Section 187.201(21)(b)4 and 12 provides: "Eliminate regulatory activities that are not tied to specific public and natural resource protection needs" and "Discourage undue expansion of state government and make every effort to streamline state government in a cost effective-manner. Ultimate Findings of Fact Minimum Criteria of Data and Analysis Sufficiency of Data and Analysis (Issues 1-9) As to Issue 1, the ELUM's show existing and planned water wells, their cones of influence, historic resources, floodplains, wetlands, minerals, and soils. The ELUM's show many important existing public facilities, such as roads, potable water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, and schools. The depiction of power line rights of way and power generating facilities is less clear, although major public and industrial uses are indicated. As to Issues 2 and 3, the Data and Analysis describe at length the fisheries, wildlife, marine habitats, and vegetative communities that are found in Hillsborough County. The text and CARE Table 11 identify endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with each habitat. As to Issue 3, for each of the vegetative communities or habitats found in Hillsborough County, the Data and Analysis identify various uses, known pollution problems, and potential for conservation, use, or protection. As to Issue 4, the Data and Analysis discuss the suitability of soils for septic tanks. The discussion notes the problems associated with the placement of septic tanks on poorly drained soils, as well as excessively drained soils. The Data and Analysis identify the parts of the County with such soils, especially the poorly drained coastal soils of the coastal high hazard area. As to Issues 4 and 5, the Data and Analysis acknowledge that septic tank failures have adversely affected the water quality of Cockroach Bay. The discussion of the impact of septic tanks in other parts of the Tampa Bay estuary is less specific geographically. But the Data and Analysis generally recognize the role of inadequately treated domestic wastewater and inadequately treated stormwater runoff in the eutrophication of Tampa Bay. As to Issue 6, the Data and Analysis consider the potential for conservation, use, and protection of all surface waters in Hillsborough County, including Tampa Bay. As to Issue 7, the Data and Analysis identify and analyze existing and future water needs and sources and natural groundwater recharge areas. Although Hillsborough County contains no areas of prime recharge to the Floridan aquifer nor of high natural recharge to any aquifer, the Data and Analysis identify locations of very low to moderate natural aquifer recharge and areas of high susceptibility to groundwater contamination. As to Issue 8, the Data and Analysis contain land use suitability analyses in which various land uses are correlated to natural features, including natural resources. Oversized Map 13 locates very severely limited soils and critical and sensitive lands in relation to vacant lands. Other ELUM's more specifically locate and analyze vacant lands, floodplains, wetlands, historic resources, minerals, soils, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, estuarine systems, recharge areas, areas highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination, water wells, vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources appropriately considered in analyzing potential land uses for vacant land. The Data and Analysis textually analyze the suitability of various types of land for different land uses. In some cases, the analysis is incomplete, such as with respect to suitable land uses within the cones of influence of water wells or adjacent to wellfields. Even for such resources, however, the Data and Analysis support the inference that activities involving considerable water consumption or wastewater production, like traditional phosphate mining operations, should not be located in close proximity to water wellfields. The Data and Analysis explicitly identify the risk to groundwater posed by impervious surfaces and groundwater contamination such as from septic drainfields and leaking underground storage tanks. Thus, suitable land uses may at least be inferred with respect to areas of natural moderate aquifer recharge or artificially high aquifer recharge due to wellfield drawdowns. As to Issue 9, Coastal Element Figure 18 identifies the coastal high hazard area in Hillsborough County. 2. Supporting Data and Analysis (Issues 10-14) As to Issue 10, the failure of the Plan to require retrofitting of existing, deficient stormwater management systems is supported by the Data and Analysis. In the first place, the Plan addresses retrofitting to a significant extent. Coastal Element Policy 13.3, which deals with all infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area, commits the County to preparing, by the 1993 hurricane season, a program to relocate or retrofit public facilities where feasible. Where economically and environmentally feasible, CARE Policy 2.10 and Coastal Element Policy 1.11 provide for the retrofitting of urbanized areas lacking stormwater management facilities. CARE Policy 2.8 contains similar provisions regarding agricultural runoff. The Plan provisions cited in the preceding paragraph are supported by the Data and Analysis. Existing stormwater problems are sufficiently serious that the Data and Analysis question whether water quality problems can be corrected without retrofitting stormwater management systems. Stormwater Element, page 20. However, the Data and Analysis recognize that economic reality may limit retrofitting to redevelopment. The failure of the Plan to require retrofitting of stormwater systems generally is supported by the Data and Analysis, at least in the absence of stronger evidence that, without retrofitting in unincorporated Hillsborough County, the water quality problems in Tampa Bay cannot be effectively addressed. The other part of Issue 10 concerns the failure of the Plan to set a stormwater level of service standard in terms of water quality. This part of Issue 10 addresses the means by which the performance of stormwater management systems will be evaluated, regardless whether the systems are installed at the time of development or redevelopment. The failure of the Plan in this regard is dramatic. First, the Plan provides for a stormwater level of service standard strictly in terms of flood control. The stormwater level of service standard, which is stated in CIE Policy 1.C.1.b, defines storm events and their duration and then specifies the extent to which the stormwater facilities may flood in such events. Other Plan provisions address aspects of stormwater management other than mere flood control--even mentioning water quality. But these provisions lack the measurable and enforceable performance standards characteristic of level of service standards. 25/ The Data and Analysis offer no support for the Plan's preoccupation, when setting a level of service standard, with stormwater solely in terms of flood control, to the exclusion of other factors that affect the quality of receiving waters, such as runoff rate, quality, and hydroperiods. To the contrary, the stormwater level of service standard in the Plan is repugnant to the Data and Analysis. The Data and Analysis clearly identify the role of inadequately treated stormwater runoff in the eutrophication of Tampa Bay. One quarter of the biological oxygen demand and 35% of the suspended solids discharged into the bay are attributable to stormwater runoff. Important gains have been made in reducing the nutrient loading of the bay by inadequately treated domestic and industrial wastewater, such as through the enhancement of treatment levels at wastewater treatment plants or the implementation of wastewater reuse programs. But the Data and Analysis concede that nutrient loading from stormwater runoff will remain a more intractable program. Coastal Element, page 24. The problem is exacerbated by inadequate compliance with existing stormwater regulations. CARE, page 54. For areas within the substantial floodplains of Hillsborough County, and even to a certain extent for areas outside the floodplains, the stormwater issue is best approached from the perspective of floodplain management. The natural drainage of floodplains regulates the timing, velocity, and levels of flood discharges, as well as water quality through the processes of sediment detention and chemical filtration. CARE, pages 14-15. Stormwater management systems using only a structural approach to effect flood control destroy the natural drainage function of the floodplain. Structural improvements include such projects as channelizing natural watercourses (like the Palm River) and constructing new channels, dams, levees, and other structures to hold back floodwaters or rapidly convey them elsewhere. Consequently, flood discharges tend to peak more quickly. By increasing maximum flow, the flood-control structures decrease filtration, groundwater recharge, habitat maintenance, detrital production and export, maintenance of base flow (as minimum flows during later dry periods cannot draw upon water previously stored in the unaltered floodplains), and estuarine salinity regulation. CARE, pages 15-17. In short, the Data and Analysis disclose that a stormwater management program whose performance is evaluated exclusively in terms of flood control, such as that contained in the Plan, has systemic environmental implications whose economic costs are probably incalculable. The Data and Analysis identify the obvious planning considerations that underlie the establishment of a viable stormwater level of service standard. The third guideline for floodplain management is to avoid alterations to the natural rate, quality, and pattern of surface waters. Expressly applying the guideline to floodplains and "more upland sites," the Data and Analysis advise that the "rate, volume, timing and location of discharge of surface water should generally not be altered from predevelopment conditions." CARE, page 19. See also Stormwater Element, page 20. Yet, the best that the County offers, after acknowledging its preoccupation with flood control in setting the stormwater level of service standard, is to promise that a stormwater management program--deferred to land development regulations--will eventually address stormwater runoff in terms of quality, not merely quantity. Stormwater Element, page 43. As to the part of Issue 10 addressing the level of service standard, the Plan's stormwater standard is, to the exclusion of fair debate, not supported by the Data and Analysis because it fails to require that, for new development, redevelopment, and expansions of existing development, as "development" is defined in the Plan, postdevelopment stormwater urban and agricultural runoff shall be the same as (or, where appropriate, better than) predevelopment runoff in terms of volume, quality, rate, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. If the Plan fails to amend its stormwater level of service standard in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph, many future land use designations, in addition to those discussed below, are, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsuitable and lack support from the Data and Analysis. The permitted densities and intensities, especially in the 100 year floodplain, will contribute dramatically to the degradation of natural drainage patterns in the County and ultimately to the degradation of Tampa Bay. Absent modification of the stormwater level of service standard to address urban and agricultural runoff in terms of volume, quality, rate, hydroperiod, and drainage basin, the Data and Analysis would not support Plan provisions that allowed any development, as that term is defined in the Plan, in the 100 year floodplain if such development's urban or agricultural runoff altered predevelopment drainage conditions in terms of its rate, volume, quality, timing, or location of discharge. As to Issues 11-14, assuming that the Plan is amended to broaden the scope of the stormwater level of service standard in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph, the Plan is generally supported by the land use suitability analysis. However, there are 11 exceptions. First, in terms of urban sprawl, the overall densities in the Plan are supported by the Data and Analysis, at least to the extent that there is no indication of urban sprawl. The density allocation ratio of 1.61:1 is not an especially strong indicator of sprawl in this case. 26/ Several factors are important in evaluating a density allocation ratio, such as whether historic buildouts have been considered (not in this case) and the duration of the planning timeframe (20 years). Probably the most important consideration, though, is the location of the residential uses. A density allocation ratio of 3:1 generated by 100,000 acres of 1:1 residential is far more suggestive of inefficient use of land than the same ratio generated by 5000 acres of 20:1 residential in an existing or planned mixed use urban area, assuming the provision of adequate public facilities, protection of natural resources, and protection of agriculture. The Plan's two planning strategies involve the concentration of density in the I-75 corridor, with decreasing densities radiating outward, and the development of nodes where suitably scaled commercial uses are located in close proximity to residential uses. These two strategies have been effectively implemented in the Plan to counter urban sprawl. There is no plausible evidence in the record that the allocated intensities or acreage, in terms of commercial or industrial uses, are indicative of urban sprawl. As the Data and Analysis note, commercial development has historically followed residential development, not preceded it. An underallocation of commercial and industrial future land uses arguably invites sprawl by interfering with the development of functionally related land uses. There is no place for commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational land uses once residential development has consumed the entire landscape, with respect to which adequate commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses have not been timely reserved. In addition, allocation ratios for commercial and industrial uses are problematic, regardless whether expressed in acreage, which is necessarily a very gross measure of the intensity that is eventually built out, or floor area ratios, which are more precise but much more difficult to predict based on designated acreages of vacant land. Therefore, the overallocation of commercial and industrial uses does not serve as a useful beginning point for analysis, at least in the absence of proof of historic overbuilding with resulting disruption in the efficient use of land or public facilities or loss of natural resources or agriculture. As noted above, the key factor with respect to commercial and industrial uses is location. Through various devices, the Plan effectively pursues mixed land use patterns that will encourage the location of residential, commercial, and industrial, as well as institutional and recreational, uses in a functionally related manner. Notwithstanding the finding that the Plan designations are supported by the Data and Analysis in terms of urban sprawl, the Data and Analysis do not support specific designations involving considerable acreage, even assuming that the stormwater level of service standard will be broadened to include the above- cited factors in addition to flood control. The Data and Analysis recount the consequences of years of land use decisions based "primarily on socio-economic and demographic factors, with little consideration given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land." But the Data and Analysis promise that, "[w]ith a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions . . .." CARE, page 73. For the 11 areas described below, socio-economic and demographic factors have again outweighed the natural carrying capacity of the land. The 11 areas have received unsuitable designations for which the Data and Analysis offer no or inadequate support. For each of these areas, the Plan has assigned designations whose excessive densities and/or intensities generally jeopardize important natural resources or life and property in the coastal high hazard area. A future land use is suitable if the designation is supported by the Data and Analysis. For the vast majority of areas, the Data and Analysis would support designations assigning a range of densities and/or intensities. The question whether a designation is supported by the Data and Analysis requires consideration of, among other factors, the nature of the density or intensity inherent in the designation of the subject area, the data and analysis concerning the nature of the natural resources affected by the subject designation (including off-site resources), the data and analysis concerning when and what type of public facilities will be available to service the subject area, the data and analysis indicating how the designated uses may impact natural resources, and operative Plan provisions that may or may not offer protection to the natural resources in question. 27/ The Plan assigns unsuitable designations to five areas in northwest and north Hillsborough County. The Data and Analysis fail to support two of these designations to the exclusion of fair debate and three of the designations by a mere preponderance of the evidence. One relatively small area whose designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis is designated Low Suburban Density Residential (2:1) at the southeast end of Keystone Lake. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Low Suburban Density Residential on the FLUM. This area is immediately north and west of Gunn Highway at Van Dyke Road. Shown as largely agricultural or vacant on Oversized Map 2, the area received an increase in density in the Plan, according to Oversized Map 14. The only area designated at a Suburban density in the northwest corner of northwest Hillsborough County, the area is the site of one or more major public supply water wells. By contrast, areas containing groups of wells just south of Keystone Lake and at the extreme northwest corner of the County are designated Natural Preservation, as is an area at the southwest corner of SR 597 and Van Dyke Road, about four miles east of the area in question. The area designated Low Suburban Density Residential occupies an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge and is very susceptible to groundwater contamination. The subject area is included in the 1995 central water service area, but excluded from even the 2010 central sewer service area, according to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1. The absence of effective Plan provisions protecting wellfields, cones of influence, and recharge areas further undermines the Low Suburban Density Residential designation of an area in such close proximity to a major public supply water well and in an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge. The increased density for this area threatens a major wellfield with encroaching development, as predicted in the Data and Analysis. FLUE, page 7. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support the density and intensity assigned by the Plan to two, much larger areas in the northern half of northwest Hillsborough County. The extent of the subject areas corresponds to the areas whose densities were increased, according to Oversized Map 14 (excluding only the above-described Low Suburban Density Residential area). The western area of the two is a contiguous block surrounding Keystone Lake and proceeding east and west of the major public supply water wells about 1-2 miles south of Keystone Lake. This area extends to the northwest corner of Hillsborough County, except for the very corner, which is Natural Preservation. The eastern area is a contiguous block almost entirely west of SR 597, but crossing SR 597 at the southeast corner. This area abuts Pasco County on the north and an area of density decrease on the south. These two areas of increased density and intensity surround (or in some cases slightly encroach upon) the four largest collections of major public supply water wells in northwest Hillsborough County, as shown on Oversized Map Representing perhaps half of such collections of major public supply water wells in the entire County, these wells represent a very important source of potable water, especially for a County in which demand is now exceeding supply. The two areas in question are in areas of relatively good natural aquifer recharge and areas of high vulnerability to groundwater contamination. The Plan supplies no performance standards for activities that may introduce contaminants into the portion of the aquifer from which a major public supply water well draws. As the Data and Analysis note, increasing areas of impervious surface may reduce recharge and groundwater supplies. A considerable amount of the eastern area lies in the 100 year floodplain, which runs throughout both areas. The eastern area also includes a significant section of soils with very severe limitations, according to Oversized Map 13 and CARE Figure 9. The green map indicates two overlay areas of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. One of these areas is in the southwest corner of the eastern area, and the other covers the part of the eastern area designated Regional Commercial. The western area contains numerous sites described by Oversized Map 13 as Very Sensitive Lands and most of one significant section of soils with very severe limitations, according to Oversized Map 13 and CARE Figure 9. According to CARE Figure 20, the western area contains significant amounts of dry prairie and cypress swamps. According to the green map, the western areas's potentially significant wildlife habitat takes the form of two narrow corridors running east-west, although the northern one may have been excluded from the area receiving increased density. As noted above, contiguous wildlife corridors receive firm protection under the Plan. The designations are completely different for the two areas. The western area contains entirely Rural Residential (1:1) and Rural Estate Residential (1:2.5), except for small areas of Environmentally Significant Areas. The more densely designated eastern area contains mostly Low Suburban Density Residential (2:1) and smaller, but significant, amounts of Suburban Density Residential (4:1). Each of these areas would, under the Plan, host commercial uses scaled to their respective Rural and Suburban densities. But the southeast corner of the eastern area is designated Regional Commercial (20:1) and contains major natural systems according to Oversized Map 8. The natural systems appear to be dry prairie and cypress swamps on CARE Figure 20. According to Oversized Map 2, this corner is agricultural or vacant with natural area in its center. The unsuitability of the designations given both the eastern and western areas is about equal. Although the western area received less density, according to Sewer Element Figure 1, the western area is almost entirely outside the area that will be served by central sewer, even by 2010. Most of the western area will be served by central water by 2010, with a substantial area to be served by 1995, according to Potable Water Element Figure 1. By contrast, the eastern area already has some central sewer lines and what little area will not be within the 1995 central sewer boundary will be included in the 2010 boundary. The situation is identical with respect to central water. The unsuitability of the designations of the eastern and western areas is unaffected by the fact, as shown by Oversized Map 15, that the Plan brought portions of these areas into conformance with existing zoning. Zoning conforms to Plan designations. The Plan provides, where appropriate, for vested rights. The remedy for nonconforming zoning is to recognize vested rights, not to increase densities and intensities over wide areas to an extent not supported by the Data and Analysis. The key fact is that, for both the western and eastern areas, the Plan has designated excessive densities and intensities in areas containing sensitive and much-needed groundwater resources. And while increasing these densities and intensities, the County has not, at the same time, adopted effective Plan provisions ensuring the protection of wellfields, their cones of influence, natural recharge areas, and the natural functions of floodplains from the adverse impacts of development. Another area whose designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis is an area of about 2.5 square miles designated Urban Level 1 Limited (8:1) immediately east of I-275 and I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Urban Level 1 Limited on the FLUM. The 2.5 square mile area is the only Urban Level designation that is not contiguous to the Urban Level designations constituting the I-75 corridor, except for a small Urban Level-1 "island" surrounded by Natural Preservation. 28/ The 2.5 square mile area designated Urban Level 1 Limited is separated from the remainder of the I-75 corridor by several miles of area designated Natural Preservation. Nor is the 2.5 square mile area bounded by existing or proposed arterial roads, as is required of Urban Level 1 areas. According to Oversized Map 4, the only arterial or higher roads in or near the 2.5 square mile area are I-75 on the west boundary (to which access is limited) and an arterial on the east boundary. There are no roads on the north and south boundaries, nor will there be by 2010, according to Oversized Map 4. Almost the entire 2.5 square mile area is overlaid with Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to the green map. The northern half of the 2.5 square mile area is in the 100 year floodplain. The eastern and western thirds of the area consist of very poorly drained soils. The northern two-thirds of the area occupy an area of very low to moderate recharge, which is the highest recharge in Hillsborough County. Most of the western half of the area is in the area most susceptible to groundwater contamination. The eastern third appears to be entirely dry prairie and cypress swamps, through which a major tributary of the Hillsborough River runs. Oversized Map 8 shows nearly the entire parcel (less a small area at the western end) to be part of major natural systems. Oversized Map 2 shows that the 2.5 square mile areas is entirely agricultural or vacant. Despite this unusual confluence of natural features, the 2.5 square mile area, which is permanently separated from Tampa by a Natural Preserve protecting the Hillsborough River, received a density increase in connection with the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. The 2.5 square mile area is entirely omitted from even the 2010 central water and sewer service areas, according to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1. The failure of Plan provisions to ensure the protection of the natural functions of floodplains and recharge areas exacerbates the unsuitability of the Urban designation for the 2.5 square mile area. The meaning of Urban Level 1 Limited is explained by FLUE Policy C-25.3, which limits the density in the 2.5 square mile area to 8:1. But even this "reduced" density fails to indicate that this remote area will undergo development suitable for the unusual range of natural resources present in the area. The circumstances suggest that the Urban Level 1 Limited designation cannot facilitate the development in this remote area of the kind of viable mixed uses for which Urban designations are intended. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support the density assigned by the Plan to a much larger L-shaped area designated Suburban Density Residential (4:1) extending from the 2.5 square mile area to just across CR 579. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Suburban Density Residential on the FLUM. The Suburban Density Residential L-shaped area, which is about 12 square miles, contains three major public supply water wells at its southeast corner. The green map overlays more than three quarters of the 12 square mile area with Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. The 12 square mile area abuts the above- described 2.5 square mile area on the northwest, Tampa on the southwest and nearly all of the south, Pasco County and Agricultural/Rural (1:5) on the north, and Agriculture (1:10) on the east. According to CARE Figure 20, the portions of the 12 square mile area overlaid with the designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat are dry prairie and cypress swamps, as is almost two- thirds of the land south of the subject area under the jurisdiction of the City of Tampa. According to CARE Figure 14, the western half of the 12 square mile area is in an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge, but only a very small part of the subject area is in an area of high vulnerability to groundwater contamination. However, a large collection of major public supply water wells is in the Natural Preservation area just south of the extension of Tampa abutting the south boundary of the 12 square mile area. The closest wells are about one mile south of the southern boundary of the 12 square mile area. According to Oversized Map 13, the only part of the 12 square mile parcel with poor soils is the extreme northwest corner. Oversized Map 2 shows that the entire 12 square mile area that is not shown as natural areas is agricultural or vacant, as is the area of Tampa immediately south of the subject area. According to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1, the 12 square mile area is not scheduled to receive central water or sewer by 2010. The remaining areas whose designations are not supported by the Data and Analysis are in the vicinity of the coastal high hazard area in south Hillsborough County and in the Urban designations and one Light Industrial designation along the I-75 corridor south of the Alafia River. The Plan assigns designations to two areas in or near the coastal high hazard area that, to the exclusion of fair debate, are not supported by the Data and Analysis. The Plan also assigns designations to four areas in (or adjoining, in the case of the Light Industrial area) the I-75 corridor south of the Alafia River that are not supported by the Data and Analysis to the exclusion of fair debate, in one area, and by a mere preponderance of the evidence in the other three areas. The coastal high hazard area begins at the Manatee County line and runs along US 41. At a point due east of Cockroach Bay, the line turns toward the bay and continues to run in a more northerly direction until it approaches the Little Manatee River. At this point, the coastal high hazard line follows the winding river to the east, then south, crossing US 41 before proceeding again north. The line runs along US 41 until, at the north end of Ruskin, the line cuts again toward the bay. After running north again for about one mile, the line returns to US 41, then proceeds west of US 41, in a north-northeasterly direction, until it almost intersects the bay at Apollo Beach. North of Apollo Beach, the line mostly follows US 41 to the Alafia River at Gibsonton. Oversized Map 14 discloses density increases in part of the coastal high hazard area between Cockroach Bay and the Little Manatee River. Initiated by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan, an irregularly shaped area about three square miles west of US 41 received a density increase. The Plan then increased the density of a smaller portion of the eastern end of the three square mile area. The extent of the subject area, which is only partly in the coastal high hazard area, corresponds to the area whose density was increased, according to Oversized Map 14, and that is presently designated, in the FLUM, as Low Suburban Density Residential Planned (2:1 if certain clustering and mixed use requirements are met; otherwise 1:5). Oversized Map 2 shows that the entire area so designated is entirely agricultural or vacant, except for a shell mine, three small, isolated areas of low density residential, and some small commercial uses along US 41. The density increase for the portion of the three square mile area lying in the coastal high hazard area is clearly unsupported by the Data and Analysis, which acknowledge the need to reduce, not raise, densities in this critical area in order to save lives and property. However, much of the three square mile area is outside of the coastal high hazard area and the unsuitability of the designation lies in the assigned density, not in the increase of density. About a third of the three square mile area is in the 100 year floodplain. Relatively little of it contains major natural systems or Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to Oversized Map 8 and the green map. And none of the area is subject to recharge or significantly vulnerable to groundwater contamination. However, the three square mile area is bordered on three sides by three critical resources that remain in relatively pristine condition: Cockroach Bay, the Little Manatee River, and the portion of Tampa Bay connecting the river and Cockroach Bay. The entire shoreline along the three square mile area joins Hillsborough County's only aquatic preserve. Coastal Figure 11 indicates that the coast from just south of Apollo Beach to the Manatee County line, and especially from the Little Manatee River to Cockroach Bay, is the only location where seagrass meadows remain along the waters of unincorporated Hillsborough County, except for a smaller expanse of interspersed meadows along the shore of northwest Hillsborough County. These are also Class II waters. CARE Figure 9 shows that the western half of the three square mile area is dominated by very poorly drained soils. The Data and Analysis note that area septic tank failures have contributed to the pollution of Cockroach Bay and possible loss of the last shoreline location in the County at which shellfish harvesting is approved, although only conditionally. Significantly, in view of the poorly drained soils and history of septic tank failures, Sewer Element Figure 1 shows no existing or proposed sewer lines for the three square mile area, which inexplicably is nonetheless included in the 2010 central sewer service area. The area is due to receive central water lines by 2010. Given the critical and fragile nature of the area of Cockroach Bay and the Little Manatee River, as described by the Data and Analysis, the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation, which, with the I-75 and South County plan amendments, represented an increased density for the three square mile area, is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, supported by the Data and Analysis. The failure of the Plan to direct population concentrations away from the coastal high hazard area and ensure the protection of the natural functions of the 100 year floodplain exacerbates the unsuitability of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation for the three square mile area. Just north of the Little Manatee River at Ruskin, Oversized Map 14 discloses another area of density increase, again initiated by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. This area is designated Medium Density Residential (12:1) and extends two miles east-west by an average of one-half mile north-south. The southwest corner of the one square mile area abuts a portion of the Little Manatee River, and nearly the entire south boundary of the area abuts a tributary of the Little Manatee River. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Medium Density Residential on the FLUM. The entire square mile area lies west of US 41 and in the coastal high hazard area. The designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis for this reason alone. According to Oversized Map 2, the southern half of the square mile area is already in low and medium density residential, except for the western end that is agricultural or vacant. However, most of the northern half is agricultural or vacant. According to Oversized Map 13, the entire square mile area contains soils with very severe limitations and some critical lands. The entire area occupies the 100 year floodplain. And the area is not due to receive central sewer until 1995 or central water at all, although it is in the 1995 central water service area. Even absent the fact that the square mile area is in the coastal high hazard area, the Medium Density Residential designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The remaining four areas in the County whose designations are unsupported by the Data and Analysis are in the I-75 corridor, except for one of the areas that extends into an adjoining Light Industrial area. Nearly the entire contiguous corridor received higher densities as a result of the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. However, the four areas in question all lie south of the Alafia River. The first area is about 3.25 square miles at the southernmost end of the I-75 corridor, south of SR 674. Triangularly shaped, this area, which is Urban Level 1 (12:1), is bounded on the east and north by I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Urban Level 1 south of SR 674 and I-75. The southern boundary of the triangular area represents an anomaly for the I-75 corridor; it abuts Rural Residential (1:1). Except for the portion of the north end of the I-75 corridor surrounding a Rural Residential "island" and the northernmost end of the I-75 corridor, which abuts the vast Natural Preservation area of the Hillsborough River valley, no other part of the I-75 corridor abuts land that is not designated at least Suburban. Contrary to the requirements for Urban Level 1 designations, the triangular area is not bound by existing or proposed arterials. The triangular area also abuts a Natural Preservation area at its southeast corner. The Little Manatee River is less than one-half mile from the southern boundary of the subject area. The southernmost mile of the subject area encompasses tributaries of the Little Manatee River. The northern half of the subject area adjoins Suburban Density Residential (4:1) and Low Medium Density Residential (9:1) on the east and Low Urban Density Residential (6:1) and Urban Level-2 (20:1) across I-75 on the west. The northern point of the subject area is in the vicinity of the I-75/SR 674 interchange. The triangular area is free from major natural systems or Environmentally Significant Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to Oversized Map 5 and the green map. However, most of the southernmost mile of the subject area is within the 100 year floodplain. Oversized Map 2 reports that the subject area is predominantly agricultural or vacant, although it has interspersed, isolated low density and some medium density residential uses, mostly in the northeast portion. The triangular area is not scheduled for any central sewer lines until after 1995, and then the line will be limited to about one-half mile south of SR 674 along I-75. The area will be better served, by 2010, by central water. Given the Plan's failure to protect adequately floodplains and the proximity of the Little Manatee River, the evidence shows, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the Urban Level-1 designation of the southernmost mile of the triangular area is not supported by the Data and Analysis. The designation given to the remainder of the triangular area is not unsupported by the Data and Analysis. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support predominantly Urban Level 1 densities and intensities in two areas in the vicinity of I-75 and Big Bend Road. One of the areas in question is a Z-shaped linear area that largely tracks, but is not limited to, a strip of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The strip begins at US 301 and a proposed westerly extension of SR 672. The area, which is limited to the Urban I-75 corridor, proceeds in a west- northwesterly direction to just east of I-75, runs north along the east side of I-75 to a point about one mile south of the Alafia River, and, now becoming Bullfrog Creek, turns west and crosses I-75 until it leaves the I-75 Urban Level corridor. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the areas in the vicinity of the Z-shaped area that are within any of the three following categories: the 100 year floodplain according to Oversized Map 9, Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the FLUM, or Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the green map. The lower half of the Z-shaped area occupies very severely limited soils. The upper half contains critical and very sensitive lands. According to Oversized Map 14, almost the entire Z-shaped area received increased densities due to the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, existing uses of considerable portions of the Z-shaped area are natural areas and agricultural or vacant. CARE Figure 20 indicates that Bullfrog Creek is largely open water until it turns south just east of I-75, at which point a series of hardwood swamps extend through the remainder of the Z-shaped area to the south. The Z-shaped area, which runs about eight miles, has long been recognized as environmentally sensitive and generally unsuitable for development. 29/ The narrow band of Environmentally Sensitive Areas is afforded uncertain protection under the Plan. Moreover, the Urban Level 1 designation extends to portions of the Z-shaped area that are in the 100 year floodplain and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to the green map. In the absence of stronger Plan provisions protecting the 100 year floodplain, as well as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Urban Level 1 designation given the Z-shaped area is, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The unsuitability of the designation is underscored by the operation of the density and intensity formulas, which would allow even more intense and dense uses in close proximity, even assuming that development were prohibited in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas themselves. Two other areas bearing unsuitable designations are also in the vicinity of Big Bend Road and I-75. Unlike the remainder of the contiguous I-75 corridor, these areas mark significant expanses of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. One area runs from the southeast corner of the interchange along I-75 south past a proposed extension of Balm-Picnic Road or SR 672, where the area expands to an area of about one mile north-south by two miles east-west, with the western end crossing I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area shown on the green map as Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. The subject area is designated exclusively Urban Level 1 except for a small area designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The upper portion of the subject area overlaps the part of the Z- shaped area running north-south just south of Big Bend Road. According to CARE Figure 20, the remainder of the narrower part of the subject area is wetlands. The wider portion of the subject area is predominantly dry prairie. According to Oversized Map 14, the entire subject area received increased density in the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, the existing uses of the entire subject area are natural areas and agricultural or vacant. The Urban Level-1 designation given the subject area is, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The allowable densities and intensities contradict the acknowledgement in the Data and Analysis of the need to protect these natural resources and frustrate other Plan provisions that extend some protection to these natural resources. The other area extends northwest of the intersection of Big Bend Road and I-75. The subject area runs about 1.5 miles north of the intersection, then widens to the west to encompass a portion of the Light Industrial designation between the I-75 corridor on the east and, on the west, Tampa Bay and the large Heavy Industrial area north of Apollo Beach. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area shown on the green map as Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. Except for the Light Industrial designation, the entire subject area is designated Urban Level 1 with a small area of Urban Level 2. According to CARE Figure 20, almost all of the subject area is wetlands, possibly with some pine flatwoods. Part of the subject area received a density increase by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, the existing uses of all of the subject area are natural area and agricultural or vacant, with a narrow corridor of major public area. The Urban Level 1 and 2 designations assigned to the subject area are, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis for the same reasons set forth with respect to the preceding area. General Minimum Criteria Public Participation (Issue 15) As to Issue 15, the County adopted the Plan, including all amendments, in a manner consistent with the requirements of public participation. Contents of FLUM and Plan (Issues 16-36) FLUM (Issue 16) As to Issue 16, the FLUM depicts minerals in the Agricultural/Mining designation and various public uses in the Major Public/Semi-Public designation. Regardless of the ambiguity surrounding the significance of the designation, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designated on the FLUM (i.e., the multicolor map) adequately show the location of wetlands. However, to the exclusion of fair debate, the FLUM is not consistent with the criterion of the depiction of existing and planned waterwells, cones of influence, historic resources or historically significant properties meriting protection, floodplains, or soils. All of these resources are depicted on ELUM's, but the County elected not to include these resources on the FLUM as part of the operative provisions of its Plan. Plan Provisions Regarding Natural Resources (Issues 17-22) As to Issue 17, the Plan contains objectives coordinating future land uses with topography, soils, and the availability of public facilities. Regarding topography and soils, FLUE Objective A-1 prohibits the issuance of development orders unless the development is "compatible with the physical conditions of the land, including, but not limited to, topographical and soil conditions . . .." FLUE Objective A-8 requires development to mitigate adverse impacts to natural systems. Regarding topography, FLUE Objective 4 is to protect the 100 year floodplain's storage volume. Somewhat vaguely, CARE Objective 19 is to amend land development regulations to "ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment " Regarding the stormwater management aspects of topography, Stormwater Element Objective 4 is to identify and evaluate the sources of water quality degradation attributable to stormwater runoff. Stormwater Objective 5 is to maintain or improve the quality of stormwater runoff. Regarding soils, CARE Objective 11 requires soil conservation during land alteration and development activities. Although not objectives, two policies address the suitability of soils. CARE Policy 11.1 provides that, during the land development review process, the County shall "recommend" the appropriate use of soils and shall require site-specific analyses when land uses appear incompatible with soils. CARE Policy 11.3 states that, during the land development process, the County shall use soil capability analyses for flood hazard, stability, permeability, and other soil characteristics. Regarding mining, CARE Objective 7 requires the "prudent operation" of mining activities. CARE Objective 9 is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the adverse impacts of mining. CARE Objective 10 requires the County to regulate the location and operation of land excavation to minimize negative impacts on surrounding land uses and ensure the reclamation and productive reuse of excavated lands. Regarding public facilities, FLUE Objective A-5 is that all development and redevelopment shall be serviced at the adopted level of service standards by all public facilities for which concurrency is required. FLUE Objective C-29 requires that the needed public facilities be provided concurrent with the impacts of development. Although there are several instances where specific land use designations are unsuitable in terms of, among other factors, topography, soils, and the provision of public facilities, the Plan contains sufficient provisions to attain consistency with the criterion of an objective coordinating future land uses with topography, soils, and public facilities. As to Issue 18, numerous Plan provisions address numerous natural resources, as well as water sources. The rules cited in Issue 18 require one or more objectives ensuring the protection of natural resources, such as Tampa Bay and its tributaries, and one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting water sources. 30/ For the purpose of Issue 18, natural resources have been identified as Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, rivers (primarily the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers), surface waters generally, floodplains, wetlands, rare upland habitats, and wildlife habitat. Findings concerning soils are set forth above. The water sources have been divided into the following categories: wellfields and cones of influence, aquifer recharge, groundwater, water conservation, and septic tanks. Obviously, wellfields, cones of influence, and aquifer recharge areas are natural resources, and floodplains, wetlands, and the Hillsborough River (whose surface waters are an important potable water source) are related to water sources. There is thus considerable overlap in the following discussion of these categories. Regarding surface water generally, including Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, and the rivers, CARE Objective 2 promises that the water quality of natural surface water bodies shall be improved or restored if they do not at least meet state water quality standards. Unfortunately, CARE Objective 2 is not operative until 1995. If the objective had assured compliance with water quality standards, a deferred date of 1995 would have been suitable because the entire improvement cannot take place instantaneously. However, the intermediate end of CARE Objective 2 is much more modest; the water quality of substandard water bodies must only be improved. And the improvement--any improvement--is not required until 1995. The main threats to Tampa Bay also apply to surface water quality generally: inadequately treated wastewater and inadequately treated stormwater. The Plan does not generally ensure the protection of surface water through the objectives and relevant policies concerning stormwater. Stormwater Objective 5 is to implement programs to maintain or improve stormwater. The natural resources in question are not protected by maintaining the water quality of stormwater; they are not even protected by improving the water quality of stormwater absent a measurable goal. The failure of the stormwater objectives is exacerbated by the Plan's failure to set stormwater level of service standards in terms other than flood control. The Plan addresses to a much greater extent the protection of surface water through the objectives and relevant policies concerning wastewater. Sewer Element Objective 1 is for all wastewater treatment facilities to produce effluent of sufficiently high quality to meet or exceed all regulatory standards. Sewer Element Policy 1.1 requires that all wastewater discharged into surface waters or wetlands meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards. Sewer Element Objective 2 promises to assist in the wastewater problem by continuing to require the use and expansion of existing recovered water reuse systems. Sewer Element Objective 4 requires that central sewer facilities be provided to remedy current deficiencies in the system and to meet projected demands, based on the sewer level of service standard. Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility" that existing and future wastewater adversely impacts surface waters. The objective is not especially amenable to measurement. Sewer Element Policy 7.1 is useful, though, because it requires that septic tank users hook up to the County system when it becomes available, except in cases of undue hardship. Sewer Element Policy 4.8 also prohibits septic tanks in the coastal high hazard area except in cases of undue hardship. CARE Policy 2.6 promises better wastewater treatment in areas where septic tanks fail, at least where economically feasible. And CARE Policy 2.4 indicates that the County plans to supply regional wastewater treatment in the more densely populated areas. However, other policies under Sewer Element Objective 7 are less effective. Sewer Element Policy 7.2 promises that, within one year after the completion of a pending septic tank study, the County will reexamine the maximum usable density for septic tanks. Sewer Element Policy 7.3 promises, in the same timeframe, a program to identify existing septic tank systems with a high potential for contaminating groundwater. Regarding Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Objective 3 is to "maintain, and enhance where environmentally and economically feasible, the abundance and diversity of living marine resources in Tampa Bay." FLUE Objective C-30 requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that "water quality and quantity" are protected from degradation from development. CARE Objective 19 promises that the County shall continue to amend its land development regulations to "ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment." In addition to relegating the regulatory mechanism to land development regulations, CARE Objective 19 does not state a specific, measurable, intermediate end that can be achieved. Coastal Element Policy 2.1 is to conserve and protect tidal wetlands from detrimental physical and hydrological alteration and prohibit unmitigated encroachment into tidal wetlands. Coastal Element Policy 2.2 prohibits channelization or hardening of natural coastal shorelines and tidal creeks except in cases of overriding public interest. Coastal Element Policy 2.6 prohibits development activities on submerged lands containing significant seagrass habitat and seeks the restoration of seagrass coverage. Coastal Element Policy 2.7 requires land developments within the coastal area to preserve those portions of native upland plant communities necessary to provide an effective buffer for coastal wetlands. Coastal Element Policy 2.9 is to review and "restrict as appropriate" proposed development adjacent to the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to ensure that water quality, shoreline, or estuarine habitat degradation does not occur due to development. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 prohibits the use of septic tanks for new development in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 7.4 forbids the development of water- related uses by dredging and filling wetlands or the natural shoreline. CARE Policy 19.8 requires the County to identify Resource Protection Areas on the FLUM. Resource Protection Areas include Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, the three main rivers, significant and essential wildlife habitat, areas of high aquifer recharge/groundwater contamination potential, public supply wellfields and their cones of influence, and areas containing major phosphate deposits. CARE, pages 99-100. For Tampa Bay, the CARE definition of Resource Protection Areas refers the reader to the Coastal Element. Coastal Element Objective 1 is identical to CARE Objective 2. Coastal Element Objective 1 addresses only the water quality of those parts of Tampa Bay and its tributaries not meeting state standards. By 1995, these waters will be improved or restored. In addition to failing to address the protection of those parts of Tampa Bay meeting or exceeding state standards, this objective promises only, as to substandard waters, that some improvement is to take place starting in 1995. As is the case with surface waters generally, the Plan contains various provisions adequately addressing wastewater. CARE Policy 2.2 and Coastal Element Policy 1.2 require Advanced Wastewater Treatment for all surface water discharge from all domestic wastewater treatment plants discharging into Tampa Bay or any of its tributaries. Coastal Element Policy 1.4 is to continue to develop and use effluent-disposal alternatives, such as reused water for agricultural and industrial uses, rather than surface water discharge into Tampa Bay and its tributaries. Coastal Element Policy 1.7 provides that, where it is economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment in areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic tank systems. Again, the Plan offers less protection to Tampa Bay from inadequately treated stormwater runoff. However, addressing another source of excessive nutrients in Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Policy 1.12 provides for the dredging and removal of polluted estuarine sediments and their replacement with clean fill, where economically and environmentally feasible. Regarding the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers, numerous goals, objectives, and policies in the FLUE provide protection for these resources. FLUE Goal 3 is to make the Hillsborough River cleaner. FLUE Objective C-7 is to protect the Hillsborough River as a major source of drinking water. Somewhat less effective are FLUE Objectives C-10 and C-12. Objective C-10 requires the County, by 1992, to establish development standards for the river corridor. Objective C-12 requires the County, by 1994, to manage the Hillsborough River as an important community asset. FLUE Policy C-9.1 prohibits new marinas in the upper Hillsborough River. FLUE Objective C-14 is to discourage additional development on the upper Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-14.1 requires the County to manage the upper Hillsborough River as a wildlife corridor. FLUE Objective C-13 requires the County to preserve and enhance wildlife habitats associated with the Hillsborough River. Because of the Hillsborough River's status as a source of surface potable water, it receives additional protection from CARE Objective 6, which requires the conservation, reuse, and enhancement of surface water supplies. Various policies add to the protection extended the Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-7.2 prohibits new septic tanks within 200 feet of the Hillsborough River, although, unlike similar provisions concerning the Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers, this prohibition is not extended to tributaries. FLUE Policy C-7.4 requires Advanced Wastewater Treatment for wastewater treatment discharging anywhere in the Hillsborough River drainage basin. FLUE Policy C-7.3 prevents further destruction of the natural vegetative buffers along the Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-10.2 prohibits the designation of new industrial land uses within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-13.1 prohibits the alteration of wetlands within 500 feet of the river. Regarding the Alafia River, FLUE Goal 4 is to preserve, protect, and promote the Alafia River and its natural resources and recreational benefits. FLUE Objective C-15 requires the County to maintain the water quality of this already impaired waterbody, but only by 1995. FLUE Objectives C-16 and C-17 require the County, by 1991, to preserve and restore native vegetation and wildlife habitats and protect wildlife, presumably along the Alafia River. FLUE Policy C-16.1 prohibits the alteration of wetlands within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-16.2 requires the County to "encourage" the reclamation of mined lands along the river with native vegetation. FLUE Objective C-20 requires the County, by 1992, to establish development standards for the corridor of the Alafia River. FLUE Policy C-20.4 prohibits the designation of "heavy" industrial land uses within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-20.3 prohibits the location of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Alafia River or its tributaries, except when required due to lot size and adverse impacts can be prevented. Regarding the Little Manatee River, FLUE Goal 5 is to recognize and maintain the river as a unique water resource, which provides vital wildlife habitat. As in the case of FLUE Objective C-15 regarding the Alafia River, FLUE Objective C-21 defers until 1995 the objective of maintaining or improving water quality where it does not meet state standards. FLUE Objective C-22 is to preserve wildlife habitats, presumably in association with the Little Manatee River. FLUE Objective C-23 is, by 1990, to establish a green river corridor for the river, although whatever protection is to be afforded by these provisions, if adopted in the Plan, appears already to be included in the Plan, given that the deadline in Objective C-23 had already passed by the time of the final hearing. The same is true for FLUE Objective C- 24, which is, by 1990, to develop additional policies addressing the uniqueness of the Little Manatee River. FLUE Policy C-21.1 prohibits the installation of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Little Manatee River unless required due to lot size and adverse impacts to the water can be prevented. FLUE Policy C-22.2 prohibits alteration of the wetlands within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-23.1 prohibits the designation of "heavy" industrial within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-22.3 only "restricts" the clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 or 100 feet of the river in Urban or Suburban designations. However, FLUE Policy C-23.2 is to manage the Little Manatee River as a wildlife corridor. Various Plan provisions apply to rivers generally. Some of these provisions restate objectives or policies adopted for one of the three major rivers. For instance, FLUE Objective C-1 is, by 1995, to maintain or improve the water quality of rivers not meeting state standards. FLUE Objective C-4 is, by 1992, to set standards for development in river corridors. Other provisions provide additional protection. FLUE Objective C-2 is to preserve natural shorelines and reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization. FLUE Objective C-30 requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that rivers are protected from degradation from development. FLUE Policy C-30.6 is to "restrict" the clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 or 100 feet of rivers. FLUE Policy C-6.1 generally prohibits the removal, within 100 feet of rivers, of any trees of at least five inches diameter at breast height. FLUE Policy C-1.3 prohibits the siting of solid waste or hazardous landfills that would adversely affect any river. Significantly, FLUE Policy C- 1.1 requires that development along the rivers install stormwater management systems to filter pollutants, although the extent of filtration is not specified. Regarding Cockroach Bay, the Plan offers some protection because, as an aquatic preserve, the bay is an Environmentally Sensitive Area. However, regardless of the extent of protection afforded by this designation to land- based areas, it is relatively unimportant as a regulatory mechanism over a water preserve, except to the extent that the designation is extended over adjacent land areas. Much of the land around the bay is designated Natural Preservation, which is afforded effective protection, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which is not. However, as noted above, Coastal Element Objective 3 requires the County at least to maintain the abundance and diversity of living marine resources in Tampa Bay. Underscoring the relationship between Cockroach Bay and Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Policy 3.1 is for the County to resist proposals to close permanently the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to shellfishing and to improve water quality to maintain the viability of shellfishing by implementing Coastal Objective 1 and its policies. However, as noted above, Coastal Objective 1 addresses only waters not meeting state standards and requires only that, by 1995, these water be improved. Cockroach Bay may receive some protection from FLUE Objective C-30, which requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that water quality and quantity are protected from degradation from development. In somewhat vague terms, CARE Objective 18 is for the County to "seek to measurably improve" the management of natural preserves, which include Cockroach Bay. Rather than exercise its jurisdiction, however, the County, in CARE Policy 18.2, promises only to initiate an agreement with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to ensure that Cockroach Bay is maintained in its natural condition. Equally ineffective, CARE Policy 18.3 is for the County, at no specified time, to establish a scientifically defensible buffer zone to prevent degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetative habitats in Cockroach Bay. CARE Policy 18.8, FLUE Policy C-22.1, and Coastal Element Policy 4.5 promise that the County will "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Regarding floodplains, CARE Objective 4 is no "net loss of 100-year floodplain storage volume." CARE Policy 4.1 promises, by 1995, land development regulations to "not only protect natural floodwater assimilating capacity but also protect fish and wildlife attributes where they exist within the 100 year floodplains of riverine systems." CARE Policy 4.2 explains that the County shall prohibit "unmitigated" encroachment into the 100 year floodplain. CARE Policy 8.3 "prohibit[s]" mining in the 25 year floodplain and "restrict[s]" mining in the 100 year floodplain. Although still in terms of storage volume of the floodplain, Stormwater Element Policy 2.8 promises, by 1991, a "program to control encroachment into the 100 year floodplain." Regarding wetlands, CARE Objective 3 is "no net loss of wetland acreage." The objective states further that the County shall seek to achieve a "measurable annual increase in restored wetland acreage." CARE Policy 3.1 requires the County to continue to "conserve and protect" wetlands from "detrimental physical and hydrological alteration" and "allow wetland encroachment only as a last resort when reasonable use of the property is otherwise unavailable." CARE Objective 16 is to continue to protect and conserve Conservation and Preservation Areas, which include a variety of wetland habitats. Regarding rare upland habitats, CARE Objective 16 offers some protection, as sand pine scrub is a Conservation Area and significant and essential wildlife habitat are, respectively, Conservation and Preservation Areas. CARE Policies 16.5 and 16.6 are to protect Conservation and Preservation Areas, respectively, from activities that would "significantly damage the natural integrity, character or ecological balance of said areas, except in cases of overriding public interest." CARE Objective 17 is to increase the amount of acreage designated as Natural Preservation by 15,000 acres by 1995. Also, the upland forest density credit incentive assists in promoting the preservation of rare upland habitats. Despite the ambiguity surrounding the types of land uses allowed by the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the Plan protects the wetlands and rare upland habitats. Regarding wildlife habitat, CARE Objective 14 is to "prevent any further net loss of essential wildlife habitat" and to "protect significant wildlife habitat." CARE Objective 15 is to maintain existing populations of endangered, threatened, and special-concern species and, where "feasible and appropriate," to increase the "abundance and distribution" of such species. FLUE Objective C-5 is, by 1991, to "require the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats." CARE Objective 4 is, by 1995, to protect wildlife habitat in the 100 year floodplain. CARE Policy 14.7 is to require the preservation of wildlife corridors within developments when necessary to prevent fragmentation. CARE Policies 8.4 and 10.7 prohibit mining and land excavation, respectively, in essential wildlife habitats unless relocation of the affected species is feasible. On balance, despite the noted shortcomings, the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources. Regarding the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of existing and planned water sources, the resources and functions generally involve wellfields and their cones of influence, aquifers and recharge, groundwater contamination, water conservation and reuse, and wastewater discharges including septic tanks. Regarding wellfields and their cones of influence, the Plan fails to include an objective providing for the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of these water sources. CARE Policy 5.8 promises wellfield protection by 1993, and even then only through land development regulations. In the meantime, CARE Policy 5.8 provides for an interim land development regulation establishing a procedure for reviewing the impact of land development proposals on cones of influence. The policy fails even to suggest any standards to guide this procedural ordinance. The Plan contains no objectives addressing aquifers and their recharge. Stormwater Element Policy 5.6 prohibits new discharge of untreated stormwater to the Floridan aquifer, and existing stormwater facilities so discharging into the Floridan aquifer will be modified if economically feasible and physically practical. The remaining policies are largely ineffective in protecting natural aquifer recharge function. CARE Policy 6.13 suggests that, by 1992, a program will be implemented to improve groundwater recharge through stormwater management, and the program "may require" that predevelopment groundwater recharge volumes and rates be maintained postdevelopment. CARE Policy 5.2 notes the need for additional information regarding areas of relatively high natural recharge and allows the County to require developers to provide site-specific hydrogeological information. But the policy does not suggest what standards would be applied in making ensuing land use decisions on what it concedes is a "case-by-case" basis. CARE Policy 5.5 promises that, within a year after the completion of high-resolution mapping of areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential, the County will develop land development regulations and performance standards that "may include" such strategies as "control of land use types and densities, impervious surface limitations, and discharge to groundwater controls." Whatever regulation may eventually be imposed has no guidance from the Plan and will be relegated to the land development regulations. Similarly lacking regulatory provisions, Sewer Element Policy 7.3 promises that, within a year after completion of a pending study, the County will develop a "program" to identify areas with septic tanks with the potential to contaminate groundwater. CARE Policy 5.9 at least prohibits activities that would breach the confining beds of the Floridan aquifer. 31/ Though lacking as to the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of the recharge process, the Plan addresses more adequately groundwater. CARE Objective 6 is to conserve, reuse, and enhance groundwater and prevent excessive withdrawals from groundwater. CARE Objective 5 is to ensure compliance with state groundwater standards. Like CARE Policy 2.7, which applies to surface water protection, CARE Policy 5.11 says that the County will ask other agencies to develop septic tank siting criteria and then will add the criteria to County land development regulations. CARE Policy 5.15 indicates that the County will not support deep well injection of effluent unless the process will have no adverse effect upon existing or potential potable water aquifers. More effective, Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility of existing and future sources of wastewater adversely impacting groundwater." Also, Sewer Element Policy 7.1 requires septic tank users to connect to central sewer when it becomes available, in the absence of undue hardship. And FLUE Policy A-1.3 prohibits development dependent upon on-site sewage disposal systems, if the soils are unsuitable, unless the soils can be altered to comply with state law. Regarding water conservation, Sewer Element Objective 2 is to "protect and conserve the potable water resources, both groundwater and surface water" and expand recovered water reuse systems. As noted above, CARE Objective 6 requires the "conservation, reuse, and enhancement of groundwater and surface water supplies" to meet potable water demands. CARE Policies 6.2 and 6.4 require the use of recovered water under certain circumstances. FLUE Objective B-10 is to protect the agricultural water supply through regulations. As compared to whether the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources, the question is closer as to whether the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting water sources. The Hillsborough River is adequately protected. Groundwater is directly addressed, although aquifer recharge receives little direct attention. Wellfields and cones of influence are not directly addressed. However, on balance, the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources. As to Issue 19, however, the Plan is, to the exclusion of fair debate, not consistent with the criterion of one or more policies addressing implementation activities to protect water quality by restricting activities known to affect adversely the quality and quantity of identified water sources, including cones of influence, water recharge areas, and water wells. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Plan does not address in any detail water wells, cones of influence, or water recharge areas. Although the Plan is nevertheless able to attain consistency with a criterion of an objective to protect, conserve, and appropriately use water sources, the Plan's relevant provisions are too vague to attain consistency with a criterion of policies to restrict activities affecting adversely cones of influence, water wells, and aquifer recharge areas. As to Issues 20-21, the Plan contains policies addressing implementation activities restricting activities known to affect adversely the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife and protecting native vegetative communities. It is unnecessary to consider the extent to which the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation protects native vegetative communities and the habitat that some of these communities provide to endangered and threatened species. Other Plan provisions, including the density and intensity formulas and the upland forest density credit incentive, offer sufficient protection to these vegetative communities for the Plan to attain consistency with the criteria requiring specific policies. Coastal Hazards (Issues 22-23) As to Issue 22, the Plan is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, consistent with the criterion of an objective directing population concentrations away from coastal high hazard areas. Coastal Element Objective 6 is to "[r]estrict development of residential population centers" in the coastal high hazard area. CARE Objective 5 is to avoid loss of life and property by "minimizing land development" in coastal areas. As used in the Plan, "restrict" does not mean "prohibit." 32/ Restrict appears to mean merely regulate. And without standards to guide regulation, an objective to restrict, or minimize, is vague and undefined. The meaning of the criterion is clear and its importance is indisputable for one of the most hurricane vulnerable regions in the United States. Obviously, the County itself does not interpret Plan language to "restrict" and "minimize" development as synonymous with the criterion to "direct population concentrations away from." Allowing higher densities in the coastal high hazard area and new intense uses in vacant or agricultural areas within the coastal high hazard area, the Plan reflects the County's reasonable interpretation of Coastal Element Objective 6. The language of Objective 6 and the apparent interpretation of the language by the County mean that the County is required only to attempt to restrain the rate of growth in intensity and density in the coastal high hazard area. This is not tantamount to directing population concentrations away from this hazardous area. Plan provisions to maintain hurricane evacuation times may not direct population concentrations from the coastal high hazard area because evacuation times can be reduced by other means, such as road and bridge capacity improvements. The missing objective must reduce densities and labor-intensive and capital-intensive intensities in the coastal high hazard area. As to Issue 23, the Plan contains a policy identifying regulatory techniques for septic tanks as part of general hazard mitigation to reduce the exposure of life and property in part of the coastal area to natural hazards. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 prohibits, except in cases of "undue hardship," the use of septic tanks for new development in the coastal high hazard area. There is no similar provision governing septic tanks in the larger coastal area, of which the coastal high hazard area is only a part. However, Coastal Element Policy 1.3 requires the County to plan for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities for coastal areas planned for higher densities, thereby reducing the use of interim wastewater treatment alternatives. Coastal Element Policy 1.7 provides, where economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to coastal areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are attributable to malfunctioning septic tanks. Public Facilities (Issues 24-31) As to Issue 24, the Plan establishes peak hour level of service standards for state roads and explains why the adopted level of service standards for certain roads are below the generally applicable standards. As to Issue 25, the Plan appears to govern all action taken by Hillsborough County concerning development and development orders. The four major provisions concerning vesting are reasonable and do not extend unnecessarily the recognition of vested rights. As to Issue 26, the Plan contains a policy addressing programs and activities for the provision of public facilities for development authorized by development orders issued prior to the adoption of the Plan. CIE Policy 1.D.1 requires the County, in determining the scope of capital improvements needed for concurrency, to take into account "demand that is likely to occur from previously issued development orders as well as future growth." As to Issues 27 and 28, the Plan's allowance of pipelining road impact fees in connection with DRI development orders does not necessarily violate concurrency. The Regional Plan allows pipelining, although the County's Plan fails to incorporate the restrictive conditions set forth in Regional Plan Policy 19.8.14. CIE Policy 3.C.4 already provides for considerable flexibility in the selection of affected areas when making concurrency determinations for roads. Reasonable flexibility in identifying the range of roads impacted by a DRI and applying DRI road impact fees does not mean that the resulting developments will violate concurrency. Nonvested DRI's remain subject to the Plan, including the concurrency monitoring and enforcement provisions, and their failure to satisfy these provisions should result in the denial of a development order. As to Issue 29, the Plan contains policies providing for concurrency with respect to developments for which development orders were issued prior to the adoption of the Plan and new developments that are to be assessed a pro rata share of the costs of public facility improvements necessitated by the new development. As noted above, CIE Policy 1.D.1 takes into account the demand for public facilities from development orders issued before the adoption of the Plan. CIE Policy 2.B.1.a provides further that existing development shall pay for at least some of the capital improvements to reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies. CIE Objective 2 addresses the sources of funds for infrastructure, including "County revenues, development's proportionate share contributions, and grants or gift[s] from other source[s]." CIE Policy 2.B.2.a provides that the County will "allocate the cost of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents so that current residents will not subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new development." As to Issue 30, the above-described Plan provisions, together with the five year schedule of capital improvements, establish funding mechanisms to correct existing deficiencies in required public facilities. As to Issue 31, the Plan is consistent with the requirement of financial feasibility based on the schedules of capital improvements and sources of revenues. The $52.4 million discrepancy between the cost of capital improvements in the Five Year Schedule and the Table of Costs and Revenues, which were prepared 18 months apart, does not prove lack of financial feasibility. In the absence of additional evidence, it is equally likely that the County displayed financial prudence in scaling back capital outlays to meet emerging revenue shortfalls. Urban Sprawl (Issues 32-35) As to Issue 32, the FLUM generally depicts urban and rural land uses with one major exception. To the exclusion of fair debate, there is no clear indication as to what land uses are permissible on lands designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas. As to Issue 33, the Plan contains provisions to discourage urban sprawl. The Plan generally provides for a viable mixture of residential and commercial uses in the concept underlying the Plan and the use of nodes. With the exception of the areas whose designations are not supported by the Data and Analysis, urban and rural land uses are separated. Regarding urban sprawl, various Plan provisions, such as FLUE Policies A- 7.6 and B-4.6, discourage urban sprawl and encourage the efficient use of land and provision of public facilities and the protection of natural resources and agriculture. As to Issue 34, the Plan contains provisions, regarding the protection of rural and agricultural lands, designating agricultural uses on the FLUM; setting objectives to conserve, appropriately use, and protect soils and natural vegetative communities; and setting policies to protect and conserve the natural functions of soils, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, floodplains, harbors, and wetlands. The agricultural uses are primarily assigned to Rural designations, and the Rural designations generally specify densities that are low enough to promote agricultural uses. Plan provisions describe the extent to which agricultural uses may be located in Urban and Suburban designations. Some of the natural resources receive more protection than others, such as floodplains, but in general, and especially in the context of protecting rural and agricultural lands, the Plan is consistent with the cited criteria. Miscellaneous (Issues 35-36) As to Issue 35, the Plan contains provisions adequately addressing intergovernmental coordination. As to Issue 36, the Plan contains dual planning timeframes. One timeframe, as shown on the five year schedule of capital improvements, is five years, and the other, as shown on the FLUM, is 20 years. Minimum Criterion of Internal Consistency (Issues 37-38) As to Issue 37, the Plan is, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with respect to, on the one hand, Plan provisions to protect natural resources, which are identified as Conservation and Preservation Areas in the Plan, and, on the other hand, the failure to provide Environmentally Sensitive Areas with a designation that regulates land uses. The Plan is generally internally consistent with respect to the permitted densities and intensities and Plan provisions to protect natural resources. However, there are two major exceptions to this finding. First, if the stormwater level of service standard is not expanded in the manner described above, all designations allowing further development within the 100 year floodplain are, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with Plan provisions to protect natural resources, unless the development in the 100 year floodplain is prohibited from altering predevelopment drainage conditions in terms of rate, volume, quality, timing, or location of discharge. Second, even if the stormwater level of service standard is appropriately broadened, the densities and intensities determined, to the exclusion of fair debate, to be unsuitable or unsupported by the Data and Analysis are, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with Plan provisions to protect natural resources. This applies to the second and third clauses of Issue 37. The Plan is internally consistent with respect to the discouragement of urban sprawl and the adopted level of service standards for roads and the use of dual planning timeframes. As to Issue 38, the Plan is internally consistent with respect to the discouragement of urban sprawl and the Plan provisions requiring developers to pay a pro rata share of the cost of public facilities necessitated by their development. Minimum Criterion of Consistency with Regional Plan (Issue 39) As to Issue 39, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the Regional Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the Regional Plan's provisions requiring the discouragement of urban sprawl, identification of the coastal high hazard area, prohibition against publicly subsidized development in the coastal high hazard area (the Regional Plan lacks a provision requiring the direction of population away from the coastal high hazard area), adoption of road level of service standards, achievement of energy-efficient design of transportation facilities, enhancement of governmental efficiency, and attainment of compliance with national air quality standards. With respect to the Regional Plan's provisions for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, the Plan is consistent in some respects and, to the exclusion of fair debate, inconsistent in other respects. The inconsistencies have all been addressed above in connection with inconsistencies with other criteria of Chapter 9J-5. These inconsistencies are the inadequate stormwater level of service standard, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goal 8.7; in the absence of the expanded stormwater level of service standard discussed above, the inadequate protection of the 100 year floodplain, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goals 8.10, 10.4, and 10.5 and related policies; the inadequate protection extended to public supply potable water wellfields and their cones of influence and aquifer recharge, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goals 8.1 and 8.5 and related policies. Minimum Criterion of Consistency with State Plan (Issues 40-41) As to Issue 40, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the State Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the discouragement of urban sprawl, promotion of agricultural activities that are compatible with the protection of natural resources, reduction of the cost of housing construction by the elimination of costly regulatory practices, coordination of transportation improvements to enhance system efficiency and minimize environmental impacts, assurance that transportation improvements are consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality and efficient use of energy and transportation modes, elimination of regulatory activities not tied to the needs of specific public and natural resource protection, reduction of the need for new power plants by encouraging end-use energy efficiency, and attainment of compliance with all national air quality standards. With respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the elimination of the discharge of inadequately treated stormwater runoff and wastewater into the waters of the state, the Plan is consistent with respect to wastewater, but, to the exclusion of fair debate, inconsistent with respect to stormwater due to the above-noted deficiencies concerning the stormwater level of service standard. As to Issue 41, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the State Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the development of a system of incentives and disincentives to encourage a separation of urban and rural uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats (notwithstanding general shortcomings regarding the protection of water supplies and specific unsuitable designations jeopardizing potentially significant wildlife habitat), promotion of agriculture, provision of incentives for developing land so as to maximize the uses of existing public facilities, allocation of the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents, and assurance that the transportation system provides Florida's residents and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions. With respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the direction of growth into areas that already have or will soon have the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner, the Plan is generally consistent. However, the Plan is inconsistent with this provision of the State Plan, to the exclusion of fair debate, with respect to those five areas for which unsuitable designations were demonstrated to the exclusion of fair debate, and the Plan is inconsistent with this provision of the State Plan, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, with respect to those six areas for which unsuitable designations were demonstrated by a mere preponderance of the evidence..
Recommendation 317
