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 Introduction. 21 The Parties. 21 General Description of Monroe County 22 The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan 24 The Original Comprehensive Plan. 24 The Remedial Comprehensive Plan. 25 Area of Critical State Concern Review 27 The Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. 27 Area of Critical State Concern Review of the Remedial Plan. 28 The DCA Proposed Rules 31 Challenges to the DCA Proposed Rules 33 The Administration Commission Proposed Rules . 34 Challenges to the Administration Commission Proposed Rules 36 The Final Order in the DCA and Administration Commission Proposed Rules Challenge Cases. 36 The Department's Review Pursuant to the Act. 38 Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes 38 The Department's Review. 39 Impact of the Area of Critical State Concern Review on the Department's Review Under the Act. 40 Challenge to the Remedial Plan Pursuant to the Act by the Intervenors 41 Carrying Capacity: The Cornerstone of Monroe County Remedial Plan. 42 Carrying Capacity as a Planning Tool 42 Monroe County's Carrying Capacity Analysis 44 The Settlement Agreement's Reference to a Carrying Capacity Analysis 45 Monroe County's Application of the Carrying Capacity Analysis. 46 Hurricane Evacuation Carrying Capacity 47 Environmental Carrying Capacity. 48 The Department's Review of Monroe County's General Acceptance of a Carrying Capacity Approach 49 Monroe County's Environment. 49 The Unique Environmental Character of the Florida Keys 49 General Habitat Types in the Florida Keys. 51 Upland Habitat Types 53 Wetland and Transitional Wetland Habitat Types. 55 Marine Habitat Types 59 The National Marine Sanctuary. 63 The Upper, Middle and Lower Keys 64 Areas of Critical County Concern 66 Ohio Key 67 Coupon Bight 67 Species of Special Concern 68 The Florida Key Deer 68 Marine Turtles 72 The Impacts of Development on the Environment of the Florida Keys. 72 A Brief History of Development in the Florida Keys 72 The Impact of Development on Water Quality and Marine Resources 73 The Impact of Development on Coral Reefs 79 The Impact of Development on Seagrasses. 80 The Impacts of Boating 80 The Impacts of Docks and Marinas 82 The Impacts of Development on Wetlands and Transitional Wetlands. 83 The Impact of Development on Mangroves 85 The Impact of Development on Beach Berm. 85 The Impact of Development on Hammocks. 86 The Impact of Development on Offshore Islands. 87 The Impact of Development on North Key Largo . 88 The Impact of Development on Ohio Key. 88 The Impact of Development on Key Deer and Big Pine Key 89 The Impact of Development on Coupon Bight. 92 The Impact of Development on Marine Turtles. 92 The Florida Keys' Environmental Carrying Capacity 92 Monroe County's Conclusion 92 The Carrying Capacity of the Nearshore Waters and Seagrasses. 94 The Carrying Capacity of the Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys. 98 The Carrying Capacity of Offshore Islands. 98 The Carrying Capacity of North Key Largo, Ohio Key and Coupon Bight. 99 The Carrying Capacity of the Key Deer and Big Pine Key 101 The Need to Maximize Measures to Protect Other Environmental Features of the Florida Keys Environment 103 Sewage Treatment Systems 104 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 104 The Department's Review Under the Act. 107 Intervenor Challenges. 108 Maintenance vs. Improvement. 109 Delay of the Adoption of the Master Plan 110 The Interim Levels of Service. 112 Cesspool Inspection Program. 117 Disturbed and Undisturbed Wetlands 117 Stormwater Treatment. 118 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 118 The Department's Review Under the Act. 119 Intervenor Challenges. 119 Delay of the Adoption of the Master Plan 120 Impact on Water Quality. 121 The Interim Levels of Service. 121 Marine Resources 121 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 121 The Department's Review Under the Plan 124 Intervenor Challenges. 125 Adequacy of Living Marine Resource Protections. 127 Moored/Anchored Vessels, Marinas and Docks. 128 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Impacting Moored/Anchored Vessels. 128 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Impacting Marines. 128 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Impacting Docks. 129 The Department's Review Under the Act. 131 Intervenor Challenges. 133 F Residential Docks. 135 G. Perpendicular Docks. 136 Canals 137 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 137 The Department's Review Under the Act. 138 Intervenor Challenges. 138 Wetlands. 139 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 139 The Department's Review Under the Act. 140 Intervenor Challenges. 140 Disturbed Wetlands 141 Setbacks 141 Provisions in the Remedial Plan. 141 The Department's Review Under the Plan 142 Intervenor Challenges. 143 The Justification for Setbacks 143 "No Net Loss" of Wetlands 145 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 145 The Department's Review Under the Act. 145 Intervenor Challenges. 146 On-Site Mitigation vs. Off-Site Mitigation 147 ACCC: Big Pine Key, North Key Largo and Ohio Key. 148 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 148 The Department's Review Under the Act. 151 Intervenor Challenges. 152 Big Pine Key; Protection of the Key Deer 154 North Key Largo. 155 Miscellaneous Environmental Provisions. 156 Freshwater Lenses. 156 Open Space Requirements for Hammocks 157 Public Access to Beaches 158 Public Expenditures in the Coastal Zone. 159 Natural Heritage and Park Program. 160 Protection of Upland Vegetation. 161 Clustering 161 Hurricane Evacuation Carrying Capacity. 162 Hurricanes 162 Preparation for Hurricanes 165 The Potential Impacts of Hurricanes on the Florida Keys 167 Evacuation and Refuges of Last Resort 169 Monroe County's Hurricane Evacuation Provisions 172 The Department's Review of Monroe County's Hurricane Evacuation Response in Objective 101.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175 Intervenor Challenges. 177 Alleged Worthlessness of Undeveloped Property and Impact on Taxes. 179 Hurricane Evacuation Clearance Time Calculations 180 The Reasonableness of the Estimated Clearance Time Calculations. 187 Sham Device and Reasonableness of Monroe County's Hurricane Evacuation Goals. 189 Hurricane Shelters 191 The Board of County Commissioner's Meeting of May 4, 1991 198 The Administration Commission's Policy 216.1.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198 The Permit Allocation System 200 Monroe County's Decision to Employ a Permit Allocation System. 200 Provisions of the Remedial Plan Adopting the Permit Allocation System 203 Monroe County's Method of Allocating Allowable Growth Under the Permit Allocation System. 205 The Department's Review of the Permit Allocation System Under the Act. 210 The Department's Review of the Point System Under the Act. 210 Intervenor Challenges to the Permit Allocation System. 216 General Challenges to the Point System 216 Intervenor Challenges to Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.5. 217 The Number of Permits and Subareas 218 The General Challenges to the Permit Allocation System 219 General Challenges to Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.4. 222 Negative Points for Habitat, Habitat of Critical Concern and Species 222 Protected Species Habitat Map. 228 Coastal High Hazard Areas. 228 Platted Subdivisions 229 Affordable Housing 229 Transportation Levels of Service 229 Commercial Infill, and the Existence of Infrastructure 230 Points for TDRs. 230 Offshore Islands, Conservation Lands and Historic/Archaelogical Resources 232 Transferable Development Rights Program 233 The Current Transferable Development Rights Program. 233 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 233 The Department's Review Under the Act. 236 D Intervenor Challenges. 238 E. Sender vs. Receiver Sites. 239 Land Use Categories. 242 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 242 The Department's Review Under the Act. 243 Intervenor Challenges. 247 D. Policies 101.4.1 and 101.4.2 248 Maintenance of Community Character and Protection of Environmental Resources. 248 Residential Medium Land Use Category 249 Mixed Use/Commercial and Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing. 249 Disturbed Wetlands 251 Height Limitation. 251 The Future Land Use Map Series. 252 The Future Land Use Map Series Adopted by Monroe County 252 The Department's Review Under the Act. 252 Intervenor Challenges. 253 Are the Future Land Use Maps in Compliance With the Act 254 Vested Rights. 255 Provisions of the Remedial Plan. 255 The Department's Review Under the Act. 256 Intervenor Challenges. 258 Definition of Vested Rights. 258 Limited Application of Land Development Regulations to Property with Vested Rights 259 Miscellaneous Provisions of the Remedial Plan 260 Non-Residential Development. 260 The Monroe County Land Authority 263 Transient Residential Unit Moratorium. 264 Nonconforming Uses 266 The Coastal High Hazard Area 268 The Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan 269 Siting Public Facilities 270 Intergovernmental Coordination 272 The County Geographic Information System 275 Public Expenditures for Services and Infrastructure 275 Affordable Housing 276 L. Goal 101 276 Roadway Improvements 277 Solid Waste Level of Service 278 Proposed Widening of U.S. Highway 1 on Big Pine Key 279 Public Participation 280 Capital Improvements 280 Monroe County's Commitment to Funding the Remedial Plan. 282 Monroe County's Determination of the Economic Impact Consequences of the Remedial Plan and Its Response Thereto 282 The Department's Review of Monroe County's Commitment to Funding the Remedial Plan. 284 Intervenor Challenges. 286 Monroe County's Lack of Commitment to Funding the Remedial Plan. 286 The Justification for Funding Assistance 287 Policy 1, as Modified by the Department and Policy 4 as Adopted by the Administration Commission are in Compliance with the Act. 288 Compliance with the State and Regional Plans. 291 The State Comprehensive Plan 291 The South Florida Regional Planning Council Policy Plan. 292 Constitutional Taking. 293
Conclusions For Petitioner, the Department of Community Affairs: Stephanie M. Gehres Assistant General Counsel David J. Russ Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, Florida 33050 For Respondent, Monroe County: Robert C. Apgar, Esquire David A. Theriaque, Esquire Apgar, Pelham, Pfeiffer & Theriaque 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Intervenor, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc.: Richard Grosso, Legal Director 1000 Friends of Florida Civil Law Clinic Shepard Broad Law Center NOVA Southeastern University 3305 College Aveneue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33314 For Intervenors, Henry Lee Morgenstern and Florida Wildlife Federation: David J. White, Esquire National Wildlife Federation 1401 Peachtree Street, Northeast Suite 240 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 For Intervenor, Friends of the Everglades, Inc.: Nancy Carroll Brown, President Friends of the Everglades, Inc. 9220 Southwest 166th Street Miami, Florida 33157 For Intervenor, Upper Keys Citizens Association: Dagny Johnson, President Upper Keys Citizens Association, Inc. 95,600 Overseas Highway Key Largo, Florida 33037 For Intervenors, George N. Kundtz and Florida Keys Citizens Coalition: Gregg Goldfarb, Esquire 19 West Flagler Street, Suite 707 Miami, Florida 33130 For Intervenor, The Wilderness Society: Debra S. Harrison Florida Keys Coordinator The Wilderness Society 8065 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 For Intervenors, George DeCarion, et al.: James S. Mattson, Esquire Andrew M. Tobin, Esquire MATTSON & TOBIN Post Office Box 586 Key Largo, Florida 33037 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The issue in these cases is whether the remedial Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is "in compliance", as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, consistent with this Recommended Order. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX A Case Numbers 91-1932GM and 93-3371GM The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, or the proposed findings of fact of the parties, except 1000 Friends of Florida, George N. Kundtz and the Florida Keys Citizens' Coalition and the Upper Keys' Citizens' Association, have been accepted or rejected in this Appendix A. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 1, 9-10, 24, 26, 31-34, 43, 60, 67, 73, 75, 78, 87-88, 91, 97-100, 102-103, 107, 160, 192, 224, 231, 237, 248, 256, 282, 288, 294, 300-303, 313, 316, 331, 338, 340, 355, 376 Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 2 Not a finding of fact. 108 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Monroe County's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 3, Footnote 4, 42, 55, 93-94, 115, 125-127, 130, 173, 178, and 181. Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 10 The third sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 13 The second sentence to the next to last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence and the rest of the proposed finding is not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. "DCA" did not amend Policy 1. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and there has been no challenge to the rules that address Policy 1. 48 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and there has been no challenge to the rules that address Policy 1. 58 The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 133 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 138 The first two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 146 The last three sentences are not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally true, the proposed finding ignores the fact that the evidence failed to prove that the lack of action by the Service is because the key deer have not reached their carrying capacity, which is the issue in these proceedings. The first two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not relevant. 157-159 Although generally correct summaries of some testimony, these proposed findings are not relevant. 160-163 These proposed findings are generally accepted. They do not, however, justify failing to recognize that the carrying capacity of the key deer has been exceeded. Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 170 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 189 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 191 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 193 The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 195 The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 202 The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 203 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 204 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 205 Not relevant. 205 Not relevant. DeCarion's Proposed Findings of Fact Findings of fact after number 53 have not been numbered in DeCarion's proposed order. They are referred to in this Appendix by the titles of the portion of the proposed order under which they appear. Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 1, 25-29, 32, 35-38 Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 1 No evidence to support this proposed finding was presented. Standing was, however, stipulated to. 7-16 Although generally correct, the conclusions reached in these proposed findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 19 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 24 The first sentence is not relevant. 43-44 While these proposed findings are an accurate reflection of some of the testimony in these proceedings, the conclusions suggested by DeCarion are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 46-48 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 49-50 Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The third sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. "Five-Year Moratorium on Hotel-Motel Construction": The second paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. "Marina Expansion Restrictions": The second paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Wilderness Society's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed findings of fact which are hereby accepted in whole or in part: 1, 7, 10, 12, 29, 34, 71-72, 81, 87, 138, 141 Proposed findings of fact which are rejected in whole or in part: 3-6 Not relevant. 73-75 Not relevant. 88-89 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 102-103 Not relevant. Not relevant. The first paragraph is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 117-130 Not relevant. 147-248 Not relevant. 154 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 159-161 Not relevant. APPENDIX B ORIGINAL AND REMEDIAL PLAN CHALLENGE CASES: CASE NUMBERS 91-1932GM AND 93-3371GM TABLE OF CONTENTS APPEARANCES. 3
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 Whether the proposed amendment to the St. Johns County 2015 Future Land Use Map (FLUM), adopted by Ordinance No. 2002-31, is "in compliance" with the relevant provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part, II, Florida Statutes. A second issue raised by St. Johns County (County) and The Estuaries Limited Liability Company (Estuaries) is whether, if the proposed amendment is not "in compliance," it is nevertheless valid and authorized pursuant to Chapter 70, Florida Statutes, the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Julie Parker, resides in St. Augustine, Florida, less than one and one-half miles from the proposed project site. Parker also owns other property in St. Johns County. Parker submitted oral comments to the County at the adoption hearing on May 28, 2002, regarding the FLUM Amendment and Ordinance No. 2002-31. The parties agreed that Parker has standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The County proceeded with the evaluation and appraisal report process in 1997 and 1998. This process ultimately resulted in the adoption of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and Adopted EAR-Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment in May 2000 (May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment), which was subjected to a sufficiency review by the Department and found "in compliance." Estuaries owns the 9.99 acres (the Property) that is the subject of the FLUM Amendment. Estuaries also owns approximately 8.5 acres outside, adjacent to, and west of the Property. The 8.5 acres are subject to a Conservation Easement, which prohibits any development activity thereon. (The total contiguous land owned by Estuaries is approximately 18.5 acres.) The parties stipulated that the legal description of the Property attached to Ordinance No. 2002-31 contains less than 10 acres. Estuaries submitted comments to the County at the adoption hearing on May 28, 2002, regarding the FLUM amendment. Estuaries has standing to participate as a party in this proceeding. The Property The Property is part of a larger tract owned by Estuaries, i.e., approximately 9.9 acres out of a total tract of approximately 18.5 acres. The entire 18.5 acre tract is located on Anastasia Island, a barrier island, which extends from the St. Augustine Inlet to the Matanzas Inlet. According to the 2000 Census, there are approximately 12,000 dwelling units on Anastasia Island. This includes condominium units and single-family units. The approximately 18.5-acre site is also located in the Coastal High Hazard Area under the County May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment. The Property is part of Butler Beach (bordering the Atlantic Ocean), which is an historic area because it was settled in the early 1900's by black citizens and provided them with access to the beach, which was previously unavailable. However, no historic structures or uses have occurred on the Property. The entire 18.5 acre tract is located on the south side of Riverside Boulevard. The Property is located approximately 300 feet west of Highway A1A South (A1A runs north and south). The Intracoastal Waterway and the Matanzas River are west and adjacent to the 18.5 acres. The Estuaries site is also located adjacent to the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). The Property is vacant, partially wooded, and also consists of undeveloped wetlands. Of the 9.99 acres, approximately 6.7 acres are uplands and developable, and 3.29 acres are wetlands. As noted, the remaining approximately 8.5 acres of the Estuaries' property, and to the west of the Property, is subject to a Conservation Easement in favor of the County. The properties adjacent to the Property include the following: Single-family residential units are located along and on the north side Riverside Boulevard. The existing FLUM designations for this area are Residential Coastal Density A and C, with the existing zoning of open rural (OR). (Residential Coastal Density C permits 2.0 to 4.0 units per acre.) The Intracoastal portion of Butler State Park is to the south of the Property, with a FLUM designation of parks and open space and existing zoning of OR and is not in a conservation area. To the east of the Property is a utility substation site, Butler Avenue, various commercial uses, Island House Rentals or Condominiums (three-story oceanfront condominiums), and the Mary Street Runway. There is another condominium called Creston House, directly south of the Butler Park (ocean portion) area (distinguished from the Butler State Park), consisting of three stories. (Butler Park and Creston House are located east of A1A and southeast of the Estuaries property.) The existing FLUM designations are Coastal Residential Coastal Density A and C, and have existing zoning designations of Residential General (RG)-1 and Commercial General (CG). There are no Residential Density D FLUM land use designations in the contiguous area. In short, the Property is proximate to a state park, a densely developed area comprised of small residential lots of 25 by 100 feet lots, and the two three-story condominiums, which were built prior to the adoption of the County's 1990 Comprehensive Plan. The County's Comprehensive Plan and EAR-Based Amendments On September 14, 1990, the County adopted a Comprehensive Plan-1990-2005, with amendments (the 1990 Plan). Under the 1990 Plan, the Property was assigned a Residential Coastal-A land use designation under the existing FLUM, which meant that residential development was restricted to no more than one residential unit per upland (non-wetland jurisdictional) acre. Under this designation, approximately seven units could have been built on the Property. The zoning on the Property was and is RG-1. According to the County, at least as of a June 11, 1999, letter from the County's principal planner, Timothy W. Brown, A.I.C.P., to Kevin M. Davenport, P.E., the total units which would be allowed on the Property were 116 multi-family units, derived after making a detailed density calculation based in part on using 40 percent of the wetlands used for the density calculation. In May 2000, the County adopted the EAR-Based Plan Amendment, with supporting data and analysis, which the Department of Community Affairs found to be "in compliance." As required by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, this would have included data and analysis for the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), which was adopted as part of these plan amendments. This is part of the data and analysis which supports the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment continued the Residential Coastal A land use designation of the Property, which allows 0.4 to 1.0 units per acre. (Residential Coastal B allows 2.0 units per acre; Residential Coastal C allows 2.0 to 4.0 units per acre; and Residential Coastal D allows 4.0 to 8.0 units per acre.) The Residential Coastal A designation authorizes residential and non-residential uses, such as schools, public service facilities, police, fire, and neighborhood commercial. Restaurants and banks without drive-thru facilities, gasoline pumps, and professional office buildings are examples of neighborhood commercial uses. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment does not limit the lot size, subject to limitations on, for example, impervious surface ratios, which do not change regardless of whether the land use designation is Residential Coastal A or D. Also, any development would also have to comply with the textural provisions of the May 2000 EAR- Based Plan Amendment, including the coastal and conservation elements. The Circuit Court Litigation There are many documents in this case which pertain to the litigation between Estuaries and the County. The civil action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for St. Johns County, Florida, and styled The Estuaries Limited Liability Company v. St. Johns County, Florida, Case No. CA-00271. On February 11, 2000, Estuaries filed a Complaint against the County "relating to certain representations made by the County in connection with the development of certain real property located south of St. Augustine Beach in St. Johns County, Florida." A Second Amended Complaint was filed on or about May 30, 2001. Estuaries claimed that County staff made representations to Estuaries, which resulted in Estuaries having a vested right to develop its Property up to a maximum of 116 multi-family residential units. (The County took the position that Estuaries could build no more than 25 units on the Property.) Estuaries claimed that it had vested rights based upon a claim of equitable estoppel against the County. (One of Estuaries' claims was brought pursuant to the Bert Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, Chapter 70, Florida Statutes.)1 After discovery and the denial of motions for summary judgment, the parties entered into a "Settlement Agreement and Complete Release" (Settlement Agreement). The "General Terms of Settlement" in the Settlement Agreement provided in part: Estuaries shall prepare and file an application to amend the future land use map of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan to amend the designation of only that portion of the Property such that Estuaries may build 56 multi-family residential units on the Property and such that the amendment be a "Small-scale Amendment" as defined by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. Estuaries agrees on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns to build not more than 56 units on the Property. County will waive or pay the application fee and will expedite its processing. The parties will forthwith prepare and submit to the Court a joint motion for the approval of this Agreement pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, §70.001(4)(d)2. During the review and consideration of the amendment application, the County will expeditiously process the Estuaries' revised construction plans and, in connection therewith, the construction codes in effect as of November 13, 2001 (to the extent the County may do so without violating county, state or federal law), the existing certificate of concurrency and the terms of the vesting letter as it relates to the Land Development Code, of Sonya Doerr dated September 27, 1999, shall continue to apply. In all other respects, the revised construction plans shall comply with all other Comprehensive Plan and County ordinances and regulations. On or about November 16, 2001, counsel for the parties signed a Joint Motion, requesting the circuit court to approve the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 70.001(4)(d)2., Florida Statutes. On November 16, 2001, Circuit Judge John Michael Traynor, entered an "Order Approving Settlement Agreement pursuant to Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act." Judge Traynor stated in part: The central issue in this litigation has been the number of dwelling units that would be permitted on the Property. The issues in the case are legally complex and, although the credibility of the testimony and authenticity of the exhibits expected to be introduced was not expected to be substantially in dispute or challenged, the meaning of the testimony and the meaning and inferences to be drawn from such evidence was very much in dispute. The issues included the extent of vested rights, the extent to which estoppel may be applied to the County, contractual liability, and potential liability under the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act . . . and the relief requested included the request for a declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to build up to 116 dwelling units on the Property and damages against the County. Judge Traynor also "Ordered and Adjudged," in part: Pursuant to Florida Statute § 70.001(4)(a) & (c) and applicable law, this Court finds that proper notice of a Bert Harris Act claim was timely provided to the County, and other governmental entities, and the County did make a written settlement offer to the Plaintiff, in accordance with the Bert Harris Act, that was accepted by Plaintiff. Florida Statute § 70.001(4)(c) permits, inter alia, for an adjustment of land development provisions controlling the development of a plaintiff's property; increases or modifications in the density, intensity, or use of areas of development; the transfer of development rights; conditioning the amount of development or use permitted; issuance of a development order, a variance, special exceptions, or other extraordinary relief; and such other actions specified in the statute. While the parties may dispute whether an amendment is necessary to the County's Comprehensive Plan, the parties have agreed that the Plaintiff shall submit a small-scale amendment to the County for consideration and approval pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. . .; without waiver of either party's rights to contest and defend the necessity of submitting such an amendment, in light of this Court's approval of the settlement agreement pursuant to the Bert Harris Act and applicable law. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement and Complete Release is fair, reasonable and adequate; is in the best interests of the parties and protects the public interest served by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. . .; and is the appropriate relief necessary to prevent the County's regulatory efforts from inordinately burdening the Property with regard to density, impact on public services, the environment and the public health, safety and welfare of the community and the rights of individuals to reasonably utilize their property and to rely on the representations of government, taking into consideration the risks that both parties had in this litigation. This litigation has been ongoing for more than 18 months, and substantial discovery and record has been presented to the Court that provides ample basis for this Court's approval of this settlement as being fair, reasonable and adequate and appropriate under the Bert Harris Act. There is no evidence before the Court that would suggest that the proposed settlement is the result of any collusion among the parties or their counsel. In fact, the record is to the contrary, whereby counsel on both sides have aggressively and zealously pursued the interests of their respective clients. . . . Judge Traynor directed the parties to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement, "subject to the right of the public to comment at an appropriate public hearing pertaining to the above referenced small scale amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan, and shall cooperate to accomplish in good faith the responsibilities under the Settlement Agreement and Complete Release." There is no evidence that Judge Traynor's Order has been rescinded or otherwise modified. There is no statutory authority to collaterally attack Judge Traynor's Order in this proceeding nor is there any authority which provides that this Order can be ignored. Also, this is not the appropriate proceeding to determine whether Estuaries has, in fact, vested rights. Accordingly, Judge Traynor's Order, approving the Settlement Agreement, is accepted as binding authority. The Small Scale Development Application In compliance with Judge Traynor's Order and the Settlement Agreement, on March 26, 2002, Estuaries filed a "Small Scale Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Form" with the County. Estuaries requested a change in the Property's FLUM designation from Residential Coastal A, Zoning RG-1 to Residential Coastal D, Zoning RG-1. Estuaries represented, in part, that the Property consisted of 9.99 acres of vacant land, including 3.2 acres of wetlands and approximately 6.7 acres of developable land (uplands) "which will be developed into a 56 unit Multi-Family Condominium." County staff reviewed the application and recommended approval. As part of the agenda item for consideration by the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, County staff, in light of the criterion of "Consistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, State Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Florida Regional Policy Plan," stated: "[t]he approved Settlement Agreement was filed pursuant to Chapter 70.001." With respect to "Impacts on Public Facilities and Services," County staff stated: "The project has received a Certificate of Concurrency addressing the impacts on transportation, water, sewer, recreation, drainage, solid waste and mass transit. The Certificate of Concurrency is based on impacts of 84 multi-family dwelling units. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the project contains 56 multi-family dwelling units. St. Johns County provides central water and sewer." With respect to "Compatibility with Surrounding Area," County staff stated: "The area is developed with a mixture of residential, commercial, park (Butler Park), and vacant land of various zoning." According to Mr. Scott Clem, the County's Director of Growth Management Services, County staff felt that there were adequate public facilities for a 56-unit project, because Estuaries had previously demonstrated that facilities were available for an 84-unit project. However, County staff expressly noted in the Planning Department Staff Report submitted to the Planning and Zoning Agency that "[t]here are no development plans included in the Application. However, all site engineering, drainage and required infrastructure improvements will be reviewed pursuant to the Development Review Process to ensure that the development complies with all applicable federal, state and local regulations and permitting requirements. No permits shall authorize development prior to compliance with all applicable regulations." At this point in time, County staff were "analyzing the potential for 56 units to be on the property. It was a site specific analysis at that point." On April 18, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Agency unanimously recommended approval of the FLUM amendment. After a properly noticed public hearing, on May 28, 2002, the County approved the FLUM Amendment in Ordinance 2002- 31. In Ordinance 2002-31, the County approved the FLUM Amendment at issue, which changed the FLUM land use classification of the Property from Residential Coastal A to Residential Coastal D. Ordinance 2002-31 also provided: "The Land Uses allowed by this Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be limited to not more than 56 residential units, built in not more than four buildings with residential uses, not more than 35 feet in height." The Challenge Parker filed an Amended Petition challenging the lack of data and analysis to support the FLUM Amendment; challenging the increase in density of the Property located in a Coastal High Hazard Area; challenging the internal consistency of the FLUM Amendment with the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment; challenging the decision by the County to process the application as a small scale development amendment; and challenging the failure to provide Parker with adequate notice of a clear point of entry to challenge Ordinance No. 2002-31. Notice The County provided notice, by newspaper, of the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of May 28, 2002. Before this meeting, a sign was placed on the Property, providing notice of the meeting. Parker personally attended the May 28, 2002, meeting and addressed the Commission regarding the FLUM Amendment. Ordinance No. 2002-31 provided: "This ordinance shall take effect 31 days after adoption. If challenged within 30 days after adoption, this ordinance shall not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted small scale amendment is in compliance." This Ordinance does not advise a person of the right to challenge the Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Uniform Rules of Procedure, or Section 163.3187(3)(a), Florida Statutes. This type of notice is not required for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law. Does the FLUM Amendment, covering 9.99 acres, involve a "use" of 10 acres or fewer, pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes? "A small scale development amendment may be adopted only [if] [t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes.2 In the Amended Petition and in her Prehearing Stipulation, Parker contends that the "use," which is the subject of the FLUM Amendment, relates to more than the 9.99 acre parcel and, therefore, the FLUM Amendment is not a small scale development amendment defined in Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker contended that because the FLUM Amendment authorizes a maximum of 56 residential units to be developed on the Property, and the maximum density under the Residential Coastal D and RG-1 zoning designations is 42.12 units, using the on-site wetlands density bonus, that Estuaries "must be using the off-site wetlands that are contained within the 18.5 acre parcel to obtain the density credit necessary to reach 56 units for the site under" the FLUM Amendment. The 56 residential unit maximum was the product of the circuit court litigation and Settlement Agreement, as approved by Judge Traynor, which resolved the differences between the County and Estuaries regarding the maximum residential density which could be authorized on the Property. Parker also contended that because Estuaries may use a proposed lift station owned by the County off-site, that this causes the proposed "use" of the Property to exceed 10 acres. It appears that at some prior time in the "vesting rights" chronology of events, Magnolia S Corporation, in order to downscale the project, agreed to sell a 40' by 80' parcel to the County, located adjacent to the Property and in the northeast portion, to expand the existing County lift station on Riverside Boulevard. There is a lift station adjacent to the Property that serves as "a repump station that serves the development along Riverside [Boulevard] west of the lift station and serves all the development in St. Johns County on the island south of Riverside Boulevard." It is proposed that sewage effluent from development on the Property would be deposited on site and then pumped into an adjacent force main which eventually ends up in the station. According to Mr. Kevin Davenport, Estuaries' civil engineer, "56 units added to that pump station would be extremely miniscule in the overall amount of sewage that goes through it." Thus, Estuaries anticipates having their own on-site lift station, which "would be pumped through a pipe to the Riverside right-of- way, where it would connect to an existing county-owned pipe which currently goes to the lift station." Mr. Clem stated that "[u]tilities are very commonly done off site where water or sewer distribution or transmission lines are constructed to the site." This would include the use of off- site lift stations. However, the proposed use of the lift station does not necessarily compel the conclusion that the FLUM Amendment exceeds 9.99 acres. If this were so, any proposed use of any off-site utilities would cause a pro rata calculation and increase of the size of the site providing the service, then be added to the 9.99 acres. This is not a reasonable construction of Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker also claimed that when the Estuaries granted the County a Conservation Easement for the approximately 8.5 acres (out of 18.5 acres) of wetlands adjacent to the Property, Estuaries "used" this property to secure the FLUM Amendment, and therefore, exceeded the 9.99 acres. The Conservation Easement precludes development activity on the approximately 8.51 acres. ("The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to assure that the Property will be retained forever in its existing natural condition and to prevent any use of the Property that will impair or interfere with the environmental value of the property." Prohibited uses include "[a]ctivities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, or fish and wildlife habitat preservation.") The "use" of the 8.51 acres as a potential visual amenity for potential residents on the Property is not a "use" within a reasonable reading of Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker also suggested that Estuaries will need to improve Riverside Boulevard (paving and drainage) and the public right-of-way consisting of approximately 1.51 acres, which is not owned by Estuaries. It appears that Riverside Boulevard is already open, improved, and paved. Also, Mr. Clem stated that it is common to have off-site improvements associated with a project, which might include intersection or roadway improvements that are not on or within the project site. Mr. Clem opined that while these improvements would be required for the project, they would have been off-site. Some improvements, such as improvements to Riverside Boulevard, would most likely benefit the general public, and not be limited to the future residents on the Property. It is common for local governments to require improvements to public infrastructure as a condition of development. These off-site improvements do not necessarily make the "development activity" larger than the size of the landowner's site, here the Property. Data and Analysis Parker contended that the FLUM Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. As noted herein, Estuaries sought approval of a FLUM Amendment for its Property, i.e., a land use change to the FLUM. No text (goals, objectives, and policies) changes to the May 2000 EAR-Based Amendment were requested nor made. This is normal for a "site-specific small scale development activity." Section 163.3187(1)(c)1.d., Florida Statutes. Consideration of the FLUM Amendment in this proceeding is unusual for several reasons. First, the necessity for the FLUM change arose as a result of the Settlement Agreement, approved by Judge Traynor, which resolved the differences existing between the County and Estuaries regarding the number of units which could, as a maximum number, be developed on the Property. Second, the data and analysis, which normally is presented to the local government, here the County, at the time the plan amendment is adopted, is not in its traditional format here, largely, it appears, because of the manner in which consideration of the FLUM Amendment arose. Nevertheless, this situation is not fatal for, under existing precedent, see, e.g., Conclusion of Law 96, data, which was in existence at the time the FLUM Amendment was adopted by the County, may be considered in determining whether there is, in fact, adequate data supporting the FLUM Amendment. The data relied on by the County and Estuaries to support the FLUM Amendment was compiled and initially presented to the County on or about July 6, 1999, when Estuaries sought authorization from the County for a proposed project to construct 84 multi-family residential units on the same general area as the Property. This started the County's development review process. Estuaries began the process at this time, believing that it had "vested rights" to develop the Property. Mr. Clem explained that the development review process is "extremely detailed. It involves 11 or 12 different programs within the [C]ounty, looking at everything from the actual site plan itself, water and sewer provision, for all the things that would go into site construction, roadway design, the environmental considerations. We basically look at how this site will be developed in accordance with the land development code and any other regulations. We ensure that the water management district permits are obtained, if applicable, or other state agencies." This record contains County Department comments which pertain to a host of issues, including but not limited to, drainage, traffic, fire services, urban forestry (trees and landscape on-site), utilities, zoning (e.g., buffers, setbacks), concurrency requirements, etc. County staff raised questions (identified as submittals) on at least four separate occasions followed by written responses by the applicant on at least three occasions. However, not all issues were resolved. A July 1999, Land Development Traffic Assessment, prepared by Beachside Consulting Engineers, Inc., was submitted to the County as part of the request for a concurrency determination. The analysis "indicates that the roadway segments within the impact area will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS through the construction of this project." The "Summary" of the assessment states: "This project meets traffic concurrency standards, as defined by the St. Johns County Concurrency Management Ordinance, for all roads within the traffic area." "Stormwater Calculations" for the 84-unit, multi-family housing development were also provided in a report dated July 7, 1999. The applicant also furnished the County with a "geotechnical report," which analyzed the soil conditions related to storm water ponds and to the placement of the buildings and the support of the buildings on the site. Soil borings and other testing revealed the capabilities of the soil for, for example, percolation rates for the storm water ponds. There is no evidence that there are any specific historic buildings or geological or archeological features on the Property. In July 1999, the applicant submitted an application for concurrency. At that time, County staff analyzed this information to ensure that public facilities and services were in place to serve the project. This application was reviewed in relation to the County's concurrency management provisions of the County's Land Development Code. On September 3, 1999, the County's Planning Department prepared a report regarding this application and recommended "approval of a Final Certificate of Concurrency with Conditions for the development of 84 residential condominium units." (Staff made findings of fact, which included a discussion of traffic, potable water/sanitary sewer, drainage, solid waste, and mass transit.) On September 8, 1999, the Concurrency Review Committee met and adopted the Staff's Findings of Fact with conditions, including but not limited to, the applicant providing a copy of the Department of Environmental Protection permits "necessary for connection to central water and wastewater service prior to Construction Plan approval," and "[t]he applicant receiving approval of construction/drainage plans from the Development Services Department prior to commencement of construction." The Final Certificate of Concurrency with Conditions was issued on October 1, 1999, and was due to expire on September 8, 2001. However, the Settlement Agreement provided, in part, that "the existing certificate of concurrency and the terms of the vesting letter as it relates to the Land development Code, of Sonya Doerr dated September 27, 1999, shall continue to apply." (Emphasis added.) (Ms. Teresa Bishop's (County Planning Director) November 7, 2001, letter indicated, in part, that Estuaries' request for "tolling [of the Final Certificate of Concurrency] cannot be reviewed until the outcome of the pending litigation is known. . . . After the litigation is concluded, your request for tolling may be resubmitted for review." The Settlement Agreement post-dates this letter.) In evaluating a small scale plan amendment, County staff evaluates the availability of public services which, according to Mr. Clem, is "one of the major components," and County staff "is looking at virtually the same issues that [the County] would look at in concurrency to evaluate and make recommendations on small scale amendments." Mr. Clem also advised that the County's analysis of the 84-unit project did not involve, and was not based on, "a specific site plan with buildings at a certain location or parking in a certain location. It was more an 84- unit project with certain data and analysis associated with that site or project." By letter dated October 4, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection indicated that it had received a "Notification for Use of the General Permit for Construction of an Extension to a Drinking Water Distribution System" submitted for the Estuaries project. The Department stated further: "After reviewing the notice, it appears that your project will have minimal adverse environmental effect and apparently can be constructed pursuant to a general permit as described in Chapter 62-555, F.A.C." The permit expires on October 4, 2004. This permit allows the applicant to demonstrate that it will offer a central water service, available to be served through the County's utility department. This would ensure that there is sufficient potable water available. By letter dated October 6, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection also issued a permit for the construction of a sewage collection/transmission system (domestic waste). By letter dated November 11, 1999, the St. Johns Water Management District issued a "formal permit for construction and operation of stormwater management system." This permit authorized "[a] new stormwater system with stormwater treatment by wet detention to serve Estuaries Multi-family Development, a 5.88 acre project to be constructed as per plans received by the District on 7/12/1999." This permit did not relieve the applicant "from the responsibility for obtaining permits from any federal, state, and/or local agencies asserting concurrent jurisdiction over this work." Mr. Clem believed that this permit was evidence that "the state agencies ha[d] considered the environmental issues relating to storm water and all the issues that they deal with in issuing a permit." The Property is located in a "development area boundary" as indicated on the FLUM, which means that these areas allow "development potential." Other areas, such as rural silviculture and agricultural lands, are outside the development area and only limited and low density development is allowed. Conservation areas are also designated on the FLUM. Given the location of the Property within the development area boundary, the County thereby eliminated the necessity of producing some of the data normally required.3 Mr. Clem explained: So by being within a development area boundary it's in essence already had rights to develop, depending on the classification what those rights are, whether it's residential, commercial, industrial. So by virtue of the fact that this site [the Property] was already in the developmental boundary, we didn't deal with issues such as need, which is a big issue in the county when we add developmental boundary. Is there need for additional residential units, and so forth. So that is one part of the answer. The other part is when we're looking at changing from one residential classification to another, we're not dealing with the same issues we might have if it was going from residential to commercial or residential to industrial. So in the context of a plan amendment like this, we're looking at what can this land support in terms of density and are there public facilities available? Is it generally compatible with the surrounding area? What are the potential impacts to natural resources? So those things are still analyzed, but they're done in a probably more confined context. And then the other factor is this being a small scale amendment further reduces the amount of data that is typically done. And if it was a major amendment, there's a whole new range of issues when we deal with major amendments. By definition, they can cause more of an impact. For Mr. Clem, the data and analysis which was generated during the concurrency process for the proposed 84-unit project was significant and would be applicable to a proposed 56-unit project. Mr. Clem opined that the data for this small scale amendment was "[f]ar in excess of anything [he had] seen in the county." Environmental Impacts of the FLUM Amendment The area on and around the Estuaries' property is an area of tidal marsh intermixed with upland scrub. Many wildlife species have been seen utilizing the wetlands on and adjacent to the Estuaries' site (the 18.5 acre parcel). These include woodstorks, snowy egrets, roseate spoonbills, little blue herons, tri-colored herons, white ibis, and ospreys. Owls, foxes, raccoons, opossums, fiddler crabs, clams, fish, shrimp, and turtles also frequent the area. Parker's environmental scientist and ecologist, Mr. Robert Burks, testified to the environmental effects of any development of the Property subject to the FLUM Amendment. Mr. Burks has worked with American Institute of Certified Planners (A.I.C.P.) designated planners, providing them with opinions with respect to environmental issues. But he is not an expert in land use planning. The National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) is a program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal program administered by the Department of Environmental Protection. It is a program to do research and education on estuarine systems. The estuarine ecosystem composed of the Guana, Tolomato, and Matanzas Rivers has been designated as a NERR. There is testimony that development and increases in population in the area, in general, have been responsible for, for example, the decline and closure of shell-fishing and decline of water quality in the area. Conservation Goal E.2 provides: The County shall conserve, utilize, and protect the natural resources of the area, including air, water, wetlands, water wells, estuaries, water bodies, soils, minerals, vegetative communities, wildlife, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge areas and other natural and environmental resources, insuring that resources are available for existing and future generations. Objective E.2.2 provides: Native Forests, Floodplains, Wetlands, Upland Communities, and Surface Water The County shall protect native forests, floodplains, wetlands, upland communities, and surface waters within the County from development impacts to provide for maintenance of environmental quality and wildlife habitats. Policy E.2.2.5.(a)(1)(b) provides: The County shall protect Environmentally Sensitive lands (ESLs) through the establishment of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which address the alternate types of protection for each type of Environmentally Sensitive Land. Adoption and implementation of the Land Development Regulations shall, at a minimum, address the following issues: For Wetlands, Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), and Estuaries: establish and modify buffers between the wetlands/ OFW/ estuaries and upland development as stated in the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and as follows: * * * Except a minimum of a 50 ft. natural vegetative upland buffer shall be required and maintained between the development areas and the St. Johns, Matanzas, Guana and Tolomato Rivers and their associated tributaries, streams and other interconnecting water bodies. Policy E.2.2.13(b)(6) provides: By December 1999, the County shall develop and adopt guidelines and standards for the preservation and conservation of uplands through various land development techniques as follows: (b) The County shall recognize the following vegetative natural communities as Significant Natural Communities Habitat. Due to the rarity of these vegetative communities, a minimum of 10 percent of the total acreage of the Significant Natural Communities Habitat (excluding bona fide agriculture and/or silviculture operations) shall be preserved and maintained by the development. * * * (6) Scrub. Where on-site preservation of the native upland communities are not feasible, the County as an alternative shall accept a fee in lieu of preservation or off-site mitigation in accordance with the County Land Development Regulations. Mr. Burks opined that "generally," and if Goal E.2 is read "literally", the FLUM Amendment did not meet this Goal and afford protection for wetlands, vegetative communities, estuaries, wildlife and wildlife habitat. He perceives that "[a]nytime there's a development there will be impacts to the estuarine--the water bodies because of surficial runoff from the parking lots, from the impervious surfaces, and it will carry pollutants into those areas. And that includes soils also. . . . As far as upland habitat, when you develop an area like this, unless you leave certain parts, the upland habitat will be negatively impacted obviously. There won't be the trees there, the vegetation that was normally there before the development." For Mr. Burks, any development of the Property would generally be inconsistent with the Plan provisions recited above. But, his opinion is specifically based on how each system or plan for the site, or here, the Property, is actually designed--"it would depend on the design of the housing structures themselves and where they were placed. If you design anything in a manner which is going to protect that buffer and literally protect the water quality and the runoff in that area, then you may--it may not violate it." For example, if the Property were developed with 25-foot buffers instead of 50-foot buffers, Mr. Burks says that, from an ecology standpoint, there would be insufficient protection for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. He offered the same opinion if the FLUM Amendment did not require a minimum ten percent set aside of the total acreage for significant natural communities habitat on the Property, such as, scrub of approximately 6.7 acres, a protected vegetative community existing on the upland portion of the Property. Furthermore, Parker introduced into evidence proposed site plans for the Property dated May 24, 2002, which show, in part, a 25-foot buffer, not a 50-foot buffer.4 Parker contends that these site plans are the best available data and analysis regarding whether the FLUM Amendment is "in compliance." However, the purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether the FLUM Amendment is "in compliance," not whether specific draft, and not approved, site plans are "in compliance" with the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment or the LDRs. If site plans are approved and a development order issued by the County, Parker, and any other aggrieved or adversely affected party may file a challenge pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. But, this is not the appropriate proceeding to challenge proposed site plans. This is not to say that proposed site plans cannot be considered data and analysis; only that they are not incorporated in the FLUM Amendment and are not subject to challenge here. See The Sierra Club, et al. v. St. John County, et al., Case Nos. 01- 1851GM and 01-1852GM (Recommended Order May 20, 2002; Final Order July 30, 2002). Internal Consistency Parker contended that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment. Some of these issues have been discussed above in Findings of Fact 68 to 80, pertaining to environmental considerations. Another issue is whether the FLUM Amendment, which changes the maximum density on the Property, is inconsistent with Policy E.1.3.11 which provides: "The County shall not approve Comprehensive Plan Amendments that increase the residential density on the Future Land Use Map within the Coastal High Hazard Area." See also Policy A.1.5.6 which offers almost identical language. The FLUM Amendment changes the land use designation of the Property, and allows a land use "limited to not more than 56 residential units, built in not more than four buildings with residential uses, not more than 35 feet in height," and thus allows a potential increase in the density of the Property, located in the Coastal High Hazard Area. This resulted from the Settlement Agreement. In Policy A.1.11.6, [t]he County recognizes that the Plan's Objectives and Policies sometime serve to support competing interests. Accordingly, in such instances, and in the absence of a mandatory prohibition of the activity at issue, it is the County's intent that the Plan be construed as a whole and that potentially competing Objectives and Policies be construed together so as to render a balanced interpretation of the Plan. It is the further intent that the County interpretation of the Plan, whether by County staff, the Planning & Zoning Agency, or the Board of County Commissioners, shall be afforded appropriate deference. County interpretations of the Plan which balance potentially competing Objectives and Policies shall not be overturned in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the County interpretation has misapplied the Plan construed as a whole. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment Goals, Objectives, and Policies must be read in their entirety and individual provisions cannot be read in isolation. Objective E.1.3 requires the County to engage in "post disaster planning, coastal area redevelopment, and hurricane preparedness. The County shall prepare post-disaster redevelopment plans which reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards." Mr. Clem opined that Policy E.1.3.11, see Finding of Fact 81, expressed "the general intent of limiting population increases that would result in adverse impacts to hurricane evacuation of the coastal areas," and, in particular, the "barrier islands." (Policy E.1.9.5, under Objective E.1.9 Hurricane Evacuation Time, provides: "St. Johns County shall attempt to limit the density within the Coastal High Hazard Area as allowed by law.") Mr. Clem further stated that the FLUM Amendment, which restricted the Property to a maximum of 56 residential units, from a possible 116 unit maximum, was consistent with the Policy which restricts density within the coastal hazard zone. In rendering his opinions, Mr. Clem balanced the above- referenced Policies with Objective A.1.16, pertaining to "private property rights." When these May 2002 EAR-Based Plan Amendment provisions are read together, it appears that Mr. Clem's interpretations are not unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Department of Community Affairs concluding that the FLUM Amendment adopted by St. Johns County in Ordinance No. 2002-31 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 17th day of December, 2002.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Broward County Ordinance 1999-26, amending the Broward County Comprehensive Plan (Plan), is "in compliance," as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and more specifically whether that portion of PCT 99-2, adopted through Ordinance 1999-26, which limits the use of flexibility units and reserve units east of the Intracoastal Waterway is not "in compliance" under Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged by the City of Hallandale Beach.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Petitioner, the City of Hallandale Beach (the City or Hallandale) is an incorporated municipality located in Broward County, Florida. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City has adopted the City of Hallandale Comprehensive Plan (the City's Plan). In August of 1999, the City of Hallandale officially changed its name to the City of Hallandale Beach. The Respondent, Broward County (the County or Broward) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is a charter county. The County has adopted the Broward County Comprehensive Plan (the County's Plan). The Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), is the state land planning agency which under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, is responsible for, among other things, the review of municipal and county comprehensive plans to determine if the plans, and subsequent amendments thereto, are "in compliance" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Standing The transmittal hearing for the proposed amendment was conducted on February 23, 1999. The adoption hearing was held June 22, 1999. During the plan amendment process, the City submitted three letters dated January 22, 1999, February 11, 1999, and April 30, 1999, in opposition to the proposed amendment. These letters, along with other materials in support of and in opposition to the proposed amendment were forwarded to the Department in the adopted amendment package on June 30, 1999. The City is an "affected person" under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The County Charter The Charter of Broward County took effect on January 1, 1975. (The current Charter submitted as Joint Exhibit 1 is revised as of November 5, 2002). With reference to land use planning, the County Charter in Article VIII creates the Broward County Planning Council (Planning Council). The Planning Council is the local planning agency for the Broward County Land Use Plan (BCLUP). The Planning Council employs a staff, which includes professional planners, gathers data, performs analyses of data, conducts hearings, and recommends the adoption of land use ordinances by the Broward County Commission. The Planning Council has final authority over the approval, or recertification, of municipal land use plans and amendments. Under the Charter, the County has primary responsibility for land use planning. Municipal comprehensive plans must be in conformity with the BCLUP. Pursuant to section 11.01 of the Charter, County Ordinances relating to land use planning prevail over municipal ordinances. Flexibility Units/Reserve Units Broward County is a highly urbanized, fast-growing county located in the southeastern portion of Florida. The estimated 1998 population was 1,460,890, a 16.4 percent increase over the 1990 census. In addition to the County government, there are 29 municipalities in the County. In November 1977, Broward County first devised the concept of allowing flexibility to municipalities in land use planning by creating "flexibility units" (flex units) which could be used by municipalities in land use planning. The number of flex units is equal to the difference between the density permitted on the BCLUP map and the density permitted on the applicable municipal land use plan for any particular parcel of land. Flex units are unique to Broward County in the State of Florida. The entire County is divided into 126 flexibility zones. Each flexibility zone has a determined number of available flex units based on the difference in densities between the future BCLUP map and the municipal land use plan. Within each of the 126 flexibility zones, designated on the future BCLUP map, the appropriate municipality may rearrange and revise land uses and densities, within limits specified in the County Plan, without the necessity of an amendment to the County Plan. The total density within any particular flexibility zone cannot exceed the density on the future BCLUP map. The Administrative Rules Document contains rules and procedures regulating flexibility zones and units. Modifications to flexibility zones may be requested by the municipality, the County, or the Planning Council, subject to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Municipal plan amendments revising land uses by use of flex units within flexibility zones are subject only to recertification by the Planning Council. Without the use of flex units, the land use category for a particular piece of property on the BCLUP map can be amended through an amendment to the BCLUP. "Reserve units" are additional permitted dwelling units equal to 2 percent of the total number of dwelling units permitted in a flexibility zone by the future BCLUP map. Reserve units function similarly to flex units and may be allocated by a municipality to rearrange and revise densities within a flexibility zone. For the purpose of this Recommended Order, reserve units shall be treated as flex units. Hallandale contains flexibility zones 93 and 94. Review of the Operation of Flexibility Rules In 1996, in response to state requirements for periodic evaluations of county comprehensive plans, the planning council staff, including Henry Sniezek of the County planning staff, prepared the Broward County Land Use Plan "Flexibility Rules" Study. After many hours spent obtaining data and analyses, the staff recommended that flexibility rules include more consideration of compatibility with surrounding land uses and the impacts on public schools. The 1996 report concluded: (1) that flexibility rules generally continued to serve the purpose of allowing local governments to address local planning issues and market concerns; (2) that local governments have utilized the flexibility rules consistent with their intent; and (3) that flexibility rules should continue to be available for local government use. The issue which is the subject of this proceeding, as to whether flex units should continue to be authorized for land planning uses in areas east of the Intracoastal Waterway to increase density from 25 to 50 units per acre, was not specifically within the scope of the 1996 report. Coastal Densities An April 24, 1998, version of the County land uses plan map, which is apparently still in force, designated a number of parcels throughout Broward County, east of the Intracoastal Waterway on the Atlantic Ocean, as land use category "H," for high density dwellings of 50 units per gross acre. Under the Broward County land use regulations, gross acreage is calculated by including the property owned by the landowner and half of adjacent right-of-way. In County-designated "H" parcels, developments of 50 units per acre are permitted, without the need to allocate flex units to the parcels. The Hallandale Ordinance In 1998, Hallandale passed an Ordinance 1998-3, creating a new Residential High Density-2 Land Use Designation (HD-2), allowing developments up to 50 residential dwelling units per acre, but only by the allocation of available flex units. On June 1, 1999, the Mayor of Hallandale was notified, by letter, that the land use element, as amended to create the HD-2 category, was recertified by the Planning Council. The recertification process constitutes a determination that the municipal plan amendment substantially conforms to the County Plan. The DCA found Hallandale's HD-2 ordinance in compliance. The Regional Planning Council determines whether comprehensive plan amendments comply with the 1995 Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Planning Council approved the City's HD-2 category as consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The intent of the ordinance was to promote and attract redevelopment to Hallandale, particularly the beach area, where many buildings date from the 1960's and 1970's, and may be approaching the end of their useful lives. The City used the HD-2 for the redevelopment of a property called Riviera Beach, which consisted of a deteriorating motel, a restaurant, and offices. The City also used the category to promote the redevelopment of the Ocean Marine property site of another deteriorating motel with a yacht club on the Intracoastal Waterway, which is currently going through the approval process. The City's former Director of Growth Management, Lorenzo Aghemo, opined that with existing average density on the beach in the range of 86 to 89 units an acre, redevelopment up to only 25 dwelling units per acre is not economically advantageous. The Proposed Amendment The Amendment that is the subject of this proceeding began as a "housekeeping" amendment which was initially designed to establish a uniform cap of 50 units per acre for the use of flex units to be consistent throughout the County Plan. During the process of meetings and public hearings before the Planning Council and the County Commission, and in response to comments and suggestions from members and staff as well as comments from DCA, the Planning Council, the Broward County League of Cities and various municipal governments, the Amendment evolved as more particularly described below. The Amendment ultimately became a mechanism to further goals contained in a Governor's Commission report entitled "Eastward Ho!" which was published in July 1996 and discussed in more detail below. A primary focus of the Eastward Ho! report is the recommendation that development in Southeast Florida, including Broward County, should be redirected into a corridor of land that generally consisted of the land between CSX and Florida railroads. The precise parameters of the Eastward Ho! corridor are undefined and the corridor eventually was expanded beyond the lands between the railroads; however, it is agreed that this corridor contains many of the older municipal regions of the County west of the Intracoastal Waterway. In its adopted form, the portion of the County's challenged amendment PCT 99-2, adopted through Ordinance 1999- 26, implements several changes which encourage the redevelopment of the County's urban corridor, and redirects development away from the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) as well as away from the environmentally sensitive western areas of the County. With respect to the use of flex units, the challenged Amendment establishes four areas ("Areas A-D") within the County. Each area is given its own designation regarding the use of flex units. Area A This area generally encompasses all land west of the Urban Infill Area line. It is treated differently from the other areas for planning purposes because of its environmentally sensitive lands. Included in this area are portions of the Florida Everglades, other wetlands and well fields. In recognition of the environmental features of this area, the Amendment restricts the use of flexibility units to a maximum of 25 units an acre and helps to minimize urban sprawl. Area B This area is defined as all land east of the Intracoastal Waterway. It lies entirely within the County’s CHHA, which includes the land and water eastward of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to the Atlantic Ocean. CHHAs are areas that are prone to damage from flood and wind from a hurricane event. This vulnerability to hurricanes presents special planning issues which led the County to limit the use of flexibility units to a maximum of 25 units an acre. In order to better protect human life and property, the County not only places a limit on flexibility units in this area, but encourages development and redevelopment in other portions of the County outside the CHHA. Area C This area generally comprises all of the land east of the Urban Infill Area Line and West of the Intracoastal Waterway. It includes many of the County’s older cities, where there is the greatest need for redevelopment. This area generally includes the Eastwood Ho! corridor. In order to encourage redevelopment in this area, the County continues to allow local governments to use up to 50 flexibility units an acre. Area D This area contains pocket areas that lie west of the Urban Infill area. Although the Amendment restricts the use of flexibility units to a maximum of 25 units an acre in this area, no compatibility review is required. At this time, there are two areas with this designation. Both of these pocket areas lie close to the Urban Infill Area. Application to Hallandale Most of Hallandale lies within Area C. A small potion of the City consisting of the beach east of the Intracoastal Waterway is in Area B and also within the CHHA. Under the challenged Amendment the City is limited to a maximum allowable density, with the allocation of flex units, to 25 units per acre, because the area is east of the Intracoastal Waterway. For purposes of this proceeding, the objectionable effect of the challenged Amendment is that it prohibits the use of flex units to that small portion of Hallandale that is east of the Intracoastal Waterway to attain densities greater than 25 units per acre. Lorenzo Aghemo, formerly Hallandale's Director of Growth Management, testified that the County's challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the following elements of the County's Plan: Objective 8.03.00, on discouraging urban sprawl by directing development to areas with existing facilities and services; Goal 13.00.00, on maximizing intergovernmental coordination and cooperation; Policy 13.01.08, on the Planning Council's responsibility to ensure consistency, as compared to its decisions to approve 50 units and than a few months later 25 units per acre; Goal 17.00.00, directing growth to identified urban infill, in areas of existing infrastructure and services to promote redevelopment; Policy 17.02.02, on urban infill and redevelopment to promote economic development and increase housing opportunities. Mr. Aghemo testified that the County's Ordinance, limiting the flex units to 25 per acre is also inconsistent with the following statutes: Section 163.3177(11)(c) - on maximizing the use of existing facilities and services through redevelopment and urban infill development; Section 187.201(15)(a) and (b) - on directing development to areas which have, in place, land and water resources, fiscal abilities and service capacity; Section 187.201(16)(b)5. - on allowing local government flexibility to determine and address urban priorities. Henry Sniezek testified that the proposed Amendment viewed in its entirety, is consistent with the above-cited provisions. Evolution of the Proposed Amendment On January 15, 1999, the County Planning Council's Land Use/Traffic Ways Committee discussed, for the first time, an early version of a County amendment to limit the density allowed from the use of flex units. At that time, the staff recommended that flex units should result in densities no higher than 50 units per acres. As stated above, the maximum of 50 units an acre, recommended in 1999, was intended for "housekeeping" purposes to establish the same cap for flex units consistently referenced throughout the plan. Robert Daniels, the principal planner for the Regional Planning Council, first recommended that the coastal barrier island be excluded from certain flex unit allocations in a letter to Mr. Sniezek, on January 27, 1999. Mr. Daniels testified that his concern was based on the Strategic Regional Plan goal and policy of reducing densities on coastal barrier islands, the beaches and areas east of the Intracoastal Waterway. The Broward League of Cities Technical Advisory Committee, composed of planners from various municipalities in the County, also recommended to the County Commission that it attempt to direct growth to the area between the Everglades on environmentally sensitive west and the CHHA. That policy is included in the County's "Eastward Ho" voluntary initiative. The Broward County urban infill area has a western boundary that coincides with the western boundary of the challenged amendment but extends east to the Atlantic Ocean. The Amendment, as adopted, ultimately excluded the area east of the Intracoastal Waterway within the urban infill area, as designated on the County land use map, from the maximum flex unit uses without County Commission approved. Eastward Ho! "Eastward Ho! Revitalizing Southeast Florida’s Urban Core" is a 1996 planning initiative of the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. It was developed by the South Florida Regional Planning Council in conjunction with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Eastward Ho! promotes urban infill and redevelopment in order to revitalize older communities. Among its other goals is to direct development away from environmentally sensitive lands, prime agricultural areas, and water resources. The Eastward Ho! initiative attempts to capture some of the projected growth in the western and CHHA and redirect it to the urbanized areas. The boundaries for the Eastward Ho! initiative include portions of Palm Beach County, Broward County and Miami-Dade County. Its boundaries are not precisely defined and have evolved over time. The original study area encompassed the area between the Florida East Coast Railroad and the CSX Railroad. As the program progressed, it became apparent that additional areas should be included. This larger Eastward Ho! area includes the lands lying east to US 1 and west to the Palmetto Expressway, the Florida Turnpike, State Road 7 and Military Trail. The Amendment Area C is generally compatible with the Eastward Ho! boundaries in Broward County. Area B does not lie within the Eastward Ho! boundaries. In its totality, the Amendment advances the purposes of Eastward Ho! by redirecting growth towards already urbanized areas and away from the environmentally sensitive areas in the western portion of the County and the CHHA. The Eastward Ho! initiative is advanced by the Amendment in that the proposed flexibility units scheme promotes the goals of directing some future development away from environmentally sensitive areas and the CHHA and redirects that future development to the urban infill areas. As the Amendment is consistent with, and furthers, Eastward Ho! goals, the contents of the document entitled "Eastward Ho! Revitalizing Southeast Florida's Urban Core" constitute relevant and appropriate data and analysis which supports the Amendment. In February 1999, a report was issued by Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research in which the Eastward Ho! program is described and analyzed. This report was prepared for the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This document is entitled "Eastward Ho! Development Futures: Paths to More Efficient Growth in Southeast Florida." Included in this report are data and analysis contrasting projected Eastward Ho! and non-Eastward Ho! development patterns. In this report, it is concluded that directing some residential development growth from the hurricane hazard area and the western areas into the Eastward Ho! areas in the next twenty-five years will save 52,856 acres of prime farmland and 13,887 acres of fragile environmental lands. It is also expected that housing costs would drop approximately 2.3 percent. The report also concludes that by directing some future development over a 25-year period into the Eastward Ho! areas, the following savings in infrastructure costs can be gained: $1.54 billion dollars in local road costs, $62 million in state road costs, $157 million in water capital costs, and $135.6 in sewer capital costs. As the Amendment helps implement the goals of Eastward Ho!, it reasonably can be concluded that this report contains data and analysis that supports the Amendment. Local Mitigation Strategy Broward County’s emergency management staff has prepared a local mitigation strategy (LMS), which is the County’s plan to mitigate the effects of potential natural disasters, especially hurricanes. In this document, the County identifies the trend of conversions of living units in the coastal hurricane evacuation zone from seasonal to year-round use, increasing the number of residents in the coastal hurricane evacuation zones. This area is basically the same as the portion of the County described in the Amendment as Area B. In order to minimize the impact of natural disasters, the LMS recommends discouraging additional public expenditures to expand or improve infrastructure in the CHHA. The Amendment implements these recommendations by providing an incentive for directing some future growth away from the CHHA to Area C. Accordingly, the LMS constitutes data and analysis which supports the Amendment. Consistency with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan The City contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan: Objective 8.03.00, Goal 13; Policy 13.01.08, Goal 17; and Policy 17.02.02. Those provisions are part of the BCLUP. Objective 8.03.00 is entitled "EFFICIENT USE OF URBAN SERVICES" and reads: Discourage urban sprawl and encourage a separation of urban and rural uses by directing new development into areas where necessary regional and community facilities and services exist. The BCLUP does not define "urban sprawl." The Department of Community Affairs has a rule that defines "urban sprawl" as meaning: . . . urban development or uses which are located in predominantly rural areas, or rural areas interspersed with generally low- intensity or low density urban uses, and which are characterized by one or more of the following conditions: (a) The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; (b) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area; or (c) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public services are currently provided.... Rule 9J-5.003(134), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides guidance on how to ensure that plans and plan amendments are consistent with applicable requirements pertaining to the discouragement of urban sprawl. Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The rule contains sections on primary indicators, land use evaluations, and development controls, each of which includes many factors to be carefully considered. The Amendment provides incentives for development in Area C, which is the older urban corridor of the County. Although some of it is also urban, Area B lies in the CHHA and the data and analysis support its disparate treatment. Taken as a whole, the Amendment has the effect of discouraging urban sprawl by promoting infill in older downtown areas (Area C) and directing development away from the environmentally sensitive areas (Areas A and B) and areas with inefficient land use patterns (Area A) such as the western areas of the County. Goal 13 and Policy 13.01.08 are located in the section of the plan entitled "INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION." They read as follows: GOAL 13.00.00 MAXIMIZE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND COOPERATION AMONG STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. POLICY 13.01.08 The Broward County Planning Council shall continue to coordinate, cooperate and share information and services with all City and County planning offices and all local government agencies in order to ensure consistency and compatibility among the Broward County Land Use Plan and the other elements of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, as well as municipal comprehensive plans. The Amendment does not modify the intergovernmental coordination provisions. While the Amendment restricts the effect of Hallendale Ordinance 1998-2 in that small portion of the City that is east of the Intracoastal Waterway, that restriction alone does not support a finding that the Amendment as a whole is inconsistent with Policy 13.01.08. Moreover, the County complied with the letter and spirit of Goal 13.00.00 and Policy 13.01.08 in developing and adopting this Amendment. It kept the municipalities informed of the Amendment by providing written drafts and coordinated with entities including the Broward County League of Cities, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the Broward County Planning Council, and its technical advisory committee. Suggestions and comments from the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the League of Cities were a major influence in the ultimate version of the adopted Amendment. Goal 17.00.00 and Policy 17.02.02 are contained in the Plan’s section entitled "URBAN INFILL AREAS, URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AREAS AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION." They read as follows: GOAL 17.00.00 DIRECT GROWTH TO IDENTIFIED URBAN INFILL, URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION AREAS WITHIN BROWARD COUNTY IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE URBAN SPRAWL, REDUCE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES ON RURAL LANDS, MAXIMIZE THE USE OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND CENTRALIZE COMMERCIAL, GOVERNMENTAL, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES. POLICY 17.02.02 Local land use plans should include policies to provide for adequate housing opportunities necessary to accommodate all segments of present and future residents of identified urban infill, urban redevelopment and downtown revitalization area(s). In its totality, the Amendment is not inconsistent with Goal 17.00.00 and may further it. By limiting development in the CHHA and the western portions of the County, the Amendment effectively encourages significant future growth to the urban infill areas and older downtown areas. The area encouraged for growth under this goal and policy is consistent with Area C, and targeted for the densest development and redevelopment. The Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 17.02.02. Area B as a Coastal area is not particularly economically suitable for affordable housing. By encouraging development away from the CHHA, the Amendment may promote a wider range of housing opportunities through redevelopment in the Eastward Ho! corridor. Moreover, the Amendment provides that applications of flex units for affordable housing, Regional Activity Centers and special residential facilities are exempt from the Amendment’s restrictions in specified situations should affordable housing units be developed in Area B. Even if the Amendment were construed to be inconsistent with any of the above-discussed plan provisions, there are several other portions of the Plan that the Amendment furthers by encouraging development away from the CHHA and the environmentally sensitive areas in the western portion of the County. Those provisions include Objective 9.03.00, which requires developing and implementing land use controls to protect and enhance the County's beaches, rivers, and marine resources, and Policy 9.05.09, which requires considering the impact land use plan amendments have on wetland resources and minimizing those impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Objective 9.07.00 reads: Protect identified floodplains and areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding. The Amendment advances this objective by limiting development in the CHHA (Area B), which is subject to storm surge, as well as limiting development in the western portion of the County (Area A), which has many flood-prone areas. Consistency with Section 163.3177(11)(c) The City alleges that the Amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(11)(c), Florida Statutes, which reads: It is the further intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans and implementing land development regulations shall provide strategies which maximize the use of existing facilities and services through redevelopment, urban infill development, and other strategies for urban revitalization. To the extent this statute is a substantive compliance criteria, the Amendment is consistent with this statute. By promoting development in Area C, the Amendment will help achieve the goal of maximizing existing facilities through redevelopment, urban infill and urban revitalization. Consistency with the South Florida Regional Policy Plan The Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SFRPP) is the regional policy plan adopted by the South Florida Regional Planning Council. It is adopted by reference in Rule 29J-2.009, Florida Administrative Code. The Amendment is consistent with provisions in the SFRPP, particularly those related to land use, public facilities, natural resources, and emergency management. The Amendment is consistent with Strategic Regional Goal 2.1, which requires directing development and redevelopment to areas least exposed to coastal storm surges and where negative impacts on the environment are minimal. The Amendment is consistent with several of Goal 2.1's implementing policies, including Policies 2.1.2 (reducing allowable densities on barrier islands and in the Category 1 Hurricane Evacuation Area), 2.1.3 (restricting development, redevelopment, and public facility construction in the CHHA), and 2.1.4 (directing development away from environmentally sensitive lands). The Amendment also furthers Strategic Regional Goal 7.1 by directing future development away from the areas most vulnerable to storm surges. Viewed in its entirety, the Amendment is consistent with the SFRPP construed as a whole. Consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan The City contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions in the State comprehensive plan: Sections 187.201(15)(a) and (b) and 187.201(16)(b)(5), Florida Statutes. Goal (15)(a) recognizes the importance of preserving natural resources and requires development to be directed into areas which can accommodate growth in an environmentally sensitive manner. Implementing Policies (b)1., 2., and 5. requires the encouragement of efficient development, the separation of urban and rural uses, and the consideration of impacts on natural resources and the potential for flooding in land use planning. As discussed in earlier findings, the Amendment is consistent with such directives. The Amendment furthers Goal (15)(a) and Policies (b) 1., 2., and 5. Policy (16)(b)(5) reads: Ensure that local governments have adequate flexibility to determine and address their urban priorities within the state urban policy. The Amendment coordinates the policy for prioritization of urban development. Development is promoted in areas away from the CHHA and environmentally sensitive lands in the west. This is accomplished through the use of a cap on flexibility units. Local governments may choose to utilize less than the full extent of their available flexibility units or use alternative mechanisms to achieve higher densities. The use of flexibility units is only one method for controlling densities. If a local government needs more density to address its planning goals than is allowed by the Amendment, it may request a Future Land Use Map amendment. Additionally, local governments may avoid the Amendment's limits by maximizing density by the use of affordable housing developments, Regional Activity Centers or special residential facilities. The Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy (16)(b)(5). The Amendment is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan construed as a whole.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Plan Amendment adopted by Broward County in Ordinance No. 1999-26 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rule promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD A. HIXSON 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, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Goldstein, Esquire City of Hallandale 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale, Florida 33009 Craig Varn, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jose R. Gonzalez, Esquire Broward County Attorney's Office 115 South Andrews Avenue Governmental Center, Suite 423 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Colleen M. Castille, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David Jordan, Acting General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner Henry A. Wenz (Wenz) is a resident of Volusia County and submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings. Petitioners Hart Land & Cattle Co., Inc., R. L. Hart, and Clyde E. Hart are residents of, own property in, or own or operate businesses in Volusia County and submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings. Respondent Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plans under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Respondent Volusia County, which is a charter county, is a local government required to adopt a revised comprehensive plan under Sections 163.3164(12) and 163.3167, Florida Statutes. Volusia County is a charter county. Volusia County is located on the Atlantic Coast and is bounded by Flagler and Putnam Counties to the north, Brevard and Seminole Counties to the south, and Lake County to the west. The east boundary runs about 47 miles along the coastline, and the west boundary includes about 75 miles along the St. Johns River before running along lakes to the north and south. Volusia County contains 14 incorporated areas. Only four of these incorporated areas are in west Volusia County: DeLand, which is the County seat; Lake Helen; Orange City; and Pierson. The coastal area contains the remaining 10 incorporated areas, including the county's principal city, Daytona Beach. Public Participation By Resolution No. 86-105 adopted August 7, 1986, Volusia County established various requirements for notice and public hearings in the comprehensive planning process. Acknowledging that the Volusia County Planning and Land Development Regulation Commission serves as the local planning agency (LPA), pursuant to Volusia County Ordinance 80-8, as amended, Resolution No. 86- 105 directs the Volusia County Planning and Zoning Department to accept, consider, preserve, and respond to written public comments. Following the adoption of Resolution No. 86-105, the LPA commenced a process designed to ensure that citizens with a wide range of interests could make substantial contributions to the comprehensive planning process. The LPA formed five citizens' committees, known as Citizen Resource Committees, to consider planning questions corresponding to each of the elements required to be included in the comprehensive plan. Each committee comprised about 20 members, and the chair of each committee was a member of the LPA. 1/ Membership of each Citizen Resource Committee was diverse. For instance, members of the land use committee included homeowners, developers, and environmentalists. The diversity of membership was the result of the LPA's efforts to solicit nominations for membership from a broad range of civic, trade, or professional associations. In all, the LPA asked 150 organizations to make nominations and 62 organizations did so. In the case of the land use committee, for example, members were nominated by, among others, such groups as the League of Women Voters, Association of Condominiums, West Volusia Home Builders Association, and Volusia-Flagler Environmental Political Action Committee, Inc. Each Citizen Resource Committee met about nine times from July, 1988, to May, 1989. Prior to these series of meetings, the LPA conducted a meeting to explain the comprehensive planning process. Each meeting of the LPA or Citizen Resource Committee was open to the public and announced by news releases published in numerous local news media. During the nine months that the Citizen Resource Committees met, Volusia County amended Resolution No. 86-105 to require that all planning materials given to the Citizen Resource Committees, LPA, or County Council be available for review by the public. Adopted February 2, 1989, Resolution No. 89-27 made planning documents available for copying by the public at cost. Following the completion of the work of the Citizen Resource Committees, the LPA then conducted six public workshops between June 14 and June 27, 1989. Large display advertisements were published in local newspapers of general circulation preceding at least some of these meetings, including the June 14 and 19 meetings where it was announced that the LPA would consider certain named elements for recommendation to the County Council. The LPA ultimately recommended the draft elements to the County Council. On July 7, 1989, the County Council held its first public workshop on the proposed plan. Over the next two months, the County Council conducted nine such workshops, at least some of which were announced by large display advertisements in local newspapers of general circulation. Minutes and notes of these workshops indicate that Council members regularly solicited comments from members of the public in attendance. The County Council conducted nine public workshops or hearings from July 7, 1989, through August 29, 1989. The County Council workshops culminated in the transmittal hearing, which took place on September 7, 1989. The hearing was announced by large newspaper display advertisements that satisfied all requirements of law. After transmittal of the proposed plan and receipt of the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments of DCA, the County Council announced by large display newspaper advertisements that a hearing would be conducted on February 22, 1990, to receive public comments and adopt the comprehensive plan. The notice satisfied all requirements of law. The County Council received extensive public comments at the February 22 hearing and continued the hearing to March 8. Again receiving extensive public comment at the March 8 hearing, the County Council continued the hearing to March 15. The County Council adopted the comprehensive plan at the March 15 hearing, although Ordinance No. 90-10, which adopts the plan, indicates that the plan was adopted at a public hearing on March 10, 1990. 2/ Ordinance No. 90-10 adopts the goals, objectives, and policies, but not the supporting data and analysis. Traffic Circulation Element Data and Analysis In preparing the Traffic Circulation Element (TCE), the County first inventoried the existing road system to determine capacity, demand, and overall system performance. To assist in this effort, the County Council retained (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., which issued a report in September, 1989, analyzing the availability of transportation facilities and services to serve existing and future demands (Kimley-Horn Report). The Kimley-Horn Report serves as part of the data and analysis on which the plan was based. Beginning with 1987 conditions, Kimley-Horn noted that the County required nearly $68.2 million of road improvements to attain level of service C on all roads. 3/ To evaluate future needs, Kimley-Horn used a standard traffic forecasting formula and socio-economic data provided by the County Planning Department. After identifying numerous traffic analysis zones and validating the model for the subject forecasting purposes, Kimley-Horn ran ten model runs. In designing various network alternatives, Kimley-Horn considered level of service standards in light of factors such as the requirement of concurrency, the goal of urban in-fill, and the "[d]irect correlation between urban size and acceptance of some highway congestion as a trade off for other urban amenities and cost considerations." Kimley-Horn Report, page 17. The West Volusia Beltline would be located in southwest Volusia County between U.S. 17/92 and 1-4. Comprising several segments, the beltway's southernmost segment is from Graves Avenue to Saxon Boulevard. Apparently while Kimley-Horn was preparing its report, Volusia County adopted a Five-Year Road Program, which includes certain projects from a 2010 financially feasible plan for the coastal area. The Five-Year Road Program, which will cost $94.7 million for right-of-way acquisition and construction, will require $52 million from the County, or $59.3 million after taking into consideration the effect of inflation. From north to south, the Five-Year Road Program includes the following segments of the West Volusia Beltway, which are all under County jurisdiction: Kepler Road to Taylor Road (1.0 mile)--construction of two lanes; Taylor Road to State Route 472 (2.3 miles)--construction of two lanes; and State Route 472 to Graves Avenue (1.0 mile)--addition of two lanes to the two existing lanes. The Kimley-Horn Report estimates that, during the five-year road program, the County will have revenues of only $49.2 million available for road construction without regard to inflation but assuming increases in population and tourism. The report discusses various options, such as raising impact fees, raising the share of gas taxes devoted to construction versus maintenance, and accelerating road projections to negate the effect of inflation. The County- estimated revenues are 6-17% short of estimated costs. In any event, the projected revenue shortfall during the Five-Year Road Program should have no effect on the three West Volusia Beltway projects. The Kimley-Horn Report ranks all of the five-year projects based on relative importance. All three beltway projects are in the top ten, and the cumulative construction costs expended through the first ten projects is $28.8 million, which is well within available revenues of $49.2 million. Assuming that the Five-Year Road Program is timely completed, Kimley- Horn calculated 1995 levels of service by applying County-supplied socioeconomic data to existing traffic models. The result, displayed on Figure 11 in the Kimley-Horn Report, discloses an insignificant segment of U.S. 17/92 in the downtown area at level of service F and, especially relative to east Volusia County, little system mileage at level of service E. Based on the analysis described in the preceding paragraphs, the Kimley-Horn Report concludes that county-wide roadway operating conditions in 1995 are excellent in that, out of 895.3 system miles, only 21.4 miles are predicted to operate at Level of Service F. This represents 2.39 percent of the county's system miles. In the same light, 52.86 miles fall at Level of Service E condition representing 5.9 percent of the total system miles. Overall, approximately 92 percent of the county-wide roadway system-miles is predicted to operate at Level of Service D or better in 1995. Kimley-Horn Report, pages 58-60. Table 28 of the report, which divides the County into 11 geographic areas, prioritizes road segments for construction after 1996 based on volume-to- capacity ratios projected for 1995 after completion of the base network. 4/ Table 28 projects no excessive use of segments in west Volusia County. The average volume-to-capacity ratios in west Volusia County are projected as follows: for the area north of DeLand--0.40; for the area south of DeLand--0.60; and for the area west of Deltona--0.75. Although the last area contains three segments with ratios over 0.90, the West Volusia Beltline would, in 1995, have a volume-to-capacity ratio of only 0.44. Designing a 2010 network, Kimley-Horn analyzed additional highway segments selected from a financially feasible plan and various alternatives previously considered in the report. These segments, which are listed in Table 19 of the report, exclude all of the roads contained in the Five-Year Road Program. The total cost, including right-of-way acquisition, construction, and inflation, is $1.38 billion, with the County's share at $510 million. From north to south, the 2010 network contains the following segments of the West Volusia Beltway, which are all projected to remain under County jurisdiction: State Route 44 to State Route 472 (5.6 miles)--addition of four lanes to two lanes in the existing or base network; State Route 472 to Graves Avenue (1.0 mile) --addition of two lanes to four lanes in the existing or base network; and Graves Avenue to Saxon Boulevard (3.0 miles)--construction of four lanes where none exists in the 1995 network. However, the 1995 level of service projections properly ignore those segments of the West Volusia Beltway included in the 2010 network, including the new four lanes south of Graves Avenue, because these segments are not part of the existing or base network. The Kimley-Horn Report estimates that gas taxes and impact fees available to the County to fund the County's system improvements from 1996 through 2010 will total only about $278 million. Assuming that future state contributions will equal past contributions, the Kimley-Horn Report estimates that state revenues for system improvements will total about $272 million from 1996 through 2010. The total County and state contributions are projected to be about $550 million for 1996 through 2010, which would leave a projected combined state/County deficiency of $338 million. The Kimley-Horn Report recommends that the County update the TCE once the projected revenue shortfall materializes following the construction of the base network in 1995. Specific items to be considered include the adjustment of level of service standards, identification of new revenue sources, and adjustment of permitted densities and intensities in the affected areas. The Kimley-Horn Report concludes that the plan updating process should be viewed as an on- going, iterative process whereby road needs, available revenues and finally financial analysis merge... This process is designed to provide a dynamic and on-going planning tool that can be used to provide an on-going monitoring and updating program for the transportation system in Volusia County. Kimley-Horn Report, page 83. Goals, Objectives, and Policies 1. Bicycles and Pedestrians TCE Objective 2.1.1 states that, prior to 1996, the County "shall implement programs to provide a safe, convenient, and efficient motorized transportation system." TCR Objective 2.1.2 states that, prior to 1995, the County "shall implement programs to provide a safe, convenient, and efficient non-motorized transportation system." TCE Policies 2.1.1.4 and 2.1.2.2 state that, prior to October 1, 1990, the County "shall develop regulations for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians within all new development proposals" [sic]. TCE Policy 2.1.2.1 states that, prior to 1993, the County "shall coordinate with the MPO to develop a County-wide bicycle facilities plan." The Capital Improvement Program schedules all significant capital projects to be undertaken for the six years between 1990-1995. An adopted part of the plan, the Capital Improvement Program contains a summary of road projects beginning at page C-243. The table shows, by year and amount, expenditures for all capital road projects, including the above-described segments of the West Volusia Beltway without significant alterations. Also included are $1.17 million for constructing bike paths in fiscal year ending 1990 and $180,000 for constructing bike paths in the following year. Beginning in fiscal year ending 1991 and through the end of the covered period, the table shows that the County intends to spend about $370,000 annually constructing bike paths/sidewalks and, in the first two years, $860,000 in widening bike paths. 2. Level of Service Standards for Roads The objectives and policies under TCE Goal 2.2 set the level of service standards applicable to roads in the County. TCE Objective 2.2.1 states: Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Volusia County shall establish peak hour level of service standards and prior to 1996, Volusia County shall achieve and maintain standards for peak hour levels of service on the thoroughfare system. TCE Policies 2.2.1.3 through 2.2.1.6 establish the peak hour level of service standards for state-and County-maintained roads. The level of service standards for state-maintained freeways and principal arterials, in the urbanized and nonurbanized areas, are D and C, respectively. The level of service standards for state-maintained minor arterials and collectors, in the urbanized and nonurbanized areas, are E and D, respectively. TCE Policy 2.2.1.6 sets the level of service standards for County-maintained arterials and collectors, in the urbanized and nonurbanized areas, at E and C, respectively. With respect to the reduced level of service standard allowed on County roads in urbanized areas, TCE Policy 2.1.1.7 explains that the County "shall expend County transportation funds in a manner which encourages compact urban development." TCE Policies 2.2.1.3 through 2.2.1.6 permit certain exceptions to the general level of service standards. A major exception is that the level of service standards apply only to road segments that are neither backlogged nor constrained. By means of this exception, the County distinguishes between roads operating at or above 5/ their adopted level of service standards and capable of widening, which are subject to the general level of service standards, and roads that are, at the time of plan adoption, operating below their adopted level of service standards or are incapable of widening, which are backlogged or constrained, respectively. The plan defines a backlogged road as one operating at a level of service standard below the minimum adopted by the County Council. However, a road operating below its designated level of service standard is not a backlogged road if it is a constrained facility or if it is scheduled for capacity improvements in the five-year road program of the Florida Department of Transportation or the County Council. 6/ Plan Element 20, Paragraph 14. A constrained road is one to which two or more lanes cannot be added due to physical or policy barriers. Plan Element 20, Paragraph 41. TCE Policies 2.2.1.7 through 2.2.1.9 identify backlogged road segments. TCE Policy 2.2.1.10 requires that the actual level of service standard for each identified backlogged road segment be raised by one standard by 1996. TCE Policy 2.2.1.11 requires that the level of service standards for each identified backlogged road segment attain, by 2001, the general standards set forth in TCE Policies 2.2.1.3 through 2.2.1.6. For constrained roads presently at their adopted level of service standards, TCE Policy 2.2.1.22 provides that, barring acceptable mitigation, the County shall not allow further development after the constrained road reaches the applicable level of service standard. 3. Concurrency Requirements The introduction to the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) links the concepts of level of service and concurrency. The introduction, which is not an adopted part of the plan, notes: "The existing service level was used as a benchmark for most of the proposed service level standards found in this draft [sic] element." The introduction acknowledges: Adjusting service levels [and] facility costs to projected revenue allocated to capital facilities is part of the [planning] process. If revenue allocated to pay for capital costs is insufficient, then either service levels have to be reduced or additional revenue raised or created to support the desired level of service. CIE Policy 15.1.1.3 prohibits the issuance of a development order for development that would degrade the level of service standard below the adopted standard, unless the plan specifically permits such a degradation. CIE Policy 15.3.1.1 states that the level of service standards adopted in the plan apply to all development orders issued after October 1, 1990. The issue of vested rights, which is generally reserved for land development regulations, is addressed to some degree in the plan. CIE Policy 15.1.1.7 requires orders for developments of regional impact, if issued after October 1, 1990, to be subject to the plan's concurrency requirements. CIE Policy 15.3.4.3 contemplates the reduction of level of service standards due to the effect of vested development; however, a plan amendment is required in such cases. Recognizing the importance of vested development in terms of demand on public facilities, CIE Policies 15.5.4.6, 15.5.5.1, and 15.5.5.2 require a study of reserved capacities and inventory and analysis of capacity remaining after the demands of vested development have been met. CIE Objective 15.5.1 states that the concurrency provisions adopted as part of the plan will become effective October 1, 1990. Other concurrency provisions are to be included in land development regulations. CIE Policy 15.5.1.1 identifies those facilities, including roads, for which concurrency is required. CIE Policy 15.5.1.3 states: The required facilities shall be in place and operating or estimated to be operating at a minimum service level established in this Comprehensive Plan at the time a building permit is issued, or a building permit is issued subject to the condition that the required facilities shall be in place prior to issuing of that final development order. A final development order is a building permit. Plan Element 20, Paragraph 52. CIE Policy 15.5.1.4 states that the required facilities shall be deemed concurrent "if they are under construction or under contract for acquisition at the time a building permit is issued." CIE Policy 15.5.1.5 adds that the required facilities shall be deemed concurrent "if they are the subject of a binding contract executed for the construction or acquisition of the required facilities at the time a building permit is issued." CIE Policy 15.5.1.6 states: New developments may meet the test for capacity and concurrency if they can be supported by the construction of specific facilities and the expansion of facility capacity by specific projects contained in the first year of the Capital Improvements five year schedule of programmed improvements (Capital Budget), following the issuance of a final development order. This policy shall pertain to the following facility categories: roads ... Specific conditions for the timing of private development and completion of the above facility categories shall be part of an enforceable development agreement and shall be part of the County's development review process when land uses and their densities/intensities are first proposed. Specific timing and phasing of these facilities in relationship to the issuance of building permits and other final development orders shall be delineated in [various land development regulations]. However, CIE Policy 15.5.2.2 requires: The following facilities shall be available to coincide 7/ with approval of building permits for developments that are to be built during a single phase: roads ... It shall be the intent of this policy to ensure that the above-mentioned facilities and services needed to support such development are available concurrent with impacts created by such developments... Specific timing and phasing conditions related to the above concurrency facilities shall be identified in greater detail in [various land development regulations]. Dealing with development projects designed to take place over several years, CIE Policy 15.5.2.3 provides in part: In these cases, programmed improvements from the Five Year Schedule of Improvements shall be included as part of the concurrency determination as long as their availability coincides with the impact of such a multi- year, multi-phase development. CIE Policy 15.5.2.4 addresses the situation in which necessary public or private facilities are delayed. If the delayed facility "may imperil the public health, welfare and safety," the County "may impose delay requirements on any permits it has issued so that public facility availability may be approximately concurrent with the impact of new development." Just as the backlogged and constrained roads are subject to special level of service standards, so too are they subject to special concurrency provisions. These provisions are contained in the policy cluster under CIE Objective 15.5.3. CIE Policy 15.5.3.1 describes the process by which the County will monitor levels of service on backlogged roads. The process begins with documenting as a benchmark the traffic counts on these roads prior to the adoption of the plan. CIE Policy 15.5.3.1.b provides that each backlogged road "shall not be allowed to degrade its operational service standards ... by ... more than twenty (20) percent of the peak hour bench mark [traffic] counts ... " 8/ The monitoring provisions require the County to use generally accepted traffic modeling procedures to project the number of trips generated by proposed developments and the likely distribution of these trips. Regarding backlogged roads, CIE Policy 15.5.3.1.e states: The County shall not approve any additional final local development orders, (excluding vested properties) including building permits, once the percent threshold for projects within urban/urbanized area center(s) including municipalities is reached from final development orders only if such local development orders would generate trips in excess of ten/fifteen/twenty percent on a peak hour basis, unless a final development order is subject to the adoption and implementation of an Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan. An Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following activities: turn lanes signalization incentives for employees to use mass transit where available van/car pooling programs staggered work hours CIE Policy 15.5.3.1.f states that the "goal" of the Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan is to achieve "100 percent mitigation of the impacts of a proposed development" and that, where applicable, the plan shall include participants besides the developer, such as "adjacent property owners, business establishments and homeowner associations." CIE Policy 15.3.4.8 states: The adopted Volusia County Five Year Road Program, reflected in the Capital Improvements Element's five year schedule of capital improvements[,] will provide the capacity necessary to relieve backlogged State roads. In the event that revenues collected from transportation (road) impact fees fall short of projections and the need arises to delay any of the identified capacity projects, Volusia County shall amend this element and the Traffic Circulation Element through coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation and performing [sic] speed delay studies to more accurately evaluate the level of service on the effected [sic] backlogged road. The County shall temporarily defer the issuance of development orders having direct impact on the facility which cannot be corrected through implementation of a Traffic Action Mitigation Plan as identified in 15.5.3.1(e) of this element, until such time that the level of service has been improved to the acceptable level. Any change in service level standards as a result of speed delay studies shall be done through a plan amendment. 9/ Awkward grammar in the first sentence of CIE Policy 15.5.3.2 precludes a finding as to what constrained facilities are addressed by this policy, but in general the policy provides that the County "may allow development to occur [on these constrained facilities] which will not increase peak hour traffic volumes by more than five or ten percent." Five-percent degradation is allowed for physically constrained state roads, and ten-percent degradation is allowed for policy constrained state roads. CIE Policy 15.5.3.2 requires the developer of the development impacting a constrained road to prepare a Traffic Analysis and implement an Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan, but only after an urbanized constrained state road has degraded to its minimum level of service, as set forth in the plan. At this point, "no further degradation will be permitted below the minimum approved local service levels set for constrained roads, that in 1989 were operating at or above the desired minimum service level." CIE Policy 15.5.3.2.d prohibits the County from denying a development order if the developer demonstrates a willingness to maintain service levels by entering into an enforceable development agreement including the implementation of either an Individual or Area-Wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan, where the developer has demonstrated good faith to achieve 100 percent mitigation of the impact of such development. Payment of the road impact fee may not necessarily meet the 100% mitigation desired. For constrained County roads, the County "shall closely monitor" traffic volumes. Once the constrained road reaches its minimum acceptable level of service (C if nonurbanized, E if urbanized), TCE Policy 2.2.1.22 provides: "the County may not allow further development which cannot provide acceptable mitigative measures to the adverse traffic impacts of the proposed development." For development impacting either a backlogged or constrained road, TCE Policy 2.2.1.23 requires the developer to prepare an "Area-wide Traffic Action Mitigation Plan" covering those geographic areas specified as affected by relevant land development regulations. Other policies describe the traffic impact model in detail and procedural processes by which persons denied development orders may challenge the factual bases underlying the denial. CIE Policy 15.5.4.1 limits to two years the life of the concurrency determination for all public facilities for which concurrency is required, unless the County and applicant agree otherwise. In the latter case, however, the applicant must guarantee his financial obligations for public facilities by providing a cash escrow deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, prepayment of impact fees, prepayment of connection charges, or Community Development District, pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. CIE Policy 15.5.4.4.1 provides that "if concurrency and facility capacity is not available or cannot be made available through Policy 15.5.4.1(2)(a) ..., these findings shall be reasons for denial of such development orders." CIE Policies 15.5.5.7-15.5.5.9 add detailed requirements to the land development regulations concerning the concurrency management system and specifically the evaluation and monitoring necessary for the successful operation of a concurrency management system. 4. Financial Feasibility of Road Projects The final section of the CIE, although not formally adopted as part of the plan, is entitled, "An Introduction to the [CIE] Six Year Program: Fiscal Year 1989-90 to Fiscal Year 1994-95." This section begins: "The proposed [CIE]'s Five Year Program is feasible only to the extent that certain actions can be implemented prior to October 1, 1990." These actions include the following: approval of the one cent optional sales tax by May, 1990; increase of road impact fees to cover an estimated $6 million shortfall; and restriction of the funding of road safety and other road projects to sources other than existing gas tax revenues, such as the one cent optional sales tax, increased ad valorem taxes, or other sources. The introduction to the CIE concedes that the one cent optional sales tax is a key future revenue source to pay for improvements for facilities that either have no dedicated revenue source or that have revenue sources that have been used in the past but are no longer adequate to maintain or improve service levels into the future. Clearly without the One Cent Optional Sales Tax, the amount of Capital Improvements will have to be reduced in half. This will have severe impacts on service levels for ... roads ... The introduction reasons that ad valorem property taxes should not be used extensively for financing much of the required facilities because ad valorem taxes are needed to operate the newly constructed facilities and the seasonal population does not pay its fair share of the cost of facilities when they are financed by ad valorem taxes. Although not adopted as part of the plan, the data and analysis supporting the CIE contain useful background information concerning financial feasibility. Table 15-15 indicates that the County's share of the optional one cent sales tax would have been $81.3 million for the six-year period, 1990-95. Table 15-16 shows, for the same period, that capital road projects constitute about 24% of all capital expenditures. The Capital Improvement Program begins with a budget message from the County manager. Stressing the importance of the one cent optional sales tax, the message concludes that the only other viable Source of funding the County's infrastructure needs is the ad valorem tax. The total cost of road projects for 1990-96 is $122.6 million. Capital Improvement Program, page C-246. Of this sum, the local option sales tax was Projected to Provide $35.6 million. Id. During the same period, the County's capital expenditures are Projected to total $417.8 million. Capital Improvement Program, page B-2. Of this total, $249 million was Projected to be spent on facilities for which concurrency is required. Id. CIE Objective 15.3.1 places roads as the highest priority among all other facilities. The objectives and policies under CIE Goal 15.4 describe the funding Sources for capital projects. These Sources include user fees, impact fees, broad-based revenue sources, and debt Proceeds. Among user fees, CIE Policy 15.4.1.9 allocates the gas tax between maintenance and construction expenditures. CIE Policy 15.4.1.10 extends all gas taxes under the County's control to 2010. CIE Policy 15.4.1.11 directs the County to use "to the maximum extent possible" all other road user fees, such as toll roads, utility taxes, and special assessments. Addressing impact fees for roads, Objective 15.4.2 provides: Future development shall bear their fair share (a pro rata share) of not less than seventy (70%) percent of road facility costs including [right-of-way] as a result of their development in order to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standards and other measurable objective standards. CIE Policy 15.4.2.6 requires the County to "verify that the impact fees are sufficient to cover the pro rata share of improvement costs necessitated by new development." CIE Objective 15.4.3 promises that the County will "rely primarily on the broadest revenue bases as possible for the funding of Capital facilities." CIE Policy 15.4.3.2 reserves the one cent optional sales tax for facilities for which no dedicated revenue sources exist. CIE Policy 15.4.3.3 restricts the County from using increases in the ad valorem tax millage rate for purposes other than operating costs associated with future additional capital facilities, unless other sources of funding are not available. CIE Policy 15.4.3.5 considers the alternatives if the one cent optional sales tax were not approved by the voters. In such a case, the County shall consider, among other measures, increasing the ad valorem tax millage rate to fund public facilities for which concurrency is required, creating special taxing districts, reducing service levels, increasing yet-to-be specified new revenue sources, and selectively using Community Development Districts. 10/ Relevant Provisions of the Regional Plan Policy 64.1 of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan) provides: Local governments and the Florida Department of Transportation will set appropriate minimum levels of service for components of the regional roadway system under their respective jurisdictions. The ... Regional Planning Council will assist these bodies in developing their service standards, with the following level of service standards being used as guidelines in the determination of levels of service for individual components of the regional roadway system: In rural areas (Level of Service "C") * * * In urban fringe, urban residential areas, and outlying business districts (Level of Service "D") * * * In central business districts (Level of Service "E") * * * The minimum levels of service determinations will be based on the following criteria: Regional level of service guidelines: Existing conditions of each roadway: Planned programmed roadway improvements: Financial constraints: and Local Comprehensive Plans, and adopted DRI or other development orders. Level of service E on roads of the State Highway System are subject to the agreement of the local government, regional planning council, Florida Department of Transportation, and Metropolitan Planning Organization. Regional Plan Policy 64.5 provides: Access to minor arterials, major arterials and expressways shall be limited in order to maximize their traffic-carrying capacity and safety ... Regional Plan Policy 64.8 states: The principle of equitable cost participation shall be used as a guide in development approval decisions, including allocation of costs among private parties benefiting from or creating the need for transportation improvements, with consideration being given to: New development being required to pay its fair share as a condition for development approval, unless sufficient funds are available from other sources; Existing unmet needs being identified, to include the nature of the need and estimated cost of fulfillment; and Existing land uses and activities which benefit from better access being required to participate in the cost of the roadway improvement or new construction which results in the improved access in the form of user fees or special assessments. Provisions being made in local development orders to include the mitigation of adverse impacts on the state highway system. Regional Plan Policy 64.6 requires that traffic signalization, roadway signage, and operational capacities be designed "to optimize traffic flow and enhance the levels of service throughout the regional roadway network. Regional Plan Implementation Policy 64.5 provides in relevant part: Local governments are requested to undertake the following actions: Evaluate the feasibility and practicality of enacting ordinances capable of assessing existing landowners a proportionate share of costs associated with the elimination of unmet needs based on the provision of enhanced level of service benefits accruing from roadway improvements or new construction projects. Enact impact fee ordinances which are designed to cover the fair share cost of roadway improvements on local and state roadways except for that portion of deficient capacity already existing. Seek public review and comment on all new roadway construction proposals and widening projects. Regional Plan Implementation Policy 64.6 requests Metropolitan Planning Organizations to take certain actions and is thus irrelevant to the present case. Capital Improvements Element The financial feasibility of the entire plan, which is challenged by Petitioners Hart, has been considered to some extent in the findings concerning roads. These findings involve not only the financial feasibility of the Capital Improvement Program for roads, but the overall financial feasibility of the plan. As explained in the corresponding section of the Conclusions of Law, the optional one cent sales tax may be considered to a greater extent in determining the financial feasibility of the entire plan than it may be considered in the availability of scheduled capital projects in making concurrency determinations. The Capital Improvement Program, which schedules capital improvements for the six year period from 1990-1995, identifies, as noted above, $417.8 million in capital expenditures. Although the sources of funding are not collected in a single table like expenditures are, revenues are identified in numerous tables covering each of the numerous categories of public expenditures. In each case, revenues match expenditures. The Capital Improvement Program does not address alternative revenue sources to the optional one cent sales tax. However, CIE 15.4.3.5 describes revenue alternatives to the optional one cent sales tax. Future Land Use and Conservation Elements Data and Analysis The data and analysis accompanying the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) contain population tables prepared by the County, U.S Census, and Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. The population projection for 2000, which is 506,000 persons, is the high-range projection prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Support Document #1-1, page 14. Among the factors considered in the land use suitability analysis are the type of soil, presence of wetland vegetation, and nature of the floodplain if the land is located in the 100-year floodplain. Support Document #1-5, page Analysis of these factors is incorporated into a suitability rating system, which is then projected onto maps. Id. The land use suitability analysis contains an extensive inventory of native habitats, soils, and existing land uses by region. The suitability rating system factors in other items such as the availability of central water and sewer and the presence of historic resources. Support Document #1-6 describes the process by which future uses are allocated to the land. Taking the projected population of the unincorporated part of the County, the analysis first allocates the population among six geographic planning areas. Determining the number of dwelling units needed to accommodate the projected population, the analysis generates data indicating the additional acreage required, by the end of the planning timeframe, to accommodate expected residential and nonresidential uses. A growth factor of 30% is then added to the residential and commercial categories due to high growth rates expected from the County's proximity to Disneyworld and the proposed Spaceport. Support Document 1-7 describes the process by which the land uses necessary to accommodate the previously described growth are designated on the future land use maps. Data and analysis supporting the future land use designations for forestry, agriculture, and environmental uses are found in Support Document #12- 1, which accompanies the Conservation Element. Based upon considerable data concerning wildlife and native habitats, the analysis concludes that "there are broad expanses of ecologically interconnected lands." Id. at page 12R-50. The analysis recommends that the plan establish a land use category within which urban development would be discouraged... Because growth should be directed towards those lands best able to accommodate future development, marginally suited lands for development should be placed in a Natural Resource Management Area (NRMA), as should interconnecting environmentally sensitive and ecologically significant lands. This would include ... inland swamp systems, riverine and estuarine flood plains, critical wildlife habitats, and endangered, rare or threatened ecosystems." The recommendation for the establishment of Natural Resource Management Areas (NRMA) explains further: The area within the NRMA should be divided into districts of special use, promoting activities which are compatible with natural resource protection. Among these divisions should be one which affords a degree of protection to natural systems which would assure their continued, uninterrupted preservation. Although several thousand acres of these lands are in public ownership, there is not enough public funds to purchase all the environmentally sensitive lands in the County, and therefore requires land use controls to ensure an adequate degree of ecological integrity. Because a major component of the value of natural communities is the ecological interrelationships with other natural communities, a highly effective way to protect ecological functions would be to form a natural areas network, or corridors. Land which falls within this network, referred to as Environmental Systems Corridors (ESC's), would be restricted to land use activities which inflict extremely small long term impacts on ecological functions, primarily a type of large lot conservation residential and passive types of agriculture, particularly silviculture. The corridors should include protected systems of wetlands, conservation lands and, where possible, rare and threatened upland communities such as mesic hammocks and longleaf pine-oaks. Because silviculture is the predominant use on the relic marine terraces, and that this use appears to be the most suitable for the terraces given the natural constraints of the land, a forestry district should be established within the NRMA. The intent of the forestry district would be to promote silvicultural pursuits and to keep this a predominant use on the relic terraces. This should be part of the NRMA because silvicultural activities typically have the least impact on natural resources other than public ownership, and thus should be encouraged on private landholdings. Other types of agricultural uses should be allowed in the forestry district to provide a certain amount of flexibility, but silviculture should be the predominant use. * * * Established agricultural areas which occur within the NRMA, particularly around Samsula should be considered an agricultural enclave within the NRMA, and should have the appropriate agricultural land use classifications. The enclave should allow room for a limited amount of agricultural growth. Id. at pages 12B-51 and 12B-52. Although the analysis concedes that the data are unavailable by which to map the vegetative communities at a sufficiently high level of detail, the mapping was scheduled to be completed by March, 1990. In the meantime, maps contained in the Support Document indicate generally the location of important vegetative communities, partly because of extensive reliance upon NASA infrared maps of wetlands and vegetation. Goals, Objectives, and Policies Various goals, objectives, and policies are relevant to Petitioners Hart's challenge to the relationship between the forestry, agricultural, and environmental designations and the operative provisions of the plan. Conservation Element Objective 12.2.1 is to "provide for the protection of areas determined to be environmentally sensitive, and direct growth away from such areas." Toward that end, Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.1 provides that "[e]xisting, relatively uninterrupted expanses of natural resources contained within the County shall be managed as an individual unit, providing natural resources the highest degree of protection in land development decisions and planning." These units are NRMA's. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.1 identifies specific areas to be included in NRMA. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.2 requires the County to: promote land use activities compatible with the intentions of the NRMA through the establishment of special use areas, the boundaries of which to be determined by resource data including: ecological community mapping as stated in Policy 12.2.2.1, USGS Topographic maps; National Wetland Inventory maps; Florida Natural Area Inventory records; available wildlife data; and site specific field information if available. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.1.2 establishes Environmental Systems Corridors (ESC) and Forestry areas within NRMA's. The policy identifies these two designations as follows: ESC's shall include significant interconnected natural systems of environmentally sensitive lands, connected to and including conservation areas where possible. Land use activities shall be limited to conservation, silviculture utilizing Best Management Practices, and large residential lots with limits on land clearance. Proposed roads which encroach within ESC's shall minimize adverse impacts by: aligning the routes at the least sensitive areas (e.g., narrowest width of wetlands); requiring sufficiently sized bridging and culverts over wetlands to allow non-interrupted water flow and wildlife access; and posting low speed limits and/or caution signs. A forestry category shall be established which shall promote the continued and expanded use of silviculture in Volusia County. Because the mixed use concept is an integral component of forest management, the standards of this category shall not interfere with this practice, so long as silviculture remains the dominant use and best management practices are followed. The Future Land Use Categories, which are adopted as part of the plan, describe in more detail the ESC, Forestry, and Agriculture designations. Most significantly, the Future Land Use Categories set residential densities at one unit per 25 acres for the ESC designation, an average of one unit per 20 acres for the Forestry designation (but one unit per five acres may be permitted), and one unit per ten acres for the Agriculture designation. FLUE, pages 1-2 to 1-6. The general designation of NRMA's is intended to carry out FLUE Objective 1.2.1, which requires FLUE designations to "reflect the inherent capabilities and limitations of the existing natural features of the land." FLUE Policy 1.2.1.1 requires that, during the development review process, the County shall consider the site's topography, vegetation, wildlife habitat, flood hazard, and soils, as well as the location of the 100-year floodplain. FLUE Policy 1.2.1.3 states that "lands most suited for silviculture activities shall be [designated] under the Forest Resource subcategory of NRMA." FLUE Policy 1.2.1.4 limits the extent of intensive agriculture in any NRMA. FLUE Policy 1.2.1.5 restricts residential development in any Forest Resource area to one unit per five acres. FLUE Coal 1.4 is to "ensure that agricultural and silvicultural lands are protected from encroachment by incompatible land uses and remain a vital element of the County's economy." FLUE Policy 1.4.1.1B provides that urban growth is to be directed away from Agriculture areas. Miscellaneous Findings Petitioners Hart own 11/ 1000-1500 acres at County Road 415 and State Road 44 in the vicinity of Samsula (Samsula Land). They also own 2000-2500 acres just west of Edgewater, south of State Route 44, and mostly east of I-95, which is known as the Charles Sibbald Grant (Sibbald Land). About 500-700 acres of the Sibbald Land lie west of I-95. About three miles south of the Sibbald Land, Petitioners Hart own 6000-8000 acres that is divided almost equally by I- 95 and is known as the John Lowe Grant (Lowe Land). It is not possible to cross I-95 where it divides the land. The Sibbald Land and Lowe Land have no improved roads or other public facilities. Petitioners Hart acquired all of the land for investment purposes. The Samsula Land is mostly undeveloped and used largely for cattle and possibly timbering. The Sibbald Land is a contiguous block of land that has not been subdivided. Hart Land & Cattle Co. acquired the land in the early 1970's. Timber has been harvested on the smaller section of this land west of I-95. The trees have been harvested for about 50 years. Back in the 1940's, a turpentine business was operated on the land. Petitioners Hart have also mined shell for road bases and red sand for asphalt from the Sibbald Land. Petitioners Hart acquired the Lowe Land in 1980 or 1981. Consisting of numerous noncontiguous lots, the Lowe Land is part of a 14,000-acre subdivision known as Cape Atlantic Estates, which was subdivided into 6000-7000 parcels in the late 1960's. Cattle are kept on the northeast corner of the Lowe Land. The Lowe Land has contained improved pastureland for almost 70 years. The record provides no basis for findings of the extent to which land owned by Petitioners Hart is subject to the ESC, Forestry, and Agricultural designations; the extent to which Petitioners Hart have been denied proposed uses of their land; the extent to which Petitioners Hart have exhausted County administrative remedies, such as requesting field surveys, to obtain available relief from the impact of the NRMA designations; or other matters relevant to the taking claims of Petitioners Hart. However, the evidence fails to establish that Petitioners Hart have been denied all economically reasonable uses of their entire property or any individual parcel. Ultimate Findings of Fact Traffic Circulation Element 1. Data and Analysis The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the analysis accompanying the TCE inadequately addresses existing levels of service and present and future system needs, as well as the need for new and expanded facilities. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the analysis inadequately addresses projected levels of service based on future land uses and the relevant plans of other jurisdictions. The evidence is clear that the West Volusia Beltway is feasible, given the funding priorities assigned to its various projects in the plan. There is substantial evidence to support the transportation data and modeling on which the road networks are based. There is no significant evidence that the projected levels of service for any road segments are inaccurate due to an unjustifiable reliance on the traffic to be borne by the West Volusia Beltway or for any other reason. Petitioner Wenz alleged that TCE Policy 2.2.1.6, which establishes a level of service standard of E for County-maintained roads in urbanized areas, was internally inconsistent with the introductory language of the CIE concerning the use of existing level of service standards as benchmarks for most of the proposed level of service standards set forth in the plan. This allegation has been treated as raising the issue of supporting data and analysis. 12/ For roads, the analysis begins with the existing levels of service and then, as indicating in the introduction, adjusts service levels to correspond to projected revenues. If the use of the word "benchmark" were to imply an unvarying standard, then the sentence would impose upon the planning effort an unrealistic and, in the case of the County's urban containment strategy, unworkable limitation. Operative plan provisions should not be rejected because of lack of support from incompetent analysis. 2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan is not financially feasible in terms of scheduled road projects. Roads receive the highest priority for capital spending in the County. Although the optional one cents sales tax required a referendum, the plan adequately identifies other potential sources of revenue to fund needed road improvements. The unavailability of the optional one cent sales tax means the loss of $35.6 million for road projects over the six-year period covered by the Capital Improvement Program. Representing about 29% of the road budget for these six years, the optional one cent sales tax can be replaced by other funds. Total capital spending over this period is projected at $417.8 million, of which $249 million is projected for facilities for which concurrency is required. The evidence does not establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the shortfall of $35.6 million, under these facts, renders the plan financially unfeasible as to roads. As the plan acknowledges, another factor supporting the financial feasibility of the plan as to roads is the concurrency provisions. 13/ The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan fails to create a monitoring system to enable the County to determine whether it is adhering to the adopted level of service standards and whether public facilities are available. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan fails to require development agreements to ensure that required facilities will be in place when the impacts of development occur. During periods of revenue shortfalls, timely concurrency determinations supported by an effective monitoring system and understandable level of service standards may help preserve financial feasibility. A concurrency management system breaks the cycle by which the impacts of development outpace the ability of a local government to finance needed infrastructure. To prevent the accumulation of infrastructure deficits, such as backlogged roads, a concurrency management system limits development whose impacts exceed the available capacity of facilities for which concurrency is required. In the absence of funding from the developer or a third party, a financially strapped local government no longer permits the proposed development and thus does not increase the backlog of needed public facilities. The portion of Petitioner Wenz's challenge to provisions governing development agreements also raises the issue of concurrency determinations, at least in the situation where the developer, rather than the County, is providing the required facilities. As to development agreements, CIE Policies 15.5.1.6 and 15.5.3.2.d provide for the use of enforceable development agreements to provide required facilities. CIE Policies 15.5.1.1 et seq. establish generally applicable concurrency requirements that adequately correspond, for the purpose of resolving the present claims, to the concurrency criteria in Rule 9J-5.0055. The concurrency determinations for developments impacting backlogged and constrained roads reflect a strategy of adjusting level of service standards, subject to clear standards and specific time limits, to provide time to eliminate deficiencies that have accumulated over the years. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that this strategy, when used in development agreements, precludes effective concurrency determinations or, when considered in light of the financial feasibility of road projects, renders the plan financially unsound. 3. Consistency with Regional Plan The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan is inconsistent with the cited provisions of the Regional Plan. Most importantly, the plan's level of service standards are consistent with those contained in Regional Plan Policy 64.1, and the plan's sources of revenue are consistent with the principle of equitable cost participation in Regional Plan Policy 64.8. To the extent that the remaining Regional Plan provisions cited by Petitioner Wenz contain criteria against which the plan may be measured, no evidence suggests the existence of any inconsistencies. Capital Improvements Element The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan is not financially feasible. Future Land Use Element 1. Data and Analysis 120. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the data and analysis fail to include a land use suitability analysis or that they fail to support, such as through the absence of accurate population projections, the NRMA designations of ESC, Forestry, and Agriculture. To the contrary, the land use suitability analysis is thorough, and the omission of these NRMA designations or equivalent conservation designations would itself have been unsupported by the data and analysis. 2. Maps and Goals, Objectives, and Policies The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the NRMA designations of ESC, Forestry, and Agriculture, or any other designations contained on the future land use maps, are inconsistent with the operative provisions of the plan. Again, to the contrary, these NRMA designations graphically depict the text of relevant goals, objectives, and policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order dismissing the petitions of all Petitioners. ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Parties City of Cocoa Beach The City of Cocoa Beach (City) is a municipality located in Brevard County. The City has previously submitted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985. The Department of Community Affairs determined the original plan to be in compliance, and the determination has become final. Department of Community Affairs The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive plans under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Carole C. Pope Carole C. Pope (Petitioner) resides in the City of Rockledge Brevard County, Florida. She submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings concerning the subject plan amendment. Petitioner does not own property or own or operate a business in the City of Cocoa Beach. She and her husband own Lot 11 (less the west 15 feet reserved for road right-of-way), Block 101, of the platted subdivision known as Avon-by-the Sea. The parcel, which Petitioner occupies annually during the summer, is located in unincorporated Brevard County, about 200 feet north of the existing north boundary of the City. Petitioner's property, which contains a duplex dwelling unit, measures about 475 feet east-west by 50 feet north-south. The lot is bound on the north by Wilson Avenue, the west by Azure Lane, the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and the south by Lot 12 of Block 101. Immediately south of Petitioner's lot are four other oceanfront lots measuring about 490 feet east-west by 50 feet north-south and constituting over two acres of the 2.3-acre Subject Parcel. These four lots and one and one-half smaller lots directly across Azure Lane from Petitioner's lot constitute the land that is the subject of the present plan amendment (Subject Parcel). The five and one-half lots forming the Subject Parcel total about 2.3 acres. The Subject Parcel is located in what is generally a residential area. Many of the nearby lots have been developed with single- and multi-family residential units. Just to the south of the Subject Parcel, across Harding Avenue, is an eight-story condominium project known as Discovery Beach. Immediately north of Petitioner's lot is a two-story condominium. One block west of Azure Lane is Ridgewood Avenue, which is classified as a collector. Two blocks, or about one-quarter mile, west of Azure Lane is State Route A1A, which is classified as a major arterial. Annexation of Subject Parcel The Subject Parcel comprises properties not under common ownership. For instance, the owners of the small one and one-half lots west of Azure Lane do not own the four large oceanfront lots immediately south of Petitioner's property. In response to the desires of a prospective purchaser, the owners of the Subject Parcel caused or allowed the commencement of an annexation proceeding with respect to their properties. The northern boundary of the City presently extends to Harding Avenue, which runs along the south boundary of the southernmost of the four oceanfront lots described above. On March 15, 1990, the City Commission adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 928. The ordinance describes the Subject Parcel and states that it is "hereby annexed and incorporated into the City of Cocoa Beach." Somewhat contradictorily, Ordinance No. 928 also states: This Ordinance shall become effective following compliance with Section 163.3187(15)(c) Florida Statutes (1987) and immediately after the changes herein provided for have been duly entered upon [the Future Land Use Map]. The ordinance adds in the following section: "This Ordinance will become effective upon completion of publication requirements for annexation and compliance review by the State Department of Community Affairs." The intent of the City Commission in adopting Ordinance No. 928 was to postpone the effective date of the annexation until DCA's determination of compliance, as to the plan amendment, became final. The ordinance is interpreted consistent with this intent. The language of Ordinance No. 928 is unclear as to whether the annexation takes effect in the event of a final determination of noncompliance. It appears that the intent of the City Commission in adopting Ordinance No. 928 was to condition the annexation upon a favorable final determination. Absent a final determination of compliance, the annexation would never become effective and the Subject Parcel would remain in the unincorporated County. The ordinance is interpreted consistent with this intent. The language of Ordinance No. 928 is unclear as to whether the annexation takes effect regardless of the objections of current owners during the plan amendment review process. As to this issue, the intent of the City Commission in adopting Ordinance No. 928 is not evident. It appears that no one anticipated this possibility. In fact, the owners of the one and one-half lots west of Azure Lane no longer desire annexation into the City. The record does not allow a determination whether annexation may proceed over the owners' objection. Plan Amendment and Additional Data and Analysis Ordinance No. 928 makes only one amendment to the operative provisions of the City's plan. The ordinance designates the Subject Parcel as High Density Multi-Family on the Future Land Use Map. The City's High Density Multi-Family designation allows a residential density of 15 dwelling units per gross acre, a transient (hotel/motel) density of 40 rooms per gross acre, and limited professional and commercial uses. The City transmitted to DCA two sets of data and analysis in support of the designation proposed for the Subject Parcel. The first set accompanied the plan amendment, and the second set consisted of responses to DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments on the proposed plan amendment (collectively, Data and Analysis). The Data and Analysis explain that the City's proposed designation would yield 35 dwelling units or 92 hotel/motel rooms on the Subject Parcel. However, the Data and Analysis note that the "applicant" (i.e., the prospective purchaser) will agree to allow the City to restrict the hotel/motel density to 30 rooms per gross acre, which generates 69 hotel/motel rooms. 5/ The two sets of Data and Analysis are inconsistent as to the critical question of the present designation and permitted land uses under the County's plan. The first set erroneously states that the County's plan designates the Subject Parcel as "Mixed Use" and allows 30 hotel/motel rooms per gross acre for a total of 69 rooms. The second set correctly states that the County's plan designates the Subject Parcel as "High Density Residential" and omits mention of any hotel/motel uses. Since April 9, 1990, if not before, the County's plan has designated the Subject Parcel as "Residential." 6/ Addressing the impact of the proposed designation upon public facilities, the Data and Analysis calculate an increase in daily vehicular trips from 455 to 703, if the 69 residential units under the County's plan were changed to 69 hotel/motel rooms under the City's plan. However, the additional trips would not, according to the Data and Analysis, reduce the level of service standards of affected roads below the adopted level of service standards for those roads. A similar conclusion follows if the City allowed 92 hotel/motel rooms to be built on the Subject Property. The Data and Analysis disclose ample capacity in central sewer and water facilities and disclose no problems with respect to other facilities and services, regardless whether the City allowed 69 or 92 hotel/motel rooms on the Subject Parcel. According to the Data and Analysis, the Subject Parcel is, on average, 9.5 feet above mean sea level, although it is not in the 100-year floodplain. The soil series found on the site has only very slight limitations for dwellings. The dune area, which has suffered little erosion, is well vegetated with dune grass, sea oats, sea grapes, and railroad vines. Otherwise, the Data and Analysis report that the site is clear, except for a building located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line set by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. 7/ The Data and Analysis state that the Subject Parcel contains no known habitat for endangered or threatened species or species of special concern, although the Atlantic Loggerhead Turtle and Atlantic Green Turtle use the coastline for nesting. However, the Data and Analysis mention that the City's lighting ordinance helps eliminate a lighting hazard to the fledgling sea turtles from May 1 through October 31. With respect to coastal hazards, the Data and Analysis state that the landward boundary of the Coastal High Hazard Area, through the Subject Parcel, is about 365 feet west of the mean high water line. The Data and Analysis represent that the City permits no building in this area and allows no disturbance seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line in the absence of a hermit from the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Noting that the each of the two plans allows a total population of 152 persons on the Subject Parcel, the Data and Analysis reason that the proposed amendment will not impact actual hurricane evacuation times or designated maximum hurricane evacuation times, which in each plan approximate 12 hours, exclusive of behavioral response times. It is evident from the Data and Analysis that the construction of even 92 hotel/motel rooms on the Subject Parcel would not measurably affect hurricane evacuation times. City's Plan: Data and Analysis As described in Paragraphs 15-22 above, the City provided DCA new Data and Analysis in support of the subject plan. However, the plan already contained data and analysis that bear on the proposed designation of the Subject Parcel. The data and analysis accompanying the original plan state that the City is located on an "intensely developed" barrier island. Of the 1772 acres within the City, exclusive of road right-of-way, finger canals and the Thousand Islands located in the Banana River, only 180 acres of vacant land remain. Based on land use designations, the supply of land available for multi-family development may be exhausted by 1998. The data and analysis note that the sandy beaches and dunes provide essential nesting areas for a variety of endangered or threatened sea turtles. In the Summary of Ecological Communities, the data and analysis list three endangered or threatened wildlife species and two vegetative species as occupying the beach and dune habitat, which constitutes the part of the Subject Parcel seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. The data and analysis list no such species occupying the barrier island interior habitat, which constitutes the part of the Subject Parcel landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. The data and analysis report that a foredune runs the length of Cocoa Beach. However, most of the extant dunes have reportedly been adversely impacted by roads, fences, structures, and parking lots. The data and analysis acknowledge that the entire City is subject to coastal flooding and included in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone, as well as the "coastal zone." It is less clear what extent of the City is located in the Coastal High Hazard Area. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 6.3 and Coastal Management/Conservation Element (Conservation) Policy 14.1, which are identical, state that the Coastal High Hazard Area shall be the area located within the "velocity zone or seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line ...." No map in the plan depicts the location of the Coastal High Hazard Area, and the locations of the velocity zone and Coastal Construction Control Line are not depicted either. The data and analysis state that little infrastructure is located in the Coastal High Hazard Area. The primary strategies of the City to address coastal hazards are to enforce the building elevations shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps and rely on the Florida Department of Natural Resources to enforce the Coastal Construction Control Line. The data and analysis concede that the City can do little to reduce evacuation times except to exhort the State of Florida to raise the elevation of State Routes A1A and 520, which are critical hurricane evacuation routes and are subject to early flooding. City's Plan: Objectives and Policies Several plan provisions coordinate future land uses with available facilities and services. For instance, FLUE Policy 4.1 precludes the issuance of a development order until the applicable levels of service are met. The future land use designations themselves are also coordinated with available facilities and services. The data and analysis disclose no general deficiencies in relevant facilities and services when evaluated against the designations contained in the future land use maps. As to the coordination of future land uses with topography and soil conditions, FLUE Objective 3 limits development on Tidal Swamp soils to one unit per five acres; FLUE Objective 9 prohibits construction activity from damaging the dunes; Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element (Public Facilities) Objective 4 requires the City to complete a study by the end of 1992 to identify its most pressing drainage problems and initiate solutions; Public Facilities Policy 5.1 imposes a drainage level of service standard with respect to stormwater runoff; FLUE and Conservation Objectives 1 require the use of flood control and shoreline erosion control techniques to improve estuarine quality; Conservation Objectives 4 and 5 and the ensuing policy clusters provide protection to the dunes; and Conservation Objective 6 and the ensuing policy cluster provide protection to the beaches. Several plan provisions ensure the protection of natural resources. The plan states that the City contains no waterwells, cones of influences, or minerals. Plan provisions protecting beaches and soils have been discussed in connection with the coordination of future land uses with soils and topography. Plan provisions concerning wetlands are irrelevant to the present case because the Subject Parcel contains no wetlands. Although drainage from the Subject Parcel may reach the estuarine waters of the Indian River Lagoon, the connection is too remote to interpret the amended petition as raising the issue of protection of rivers and bays. As to floodplains, a Future Land Use Map shows the entire oceanside of the City to be outside of the 100-year floodplain. Conservation Objective 15 is to achieve an evacuation time of less than 12 hours for a category three or stronger hurricane. FLUE Policy 4.1g conditions the issuance of a development order on a determination that a project will not increase the hurricane evacuation time to over 12 hours. FLUE Policies 1.1-1.3 and 6.1-6.4 address implementation activities for the regulation of land use categories. With respect to policies addressing implementation activities for the regulation of floodprone areas, FLUE Objective requires construction in the floodplain or the Coastal High Hazard Area to satisfy the building elevations identified in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Several plan provisions address implementation activities for the provision of drainage and stormwater management. FLUE Objectives 2 and 3 deal with drainage and stormwater management, and FLUE Policies 2.1 and 3.1 establish implementation activities reasonably calculated to achieve the objectives. FLUE Policy 4.1a conditions the issuance of a development order on a determination that a project will retain the first inch of runoff (for a project less than 100 acres) or the first half-inch of runoff (for a larger project), apparently in a 10-year/24-hour storm event. The policy also limits, for such a storm event, post-development runoff to predevelopment runoff. Public Facilities Policy 4.1 provides that the City will promptly fund the most critical drainage improvements identified in a drainage study to completed by the end of 1992. FLUE Policy 7.1 requires the City to require the preservation of environmentally sensitive coastal and wetland areas or that damage be mitigated. Several objectives protect beaches and dunes. FLUE Objective 8, which is identical to Conservation Objective 4, provides that vehicular and pedestrian traffic shall not damage the dune system. FLUE Objective 9 provides that construction activities shall not damage the dunes. Conservation Objective 5 is identical, but adds that altered dunes shall be restored. Conservation Objective 6 states that the City shall promote beach nourishment projects. Policy 3.4 requires the City to set aside at least two islands in the Thousand Islands to be used exclusively as rookeries and wildlife habitat, and Conservation Objective 7, as well as the ensuing policy cluster, protect and increase native vegetation and wildlife habitat. Conservation Objective 10 and its policy cluster protect soils and groundwater from hazardous waste contamination. Conservation Objective 14 is to "direct population and development landward of the coastal high-hazard area." The two policies under Objective 14 provide for the relocation of public infrastructure in the Coastal High Hazard Area (unless related to certain excepted uses) and for the rebuilding of certain structures in the Coastal High Hazard Area in accordance with all current land development regulations. FLUE Policy 2.1b conditions the issuance of a development order within the Coastal High Hazard Area upon the determination that the Florida Department of Natural Resources has approved the construction and the proposed project complies with any "reasonable" conditions imposed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Conservation Policy 13.2 states: "[The City] will rely upon the Florida Department of Natural Resources to enforce the building limitations seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line." Many plan provisions identifying techniques for limiting impacts of development on water quality, wildlife habitat, living marine resources, and beach and dune systems have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Additional provisions include Public Facilities Policy 1.1, which is to expand the effluent reuse program until at least half the effluent is reused by 1995; Conservation Policy 3.1, which protects sea turtles and their nests by enforcing the light ordinance and monitoring; Conservation Policy 3.2, which protects manatee habitat; Conservation Policy 3.5, which requires the preparation of a management plan for the minimization of adverse effects of development on endangered or threatened species found on the site; Conservation Policy 7.4, which prohibits the use and, in the event of redevelopment or construction, requires the removal of noxious, exotic species such as Brazilian Pepper; and Conservation Objective 9, which is to reduce discharge from the City sewage treatment plant into the Banana River Lagoon by 50%. Plan provisions identifying techniques for mitigating general hazards, including the regulation of floodplains, beaches and dunes, stormwater management, and land use to reduce the exposure of human life and property to natural hazards, have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. As to sanitary sewer, Public Facilities Objective 1 assures that the City residents will have access to sanitary sewer facilities and the City will protect the Banana River by expanding the effluent reuse program. Public Facilities Policy conditions the issuance of a development order on a determination of sanitary sewer capacity of 100 gallons per day per person. Plan provisions conserving and protecting soils, fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat, native vegetation, endangered or threatened species, and protection from coastal natural hazards have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. In addition, FLUE Policy 9.2 states that the City will "require development in the dune area to use naturally vegetated dune to meet open space requirements, and to preserve the full range of existing interconnected dune vegetational zones." County's Plan: Objectives and Policies Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1C. of the County's plan limits the land designated as Residential to a density of 30 dwelling units per acre. It is unclear whether the County's plan permits the construction of hotel/motel rooms on the Subject Parcel. 8/ Even if so, the County's plan limits density to 15 rooms per acre. 9/ Future Land Use Element Policy 1.8 precludes any increase in densities for the Coastal High Hazard Area and High Risk Vulnerability Zones until the County completes Strategic Area Plans for the areas in question. Coastal Management Element Policy 4.1 contemplates that the County will permit construction seaward of its Coastal Construction Control Line, which is typically the same as the line established by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Conditions imposed on construction in the area seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line include the preservation of half of the existing vegetation, limitation of impervious surface to 45%, and construction to standards designed to withstand wind and water forces from the 100-year storm. Relevant Provisions of the Regional Plan Policy 40.6 of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, June, 1987 (Regional Plan) provides: Structural development along sand beaches fronting the Atlantic Ocean shall not adversely affect the coastal beach and dune system. The following criteria shall apply in the implementation of this policy: Beach setbacks shall be established to protect and preserve the coastal beach and dune systems fronting the Atlantic Ocean. Structures shall be prohibited within the established setback except where overriding public interest is apparent, or the structures are necessary for reasonable access and are elevated above the existing dune vegetation. MEASURE: The number of ordinances which establish beach setbacks. Regional Plan Policy 64.12 provides: Land development in the coastal zone shall be manned [sic] so that public facility and service needs required to maintain existing hurricane evacuation times do not exceed the ability of local government to provide them. MEASURE: The clearance time required to evacuate the population-at-risk within the region's coastal zone. Relevant Provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan Section 187.201(9)(a) is a goal of the state comprehensive plan. The goal is: Florida shall ensure that development and marine resource use and beach access improvements in coastal areas do not endanger public safety or important natural resources. Florida shall, through acquisition and access improvements, make available to the stage's population additional beaches and marine environment, consistent with sound environmental planning. Section 187.201(9)(b) contains the following policies: 4. Protect coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development. 9. Prohibit development and other activities which disturb coastal dune systems, and ensure and promote restoration of coastal dune systems that are damaged. Section 187.201(10)(b)3. is to "[p]rohibit the destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats. Section 187.201(16)(b)1. is a policy to: Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new populations and commerce. Ultimate Findings of Fact Jurisdiction As to Issue 1, 10/ the City has exercised planning authority over land that is neither within its jurisdiction nor the subject of a joint agreement with Brevard County. All of the conditions precedent to the annexation have not been met and might not even be satisfied by a final determination of compliance in this case. It is unclear whether annexation will necessarily proceed over the objections of the present owners of part of the Subject Parcel, especially when various unsatisfied contingencies may prevent the prospective purchaser from acquiring title to the land. Consistency of Data and Analysis with Criteria As to Issues 2-6, it is fairly debatable that the plan, as amended, is consistent with the criteria set forth in the statement of these issues. Consistency of Objectives and Policies with Criteria As to Issues 7-24, it is fairly debatable that the plan, as amended, is consistent with the criteria set forth in the statement of these issues. Internal Consistency As to Issue 25, it is fairly debatable that the designation of the Subject Parcel contained in the present plan amendment is consistent with the provisions of FLUE Policy 7.1, FLUE Objective 9, and FLUE Policy 9.2. These plan provisions require the protection of environmentally sensitive coastal areas, including the dunes. The designation of the Subject Parcel does not, to the exclusion of fair debate, conflict with these three provisions. To the exclusion of fair debate, the designation of the Subject Parcel as High Density Multi-Family is not consistent with Conservation Objective 14, which is to direct population and development landward of the Coastal High Hazard Area. A finding whether a plan amendment is consistent with a provision to direct population and development landward of the Coastal High Hazard Area may be facilitated by comparing densities allowed under the plan amendment with densities in effect prior to the amendment. With respect to the part of the Subject Parcel within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the County's plan imposes more demanding restrictions upon development than those that would be imposed under the City's plan. In both plans, the local governments cede to the Florida Department of Natural Resources the threshold decision whether to allow construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, which generally operates as the landward boundary of the Coastal High Hazard Area. However, the City's plan requires compliance only with "reasonable" conditions imposed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources in granting the permit. In contrast, the County's plan requires that construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (or in the Coastal High Hazard Area) meet certain minimum requirements. 11/ It is impossible to assume that all development of the Subject Parcel will necessarily take place outside the Coastal High Hazard Area. Neither plan itself prohibits development in the Coastal High Hazard Area, which encompasses nearly 75% of the four oceanfront lots forming most of the Subject Parcel. Thus, the additional protection in the County's plan for the Coastal High Hazard Area contributes to a finding of internal inconsistency. The County's plan permits a density of 30 dwelling units per acre and, most likely, no more than 15 hotel/motel rooms per acre. The City's plan permits the same density for dwelling units, but 45 hotel/motel rooms per acre. 12/ Thus, even if the County's plan permitted 30 boardinghouse or bed and breakfast rooms per acre, the effect of the plan amendment is to increase the density on the Subject Parcel by at least 15 rooms per acre. As noted above, because neither plan itself prohibits development in the Coastal High Hazard Area, which consumes much of the Subject Parcel, it is impossible to assume that all development of the Subject Parcel necessarily will take place outside the Coastal High Hazard Area. Thus, the lower densities permitted in the County's plan for development in the Coastal High Hazard Area contributes to a finding of internal inconsistency. Consistency with Regional Plan As to Issue 26, it is fairly debatable that the plan, as amended, is consistent with Policies 40.6 and 64.12 of the Regional Plan. Regardless of the effectiveness of any coastal setback provisions in the City's plan, other provisions specifically protect the coastal beach and dune system addressed by Policy 40.6. Consistency with State Comprehensive Plan As to Issue 27, it is fairly debatable that the plan, as amended, is consistent with Section 187.201(9)(a) and (b), (10)(b)3., and (16)(b)1. Consistency with Section 187.201(9)(a) is based upon consideration of the state comprehensive plan as a whole.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs submit the Recommended Order to the Administration Commission for entry of a final order determining that the subject plan amendment is not in compliance for lack of planning jurisdiction and internal inconsistency between the plan amendment and Conservation Objective 14. ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Park Central Industrial, which is referenced in this record as Park Central DRI, was originally called the "Andrews Avenue Business Park." This project is referred to as "Park" for convenience sake. The Park application for development approval (ADA) was filed in 1982 with Broward County, Florida since the property was, at that time, within an unincorporated area of the county. The Broward County Commission adopted Ordinance 82-43, effective August 26, 1982, which approved the project and made specific findings in connection with the development. At the time of the passage of Ordinance 82-43, Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, did not require the inclusion of a buildout date in a development order. At the time of the passage of Ordinance 82-43, Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, did not preclude the inclusion of a buildout date in a development order. Ordinance 82-43, recorded in the public record for Broward County, Florida, which is also known as the original development order (Joint Ex. 2), provided, in pertinent part: Section 3. Phasing of Development 3.01 The development and construction of each of the five (5) phases within the Andrews Avenue Business Park shall proceed in accordance with the Master Development and Phasing Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "2." * * * Section 4. General Provisions. 4.01 The ADA submitted to the SFRPC, is incorporated herein by reference and relied upon by the parties in discharging the statutory duties under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Substantial compliance with the representations contained in the ADA is a condition for approval unless waived or modified by agreement among the parties. * * * 4.08 . . . The Applicant shall obtain County approval of any proposed change in the state Phasing Plan, as prescribed in Section 3.02 of this Development Order. The Phasing Plan identified as Exhibit "2" in Section 3.01 above specified that the final date for construction to end for all five phases was 1991. Such date has been interpreted by the City and Intervenor to mean not later than December 31, 1991. The ADA incorporated by reference to Ordinance 82-43 provided for a buildout date of 1991. Additionally, the title to the original development order specified that the ordinance was "ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR CONTROLLED BUILDOUT OF THE ANDREWS AVENUE BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT." In September 1983, the Park was annexed into the City. Consequently, the City became the local governmental agency responsible for assuring compliance with the development order. On March 22, 1988, the City adopted two ordinances which amended the original development order. These ordinances, numbered 88-39 and 88-40, allowed the inclusion of an additional 9.5 acres and made pertinent findings related to this case. Ordinance 88-39 provided, in part: WHEREAS, the development phasing of this project is being extended by four years beyond the original Development Order schedule such that full development will not be completed until 1995; and * * * 7. The proposed extension of the date of buildout for the development does not exceed the threshold limitations established in Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes. Ordinance 88-40 provided, in part: Section 3: This Development Order shall terminate at midnight on December 31, 1995. Park did not challenge the findings nor the conclusions reached in Ordinances 88-39 and 88-40. Subsequently, however, Park filed an application with the City to again amend the development order to extend the buildout and termination dates from December 31, 1995 to December 30, 2002. With input from the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Department of Community Affairs, the City enacted Ordinance 95-23 which provided, in part: WHEREAS, The Applicant also requested on September 30, 1994 that the buildout date be extended to December 30, 2002; and WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held on Ocober (sic) 4, 1994, the Applicant requested that the City Commission consider an alternative buildout date extension to December 30, 1998; and * * * Section 1. The foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses are true and correct and are hereby ratified and confirmed by the City Commission. Section 2. The City, pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, makes the following findings of fact: * * * Broward County Ordinance 82-43 and subsequent City ordinances established December 31, 1991 as the buildout date for this project by incorporation of the Phasing Schedule and by incorporating the Application for Development Approval. City of Pompano Beach Ordinance 88-40 created a termination date of December 31, 1995. The requested buildout date extension to December 30, 2002, represents a cumulative extension of approximately eleven (11) years. An extension of the buildout date to December 30, 1998 represents a cumulative extension of not more than seven (7) years. * * * SECTION 3. Conclusions of Law. Pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, the City makes the following conclusions of law: * * * The Applicant's proposal to extend the buildout date to December 30, 2002 is presumed to constitute a substantial deviation and the Applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption. An extension of the buildout date to December 30, 1998 does not constitute a substantial deviation. SECTION 4. Modification of Development. The Development Order is hereby amended as follows: The buildout date of the Park Central Development of Regional Impact is hereby extended and the new buildout date is December 30, 1998. The termination date of the Park Central Development of Regional Impact is hereby extended and the new termination date is December 30, 1998. Section 380.06(19)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that an extension of a buildout date of less that seven years is presumed not to create a substantial deviation. The extension of a buildout date beyond seven years creates a presumption of a substantial deviation which a developer must refute with clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order finding that the original development order contained a buildout date of 1991 which was extended to December 31, 1995 by the subsequent ordinance and which cannot under the circumstances of this case be extended beyond December 31, 1998. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 6th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1452DRI The parties did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Gordon B. Linn, Esquire City of Pompano Beach Post Office Box 2083 Pompano Beach, FL 33061 Richard G. Coker, Jr., Esquire Brady & Coker 1318 SE 2nd Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Robert B. Bradley Secretary Land & Water Adjudicatory Comm. 2105 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Carolyn Dekle Director South Fla. Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Blvd., Ste 140 Hollywood, FL 33021 Dan Stengle, Esquire Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Gregory Smith, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Suzanne H. Schmith Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 James F. Murley Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
