The Issue Ultimately at issue in this case is whether certain comprehensive plan amendments, adopted by Lee County Ordinance No. 94-30, are "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, many of the subordinate issues raised by parties seeking to have the plan amendments found to be "not in compliance" have been withdrawn, and others have been stricken as not timely raised or for other reasons. The remaining issues are addressed in this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact The FLUM and the Overlay. Lee County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1984. On January 31, 1989, the County adopted an amended version of the 1984 Plan intended to plan for growth up to the year 2010 and to comply with the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements. Essentially, the 1989 Plan was very similar to that drafted in 1984. Some major differences were provision of development timing and concurrency, creation of the privately-funded infrastructure overlay, elimination of the fringe land use category, and a variety of other new goals, objectives, and policies (GOP's). Most of the land use categories in the 1984 Plan were carried forward to the 1989 Plan. Almost all of the land use categories are mixed land use categories that allow residential, commercial and in some cases also light industrial uses without any percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. The DCA took the position that the 1989 Lee Plan was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act and filed a petition under Section 163.3184(10). The Department's objection to the 1989 Plan flowed in large part from the alleged overallocation of land for development by the year 2010 that resulted from the categories in the future land use map series (FLUM). Using the County's data and analysis, the DCA concluded that the 1989 map provided for 70 years of growth, to the year 2060, instead of 20 years, to the year 2010. To resolve the 1989 Plan dispute, the County agreed to adopt a 2010 Overlay and create a Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource future land use (FLUE) category (DRGR). The 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement included the following provisions: Amend the Future Land Use Map series by designating the proposed distribution, extent, and location of the generalized land uses required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a)1.-9. for the year 2010. These designations will include acreage totals and percentage distributions (illustrated by a bar graph) for about 125 discrete sub-districts encompassing all of Lee County, which, once designated, shall be changed only by a formal amendment to the Lee Plan. The data for these designations shall be consistent with the Lee Plan's population pro- jections for the year 2010. This amendment shall be accomplished by the adoption of over- lay or sub-district maps for the entire County using the concepts developed therefor by Thomas H. Roberts of Thomas H. Roberts Associates and presented publicly to the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County on September 12, 1989, and to the Department of Community Affairs on September 22, 1989. Adopt a policy which will provide that no development approvals for any land use category will be issued in any of the sub- districts described above that would cause the acreage total set for that land use category in 2010 to be exceeded. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County created a 2010 Overlay. The County first projected future growth in Lee County to the year 2010, using a basic assumption that historic patterns of growth in Lee County, including historic densities, would continue. The County's 2010 population estimate was 757,370 for the entire unincorporated County. The County then assigned acreage allocations for different land uses allowed in each planning subdistrict. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County adopted the resulting 2010 Overlay, as well as a DRGR FLUE category with a density range of one unit per ten acres, as part of the 1990 remedial plan amendments. The Overlay consisted of Maps 16 and 17, which were added to the FLUM, along with implementing policies in the Future Land Use Element. The 2010 Overlay is, in the words of the 1994 Codification of the Plan, "an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series." Map 16 is a map which divides Lee County into 115 subdistricts. "Map" 17 is not a true map; it is a series of bar tables and pie charts that correspond to acreage allocations for land uses within the subdistricts. Each subdistrict is allocated a specific number of acres for each of the following land uses: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, passive agriculture and vacant. The land use acreage allocations for each Overlay subdistrict are the maximum amount of land which can be developed in that subdistrict. The intent of the 2010 Overlay was to match the amount of development that could be accommodated by the 2010 FLUM with the projected County-wide population for the year 2010. The 2010 Overlay accomplished this in part by assigning percentage distributions, in the form of acreage allocations, to the various uses in the many mixed use categories in the FLUM. Under the Overlay, once the acreage allocation for a particular land use is exhausted, no more acreage can be developed for that land use in that subdistrict unless the Lee Plan is amended. Policy 1.7.6 was adopted to establish an ongoing mandatory review procedure for evaluation and amendment of the 2010 Overlay. On September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments and officially revised the original data and analysis supporting the Plan. As the support documents for the 1990 remedial amendments stated: The future land use map series currently contained in the Future Land Use element of the Lee Plan depicts 18 land use categories and has an estimated 70-year population holding capacity. A future land use map series is re- quired by state law and is also a useful and necessary part of the plan in guiding land use and related decisions. The Year 2010 Overlay makes this map series even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon. * * * In addition to this "pure planning" function of the 2010 Overlay, a regulatory function will be added. No final development orders or building permits for any land use category will be issued in any subdistrict that would cause the acreage total for that category in 2010 to be exceeded. The Dwelling Unit Counts and Projections charts in the support documents for the 1990 amendments demonstrate that the 2010 Overlay was designed to greatly limit the number of dwelling units that could be constructed by 2010 compared to the number allowed by the 2010 FLUM without the Overlay. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments in compliance. However, a citizen challenge to the County's 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments resulted in an Administration Commission Final Order that the amendments were not in compliance and that the County had to take certain remedial actions to bring the Plan amendments into compliance. Final Order, Sheridan v. Lee Co. and DCA, 16 FALR 654 (Fla. Admin. Com. 1994)(the "Sheridan Final Order"). The Sheridan Final Order required the County to apply the 2010 Overlay at the development order stage, rather than at the building permit stage. As a result, no development order could be issued which caused the acreage allocations for any given individual subdistrict to be exceeded. The Sheridan Final Order also held that the County had not properly calculated the amount of development allowed by the 2010 Overlay and adopted the following analysis from the hearing officer's Recommended Order: The calculation of a density allocation ratio is part of the determination whether data and analysis support the residential densities in a plan. The analysis misses the point of the process if the maximum densities authorized by a plan are reduced to reflect historic densities. The question is whether the densities authorized by a plan are supported by data and analysis, not whether data and analysis support densities some- where between the maximum authorized densities and historic densities. Especially where historic densities reflect an inefficient use of land, as is clearly the case in Lee County, analysis of a plan based in part on historic densities invites the repetition of past planning failures. * * * The purpose of the density allocation calculation, as part of the process of determining if the plan is supported by data and analysis, is not to predict the actual density that will occupy the planning jurisdiction at buildout. The purpose of the density allocation calculation is to compare the maximum density allowed by the plan with the projected population, and consider the extent of the overallocation in the light of other factors in the planning jurisdiction, including plan provisions and relevant data and analysis. The ratio is not required to be 1:1 to satisfy the criterion of supporting data and analysis. But the ratio must be ascertainable in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 689. As a result, one of the remedial amendments required by the Administration Commission was: To address the density calculation issue the County shall revise the data and analysis to include the maximum allowable densities in determining the amount of development allowed by the 2010 overlay and to show that the amount of development allowed is based on the expected growth. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 661. The County adopted 2010 Overlay remedial amendments in October, 1994. In December, 1994, the DCA determined that the remedial amendments were in compliance. (The revised data and analysis were not made a part of the record in this case.) On July 1, 1994, the County adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for its Plan and subsequently submitted to the DCA the EAR, along with the proposed EAR-based amendments for the year 2020. Among other things, the proposed EAR-based amendments eliminated the 2010 Overlay. Among other things, the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report objected to the elimination of the 2010 Overlay, taking the position that, without the Overlay, the EAR-based plan had the same allocation-related problems that had been in the 1989 plan. On November 1, 1994, the County adopted a modified version of the EAR- based amendments--still without any Overlay--and submitted these to the DCA, together with its staff response to the DCA's ORC Report. On December 28, 1994, the DCA issued a Statement of Intent to find the EAR-based amendments not in compliance. FLUM Population Accommodation Data and Analysis. The evidence in this case includes data and several different analyses comparing the population accommodated by the plan amendments at issue--i.e., the FLUM without any Overlay--with the population projected for the year 2020. Figure 14. Lee County's proposed population accommodation data and analysis is included in the EAR in Figure 14. Based on Figure 14, the County concluded that the 2020 FLUM accommodates 802,655 persons, or 128 percent of the projected 2020 population (an accommodation ratio of 1.28). Although the FLUM's many mixed use categories do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses, Figure 14 assumes that certain percentages of the many mixed use categories will develop in residential use, based on historic growth patterns. Also based on historic growth patterns, Figure 14 assumes that residential density will be less than the maximum of the standard residential density range allowed in each category although the GOP's allow residential development at much higher densities. Since Figure 14 is based on historic patterns of growth that are expected to continue into the future, Figure 14 appears to predict future growth as accurately as is possible at this time. It probably is the best possible estimate of how Lee County will build out under the proposed amendments. However, the ability to make truely accurate predictions over such a long period of time--25 years--is questionable. Figure 14 assumes that only a fraction of the new Vested Community land use district (Lehigh Acres) will be developed by the end of the planning timeframe. Most of the Vested Community district consists of subdivisions which were approved and platted several years before the adoption of the earliest Lee Plan, and which are vested from the restrictions of the Lee Plan. The Vested Community district contains over 130,000 vested lots which can accommodate at least 271,700 residents. In addition, the Vested Community district contains some land which is not actually vested from the Lee Plan but is allowed to develop at four density units per acre (du/ac). Figure 14 assumes that 45,888 residential units accommodating 95,906 persons will be developed in Lehigh Acres by 2020. There is no goal, objective or policy in the Lee Plan which would prevent the development of more lots vested or allocated in the Vested Community district. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis assumed that the Rural and Outer Islands categories will develop at their maximum residential density of one du/ac. In fact, the Lee Plan includes a Planned Development District Option ("PDDO") which allows: landowners outside the Future Urban Areas to increase allowable densities for development that will be totally independent of county- subsidized facilities and services. (Objective 1.8) The PDDO increases the maximum theoretical residential density of the Rural and Outer Islands districts from 1 du/ac to 6 du/ac. However, due the requirements for use of the PDDO, realistically it cannot be anticipated that much Rural or Outer Islands land will utilize it. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis did not include any residential allocation for the General Interchange category. The General Interchange category allows residential development of 100 residential units at 8 du/ac for every 100,000 square feet of commercial development. If the residential option applied to all 1,436 acres of the General Interchange category, the Lee Plan would accommodate another 13,209 persons in that category. However, for the residential option, the category requires 160 acres under common ownership. Currently, there is only one case in which the requirement is met, and it is a development of regional impact (DRI) that does not allow residential at this time. Figure 14A. Figure 14A is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It was supposed to adjust Figure 14 by assuming the maximum residential density allowed by each land use category in accordance with the Sheridan Final Order. The Figure 14A accommodated population rises to 1,325,568, and the so-called allocation ratio rises to 2.11. Actually, Figure 14A does not take into account the actual maximum residential density in Intensive Development (22 du/ac), Central Urban (15 du/ac), and Urban Community (10 du/ac). Instead, it uses the top of the "standard density range" in those categories. Figure 14 B. Figure 14B also is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It adjusts the Figure 14A analysis by estimating the total residential development allowed by the Vested Community category at 170,732 dwelling units, which will accommodate 356,829 persons. Adding those Vested Community numbers to the Figure 14A numbers, Figure 14B estimates the population accommodated by the 2020 FLUM as 1,586,491 persons, or an accommodation ratio of 2.53. Maximum Theoretical Residential Potential. The DCA proposes an analysis of the data using maximum theoretical residential potential for each land use category. Under the DCA analysis, there is enough land available for residential development accommodate a population of approximately 2.5 million people--401 percent of the expected County population in 2020 or, expressed as a ratio, 4.01. In contrast to Figure 14B, the DCA's preferred analysis takes into account all of the residential development capacity in Lehigh Acres. In addition, it assumes residential development in the Vested Intensive Development part of the Lehigh Vested Community at the maximum density of 14 du/ac and in the Vested Central Urban part at the maximum density of 10 du/ac. These assumptions add to the FLUM population accommodation analysis the capacity to accommodate approximately 246,000 more people, over and above the Figure 14B capacity. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that all Rural and Outer Islands land will utilize PDDO and develop residentially at 6 du/ac. Use of this assumption more than doubles the population accommodation in those categories, adding approximately 500,000 people to the analysis. While theoretically possible, as previously stated, this assumption is unrealistic. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that 13,209 people are accommodated in residential development in the General Interchange category. This assumption, too, is theoretically possible but not realistic. Finally, the DCA's preferred analysis assumes that, although most of Lee County's future land use categories allow a mix of uses, the land will develop at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area--i.e., that no other type of permitted use, such as commercial, parks, schools or even roads would occur in any of the land use categories. Finally, it disregards the actual existence of non-residential uses and residential uses at lower densities; instead, it assumes redevelopment at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area. County's 2010 Overlay Analysis. It seems obvious that deletion of the 2010 Overlay must increase population accommodation, at least up to the year 2010. Up to the time of the final hearing, the DCA had not requested, and no party did, an allocation ratio analysis of the 2010 Overlay similar to the one the DCA prefers for the 2020 FLUM without any Overlay for purposes of making a comparison between the two. The County's chief planner testified that he performed such an analysis during the course of the final hearing using the maximum residential and maximum density assumptions. Neither the details nor the results of the analysis were clear. However, it appears to indicate that the 2010 Overlay accommodated a 2010 population of 1.06 million, apparently including 282,000 assumed to be accommodated in Lehigh Acres, an allocation ratio of 2.11. Assuming that the County's 2010 Overlay analysis included Lehigh, it can be roughly compared to the Figure 14B analysis and the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" analysis by removing the Lehigh component from each. Subtracting the Lehigh component from the County's 2010 Overlay population accommodation analysis results in a 2010 population accommodation of 778,000. Removing the Lehigh component from Figure 14B results in 2020 population accommodation of 1,229,662. Removing the Lehigh component from the DCA's analysis results in 2020 population accommodation of 2,008,927. Meanwhile, the County's projection of future increased by only about 70,000 between 2010 and 2020 for the entire unincorporated county. RGMC Alternative 2010 Overlay Accommodation Analysis and Comparision. RGMC proposes its own alternative analysis for comparing the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay to the population accommodated without it. Using the County's population projection for 2020 of 626,860 in the unincorporated county and the accepted 2.09 people per unit, it can be estimated that approximately 300,000 units will be needed in the year 2020. Subtracting the 127,000 units existing in 1990, approximately 173,000 additional units will be needed over the 30 years from 1990 to 2020 to accommodate the expected population, or approximately 5,800 additional units per year. At that average rate, 116,000 units would be added by the year 2010 (5,800 units per year times 20 years). Adding the new units to the 127,000 units existing in 1990 results in a total of approximately 244,000 units in 2010. Since it is agreed that the Overlay was designed to accommodate, and accommodated, approximately the population expected in the year 2010, it can be estimated that the Overlay accommodated approximately 244,000 units. In the sense that all units accommodated under the 2020 FLUM without the Overlay are available for development before 2010, a rough comparison can be made between the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay and the population accommodated according to the other analysis methodologies: according to Figure 14, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 384,045 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14A, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 634,243 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14B, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 759,086 units for the year 2020; and according to the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" methodology, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 1,201,973 units for the year 2020. Calculation and Use of the "Allocation Ratio". The technique of determining a residential density allocation ratio was described in an article entitled "Expanding the Overallocation of Land Use Categories," which appears in a June, 1995, publication of the Department of Community Affairs called "Community Planning." "Community Planning" is published by the Department of Community Affairs "to provide technical assistance to Florida's counties and cities and implement any requirements of Florida's growth management laws." The article announces how the Department reviews the question of "overallocation" in determining whether a plan is in compliance with statutory and rule requirements regarding urban sprawl. According to the article, the Department suggests that a comprehensive plan should allocate up to 125 percent of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected future population. The article does not explain how the "allocation ratio" should be calculated. The Sheridan Final Order seems to say that maximum densities should be assumed. See Finding 11, above. But neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order indicate what other assumptions should be made. The "Community Planning" article and the Sheridan Final Order also do not specify whether, in calculating the allocation ratio, population accommodation capacity should be compared to the total expected population or to the incremental growth expected in the population. The DCA has accepted a 1.25 allocation ratio applied to the total expected population as being reasonable. A major treatise in this area known as Urban Land Use Planning, Fourth Edition, by Kaiser, Godchalk, and Chapin, suggests that an allocation ratio of up to 2.05 can be considered reasonable; however, when doing so, the authors were evaluating plans with a closer planning horizon (one to five years), and they were comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population. When calculating an allocation ratio for a 20-year planning horizon, they suggest that a 1.20 allocation ratio that compares population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be reasonable. By accepting a 1.25 allocation ratio that compares the population accommodation capacity to the total population expected on a 25-year planning horizon, the DCA seems to have been misapplying the allocation ratio analysis. Clearly, an accommodation ratio comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be much than one comparing to to the total population expected. There was no data and analysis as to exactly how much higher, and it is difficult to say based on the record in this case. However, an example of the difference between the too methodologies is suggested by one of RGMC's alternative analyses. It is known that approximately 300,000 units of residential development will be needed for the population expected in the year 2020. See Finding 36, above. The evidence was that there were approximately 143,000 units existing in 1995, so approximately 157,000 additional units will be needed by the year 2020 to accommodate the expected population. Meanwhile, using the County's Figure 14 assumptions, the FLUM without the Overlay makes 384,045 units available for development by the year 2020, or an accommodation of an additional 241,045 units over what was in existence in 1995. Comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020 would result in an "accommodation ratio" of approximately 1.54, versus the ratio of 1.28 calculated in Figure 14 comparing to total population expected. By way of further examples, using the same method of comparison: Figure 14A's 2.11 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.13, comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020; Figure 14B's 2.53 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.92; and the DCA's "accommodation ratio" of 4.01 would become a ratio of 6.75. It should be noted that the Urban Land Use Planning treatise also speaks of the use of the allocation ratio as a safety factor to provide a choice of location for housing type and to avoid artificially increasing land and housing prices. Rather than being a device merely to avoid the overallocation of land, the safety factor also is said to be necessary to ensure that enough land is allocated and that the limitations of forecasting approaches do not exacerbate the need for affordable housing. It also should be noted that neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order specify that allocation and urban sprawl issues should be determined from the simple calculation of a residential density allocation. To the contrary, the Sheridan Final Order would indicate that, once the allocation ratio is obtained, full consideration should be given to all pertinent factors "in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis." Analyses Not Conducted. The plan amendments do not only eliminate the 2010 Overlay. They also decline to retain the Overlay concept and extend it another ten years to the year 2020. There is no data or analysis in this case comparing the population accommodated by the FLUM without any Overlay to the population that would be accommodated in the year 2020 if the Overlay were extended another ten years to 2020. Such data and analysis would most clearly illuminate the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay, and abandoning the Overlay concept, on the residential allocation of the plan for the year 2020. There may be tens of thousands of, up to perhaps almost a hundred thousand, residential units in DRI's that have been approved but not yet built. There was inadequate data and analysis of how many of the residential units that will be needed by the year 2020 can be supplied in these DRI's. Lehigh Acres. Clearly, Lehigh Acres presents a special problem for Lee County and the DCA. Lehigh Acres was platted in the 1950s and 1960s. It covers approximately 97 square miles, which is slightly more than 62,000 acres. Since its inception, Lehigh has had all the attributes of urban sprawl. It is a large, sprawling, almost entirely residential community that was created in an area remote from urban services. It is characterized by grid patterns of development, a poorly-designed transportation network with large numbers of small local roads and no four-lane roads, huge amounts of land allocated to residential development and a relatively small amount of land allocated to commercial development. The roads in Lehigh are built. Virtually all of Lehigh has been subdivided into relatively small single family residential homesites, and almost all of these homesites have been sold to buyers all over the world. By virtue of the platting and sale of the land into homesites, Lehigh is a vested community. Over the years, the County has considered a number of potential solutions to the Lehigh Acres dilemma. Ultimately, the County decided to take a multi-pronged approach: (1) creating restrictions on additional subdivision and attempting to reduce densities to no more than four units per acre; (2) continuing the privately-funded infrastructure overlay as the means of providing infrastructure in Lehigh; and (3) utilizing sector planning to work toward a better transportation system and larger areas of commercial allocation to create a more balanced community. Based on the new treatment of Lehigh Acres, the County engaged in different assumptions about how Lehigh will build out. In 1989, Lehigh was shown as "central urban" and "urban community," together with the rest of the Lee Plan future land use categories. Under the 2010 Overlay, the County purported to reduce acreage allocations in Lehigh, but in fact there was little impact on residential potential due to vesting. In the EAR-based amendments, Lehigh is shown under "Vested Community," a separate land use category. Through the vested community category, the County attempted to restrict additional subdividing of lots and, with a few limited exceptions, set a maximum density of four units per acre. Based on the different treatment of Lehigh in the Plan, the County projected a population for Lehigh based on the amount of growth actually expected to occur by Year 2020. To do this, the County utilized eight different methodologies and averaged the projections to come up with a 2010 population for Lehigh of 95,906. These assumptions are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Neither the Department's rules nor the "Community Planning" article provide specific guidance as to how vested areas are to be treated in making a calculation of a plan's "allocation ratio." The vast area of Lehigh has the capacity to absorb virtually all the anticipated future population growth in unincorporated Lee County through the year 2020. In fact, it may be appropriate for Lee County to increase overall density in Lehigh if necessary to support the infrastructure and transportation needed to convert Lehigh Acres into a more balanced, multi-use development. Lee County's approach to Lehigh essentially was to attempt to satisfy the Department's desire for an acceptable "allocation ratio" by estimating how many residents will actually live in Lehigh by 2020, assuming the Plan's treatment of Lehigh, and treating those estimates as Lehigh's population accommodation. By studying historic rates of growth, the Lee Planning Division believes that number will be approximately 96,000 people. No evidence was presented by the Department or any intervenor in contradiction of this estimate. The results of the County's approach to Lehigh are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Another approach would be to attempt to reduce residential development in other parts of the County. It would be poor planning to reduce densities "across the board" throughout the County just to achieve a lower allocation ratio. Such an approach could direct population concentration away from urban areas into poorly-served rural areas, thereby discouraging the efficient use of land and encouraging sprawling uses. Depending on the densities, it could direct growth to remote areas of the county. Additionally, if Lee County attemped to limit residential growth based on incorrect assumptions regarding future densities, it could seriously underallocate land uses. Underallocation can greatly inflate land costs to the detriment of the general public. On the other hand, a better approach might be to couple sector planning in Lehigh with a reduction in densities in certain other parts of the County. If successful, such an approach could both create more balanced development in Lehigh Acres and direct future growth to Lehigh and away from coastal high hazard areas (CHHA), DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Commercial Allocations. The 2020 Lee Plan, without the 2010 Overlay, has some guidance for the location of commercial development, especially retail commercial. But it does not have percentage distributions or other objective measurement of the distribution of commercial and other uses allowed in its many mixed land use districts. Policy 6.1.2 of the 2020 Lee Plan consists of site location criteria which apply to retail commercial development, such as shopping centers, restaurants, gas stations, and other commercial development generating large volumes of traffic. Non-retail commercial development, such as office, hotel and motel or wholesale commercial development, may be developed at the identified intersections or anywhere else in the land use categories which allow commercial development. Even retail commercial can be developed at locations which do not meet the location criteria under discretion granted to the Board of County Commissioners. According to Lee County's EAR, the Commercial Site Locations Standards Map (Map 16) identifies 52 full intersections and 15 half-moon intersections which comply with the site location standards for Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. They represent 9,520 acres of land designated for retail commercial development. Using the standard planning conversion rate of 10,000 square feet per acre, average, there is room for approximately 95,000,000 square feet of commercial development in the commercial sites depicted on Map There also may be other intersections which meet the criteria for Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial but are not shown on Map 16. In addition, there are numerous intersections which meet the criteria for Minor Commercial which are not shown on Map 16. Map 16 also does not include Regional Commercial development. The report by Thomas H. Roberts & Associates on Commercial Land Use Needs In Lee County (Jan. 10, 1987), indicates that the retail space ratio in Lee County is 26 square feet per capita. Just counting the 95,000,000 square feet of retail commercial development allowed in the land shown on Map 16, the 2020 Lee Plan has enough retail commercial capacity to accommodate 3.7 million people. Without even considering the non-retail commercial uses that can be developed at any location in the several land use districts which allow commercial uses, or the unknown amount of retail commercial that can be developed at the numerous intersections which meet the Minor Commercial location criteria, the 2020 Lee Plan without the 2010 Overlay allows commercial development far in excess of the amount needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. Industrial Allocation Policy 7.1.4 in the 2020 Lee Plan provides: The [FLUM] shall designate a sufficient quantity of land to accommodate industrial development that will employ 3 percent of the county's population in manufacturing activities by the year 2010. The 2020 FLUM, without the 2010 Overlay, designates 6,062 acres in the Industrial Development category. Three percent of the 2020 County population represents approximately 19,000 people. The 1984 Roberts industrial land analysis for Lee County suggested a ratio of seven industrial workers per acre for industrial related activities. Most industrial land uses employ more workers per acre, and the national average is about 17 employees per acre. But even using the ratio suggested by the Roberts analysis, Lee County would need only approximately 3,000 acres of industrial land to accommodate three percent of the 2020 County population in industrial employment. Analysis in the EAR indicates that enough additional industrial land is needed to serve the needs of municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves and that this additional land accounts for the apparent excess in industrial lands allocated in the county. However, it is not clear from the data and analysis how this determination was made. In addition, light industrial development is permitted in several other mixed land use categories. For example, the existing approximately 2,800 acres of Airport Commerce (AC) located to the northwest of the airport is intended to include light industrial activities. There was no data or analysis as to how much additional industrial use will be made of land in those categories. There are no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution of land uses in the mixed land use districts that allow light industrial use. The Mixed Land Use Districts. As has been seen, the Lee Plan without any Overlay makes extensive use of mixed land use districts without percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. Much of the dispute between the parties as to residential accommodation and allocations of land for commercial and industrial uses results from the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use categories. Although the County predicts development of only a percentage of these districts as residential, it remains possible for much larger percentages to be developed residential. On the other hand, it is possible for practically all of mixed land use districts to develop commercially or even industrially. The 2010 Overlay attempted to address the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use districts by limiting the acreage that could be developed in particular uses by the year 2010. Without the Overlay concept, no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses remain in the plan. Because of the plan's extensive use of mixed use districts, the County's ability to control development through the plan is seriously undermined. Other Urban Sprawl Considerations. Unincorporated Lee County contains approximately 685 square miles. Lehigh Acres and the DRGR areas, combined, are approximately 199 more square miles, 29 percent of the total area of unincorporated Lee County. Except for the growth that will occur in the Vested Community of Lehigh, much of the future growth in Lee County will occur in the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor, which is oriented in a generally North-South direction and contains most of the urbanized areas of the County, including the City of Fort Myers. Because this area is already largely urbanized, most of the growth in it will result in either the expansion of existing urbanized areas or in-fill between existing urban areas. Certificated water and sewer franchise areas also generally coincide with the north/south urban core in which growth is expected to continue. The presence of water and sewer franchise areas in the north/south urban core and in Lehigh Acres encourages utilization of these areas through the ability to provide urban services. The absence of water and sewer franchise areas in other portions of the County will act as a hindrance to development in areas which are undeveloped and either in conservation or agricultural use. A review of County DRI approvals, together with approved development orders, also appears to indicate a trend toward development in the north/south core. The absence of development orders in most of the outlying areas, indicated as either agricultural, vacant, or conservation use, indicate that probably relatively little growth will occur in those areas. Platted subdivisions also appear to show a trend toward development in the north/south urban core. In general, there also appears to be a correlation between existing land uses and those factors which can reasonably be expected to establish future growth trends in the north/south urban core. Growth in the north/south I-75, U.S. 41 corridor across the county line to the south in Collier County tends to encourage similar growth at the southern end of Lee County. Meanwhile, there are hindrances to development across the county line to the east and southeast by virtue of the presence of agricultural lands and regional wetland systems such as the Corkscrew Swamp and the Everglades. The County has also made use of sector planning. The County's sector plans represent extensive and detailed planning studies which in many cases are reflected in both the FLUM and the policies in the Plan. However, currently there is no sector plan for Lehigh Acres. Policy 1.5.5, creating the Vested Community category for Lehigh, states a sector plan for Lehigh will be developed beginning in 1996. In terms of land uses, the Plan seems to be fairly well functionally related, both in terms of what is shown on the FLUM and the relation between the FLUM and the Plan policies themselves. A good example of this is the commercial site location standards, which establish a strong functional relationship between transportation and regional commercial facilities. There is also a good functional relationship between existing land uses. The Plan mixed use categories appear to recognize and attempt to encourage sound functional relationships between home, work, and shopping. The Plan also has compatibility standards that help maintain functional relationships. However, without the Overlay, the many mixed use categories in the Plan do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts. In terms of land use suitability, the County generally appears to be designating for development those areas which are most suitable for development. However, because it allows development of all kinds throughout the County in excess of what is needed by 2020, the Plan allows development in less suitable areas. A variety of methodologies and assumptions leads to the conclusion that the Lee Plan generally is an urban development plan, not a rural development plan. For instance, under the Figure 14 methodology, 80 percent of the population is directed toward urban land uses, and 12 percent into rural. Under Figure 14B, which unrealistically assumes that all of Lehigh Acres will be built out within the planning time frame, 90 percent of the population is directed to urban areas, and only 10 percent to rural. Even assuming that 100 percent of the land will be used for residential purposes, and that all of Lehigh will build out within the planning time frame, 92 percent is directed to urban areas, and only 8 percent to rural. Finally, even assuming 100 percent of the land to residential at maximum densities, and also that all rural land uses will use the PDDO option at six units per acre, only 4 percent of the population will be directed to rural areas in the FLUM. Notwithstanding the overall patterns of growth in Lee County, it clearly is indicated in the Sheridan Final Order that land in Lee County historically has been used inefficiently and that, without the Overlay, the plan allows inefficiency to continue unabated. This is due in large part to the extensive use of mixed land use categories that do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts, together with the overallocation of land that also results in part from their use. By comparing the FLUM's since 1984 with the current Existing Land Use Map (ELUM) (Lee 56), it is apparent that rural designations have not preserved agriculture. Significant parts of county that have been designated rural since 1984 actually have been developed residential or non-agricultural use. In Range (R) 25 East (E), Township (T) 45 South(S), Sections 31 and 32 are residential, while 33 is a golf course. Similarly, R 25 E, T 47 S, Sections 14, 15 and 23 have developed significantly residential and part of Section 14 is now designated Outlying Suburban. In addition, significant residential development has occurred in areas of Pine Island that have been designated rural since 1984. On the other side of the coin, much of the "New Community" still is in rural use (R 35 E, T 45 S, Sections 1, 2, 3, parts of 10, 11, and 12; R 26 E, Sectons 5-8, 17 and 18.) Some "Industrial Development" land is actually still in rural use or vacant--R 25 E, T 46 S, Section 3 west of I-75, and Sections 4- There is significant land that actually is rural or vacant adjacent to wetlands and Estero Bay in R 24 E, T 45 S (Sections 28, 29, and 31-35), together with Sections 3-5, 8-10, and 15 in R 24 E, T 46 S, that are designated for Suburban or Outlying Suburban uses. Land designated rural, open land or fringe in 1984 has been redesignated for urban uses over the years. A large block straddling Daniels Parkway east of the 6 Mile Cypress Strand has been designated Outlying Suburban. Approximately between Buckingham Road, Orange River Boulevard and I-75, rural land has been redesignated as Rural Community Preserve. Large blocks of land, one at the extreme north end of the county between U.S. 41 and I-75, and the other east of I-75 near the river, have gone from rural to Outlying Suburban. A large amount of what was rural and fringe between Bonita Springs and San Carlos Park, west of U.S. 41, has become Suburban and Outlying Suburban. CHHA and Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter. Objective 75.1 of the amended Lee Plan defines and delineates Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) for the first time. Previously, the plan referred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "A Zone," which encompasses somewhat more land than the new CHHA. Policy 75.1.4 of the amended Lee Plan, which formerly applied to the "A Zone," states: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within [CHHA] shall be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In this round of amendments, the County did not consider either reducing density categories, or assigning the minimum allowable densities in categories with a range of densities, in undeveloped land in the CHHA. In prior rounds of amendments, the County reduced densities in areas that would be inundated by Category 1, 2 and 3 hurricanes (which would include CHHA). Assuming maximum allowable densities together with the other Figure 14A assumptions, the density reductions reduced population accommodation by 13,000 units in those areas. Elimination of the 2010 Overlay opened additional land to immediate development in the CHHA. There was no data and analysis on the amount of new land opened to immediate development or the additional population accommodated in the CHHA that would result. Goal 79 in the Lee Plan, as amended, is to "provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.1 of the Lee Plan, as amended, is to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 2000, and to reduce the clearance time portion of evacuation time to 18 hours or less by 2010. Previously, the plan's objective was to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. Lee County has among the best hurricane planning efforts in southwest Florida. Nonetheless, as of the time of the final hearing, evacuation times still exceeded 1987 levels, and clearance times exceeded 18 hours. Little progress had been made toward the previous objective to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. That is why the objective was extended five more years until the year 2000. It may be that the 2010 Overlay was not designed with hurricane evacuation times in mind. It also is true that the County's evacuation plans are updated every three years based on actual development data. But it also is true that additional development in the CHHA due to elimination of the 2010 Overlay may make it more difficult to achieve Objective 79.1, even as amended. Objective 79.2 of the Lee Plan is to make adequate shelter space available by the year 2010 "for the population in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone at risk under a Category 3 storm." There was no data and analysis of the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. There also was no data and analysis of the impact of amending Objective 75.1 and 75.1.4 to reduce the size of the coastal area subject to consideration for land use density reductions on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. Change of Alico Property from DRGR to AC. Another significant FLUM amendment in the EAR-based amendments was to change the designation of 1400 acres of property owned by Alico, Inc., from DRGR to Airport Commerce (AC). Uses allowed in the AC district include light manufacturing and assembly, warehousing, distribution facilities, ground transportation and airport related terminals or transfer facilities, and hospitality services. Suitability. Policy 1.4.5 of the plan, as amended, defines DRGR as "upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" and as "the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." Although previously designated DRGR, more recent data and analysis calls this designation into question. The amendment property does provide some recharge to both the water table (surficial) aquifer and the underlying Sandstone aquifer, but it does not provide above-average groundwater recharge for either aquifer (or any recharge to any of the deeper aquifers). In addition, it is not a good site for the development of a wellfield in either the water table or the Sandstone aquifer. The water table aquifer is not especially thick, and there are too many wetlands on the site for production from the water table aquifer. (Pumping from the water table aquifer next to the airport also could be problematic in that the stability of the soil under the airport could be affected. (Cf. Finding 100, below.) In the Sandstone aquifer, groundwater flows away from the site, making it unsuitable for production. Despite the questions raised by the new data and analysis, the amendment property may still be suitable for designation as DRGR. But that does not necessarily make it unsuitable for AC use. In terms of location, the amendment property is perfectly suited to AC use. I-75 and other AC-designated property is to the immediate west of the amendment property. The Southwest Florida International Airport is to the immediate north of the amendment property. A second runway and a new cargo handling facility are planned for construction to the south of the existing airport runway. When built, the new facilities will practically be touching the northern boundary of the amendment property, and the proposed new south airport access will cross the amendment property and intersect Alico Road, which is the southern boundary of the amendment property. Commercial and industrial use on the property would not pose an unreasonable threat to contaminate either existing or future potable water wells. Theoretically, stormwater from the amendment property could contain contaminants which could eventually migrate to a drinking water well. But the threat of such contamination is small. Permitting criteria adopted and imposed by the South Florida Water Management District will require all construction on this site to conform to surface water quality standards through Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and permitting rules of the Water Management District within Chapter 40, Florida Administrative Code. These rules will require on-site detention and retention of stormwater which will greatly reduce the threat of surface contaminants leaving the property. Additionally, all surface water runoff from the property, and most groundwater, will be intercepted by the Alico Road Canal, which drains in a westerly direction away from any existing drinking water wells. If any contaminants from the amendment property were to enter the groundwater, avoid the Alico Road Canal and leave the property, they would have to migrate a considerable distance to reach a potable water wellhead. The only wellfield pumping, or planned to pump, from the water table aquifer which contaminants possibly could reach would be the existing Gulf Utilities wellfield approximately one mile and a half southeast of the amendment property. Contaminants within the groundwater move at a slower speed than the water itself. Most contaminants move at a much slower speed than the water. Thus, the chances are very slight that contaminants from the amendment property would threaten the Gulf Utilities wellfield. Any metals in the groundwater would attach to soil particles and migrate extremely slowly. Other potential contaminants would eventually break down within the soil as they slowly migrated away from the site. It was estimated that the travel time from the closest portion of the amendment property to the Gulf Utilities well field would be in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 years. If any such contaminants did reach the wellfield they would be in such dilute concentrations that they would pose no health hazard. The only other wellfield that is reasonably close to the proposed site is the Florida Cities well field to the northeast. This wellfield taps the Sandstone aquifer. The Sandstone aquifer is separated from the water table aquifer by an approximately 40 foot thick semi-confining layer. This layer is composed of silt and clay which provides hydraulic separation between the aquifers. There are no known breaches of the semi-confining layer in this area. The direction of flow and the nature of the semi-confining layer also make it extremely unlikely that contaminants from activities on the amendment property and discharged from the site by stormwater could migrate to the Florida Cities water wellfield. The groundwater in the water table aquifer flows generally southwest, and the confining layer has low leakance values. Additionally, safety measures required for the development of the amendment property include the installation of monitoring wells and the requirement to use the best environmental management practices. The data and analysis includes panther sitings in the vicinity of the amendment property. There also is evidence that the amendment property is part of land that has been labeled as "Panther Priority 2." The significance of this label was not clear from the evidence. In any event, while part of the "Panther Priority 2" land, the amendment property clearly also is surrounded by uses not particularly suited for panthers. Currently, rock mining is occurring on property to the east and to the south of the amendment property. Rock mining on the amendment property itself also is allowed under its previous DRGR designation. The airport is immediately to the north, and both other AC property and I-75 are immediately to the west. In light of those developments, the "Panther Priority 2" designation does not make the amendment property unsuitable for AC designation. Need. The County has a legitimate need to diversify its economy so that it is not so dependent on tourism. It is the County's perogative to attempt to develop its regional airport into an international trade center. In view of the suitability of the amendment property for AC, and its projected role in furthering the County's plans to develop its regional airport into an international trade center, the amendment property should be viewed as a valuable economic resource in need of protection. It is appropriate, when trying to protect a resource, to plan for the needs of generations to come. If the amendment is not approved, there is a good chance that the land eventually will be used for a rock mine. Residential use in that location is incompatible with airport noise. A public gun range is a permissible use of DRGR property, but there are no plans for a public gun range on the amendment property, and such a use also would not be compatible so close to the airport and would be unlikely. Although agricultural use as pasture is possible, ultimate use of the property for pasture seems less likely than rock mining. As previously mentioned, the land immediately to the east of the subject parcel and to the south of the subject parcel is being utilized as rock pits. If the amendment property eventually is used for rock mining, the land would be excavated into what becomes deep lakes. In all likelihood, such a use would permanently preempt the land in question from being a commercial resource that could be utilized in conjunction with the airport. Of the 1400 acres of amendment property, approximately 800 acres are jurisdictional wetlands; only about 600 acres of uplands actually can be used for AC purposes. Meanwhile, approximately 173 acres of industrial land has been rezoned to other uses within Lee County between 1990 and the date of the hearing. Another 300 acres of AC are to be incorporated into the new airport expansion. But there was no data or analysis as to how much of those 473 acres consist of wetlands. Utilizing the 1984 Roberts methodology, the County has analyzed the need for industrial land in the County and has concluded that the addition of the amendment property is necessary to meet those requirements. However, as previously mentioned, it is not clear how the County's analysis was conducted or what the actual needs for industrial land in the County are. In addition, several mixed land use categories permit light industrial use but do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution among the mixed uses within those categories. Taken as a whole the data and analysis does not establish that the AC amendment is necessary to meet the need for industrial land in the County. Adequate data and analysis to establish those needs is necessary to determine whether other land where industrial use is permitted should be redesignated if the AC amendment is to be adopted. As previously discussed, Lee County has much more land designated for commercial development than will be needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. See Findings 58-68, above. In support of their position that the AC map amendment is needed in order to meet the demand for airport-related industrial and commercial development that will be generated by the expanding Southwest Florida International Airport, Lee County and Alico point out that international airports serve a larger area than a single County, and that a larger AC district near the Airport will serve the Southwest Florida region. With its new runway and larger terminal with new cargo handling facility, the Airport Authority intends, and the County would like to encourage, a large increase in airfreight handled by the Airport by 2020. Alico prepared a Response to DCA's ORC, which attempted to compare the acreage of approved, large-scale commercial and industrial development near the Orlando International Airport to the amount of acres proposed for Airport Commerce near the Southwest Florida International Airport. However, the Alico Response failed to take into account the amount of approved development near the Orlando Airport which is vacant. According to the Alico Response, the Orlando International Airport handled 233,587 tons of airfreight in 1994. Also according to the Alico Response, 7,152 acres of industrial and commercial development, including ten DRI's, are located near the Orlando Airport. The ten DRI's located near the Orlando Airport include 55,464,770 square feet of approved industrial and commercial development. But as of June of 1995, only 3,386,744 square feet of industrial and commercial development, or 6.11 percent of the approved industrial and commercial square footage, had been constructed. Applying the percentage of approved industrial and commercial in DRI's actually developed by 1995 (6.11 percent) to the acreage approved for industrial and commercial (7,152 acres), it can be determined that 440 acres of existing industrial and commercial development were supporting the 233,587 tons of airfreight handled by the Orlando Airport in 1994. Based upon the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that each acre of industrial and commercial development near an airport supports 534.54 tons of airfreight each year. The Southwest International Airport projects that 196,110 tons of airfreight will be handled by the Airport by 2020. Dividing the projected 2020 tonnage by the 534.54 tons of airfreight per acre from the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that the air freight activities projected for the Southwest Florida International Airport by the year 2020 will support only about 367 acres of AC. The Lee Plan FLUM already includes approximately 2800 acres of AC located to the northwest of the Airport. (It is not clear whether the 300 acres consumed by the runway expansion should be deducted from the 2850 acres of AC said to currently exist.) The existing AC district is essentially undeveloped. The AC which already exists to the northwest of the Airport is more than sufficient to support the airfreight which the Airport expects to handle by 2020. Zemel FLUM Amendment. Background. The Zemels own approximately 8600 acres of land in northwest Lee County. The 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendments which resulted from the settlement between Lee County and DCA, designated Zemel property as DRGR with a residential density of one unit per ten acres. The DRGR designation for the Zemel property was determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Zemel v. Lee County & DCA, 15 FALR 2735 (Fla. Dept. Comm. Aff. 1993), aff'd, 642 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1st DCA 1994). Based in part on data and analysis which were not available at the time of adoption of the DRGR category, a circuit court determined that the Zemel property did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the DRGR category. The circuit court ordered that: The property is hereby restored to the Rural land use classification on the Future Land Use Map of the Lee Plan, including restoration of the subject property's density to 1 du/acre and use of the Planned Development District Option for the property. This action shall not preclude the County from amending its plan, including the 2010 Overlay, as it pertains to the Zemel property, pursuant to Chapter 163, Fla. Stat., subject to constitutional limita- tions and other requirements of law. Placement of Zemel Property in Open Lands Classification The 1994 EAR-based amendments changed the land use designation of the Zemel property to Open Lands. Open Lands is a new category created by the EAR- based amendments in Policy 1.4.4. The residential density allowed in the Open Lands category is one unit per ten acres, except a density of one unit per five acres is permitted if the planned development process is used to prevent adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands (as defined in Policy 77.1.1.4). (Commercial and industrial uses are permitted in the Open Lands category in accordance with the standards in the Rural category.) Of the 8,600 acres owned by Zemel, approximately 1,900 acres are wetlands and 6,700 acres are uplands. Lee County chose the Open Lands category for the Zemel property because it was the least intensive land use category available after the circuit court determined that the DRGR category was not appropriate, and because the County did not wish to exacerbate the overallocation of the FLUM. According to new Policy 1.4.4: Open Lands are upland areas that are located north of Rural and/or sparsely developed areas in Township 43 South. These areas are extremely remote from public services and are characterized by agricultural and low-density residential uses. It was not proven that the Zemel property does not meet the Policy 1.4.4 definition of Open Lands. The Zemel property clearly is in Township 43 South. It is north of areas that can be said to be "sparsely developed." The Zemel property clearly is characterized by agricultural use. Finally, although some of the Zemel property is not "extremely remote" from some public services, all of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from at least some public services, and some of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from all public services. Placement of the Zemel property in the Opens Lands category was based on adequate data and analysis. To the extent that data and analysis in the EAR may have been lacking, the evidence at final hearing included adequate data and analysis. Using the Figure 14 methodology, the County calculated that Open Lands category would accommodate 2,073 people, as compared to 8,293 people at the Rural density. However, assuming development of all of the Zemel property at the one du/ac standard density allowed by the Lee Plan for Rural, 14,003 people (1 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit) would be accommodated. In the case of the Zemel property, such an assumption would be less unrealistic than in many other parts of the County since it is a large, vacant tract. The evidence also was that the Zemel property is one of the few parcels of land in the County in which use of the PDDO is a realistic possibility. Assuming maximum densities under the PDDO, the Zemel property under the Rural designation could accommodate 84,018 people (6 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Under the Open Lands category, even at the maximum density allowed for planned developments, the Zemel property could accommodate only 2,801 people (1 du/5 ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Dependence of Open Lands on Deletion of Overlay Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. Although all of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires," the evidence was that one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. Specifically, there was evidence that the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," was intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay, and to either become effective together or not at all. Otherwise, there would be no development authorized in property redesignated "Open Lands" because there was no land use category called "Open Lands" at the time of adoption of the 2010 overlay, and no express authorization for development of any kind in "Open Lands." Planning Timeframe. Clearly, the EAR-based Lee Plan amendments are intended to plan through the year 2020. The year 2020 was chosen for the amendments to enable the County to make use of the best available demographic projections being generated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for that time frame. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the plan, as amended, retains Map 11. Map 11 depicts "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries." It is the map that was generated in 1989 and used in the 1989 and subsequent plans for the year 2010. However, it was not proven that the map does not accurately depict "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries" for the year 2020. The County concedes that the Community Facilities and Services Element of the plan, as amended, projects waste generation and recycling rates only from 1991 to 2015. The County contends that these projections are easily extrapolated to the year 2020, and no party disputes this. The County's response to the DCA's ORC report indicates that the Hurricane Shelter/Deficit analysis for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element is for shelter needs to the year 2000. However, the County cannot accurately project shelter needs much further in the future. The evidence is that the better practice is to plan for shorter periods of time and continually update the projections. This is what the County does. It was not proven that the County is planning for the wrong timeframe or that its plan is defective for that reason. Other alleged uses of the wrong planning timeframe actually arise from questions as to the allocation of land to meet the needs of the County through the year 2020. There is no question whether the County's intent is to plan for the year 2020. The dispute is whether land has been overallocated. Other Alleged Internal Inconsistency. Amended Objective 100.1 in the Housing Element uses data for the County, including municipalities, in projecting the number of housing units needed for the 2020 timeframe. It is true that EAR Figures 14, 14A and 14B, which analyze the FLUM, identify the number of units which may be accommodated for the unincorporated area. But EAR Figures 12 and 13, which also analyze the FLUM, are directed to the entire county, including municipalities. Besides, it is clear that the County understands its obligation is only to implement affordable housing with respect to the unincorporated county. Water Supply. The Regional Water Supply Master Plan (RWSMP) serves as supporting data for several amended policies in the Potable Water sub-element of the Community Facilities and Services Element. The purpose of the RWSMP was to ensure an adequate, reliable and cost-efficient supply of potable water to meet the current and future needs of Lee County to the Year 2030 and beyond, considering both economic and environmental factors. The County's reliance on implementation of the RWSMP for this purpose is justified. Preparation of the plan was a very complex undertaking. In preparing the population projections on which the Regional Water Supply Master Plan relies, the County's consultant attended the technical staff meetings of the individuals with the Metropolitan Planning Association (MPO) charged with preparing the MPO population projections. The MPO Countywide population projections utilized in the RWSMP were prepared by estimating the number of permanent residents and taking into account a number of other economic characteristics and social characteristics such as the number of children per household, historic and expected natural and State trends, and the degree to which these trends will affect the future of Lee County. The Lee Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plans of the other governmental jurisdictions in Lee County, were utilized in preparing the RWSMP. It was a plainly spelled out requirement for preparation of the Master Plan that it had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of the County and cities in Lee County. The MPO population projections are reasonably accurate, and they are the best available data for purposes of planning water supply. The MPO projections are preferable to the "maximum theoretical" population accommodation used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis. Regardless of the appropriate analysis for purposes of determining whether a plan overallocates land, it would not be appropriate to plan water supply based on unrealistic population projections. The RWSMP uses MPO 2020 population projections that are somewhat different from, but reasonably close, to the 2020 population projections reflected in Figure 14 and used to support the FLUE of the Lee Plan. The special purposes of the RWSMP projections justify the differences. Besides, the differences are not large enough to prove beyond fair debate that the plan is not internally consistent. Wetlands Protection. Prior to the County's adoption of the EAR-based amendments, Goal 84 in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Lee Plan and its objectives and policies included guides for local land development regulations in the protection of wetlands by establishing allowable land uses and their densities, and by establishing design and performance standards for development in wetlands. The County modified Policy 84.1.2 (renumbered 84.1.1) in part by deleting a prohibition against the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or additional drainage features in wetlands. Ditches, canals and dikes could be constructed in wetlands to have beneficial effects. For example, a ditch could be built to increase the hydroperiod of a wetland and result in a benefit. A dike could enhance a mitigation area, which would also result in environmental benefits. Thus, the repeal of this prohibition could benefit wetlands. The 1984 data and analysis contained in the EAR recommended that the prohibition be deleted and instead suggested the use of performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. The EAR-based amendments to the Lee Plan do not include performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. Instead, the County has modified Policy 84.1.1 (renumbered 84.1.2) in part by deleting the following language: Wetland regulations shall be designed to protect, conserve, restore, or preserve water resource systems and attendant biological functions, including: Preventing degradation of water quality and biological productivity. Preventing degradation of freshwater storage capabilities. Preventing damage to property and loss of life due to flooding. Preventing degradation of the viability and diversity of native plants and animals and their habitats. Assuring the conservation of irretrievable or irreversible resources. In place of those performance standards, the EAR-based Policy 84.1.2 provides: The county's wetlands protection regulations will be amended by 1995 to be consistent with the following: In accordance with F.S. 163.3184(6)(c), the county will not undertake an independent review of the impacts to wetlands resulting from development in wetlands that is specifically authorized by a DEP or SWFWMD dredge and fill permit or exemption. No development in wetlands regulated by the State of Florida will be permitted by Lee County without the appropriate state agency permit or authorization. Lee County shall incorporate the terms and conditions of state permits into county permits and shall prosecute violations of state regulations and permit conditions through its code enforcement procedures. Every reasonable effort shall be required to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on wet- lands through the clustering of development and other site planning techniques. On- or off-site mitigation shall only be permitted in accordance with applicable state standards. Mitigation banks and the issuance and use of mitigation bank credits shall be permitted to the extent authorized by applicable state agencies. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County also modified Policy 84.1.4 by deleting language that addressed permitted uses in wetlands and their densities, but that issue is now covered under renumbered Policy 84.1.1. The amendments added to Policy 84.1.4 the following provision: Land uses in uplands will be regulated through the implementation of the Land Development Code to avoid degrading the values and functions of adjoining and nearby wetlands. New Policies 84.1.2 and 84.1.4 in effect defer performance standards covering development in wetlands to the state and water management district permitting processes. The Lee amendments in part are an attempt to avoid duplicating what state agencies accomplish through their permitting programs. The evidence is that the state and water management district permitting processes include newly adopted Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules. These rules consider the type, value, function, size, condition and location of wetlands in determining how to protect them. The ERP rules also require proposed development to avoid or eliminate wetland impacts or, if not possible, to minimize and mitigate for them. The ERP rules also require consideration of the cumulative and long-term adverse impacts of development on wetlands in a comprehensive manner within the same water basin. The DEP and the Southwest Florida Water Management District also have adopted supplemental ERP rules covering only the jurisdiction of that water management district, which includes Lee County. By including a requirement that every state environmental permit shall be incorporated into county permits and that violations of a state permit also are violations of the county permit, the Lee Plan commits the County to assist the State in enforcing environmental permits in Lee County. Through this new emphasis on compliance and enforcement, Lee County will be providing valuable assistance to state environmental protection. Lee County's efforts will assist those agencies by devoting staff to compliance and enforcement efforts. Prior to the EAR-based amendments, the County had two wetland land use categories under the Lee Plan. These were described as the Resource Protection Areas (RPA) and Transition Zones (TZ). Guidelines and standards for permitted uses and development in the RPA and TZ were found in the policies under Objective 84.1 and 84.2, respectively. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County replaced the RPA and TZ categories with a single Wetlands category. This new Wetlands category includes all lands that are identified as wetlands under the statewide definition using the state delineation methodology. The County's definition of "wetlands" in the plan amendments covers more area than the areas previously known as "resource protection" and "transition zones." To that extent, the present amendments to the Lee Plan give greater protection to wetlands than the previous version of the Lee Plan. The Lee Plan, as amended, also contains other GOP's. Taken together, the GOP's ensure the protection of wetlands and their natural functions. Reservation of Future Road Right-of-Way. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County has deleted or amended certain policies in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Lee Plan regarding the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. Deleted Policy 25.1.3 provided that the County would attempt to reserve adequate rights-of-way for state and county roads consistent with state and county plans. The County also deleted Policy 21.1.7, which addressed the possibility of acquiring future rights-of-way through required dedications of land. Policy 21.1.7 provided: The previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs shall not be construed so as to prohibit the adoption of regulations requiring such dedication. However, any such regulations must provide for a rational nexus between the amount of land for which dedication is required and the impact of the development in question, and must also provide that such dedication, when combined with other means which may be used to offset the impact of development (such as, for example, the imposition of impact fees), does not exceed the total impact of the develop- ment in question upon the county's transportation network. The "previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs," referenced in Policy 21.1.7, above, was Policy 21.1.6, which has been renumbered 21.1.5. As modified, that policy provides: In order to acquire rights-of-way and complete the construction of all roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map, voluntary dedications of land and construction of road segments and inter- sections by developers shall be encouraged through relevant provisions in the development regulations and other ordinances as described below: Voluntary dedication of rights-of-way necessary for improvements shown on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map shall be encouraged at the time local development orders are granted. In cases where there are missing segments in the traffic circulation system, developers shall be encouraged to also construct that portion of the thoroughfare that lies within or abuts the development, with appropriate credits granted towards impact fees for roads. However, site-related improvements (see glossary) are not eligible for credits towards impact fees. Policy 21.1.7 provided policy guidance for LDRs in establishing required dedication of future rights-of-way as a means of acquisition, if the County chose to use that measure. Policy 21.1.6 (renumbered 21.1.5) provides policy guidance for LDRs in establishing voluntary dedication of future rights- of-way as another means of acquisition. By deleting Policy 21.1.7, the Lee Plan, as amended, is left with a policy that establishes only the voluntary dedication measure as a means towards acquiring future rights-of-way to facilitate the construction of roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map of the Lee Plan. The County has made these changes because legally it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option after the decision in Joint Ventures, Inc., v. Dept. of Transportation, 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1990). The County's plan does more than just encourage voluntary dedication of rights-of-way. There are numerous policies in the Lee Plan that, taken together, adequately address the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. The following policies relate and achieve right-of-way protection: Policy 1.3, 1.6, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 6.1.5, 16.3.5, 21.1.5, Objective 21.2, Policies 21.2.1, 21.2.3, 21.2.5, 21.2.6, 21.2.7, Policy 23.1.2, 23.1.4, 23.2.3, Policy 25.1.1, and 25.1.3. Under these policies, all new projects receive a review for voluntary dedication as against the Lee County official trafficways map and the facility need identified for the planning horizon of the future traffic circulation element and map. In addition, all new developments are required to mitigate off-site impacts through a payment of impact fees. They are also required to address and mitigate site-related impacts through the provision of site-related improvements at the developer's expense. Payment of impact fees and additional revenues generated through mitigation of site-related impacts, both generate revenues for the capital improvements programming process for purchase of rights-of-way. Accomplishing necessary site-related improvements pursuant to the Lee County program also frequently results in County acquisition of rights-of-way at the developer's expense. Mitigation of site-related impacts, as well as payment of proportional share and impact fees, are generally accomplished through Policy 1.8.3, Subsection 1, Policy 2.3.2, Objective 3.1, Policy 3.1.3, Policy 7.1.2, Policy 14.3.2, Objective 22.1, 23.1, and the policies thereunder, Policy 23.1.1, 23.1.3-.7, 23.2.6, Objective 24.2, Policy 25.1.2, Objective 28.2, and Policy 70.1.1, Subsection A-7. The County's primary method of acquisition of rights-of-way is through the Capital Improvements Element. The Capital Improvements Element does include projected costs to purchase needed rights-of-way. The Lee County Capital Improvements Program is accomplished through Goal 70 of the Lee Plan, which expressly includes acquisition of rights-of-way. Objective 77.3 - Wildlife. Before the EAR-based changes, Objective 77.3 of the Lee Plan was to: "Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system . . .." In pertinent part, the EAR-based amendment deleted the phrase "current complement of." The change does not alter the meaning of the objective. The concept of a baseline expressed by the deleted phrase also is inherent in the words "[m]aintain and enhance" and remains in the amended objective. Policy 77.11.5 - Endangered and Threatened Species. The EAR-based amendments deleted Policy 77.11.5, which stated: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for public acquisition purposes shall be identified within these use areas. The corridor boundaries shall include wetlands, upland buffers, and nearby vegetative communities which are particularly beneficial to the Florida panther and black bear (such as high palmetto and oak hammocks). Data and analysis supports the deletion of the first two sentences. The use areas and public acquisition corridors have been identified. To reflect the new data and analysis, Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2 also were amended to provide for updating of data on sitings and habitat for these species and to encourage state land acquisition programs. The last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 has been transferred and added verbatim to Policy 77.11.2. Related Policy 77.11.4 was also amended to reflect new data and analysis and to provide that, instead of just encouraging the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand, the County shall continue an acquisition that is in progress. The Adoption Ordinance. As mentioned in connection with the Zemel amendment, Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. All of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires." All of the parties except for the Zemels agree that, under Section 8 of the ordinance, the "ultra vires" part of the adopting ordinance is severable from the rest of the ordinance, which remains valid. The Zemels take the positions (1) that the state circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the remainder of the ordinance is valid and (2) that the remainder of the ordinance is invalid. Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30 provided: [I]t is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners . . . to confer the whole or any part of the powers herein provided. If any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any remaining provision of this ordinance. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners that this ordinance would have been adopted had such unconstitutional provisions not been included therein. The evidence was that, notwithstanding Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30, one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. As discussed in connection with the Zemel amendment, the evidence was that one such package consisted of the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," and the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. There also was some less compelling evidence that amendments creating the Commercial Site Location Standards Map, FLUM 16, were intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. No other examples of similar "packages" of plan amendments was shown by the evidence or argued by any party. RGMC's Standing. The Responsible Growth Management Coalition, Inc. (RGMC), was formed in 1988 to insure compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule Chapter 9J-5 and to conserve resources. RGMC has offices in Lee County and conducts educational programs in Lee. In addition, at the time of the hearing, RGMC had 157 members residing throughout Lee County, most or all of whom own property in Lee County. RGMC participated in the process leading to the adoption of the Lee plan amendments in issue in this case and submitted oral or written comments, recommendations or suggestions between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the plan amendments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding that the Lee Plan amendments are not in compliance and requiring as remedial action: That the FLUE's mixed land use categories be amended to include percentage distribution or other objective measurements of the distribution among allowed uses, whether by use of an appropriate 2020 Overlay or by other appropriate means. That a sector plan be adopted for Lehigh Acres, including appropriate plans for provision of infrastructure, to create more balanced development in Lehigh and, to the extent possible, to direct future population growth to Lehigh and away from CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Such a sector plan could include minimum densities and target densities to support mass transit along transit corridors in Lehigh. That consideration be given to increasing densities in central urban areas and along transit corridors while at the same time reducing densities or adopting other plan provisions, such as the prohibition of certain kinds of development, to afford more protection to CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. One example would be the prohibition, or staging, of non-farm development in some or all rural areas. That, in accordance with Policy 75.1.4, undeveloped areas within CHHA be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. That the data and analysis supporting the remedial amendments account for units approved but not built and include both a population accommodation analysis based on maximum densities and an explanation of how the GOP's in the remedial amendments justify the resulting allocation ratio. That the remedial amendments include data and analysis of the impact of the resulting plan, as amended, on hurricane evacuation and clearance times and shelter planning, especially if, as part of remedial amendments, the 2010 Overlay is removed (or replaced). That the remedial amendments be based on data and analysis as to the need for commercial and industrial land, including the Alico amendment property. That the data and analysis extrapolate solid waste projections to 2020. That the sub-elements of the Community Facilities and Services Element (and other parts of the plan, as appropriate) be consistent with and based on data and analysis of future population predictions in light of any remedial amendments to the FLUE and FLUM. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0098GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1995), as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, Ltd., v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: DCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-17. Accepted. 18. There is a legal issue whether Ordinance 94-30 was adopted validly; otherwise, accepted. 19.-28. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected in part: plan includes "guides" (but no "objective measurements"); and Commercial Site Location Standards Map 16 implies that other uses are required elsewhere in the districts where these sites are located. Otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, rejected. (Assumptions are in part "based on" the GOP's, but they also assume less development than permitted by the GOP's.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Characterization "conservative" rejected as argument; otherwise, accepted. 34.-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted as being theoretically possible, but not likely to happen. 37.-38. Accepted. 39. Accepted as approximation of maximum theoretical residential capacity. 40.-46. Accepted. (However, as to 45 and 46, these numbers do not take into account industrial land needed to serve municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves.) First sentence, conclusion of law. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (The plan is "based on" the population projections, but allocates more land than needed to accommodate the population.) First sentence, conclusion of law; second sentence, accepted. 49.-50. Conclusions of law. 51.-52. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 53. First sentence, conclusion of law; second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; last sentence, accepted. 54.-55. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 56. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 57.-58. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; third, accepted (but does not prove non- compliance with the state plan.) First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 63.-64. Accepted. As to b.1. not timely raised; accepted as to b.2. (but easily extrapolated five more years to 2020); otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First two sentences of a. and b., accepted; otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (As to b., the discrepancies are not significant enough to create "internal inconsistency.") First sentence, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; rest, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that deletion of the Overlay "accelerated development." (Rather, it allows--and, under certain conditions, would result it--development of more acreage sooner.) First sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First and third sentences, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are easonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The RWSMP population projections are reasonably close to the Figure 14 projections. See also 66., above.) First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See also 71., above. 74.-77. Accepted. 78. 2850 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); otherwise, accepted. 79.-81. Accepted. 82.-83. Accepted. However, last sentences assume: (1) accurate inventory of developed acres in Orlando comparable to the land uses in AC under the Lee Plan; (2) 2850 acres of AC; and (3) developability of all AC acreage--including wetlands--for AC use. Those assumptions are not, or may not be, reasonable. 84. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See 82.-83. 85.-87. Accepted. However, as to 87., it is noted that the words "area," "surrounded by," and "nearby" are imprecise. Accepted; however, the degree of the sandstone aquifer's "susceptibility" to impacts depends on many factors. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that existing sources cannot produce any more; however, proven that new sources will be required, and otherwise accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that groundwater moves "to" the existing and planned wellfields. Otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. Fourth sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 97.-98. Accepted. Characterization of methodology as "flawed" rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It depends on the use being made of the results of the methodology.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, legal conclusion. (Legally, it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option, and the County's amendments presume that it is not.) Rest, accepted. 102.-105. Accepted. 106. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that voluntary dedication is not "effective" as one of several policies. Otherwise, accepted. 107.-108. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the state regulations are supposed to serve as "guidelines" or "guidance" for LDR's; rather, they are to serve in the place of duplicative County LDR's on the subject. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, appropriate comprehensive planning for wetlands occurs in other parts of the plan; the state regulations take the place of performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. Rest, accepted. (However, state regulations apply to some uplands that adjoin or are near to wetlands.) First sentence, accepted. (They don't guide the establishment of design and performance standard kinds of LDR's for any development in any wetlands; the state regulations take the place of design and performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (that they are the "core wetland policies in the plan.") Third sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. RGMC's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted. 9. Conclusion of law. 10.-15. Subordinate; conclusion of law; argument. 16. Accepted but subordinate. 17.-18. Rejected as not supported by record evidence. 19.-35. Accepted. 35(a). Conclusion of law. 36.-40. Accepted. 40(a). Conclusion of law. 41. Accepted. 41(a). Conclusion of law. 42.-44. Accepted. Accepted; however, the option to consider assignment of the minimum of a range of densities is in parentheses after the primary option to consider reducing densities. Largely argument. The objective and policy is "triggered" by any plan amendment, before and after the change from "A Zone" to "CHHA." See 47. Accepted. 47(a). Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (It is a question of internal consistency.) Accepted. 48(a). Argument and recommended remediation. Accepted. 50.-59. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 60.-62. Accepted. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 65.-66. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are reasonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) 67.-73(a) County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 77.-78. 2800 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); 1000 rejected as 400 low; otherwise, accepted. 79.-81(a). Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 82(a). Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Accepted but "between" is imprecise. Accepted, but not likely. Accepted that two are mutually exclusive; otherwise, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the lands are "adjacent"; otherwise, accepted. 93.-94. Accepted. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that it is "the reasonable professionally acceptable methodology." Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Whether it is appropriate to apply a safety margin factor just to projected new growth can depend on the safety margin factor used and how far out the projection.) Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as being hypothetical argument. (Also, the ratios do not convert to percentages, i.e., 25:1 does not convert to a safety margin factor of 25 percent.) 104.-111(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that "overallocations" occur in the earlier years of the planning timeframe; the relevant inquiry relates to the planning horizon. Also, as to 111., the reference should be to the year 2020. (Also, again the ratios do not convert to percentages.) Otherwise, accepted. 112.-118. Accepted as being paraphrased from part of the Sheridan Final Order. 119.-128. Accepted as being the adjustments to Figure 14B to yield unrealistic "maximum theoretical" capacity. 129.-130. Conclusions of law. 131. Accepted. 132.-133. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The plan does not "propose development"; its projections on which the County bases its facilities and services are more realistic that the "maximum theoretical" capacity projections.) Also, these specific issues were not timely raised, and County motion to strike granted. 134. Accepted. 135.-140. Descriptions of what the various FLUM's show and what development has occurred over the years, accepted as reasonably accurate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there were either official or unofficial "urban expansion lines." (It was not clear from the evidence whether the so-called "Proposed EAR Urban Boundary" shown on Lee Exhibit 53 was either an official or an unofficial "urban expansion line," and there was no other evidence of any "urban expansion lines.") Also, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there was a "failure to maintain" them, or that the Southwest International Airport or the Westinghouse Gateway DRI "breached" the alleged "1988 urban expansion line." (The Westinghouse Gateway DRI was vested prior to 1984, and the regional airport development appears on FLUM's prior to 1988.) Also, development that occurred in earlier years is not particularly probative on the issues in this case (in particular, the amendment eliminating the Overlay). 141.-142. Accepted. 142(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Also, the specific issue of failure to establish an "urban expansion line" is not raised by amendments at issue in this case (in particular, the elimination of the Overlay), and was not timely raised by any party. 143.-146. Densities in land use categories, accepted as reasonably accurate. The rest is rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. The plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance. Primarily, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage of non-urban land uses prior to 2010. They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020. 147.-150. Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. 150(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. Conclusion of law. In part, accepted; in part conclusion of law. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. 154.-160. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It remains to be seen how effective they will be in the long term.) Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage in potential wildlife habitat and corridor areas prior to 2010. (They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. 164.-168. Rejected because issues not raised timely. 169. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. 170.-174. County motion to strike granted. 175.-179. Accepted. 180.-182. Conclusions of law. 183.-184. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 185. Accepted. 186.-188. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 189. First clause, rejected (see 186.-188.); second clause, accepted. 190.-191. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 192.-193. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 194. Conclusion of law. 195.-196. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 197.-198. Except for typographical errors, accepted. (However, the last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 was transferred verbatim to amended Policy 77.11.2.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence to be the entire justification. (Also justified by updated data and analysis--namely, that the habitats have been identified and mapped--and by amended Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2, which respond to the new data and analysis.) Argument. 201.-204. Cumulative. (See 154.-157.) 205.-206. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 207.-208. Accepted. Accepted (although not demonstrated by Lee Exhibit 49). Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not clear from the evidence that the Zemel property is connected to and part of the Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area. Otherwise, accepted. 213.-216. Accepted. 217.-218. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (which is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 219.-222. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate (which, again, is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 223. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected. See 217.-222. Zemels' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted; however, relatively little of the Zemel property abuts either U.S. 41 or Burnt Store Road. 2-10. Accepted. Last clause rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; another option would be to amend the definition. Otherwise, accepted. Last clause, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that they are not "sparsely developed." Otherwise, accepted. 13.-15. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence as to the south; otherwise, accepted but irrelevant to the application of the definition. Accepted; however, not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Zemel property is not north of "sparsely developed areas." (Emphasis added.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rest, accepted in large part and rejected in part as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Clearly, at least a good portion of the Zemel property is "extremely remote" from all existing public services. Some portions of the Zemel property are not "extremely remote" from some public services, but not proven by a preponderance of evidence that at least some public services are not "extremely remote" from all portions of the Zemel property. Also, in addition to existing public services, c) and e) also refer to future public services. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that no agricultural activities have been profitable (only that row crop farming has not); otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (as to second and third sentences, because of the existence of the Open Lands category.) Accepted (although there also are other data and analysis in the record). First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Not all of the statements are "conclusory".) Second, accepted. Third, rejected; see 21., above. 28.-29. Accepted. (However, as to 29., it refers to existing access.) First sentence, accepted. A. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "fails to recognize" the roads in northern Cape Coral (although it clearly does not mention them); otherwise, accepted. B. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "appears to ignore" the water line along U.S. 41 (although it clearly does not mention it); otherwise, accepted. C. - accepted; however, the "proximity" is to a point on the periphery of the property. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence except using the County's methodology. Otherwise, accepted. 33.-34. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The County in effect "borrowed" the DCA's data and analysis.) Rest, accepted. Accepted, assuming the County's methodology; however, there also are other concerns. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. As to the second, there is rural land to the northwest; as to the third, there also is resource protection land in Charlotte County to the north, and the "enclave" is large; as to the fourth, no I-75 boundary would appear to apply to Township 43 even if it might appear to apply to the south. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The analysis compares the costs and difficulty in Yucca Pen to Lehigh and Cape Coral; in terms of such a comparison, the differences are significant.) 40.-45. Accepted. County's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; third, accepted (assuming "actual bona fide business" means a for-profit commercial enterprise.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the DCA "agreed with and relied on" the County's analysis. (The DCA utilized the analysis for purposes of its objection.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the determination was "on a largely subjective basis" (although some determinations necessarily were at least partly subjective); otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay was designed "without policy considerations" or that historic growth trends were "simply extrapolated." (The policy considerations already in the plan were utilized, and an effort was made to predict growth in light of those policy considerations. It is true, however, that the Overlay was not designed to further direct growth patterns within the planning districts and subdistricts.) Accepted (but not particularly probative). 11.-14. Accepted. Rejected in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it implies that the impact of the plan was not taken into consideration in predicting future population. See 9., above. Otherwise, accepted. Firsts sentence, accepted. As to second and third, not clear from the evidence what if anything was submitted in the way of data and analysis for the remedial amendments. They were not introduced in evidence or referred to by any party. As to the last sentence, it is not clear from the evidence exactly how the 2.11 factor was derived or whether it took into account the 2010 population accommodation for Lehigh (282,000 people in this analysis). (T. 1267-1269.) If the 507,000 units of accommodation did not include Lehigh, the total accommodation of 1.06 million also could not have included Lehigh. Accepted. First three sentences, argument. Rest, accepted. 19.-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as unclear what "that allocation" refers to. (Accepted if it means "up to 125 percent"; rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence if it means "200 percent.") 22.-23. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (In addition, a more meaningful comparison would be between the adopted EAR 2020 plan without a 2010 Overlay and a 2020 plan with an overlay extending the 2010 Overlay out another ten years.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rest, accepted (as accurate recitation of testimony) but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 30.-32. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to first sentence, see Sheridan Final Order.) Accepted. First and last sentences, accepted. Rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Such an approach would direct population to Lehigh, which might be the best thing to do. (At this point in time, development of Lehigh under a good Sector Plan might be able to change what was classic urban sprawl under past conditions into well-planned growth under present and future conditions.) It might also direct population to other, non- urban areas if densities were not low enough in them. Finally, Nelson suggested other ways of bring the plan into compliance without the Overlay. 38.-42. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The County did not seek to "match the available land to meet that growth"; rather, it checked to see if what was on the FLUM would "accommodate" (i.e., hold) the population projected for 2020. Last sentence, rejected in that RGMC challenged the opinion in its response to this proposed finding; otherwise, accepted. Rejected that the County "cannot alter the future development" of Lehigh or that Lehigh is "beyond the reach of" the comprehensive plan; otherwise, accepted. The 199 acres is part of the 685 acre total. Otherwise, generally accepted. However, significant additional growth can be expected in coastal areas, and there is rural land both within and outside the so-called "I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; presumably, the existence of this land is the reason the finding is couched in the terms: "the remaining area . . . is largely . . . along the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; and "all future growth . . . will predominantly occur." First and third sentences, conclusion of law; second, accepted. Conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted but subordinate; also, the rule citation is incorrect; in addition, they testified to the effect of removing the Overlay. Second sentence, conclusion of law. Accepted. (The effect of the Overlay is in the extent of the indicators that exist.) Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted; third, conclusion of law; fourth, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear"; also, conclusion of law. 58.-60. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The same conditions exist without the Overlay.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay did not have any "true policy bias or consideration built into it"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, the same conditions exist without the Overlay.) 68.-71. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "removing Cape Coral . . . reduces the FLUM capacity"; rather, it represents a change in the methodology of evaluating the FLUM capacity. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. 74.-78. Accepted. However, it appears that the County's treatment of Lehigh essentially was a device to enable it to have the projected population in the year 2020 treated as if it were the capacity of Lehigh in the year 2020. 79.-81. First sentence of 79, unclear; rest, accepted. However, only certain retail commercial are restricted to the locations on Map 16; others can go either there or elsewhere. 82.-85. Conclusion of law. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the ELUM "represents the growth trends" (rather, it shows what is there now) or that, except for Lehigh, growth only "is occurring in the north/south core." Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First and last sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Barrier" is too strong; "obstacle" or "hindrance" would be accepted.) Otherwise, accepted. 91.-95. Generally, accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as conclusion of law that they are "objective measures" and "responsive to . . . 5(c)"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, accepted (although some higher, urban densities are in coastal areas, and there remains some rural land in the so-called "north/south core"); third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that a "large impact" is "clear"; fourth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the "segmentation" is absolute but otherwise accepted. Except for Lehigh, generally accepted. (What is missing are "objective measures.") Generally, accepted. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "nearly identical." Third sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it necessarily is not excessive. The evidence was that it is not necessarily excessive, but it could be depending on many factors, including whether it was calculated based on total capacity on the planning horizon or incremental growth during the planning timeframe, and the length of the planning horizon. Otherwise, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; last two, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 107.-108. Accepted. 109. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. 110.-117. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The effect of removing the Overlay is to allow more development sooner throughout the County. The effect of the increased development would depend on how it occurs. As to 116 and 117, one purpose of the Overlay was to require a mix of uses in mixed land use districts. First sentence, rejected. See 110-117, above. Rest, accepted. Cumulative. Last sentence, subordinate argument; except for apparent typographical error in third sentence, rest accepted. Last sentence, rejected as unclear from the evidence why there has been no agricultural use; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Significance" depends on other factors as well, including the amount of acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) Assuming that the "127 additional acres" refers to uplands, the rest is accepted. 124.-125. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and, in part, conclusion of law. There was no evidence of any serious risk of a taking. If these were legitimate reasons to redesignate the Alico property AC, it would be questionable if any DRGR would survive. First sentence, accepted (assuming the County's efforts are otherwise "in compliance"; second, subordinate argument; third, cumulative. Accepted. (However, the County's analysis does not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) First four sentences, accepted but irrelevant; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "safe to assume"; last sentence, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that mining would "permanently preempt" commercial use, but accepted that subsequent commercial use would be much less likely; fourth sentence, accepted (except for typos); last sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not clear that it "won't be available," but accepted that it may not, depending on when it is "needed." Rest, accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear" but accepted that it probably "will not pose a significant threat"; third and fourth, accepted; fifth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that there is no recharge, but accepted that recharge is not better than average; rest, accepted. Accepted (with the understanding that the last sentence refers to surface water runoff). First sentence, accepted; second and third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Gulf Utilities-San Carlos wellfield is the only wellfield in the water table aquifer (otherwise, the third sentence is accepted). 134.-136. Accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There also were other internal consistency issues concerning the date.) Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 140.-141. Accepted. 142. Irrelevant; issue not timely raised. 143.-144. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (in that DCA and RGMC did not prove internal inconsistency beyond fair debate); second, third and fourth sentences, accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay); rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 147.-149. Accepted. First two sentences, argument; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; last, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that a reduction in densities is not necessarily positive; rest, accepted. 152.-155. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (assuming it refers to the deleted first sentence of former Policy 84.1.2, now 84.1.1); second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence since its context requires the opposite interpretation. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the report "specifically recommends the amendment . . . in the fashion that Lee County has done." Otherwise, accepted. 159.-160. Accepted (159, based on the plan language and Joyce testimony, as well as the Deadman testimony.) First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; conclusion of law; subordinate. Accepted; subordinate. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 166.-169. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Use of the "allocation ratio" is being determined in this case.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order can be said to be a DCA "publication." Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Joint Exhibit 17 gives some indication of how to apply an "allocation ratio"; accepted that Joint Exhibit 17 does not fully explain how to apply the "allocation ratio." Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order constitutes such evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Atlantic Gulf's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted. 4. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 5.-7. Accepted. 8.-10. In part conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. (The incorporation of the DEP and SWFWMD permitting requirements only replaces former County permitting requirements; other parts of the amended plan's provisions relating to wetlands protection remain in effect.) Alico's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-13. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the phrase "substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" may distinguish DRGR-suitable land from other land by the nature of the aquifer it recharges, not by the relative amounts of recharge. However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that it is in the "area" of "most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. 16.-19. Accepted. Accepted (assuming it refers to the DCA submitting); subordinate. Accepted. 22.-24. Subordinate argument and conclusion of law. 25.-34. Accepted. 35.-36. Accepted; subordinate. Last sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument and conclusion of law. Accepted (except, in s. and u., it should read "Six Mile Cypress Basin.") Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the list is not exhaustive ; otherwise, accepted. 40.-41. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Policy 7.1.1 just says applications are to be "reviewed and evaluated as to" these items; it does not say that "negative impacts" must be "avoided." Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Goal 12 and Standard 12.4 under it are renumbered under the current amendments as Goal 11 and Standard 11.4; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that former Standard 14.1 has been transferred to Policy 7.1.1. under the current amendments. See 40 and 42, above. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that former designation as DRGR is the only reason why water quality and quantity issues arise; second, cumulative. Cumulative. First two sentences, cumulative; rest, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, unclear which fact is "in dispute"; rest, accepted. (The AC amendment property probably would not be developed as a producing wellfield.) First sentence, accepted; second, cumulative. First two clauses of first sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, cumulative; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. 55.-56. Cumulative. 57.-59. Accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, third and fourth sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, argument; rest, accepted. Accepted. 65.-66. In part, cumulative; otherwise, accepted. 67.-70. Accepted. First sentence, argument; middle sentences, accepted; penultimate sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that he made no blanket concession, instead conditioning interception on water table levels; last sentence, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that there's no "realistic way" "you" can do it); rest, accepted. 73.-74. Cumulative. Accepted. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. Beginning, cumulative; last sentence, subordinate argument. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the influence of additional pumping has not been analyzed; last, accepted. Accepted. First two sentences, conclusion of law; last, accepted. Subordinate argument. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the "performance standards" say to maintain current protection and expand protection "to encompass the entire area." Accepted. (However, it is far from clear that the BMP's referred to in Policy 1.2.2 are the same ones referred to in this proposed finding.) Accepted. 87.-88. Subordinate argument. Cumulative or subordinate argument. Unclear what is meant by "several generations of numbers." Otherwise, cumulative. Cumulative. Accepted but subordinate. Accepted. (However, he also raised the question that the County's analysis did not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) 94.-95. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that they conceded need is not based exclusively on resident and seasonal population, not that it is not based at all on it; third, accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument. Accepted. Accepted. (Nor was there testimony that there is a need based on population.) Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law, cumulative, and rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that there was evidence of other motivations for providing the information as well. Accepted. (However, the analysis was limited to Orlando, and Nelson's method resulted in no need found.) Subordinate argument; cumulative. Subordinate argument. Accepted. (As to third sentence, neither did any other witness.) 106.-107. Accepted. Last sentence, subordinate argument; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (or, at least, unclear); rest accepted. Cumulative. 110.-113. Accepted. Cumulative. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted as an excerpt from the dictionary, but argument and conclusion of law that it is the "plain meaning" of the word "need," as used in 9J-5. (Also, citation to Joint Exhibit 11, p. 9, is not understood.) Argument and cumulative. 117.-118. Accepted. 119.-120. Conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 121. Last sentence, accepted. (It is not clear from the evidence that the designation of the property as "Panther Priority 2" on Lee Exhibit 42, introduced by RGMC, means that the County has identified it as being "in need of conservation.") Rest, conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 122.-126. Conclusion of law and cumulative. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not essentially incorporated into the Findings of Fact of this Recommended Order, they were considered to be either subordinate or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jordan, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Bridgette Ffolkes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Timothy Jones, Esquire Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue So. St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Connie C. Durrence, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Charles J. Basinait, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Steven C. Hartsell, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Thomas B. Hart, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Post Office Box 2449 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2449 Michael J. Ciccarone, Esquire Goldberg, Goldstein, & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Greg Smith, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capitol - Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning Administration Commission The Capitol - Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue is whether plan amendments adopted by Respondent in Ordinance No. 5-1998 are not in compliance, for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Intent that is incorporated into the Petition of the Department of Community Affairs.
Findings Of Fact The Plan and the Adoption Ordinance Petitioner challenges Respondent's redesignation of a 198-acre parcel (Parcel) from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial on the future land use map (FLUM) of Respondent's comprehensive plan. This is the Plan amendment that is the subject of the present case. Respondent's comprehensive plan consists of a document that was restated through 1990 (Petitioner Exhibit 22) and a set of plan amendments adopted on October 13, 1997 (Petitioner Exhibit 13). This recommended order will refer cumulatively to the 1990 restated plan and the 1997 plan amendments as the Plan. Two conditions govern reliance upon Petitioner Exhibits 22 and 13 as the sources of Plan provisions. First, Petitioner Exhibits 22 and 13 do not contain all of the textual Plan amendments adopted by Respondent between 1990 and 1997. For example, Text Amendment T-1 in Plant City Plan Amendment 95-1, as adopted by Ordinance 34-1994 on October 10, 1994, is missing from Petitioner Exhibit 22. It is unlikely, though, that the missing Plan provisions would have a bearing on the present case. Second, and more important, Petitioner Exhibit 13 contains proposed plan language that Respondent never adopted. Similarly, Respondent did not adopt the plan language or recommendations for the addition, deletion, or amendment of plan language contained in Petitioner Exhibits 6 and 8. Petitioner Exhibit 6 is Respondent's evaluation and appraisal report (EAR). Required by law to be prepared at stated intervals, the EAR is the document by which a local government assesses the performance of its comprehensive plan and recommends needed amendments. In this case, Petitioner objected to portions of the EAR, so Respondent adopted a revised EAR (REAR), which is Petitioner Exhibit 8. After Petitioner determined that the REAR was sufficient, subject to the conditions noted below, Respondent adopted Plan amendments by Ordinance 23-1997, as adopted October 13, 1997; these amendments are contained in Petitioner Exhibit 13, which, as already noted, is part of the Plan. However, Petitioner Exhibit 13 is a composite exhibit and contains plan language that Respondent did not adopt. It is not entirely clear from the exhibit exactly what Respondent is adopting because Ordinance 23-1997 does not contain, identify, or describe the Plan amendments, nor is a copy of the Plan amendments attached to the ordinance. As incorporated into Petitioner Exhibit 13, the adopted Plan amendments precede the ordinance. These amendments change the Public Facilities Element (PFE), Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Capital Improvements Element (CIE), including the schedule of capital improvements, and substitute a comprehensive set of definitions for the sets of definitions that previously were contained in several of the elements. Incorporated into Petitioner Exhibit 13 between the adopted Plan amendments and the ordinance are a small number of pages concerning legal advertising and regional plan review, but these pages, which are irrelevant to the present case, were not adopted. Following the ordinance are additional pages concerning advertising and county plan review and a set of documents entitled, "Section A, Summary of Proposals for Plan Amendment Group 97-01." It is unclear to what Section A is supposed to be attached, but most likely Section A contains the proposed amendments that Respondent submitted to the Hillsborough County Planning Commission. In any event, Respondent never adopted Section A, as such. About six months later, Respondent adopted the Plan amendment that is the subject of this case. By Ordinance 5-1998, adopted April 13, 1998, Respondent adopted "amendments" to the Plan. The finding that this ordinance contains the subject Plan amendment is not entirely free of doubt because it is based on inference and implied stipulation; as is apparently Respondent's practice, the actual amendment is in no way identified in Ordinance 5-1998. The ordinance states only that a "copy of [the] amendment is filed in the office of the City Clerk . . .." Nothing in the record actually describes the contents of Ordinance 5-1998, but the parties and reviewing agencies, such as the Hillsborough County Planning Commission, have treated this ordinance as the one that adopted the redesignation of the Parcel, so the administrative law judge will too. The title of the adoption ordinance is: "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PLANT CITY, FLORIDA; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (97-1)." This is the only reference to "97-1" in the ordinance. Respondent attached several documents to the submittal package to Petitioner. The amendment is identified as Amendment 97-2 in the minutes of the City Commission meeting at which Respondent adopted the ordinance; however, the ordinance does not mention this amendment number. The amendment is identified as Amendment 97-2, Map Amendment 1, in the resolution of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, which approved an amendment changing the designation of 198 acres on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. The amendment is identified as proposed Amendment 98-1 in Respondent's responses to the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments of Petitioner, although the context of these responses reveals that they pertain to the redesignation of 198 acres from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. The submittal package also includes a map that shows the area to be redesignated Industrial from Suburban Density Residential and a staff report that includes a textual and graphic analysis of the land uses surrounding the Parcel. Background The west boundary of the Parcel abuts Jim Johnson Road and a main north-south railroad line, the south boundary abuts an east-west railroad line, and the east boundary abuts Coronet Road. The Parcel is designated Suburban Density Residential, although, according to the staff report, a poor legal description leaves some doubt as to whether the westernmost part of the Parcel might already be designated Industrial. This recommended order treats the entire Parcel as Suburban Density Residential. The Parcel lies at the extreme southeast corner of Plant City. The surrounding land in Plant City is entirely Industrial. The Parcel lies at the southeast corner of one of the two largest areas designated Industrial in Plant City. Both of these areas are in the city's southern half, which is otherwise devoted to medium- and high-density residential and commercial uses. The vast portion of low-density residential, which is designated Suburban Density Residential, is in the city's northern half, which also includes some commercial, medium- and high-density residential uses. The staff report analyzes the surrounding existing land uses within this Industrial area of Plant City. On the eastern half of the north border of the Parcel is "expansive wooded fenced pasture land" with one single-family home and some stored mobile homes. On the western half of the north border and the northern half of the west border is a Food Lion distribution center on a 150-acre parcel. Immediately west, across Jim Johnson Road, is a developed industrial park. On the east border is a golf course, a power plant, and vacant, wooded land. On the south border, within Plant City, is a small area of Suburban Density Residential not proposed for redesignation. This area appears to be wooded and adjoins another wooded area that adjoins a residential area a short distance to the east. On the south border, within unincorporated Hillsborough County, of which Plant City is a part, are low- density residential uses in an area designated in the Hillsborough County plan for up to six dwelling units per acre. (All references to density shall state a ratio with the number of dwelling units followed by the number of acres; in this case, the density is 6:1). The Parcel contains fenced pasture land, one single- family residence, and a rail spur leading from the south border to the south boundary of the Food Lion distribution center. The Parcel contains three areas of wetlands totaling about 37 acres. The wetlands are at the south and west side of the Parcel, the middle of the Parcel, and the east side of the Parcel. The wetlands are contiguous and convey water to the upper part of the Howell Branch, which empties into the South Prong of the Alafia River. The Alafia River runs west through Hillsborough County and empties into Hillsborough Bay or upper Tampa Bay. The record provides no basis to infer that the railroad track running along the southern boundary of the Parcel has impounded stormwater runoff. To the contrary, the presence of culverts and elevated tracks suggest that the spur crossing the Parcel and ending at the Food Lion property does not cut off the flow of surface water. However, the record does not contain much detail as to the level to which the onsite wetlands function as natural drainage or habitat. The economic value of the Parcel would be enhanced if its designation were Industrial rather than Suburban Density Residential. However, the record does not permit the inference that development would take place sooner in the event of such a redesignation. Jim Johnson Road is scheduled to be expanded to four lanes from a point to the north down to nearly the south end of the Food Lion parcel. At this point, Jim Johnson Road, which continues farther south as a two-lane road, intersects the eastern terminus of the four-lane extension of Alexander Street. The Parcel is not presently served by central wastewater, but, by 2000, such service should be extended to within one-half mile of the Parcel. The nearest lift station operated at only nine percent of capacity in 1988. The unadopted text accompanying the Plan states that Plant City, which is about 20 miles east of Tampa and 10 miles west of Lakeland, has experienced "steady industrial growth over the past years with almost total utilization of its industrial park . . .." Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 20. The central business district of Plant City is at the intersection of State Road 39 and U.S. Route 92. When this central business district began to form over 100 years ago, it occupied the intersection of important rail lines traveling north-south and east-west--the two lines that continue to operate in the vicinity of the Parcel. Decades later, the interstate highway system added to Plant City's industrial development. Interstate 4, which runs east-west, passes just north of the central business district. Interstate 75, which runs north-south, is a little over 10 miles west of Plant City. In the 1970s, Respondent annexed the land in the southwest part of the city for the mixed-use planned residential development known as Walden Lake. In the same decade, Respondent annexed the land in the western part of the city for industrial uses in the vicinity of the city airport. Ensuing industrial development in the Walden Woods Business Center, of which the Parcel is a part, has resulted in the location of a distributor of bottled detergents on a two-acre parcel, a boxmaker on a 20-acre parcel, and an automated operation to upgrade used cars on another 20-acre parcel. In the 1980s, as the western industrial lands developed, Respondent facilitated the industrial development of land in the eastern part of the city. Recent industrial development has shifted toward the east, absorbing land between Plant City and Lakeland. The unadopted text in the Plan predicts strong industrial growth in the future: Recent events have indicated that Plant City will have a significant expansion in its industrial base through the location of major industrial employers to the east of the city providing jobs and revenue to Plant City. This will, of course, have an effect upon the facilities of Plant City in maintaining current levels of service and the concurrent provision of facilities with the impacts of development as the City's currently adopted plan requires. Due to the impact that industrial developments have upon adjacent land uses, including residential areas, the City will require all future industrial developments to be planned development. Plant City is expected to maintain a suburban, commuter and local job market through the planning period. Job growth in the reserve area will create more nearby employment opportunities for the city's residents with the workforce travelling shorter distances to employment centers in the immediate area. Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 20. The testimony at the hearing established that Plant City occupies the I-4 technology corridor. Aided by the efforts of the University of South Florida, in Tampa, and the University of Central Florida, in Orlando, this corridor is designed to attract high-tech manufacturing. Plant City and Lakeland are important segments of this corridor because they have sufficient utilities to serve such manufacturers. Persons involved in the marketing and developing of industrial land contend that, from a marketing standpoint, there is a shortage of affordable, usable industrial land in Hillsborough County. Land in Tampa is expensive, and relatively little land exists in unincorporated Hillsborough County. One broker/developer estimated that there has not been so little land of this type in this area since the early 1980s--a situation exacerbated by the conversion of some industrial office parks to office and residential uses. Respondent has enjoyed favorable newspaper publicity concerning its industrial growth. In its Responses to Petitioner's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments, dated March 23, 1998 (ORC Response), Respondent's staff summarized numerous newspaper articles noting the number of high-paying jobs attracted to Plant City by its proximity to Interstates 4 and 75, the Tampa port and railroad lines, 75 percent of all food- distribution sites in Florida, a new technical-education center, major universities in Tampa and Orlando, and Respondent's pro- industrial policies, including reduced fees on new construction to pay for infrastructure. ORC Response (part of Petitioner Exhibit 4), pp. 9-12. The unadopted text in the Plan analyzes the relationship of allocations to future needs by residential and nonresidential categories. As of 1990, the projected population for Plant City for 2010 was 27,700, and the residential designations on the FLUM accommodated a buildout population of 29,921. For nonresidential calculations, Respondent determined the potential employment-generating capacity of Respondent's available Commercial and Industrial land by considering square feet per acre, vacancy rates, and employees per square foot. Respondent concluded that the Commercial and Industrial future land use designations could accommodate an additional 36,694 employees to its employment base by 2010. Referring to the employment capacity stated in the preceding paragraph, the unadopted text concludes: This capacity is significantly greater than the estimated employment growth potential for the city and could potentially contribute to a dramatic change in the city's future socio- economic profile. Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 32. As Petitioner considered the subject FLUM amendment, it became readily apparent that Petitioner and Respondent differed as to the extent of analysis required to support the conversion of 198 acres of Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. In its REAR, Respondent updated its acreage allocations by future land use category, showing 1989 and 1995 acreages. From 1989 to 1995, Suburban Density Residential increased from 1215 acres, or 9.8 percent of the City, to 2272, or 15.7 percent of the City. (Annexations raised the total acreage in the City from 12,344 acres to 14,452 acres.) During the same period, Industrial increased from 3573 acres, or 28.9 percent, to 4385 acres, or 30.2 percent. After Suburban Density Residential, the largest percentage change during this period was Environmentally Sensitive, which decreased from 1958 acres, or 15.9 percent, to 1433, or 9.9 percent. Addressing wetlands-protection issues, the REAR states that the Conservation Element in the Plan, "as implemented through the City's Land Development Code and the requirements and processes of the Environmental Protection Commission," is "consistent with the new State requirements." Petitioner Exhibit 8, p. 9. The REAR asserts that the Conservation Element protects wetlands through discussion in the unadopted text of the Plan and "outlines wetlands protection strategies in the adopted portion of the [Conservation Element], Objective C and Policies C.1-C.9. Wetlands protection is also addressed in the FLUE [Future Land Use Element]." Petitioner Exhibit 8, p. 9. However, the REAR promises an expanded Conservation Element with mapping of the wetlands on the FLUM. The REAR contends that: [u]pon adoption of revised [Plan] provisions, all wetlands in the City will be protected by the [P]lan, by existing or revised Land Development Code provisions, by the [Environmental Protection Commission's] Wetlands Rule (which includes more stringent protection for more types and sizes of wetlands than that available at any other level of government), by the state through its Environmental Resources Permit (ERP) process, and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and various other laws and procedures. The City believes that this system will ultimately offer an extremely high level of [P]lan-based wetlands protection. Petitioner Exhibit 8, pp. 9-10. The REAR contains a table showing proposed changes to the Plan. Among the proposed changes is FLUE Policy 6.B.4, which was proposed to provide: The City may allow wetland encroachment as a last option only when other options to avoid wetland impacts are unavailable. When this occurs, the City in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, shall ensure the permitted activities are compatible with maintaining the area as a viable productive vegetative and wildlife habitat that protects its natural function based on the following criteria: allow only minimum impact projects such as piers, docks, walkways in wetlands; require development to be transferred to adjacent uplands outside wetland areas; restrict density in wetland areas to one residential unit for each identified wetland area. Petitioner Exhibit 8, p. 32. Petitioner determined that the REAR was in compliance, although on the condition that Respondent agree to work on the issues of wetlands, urban sprawl, and transportation. The Plan amendments adopted on October 13, 1997, did not address many of the issues discussed in the EAR and REAR. Notably, the Plan amendments did not include the revised FLUE Policy 6.B.4, quoted above. Following Respondent's transmittal of the subject Plan amendment, Petitioner submitted objections, recommendations, and comments. In its ORC Response, Respondent stated: The consideration of this plan amendment does not rest on a need to show a demand generated by residents of the City for more industrial land. The City has shown that it has provided for, and can continue to provide for, adequate provision of residential and other uses. ORC Response, p. 3. Using updated figures, the ORC Response states that Respondent had an excess residential designation of over 12,000 persons by 2015. The designation change of the Parcel would still leave an excess residential capacity of 10,443 persons. Using an updated population projection of 36,300 persons by 2015, the removal of the Parcel from Suburban Density Residential reduces Plant City's residential overallocation, in 2015, from 33.1 percent to 28.77 percent--which is still in excess of Petitioner's 25-percent guideline for residential overallocations. Addressing wetlands-protection issues, the ORC Response states that a developer could not develop Industrial land until it showed that "environmental damage would not occur" and compliance with the requirements of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, County Environmental Protection Commission, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. ORC Response, p. 5. Citing a provision of Respondent's land development regulations, the response adds that Respondent would require a "detailed site plan." Id. The ORC Response acknowledges that Petitioner was seeking the adoption of additional Plan provisions, in accordance with Rule 9J-5.013, Florida Administrative Code, to "exclude future land uses which are incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland function." ORC Response, p. 5. The ORC Response assures that Respondent will propose language requiring the developer to document the environmental conditions at the time of a proposed Plan amendment, rather than at the time of the issuance of a development permit, as the Plan reportedly provides at present. The ORC Response adds that, at the time of the issuance of a development permit, the new language will require that "an environmental review would ensure than the proposed development, under the applicable land use category, does not impact any natural resources located on the site. The protection rests with the site plan review process, detailed in the City's Land Development code." ORC Response, p. 5. Addressing transportation issues, the ORC Response relies on the concurrency provisions of the Plan to ensure that adequate traffic capacity will exist to serve the industrial development of the Parcel. Addressing buffering issues, the ORC Response assures that adequate buffering with nearby residential areas will result from the requirement, in the land development regulations, that the developer provide adequate buffering through a "detailed site plan." The Plan The definitions define Industrial as: The future land use plan category used to designated geographically on the Future Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element those areas in the City that are potentially suitable for industrial activities that create a minimal degree of impact to the surrounding area, particularly in terms of non-objectionable levels of noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor, and for convenience commercial uses that are limited to serving the development. All new development and major expansions of existing uses are subject to site plan review with the intent to integrate and minimize adverse impacts upon adjacent land uses. No new residential development is allowed. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Polices of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations pursuant thereto which allows [sic] up to a floor area ratio (FAR) of .50 and a maximum commercial area limited to 10 [percent] of the planned development industrial building square footage. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-21. The definitions define Suburban Density Residential as: The future land use plan category generally used to designated geographically on the Future Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element those areas that are best suited for single family detached residential uses although other housing approaches and compatible related uses such as churches and public utilities serving the neighborhood can be integrated in the area, subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations pursuant thereto. A density range of 0-4 dwelling units per gross acre may be achieved within SDR. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-39. The definitions section defines "Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Areas (E), Future Land Use Category" as: The future land use plan category is generally used to designate, geographically on the Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element, those areas in the City that are potentially environmentally sensitive and thereby subject to classification as Conservation or Preservation areas under the provisions of the Conservation . . . Element The Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Areas future land use plan category on the Future Land Use map is generalized and not exhaustive of all environmentally sensitive sites. Therefore, actual on-site environmental evaluations must occur for any specific project review, and development of any lands containing environmentally sensitive areas is restricted by applicable federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations and by the applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (Refer also to the definitions of Preservation Area and Conservation Area and to the polices, land use category description, and density computation provisions related to environmentally sensitive areas). In conjunction with on- site environmental evaluation, the adjacent land use designation shall provide guidance as to the development potential that may be considered once environmentally sensitive areas are surveyed and mapped on site. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-16. The definitions define "Environmentally Sensitive" as: Descriptive of lands which, by virtue of some qualifying environmental characteristic (e.g., wildlife habitat) are regulated by either the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), or any other governmental agency empowered by law for such regulation. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-15. The definitions do not define "Preservation Area," except to refer to "Conservation Area." Petitioner Exhibit 13, B9-31. For "Conservation Area," the definitions state: Means land designated to: protect the following preservation areas from any further development, except in extreme cases of overriding public interest: --Critical habitat for species of endangered, threatened, or rare status; --Class I and II waters; --Unique environmental features such as springs, steep natural slopes, cavernous sinkholes, and major natural rock outcrops. be environmentally sensitive areas in the Comprehensive Plan and the City's Land Development Code. Development of these areas is limited to conservation uses. be set aside specifically for the protection and safekeeping of certain values within the area, such as game, wildlife, forest, etc. Preserved areas may or may not be outdoor recreation areas, depending on the use allowed therein. Petitioner Exhibit 13, pp. B9-10 and 11. The definitions define "Conservation Uses" as: Activities within the land areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources or environmental quality and includes areas designated for such purposes as flood control, protection of quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, floodplain management, fisheries management, or protection of natural vegetative communities or wildlife habitats. [F.A.C. 9J-5.003(30)] Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-11. The definitions define "Wetlands" as: those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and a duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances, do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils. Soils present in wetlands generally are classified as hydric or alluvial, or possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions. The prevalent vegetation in wetlands generally consists of facultative or obligate hydrophytic macrophytes that are typically adapted to areas having soil conditions described above. These species, due to morphological, physiological, or reproductive adaptations, have the ability to grow, reproduce or persist in aquatic environments or anaerobic soil conditions. Florida wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bayheads, bogs, cypress domes and strands, slough, wet prairies, riverine swamps and marshes, hydric seepage slopes, tidal marshes, mangrove swamps and other similar areas. Florida wetlands generally do not include longleaf or slash pine flatwoods with an understory dominated by saw palmetto. The delineation of actual wetland boundaries may be made by any professionally accepted methodology consistent with the type of wetlands being delineated but shall be consistent with any unified statewide methodology for the delineation of the extent of wetlands ratified by the legislature. [F.A.C. 9J-5.003(149)] Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-43. The definitions define "Planned Development" as: "Development governed by the requirements of a site plan zoning district." Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-31. FLUE Policy 1.C.3 states: Higher intensity non-residential land uses that are adjacent to established neighborhoods shall be restricted to collectors and arterials and to locations external to established and developing neighborhoods. FLUE Goal 2 is: To sustain the viability of existing and emerging commercial and industrial park areas to achieve an integrated land use fabric which will offer a full range of employment, shopping, and leisure opportunities to support the city's residential areas. FLUE Policy 2.A.3 provides: Buffer residential uses from the negative impacts of non-residential development (physical, visual, or auditory), through the use of walls, berms, landscaped areas. FLUE Objective 2.E is: Support the downtown, stadium, community college, hospital, airport and the industrial areas of the city as the major employment and regional attractors of the Plant City area. FLUE Policy 2.E.1 states that Respondent will ensure that "adequate transportation, water, sewer, solid waste, and drainage facilities will be provided concurrent with the impacts of development " FLUE Policy 6.A.4 provides: The City shall regulate land use and development in all areas subject to flooding by prohibiting all development within the 100 year floodplain which is not in strict conformance with the provisions of the City of Plant City Flood Hazard Ordinance. FLUE Policy 6.A.6 is: The City shall investigate incentives to encourage the clustering of development away from environmentally sensitive lands. FLUE Objective 7.A states: In all actions of the City, urban sprawl shall be discouraged and a compact urban pattern of development shall be provided for in a manner which will promote the full utilization of existing public infrastructure and allow for the orderly extension and expansion of municipal facilities in a fiscally responsible manner. FLUE Policy 7.A.3 provides: The City shall permit new development which lies contiguous to existing urbanized lands only if public facilities are available or can be provided concurrent with the impacts of the development. All development shall be consistent with and maintain the adopted levels of service. FLUE Objective 7.B restates the concurrency requirement at the time of "approving new development and redevelopment." FLUE Policy 7.B.1 prohibits the issuance of "development orders or permits" that would result in "a reduction of the level of service (LOS) established for public facilities as adopted in the Capital Improvements Element." FLUE Objective 7.E restates the commitment to serve all new development and redevelopment with public facilities at or above the adopted LOS standard. FLUE Objective 7.F again restates this commitment, as it pertains to roads. The Goal of the Conservation Element is to: Preserve, conserve, restore, and appropriately manage the natural resources of the City of Plant City, in order to maintain or enhance environmental quality for present and future generations. Acknowledging the role of land-use planning in protecting natural resources, the Conservation Element states: In past decades, land use decisions were based primarily upon socio-economic and demographic factors, with little consideration given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land. As a result, urban land uses were often allowed to replace or permanently alter environmentally sensitive lands and natural systems. With a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions if the natural attributes and functions of the environment are to be maintained for future generations. Policies and regulations that appropriately preserve or conserve valuable natural resources, while allowing for orderly economic growth, are needed. Petitioner Exhibit 22, Conservation Element, pp. 63-64. The Conservation Element contains 12 objectives under eight categories--air quality, surface water, soil, hazardous materials, flora and fauna, natural preserves, land uses, and minerals. The objectives are specific and measurable. However, the policies in the Conservation Element are vague and unlikely to contribute significantly to the attainment of the Conservation objectives. Only 11 policies (A.7, B.1, B.7, C.2, E.2, E.6, E.7, F.6, H.2, H.4, and L.1) specifically describe a program or activity that will assist in the attainment of any objective. The remaining policies require Respondent only to "cooperate" (14 times), "promote" (9 times), "participate" (5 times), "request" (4 times), "support/encourage" (4 times), "assist" (3 times), and even "consider requiring" (1 time). Other policies promise compliance with the law, public education, and recommendations. Six policies promise some action in the land development regulations or the "land use planning process"-- evidently referring not to the preparation of the Plan, but to some part of the permitting process that may be described in the land development regulations, but is not described in the Plan. Several of the Conservation provisions more directly affect the present case. Acknowledging that "more stringent regulations for stormwater discharges should be considered," Conservation Objective B states: By 1990, discharges to all natural surface water bodies in the City of Plant City shall meet or exceed State water quality standards . . .. Cognizant that increased growth will continue to pressure wetlands, a "significant percentage" of which have already been lost, Conservation Objective C states: "By 1992, no net loss of natural wetland acreage and 100-year floodplain storage volume shall occur in the City." However, Conservation Policy C.3 implements this promise through reliance on the activities of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission and the previously described, unspecified permitting process that appears to be part of Respondent's land development regulations. Conservation Policy C.4 defers to "appropriate environmental regulatory agencies" the responsibility of developing a comprehensive wetland mitigation and restoration program. Conservation Policy C.9 states that Respondent will cooperate with Hillsborough County and the Southwest Florida Water Management District to develop comprehensive floodplain management regulations for the 100-year floodplain. In the restated 1990 plan, Public Facilities Element (PFE) Objective 1.C provided: By 2000, the City will implement mandatory requirements for discontinuing the use of all septic tanks[,] providing sanitary sewer facilities for the affected residents is available. In the 1987 amendments, Respondent weakened this objective by substituting for it the following: The City shall encourage the discontinuance of all on-site wastewater systems and private water wells upon the availability of public sanitary sewer facilities and public water utilities for the affected residents. However, PFE Policy 1.C.1, also part of the 1987 amendments, somewhat limits the circumstances under which landowners may continue to use onsite wastewater disposal systems. PFE Objective 1.A states: By February 1, 1990, the City . . . will implement procedures to ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, capacity consistent with the level of service standards is available or will be available when needed to serve the development. PFE Policy 1.A.1 adopts LOS standards of 89 gallons per capita per day for residential sewer, 7 gallons per employee per day for commercial sewer, and 43 gallons per employee per day for industrial sewer. Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) Policy A.1 adopts LOS standards for city roads. TCE Objective B requires Respondent to adopt land development regulations to ensure that transportation improvements further the provisions of the FLUE. TCE Policy D.1 is to provide transportation infrastructure to accommodate the impacts of growth consistent with the requirements of the provisions of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE). CIE Objective 1 is to set LOS standards for each public facility and identify the capital improvements needed to ensure that the adopted LOS standards are met. CIE Objective 2 is to provide needed public facilities that are within Respondent's ability to fund. CIE Policy 2.B attempts to allocate the costs of additional public facilities between existing and new development; ensuing policies largely assign the responsibility for curing deficiencies to existing development and adding capacity to new development. CIE Objective 3 is to provide needed public facilities to compensate for depletion and to accommodate new development and redevelopment. Ultimate Findings of Fact Adequacy of Ordinance On its face, Ordinance 5-1998 provides no basis whatsoever for inferring that it implements a change in the Parcel's designation on the FLUM. The contents of the ordinance presumably emerges only upon examination of the original ordinance file kept in the City Clerk's office. Supporting Data and Analysis--General Need for Conversion from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial Designation As for the need for more Industrial land, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis fail to support this Parcel's redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. Petitioner contends that this change in designation is not supported by the data and analysis because it results in an overallocation of Industrial. This argument fails for several reasons. First, Petitioner failed to prove any standards by which to determine an overallocation of Industrial, at least given the circumstances of this case. Already characterized by considerable industrial development, Respondent has successfully promoted more industrial development. Perhaps most important, Respondent's unique locational advantages promise more industrial development, given Respondent's proximity to the major population areas of East Central Florida, the Tampa Bay area, and Southwest Florida and its proximity to the large-scale transportation facilities of two major interstates, two rail lines, the Tampa port, and the airports of Tampa and Orlando. Second, under these unique circumstances, Petitioner failed to prove that market demand coupled with the need for larger blocks of land do not justify the new Industrial designation for the Parcel. Third, Petitioner failed to prove that the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial is not supported by the data and analysis because this redesignation reduces an overallocation of residential land while adding to employment opportunities for present and future residents of Plant City. 2. Wetlands and Conversion from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial Designation As for the protection of wetlands, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis fail to support the Parcel's redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. This finding is not based on the strength of the wetland-protection provisions in the Plan. To the contrary, the Plan is remarkably free of such provisions. Rather, this finding is based on the lack of evidence that an Industrial designation would more greatly imperil the wetlands than does the Suburban Density Residential designation. The record provides little basis to compare the effects on the wetlands of the Industrial intensity of .5 FAR as opposed to the Suburban Density Residential density of 4:1. Respondent's contentions that it permits only light industrial are more notable for their recurrence, rather than their support, in the record. The Plan contains no such limitation. In fact, the Plan's definition of Industrial minimally limits uses only in terms of common-law nuisance--e.g., noise, vibration, sound, and dust; nothing in the definition or elsewhere in the Plan limits Industrial uses in terms of effects on wetlands or other natural resources. Perhaps Respondent's land development regulations may further restrict industrial uses, but such easily-amended land use restrictions are irrelevant to a Plan case. Respondent also contends that Industrial requires site- planning. The Plan permits Respondent to require site-plan review, but does not require it to do so. Presumably, Respondent would be free to do so for a large-scale residential development, even though its Plan does not expressly mention the possibility. Although the Plan does not prohibit Industrial use of septic tanks, it is more likely that 4:1 residential development would rely on septic tanks than would .5 FAR industrial development. The three wetlands in question would likely fare better in the absence of a proliferation of nearby septic tanks, as would be permitted under Suburban Density Residential. Internal Inconsistency Future Land Use Element Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 7.A, 7.B, 7.E, and 7.F, and the policies supporting these objectives, as well as FLUE Policies 2.A.3 and 2.E.1. These Plan provisions address buffering residential uses from nonresidential uses, urban sprawl, the efficient provision of public facilities, conformance to adopted LOS standards, and concurrency. As for buffering, the buffering requirement of FLUE Policy 2.A.3 is sorely tested by the presence of a railroad line running through the Parcel. Converting the designation of the Parcel from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial, to the railroad track, serves the purpose of this policy. The problem here is not the railroad track, but the Suburban Density Residential designation; if anything, FLUE Policy 2.A.3 militates for the elimination of an arguably inappropriate residential designation immediately south of the railroad line. As for urban sprawl, the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial does not encourage the kind of inefficient land uses targeted by the Plan provisions discouraging urban sprawl, nor does the redesignation encourage an inefficient or costly extension of infrastructure. This recommended order has already found a viable functional relationship between the Parcel, if designated Industrial, and the larger region of which the Parcel and Plant City are a part. This is the key finding on the urban-sprawl issue. This order cites Petitioner's rule as it identifies the indicators and relevant development controls that are relevant to an urban-sprawl analysis. Although the Plan is nearly free of useful development controls, all of the urban- sprawl indicators suggest either that the new Industrial designation, as compared to the Suburban Density Residential designation, will discourage urban sprawl or have no effect on urban sprawl. The greater weight of the indicators suggests that the new designation will discourage urban sprawl. These indicators are the encouragement of a functional mix of uses, absence of excessively large areas of single use, absence of Industrial uses in excess of demonstrated need, absence of development forms (such as leapfrog and radial) suggestive of premature development, absence of poor accessibility among related uses, and achievement of a separation of rural and urban uses. Inconclusive indicators involve the protection of natural resources, agriculture, and open areas, the effective use of existing and future public facilities, and the discouragement of infill development. The commitment of FLUE Objectives 7.B, 7.E, and 7.F and FLUE Policy 2.E.1 to provide each public facility at its adopted LOS concurrent with new development is not compromised by either designation. A designation of Suburban Density Residential or Industrial is merely a future land use designation; it is not a development order. When Respondent issues a development order for the Industrial Parcel, the Plan's adequate concurrency provisions ensure that public facilities must be available at the time of the impacts of development. However, Petitioner correctly contends that concurrency is no substitute for the correlation or coordination of future land uses with the planned availability of public facilities. If Respondent's planning strategy were to rely on concurrency to time the issuance of development orders for the Parcel, then Respondent would be inviting a sudden and possibly catastrophic disruption of its real estate market and economy. At its worst, such a planning strategy would probably cause the plan to fail to achieve consistency with the criterion of financial feasibility, but Petitioner makes no such allegation in this case. On the present record, though, it is equally possible that Respondent will timely revisit its schedule of capital improvements in order to serve the Parcel with the necessary public facilities, such as roads, or Respondent may timely exact money from its taxpayers, the developers, or the ultimate purchasers through the wide variety of means available to fund infrastructure. In any event, Respondent's planning strategy for public facilities is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with the cited Plan provisions under the present circumstances, including the unambiguous requirements of the Plan's concurrency provisions, relatively small area involved (198 acres), economic likelihood in a tight market for industrial land that Respondent can exact from the developer and/or purchasers sufficient contributions to meet the demands of concurrency, and planned extension of central wastewater into the general area by 2005. Another distinguishing factor is that, according to Respondent's unrebutted analysis, only a worst-case development scenario would violate the traffic LOS standards and trigger concurrency. 2. Conservation Element Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with Conservation Objectives C and J, and the policies supporting these objectives. Conservation Objective C is to ensure no net loss of natural wetlands or 100-year floodplain storage, and Conservation Objective J is to ensure the protection of the functions of the natural environment. The policies under these objectives are so vague as to be irrelevant. The focus in this case is not on the Plan itself, but on the Plan amendment; the sole question is therefore whether Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial is inconsistent with objectives to ensure no net loss of natural wetlands or floodplain and to ensure the protection of the functions of the natural environment. As already noted, despite clear deficiencies in the Plan in its treatment of these natural resources, Petitioner has failed to prove how this redesignation negatively impacts any of these natural resources. 3. Traffic Circulation and Capital Improvements Elements For the reasons already discussed, Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with TCE Objective B, the TCE policies supporting this objective, TCE Policy D.1, CIE Objectives 1, 2, and 3, or the CIE policies supporting these objectives. Inconsistency with Other Criteria Future Land Use Map Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of depicting on the future land use map conservation uses (Rule 9J-5.006(4), Florida Administrative Code) and wetlands and floodplains (Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code). The FLUM does not depict any conservation uses or floodplains. As for wetlands, the FLUM, according to its legend, depicts only those larger than 40 acres. Placing these omissions in the context of the entire Plan does not alter this inconsistency finding. When not omitted, Plan provisions addressing natural-resources criteria are vague. Many of such Plan provisions repeatedly relegate to the land development regulations or delegate to federal, state, regional, or local agencies the responsibility for protecting wetlands and other natural resources. Especially for a relatively small municipality like Respondent, the entire FLUM must contain these required natural resources. Even if Respondent had added the missing natural resources to the 198-acre area subject to this amendment, the omission of these natural resources from the rest of the FLUM would have rendered the Plan amendment inconsistent with the criteria covered in this section. The requirement of depicting on the FLUM wetlands, floodplains, and conservation uses includes the requirement that FLUM graphically inform as to their size, scale, and proximity--relative to all other items required to be depicted on the FLUM and relative to the site that is the subject of a plan amendment. Provisions Protecting Wetlands and Floodplains Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of an objective ensuring the protection of natural resources (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)4, Florida Administrative Code), an objective protecting and conserving the natural functions of floodplains and wetlands (Rule 9J-5.013(2)(c)6, Florida Administrative Code), and a policy protecting wetlands (Rule 9J- 5.013(3), Florida Administrative Code). Although stronger Plan provisions protecting natural resources might have saved this flawed FLUM amendment, a FLUM amendment does not raise issues concerning the consistency of other Plan provisions, as such. As already noted, Conservation Objectives C and J ensure the protection of wetlands and floodplains and their natural functions. Although no policy provides effective protection of wetlands, this is a deficiency of the Plan, not the Plan amendment. The failure of the Plan to contain the required policy protecting wetlands does not affect the change in designations. 3. Urban Sprawl Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of supporting data and analysis because it fails to discourage urban sprawl, establish an efficient land use pattern, coordinate land uses with the availability of facilities and services, protect agriculture and natural resources, ensure a separation between urban and rural land uses, promote a mixed-use development or compact urban form, and avoid the designation of vast areas of single-use development, overallocation of Industrial land, and leap-frog development of rural areas at great distances from urban areas. Petitioner has alleged that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of objectives to discourage urban sprawl (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)8, Florida Administrative Code) and to use innovative land development regulations and mixed uses (Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)10 and (4)(c), Florida Administrative Code) and a policy to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)2, Florida Administrative Code). Petitioner has alleged that the Plan amendment does not discourage urban sprawl (Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code). For the reasons already discussed, the Plan amendment is not inconsistent with these urban-sprawl provisions. 4. Transportation Facilities Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the failure to update the Capital Improvements and Traffic Circulation elements at the time of adopting the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of basing the Plan amendment on a land use suitability analysis (Rule 9J-5.006(2), Florida Administrative Code); including all of the required elements in a future land use map (Rule 9J-5.006(4), Florida Administrative Code) (except with respect to the omitted items already found to result in an inconsistency); basing the Plan amendment on data concerning needed transportation improvements (Rule 9J-5.016(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code); basing the Plan amendment on analysis concerning the fiscal implications of public-facility deficiencies and a prioritization of needed public facilities by type of facility (Rule 9J-5.016(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code); including objectives to use the capital improvements element to accommodate future growth (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)1, Florida Administrative Code), to coordinate land use decisions and available or projected fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements that maintains adopted level of service standards and meets the existing and future facility needs (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)3, Florida Administrative Code), to demonstrate the ability to provide or require the provision of the improvements identified as necessary elsewhere in the Plan and to manage the land development process so that public facility needs created by previously issued development orders or future development do not exceed Respondent's ability to fund and provide or require provision of the needed capital improvements (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code); and to coordinate the transportation system with the FLUM and ensure that existing and proposed population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services proposed to serve these areas (Rule 9J-5.019(4)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code); and including a policy to set peak-hour LOS standards to ensure that adequate facility capacity will be provided to serve the existing and future land uses (Rule 9J-5.019(4)(c)1, Florida Administrative Code). For the reasons already discussed, the Plan is not inconsistent with these provisions. Inconsistency with State Comprehensive Plan For the reasons already discussed, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the cited provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is not in compliance due to the omissions of conservation uses, wetlands, and floodplains from the future land use map and the failure of the adoption ordinance to comply with Section 166.041(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 20th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen R. Fowler Assistant General Counsel David Jordan Deputy General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Kenneth W. Buchman City Attorney City of Plant City 212 North Collins Street Plant City, Florida 33566 Steven M. Seibert Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Administration Commission Growth Management and Strategic Planning 2105 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether a change on the Land Use Plan (LUP) map of Respondent, Miami-Dade County (County), adopted by Ordinance No. 09-28 on May 6, 2009, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The County is a charter government that administers the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (Plan), a broad-based countywide policy-planning document to guide future growth and development. See County Exhibit 1. The LUP is a component of the Plan and contains the various land use designations. The County adopted the Ordinance which approved the change in the LUP that is being challenged here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. Blue Lake is a small, family-owned corporation that has owned the subject property since 1966. It submitted oral and written comments to the County during the adoption process. Flagler Retail Associates, Ltd., owns and operates a retail shopping center, Park Hill Plaza, located at 9501 West Flagler Street, around one-half mile from Blue Lake's property. It submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. Flagler, S.C., LLC, owns and operates a retail shopping center, Flagler Park Plaza, at 8221 West Flagler Street, which is approximately 1.8 miles from the subject property. It also submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. SC Mota Associates, Ltd., owns and operates a retail shopping center, the Mall of Americas, located at 7757 West Flagler Street, which is approximately 25 blocks from Blue Lake's property. It submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. History of the Amendment A mobile home park with around 275 units occupied the property from 1957 until June 2007, when Blue Lake closed the park. At the time of the hearing, the mobile home park was around 80 percent demolished and cleared out. The property is currently listed for sale by its owners. The property is located within the County's Urban Development Boundary at the northeast corner of West Flagler Street, a six-lane divided arterial roadway running in an east- west direction and designated as a major roadway, and Northwest 102nd Avenue (also known as West Park Drive). The southwest corner of the property borders the City of Sweetwater and a small shopping center. Directly to the west of the property and across West Park Drive is a part of the Florida International University campus. To the east are the campuses of a public middle school and elementary school, while a large, single- family residential area lies to the south. Directly north of the property (and just south of State Road 836, also known as the Dolphin Expressway) is the western portion of a large multi- family residential complex (formerly a golf course) identified in the record as the Fountainbleau Park area, which stretches across Northwest 97th Avenue to the east. The County has two cycles per year for applicants to file amendments to the Plan, which may be text amendments having countywide application, or site-specific LUP map amendments having localized impact. In the April 2008 cycle, nineteen applications were filed with the County, including Blue Lake's Application No. 9. The application was filed by Gold River Corporation, which had a contract to purchase the property from Blue Lake contingent on a land use change. Gold River Corporation later assigned the contract to Blue Lake Partners, LLC, an entity unrelated to Blue Lake. The contract to purchase later "fell through" for unknown reasons. Blue Lake is now pursuing the land use change on its own behalf. Application No. 9 requested that the County amend the LUP map by changing the land use designation on a 41-acre parcel from Low-Medium Density Residential Communities to Business and Office. The former land use allows between six and thirteen dwelling units per gross acre and could be fully developed with as few as 244 residential units or as many as 533. The new land use allows both residential and commercial development, including a wide range of commercial uses such as retail, professional services, and offices. If developed to its maximum residential potential, the new category could accommodate more than 2,200 units. If developed to its maximum commercial potential, the new use would allow more than 679,000 square feet of commercial floor space. A Declaration of Restrictions is a tool permitted by the Plan to craft "a more refined amendment" that can take into consideration more than just a change in the land use of a parcel of property. See County Exhibit 1 at I-74.1. Restrictions are considered an adopted part of the Plan. Id. They can provide greater restrictions on a parcel, delineate the property's uses, and make the amendment more consistent with the Plan than it might otherwise be. In July 2008, Blue Lake offered a first Declaration of Restrictions that would prohibit residential development on the property on the premise that the change would satisfy a deficiency in land designated for commercial development. See County Exhibit 60. Land Use Element Policy LU-8E provides that applications requesting amendments to the LUP map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of all Plan Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; [and] Enhance or impede provision of services at or above adopted LOS Standards; [and] Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods; and Enhance or degrade environmental or historical resources, features or systems of County significance; and If located in a planned Urban Center, or within 1/4 mile of an existing or planned transit station, exclusive busway stop, transit center, or standard or express bus stop served by peak period headways of 20 or fewer minutes, would be a use that promotes transit ridership and pedestrianism as indicated in the policies under Objective LU-7, herein. County Exhibit 1 at I-17-18. The various factors in the Policy are weighed and balanced when considering a map change. However, paragraph (i) is considered by the County to be the "primary," or at the very least an "important," factor when reviewing map changes since the County must ensure that there is enough land for different types of uses to accommodate the projected growth within the County. In fact, a County witness could recall no more than one or two instances over the last thirty years where the County had approved a LUP map change when the staff had determined that there was a lack of need under this provision. Under the County's plan amendment review process, an application for a change in the LUP map is first reviewed by the Department of Planning and Zoning staff, then the applicable community council, next by the Planning Advisory Board, and finally by the Board of County Commissioners. Community councils are elected bodies from thirteen different geographic areas of the County that act as a planning board for making recommendations on amendments that affect their jurisdiction. A needs analysis determines the availability of commercial land in a given area relative to the availability of residential land. Consistent with its past practice of performing a supply and demand analysis under paragraph (i) of Policy LU-8E, the Department of Planning and Zoning staff looked at need within two minor statistical areas (MSAs). An MSA is one of 32 geographical subareas into which the County has been subdivided for the purpose of collecting and inventorying data on the supply and demand for different land uses and for disaggregating the County's population into subareas. On very infrequent occasions, the staff has used a "tier," which is an aggregation or collection of several MSAs, rather than a single MSA. Another geographic area known as a census tract, which is much smaller than an MSA, is also allowed by the Plan. See Land Use Element Policy LU-8F ("the adequacy of land supplies . . . for business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, [MSAs] and combinations thereof"). As noted below, however, the County has never used a census tract and considers them to be "inappropriate" for a needs analysis in a case such as this. Because the Blue Lake property is located within MSA 3.2 and borders on MSA 5.4, the staff conducted a supply and demand analysis in those two MSAs. After completing its review, on August 25, 2008, the staff recommended that the application be denied, mainly on the ground the amendment was inconsistent with Policy LU-8E(i). See County Exhibit 60 and Blue Lake Exhibit 24. Specifically, based on its review of MSAs 3.2 and 5.4, the staff found that there was already an ample supply of vacant and available commercial land within the study area. In fact, out of 32 MSAs within the County, MSA 3.2 had the second highest ratio of commercial activity to population. Characterizing this supply of commercial land as "significant," the staff noted that there were more than 2,500 acres of commercial land in MSAs 3.2 and 5.4 either in use or vacant, and this category would not be depleted until after the year 2025. As to residential land, the supply of that category within the MSAs would be depleted by the year 2015, and staff noted that the property was currently designated residential and could serve to satisfy the future demand for residentially designated land within the MSAs. Despite a lack of need, the staff recommended that the amendment be transmitted for further local and state review on the belief that during the subsequent review process the application could possibly be modified into a more mixed-use project and thus be compatible with the Plan. In making this recommendation, the staff did not examine other needs or deficiencies, such as the need for elderly housing or for mixed-use properties. On September 23, 2008, the amendment was reviewed by the Westchester Community Council, which recommended that the amendment be approved but only with a change to allow residential development on the property to encourage a mixed-use project. Just before the amendment was considered by the Planning Advisory Board, Blue Lake offered a second Declaration of Restrictions, which reduced the amount of proposed commercial development from 620,000 to 400,000 square feet. See Blue Lake Exhibit 35. On October 6, 2008, the Planning Advisory Board recommended approval and transmittal of the amendment with a change to allow a potential mixed-use project. Although the County staff continued to recommend that the application be denied, on November 6, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners considered the matter and voted to transmit the amendment and second Declaration of Restrictions to the Department for its review. On March 13, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report to the County. See Petitioners' Exhibit 10. In its ORC, the Department noted, among other things, that the County had not demonstrated a need for additional commercial uses on the property since the County's need analysis demonstrated that the commercial land in the area would not be depleted until after the year 2025. The ORC went on to recommend that the County either retain the current land use or provide data and analysis to support the need for the proposed amendment and its consistency with Policy LU-8E. On March 27, 2009, the County staff issued its response to the ORC in which it agreed that there was a lack of need for the amendment and that no new data and analysis had been submitted by the applicant. On April 6, 2009, the Planning Advisory Board again considered the application and recommended approval with the acceptance of the proposed Declaration of Restrictions. On April 13, 2009, Blue Lake's consultant submitted a revised commercial needs analysis to the County which concluded that there was in fact a need for more Business and Office designated land within his defined study area. See Blue Lake Exhibit 66. As a study area, the consultant used four census tracts (rather than MSAs) comprising around two square miles. The study area, in which Blue Lake's property was located, was bounded by major roadways on three sides and a man-made canal on the fourth. The consultant noted that the three roads and canal created an insular area that discouraged residents from leaving the area and thus justified in part further commercial development in the study area. Within his study area, the consultant found the ratio of commercial to population to be 3.3 acres per 1,000 people, which is significantly below the county-wide average of 6.0 acres per 1,000 people. He also found that the study area contained 1.4 vacant acres split up in five different locations, which because of the size and distribution made the study area essentially depleted. Although the County generally uses the same type of analysis as the consultant, it disagreed with the consultant's use of a smaller selected study area as well as many of his assumptions. Further, the County has never used a census tract in performing a needs analysis. It rejected Blue Lake's alternative needs analysis on the grounds it was not peer-reviewed and it appeared to be using an inappropriate primary trade area. The Department agreed with the County's assessment of the study. Given the deficiencies cited by the County, the report submitted by Blue Lake's consultant has not been credited. On May 1, 2009, Blue Lake offered a third Declaration of Restrictions which continued to include a restriction on commercial development of 400,000 square feet, but added certain requirements addressing compatibility of the proposed development of the property with existing residential development to the north and west by prohibiting construction of buildings on the northerly two acres of the property, requiring a landscape buffer, prohibiting certain types of commercial uses on the property, and including various other requirements not relevant here. See Blue Lake Exhibit 78. On May 5, 2009, the day before the Board of County Commissioners' adoption hearing, Blue Lake submitted a fourth Declaration of Restrictions which provided that commercial development would not exceed 375,000 square feet; "up to 150 dwelling units [would be] designated for elderly housing"; "ancillary and accessory uses" for the elderly could be constructed but would not exceed 15 percent of the floor area of the elderly housing facility (or just over 25,000 square feet); the northerly two acres would be reserved without buildings or used for elderly housing; a buffer would be installed; and certain commercial uses would be prohibited. See Blue Lake Exhibit 79. Notwithstanding these restrictions, the staff was still not satisfied that a need existed for further commercial development or that the owner had a commitment to build a specific minimum number of elderly housing units. On the evening of May 5, 2009, in response to a continued concern by the County staff, Blue Lake submitted a fifth (and final) Declaration of Restrictions, which provided in relevant part as follows: Notwithstanding the re-designation of the Property to "Business and Office" on the County's LUP map, the maximum development of the Property shall not exceed the following: (a) 375,000 square feet of retail, commercial, personal services and offices; and (b) no less than 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing, as such term is defined under Section 202 of the Fair Housing Act of 1959 (12 USC 1701) and Chapter 11A of the Miami-Dade County Code (the "Code"), along with such ancillary and accessory uses as may be desirable, necessary or complementary to satisfy the service needs of the residents, such as, but not limited to, counseling, medical, nutritional, and physical therapy, provided that such ancillary and accessory uses shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the floor area of the elderly housing facility. County Exhibit 18. The final version of the restrictions differed from the fourth version by changing the words "up to 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing" to "no less than 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing," a change suggested by the County staff. As finally revised, the last set of restrictions allows a mixed-use development and limits the owner to less than sixty percent of the non-residential uses that could have been available under the Business and Office land use designation. It also requires the allocation of two acres of land for the development of the elderly housing units as a precondition to any commercial development of the property. This means that the only permissible use on those two acres is the construction of no less than 150 dwelling units for "elderly housing," or more than sixty percent of the minimum residential units (233) that could have been previously constructed at full development under its current land use. If an elderly component is constructed, depending on the size of the structure, it allows the owner to provide "ancillary and accessory uses" for that component that could increase the total amount of commercial use to more than 400,000 square feet. As a prerequisite to approval of its application, Blue Lake executed and recorded the fifth Declaration of Restrictions. Although the staff still "[had] concerns regarding the demand for additional commercial land in this area," and agreed that the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i) had not been met, given the foregoing restrictions, the inclusion of a mixed-use component, and the need for elderly housing in the County, it recommended adoption of the amendment. Just prior to the vote by the Board of County Commissioners on May 6, 2009, a Blue Lake attorney sent the following email to a County staffer for the purpose of clarifying the commitment that Blue Lake was making in the Declaration of Restrictions: Yesterday's revision to the Declaration [which requires no less than 150 dwelling units for elderly housing] simply expands the universe of uses that would be permitted on the property. By reducing the overall square footage of commercial development, the owner would set up the conditions to allow the future development of 150 senior housing units. However, because the development of this type of project depends on so many factors, including zoning approvals, government incentives, etc., the owner's ability to build 375,000 square feet of commercial space is not in any way dependent on whether any senior housing units are actually built on the Property or the timing of such construction. (Emphasis added) Blue Lake Exhibit 86. There is no record of any response by the staff to the email or any indication that this "clarification" was conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners prior to its vote. A copy of the email was not provided to the Department. After learning of its contents at the final hearing, a Department planner stated that he considers the Declarations of Restrictions to be controlling, and not the email. On May 19, 2009, the County staff prepared a final response to the ORC stating that while it rejected the alternate needs analysis submitted by Blue Lake's consultant, and it "partially concur[red] with the Department's view that there was a lack of need, the applicant had adequately responded to its needs objection by "commit[ting] to building a mixed-use project and to reducing the commercial floor area." County Exhibit 10 at p. 2. On June 11, 2009, the County transmitted the amendment to the Department for its compliance review. On July 29, 2009, the Department found the amendment to be in compliance and noted in a staff report that "[t]he adopted amendment provides additional information for application #9 related to need (objection #1) and road capacity (objection #2)." Petitioners' Exhibit 54. It went on to say that "the County adequately responded to the Objection [regarding need] by reducing the commercial uses and introducing a mixed use component by adding residential units." Id. The Department's report added that Blue Lake had "committed to building a mixed use project which reduces commercial area from 679,535 square feet . . . to 375,000 square feet . . . [,] the mixed use development is supported by FLUE Policy LU-10A and Land Use Concept #8, [and] the mixed use development reduces the potential loss of housing units on the site, which is supported by Goal 1 of the Housing Element." Id. On August 3, 2009, the Department published in the Miami Herald its Notice of Intent to find the map change in compliance. On August 26, 2009, Petitioners filed their Amended Petition with the Department generally contending that the map change was not supported by adequate data and analysis for new commercial development in the area and that the change in land use would have an adverse impact on traffic. The latter objection was later withdrawn. As clarified in Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order and the Stipulation, they contend that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policies LU-8E(i), LU-8F, and LU-10A, Land Use Concept No. 8, and Housing Element Goal 1, as well as the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.005(2) and 9J- 5.006(2)(c).2 Petitioners' Objections Petitioners first object to the amendment on the ground that the amendment is not consistent with Policy LU-8E(i) because there is no demonstrated need for more commercial land in the study area. That Plan provision requires that map amendments "shall" be evaluated against all goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan, "and in particular" whether the amendment satisfies "a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County." Similarly, while Petitioners agree that the data and analysis used to support the amendment are relevant and appropriate, and were applied in a professional manner, they contend the data support a continuation of the current residential land use. Despite efforts by the County at hearing to downplay the importance of Policy LU-8E(i) in its review process, it can be inferred that a needs analysis under that provision is one of the most important, if not primary, consideration when reviewing LUP map changes. This is borne out by the fact that except for one or two occasions, the County has never approved a map change over the last thirty years without a needs analysis supporting that change. The evidence supports a finding that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8E(i) because there is no need for 375,000 square feet of new commercial development within the study area (MSAs 3.2 and 5.4). More specifically, the relevant data and analysis used by the County reveal that the MSA in which the property is located (MSA 3.2) has the second highest ratio of commercial activity to population of the 32 MSAs in the County; that the supply of existing or available commercial land use will not be depleted for at least another fifteen years; and that there is no "deficiency" of commercial land in the study area to accommodate projected population or growth, as required by the Policy. Although the amendment will authorize at least 375,000 square feet of new commercial development, both the County and Department concede that a need for more commercial land does not exist. It is beyond fair debate that the amendment is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy LU-8E(i). Likewise, because the data and analysis do not support the amendment, but rather support a contrary result, the County reacted to the data in an inappropriate manner. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2). The County and Blue Lake argue, however, that even though no need for commercial land exists, the final version of the Declaration of Restrictions incorporates a provision requiring an elderly housing component, which when combined with the commercial component, changes the character of the land to a mixed use. By Blue Lake offering this restriction, they argue that the application, as amended, furthers other Plan provisions that encourage affordable housing for the elderly (e.g., Housing Element Goal 1, Objective HO-9, and Policy HO-9A) and furthers provisions that encourage the rejuvenation of decayed areas (in this case a 50-year-old mobile home park) with a mixture of land uses (e.g., Land Use Element Policy LU-10A and Land Use Concept 8). Thus, they contend that the "need" requirement in Policy LU-8E(i) is now met because Blue Lake is satisfying a deficiency in both the supply of elderly housing as well as mixed uses. To support the contention that a need for elderly housing exists, the County posited that there is a need, "in general," for elderly housing in the County. It also pointed out that between the years 2000 and 2008 there was a small percentage increase in the number of persons over 65 years of age residing in the County. See County Exhibit 64. But the County agrees that the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i) does not distinguish between different types of residential use, such as whether properties are available for elderly residents. Neither does the test assess the need for mixed uses. Therefore, regardless of whether or not there is a need for elderly housing or mixed-use projects, any such need does not address the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i). Even assuming arguendo that it does, the County made no study of the need for "elderly housing" or "mixed use projects" within MSAs 3.2 and 5.4. The County and Blue Lake also contend that the proposed mixed use furthers other laudable provisions within the Plan, which more than offset any lack of commercial need. While development of the property under the current or not yet effective new land use would certainly "rejuvenate" an area now occupied by a closed, 50-year-old mobile home park, and result in the redevelopment of what is now probably a substandard urban area, see Land Use Concept 8 and Land Use Policy LU-10A, furtherance of those provisions by creating a new commercial land use category does not trump the lack of need for more commercial land. Similarly, the Department found the amendment, as adopted, was in compliance because the final version of the Declarations of Restrictions introduced an elderly housing mixed-use component, which essentially negated the lack of need for commercial development. It is fair to infer from the evidence that, like the County, the Department made this determination in the belief that the elderly housing component was intended to address a need for affordable or subsidized housing for senior citizens. Petitioners contend, however, that the final version of the Declarations of Restrictions does not truly provide for an elderly housing/mixed use in this context. The fifth version of the Declaration of Restrictions references the term "elderly housing" as that term is defined in "Section 202 of the Fair Housing Act of 1959 (12 USC 1701)" and "Chapter 11A of the County Code." Because the federal law, related regulations, and the entire Chapter 11A were not made a part of the record by any party, it is appropriate to take official recognition of those matters. The federal regulation (section 1701) referred to in the amendment relates to "supportive housing for the elderly" and the federal assistance programs administered by the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Its provisions are lengthy, cumbersome, and complicated, and they have been amended numerous times since their adoption. While the terms "elderly person" and "frail elderly" are defined in sections 1701q(k)(1) and (2) of the regulations, the undersigned was unable to find a specific definition of "elderly housing," and counsel have provided no citation. Chapter 11A of the County Code is a civil and human rights ordinance that is enforced by a County Commission on Human Rights. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the County has cited Section 11A-13(5) as the provision that defines the term. See County Exhibit 157. That provision enumerates "[e]xceptions to unlawful practices" and defines "housing for older persons" in the context of unlawful housing practices, but not in the context of a land use change. Therefore, it has little, if any, value in deciphering the meaning of the term "elderly housing" in the Declaration of Restrictions. When asked to define the term "elderly housing" as used in the Declaration of Restrictions, no witness could give a precise answer or refer to any provision in the federal law or County Code where a definition of that term is found. Therefore, if an elderly component is ever built on the property, it is fair to infer that the developer has wide discretion in choosing the type of units built and their price, and there is no guarantee or requirement that they be targeted for anyone except "elderly" persons, whatever age and associated income status that may encompass. Because of these ambiguities and uncertainties, the inclusion of an elderly housing component does not further the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan encouraging affordable housing for all citizens, including the elderly, that the County relies upon to support the amendment. Finally, the fifth Declaration of Restrictions permits a developer to either construct elderly housing or merely reserve for an indefinite period of time the northerly two acres of the 41-acre tract free from construction of buildings. If construction ever occurs on those two acres, the only permissible use is "no less than 150 dwelling units for elderly housing." Petitioners contend that the commitment is illusory since there is no requirement that a residential component ever be built. The County and Blue Lake point out, however, that when a map amendment is approved, there are no timetables for when development must actually occur. Similarly, the Department does not look at the timing of development when an amendment is reviewed, and the fact that there is no time limitation in the amendment does not render it out of compliance. While it is reasonable in this case to question whether an elderly housing component will ever be built, the plan amendment simply approves a map change, and Petitioners have not cited any Plan requirement, Department rule, or statute that mandates development within a certain period of time in order for a map change to be in compliance. Petitioners' argument is rejected. In summary, it is beyond fair debate that (a) the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with Land Use Policy LU- 8E(i); (b) the change in land use is not supported by the most relevant and appropriate data and analysis; (c) by adopting the amendment, the County reacted to the data and analysis in an inappropriate manner; (d) the reference to "elderly housing" is ambiguous, vague, and uncertain and does not further Plan provisions that encourage affordable housing within the County; and (e) even if the plan amendment furthers other Plan provisions that encourage the rejuvenation of decayed urban areas with mixed uses, on balance this consideration does not outweigh the foregoing deficiencies. All other contentions by Petitioners not specifically discussed herein have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment (Application No. 9) adopted by Ordinance No. 09-28 on May 6, 2009, be found not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2010.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this proceeding is whether a future land use map (“FLUM”) amendment, adopted by Hillsborough County on October 27, 1994, as part of its Comprehensive Plan update for the planning time frame through 2015 (variously referred to as the “Comprehensive Plan” or "CPU-2015"), that changed the future land use category on a 253 acre parcel1 in Northwest Hillsborough County ("the Geraci Parcel") from Regional Commercial ("RC") to Community Mixed Use-12 ("CMU-12") complies with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: PARTIES Petitioners Nick and Peter Geraci are the fee simple owners of a parcel of land comprising approximately 450 acres located on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Dale Mabry Highway and Van Dyke Road, two hundred fifty-three (253) acres of which are at issue in this proceeding. Advance Leasing is a Florida corporation that was a contract vendee for a portion of the Geracis’ property intended for development as a “super regional” or “regional scale” mall, and was the applicant in the amended applications for DRI approval of that mall. Hillsborough County’s motion to dismiss Advance Leasing as a party for failure to establish standing as an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was granted at the final hearing. Advance Leasing failed to establish that it was an entity that either owned or operated a business within Hillsborough County or owned property in Hillsborough County as of October 27, 1994. Respondent DCA is the state land planning agency, with responsibility to review plan amendments under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187 and 163.3189, Florida Statutes, and to determine compliance with the relevant provisions. Respondent Hillsborough County is a local government with responsibility to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan and any required amendments thereto pursuant to Sections 163.3167, 163.3171 and 163.3174, Florida Statutes. The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners makes the final, legislative decision on all Comprehensive Plan amendments in Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County Charter Section 9.09 specifies that a single local planning agency, created by special law, "shall have responsibility for Comprehensive Planning and related activities[.]" The Hillsborough County Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, as amended by Chapter 97-351, Laws of Florida, designates the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission”) as Hillsborough County's local planning agency. The Planning Commission is charged with preparing Comprehensive Plans and making recommendations to the public bodies for Hillsborough County and the incorporated municipalities within Hillsborough County. The role of the Planning Commission is advisory and its recommendations are not binding upon Hillsborough County. Intervenors Sierra Club and Dr. Richard and Bonnie Hoffman have established their standing to participate in this proceeding as "affected persons" pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Sierra Club represents numerous members who reside in Hillsborough County, and also operates a business within the boundaries of Hillsborough County by way of its local affiliate. The Hoffmans own property within Hillsborough County. Both Sierra Club and the Hoffmans participated in the local government proceedings in accordance with Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding the portion of CPU-2015 challenged by the Petition to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The parties Respondent, Franklin County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter authorizes the County, under certain conditions, to adopt what is known as a small scale development amendment to its comprehensive plan. At issue in this case is a small scale development amendment adopted by the County on October 3, 1996. Petitioner, St. George Plantation Owners Association, Inc. (petitioner), is a not-for-profit corporation organized for the protection and management of the Plantation Area of St. George Island. The island lies just south of Apalachicola, Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. The parties have stipulated that petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law and thus it has standing to bring this action. Intervenors, Ben Johnson and Coastal Development Consultants, Inc., are the owners of approximately 58 acres on St. George Island known as the Resort Village Property. The property is adjacent to the St. George Island Airport. A portion of intervenors' property, 9.6 acres, is the subject of the plan amendment being challenged. The nature of the dispute Intervenors' property is subject to a 1977 Development of Regional Impact (DRI) order adopted by the County in 1977. The order has been amended from time to time. Among other things, the order provides conceptual approval for the development of "one or more high quality resort hotels or motels, together with such affiliated uses as may be appropriate or desirable, such as gift and tourist shops, restaurants, recreational activities and similar activities." Intervenors desire to develop the Resort Property Village consistent with the 1977 DRI order. The first part of the project consists of approximately 9.6 acres which they have designated as Phase I. The land is located within the Plantation Area of St. George Island and has a land use designation of residential. In June 1995, intervenors submitted detailed site plans for Phase I to the County. On August 1, 1995, the County conducted a public hearing to review the proposed site plans and specifications for Phase I. It adopted a motion which directed its staff "to review and perfect the plans presented, so that the Board can consider the final approval of the plan." It also directed its staff to provide advice concerning the procedure to be followed. After consulting with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which recommended that the comprehensive plan be amended to change the land use to accommodate the commercial uses, the staff recommended that the County adopt a small scale development amendment by changing the designation on its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for 9.6 acres from residential to commercial. By a 3-2 vote, on October 3, 1996, the County adopted Ordinance No. 96- 22 which changed the designation for the 9.6 acres on the FLUM from residential to commercial. Because the amendment affected ten or fewer acres, the County opted to make the change with a small scale development amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes. According to the site plan which accompanied a Notification of Proposed Change filed with the County on May 26, 1996, the Phase I development includes four hotels, 10,250 square feet of commercial space, 300 square feet of retail space, a beach club, a 325 seat conference center, various support and recreational facilities, and a wastewater treatment plant. The Phase I site plan, however, does not include the three subsurface absorption beds which are required to service the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant. If the absorption beds were included, they would increase the size of Phase I from 9.6 to approximately 14.6 acres. In a petition challenging the adoption of the small scale amendment, petitioner contends that, if the absorption beds are properly included in the land use amendment, the land use area would exceed ten acres and thus would require a full-scale land use amendment subject to DCA review. In response, the County and intervenors have contended that, under the current plan, there is no need to change the land use where the wastewater treatment facility will be located since such facilities are allowed in any land use category. As such, they contend there is no requirement to include such property in Ordinance 96- 22. The Wastewater Treatment Facility The proposed development will be served by a wastewater treatment facility. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued a permit to Resort Village Utility, Inc., a utility certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to serve the entire 58-acre Resort Village property. The permit provides that the plant can accommodate up to, but not exceeding, 90,000 gallons of treated effluent per day. The facility consists of the wastewater treatment plant, lines to the plant from the development which carry the untreated wastewater to the plant, and lines from the plant to three sub-surface absorption beds where the treated effluent is disbursed. The absorption beds required for the Phase I project wastewater treatment facility will not serve any residential customers. Rather, they will only serve Phase I and any other subsequent phases of Resort Village development, which is a commercial development. Construction must begin on the wastewater treatment plant once the flow of waste effluent reaches 7,500 gallons per day, or if the wastewater from restaurants reaches 5,000 gallons per day. The Phase I project is required to use this facility once the rate of flow of waste effluent exceeds 10,000 gallons per day. Until these thresholds are met, the project will rely temporarily on aerobic systems to handle and treat waste effluent. Under the permit issued by the DEP, the wastewater treatment facility required for Phase I consists of both a wastewater treatment plant and three absorption beds. Through expert testimony of a DEP professional engineer, it was established that the absorption beds were integral to the design and successful operation of the facility. The County and intervenors acknowledge this fact. Therefore, the "use" that is the subject of the amendment is the entire wastewater treatment facility, including the absorption beds, and "involves" some 14.6 acres. Since the plan amendment does not involve "10 or fewer acres," as required by statute, the amendment cannot qualify as a small scale development amendment and is thus not in compliance. In making these findings, the undersigned has considered a contention by the County that Policy 2.3 of the comprehensive plan sanctions its action. That policy reads as follows: Public utilities needed to provide essential service to existing and future land uses in Franklin County shall be permitted in all the land use classifications established by this plan. Public utilities includes all utilities (gas, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, etc.) whether publicly or privately owned. At hearing, the County planner construed the term "public utilities" as being "minor (utility) infrastructure," including wastewater treatment plants not exceeding 100,000 gallons per day. Relying on this provision, the County reasons that the proposed facility is "minor" infrastructure, since it will only have 90,000 gallons per day capacity, and thus it can be placed in a residential land use category. They go on to argue that, since no change in land use classification is needed to permit the facility, it is unnecessary to include the facility in the plan amendment. According to the County, however, the plant (but not the beds) was included only because it was easier to draw a map for the entire 9.6 acres rather than excise that portion of the land where the plant will be located. Under the same theory, the County has placed at least two existing wastewater treatment facilities in the residential land use category. Those facilities, however, predate the adoption of the comprehensive plan in April 1991, and both serve residential, as opposed to commercial, developments. Moreover, the County admitted that it lacks any "clear" policy about the meaning of "public utilities," and it has never adopted a land development regulation to implement the interpretation given at hearing. The County's position is contrary to conventional land use planning practices which define "utilities" as infrastructure such as water or electrical lines that transport a service and would, by their very nature, be required to cross different land uses. Conversely, conventional land use planning practices define "facilities" as infrastructure that performs a service, such as power plants or pumping stations. This infrastructure does not cross different land use categories. In this case, the absorption beds perform a service by further processing and treating waste effluent from Phase I. Therefore, conventional land use planning practices would logically call for the plant and related absorption beds to be classified as "public facilities" under Policy 2.2(i) of the County's comprehensive plan. That policy defines the term as including "water and sewer facilities." The classification would also be compatible with the definition of "public facilities" found in DCA Rule 9J-5.003(105), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, the County and intervenors point out that the facility may not be constructed for many years, depending on the rate and amount of development that occurs in Phase I. Thus, they contend that there is no immediate requirement for the County to change the future land use designation of the property where the absorption beds will be located. But given the fact that the beds and plant are a single, interrelated system, the County cannot choose to change the land use designation for a portion of the facility while ignoring the remainder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining Ordinance No. 96-22 adopted by Franklin County on October 3, 1996, as not in compliance for failing to meet the criteria of Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Richard W. Moore, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1759 Alfred O. Shuler, Esquire Post Office Drawer 850 Apalachicola, Florida 32320-850 L. Lee Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1169 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Gregory C. Smith, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue in Case 08-1144GM is whether Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP or Plan) Amendment 7-20, called the "Land Protection Incentives" (LPI) Amendment (LPIA), which was adopted by Ordinance 777 on December 11, 2007, and amended by Ordinance 795 on April 29, 2008, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1 The issue in Case 08-1465GM is whether Martin County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 7-22, called the "Secondary Urban Service District" (SUSD) Amendment (SUSDA), which was adopted by Ordinance 781 on December 11, 2007, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners' Standing FOF and MCCA objected to the LPIA and the SUSDA during the time period from transmittal to adoption of those amendments.3 FOF FOF is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1986, shortly after Florida’s Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation (Growth Management) Act was enacted to monitor the Act's implementation. FOF engages in legislative, legal, and grassroots advocacy for sustainable comprehensive land use planning in Florida. It conducts membership meetings, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings open to the general public, and initiates or participates in litigation or administrative proceedings concerning amendments to local comprehensive plans. Its main office is in Tallahassee, where several employees work. It also has a branch office in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, where one employee works. It has no office or employees in Martin County. There was no evidence that FOF has applied for or obtained any license or permit to operate a business in Martin County; nor was there any evidence as to the requirements for obtaining such a license or permit. FOF has approximately 3,500 members; approximately 550 members live or own property in Martin County. FOF does not have a continuous presence in Martin County, other than its members who live and own property there, but it continuously monitors comprehensive planning and related growth management issues in Martin County and from time to time engages in activities in Martin County. Since 1990, FOF was involved in the Loxahatchee Greenways project, a major river corridor running through Martin County; was involved in the protection of Jonathan Dickinson State Park, which is in Martin County; undertook its Palm Beach and Martin County Green Initiative (which addressed housing, legal, transportation, and other planning issues in Martin County and resulted in the distribution of educational materials on Martin County planning issues); opposed specific local development proposals; supported a sales tax referendum to buy and preserve environmentally- sensitive lands; collaborated with the County planning department to update the housing element of the County Comprehensive Plan; assisted with a local affordable housing initiative; published a booklet on comprehensive planning in the County; and conducted a public survey of County residents assessing attitudes about planning. FOF staff members speak at and participate in annual growth management forums in Martin County, which are attended by a substantial number of its members. FOF has regularly commented in person and in writing to the Martin County Commission on proposed CGMP changes. FOF also has previously participated as a party in administrative hearings conducted in the County concerning the CGMP, during which its president has testified as an expert planner. The relief requested by FOF in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. MCCA MCCA is a Florida not-for-profit corporation created in 1997. It is a membership-based organization of 120 individuals and 14 other organizations. MCCA itself does not own real property in Martin County. However, at least 38 individual members reside and own real property in the County, and at least one organizational member (Audubon of Martin County) owns real property in the County. MCCA does not maintain an office or have paid employees. It operates through its members, who volunteer. MCCA's Articles of Incorporation state that it was formed "to conserve the natural resources of Martin County, to protect the native flora and fauna of Martin County, [and] to maintain and improve the quality of life for all of the residents of Martin County." It engages in various forms of lobbying and advocacy for or against amendments to Martin County's Comprehensive Plan, including initiation or participation in litigation and administrative proceedings. It conducts membership meetings in the County, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings in the County that are open to the general public (including an annual growth management meeting with FOF and an annual awards luncheon with local conservation groups), and works with member organizations on issues relating to the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), including petition drives. The relief requested by MCCA in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan The CGMP establishes two "urban service districts" in the County, a Primary Urban Service District (PUSD) and a Secondary Urban Service District (SUSD). See CGMP, § 4.4.G. The PUSD has been part of the Plan since it was first adopted in 1982, while the SUSD was added during the major revision of the Plan in 1990. Approximately 65,702 acres (101 square miles) are located within the PUSD. The PUSD encompasses most of the eastern coastal area of the County surrounding four incorporated municipalities, (Stuart, Sewall's Point, Jupiter Island, and Ocean Breeze Park), plus an isolated inland area known as Indiantown. Approximately 9,621 acres (14 square miles) are located within the SUSD. All land within the SUSD is immediately adjacent to land within the PUSD, but is split into several discontinuous sections so that some of the land along the western border of the PUSD abuts land outside the urban service districts. The County's purpose for having urban service districts is to "regulate urban sprawl tendencies by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available, or are programmed to be available at the levels of service adopted in [the Plan]." CGMP, § 4.4.G. The Plan further provides: Objective: Martin County shall concentrate higher densities and intensities of development within the strategically located [PUSDs], as delineated, including commercial or industrial uses as well as residential development exceeding a density of two units per acre . . . . * * * b. Policy: Martin County shall require that new residential development containing one-half acre or smaller lots, commercial uses, and industrial uses shall be located within the [PUSD]. * * * Objective 2. Martin County shall concentrate rural and estate densities not exceeding one unit per gross acre within the [SUSDs] where a reduced level of public facility needs are programmed to be available at the base level of service adopted in the Capital Improvements Element. a. Policy: Martin County shall designate land uses within the [SUSD] in order to provide for the use and extension of urban services in an efficient and economical manner, and consistent with the reduced intensity of urban services normally associated with densities of one unit per gross acre (Estate Density RE-1A) and one unit per two gross acres (Rural Density). . . . * * * f. Policy: In areas designated as [SUSD], where development is proposed that would contain one- half acre lots, or commercial and industrial uses, a change to a [PUSD] designation must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a land use amendment . . . . The Plan thus generally establishes residential density for land within the PUSD at 2 or more dwelling units per acre, and for land within the SUSD at 1 dwelling unit per acre to 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. The remaining land within the County that is not within the PUSD or SUSD is generally referred to as "outside" the urban service districts. There are approximately 269,034 acres of such land. The vast majority of such land (approximately 210,379 acres) is designated in the Plan for "agricultural" use. Most of the other land outside the urban service districts is designated for either "public conservation" or "public utilities" See CGMP, § 4.4.L., § 4.4.M.1.a., i., and j. The Plan currently allows residential use of land outside the urban service boundaries that is designated for agricultural use but limits it to either 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, known as "agricultural ranchette," or 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. See CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.& c. The Plan further specifies for the latter that: Residential development in the agricultural area is restricted to one-single family residence per gross 20-acre tract. [N]o development shall be permitted which divides landholdings into lots, parcels or other units of less than 20 gross acres. Acreage may be split for bona fide agricultural uses into parcels no smaller than 20 gross acres. . . . Residential subdivisions at a density or intensity or greater than one single- family dwelling unit per 20 gross acre lot shall not be allowed. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.) Throughout the Plan, residential development on lots of 2 acres or more is consistently referred to as "rural" development (even within the SUSD), while residential development on smaller lots is consistently referred to as "urban" and must be in either the PUSD or SUSD. It was undisputed that the County's adoption of such a distinction between urban and rural residential lots was a professionally acceptable planning practice. Preservation of the County's agricultural lands is a goal of the Plan. See CGMP, § 4.4.L.1. It is also later stated in a policy related to the allocation of land: Through its planning, capital improvements, cooperative extension, regulatory and intergovernmental coordination activities, Martin County shall continue to protect agriculture as a viable economic use of land. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.b.) Preservation of conservation and open space areas within the County is the subject of an entire element of the Plan. See CGMP, Chap. 9.4 The County's goal is "to effectively manage, conserve, and preserve the natural resources of Martin County, giving consideration to an equitable balance of public and private property rights. These resources include air, water, soils, habitat, fisheries, and wildlife, with special emphasis on restoring the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon." CGMP, § 9.4.A. Preservation of conservation and open space areas is also addressed in numerous other objectives and policies throughout the several elements of the Plan and is a predominant theme of the entire Plan. The provision of "urban public facilities and services" is expressly limited by a policy to the County's urban service districts "in order to preserve agricultural lands and provide maximum protection to the farmer from encroachment by urban uses." CGMP, § 4.4.L.1.a. The Plan defines the term "public urban facilities and services" as "regional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network." CGMP, § 4.1.B.4. However, the term is often used in the Plan in a rearranged or abbreviated manner, such as "urban public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G.1.f.(7)), "public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G and § 4.4.G.1.f.), "public services and facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.c.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), or merely "public facilities (§ 4.4.G.1.) or "urban services " (§ 4.4.G.2.a.). LPIA Provisions The LPIA adds a new objective and new policies under the Future Land Use Element goal addressing "natural resource protection," which provides: Martin County shall protect all the natural resource systems of the County from the adverse impacts of development, provide for continued growth in population and economy and recognize the inter-relationship between the maintenance of urban support infrastructure in waste management, air and water quality, and the coastal zone environmental quality. (CGMP, § 4.4.E.) To the existing 6 objectives under that goal, the LPIA adds a seventh which states: Martin County shall create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007. For the purposes of Section 4.4.E.7., and supporting paragraphs, the definition of open space, found in Section 9.4.A.11., CGMP, shall not include roads, highways and their median strips and berms. This objective is intended to encourage the conveyance of fee simple title of land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local environmental or governmental agencies or land trusts. Lands listed for acquisition include, but are not be limited to [sic], land designated for public acquisition under the Save Our Rivers program, the Indian River Lagoon, North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program. The overall purpose of the LPIA is to encourage the owners of tracts of land outside the urban service districts that are at least 500 acres to choose a different pattern of development than the Plan now allows, by allowing a substantial reduction in the minimum lot size so that the development may be "clustered" on a smaller "footprint" within the overall tract of land, but only if at least 50% of the entire tract is "set aside" permanently for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and stripped of its potential for future development. This approach, it is hoped, will make it easier and cheaper for the County and other governmental entities to acquire the large tracts of land they desire to use for the CERP and other conservation projects. The LPIA does not allow for more development than is allowed under the Plan currently. It allows the same amount of development to be arranged on a tract of land in a different pattern than is currently allowed. It accomplishes this primarily through the combination of a change in the minimum lot size from "20 acres" to "over 2 acres" with a new allowance for "clustering" the smaller lots on a portion of an overall tract of land rather than having an equal number of larger lots spread throughout the entire tract of land. The LPIA adopts six policies to accomplish the new objective: Policy (7)a. provides for the protection of the land "set aside" to be conveyed or subject to an easement in favor of a combination of the County, the South Florida Water Management District, and a third entity, chosen from among the other governmental or not-for-profit conservation- oriented organizational entities listed in the policy. Policy (7)b. requires that a combination of a comprehensive plan amendment and a PUD agreement be used for the change in the development characteristics of the land. The PUD agreement would address the portion of the tract subject to development and not "set aside," while the plan amendment would address (at a minimum) the remaining portion of the tract which is permanently "set aside" for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and would no longer have any potential for residential development. Policy (7)c. provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the comprehensive plan amendment, such as any required change in land use designation for the set-aside portion of the tract of land, and if it remains designated for agricultural use, the removal of any potential for development. Policy (7)d. primarily provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the PUD agreement, setting minimum requirements to be met such as the tract having to be a minimum of 500 acres in size; the development being "fiscally neutral to existing taxpayers"; the lots having to be more than 2 acres in size; the inability to develop in environmentally sensitive areas on the tract; and the acknowledgment of a permanent restriction against any future increase of density on the tract. The policy also essentially repeats some of the requirements enunciated in the second and third policies regarding the conveyance of title or easement and the required comprehensive plan amendment, and addresses who pays the closing costs for the set-aside portion of the tract. Policy (7)e. establishes additional requirements specifically applicable to land that has been "listed for acquisition by state, regional, or local agencies as part of an established conservation program." Policy (7)f. enumerates the "site specific benefits" that the second policy states the County must consider when deciding whether to approve an application for development under the optional pattern allowed by the LPIA, such as whether more than the minimum 50% of the tract will be "set aside" permanently, whether the location fills "gaps in natural systems, wildlife corridors, greenways and trails," or whether buffers are provided along roads "to limit access and to protect vistas." The LPIA requirement for at least 50% of an entire tract being set aside for one of the three public purposes, when coupled with other requirements of the Plan such as establishment of construction setback distances, preservation of wetlands and creation of buffers around wetlands, preservation of certain uplands, would result in more than 50% of an undeveloped tract of land remaining in an undeveloped state and at least 50% of agricultural land remaining in agricultural use. Meaning and Predictability of LPIA Standards Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards in numerous respects. No Guide to Location and Pattern of Development Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards essentially because it does not identify the lands to be preserved and developed, leaving the results up to the choice of landowners to make proposals and Martin County's case-by-case decisions on future development proposals. See PPRO, ¶¶52-53. However, the goals of the LPIA are quite clear, and there is no basis to speculate that Martin County will make decisions contrary to those goals--for example, by approving PUDs or agricultural uses on the most environmentally-sensitive part of tract, ignoring the importance of environmentally-sensitive and agricultural lands and the impact of development patterns on them, and ignoring the impact of the pattern of development under the LPIA on rural character. Petitioners also criticize the LPIA for not being clear "whether a subject property must be in single ownership." (PPRO, ¶61.) However, it is not clear why that omission would be pertinent. Undefined Increase in Maximum Density Petitioners contend that, in four ways, the LPIA increases maximum density in the Agricultural category without defining the amount of the increase. Waiver of Density Limits Clearly, the LPIA exempts the PUD option from "the agricultural land use policies in Section 4.4.M.1.a. pertaining to the 20 acre lot size . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(8). Contrary to Petitioners' contention, that does not eliminate density standards. Residential lots must be greater than two acres. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(3). Maintenance of Residential Capacity Petitioners contend the LPIA increases density because its objective is to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. (Emphasis added.) Petitioners complain that County-wide residential capacity on that date is not identified and that the objective requires residential capacity in Agricultural lands to increase as it decreases elsewhere in the County. This interpretation is unreasonable. The County's interpretation, that residential units lost by preservation are to be maintained by clustering on the remaining Agricultural lands, is more reasonable. Transfer of Wetland Density Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by allowing transfer of wetland density in the Agricultural future land use category. See LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). Under the Plan before the LPIA, up to half of wetland density can be transferred to uplands in a PUD. See CGMP § 9.4A7.b.(8). PUDs were not allowed in Agricultural lands before the LPIA. But Petitioners did not prove that allowing the transfer and clustering of residential units into a PUD on Agricultural lands under the LPIA would change the total number of residential units already allowed in Agricultural lands (at one unit per 20 acres). Alleged Failure to Remove Density from All Non-PUD Land Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by not stripping residential units from all so-called non-PUD land. Contrary to this contention, the more reasonable interpretation is that land not set aside for permanent preservation in a proposal made under the LPIA must be part of the proposed PUD. In any event, even if an LPIA proposal could include land that is neither set aside for preservation nor part of the PUD land, no residential units is such land would be transferred to the PUD, and failure to strip such land of its residential units would not affect the total number of units associated with the LPIA proposal. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA allows text amendments to increase density on land set aside for preservation under the LPIA because it specifies that such land must be changed on the FLUM and will not be eligible for "any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. Even if text amendments are not prohibited, they would apply to all land in a particular land use category, not just to land set aside under the LPIA. Subsequent Plan Amendments Not Required for PUD Petitioners contend that the LPIA "is unclear as to whether a PUD can be approved without a subsequent plan amendment specifically authorizing the two-acre lot subdivision site plan." PPRO, ¶80. This contention supposedly arises from the language of LPIA § 4.4.E.7.c.: "The Comprehensive Plan amendment that is part of a joint Plan Amendment and concurrent PUD application submitted under this objective must address the land use designation on the land set aside in perpetuity as contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and/or agricultural land uses in the following manner: . . . ." (Emphasis added in PPRO, ¶82.) The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. It ignores LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7): "The Comprehensive Plan amendment filed concurrently with the PUD application shall allow the site-specific clustering of density in one portion of the total subject site, including the transfer of full density of any wetlands on the site, at a density that shall not exceed one unit per twenty acres for the total site prior to conveyance. . . . The Plan amendment shall further specify that neither the land conveyed nor the land controlled by the PUD agreement shall be eligible for any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." While LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7) discusses land that is conveyed, it is reasonably clear that a Plan amendment addressing the PUD also would be required for lands that are set aside using one of the other mechanisms specified in the LPIA. Public Benefit Criteria Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.b. and f. gives the County "unfettered discretion to reject or approve a PUD 'for any reason.'" PPRO, ¶90. Those sections provide that approval of a PUD will be based on consideration of "significant site-specific public benefits," some of which are listed. While it is true that the LPIA gives the County discretion to grant or approve a PUD based on its consideration of those factors, Petitioners did not prove "unfettered discretion." First, minimum requirements under the LPIA first must be met. Second, the list of public benefits gives some guidance as to the kinds of additional public benefits that will justify approval of a PUD. Petitioners did not prove that a comprehensive plan provision allowing for PUD zoning need be any more specific to be implemented in a consistent manner. Protection of Land Set Aside Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to protect land set aside under the LPIA because it does not identify the land most appropriate for preservation or require that it be set aside. This contention ignores the objective to encourage conveyance of "land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of established conservation programs" which "include, but are not be [sic] limited to land designated for public acquisition under" several named public acquisition programs. LPIA § 4.4.E.7. It also ignores the policy: "No development in the PUD shall be allowed on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(4). It also ignores the policy that "PUDs that include land listed for acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of an established conservation program shall be subject to . . . additional requirements": including fee simple conveyance of at least half of such land; and no development in the PUD on such land "unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities and the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.e.(1)-(2). In addition, various means of protecting such lands are several of the listed "additional significant site-specific benefits" of a PUD proposal to be considered in the approval process. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.f. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to "require set-aside lands to be contiguous to other farmland, open space, or natural lands" and "contiguous, functional, and connected to adjacent and regional systems." PPRO, ¶¶102-98 [sic]. These contentions ignore the objective to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses. . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. They also ignore that land in public acquisition programs ideally is contiguous to other open space and natural lands. Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶97 [sic] that it is necessary to specify the public acquisition programs for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to define the "perpetual easement" mechanism allowed in LPIA Section 4.E.7.a. for setting aside land in lieu of fee simple conveyance. See PPRO, ¶103. This contention ignores the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(5) to use perpetual easements as a means of enforcing the prohibition against increasing residential density or intensity of use by FLUM amendments, as well as the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(6) to use perpetual easements "to restrict future uses and ensure the government agencies or other entities holding fee simple title do not sell or develop the property inconsistent with this policy or the approved uses within the PUD Agreement." Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶103 that it is necessary to further define "perpetual easement" for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend in PPRO ¶¶105 and 107 that the LPIA fails to define the "agricultural uses" to be preserved in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) and allows the County to "specify allowed uses" without limitation and with "no certainty that farmland will be protected as farmland by easement." (Emphasis in PPRO ¶105.) Petitioners contend that everything allowed in the Agricultural category under the Plan will be allowed. See PPRO ¶107. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, it is reasonably clear that, while the language of LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) contains a typographical error, the policy clearly is to maintain existing agricultural uses, not to allow intensification of agricultural use or expansion into "non-farm" uses that might be allowed in the Agricultural category. Alleged Threat to IRL and CERP Lands Petitioners contend that, by making development under its PUD option more marketable, the LPIA will encourage PUDs that do not protect and that fragment IRL and CERP lands. Petitioners did not prove that such a result is likely. Petitioners contend that the adverse impacts on IRL and CERP lands is more than speculation in part because of the wording of the policy in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(2), which is misstated in PPRO ¶114 and actually states: "If the land to be protected and maintained in perpetuity is land that is part of the North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program, the plan amendment must include a future land use amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation to Institutional-Public Conservation." The language used in the policy is poor. But Petitioners' interpretation--that only land set aside for protection that is part of all of the described CERP projects will be protected--is absurd since no such land exists. That interpretation and Petitioners' interpretation that no IRL lands are protected under the LPIA ignore and are contrary to the language and intent of the objective stated in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7. and of the policies stated in Section 4.4.E.7.a., c.(1), and d.(5). The County's interpretation, that CERP and IRL lands are eligible for protection, is more reasonable. Definition of Critical Habitat Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) does not provide a meaningful or predictable standard because the term "critical to the support of listed plant or animal species" is not better defined. Actually, PUD development is prohibited "on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species." While the policy could have been better defined, Petitioners did not prove that a better definition is necessary for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that, regardless of the "critical habitat" definition, the policy language in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) by prohibiting PUD development "on land listed for acquisition . . . unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities " Actually, the policy continues to state that the exception only applies if "the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." Petitioners' interpretation, that the policy allows PUD development on virtually all Agricultural lands, is unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the LPIA. The County's interpretation is more reasonable and is reasonably clear. It allows for distinctions among the various kinds of agricultural activities, which the Plan already recognizes. See, e.g., CGMP § 4.2.A.6.b.(8) ("Many low intensity agricultural uses such as range (pasture) land can be compatible with environmentally significant resource areas.") For these reasons, Petitioners did not prove that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4), or that the LPIA cannot be implemented in a consistent manner. LPIA and Urban Sprawl In part based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA's objective and policy language, Petitioners contend that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the LPIA no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the LPIA encourages urban sprawl. In part because the interpretations were unreasonable, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. Even if the LPIA results in a proliferation of PUDs with clusters of residences on lots slightly larger than two acres, which is the minimum lot size, it would not equate to urban (or suburban) sprawl. Assuming PUDs based on 500-acre tracts, it would result in a cluster of 25 homes within a 500-acre rural area. The LPIA does not plan for the extension of urban services to those homes and does not provide for or allow any new commercial or industrial development. Both the LPIA and the rest of the CGMP include provisions, most notably those related to the urban service districts, to reasonably ensure that urban sprawl will not result. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the first primary indicator of urban sprawl in Florida Administrative Code Rule5 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction for low-intensity, low density or single use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the second primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[p]romotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development"). The development promoted, allowed, or designated by the LPIA is not "urban" and does not "leap over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." It allowed for development already promoted, allowed, and designated to arrange itself differently in a rural area. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the third primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (designation of urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fourth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (promotes premature conversion of rural land to other uses, thereby failing to adequately protect and conserve natural resources). To the contrary, its primary purpose is to protect and conserve natural resources and rural land. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fifth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to adequately protect "adjacent agricultural areas" as well as "passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers either the sixth or seventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to maximize use of existing and future public facilities and services). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the eighth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[a]llows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the ninth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the tenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[d]iscourages or inhibits infill development or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities"). Although LPIA PUDs obviously would not be infill or redevelopment, it was not proven that they will discourage or inhibit infill and redevelopment. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the eleventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the twelfth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in poor accessibility among linked or related uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the thirteenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space"). The LPIA does not exacerbate the two already-existing indicators of urban sprawl, but Petitioners still contend that the indicators are triggered by the LPIA essentially because development will proceed more quickly under the LPIA. This contention was not proven. Even if it were, Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl or that the CGMP, as amended by the LPIA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. LPIA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis because the County explained it as a necessary response to the proliferation of 20-acre ranchette developments whereas only 75 have been built and only 15 have certificates of occupancy. Actually, the ranchette developments were only one reason for the LPIA, and the data and analysis showed 13 approved developments as of mid-September 2007, and three more approvals plus two pending applications for approval a year later. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA implements some but not all of the recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA does not conform to some recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. However, Petitioners base their contentions largely on unreasonable interpretations of the language of the objective and policies of the LPIA. In addition, the data and analysis they point to essentially reflect merely that planners disagree on the best plan for the Agricultural lands. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA is not identical to the Atlantic Ridge project amendment. While all agree that the Atlantic Ridge project is a resounding success story, it is unique. The obvious and understandable inability to instantaneously duplicate Atlantic Ridge to the greatest extent possible in the Agricultural lands should not prevent the County from taking any action in its direction, such as the LPIA. Taken together, the data and analysis are adequate to support the LPIA. LPIA and TCRPC Regional Policy Plan Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). The TCRPC's SRPP was not introduced in evidence, but the TCRPC's Executive Director testified and sponsored the TCRPC's report on the LPIA and the SUSDA. The TCRPC's findings on consistency with its SRPP were not contradicted. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2, which are to determine areas that are environmentally significant and to map, acquire, and manage them. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Goal 1.1, which requires sustainable countryside development in urban enclaves, such as towns and villages, with mixed-use and appropriate densities between 4-10 units per acre, on strategically selected locations while preserving contiguous, targeted land identified through SRPP Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1, which is to increase the clarity of local land use plans so that preferred forms of development can be pre-approved. Instead, the LPIA uses the case-by-case PUD approval process to determine the ultimate development patterns for the Agricultural lands. The inconsistency with SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1 is the only LPIA inconsistency not already equally present in the existing CGMP. The TCRPC's concern as to the other inconsistencies is that the LPIA will make residential development in the Agricultural lands more marketable and increase the rate of residential growth in a manner inconsistent with SRPP Goal 1.1 and Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. Internal Consistency of the LPIA Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Sections 1.6 and 1.11.A. for being inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP. CGMP Section 1.6 states that "elements of the [CGMP] shall be consistent and coordinated with policies of [various entities, including the TCRPC]. Petitioners did not prove that the County does not interpret that provision to require internal consistency and coordination with the other entities' policies, or that such an interpretation would be incorrect. CGMP Section 1.11.A. refers to amendment procedures. Essentially, it states that plan amendments must be "in compliance." There was no evidence that the County intended it to require strict and absolute consistency with the TCRPC's SRPP, or any evidence to prove that it would be incorrect for the County to interpret it not to. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K., which also refers to amendment procedure. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K. for not having concurrently-processed land development regulations (LDRs) since concurrently-processed LDRs are only required "[t]o the extent necessary to implement a proposed amendment," and Petitioners did not prove that concurrently-processed LDRs are necessary. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with numerous other provisions of the CGMP. These contentions were not proven. Most, if not all, were based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA. SUSDA Provisions The SUSDA amends the text of the future land use element, the sanitary sewer services element, and the potable water services element of the Plan. As amended, the Plan would allow owners of real property within the SUSD to apply for connection to regional water and sewer service rather than be limited to using individual potable water wells and individual septic tanks, provided all costs of connection to the public services would be paid by the owner. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.g. expressly states: The County Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Martin County that regional water and sewer services be made available to properties within the [SUSD], in order to: (1) Protect our natural resources . . . from the negative impacts of onsite sewage disposal (septic) systems and private wells to serve individual residential units; (2) Provide fire protection; [and] (3) Provide safe drinking water. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.h. requires that the extension of any such services to properties within the SUSD must have Board approval, which cannot occur unless the Board finds that certain enumerated criteria have been met, including: Regional utility services may be provided to properties within the [SUSD] upon the request of the affected property owner, and upon payment of the required costs for connection to the regional system. Such services may only be provided by a regional utility, public or private, within a service area shown on Figure 11-2. Package plants for the provision of utility service are prohibited except under the provisions of the [CGMP]. The regional utility must demonstrate the treatment facility has capacity for the proposed connection and priority has been given to projects within the [PUSD]. Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in the residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]. Property lying outside the Urban Service Districts . . . shall not receive utility service from a regional wastewater system. Extension of utility service outside the Urban Service Districts shall be prohibited. Development within the [SUSD] shall maintain lot sizes that exceed one-half acres. The SUSDA also contains new charts added to both the sanitary sewer services element and the potable water services element that display the numerical capacity of the regional water and sewer systems to handle additional customers upon extension of lines to the SUSD. See SUSDA Tables 10-3 through 10-6 and 11- 12 through 11-15. There was no credible evidence of any likelihood that the adoption of the SUSDA would allow the further extensions of water and sewer lines from the SUSD to properties outside the urban service districts. The testimony offered by Petitioners was speculative at best and depended upon an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting such extension of services. See SUSDA §§ 4.4.G.2.h.(6)-(7) and 4.5.H. Meaning and Predictability of SUSDA Standards Petitioners contend that the SUSDA's standards are not meaningful or predictable because of the undefined term "central water and sewer" in the policy in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a. Petitioners contend that "central water and sewer" can be interpreted to mean something other than a regional utility, and that the SUSDA can be interpreted to allow regional utility, package plant, and other similar types of utility systems serving two or more houses outside the urban services districts. Petitioners' interpretations are unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the SUSDA. Petitioners' evidence was speculative and depended on an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting package treatment plants in the SUSD. See SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(3) and § 4.5.H. In addition, the evidence was that package treatment plants may no longer be economically feasible. The County's interpretation is more reasonable--"central water and sewer," as used in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., means the provision of regional utility services by Martin County in the SUSD, and no such facilities may be provided outside the urban service districts. SUSDA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the data and analysis do not support the SUSDA essentially because they do not establish "any actual health, safety, or welfare problems." PPRO, ¶208. The absence of proof of actual health, safety, or welfare problems is not fatal in view of the rest of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA. Since the creation of the SUSD in 1992, development in the PUSD has resulted in the extension of water and sewer lines up to the border between the PUSD and the SUSD. In effect, the intended SUSD transition area has transitioned. Meanwhile, the regional water and sewer utilities serving the County now have the necessary capacity to serve the PUSD and the SUSD. Improved fire protection in the SUSD is a benefit of regional water service, allowing installation of community fire hydrants. Without it, developers in the SUSD must rely on installed sprinklers and emergency generators and water drawn from nearby lakes or installed water tanks. While regional water service can fail temporarily in major storms, and the data and analysis did not include actual instances of fire damage cause by the lack of regional water service in the SUSD, regional water service generally provides more reliable and less costly fire protection. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit potable water wells, regional water service generally is better, more reliable, and less costly. The data and analysis did include actual instances of home owners having to install expensive water treatment systems due to increasing chloride levels in their potable water wells. Connection to regional water service would eliminate those costs and concerns. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit septic tanks systems for onsite sewage treatment (i.e., systems that meet environmental and health standards), such systems can fail if improperly installed, maintained, and repaired. If they fail, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can leach into and harm the groundwater and nearby surface waters. The North Fork of the Loxahatchee River, which is nutrient-impaired, probably would benefit from elimination of septic tanks. Regional sewer service generally is better for the environmental and public health. The data and analysis suggest that allowing regional water and sewer service in the SUSD, with the SUSDA's requirement for developers to pay the cost of installation, probably will save the County money in the long run. It will be a significant cost to the County if it has to install water and sewer lines post-development. Petitioners attack the credibility of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA because regional water and sewer service is optional in the SUSD. But there were data and analysis that, even if regional water and sewer service in the SUSD is preferable, there are valid reasons to make it optional at this time. Alleged Environmental Impact of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part from a proliferation of package treatment plants in the SUSD, which is discouraged in CGMP Section 4.4. See PPRO, ¶¶221, 223. This contention is based on Petitioners' unreasonable interpretations of two sentences of the SUSDA. SUSDA Section 4.5.G. prohibits interim water systems outside the urban service districts and allows them, with conditions, in the PUSD where connection to a regional utility is not feasible. Petitioners interpret these two sentences to mean that interim water systems are allowed, without conditions, in the SUSD. The County's interpretation is more reasonable. Since the SUSDA makes connection to the regional utilities optional, there is no need for interim water systems in the SUSDA, and the SUSDA should not be construed to allow them there. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part essentially because increased development results in increased pollution. See PPRO, ¶228. To the extent true, it would be equally or more true of similar development without regional water and sewer services. SUSDA and Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend, in part due to their unreasonable interpretations of the objective in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the SUSDA, no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. In part due to the unreasonableness of Petitioners' interpretation of the SUSDA, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. It is unlikely that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl. Petitioners also contend that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl simply by allowing denser development in the 5,000- 6,000 acres of the SUSDA not yet developed. This contention is contrary to the SUSDA policy: "Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]." SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(5). Even if the SUSDA increased density in the SUSDA, increase in density itself does not promote urban sprawl. To the contrary, it is possible for increased density to discourage urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that increasing density in the SUSDA itself encourages urban sprawl or that, with the SUSDA, the CGMP will discourage urban sprawl less. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will create pressures to develop areas that border the SUSD, leaping over areas suitable for urban development. See PPRO, ¶¶236-237. This contention actually devalues the very urban service district concept Petitioners seek to defend and can be said about any urban district boundary. Currently, there are many places where the PUSD borders the Agricultural lands. The pressures created by the SUSDA will be no greater than the pressures that have existed in those places all along. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will increase costs to the County essentially because, notwithstanding SUSDA's requirement that developers pay the cost of connection, development will not pay for itself in the long run (taking into account costs of operations, maintenance, and repair.) To the extent true, it can be said of all development and does not prove that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that the SUSDA triggers any of the indicators of urban sprawl; did not prove that the SUSDA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl; and did not prove that the CGMP, as amended by the SUSDA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Internal Consistency of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA is internally inconsistent with CGMP Section 4.4.G.1.i., which gives priority in the provision and funding of water and sewer services to the PUSD, essentially because the data and analysis ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met through 2025. The lack of data and analysis at present to ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met beyond 2025 does not prove that priority will not be given to the needs of the PUSD.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the LPIA and the SUSDA are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2009.
The Issue The issues are whether the City of Jacksonville's (City's) Ordinance No. 2008-628-E adopted on September 9, 2008, which remediates Ordinance No. 2007-383-E, is in compliance, and whether Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, renders this proceeding moot, as alleged by Petitioner, Dunn Creek, LLC (Dunn or Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Petitioner is the owner of a vacant 89.52-acre parcel of property in Council District 11, which is located in the northern reaches of the City. More specifically, the property lies around four or five miles east of the airport and Interstate 95, just south of Starratt Road between Dunn Creek Road and Saddlewood Parkway, and within a "couple of miles of Main Street," a major north-south State roadway. Dunn submitted oral and written comments to the City during the plan amendment process. As such, it is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. The City is a local government that is subject to the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. It adopted the amendments being challenged by Dunn. Except for the challenged plan amendment, the City's current Plan is in compliance. Intervenor Britt owns property and resides within the City. The parties have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish that she is an affected person and therefore has standing to participate in this matter. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, including the City. Background On May 14, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2007- 383-E, which amended the FLUM by changing the land use category on Dunn's property from LDR to RPI, which would allow an increase in the density and intensity of use on the property. (The LDR land use allows up to seven dwelling units per acre, while RPI is a mixed-use category that allows up to twenty dwelling units per acre if built to the maximum development potential.) On July 9, 2007, the Department issued its Notice and Statement of Intent finding that the Ordinance was not in compliance on the ground the map change was not supported by adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that the City would achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standards for the roadways within its jurisdiction. The Department further determined that the traffic study submitted by the City was not based on the maximum development allowed under the RPI category. On August 1, 2007, the Department initiated this case by filing a Petition, which tracked the objections described in its Notice and Statement of Intent. The City, Dunn, Department, and Britt later entered into settlement discussions. As part of the settlement discussions, Dunn submitted a revised traffic study and coordinated with other applicants for map changes to perform cumulative traffic impact studies. The parties eventually entered into a proposed settlement agreement which would limit development of the property to 672 condominiums/townhomes and 128,000 square feet of non-residential uses through an asterisk to the Plan. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 25. Also, the proposed settlement agreement noted that the data and analysis confirmed that certain future road improvements in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Plan would offset the traffic impacts of the new RPI land use. These were improvements to the East-West Connector (U.S. Highway 17 to New Berlin Road) and Starratt Road. Id. Finally, Dunn agreed to pay $4.3 million in "fair share money" to the City to offset the proportionate share of the development's traffic impacts. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The proportionate share agreement was intended to match the trip count anticipated from the RPI development. On September 3, 2008, the proposed settlement agreement and remedial amendment were presented to the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee (Committee) for approval as Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 2008-628, respectively.3 At that meeting, the Committee heard comments from several members of the public who opposed the amendment, a Dunn attorney, and the City's Director of Planning and Development, William B. Killingsworth. The City Council member who represents District 11 and is a member of the Committee also spoke in opposition to the proposal. Based primarily upon data in a new traffic study prepared on August 28, 2008, by a member of Mr. Killingsworth's staff, and the opposition of the District 11 Council member, the Committee voted unanimously to revise the proposed settlement agreement and remedial amendment by changing the land use designation on the property back to LDR, its original classification. The revised settlement agreement was approved by Ordinance No. 2008- 627-E, while the remedial amendment changing the land use was approved by Ordinance No. 2008-628-E. The two Ordinances were then forwarded to the full City Council, which approved them on September 9, 2008. The revised settlement agreement was later executed by the City, Department, and Britt, but not by Dunn, and is known as the Sixteenth Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The essence of the revised agreement was that by changing the land use back to its original designation, the potential adverse impacts to transportation facilities would be resolved. Id. The remedial amendment package was transmitted by the City to the Department for its review. On December 18, 2008, the Department issued a Cumulative Notice of Intent to Find Ordinance Nos. 2007-383-E and 2008-628-E in compliance. On January 8, 2009, Dunn filed a Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene pursuant to Section 163.3184(16)(f)1., Florida Statutes. Because Dunn objected to the revised settlement agreement and challenged the remedial amendment, the parties were realigned, as reflected in the style of this case. On June 1, 2009, Senate Bill 360, engrossed as Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, became effective. That legislation amends Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, in several respects. Among other things, it designates the City as a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA).4 See § 163.3180(5), Fla. Stat. The new law also provides that plan amendments for land uses of a local government with a TCEA are deemed to meet the LOS standards for transportation. See § 163.3177(3)(f), Fla. Stat. Therefore, after a TCEA becomes effective, the Department no longer has the authority to review FLUM amendments in the TCEA for compliance with state-mandated transportation concurrency requirements. However, Senate Bill 360 contains a savings clause, which provides that "this subsection does not affect any contract or agreement entered into or development order rendered before the creation of the [TCEA] except as provided in s. 380.06(29)(e)." See § 163.3180(5)(f), Fla. Stat. The City, Department, and Britt contend that this provision "saves" the Sixteenth Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement executed by them in November 2008, and that the Department still retains jurisdiction to consider the remedial amendment. Conversely, Dunn contends that the savings clause does not apply to the revised agreement, that the Department no longer has jurisdiction to review the challenged amendment, that the remedial amendment was not authorized, and that because the remedial amendment never became effective, the Department's Petition should be dismissed as moot. Objections to the Remedial Amendment Besides the contention that the proceeding is moot, Dunn raises three issues in its challenge to the amendment. First, it contends that the amendment is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis related to traffic impacts and therefore is not in compliance. Second, Dunn contends that the amendment does not address the concerns raised in the Department's original Notice and Statement of Intent regarding the City's achieving and maintaining the adopted LOS of affected roadways. See § 163.3184(16)(f)2., Fla. Stat. Third, Dunn contends that due to procedural errors in the amendment adoption process, it was unduly prejudiced. Data and analysis Because almost all of the unresolved FLUM amendments in this case involved "traffic issues," on September 4, 2007, a Department employee, Melissa Hall, sent an email to counsel for a number of applicants, including Dunn, describing "what the department would be looking for in terms of traffic analysis." See Petitioner's Exhibit 12, p. 1. The email required those applicants to submit revised traffic studies. Id. Among other things, the applicants were advised that the revised traffic impact analysis for each amendment had to use "a professionally acceptable traffic impact methodology." Id. Dunn followed the requirements of the email in preparing its revised traffic study. At the time Ordinance No. 2007-383-E was adopted, based on total background traffic, which includes existing traffic plus reserve trips for approved but not-yet-built developments, eight road segments in the study area already failed to meet LOS standards. (LOS E is the adopted passing standard on those roadways.) The study area includes affected roadways within a two-mile radius of the boundaries of the proposed project site where project traffic consumes more than one percent of the service volume. If the Dunn project is built, six segments impacted by the development will continue to fail. According to the City's expert, as a general rule, an applicant for a land use amendment is not required to bring a failing segment back up to its adopted LOS. Rather, it is only required to pay its proportionate share of the improvements for bringing it up to compliance. The unique aspect of this case is that the City has simply reclassified the property back to what it was, LDR, when Ordinance No. 2007-383-E was adopted. At that time, the Plan was in compliance. In response to Dunn's contention that Ordinance No. 2008-628-E is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, the City, joined by the Department and Britt, first contends that, given the unique circumstances presented here, no data and analysis were required. Alternatively, it contends that there are sufficient relevant and appropriate data and analysis to support maintaining the LDR land use designation. The data and analysis include the traffic study prepared by Dunn's consultant in October 2007, the additional traffic analysis performed by the City staff just before the Committee meeting, and the testimony provided at the Committee meeting on September 3, 2008. At hearing, the City first pointed out that the RPI designation was never determined to be in compliance, Ordinance No. 2007-383-E never became effective, and the property has remained LDR throughout this proceeding. See § 163.3189(2)(a), Fla. Stat. ("[p]lan amendments shall not become effective until the [Department] issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9), or until the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance"). Therefore, the City takes the position that Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E did not need to be supported by data and analysis because the LDR category was the land use designation on the property at the time of the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-628-E. In the same vein, it argues that the remedial amendment is the equivalent of a repeal of the prior ordinance (2007-383-E), which would not require any data and analysis support. While at first blush these arguments appear to be plausible, the City could not cite any provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-55 that relieves a local government from the requirement that a plan amendment be supported by data and analysis. The City also argues that even if Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E is deemed to be a change in the land use (from LDR to LDR), the net impact of the change would be zero. This argument is based on the accepted testimony of Mr. Killingsworth, who stated that the City, Department, and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) agreed upon a methodology which entitled the City to give "credit" for uses permitted under the existing land use category.6 Under that methodology, the City subtracts the number of trips that the existing land use (LDR) generates from the additional trips generated by the proposed land use (LDR). Therefore, the net transportation impact of a change from LDR to LDR, in effect, would be zero. The methodology is described in Petitioner's Exhibit 15, a memorandum authored by Mr. Killingsworth and sent on October 4, 2007, to Dunn and other parties seeking map changes in this case. The memorandum stated that the methodology described therein was "developed in coordination [with] FDOT District 2" and "is the suggested methodology for use in determining traffic impacts of proposed land uses for the City." See Petitioner's Exhibit 15, p. 1. Mr. Killingsworth could not cite any provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5 allowing for such a credit for traffic generated by a prior permitted land use in the data and analysis required for a FLUM amendment. At the same time, however, Petitioner could not cite any rule or statute that prohibits the Department from allowing this type of methodology when deemed to be appropriate. Even though it differed from the methodology described in Ms. Hall's earlier email by allowing credit for the existing land use, it was nonetheless "a professionally acceptable traffic impact methodology" approved by the Department and FDOT and could be used as data and analysis to support a change back to the property's original land use classification. Therefore, it constitutes relevant and appropriate data and analysis to demonstrate that the net traffic impact of the change in land use from LDR to LDR is zero. The City further argues that if it was required to provide other data and analysis, the traffic impacts of the new ordinance are offset by the two roadway improvements negotiated with the Department in the proposed settlement agreement for Ordinance No. 2008-627. See Finding 7, supra. Based upon the City staff's analysis, which is found in City Exhibit 3, the LDR land use generates less trips than the RPI land use. (This study was prepared a few days before the Committee meeting in response to an inquiry from a Committee member.) More specifically, page 3 of that exhibit reflects that there are 169 less afternoon peak hour trips for LDR than RPI with the development cap of 672 dwelling units and 128,000 square feet of non-residential uses. It is fair to infer, then, that if the proposed mitigation in the original settlement agreement offsets the impacts of the more intense RPI land use, the mitigation also offsets the impacts of the less intense LDR land use. City Exhibit 3 is a comparative calculation of the difference in vehicle trips generated by development of the property under the LDR category approved by Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E and the development of the property under the RPI category approved by Ordinance No. 2007-383-E. Dunn points out, however, that the exhibit does not show how the trips generated are distributed on affected roadways or how those trips, as they may be distributed, affect LOS of any roadways. Despite the fact that the data in Exhibit 3 are limited to trip generation data, and establish no facts relating to the LOS of affected roadways, they support a finding that more trips will be generated under the RPI designation than the existing LDR designation. Also, they provide further support for a finding that if the proposed road improvements offset the impacts of the RPI use, the mitigation will offset the impacts, if any, of the original LDR use. For data and analysis relating to the LOS of affected roadways, the City, joined by the Department and Britt, rely upon a traffic study performed by Dunn's traffic consultant, King Engineering Associates, Inc. (King). That firm prepared a transportation analysis dated November 19, 2007, for the purpose of supporting a mixed-use development on the property under the RPI category. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8. This study, however, does not apply to development of the property under the LDR category because it was based upon a mixed-use project which would allow for credit based upon the internal capture of some trips. (In other words, a portion of the new trips will be internal to the site, that is, trips between the residential and commercial land uses on the property.) Because of this, any reference to the King study and proposed mitigation therein was deleted from the revised settlement agreement. In this respect, the study does not support the amendment. The King study addresses impacted roadway segments, existing and background traffic, proposed traffic generated by the development, and LOS for the impacted roadways, as suggested by Ms. Hall in her email. Dunn's traffic engineer established that in the impacted study area, six out of eight roadway links will continue to fall below adopted LOS standards based upon existing traffic and that generated by the RPI development (segments 174, 372, 373, 374, 377, and 543). See Table 4, Petitioner's Exhibit 8. The study also identifies proposed roadway improvements in the vicinity of the project site that are intended to help cure or mitigate the failing standards. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8, p. 12. These improvements are listed in the CIE and will cost around $85 million. A "fair share" agreement has also been executed by the City and Dunn, which requires Dunn to pay more than $4.3 million to offset impacts of the RPI development. Those monies would be applied to improvements in Sector 6.1 (the North Planning District), which includes Starratt Road and the East-West Connector. The agreement notes that this contribution would offset the proportionate share of traffic impacts of the proposed RPI development. Notably, the City has already funded both the widening of Starratt Road and the improvements to the East-West Connector, U.S. Highway 17 to Berlin Road, through the Better Jacksonville Plan. Therefore, even if the Dunn fair share agreement is not implemented, the two improvements will still be made. According to Dunn's engineer, the completion of the four projects listed on page 12 of his traffic study, which are labeled as "mitigation," will not restore or cure any of the LOS failures that now exist on the six impacted segments in Table 4 of the study. However, two of the failing segments (373 and 543) may be "helped" by the projects listed on that page. Dunn's engineer also analyzed City Exhibit 3 and concluded that if the Dunn property is developed as LDR, rather than RPI, there would be potentially one less roadway segment (374) impacted by development, while five other segments would continue to fail. When the proposed mitigation in the King study is factored in, he opined that the East-West Connector may help two other failing segments. He further opined that if LDR development on the property occurs, probably three of the six impacted segments will continue to fail adopted LOS standards. Even so, the improvements identified in the CIE, including those already funded by the Better Jacksonville Plan, should offset the proportionate share of traffic impacts associated with any future LDR development.7 The foregoing data and analysis establish that the LDR land use category generates less traffic impacts than the originally-proposed RPI use; that a change from LDR to LDR should have zero effect in terms of traffic impacts; that even if there are impacts caused by a change back to LDR, the proposed mitigation in the CIE will offset the proportionate share of the impacts associated with any LDR use; that while it differed from other studies, a professionally acceptable traffic impact analysis was used by the City to support the remedial amendment; and that the proposed road improvements are fully funded without having to implement the fair share agreement. Finally, in adopting the amendment, the City has reacted to the data and analysis in an appropriate manner. Does the Remedial Amendment Resolve All Issues? Dunn also asserts that the amendment does not resolve the issues raised by the Department in its Notice and Statement of Intent dated July 9, 2007. Under Section 163.3184(16)(f)2., Florida Statutes, an affected party may assert that a compliance agreement does not resolve all issues raised by the Department in its original notice of intent. The statute allows an affected party to then address those unresolved issues in the realigned proceeding. In this case, Petitioner asserts that the Department's original objection that the change in land use would result in a lowering of the LOS in the study area was not addressed by the remedial amendment. In its Notice and Statement of Intent to find the amendment not in compliance, the Department cited the following rules and statutes as being contravened: Sections 163.3164(32) and 163.3177(3)(b),(6)(a), (8), and (10), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and (c), 9J-5.006(2)(a), (3)(b)1. and 3., 9J-5.016(4)(a)1. and 2., and 9J-5.019(3)(a) through (h) and (4)(b)2. Although these sources of authority were cited in a single generic notice of intent as a basis for objecting to all seventeen map changes, it is assumed that they have equal application to this proceeding. The cited statutes relate to funding of transportation projects and concurrency issues, while the rules relate to data and analysis requirements, concurrency issues, the capital improvement element, and required transportation analyses, all subjects addressed by Dunn at the final hearing. Assuming arguendo that the remedial amendment does not address all of the issues raised in the original notice of intent, Dunn was given the opportunity to fully litigate those matters in the realigned proceeding. Procedural Irregularities Rule 9J-5.004 requires that the City "adopt procedures to provide for and encourage public participation in the planning process." See also § 163.3181(1), Fla. Stat. ("it is the intent of the Legislature that the public participate in the comprehensive planning process to the fullest extent possible"). Dunn does not contend that the City failed to adopt the required procedures. Rather, it contends that the City did not follow those procedures during the adoption of the remedial amendment. More specifically, prior to the Committee meeting, Dunn says it spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the millions that [it] had spent previously, working for fourteen months in conjunction with the City and [Department]" so that the parties could resolve the Department's objections. Dunn argues that it was unduly prejudiced by the last-minute revisions made by the Committee and City Council, and that it did not have an adequate opportunity to respond. Dunn points out that a City Planning Commission meeting was conducted before the Committee meeting, and that body unanimously recommended that Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 628 be approved. It further points out that when the Committee met on September 3, 2008, the proposed revisions to the settlement agreement, the accompanying remedial amendment, and the new traffic data were not discussed until after the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. (The transcript of that meeting reflects, however, that after the new revisions and traffic study were raised, Dunn's counsel was briefly questioned about Dunn's traffic study and the density/intensity of the project. Also, according to Mr. Coe, a copy of the City's newly-prepared traffic study was given to a Dunn representative just before the Committee meeting.) For both public meetings, the City's published notices indicated that the purpose of the meetings was to consider the proposed revised settlement agreement and remedial amendment allowing a cap on the development of the RPI property through the use of an asterisk, as reflected in Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 2008-628. See Petitioner's Exhibits 16 and 17. Dunn contends that it had insufficient time between the Committee meeting on September 3, 2008, and the final City Council meeting on September 9, 2008, in which to review and evaluate the new traffic information and respond to the comments of the Committee member who supported the revisions. It also points out that, like other members of the public, Dunn's attorney was only given three minutes to present comments in opposition to the revised agreement at the City Council meeting on September 9, 2009. Notwithstanding any procedural errors that may have occurred during the City's adoption process, Dunn received notice and attended both the Committee and City Council meetings, it presented written and oral objections to the revised plan amendment prior to and at the City Council meeting on September 9, 2008, and it was given the opportunity to file a petition to challenge the City's decision and present evidence on the revisions at the hearing in this case. Savings Clause in Senate Bill 360 In support of its position that the matter is now moot, and that the savings clause in Senate Bill 360 does not "save" the revised settlement agreement executed by the City, Department, and Britt, on November 10, 2008, Dunn submitted extrinsic evidence to show the Legislature's intent in crafting a savings clause, which include four separate analyses by the Legislative staff (Appendices A-D); an article authored by the Bill's Senate sponsor (Senator Bennett) and published in the St. Petersburg Times on May 23, 2009 (Appendix E); a similar article authored by the same Senator and published in the Sarasota Harold-Tribune on June 11, 2009 (Appendix F); a seven-page letter from Secretary Pelham to Senator Bennett and Representative Murzin dated July 23, 2009, concerning the new law and a two and one-half page summary of the bill prepared by the Department (Appendix G); a power point presentation for the Senate Community Affairs Committee on October 6, 2009 (Appendix H); and an article published in the October 2009 edition of The Florida Bar Journal (Appendix I). The Florida Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact contained in Appendix A was prepared on February 17, 2009, and does not reference the relevant savings clause. A second Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact contained in Appendix B and prepared on March 19, 2009, merely acknowledges that the legislation includes a savings clause but provides no further explication. See App. B, p. 9. Appendix C is the Florida House of Representatives 2009 Session Summary prepared in May 2009, while Appendix D is a Summary of Passed Legislation prepared by the House of Representatives Economic Development and Community Affairs Policy Council on an undisclosed date. Neither document addresses the issue of what types of agreements were intended to be saved. Appendices E through I are guest newspaper columns, correspondence, a power point presentation, and an article in a professional journal. None are authoritative sources of legislative intent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-628-E, which remediates Ordinance No. 2007- 383-E, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2009.
The Issue Whether the amendments to the Hendry County Comprehensive Plan adopted on February 25, 2014, by County Ordinance No. 2014- 03, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2013).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Respondent, Hendry County (Respondent or County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and amend a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167. Petitioner, the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Petitioner or Seminole Tribe), owns real property consisting of the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation and adjacent non-reservation lands located in the County. The address of the main tribal office is 31000 Josie Billie Highway, Clewiston, Florida 33440. On February 25, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing and adopted the Plan Amendment. The Seminole Tribe submitted written and oral comments to the County concerning the Plan Amendment through their counsel and several Tribal members at the adoption public hearing. Existing Land Uses and Future Designations Hendry County is approximately 1,190 square miles in size. The County is predominantly an agriculturally-based community with roughly 55 percent of the total land area in agricultural production and another 12 percent designated as preserve. Approximately 71 percent of the land area in the County is designated Agriculture on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).2/ Lands within the Agriculture Future Land Use Category (Ag FLU), some 529,936 acres, predominantly comprise the central, southern and eastern portion of the County. The Ag FLU designates those lands which “will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The County has limited property designated for future industrial and commercial use. Less than one-half percent of the land area on the FLUM is designated as Industrial. Less than two-tenths percent is designated as Commercial. Other future land use categories which allow Industrial development include Agriculture, Public, Multi-Use Development, and land within the Rodina sector plan, which authorizes a maximum of 1,900,000 square feet of Office, Civic, and Industrial uses. Industrial uses allowed within the Agriculture land use category include processing of agricultural products as Level One uses allowed as permitted uses, special exceptions, or accessory uses under the Land Development Code. A number of other uses, such as utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining, and solid waste recovery, are allowed as Level Two uses which require rezoning of the property to a Planned Unit Development, with significant review by County staff and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Less than one percent of the land area is designated for Public Use. The Public land use category designates areas which are publicly-owned, semi-public, or private lands authorized for public purposes, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. The largest industrial site in the County is the AirGlades industrial complex, which is designated as a Public land use on the FLUM. The site is approximately 2,400 acres in size, but only roughly 200 acres is in industrial use. The complex cannot be fully developed due to inadequate County wastewater facilities serving the site, Federal Aviation Authority restrictions (e.g., height limitations) on development in proximity to the Airglades airport, and lack of opportunity for fee ownership of property owned by the County.3/ Roughly one-half percent of the land area is designated Multi-Use. Designated lands are generally located adjacent to the primary transportation system and existing or programmed utilities. The purpose of this land use category is to promote new development and redevelopment of the properties located within the category. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Industrial development in the Multi-Use category is limited to 0.75. As with industrial uses, commercial uses are allowed in land use categories other than Commercial. The Agriculture category allows commercial uses such as ornamental horticulture and nurseries. Non-residential intensity is generally limited to an FAR of .40. Commercial development is allowed within both the Medium–Density and High-Density Residential FLU Categories; however, development is limited to residential-serving commercial, must be approved through the PUD rezoning process, and is limited to 15 percent of the uses within the PUD. Less than one percent of the County is designated as Rural Special Density, and, under the existing Plan, this designation cannot be expanded. The Residential Special Density category allows commercial and retail on no more than 10 percent of the designated area and with a total cap of 200 square feet at buildout. Commercial development is also allowed within the Multi-Use category, but is limited to an FAR of .25 for retail commercial, .50 for mixed-use buildings (maximum of 25 percent retail), and .30 FAR for mixed-use buildings with commercial on the first floor. The County is sparsely populated with concentrations surrounding the cities of Clewiston and LaBelle, including Port LaBelle, as well as the unincorporated areas known as Felda and Harlem. The cities of LaBelle and Clewiston and the unincorporated populated areas are located at the northernmost end of the County along State Road 80 (SR 80). The Felda Community is located in the northwestern portion of the County, south of the City of LaBelle. Most of the development in the County since 1999 has occurred in and surrounding the incorporated areas of LaBelle and Clewiston, primarily adjacent to the City of LaBelle and along SR 80 from LaBelle to the Lee County line. The vast majority of land in the County is not served by centralized public utilities, such as sewer and water. Existing public utilities, including centralized water and sewer, are limited to the northernmost areas of the County surrounding the cities of LaBelle and Clewiston, and along SR 80. South of LaBelle and Clewiston, there are only three north/south and two east/west principle arterial or collector roads in the County. All of these are two-lane roads, and only SR 29 south of LaBelle is planned to be widened to four lanes under either alternative in the County’s 2040 long-range transportation plan. Economic Conditions It is undisputed that the economic condition of the County is dire. The County ranks high in many negative economic indicators, including a 30 percent poverty rate (compared to 17 percent statewide), the highest unemployment rate in the state for 34 of the most recent 36 months, and an annual wage $10,000 lower than the state average. Roughly 80 percent of County school children qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch, and a high percentage of the County population are Medicaid recipients. The County’s ability to raise revenue through taxation is limited by the extent of property exempt from ad valorem taxation (e.g., government-owned property), and the extent classified as Agricultural and assessed at less than just value. Slightly more than half of the just value of property in the County is subject to an Agricultural classification. Another 21 percent of the just value of property in the County is government-owned, thus exempt from ad valorem taxation. More than half of the parcels in the County are taxed as vacant residential, and less than two percent are taxable commercial properties. On May 24, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a workshop on proposed new Mission, Vision, and Core Values statements for the County. On September 13, 2011, the Board adopted the following Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment was adopted in an effort to attract large-scale commercial and industrial businesses to locate in, and bring jobs to, the County. Under the Plan Amendment, a new development project that is designated as an Economic Engine Project (EEP), and “large-scale commercial and/or industrial” developments, are expressly permitted in any and all FLU categories throughout the County with the exception of Agricultural Conservation, Residential - Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. The Plan Amendment is designed to spur economic development by “streamlining” the permitting process to give the County a competitive advantage in attracting new business. By permitting EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses in nearly every future land use category, the Plan Amendment is intended to eliminate the costs (in both time and money) of processing comprehensive plan amendments for future development projects. The amount of land eligible for siting either an EEP or a large-scale commercial and/or industrial development under the Plan Amendment is approximately 580,000 acres.4/ The majority of that land area, 529,936.49 acres, is located within the Agriculture FLU category. The Plan Amendment significantly rewrites the Economic Development Element of the County’s Plan, and adds new policies to Chapter 1, Goal 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), related to “Innovative Planning and Development Strategies.” The Plan Amendment rewrites Goal 2 as follows:5/ In order to protect water resources, protect the environment and wildlife habitat, build a more sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote energy efficiency, and to permit job creation for the citizens and residents of Hendry County, the following innovative land use planning techniques should be encouraged: In order to build a sustainable tax base, encourage economic development, promote job creation, and support vibrant rural and urban communities, the following flexible development strategies are encouraged: Innovative and flexible planning and development strategies list in Section 163.3168, Florida Statutes. Innovative and creative planning tools. Innovative Flexible and strategic land use techniques listed and defined in this comprehensive plan. The Plan Amendment adds the following new Objective and Policies to FLUE Goal 2: Objective 2.1: Recognize the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to economic development to meet the needs of the existing and future urban, suburban and rural areas. Policy 2.1.1: A qualifying County economic development and job creation project (Economic Engine Project) is a project that complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element, Hendry County's compatibility requirements, Policy 2.1.2, and which will have adequate infrastructure. These projects shall be allowed in any category listed in the Future Land Use Element except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre- Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Economic Development Element. Additionally, Economic Engine Projects shall be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, and the sector plan. Densities and Intensities shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Policy 2.1.2: Large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in any Future Land Use category, except those lands designated as Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates residential areas if they meet the requirements below. In addition, large-scale commercial and/or industrial developments will be allowed in adopted sector plans only if they advance or further the goals, objectives and policies of respective lands pursuant to 163.3245, F.S., the sector plan, and meet the requirements below. Policy 2.1.2 does not apply to industrial development located in the industrial land use category nor commercial development located in the commercial land use category. The development is approved as a PUD as provided in the Land Development Code; The development is consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners; The project has direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development; The project has access to, will upgrade/extend existing utilities, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility's financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone; The project has access to and can provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate; The project will provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues. Large-scale Commercial and/or Industrial development must be a minimum of eighty (80) acres. The County reserves the right to require the project area to be larger if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project. The project must demonstrate that it will produce at least fifty (50) new jobs within three years after the project is initiated. The development must contribute positively to the County's economy. If the project requires that the County expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program, the developer shall cooperate with the County in obtaining the funds. This provision includes requiring the County to accelerate a programmed project. If necessary, the owner/developer of the project will work with the appropriate educational facilities to create the necessary education and training programs that will enable Hendry County residents to be employed with the Large- scale Commercial and/or Industrial development. Intensities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. In the residential land use categories, an Economic Engine Project shall not exceed an Intensity of 0.25 FAR. Densities shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial uses that are established in their respective land use categories. Additionally, the Plan Amendment adds the following definitions to the Plan: "Economic Engine Project" means a qualifying County economic development and job creation project which complies with Policy 10.1.7. of the Economic Development Element and means the proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry. "Target Industry" means an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness. Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida's Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries; and Agricultural Industries New Economic Development Element Policy 10.1.7, reads as follows: The County Administrator has the authority to designate a project as a County-approved Economic Engine Project provided it meets the definition of an Economic Engine Project, the criterion in future land use element Objective 2.1, and policies 2.1.1- 2.1.2. Petitioner’s Challenge Petitioner challenges the Plan Amendment as not “in compliance” with chapter 163. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment fails to appropriately plan for orderly future growth by providing measurable and predictable standards to guide and control the future growth and distribution of large-scale commercial and industrial developments and Economic Engine Projects throughout the County; is not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis; is internally inconsistent with other goals, objectives, and policies in the Plan; and fails to discourage urban sprawl. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) provides, “The [local government comprehensive plan] shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations.” Section 163.3177(6)(a) requires the local government to designate, through the FLUE, the “proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for” commercial and industrial categories of use. Further, this section requires the local government to include the “approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use . . . for the gross land area in each existing land use category.” Subparagraph 163.3177(6)(a)1. requires local governments to define each future land use category “in terms of uses included” and to include “standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensities.” Designated Economic Engine Projects The Plan Amendment does not define an EEP in a manner sufficient to put property owners on notice as to what use might be approved within the approximately 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment defines an EEP as a “proposed development, redevelopment or expansion of a target industry.” “Target industry” is further defined by the Plan Amendment as “an industry that contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness.” The definition continues, as follows: Targeted industries that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved Economic Engine Project include, but are not limited to: The targeted industries and strategic areas of emphasis listed with Enterprise Florida The targeted industries of Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative Projects aligned with efforts of Visit Florida Projects that promote tourism Marine Industries Agricultural Industries Under Policy 2.1.1, a project that meets the definitions above may be designated as an EEP by the County Administrator, pursuant to Policy 10.1.7, if it meets the criterion in Policy 2.1.2, and if it “complies with the County’s compatibility requirements and [has] adequate infrastructure.” As adopted, the Plan Amendment provides no meaningful standard for the use or development of land for an EEP. The definition of an industry that “contributes to County or regional economic diversification and competitiveness” is essentially open-ended, defining an EEP only in the sense that it must be different from the existing predominate County industry -- Agriculture. Yet, even that distinction is eliminated by the inclusion of “Agricultural Industries” on the list of target industries “that are eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP. The list of industries defined as “eligible to qualify as a County-approved” EEP provides no meaningful standard because it incorporates by reference industries listed by, targeted by, or “aligned with,” private and quasi-government entities such as Enterprise Florida, Visit Florida, and Florida’s Heartland Regional Economic Development Initiative. The definition does not even fix to a specific date the list of targeted industries designated by those business development entities, thus rendering the Amendment “self-amending,” without any meaningful list of qualifying uses. Moreover, the definition of “target industry” incorporates these third-party lists with the qualification “including but not limited to.” Thus, determination of an EEP is at the sole discretion of the County Administrator. Sarah Catala, Hendry County associate planner, is the author of the Plan Amendment. Ms. Catala testified that an EEP could encompass a wide variety of uses, including ecotourism (e.g., bird-watching tours), manufacturing, and large-scale commercial development such as a Super Walmart. The Plan Amendment is essentially circular. The definition of an EEP refers to compliance with Policy 10.1.7, but Policy 10.1.7 refers back to the definition and the criteria in Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. Policy 2.1.1 requires an EEP to comply with Policy 10.1.7, as well as Policy 2.1.2. Objective 2.1 and Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 lack meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of EEPs. Policy 2.1.1, as previously referenced, refers the reader to Policy 2.1.2 and further states that EEPs must “comply with Hendry County’s compatibility requirements” and must have “adequate infrastructure.” The Plan Amendment does not define either “compatibility requirements” or “adequate infrastructure.” Nor does the Plan Amendment cross-reference any specific compatibility or infrastructure requirement in either the Plan or the County’s Land Development Regulations. The County highlights Policy 2.1.2 as the measurable criterion that directs the location, timing and extent of development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments throughout the County. However, as discussed below, Policy 2.1.2 does not resolve the Plan Amendment’s failure to provide meaningful and predictable standards directing the location, amount and timing of the development of EEPs or large-scale commercial and industrial in the County. Large-scale Commercial and Industrial Developments Policy 2.1.2 adds “large-scale commercial and industrial developments” as an allowable use in every FLU category in the County with the exception of the same three categories from which EEPs are excluded: Agriculture Conservation, Residential/Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. Large-scale commercial and industrial developments must meet the requirements listed in paragraphs (a) through (n) of Policy 2.1.2.6/ Policy 2.1.2(a) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to undergo a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) during which time various site-specific criteria found in the land development regulations will be applied to development of a particular project. The PUD rezoning criterion in the County’s LDRs govern the location of a particular use on a specific property. The PUD requirements do not relate in any way to the appropriate location of either an economic project or large-scale commercial or industrial development within the approximately 580,000 acres open for those developments under the Plan Amendment. Thus, this criterion is not a meaningful standard that provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of land for EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial use. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments allowed by the Plan Amendment to be “consistent with siting proposals developed by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.” It is undisputed that the said siting proposals have yet to be developed by staff. Ms. Catala anticipates developing a locational matrix that will “match up locations in the County with the needs of a business.” As such, the siting proposals will provide locational standards for future EEPs and large- scale commercial and industrial developments. As written and adopted, though, the Plan Amendment contains no such standards. Policy 2.1.2(c) requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have “direct access to principal arterials and collectors or access to the principal arterials and collectors via local roads with adequate capacity which can be readily provided by the development.” This criterion simply requires EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments to have access to a roadway of some sort. It does not guide developments to locate within proximity to a roadway, or require direct access to a particular class of roadway. The criterion does not preclude the developer from building a road from the project to an existing local roadway. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment neither defines the term “adequate capacity” nor cross-references an existing definition of that term elsewhere in the Plan. Without a definition, the reader is left to speculate whether a particular project site is appropriate in proximity to any particular roadway. As written, Policy 2.1.2(c) does not provide meaningful standards for the location, distribution, or extent of either EEPs or large-scale commercial or industrial projects within the approximately 580,000 acres designated eligible for these uses under the Plan Amendment. Policy 2.1.2(d) relates to the provision of utilities to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial project. The Policy reads as follows: The project has access to, will upgrade/extend, or construct on-site utilities; or a public or private provider will extend and/or expand the utilities (including an upgrade if necessary) or has the extension of utilities in the utility’s financially feasible plan. The project must have access to all existing or planned necessary utilities, such as water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, cable, broadband, or telephone. This criterion provides so many alternatives, it is essentially meaningless. Boiled down, the provision requires only that the project have utilities, which is essential to any development. The criterion does not direct the location of one of these projects to areas where utilities exist or are planned, but rather allows them anywhere within the approximately 580,000 acres as long as the developer provides needed utilities, somehow, some way. Policy 2.1.2(e) requires “[t]he project [to have] access to and . . . provide on-site rail facilities, when appropriate[.]” This criterion provides locational criterion to the extent that a development for which rail facilities are integral must locate in proximity thereto. However, that criterion is self-evident. The policy does not add any guidance for the location, distribution, and extent of EEPs and large- scale commercial or industrial projects which do not require rail facilities. Policy 2.1.2(f) requires the project to “provide sufficient open space, buffers, and screening from exterior boundaries where warranted to address all compatibility issues.” Buffers, screening, and open space requirements are addressed at the PUD rezoning stage of development and do not provide guidance as to the location of development within any particular land area. Furthermore, the language does not direct an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development away from existing uses which may be incompatible therewith. The Plan Amendment actually anticipates incompatibility and requires development techniques to address incompatibilities at the rezoning stage. Policy 2.1.2(g) requires a minimum of 80 acres for a large-scale commercial or industrial development. The policy allows the County to increase that minimum size “if the County finds that a project with more land is necessary to address the impacts of the development on the surrounding area, or if the County concludes that a larger site is necessary to provide a viable project.” The policy has a veneer of locational criterion: it excludes development or redevelopment of parcels, or aggregated parcels, which are smaller than the 80 acre threshold. However, the policy provides an exception for the County to require larger parcels solely at its discretion. Again, the policy anticipates incompatibility between large- scale commercial or industrial development and the existing land uses. Policies 2.1.2(h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m) bear no relationship to location, distribution, or extent of the land uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment neither provides for the general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for commercial and industrial purposes nor meaningful standards for the future development of EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development. Section 163.3177(1) requires local government plan amendments to establish meaningful guidelines for the content of more-detailed land development regulations. Policy 2.1.2(b) requires large-scale commercial and industrial developments to be consistent with “siting proposals,” which Ms. Catala testified are anticipated to be adopted in the County’s land development code. Ms. Catala generally described a matrix that would help industry “get the best fit for their needs in the County.” The Plan Amendment does not provide any guidelines for adoption of a matrix or any other siting proposals to be adopted by County staff and approved by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Policy 2.1.2.(b). Lastly, section 163.3177(6)(a) requires that the FLUE establish the general range of density and intensity of the uses allowed. Ms. Catala testified that the intent of the Plan Amendment is not to change the density or intensity of uses from those already allowed in the plan. The plain language of the Plan Amendment does not support a finding that densities and intensities of use remain the same under the Plan Amendment. The intensity of non- residential development allowed under the Plan Amendment is, at best, unclear, and in some cases left entirely to the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Policy 2.1.1 provides that the densities and intensities of EEPs “shall not exceed the values that are established for commercial and industrial uses in the respective land use categories.” The County argues that a fair reading of the Policy restricts non-residential development to the intensities established in the underlying category for non-residential development. Under Policy 2.1.2, intensities of large-scale commercial and industrial developments “shall not exceed the Floor Area Ratio for Commercial and/or Industrial Uses established in their respective land use categories.” While a fair reading of Policy 2.1.1 restricts the intensity of commercial or industrial development to the density established in the underlying land use district, Policy 2.1.2 does not. The pronoun “their” refers back to the Commercial and Industrial land use categories. Thus, under Policy 2.1.2, commercial and industrial uses can develop in other land use categories at the intensities established in the Commercial or Industrial category. Further, both Policy 2.1.1 and Policy 2.1.2 cap EEP intensity at 0.25 FAR in residential FLU categories. This language overrides the existing cap on non-residential development in those categories established in the FLUE. It also overrides those FLU categories, such as Residential Low- Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. Finally, Policy 2.1.2 contains no intensity cap on development of commercial and industrial development within residential FLU categories. The County explains that large- scale commercial and industrial developments are simply not allowed in FLU categories, such as Residential Low-Density, which establish an FAR of 0.00. The County’s interpretation is not consistent with the plain language of the policy. Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows large-scale commercial and industrial development in all land use categories except Agricultural-Conservation, Residential/ Pre-Existing Rural Estates, and Felda Estates. If the County intended to exclude other FLU categories, they would have been included in the list of exceptions. Petitioner has proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment does not establish the general range of intensity of large-scale commercial and industrial development. Data and Analysis Section 163.3177(6)(a)2. requires local government FLUE amendments “to be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable” including the following: The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. The character of the undeveloped land. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. The compatibility of uses on land adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. The discouragement of urban sprawl. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. County staff did not collect data or perform an analysis of the character of the undeveloped land affected by the Plan Amendment. County staff did not perform any analysis of the suitability of the land area affected by the Plan Amendment for either a large-scale commercial or industrial development nor for an EEP. County staff did not perform an analysis of the availability of the County water supplies, wastewater treatment, or other public facilities, to serve large-scale commercial or industrial development or an EEP located within the area affected by the Plan Amendment. In fact, County staff acknowledged that wastewater treatment facilities are inadequate to support full buildout of the industrial sites available at the Airglades airport facility. County staff did not perform an analysis of the compatibility of large-scale commercial or industrial development adjacent to the Airglades airport facility. In preparing the Plan Amendment, County staff clearly relied upon data reflecting the County’s needs for job creation, economic development, and a diversified economy, including the Department of Revenue Property Tax Overview for Hendry County, and the fact that the County is designated a Rural Area of Critical State Concern. County staff also considered, in support of the Plan Amendment, the County Commission’s recently-adopted Vision statement: “To be an outstanding rural community in which to live, work, raise a family and enjoy life by creating an economic environment where people can prosper.” No evidence was introduced to support a finding that County staff analyzed whether the Plan Amendment would achieve the goals of strengthening and diversifying the County’s economy. The County introduced the testimony of Greg Gillman, the County’s Economic Development Director, regarding his efforts to attract new business to the County, as well as the obstacles the County faces in these efforts. Mr. Gillman testified regarding five particular scenarios in which he worked with companies to find a suitable location in the County. In one scenario, the price was too high for the potential buyer. In another, the potential buyer was put off by the wooded acreage. In another, the seller would not subdivide. In another, the property is undergoing a PUD rezoning process. In the final scenario, Mr. Gillman testified the potential buyer rejected all proposed sites without explanation. Mr. Gillman did not give a single example of a scenario in which a potential business opportunity was lost due to the need to change the FLUM designation of a property. In fact, Mr. Gillman testified that he does not even show sites without appropriate land use classifications to potential buyers. While there is a plethora of data on the limited amount of land in the County classified for commercial and industrial uses, County staff gathered no data regarding, and conducted no analysis of, the vacancy rate of sites on which commercial and industrial uses are currently allowed. Mr. Gillman provided anecdotal evidence regarding recent efforts to redevelop vacant sites, some of which have been successful. Ms. Catala testified that, in addition to relying on the County’s Vision statement and economic data, she reviewed the comprehensive plans of other jurisdictions. From that review, she gleaned the idea of an EEP. The County introduced no evidence to support a finding that the threshold of 80 acres for an EEP was based upon data at all. Mr. Gillman’s testimony revealed that Ms. Catala originally proposed a higher threshold (perhaps 120 acres), but that he recommended a smaller acreage. Mr. Gillman gave no explanation of the basis for his recommendation. Section 163.3177(f) provides, “To be based on data means to react to it 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.” Given the lack of evidence linking the Plan Amendment to spurring economic development, the County failed to demonstrate that it reacted appropriately to the economic data on which it relied. Even if Mr. Gillman’s anecdotes were accepted as data, they do not support eliminating plan amendments to allow commercial and industrial development in a variety of other land use categories. Internal Inconsistency Section 163.3177(2) provides as follows: Coordination of the several elements of the local comprehensive plan shall be a major objective of the planning process. The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent. The Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment changes to the FLUE and Economic Development Element are inconsistent with a number of goals, objectives, and policies found within the FLUE and in other plan elements. Each one is taken in turn. Future Land Use Element First, Petitioner alleges internal inconsistency within the FLUE, specifically between the Plan Amendment and FLUE Goal 1, Objective 1.1, and Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.9, 1.1.10, 1.1.11, and 1.1.13. Policy 1.1.1 governs land uses allowed within the Agriculture FLU category. The policy states, in pertinent part, as follows: Purpose The purpose of the Agriculture Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040. * * * Location Standards Areas classified as Agriculture are located within the rural areas of Hendry County. Lands in this category are not within the urban area, but may be adjacent to the urban area. Some of these lands may be converted to urban uses within the 2040 planning horizon. However, the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040. The Plan Amendment affects more land designated as Agriculture than that designated in any other category. Slightly more than 70 percent of the County, almost 530,000 acres, is designated as Agriculture, and all of it is subject to development for an EEP or an 80-acre minimum commercial or industrial project under the Plan Amendment. Development of ill-defined EEPs and 80-acre minimum large-scale commercial and industrial projects is not consistent with designating lands “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state” through 2040. Respondent counters that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 1.1.1 because that Policy already allows a number of non-traditional agricultural uses which are commercial and/or industrial in nature, and may be sited through the PUD rezoning process, just as the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Policy 1.1.1 authorizes the use of Agriculture lands for utilities, bio-fuel plants, mining and earth extraction and processing operations, solid waste facilities, resource recovery facilities, and other similar uses. The County’s argument is not persuasive.7/ The non- agricultural uses allowed under the existing plan are agriculturally-related or agriculture-dependent uses, such as bio-fuel, mining, and resource recovery, or uses which, by their nature, are best suited to less-populated rural areas, such as utilities and solid waste facilities. In contrast, large-scale commercial and industrial uses are not limited to agriculturally-related or utility uses. Under the Plan Amendment, anything from an auto parts manufacturing plant to a Super Walmart could be developed in areas designated Agriculture. Any number of urban uses could be developed under the auspices of an EEP or large-scale commercial. Under the Plan Amendment, no amendment to the County’s comprehensive plan will be needed to allow such urban uses in the Agriculture category. Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5 govern land uses in the following FLU categories: Residential – Rural Estates, Residential – Medium Density, and Residential – High Density, respectively. According to Policy 1.1.3, the purpose of the Residential – Rural Estates category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which have been or should be developed at lower density in order to promote and protect the rural lifestyle through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy permits only residential and customary accessory uses within the category. The Policy specifically sets a FAR of 0.00 for non- residential development. According to Policy 1.1.4, the purpose of the Residential – Medium Density category is “to identify those areas within Hendry County which currently, or should be, encouraged to become the primary location of residential development offering a mixture of residential products at suburban/urban style density through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits single- and multi-family development, as well as mobile homes, and customary accessory uses. Commercial development is allowed only as an element of mixed-use developments, of which commercial is limited to 15 percent. Additional limitations on commercial apply, including limits on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering from adjacent residential uses. Policy 1.1.4 establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. According to Policy 1.1.5, the purpose of the Residential – High Density category is “to define those areas within Hendry County which are or should become higher density residential development through the planning horizon 2040.” The policy permits all types of residential development and customary accessory uses. As with medium-density category, Policy 1.1.5 allows some commercial development within mixed-use developments subject to limitations on size and character, location within the mixed-use development, and buffering. The policy establishes an FAR of 0.10 for non-residential development. Under the Plan Amendment, each of these three Residential categories is available for siting an EEP. New Policy 2.1.2 allows for development of EEPs in these categories at an FAR of 0.25. The Plan Amendment allows EEPs within the Residential Rural Estates category directly in contravention of Policy 1.1.3, which limits uses to residential, recreational, and limited agricultural, and provides zero intensity for non- residential uses. As previously noted, the Plan Amendment broadly defines EEPs, and the record supports a finding that such a project could encompass anything from a manufacturing facility to a Super Walmart. The broad array of uses to diversify the County’s economy is in conflict with the County’s previous decision, reflected in Policy 1.1.3 to designate these areas for future development at low-density residential “to promote and protect the rural lifestyle.” Likewise, the Plan Amendment opens up the Residential Medium Density and Residential – High Density categories for location of ill-defined EEPs in contravention of Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit development in those categories to primarily residential, only allowing commercial within a mixed- use development and limited to a maximum of 15 percent. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment allows these developments at a greater intensity than the FAR of 0.10 established for non- residential density in those categories. The parties disagreed as to whether the Plan Amendment authorizes large-scale commercial and industrial development in the Residential – Rural Estates category governed by Policy 1.1.3. The argument primarily turns on interpretation of new Policy 2.1.2, as discussed in the previous section herein titled “Meaningful and Predictable Standards.” The County contends that the correct interpretation of Policy 2.1.2 allows a large-scale commercial or industrial development at the maximum intensity established in the underlying land use category. In other words, if the underlying land use category establishes an FAR of 0.00 for industrial development, no industrial development is allowed. However, if the same category establishes an FAR for commercial development, the Plan Amendment allows commercial development in that category limited to the intensity established by the FAR. The undersigned has rejected that interpretation as discussed in the prior section herein. Petitioner contends that the language allows commercial and industrial development in every non-exempt land use category at the intensities established in the Commercial and/or Industrial land use category, as applicable. Petitioner’s interpretation is the correct interpretation, and indeed the only possible reading of the plain language of Policy 2.1.2(l).8/ Policy 1.1.9 governs uses in the Commercial land use category. The Policy allows non-residential development at the following intensities: Retail Commercial – 0.25 FAR Office – 0.50 FAR 0.50 FAR for mixed-use building with a maximum of 25% retail and a minimum of 75% office 0.30 FAR for mixed-use development with commercial on the first floor and residential on stories above the first floor. Allowing large-scale commercial development at the stated intensities directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; Policy 1.1.4, which caps intensity at 0.10 for commercial in Residential – Medium; and Policy 1.1.5, which provides an FAR of 0.10 in Residential – High. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.2.1 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.10 governs uses in the Industrial land use category. The Policy allows industrial development at an intensity of 0.75. Allowing large-scale industrial development at an intensity of 0.75 directly conflicts with Policy 1.1.3, which provides an FAR of 0.00 for non-residential development in Residential – Rural Estates; and Policies 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, which limit non-residential uses to commercial and recreation in the Residential – Medium and Residential – High land use categories. Thus, Plan Amendment Policy 2.1.2 is in conflict with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 governing development within the Commercial and Industrial categories, respectively. The allegations were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Plan Amendment does not alter either the uses allowed in those categories or the intensity of development allowed therein. Those policies are essentially unscathed. However, because the Plan Amendment allows the types and intensities of development described in the Commercial and Industrial categories to occur in residential and other categories in which those uses and intensities conflict, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the policies governing those residential and other categories. Policies 1.1.9 and 1.1.10 are merely the conduits through which Policy 2.1.2 is found to be inconsistent with Policies 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5. Policy 1.1.11 governs land uses in the Public category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Public Future Land Use Category is to establish regulations relative to use and location of publicly- owned lands, semi-public lands, and private lands authorized for public purposes which currently exist or which may become public through the planning horizon 2040. Description/Uses Lands in this category are areas designated for public and semi-public uses, including governmental buildings, schools, churches, and worship centers, utilities, solid waste handling and disposal facilities, airports, logistic centers when operated on public property, recycling facilities, and similar public and semi-public uses. This category may also include publicly-owned parks and other public/semi-public recreational facilities. There is no dispute that the Plan Amendment would allow both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial uses within the Public land use category. Large-scale commercial and industrial development is inconsistent with the purpose of the Public land use category adopted in Policy 1.1.11 and the uses established therein. Because the Plan Amendment provides no clear definition of an EEP, and leaves the determination solely to the County Administrator, it is impossible to determine whether allowing said development in the Public land use category would necessarily be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.11. Policy 1.1.13 governs uses in the Leisure/Recreation category. The Policy establishes the following purpose and uses: Purpose The purpose of the Leisure/Recreation Future Land Use Category is to define those areas within Hendry County which are used or may become used for free standing/independent leisure/recreation activities through the planning horizon 2040. * * * Description/Uses Leisure/Recreation areas are sites which are currently developed for leisure/recreation facilities or undeveloped sites which are designated for development as leisure/ recreation facilities. . . . Uses allowed within this category shall be limited to sports facilities whether individually developed or in sports complexes, active and/or passive parks, recreation vehicle parks, campgrounds (whether primitive or improved), marinas, golf courses, equestrian centers and riding areas, sporting clay facilities, eco tourism activities, and similar leisure and recreation facilities and ancillary facilities. Large-scale industrial and commercial development would directly conflict with the purpose and types of use allowed within this category pursuant to Policy 1.1.13. As the Plan Amendment provides a very broad definition of EEP, it is impossible to determine that every such use would be inconsistent with Policy 1.1.13. In fact, since an EEP may include eco-tourism uses, location within Leisure/Recreation may be entirely suitable. Petitioner next contends that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17, which provides, as follows: The County’s development regulations shall specifically encourage redevelopment, infill development, compatibility with adjacent uses, and curtailment of uses inconsistent with the character and land uses of surrounding area, and shall discourage urban sprawl. No evidence was introduced regarding whether the County’s land development regulations fall short of this Policy mandate. The County’s expert testified that he had not reviewed the County’s land development regulations to determine whether they met this requirement. Petitioner’s expert provided no testimony on this issue. Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.5.17. Other Plan Elements Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Infrastructure Element Objective 7.A.3 and Policy 7.A.3.1, which read as follows: Objective 7.A.3: The County shall maximize use of existing sewer facilities and discourage urban sprawl within infill development. In addition, limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map. This Objective shall be implemented through the following policies: Policy 7.A.3.1: The Future Land Use Element and Map allows density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer connections than the more remote areas. The Plan Amendment allows development of both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial projects regardless of the availability of existing sewer facilities to the project site. The Plan Amendment expresses no preference between, and alternately allows said development with either, access to existing sewer facilities, or provision of on-site wastewater treatment. The Plan Amendment does not change the land use designations on the existing Future Land Use Map. Nearly 580,000 acres opened up for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development under the Plan Amendment is designated on the FLUM as Agriculture. Policy 1.1.1 specifically defines the Agriculture category for those areas of the County “which will continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Policy clearly characterizes the Agriculture designations on the FLUM as “rural areas of Hendry County,” and, while it recognizes that “some of these lands may be converted to urban uses” within the planning horizon, “the majority of the lands classified Agriculture will remain in a rural, agricultural land use through the year 2040.” Policy 2.1.2 specifically allows a public or private provider to “extend and/or expand” utilities in order to serve an EEP or large-scale commercial or industrial development. Thus, the Plan Amendment does not “limit the extension of sewer service to areas designated for urban development on the Future Land Use Map” as required by Objective 7.A.3. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not “allow the greatest density and the most flexibility for development in the areas near the Cities where sewer facilities are available, or are more feasible for sewer extensions than the more remote areas.” Indeed, Ms. Catala testified consistently that one of the main objectives of the Plan Amendment was to provide more flexibility for development than allowed under the existing plan. Next, Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Traffic Circulation Element Policy 8.5.3, which reads as follows: Revisions of the roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map shall be coordinated with and connect or directly serve existing development areas or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. The Plan Amendment does not revise any roads on the Future Traffic Circulation Map. No evidence was presented that the said revisions would not be coordinated with existing or projected growth areas shown on the Future Land Use Map. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 8.5.3. Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Concurrency Management Element Policy 9.2.1, which reads, as follows: The Future Land Use Map is developed to coincide with the availability of public facilities and/or natural resources such that new facilities are not necessarily required for new development. The Plan Amendment allows both EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development to occur without regard to availability of public facilities. Although Policy 2.1.2 recognizes the importance of serving these new projects by adequate utilities of all types, it specifically allows public providers to build new, or extend existing, infrastructure to serve those developments. Further, the Plan Amendment anticipates the construction of new facilities to serve these developments, even requiring the County to accelerate projects in its Capital Improvements Program. The Plan Amendment conflicts with Policy 9.2.1 by authorizing development in areas on the FLUM for which public facilities are neither available nor planned. Future Land Use Map Series Finally, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the maps adopted in the current plan, specifically the FLUM and Conservation Map series. Because the Plan Amendment allows large-scale commercial and industrial developments in land use categories with which those uses are inconsistent, the location and distribution of uses shown on the FLUM are no longer accurate. The Conservation Map series indicates the generalized location in the County of eight different environmental categories, including soils, panther habitat, and historical resources. Very little evidence was adduced relative to whether the Plan Amendment directly conflicted with any one of the maps in the series. The evidence presented related more to the issue of whether the Plan Amendment was supported by data and analysis. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment directly conflicts with the Conservation Map series. Urban Sprawl Petitioner’s final challenge to the Plan Amendment is that it does not discourage urban sprawl as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)9. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b. provides as follows: The future land use element or plan amendment shall be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following: Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems. Promotes the efficient and cost- effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available. Promotes conservation of water and energy. Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including siliviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils. Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs. Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area. Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes urban sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented development or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164. Petitioner maintains the Plan Amendment does not meet any of the listed criterion, thus the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County maintains the Plan Amendment meets at least four of the foregoing indicators, and, thus, must be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County’s expert witness testified that, in his opinion, the Plan Amendment meets indicators I, II, IV, V, VII, and perhaps VI. In making the following findings, the undersigned considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses and found Petitioner’s expert opinions to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets indicator I if it directs or locates EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment contains no locational criteria for EEPs and large-scale commercial and industrial developments within the 580,000 acres of land opened up for these uses under the Plan Amendment. County staff had data, in the form of the existing conservation land use map series and the soils map, to draw from in determining areas inappropriate for these types of development. Ms. Catala did not rely upon that data, however, explaining instead that her knowledge of the location of wetlands, floodplains, and other natural resources within the subject area was derived from her day-to-day work. Ms. Catala performed no analysis of the impact of potential large-scale commercial or industrial uses on the natural resources and ecosystems which are present in the affected area. The County argues that the Plan Amendment meets criterion I because it does not allow the subject developments in the Agriculture Conservation Land Use Category, thus the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources located in that category. Policy 1.1.1(b). states the purpose of the Agriculture Conservation category is to define those areas within the County which are predominantly jurisdictional wetlands or contain a large portion of wetlands. Land in this category also includes state projects designed to meet the water quality and quantity goals related to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The policy strictly limits both the type and intensity of development which may be located within this category. For example, non-agricultural development is limited to large-lot single-family homes, clustered developments, and rural PUDs, at an intensity no greater than 0.10. The County’s argument misses the mark. The issue is not whether the uses allowed under the Plan Amendment are excluded from land in protected categories, but whether the Plan Amendment directs development away from natural resources present in the 580,000 acres affected by the Plan Amendment. The Conservation Element Map Series documents the location of wetland, floodplains, primary and secondary panther habitat, and hydric soils within the County, including the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Because the Plan Amendment allows the subject development to occur anywhere within the 580,000 acres without regard to location of natural resources, it cannot be found to direct or locate development “in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.” The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion I. Criterion II applies if the Plan Amendment promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. The Plan Amendment allows the subject development to locate without regard to the availability of public infrastructure or services. The Plan Amendment acknowledges that the development must be served, but anticipates that a public or private provider may have to extend services to the property, and does not discourage location of said projects in remote areas where said services are neither available nor planned. Further, the Plan Amendment acknowledges that the County may have to “expend funds not already provided for in the County Capital Improvement Program” to serve the development. Extending services to remote areas of the County is neither efficient nor cost-effective, especially in light of the fact that development could occur in multiple far-flung areas under the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion II. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet sprawl criterion IV because it does nothing to promote conservation of water and energy. The Amendment allows on-site utilities, including wells, to service new development. By allowing development in remote areas of the County, the Plan Amendment does not promote energy conservation. Likewise, the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion V, “[p]reserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique and prime farmland and soils.” The Plan Amendment does not relate to the soils map and direct development away from prime farmland and soils. Further, the Plan Amendment allows conversion of some 580,000 acres of land designated “Agriculture” to non-agricultural uses. Lands in the Agriculture land use category have been designated by the County to “continue in a rural and/or agricultural state through the planning horizon of 2040.” The Plan Amendment meets criterion VI if it “preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs.” The County’s expert testified that the Plan Amendment will increase the County’s tax base so that more public open space and recreation can be provided. Petitioner’s expert testified that the subject developments will intrude into rural open spaces and natural lands and “could change the scenic landscape” of the County. The Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VI. Criterion VII applies if the Plan Amendment creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the non-residential needs of the area. Neither party introduced any evidence regarding the amount of commercial or industrial development needed to serve the residential population of the County. Certainly the unemployment statistics indicate a need for employment opportunities. Petitioner did not prove that the Plan Amendment does not meet criterion VII. Criterion III and VIII do not apply to the Plan Amendment. Having determined that the Plan Amendment does not meet four or more of the criterion to be determined not to promote the proliferation of urban sprawl, the analysis then turns to the primary indicators of urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a. lays out 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Again, the evidence conflicted as to whether the Plan Amendment meets any of the indicators. In making the following findings, the undersigned has considered the testimony of both Petitioner’s and Respondent’s expert witnesses, and found the testimony of Petitioner’s expert to be the more credible and persuasive. The Plan Amendment meets several of the primary indicators of the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Plan Amendment allows loosely-identified EEPs and large-scale commercial development to occur in roughly 580,000 largely rural acres currently designated for Agriculture. The Plan Amendment does not limit location of these developments within the Agriculture designation. Thus, the Plan Amendment “[p]romotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development” which is indicator II. Promoting these areas for development is, in fact, the main purpose of the Plan Amendment. Indicator IV is triggered if the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to adequately protect and conserve” a litany of natural resources and natural systems. The Plan Amendment meets this indicator because it does not direct development away from natural resources which may be located within the 580,000 acres in which it promotes development. Under the Plan Amendment, vast areas currently in, or designated for, agricultural uses, are allowed to convert to urban uses without a plan amendment. The Plan Amendment does not direct development away from existing agricultural uses. Thus, the Plan Amendment meets indicator V: “Fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, active agricultural and silvicultural activities, passive agricultural activities, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.” Similarly, the Plan Amendment “[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses[,]” thus triggering indicator IX. On the issue of public facilities, the Plan Amendment meets both criterion VI and VII. The Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of existing public facilities because it does not direct development to areas where public facilities, including roads, sewer, and water, are available. Likewise, the Plan Amendment fails to maximize the use of future public facilities, because it allows development to occur in areas where public facilities are not planned. In addition, the Plan Amendment anticipates the extension of facilities to serve potentially far-flung development, but would not require subsequent future development to locate where the new service was available (i.e., infill development). For this same reason, the Plan Amendment discourages infill development, triggering indicator X. Similary, because it allows scattered large-scale development, the Plan Amendment triggers indicator VIII: “Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining” a litany of public facilities and services. Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment triggers indicators I, III, XI, XII, and XIII. Petitioner proved that the Plan Amendment meets indicators II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X. On balance, the Plan Amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining that the Plan Amendment is not “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Ordinance 679-L of the City of St. Petersburg ("City"), which amended the Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) of the City's Comprehensive Plan on certain property generally located at the northeast corner of 9th Avenue North and 66th Street North within the boundaries of the City (the "Subject Property") from Institutional to Residential Office Retail (R/O/R) land use on 2.98 acres, Residential Office General (R/OG) on 2.98 acres, and Residential Urban (RU) on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”), is "in compliance" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,i notwithstanding Petitioners' contentions that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent and not based on data and analysis.
Findings Of Fact Parties Each Petitioner submitted oral and/or written comments, recommendations and/or objections to the City regarding the disputed land use amendments that are the subject of this case between the day of the transmittal hearing (July 18, 2006) and the day of the adoption hearing (February 15, 2007). Each individual Petitioner owns and/or resides on property within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., f/k/a Eagle Crest Neighborhood Association, Inc., is a Florida not-for- profit corporation conducting business within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., collects dues from membership, conducts monthly business and informational meetings at the St. Petersburg College Gibbs Campus Library in the City, and advocates interests on behalf of its membership before the St. Petersburg Council of Neighborhood Associations and various City and County governmental boards, commissions and councils. The Department is the state land planning agency that is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The City is a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Sembler is a Florida corporation headquartered and conducting business in the City; by virtue of a contract for the purchase of the property that is the subject of this dispute, Sembler is an equitable owner of the property that is affected by the challenged FLUM Amendment in this case. Background The Subject Property has been owned by the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg since 1952. Notre Dame High School, a Catholic girls-only high school, was constructed on the Subject Property in the early 1960’s. In 1977, Notre Dame High School merged with Bishop Barry High School (a Catholic boys-only high school to the east of the Subject Property) and the improvements on the Subject Property were used for various Catholic diocesan offices and other administrative purposes. Notre Dame High School was eventually demolished, and the only improvements remaining on the Subject Property are a former field house used for storage purposes and a former convent used for a multi-purpose building. The Subject Property is otherwise currently completely vacant. Since 1977 the Subject Property has had a FLUM designation of Institutional. In January of 2006, Sembler applied to the City for a change in the FLUM designation on the Subject Property from Institutional to Commercial General for an approximately 13.25 acre portion of the Subject Property fronting predominately along the west side 66th Street North between 9th Avenue North and 13th Avenue North. On March 7, 2006, Sembler requested a deferral of its pending application to consider a modification of the development plan to less intensive commercial uses. The deferral was granted by the City Planning Commission. On March 29, 2006, Sembler submitted a new application, abandoning the prior request to change the FLUM designation for the approximately 13.25-acre portion from Institutional to Commercial General. The new application (March 29, 2006) by Sembler requested a change to the Future Land Use designation for an approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property from its existing Institutional designation to Residential Office Retail ("R/O/R"). This new application was assigned City File Number PC-700 (“PC-700”). The intention of the PC-700 application was to develop multifamily residential units on approximately 11.8 acres of the Subject Property and to develop neighborhood commercial uses on the approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property. The PC-700 application included a Development Agreement proposed by Sembler which, among other things, limited the actual commercial development of the 6.19 acre portion to 26,000 square feet of space, and required that a quarter, or 25 percent, of that space be developed under the zoning regulations for Residential Office General ("R/OG"), instead of R/O/R. On May 2, 2006, the City’s Planning Commission (the “LPA”) conducted a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Application, and voted 6-2 to recommend approval of the PC-700 application to the St. Petersburg City Council (the “City Council”). On July 18, 2006, the City Council conducted a public hearing for the First Reading of the PC-700 application, and unanimously adopted a resolution approving the transmittal of a proposed ordinance adopting PC-700 to the Department, among others, for review and comment pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On September 29, 2006, the Department published its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (“ORC”) Report on the Plan Amendment contained in PC-700. The Department raised no objections to the proposed Plan Amendment. Sometime between September 29, 2006, and December 14, 2006, Sembler modified its application PC-700. The modified application was intended to address some of the concerns raised by neighborhood associations representing citizens who owned property and resided in areas adjacent to the Subject Property. The modified PC-700 application requested a FLUM amendment for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/O/R, for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/OG, and for 12.02 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to RU (“PC-700 Modified”). The PC- 700 Modified application also included a proposed Development Agreement which, among other things, limited the actual development of the R/O/R acreage to a maximum of 13,000 square feet, and limited the total combined development of the R/O/R and ROG acreage to 26,000 square feet. On December 14, 2006, the City Council conducted its First Reading of the PC-700 Modified application, approving the application and setting the Second Hearing for the application for February 15, 2006. On February 6, 2006, the Pinellas County Commission, meeting as the County Planning Authority (the “CPA”), held a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Modified application. The CPA approved the PC-700 Modified application. On February 15, 2007, the City Council conducted its Second Reading public hearing of the PC-700 Modified application and voted to adopt Ordinance 679-L, amending the FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Institutional to R/O/R on 2.98 acres, R/OG on 2.98 acres, and RU on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”). Petitioners do not challenge the FLUM amendment for the RU portion of the Subject Property. On February 23, 2007, the City transmitted the adopted Ordinance 679-L, together with staff reports from the December 14, 2006, and February 15, 2007, public hearings and certain other pertinent information, to the Department for its review pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On April 16, 2007, the Department published in the St. Petersburg Times newspaper its NOI to find the City’s Plan Amendment “in compliance.” Petitioners' Challenge The Petitioners assert that the FLUM amendment adopted by the City in Ordinance 679-L is not “in compliance” pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, because: (1) the FLUM amendment is not based on adequate data and analysis as required by Section 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) iii; and (2) the FLUM amendment is not internally consistent with specific objectives and policies of the City’s Plan as required by Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). The Petitioners’ challenge is centered on three specific objectives and policies contained in the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") of the City’s Plan: Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4(2), and Objective LU18.iv The Petitioners assert that the challenged Plan Amendment is inconsistent with those objectives and policies and is not based on data and analysis. The Department and the Intervenors assert that those objectives and policies are not applicable, that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with those objectives and policies, and that the Plan Amendment is based on data and analysis. The Intervenors also assert that, even if the Plan Amendment were inconsistent with those objectives and policies, consistency with other goals, objectives, and policies in the plan should be "balanced" against the inconsistency and that the consistencies outweigh the inconsistencies, so that the Plan Amendment still would be "in compliance." The Petitioners and the Department do not subscribe to such a balancing of consistencies and inconsistencies, citing Dept. of Community Affairs v. Lee County and Leeward Yacht Club, LLC, AC-06-006, DOAH Case No. 06-0049GM, 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 158 (Admin. Comm'n Nov. 15, 2006). Pertinent City Comprehensive Plan Provisions The City's FLUE Policy LU3.17 states: The City has an adequate supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs. Future expansion of commercial uses shall be restricted to infilling into existing commercial areas and activity centers, except where a need can be clearly identified. The City's FLUE Objective LU4 states in pertinent part: The Future Land Use Plan and Map shall provide for the future land use needs identified in this Element: * * * Commercial – additional commercial acreage is not required to serve the future needs of St. Petersburg. An oversupply exists based upon the standard of 1 acre of commercial land for every 150 persons in the community. * * * 4. Mixed Use – developments are encouraged in appropriate locations to foster a land use pattern that results in fewer and shorter automobile trips and vibrant walkable communities. The City's FLUE Objective LU18 states: Commercial development along the City’s major corridors shall be limited to infilling and redevelopment of existing commercially designated frontages. Section 1.2.2 of the General Introduction to the City’s Plan describes the format of the elements of the Plan and includes the following pertinent sub-headings and language: 1.2.2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Policies The Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been developed in response to and in accordance with the needs and directions of growth and determined levels of service requirements as identified within the Inventory and Analysis which can be found in the accompanying 1989 Technical Support Documents [TSDs] and the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR]. All objectives are designed to identify the measurable achievements necessary to support the related goal. In those cases, where the Objective is not specific and/or measurable, but rather, the actual specificity and measurability is found in the supporting policy(ies), the policy(ies) shall be used for the purposes of monitoring and evaluation. The policies are intended to act as implementation mechanisms identifying programs and procedures to be used to accomplish the related objective. This Comprehensive Plan is intended to be utilized as a document in its entirety. It shall hereby be established that no single goal, objective or policy or minor group of goals, objectives or policies, be interpreted in isolation of the entire plan. 1.2.2.5 Status and Use of the TSD and the EAR . . . . The 1989 TSD and the 1996 EAR are hereby referenced and established as the supporting data and analysis for this Comprehensive Plan. The TSD and the EAR may be used to assist in the interpretation of this comprehensive plan and to aid in the review of proposed changes to this plan. It should be updated as necessary to maintain the usability of the data and analysis as an interpretive and advisory aid. * * * 1.3.1.2 Competing Policies Where two or more policies are competing when applied to a particular set of factual circumstances, such conflict shall be resolved first by administrative interpretation of the Comprehensive plan policies. The objective of any such interpretation shall be to obtain a result which maximizes the degree of consistency between the proposed development or public sector activity and this Comprehensive Plan considered as a whole. The City’s Plan also includes the following pertinent definitions in Section 1.7: Commercial Uses - Activities within land areas which are predominately connected with the sale, rental, and distribution of products, or performance of services. * * * Mixed Use - A site that has a combination of different land uses, such as residential, office and retail. In addition, Policy LU3.1(B) of the City’s FLUE defines "Commercial and Mixed Use Categories" to include: Residential/Office General (R/OG) - allowing mixed use office, office park and medium density residential up to a floor area ratio of 0.5 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Commercial General (CG) - allowing the full range of commercial uses including retail, office, and service uses up to a floor area ratio of 0.55. . . . Retail/Office/Residential (R/O/R) - allowing mixed use retail, office, service, and medium density residential uses generally up to a floor are ratio of 0.4 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Finally, FLUE Policy LU3.1(D) defines "Public/Semi- Public Categories" to include: 2. Institutional (I) - Limited to designation of federal, state and local public buildings and grounds, cemeteries, hospitals, churches, and religious institutions and educational uses. Residential uses having a density not to exceed 12.5 dwelling units per acre, are also allowed. Residential equivalency uses are not to exceed 3 beds per dwelling unit. Non-residential uses permitted in the land development regulations are not to exceed a floor area ratio of 0.55. Consistency with Commercial Use Restrictions The Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment at issue increases "the supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs." FLUE Policy LU3.17. This is clear not only from the potential for commercial use in the mixed use R/O/R and R/OG future land use categories, but also from the City's inclusion of nine-tenths of the former's and one-tenth of the latter's acreage in the inventory of commercial land use for purposes of determining the "supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs" in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and the ratio described in FLUE Objective LU4.2. The question is whether the restrictions on commercial future land uses reflected in those Plan provisions apply to the mixed use categories of R/O/R and R/OG. Prior to adoption, the City's staff reports stated that the commercial restrictions do apply, and that the Plan Amendment at issue was inconsistent with those restrictions, but that the Plan Amendment was consistent with several other Plan provisions and "on balance, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." However, in this de novo proceeding, the staff reports are not controlling on the applicability of the commercial restrictions and the consistency of the FLUM amendments at issue with those restrictions. In the first place, in light of the contrary testimony of staff during the final hearing, the intent of staff in using the language in the reports is fairly debatable. Second, after the staff reports were prepared, significant testimony on need and demand for commercial land use at the particular location of the FLUM amendments at issue was presented during the final public hearing on the PC-700 Modified application on February 15, 2007, which could have changed staff's mind on at least some of the issues. Finally, the extent to which the City Council may have relied on the staff reports in determining that the Plan Amendment was "in compliance" is not clear from the evidence and is fairly debatable. The City now takes the position, along with the Department, that the restrictions on commercial future land use in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and Objective LU4.2 do not apply to R/O/R and R/OG because they are mixed use future land use categories, not commercial future land use categories. In support of this position, they point out that Objective LU4 treats "Mixed Use" and "Commercial" "future land use needs" differently and applies the restriction only to "Commercial" "future land use needs," while encouraging mixed use developments in appropriate locations. Several of the specific Plan provisions cited in the staff reports as being consistent with the Plan Amendment addressed the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location, including: FLUE Policy LU3.18, which states that "retail and office activities shall be located, designed and regulated so as to benefit from the access afforded by major streets without impairing the efficiency of operation of these streets or lowering the LOS [level of service] below adopted standards, and with proper facilities for pedestrian convenience and safety"; FLUE Policy LU3.4, which states that "[t]he Land Use Plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement, proper buffering, and the use of physical and natural separators"; FLUE Policy LU3.6, which states that "[l]and use planning decisions shall weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas where changes of use or intensity of development are contemplated"; FLUE Policy LU3.8, which seeks to "protect existing and future residential uses from incompatible uses, noise, traffic and other intrusions that detract from the long term desirability of an area through appropriate land development regulations"; and FLUE Policy LU3.5, which states that "[t]he tax base will be maintained and improved by encouraging the appropriate use of properties based on their locational characteristics and the goals, objectives and policies within this Comprehensive Plan." There also was considerable testimony at the hearing concerning the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location.v Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objective LU18 concerning commercial development along major corridors. In favor of Petitioners' position, 66th Street North, where the Subject Property is located, is a major north-south corridor in the City. However, the Department and the Intervenors argue that the objective does not apply because the policies under it only specify 4th Street and Central Avenue and do not mention 66th Street. Taking all of the evidence and the City's Plan into consideration, including Sections 1.2.2.3, 1.2.2.5, and 1.3.1.2 of the General Introduction, it is found that Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that FLUE Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4.2, or Objective LU18 apply to the FLUM amendments at issue; even if those Plan provisions applied, Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM amendments at issue do not constitute "infilling into existing commercial areas" or "infilling . . . of existing commercially designated frontages," or that "a need can[not] be clearly identified."vi All but one witness testified that, if those Plan provisions applied, the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill under the pertinent Plan provisions; the lone dissenter was using what he called a "narrow definition" of infill and agreed that the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill using the broader definition held by the majority view. There also was ample evidence that there was a clearly identified need for the FLUM amendments at issue, especially when considered along with the unchallenged RU FLUM amendment. Based on the foregoing findings on internal consistency, which is the context of Petitioners' data and analysis argument, Petitioners also did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment was not based on data and analysis.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the City's Ordinance 679- L is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Town of Jupiter and Its Neighbors The Town of Jupiter (Town, Jupiter) is an incorporated municipality located in northeastern Palm Beach County between Interstate 95 (I-95) and the Atlantic Ocean. The Village of Tequesta, the Town of Juno Beach and Jupiter Inlet Colony are adjoining municipalities. Jupiter is also bordered by unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County. The focal point of urban activity in Palm Beach County (County) is the City of West Palm Beach. The dominant community in the County north of West Palm Beach is the City of Palm Beach Gardens, which is south of Jupiter. There is a regional mall, as well as a satellite County Courthouse, in Palm Beach Gardens, both of which are situated on PGA Boulevard. Jupiter is the major center of urban activity north of Palm Beach Gardens. Its market area is sub-regional in scope. Growth in Jupiter: A Brief History The Jupiter of today is much different than the Jupiter of only a few decades ago. In 1960, the Town's population was just 1,058. By 1970, it had increased to 3,136. During the 1970's, the Town more than tripled its population to slightly less than 10,000, but it still was a bedroom community without any significant employment opportunities. This began to change during the next decade. Small businesses, in increasing numbers, started to locate in the Town. They were followed by larger employers. The 1980's saw not only a substantial increase in employment opportunities, but a substantial increase in population as well. The Town now has a population of approximately 28,000 and is becoming a fairly self- sufficient community offering a wide variety services to its residents. There is one existing new car dealership (Dodge) in Jupiter. Two additional new car dealerships (Ford and Cadillac) have been approved and permitted. 2/ Additionally, there are a number of new car dealerships clustered together on Northlake Boulevard in the City of Palm Beach Gardens 3/ less than ten miles from Jupiter to which the Town's residents have access. 4/ There remain only a few tracts of vacant, uncommitted land within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Town. The unincorporated areas surrounding the Town, however, are largely undeveloped. A considerable amount of the growth in Jupiter since the late 1980's can be attributed to the completion of the "missing link" of I-95, a north-south roadway that is the main intra-urban route in South Florida. Until late 1987, I-95 went as far north in Palm Beach County as PGA Boulevard. In late 1987, a new stretch of I-95, from PGA Boulevard to Fort Pierce, including an interchange at Indiantown Road in Jupiter, was opened to the travelling public. The opening of the I-95 interchange at Indiantown Road has enhanced the Town's market potential and contributed significantly to the Town's integration into the broader metropolitan area of greater Palm Beach County. Jupiter does not have a traditional downtown area. Growth has generally occurred along the Town's major roadways, including Indiantown Road, a state roadway which offers the only direct access from I-95 to the Town and therefore serves as the primary gateway to the Town. In recent years, nearly 60 percent of office and other commercial projects in the Town have been located on that segment of Indiantown Road from I-95 to the roadway's eastern terminus at A1A near the coast, a distance of approximately five and a half miles. The initial impact of the fast-paced development on Indiantown Road was to increase traffic congestion and generate complaints that the roadway was becoming a visual eyesore with its "strip commercial" development. At the time, although it was the Town's primary commercial corridor, Indiantown Road had only two lanes, one going east and the other going west. It is now in the process of being widened and transformed into a six-lane, median divided, controlled access roadway. The Planning Process and the Indiantown Road Corridor Study In the fall of 1986, the Town began the laborious process that culminated in the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan more than three years later. During the planning process, the members of the Town Council, Jupiter's governing body, having heard the complaints of residents regarding the negative impact of development on Indiantown Road and the inadequacy of the Town's existing land development regulations to deal with the situation, determined that a study should be undertaken to develop a comprehensive strategy to address these problems. Of particular concern to the Council members were issues relating to traffic and aesthetics. In November, 1988, the Council retained Henry Skokowski, a planning consultant, to conduct such a study. Skokowski was specifically directed by the Council to, among other things, examine the various types of commercial land uses and determine those that should be permitted and those that should be prohibited in the Indiantown Road corridor. Skokowski's initial draft of the results of his study was submitted to the Council in February, 1989. The Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for its review and comments in April, 1989. The Council accepted Skokowski's final draft of the results of his study in the latter part of 1989. The final draft was virtually identical in substance to Skokowski's initial offering. In both, he recommended, among other things, that certain commercial land uses, including "auto . . . sales," that he reasonably felt did not mesh with the desired overall character of the corridor, be absolutely prohibited, without exception, throughout the length of the corridor. 5/ This recommendation, from the outset, was the subject of considerable public debate and discussion before the Town Council. Skokowski endorsed a nodular pattern of development for the corridor. Under his plan, the corridor would contain six urban subdistricts, each having as their focal point a major intersection, with the remaining portions of the corridor consisting of parkway subdistricts with suburban characteristics reflecting a less intensive commercial development pattern than found in the urban subdistricts. From west to east, the six urban subdistricts, which constituted nodes of development, were the Central Boulevard District, the Center Street Landmark District, the Maplewood Drive District, the Civic District, 6/ the Alternate A1A District and the US 1 District. Through the creation of a special overlay zone for the corridor and the adoption of regulations restricting the permitted uses of land 7/ and establishing design, landscaping, and signage requirements on a subdistrict by subdistrict basis, Skokowski envisioned that each subdistrict would develop an identity that was not only distinctive and unique, but compatible with, and reflective of, community values unlike the strip commercial development that then existed in the corridor. Throughout the course of his study, Skokowski met regularly with those who were responsible for drafting the Town's Comprehensive Plan. He also met with the Executive Director of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning in an effort to obtain input from the County regarding anticipated development on or around Indiantown Road. In response to Skokowski's request, the Department's Executive Director promised to provide the Town with notification of any proposed zoning actions in the unincorporated areas of the County. Skokowski did not meet with any representative of either the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization or the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council prior to the completion of his study. On January 16, 1990, the Town Council adopted the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Community Affairs has determined that the Plan is "in compliance." Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: A General Overview The Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan contains nine different elements: future land use; traffic circulation; housing; infrastructure; conservation; coastal management; recreation; intergovernmental coordination; and capital improvements. Each element has at least one goal 8/ and objective 9/ and has policies as well. 10/ Some elements also contain maps. One such element is the future land use element, which contains a future land use map. The map employs six land use classifications: residential; commercial; industrial; recreation; conservation; and public/institutional. Most of the land area in the Indiantown Road corridor is designated for commercial use on the future land use map. Approximately two-thirds of the total land area in the Town that is designated for commercial use on the future land use map is located in the Indiantown Road corridor. Each of the elements of the Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan was based upon "data inventory and analysis." The Town Council adopted this "data inventory and analysis" as part of the Plan. Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: Goals, Objectives and Policies The following is the lone goal set forth in the Plan's future land use element: Ensure that the future land use pattern maintains the existing low intensity, residential character, recognizes and protects the environmental quality of the Town, and allows the Town to become a full- service community 11/ serving Northern Palm Beach County. Objective 1.1 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "managed growth." It provides as follows: Direct future growth into areas served by urban services that have adequate capacity, as defined by the adopted level of service standards, which shall be incorporated into the Town's development regulations by May 1990. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "managed growth:" Policy 1.1.1- All development shall be approved only if the level of service standards as set forth in Policy 1.2.1 of the Capital Improvement Element are met concurrent with the impact of the proposed development. These standards shall be integrated into the land development regulations. Policy 1.1.4- Commercial shopping centers in excess of 80,000 square feet should be located only at intersections of major arterials. Policy 1.1.5- Strip or highway commercial development shall be discouraged. Policy 1.1.6- A commercial corridor study of Indiantown Road is to be undertake[n] in 1989. This will result in a coherent, comprehensive strategy for this major roadway 12/ containing streetscape guidelines and site development standards 13/ that will be integrated into the Town's land development regulations. 14/ Policy 1.1.7- Concentrations of commercial offices, and tourist related activities shall be near locations having high accessibility. Policy 1.1.8- Non-residential outdoor storage areas shall be screened and buffered from adjacent residential uses. Policy 1.1.13- The town through its Coastal Construction Code and its future land use map shall minimize the intensity and density of future development within coastal areas vulnerable to hurricane damage. Policy 1.1.14- The impact of land use on water quality and quantity shall be considered in land use planning and regulation. This shall be assured by inclusion of provisions in the Land [D]evelopment Regulations for consideration of the impacts of proposed development on water quality and quantity. These considerations shall include the provisions of Conservation Element Policies 1.4.1-13 for surface water quality, 1.3.1-13 for groundwater quality, Infrastructure Element Policies 1.1.2 for wellfield protection, 1.5.1 for protection of potable water supply and 1.6.1-5 for protection of groundwater quality and quantity. Objective 1.2 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "land use compatibility." It provides as follows: By May 1990 the land development regulations shall contain provisions and standards which ensure that future growth patterns take into consideration topography, soil and other natural and historic resources, the intensities, densities and type of land use activities and relationship to surrounding properties, as well as providing for streetscaping, proper transition of land uses, buffering, and coordination of coastal population densities with the Palm Beach County Hurricane Evacuation Plan. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "land use compatibility:" Policy 1.2.1- Where there are differences between residential uses in terms of intensity and type of units, adequate transitioning shall be accomplished through provisions such as setbacks, buffers and height limitations. The land development regulations adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan shall contain such provisions to assure adequate transitioning. Policy 1.2.3- Where existing land use conflicts exist, the Town shall incorporate into its land development regulations provisions that address noise, dust, lighting and aesthetics. The Town shall support increasing the depth of property(s) in areas where existing lots are shallow (less than 150 feet in depth), are situated adjacent to an arterial roadway, have a commercial or industrial land use designation, and abut residentially designated land; however, the land development regulations shall contain adequate buffering and performance criteria for concerns noted above. Policy 1.2.4- Existing land uses which are not compatible with adjacent land uses, the character, natural resources or the future land use plan shall be eliminated upon redevelopment, and until that time may not be expanded. This requirement shall be included in the revision to the local development regulations to be adopted by May 1990. Objective 1.3 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "land development regulations." It provides as follows: The Town shall prepare land development regulations that effectively implement all provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, contain innovative techniques for the production of affordable housing, provide a means to protect environmentally sensitive areas and maintain flexibility in site design. In addition the Town shall encourage the use of innovating land development regulations such as the Town's existing provisions for PUD and other land development techniques. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "land development regulations:" Policy 1.3.3- Adopt land development regulations that shall contain specific and detailed provisions required to implement the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and which at a minimum address: subdivision of land signage wellfield and aquifer protection drainage and stormwater management periodic flooding open space needs off-street parking environmentally sensitive areas/habitats In addition, these regulations shall ensure that development orders and permits not be issued which result in a reduction of the levels of service for the affected public facility below the adopted level of service of standards as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.3.4- The concept of an environmental[ly] sensitive area overlay zone will be incorporated into the current Zoning Ordinance. This concept will be folded into the new development code at the time the current Zoning Ordinance and other local development regulations are consolidated into one regulatory document. Policy 1.3.5- The [L]and [D]evelopment Regulation shall include the following non- residential land use categories, and shall incorporate the following location and intensity criteria: Commercial Neighborhood Commercial- Stores offering frequently needed goods and services to nearby residential areas. Typical activities include pharmacy, dry-cleaning, florist, hardware and garden supplies, professional offices, and personal services. Location Criteria: In areas accessible to immediate surrounding neighborhoods; Can be located in conjunction with groups of retail or highway commercial uses to achieve greater consumer volume and multi- purpose trips; When a part of a planned unit development must be situated in the interior of the project and not along an external roadway; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity measures: Site area- minimum 20,000 sq. ft. maximum 2 acres Site coverage maximum- 35% Height limitation- 35 feet/2 stories General Commercial- Consists of a wide range of commercial goods and services serving a community-wide market. A representative sample of activities includes personal services, banking and finance offices, retail stores, nurseries, printing and publishing, auto repair, marine facilities, and medical and dental clinics. Location Criteria: At major intersections, or existing commercial core areas; Central to and/or readily accessible from all residential areas of the community; Preferably grouped with other stores in this category to achieve a combined market draw on multi-purpose trips; Not adjacent to low density, single family neighborhoods; Adjacent to Medium Density Residential areas when proper buffering is provided; Situated preferably on an arterial roadway, but never on a local street; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Lot coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 50 feet unless parking provided under building then 60 feet. Office Commercial- Activities that generally do not entail sale or display of goods and do not require high visibility from major roadways. Typical uses include legal, financial, realty, technical and some medical service establishments. May also contain retail uses that directly serve the needs of the office businesses. Location Criteria: Location needs are often determined by type of service (attorney near courthouse, physician near hospital, etc.); Attractive or prestigious setting often desired; suitable for location near multi- family housing to serve as a transitional use between more intensive commercial and industrial uses; In some instances may locate adjacent to low density residential neighborhood only when height is limited to one story, less than 35% of project site utilized for structure(s) and adequate buffering provided; May locate in industrial park however should be located in designated tract of land in park; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Lot coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 50 feet unless parking provided under building then 60 feet. Heavy Products Commercial- Activities that sell large or bulk products or maintains large inventories of products. These usually serve a sizeable market area and are often similar to or part of industrial activities. Building materials, heavy machinery and wholesale establishments are typical heavy commercial uses. Location Criteria: Parcels should be accessible from outlying service areas and near primary routes for shipping and receiving goods (highways, rail); Should be spatially separated from residential areas; Should not be located in proximity to other commercial activities, e.g., retail stores, offices; Suitable siting is near or in industrial areas due to similar location and transportation needs; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Site coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 35 feet Industrial * * * Conservation * * * Public/Institutional * * * Objective 1.4 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "economic development." It provides as follows: To expand and diversify the economic base through the provision of adequate sites and timely provision of public utilities and services to stimulate such growth. Policy 1.4.1 is among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "economic development." It provides as follows: Higher densities and intensities of development shall be located in areas having high accessibility and a full complement of public facilities (e.g., water, sewer), that have adequate capacity to maintain the adopted levels of service. Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 of the Plan's intergovernmental coordination element each reference the Indiantown Road corridor study. They provide as follows: Policy 1.1.7- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in this study to provide input about the State's plans for the roadway, and FDOT shall formally review the resulting development strategy for compatibility with FDOT plans. Policy 1.1.8- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the study to provide input about anticipated development along and around the roadway and its impact on traffic circulation and development within Jupiter. The County and MPO shall have formal review of the resulting development strategy to ensure compatibility with County and MPO plans. Policy 1.1.9- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement of the Treasure Coast regional Planning Council in the study to provide technical assistance and informal mediation among the Town, County, MPO and FDOT, if necessary. Immediately preceding these three policies is the statement that "[a] commercial corridor study of Indiantown Road is to be undertaken by 1989 that will result in a coherent, comprehensive development strategy for this major roadway." 15/ Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: Data Inventory and Analysis The goals, objectives and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan can be better understood if they are read in conjunction with the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan. For instance, an examination of the following excerpts from the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan provides considerable assistance in understanding what the Town Council meant when it announced in the goal of the future land use element that it desired that the Town "become a full-service community serving Northern Palm Beach County:" Growth Management Philosophy Until the advent of the '80s, Jupiter was one those hidden treasures [i]n the Treasure Coast region. . . . In 1980, Jupiter was basically a "bedroom" community; however, with recent annexations, the Town now contains over 400 acres planned for industrial park usage. Therefore, Jupiter is now evolving into a "total service" community. To maintain a community that maximizes quality of life, the following growth principles and strategies will be the basis for future growth decisions: Land use decisions . . . will be made within the context of the Greater Jupiter Area 16/ since certain uses within the existing Town limits serve a "market area" that extends considerably beyond the present jurisdictional limits. It is anticipated that the Town's employment base will expand significantly in the coming years as the planned industrial parks, and office/ business centers come on line. The residential character of the Town will remain one of low intensity, a more human scale of residential living. Future residential areas will be developed only in areas with adequate human service. 17/ * * * Being the major urban hub of north county, retail and office businesses located in Jupiter depend on a population base that is considerabl[y] larger than just the existing population residing within the present Town limits. Residential areas to the north, especially along Loxahatchee River Road and to the west, primarily from the Jupiter Farms area shop and do business in Jupiter. 18/ * * * Community shopping centers require a wider market area [than neighborhood shopping centers]. 19/ The Jupiter Mall would be an example of such a retail center. Based on the Town's projected 1995 population (46,900), only one such shopping center is justified. However, because Jupiter is a commercial hub serving much of the County, north of Donald Ross Road, another such center might be justified. Prior to any approval, a market study should be required in order to avoid the problem of overcommercialization. The analysis should include all commercial development in north county, not just limited to Jupiter's corporate Town limits. Leading tenants include variety store and small department store. 20/ * * * Historically the Town has had only a minor amount of land utilized for industrial purposes. Until recent years, it has considered itself a residential, bedroom community; however, that philosophy has changed. It now sees itself as a "total" community. This means the creation of a major employment base. 21/ * * * IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES 1. Town image, e.g., bedroom community, full service town. 22/ The following references to the Indiantown Road corridor are made in the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan: Development in the Indiantown Road corridor can generally be described as uncontrolled strip commercial, often experiencing traffic congestion and presenting a poor visual image to visitors. As Jupiter has grown no definitive urban center has emerged. Growth has occurred generally along the Town's major roadways. Consider as a long-range strategy the creation of a traditional downtown. 23/ * * * Nearly 60% of the commercial/office projects have been located within the Indiantown Road corridor. . . . Over the past decade Indiantown Road (SR 706) has experienced increased periods of traffic congestion. This has occurred as commercial development along this main artery has mushroomed. Lack of lot depth as well as overall size have created a "hodgepodge" commercial development pattern along SR 706 which has lead to a traffic headache, as well as a visual eyesore. The problems of Indiantown Road are compounded since it will serve as Jupiter's major entryway once Interstate 95 is completed and the entrance on SR 706 is opened. 24/ Consideration should be given to a special overlay zone for Indiantown Road. In developing the overlay zone determining what constitutes the Indiantown Road corridor (depth of property along the roadway), establishing the desired character of the corridor, 25/ and preparing a special set of standards e.g., signage, off-street parking, buffering, to control development would be necessary. Although Indiantown Road is the most obvious example of strip commercial development other local roads are afflicted with the same problem, however maybe not to the same degree. Yet, there are several areas in and around Jupiter that are developing more in a node fashion than in a linear commercial strip. Not only is the Town beset by this commercial problem, but has been faced with possible intrusion of commercial into residential neighborhoods. Precautions need to be taken to make sure that neighborhood integrity remains intact. 26/ * * * [S]imilar to the Town's proposed land use designation within the Indiantown Road corridor, the County too, has proposed that commercial development be allowed along this roadway. A concern the Town has is the manner in which it is developed. This is especially important, because the Indiantown Road corridor is the gateway into Jupiter. To date, the development has reflected a rather non-descript, strip commercial pattern. The Town has been sufficiently concerned that it has contracted to have an urban design corridor study completed for this key roadway. 27/ Design recommendations will become a part of the Town's land development regulations. Coordination between the two governing bodies will be needed at the time the local development regulations are prepared. 28/ * * * The majority of land use conflicts occur in those areas where commercial and industrial uses abut residential neighborhoods. This has been a problem along Indiantown Road. The proposed siting of a cement batch plant in the Pennock Industrial Park created considerable controversy over the potential adverse impacts, e.g., noise, dust, light, visual image, and aesthetics. Similar concerns have been voiced over the potential negative impacts generated by strip shopping centers and car dealerships, as well. Much of the development in this major traffic corridor occurred at a time when Jupiter was a much smaller, rural community. Some of the development predates landscape and signage requirements. Because the land along Indiantown Road was subdivided over twenty years ago, many of the lots along the road are very shallow. This causes problems in providing for adequate transition and buffering from adjacent residential uses. The Town has been encouraging combining of lots to create additional depth that can allow for better site design and buffering. Also, the Town has adopted the Indiantown Road Urban Corridor Study, and will be integrating many of its recommendations into updated development regulation[s]. The study has recommended the creation of an "Indiantown Road Overlay Zone." 29 / This district will contain additional provisions related to design guidelines and streetscape standards so that development within the Town's major corridor achieves some logical, overall design. 30/ * * * IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES . . . 2. Gateway into Town; . . . Depth of commercial along Indiantown Road; Strip commercial development vs. a node policy; . . . 9. Maintaining areas in residential use by eliminating pressures of commercial development; * * * Besides the commercial demands of the local population, [with] the opening of Interstate 95 Exit on Indiantown Road in conjunction with the existing Florida Turnpike exit on Indiantown Road, it can be expected that there will be significant increased demands for interchange commercial uses to serve the traveling public. 31/ Already a number of inquiries have been made to staff regarding the Town's position relative to development around these interchange areas. This will become the gateway to Jupiter. The commercial development pattern that ultimately emerges within the corridor can visually replicate what already exists, or can become a "memorable["] entryway leading into Jupiter. The concept of an overlay zone for the Indiantown Road corridor should be considered. 32/ * * * Most neighborhood and community shopping centers are located on major roadways, primarily at the intersections of designated arterials such as Indiantown Road and Central Boulevard, Indiantown Road and U.S. 1 and Indiantown Road and Alternate A1A. Future siting of shopping centers, especially those with 100,000 leasable floor area and up should be situated at locations having good access and sufficient roadway capacity to maintain the Town's adopted level of service. Further, they should be located so that the only access is from one road. 33/ * * * The existing major roadways identified in the functional classification are shown on Exhibit 1 . . . and are summarized below. . . Principal local arterials 34/ . . . f. Indiantown Road from U.S. 1 to west town limit Collector streets 35/ Indiantown Road from County Road A1A to U.S. 1 36/ * * * The level of service analysis shown on Exhibit 1 indicates severe capacity deficiencies for east/west travel on Indiantown Road. From Center Street to U.S. 1 and west of the Turnpike, this facility operates at Level of Service "E" which is characterized by very long vehicle delay and long traffic queues such that forced vehicular flow conditions exist much of the day. . . . The five-year programs of the Florida Department of Transportation and Palm Beach County will provide relief for some of the congestion presently experienced in Jupiter. As shown on Exhibit 2 . . . , construction is planned to be undertaken within five years to improve Indiantown Road. Indiantown Road is scheduled to be widened to a six-lane cross section from east of Center Street to east of Alternate A-1-A in fiscal year 1989/1990. Indiantown Road from Florida's Turnpike west to Jupiter Farms Road is planned to be widened to four lanes in the fiscal year 1991/1992. . . . The only existing deficiencies not currently "planned" to be improved is the six-laning of Alternate A-1-A south of the Loxahatchee River Bridge to Center Street and Indiantown Road from Alternate A-1-A to U.S. 1 to six lanes. . . . Designing and obtaining right- of-way for the Indiantown Road Intracoastal crossing (Alternate A-1-A to U.S. 1) is also programmed for FY 89/90, 90/91, respectively. The responsibility for improvement of these facilities is primarily that of the Florida Department of Transportation. 37/ * * * Improvements to Indiantown Road will greatly improve the east/west access within the Town. 38/ * * * The future major streets are shown by functional classification on Exhibit 3 . . . and are summarized as follows. . . . Principal local arterials . . . g. Indiantown Road from Alternate A-1-A to I-95. . . Collector streets Indiantown Road from County Road A-1-A to U.S. 1 39/ * * * At buildout the proposed coastal population densities in the surge vulnerable areas in the Town of Jupiter will be 31,5000 residents. This represents a 230 percent increase. The evacuation routes to accommodate evacuation vehicles will have capacities as follows: -Indiantown Road at six lanes 40/ * * * The proper strategy to follow would be to conserve and maintain or in fact upgrade some of the older residential areas in the Indiantown Road/Center Street area. The Town has been implementing such a policy. The Town has had an ongoing series of drainage and road improvement projects. This effort is continuing with the present focus on the area immediately south of Indiantown Road bounded on the east by Old Dixie. . . . The Town has taken steps since the adoption of its present land use plan to eliminate those uses inconsistent with the community's character and proposed future land uses. Some methods that have been employed are the deepening of commercial frontage along Indiantown Road, adding increased depths to buffers between conflicting land uses and not allowing the re-establishment of non- conforming land uses. 41/ * * * Intergovernmental coordination is necessary in order to implement the following policies: POLICY: A commercial corridor study is to be undertaken by 1989 that will result in a coherent, comprehensive development strategy for this major roadway. Issues for coordination/cooperation: Indiantown Road (SR 706) is owned and operated by the State. It is a major arterial for the unincorporated County area west of Jupiter, and development approved along it and in its vicinity can impact traffic conditions within Jupiter to a significant degree. Agencies involved: Florida Department of Transportation Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Recommended methods for coordination/ cooperation: FDOT representatives should be involved closely in the study to provide guidance about the State's plans for the roadway, and FDOT should formally review the resultant development strategy for compatibility with FDOT plans. The Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County MPO should be involved closely in the study to provide guidance about anticipated development along and around the roadway and its impacts o[n] traffic circulation and development within Jupiter. The County should have formal review of the resultant development strategy to ensure compatibility with County plans. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council should be involved in the study to provide technical assistance and informal mediation among the Town, County, and FDOT, if necessary. 42/ The "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan indicates that the future land use plan includes "commercial uses" among its land use categories. It then goes on to give the following definition of such "commercial uses:" Commercial uses- means activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental, consumption, and distribution of products or performances of professional and non-professional services. The Town Council may approve the use of such land areas for residential purposes provided a rezoning to a residential zoning district is approved and the rezoning is implemented by a planned unit development. The following discussion appears under the subheading of "Land Use Performance Standards" in the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan: The land use classification system described allows for flexibility. Specific protection should be developed and included at the time the local development code is revised to bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. It is recommended that the following criteria serve as the basis for permitting any land use change. These along with other provisions and policies of all Comprehensive Plan elements will have to be met in order to receive a development order. The recommended performance standards are as follows: Compatibility with surrounding land uses Intensity of use Adequacy of facilities -water services -sewer services -roadway access -fire and police service Environmental impact Following the recitation of the foregoing "recommended performance standards," the statement is made that "[i]n evaluating any proposed land use change as well as any other development approval requirement the Town shall take into consideration . . . whether or not the proposed change complies with the [same] location criteria" that are set forth in Policy 1.3.5 of the future land use element. The "data inventory and analysis" portion of the plan gives the following description of the three major categories of land use problems that the Town should strive to avoid or at least minimize through the planning process: Misuse of Land Widely scattered land development results in a pattern which is more costly to provide with essential services; Construction of buildings in flood prone areas results in damage to property, danger to life and added financial burdens on the [Town] for providing flood abatement measures; Land and water resources are destroyed by scattered substandard development; and Less than adequate room for expansion of businesses and industry result in congestion and inharmonious growth. Conflicting Uses of Land Encroachment of business and industrial uses into existing or emerging residential areas results in instability of these residential neighborhoods; and Unplanned mixing of various land uses results in incompatible relationships among various activities which cause deterioration of the overall environment. Overuse of Land Inadequate provision of off-street parking causes encroachment of residential neighborhoods by traffic seeking parking; Strip development along major highways results in reduced traffic capacity and increased traffic congestion; Excessive land coverage by buildings and parking areas results in inadequate open space; and Poorly conceived site and building design standards can result in overuse of land. Ordinances Creating the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District In March, 1990, the Town Council adopted a series of ordinances that incorporated, in all respects material to the instant case, the above-described "comprehensive strategy" that Skokowski had devised for the Indiantown Road corridor. These ordinances amended the Town's zoning code by creating the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District (I.O.Z.). The I.O.Z. is codified in Section 517 of the code, which describes the I.O.Z.'s purpose and intent as follows: The purpose and intent of this specialized overlay zoning district is to encourage and provide for enhanced property development within the Indiantown Road corridor. Objectives to be attained through the establishment of this district include protection of adjacent residential land uses; enhancement of the commercial status of the corridor; reduction of visual distraction through uniform sign criteria; enhancement of physical appearance through increased landscaping of public and private property; clustering of compl[e]mentary uses throughout various locations along the corridor; provisions of architectural design guidelines within specific locations along the corridor; encourage the construction of pedestrian oriented facilities in both public and private structures; installation of special landscape and architectural features at major intersections; and establish development incentives to accomplish these objectives. Before the Town Council took final action on the matter, the Town's Director of Community Development provided the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) with a copy of what was to become Section 517 and asked DOT to favor the Town with its comments. DOT, however, declined to do so. The ordinances adopted by the Town to effectuate the creation of the I.O.Z. were Ordinances 14-90, 15-90, 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25- 90. 61. Ordinances 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25-90 divided the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District into parkway subdistricts and five urban subdistricts: the Central Boulevard District; the Center Street/Maplewood Drive District; 43/ the Civic Center District; the Alternate A1A District; and the U.S. Highway One District. Ordinance 14-90 imposed design, landscaping, and signage requirements applicable to these subdistricts. Ordinance 15-90 further restricted the land use activities permitted in these subdistricts. The underlying zoning district of most of the land area in the Indiantown Road corridor is "C-2" (Commercial, General), in which 41 commercial land use activities are permitted, 11 by right and 30, including automobile sales, by special exception. Ordinance 15-90 absolutely prohibits, without exception, anywhere from 11 to 18 of these 41 commercial land activities, depending upon the subdistrict. Automobile sales are absolutely prohibited throughout the corridor. Attachments 1-11 appended to this Final Order show each of the land use activities that were permitted, by right or special exception, in each subdistrict prior to the adoption of Ordinance 15-90 and the changes, if any, made by Ordinance 15-90 to their status as permitted activities. Relationship of the I.O.Z. to the Comprehensive Plan Section 517.3 of the Town's zoning code states that "[t]he establishment of the IOZ [as codified in Section 517] is hereby declared consistent with the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan." It has not been shown that it is beyond reasonable debate that, in making this declaration, the Town Council, which only a couple of months earlier had adopted the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan, was in error. A reasonable argument may be made that the I.O.Z (Section 517 of the Town's zoning code) and its component parts, including the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90, are compatible with the Plan and take action in the direction of realizing the Town's aspirations, as announced in the Plan, with respect to the Indiantown Road corridor. The I.O.Z. is a "coherent, comprehensive strategy" for the Indiantown Road corridor that employs "the concept of an overlay zone" and a "node policy" of development (as opposed to linear, "[s]trip commercial") and is reasonably designed to allow this roadway to "become a 'memorable' entryway leading into Jupiter." The use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90 are an integral part of this "coherent, comprehensive strategy." They play a role in "establishing the desired character of the corridor." Ordinance 15-90 is not at variance with any of the land use designations made on the Plan's future land use map, including those designating land in the Indiantown Road corridor for commercial use. While the ordinance absolutely prohibits certain land use activities, those that it allows are in keeping with the map's land use designations. For instance, the activities it permits on land designated on the map for commercial use, which is most of the land in the corridor, are indeed "commercial uses," as that term is defined on page I-30 of the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan. Because the ordinance permits these "commercial uses" throughout much of the corridor, it furthers the Plan's vision of the Indiantown Road corridor as an area where commercial development predominates. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and the goal of the future land use element of the Plan. It has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable debate that the ordinance will prevent the Town from fulfilling its desire, as expressed in the goal of the future land use element, of completing its transformation from a bedroom community to one that offers, in addition to housing, job opportunities and goods and services accommodating the needs of the residents of the Greater Jupiter area that cannot be adequately met by surrounding communities. To become a "total" or "full-service" community Jupiter need not offer every conceivable good and service in the marketplace. Accordingly, it may absolutely prohibit within its jurisdictional boundaries certain commercial land use activities that involve specialized goods and services that are available elsewhere in the region and still reach its goal of becoming a "total" or "full- service" community. Moreover, Ordinance 15-90 applies only to the land area within the Indiantown Road corridor, which, as noted above, contains approximately two- thirds of the Town's commercially designated land. The remaining land area in the Town designated for commercial use is unaffected by the ordinance and unencumbered by its land use restrictions. Therefore, even if, in order to become a "total" or "full-service" community, the Town was required to offer within its jurisdictional boundaries those goods and services that are unavailable in the Indiantown Road corridor as a result of Ordinance 15-90, the Town would still be able to meet this requirement because the ordinance does not preclude the Town from offering these goods and services in commercially designated areas in the Town that are outside of the Indiantown Road corridor. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.1.5 of the future land use element of the Plan. While the land use activities absolutely prohibited by Ordinance 15-90 tend to require larger lot sizes, have generally lower traffic generation rates and are less likely to be found in "[s]trip commercial" developments than certain land use activities permitted by the ordinance, it has not been shown that it is beyond reasonable debate that these prohibitions will likely result in the "[s]trip or highway commercial development" that Policy 1.1.5 seeks to discourage. Ordinance 15-90 renders ineffective neither the requirements of the Plan 44/ nor those of the remaining portions of the I.O.Z. designed to combat and prevent "[s]trip or highway commercial development." The ordinance works, not at cross-purposes with these requirements, but in tandem with them, imposing additional, rather than conflicting, restrictions on development in the Indiantown Road corridor. Under the regulatory framework established by the Town through the adoption of the Plan and the I.O.Z., a proposed development that meets the requirements of Ordinance 15-90, but is inconsistent with the anti-strip commercial provisions of the Plan and the remaining portions of the I.O.Z., will not be approved. Accordingly, Ordinance 15-90 will not have the effect of enhancing the potential for the occurrence of "[s]trip or highway commercial development" in the Indiantown Road corridor. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.1.6 of the future land use element of the Plan. As noted above, Policy 1.1.6 references the Indiantown Road corridor study and indicates that this study "will result in a coherent, comprehensive strategy for this major roadway containing streetscape guidelines and site development standards that will be integrated into the Town's land development regulations." While the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90 are neither "streetscape guidelines" nor "site development standards," Policy 1.1.6 does not mandate that the "coherent, comprehensive strategy" resulting from the Indiantown Road corridor study include only "streetscape guidelines" and "site development standards." Given that use restrictions are typically included in a "comprehensive strategy" for a roadway corridor and that there was considerable public debate preceding the adoption of the Plan concerning Skokowski's recommendation (which was ultimately incorporated in Ordinance 15-90) that certain use restrictions be included in a "comprehensive strategy" for the Indiantown Road corridor, it is reasonable to assume that, had the Town Council intended that such use restrictions not be a part of the "comprehensive strategy" envisioned in Policy 1.1.6, it would have so specified in that policy or elsewhere in the Plan. Its failure to have done so reflects that the Town Council had no such intention at the time it adopted the Plan. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.3.5 of the future land use element of the Plan. As mentioned above, Policy 1.3.5 directs, among other things, that the Town's land development regulations include, within a commercial land use category, the subcategories of "Neighborhood Commercial," "General Commercial," "Office Commercial," and "Heavy Products Commercial" and it gives a representative sample of activities that would fall into each of these subcategories. In addition, the policy prescribes location and intensity criteria for each of these subcategories. Policy 1.3.5 does not require the Town, in its land development regulations, to permit in areas that meet the location criteria of a particular subcategory all of the commercial land use activities that may fall within that subcategory. Accordingly, as it has done in Ordinance 15-90, the Town may prohibit some of these activities without running afoul of the mandate of Policy 1.3.5. Policy 1.3.5 does impose upon the Town the obligation to permit a "Neighborhood Commercial," "General Commercial," "Office Commercial," or "Heavy Products Commercial" land use activity only in those areas that, according to the policy's location criteria, are suitable for that particular activity. There has been no showing that the various commercial land use activities permitted by Ordinance 15-90 are allowed to take place in areas that do not meet the location criteria prescribed in Policy 1.3.5. If anything, the evidence establishes the contrary. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 of the intergovernmental coordination element of the Plan. As indicated above, Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 provide that, in the development of the Indiantown Road corridor study, the Town "shall seek the active involvement" [of] the Florida Department of Transportation" (DOT), as well as the "Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)," to provide appropriate input. In conducting his study of the Indiantown Road corridor, Skokowski sought the "active involvement" of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning. He did not seek DOT's input, 45/ but the Town's Director of Community Development, prior to the Town Council's adoption of the I.O.Z., did. Accordingly, in adopting Ordinance 15-90 and the other ordinances that were based upon Skokowski's Indiantown Road corridor study, the Town Council did not act in derogation of the requirements of either Policy 1.1.7 or Policy 1.1.8 of the intergovernmental coordination element of the Plan. Petitioner's Challenge to the I.O.Z.'s Use Restrictions Petitioner owns approximately 680 acres of land in Jupiter, including land situated in the Indiantown Road corridor that is subject to the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90. It acquired 640 of these 680 acres in 1981 and the remaining acreage in 1987. Petitioner has been developing this property since its acquisition. A golf course and residential community have already been completed. Work has begun on a 40-acre commercial project located in the Maplewood Drive/Indiantown Road area. Petitioner desires to build an auto campus as part of this project, but is unable to do so because Ordinance 15-90 absolutely prohibits automobile sales from occurring on the land. On or around December 10, 1990, Petitioner sent a petition to the Mayor of Jupiter, the body of which read as follows: This petition is submitted on behalf of Restigouche, Inc. [Petitioner] pursuant to Fla. Stat. #163.3213(3) and Rule 9J-24.007 of the Florida Administrative Code. The purpose of this Petition is to challenge the consistency of such portions of [the] Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District Ordinance, as adopted by the Town of Jupiter under Ordinance 15-90. These portions define permitted uses, uses permitted by special exception and prohibited uses within the IOZ. Section 517 of the Zoning Code was adopted by several ordinances[.] Ordinances 14-90 and 15-90 were adopted March 6, 1990. Ordinances 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25-90 were adopted March 20, 1990. Ordinance 15-90 reduces the allowable uses of the property owners within the IOZ. The underlying zoning category for Restigouche's property in the Maplewood/Center Street District is C-2. Table 1 of the IOZ contains a list of 41 uses available to property within Zoning District C-2 by right or by special exception. The table shows that the uses for property within the IOZ have been reduced to the extent that those uses designated as "X" have moved from permitted by right or special exception to prohibited uses. Ordinance 15-90, which incorporates this down zoning, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter as adopted by the Town Council January 16, 1990. The Comprehensive Plan does not allow for the creation of a district along the Indiantown Road Corridor that would limit uses from those as stated in the appropriate underlying zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that a study of the development along Indiantown Road was being undertaken at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption and acknowledges that signage, streetscape and site development criteria to enhance the visual aspects of Indiantown Road would be adopted. The Comprehensive Plan does not state that a new zoning district would be created limiting uses from those already available for the underlying zoning. Policy 1.3.5 states that land development regulation[s] shall include four designated types of commercial zoning as specified in this policy. These are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Office Commercial and Heavy Products Commercial. Specific description of policies and goals for each of these is stated. There is no policy for the recognition of a land use or zoning category specifically applicable to Indiantown Road. The Petitioner is a substantially affected person by virtue of its ownership since 1981 of property within the Maplewood/Center Street District which is part of the IOZ and is the successor developer of a previously approved Development of Regional Impact. Petitioner has expended millions of dollars in improvements to the property within the Maplewood/Center Street District in the IOZ and has contributed substantial acreage for the construction of a public school, park and fire station. The Petitioner is Restigouche, Inc., its address is 102 Nocossa Circle, Jupiter Florida 33458, telephone number (407)744-4778. The Petitioner's representative at that office is Eileen F. Letsch, Vice-President. Petitioner is represented in this matter by its counsel, Paul B. Erickson of Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, P.A., 321 Royal Poinciana Plaza, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (407)659-1770. The relief sought by Restigouche, Inc. is recognition by the Town of Jupiter that such portions of Section 517 which diminish permissible zoning uses from those allowed in the underlying C-2 Zoning District are void and unenforceable allowing the Application for Special Exception to be considered by the Town of Jupiter. The Town did not grant the relief sought by Petitioner. Accordingly, on or about March 5, 1991, Petitioner submitted a petition to the Department of Community Affairs (Department). The body of the petition read as follows: Restigouche, Inc. ("Restigouche") files this challenge to the consistency of a land development regulation of the Town of Jupiter, Florida. Restigouche is not aware of any Agency file number for this proceeding. Restigouche, Inc. is a Florida corporation. This petition is filed by Eileen F. Letsch, Executive Vice-President, 102 Nocossa Circle, Jupiter, Florida 33458, (407)744-4778. Restigouche is represented in this Petition by Paul B. Erickson, Esq. of Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, 321 Royal Poinciana Plaza, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (407)659-1770. Restigouche is the owner of property in the Town of Jupiter, Florida which is within the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District ("IOZ") created by the Town under Ordinances 14-90 and 15-90 on March 6, 1990 and applied to Restigouche's property by Ordinance 21-90 on March 20, 1990. These ordinances as enacted create Section 517 of Ordinance 10-88 which is the current zoning ordinance of the Town of Jupiter. Restigouche challenged the consistency of the IOZ with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter by letter to the chief elected official of the Town dated December 12, 1990. A copy of the petition is attached. The Town of Jupiter adopted its Comprehensive Plan January 20, 1990. The IOZ as it was enacted in part by Ordinances 15-90 and 21-90 is a down zoning regulation which reduces the number of permissible uses for Restigouche's property by right or special exception from 41 to 27. The IOZ as enacted in Ordinance 14-90 established landscaping and site development standards for property within the IOZ. The portions of the IOZ as adopted in Ordinances 15-90 and 21-90 are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter. The Comprehensive Plan refers to the IOZ as an area of landscaping and site development standards. It does not refer to the IOZ as an area where permissible uses will be down-zoned. The Comprehensive Plan establishes mandatory criteria for the development of commercial uses within the Town in Policy 1.3.5. This does not recognize or allow a separate, restrictive commercial zoning district along Indiantown Road. The IOZ as enacted in Ordinance 15-90 should be declared invalid because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Department determined that the petition substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 9J-24.007(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code, and so notified the parties. By letter dated March 22, 1991, the Department requested the Mayor of the Town to furnish it with the following materials: those portions of the Town's land development regulations which discuss or implement the IOZ; the standards for all zoning districts which underlie the IOZ; any supportive studies regarding the IOZ; and those portions of the comprehensive plan which discuss the IOZ or densities and allowable uses in the area in question. The requested materials were furnished on or about March 28, 1991. An informal hearing on Petitioner's challenge to the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions was held in Jupiter on April 12, 1991. Representatives of both Petitioner and the Town participated in the hearing. They presented information and argument for the Department's consideration. Following the informal hearing, the Department gave the parties the opportunity to supplement what they had presented at hearing. Both parties took advantage of the opportunity. In its supplemental submission, Petitioner presented additional written argument, in which it identified with specificity those provisions of the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan with which it claimed the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions were inconsistent. These specifically identified Plan provisions were Goal 1, Objectives 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4, and Policies 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.1.13, 1.1.14, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, and 1.3.5 of the future land use element and Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 of the intergovernmental coordination element. Petitioner also submitted 1) an engineer's report supporting its position that its proposed auto campus "would have significantly less impact upon public facilities" than would a 230,500 square foot retail center constructed on its property, 2) photographs of a model of the proposed auto campus, and 3) site plans of the proposed auto campus. By letter dated April 30, 1991, the Town objected to Petitioner's submission of the engineer's report and asked that it not be considered by the Department because it was generated after the informal hearing and therefore was "not available for discussion . . . at the hearing." On May 10, 1991, following its review and consideration of not only the information, argument and materials with which it had been presented, but of the entire Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan as well, which it had on file, the Department issued its written decision finding that "the provisions of the Town of Jupiter Land Development Regulations contained in the IOZ which have been challenged by Petitioners 46/ in this proceeding are consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan." The Department explained its determination as follows in Conclusions of Law 2 and 3 of its written decision: The Town of Jupiter's IOZ is not in conflict with the Comprehensive [P]lan because the IOZ is specifically authorized by the Plan, and there are no provisions in the Plan which prohibit the Town from adjusting allowable uses within underlying zoning districts. The uses permitted in the IOZ are certainly within the permissible range of uses for the designation in the plan. The plan does not guarantee a minimal zoning category for properties within the general commercial designation. It only provides that the zoning will effectively include general commercial uses. Further, the IOZ cannot accurately be referred to as a separate zoning category as argued by the Petitioners. The IOZ modifies underlying general commercial zoning districts (which the Petitioners agree are authorized by the Plan). In fact, land development regulations such as the IOZ are considered to be innovative and are encouraged in s. 163.3202(3), F.S. There are no provisions in Chapter 163, F.S., that require comprehensive plans to identify and authorize all implementing land development regulations. Although Policy 1.3.5 lists certain uses which are eliminated or limited within the IOZ, these uses are allowed in commercial zoning districts outside the IOZ. The Petitioners may have cited portions of certain policy statements that, when taken in isolation, seem to suggest potential conflicts with the IOZ. However, the IOZ serves as the implementing solution to a problem area identified in the Plan as being of significant concern. Therefore, the IOZ, on balance, takes action in [the] direction of implementing and furthering substantive portions of the Plan. Further, the lack of recognition in the comprehensive plan of implementing land development regulations does not, by itself, constitute an inconsistency. On May 31, 1991, Petitioner filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting a hearing on its consistency challenge. Petitioner did so in good faith as part of its effort to convince the Town Council that the I.O.Z. should be modified in a manner that would allow Petitioner to construct its proposed auto campus in the Maplewood Drive/Indiantown Road. Petitioner hoped that the Hearing Officer would agree with its position that the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions are inconsistent with the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan and that, after the Hearing Officer found these use restrictions to be inconsistent with the Plan, the Town Council would take action to eliminate them to avoid the sanctions it would face if it did not take such action.
