The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted through Alachua County Ordinance Number 03-05 on August 26, 2003, are "in compliance," as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Parties The Board is a local government charged with the responsibility of adopting and enforcing a comprehensive plan as provided in the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2003)(the "Act"). In this Recommended Order, "the Board" will refer to the elected Board of County Commissioners. "The County" will refer to Alachua County staff, as well as to the County as a litigant in these proceedings. The Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency with the authority to administer and enforce the Act. David and December McSherry are residents of the County, own and operate a business, and own property in the County. The McSherrys made comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. The McSherrys are "affected persons" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and have standing to bring this proceeding. Dr. Adams owns property and resides in the County. Dr. Adams submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Dr. Adams is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Dr. Kathy Cantwell owns property and resides in the County. Dr. Cantwell submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Dr. Cantwell is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Holly Jensen owns property and resides in the County. Ms. Jensen submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Ms. Jensen is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has standing to bring this proceeding. Sierra Club, Inc., is a California nonprofit organization that advocates ecological conservation in the County through its Florida chapter and the Suwannee-St. Johns Group. Sierra Club and a substantial number of its members conduct a business in the County by maintaining a local website, raising funds, participating in governmental meetings and decisions, soliciting and obtaining membership, distributing publications, purchasing, selling and delivering merchandise and goods and services, holding conferences and meetings, maintaining local representatives, distributing information and newsletters, and organizing members and other citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances. Sierra Club provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. Sierra Club is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. SAC is a Florida nonprofit organization that advocates ecological conservation and principles of sustainability in the County. The organization and a substantial number of its members conduct a business in the County by maintaining a local website that is a forum for local comment, raising funds, participating in governmental meetings and decisions, soliciting and obtaining membership, and distributing publications. SAC provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. SAC is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. Each of the Jonesville Petitioners owns property and operates businesses in the County. Each of the Jonesville Petitioners provided comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. The Jonesville Petitioners are "affected persons" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and have standing to bring this proceeding. PRPV is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that was created for the purpose of representing landowners of rural and agricultural land, participating with local and state government in the development of reasonable land use regulations, and protecting values of rural properties in the County. A substantial number of PRPV's members reside in, own property in, or own or operate businesses in the County. PRPV submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the transmittal and adoption periods. PRPV is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. BANCF is a Florida corporation that was created for the purpose of educating and advocating on behalf of its members, who are primarily engaged in the residential and commercial construction industry in the County and who are citizens residing in, and businesses located in the County. A substantial number of BANCF's members reside in, own property in, or own or operate businesses in the County. BANCF submitted oral and written comments to the Board concerning the 2003 Amendments during the respective transmittal and adoption periods. BANCF is an "affected person" as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and has associational standing to bring this proceeding. Background and Procedural Issues The Board adopted the Plan in 1991. In 1998, the Board adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR") for the Plan. Subsection 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes (2003), requires each local government to adopt an EAR once every seven years, assessing its progress in implementing its comprehensive plan. The local government must then amend its comprehensive plan to reflect the data and analysis and recommendations in the EAR. § 163.3191(10), Fla. Stat. (2003). In August 2001, the Board adopted amendments to the Plan and transmitted them to DCA, and to the other agencies enumerated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-11.009(6), for review and comment. On November 30, 2001, DCA completed its review of the amendments and issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments document (commonly referred to as an "ORC Report") to the County pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-11.010. On April 8, 2002, the Board adopted the 2002 Plan Update, addressing the objections raised in the ORC Report. By letter dated May 31, 2002, DCA notified the Board that it had completed its review of the 2002 Plan Update and determined that it met the Act's requirements for "compliance," as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). DCA published notice of its intent to find the 2002 Plan Update in compliance in The Gainesville Sun on June 3, 2002. On June 24, 2002, PRPV and others filed a petition challenging DCA's determination that the 2002 Plan Update was in compliance. The Petition was forwarded to DOAH on July 5, 2002. BANCF was granted intervenor status, in alignment with PRPV, on July 11, 2002. On July 25, 2002, the PRPV Petitioners joined by BANCF, filed a request for mediation pursuant to Subsection 163.3189(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). On August 1, 2002, the Board filed a response agreeing to participate in mediation. In the instant proceeding, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners have alleged several irregularities in the mediation process. They allege that despite the requirements of Subsection 163.3184(16)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), regarding mediation, "the McSherry Petitioners found that they were not given adequate notices of [mediation] meetings and proposals, that the method in which the mediator ran the meetings denied them a reasonable opportunity to participate, that they were not included in negotiation meetings, and that negotiation meetings were not open to the public, and that when the public did attend meetings the public was not allowed to comment." The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners allege that they were systematically frozen out of the mediation process, which resulted in a settlement agreement favorable to PRPV and BANCF. However, the facts established at the hearing did not support these allegations. One particular complaint by the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners is that the mediator, Robert Cambric of DCA, split the mediation into two simultaneous meetings, one on land use and one on environmental issues, making it impossible for an individual or a small group to follow all the issues under discussion. This situation did occur at one mediation session on December 12, 2002. Ms. McSherry and Dr. Adams complained about this arrangement, and it was not repeated by Mr. Cambric. Richard Drummond, the County's growth management director, testified that no agreements were reached at the December 12, 2002, sessions; rather, participants were given "homework assignments" to complete for the next mediation session. Mr. Drummond's testimony is supported by the fact that the mediation process continued for another six months after this disputed meeting. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners were allowed to participate in the mediation sessions even before they were formally granted intervention in the underlying proceeding. No evidence was presented to establish that secret meetings were held. The evidence demonstrated that County staff, at the Board's direction, attempted to negotiate a tentative settlement. On several occasions, the Board held public meetings at which extensive public comment was elicited and during which the Board directed staff regarding its position on issues. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners actively participated in these public meetings, and were represented at all the mediation sessions. No evidence was presented that the mediator acted less than capably and professionally during the mediation process. Mediation sessions were open to the press and public, though participation at the sessions was limited to the parties, which included the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners. Every person who requested individual notice of mediation sessions was included on an electronic mail distribution list and received notice. The Board's meetings on the mediation were publicly noticed, and extensive public comment was taken. Beginning in December 2002, a spreadsheet matrix was circulated that outlined the positions of the County and of the PRPV Petitioners on the narrowing list of issues that remained in dispute. As the mediation entered February 2003 and the County and PRPV inched closer to settlement, it became apparent that the County's position on many issues was beginning to diverge from that of its aligned Intervenors, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners. Mr. Cambric, the mediator, offered to meet with Dr. Adams and Dr. Cantwell6/ in order to flesh out their issue positions for inclusion in a separate "intervenors" column of the spreadsheet matrix. On or about March 5, 2003, Mr. Cambric, Richard Drummond, and other County staff persons held the proposed meeting with Dr. Adams, Dr. Cantwell and the McSherrys. A revised matrix was circulated on March 11, 2003, that included a separate column setting forth Intervenors' position. On March 20, 2003, the matrix was further amended to add a separate column for the McSherrys, whose positions on some issues deviated from the positions of Dr. Adams, SAC, and the Sierra Club. It is clear from the documentary evidence and the testimony of various witnesses that the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners felt a degree of betrayal in the County's reaching a settlement with PRPV. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish their allegations that they were denied adequate participation in the process. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend that the driving force in the settlement of PRPV's challenge was a change in the makeup of the Board in the wake of a primary election held on September 10, 2002. The political situation in Alachua County is obviously relevant to the concerns of the parties, but is beyond the scope of this proceeding. There is no need for detailed findings of fact concerning the Board elections or the positions taken by candidates for office in the County. Finally, the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend that jilted Intervenors; i.e., those who supported the County's initial litigation position in defense of the 2002 Plan Update and then opposed the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, should be allowed, by virtue of the realignment of parties pursuant to Subsection 163.3184(16)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), to step into the shoes of the original Petitioners and attack the 2002 Plan Update, as well as the 2003 Amendments. This contention was rejected at the hearing for reasons explained in the Conclusions of Law below. Extensive evidence, testimonial and documentary, was taken regarding the 2002 Plan Update. However, findings of fact concerning the 2002 Plan Update are confined to its interplay with the 2003 Amendments and to issues of internal consistency raised thereby. The Jonesville Petitioners raised procedural issues regarding the concluding phase of the mediation. On July 11, 2003, the Jonesville Petitioners filed a motion to intervene in the challenge to the 2002 Plan Update. Their concern was that the revised definition of "strategic ecosystem" in the proposed 2003 Amendments would adversely affect the value and/or development potential of their properties. At the hearing, the Jonesville Petitioners contended that they were not given adequate notice of the proposed change to the definition of "strategic ecosystem." Policy 1.1.2 of the Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element of the 1991 Plan required the County "to provide notification to all property owners whose land use may be restricted due to proposed conservation or preservation designation in the Comprehensive Plan prior to official designation in the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan." The evidence established that the County complied with this policy, providing notice by mail in April 2003 to all owners of property proposed to be mapped as part of a "strategic ecosystem" site by the 2003 Amendments. The notice informed the property owners that their properties had been identified within the mapped areas and invited the property owners to attend one of a series of late-April 2003 informational workshops regarding the map. The Jonesville Petitioners received the mailed notices. The Board held a public hearing on approval of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement on July 15, 2003, and a public hearing on August 26, 2003, to adopt the 2003 Amendments. The Jonesville Petitioners had actual knowledge of the public hearings in July and August to approve the agreement and adopt the 2003 Amendments and were represented at those hearings. At the hearing in the instant proceeding, the Jonesville Petitioners complained that they submitted extensive site investigation reports to the Board at the July 15, 2003, demonstrating that their properties should not be considered "strategic ecosystems," but that they were allowed only three minutes to make their presentation at the hearing. There was no requirement that the Board allow lengthy, fact- intensive presentations concerning specific parcels of land during the public hearing to adopt the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Nonetheless, the evidence established that the Jonesville Petitioners, like the other parties to the underlying litigation, would have been allowed more than three minutes had they requested it before the hearing. There was also no requirement that the County staff or the Board make a detailed response to the Jonesville Petitioners' site reports prior to the Board's adoption of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement or the 2003 Amendments. Further, as is more fully explored below in the findings as to the 2003 Amendments, the information provided by the Jonesville Petitioners was more appropriate to a land development scenario than to the large- scale comprehensive plan amendment process that the County was undertaking. In conclusion, it is found that neither the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners nor the Jonesville Petitioners demonstrated that their procedural rights under the Act or its implementing rules were violated by the process employed by the County during the mediation and when adopting the 2003 Amendments. 2003 FLUE Amendments Gated Communities and Cul-de-Sacs FLUE Objective 1.2 in the 2002 Plan Update states: Provide for adequate future urban residential development that includes a full range of housing types and densities to serve different segments of the housing market, designed to be integrated and connected with surrounding neighborhoods and the community, with opportunities for recreation and other mixed uses within walking or bicycling distance. The 2003 Amendments included the following changes to FLUE Policy 1.2.1.17/: Residential areas shall be designed to provide for an interconnected system of internal circulation, including the provision of streets dedicated to the public connecting the residential area to the major street system. New development shall not restrict preclude public access to the development or include cul de sacs. Residential areas shall also be designed to provide for substantial interconnectivity between adjacent developments and within developments, except where such connectivity is precluded by constraints resulting from physical layout of existing development or environmental features. If connectivity is precluded by such constraints, cul de sacs may be considered for those roads subject to such constraints. The land development regulations shall detail the requirements for public access and substantial interconnectivity based on standards such as a connectivity index, maximum separations between connections to adjacent developments, and rules relative to hours, operations, and public safety considerations for any restriction of access through use of gates. FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 was new to the 2002 Plan Update. Its purpose is to assist in discouraging urban sprawl by encouraging street connectivity, thus, moving the County away from a development pattern of isolated residential subdivisions with only one or two points of ingress/egress. Adding connectivity features allows pedestrian or bicycle travel between subdivisions and disperses the flow of vehicular traffic by providing more points of entry to arterial roads. All of the parties agreed that interconnectivity is a positive value. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners criticize amended Policy 1.2.1.1 for failing to define "substantial interconnectivity" and, therefore, providing no meaningful standards by which to determine whether a new residential development provides "substantial interconnectivity." They point out that the policy leaves it to subsequent land development regulations ("LDRs") to define the term, but provides little guidance and essentially standardless discretion to the drafters of the LDRs. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners' chief concern was that a lax regulatory regime could define a single connecting road as "substantial interconnectivity" and, thereby, defeat the clear intent of the policy. Similarly, they observed that Amended Policy 1.2.1.1 refers to a "connectivity index," but provides no definition or guidance as to the meaning of the term, again leaving the LDR drafters limitless discretion. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners suggest that the seeds for lax regulation are planted in the policy through its requirement that the LDRs provide for "maximum separations between connections to adjacent developments." They argue that, if the goal is to provide for interconnected developments, then the LDRs should logically provide for minimum, not maximum, separations between connections. This argument is rejected simply as a matter of logic because providing for maximum separations in the LDRs is precisely what can ensure interconnectivity.8/ Finally, the McSherry Petitioners argue that the amended policy's allowance of gated communities is in direct contradiction to its mandate that "[n]ew development should not preclude public access to the development." They contend that LDRs providing rules for "hours, operations, and public safety considerations for any restriction of access through use of gates" would create an internal inconsistency within FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1. The County presented testimony from Richard Drummond stating that amended FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 strengthens existing Plan provisions for interconnectivity by adding the requirement for "substantial interconnectivity," and by adding a requirement that new development not preclude public access. Robert Pennock, PRPV's expert witness on local government comprehensive planning, with an emphasis on urban sprawl, testified that the term "substantial," in the context of FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 and in combination with other policies in the Plan, is a meaningful qualifier indicating the County's intent that its future development pattern will not be a patchwork of isolated subdivisions with a single connection to an arterial road. Mr. Pennock pointed out that a degree of common sense must be applied to the use of the term in the development of LDRs and that it must be acknowledged that the details of the LDRs will be developed by professional planners. Mr. Pennock's comments regarding common sense and good faith on the part of the regulators points out the chief flaw in the Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners' argument that a lax regulatory regime could employ the terms "substantial interconnectivity" and "connectivity index" in such a way as to allow developers to do whatever they wish. The argument fails to explain why such a hypothetical "bad regulator" could not twist the Sierra Club's favored term, "connectivity," in the same fashion. If one accepts the hypothetical premise of the "bad regulator" poised to do the bidding of residential developers regardless of any other considerations, then the text of the Plan will hardly matter; the bad regulator will find a way around the Plan's language. In fact, "substantial interconnectivity" is no more or less vague a term than "connectivity." As Mr. Pennock testified, these terms have meaning in the planning profession, and it must be accepted that the County will draft meaningful LDRs to implement FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1, including the challenged terms. In summary, the Sierra Club Petitioners did not establish that an outright ban on gated communities or cul-de- sacs is necessary for the County to have an efficient road network, meet applicable levels of service or Rule 9J-5 requirements, or that such a ban has ever been imposed elsewhere in Florida. It is at least fairly debatable that 2003 FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 appropriately responds to the data and analysis and provides adequate guidance for development of LDRs. Clustering Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(14) defines "clustering" as "the grouping together of structures and infrastructure on a portion of a development site." Clustering is a planning and development technique that transfers the allowable development density onto smaller lots on a portion of the property to be developed, in a tighter development pattern, that reduces road and infrastructure costs and that sets aside the remainder of the property for conservation, agriculture, or general open space. Residential cluster development is generally promoted as a means of conserving open space, rural character, and important environmental resources in new housing developments. According to the County's "Supporting Data and Analysis for Comprehensive Plan Amendments Updating the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan: 2001-2020" (the "Data and Analysis"), clustering is a "means to protect the characteristics and features of rural areas, while allowing for rural residential lifestyles." FLUE Policy 7.2.8 of the 1991 Plan required clustering in new rural residential subdivisions with 25 or more lots and made no provision to allow clustering for smaller subdivisions. Proposed clustered developments were required to seek permits as Planned Unit Developments, a lengthy and complicated zoning process that included review by County staff, recommendations by the Board, and final approval or denial by the Board at a public hearing. Every witness who testified on the subject agreed that the clustering provision of the 1991 Plan had been a failure. Only two proposed developments have sought permits as clustered developments, and both were denied. The County approved the construction of phased subdivisions, with each phase containing fewer than 25 lots and built to the base rural density of one unit per five acres. Smaller subdivisions were designed to fall below the 25-lot threshold for clustering. Richard Drummond noted that the 1991 Plan would not allow the developer of these smaller subdivisions to cluster even if he so desired. These subdivisions tend to be platted in such a way that each lot owner also owns a small part of the natural resources found in the subdivision, complicating any efforts by the County to preserve those resources. The consensus of the expert opinion was that clustering failed because developers tend to be conservative in designing subdivisions. Clustering is a new pattern for development, and 1991 FLUE Policy 7.2.8 offered insufficient incentive to developers to take the risk of building and marketing nontraditional developments and left them the option of sizing their developments to avoid the clustering requirement. In the 2002 Plan Update, proposed FLUE Policy 6.2.9 addressed the reluctance of developers to cluster by removing their option to avoid clustering by downsizing their projects. The policy would have required clustering in all new rural residential subdivisions. The 2003 Amendments softened the policy as follows: Policy 6.2.9 Clustering The preferred design for Nnew rural residential subdivisions shall be is that they be clustered in order to protect the characteristics and features of rural areas through the following goals: Protect natural and historic resources. Support continued agricultural activities by preserving viable soils and effective land masses. Minimize land use conflicts. Provide recreational and habitat corridors through linked open space networks. Achieve flexibility, efficiency, and cost reduction in the provision of services and infrastructure. Reduce natural hazard risks to life and property. The 2003 Amendments maintain the clustering requirement for new developments containing 25 or more lots, but attempt to provide more incentives to developers to use clustering in developments of any size. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10, relating to allowable density and intensity of new development, provides for a "density bonus" as follows, in relevant part: The overall development density shall not exceed the maximum gross density of one dwelling unit per five acres for the Rural/Agriculture land use category, except as a result of incentive bonuses for clustering as provided under item 4 below, subject to the resource protection standards in the Conservation and Open Space Element. These standards include the following requirements: * * * 4. As an incentive to cluster new residential subdivisions, if a new residential subdivision in the Rural/Agriculture area is clustered with a minimum of 50% of the development in open space, a total of 2 units in addition to the number of units based on the gross density of 1 unit per 5 acres are allowed, plus 1 additional unit per every 10 acres of conservation area set aside as open space; plus 1 additional unit per every 20 acres non-conservation area set aside as open space. As a further incentive, the 2003 Amendments delete the Planned Unit Development aspect of clustered subdivision approval, expediting the zoning approval process. Under the clustering provisions of the 1991 Plan, rural subdivisions with more than 25 lots were required to set aside 80 percent of their area as open space. The 2003 Amendments reduce this open space set-aside to 50 percent. Richard Drummond persuasively noted that there is no practical reduction in the set-aside, because very few people subjected themselves to the clustering requirement of the 1991 Plan. Also, the 1991 Plan expressly disclaimed any intent that the open spaces remain undeveloped in perpetuity. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.12.4 provides that all future development in designated open space areas is prohibited and requires the filing of a legal instrument that runs with the land establishing that the open space will be maintained and remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Conservation is the highest priority among the open space uses recognized by the 2003 Amendments' provisions on rural development. 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.5 requires clustering for a new development of more than 25 lots, then goes on to provide that a new development of fewer than 25 lots must either cluster or employ a development plan "that assures the permanent protection of natural resources consistent with the requirements of the [COSE]." 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.5 further provides that the LDRs will detail the requirements for "management and permanent protection of the ecological value of natural resources in those developments that are not clustered, through legally enforceable mechanisms" that provide protections equivalent to those provided in clustered subdivisions. The Sierra Club Petitioners attacked the 2003 clustering provisions as being inconsistent with the 2002 Data and Analysis, which emphasize that urban sprawl is a major threat to the County's rural agricultural landscape. The Data and Analysis indicated "a rapid rate of conversion of the rural area to allow low density development," and concluded that "the rural land character is threatened by the piece-meal development of residential uses." Sierra Club places special emphasis on a 1992 report sponsored by the American Farmland Trust, Florida's Growth Management Plans: Will Agriculture Survive?, summarized and discussed in the 2002 Data and Analysis as follows: This report noted that the degree to which rural low density residential zones are effective in conserving farmland is directly related to the minimum lot size required for each residence. The larger the minimum lot size, the more effective the zone is in conserving farmland. The current policy [in the 1991 Plan] allowing residential development on 5 acre lots in the rural area is totally ineffective, according to this report. The minimum lot sizes can be rated as follows according to their effectiveness in conserving farmland: under 4.9 acres totally ineffective 5 to 9.9 acres generally ineffective acres moderately ineffective to 20 acres moderately effective 20.1 to 40 acres generally effective over 40 acres highly effective In the six years, 1995-2000, the average numbers for single family and mobile home permits issued by lot size in unincorporated Alachua County were as follows: Less than 3 acres 162 average yearly 3 to 8 acres 182 average yearly 8 to 12 acres 72 average yearly 12 to 20 acres 35 average yearly Total 20 acres or less 511 average yearly[9/] Relying on the quoted section of the Data and Analysis, Sierra Club argues that only mandatory clustering of subdivisions in the rural area can fulfill the goal of protecting the characteristics and features of the rural area. Sierra Club correctly notes that, in adopting the 2003 Amendments, the County provided no additional data and analysis to demonstrate that the density bonuses added to the Plan would lead to clustering under 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.9, which eliminated mandatory clustering and simply made it the "preferred design." Sierra Club contends that the County was required to offer some expert testimony to indicate that density bonuses provided in 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10 would actually cause landowners to choose clustering. Alternatively, Sierra Club argues that if voluntary density-bonus clustering occurred, it could lead to considerably more dwelling units in rural areas than under the 1991 Plan. For example, if a 20-acre parcel with four 5-acre lots were clustered to leave ten acres of conservation area, then a total of seven units would be permitted for the parcel: four units based on the allowed rural density of one unit per five acres; two units as a bonus for leaving 50 percent of the development in open space; and one additional unit for setting aside ten acres of conservation area. Thus, seven units would be permitted, compared with four units that would have been allowed without the bonuses, and these seven would be situated on the ten unpreserved acres on lots with an average size of 1.43 acres. Sierra Club contends that these "ranchettes" would not meet the objective of maintaining viable agriculture and of providing a separation between urban and rural land uses. Thus, Sierra Club argues that, under any view, the 2003 Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 6.1: Rural areas shall protect rural and agriculture areas in a manner consistent with the retention of agriculture, open space, and rural character, and the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and efficient use of public services and facilities. Richard Drummond contended that it is impossible at this point to say that the 2003 Amendments dealing with incentive clustering will not work. He conceded that the density bonuses provided in 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.10.4 could be too much or not enough, but that the only way to know is to try it in practice, then use the experience to adjust the incentives in future plan cycles. Mr. Drummond credibly testified that given the lack of clustering that occurred under the mandatory provision of the 1991 Plan, it is a virtual certainty that there will be more clustered development under the 2003 Amendments. Sierra Club's criticism that density-bonus clustering will not have a great impact on the density of development in the rural area is well taken, but beside the point. The very 2002 Data and Analysis upon which Sierra Club bases its argument notes that "rural cluster subdivisions are simply an internal transfer of density involving the same number of dwellings." In other words, the chief purpose of clustering is not to affect overall density of development, but to arrange that development on the land in a more environmentally sensitive, aesthetically pleasing way than traditional grid-style platting of lots. The density bonuses offered by the 2003 Amendments will not notably alter the overall density of rural development, but that is not their main purpose. The County hopes that the density bonuses will provide sufficient incentive for developers to avail themselves of the clustering option. The County did not dispute Sierra Club's argument that the 2002 Data and Analysis support the mandatory clustering for all new development that was adopted in the 2002 Plan Update. However, the County does contend that the 2002 Data and Analysis do not require mandatory clustering as the only way to achieve the goals of retaining the rural character and preserving the environmentally sensitive areas of rural lands. The County is correct that the 2002 Data and Analysis provides a generally positive assessment of clustering, but nowhere forces a reader to conclude that mandatory clustering is required. Even accepting the Data and Analysis suggestion that allowing residential development on five-acre lots in the rural area is "totally ineffective" in conserving farmland and that controls show some effectiveness only when the minimum lot size is increased to ten acres, the fact remains that conserving farmland is not the sole value served by the clustering provision, nor should it be the sole measure of the provision's success. In addition to farmland conservation, 2003 FLUE Policy 6.2.9 cites protection of natural and historic resources, minimization of land use conflicts, provision of recreational and habitat corridors through linked open-space networks, achievement of flexibility, efficiency, cost reduction in the provision of services and infrastructure, and reduction of natural hazard risks to life and property as goals of the clustering provisions. While it may be true that lot sizes of more than 40 acres would be "highly effective" in conserving farmland, Alachua County seeks to balance all of the stated goals in its clustering provision and has arrived at a reasonable formula for achieving at least some progress on each of the goals. The County pointed out that Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) identifies clustering as an "innovative and flexible" planning strategy, but does not mandate clustering. Given the County's history of failure with one form of mandatory clustering, it is not unreasonable that it would attempt the application of an incentive program as an alternative. Urban Cluster/Urban Services Line10/ The 2003 Amendments amended the Future Land Use Map series ("FLUM"), a necessary part of the FLUE pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(4). FLUE General Strategy 1 provides that the Plan must: Minimize the conversion of land from rural to urban uses by maximizing the efficient use of available urban infrastructure, while preserving environmentally sensitive areas, according to the following: Designate and maintain on the [FLUM] an urban cluster that sets a boundary for urban growth. Provide incentives for higher average densities for residential development and mixed uses in the urban cluster, including density bonus and transfer of development rights. Provide a range of urban residential densities with the highest densities located in or near urban activity centers, and lower densities located in outlying rural areas or areas of the County which have physical limitations to development. . . . The "Urban Cluster" is defined as: An area on the [FLUM] for urban development, which includes residential densities ranging from one unit per acre to 24 units per acre or greater, non- residential development, and is generally served by urban services. The Urban Cluster designation on the FLUM sets a boundary for urban growth in order to maximize the efficient use of available urban infrastructure and to preserve environmentally sensitive areas to minimize urban sprawl. The 2002 Plan Update uses the Urban Cluster to differentiate between urban and rural uses and encourages higher densities in the Urban Cluster in order to use land efficiently. To further the efficient use of land, the 2002 Plan Update also established an "urban services line" ("USL") within the Urban Cluster. FLUE Policy 7.1.3.A describes the USL as follows: In order to phase development for the Urban Cluster and promote efficient use of land and infrastructure and minimize sprawl, an urban services line is designated in the Future Land Use Map series. The line identifies the limits of the area within the Urban Cluster within which phased development shall be promoted through the year 2010. The USL's ten-year planning period, through 2010, is shorter than the planning period for the Urban Cluster, which is through 2020. The purpose of USL is to provide better timing of development within the urban area, to encourage redevelopment and direct new development to areas where infrastructure exists or will be available. The 2003 Amendments expanded the Urban Cluster as part of the FLUM series. The 2003 Amendments also expanded the USL within the Urban Cluster on the FLUM series. The appropriate size for the USL and the Urban Cluster depends on the amount of land needed for projected population growth. FLUE Policy 7.1.3 establishes the process for determining the need for additional developable land to accommodate the projected population as follows: As part of the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan and any proposed amendments to the Urban Cluster, determine a sufficient and nonexcessive amount of land within the Urban Cluster to accommodate urban uses for a ten year and twenty year time frame. The determination (methodology is shown in Appendix A)[11/] shall be based on a comparison of: a forecast need for land for urban residential and non-residential development based on projected population, average household size, a residential vacancy rate, and a market factor. The market factor for the ten year time frame shall be 2.0. The market factor for the 20 year time frame shall be 1.5. land available in the Urban Cluster for urban residential and non-residential uses. Mapping of environmentally sensitive areas shall be utilized as a factor for determining land availability. If the land comparison shows that the land available is less than the forecast need for land, the following measures shall be considered: revisions to density standards and land development regulations, or other measures, to accommodate greater population within the existing Urban Cluster. coordination with municipalities regarding possible reallocation of forecast need to the incorporated areas. phased expansion of the Urban Cluster. If the forecast need for one type of land use exceeds the supply of land for that particular use, a revision to the allocation of land uses within the Urban Cluster shall be considered before the Urban Cluster is expanded. If this methodology determines expansion of the Urban Cluster is warranted, the evaluation of appropriate location shall be subject to analysis including the following economic, infrastructure, transportation, conservation and recreation criteria: rural character and viable agriculture land and the potential impact of expansion of the Urban Cluster on existing agricultural uses. economic development considerations including affordable housing. relationship to existing and planned future urban services and infrastructure. access to the regional transportation network and multi-modal transportation systems. Conservation and Preservation land uses. planned recreation/open space or greenway systems. Thus, FLUE Policy 7.1.3 provides a three-step process for determining "a sufficient and nonexcessive amount of land" to accommodate urban uses. First, there must be a calculation of the estimated need for land to accommodate the projected population. The second step is to calculate the amount of vacant land currently available for urban residential use. Third, a comparison is made between the need for and the availability of vacant land to determine whether and how the FLUM should be amended. In calculating need, the County built into its formula a safety factor to ensure sufficient land for the future population over the projected time period. The real estate market requires some excess capacity to prevent scarcity-driven price increases, and the County, therefore, included a "market factor" in determining the amount of land that should be designated for development. The 2002 Data and Analysis explained the principle as follows: A market factor is included in the calculation to allow for a measure of flexibility between supply and demand. A sufficient market factor allows flexibility in the siting of development, thereby helping ensure that developers can find locations favored by the market. Market factor is a multiplier used in developing a forecast of future land use needs, specifically housing, to allow for market choice. The market factor results in additional developable land in the urban cluster and thereby can have a positive effect on housing affordability. The market factor also addresses market uncertainty with respect to the accuracy of market predictions, for example if some landowners withhold their land from development. The market factor ensures that enough land is set aside for residential purposes to accommodate these residential support activities-- parks, easements for utilities, churches, to name a few. Across the country the range in factors is as low as 1.15 (Portland, Oregon) to over 2.0 (several Florida locations). Alachua County has used the market factor 2.0 for calculations for the year 2010 and the market factor 1.5 for the year 2020. The County multiplied the number of new dwelling units needed over the 2010 and 2020 planning horizons by the market factors chosen for those periods to arrive at a "total capacity needed" number. The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contended that the market factors chosen by the County were too high and that 1.25 was a more reasonable figure for the County. Mr. Pennock, PRPV's planning expert, testified that there is no "final magic answer" to the question of the market factor number. He stated that 1.25 is a "conservative" market factor, and that 2.0 is a professionally acceptable number. It is found that the County's market factors of 2.0 for the year 2010 and 1.5 for the year 2020 were reasonable, in light of all the evidence. After determining the amount of land needed over the planning horizon, the second step in the County's formula is to determine the amount of vacant land currently available for urban residential use. In order to determine the amount of land currently available, there must be a calculation of the number of units per acre available for future residential development. The two components of this calculation are, first, the number of acres presently within the Urban Cluster or USL, and second, the residential dwelling unit density allowed within that acreage. FLUE Objective 1.3 provides that "[g]ross residential densities shall be established to serve as a guideline for evaluating development in Alachua County." FLUE Policy 1.3.2 classifies the densities as follows: The following classification of gross residential densities shall serve as a standard for evaluating development in Alachua County, unless specific provisions are otherwise provided in the Plan. a. Urban Residential Densities - Areas designated on the [FLUM] for gross residential densities of one unit per acre or greater shall be considered as urban in character. There shall be four gross residential density ranges as follows: Low Density One to Four dwelling units per acre Medium Density Greater than Four to less or equal to Eight dwelling units per acre Medium-High Greater than Eight to less than or equal to 14 dwelling units per acre High Density Greater than 14 to less than or equal to 24 dwelling units per acre The Sierra Club/McSherry Petitioners contend there was already an excess of acres available for development relative to need for the projected population, even before the 2003 Amendments expanded the Urban Cluster and the USL. They point to the 2002 FLUE Data and Analysis, which explained that the need calculations resulted in a finding that there were 7,396 acres available for urban development beyond the projected need in the Urban Cluster through the year 2010, and 4,378 acres beyond the projected need in the Urban Cluster through the year 2020. The 2002 Data and Analysis concluded: "Therefore there is no need in both 2010 and 2020 for modification of the area designated for urban development." Nonetheless, the 2003 Amendments added an additional 434 acres to the Urban Cluster, thereby increasing the available acres for development to 8,370. Richard Drummond explained that the County discovered, after the EAR process and the adoption of the 2002 Plan Update, that some of the population projections for the unincorporated areas were in error. The County also found miscalculations in terms of the existing housing stock. Mr. Drummond stated that the 2002 projections did not reflect the impact that the Plan's new environmental and floodplain policies could have on existing development capacity, or the fact that some private property owners had made it known their land would not be available for development. Mr. Drummond emphasized that the final need projections reflected the methodology that the County chose to employ and conceded that other methodologies could be used to arrive at different projections. The Sierra Club Petitioners have set forth at some length the methodologies they believe should have been employed by the County as regards establishment of the Urban Cluster and USL. At the outset, the Sierra Club Petitioners have challenged the County's methodology for calculating the number of needed dwelling units and corresponding acreage. They contend that the County calculated an excessive amount of acreage based on outdated historical data, rather than on the maximum gross residential densities allowed under the updated Plan. In making its acreage calculations, the County assumed that the low density residential areas would have an average density of 1.6 dwelling units per acre ("DU/acre"). Sierra Club contends that the County placed undue reliance on historical evidence that the density trends in the low density category was 1.34 DU/acre from 1980-1990, and 1.6 DU/acre from 1991-1997, when the County's own EAR provided more recent evidence that the objective of 2.0 DU/acre was being achieved. Mr. Drummond testified that a goal of the 2002 Plan Update was to increase the density of development within the low-density range. Sierra Club contends that using higher densities in the calculations of needed acreage would better support that goal and that the County was, therefore, required to base its calculations of the land presently available to serve the projected need on the maximum available density. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that basing the projections on historical trends "perpetuates old planning mistakes," and is internally inconsistent with FLUE General Strategy 1's requirement that the Plan provide "incentives for higher average densities for residential development and mixed uses in the urban cluster." They conclude that the maximum available density of 4.0 DU/acre should have been the County's basis for allocating acreage in the low density category, rather than the historically-based 1.6 dwelling units per acre presented by the County. The Sierra Club Petitioners offered a detailed recalculation of the "needed acres" for the Urban Cluster and the USL based on a density of 4.0 DU/acre, rather than 1.6 DU/acre, concluding that Alachua County overestimated the needed land by 2,737 acres in the low-density residential category. They performed a similar recalculation of need in the medium-high and high-density residential categories based on the maximum allowable density, rather than the historic "average density" used by the County. It is not necessary to set out the recalculation here because it is found that the Sierra Club Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the methodology employed by Alachua County to project the acreage needed for development in 2010 and 2020 was so unreasonable as to be beyond fair debate, or that their substituted methodology was correct and accurate beyond fair debate. The Sierra Club Petitioners may be correct in their contention that the Plan's goal of increasing densities in low-density residential developments would be better supported by use of maximum allowable densities in the need projections. There is little doubt that reducing the acreage available for development would force more compact development in the Urban Cluster, but there is no indication that the County's projections present an unreasonable risk of urban sprawl. Both Richard Drummond and Mr. Pennock discussed other Plan goals, such as avoiding a distortion of the real estate market caused by allocating too little land for development, that the Sierra Club Petitioners' methodology arguably does not address or would even subvert. In arriving at its methodology, Alachua County necessarily struck a balance in its priorities. Richard Drummond candidly testified that there were other ways to arrive at the need projections. The Sierra Club Petitioners reasonably disagree with that balance and believe that the community would be better served through tighter controls on expansion of urban development. This is a disagreement to be resolved through the political process and is certainly not beyond "fair debate" for either side of the argument in the context of this administrative proceeding. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the "development factor" employed in the calculation of capacity needed within the Urban Cluster and USL also contributes to inflating the estimate. As part of the formula used to calculate the land needed to accommodate the projected population, Alachua County applied a "development factor" of 0.5 to the residential units available on vacant land identified as "strategic ecosystems" or wetland areas, thus halving the available acreage in those areas. The 0.5 development factor was applied in recognition of the Plan's policies requiring that 50 percent of such lands be preserved from development. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that the County's reasoning ignores FLUE Policy 6.2.10, which allows the landowner to cluster the total number of available residential units for an entire parcel on the developable 50 percent of the property. Thus, while 50 percent of the property is placed in conservation with no dwelling units, the dwelling units for the total acreage can be built on the remaining 50 percent of the property. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that this methodology leads to an understatement of the acreage available for development and, thereby, underestimates the number of available dwelling units. Mr. Drummond explained that the "development factor" is intended to account for several contingencies. Some property owners might not choose to cluster and, therefore, would not develop the remaining 50 percent at the maximum density. More than 50 percent of some properties might be set aside after their boundaries are ground-truthed.12/ Because of such contingencies, the County decided to adjust the calculations so that its estimate would include the net acreage that would be fully available for development. This rationale could lead to some excess of vacant residential lands if a significant number of the conservation/wetlands properties are developed to their maximum density, but it cannot be deemed wrong beyond fair debate for Alachua County to seek certainty under its formula. FLUE Policy 7.1.3.d, set out in full above, requires the County to evaluate the appropriate location for expansion of the Urban Cluster according to the criteria set forth therein. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that Alachua County did not provide data and analysis to demonstrate compliance with these locational standards in its 2003 Amendment to the FLUM for the Urban Cluster. The 2002 FLUE Data and Analysis provide that development outside of the USL "must provide a full compliment of urban services." Mr. Drummond testified that because the 2002 Plan Update requires that all new development in the urban area must hook up to central water and sewer services,13/ the 2002 USL was based on proximity to those services, which became "the primary indicator for the rational progression of urban development." The Sierra Club Petitioners have challenged the 2003 Amendments' expansion of the USL to include all land in "common ownership" outside of the parcels on the 2002 FLUM map. According to Mr. Drummond, the common ownership included parcels where there was "a legal relationship between the corporate entities that owned the property." The Sierra Club Petitioners claim that the County "failed to demonstrate that the method of including all parcels within common ownership within the expanded Urban Cluster or [USL] was a professionally acceptable methodology." The Sierra Club Petitioners assert that the effect of this change is to add property within the USL regardless of proximity to existing infrastructure in contravention of 2002 FLUE Policy 7.1.3(d). It is found that the County's recognition of properties under common ownership in setting the USL, where at least part of the property meets all criteria for inclusion within the USL, appears on its face to be a sensible amendment. In this proceeding, the burden was not on the County to demonstrate that its methodology was "professionally acceptable." Rather, the burden was on Petitioners to demonstrate that the methodology did not meet the "fairly debatable" standard of acceptability. Petitioners failed to make that demonstration as to this issue. The Sierra Club Petitioners claim that because the expansion of the USL in the 2003 Amendments was based on availability of central water and sewer, it is internally inconsistent with other provisions of the Plan. FLUE Principle 2 requires the Plan to "[b]ase new development upon the provision of necessary services and infrastructure." FLUE General Strategy 1.f. provides that the Plan should: Minimize the conversion of land from rural to urban uses by maximizing the efficient use of available urban infrastructure, while preserving environmentally sensitive areas, according to the following: * * * f. Time development approval in conjunction with the economic and efficient provision of supporting community facilities, urban services, and infrastructure, such as streets, utilities, police and fire protection service, emergency medical service, mass transit, public schools, recreation and open space, in coordination with the Capital Improvements Element. The Sierra Club Petitioners assert that the County has failed to comply with these provisions because it based the expansion of the Urban Cluster and the USL on only one form of infrastructure, central sewer and water, while ignoring the availability of "supporting community facilities, urban services, and infrastructure" such as schools, police and fire protection, emergency medical service, mass transit, and recreation and open space. The evidence does not support this assertion beyond fair debate. The USL is a timing and phasing mechanism for development within the Urban Cluster over a ten-year planning horizon and is intended to encourage redevelopment and to direct new development to areas where public infrastructure exists or will be available. To the east, the County has located the USL coterminously with the Urban Cluster in order to promote redevelopment in the east Gainesville area. To the west, the USL is located a quarter-mile outward from existing and planned central water and sewer lines, without splitting ownership lines on individual parcels, except that in an area to the southwest near Archer Road, the USL is located a half- mile from existing and planned central water and sewer lines in order to promote this area as a future transit corridor. It is at least fairly debatable that the establishment and location of the USL is supported by appropriate data and analysis and that the County considered other infrastructure factors in drawing the lines of its urban boundaries. Water and Sewer Line Extensions In the 1991 Plan, Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Element ("PWSSE") Policy 8.2 provided, in relevant part: Proposed extensions of potable water and sanitary sewer lines outside of the urban service area designated by the [FLUE] shall be subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. . . . The 2002 Plan Update renumbered the quoted provision as PWSSE Policy 3.5 and changed the term "urban service area" to "Urban Services Line," but otherwise left the text unamended. The 2003 Amendments changed the term "Urban Services Line" to "Urban Cluster." The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the effect of the latter change is to allow the extension of water and sewer outside the USL, but within the Urban Cluster without the approval of the Board. They point out that the City of Gainesville owns and operates Gainesville Regional Utilities ("GRU") and that Alachua County historically has had little to no control over the pattern of development based on utility service. Mr. Drummond conceded that allowing the utility provider to dictate the pattern of development led to low- density sprawl. Thus, the Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the 2003 Amendment to PWSSE Policy 3.5 weakens the ability of the County to control growth through the phasing envisioned by the USL, because the County has no control over how the growth is "phased" when it lacks control over utilities. The County replies that the 2003 Amendments' change of "Urban Services Line" to "Urban Cluster" merely corrects a scrivener's error. Mr. Drummond testified that the 2002 Plan Update version of PWSSE Policy 3.5, requiring Board approval of water and sewer extensions outside the USL, unintentionally conflicted with FLUE Policy 7.1.3.B, which provides a mechanism for development to occur outside the USL but within the Urban Cluster without Board approval. The 2003 Amendment corrected the error and brought PWSSE Policy 3.5 into harmony with FLUE Policy 7.1.3.B. It is found that the 2003 Amendment to PWSSE Policy 3.5 does not represent a substantive change to the Plan. As to Petitioner's "lack of control" critique, the County responds that the City of Gainesville's Plan calls for coordination with the County's Plan when proposing utility line extensions. Mr. Drummond testified that the City of Gainesville's Plan recognizes that GRU will extend its utility lines in the unincorporated area in a manner consistent with the County's Plan. It is at least fairly debatable that the 2003 Amendments are supported by data and analysis and do not inappropriately delegate planning authority to the City of Gainesville or GRU. 2003 COSE Amendments Strategic Ecosystems The 1991 Plan employed the term "conservation area" to describe properties meriting special protection, including areas with significant geologic features such as springs and caves, wetlands, areas subject to 100-year flooding, and surface waters and their transitional zones. The 2002 Plan Update recognized both "primary" and "secondary" conservation areas. 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.1 provided: Primary conservation areas shall consist of natural resources that, because of their ecological value, uniqueness and particular sensitivity to development activities, require stringent protective measures to sustain their ecological integrity. These areas shall include: Wetlands; Surface waters; Wellfield protection areas; Listed species habitat; Significant geologic features; and Strategic ecosystems.[14/] "Strategic ecosystem" was a new term added by the 2002 Plan Update and was defined in the 2002 COSE definitions as follows: Outstanding examples of ecosystems that are intact or capable of restoration and that require conservation or management to maintain important reserves of biodiversity at landscape, natural community and species specific levels. Strategic ecosystems are greater than 20 acres in size and contain one or more natural ecological communities, including but not limited to scrub, sandhill, xeric hammock, upland pine forest, upland mixed forest, mesic hammock, prairie hammock, wet prairie, seepage slope, slope forest, mesic flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, floodplain forest, baygall, wet flatwoods, and hydric hammock. The natural resources that comprise strategic ecosystems are identified through means including, but not limited to: the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's "Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System" (1994), as supplemented with "Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled Life in Florida" (2000); FDEP's "Statewide Ecological Network," contained in The Greenways System Planning Project (1998); the Florida Natural Areas Inventory; and Golder's "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" (1996). 2002 COSE Objective 4.10, not amended in 2003, provides that it is the County's objective to "[p]rotect, conserve, enhance, and manage the ecological integrity of strategic ecosystems in Alachua County." The 2002 COSE Policies implementing Objective 4.10, which were all new to the 2002 Plan Update, provided: Policy 4.10.1 Conserve ecosystems that are determined to be strategic based on an overall assessment of the following characteristics: Natural ecological communities that exhibit: Native biodiversity within or across natural ecological communities. Ecological integrity. Rarity. Functional connectedness. Plant and animal species habitat that is: Documented for listed species. Documented for species with large home ranges. Documented as a special wildlife migration or aggregation site for activities such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting, or over-wintering. High in vegetation quality and species diversity. Low in non-native invasive species. Size, shape, and landscape features that allow the ecosystem to be restored to or maintained in good condition with regular management activities, such as prescribed burning, removal of exotic vegetation, or hydrological restoration. Policy 4.10.2 Strategies shall be implemented through the land use planning and development review process to ensure that each strategic ecosystem is evaluated and protected based on the integrity of the ecological unit. Policy 4.10.3 The County shall create special area plans in cooperation with landowners to establish specific guidelines for strategic ecosystems prior to approval of land use change, zoning change, or development approval. The County shall devise a schedule for creating special area plans, based on current development pressures and anticipated priorities. The County shall create special area plans for each strategic ecosystem, in accordance with the schedule and with the standards under Objective 3.6.[15/] If an applicant seeks development prior to the County's creation of a special area plan for a particular strategic ecosystem, the applicant has two avenues for pursuing development. A special area study may be conducted at the applicant's expense. Alternatively, if the applicant demonstrates that the ecological integrity of the strategic ecosystem will be sufficiently protected, the applicant may proceed according to the clustering provisions in policies under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUE]. Policy 4.10.4 Management strategies for strategic ecosystems shall be developed with landowners in conjunction with special area plans and may include, but are not limited to: Prescribed burning. Control of invasive species. Silvicultural activities according to BMPs [best management practices], with particular emphasis on maintenance and improvement of water quality, biological health, and the function of natural systems. Reduction in the intensity of site preparation activities, including bedding and herbicide application. Provision for listed species habitat needs, including restricting, at appropriate times, intrusions into sensitive feeding and breeding areas. Cooperative efforts and agreements to help promote or conduct certain management activities, such as cleanups, maintenance, public education, observation, monitoring, and reporting. Land acquisition. Policy 4.10.5 Clustering shall be required so that at least 80% of each strategic ecosystem is preserved as undeveloped area. Development shall be designed in accordance with the standards under Objective 3.6 of this Element. In the rural area, development shall also comply with standards under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUM]. Policy 4.10.6 The County shall provide regulatory flexibility to facilitate planning across multiple parcels that protects the integrity of the strategic ecosystem as an ecological unit. Existing cluster and PUD ordinances shall be revised to enhance long-term protection of strategic ecosystems. Policy 4.10.7 The County shall work with owners of agricultural and silvicultural lands to retain the ecological integrity and ecological value of strategic ecosystems through management plans and incentives. A management plan shall be required before any activity occurs in a strategic ecosystem that has not been used for agriculture or silviculture within the last 20 years, in accordance with the following: The management plan shall provide for retention of the ecological integrity and ecological value of the strategic ecosystem. The management plan shall be submitted to Alachua County for review and approval by appropriately qualified technical staff. The management plan may be satisfied by Forest Stewardship Council certification, land acquisition, or participation in a conservation program sponsored by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Passive recreational and ecotourism activities shall be encouraged where consistent with protection of the ecological integrity of the strategic ecosystem. The County shall, through community outreach and collaboration, facilitate participation of landowners in forestry certification programs, land acquisition programs, and federal and state cost-share conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, and the Farmland Protection Program. Policy 4.10.8 Alachua County shall implement an ordinance that specifically addresses the preservation of strategic ecosystems, significant plant and wildlife habitat, habitat corridors, and vegetative communities. The 2003 Amendments deleted 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.2, which had defined "secondary" conservation areas. The 2003 Amendments amended 2002 COSE Policy 3.1.1, set forth above, by deleting the first word, "Primary." The effect of these amendments is that the policy now simply defines "conservation areas" without distinction as to their being "primary" or "secondary." The 2003 Amendments also deleted "Wellfield protection areas" from the definition of "conservation areas," replacing it with "100-year floodplains." Finally, the 2003 Amendments changed the definition of "strategic ecosystem" to read: Outstanding examples of ecosystems that are intact or capable of restoration and that require conservation or management to maintain important reserves of biodiversity at landscape, natural community and species specific levels. Strategic ecosystems are greater than 20 acres in size and contain one or more natural ecological communities, including but not limited to scrub, sandhill, xeric hammock, upland pine forest, upland mixed forest, mesic hammock, prairie hammock, wet prairie, seepage slope, slope forest, mesic flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, floodplain forest, baygall, wet flatwoods, and hydric hammock. The natural resources that comprise strategic ecosystems are identified through means including, but not limited to: the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's "Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System"(1994), as supplemented with "Habitat Conservation Needs of Rare and Imperiled Life in Florida"(2000); FDEP's "Statewide Ecological Network," contained in The Greenways System Planning Project (1998); the Florida Natural Areas Inventory; and Sites that are identified in the KBN/Golder's Associates report, "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" (1996). The 2003 Amendments amended the 2002 COSE Policies implementing Objective 4.10 as follows: Policy 4.10.1 Conserve strategic ecosystems that are determined through ground-truthing using the KBN/Golder report as a guide to be strategic maintain or enhance biodiversity based on an overall assessment of the following characteristics: Natural ecological communities that exhibit: Native biodiversity within or across natural ecological communities. Ecological integrity. Rarity. Functional connectedness. Plant and animal species habitat that is: Documented for listed species. Documented for species with large home ranges. Documented as a special wildlife migration or aggregation site for activities such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting, or over-wintering. High in vegetation quality and species diversity. Low in non-native invasive species. Size, shape, and landscape features that allow the ecosystem to be restored to or maintained in good condition with regular management activities, such as prescribed burning, removal of exotic vegetation, or hydrological restoration. The Alachua County 2001 digital orthophotographic series (for purposes of this policy, the date of this photography is March 1, 2001) shall presumptively establish the baseline condition of the strategic ecosystem property as of the effective date of this policy. The County shall adopt land development regulations that set forth additional guidance for the determination of whether and the extent to which strategic ecosystems exist on a property. * * * Policy 4.10.4 Management strategies for strategic ecosystems shall be developed with landowners in conjunction with special area plans or cluster developments and may include, but are not limited to: Prescribed burning. Control of invasive species. Silvicultural activies according to BMPs [best management practices], with particular emphasis on maintenance and improvement of water quality, biological health, and the function of natural systems. Reduction in the intensity of site preparation activities, including bedding and herbicide application. Provision for listed species habitat needs, including restricting, at appropriate times, intrusions into sensitive feeding and breeding areas. Cooperative efforts and agreements to help promote or conduct certain management activities, such as cleanups, maintenance, public education, observation, monitoring, and reporting. Land acquisition. * * * Policy 4.10.5 Clustering shall be required so that at least 80% of each strategic ecosystem is preserved as undeveloped area. Development shall be designed in accordance with the standards under Objective 3.6 of this Element. In the rural area, development shall also comply with standards under Objective 6.2 of the [FLUM]. Policy 4.10.5 Each strategic ecosystem shall be preserved as undeveloped area, not to exceed 50% of the upland portion of the property without landowner consent and in accordance with the following: Upland areas required to be protected pursuant to policies for significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall be counted in calculation of the 50% limitation, however, the extent of protection of significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall not be reduced by this limitation. This limitation shall not apply to 100-year floodplains and wellfield protection areas, which are addressed independently through policies under Objectives 4.8 and 4.5, respectively. This limitation shall not restrict in any way state and federal agency protections. The remaining Policies implementing 2002 COSE Objective 4.10 were not amended by the 2003 Amendments. Thus, the definition of "strategic ecosystem" was amended from an identification of sites based upon the characteristics of their ecological communities to a question of whether a given property is found on a "strategic ecosystems" map sourced from the "Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project" prepared by KBN/Golder Associates (the "KBN/Golder Report"). In 1986, the County retained the Gainesville firm of KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. ("KBN") to conduct a survey of potential ecologically significant upland properties. The purpose of the survey, completed in 1987, was to provide information on important upland sites for planning purposes, principally to complete the Conservation Element of what would become the 1991 Plan, and to assist the Alachua County Conservation and Recreation Areas Task Force in greenbelt planning. In November 1996, the County commissioned KBN, now a subsidiary of Golder Associates, to produce the KBN/Golder Report, which built upon the 1987 survey to compile the most extensive study to date of ecological communities in the County. The stated purpose of the KBN/Golder Report was to "identify, inventory, map, describe, and evaluate the most significant biological communities, both upland and wetland, in private ownership in Alachua County and make recommendations for protecting these natural resources." A total of 47 sites were identified and ranked based on their quality of vegetation and landscape ecology, their status as habitats for endangered species and wildlife in general, their hydrology, and their management potential. The 1996 KBN/Golder Report was more comprehensive than its predecessor study in that it covered a larger area, evaluated wetlands as well as uplands, and included mapping of ecological connections and biological communities. KBN/Golder accumulated and evaluated a wide range of data in the process of preparing the Report including: the 1987 KBN survey; a 1995 set of infrared aerial photographs provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District ("SJRWMD"), as well as a 1986 set of infrareds provided by the Alachua County Department of Environmental Services; a 1994 set of black and white aerial photographs provided by the Alachua County Property Appraiser's Office; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWCC") habitat distribution maps; SJRWMD wetlands vegetation maps; Florida Natural Areas Inventory natural community/plant community classification categories; and SJRWMD and Suwannee River Water Management District Floridan Aquifer recharge maps. The KBN/Golder Report described its methodology and limitations as follows: The inventories were done by David Clayton and Bob Simons, working separately. Landowners were contacted where access was necessary for the survey work, and those lands where access was denied were inventoried using aerial photographs, outside sources of information, and whatever information could be obtained by observations from the property boundary. Initially, a review was made of the USGS topographic quadrangle maps (various dates) and aerial photographs... to determine access, location of communities, drainage features, and karst features. Next, vehicle or pedestrian surveys of all accessible areas were used to get an overall view; to discern as many biocommunities as possible; to look for exotic species, listed species, or signs of habitat for listed species; and to evaluate the overall wildlife habitat and the condition of the communities. Specific sites were chosen to inventory in more detail. Limitations for this survey were the large number of sites, the vast acreage, and the restricted time available. Thousands of acres on 47 sites were surveyed within 8 weeks, necessitating limited survey time on the larger sites. Terrestrial species were emphasized because 90 percent of the area surveyed is terrestrial. The Jonesville Petitioners contested the validity of the 2003 Amendments regarding strategic ecosystems on several grounds. Common to all these grounds is a disagreement on the meaning of the strategic ecosystems definition and its interplay with COSE Objective 4.10 and its implementing policies, as amended by the 2003 Amendments. The Jonesville Petitioners argue that defining the term "strategic ecosystem" by way of the map in the KBN/Golder Report is fatally flawed because it provides no flexibility. If a property is identified on the KBN/Golder Report map, then it is a strategic ecosystem subject to the restrictions of COSE Objective 4.10, without regard to the facts on the ground. The definition makes no provision for ground-truthing the property prior to inclusion in the strategic ecosystem category. The County responds that 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for more detailed identification of strategic ecosystems through ground-truthing, using the KBN/Golder Report as a guide. 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 also provides that the County's LDRs will provide additional guidance to determine whether and to what extent, strategic ecosystems exist on a property. The Jonesville Petitioners answer that there is a fundamental conflict in the policy's purported use of the KBN/Golder Report as a "guide" to delineating strategic ecosystems, when the definition provides that identification on the KBN/Golder Report is all that is required to establish a property as a strategic ecosystem. Subsequently adopted LDRs cannot provide guidance as to whether strategic ecosystems exist on a property; by definition, the KBN/Golder Report map determines whether there are strategic ecosystems. The Jonesville Petitioners argue that the only correct way to take a property out of the strategic ecosystem category would be to amend the adopted KBN/Golder Report map, thus amending the definition of "strategic ecosystem." The Jonesville Petitioners' argument fundamentally concedes that, if the definition were to provide for ground- truthing based on the characteristics set forth in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1, it would be unexceptionable. However, they point out that 2003 COSE Objective 4.10 and its policies apply to all "strategic ecosystems," that "strategic ecosystems" are also subject to regulation as "conservation areas" under COSE Policy 3.1.1, and that the ground-truthing provided by 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 does nothing to change the definition. Under this definitional scheme, a landowner whose property is identified on the KBN/Golder Report map can do nothing to take his property out of the strategic ecosystems definition, short of petitioning the County to amend its Plan, and is subject to all COSE provisions dealing with strategic ecosystems. The undersigned agrees with the Jonesville Petitioners that the County would have been better served to refine its definition of "strategic ecosystem" to include the standards set forth in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. The undersigned does not agree that the County's failure to do so invalidates the definition under the "fairly debatable" standard, given the County's interpretation of the interplay among the applicable policies. By using the KBN/Golder Report map to set the boundaries of strategic ecosystems, the County attempted to delineate reasonably large, contiguous areas, rather than create a "swiss cheese" pattern of intermixed conservation and non-conservation lands; i.e., designating isolated pockets of conservation within a large non-conservation area, or vice versa. The County made a general determination that strategic ecosystem site boundaries should be delineated with simple straight lines, rather than by the edges of land features, such as vegetative cover. The County reasonably decided that a straight boundary, such as a section line is easier to administer and more easily communicated to the public than a natural feature such as vegetation, which would require a survey and is often characterized by a gradual change, rather than the sharp demarcation necessary for a boundary. The County recognized that under this approach, strategic ecosystems would include some areas neither particularly environmentally sensitive, nor valuable as habitat. 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for ground-truthing to further refine the delineation of the boundaries of the strategic ecosystem properties to more specifically identify the most environmentally sensitive portions of the property and to assist in the determination of appropriate protection measures. Under the COSE Objective 4.10 policies, set forth in full above, the County will use the KBN/Golder Report map and the more detailed information provided by additional ground-truthing to identify the least environmentally sensitive portion of the strategic ecosystem property, so that any development can be directed and clustered there, and away from the most environmentally sensitive portion of the property. The landowner will retain the right to transfer the same number of residential units as allowed by the density limits of the underlying land use classification to the least sensitive portion of the property, notwithstanding the strategic ecosystems designation. The County's explanation of the interplay among the Plan provisions effectively addresses the concerns of the Jonesville Petitioners regarding "erroneously mapped" parcels, i.e., parcels that are identified on the KBN/Golder Report map, but that, in fact, are not environmentally sensitive. The Jonesville Petitioners are technically correct that because identification on the KBN/Golder Report map defines a property as a strategic ecosystem, subsequent ground-truthing does nothing to remove the property from that definition. However, the Jonesville Petitioners' argument depends on a reading of the Plan that is not merely literal, but blinkered. One must accept that the definition is absolutely controlling and that if a property is on the KBN/Golder Report map, then every individual plan provision referencing "strategic ecosystem" will apply to the property regardless of the natural characteristics found on the ground. A fair reading of the 2003 Amendments makes it clear that the definition of "strategic ecosystem" is the beginning of the analysis, not the end. The County acknowledged that, while the data on the KBN/Golder Report map are professionally accepted for general planning purposes, the data are not detailed enough for regulatory purposes on the level of individual parcels. Thus, once the map designates a property as a strategic ecosystem, 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 requires ground- truthing to determine whether and to what extent that strategic ecosystem is subject to conservation. Later adopted LDRs will provide additional guidance "for the determination of whether and the extent to which strategic ecosystems exist on a property." This treatment is similar to that found in 2002 COSE Policy 3.3.4 regarding conservation and preservation areas on the FLUM generally: Site Specific Delineation: The parcel- specific boundaries of preservation and conservation areas shall be verified by ground surveys conducted in the course of special studies or development review. County-initiated mapping efforts shall be performed at the County's expense, except when an applicant seeks land use change, zoning change, or development approval prior to the completion of the County's mapping efforts, consistent with [COSE] policies 3.4.2 and 4.10.3. Conservation policies shall be applied based on the resulting site specific delineation. The referenced 2002 COSE Policy 3.4.2 provides: Where site specific analysis or verification is required to determine the presence of natural resources protected under this Element, the cost of such analysis or verification shall be borne by the applicant. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that there is an internal inconsistency in the fact that the definition of strategic ecosystem does not include the criteria found in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. However, the parameters used by KBN/Golder Report to score and rank the sites that appear on the map include: vegetation value (species diversity, presence of exotics); endangered species habitat value (plant and animal); wildlife habitat value; hydrology; landscape ecology (community diversity, ecological quality, community rarity, functional connectedness); and management potential. These parameters are consistent with the characteristics listed in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1. The Jonesville Petitioners point out that the design of the KBN/Golder Report map was such that no parcel less than 20 acres in size was identified, resulting in the omission of thousands of acres countywide that possess the characteristics identified in 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 as indicative of strategic ecosystems. The Jonesville Petitioners claim that this presents an internal inconsistency in the Plan, because the COSE policies would protect only 25 percent of those unmapped properties (under 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12 addressing upland habitat), rather than the 50 percent protected by the strategic ecosystems policies. This alleged inconsistency is simply another example of the County's reasonable policy choice to focus its conservation efforts on larger, more contiguous properties, rather than a myriad of small-acreage lands. Even the 2002 definition of "strategic ecosystem," not challenged by the Jonesville Petitioners, limited strategic ecosystems to properties greater than 20 acres in size. The smaller sites will remain subject to regulation on a site-specific basis as they are proposed for development. The Jonesville Petitioners appear to insist, absent any pending development applications with the County or even any present plans to develop, on their right to have the Plan and its incorporated maps provide them with a definitive, binding delineation of their properties and, thus, their development potential. This claim is unrealistic, given that such a general right would require County staff to ground- truth hundreds of thousands of acres countywide before a conservation land use category could be established at all. The KBN/Golder Report map is sufficient to place landowners, such as the Jonesville Petitioners, on notice of their need to inquire as to the status of their properties prior to the initiation of development activities. Parcel- specific regulation requires parcel-specific ground-truthing, and 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1 provides for such ground-truthing. Further, 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.3 provides that the County will create special area plans for strategic ecosystems "based on current development pressures and anticipated priorities." It further provides that an applicant in the position of the Jonesville Petitioners may pay for its own special area plan, should it not wish to wait on the County to complete its plan process. Finally, the Jonesville Petitioners attack 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.1's use of the Alachua County 2001 digital orthophotographic series dated March 1, 2001, to "presumptively establish the baseline condition of the strategic ecosystem property as of the effective date of this policy." They contend that it is uncertain how the County will treat properties on which the owners have altered ecosystems in the period between the 2001 orthophotographs and 2003 adoption of the new COSE policies and that the policy would have a retroactive impact of dubious constitutionality if the County were to require restoration of those properties to their 2001 state. This valid concern of the Jonesville Petitioners is prematurely raised in this proceeding. The evidence at hearing failed to demonstrate that the County would not allow a landowner to provide information through the development review process to demonstrate that the condition of the property had changed after March 1, 2001, and prior to the effective date of the 2003 Amendments. In summary, it is found that the mere fact that the County determined that the definition of "strategic ecosystem" shall consist of the identification of properties on the KBN/Golder Report map is a fairly debatable decision, given the manner in which that definition is put into effect through amended COSE Objective 4.10 and its implementing policies. The Jonesville Petitioners entered reports prepared by their environmental consultant concerning particular properties and their unsuitability for designation as strategic ecosystems and presented extensive testimony on the subject. The County presented testimony as to each of the Jonesville Petitioners' properties to support the County's contention that they are indeed strategic ecosystems. Each of the Jonesville properties is a small portion of a much larger parcel on the KBN/Golder Report strategic ecosystems map. It is unnecessary to make detailed findings of fact as to the environmental quality of these properties. As the findings above indicate, the appropriate time to consider the qualities of particular properties will be during the special area planning process and/or the development review process.16/ Uplands Habitat 2002 COSE Objective 4.9, titled "Biodiversity," provides: Maintain and enhance plant and animal species diversity and distribution within Alachua County by protecting significant plant and wildlife habitats, providing for habitat corridors, and preventing habitat fragmentation. The 2002 Plan Update provisions implementing COSE Objective 4.9 provided as follows: Policy 4.9.1 A critical portion of each significant plant and wildlife habitat type in Alachua County shall be protected. Protection shall be accomplished using all available methods, including land acquisition, incentives and requirements for the provision of conservation or preservation areas, habitat corridors, greenways, and common open space. Policy 4.9.2 During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall minimize the effects of development on significant plant and wildlife habitat. All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25% of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site. The habitat to be conserved shall be selected based on the quality and viability of the habitat. The County shall work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside. Conserved habitat shall be located and maintained in areas with intact canopy, understory and groundcover in functional, clustered arrangement which maximizes use by wildlife and maintains the long-term viability of native upland plant communities. Linkages to habitat corridors and greenways shall be required where available. The County shall have the authority to accept alternatives to onsite conservation that provide for the long-term protection and management of significant plant and wildlife habitat of equal or greater habitat value that would not have otherwise been preserved. The land development regulations shall establish criteria for determining which projects warrant the use of alternatives to onsite conservation. Criteria may include but are not limited to: the size of the development site, habitat quality, uniqueness, connectivity, management opportunities, and adjacent uses. Off-site conservation shall not be permitted for listed species habitat that is capable of being managed or restored on- site as a high quality natural plant or animal community or communities. This requirement is not intended to limit the effect of other resource-specific protective measures in this element, such as clustering and buffers. Policy 4.9.3 The County shall require the development and implementation of management plans for all significant plant and wildlife habitat that is to be protected. The management plan shall be prepared at the expense of the developer by an appropriately qualified professional and provide for the following: Removal of invasive vegetation and debris. Replanting with native vegetation as necessary. Maintenance of biodiversity, with special emphasis on protection of listed plant and animal species. Any additional measures determined to be necessary to protect and maintain the functions and values of the habitat conservation areas while ensuring protection from wildfire. Policy 4.9.4[17/] The County shall consult with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services or other appropriate agencies prior to authorizing development that could result in potential adverse impacts to any listed species. The County shall utilize these recommendations to provide specific requirements regarding development where these species are encountered. Conditions of approval shall ensure the maintenance and, where feasible and appropriate, increase the abundance and distribution of populations of listed species. Policy 4.9.5 The use of listed plant and wildlife species habitat shall be restricted to that which is compatible with the requirements of listed species. Development activities[18/] that would threaten the life or habitat of any listed species shall not be permitted. Policy 4.9.6 The County shall prohibit the alteration of natural shorelines or degradation of water quality where listed species feed or breed, through the establishment of buffers as set out in [COSE] Policy 3.6.8. The County shall encourage the restoration of degraded shorelines when possible. Policy 4.9.7[19/] The County shall periodically review monitoring data from federal, state, regional, and local agencies to determine the status of listed species habitats in Alachua County. The County shall use this information to maintain and provide, for the convenience of the public, a table of listed species and listed species habitats in Alachua County. Policy 4.9.8 The County shall recommend specific management and recovery strategies for listed species, as they are developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and shall assist in their implementation. These management techniques shall be incorporated into the land development regulations, as well as the management plans of County-owned preservation areas. Policy 4.9.9 Wildlife habitat enhancement and management programs in urban areas shall be promoted through such techniques as designation of bird sanctuary areas where rookeries or other significant bird populations exist and landscaping schemes for stormwater detention and retention areas that maintain native vegetation and establish littoral zones which encourages wildlife usage. Policy 4.9.10 The County shall develop incentives designed to encourage private land owners to manage land holdings for wildlife attributes. Policy 4.9.11 The County shall establish and preserve habitat corridors that connect significant plant and wildlife habitats throughout the County. The County shall perform an objective analysis to determine the appropriateness of habitat corridors, how extensive they should be, the location of potential corridors, what fiscal resources are available for implementation, and economic incentives for property owners to voluntarily participate in formation of a habitat corridor program. The 2003 Amendments changed 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2 as follows: During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall minimize the effects of development on significant plant and wildlife habitat. All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25% of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site, subject to the limitation in 4.9.12. The habitat to be conserved shall be selected based on the quality and viability of the habitat. The County shall work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside. . . . The 2003 Amendments added a new COSE Policy 4.9.12, which reads as follows: Policy 4.9.12 Upland habitat protections under Objective 4.9 shall be limited as follows: No more than 25% of the upland portion of a property may be required to be set aside for preservation pursuant to policies under this Objective without landowner consent. Upland areas required to be protected pursuant to policies for significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall be counted in calculation of the 25% limitation, however, the extent of protection of significant geological features and wetland and surface water buffers shall not be reduced by this limitation. This limitation shall not apply to 100-year floodplains and wellfield protection areas, which are addressed independently through policies under Objectives 4.8 [Flood Plains and Floodways] and 4.5 [Groundwater], respectively. This limitation shall not restrict in any state and federal agency protections. For purposes of applying this limitation, a property shall include all contiguous land under common ownership or control. Properties may not be disaggregated, processed in piecemeal fashion, reviewed or developed in any manner that results in lesser upland protections than would otherwise be required under this Objective. The Sierra Club Petitioners challenged these uplands policies on several grounds. The 2002 Plan Update, as amended in 2003, provides two kinds of protection to uplands. The most highly protected upland is one established as part of a strategic ecosystem. Under 2003 COSE Policy 4.10.5, up to 50 percent of the upland portion of a strategic ecosystem can be preserved as undeveloped area without the landowner's consent. A lesser level of protection is afforded to "significant plant and wildlife habitat." The 2002 Plan Update defines "significant habitat" as "contiguous stands of natural upland plant communities which have been documented to support, and which have the potential to maintain, healthy and diverse populations of plants or wildlife." Under 2003 COSE Policies 4.9.2 and 4.9.12, up to 25 percent of the upland portion of "significant plant and wildlife habitat" may be set aside for preservation without the landowner's consent. Neither the strategic ecosystems provision nor the significant plant and wildlife habitat provision purports to restrict or lessen any protections afforded by state or federal law. The Sierra Club Petitioners complain that the 2003 Amendments modify the categories and levels of upland protection which had been adopted in the 2002 Plan Update, that these modifications weaken the environmental protection provided to upland vegetative communities and habitats, and that the modifications are based on legislative settlement of the 2002 administrative challenge, not on any science or new data or analysis. The 2002 Plan Update was supported by the 1998 EAR and the 2002 Data and Analysis documents. On December 10, 2002, during the settlement process that culminated in the 2003 Amendments, Alachua County's environmental protection director, Chris Bird, produced a memorandum titled "Response to Questions Raised on Conservation Issues in the 12/2/02 Special [Board] Comp Plan Meeting," referred to hereinafter as "the Bird Memo." As of December 2, 2002, mediation had commenced in the 2002 administrative challenge, but the parties had yet to crystallize their respective positions into what would become the 2003 Amendments. As indicated by its full title, the Bird Memo contains the County staff's explanation of the basis for the conservation policies in the 2002 Amendments. The memo sets forth citations to and quotes from the 2002 Data and Analysis, and supplements this with its own comments on the propriety or necessity for the changes to the 1991 Plan made by the 2002 Amendments. The Sierra Club Petitioners point out that the Bird Memo offers a clear explanation as to how the 2002 Plan Update was based on the 1998 EAR and the 2002 Data and Analysis. They contend that there is no equivalent documentation in the record of this case that explains how the 2003 Amendments were based on the Data and Analysis. In answer to the question, "What's wrong with the old [1991] Comprehensive Plan and why do we have to change it?," the Bird Memo stated: Of 70 measurable objectives set forth for the Conservation portion of the [1998] EAR, less than a third of those objectives were met without caveat. At least 10 objectives were not met, and another 40 objectives were only partially met, met in limited fashion, or were in need of revision/update. The Bird Memo noted that the 1998 EAR made the following recommendations under the heading, "Permitted Uses in Conservation Areas": Review and revise requirements for development in ecologically sensitive/environmentally significant areas. Using the PUD[20/] or a modified Cluster Ordinance, consider the following modifications at a minimum: (1) modify the comprehensive plan to include additional natural communities identified in the 1996 ecological inventory [i.e., the KBN/Golder study]; (2) require clustering for all development and eliminate the 20-acre parcel threshold; (3) require stricter long-term protection for Conservation areas and significant natural communities; (4) increase the 50% minimum set-aside; (5) include incentives/requirements for permanent set-aside arrangements. The Bird Memo went on to set forth staff's recommendation as to what "stricter long-term protection for conservation areas and significant natural communities" necessitates for "significant habitat": Significant habitat is defined in the [2002] Comprehensive Plan update as contiguous stands of natural upland plant communities that support and maintain healthy and diverse populations of plants or wildlife. Sandhill and xeric hammock are two examples. Industrial pine plantations are not significant habitat because they are not natural communities. FAC 9J-5 requires that the Conservation Element include objectives and policies that conserve and protect native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat from destruction by development activities. The Plan update approaches this protection at two scales: strategic ecosystems are important at a larger geographical scale; significant habitat and listed species habitat are important at smaller scales. The purpose is to identify and protect natural systems and their fundamental building blocks before they are in the "emergency room" at the brink of crisis, when they can still be preserved for the future in healthy form. To accomplish this, the largest remaining wild areas are afforded the greatest protection (80% preservation of strategic ecosystems), while the smaller but significant natural habitat areas are afforded lesser but still meaningful protection (25% preservation of significant habitat). There is no percentage associated with listed species habitat protection, but protection is determined on a case-by-case basis depending on species and site characteristics. The requirement for 25% preservation of native habitat is clearly less than what is needed to stop habitat and species declines, but represents a compromise.[21/] This percentage was chosen in order to provide for the conditions necessary to preserve some degree of ecological integrity while accommodating the needs of development. . . . The Sierra Club Petitioners concede that some of the quoted conservation recommendations were adopted in the 2003 Amendments, e.g., the map of the KBN/Golder Report inventory lands was adopted as the initial definition of strategic ecosystems and incentives for clustering are provided. However, they contend that most of the staff's conservation recommendations are not reflected in the 2003 Amendments, e.g., clustering is not required for all development in ecologically sensitive and/or environmentally significant areas; the 20-acre parcel threshold for ecosystem protection is not eliminated; 50 percent minimum set-asides are not increased; species on the Florida Natural Areas Inventory ("FNAI") endangered species list but not on federal or state lists are not protected in wetland buffers; the recommended minimum default buffer is not used; and no minimum protection is required for either listed species habitat or significant habitat. The Sierra Club Petitioners contend that the 25 percent maximum upland preservation introduced by 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12 destroys the impact of 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.5, which under the 2002 Plan Update would have protected the habitat of any "listed species" on a case-by-case determination of what was reasonable and necessary for the species on the particular site, apparently without regard to the amount of a given tract that would be turned over to preservation against the wishes of the landowner. "Listed species" is defined in the 2003 Amendments as: Those species of plants and animals listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or species of special concern by an official state or federal plant or wildlife agency, or the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI, includes species ranked as S1, S2, or S3), or the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA). These species are targeted for protection for a number of reasons, e.g., they are in imminent danger of extinction, are rapidly declining in number or habitat, or have an inherent vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, or human disturbance which puts them at risk of extinction. This contention is rejected because it neglects to factor in the express limitation expressed in 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12.c. that the 25 percent limitation "shall not restrict in any way state and federal agency protections." Such "protections" include federal and state listed species protections, meaning that the 25 percent limitation cannot function as a brake on listed species protection. The Sierra Club Petitioners make too much of the distinction between 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2's language, "All developments shall protect as conservation or preservation areas a minimum of 25 percent of the significant plant and wildlife habitat that occurs on site," and 2003 COSE Policy 4.9.12's language, "No more than 25 percent of the upland portion of a property may be required to be set aside for preservation pursuant to policies under this Objective without landowner consent." They appear to assume that the former provision would allow the County to impose draconian development limitations without regard to the property rights of landowners. In the undersigned's view, the distinction is not so great, particularly in light of 2002 COSE Policy 4.9.2.1's direction to the County to "work with the landowner to select the portion of the habitat that will be included in the 25% set aside." (Emphasis added.) The express reference to a "25% set aside" indicates that Alachua County did not anticipate forcing landowners to cede more than that amount of their property even under the 2002 Plan Update. It is found that the Sierra Club Petitioners overstate the necessary impact of the Bird Memo as "Data and Analysis." Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2), indeed, requires that plan amendments be "based upon relevant and appropriate data," and further explains that to be "based on data" means "to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue." However, the Sierra Club Petitioners essentially contend that the Board was bound to enact each recommendation of the Bird Memo in every particular or stand in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). To accept this contention would be to make the elected officials of Alachua County subservient to their own hired staff, an exact reversal of the comprehensive planning process. It is found that the County has reacted to the data and analysis of the Bird Memo "in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data." There is no question that the 2002 Plan Update, as amended by the 2003 Amendments, for the first time "establish[es] an integrated approach to the protection of natural communities and their associated values in Alachua County," in contrast to the fragmented approach of the 1991 Plan. See COSE Data and Analysis, Biodiversity, p. 38. The 2003 Amendments address and, to some degree, adopt every element raised by staff in the Bird Memo. The 2003 Amendments do not adopt the terms of the Bird Memo to the letter as urged by the Sierra Club Petitioners, but the County was not required to do so. It is at least fairly debatable that the COSE uplands policies are supported by data and analysis and provide adequate guidance for the development of LDRs. Wetland Buffers Under the 1991 Plan, standards for natural vegetative buffers around surface waters and wetlands consisted of a minimum 75-foot buffer for Outstanding Florida Waters and a 35-foot buffer for all other surface waters and wetlands. The 2002 Plan Update's version of COSE Policy 3.6.8, referenced in Policy 4.9.6 above, provided detailed new buffer requirements as follows: Policy 3.6.8 Development occurring along the edges of conservation and preservation areas shall be designed to protect and minimize the impact of development on conservation areas through the use of natural vegetative buffers. Buffer width shall be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on what is demonstrated to be scientifically necessary to protect natural ecosystems from significant adverse impact. This determination shall be made in consideration of at least the following factors: Type of development and associated potential for adverse site-specific and off-site impacts; Natural community type and associated hydrologic or management requirements; Buffer area characteristics and function; Presence of listed species of plants and animals. Absent scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate, the following buffer widths shall apply for the resources set forth in the table below. Protected Resource Buffer Distance (feet)** Surface waters and wetlands that do not include the resources listed below 75* Outstanding Florida Waters 200* Areas where listed plant or animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland 300* from the surface water or wetland Public water supply well 200 * Buffer widths are recommended based on the report, "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," prepared by Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. in collaboration with Mark T. Brown, Ph.D., University of Florida Center for Wetlands and Water Resources, and Richard Hamann, Esq., University of Florida College of Law, January 2000. ** If the buffer precludes all economically viable use of a particular property, development may be allowed within the buffer in accordance with [COSE] policy 3.6.5, and where applicable, [COSE] policies 4.6.6 and 4.7.4. Buffers shall be measured from the outer edge of the protected resource. The 2003 Amendments made no changes to the text of COSE Policy 3.6.8, but changed the table of buffer widths as follows: Protected Resource Buffer Distance (feet)** Surface waters and wetlands less than or equal to 0.5 acre that do not include OFWs or listed animal species as described elsewhere in this table 50 average, 35 minimum Surface waters and wetlands greater than 0.5 acre that do not include the resources listed below OFWs or listed animal species as described elsewhere in this table 75* 75 average, 50 minimum Areas where federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species listed plant or animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland 300* from the surface water or wetland 100 average, 75 minimum Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWS) 200* 150 average, 100 minimum Public water supply well 200 * Buffer widths are recommended based on the report, "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," prepared by Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc. in collaboration with Mark T. Brown, Ph.D., University of Florida Center for Wetlands and Water Resources, and Richard Hamann, Esq., University of Florida College of Law, January 2000. ** If the buffer precludes all economically viable use of a particular property, development may be allowed within the buffer in accordance with [COSE] policy 3.6.5, and where applicable, [COSE] policies 4.6.6 and 4.7.4. The referenced COSE Policy 3.6.5, introduced in the 2002 Plan Update and not amended in 2003, provides: Development on land that includes conservation areas shall be sited and designed according to the following standards and consistent with policies under Objective 6.2 [Rural/Agriculture] of the [FLUE] in the rural area: The preservation of conservation areas shall be required on all development sites to the greatest extent possible, consistent with standards which are outlined subsequently in [the COSE]. Density or intensity shall be transferred from conservation areas to non- conservation portions of the property, to adjoining property under common ownership or management and within a unified development, or to other development receivership areas, at a rate consistent with that of the underlying zoning district, but not to exceed the maximum density allowed by the land use designation. When there are no non-conservation areas to which density or intensity may be transferred, the development shall be clustered in the portion of the site that will result in least environmental impact. When connection to central sewer is not required, septic wastes shall be disposed of according to the Comprehensive Plan, land development regulations, and health department standards, and without adversely affecting ecosystem health. Existing landscape connections to other conservation areas shall be maintained so that fragmentation is avoided. The referenced COSE Policy 4.6.6, under Objective dealing with "Surface Water Systems," was introduced in the 2002 Plan Update, was not amended in 2003, and provides: The following activities may be allowed within the buffer subject to standards that regulate environmental impacts: Agricultural and silvicultural operations consistent with Objective 5.5 [Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices]; Water dependent facilities; Minimal impact activities; Activities that serve the overriding public interest; and Development allowed through implementation of [COSE] policy 3.6.5.3, provided that the development impact area shall not exceed the rate of 1/2 acre per ten acres of conservation area, including the footprint of principal and accessory structures and parking, allowing for reasonable access. 175. The referenced COSE Policy 4.7.4, under Objective dealing with "Wetland Ecosystems," was introduced in the 2002 Plan Update and amended in 2003 as indicated below: Development activity shall not be authorized in wetlands or wetland buffers except when all of the following conditions are met: The applicant has taken every reasonable step to avoid adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant has taken every reasonable step to minimize adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant has provided appropriate mitigation for adverse impact to the wetland and buffer; and The applicant shows that one of the following circumstances applies: Minimal impact activity; or Overriding public interest; or All economically beneficial or productive use of the property is otherwise precluded. The development impact area shall not exceed the rate of 1/2 acre per ten acres of conservation area, including the footprint of principal and accessory structures and parking, allowing for reasonable access. Notwithstanding the above, mitigated impact may be allowed to any isolated poor quality wetland that is less than 0.25 acre in size, provided the total impact area is not greater than or equal to 0.25 acre per development. Poor quality shall be defined in the land development regulations based on factors relative to ecological value. The 2002 Data and Analysis clearly concluded that the 35-foot buffers in the 1991 Plan were inadequate to protect the natural functions of the affected wetlands. The Bird Memo summarized the data as follows: The Conservation/Aquifer Recharge portion of the EAR, as well as the data and analysis supporting the Comprehensive Plan update, are replete with documentation of the inadequacy of the current 35-foot buffer for wetlands and surface waters in Alachua County. Inadequacy is demonstrated by documentation of at least the following nine facts: (1) the direct loss of the extent and quality of wetlands, (2) the degradation of wetland functions, (3) no change in declining water quality trends since implementation of 35-foot buffers, high sediment loads in surface waters, elevated nutrient concentrations in surface waters, groundwater, and springs, poor surface water systems health documented by macroinvertebrate sampling, poor hydrology, including lake drawdown problems, (8) the continued loss, degradation and fragmentation of wildlife habitat in Alachua County, and (9) the decline of native species concurrent with the spread of invasive non-native species. The Bird Memo also contained appendices that included 11 pages of specific citations from the Data and Analysis discussing the inadequacy of the 35-foot buffers and supporting larger buffer widths. The buffers in 2002 COSE Policy 3.6.8 were based on the Data and Analysis in the 2000 Jones, Edmunds & Associates, Inc., report titled "Calculating Buffer Zone Widths For Protection of Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Lands in St. Johns County," ("JEA Report"). The Bird Memo summarized the JEA Report's findings and Alachua County's response, as follows: Upland vegetative buffers are widely regarded as necessary to protect wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. However, buffer size requirements typically have been established by political acceptability, rather than scientific merit. This often leads to insufficiently buffered aquatic resources and the false perception that the resources are being properly protected from potential impacts. Numerous scientific studies have shown that relatively wide buffers (150 to more than 300 feet) are necessary to protect wetlands. (JEA et al. 2000) A dilemma exists. Undersized buffers may place aquatic and wetland resources at risk, while buffers that are sufficiently large to provide full protection may unrealistically deny landowners use of their land. Therefore, it is important to determine the minimum buffer width necessary for protection of most of the resources, or the most sensitive of the resources. Three goals have been identified and used to determine buffer sizes: protection of wildlife habitat; minimization of sediment transport into wetlands; and minimization of groundwater drawdown in wetlands. The JEA report (2000) concludes that a minimum of 300 feet is necessary to reasonably protect a viably functioning wetland ecosystem. A 300-foot buffer would protect approximately 50% of the wetland-dependent wildlife species in freshwater wetlands, and protect water quality from sedimentation by course [sic] and fine sands. In some site-specific cases, such as with silt or clay soils, or from large draw-down structures, a greater buffer distance would be necessary to protect the wetland. Any reduction in the buffer width below 300 feet can impose adverse impacts to the wetland, particularly to the wetland- dependent wildlife species that require a wide surrounding upland area in which to feed, forage, and use as protection from human disturbance. Lesser alternatives would still provide some protection to wetlands; however, any reduction can result in adverse impacts to wildlife populations, as well as degradation of water quality from deposition of fine sediments. The County has chosen an alternative to one large buffer distance. This alternative is intended to provide flexibility while accommodating private property concerns. The Sierra Club Petitioners emphasize the JEA Report's conclusion that "a minimum of 300 feet is necessary to reasonably protect a viably functioning wetland ecosystem." They note that the language of 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 provides that "[a]bsent scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate," a 100-foot average, 75-foot minimum natural vegetative "default" buffer would apply in "areas where federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species have been documented within 300 feet of a surface water or wetland." They conclude that providing only a 75-100 foot "default" buffer in an area documented to contain threatened or endangered species habitat within 300 feet would result in the destruction of that habitat between the 75- to 100-foot buffer zone and the 300-foot extent of the documented habitat. This is another instance in which the Sierra Club Petitioners' conclusion requires an assumption of bad faith on the part of the County regulatory authorities. Whether the default buffer is 300 feet or 75 feet, that default buffer applies only in the absence of "scientific information which demonstrates that a larger or smaller buffer width is appropriate." The Sierra Club Petitioners correctly note Michael Drummond's testimony that, under the 1991 Plan, the default buffers were often employed where the existence of wetland- dependent species was suspected, but not verified. Mr. Drummond also testified that application of a 100-foot buffer would not be adequate for listed species. However, Mr. Drummond's testimony does not demonstrate that the County would ignore scientific information demonstrating the presence of endangered species and apply the default buffers regardless of those species' habitat requirements. The undersigned does not agree that it is beyond fair debate that Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.013(2)(c)5. requires the County to apply the default buffers in habitats where there is a "high potential" for endangered species to occur, but where the species have not been documented. The cited Rule requires the COSE to contain policies that address implementation activities for the "[r]estriction of activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife." 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8 complies with the language of the rule by addressing known adverse affects. Alachua County was entitled to make a policy choice not to go farther and address potential adverse effects caused by inadequate buffers in areas that endangered species might inhabit.22/ There is no question that the Sierra Club's policy preference would result in greater protection of endangered species and their habitats, actual or potential. However, this fact alone does not compel the County to enact stricter provisions than the relevant statutes and rules require. The Sierra Club Petitioners' focus on the "300 foot minimum buffer" language in the Bird Memo led them to overlook the fact that the Data and Analysis support 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8, as well as the version in the 2002 Plan Update. The Bird Memo itself recognizes the County's choice of "an alternative to one large buffer distance . . . to provide flexibility while accommodating private property concerns." The Bird Memo expressly recognized that the scientifically preferable wide buffers "may unrealistically deny landowners use of their land." 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8 reasonably balances the interests noted in the Bird Memo by providing for a site- specific determination of the proper buffer width based on the scientific information at hand. Application of the default buffer is always contingent upon the absence of scientific information.23/ The Sierra Club Petitioners also challenge the 2003 Amendment's change of language in the table of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 from "listed plant or animal species" to "federally and/or state regulated vertebrate wetland/aquatic dependent animal species." They argue that the evidence showed that limiting the buffer protection in COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 to only federally and/or state regulated species, rather than to all "listed species" as defined in the 2002 Plan as amended, would exclude approximately 14 species from the threatened and endangered species protection of the buffer provision. The 2002 Plan, as amended in 2003, defines "Listed Species" as follows: Those species of plants and animals listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or species of special concern by an official state or federal plant or wildlife agency, or the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI, includes species ranked as S1, S2, or S3), or the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA). These species are targeted for protection for a number of reasons, e.g. they are in imminent danger of extinction, are rapidly declining in number or habitat, or have an inherent vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, or human disturbance which puts them at risk of extinction. The Bird Memo explains the inclusion of the FNAI and, until the 2003 Amendments, the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals ("FCREPA") lists as follows: The use of FNAI and FCREPA sources does not make the list of protected species significantly broader than the list generated from using federal and state agency lists. Rather, it makes protection efforts more accurate and timely because they are based on scientific judgment responsive to changing natural conditions, rather than political listing decisions which can take years in the making. The use of these data sources to identify species for special protection is considered by many ecological professionals, including state and water management district personnel, as the best available data for the purpose of recognizing plants and animals in decline in the state and in Alachua County. The Sierra Club Petitioners argue that there was no basis in either the 2002 Plan Update or the Data and Analysis for 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8.2 to exclude the FNAI-listed species from the protection they receive at every other point in the Plan where endangered and threatened species protections apply or to exclude non-vertebrates from the buffering provisions of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2. In response, the County initially points out that the category of buffers for listed species was new to the 2002 Plan Update. The County notes that the 1991 Plan essentially deferred to federal and state agencies in the regulation of plants and wildlife and that in crafting the 2002 Plan Update, the County decided to broaden conservation areas to include the habitat of FNAI-listed species. The County incidentally observes that FNAI is a scientific organization with no regulatory function whatever. The County argues that there is no conflict between its decision to generally broaden conservation areas and its decision to create a new wetland buffer category for federal and state-regulated species. The undersigned agrees that it is at least fairly debatable that the County was not required to apply its "listed species" definition to the buffering provision of COSE Policy 3.6.8.2. The Sierra Club Petitioners simply failed to demonstrate the necessary connection between the definition and the buffer category that might establish an internal inconsistency. The mere fact that the 2002 Plan Update employed the term "listed plant or animal species" in the buffer table does not establish a presumption of correctness. The Bird Memo states that the FNAI and FCREPA lists provide "the best available data for the purpose of recognizing plants and animals in decline," and thus supports the County's decision to reference the FNAI list in its "listed species" definition, but does not require the County to include the list for purposes of defining a buffer category. In further defense of 2003 COSE Policy 3.6.8, the County notes that the policy provides flexibility to respond to the needs of individual species by allowing for "buffer averaging," which permits the buffer area to be distributed in a varying width around the wetland, subject to the minimum widths contained in the table. In addition to the increased buffers, the County substantially improved its protection of wetlands by strengthened requirements in proposed COSE Policies 3.6.1324/ and 4.7.4 for avoidance and minimization of impacts. Avoidance and minimization is also facilitated by proposed Policy 3.6.5, which provides for transfers of densities or clustering. The County notes that the updated Plan contains multiple layers of wetlands protection. COSE Policy 4.7.1 provides that wetlands of all sizes are to be regulated, without exception. COSE Policy 4.7.4 limits the development impact area to the ratio of one-half acre of impact to each ten acres of conservation area. If wetland impacts cannot be avoided or minimized, then the strengthened mitigation requirements of COSE Policy 4.7.7 must be met, including a minimum ratio of 5:1 mitigation area to impacted area, a requirement that the mitigation areas be within the County and no mitigation credits for onsite preservation of wetlands, which are required to be protected in any event. Preservation of wetlands and/or other surface waters or uplands cannot be counted as "mitigation" if federal, state, water management district, or local regulations already require protection of the resource in question. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that the County appropriately responded to the Data and Analysis by its policies on surface waters and wetlands. D. Agricultural Uses The Jonesville Petitioners criticized 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2,25/ which provides: In primary and secondary conservation areas, the following uses, if otherwise consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, generally shall be permitted to the extent that they do not significantly alter the natural functions of the conservation area: Public and private conservation, recreation and open space uses. Public and private wildlife preserves, game management and refuge areas. Water conservation and retention/detention areas that are determined to be appropriate for stormwater management. Agricultural uses, employing latest applicable best management practices. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that the quoted policy creates an internal inconsistency in the Plan. The inconsistency is said to stem from a conflict between the County's desire to sustain the ecological integrity of natural resource areas that due to their ecological value, uniqueness and particular sensitivity to development activities, require stringent protective measures, and the fact that some of the uses to be permitted in conservation areas, particularly agricultural uses, can be incompatible with the preservation of ecological integrity as defined in the Plan. While there was some expert testimony as to the difficulty of reconciling agricultural and recreational uses with conservation, the weight of the evidence did not demonstrate such an inherent incompatibility as to establish an internal inconsistency in the Plan. The listed uses are to be permitted "to the extent that they do not significantly alter the natural functions of the conservation area," and there was no showing that this qualification is unenforceable by its terms. The County also pointed out that its authority to regulate agricultural activities by way of development controls is limited by statute. The "Florida Right to Farm Act," Section 823.14, Florida Statutes (2003), provides, in relevant part: (6) Limitation on duplication of government regulation.-- It is the intent of the Legislature to eliminate duplication of regulatory authority over farm operations as expressed in this subsection. Except as otherwise provided for in this section and s. 487.051(2)[pesticide regulation], and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local government may not adopt any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to s. 193.461 [property tax assessments of agricultural lands], where such activity is regulated through implemented best-management practices or interim measures developed by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or water management districts and adopted under chapter 120 as part of a statewide or regional program. . . . (Emphasis added.) More recently, the Legislature passed the "Agricultural Lands and Practices Act," Section 163.3162, Florida Statutes (2003), effective July 1, 2003, subsection (4) of which provides: Duplication of regulation.-- Except as otherwise provided in this section and s. 487.051(2), and notwithstanding any other law, including any provision of chapter 125 or this chapter, a county may not exercise any of its powers to adopt any ordinance, resolution, regulation, rule, or policy to prohibit, restrict, regulate, or otherwise limit an activity of a bona fide farm operation on land classified as agricultural land pursuant to s. 193.461, if such activity is regulated through implemented best management practices, interim measures, or regulations developed by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or a water management district and adopted under chapter 120 as part of a statewide or regional program; or if such activity is expressly regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (Emphasis added.) The Jonesville Petitioners also raised the specter of sham agricultural uses being used as a cover for the conversion of environmentally sensitive properties to residential development. Richard Drummond candidly acknowledged that such conversions could occur if the County were insufficiently diligent as to events on the ground, but also testified that the County did what it could, within the statutory constraints set forth above, to ensure that the updated Plan would circumvent such covert efforts. Both statutes quoted above restrict a local government's ability to restrict a "bona fide farm operation," but neither statute defines the term "bona fide farm operation." In the 2002 COSE definitions, Alachua County provided a definition of "bona fide agricultural purposes" to mean: Good faith commercial agricultural use of the land, provided the land is classified for assessment purposes by the property appraiser as "agricultural" pursuant to Chapter 193, Florida Statutes. In determining whether the use of the land for agricultural purposes is bona fide, the following factors may be taken into consideration: The length of time the land has been so utilized; Whether the use has been continuous; The purchase price paid; Size, as it relates to specific agricultural use; Whether an indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently and adequately for the land in accordance with accepted commercial agricultural practices, including, without limitation, fertilizing, liming, tilling, mowing, reforesting, and other accepted agricultural practices; Whether such land us under lease and, if so, the effective length, terms, and conditions of the lease; and Such other factors as may from time to time become applicable. The Jonesville Petitioners contend that 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 creates an internal inconsistency with 2002 FLUE Policies 6.2.10, 6.2.12, 6.2.13, and 6.2.15. The permitted uses delineated in 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 do not list residential activity as a permitted use in conservation areas. The cited 2002 FLUE Policies all contemplate some residential development in "strategic ecosystems," which are included in the definition of conservation areas. The Jonesville Petitioners also note that, within 2002 FLUE Policy 6.2.12, silviculture, common water supply systems, and common septic system drainfields are listed as potential uses in conservation areas that are designated as "open space" in clustered rural residential subdivisions, yet none of these uses is listed as permitted in 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2. They assert that the definition, treatment, and application of the terms "agriculture" and "silviculture" within the 2003 COSE plan amendments create inconsistency and lack of predictability in the application and treatment of the related policies. As to the last point, the County credibly responds that the COSE definition of "agriculture" includes silviculture and that silviculture is considered in the Plan as a subset of agriculture, except in those instances in which some external factor requires a distinction. For example, Objective 5.5, "Agricultural and Silvicultural Practices," and its implementing policies recognize that agriculture and silviculture have distinct best management practices. It is not unreasonable for the County to interpret 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 as permitting silvicultural uses in conservation areas within the constraints applied to agricultural uses, where the COSE definition of "agriculture" includes silviculture. As to residential development and its concomitant common water supply and septic systems, it is evident from the FLUE Policies cited by the Jonesville Petitioners, as well as 2003 FLUE Policies 1.3.1e and 6.2.11 and 2002 COSE Policies 3.6.5, 4.10.3.3, and 4.10.4 to 4.10.6, that the Plan will allow for residential development of the least environmentally sensitive portion of a strategic ecosystems property by means of clustering, gross residential density limits, transfers of density, and other design techniques intended to protect ecosystems and private property rights. There is no inconsistency with 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 because that policy does not purport to contain the exclusive list of uses allowed in conservation areas, as indicated by its own text and that of the very next policy, 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.3: Primary and secondary cConservation areas shall be developed only in a manner consistent with protection of the ecological integrity of natural resources, and in accordance with standards which are outlined subsequently in this Element. The COSE Definitions provide the following meaning for the term "development activity": Any dredging, filling, excavation, construction of new structures, expansion of existing structures, installation of utilities, roads, personal wireless service facilities, stormwater management systems, septic tanks, bulkheading, land clearing, tree cutting, mechanized vegetation removal and the disposal of solid or liquid waste. Clearly, 2003 COSE Policy 3.1.2 lists certain uses that "generally shall be permitted," but when read in context with other Plan provisions, does not necessarily forbid residential development on certain properties defined as conservation areas. In summary, it is at least fairly debatable that the County appropriately responded to the Data and Analysis by its policies affecting agricultural uses and their impact on conservation. The alleged internal consistencies in these policies were not demonstrated beyond fair debate. Level of Service 2003 Transportation Policy 1.1.2 and Capital Improvements Policy 1.2.4 raise the level of service ("LOS") for rural collector roads from LOS D in the 1991 Plan to LOS C, which is the standard recommended by the Florida Department of Transportation for rural collector roads. The McSherry Petitioners challenged this amendment because the 2002 Plan Update had upgraded the rural collector roads to LOS B. However, the proper point of comparison is from the 1991 Plan to the 2003 Amendments. Further, the evidence produced at hearing did not demonstrate that a higher LOS than C is required for protection of the state or county transportation network. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments regarding the LOS for rural collector roads were adequately supported by data and analysis. Conclusion It is found that, as to the 2003 Amendments in their entirety, the County used the best available data and reacted to it appropriately for planning purposes by applying professionally acceptable analysis in review and application of that data.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the 2003 Alachua County Amendments to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2004.
The Issue The issues in this case are (1) whether the City of Panama City's (the City) Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 04-20S adopted by Ordinance No. 1985 (the Plan Amendment) is "in compliance," as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and (2) whether the petition challenging the Plan Amendment should be dismissed as untimely.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Robert E. Moore owns a home and resides at 1310 Kristanna Drive, Panama City, Florida. The northwestern property line of Mr. Moore's home is adjacent to the northeastern corner of the Property. JE 7; PE 98-B at RM.2 There is an approximate 100-foot-wide Bay County maintained canal or drainage ditch (canal) that forms the northern boundary of the Property, see Endnote 1 and PE 50 at 7, which runs in an east-to-west direction at the northern portion of his home. This canal eventually leads to North Bay to the west.3 Goose Bayou is located south of the Property. Mr. Moore taught respiratory care at Gulf Coast Community College for approximately 23 years and is retired. His residence was affected by a hurricane which passed through the area in September 2004. He noticed water appearing half-way up his driveway, which is not on the canal. He is concerned with the placement of additional homes in this area in light of his experience with the water level after the recent storm event. (Generally, Mr. Moore stated that there is a two- foot difference between low and high tide in this area. T 133, 137.) Mr. Moore, as well as the other Petitioners, made oral and written comments to the City Commission during the Plan Amendment adoption hearings. See City's Unilateral Pre-Hearing Stipulation at 5, paragraph E.4.; T 213. The St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association (RMA) was established in 1986 and is a citizen's organization devoted to the preservation of the quality of St. Andrews Bay and its surrounding ecosystems. T 194. (St. Andrews Bay is a larger body of water which includes North and West Bay and Goose Bayou. See generally JE 12, Map 1.) The RMA has approximately 100 members. The RMA uses, but does not own, an office on the Panama City Marine Institute campus located within the City. The RMA occasionally conducts seminars or conferences and offers several programs for citizens, e.g., sea turtle nest watch, a water sampling program (Baywatch), and a sea grass watch program. The RMA meets every month except during the summer. T 195-196. The RMA opposes the Plan Amendment, in part, because of concerns with the effect of development on what Ms. Shaffer characterized as the "pine islands." Linda Anne Yori owns and resides in a house at 908 Ashwood Circle, Panama City, Florida, which is "just off Kristanna" Drive and to the east. See PE 98-C at the blue X. She teaches middle school science at a local public school. She has observed the Property, and generally described the Property, and vacant property to the north, as "upland hammock with salt marsh." T 209. In general, Ms. Yori opposes the Plan Amendment because she "believe[d] the environmental impact would be too great." Mary Rose Smith owns and resides in a house on Ashwood Circle, Panama City, Florida, two houses away from Ms. Yori's residence. Ms. Smith regularly jogs throughout the neighborhood. She believed that there are approximately 400 homes in Candlewick Acres and six vacant lots remaining. T 214- 215. As a result of recent hurricanes in the area, she observed flooding approximately half-a-mile upland along Kristanna Drive from the west-end to the east (half a mile to the turn off to Ashwood). PE 98-D at the blue 1/2 designation and blue line. While she cannot say for certain where the water came from, she believed the water "came from the bay or the bayou." T 220. The Bay County Audubon Society (BCAS) conducts membership and board meetings within the City limits and also owns a piece of property in the City. BCAS has approximately 400 members. Members live within the City. BCAS is concerned with the environment and with "the density of the proposed development" and "access to the pine islands." T 409-411. The City is the local government unit responsible for approving the Plan Amendment at issue in this proceeding. § 163.3187(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The Application, Review, and Adoption of the Plan Amendment On or about May 11, 2004, James H. Slonina, P.E., the president of Panhandle Engineering, Inc., filed an application on behalf of Robert H. and Barbara B. Hansman, requesting the City to annex "approximately 9.9 acres including lots, paved roadways and bridged drives" and further requested a land use designation to allow proposed residential development." The Property, see Endnote 1, is designated on a Bay County parcel map. A flood zone map is also included, but lacks clarity. The Property is vacant. JE 13. The purpose of the annexation and request for land use designation "is to accommodate the development of a 13+/- lot single-family residential waterfront development adjacent to North Shore Subdivisions." The application also stated: To support the residential home sites, there are adequate adjacent public roadways and utilities. Due to the unique physical configuration of the property, traditional RLD lot standards may not [sic] applicable. While we would prefer to pursue an RLD-1 designation, the application is submitted contingent upon confirmation of an appropriate land use designation and an approval of the proposed project. If another course of action is available, which would allow for the development of 13+/- single-family residential lots on 9.9 acres, please advise. JE 13. (It is represented throughout this record that the land use designation is requested for approximately 6.8 acres rather that approximately 9.9 acres. See, e.g., JE 7 at 1; JE 11 at 12-13.) The application was reviewed, in part, by Mr. Thomasson. JE 7. The staff report4 dated July 30, 2004, stated that the request is to amend the City's FLUM from Conservation (as previously designated by Bay County) to RLD with a Zoning District classification of RLD-1. (The staff report referred to several permitted uses under RLD-1. JE 7 at 2. The permitted uses for RLD-1 are those contained in the City's "Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code (LDRC)" at section 4-6.1.2.a. JE 4 at IV:8-9. However, the propriety of the RLD-1 Zoning District classification for the Property is not at issue in this proceeding. T 266.) The staff report also stated that the Property "is currently zoned conservation, abuts property to the North that is designated conservation Land Use category in the County and is just North of an existing Special Conservation Treatment Zone," which is indicated on a map on page 1 of the staff report. JE 7 at 1. The staff report stated that "[w]ater and sewer infrastructure and other urban services are available to this property." See T 286-287, 301-303, 307-308; JE 7 at 1. Under the background section, it is stated that "[t]he property has been seen as environmentally significant and has been the object of an effort to purchase for perpetual protection by a local land trust organization. It is adjacent to an existing development to the East." Id. The Plan provides that an RLD land use district "is intended to provide areas for the preservation of development of low-density neighborhoods consisting of single-family dwelling units on individual lots" with a density of "[n]o more than five dwelling units per acre." The allowed intensity is "[n]o more than 40% lot coverage as determined by dividing the impervious areas by the gross area of the site or lot." JE 3 at 1-2. The staff report contained findings of fact with citations to the Plan, including the Future Land Use Element, the Coastal Management Element, and the Conservation Element. References to the LDRC are also provided. See also T 285-311, 315-317, 320-321; JE 7 at 2-3. Thereafter, specific findings are made: Staff finds that this property, as a part of the St. Andrews estuary, serves as a breeding, nursery, feeding and refuge are for numerous marine creatures, birds and upland wildlife. The three pine and oak hammacks [sic] are a few of a rare estuarian resource. The marsh throughout the area serves as home for seagrass and other marine organisms that are integral with the biodiversity of the estuary. There also exists a [sic] archaeological sites [sic] consisting of an ancient Indian midden that has already been classified by the Director of the Florida State Division of Historical Resources as deservant [sic] of mitigation and potentially eligible for the National Historic Registry (see attached documentation). The site overall has a biotic community of nearly 90% of it [sic] total area. Staff findings are that this proposed Land Use Amendment is inconsistent with the above listed mandates of the Comp Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed Land Use is inconsistent with the LDR Code, in that it is not in harmony with the Comp Plan (Subsection 2-5.5.6.e. above), as well as the requirements of the environmental protection standards of Section 5-5. This decision hinges on the whether the City intends to enforce it's [sic] environmental protection standards of the Comp Plan and the LDR Code and if the site is seen as environmentally significant. JE 7 at 4 (italics in original). Ultimately, staff recommended approval only with the following conditions: 1.) that the fullness of the subject property be designated as a Conservation Special Treatment Zone [CSTZ][5] and that the pine and oak hammacks [sic](as referred to as "Pine Islands" in the Bay County Comp Plan) are prohibited from being developed; and 2.) that the area of the subject property that is beyond the mean high tide of the mainland portion, which specifically means the marshes/wetlands and the oak and pine hammacks [sic], shall be placed in a conservation easement and dedicated to either the City, or a third-party land trust or conservancy. JE 7 at 4. (Mr. Hammons, the City Manager, disagreed with the staff report, in part, because there was no data to support several findings. T 119-124.) On August 9, 2004, the Planning Board of Panama City met in regular session to consider the application. The request was to approve a small scale land use amendment to the FLUM of the Plan from Conservation (under the Bay County Comprehensive Plan) to RLD with a zoning classification of RLD-1 for the Property. JE 11 at 2. But see Finding of Fact 15. Mr. Fred Webb and Dr. Frasier Bingham were present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Webb advised that the Bingham's and the Webb's owned the property which consisted of approximately 6.5 acres of uplands. But see Finding of Fact 29 regarding the ownership of the Property. In part, Mr. Webb stated that the grass beds would not be impacted and that there was no legitimate environmental complaint. Dr. Bingham stated that he is an ecologist, specializing in shallow water ecology. JE 11 at 3. He said his family had purchased the upland property in 1948 and the submerged land in the 1960s. Beginning in 1991, Dr. Bingham stated he tried to get the government to purchase the property, but to no avail. He also recounted attempts to obtain permits from DEP and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). See, e.g., PE 60, 63-64.6 He believed that the bridge problem, identified by the Corps had been solved. JE 11 at 3 and 13. (There is no persuasive evidence in this record that the Corps has approved any permits for development of the Property.) Mr. Webb stated that all maintenance to the bridges and other utilities would be the responsibility of the association (for the developed Property) and not the City and that the City would only be responsible for police and fire. Id. at 4. Mr. Thomasson addressed the Planning Board. JE 11 at The staff report previously mentioned is incorporated in the minutes. Staff felt that the CSTZ designation would be the most appropriate designation due to the environmental issues and that the RLD-1 designation would be the least intense land use available under the Plan. Board member Pritchard inquired whether the application was incomplete "as it doesn't address the environmental issues." Mr. Thomasson stated the applicant did not believe there would be any environmental impact, while staff believed the property to be environmentally significant. JE 11 at 8. Dr. Bingham again addressed the Planning Board to refute the staff's findings of fact. Dr. Bingham said that "the wetlands would not be impacted, the grass beds would not be impacted, and the stormwater runoff already goes into the grass beds, which are, in his opinion, fine grass beds" and that "that 13 houses would not have any significant impact." He indicated that soils were not at issue and that the "property is sandy, not special." Id. at 9. Mr. Webb indicated that "they had evaluated the environmental aspects and added the raised bridges, swales, etc." JE 11 at 9. Numerous individuals spoke in opposition to the request. Apparently, by a show of hands "a large majority of those present were in opposition to the request." JE 11 at 12. It appears that two persons spoke in favor of the request. Id. at 9-11. Mr. Webb confirmed that the application requested approval of the land use designation and annexation for 6.8 acres. JE 11 at 12. He also advised that a limited liability corporation owned the 6.8 acres, while there are different owners of other parcels. Mr. Webb indicated that "only the uplands on the islands were being annexed," although "he was not sure the properties were 'islands' in legal terms." Id. at 13. Mr. Webb indicated that he was willing to indemnify the City against any legal expenses arising from this request. Id. The requested land use change was approved by a vote of three to two. Id. at 14. On September 28, 2004, the City Commission considered Ordinance No. 1985 pertaining to the requested land use designation change and Ordinance No. 1995 pertaining to the annexation of the Property. These Ordinances were read by title only as a first reading. JE 10 at 293-294. During this meeting, the minutes (JE 10) reflect that Mr. Webb stated that they would only be developing the upland islands and proposed to use bridges, which he says "the environmental regulatory community has considered to have almost no environmental impact. He said that the addition of thirteen single family residential homes to an area that has seven hundred homes will not materially affect level of service." JE 10 at 289. Several of the people who appeared before the Planning Board also appeared opposing the application for annexation and land use designation change. JE 10 at 290. Mr. Martin Jacobson, Planning and Zoning Manager for Bay County filed a formal letter of objection to the annexation. Id. Mr. Fred Beauchemin opposed the annexation and responded to eleven items which were discussed by Mr. Webb and Dr. Bingham during the Planning Board meeting, including representations of impacts to grass beds, wildlife resources, and soils. JE 10 at 290-292. Mr. Webb continued to feel that there would not be any destruction of the marshes. Id. at 292. Dr. Bingham again noted that he is a shallow water marine ecologist and felt that he was informed about the environmental situation on the Property. Id. at 293. After brief discussion by some of the Commissioners, Ordinance Nos. 1985 and 1995 were approved by a vote of three to two. JE 10 at 293-294. By a letter dated November 9, 2004, Daniel Shaw, A.I.C.P., memorialized the October 5, 2004, Bay County Commission's unanimous decision to contest the potential annexation of and land use change to the Property, referring to several provisions of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. T 228; PE 69. Mr. Shaw opined that "[c]learly, development proposed for the annexed Pine Islands violates the County's Comprehensive Plan." PE 69 at 2. He further stated: What's more the proposed annexation also violates the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Policy 5-5.2, 5-5.3 related to preservation of Environmentally Significant Resources would prohibit the proposed development. The property is a part of the St. Andrews estuary, and serves as a breeding/refuge area for numerous marine creatures, birds and wildlife. The three pine and oak hammocks are a truly rare estuarine resource for Bay County and for the State of Florida. The marshlands contain valuable sea grass beds and are home to numerous marine creatures, which are integral to the biodiversity of the estuary. Finally, the property contains valuable archeological sites, consisting of ancient Indian middens that are classified by the State Division of Historical resources, and potentially eligible for the National Historic Register. I would concur with staff's memorandum of August 9, 2004, which cites numerous other examples of where the development would violate the City's plan. PE 69 at 2 (emphasis in original). Mr. Shaw also stated that the Property is located in the coastal high hazard area, within a "V" zone for flood regulations.7 He stated that "[t]hese designations argue for prohibiting development for public safety and infrastructure investment purposes." Again, Mr. Shaw stated that Bay County opposed the potential annexation and subsequent land use reclassification. PE 69 at 3. Mr. Shaw also testified during the final hearing and reaffirmed his prior position. T 232-245. Mr. Shaw stated that the Property, prior to annexation by the City, was designated Conservation under the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, which allows for limited residential use and the preservation of pine islands (an outright prohibition).8 He was not qualified, however, to make a determination whether any portion of the Property is a pine island. T 247. Mr. Shaw thinks that Bay County allows up to 15 units per acre in the coastal high hazard area. T 254. On November 9, 2004, the City Commission met and considered a final reading of Ordinance Nos. 1985 and 1995. Several people appeared opposing both ordinances including Mr. Moore, Ms. Smith, Ms. Yori, and others. JE 8 at 3-14; JE 9 at 3-5. Mr. Webb again addressed the City Commission and stated, in part, that "nothing in the marsh would be touched." He also indicated that he would fully indemnify the City in the event of a lawsuit. JE 8 at 14-21; JE 9 at 5. Dr. Bingham also addressed the Commission. JE 8 at He stated that he has designed an environmentally friendly community of 13 home sites. He indicated that he had a Ph.D. in shallow water marine ecology and attended Florida State University and the University of Miami. He said that he was thoroughly familiar with the Panama City area and had worked with a large list of groups as an ecologist. He reiterated that the homes sites will take up 6.8 acres and will be entirely uplands and no marshes or swamps. He said that he is trying to use one fifth of the property that he owns and "there are no wetlands involved in this particular operation that will be damaged." JE 8 at 23. He also indicated that there will be raised bridges constructed on the Property, and according to him, were suggested by the Corps. Id. After brief comments by several Commissioners, the Commission approved the annexation and land use designation change by a vote of three to two. JE 8 at 26-27, 30-31. Toward the end of the November 9, 2004, hearing, the City Attorney, Rowlett Bryant, advised that the minutes of the September 28, 2004, Commission meeting would be included with the minutes of the November 9, 2004, public hearing. In other words, the November 9, 2004, Commission meeting was the public hearing held on the application for the annexation and the land use designation change. JE 8 at 27-30. Mr. Bryant also noted that the Ordinance No. 1985, related to the land use designation, would be RLD-1 and that the prior reference to Special Treatment Conservation Zone in the title of Ordinance No. 1985, considered on September 28, 2004, was a recommendation of staff and was deleted from Ordinance No. 1985, which was approved by the City Commission on November 9, 2004. JE 8 at 31-32. Ordinance No. 1985, in fact, changed the land use designation of the Property (approximately 6.8 acres) "from Conservation (a Bay County Land Use designation) to Residential- Low Density-1 as described in Small Scale Amendment 04-S20." JE 1 at 2. However, Petitioners and the City agree that "[t]he city assigned a future land use map designation to the parcel of Residential Low Density in Ordinance No. 1985." See T 11, lines 10-23; Petitioners' Prehearing Stipulation at 2, IV.2. Data and Analysis As more fully discussed in the Conclusions of Law, "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth; the projected population of the area; the character of undeveloped land; the availability of public services; the need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non-conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community; the capability of uses on lands adjacent to or closely approximate to military installations; and, in rural communities, the need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy." § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2) provides for "land use analysis requirements" and requires, in part, that the future land use element "be based upon the following analyses which support the comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection 9J-5.005(2) F.A.C." Subsection 9J-5.006(2)(b) requires "[a]n analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability for use, including where available: 1. Gross vacant or undeveloped land area, as indicated in paragraph (1)(b); 2. Soils; 3. Topography; 4. Natural resources; and 5. Historic resources." Further, "all goals, objectives, policies, standards, finding and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2)(a)(emphasis added). "Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such as the United States Census, State Data Center, State University System of Florida, regional planning councils, water management districts, or existing technical studies. The data shall be the best available existing data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2)(c). Petitioners question whether the record contains relevant and appropriate data, which was existing and available on or before November 9, 2004, to support the Plan Amendment. Petitioners further question whether the analysis of that data is adequate. The application, JE 13, requested approval of annexation of and a change in the land use designation for, as amended, approximately 6.8 acres. Aside from identifying the parcel in question, in relation to Goose Bayou and the subdivision to the east, the application does not contain adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment. Mr. Slonina, a professional engineer and expert in civil engineering, testified during the final hearing as to the due diligence he and his firm performed in support of filing the application with the City. T 424. Mr. Slonina has been on the Property many times. T 456. As part of the due diligence, Mr. Slonina analyzed the area proposed for development on the Property, which are the upland areas, and, in part, stated that these areas are primarily free draining sands and have fairly high percolation rates. T 425, 453. He also characterized upland areas as fairly clean sands and satisfactory for development in this area based on his experience. He also examined the upland and wetland soils to determine suitability for a "post and beam timbered bridge system" that would be pile supported over the wetlands bridging upland areas. He opined that the soils on the uplands were nothing unique and were suitable for low density residential and suitable to support the bridge system he described. T 428, 442, 458-459. See also P 50, Attachment A. Regarding utilities which might be available to the Property, during the due diligence phase, he identified, from utility maps, the location of the closest water and sewer which could serve the Property, adjacent to the Property to the east. He also analyzed the ability of fire protection to be provided to the Property and concluded that it was feasible. T 428-432, 460-461. See also JE 7 at 1 regarding "utility and other urban services availability" and P 50 at 14-16 for a discussion of "utilities." Mr. Slonina also opined that a stormwater system could reasonably be designed for the Property and that it was feasible to design a stormwater system that would capture stormwater runoff before it went into the bayou. T 432-435. Mr. Slonina examined flood zone information and determined that the Property was "very typical" and that the flood zone information available would not preclude residential development on the Property. T 434-435, 450. But see Endnote 7. From a traffic concurrency standpoint, he examined traffic engineering data on trip generation for 13 single-family homes and determined that there was adequate capacity for that additional loading on "the only roadway that connects to the [P]roperty." His traffic impact analysis was limited "through the residential streets." T 435-436, 439-441. Mark O. Friedemann, is the executive vice-president at the Phoenix Environmental Group, Inc., an environmental consulting firm. T 466. Mr. Friedemann was retained on or about January 7, 2005, by the City's counsel for the purpose of "doing a basic assessment of the property and whether it was suitable for some type of development, residential in particular." T 474-475. Prior to conducting a survey of the Property, aerial photographs, data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, and various maps were reviewed. Id. Mr. Friedemann and an assistant conducted a field survey of the Property on January 12, 2005. They collected basic water quality data, observed wildlife, conducted several soil observations pits, looked for scat, and examined the vegetative community on the Property. T 476. For the purpose of the survey, the Property was divided into areas 1 through 4, which are labeled on CE 5, Figure 2. T 478. These upland areas were the major focus of the assessment along with the interior (wetland/marsh) areas. T 478, 565. CE 5 at 2, Figure 2. Mr. Friedemann and his assistant arrived on the Property at approximately 9:00 am on January 12, 2005, during low tide. They left the Property as the tide was starting to return. T 517, 532, 548. Area one is a rectangular portion of the Property, which runs north to south and forms most of the eastern boundary of the Property and is adjacent to Candlewick Acres. Area two is another upland area which is in the northwest portion of the Property and west of area one. Area three is in the southwest portion of the Property and southwest of area two. Area four is a small upland portion, which is almost due south of area one in the southeastern portion of the Property. CE 5 at 2, Figure 2; see also Endnote 6. Mr. Friedemann accessed area two from area one by walking along a path/spoil pile, which runs east to west and forms part of the northern boundary of the Property (the approximately 100 foot canal is north of and adjacent to the path/spoil pile). He walked to area three by stepping across a small rivulet of no more than a foot in width. He walked to area four from area three, stepping over another small tidal- influenced rivulet that passed between areas three and four. He approached area one from area four walking across "a rather high area." Mr. Friedemann "did not get the impression that area two was surrounded" by wetlands, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. T 479-481, 500, 517, 556-557. He stated that area three would be surrounded, but was unsure about area four. T 556-559. Some of the areas photographed would be potentially inundated during high tide. T 521-525. Mr. Friedemann's report also contained, in part: water quality data taken on January 12, 2005; and a list of species seen on the same date; a recent undated aerial of the Property and surrounding area, downloaded from the DEP website, which was also magnified; and several aerials (dated 1953, 1962, 1967, 1974, 1978, and 1986) of the Property including the surrounding areas. Mr. Friedemann opined, based on his review of aerials, that there may have been a timber operation ongoing on the Property in the past although he would not hazard a guess. T 540. The report also included several photographs taken of the four areas, during the site visit on January 12, 2005. CE 5 at x-xxii. Although he did not "review any set of plans," or have any opinion regarding any specific development proposal, Mr. Friedemann opined that based on his observations in the field, "there is a viable project that could be built on this parcel."9 T 482, 501-502, 511, 520. Mr. Friedemann provided an analysis of the Property by and through his testimony regarding photographs taken of the Property during his site visit. From a biological or ecological perspective, he did not observe anything on the Property which would preclude residential development. He further opined that what he observed was not unique in the panhandle of Florida. T 501-502. Mr. Friedemann did not conduct a wetland delineation of the Property. T 556. However, the record contains an infrared Conceptual Site Plan dated October 22, 2002, indicating vacant land to the north of the Property, and residential areas to the east of the Property and east of the vacant parcels to the north. This particular site plan provided for the approximate wetland boundaries of the Property identified as south parcel (4). PE 98-D and PE 50 at Exhibit 1. Mr. Friedemann indicated that he had not observed the Property during a hurricane, during periods of high wind, or during periods of a combination of high wind and high tide. He agreed that the tides in the United States can be lower during the winter than they are during the spring and that the highest tides may be experienced during the spring called neap tides. T 532-533. Mr. Friedemann was also referred to a December 30, 2004, document apparently prepared by Panhandle Engineering, Inc., sheet number 2 of 4, CE 16, which delineated 13 lots. T 533. See Endnote 6. (City Exhibit 16 was admitted into evidence as an authentic document; however, there was no testimony regarding the preparation of this document. T 535-537.) Comparing sheet 2 of 4 with Figure two of CE 5, area two is depicted as being surrounded by rush marsh and connected to area one and area three by drawn-in bridges. Compare PE 50, Attachment E, Sheet 1 of 2, dated July 31, 1998, depicting the Property with 13 lots configured, interspersed with a "conservation area" designation and Attachment A, Figure 4., Project Base Map, depicting upland areas on the Property, interspersed with a "marsh" designation with PE 98-D south parcel (4) and "approximate wetland boundary. See also Endnote Mr. Friedemann stated that the indication of rush marsh on sheet number 2 of 4 did not comport with his observations of the Property during his site visit. He was unaware of this drawing. T 534-538. Gail Easley, A.I.C.P., an expert in urban and regional planning, opined that the Plan Amendment was consistent with various provisions of the City's Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the West Florida Regional Strategic Policy Plan. She also opined the Plan Amendment was supported by data and analysis regarding the suitability of the Property for the RLD land use designation. In support, Ms. Easley stated in part: Understanding that the amendment is not really permitting the use, but understanding that the amendment establishes the uses that are allowed as I testified earlier, the suitability data that is available in addition to the data and analysis here in the Comprehensive Plan includes the information from Panhandle Engineering about, more specifically about the availability of facilities and services and the suitability of soils for use of residential low density, as well as the analysis contained in Mr. Friedemann's report regarding environmental issues and the suitability of this site for residential low density. So I found plenty of evaluation of suitability. T 586. See also T 610-611. Ms. Easley also opined that the Plan Amendment does not threaten coastal and natural resources in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006, 9J-5.012, and 9J- 5.013, and Sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, because she considered the data and analysis in the Plan, "as well as the suitability and capability [sic] analysis that were submitted by Panhandle Engineering and Mr. Friedemann demonstrated that there was not a violation of these provisions." T 617. Ms. Easley also stated that there was adequate data to support a need for residential (RLD) development on the Property. See, e.g., T 584-585, 621-622, 629-630, 632-634. See also JE 3 at Future Land Use Data, 1-1 - 1-10. During cross-examination, Ms. Easley was asked to identify the particular Panhandle Engineering report which she reviewed to support her opinion. The report is not in evidence. However, Ms. Easley stated: "It was a report that they prepared that addressed issues of suitability of the site with regard to the availability of water, the availability of sewer, the capacity for water and sewer, soil conditions on the site, and traffic situations on the site. I'm sorry, I do not recall the date of that particular suitability analysis, but it was prepared by Panhandle Engineering, and I reviewed it as a part of my analysis." T 626. Ms. Easley was also asked to provide the source of her data and analysis about environmental conditions on the site and she replied: "Two places, there is information in the City's data and analysis with regard to the vacant land analysis, as well as general environmental conditions in or around the City, I reviewed that data and analysis that I mentioned earlier. I also saw information specific to this parcel from Mr. Friedemann's report." T 627. Ms. Easley indicated that there was no specific data and analysis contained in the City's Plan about the Property, although the Plan referenced areas adjacent to the City. T 628. Ms. Easley reiterated that natural resources are considered during the plan amendment process. It also occurs during permitting. T 642. She again stated: "The suitability analysis was contained in two different reports. As I testified earlier, Mr. Slonina's report from Panhandle Engineering addressed soils and soil suitability. And Mr. Friedemann's report looked at other kinds of environmental issues. I reviewed both of those reports and determined that suitability analysis had been preformed to support the plan amendment." T 643. According to Ms. Easley, if there were environmental reasons creating an inconsistency with Rule 9J-5, then such reasons could serve as a basis for denial. T 643. (Ms. Easley also opined that a land use change to the FLUM "is an assignment of a land use category and the associated density and intensity, it is not a development activity." See T 587, 651.) Mark Llewellyn, P.E., is the president of Genesis Group. In October 2002, Genesis Group completed a planning and engineering analysis (Genesis Report)10 for Chandler and Associates, who, in turn, had a contract with the DEP to prepare an appraisal report for the Goose Bayou Marsh Property.11 The Goose Bayou Marsh Property included four parcels, including the south parcel (4), which is the Property in question, two north parcels (2 and 3), and the middle parcel (1), which is north and northeast of and adjacent (the west one- third) to the Property. All the parcels are vacant. See PE 98- D, which also appears at PE 50, Exhibit 1. Mr. Llewellyn identified three peninsular islands on the Property (south parcel 4)(PE 98-D at the blue X's), which roughly correspond with areas one and two in Mr. Friedemann's report at CE 5 at 2, Figure 2. T 160-161. See also Endnote 6. The two eastern peninsular islands (area one) are connected to the upland to the east, Candlewick Acres. The third peninsular island, located in the northwest corner of the Property, can be accessed, according to Mr. Llewellyn, by a berm or other geographical feature to the north of the Property and south of the drainage canal. Id. See also T 397. There is one larger upland island and a smaller upland island toward the southwest and southern portions of the Property, which appear to be surrounded by wetlands, waters of the state, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. T 160-164. Each peninsular island and upland island is less than 20 acres. Mr. Llewellyn's analysis is consistent with the approximate wetland boundaries identified in the Conceptual Site Plan, PE 98-D. Mr. Llewellyn opined that the Property could be developed as a single-family development without having an impact on the Property if it is designed and maintained properly. T 157, 172. See also Endnote 6. The Genesis Report provided an analysis of the four parcels. Apparently the south parcel (4), the Property, contained approximately 16.2 acres as follows: wetlands 9.8+/- acres; upland islands 3.5+/- acres; peninsula uplands 2.9+/- acres; or 6.4+/- acres of total uplands. T 163; PE 50 at 12. Parcels 1-4 are analyzed in light of several factors, including but not limited, to the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan. The following is an analysis of the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan as applied to the north parcels (2 and 3): The Bay County Comprehensive Management Plan identifies the North Parcel's Future Land Use Designation as Conservation. The purpose of this land use is to identify public and private lands held for conservation of natural features. Allowable uses for this designation are natural resource protection, flood control, wildlife habitat protection, passive of recreation, silviculture and residential densities up to 2DU/acre. Commercial development is prohibited for properties with this land use designation. Additionally, the upland islands located on these parcels fit the definition for "Pine Islands" as defined in the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. A Pine Island is defined as a small upland area generally 20 acres or less, usually characterized by typical pine flatwood vegetation, which are surrounded by waters of the State, wetlands, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. The Bay County Comprehensive Plan prohibits development on any "Pine Island". This means that it will be extremely difficult to develop the upland areas located on this parcel. PE 50 at 2. See also PE 50 at 2 (II.B.) and 13 (IV.B.) regarding the Panama City Future Land Use. (The Genesis Report was prepared approximately two years prior to the City's annexation of the Property. The City did not annex the vacant land to the north (parcels 1-3), which is part of the subject of the Genesis Report.) Regarding the analysis of parcels 1, and 4, the Property, and referring to the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan, it is noted that "[t]he same issues apply to this parcel." PE 50 at 7 and 13. The Genesis Report discussed wetlands on the Property: The wetlands within the property consist of estuarine salt marshes, which are connected to Goose Bayou and West Bay. According to an environmental assessment prepared by Biological Research Associates (BRA) the marshes are tidally influenced and dominated by black rush. Other species include seaside goldenrod, seashore dropseed grass, sea purslane, glasswort, salt grass, marsh hay cord grass, sea lavender, Chinese tallow, saw grass, cork wood, and saltbrush. Additionally, the salt marsh is habitat for two listed bird species; the snowy egret and the little blue heron (see Attachment A). As previously stated, a wetland delineation has been completed for this parcel and accepted by FDEP and ACOE. PE 50 at 13. The Genesis Report also provided a brief discussion of flood plain and cultural resource considerations, and also provided an analysis of site planning and engineering, including access, utilities, owner site plan/lot lay out, and probable development costs. PE 50 at 13-15. Regarding south parcel 4, the Property, the Genesis Report concluded, in part, that "[t]his parcel has limited development potential." A cost estimate is provided. It is also concluded that water and sewer could be provided without incurring significant increases in development costs. "Development of the upland islands would require bridges, which significantly increases the development cost. There is no guarantee that the development within the wetlands would be permitted at this time." PE 50 at 16. The Genesis Report also included a report prepared by Biological Research Associates, which appears as Attachment A to PE 50. Mark Andrew Barth, vice president/senior ecologist for Biological Research Associates, was one of the two signatories to a section of the Genesis Report and also testified during the final hearing. T 175; PE 50, Attachment A. He reiterated that they prepared a preliminary environmental assessment for a proposed acquisition by a State agency. T 176, 180. (While unclear, it appears that his study area included the approximate western one-third of the Property, see, e.g., T 189; PE 50, Attachment A, Figures 1, 3-4, although other portions of the Property were studied. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 93.) Referring to PE 98-C and the Property (outlined in black) and the vacant land to the north outlined in red, Mr. Barth testified that they are "mainly comprised of salt marsh and scattered pine dominated islands." According to Mr. Barth, the term "pine islands," "describes isolated upland patches within the salt marsh." T 177. The salt marshes consist of vegetation that extends beyond the water level usually in very shallow water. T 178. The Property is part of an estuary system, Goose Bayou, for example. Id. See also T 381; JE 12 at IV-14-16 and Map 1. The salt marsh is inundated by saline or marine water as opposed to fresh water. T 178. One of the most significant features of an estuary system "is providing nursery grounds and habitat for marine and estuarine fish and wildlife." T 179. Mr. Barth considered the Property, south parcel 4, PE 98-D, to be environmentally sensitive in light of the combination of estuarine and upland areas which are undisturbed. T 185-186. Mr. Barth did not have enough information to assess specific impacts to the surrounding salt marsh and water in light of a proposed development on the Property. He felt it depended on the type of development. T 182. "Middens" have been found on the south side of the Property, in and around area 3 (CE 5 at 2, Figure 2). See, e.g., T 558-559; PE 50, Genesis Report at 13 and Attachment A at 6-7 and Attachment E, Figure 4, Project Base Map and Figure 5, PBY139 Base Map. Ultimate Findings of Fact Regarding Adequacy of Data and Analysis Ultimately, whether the Plan Amendment is based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis is a close question. This is particularly true here where critical portions of Mr. Friedemann's analysis are based on information, e.g., Mr. Friedemann's photographs, collection of water quality samples, and observations of the Property (species seen and terrain), which post-dated the City's adoption of the Plan Amendment on November 9, 2004. As a result, his analysis of this information has been disregarded, notwithstanding the lack of an objection to the admissibility of his report, CE 5. See Conclusions of Law 110-114. (Mr. Friedemann also provided several aerials of the Property and surrounding area which pre-date the date of adoption of the Plan Amendment and have been considered along with his analysis of this data.) Also, to the extent that Ms. Easley relied on Mr. Friedemann's report (CE 5) and the post- adoption information collected by Mr. Friedemann and his analysis of that information, her opinions have also been disregarded. Nevertheless, Petitioners have the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment is not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis, which Petitioners have not done. Accordingly, based on a review of the entire record in this proceeding, it is ultimately concluded that the Plan Amendment is based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis, except as otherwise stated herein. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.006(2), and 9J-5.012-.013. Consistency with the City's Plan, the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the City's Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the City's Plan: Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.1.10; Coastal Management Element Goal 1, Objective 5.1, and Policies 5.1.1 and 5.1.3.3, and Goal 3; and Conservation Element Goal 1, Policies 6.6.2, 6.6.2.3, and 6.6.2.4. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the LDRC: subsections 2- 5.5.6, 5-5.1, 5-5.2, 5-5.3, and 5-5.6.3.e. Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, and the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation on the Property to RLD. The Plan Amendment is not a development order. See Strand v. Escambia County, Case No. 03-2980GM, 2003 WL 23012209, at *4 (DOAH Dec. 23, 2003; DCA Jan. 28, 2004), aff'd, 894 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). It does not authorize any development to occur on the Property. Further, a special treatment zone, as used in the City's Plan, is not a FLUM land use district. Based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the various Plan provisions at issue, the Plan Amendment does not alter or interfere with the City's ability to maintain the quality of coastal resources; restrict the City's ability to maintain regulatory or management techniques intended to protect coastal wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitat, and living marine resources, for example, or prohibit the construction of docks, piers, wharves, or similar structures; interfere with the City's ability to provide for or have available adequate areas for public waterfront access or to provide the circumstances necessary for the conservation, protection, and use of natural resources; or interfere with the City's ability to enforce guidelines in its LDRCs related to, for example, the protection and conservation of the natural functions of existing soils, wetlands, marine resources, estuarine shoreline, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, or flood zones. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with cited portions of the City's Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Further, the Plan Amendment need not be consistent with the City's LDRCs because it is not the subject of "in compliance" review.12
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order concluding that the Plan Amendment, adopted by the City of Panama City in Ordinance No. 1985, is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the City's comprehensive plan is "in compliance" under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Specifically, the Intervenors allege that the City gave legally insufficient notice of the public hearings required for adoption of its comprehensive plan.
Findings Of Fact The City of Bartow scheduled a public hearing on November 5, 1990, to consider a proposed comprehensive plan for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (the DCA). The City caused an advertisement entitled NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF BARTOW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE to be published in the Polk County Democrat, on October 25, 1990. The advertisement gave notice that "Future Land Use" would be discussed, and it invited "all property owners and interested citizens" to "attend and provide written and/or verbal comments on the proposed plan." It indicated that copies of the plan were available for public inspection at City Hall during the week prior to the hearing. The advertisement also included a map of the entire City that did not highlight any particular part of the City. The plan available for public inspection at the November 5, 1990, public hearing, and during the week preceding it, included a Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The map was based on information that was in part obsolete. In the case of approximately six parcels of land, it portrayed future land use that was inconsistent with existing land use. For example, it showed a parcel on the southwest corner of U.S. Highway 17 and Georgia Street as part low density residential when, in fact, the entire parcel was being used for commercial purposes. A Food Lion shopping center occupied the entire site, the Food Lion was planning a grand opening for the end of the month. At least one of the Intervenors, who are owners of residential property in the vicinity of the new Food Lion shopping center who opposed commercial development in the area, including the Food Lion shopping center, viewed the FLUM during the public hearing on November 5, 1990, and was satisfied with what it portrayed. Notwithstanding the inconsistency between parts of the FLUM and some of the existing uses in the City, the City Commission voted to transmit the proposed plan to the DCA. On or about February 22, 1991, the DCA sent its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) to the City. The FLUM in the City's proposed plan was not among the issues contained in the ORC. At some point in time, not clear in the record, during the process of addressing the issues contained in the ORC, the City also began the process of correcting the inconsistencies between the FLUM and existing land uses. The six corrections included changing the entire Food Lion parcel at the corner of U.S. Highway 17 and Georgia Street from low density residential to highway commercial. On July 10, 1991, the City of Bartow Zoning Commission (Zoning) met for final consideration of changes to the proposed comprehensive plan designed to address both the issues contained in the ORC and the inconsistencies between the FLUM and existing land uses. At the time of the Zoning meeting, the new FLUM was not yet available. However, among other things, Zoning generally discussed the need to conform the FLUM to existing uses, and it approved the proposed plan, as amended, with the understanding that the corrected FLUM would be included in the amended proposed plan to be considered for adoption by the City, through its Board of Commissioners (the Commission). The City scheduled a public hearing on August 5, 1991, for consideration and adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan, as amended. The City caused an advertisement entitled NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE OF LAND USE AND A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF BARTOW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN to be published in the Polk County Democrat, on July 18, and again on July 22, 1991. The advertisement gave notice that the City proposed to "change, by adopting a new City of Bartow Comprehensive Plan, the use of land within the incorporated area of the City of Bartow as shown on the map in this advertisement." It included a map of the entire City that did not highlight any particular part of the City. The advertisement also gave notice that the proposed plan included a "Future Land Use" element. "Interested persons" were invited to appear at the hearing and be heard regarding the adoption of the [plan]." The advertisement also stated that both the proposed plan and the DCA's ORC were available for public inspection at the City Hall. In fact, the City's planning consultant, the Central Florida Regional Planning Council, did not send the corrected FLUM to the City until the end of July, 1991, and it did not arrive and was not available for inspection until approximately August 1, 1991. However, no one asked to see the proposed plan, as amended, between July 18 and August 5, 1991. The City Commission met as scheduled, held the public hearing, and voted to adopt the proposed comprehensive plan, as amended. None of the Intervenors appeared at the public hearing. On August 8, 1991, the City officially adopted its comprehensive plan. The public participation procedures contained in the City's adopted comprehensive plan require the local planning agency (i.e., in Bartow, the Zoning Commission) to hold "public workshops or meetings to solicit the views, opinions, ideas, and concerns of the public . . .." In addition, they provide that the "local planning agency will hold a minimum of one (1) public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comments prior to recommending the adoption of the comprehensive plan" and that the City Commission "will hold a minimum of two (2) public hearings prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan " The adopted procedures require the publication of notice of the public workshops and hearings by advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation and by posting at the City Hall. Provision is made for the receipt and recording of written and verbal public comment. Finally, the procedures provide: "At such a time as it become[s] available, the Comprehensive Plan will be available for public inspection at City Hall, during normal business hours." (Emphasis added.) On or about December 19, 1991, the DCA determined, for reasons unrelated to the FLUM or to the notices of the public hearings or to the extent of public participation in the plan adoption process, that the City of Bartow comprehensive plan was not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). On or about June 16, 1993, lengthy compliance agreement negotiations between the DCA and the City culminated in the execution of a Stipulated Settlement Agreement. On or about August 2, 1993, the City adopted remedial amendments in accordance with the compliance agreement. The DCA determined that the City plan, as amended, was "in compliance" and, on or about September 23, 1993, issued a cumulative notice of intent under Section 163.3184(16)(e), Fla. Stat. (1993). On October 7, 1993, the DCA filed a Motion to Dismiss Formal Proceedings. Primarily because the City failed to serve the Intervenors with a copy of the remedial amendments within ten working days of their adoption, as required by Section 163.3184(16)(d), Fla. Stat. (1993), an Order Denying Motion to Dismiss was entered on December 15, 1993, and the final hearing in this case was held on the issues raised in the Petition to Intervene.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order denying the Petition to Intervene in this case and determining that the City of Bartow comprehensive plan is "in compliance." RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0011GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact. Argument; subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 3.-5. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. As the notices indicated, the City proposed to adopt its initial comprehensive plan under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Accordingly, the entire City was subject to the proposal. The changes in the FLUM were to correct errors in the proposed plan, as transmitted to the DCA. Accepted and incorporated. DCA and City Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. 3. Accepted and incorporated. 4.-5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as being conclusion of law. Except that it was the Polk County Democrat, the rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 9.-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as being conclusion of law. Except that it was the Polk County Democrat, the rest is accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. 13.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as being argument and as being subordinate and unnecessary. The rest is accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. (The videotape of the Zoning Commission meeting on July 10, 1991, indicates that the corrected FLUM had not yet been received. See City Exhibit 6. The corrected FLUM was mailed the end of July but was not received until August 1, 1991.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as being conclusion of law. Last sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. The rest is accepted and incorporated. 21.-22. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Mark N. Miller, Esquire Hahn, Breathitt, Watson & Miller, P.A. Post Office Box 38 Lakeland, Florida 33802-0038 George Dunlap, Esquire City Attorney Post Office Box 1069 Bartow, Florida 33830 Susan W. Fox, Esquire MacFarlane Ferguson Post Office Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor Attn: Kelly Tucker Room 426 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether certain revisions to the Liveable Communities and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Hillsborough County (County) on May 17, 2012, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The County is a local government within the meaning of section 163.3164(29), Florida Statutes, and has the responsibility of administering its Plan. It adopted the challenged amendments under the expedited state review process codified in section 163.3184(3). Petitioner owns a vacant, undeveloped parcel in the County, described as being between "320 and 360 acres" in size. The parcel is located on Lutz Lake Fern Road just west of the intersection of that roadway and the Suncoast Parkway in the northeastern corner of the KOCP. Mr. Dibbs is concerned that the amendments will prevent him from developing his property in a meaningful way. During the amendment process, he submitted written and oral comments objecting to the two amendments. The KOCP The Livable Communities Element is an optional element in the Plan. Besides the KOCP, it contains 20 other community plans, and the County is currently in the process of adopting three others. The community plans were originally in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) but were moved to the Livable Communities Element in 2008. A community plan is comprised of a study area and discusses the special and unique characteristics of the study area, examines the issues and problems facing that area, and provides strategies for solutions. In contrast to the Plan, which is more general in nature and provides broad planning guidance on a countywide basis, the community plan is more detailed in nature and is intended to provide specific recommendations on issues in a particular area of the County. The original KOCP was adopted in 2001 and was found to be in compliance by the then Department of Community Affairs. The Plan requires that it be updated every ten years. The current version consists of 11 pages of unnumbered narrative text, divided into 15 sections. At issue in this case are certain revisions to the Rural Residential Community Character, Commercial, and Transportation sections. The KOCP study area, comprising almost 23,000 acres, is located in the northwestern corner of the County and is bordered on the west by Pinellas County, on the north by Pasco County, on the east by Dale Mabry Highway, and on the south by Race Track and Ehrlich Roads. Because a wellhead protection area occupies a significant part of the KOCP, more than half of the KOCP cannot be developed, and only around 20 percent of the remaining land is potentially available for development. Many areas of the County have high population centers and an urban character; however, the Keystone-Odessa community, which makes up the study area, is characterized in the KOCP as "rural" in nature, with many lakes, wetlands, creeks, and a network of two-lane rural roads. There are, however, commercial enclaves, planned developments, and residential subdivisions within the community area. Most, if not all, of these projects were approved or vested before the adoption of the KOCP. In addition, some of the roads are highly congested. A few small areas (less than 10 percent of the KOCP) lie within the urban service area and can receive water and sewer services, while properties that are vested but not in the urban service area can also receive those services. The record contains different population estimates for the area. The Planning Commission used an estimated 2009 population of 10,700 in its support data; in February 2009, a Planning Commission employee used census block data to update that estimate to 17,483; and sometime later, Petitioner's demographer relied on June 2011 census block data to arrive at an estimated 2010 population of 21,259. The Planning Commission serves as the local planning agency for all local governments in the County and is tasked with the responsibility of developing the periodic updates for the community plans. The recommended update is then submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for its final approval. The same review process is used for all community plans. In January 2010, the Planning Commission staff, along with interested citizens who wished to participate in the process, began development of the ten-year KOCP update. Although the entire KOCP was subject to review, most of the effort was directed to the few areas "that the community [participants] brought forward" for possible change; therefore, a substantial part of the original KOCP remains unchanged. Whether other changes to the KOCP could or should have been made is not at issue. The review process included 20 meetings and two open houses over a two-year period and resulted in the adoption of a proposed plan amendment on December 12, 2011. The County approved the recommendation without change and adopted Plan Amendment No. 12-01 on May 17, 2012. No more than 35 or so citizens (out of the thousands who reside in the KOCP area) actively participated throughout the entire Planning Commission review process. However, the evidence shows that it is not unusual for a very small number of persons to participate in a community plan update process.1 Through various forms of notice, all interested residents and property owners, including Mr. Dibbs and/or his agents, were given the opportunity to provide input concerning suggested changes to the KOCP. Petitioner contends that a small group of anti-growth activists controlled the review process; that he and his representatives who attended meetings were made to feel "unwelcome"; that the anti-growth group rejected any attempt to reduce or eliminate the restrictions on development within the KOCP; and that the Board of County Commissioners simply rubber- stamped the Planning Commission's recommended changes. Even if this is true, Petitioner's remedy for changing the County's community plan review process lies in another forum, and not in a plan amendment challenge. Notably, Petitioner has not contended that the County failed to comply with the adoption procedures required under the expedited state review process. The Corridor Preservation Plan Besides updating the KOCP, the County also revised its 2025 (now designated as 2035) Corridor Preservation Plan, which identifies the strategy for long-term planning and management of important roadways within the County. The Corridor Preservation Plan is found in Appendix G of the Transportation Element and consists of a multi-page listing of County roadways that are anticipated to need enhancements because of safety or capacity issues. Among other things, it identifies the proposed enhancements for each roadway or segment included in the Appendix, such as turn lanes, widening, extensions, sidewalks, shoulders, or added bike lanes. Plan Amendment 12-03 deletes a listing on line 5 of page G-7 that provides for the enhancement of Gunn Highway from Pasco County to South Mobley Road. Gunn Highway, "a primary north/south roadway," is a highly congested two-lane arterial road that runs south from Odessa in Pasco County through the Odessa-Keystone community. It is on the County's Table of Highly Congested Roads with about 4,215 hours of daily vehicle delays. Petitioner's property is located on Lutz Lake Fern Road, which appears to intersect with Gunn Highway just south of the Pasco County line. The deletion eliminates Gunn Highway from the Corridor Preservation Ordinance. That Ordinance allows the County to acquire right-of-way from developments as they occur and require setbacks from existing roads in order to preserve future right- of-way for road widening and improvements. Thus, if the County decides at some future time to enhance that part of Gunn Highway, and additional right-of-way is required for a particular improvement, the cost of making that improvement will likely rise. The amendment does not change the roadway in any other respect. Objections to the KOCP Petitioner purchased his property from Tampa Electric Company in 2002 or 2003, or after the initial KOCP was adopted and its development restrictions were in place. Although Petitioner says he knew there were some restrictions when he bought the property, it was not until a few years later that he says he learned the full extent of these restrictions. He desires to develop his property and has a potential buyer who believes that a 920-unit apartment complex could be a successful venture. However, under the current Plan, he is limited to building one dwelling unit per five upland acres (most of the parcel is wetlands), and because the parcel is not in the urban service area, he is prohibited from hooking up to County urban services (water and sewer) even though they are located in the right-of-way of the street in front of his property. At the same time, owners of properties that are vested (grandfathered) are able to develop their properties and connect to water and sewer. For example, one of his neighbors is zoned to allow up to 304 residential units on quarter-acre lots, 25,000 square feet of commercial space, and access to urban services; there is a major subdivision (built by Cheval) across the street to the south; and a major residential subdivision lies to the north just across the Pasco County line. There are also a number of other planned developments and subdivisions that were approved in the early 1990s before the KOCP was adopted. Even if he prevails on the narrow issues in this case, it appears that Petitioner would still be unable to develop his property in the manner that he chooses unless further amendments to the Plan and/or KOCP are made. His ultimate goal is to "eliminate" the KOCP, which he says is "unconstitutional." In any event, Petitioner has challenged five revisions in the KOCP, which relate generally to strategies for preserving the rural residential community character of the area, locating commercial development, and relieving traffic on Gunn Highway. Rural Residential Community Character Revisions Petitioner contends that two changes in the first paragraph of the section entitled "Rural Residential Community Character" are not in compliance. That section describes the County's vision for the character of the community and expresses a desire that the community retain its rural residential character. As revised, the paragraph reads as follows: The Keystone-Odessa community desires to retain its predominant rural residential character as an area of lakes, agriculture activities, and homes built on varied lot sizes and in a scattered development pattern. Rural is based on the County's Future Land Use Element, Urban Service Area boundary objectives and policies. (Underlined language represents new language, while strike through language has been deleted.) Petitioner's primary concern is that the deletion of the word "predominant" changes the meaning, intent, and application of the provision and will require that the entire area remain rural in perpetuity. In striking the word "predominant," however, the County simply deferred to the standards found in the urban services area boundary objectives and policies of the FLUE, cited in the second sentence of the paragraph. These broad guidelines provide that if land is in the urban service area, the land is considered urban, while land outside the urban service area is considered rural. In distinguishing between rural and urban areas, the FLUE recognizes that within the rural area, there may be small suburban enclaves and other non-rural properties that predate the KOCP and which are located in the urban service area. To make the first sentence more consistent with the Plan, the County removed the word "predominant," as being unnecessary. It is not unreasonable to interpret this revision as not being the equivalent of a declaration that the KOCP is exclusively rural and as not materially changing the meaning of the provision. Finally, it is not unreasonable for the County to rely on FLUE provisions having countywide application in characterizing the Keystone-Odessa area as rural. Petitioner contends that the changes in the paragraph violate sections 163.3177(4)(a) and (6)(a). The first statute requires coordination of the plan with the plans of adjacent local governments. (It does not require coordination with other elements, as alleged in the Amended Petition.) But aspirational amendments that simply express the desire of a community and nothing more do not require review and coordination by Pasco County before being adopted. The second statute requires generally that FLUE amendments be based on surveys, studies, and data regarding the affected area, which include projected population, availability of urban services, proximity to schools, protection of the environment, diversification of the economy, and the like, and which ensure that the amendment does not promote urban sprawl. The plan amendment being challenged is a part of the Livable Communities Element, and not the FLUE. Therefore, the requirements imposed on a local government when adopting a FLUE amendment do not apply.2 Finally, an allegation that the changes violate Florida law because they may result in "a taking of or unreasonable burden on private property" is not a consideration in a compliance proceeding. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of all reasonable debate that the revisions are not in compliance. Commercial Revisions This section describes the visions and strategies for commercial uses within the community area. Plan Amendment 12-01 made only minor changes to the section. One change is to place commercial activities into two categories: the "Keystone-Odessa Rural Activity Center" and "Other Commercial." Also, the amendment describes the activities envisioned for each category. The following changes were made to the second sentence in the first paragraph of the Keystone-Odessa Rural Activity Center category: It is the desire of the community to encourage transfer of development rights for some of this the currently approved unbuilt commercial within the community planning area and to direct the new commercial to the intersection of Gunn Highway and North Mobley Road with the community plan boundary, and to other eligible receiving areas in Hillsborough County. Before the revision, the KOCP reflected a desire by the community to direct new commercial activity to Gunn Highway and North Mobley Road. In the following paragraph of the Commercial section, not changed by Plan Amendment 12-01, the intersection of those two roads is "recognized as a rural activity center." To implement that recognition, the County later developed a section in the Land Development Code defining the intersection of those two roads as the Keystone Activity Center. The new language is intended to clarify that the KOCP activity center is the intersection of those two roads and to direct new commercial activity to that location. It does not bar commercial development at other locations in the community area, provided that other Plan requirements are met. Petitioner contends that before the revision, commercial activity could be placed "along" the two roads, but the amendment now directs all commercial activity in the KOCP to a single intersection. He argues that the revision violates section 163.3177(4)(a) because the County failed to coordinate this provision with the FLUE. However, the statute requires, where appropriate, coordination of plan amendments with the plans of adjacent local governments, and not coordination with other elements in the Plan. He also contends that the amendment violates subsections 163.3177(6)(a)2. b., d., and h. These provisions prescribe certain requirements for FLUE amendments. Because the changes are to the Livable Communities Element, the requirements do not apply. See Endnote 1, infra. Petitioner has failed to show to the exclusion of all fair debate that these revisions are not in compliance. Transportation Revisions The Transportation section addresses the visions and/or strategies for transportation issues that affect the community. Among other changes, the County amended the third paragraph of the section by adding the following language: The community supports the expansion of the Suncoast Parkway to 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to relieve traffic through the Keystone-Odessa Community Plan area. The Suncoast Parkway is a toll road running in a north-south direction from Hernando County to the northern terminus of the Veterans Expressway (in the northern part of the County), passing on the eastern side of the KOCP. The new language does not mandate that the State or any other entity expand the Suncoast Parkway. Also, it does not mean that an expanded toll road would cure all traffic problems throughout the Keystone-Odessa community area. The language is simply a statement of support by the community for the widening of the toll road if that project is ever considered in the future. Petitioner contends that the statement of support must be coordinated with adjacent local governments; that it equates to a failure to provide a safe and efficient transportation system on the other roadways within the KOCP, as required by the Transportation Element; that an expanded Suncoast Parkway cannot relieve traffic on other KOCP roads; and that there is no consensus among the Odessa-Keystone community to support the expansion of the Suncoast Parkway. The amendment depends on future activities, assessments, and decision-making by the County or other entities that have the responsibility of funding and building toll roads. It does not require the County to take any immediate action. In short, it does not mandate anything. Given these considerations, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of all fair debate that the aspirational language is not in compliance for the reasons alleged. Finally, the penultimate paragraph of the Transportation section, as revised, reads as follows: Gunn Highway will be identified as a County roadway, which cannot be widened further due to social, economic, policy and environmental constraints. The identified and designated constrained corridors list found in the Transportation Element will also be recognized. The provision to eliminate the truck route on Gunn Highway from Pasco County Line to Van Dyke, when the Suncoast Corridor is completed, will be is enforced as set out by the adopted Hillsborough County Truck Route Ordinance.3 Since the KOCP was adopted in 2001, Gunn Highway has been constrained to two lanes. Until that language is amended, Gunn Highway "cannot be widened further." This provision was not changed by Plan Amendment 12-01 and is not subject to challenge in this proceeding. The Suncoast Parkway and Veterans Expressway were completed years ago. Therefore, the phrase "when the Suncoast Corridor is completed" is obsolete and should be deleted. When the KOCP was first adopted, the Transportation section contained a provision that would eliminate a portion of Gunn Highway between Pasco County and Van Dyke as a truck route. It further provided that this provision would be enforced after the Suncoast Corridor was completed. During the update process, the County decided that this kind of specific direction does not belong in a community plan and chose to defer that decision to the County's Truck Route Ordinance. That Ordinance contains a list, periodically updated, of designated County roads on which certain types of trucks may operate. The KOCP now acknowledges that Gunn Highway's truck route status will be as designated in the Truck Route Ordinance, a more logical place for that type of decision. It does not force the County to take action one way or the other regarding the status of Gunn Highway. Petitioner contends that these changes violate section 163.3177(2), which provides that coordination of the various elements is a major objective in the planning process, and that the elements should be consistent with one another. Petitioner asserts that the County failed to coordinate with Transportation Element Objectives 1.1, 1.5, and 6.9 and Policy 6.9.1 and the Florida Department of Transportation's Goods Movement Study. The cited objectives, policy, and study require generally that the County provide a safe, efficient, and environmentally sensitive transportation system, and that the transportation system provide for the efficient and effective movement of goods. There is insufficient evidence to establish a lack of coordination between the two elements, or to prove that by deferring the truck route status of Gunn Highway to the Truck Route Ordinance, the County has created an internal inconsistency between the KOCP and the Transportation Element. Petitioner also contends that the amendment violates section 163.3177(6)(a) because it is not based on the necessary surveys, studies, and data required for FLUE amendments. However, the amendment is to the Livable Communities Element and not the FLUE. Petitioner has failed to show to the exclusion of all fair debate that the revisions in the Transportation section of the KOCP are not in compliance. Objections to the Corridor Preservation Plan Plan Amendment 12-03 modifies the County's Corridor Preservation Plan. The changes were required because, since the Corridor Preservation Plan's last update, several community plans, including the KOCP, were adopted, and they provided direction for widening certain roads and the need for other roadway improvements. Also, in 2009, the Metropolitan Planning Organization adopted a 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan that extended the horizon year by ten years. Among the changes is the removal of the planned expansion and enhancement of Gunn Highway from the Pasco County line to South Mobley Road. According to the staff report, this deletion was required because the adopted community plan says that Gunn Highway should not be widened. The original KOCP acknowledges, however, that "some changes to roadway configurations may be needed for safety" in the future, but these changes should be limited to turn lanes, pedestrian/ equestrian crossings or traffic control mechanisms rather than widening the road. These provisions were not amended by Plan Amendment 12-01 and are not subject to challenge here. Petitioner contends that this amendment violates sections 163.3177(6)(b)1.e. and 337.273. The first statute requires that the Transportation Element reflect the "data, analysis, and associated principles and strategies" relating to "[h]ow the [County] will correct existing facility deficiencies, meet the needs of the projected transportation system, and advance the purpose of this paragraph and the other elements of the comprehensive plan." The second statute provides generally that if a "transportation corridor" is used by a local government to address transportation issues, it should be included in the comprehensive plan. Petitioner essentially argues that unless the County creates a plan that addresses all failing roads in the KOCP, it cannot delete Gunn Highway from the Corridor Preservation Plan. But this would mean that no amendment affecting transportation in the KOCP, or any other area of the County, could ever be adopted until the County develops a plan for funding and correcting each roadway deficiency. Given the existing constraint on widening Gunn Highway, the effect of the amendment is simply to make the Transportation Element consistent with the KOCP, a requirement under section 163.3177(2). Also, under these circumstances, there was no need to coordinate with Pasco County before making this change. Petitioner also argues that the deletion violates section 163.3177(2) because the County failed to coordinate this change with numerous other Transportation Element objectives and policies, which generally promote right-of-way protection and the use of enhancements for constrained roads. The KOCP currently allows only certain improvements to Gunn Highway. Even though the deletion of the line item may increase the cost of these enhancements, it does not prevent the County from adding them at a future time. It is at least fairly debatable that the deletion does not conflict with the above objectives and policies, and that the County reviewed the relevant portions of the Transportation Element before the amendment was adopted. Finally, an argument that the deletion violates sections 163.3180(1) and (5) has been rejected. In summary, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of all fair debate that the deletion in Plan Amendment 12-03 is not in compliance. All other arguments not specifically addressed in this Recommended Order have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that Hillsborough County Plan Amendments 12-01 and 12-03 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2013, 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 22nd day of April, 2013.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Carter-Pritchett Advertising, Inc.’s (Petitioner), applications for the outdoor advertising sign permits referenced herein and filed by the Petitioner should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has filed two applications for permits to locate a two-sided outdoor adverting sign on State Road 82 (Immokalee Road), approximately 3,500 feet east of Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers, Florida. The applications were assigned numbers 57413 and 57414 by the Respondent. The Respondent is the state agency charged with regulation of outdoor advertising signs within controlled portions of federal-aid primary highways, which include the site of the proposed signs at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent denied the applications on the grounds that the proposed location of the sign could not be permitted under the land use designation relevant to the site and did not qualify for permitting as an unzoned commercial/industrial area. The Petitioner has conceded that the parcel upon which the signs would be located does not meet the statutory definition of an unzoned commercial/industrial area. The issue in this case is whether the permit can be issued on the basis of the land use designation applicable to the parcel. The City of Fort Myers Future Land Use Map classifies the relevant parcel as being within a "Mixed Use" land development category. Property that is categorized as Mixed Use may be developed to include low and medium density single-family residential uses, medium and high density multi-family residential uses, as well as commercial and professional offices, industrial uses, and recreation and open space. The City of Fort Myers Comprehensive Plan (Policy 2.16) requires that development of parcels that are designated as Mixed Use must be approved through a "Planned Unit Development" process. In this case, development of the relevant parcel was approved by adoption of a Planned Unit Development Ordinance (PUD Ordinance No. 3356) by the City Council for the City of Fort Myers on November 20, 2006. The Ordinance allows for construction of a 106,722 square foot mini-storage facility on the parcel. The signage at issue in this proceeding would be located on the parcel with the mini-storage facility. The effective date of the Ordinance was the date of adoption, and the Ordinance requires that all construction be completed within a five-year period, which expires November 20, 2011. Section 6 of the Ordinance provides as follows: Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the planned unit development will result in cancellation of the development approval and the planned unit development approval shall become void and the underlying land use designation of Mixed use (MU) shall be restored. The language of the Ordinance clearly indicates that the planned unit development designation is provisional and based on compliance by the developer with a number of conditions. Among the conditions are requirements that the developer: enter into a development agreement with the city to address transportation impacts of the project; contribute $58,500 to the City Art Fund prior to the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy; complete construction within a five-year period; install new vegetation if required after removal of exotics to meet code minimums; and obtain a certificate of occupancy before outdoor storage may be utilized. At the time of the hearing, none of the conditions had been met. There was no evidence offered to suggest that any of the conditions would be met by the November 20, 2011, deadline. The designation can be extended by the Fort Myers City Council; however, at the time of the hearing, no request for an extension had been approved. Absent compliance with the conditions prior to the November 20, 2011, deadline, the provisional land use designation will become "void" and the underlying land use designation will revert to Mixed Use as specifically stated in the PUD Ordinance. The signs at issue in this proceeding would not permittable under a Mixed Use designation by the City of Fort Myers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying the Petitioner's applications for the sign permits referenced herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 22nd day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 E. Bruce Strayhorn, Esquire Strayhorn & Strayhorn 2125 First Street, Suite 201 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Deanna Hurt, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie C. Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Monroe County Ordinance 035-2007, which amends the County's Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) procedures, is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), which are in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes (the Principles for Guiding Development).
Findings Of Fact Monroe County Ordinance 035-2007 was adopted on July 18, 2007. The Ordinance makes changes in the County's BUD procedures, non-judicial procedures by which a property owner may seek relief from the literal application of County Comprehensive Plan provisions and land development regulations (LDRs). It repeals Article VI, Division II, Sections 9.5-171 through 9.5-174 of the Monroe County Code and replaces them with Sections 9.5-171 through 9.5-179. The Petition alleges that Ordinance 035-2007 is inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development because it increases the time and expense of obtaining a BUD. The Petition also alleges that Ordinance 035-2007 exacerbates "condemnation blight" in the Florida Keys and will hold down the apparent market value of undeveloped land in the Florida Keys so that the State and County can acquire undeveloped lands at less than fair market value. Petitioners There was no evidence to prove the standing of several of the Petitioners. The evidence presented on Petitioners' standing is reflected in the following findings of fact. Salvador Guttierrez filed for a BUD determination on a lot he owns in Rock Harbor in the Florida Keys and that the application was denied under the BUD procedures in effect at this time (i.e., before the challenged amendments.) The following Petitioners "own land, vacant land, in Monroe County": Roger Akers and Sandra Henning, as tenants in common; Ida Mae Cornblum and Marilyn Schwack, as tenants in common, and Bella Schwartz; E&O Land Development Corp. and Enos Mitchell; Richard Melahn; Stephen Rohaty; Herbert Shaw, Jr.; David T. Voit; and Kenneth R. Wilson and Christine E. Wilson, as tenants by the entirety. It was alleged that those Petitioners intend to file BUD applications, but there was no evidence to that effect. Ed Lewis, LLC, and C.O. Jones, Jr., LLC, own undeveloped platted lots with platted access roads in the Florida Keys that have been acquired beginning in 2003. Mr. Gutierrez testified without contradiction that eighty-five percent of those lots cannot be developed as currently zoned, are unlikely to be rezoned, and cannot obtain building authorization under the County's Rate-of-Growth Ordinance (ROGO) because they are in Tier 1 of the County's new Tier System. He also testified without contradiction that the LLCs have decided to file BUD applications on those lots. Effect of Amendments The Petition alleges that Ordinance 035-2007 will increase the time and expense of obtaining a BUD. Without Ordinance 035-2007, applicants in the BUD process learn the requirements of obtaining a BUD during the processing of an application. As a result, the process can take more time and cost more. Ordinance 035-2007 essentially details the requirements of obtaining a BUD and places time limits on BUD procedures. This makes the process more predictable and coherent. Ordinance 035-2007 does not make substantive changes or other significant procedural changes. By better detailing the BUD process, Ordinance 035-2007 improves the BUD process and makes it more efficient, making it more consistent with Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Policy 101.18.5, which requires the adoption of the BUD procedure. In so doing, Ordinance 035-2007 will strengthen the County's capabilities for managing land use and development so that it is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the Florida Keys ACSC designation. It also will help to ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development and help protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. It was not proven that Ordinance 035-2007 will increase the time or expense of obtaining a BUD. There was evidence that the State and County have purchased undeveloped lands in the Florida Keys at lower prices than some other properties in the Florida Keys. It was not proven that there is "condemnation blight" in the Florida Keys (or that Ordinance 035-2007 will exacerbate "condemnation blight" in the Florida Keys ). It also was not proven that Ordinance 035-2007 will hold down the apparent market value of undeveloped land in the Florida Keys so that the State and County can acquire undeveloped lands at less than fair market value.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order that Monroe County Ordinance 035-2007 is consistent with the Principles For Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Pelham, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Shaw Stiller, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2160 James S. Mattson, Esquire Post Office Box 586 Key Largo, Florida 33037-0586 Derek V. Howard, Esquire Monroe County Attorney's Office 1111 12th Street, Suite 408 Key West, Florida 33040-3005 Andrew M. Tobin, Esquire Post Office Box 620 Tavernier, Florida 33070-0620 Richard E. Shine, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether the Petition to Establish the Myakka Ranch Community Development District (Petition) meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue Whether the amendments to the Franklin County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-20 (Amendments) on April 5, 2005, are “in compliance” as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Background Franklin County (Franklin) is a coastal county located along the Gulf Coast of Florida's Panhandle. To the west is the Apalachicola River; it empties into a bay defined by barrier islands (St. Vincent, St. George, Dog), creating North America's second largest and most productive estuary. The eastern part of the County is St. James Island (SJI), separated from the mainland by the Crooked and Ochlockonee Rivers. Franklin's primary economic base is historically resource-based, including silviculture/timber, and since the 1930s primarily the fishing (seafood) industry. Tourism/retirement is an emerging industry especially on St. George Island, a noted resort destination. Retirees and vacationers come to enjoy the beautiful, pristine, relatively undeveloped, but still accessible waterfront stretches. Franklin's cities are Carrabelle, a 2.66 square mile fishing community about 50 percent developed and Apalachicola, a historic 4.81 square mile fishing community where about 90 percent of the land is still open for development. About 62- 70 percent of the County is federal or State land including the 1200-inmate State prison, Bald Point and St. George Island State Parks, Tate's Hell State Forest, and Apalachicola National Forest. FSU's Marine Lab is at Turkey Point. St. Joe owns over 55,000 acres in Franklin, mostly on SJI. Franklin has one of Florida's worst poverty rates. SJI's boundaries are the Crooked River and the Ochlockonee River and Bay on the north, Bald Point State Park on the east, Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve and the Gulf of Mexico on the south, and the City of Carrabelle on the east. SJI is mostly undeveloped except for: the Alligator Point area, including areas along County Road (CR) 370, areas along U.S. Highway (US) 98 including the unincorporated areas of St. Teresa and Lanark Village and adjacent to Carrabelle; and a few homes on Rio Vista Drive, just south of the Ochlockonee River. The natural systems on SJI are very diverse, and habitats range from xeric, well-drained uplands of pine and oak, to riverine swamps of cypress and hydric hardwoods, freshwater marshes, rivers and ponds, marine inter-tidal wetlands, bays, beaches, mudflats, seagrass meadows and open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. SJI is an ecologically significant and environmentally sensitive area that consistently scored in the 5 to 9 range (out of a high of 10) on the Florida Wildlife Commission's (FWC's) Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System (IWHRS). SJI supports up to 388 species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, including a number of State-listed species. Of particular note is the presence of the black bear on SJI, which is a State-listed threatened species with substantial strategic habitats identified by FWC on SJI, particularly in the McIntyre, Brandy Creek, Cow Creek and Bear Creek corridors. The Gulf Sturgeon, a federally-listed threatened species, occurs in the Ochlockonee and Crooked Rivers and is subject to an ongoing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Study to determine the importance of the habitat to spawning and distribution of this prehistoric fish. SJI is surrounded by relatively clean (pristine) surface waters that have been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs), including portions of Alligator Harbor and portions of the Ochlockonee Bay and River. A large part of Alligator Harbor is an Aquatic Preserve. Much of the Alligator Harbor and Ochlockonee Bay are designated as Class 2 Shellfish harvesting waters. SJI is home to Bald Point State Park, which provides a variety of wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities for nature observation and fishing. The eastern boundary of Tates Hell State Forest extends to Highway 319 on SJI and is separated from Bald Point State Park by approximately 7 miles of agricultural land (silviculture) through the center of SJI. Northeast Franklin, including SJI, is part of the Woodville Karst Plain, generally a sensitive karst area where some confining beds (especially in Wakulla County) are usually thin to absent, or breached. In unconfined karst hydrogeology, groundwater moves rapidly, but soil borings on SJI (Turkey Point) corroborate North Florida Water Management District maps which show a confining layer in eastern Franklin County varying in thickness from 15 to 20 feet. With such a confining layer, groundwater moves vertically at approximately 2 to 3 feet per year and laterally at approximately 100 feet per year in eastern Franklin County, including on SJI. Petitioners attempted to contradict evidence presented by St. Joe and prove that SJI has karst hydrogeology primarily on evidence of core samples taken in eastern Franklin County. These core samples were not explained by any expert testimony and did not prove the absence of any clay confining layer in eastern Franklin County. While unlikely, there may be places in eastern Franklin County where the confining layer thins or is absent or breached. In 1991 Franklin adopted a Plan for a long-term planning horizon of the year 2000. The Plan was found “in compliance,” at a time when approximately 27 percent of Franklin was in public ownership and Franklin was designated an Area of Critical State Concern (ASCS) largely due to the importance of the Apalachicola Bay Area and its natural resources. See §§ 380.05 and 380.0555, Fla. Stat. The 1991 Plan designated a critical shoreline district and impervious surface area limitations within 150 feet of shorelines and wetlands, which not only were determined by Franklin and the Governor and Cabinet to effectively protect County wetlands but also won an award from DCA for Outstanding Environmental Protection. The Administration Commission removed Franklin's ACSC designation in 1992, but the Plan was not changed prior to 1995. After 1995, and within the year 2000 planning horizon, there was one policy addition--FLUE Policy 2.2(k)-- and one policy amendment--to FLUE Policy 2.2(d). In approximately 1997, Franklin prepared an EAR on the 1991 Plan. It did not state a need for, or anticipate any, changes to the FLUE or FLUM or much else in the Plan. However, Franklin did not timely adopt EAR-based amendments to the 1991 Plan, and the planning horizon of Franklin's Plan remained the year 2000. Notwithstanding the 2000 planning horizon, there also were some amendments/additions/deletions to goals, objectives, and policies (GOPs) after 2000. Ordinance 2001-20 amended wetlands policies to reflect a change in State jurisdiction, amended FLUEP 1.2(d) and 3.1, deleted FLUEP 3.2 and 3.3, amended Coastal/Conservation Element (C/CE) Policy 1.5, and added FLUEP 1.6-1.9. Ordinance 2003-1 amended C/CEOs 1, 2, 3, and 7 and added Capital Improvements Element (CIE) Policies 4.4-4.6. Franklin also adopted two large-scale Plan amendments for mixed-use residential developments on SJI after 2000 without updating its Plan and planning horizon. In 2000 Franklin approved a FLUM amendment (FLUMA) from "Public Facilities" to "Mixed Use Residential" on 377.4 acres along US 98 at the intersection with Crooked River Road for a development of regional impact known as "St. James Bay." In 2002, Franklin transmitted a proposed FLUMA for 784 acres on Alligator Harbor from "Agriculture" to "Mixed-Use Residential," together with proposed FLUEP 11.11, for a St. Joe development called SummerCamp. During DCA's compliance review of the Summercamp amendments, the issue was raised whether the amendments should be found "in compliance" when Franklin's Plan was out-of-date and still planning for the year 2000. To resolve the situation, in 2003 Franklin adopted FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 along with the SummerCamp FLUMA. These amendments were found to be "in compliance." FLUEP 11.12 required Franklin to conduct a county- wide assessment of eight key substantive areas, prepare an overlay map and plan policies for SJI, and update its Plan not later than April 1, 2004, on the basis of the county-wide assessments, and to include requirements that all FLUMA on SJI be "consistent with the overlay map and policies." The eight key substantive areas were: Protection of natural resources including wetlands, floodplains, habitat for listed species, shorelines, sea grass beds, and economically valuable fishery resources, groundwater quality and estuarine water quality; Protection of cultural heritage; Promote economic development; Promotion of emergency management including the delineation of the coastal high hazard area, maintaining or reducing hurricane evacuation clearance times, creating shelter space, directing population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas, and implementing appropriate parts of the Local Mitigation Strategy; Adequate provision of public facilities and services including transportation, water supply, wastewater treatment, and facilities for access to water bodies; Provision of affordable housing, where appropriate; Inclusion of intensity standards; and A list of allowable uses. FLUEP 11.13 applied to any large-scale FLUMAs transmitted to DCA prior to the "effective date" of the Plan update pursuant to FLUEP 11.12, and required the FLUMA to "include an area-wide assessment covering the geographic area of the county where the FLUMA is located that addresses the same eight key substantive areas in FLUEP 11.12. Transmittal and Adoption Process The Plan Amendments at issue are the result of Franklin's endeavors to adopt EAR-based amendments and FLUMAs in accordance with FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13. Franklin initially contracted the Department of Urban and Regional Planning of the Florida State University (FSU) for: a review and evaluation of the current Plan and EAR to recommend plan changes; to have a consensus building process with at least six community workshops; to evaluate population and employment; to perform technical data assembly and analysis; to recommend updated GOPs; and to facilitate consensus on a planning overlay for SJI. FSU produced updated data and analysis (D&A) in Geographic Information System (GIS) format and GOP revisions. FSU found no need for more residential land through 2020. FSU prepared a GIS-based "suitability analysis and county-wide map." Based upon St. Joe's concerns, FSU was told to delete it, and Franklin did not transmit the suitability analysis/map. In lieu of the FSU's suitability analysis/map, a short narrative was submitted. On June 16, 2004, Franklin filed a "transmittal package" with DCA: a "complete revised plan" with D&A and GOPs; a "supplementary notebook"; and 13 large FLUMs. Franklin proposed 8 FLUMAs: Eastpoint Sprayfield (45 acres); Breakaway Lodge/Marina (17.3 acres); Ft. Gadsden Creek (78.6 acres); Otter Slide Road (46.4 acres); McIntyre Rural Village (RV) (1,740 acres); Conservation Residential (ConRes) (6,532 acres); Carrabelle East Village (CEV) (201 acres); and Marina Village Center (MVC) (1,000 acres). DCA found Franklin's transmittal insufficient per 9J-11.009(1). On July 13, 2004, Franklin transmitted St. Joe's "site suitability for Proposed St. James Island FLUM amendments"; "traffic study"; "historical data on City of McIntyre"; "St. James Island Forestry Type Map"; and "Archaeological Reconnaissance of the St. James Island/Ochlockonee River Tract." On October 15, 2004, DCA issued an ORC per 9J- 11.010. The ORC made numerous (49) objections, including, but not limited to: the SJI overlay/policies, FLUMAs, wetlands, population projections/need, potable water, Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), land use categories/density and intensity standards, affordable housing, water supply planning, water dependent uses, no capital improvements schedule (CIS), and internal inconsistency. DCA coordinated with Franklin and St. Joe on the ORC response (ORCR), which was transmitted to DCA along with Ordinance 2005-20, adopted April 5, 2005, consisting of amended GOPs and FLUM series. The Ordinance replaced the 1991 Plan, as previously amended, and repealed all prior ordinances to the extent of conflict. The Ordinance adopted seven elements--FLUE; traffic circulation (TCE); housing (HE); infrastructure (IE); C/CE; recreation and open space (ROSE); and intergovernmental coordination (ICE)--and a FLUM series. FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were deleted. There was no Capital Improvements Elements (CIE). In its new Plan, Franklin adopted five FLUMAs -- the Eastpoint Sprayfield and St. Joe's RV, ConRes, CEV, and MVC. The Eastpoint Sprayfield was dropped during DCA's compliance review, leaving the four St. Joe FLUMAs. During DCA's compliance review, many ORC objections were considered unresolved. Some issues were resolved on further review, but others remained, as reflected in a May 6, 2005, staff memo opining that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance." This memo was written by DCA planners Susan Poplin and Jeff Bielling, who had extensively reviewed the County's transmittal and adoption packages. It was approved by their immediate supervisor, Charles Gauthier, a certified planner with extensive experience with Franklin, who left DCA not long after approving the memo. The memo was then presented to Valerie Hubbard, DCA's Director of the Division of Community Planning (and Gauthier's immediate supervisor), who considered the issues presented in the memo, along with additional information presented by the County, ultimately disagreed with the planners, and issued an "in compliance" Notice of Intent. No CIE A CIE is a mandatory element. See § 163.3177(3)(a); 9J-5.005(1)(c)2, 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2); 9J-5.016. The 1991 Plan had a CIE that was amended by ORD 2003-1 (CIEPs 4.4-4.6 were added). Franklin transmitted a proposed CIE to: change the "initial planning period" in CIEO 3.4 to 2004-2009; delete CIEPs 3.3 and 3.4; make a minor change to CIEP 2.1; and change CIEP 5.4 (LOS for potable water, principal arterial roads, and recreational facilities). DCA objected to the lack of a five- year CIS, which also is mandatory. In the ORCR, Franklin explained the absence of the CIS by maintaining that there were no capital improvements needed for the next five years. The adopted 2020 Plan has no CIS, which DCA found "in compliance" based on Franklin's explanation. However, it also has no CIE, which was not obvious or apparent to DCA in its compliance review because the CIE was not submitted in strike- through/underline format, as required by 9J-11. In addition, several adopted elements cross-reference to the CIE. Franklin contends that it did not adopt a CIE because there were no capital improvements to be shown on a five-year CIS and because of its understanding that many items, including building or paving roads, are not capital improvements. However, it appears Franklin may have inadvertently neglected to adopt the CIE as transmitted. The deletion was not discussed at the adoption hearing. When the deletion of the CIE came to the attention of DCA after the May 6, 2005, staff memo, DCA chose to accept Franklin's explanations as to why the CIE was deleted and why the 2020 Plan was "in compliance" without a CIE. But the evidence does not support these explanations. Notwithstanding Franklin's explanations, Franklin Ordinance 04-45 authorized a referendum on a local tourist development tax, which was approved by the voters on November 2, 2004, to provide for development of a beach park and for other recreational facility infrastructure. Franklin estimated $718,896 in tax receipts for FY 2005-06. The other parties contend that the expenditure of these capital improvement funds need not be addressed in the CIS or CIE in part because they are for the benefit of tourists, not residents. But it is clear from the evidence that both will benefit, and there does not appear to be any exception for capital improvements designed to benefit both. The other parties also point out, correctly, that only capital improvements needed to meet concurrency requirements need to be on the CIS. Besides the possible use of tourist development funds, Franklin's 2005-06 $34,036,313 annual budget includes a number of other items that appear to be capital improvement items: "capital outlay - land $100,000; capital outlay - imp. other than buildings $300,000; walk path Tillie Miller Park $10,000; Carrabelle Rec Park/FRDAP grant $200,000; Rec. Fac. Improvements other than buildings $25,000; Bald Pt. land $50,000; Bald Pt. improvements other than buildings $495,697; road paving-improvements $1,200,000; paving project-CR 30 $1,951,379; boating-improvements other than buildings $94,877; Lanark Village Drainage Improvement $92,059; Airport Fund capital outlay- improvements other than buildings $1,407,069." In addition, Franklin's CR 370 along Alligator Point has repeatedly washed out from storms, and current estimated repair costs are $2.1 million, with $1 million budgeted and FEMA matching funds anticipated. The other parties presented the direct testimony of several witnesses that none of the expenditures Franklin is planning to make in the next few years, even if capital expenditures, need to be on a CIS. Petitioners presented no direct testimony to the contrary. Based on the evidence, it was not proven that beyond fair debate that any of these expenditures were required to be included in a CIS. CIE requirements include GOPs. 9J-5.016(3). Franklin Planner Pierce and St. Joe witness Beck testified that CIE requirements can be found in other elements of the 2020 Plan. However, the 2020 Plan does not contain an explanation of any such combination of elements as required by 9J-5.005(1)(b). In addition, based upon the evidence, while some CIE requirements can be found in other elements, it is beyond fair debate that the other elements of the 2020 Plan do not contain all of the required CIE GOPs. One CIE requirement is to have a policy setting public facilities level of service standards (LOSS), including one for recreational facilities. See § 163.3177(3)(a)3; 9J- 5.016(3)(c)4. See also 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2). The 2020 Plan lacks LOSS for recreational facilities. ROSEP 1.2 purports to adopt LOSS "as provided in Exhibit 7-2 of this element," but Franklin did not adopt Exhibit 7-2. See 9J- 5.005(2)(g). Franklin's transmittal D&A proposed updated recreational LOSS using population forecasts for "projected need for 2010." Exhibit 7-2 in Franklin's June 14, 2004, transmittal was based on those 2010 forecasts. There was no projection of need for either five years or to 2020. Franklin's transmittal D&A showed a deficit for bike trails, fresh/saltwater fishing, football/soccer, tennis, and swimming pools through 2010. Franklin Planner Pierce testified Exhibit 7-2 was not adopted because it was inaccurate. He testified that it was based on total population, including incorporated areas, and failed to count some swimming pools and tennis courts. But he did not supply the corrected information, and accurate D&A was not submitted for review. Pierce admitted that no data in evidence showed that Franklin can meet recreational needs through 2020, or that current recreational LOSS are being met. Franklin operates Class 1 and Class 3 landfills located on the east side of CR 65, north of US 98. D&A indicated that there are two-three more years of Class 1 landfill capacity at 2004 collection levels, with household trash being trucked to Bay County under a contract valid until 2007. The Class 3 landfill takes construction debris for a fee. Franklin did not assess Class 1 disposal requirements after the 2007 contract expiration, or Class 3 disposal requirements, and the 2020 Plan is not supported by an assessment of future solid waste disposal requirements through either a five-year or 2020 time frame based upon the projected population. Franklin may need to expand either, or both, of its landfills during the 2010 and 2020 time frames, but there is no discussion of such improvements. DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe concede that Franklin's 2020 Plan without a CIE is deficient, but they characterize the deficiency as merely "technical" and "inconsequential" because: "there are no deficiencies for which to plan, and many Plan provisions ensure capital improvements implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and concurrency management"; and Franklin "has demonstrated that it can adopt a CIS and CIE in the future, if needed." But it is beyond fair debate that Franklin's 2020 Plan, as it stands now without a CIE, is not in compliance because it is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(3)(a), 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2), and 9J- 5.016(3)(c)4. Combination Coastal and Conservation Elements Petitioners also contend that the 2020 Plan combines the coastal and conservation elements but does not contain an explanation of such combination, as required by 9J- 5.005(1)(b). In a small jurisdiction like Franklin County, with the vast majority of its land in public ownership, combination of these two elements is appropriate because most of the County’s developable acreage is coastal, and conservation measures must necessarily focus on coastal areas. This combination was previously found in compliance in 1991. No expert witness for Petitioners testified that the combination of these elements is inconsistent with 9J- 5.005(1)(b), or that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" as a result. To the contrary, several experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." Two Planning Periods/Timeframes Petitioners contend that it is beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan does not include a planning period covering at least the first five-year period after adoption, as required by Section 163.3177(5)(a). But the Plan contains a number of objectives and policies in the HE, IE, and C/CE that establish a five-year planning period for achieving certain objectives. See HEO 4; IEO 2.16; C/CEOs 5.9, 8.3, 9, 14.9, 15, 15.9, 18, and 21. Petitioners seem to contend that the 2020 Plan fails to include the two required time frames--one at least five years and one at least ten years--because Franklin's analyses included disparate time frames and lacked a uniform 2020 analysis. But there does not appear to be a prohibition against analyzing more time frames than just the long-term planning horizon. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan does not cover at least two planning periods, one for at least the first five years and another for at least ten years after adoption. Affordable Housing Petitioners contend: "To the extent that FLUE Policies 11.12 and 11.13 required an assessment of affordable housing on SJI, there is no data or analysis to support a finding that an affordable housing assessment was prepared." Pam Ashley PRO, ¶ 42. But FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were deleted by the Plan amendments at issue. Besides, the county-wide assessment would include the area of SJI. Adopted HEO 2 provides: "There will be sites available for 473 units of housing for low and moderate families by the year 2020 2000." (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) As stated, the number in the objective clearly is incorrect. Actually, D&A showed a need for 473 units in addition to the 1803 units identified in the 1991 Plan. Adopted HEO 3 makes the same kind of error for mobile homes: "There will be adequate sites for 244 mobile homes in the County by the year 2020 2000." (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) It is beyond fair debate that these objectives, as stated, are not supported by D&A. The plan should be corrected to comport with D&A. CHHA Designation Section 163.3178(2)(h) defines the CHHA to mean the Category (Cat) 1 hurricane evacuation zone. See also Rule 9J- 5.003(17) (defining the CHHA to mean the evacuation zone for a Cat 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study). The Apalachee Regional Transportation Analysis Final Report is the most recent applicable regional hurricane evacuation study (HES) per 9J-5.003(17). According to the HES, Franklin's Cat 1 evacuation zone boundary "would roughly coincide with US 98 throughout the County. The HES map of Franklin's evacuation zone, which is in GIS format, depicts one minor exception south of US 98, east of CR 30A (which is west of Apalachicola), and another southeast of US 98 (and southwest of CR 370) in the middle of SJI. Both exceptions are inland--i.e., they do not extend seaward to the coast (St. Vincent Sound in the case of the first exception, and Alligator Harbor in the case of the second exception). The adopted FLUM series includes a CHHA map that notes: "The Coastal High Hazard Area shall be designated . . . as all areas seaward of Highway 98 or County Road 30A with the exception of areas depicted as 1 and 2 on this map. The Coastal High Hazard Area for unincorporated Franklin County is based on the Apalachee Regional Transportation Analysis Final Report." The Areas 1 and 2 exceptions on Franklin's CHHA map purport to be the same two exceptions in the HES map. But unlike the HES map, the two exceptions depicted on Franklin's CHHA map extend all the way to the coast. In addition, they are larger than the exceptions depicted on the HES map, with Franklin's Area 2 exception on SJI clearly much larger. DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe concede that Franklin's CHHA map does not correspond to the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone for Franklin. However, they characterize the differences as "slight" and attributable to the "representational nature" of the HES map. To the contrary, the HES map, which is in GIS format, fixes precise boundaries that clearly are not matched by Franklin's map in the cases of Areas 1 and 2. Besides, 9J- 5 does not permit Franklin's CHHA to take liberties with the applicable regional study's evacuation zone based on alleged generalized depictions or representations in the regional map. A witness for St. Joe testified that evacuation zones are related to clearly identifiable landmarks and physical features, like US 98, for easier and clearer communication to the public. But that clearly is not always the case, as can be seen from the various HES maps. In any event, there was no evidence that such considerations could justify Franklin's departure from the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone boundaries in this case, and such an argument is not made in the Joint PRO filed by DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe. It is beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan's CHHA designation in the CHHA map does not correspond to the evacuation zone for a Cat 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study, as required by Section 163.3178(2)(h) and 9J- 5.003(17). Petitioners also point out that HES was based, in part, upon the National Hurricane Center's Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model in the 1994 Florida Hurricane Surge Atlas-Franklin County, and that HES included areas of Wakulla County north of SJI in the SLOSH Cat 1 area in Wakulla's Cat 1 evacuation zones, but excluded such areas south of the Ochlockonee Bay and River from Franklin's Cat 1 evacuation zone. They seem to contend that the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone for Franklin is not as large as it should be. But the evidence implied that the difference in treatment of these areas by HES was the result of lobbying by Wakulla's director of emergency management for their inclusion. In any event, as stated, Section 163.3178(2)(h) and 9J-5.003(17) accept the Cat 1 evacuation zone delineated by the applicable regional study, regardless of possible error. Inventory/Analysis/GOP for Natural Disaster Planning Petitioners question the adequacy of Franklin's inventory/analysis and GOPs for natural disaster planning under 9J-5.012. Besides citing some D&A, Petitioners make several major arguments: first, the CHHA may not plan to mitigate flooding damage; second, Franklin did not plan for projected populations; third, the 2020 Plan makes no provision for capital improvements to build shelters despite adding C/CEPs 14.8 and 14.12 regarding shelters inside and outside of county; fourth, parts of the evacuation routes out of Franklin are subject to storm surge and flooding; fifth, Franklin's planning ends at the county line; and, sixth, special needs persons were not considered. 45. 9J-5.012(2)(e)1. provides: (e) The following natural disaster planning concerns shall be inventoried or analyzed: 1. Hurricane evacuation planning based on the hurricane evacuation plan contained in the local peacetime emergency plan shall be analyzed and shall consider the hurricane vulnerability zone, the number of persons requiring evacuation, the number of persons requiring public hurricane shelter, the number of hurricane shelter spaces available, evacuation routes, transportation and hazard constraints on the evacuation routes, and evacuation times. The projected impact of the anticipated population density proposed in the future land use element and any special needs of the elderly, handicapped, hospitalized, or other special needs of the existing and anticipated populations on the above items shall be estimated. The analysis shall also consider measures that the local government could adopt to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times. These inventories and/or analyses are found in the C/CE, the regional hurricane evacuation study, the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP), and the Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS). The Plan incorporates the hazard mitigation appendix of the CEMP through C/CEP 15.7. Additionally, in C/CEPs 14.1, 14.6, the 2020 Plan recognizes appropriate parts of the LMS, such as the need to maintain and improve evacuation routes throughout the County. 9J-5.012(3) sets out requirements for coastal management GOPs, including the requirement in (a) for "one or more goal statements which establish the long term end toward which regulatory and management efforts are directed" to "restrict development activities that would damage or destroy coastal resources, and protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disasters"; and the requirement in (b) for "one or more specific objectives for each goal statement which . . . 7. [m]aintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times " To support their contention that the CHHA may not plan to mitigate flooding damage, Petitioners cite a statement in the CEMP that flooding is the greatest potential hurricane damage. The also cite D&A in Franklin's 6/2004 transmittal package that evaluated areas subject to coastal flooding and observed: Areas subject to coastal flooding resulting from storm surges are shown in Map 6.4. The map portrays substantial risk from flooding outside the Category 1 storm zone By limiting the CHHA to the Category 1 storm surge zone the county may not be planning to mitigate the substantial flooding risks posed by storm surges and Category 2 and 3 storms . . . . However, there was no evidence that Franklin, DCA, or anyone else ever came to the conclusion that the CHHA was inadequate for that reason. In any event, as stated in the discussion on the CHHA, state law defines the CHHA to coincide with the Cat 1 evacuation zone as drawn by the applicable regional hurricane evacuation study. See Finding 38, supra. Petitioners base their contention that Franklin did not plan for projected populations on a reference in the LMS to Franklin's future land uses as of 2000, instead of its future land uses in 2020. But is clear that Franklin also considered the four SJI FLUMAs with their future land uses for 2020. As to shelters, Petitioners essentially argue that the CIS is inadequate. But C/CEPs 14.8 and 14.12 require assessments of shelter availability inside and outside Franklin, pursuit of agreements with neighboring counties to provide out-of-county shelters, and exploration of the possibility of locating some shelters in Franklin (even though the entire county will be evacuated in the event of a Cat 2-5 storm). There was no D&A as to a need for capital funding within the next five years for inclusion in a CIS. Regarding the impact of storm surge and flooding on evacuation routes out of Franklin, there was evidence that US 319 is subject to flooding at the Ochlocknee River during a storm, that US 98 is subject to storm surge and flooding at the Ochlocknee Bay, and that the four SJI FLUMAs are expected to move the critical link in Franklin's evacuation plan from US 98 near Lanark Village to US 98 at the Ochlocknee Bay. But there was no evidence that Franklin failed to consider the impact of storm surge and flooding on evacuation routes out of Franklin. To the contrary, the evidence was clear that Franklin is planning for the complete evacuation of the county to take place before those routes are impacted by storm surge or flooding. The USACE guidance for HES states in part: Each jurisdiction's existing hurricane evacuation routes are evaluated. In choosing roadways for the hurricane evacuation network care should be taken to designate only those roads that are not expected to flood from rainfall or storm surge while evacuation is in process. There was no evidence that HES did not follow this guidance. Under C/CEO 14 of the 1991 Plan, reasonable hurricane evacuation standards of 16 hours for Cat 1 and 24 hours for Cat 2-5 storm events were adopted. The 2020 Plan amends C/CEO 14 to read: Hurricane Evacuation - The County shall conduct its hurricane evacuation procedures to ensure that Countywide evacuation clearance times do not exceed 16 24 hours for Category 1 & 2 storms and 24 30 hours for Category 2, 3, 4 and 5 storms. 9J5-012(3)(b)(7). (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) Actual hurricane evacuation times are based on models that estimate the amount of time it would actually take to evacuate the County. These models include consideration of behavioral tendencies and tourist occupancies. Without the SJI FLUMAs, actual hurricane evacuation clearance times for the entire County are 4 ½ hours for a Cat 1 evacuation and 8 ¼ hours for Cat 2–5 evacuations, with high tourist occupancy and a slow public response. With the additional populations from the SJI FLUMAs (none of which fall within the CHHA), actual clearance times would increase slightly to five hours for Cat 1 and 10 ½ hours for Cat 2 – 5 evacuations. However, today’s actual evacuation times of 4 ½ hours and 8 ¼ hours can be maintained or reduced with the use of reasonable mitigation measures found in C/CEP 14.1--namely, encouraging the use of SR 65 and SR 67 as alternatives to US 98 and SR 319. Petitioners contend that Franklin's hurricane evacuation standards actually have been lowered as a result of the amendment to C/CEO 14 by the addition of the word "clearance." But there was no evidence that the 1991 Plan's C/CEO 14 actually planned for something other than clearance from Franklin. Regardless whether evacuation plans changed by addition of the word "clearance," Petitioners question whether it is wise to plan only to clear Franklin before the arrival of tropical storm conditions when evacuees still must pass through Cat 1 evacuation zones in other counties, e.g., Wakulla, before reaching a place of safety. As they point out, the HES envisions the need for a regional evacuation in the event of a major hurricane with the majority of evacuees in the region evacuating to Leon County, and states: "For the near term, it may be most appropriate for the coastal counties, especially Franklin and Wakulla, to use the clearance times for Leon County rather than using their own specific figures." Moreover, HES stated: Until the roadway improvements are completed on the Crawfordville Highway and Capital Circle, the evacuation clearance times calculated for Franklin, Wakulla and Leon Counties can exceed one full day of heavy evacuation traffic movement for a worst-case storm if all those who wish to leave the area are to be accommodated. This timeframe easily extends beyond the maximum amount of warning and preparation time provided by the National Hurricane Center under a Hurricane Warning. This D&A in and of itself does not prohibit Franklin from using times to clear the county in its evacuation planning. But use of clearance times would require regional evacuation needs to be coordinated among the various counties and incorporated in the CEMP and LMS. There was no evidence in this case that such coordination has not occurred or that the various counties are not planning for evacuees to pass through all evacuation zones and reach places of safety soon enough to get out of harm's way. Petitioners also argue that special needs persons have not been considered. This argument is based on the supposed testimony of St. Joe's witness, Collins, that there is no provision in the 2020 Plan for the evacuation of persons with special needs. Actually, Collins' testimony was that there is a Plan provision that "definitely affects the evacuation" of persons with special needs, and not just indirectly, in that adult living facilities within the CHHA are prohibited. He also testified that the CEMP deals with those issues. Mr. Gauthier, the former DCA chief of comprehensive planning was subpoenaed by Petitioners and explained why, in his opinion, the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" because of inconsistency with 9J-5.012. He based his opinion on the incorrect CHHA designation, failure to direct population concentrations away from the CHHA, and C/CEO 14's establishment of a clearance time standard greater than actual clearance times. While the CHHA may not be designated accurately, assuming a correct definition, there was at least fair debate as to whether the 2020 plan directs population concentrations away from the CHHA. As indicated, none of the FLUMAs are in the CHHA, either as designated or as it should have been designated. Elsewhere, both the 1991 and the 2020 Plans limited residential density in the CHHA to a maximum of one DU/acre, which arguably does not constitute a population "concentration." For the reasons described in the preceding findings, the evidence in this record did not prove beyond fair debate that Franklin's 2020 Plan is inconsistent with 9J- 5.012 and not "in compliance." SJI FLUMAs and FLUEPs RV consists of 1,704 acres on the 2020 FLUM and FLUEP 2.2(l). It is presently designated agriculture (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres), and parts are in silviculture. FLUEP 2.2(l) is designed as a rural village that focuses on the historical heritage and natural surroundings of the Crooked River, with the objective being to create a rural village center in proximity to the river and a supporting rural community of river cottages and single-family (SF) lots. FLUEP 2.2(l) lists seven allowable uses, including residential, some commercial, and recreational uses. Non- residential maximum intensity is expressed in terms of FAR and set at .20; maximum overall gross residential density is 1 DU/5 gross acres. FLUEP 2.25 does not apply. RV can be all residential. Franklin Planner Pierce testified that, at most, 340 acres can be used for non-residential uses. He calculated this by multiplying the total acreage by the FAR. He also testified that, if 340 acres are non-residential, a maximum of 272 residential DUs could be developed on the remaining 1,363 acres. If all 1704 acres of RV are residential, the maximum residential use would be 340 DUs. Clustering is allowed but not required. At least 25 percent (426 acres) must be in "common open space" (including roads and other infrastructure); 50 percent "common open space" is required for cluster developments. Central water and wastewater is mandatory, and SMSs must meet OFW standards. As transmitted, the ConRes FLUMA was 6,531 acres to the east of RV and along the Ochlocknee River and Bay. As adopted, it is 2,500 acres. The parts of the transmitted version adjacent to RV and along the river and Bear Creek were eliminated in the adopted version. The land is presently "Agriculture" (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres); the land is used for silviculture. As described in FLUEP 2.2(m), ConRes is generally intended for large, private tracts of land that are appropriate for low density residential development and the protection of natural and cultural resources. A stated important objective is to allow for low density residential development that accentuates and celebrates the natural environment and is designed to fit into the natural setting instead of altering the natural setting to fit the design of the development. It allows detached SF residential use, passive and active recreational uses, related infrastructure, silviculture, and accessory use for residents and guests, and other similar or compatible uses. Free- standing nonresidential or commercial uses intended to serve non-residents are not permitted. Neither "active" nor "passive" recreational uses are defined in FLUEP 2.2(m). "Timeshare" or "vacation rentals" may be allowed. Maximum gross density is 1 DU/5 gross acres, and maximum overall impervious surface coverage cannot exceed 15 percent of the land area. No FAR is included or, arguably, required because ConRes is primarily a residential concept. Septic tanks are allowed but may not be located within 500 feet of the Ochlocknee River, Ochlocknee Bay, or Bear Creek. "Aerobic systems" to provide a higher level of treatment apparently are not required, as they are on St. George Island and Alligator Point. IEP 1.2 states: "The County shall adopt a policy that mandates aerobic septic systems on a county-wide basis." Apparently, this has not yet occurred. SMSs must meet OFW standards. MVC is 1,000 acres presently "Agriculture" on the FLUM (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres); the land is used for silviculture. The land is to the immediate east of ConRes along the Ochlocknee Bay and west of the US 98 bridge over the bay. MVC is described in FLUEP 2.2(n). The intent is to create a southern coastal fishing village focused on a marina, which is a required use. In addition to the marina, the village may contain a mix of related activities including retail, office, hotel, restaurant, entertainment, and residential uses. "Public and private utilities" are allowed but are not defined; they probably contemplate those needed for MVC itself. Clustering is not required. Residential use may not be required, but it certainly is expected of a "southern coastal fishing village." Residential use may be any combination of SF, multi-family (MF), condominiums, private residence clubs, time shares, and other forms of fractional ownership. The maximum FAR for non- residential use is .30. The maximum residential density is "2 DU/gross acres", maximum ISR (impervious surface ratio) is .80, minimum "common open space" is .25, and other applicable Franklin zoning code provisions. FLUEP 2.25 applies, and at least three land uses are required, "none of which may be less than 10 percent of the total land area." Central water and wastewater is required. SMSs must meet OFW standards. CEV in the 2020 Plan FLUM and FLUEP 2.2(o) addresses 200 acres presently designated Agriculture (allowing 1 DU/40 acres residential use); the land is in silviculture. The CEV FLUMA represents the first phase of development. CEV is generally intended to create a self-sustaining community with a mixture of functionally integrated land uses anchored by a village center. It is to complement the existing community of Carrabelle and create places to live, work and shop in the context of promoting moderately priced housing and economic development opportunities. Allowable uses are limited to SF and MF residential, retail commercial, service-oriented commercial, office, business and industrial park, passive and active recreation, schools and other civic facilities, public and private utilities, and houses of worship. There is no definition limiting the type of industrial use allowed, but Franklin Planner Pierce interpreted FLUEP 2.2(o) to mean industry like a truss factory or a cement batching plant, not heavier industry. Performance standards are 1-3 DU per gross acre gross residential density, maximum non-residential intensity of .25 FAR, commercial and business park intensity of .25 FAR, minimum common open space of .25, minimum civic space of .10, and other applicable Franklin zoning code provisions. FLUEP 2.25 applies, and at least three land uses are required, "none of which may be less than 10 percent of the total land area." Density, Intensity, and Mixed-Use Standards Petitioners contend that the 2020 Plan provisions, including the SJI FLUMAs, are not "in compliance" for failure to identify densities and intensities of uses and for creating mixed-use categories without percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses in each category, as mandated by 9J-5.006(4)(c) and (3)(c)7 and Section 163.3177(6)(a)("distribution, location and extent"). See also 9J-5.013(3)(b)("type, intensity or density, extent, distribution and location of allowable land uses"). However, it is clear that residential densities are provided for each category, and Petitioners concede in their PROs that the mixed-use residential category in FLUEP 2.2(e) has policies/standards for the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement (of distribution), and the density or intensity of each use. In the ORC, DCA objected to Franklin's proposed plan for failure to identify non-residential intensities and for creating mixed-use categories without percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses in each category. In response, Franklin added FAR standards and FLUEP 2.25. DCA's 5/06/2005 staff memo acknowledged the FARs and accepted them. The staff memo also acknowledged FLUEP 2.25 and accepted it as providing a percentage distribution mix of uses for mixed-use residential, mixed-use commercial, MVC, and CEV. However, the staff memo criticized the mixed-use categories for not requiring some residential use. Petitioners contend that, since FLUEP 2.25 does not apply to RV and ConRes, those categories fail to provide a percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses. But it is at least fairly debatable that RV and ConRes are not true mixed-use categories, such that 9J- 5.006(4)(c) does not apply. Petitioners also contend that, since ConRes does not have FAR standards, intensity of non-residential uses is not provided for that category. In that regard, Petitioners argue that FLUEP 2.2(m) allows "free-standing non-residential or commercial uses" in ConRes and that Franklin Planner Pierce was unable to state how much of those uses are allowed in ConRes. Actually, FLUEP 2.2(m) disallows such uses if "intended to serve non-residents." It is not clear from the policy that such uses are allowed at all in ConRes since other allowable uses are described as "similar or compatible uses." If such uses are allowable by negative implication, they would have to serve only residents. Arguably, non-residential intensity standards are not required in ConRes. Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the FLUMAs and related policies in the 2020 Plan do not meet the requirements of 9J-5.006(4)(c) and (3)(c)7 and Section 163.3177(6)(a), and they put on no expert testimony that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" for those reasons. Meanwhile, experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." On the evidence presented, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the FLUMAs and related policies in the 2020 Plan create mixed-use land use categories without the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, or without the density or intensity of each use. Predictable Standards for MVC and CEV Petitioners attempted to prove that wildly varied development scenarios could result from application of FLUEP 2.25 to MVC and CEV. The evidence did not disclose any reason to believe that uses will be combined so as to maximize certain types of uses and result in lopsided development scenarios. Assuming that were to occur, the evidence was not clear what the maximum possible density and intensity of particular uses could be under various scenarios. This is partly because Franklin's Planner Pierce seemed to interpret MVC and CEV as establishing a maximum gross residential density on the entire acreage (1000 acres for MVC and 200 acres for CEV), regardless how much land actually was devoted to residential uses. Using that interpretation (which runs counter to Mr. Pierce's interpretation of the RV FLUEP), taken to an extreme 2000 DU of residential could be developed in MVC even if 900 acres were used for non-residential uses (e.g., marina and other commercial or office) and only 100 acres were used for residential, and 600 DU of residential could be developed in CEV even if 180 acres were used for non- residential uses and only 20 acres were used for residential. Given those results, such an interpretation does not seem logical. In addition, the applicable Franklin zoning code provisions were not clear. Also, factors such as FAR and ISR limitations and the necessity for "common open space" were not applied in a clear or consistent manner in the testimony. It can, however, be found that, in the unlikely event that lopsided development were to occur, large amounts of either residential or non-residential uses theoretically could develop in MVC and CEV depending on the development scenario. In calculating some alleged development scenarios for MVC and CEV, Petitioners (and Mr. Pierce) also may have been applying the minimum common open space requirements and FAR intensity standards incorrectly. In some instances, they seemed to treat the minimum common open space requirements as if it were a separate allowable land use within the FLUMA and subtract the common open space minimum from total gross acreage to calculate acreage remaining for allowable land uses in the FLUMA. But it is not clear why minimum common open space requirements could (and should) not be incorporated within acreage devoted to the various allowable uses. In some instances, Petitioners (and Mr. Pierce) seemed to apply minimum FAR to gross acreage in the FLUMA to calculate maximum acreage that can be devoted to non-residential land uses. (This also was done for RV. See Finding 58, supra.) But it is not clear why FAR intensity standards should not be applied instead to the discrete acreage devoted to allowable non- residential uses to determine the maximum allowable floor area coverage within the acreage devoted to allowable non- residential uses. Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the unlikely possibility of lopsided development in MVC or CEV makes those FLUMAs and related policies, or the 2020 Plan, not "in compliance." Meanwhile, experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." On the evidence presented, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" because of the possibility of lopsided development in MVC or CEV. Failure to Consider/React to Best Available Data FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 required consideration of eight key areas. These areas included protection of natural resources and cultural heritage, promotion of economic development and emergency management, provision of adequate public facilities and services and affordable housing, and inclusion of intensity standards and allowable uses. Based on all of the documents in the record, the updated 2020 Plan was supported by consideration of each of the eight key areas listed by FLUEP 11.12 and, for the four SJI FLUMAs, by FLUEP 11.13. Petitioners contend that Franklin's 2020 Plan is not based on the best available data existing as of the date of adoption, April 5, 2005, as required by: Section 163.3177(8)("elements of the comprehensive plan, whether mandatory or optional, shall be based upon data appropriate to the element involved") and (10)(e)("Legislature intends that goals and policies be clearly based on appropriate data"); 9J- 5.005(2)(a)("shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element" and "[t]o be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue"); and 9J-5.006(1)(FLUE data requirements). In support of that contention, they cite to a few of the voluminous data in the record submitted by St. Joe and used by Franklin that are not the best available or have errors or a weakness (an unknown source). But their argument concedes that the best available data are in the record, and no expert witness testified that the 2020 Plan is not based on the best available data. To the contrary, Petitioners' expert questioned the quality of the analysis of the data in the adoption package. Meanwhile, expert witnesses for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is based on the best available evidence. Petitioners also contend that inconsistent data was used in violation of 9J-5.005(5)(a)("[w]here data are relevant to several elements, the same data shall be used, including population estimates and projections"). While their PRO does not cite any specifics, during the hearing Petitioners directed Mr. Gauthier to two examples. One was that Florida Land Use Cover Classification System data was used to identify wetlands in the FLUE, while National Wetlands Inventory data (supplemented with hydric soils analysis) was used to identify wetlands for the SJI FLUMAs. But those data were used in the same element, not in different elements. The other was that a traffic study in the 6/2004 transmittal package used a projection of 2,965 residential units in the SJI FLUMA while Franklin Planner testified to a different number--3,400. But the higher number represented a theoretical maximum, which is not necessarily the data on which traffic analyses should be based. No expert testified that this constituted the use of inconsistent data in violation of 9J-5.005(5)(a). To the contrary, witnesses for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is based on the best available data and professionally acceptable analyses, that the County appropriately responded to the D&A in preparing the Plan update, and that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." Suitability of SJI FLUMAs and FLUEPs Petitioners contend that none of the SJI FLUMAs are "inherently suitable for development at the permitted density and intensity." In their PRO, they based their contention in large part on FSU's analysis of various criteria, including proximity of three of the FLUMAs to the relatively pristine Ochlocknee River and Bay and their natural resources, presence of wetlands, soil types, floodplains, vegetative cover, habitat for Florida black bear and other wildlife, and alleged karst hydrogeology. They also cite DCA's 5/6/2005 staff memo, the concerns of Drs. Chanton and Livingston about density and intensity increases, and Mr. Gauthier's testimony that he is "concerned and believe[s] that there are compliance problems . . . based on suitability." The evidence might support the proposition that there are more suitable places in Franklin for development, including in the middle of SJI, where St. Joe also is contemplating possible development in the future, and nearer to Apalachicola and Carrabelle. But the middle of SJI would not be suitable for a marina village, and there may be other aspects of St. Joe's planned developments that could not be accommodated on other land available for development. In addition, Franklin wants to protect the land within the Apalachicola River and Bay basin. In any event, the question presented in this case is not whether there are more suitable lands for development. Rather, the question is whether, based on all the evidence presented, it is beyond fair debate that the locations of the FLUMAs are unsuitable. "Development suitability" is defined as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of the land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." FLUEP 1.2 requires review of FLUMAs "to insure [sic] that the proposed uses, in the various categories, do not conflict with the prevailing natural conditions including": (a) soil conditions; (b) topography; (c) drainage; (d) wetlands; and (e) floodplains. In their PRO, Petitioners criticize the soil suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs as being "based upon a subset of on-site soils termed 'predominate' with no percentage quantification and no analysis of the other on-site soils" and as misrepresenting and selectively quoting from the soil survey. See Pamela Ashley PRO, ¶73. But the soils in the SJI FLUMAs were re- analyzed at length during the final hearing. The evidence was that there are upland soils in each SJI FLUMA. In the ConRes FLUMA, the only SJI FLUMA allowing septic tanks, suitable soils and a 500-foot setback from principal surface waters should provide adequate attenuation to accommodate on-site sewage systems. There are soils in each SJI FLUMA that are not the best for the proposed development. These soils are potentially limiting but arguably can accommodate the proposed development, given appropriate site planning and engineering, together with the 2020 Plan's provisions that operate to protect natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas. It was fairly debatable that the soils in the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the topography of the SJI FLUMAs in that parts are subject to inundation during a Cat 1 storm. But the evidence was that low-density development is not necessarily unsuitable in the CHHA, and it was fairly debatable that the topography of the FLUMAs is suitable for the proposed development. As for drainage, each SJI FLUMA requires an SMS employing OFW design criteria. OFWs have special resource value and need heightened protection. A 1991 Plan provision required County SMSs to collect and treat runoff from the first 1.5 inches of rainfall regardless of the area drained. This provision exceeds OFW criteria and applies to each SJI FLUMA. The SMS design criteria, buffers, setbacks, and the nature of development anticipated in each SJI FLUEMA are intended to work in concert to minimize surface water impacts. Employing these elements is anticipated to allow the development of the FLUMAs without impacting surface waters. If there is no measurable pollutant loading to nearby waters, aquatic flora and fauna should experience no impact. Fewer significant seagrass beds are located in waters north of where MVC is located, and it should be possible to site a marina facility there in deeper water without significant seagrasses. The strict SMS design criteria assure the collection and treatment of stormwater for water quality purposes. The SMSs also will provide important sources of groundwater recharge and help protect water quantity. Runoff collected in SMSs is retained on-site and returned to the groundwater component of the hydrologic cycle (minus losses to evaporation and evapotranspiration). The retention of stormwater on-site offsets the potential loss of runoff resulting from increased impervious surfaces, facilitating aquifer recharge. With proper engineering, runoff from each of the SJI FLUMAs could be collected within the required SMSs resulting in minimal or no adverse effect on aquifer recharge on SJI. Recharge rates on SJI vary from high (15 to 20 inches per year) to moderate (10 to 15 inches per year) to low (less than 5 inches per year), depending on location. As indicated, the confining layer between the surficial aquifer and the underlying Floridan aquifer in eastern Franklin thins from west to east but is not believed to degenerate into karst features. See Findings 4-5, supra. Rather, the confining layer in eastern Franklin County appears to vary in thickness from 15 to 20 feet. Assuming no karst features or other anomalies creating a direct conduit to the Floridan, groundwater moves vertically throughout SJI at approximately 2 to 3 feet per year. This rate would provide sufficient time for the natural breakdown (attenuation) of residual pollutants from on-site sewage and stormwater treatment systems as well as any additional pollutants that may be generated such that development within the SJI FLUMAs should not threaten the Floridan aquifer. Lateral flow of groundwater from beneath the SJI FLUMAs also should not pose a risk to surface waters. In contrast to unconfined karst, where the movement of groundwater to and through the Floridan aquifer may be rapid, groundwater appears to move laterally at approximately 100 feet per year in eastern Franklin, providing adequate time for the attenuation of any added pollutants prior to any such groundwater seepage reaching surface waters. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the amount of wetlands in the FLUMAs. RV has 1,324 wetland acres (78 percent) with 380 acres (22 percent) of "interspersed" uplands; ConRes has 525 wetland acres (21 percent) with 1,975 acres of uplands (79 percent); MVC has 276 wetland acres (28 percent) and 724 upland acres (72 percent); and CEV has 66 wetland acres (33 percent) and 134 upland acres (67 percent). In response to ORC criticism, Franklin's wetlands policies were amended to address "high quality" and "low quality" wetlands and give a higher level of protection to the former. Petitioners criticize the 2020 Plan for not identifying and mapping the high and low quality wetlands. They also rely on Gauthier's opinion that "the wetland policies are flawed, in that they're vague and not specific and there are significant gaps" as a result of exceptions and waivers. They also contend that the 2020 Plan fails to direct development away from wetlands, which will result in degradation of water quality in the Ochlockonee River/Bay and Apalachicola Bay system primarily from increased urban runoff and nutrification. But it is at least fairly debatable that the amended wetlands policy will increase wetlands protections and that wetlands in the FLUMAs can be protected in the course of development as proposed under the amended wetland policies. Each SJI FLUMA allows “clustering,” which concentrates DUs in a portion of the overall site without increasing the overall number of units. Clustering is mandatory in ConRes and CEV. Clustering is advantageous to the extent that it encourages open space, reduces impervious surface, reduces pollutants generated from more widespread development, and enhances aquifer recharge. However, the advantages could be illusory to the extent that clustering simply allows the wholesale transfer of density from a portion of the site where development is unsuitable and should not be anticipated (e.g., high-quality wetlands) to other portions of the site. Such a result would be of particular concern in RV, which is 78 percent wetlands, if all 340 DUs were to be concentrated on 375 acres of uplands, effectively at a density of almost one DU/acre, interspersed among 1,330 acres of high- quality wetlands. (The concern would be even greater if non- residential uses in RV were surprisingly high, and if the interpretation of "gross density" suggested by Franklin's planner for MVC and CEV were applied to RV, thereby further increasing the effective residential density interspersed among high-quality wetlands.) C/CEP 10.1 requires that the County's site plan review process be amended to take into consideration natural constraints, including wetlands, and restricted depending upon the severity of those constraints. Because no site plan has been proposed for any of the SJI FLUMAs, it is unknown to what extent, if any, the privately-owned wetlands may actually be disturbed. It is at least fairly debatable that, given the relatively low overall densities, the extent of available uplands (at least in ConRes and MVC), the arguably-enhanced wetland protections, and properly-implemented clustering, wetlands in the SJI FLUMAs can be protected in the course of development as proposed and that the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the wetlands in the SJI FLUMAs. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs for failure to quantify floodplains (although admittedly depicting them on maps and citing FIRM maps), for "inaccurate and generalized narrative," and for stating "that development is allowed 'but flood considerations must be evaluated'." Pamela Ashely PRO, ¶ 76, citing the ORCR. As to "areas subject to coastal flooding" (the hurricane vulnerability zone), all of the SJI FLUMAs are subject to Cat 3 evacuation and the vast majority are within the Cat 3 SLOSH surge area. But some effort was made to focus development outside of the floodplains. Besides, development within floodplains is not prohibited by state or federal law. Rather, development within a floodplain must be constructed above certain elevations and provide compensating flood storage for any displaced flood plain area. The evidence was that low density development is not necessarily unsuitable in the these areas, and it was at least debatable that the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the presence of floodplains in the FLUMAs. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs as to "vegetative cover" and "wildlife habitats" for only addressing bald eagle nests and bear sightings and road kill locations, and for generally stating that St. Joe's silvicultural use has "vastly altered" or otherwise displaced the natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. IWHRS data and best available bear data was not addressed in the suitability analysis. However, all of this D&A was presented and analyzed during the hearing. The SJI FLUMAs comprise a fraction of the 1.2 million acres of habitat supporting the Apalachicola black bear population, of which SJI bears are also a fraction. In response to the ORC, Franklin and St. Joe made some accommodation to the black bear by significantly reducing the size of the ConRes FLUMA and removing the Bear Creek area from the FLUMA. The SJI FLUMAs also preserve the possibility of a bear corridor of appropriate dimensions connecting Bald Point State Park on the east end of SJI with the Crooked River Tract and the larger publicly-owned bear habitat to the west. Along with the availability of public lands, residential clustering will help facilitate bear movement through SJI notwithstanding the development of the SJI FLUMAs. Bears should still frequent the FLUMAs when food supplies are ample, even during construction. Even with the accommodation and a corridor, the proposed development will impact the black bear. Road kills occur where bears and roadways mix. (Generally, the more people there are in and near bear habitat, the more problems will arise from bear encounters with people, and the more likely that the resolution of such problems will not benefit the bears.) But the SJI FLUMAs themselves are not considered critical bear habitat, and their development alone should not result in a significant adverse impact on the bear population. While the gulf sturgeon, a protected species, is known to pass through nearby waters, neither the Ochlocknee River nor Bay has been designated critical habitat for the fish. No surface water impacts that would affect the sturgeon were proven. Based on the evidence, it is at least fairly debatable that the SJI FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the presence of the black bear, the Gulf sturgeon, and other wildlife now using SJI. Based on the foregoing, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the SJI FLUMAs are unsuitable for the proposed development, notwithstanding the issues raised by Petitioners as to soils, topography, drainage, wetlands, floodplains, vegetative cover, and wildlife and their habitat. Deletion of FLUEP 11.12 and 11.13 The County deleted FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 as part of the Plan update. This decision was appropriate because the substantive aspects of FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were considered and would be incorporated within the various provisions of the updated Plan, once effective. Also, the assessments required under those policies must be made regardless of whether policies are included within the Plan because they are required under 9J-5. All of the expert planners--including Mr. Gauthier--testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance” notwithstanding deletion of those policies. Once FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 are no longer necessary, it is the County’s prerogative to include them in or remove them from the Plan. FLUEP 11.12 required the preparation and adoption of an overlay plan for SJI, which would result in an overlay map and policies. Although an overlay plan was prepared, it was not adopted as part of the 2020 Plan but rather was included as an appendix to the Technical Data and Analysis Report submitted in support of the 2020 Plan update. Potential adoption of the overlay as part of the Plan was a concern to many of the citizens attending the visioning meetings. There was confusion as to what adoption of an overlay into the Plan actually meant and whether it established development entitlements. The County has the discretion to adopt or remove Plan provisions that duplicate or exceed statutory and regulatory requirements. Utilization of the overlay as D&A is consistent with state planning requirements. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan would not be "in compliance" without the SJI overlay.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that DCA enter a final order determining that Franklin's 2020 Plan update, with SJI FLUMAs, is not "in compliance" at this time. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2006.
