The Issue Whether Lee County Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2015-00005, adopted by Ordinance No. 20-07 on June 17, 2020 (the “Plan Amendment”), is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioner, William J. Semmer, owns and operates seven businesses on San Carlos Island in Lee County, and owns 25 properties on San Carlos Island, including his personal residence, as well as several rental properties and commercial establishments. Petitioner, Joanne E. Semmer, lives and owns her personal residence in San Carlos Island, and owns and operates a business—Ostego Bay Environmental—on San Carlos Island at 1130 Main Street, directly across Main Street from the property subject to the Plan Amendment (“subject property”). Both Petitioners submitted oral comments to the County concerning the Plan Amendment at the adoption hearing on the Plan Amendment. Lee County (“the County”) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, with the duty to adopt and amend its Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Community Planning Act (“the Act”). See § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. Intervenor, Southern Comfort Storage, LLC, owns property and operates a business within the County, and owns the subject property. Intervenor applied for the Plan Amendment that is the subject of this final hearing. San Carlos Island The subject property is located on San Carlos Island, a non-barrier island in the unincorporated area of the County between the cities of Fort Myers and Fort Myers Beach. The Matanzas Pass lies to the south, between the island and Ft. Myers Beach. The pass provides access to Estero Bay through a channel with depths between 11 and 14 feet. That portion of the Bay lying north of the island is shallower, with average depths of between four and six feet. The island is approximately one mile long, and is bisected by two main roadways: San Carlos Boulevard, a north/south arterial roadway on the western side of the island that connects via a bridge to Fort Myers Beach; and Main Street, a collector roadway running east/west bisecting the island north and south. Under the existing Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”), San Carlos Island is dominated by Industrial, Urban Community, and Suburban land use designations, generally located as follows: Suburban (residential) on both the eastern and western ends of the island, as well as in the island center north of Main Street; Industrial concentrated in the center of the island, both north and south of Main Street; and Urban Community concentrated in a corridor along San Carlos Boulevard connecting to Fort Myers Beach. Other large land uses include conservation lands, both uplands and wetlands. Another category—Destination Resort Mixed Use Water Dependent (“DRMUWD”)—was added by a plan amendment in 2009, converting 28 acres of Industrial and Suburban to this new use for the Ebtide development, which includes a 450-unit hotel with 75,000 square feet of convention space; 271 multi-family residential units; 10,000 square feet of office; 85,000 square feet of retail, and a marina. This development is approximately one quarter mile from the subject property. San Carlos Island is designated within the Iona-McGregor Planning Community (“the planning community”) pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Comprehensive Plan, “[t]his community primarily has lands designated as Central Urban, Urban Community, Suburban, and Outlying Suburban …. This community, due to its proximity to the area beaches, will continue to be a popular area for seasonal residents.” The island is one of three discernable sub-areas of the planning community. According to the Comprehensive Plan: The San Carlos Island area, which is nearly built out today, will continue to develop its infill areas while maintaining its marine oriented nature. Residents of the community will address current planning concerns in a comprehensive review of this area and future amendments to this plan will be made to address these concerns. This area is anticipated to grow substantially from today to 2030. Historically, the economy of the island was driven by the commercial shrimping and fishing industries. Many of the industrial uses on the island were associated with processing seafood, especially packing and freezing seafood for transport beyond the island; warehousing and storage of equipment; and boat repair yards. Advances in technology, including shipboard freezing, have reduced the need for dockside packing houses. In 1950, there were seven packing houses on the island. There are only two packing houses currently in operation on the island, both of which are located south of Main Street, where the boats have access to deep water ports. Increased imports of shrimp from other countries has also contributed to the decline of the shrimping industry on the island.2 The amount of shrimp harvested from waters near the island peaked in the mid-1990s at over 6,000,000 pounds, but had fallen to slightly more than 2,000,000 pounds by 2015. Petitioner, Joanne Semmer, attempted to contradict the evidence that the local shrimp harvest is in decline because the data introduced does not include anything subsequent to 2015. She maintains that the industry has stabilized since 2015. Ms. Semmer testified that “they’re having a bang-up year this year.” Ms. Semmer’s testimony was based on her discussions with commercial shrimp fleet owners and is entirely hearsay evidence upon which the undersigned cannot rely for finding that the shrimp industry has stabilized.3 One of the more recent changes in the shrimping industry is the move from 50-foot to 100-foot shrimp boats, which can carry larger amounts of shrimp, thereby reducing the number of trips needed to harvest the catch. Due to the deeper channel, the properties south of Main Street can better accommodate the larger deep-draft shrimp boats used in the modern shrimping industry. In the last 20 years, the significant development and redevelopment on the island has been commercial and recreational in character. 2 The ratio of local to foreign-sourced shrimp in the United States had decreased from roughly 1:1 in the late 1970s, to roughly 1:5.8 in 2002. 3 Furthermore, Ms. Semmer’s testimony that the shrimpers are having a “bang-up year” and “one of their best years ever,” does not provide numbers of pounds of shrimp to compare with the data introduced by Intervenor. Redevelopment south of Main Street has been characterized by commercial and mixed-use development, rather than industrial development on the waterfront. Two large recreational marinas have been developed which provide commercial fishing berths and boat rentals. They have supporting restaurants, wet slips, dry storage, and some commercial retail. Generally, the area south of Main Street is in transition from traditional industrial to more commercial and recreational uses. The industrial uses north of Main Street are less intense and conducted on mostly unimproved properties. The uses include open yards for storing equipment, repairing and maintaining equipment and boats, parking and turnaround of large trucks used to transport seafood beyond the island, and areas to offload seafood products and equipment from boats. Waterfronts Florida Partnership In 1997, the island was designated by the state as one of the first communities in its Waterfronts Florida Partnership (“Waterfronts Florida” or “the partnership”) program. A self-created committee, of which Ms. Semmer was a vital member, applied for the Waterfronts Florida designation “to help the community deal with the capacity of shrimping and fishing boats that docked there seasonally, as well as educate residents and visitors about the island’s working waterfront.” The portion of the island encompassing the Waterfronts Florida Designated Area includes only property south of Main Street, and stretches from its intersection with the San Carlos Boulevard bridge one half-mile along the Matanzas Pass. Through the partnership, the community developed a self-guided working waterfront tour called “A Healthy Bay = Healthy Seafood,” which takes participants along a short trail with kiosks that provide information about the bay, the habitat, and the fish that live in it. Although it is self- guided, a volunteer is available on certain days to provide a narrated tour. Ms. Semmer is the volunteer program manager and frequently guides the tour herself. Ms. Semmer is also the executive director of the Ostego Bay Foundation Marine Science Center, which is integral to the partnership. The center provides a marine science experience through interactive exhibits, aquariums, hands-on tanks, collections and displays, and holds educational camps. One of the projects of the Waterfronts Florida committee was development of a special area management plan (the “special area plan”) for the island, which was adopted in 1999. The special area plan included the following vision statement for the community: San Carlos Island is a people-oriented community with an important working waterfront that includes vibrant commercial seafood and other marine-based industries and recreational opportunities. These assets contribute to making San Carlos Island an attractive community for its permanent and seasonal residents as well as an interesting area for visiting tourists. The first goal of the special area plan is to “[c]ontinue to support and develop” the island’s commercial fishing and passenger vessel industry “while diversifying the economic base” of the island “to enhance recreational and tourism-related opportunities” and support businesses along San Carlos Boulevard and Main Street. Objectives to accomplish that goal include “[d]iversify[ing] the island’s economic base by enhancing tourism, retail, and recreation opportunities.” The special area plan also refers to the need to possibly revise the water- dependent land use policies “which have been identified as limiting development options along the west side of Main Street.”4 The special area plan calls for developing language that will “increase flexibility and mix of land use types” allowable on land currently zoned for water-dependent uses, which may include traditional commercial fishing village industry “such as restaurants and mixed use commercial/residential.” The Subject Property The subject property is 7.47 acres located north of, and abutting, Main Street. The property is a combination of eight adjoining lots, most of which are narrow and elongated, with a variety of existing zoning designations— marine industrial, light industrial, commercial, and mobile home. The property was most recently the site of the Compass Rose marina, which, in 2006, was approved, through special exception and a variance, for a 286-dry slip boat storage facility at a maximum of 65 feet in height, 29 wet slips, and an associated boat launch; commercial spaces for member gatherings, a restaurant, ship store, and mini-storage. The marina and attendant uses were subsequently destroyed, except for the storage facility, which is located on the westernmost portion of the subject property. The subject property has access to Estero Bay via a 75-foot man-made canal along its eastern boundary. However, from the canal, vessels must access the Bay via a shallow channel with average depths of four to six feet. Commercial fishing and shrimping vessels require over six feet of depth at mean low tide. Most of the subject property is designated Industrial on the FLUM, with a very small portion in Suburban. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the Industrial designation is “reserved mainly for industrial activities and selective land use mixtures … includ[ing] industrial, manufacturing, research, educational uses, and office complex (if specifically related to 4 This document refers to Main Street as a roadway running north/south, rather than east/west. West of Main Street coincides with south of Main Street in the parlance of other documents describing Main Street as an east/west corridor. adjoining industrial uses)[.]” Retail, recreational, and service uses are allowed if they are limited to the sale of products “manufactured or directly related to that manufactured on the premises,” and are subject to acreage limitations. Residential uses are not allowed in the Industrial category. The subject property is also located within the San Carlos Island Water-Dependent overlay zone, the objective of which is to “protect marine- oriented land uses [on the island] from incompatible or pre-emptive land uses.” New development, and substantial redevelopment, within this overlay north of Main Street, is limited to marine industrial uses and recreational marinas. Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is surrounded by property in the Industrial category, with the exception of the property to its east. Lying across the 75- foot canal are three “fingers” of densely-developed residential property extending into Estero Bay which are designated Suburban. The developments are mostly mobile homes and manufactured housing, which, in large part, serve the workforce living on the island. The standard density in the Suburban land use category is six dwelling units per acre (“6 du/acre”). The Oak Street residential development lying directly across the canal is developed at a density of 7 du/acre, and is non-conforming. The Canal Point Mobile Home Park just east of Oak Street, encompasses two “fingers,” Nancy Lane and Emily Lane. Both “fingers” were developed at non-conforming densities of 9.6 du/acre and 11.6 du/acre, respectively. Continuing east along Main Street, Helen Lane and Oyster Bay are mobile home and manufactured housing communities developed at over 13 du/acre. Another residential development, Sportman’s Cove, lies north of the Industrial properties, directly on the Bay, and is developed at 13.1 du/acre. Industrial uses to the west include open storage, closed storage, warehousing, and distribution facilities. South of Main Street is a mix of more intense industrial uses with direct access to the Bay via Matanzas Pass’ deep water channels. A portion of the Industrial property directly north of the subject property is owned by Mr. Semmer. He conducts, or leases the property for, a variety of industrial uses. Mr. Semmer’s property is adjacent to the canal, and he contracts with some smaller shrimp boats and blue crab fishermen to dock and unload there. The property is often used for storage of equipment used by those industries, as well as an open yard for equipment repair. Mr. Semmer’s property was also used as a staging area during reconstruction of the Sanibel Causeway, providing a landing site for marine barges to load and unload large equipment needed for the reconstruction. The property was used to pour and set concrete forms used in the reconstruction process. Access to Mr. Semmer’s property from Main Street is via Ostego Drive, a platted street that runs through the eastern portion of the subject property, separating the upland property from that adjacent to the canal. During reconstruction of the Sanibel Causeway, large equipment trucks, and cement trucks accessed his property via this street. 2015 Plan Amendment Application and Concurrent Rezoning In 2015, Intervenor filed separate applications for the Plan Amendment and a concurrent rezoning of the subject property. The Plan Amendment sought to change the land use classification from Industrial and Suburban to Central Urban. In addition to residential uses, the Central Urban classification allows light industrial and commercial uses. The 2015 concurrent rezoning application sought planned development (“PD”) rezoning for a project consisting of 113 residential dwelling units (of which 38 would be affordable housing); a marina with 29 wet and 286 dry slips; and 30,000 square feet of commercial space, including a restaurant, 200 public parking spaces, and a civic/recreational space that would be available to the general public. The PD establishes a maximum structural height of 175 feet. In 2016, an adoption hearing for the Plan Amendment was scheduled before the County Commission, but action on it was deferred at the request of the Intervenor, who then submitted a new plan amendment application seeking to change the FLUM designation of the subject property to DRMUWD, along with text amendments to the DRMUWD classification. That plan amendment, as well as the concurrent rezoning, were denied by the County in 2019. The original Plan Amendment to Central Urban remained pending. On November 5, 2019, Intervenor filed a request for relief with the County pursuant to the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act (“FLUEDRA”), section 70.51, Florida Statutes; as well as a request for informal mediation pursuant to section 163.3181(4). These processes culminated in a mediated settlement agreement between the County and Intervenor whereby the County agreed to adopt the instant Plan Amendment, as well as the concurrent rezoning, for a project consisting of 75 residential dwelling units (reduced from the 113); a marina with 286 dry and 29 wet slips; and 30,000 square feet of commercial space, including a restaurant and waterfront civic/recreational space of 20,000 square feet (land area) that would be open to the general public. The maximum height for structures was reduced from 175 feet to 100 feet under the mediated settlement. The mediated settlement agreement also provided for conditions of development approval and property development regulations. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the subject property from Industrial and Suburban to Central Urban, a classification which allows residential uses at a standard density range of 4-10 du/acre and up to 15 du/acre through the County’s “bonus density” program for affordable housing. 5 The Central Urban category allows development of residential, commercial, public and quasi-public, and limited light industrial land uses (e.g., wet slips, dry storage, marinas). The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use future development in the Central Urban category. The maximum number of residential units that could be constructed on the subject property at the density of 15 du/acre is 113. The Comprehensive Plan does not govern intensity of non-residential uses. The evidence is insufficient to determine the maximum allowable buildout of the non-residential uses on the subject property. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment: (1) creates internal inconsistencies with the existing Comprehensive Plan, in contravention of section 163.3177(2); (2) is not “based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis,” as required by section 163.3177(1)(f); and (3) increases density in the Coastal High Hazard Area (“CHHA”), in violation of section 163.3178(8). Internal Inconsistencies Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with a number of Goals, Objectives, and Policies (“GOPs”) of the Comprehensive Plan. The specific allegations can be grouped, generally, as arguments that (1) the Plan Amendment is incompatible with, or will have negative impacts on, surrounding uses; and (2) the Plan Amendment will negatively impact hurricane evacuation by increasing density in the CHHA. Compatibility Petitioners allege the maximum density and intensity of development allowed under the Plan Amendment is incompatible with surrounding industrial uses, specifically Mr. Semmer’s industrial property directly 5 Density may be increased to 20 du/acre utilizing an existing transfer of development rights ordinance which does not apply to San Carlos Island. adjacent to the north, and the residential uses to the west; and will be destructive to the character of the island. With regard to compatibility, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following specific GOPs: FLUE Objective 2.2: Development Timing. Direct growth to those portions of the future urban areas where adequate public facilities exist or are assured and where compact and contiguous development patterns can be created. FLUE Policy 2.2.1.: Rezonings and Development of Regional Impact proposals will be evaluated as to the availability and proximity of the road network; central sewer and water lines; community facilities and services such as schools, EMS, fire and police protection, and other public facilities; compatibility with surrounding land uses; and any other relevant facts affecting the public health, safety, and welfare. FLUE Objective 2.6: Redevelopment. Future redevelopment activities will be directed in appropriate areas, consistent with sound planning principles, the goals, objectives, and policies contained within this plan, and the desired community character. FLUE Policy 5.1.5: Protect existing and future residential areas from any encroachment of uses that are potentially destructive to the character and integrity of the residential environment. Requests for conventional rezonings will be denied in the event that the buffers provided in Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code are not adequate to address potentially incompatible uses in a satisfactory manner. If such uses are proposed in the form of a planned development or special exception and generally applicable development regulations are deemed to be inadequate, conditions will be attached to minimize or eliminate the potential impacts or, where no adequate conditions can be devised, the application will be denied altogether. FLUE Policy 6.1.1: All applications for commercial development will be reviewed and evaluated as to: Traffic and access impacts (rezonings and development orders); Landscaping and detailed site planning (development orders); Screening and buffering (planned development rezoning and development orders; Availability and adequacy of services and facilities (rezoning and development orders); Impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods (rezoning); Proximity to other similar centers (rezoning); Environmental considerations (rezoning and development orders). FLUE Policy 6.1.3: Commercial developments requiring rezoning and meeting Development of County Impact (DCI) thresholds must be developed as commercial planned developments designed to arrange land uses in an integrated and cohesive unit in order to: Provide visual harmony and screening; Reduce dependence on the automobile; Promote pedestrian movement within the development; Utilize joint parking, access and loading facilities; Avoid negative impacts on surrounding land uses and traffic circulation; Protect natural resources; and, Provide necessary services and facilities where they are inadequate to serve the proposed use. FLUE Policy 6.1.4: Commercial development will be approved only when compatible with adjacent existing and proposed land uses and with existing and programmed public services and facilities. FLUE Policy 6.1.6: The land development regulations will require that commercial development provide adequate and appropriate landscaping, open space, and buffering. Such development is encouraged to be architecturally designed so as to enhance the appearance of structures and parking areas and blend with the character of existing or planned surrounding land uses. FLUE Goal 32: San Carlos Island [Water- Dependent Overlay]. All development approvals on San Carlos Island must be consistent with the following objective and policy in addition to other provisions of this plan. Objective 32.2: To manage growth, development, and redevelopment on San Carlos Island. To maintain and enhance the area’s quality of life and public and private infrastructure. Housing Element (“HE”) Policy 135.9.5: New development adjacent to areas of established residential neighborhoods must be compatible with or improve the area’s existing character. HE Policy 135.9.6: Lee County will administer the planning, zoning, and development review process in such a manner that proposed land uses acceptably minimize adverse drainage, environmental, spatial, traffic, noise, and glare impacts, as specified in county development regulations, upon adjacent residential properties, while maximizing aesthetic qualities. The Plan Amendment is not a rezoning or a development order. It does not, in and of itself, approve any specific development on the subject property. It approves the property for a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses, and provides a maximum density for the residential use. FLUE Policies 2.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4, do not apply to the Plan Amendment because it is not an application for specific commercial development, a rezoning, or a development order.6 The Plan Amendment cannot be inconsistent with Policy 6.1.6 because the policy merely provides the requirements for the land development regulations. It does not impose any requirement on plan amendments. The bases for Petitioners’ argument that the Plan Amendment creates internal inconsistencies regarding compatibility is limited to FLUE Goal 32; FLUE Objectives 2.2, 2.6, 32.1,7 and 32.2; FLUE Policies 5.1.5 and 32.1.1;8 and HE Policies 135.9.5 and 135.9.6. The Comprehensive Plan does not define “compatibility.” The Act defines “compatibility” as “a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition.” § 163.3164(9), Fla. Stat. 6 The Plan Amendment was considered concurrently with a PD rezoning which includes a more detailed development plan. To the extent that Petitioners allege the rezoning does not meet the requirements of policies 2.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4, Petitioners’ remedy is a challenge to those development orders, pursuant to section 163.3215. (“Subsections (3) and (4) provide the exclusive methods for an aggrieved or adversely affected party to appeal and challenge the consistency of a development order with a comprehensive plan.”). 7 Objective 32.1 was not cited in Petitioners’ Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing as a provision with which the Plan Amendment is alleged to be internally inconsistent. However, the issue was tried by consent as neither Respondent nor Intervenor objected to Petitioners’ evidence on this issue, and all parties introduced evidence related to this allegation. 8 Policy 32.1.1 was not cited in Petitioners’ Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing as a provision with which the Plan Amendment is alleged to be internally inconsistent. However, the issue was tried by consent as neither Respondent nor Intervenor objected to Petitioners’ evidence on this issue, and all parties introduced evidence related to this allegation. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is incompatible with the surrounding uses because it introduces high density residential, which could be built to a maximum height of 100 feet; and commercial and recreational uses, into an area of industrial uses, including open storage, boat and equipment repairs, and unloading and packing seafood. Petitioners’ expert planning witness, Joseph McHarris, opined that the anticipated residential development is exactly the type of pre-emptive development anticipated and discouraged by the San Carlos Island Water- Dependent Overlay Zone. Mr. McHarris testified that “dropping in central urban,” the highest density and intensity use category, “right on top of industrial and right next to a suburban neighborhood is not good planning.” Mr. McHarris opined that residents of the “high-end condominiums” proposed for the property will not enjoy the view overlooking industrial outdoor storage yards, unloading cargo vessels, or the sounds and smells that are attendant thereto. The residential use will pre-empt any expansion or redevelopment of the existing industrial for more intense industrial uses. In fact, Mr. McHarris testified that the uses are so incompatible, that he would expect the new residents to push for ceasing the existing operations on those properties. Mr. McHarris did not rely upon any empirical evidence for his conclusion that the introduction of residential uses would be detrimental to the existing low- intensity industrial uses to the north and west of the subject property. His testimony was grounded in what “he would expect” to happen. Intervenor’s planning expert, Dr. David Depew, opined that in both his professional and personal experience, he has observed new waterfront residential and mixed use to coexist nicely with waterfront industrial and commercial. He cited Florida communities such as Apalachicola, Destin, and Cedar Key, generally, as examples of areas where newer residences and condominiums have developed in proximity to historic waterfront industrial uses without unduly negative effects on the historic uses. Dr. Depew made general references to “professional and personal” experiences, but gave no more detailed evidence regarding the coexistence of residential and industrial in traditional industrial waterfronts. The County’s expert planning witness, Brandon Dunn, is the principal planner for the County. He has worked in the County Department of Community Development for at least 13 years, 11 of those in the planning section. Mr. Dunn is extremely familiar with, and has extensive experience applying and interpreting, the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dunn testified that the Plan Amendment represents a transitional use between the existing traditional industrial uses north and west of the subject property and the suburban use east of the subject property. Developing the subject property for a mix of uses, including residential, commercial, and water-dependent light industrial (i.e., marina, wet-slips, dry storage), provides a “step-down” from the single use industrial properties to the north and west, to the traditional suburban residential development to the east. Mr. Dunn’s testimony is accepted as reliable and persuasive. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Plan Amendment introduces uses which are incompatible with the surrounding uses, as that term is defined in section 163.3164(9). The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 5.1.5 because it does not allow the encroachment of uses into residential areas which are destructive to the integrity and character of those areas. The entire island is only one mile in length, and residential and industrial, as well as commercial marine uses, exist throughout the island in relative proximity to each other. Petitioners introduced no evidence from which the undersigned can conclude that juxtaposition has been adverse to the residential development. New residential development at Ebtide is located in proximity to low-intensity industrial uses north of Main Street and no evidence was introduced to suggest that the new residential development has pre-empted the continuation or expansion of those established industrial uses. FLUE Objective 2.2 requires new growth to be directed to urban areas “where adequate public facilities exist or are assured and where compact and contiguous development patterns can be created.” Adequate public facilities (i.e., sewer, water, fire protection, emergency services, law enforcement, and schools) are sufficient to address the impacts of the Plan Amendment at maximum allowable density of use. One roadway segment impacted by the Plan Amendment is currently operating at Level of Service F, but is designated as “constrained,” and the Plan Amendment will not cause the “volume to capacity ratio” established in the Comprehensive Plan to be exceeded. In Mr. McHarris’s opinion, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 2.2 because the uses allowed in Central Urban are not contiguous with the uses of any surrounding property. However, the properties east of the subject property, in the Suburban land use category, are developed for residential, a use which is allowed in Central Urban. Residential uses on the subject property will be contiguous with the adjacent Suburban development. Further, the Industrial category allows limited retail, recreational, and service uses; therefore, the change to the Central Urban designation, which allows commercial and light industrial development, does not introduce any radically-different uses than that allowed on the subject property, except for residential, under its current designation. HE Policy 135.9.5 requires that new development “adjacent to established residential neighborhoods” must be “compatible with or improve the area’s character.” The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with this policy based on the findings above regarding compatibility of the Plan Amendment with surrounding residential uses. HE Policy 135.9.6 requires the County to “administer the planning, zoning and development review process” to ensure that proposed land uses “acceptably minimize adverse … traffic, noise, and glare impacts, as specified in county development regulations, upon adjacent residential properties[.]” Petitioners argue that this policy applies to the Plan Amendment, and that placement of residential uses adjacent to existing industrial uses will expose the residential uses to traffic, noise, and other adverse impacts, which cannot be “acceptably minimized.” Mr. McHarris testified that the unloading and transportation of seafood, as well as repair of boat and other equipment, with their attendant noises and smells, will be a nuisance to the residential uses allowed by the Plan Amendment, thus violating the requirement to minimize those effects on the residential properties. Petitioners did not establish that this policy applies during the plan amendment phase. While the policy includes the “planning process,” in addition to the zoning and development review process, the policy specifically refers to minimizing adverse impacts “as specified in the county land development regulations.” The land development regulations, rather than the Comprehensive Plan, contain the standards for setbacks, screening, buffers, and noise levels, in order to “acceptably minimize” those impacts to adjoining residential properties. The rezoning and site plan review of the development proposed to implement the Plan Amendment, rather than the Plan Amendment review process, are the appropriate processes in which to apply land development regulations for minimization of adverse impacts. Mr. McHarris opined that the Plan Amendment is contrary to Objective 2.6 because it is contrary to the desired “community character,” which he described as a “working waterfront.” Working waterfront is not a term that is used or defined in the Comprehensive Plan. To the extent that the reference is to the Waterfronts Florida designation in partnership with the state, the designation is strictly confined to that area south of Main Street. The desired community character is best reflected in the vision statement in the Comprehensive Plan for the Iona-McGregor Planning Community, of which the island is a designated sub-area. The Comprehensive Plan states, “The San Carlos Island area, which is nearly built out today, will continue to develop its infill areas while maintaining its marine-oriented nature.” The Comprehensive Plan provides that the overall planning community, given its proximity to the area beaches, “will continue to be a popular area for seasonal residents,” and that the entire planning community, is “anticipated to grow substantially from today through 2030.” Some of that growth was anticipated to be residential, as the planning community projected 17 acres of Central Urban for residential development through the year 2030. Plenty of acreage remains for residential development in the Central Urban category. The Plan defines infill as “the use of vacant land within a predominately developed area for further construction or development. These lands already have public services available but may require improvements to meet the current development standards.” The Plan Amendment is infill redevelopment of a former marina site, now utilized only for storage, where all public services are available. The community character is one of transition from historic industrial marine uses to waterfront commercial and mixed-use developments. The Plan Amendment allowing residential development is not inconsistent with that transitioning character. The Plan Amendment is not contrary to Objective 2.6 because it is infill development that is not inconsistent with the community character. Next, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Goal 32, Objectives 32.1 and 32.2, and Policy 32.1.1, which relate to the San Carlos Island Water-Dependent Overlay Zone. Goal 32 provides that “[a]ll development approvals on San Carlos Island must be consistent with the following objective and policy[.]” Objective 32.1 provides that all development must be consistent with a series of policies “[t]o protect marine-oriented land uses” on the island “from incompatible or pre-emptive land uses.” Policy 32.1.1 provides: New development and substantial redevelopment within the Industrial … land use categor[y] … will only be permitted in accordance with the listed criteria. * * * North of Main Street – Within the water- dependent overlay zone which is defined as land within 150 feet of the shoreline: water-dependent marine industrial uses and recreational marinas. Landward of the overlay zone (150-foot line): marine-industrial uses, in addition to commercial or marine industrial uses which support the major industrial activities and recreational marinas. That portion of the subject property lying 150 feet landward of the canal is in the overlay zone. First, it must be noted that Goal 32 and its implementing objectives and policies apply to permitting of new development and redevelopment. Goal 32 sets requirements for “development approvals”; Objective 32.1 applies to “development”; and Policy 32.1.1 speaks to “permit[ing] new development and redevelopment.” Further, Policy 32.1.1 provides that the water dependent overlay zones “will be included in the Lee County zoning regulations[.]” The Plan Amendment is not an application for development permit. Enforcement of the water-dependent overlay zone restrictions will occur at the development order stage.9 9 Again, to the extent Petitioners contend the approved PD rezoning of subject property is inconsistent with these plan provisions, those issues are not properly before the undersigned in this proceeding. See § 163.3215, Fla. Stat. (“Subsections (3) and (4) provide the exclusive methods for an aggrieved or adversely affected party to appeal and challenge the consistency of a development order with a comprehensive plan.”). Furthermore, Policy 32.1.1. applies to development and redevelopment “within the Industrial land use category.” The Plan Amendment changes the designation of the subject property from Industrial and Suburban to Central Urban. Thus, it is at least arguable that the policy does not apply to the Plan Amendment. Even if these Comprehensive Plan provisions apply to the Plan Amendment, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with them. The amendment to the Central Urban land use category will not exclude either “light industrial,” such as water-dependent marine industrial uses, or a recreational marina on the subject property. At first blush, it appears that Policy 32.1.1 would prohibit residential development landward of the overlay zone on the subject property. However, the Comprehensive Plan provides that these regulations will be incorporated into the zoning regulations and “may be the subject of deviation requests during the planned development process.” Hurricane Shelter and Evacuation Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with the hurricane evacuation and shelter provisions of Community Facilities and Services Element (“CFSE”) Goal 73, Objective 73.1, and Policies 73.1.1 and 73.1.2. CFSE Goal 73 is a general goal for the County to provide adequate evacuation and sheltering safeguards for major storm events. Objective 73.1 directs the County to “[w]ork towards attaining” out-of-county evacuation times consistent with the Statewide Regional Evacuation Study. Notably, the objective specifies the ways in which the County will “work toward attaining” those evacuation time—by increasing shelter availability, improving evacuation routes, and increasing public awareness. The objective does not require the County to either prohibit or limit residential density to achieve that end. CFSE Policy 73.1.1 requires the County to do periodic updates of its emergency management plan and the long-range transportation plan, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and to identify critical evacuation routes. Policy 73.1.2 addresses replacement bridges on evacuation routes. None of these provisions are implicated by or address the Plan Amendment at issue. Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with FLUE Goal 32; FLUE Objectives 2.2, 2.6, 32.1, and 32.2; FLUE Policies 5.1.5 and 32.1.1; HE Policies 135.9.5 and 135.9.6; and CFSE Goal 73, Objective 73.1, and Policies 73.1.1 and 73.1.2. Data and Analysis Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment does not appropriately react to data available to the County at the time the Plan Amendment was adopted, namely historical data constituting the community vision for the island. Ms. Semmer testified that the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction to the San Carlos Island Community Redevelopment Area (“CRA”) Plan, which she testified was “the outcome of a long history of community working together to plan for its future.” When asked to identify specific provisions of the CRA plan to which the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction, Ms. Semmer identified the fact that the plan recognized the existence of 917 residential units. She testified that “we felt that we were built out at the time, and we were happy with that … And this project, adding another 75 units, it’s going to be difficult to accommodate the additional traffic and the people.” The CRA plan was adopted in May 1991 and provided the background, findings, and data to support the designation of the entire island as a CRA, pursuant to section 163.358. The CRA Plan makes findings that blighted conditions exist on the island which justify designation as a CRA. The CRA Plan defines the characteristics of the redevelopment area, provides an infrastructure needs assessment, and establishes goals for the redevelopment area, as well as specific subareas. The CRA Plan actually notes the existence of 995 dwelling units on the island, not 917, according to the 1980 census. The CRA Plan does not contain any prohibition on increasing the number of dwelling units on the island, or reflect an intent to prohibit new residential development.10 On the contrary, the CRA Plan contains data which is supportive of the Plan Amendment. For example, one of the findings of blight conditions is “faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness.” The CRA Plan finds that many lots “do not comply with minimum lot size requirements” and “would have significant difficulty being developed under current regulations.” The Plan Amendment combines eight lots, redevelopment of which is constrained by their size and configuration (narrow, elongated lots) with zoning designations of marine industrial, light industrial, commercial, and mobile home. Under the Plan Amendment, the lots are aggregated for a single development. The CRA Plan identifies the area north of Main Street and east of San Carlos Boulevard (where the subject property is located) as “a mixture of single-family, mobile home parks, marinas, commercial retail and service clubs.” San Carlos Island CRA Plan, p. 23. The CRA Plan does not identify this mix of uses as incompatible or undesirable, nor does it express an intent to discontinue mixed uses in that area. The Plan Amendment proposes a land 10 In contrast, the plan reflects the community’s staunch opposition to development of a parking garage on the island: “It is basic that [the island] neither become a parking lot for Fort Myers Beach (Estero Island) nor for Lee County. This would preclude construction of a parking garage on [the island] or additional surface parking for benefit of other areas of Lee County … or which would be utilized as temporary parking with the people parking their vehicles then being transported to another area by any means.” San Carlos Island CRA Plan, p. 11. “The residents and property owners of San Carlos Island are united in their opposition to construction of a parking garage, unless it can be shown that such garage is of benefit to those residents and owners and is not just part of a plan to permit development in some other area of Lee County.” Id. at p. 26. use category that allows a mix of residential, commercial, marina, and light industrial, underscoring the consistency of the Plan Amendment with the historic development pattern. The CRA Plan further describes more particularly the uses in the area of the subject property as “an area of light industrial development consisting of rental storage area, a service club, a fish house, and a large marina.” Id. at 24. The Plan Amendment retains this essential mix of uses and allows these uses, along with residential, to be developed on the subject property. Petitioners identified a report from the San Carlos Island Community Design Workshop, held February 21 and 22, 1992, as an example of data to which the Plan Amendment does not appropriately react. The workshop was conducted solely to determine “the best uses for a piece of County-owned property,” 5.6-acres in size, fronting on the Matanzas Pass. The report, which is entirely hearsay, notes that the community participants “[d]efinitely [did] not want[] high rises or major public attractions, Disney-style.” The report has no relevance to the Plan Amendment, which is not part of the property being considered for redevelopment during the workshop. Next, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction to the data and analysis reflected in the documents designating San Carlos Island within the Waterfronts Florida partnership. Ms. Semmer testified that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Community Vision contained in that document, to wit: San Carlos Island is a people-oriented community with an important working waterfront that includes vibrant commercial seafood and other marine-based industries and recreational opportunities. These assets contribute in making San Carlos Island an attractive community for its permanent and seasonal residents as well as an interesting area for visiting tourists. The designated “working waterfront” under the Waterfronts Florida partnership is located entirely south of Main Street. Thus, the Plan Amendment, affecting property north of Main Street—outside of the designated area—cannot be inconsistent with the vision expressed therein. Ms. Semmer’s contention that the Plan Amendment will convert property from industrial “working waterfront” use, contrary to the Waterfronts Florida document, is not credible. Likewise, the San Carlos Island Special Area Management Plan, adopted in 1999 to implement the Waterfronts Florida designation, applies mainly to the one-half mile long area designated under the program. Finally, Ms. Semmer introduced a 1978 resolution of the Board of County Commissioners stating, “The Board hereby establishes a policy of granting no additional multi-family zoning on Estero Island or San Carlos Island.” Ms. Semmer testified that this resolution recognizes that the island was “built out, that we could not handle any additional density[.]” Thus, Ms. Semmer argues that the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction to that data because it allows new residential uses on the subject property. The resolution addresses rezonings, and the Plan Amendment is not a rezoning. Rezoning of the property has been undertaken and is not an issue cognizable in this challenge to the Plan Amendment.11 Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to react appropriately to data available to the County at the time it was adopted. The Plan Amendment is based on, and appropriately reacts to, the development trends on the island from intense industrial fishing-related uses to more recreational and commercial uses, including more mixed use uses both north and south of Main Street. The Plan Amendment is supported by data on the availability of public utilities to service the property—a condition necessary for infill development. The Plan Amendment will allow for a transition 11 Moreover, Petitioners did not prove that this resolution is still valid. between the industrial uses to the north and west of the subject property and the suburban uses to the east. State Requirements for Development in the CHHA Finally, Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment increases residential density in the CHHA and does not meet the state requirements for such development set forth in section 163.3178(8). Section 163.3178 defines the CHHA as the “area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges for Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model.” § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. The statute requires each local government comprehensive plan to designate the CHHA within its jurisdiction and “the criteria for mitigation for a comprehensive plan amendment in a [CHHA] as defined in subsection (8).” Id. Section 163.3178(8) reads, as follows: (8)(a) A proposed comprehensive plan amendment shall be found in compliance with state coastal high-hazard provisions if: The adopted level of service for out-of-county hurricane evacuation is maintained for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale; or A 12-hour evacuation time to shelter is maintained for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and shelter space reasonably expected to accommodate the residents of the development contemplated by a proposed comprehensive plan amendment is available; or Appropriate mitigation is provided that will satisfy subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. Appropriate mitigation shall include, without limitation, payment of money, contribution of land, and construction of hurricane shelters and transportation facilities. Required mitigation may not exceed the amount required for a developer to accommodate impacts reasonably attributable to development. A local government and a developer shall enter into a binding agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan. It is undisputed that the subject property, and indeed most of the island, is located in the CHHA. The Plan Amendment allows residential density on the subject property, thereby increasing residential density in the CHHA.12 The County has adopted a 16-hour out-of-county evacuation time for a category 5 storm event (Level E storm surge).13 Based on the 2017 Update to the Southwest Florida Regional Evacuation Study (“Regional Evacuation Study”), the base scenario (i.e., the analysis used for growth management purposes) out-of-county clearance time for Lee County is actually 84.5 hours for a category 5 storm.14 Because the County’s adopted level of service (“LOS”) for out-of- county evacuation in a Level 5 hurricane has not been attained, it certainly will not be maintained under a scenario which includes development allowed by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet the requirements of section 163.3178(8)(a)1. to be deemed compliant with state CHHA standards. The Regional Evacuation Study projects Lee County’s 2020 evacuation time-to-shelter for a Category 5 storm (Level E storm surge) as 96 hours, an increase of 11.5 hours from the 2017 projection. 12 No evidence was introduced to support a finding that the County has made a commensurate reduction in residential density in the CHHA. 13 The County had initially adopted an 18-hour out-of-county hurricane evacuation time; however, in 2006, the Florida Legislature set a default 16-hour evacuation standard for certain local governments. See ch. 2006-68, § 2, Laws of Fla. 14 That number has increased to 96 hours for 2020. Because the County has not attained the state-mandated 12-hour evacuation time-to-shelter, the County cannot maintain that metric under the Plan Amendment.15 Dr. Depew testified that, based on his research, a Category 5 hurricane shelter is located approximately 28 miles from the subject property, which is an approximate 44-minute drive. In his opinion, then, the Plan Amendment “maintains the 12-hour evacuation time to shelter” as required by section 163.3178(8)(a)2. Dr. Depew’s testimony was uncontradicted, but is not credible. Evacuation time-to-shelter is defined in the Regional Evacuation Study as “the time necessary to safely evacuate vulnerable residents and visitors to a ‘point of safety’ with in the county based on a specific hazard (i.e., Category 5 hurricane), behavioral assumptions and evacuation scenario.” Clearance time-to-shelter is “[c]alculated from the point in time when the evacuation order is given to the point in time when the last vehicle reaches a ‘point of safety’ within the county.” Clearance time does mean, as suggested by Dr. Depew, merely the drive time between a particular residential development and an existing qualifying shelter on a normal traffic day. That testimony is inadequate for the undersigned to find that the Plan Amendment meets the state CHHA requirement under section 163.3178(8)(a)2. Assuming, arguendo, that Dr. Depew’s testimony was credible and reliable, it would not be sufficient alone to establish that the Plan Amendment meets the standards of paragraph 2. The application of section 163.3178(8)(a)2. does not end with an analysis of evacuation time-to-shelter. The statute also requires that shelter space “reasonably expected to 15 The County has not adopted an LOS for “evacuation time-to-shelter”; instead, the County has adopted an LOS for shelter capacity: “in-county and on-site shelter for 10% of the population at risk in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone under a Category 5 storm hazard scenario.” accommodate the residents of the development contemplated by” the Plan Amendment be “available.” The Regional Evacuation Study analyzes public shelter capacity and projects public shelter demand for each county in the region. For Lee County, the capacity of all shelters is 42,659 (for both the 2017 and 2020 base scenarios). The projected 2020 public shelter demand for a category 5 hurricane (Level E storm surge risk) is 47,018. That is an increase of 13,799 from the 2017 projection of 33,219. The data does not support a finding that the County has available shelter space to accommodate any new residents, yet alone those evacuating from development at the density allowed by the Plan Amendment. Dr. Depew attempted to undermine the reliability of the shelter demand projections, testifying that “there’s a very high error margin in these projections. In some instances, it’s as high as 50 percent from the anticipated demand[.]”16 Dr. Depew did not identify any documentation of the margin-of- error in the study, or offer any more reliable data from which the County (or the undersigned) could pull more accurate projections. On cross-examination, when asked to look at a specific operational demand projection, Dr. Depew was unable to identify whether it was “one of the ones with the 50 percent error margin.” Dr. Depew also criticized use of the base scenario because it “anticipates a hundred percent evacuation,” while the operational scenario anticipates something “closer to reality.” This attempt to persuade the undersigned that the base scenario shelter demand numbers are either unreliable, or inappropriate to use for purposes of evaluating the Plan Amendment, was likewise unpersuasive. The Evacuation Study Report defines the public shelter demand scenarios as follows: 16 The Regional Evacuation Study was introduced by Intervenor, for whom Dr. Depew was testifying. The Base Scenarios – which are used for planning and growth management purposes assume that 100% of the population-at-risk evacuates plus a (smaller) percentage of non- vulnerable population (shadow evacuation). The Operational Scenarios used in operations use the planning assumptions determined by the behavioral analysis which are assumed to be a more realistic set of assumptions. Although they do not reflect 100% evacuation of vulnerable residents, there is a significant percentage of shadow evacuation especially in major storm events. According to the study, the base scenarios are specifically designed for use in planning and growth management decisions, such as the one made by the County when it adopted this Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet state CHHA standards by way of section 163.3178(8)(a)2. Finally, the statute provides that a plan amendment may be deemed to meet state CHHA standards via mitigation. The developer may mitigate hurricane evacuation impacts of development in the CHHA by payment of money, contribution of land, or construction of hurricane shelters or transportation facilities. Intervenor has committed, through the mediated settlement agreement, to mitigation in the form of either construction of an on-site shelter to withstand category 5 hurricane winds and storm surge, or a fee-in- lieu thereof pursuant to the County’s requirements. The settlement agreement contains detailed specifications for shelter construction should the County choose that option. The settlement also requires the developer to submit a post-storm recovery plan for review and approval by Lee County Emergency Management. The settlement provides that “[p]rior to any redevelopment of the site … an agreement must be executed between the county and the property owners” to require the mitigation. Petitioners argue that this commitment is not sufficient to meet the statutory mitigation requirements because the developer has not yet executed a written mitigation agreement with the County to provide any specific mitigation construction or payment. They criticize the process for “put[ting] off the mitigation plan until redevelopment of the site.” The statute requires that the “local government and a developer shall enter into a binding agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan,” but does not address the timing of the binding agreement relative to the adoption of the Plan Amendment. The Comprehensive Plan, at CME Policy 101.1.4, contains provisions very similar to section 163.3178(8) for plan amendments that increase density in the CHHA. With regard to mitigation, Policy 101.1.4 requires the applicant to “enter into a development agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan prior to adoption of the plan amendment.” Petitioners have not challenged the Plan Amendment as inconsistent with Policy 101.1.4, but rather with the statutory provision. In contrast to the policy, the plain language of the statute does not require the mitigation agreement to be executed prior to adoption of the Plan Amendment. Finally, section 163.3178(8) allows for “[a]ppropriate mitigation [] provided that will satisfy subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2.” By referencing the subparagraphs requiring maintenance of out-of-county evacuation time and 12-hour evacuation time to shelter, the statute requires mitigation to the extent necessary to meet, in this case, the 16-hour out-of-county evacuation clearance time or the 12-hour time-to-shelter standard. However, the statute also limits the developer’s mitigation to “the amount required for a developer to accommodate impacts reasonably attributable to development.” The statute does not require the developer to build shelters, make transportation improvements, contribute land, or make payments to reduce the county’s existing deficit to achieve out-of-county evacuation clearance time or address the County’s overall shelter space deficit. The statute clearly limits the developer’s contribution to that required to address the impacts “reasonably attributable to the [specific] development.” Intervenor argues that providing the mitigation to offset hurricane evacuation or sheltering impacts associated with the particular development is sufficient to meet the statutory requirement. However, to allow a developer to construct residential density in the CHHA and mitigate only the hurricane evacuation or time-to-shelter impacts associated with that particular development, when the adopted out-of-county hurricane evacuation clearance time has not been achieved, is contrary to the statutory requirement. The same is true for allowing shelter construction to mitigate only the impacts of the particular development when the adopted time-to-shelter has not been achieved or a shelter deficit exists. If the undersigned were to accept the County’s and Intervenor’s proffered interpretation of subparagraph 3., that would render meaningless the first sentence, which references to subparagraphs 1. and 2. and requires the mitigation to “satisfy” subparagraphs 1. and 2. Those subparagraphs directly address “maintaining” the adopted out-of-county and time-to-shelter clearance times. Under the proffered reading of section 163.3178(8)(a)3., any developer could satisfy the state requirements for CHHA construction by mitigating the impacts of the specific development on a local government’s hurricane evacuation clearance time regardless of whether the adopted out- of-county clearance time is met. That interpretation is unworkable and is rejected. Alternatively, Intervenor maintains that the Plan Amendment meets the state requirements for increased density in the CHHA under section 163.3178(8)(a)3. Because: (1) the Comprehensive Plan anticipates additional residential development in the Iona/McGregor planning community, which is within the CHHA; and (2) the impact of the Plan Amendment on both the out-of-county hurricane evacuation time and time-to-shelter is “de minimis.” To the first point, according to Table 1(b) of the Comprehensive Plan, the County has allocated a total of 375 acres of residential development in the Central Urban category within the planning community through the year 2030. Mr. Dunn testified that the County has approved residential development of 360 acres, leaving a balance of 15 acres available for residential development. His conclusion is that the County anticipated additional residential density in the CHHA because almost the entire planning community is located in the CHHA. Mr. Dunn’s conclusions appear valid based on the data and analysis in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the logic is circular. The County’s decision to locate more residential development within the CHHA is not dispositive of the question of whether that decision meets the state requirements for residential density in the CHHA.17 That determination is the subject of the instant de novo proceeding. To prove their second point, the County and Intervenor introduced into evidence a memorandum prepared by Daniel Trescott, a professional planner with the firm of Trescott Planning Solutions, Inc., analyzing the impact of the Plan Amendment at its maximum residential buildout (113 total dwelling units) on the County’s out-of-county evacuation clearance time and time-to-shelter (“the Trescott memo”). The relevant findings of the Trescott memo are as follows: (1) development of 113 dwelling units results in an additional 124 vehicles to evacuate and the need for an additional 48 shelter beds; (2) the Plan Amendment will increase out-of-county evacuation time by 1.2 minutes; and 17 Moreover, the Plan Amendment represents a decision to locate more Central Urban within the CHHA which was not reflected on the FLUM when the 2030 “residential by future land use category” allocations were made, as reflected in Table 1(b). The table reflects the overall acreage to be developed for residential use of the total acreage in the Central Urban category at that time. (3) the estimated clearance time-to-shelter would increase one-fifth of 1.2 minutes based on a projection that 21 percent of project residents would evacuate to a public shelter rather than out-of-county. The Trescott memo concludes, “This small increase will not cause the out-of-county evacuation time to increase incrementally above 84 hours,”18 and that the impact on clearance time-to-shelter would be “even more de minimis.” The Regional Evacuation Study calculates hurricane evacuation impacts in 30-minute increments. Based on that model, the impact from development allowed under the Plan Amendment will not result in an incremental increase in either out-of-county hurricane evacuation clearance time or time-to-shelter. Section 163.3178(8)(a)3. does not contain an exception for “de minimis” impacts. Furthermore, the statutory standard is not based on the Regional Hurricane Evacuation projected times for out-of-county and time-to- shelter in a Category 5 hurricane (both of which are projected at 96 hours for 2020), but on the adopted LOS for out-of-county evacuation clearance time of 16 hours, and the statutory time-to-shelter time of 12 hours. The alternative argument by the County and Intervenor that the Plan Amendment meets the state standard for increased residential density in the CHHA is 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 Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance 20-07 on June 17, 2020, is not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney Suite 107 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Mark A. Trank, Esquire Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second Street, 6th Floor Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Amanda Swindle, Assistant County Attorney Lee County Attorney's Office 6th Floor 2115 Second Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2021. Mark Jacob Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 2nd Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3012 Richard Barton Akin, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A. Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes and Holt, P.A. 1715 Monroe Street Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Joshua E. Pratt, Esquire Administration Commission Governor’s Legal Office The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact Background Lee County adopted its comprehensive growth management plan under Section 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, (the Act) on January 31, 1989 (without regard to the subject plan amendments, the Plan). The Plan is compiled in the first volume of a three- volume set. The remaining volumes contain data and analysis (Original Data and Analysis). The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) determined that the Plan was not in compliance with the Act. DCA filed a petition challenging the Plan under Section 163.3184(10), which commenced DOAH Case No. 89-1843GM. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, on September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted Plan amendments and revised the Original Data and Analysis. These amendments to the Plan shall be referred to as the Plan Amendments. The Plan Amendments are contained in a three-volume set. The first volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis concerning traffic. The second volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis concerning the future land use map series, which includes two maps forming the 2010 overlay. The third volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis involving general matters. The Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendments, shall be referred to as the Amended Plan. The additional data and analysis submitted by Lee County in September, 1990, shall be referred to as the Revised Data and Analysis. The Original Data and Analysis and Revised Data and Analysis shall collectively be referred to as the Data and Analysis. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a notice of intent to find the Plan Amendments in compliance. Petitioner Brenda Sheridan, who is a resident of Lee County, had previously submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings concerning the Plan Amendments. On or about November 17, 1990, Petitioner commenced the above-styled case by filing with DCA a petition alleging that the Plan Amendments and Revised Data and Analysis are not in compliance with the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (collectively referred to as the growth management law). Wildlife Habitats and Vegetative Communities (Issues 2 and 6) As to Issue 2, the Revised Data and Analysis contain limited data or analysis pertaining to wildlife habitat and vegetative communities. Much of the data and analysis concerning wildlife habitats and vegetative communities are in the Original Data and Analysis and were unchanged by the Revised Data and Analysis. The Revised Data and Analysis inventory only certain habitats or vegetative communities and analyze the environmental, socioeconomic, and fiscal impacts of development and redevelopment upon only certain unique wildlife habitats. The habitats or communities so considered are only those used by wood storks, Florida panthers, and black bears. The Revised Data and Analysis state: The only documented wood stork rookery in Lee County is on Telegraph Creek. In the past 3 years, no nesting has occurred there. It is possible that they exist in the Flint Pen Strand, adjacent to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Corkscrew includes a well-known wood stork rookery. Wood stork productivity is highly variable as a result of annual rainfall amounts which accumulate in South Florida. Flight paths . . . associated with that rookery cross into feeding locations within Lee County. These movements are primarily dependent on food availability. Tall structures placed in this flight path could affect the wood storks. The first monitoring report concerning the impact of WEVU's new broadcast tower on wood storks has been submitted. Every day during breeding season a biological intern has inspected the 60-acre tower site for injured wood storks. No injuries or fatalities were found. Feeding areas of the Corkscrew Swamp colony have been documented in Lee, Collier, and Hendry Counties. Southeastern Lee County provides important forage areas for this colony; occasionally saltwater habitats are also used. These food sources are essential to the success of wood stork reproduction within the colony. Figure IX.C-1 indicates the foraging sites used by wood storks from the Corkscrew Swamp Colony. Lee County wetlands provide significant feeding areas for wood storks. As water levels drop in the winter, fish are trapped in depressions associated with the wetland. These fish become an easy meal for the wood storks. The storks rely on this feeding source for successful breeding and survival. Strict enforcement of strong wetland regulations is the first step to protect this important feeding source. The Lee County Protected Species Ordinance provides the next step in protecting wood stork forage areas. It requires surveys and management plans for the wood storks. Nesting, roosting, and rooking areas are identified in the survey. Preservation of those areas can be accomplished through conservation easements granted to the county. All management plans must follow the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the Southeast Region, a 1990 publication of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Of the 20 surveys submitted to date, only one indicated the presence of wood stork areas. Two wood storks were identified off of the property. The management plan associated with this property includes preservation of the wetlands associated with this documented forage site. Joint Exhibit 10.c, page IX-3. Figure IX.C-1 indicates the foraging sites used by wood storks of the Corkscrew Swamp colony from 1985 to 1988. The 30 indicated sites are (with one exception) concentrated in extreme southeast Lee County. All of the area is designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource or Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones. Addressing Florida panthers, the Revised Data and Analysis report: The greatest problems facing panthers are directly related to human intrusion. Habitat loss due to increased development erodes the range necessary for each cat's survival. Florida panthers require extensive and biologically diverse landscapes. Male panthers utilize up to 400 square miles of territory. Biotic systems utilized by the Florida panther include "mixed swamp forests, cypress swamps, sawgrass marshes, mesic hammocks, pine flatwoods, and palmetto prairies." (Maehr, David S., "The Florida Panther and Private Lands.") Uplands are especially critical habitats for Florida panther. The tall palmetto systems which are particularly beneficial to the panther are also particularly prized for agriculture and development. Because of the vast range necessary for the survival of the panther, protection of their habitat cannot be fully accomplished through site design regulations for private development. Large areas need to be acquired, preserved, and managed for the long- term survival of this species. Suitable corridors must also be maintained, either through acquisition or regulations. . . . In recent years, two cats have been documented in Lee County. One travels from Collier County, through the Flint Pen Strand, and north past the Southwest Florida Regional Airport to the Caloosahatchee River. This is a young panther. This movement is reflected in Figure IX.C-2 showing public lands within panther range. The second panther has been documented in Northern Lee County. Its range probably includes portions of Charlotte County. Figure IX.C-3 showing Florida panther range is currently out of date given the known travels of the first panther. The enlargement of this map in Figure IX.C-4 illustrates the importance of the Flint Pen Strand acquisition in the preservation of well-documented panther habitat. Joint Exhibit 10.c, pages IX-5 to IX-6. Figures IX.C-3 and -4 disclose that about 50 square miles of south Lee County serves as known panther habitat, although actual habitat is even greater. The 50-square mile area contains much of the land in Lee County east of I-75 and the headwaters of the Estero River. All of the area is designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource or Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones except for all or parts of six one- mile sections, which are designated Suburban and General (Interchange Area). The Revised Data and Analysis discuss the habitat of black bear: Black bear range requirements are strikingly similar to that of the Florida panther. Like the Florida panther, the adult male will occupy home ranges that are greater than the female; in the case of the black bear, 3 to 8 times greater. The range of the black bear forage area extends anywhere from 40 to 312 square miles. In Lee County, bears are known to exist in the northern and southeastern areas of the county. Bear dens are common in the eastern extent of the Flint Pen Strand acquisition. Black bear are generally more common in the southeastern area of the county (see Figure IX.C-7). Black bears have a diverse diet including acorns, various berries, and insects. Under some circumstances, they may also consume feral hogs and cattle. Consistent with their famous desire for honey, bears are notorious for invading apiaries. This activity causes an obvious conflict between bee-keepers and the bears, as many orange groves currently exist in the northern and eastern areas of the county. More groves are permitted in the area as well. Bears studied in the Ocala National Forest predominantly utilized pine flatwoods for bedding and forage. "Pine flatwoods provide good cover for winter bedding as well as a nearly year-round source of food and water. This habitat type supports a variety of food- producing plans including gallberry, blueberry, and saw palmetto." (Wooding, John B. and Hardisky, Thomas S., Final Performance Report: Black Bear Study, page 18.) Bears studied in [the] Osceola National Forest utilized cypress/bay swamps greatest in the fall and winter. The dense cover and fall food supply are explanations for this use. Black bears are prone to utilize areas which include oak in the autumn to take advantage of acorn production. Oak hammocks provide black bears with dense cover and food during these periods. It appears that black bear hibernate to some degree in south Florida. This period of hibernation is of a shorter duration (2 to 3 months) and the bears are more alert during hibernation than they are in more northern areas. However, building energy stores for the hibernation is still important to the black bear in south Florida. Florida black bear dens are simply beds made of vegetation such as palmetto fronds. They are known to den in a variety of habitats. However, pine flatwoods and cypress swamps would appear to be the most utilized for this area. "It is speculated that Florida black bears have adequate food supplies to reproduce by the age of 3-4 years." (Wooding and Hardisky, page 23.) Black bear road kills have been reported along I-75. These bears were crossing in the vicinity of San Carlos Park. Bears have been sighted in that community and occasionally elsewhere west of I-75. However, I-75 is more typically a barrier to black bear migration to the western half of the county. Preservation of large tracts of unfragmented forests is necessary for the continued survival of black bear in Lee County. Public acquisition of connected forested tracts is an effective way of ensuring habitat preservation for black bear. The Flint Pen Strand acquisition includes the area of most extensive bear denning and bedding in Lee County. Since this area is connected by the Bird Rookery Swamp acquisition to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, connectivity of preserved land is accomplished. The largest area of land currently under public control in southeastern Lee County is owned by the city of Fort Myers. Their southeast wellfield site encompasses 6 sections and is compatible with the management of black bear. This area is just 2 miles from the Flint Pen Strand acquisition. A link between the two would provide the needed connectivity and should become a priority. Enhancement of large preserved tracts may yield a higher density of bears. This enhancement includes the planting of forage plants and the maintenance of dense vegetation. A burning program that favors the production of soft mast-forming species should be evaluated with consideration of promoting Melaleuca [sic]. Joint Exhibit 10.c, pages IX-6 and -13. Figure IX.C-7 shows that most of the bear use areas correspond to the depicted location of the Florida panther habitat. As to Issue 2, to the extent that the Revised Data and Analysis address vegetative communities and wildlife habitats, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Revised Data and Analysis are inconsistent with the criteria of an inventory of existing coastal wildlife habitat and vegetative communities and analysis of the environmental, socioeconomic, and fiscal impacts of development and redevelopment upon unique wildlife habitat. As to Issue 6, the Plan Amendments address to a limited extent regulatory or management techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment on wildlife habitat. The Plan Amendments address the wood stork and its habitat as follows: Objective 77.10: WOOD STORK. By July, 1991, regulatory measures to protect the wood stork's feeding and roosting areas and habitat shall be adopted and enforced by Lee County. Policy 77.10.1: By December 31, 1990, the Protected Species Ordinance (#89-34) and its administrative code (AC-13-10) shall include wood storks as a Lee County Listed Species, requiring surveys for and protection of wood stork habitat. The county shall maintain an inventory of documented feeding, roosting, and rooking areas for the wood stork to ensure that surveys submitted through the Protected Species Ordinance include such areas. Policy 77.10.2: By December 31, 1990, the county shall require management plans for existing wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas to utilize "Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the Southeast Region" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990). Policy 77.10.3: By July 1991, the county shall provide incentives for the creation of wood stork feeding areas in mandatory littoral shelf design, construction, and planting. These incentives shall include relief from 50% of the shrub requirements in exchange for fish entrapment areas. Policy 77.10.4: By July 1991, the county shall identify wood stork flight patterns from roosting and rooking areas to feeding areas within the county. Regulations protecting significant flight areas shall be adopted by July 1992, restricting the construction of tall structures such as broadcast towers (see Policy 2.1.5). Policy 2.1.5 provides: 25/ * [[After the completion and acceptance of a special study]] <<By July 1991, the county shall complete a special study on locational criteria for tall structures such as broadcast towers. These criteria shall include wood stork flight corridors from roosting and rooking areas to feeding areas as well as airport hazard areas. By July 1992, new>> tall structures such as broadcast towers shall be [[encouraged or]] required to be located in areas identified as appropriate <<after examining the findings of the study (see Policy 77.10.4).>> * Note: In the above quotation, language added to the policy is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. Policy 77.10.1 requires Lee County to keep an inventory of wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas to ensure that developer-provided surveys include such areas. The Revised Data and Analysis indicate that the County is already aware of certain of such areas. Policy 77.10.2 requires, by December 31, 1990, Lee County to demand that management plans for existing wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas use regionally applicable U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for habitat management. The requirement of management plans arises from the inclusion of wood storks among Lee County Listed Species, as provided in Policy 77.10.1. Policies 77.10.3 and 77.10.4 provide additional protection for wood storks found in Lee County. The Plan Amendments address the Florida panther, black bear, and their habitat as follows: Objective 77.11: FLORIDA PANTHER AND BLACK BEAR. By June 30, 1991, county staff shall develop measures to protect the Florida panther and black bear through greenbelt and acquisition strategies. Policy 77.11.1: County staff, working with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, shall identify known black bear and Florida panther corridors in Lee County. Policy 77.11.2: Criteria developed for ranking land acquisition priorities shall include known panther and black bear corridors. Policy 77.11.3: Lee County shall inform Collier and Charlotte counties as to Lee County corridor acquisition projects to encourage a regional approach to corridor acquisition. Policy 77.11.4: Lee County shall support the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand through a millage increase of .2 mills over a three-year period. Acquisition of this documented Florida panther and black bear corridor shall be coordinated with the South Florida Water Management District's "Save Our Rivers" program and the state's "Conservation and Recreational Lands" program. Policy 77.11.5: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for regulatory and public acquisition purposes shall be designated 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). Policy 77.11.6: Florida panther and black bear corridors shall be included in the Protected Species Ordinance (#89-34) management section. Where corridors are purchased (or designated for purchase) adjacent to the development site, then a buffer to the corridor of no greater than 500 feet shall be required. Policy 77.11.7: In any vegetative restoration projects conducted by Lee County for land acquired due to its environmental sensitivity (such as the Six Mile Cypress Strand and the Flint Pen Strand), plant lists shall include species that provide forage for the prey of the Florida panther and forage for the black bear. The Plan Amendments also modified another policy contained in the Plan: Policy 77.4.1: Identify, inventory, and protect flora and fauna indicated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern in the "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora of Florida," Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, as periodically updated. <<Lee County's Protected Species Ordinance (#89- 34) shall be enforced to protect habitat of those listed species found in Lee County that are vulnerable to development. There shall be a funding commitment of one full-time environmental planner to enforce this ordinance through the zoning and development review process.>> Although not further described in the Amended Plan, the Protected Species Ordinance, which is not part of the Amended Plan, is addressed in the Revised Data and Analysis: The Protected Species ordinance (#89-34) was adopted by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners on August 31, 1989, and became effective on September 1, 1989. The ordinance was the first in the nation to require a survey for listed species habitat and a management plan for proposed development sites. The survey method is delineated to ensure a proper survey is performed. This survey is only required for those vegetative communities known to harbor listed species from the "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Flora and Fauna of Florida" of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Once the listed species are identified, a number of regulatory tools are used to preserve the nesting, feeding, and "other use" areas. These tools include the transfer of density on-site, use of open space requirements, and credits toward regional park impact fees. * * * The ordinance is being administered to allow maximum development flexibility while preserving listed species habitat. Joint Exhibit 10.c, page IX-1. Added by the Plan Amendments, Objective 17.4 states: NATURAL RESOURCES. County regulations, policies, and discretionary actions shall permit no further degradation of estuarine and wetland resources and no unnecessary loss of native upland vegetation and wildlife habitat. Although unaffected by the Plan Amendments, other provisions of the Amended Plan address wildlife habitat and identifies techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment upon important vegetative communities. These provisions state: Goal 77: RESOURCE PROTECTION. To manage the county's wetland and upland ecosystems so as to maintain and enhance native habitats, floral and faunal species diversity, water quality, and natural surface water characteristics. Objective 77.l: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. By 1991 the county shall adopt a resource management plan that will ensure the long- term protection and enhancement of the natural upland and wetland habitats through the retention of interconnected, functioning, and maintainable hydroecological systems where the remaining wetlands and uplands function as a productive unit resembling the original landscape. Policy 77.l.l: The county shall designate a natural resource management agency with responsibilities including: Identifying upland and wetland habitats/systems most suitable for protection, enhancement, reclamation, and conservation. Recommending standards to the Board of County Commissioners for Board approval for development and conservation that will protect and integrate wetlands (Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones), and significant areas of Rare and Unique upland habitats (RU) as indicated in the Lee County Coastal Study, including but not limited to: sand scrub (320); coastal scrub (322); those pine flatwoods (411) which can be categorized as "mature" due to the absence of severe impacts caused by logging, drainage, and exotic infestation; slash pine/midstory oak (412); tropical hardwood (426); live oak hammock (427); and cabbage palm hammock (428). The numbered references are to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Level III (FDOT, 1985). Preparing standards for wetland and rare and unique upland mitigation. Preparing a prioritized listing of wetlands, rare and unique uplands, and critical endangered and threatened species habitat properties for possible acquisition. Recommending a plan for eradicating and controlling problematic exotics Melaleuca, Schinus, and Casuarina with the highest priority placed on preventing new or accelerated infestations in wetlands and rare and unique upland habitats. Maintaining a central clearinghouse for all environmental studies and recommendations by both public and private organizations. Completing the mapping of the hydrological boundaries and habitats of each coastal watershed that extend landward of the coastal area study boundary. Preparing recommendations for maintaining or restoring the desired seasonal base flows and water quality into the coastal zone after reviewing monitoring data. Coordinating the preparation of plans with the municipalities, South Florida Water Management District, and Southwest Florida Water Management District to better control flows of freshwater and reduce pollutant discharges into the Lee County coastal waters. Regularly updating the Level III maps and database of the Coastal Study to reflect the existing conditions following each aerial photography overflight of the county. Providing an annual report to the county commission on the status of wetlands, native uplands, and rare and unique habitats. The report should focus on the adequacy of the land use regulations and management plan to protect and enhance these natural systems. Adjustments should be made in the regulatory process to address whatever deficiencies are noted. Objective 77.2: PLANT COMMUNITIES. By 1991, Lee County will have completed an inventory of natural plant communities and will adopt a program to protect at various suitable locations remnant tracts of all important and representative natural plant communities occurring within Lee County. Policy 77.2.1: Establish a coordinated natural resources information exchange program with state and regional agencies. Policy 77.2.2: Prevent incompatible development in and around areas that have been identified as unique or important natural plant communities. Policy 77.2.3: Prevent water management and development projects from altering or disrupting the natural function of significant natural systems. Policy 77.2.4: Encourage the protection of viable tracts of sensitive or high-quality natural plant communities within developments. Policy 77.2.5: Prepare and adopt regulations to control the clearing of natural vegetation except where and when needed for permitted development. Policy 77.2.6: Avoid needless destruction of upland vegetation communities including coastal and interior hammocks through consideration during the site plan review process of alternative layouts of permitted uses. Policy 77.2.7: Specify in the development regulations where inventories and assessments of the impacts of development in environmentally sensitive lands and Rare and Unique upland habitats shall be required. Policy 77.2.8: Promote the long-term maintenance of natural systems through such instruments as deed restrictions, covenants, easements, transfer of development rights, restrictive zoning, and public acquisition. Policy 77.2.9: Identify possible programs which would help to eradicate noxious plant species and/or non-native plant species from environmentally critical areas and Rare and Unique upland habitats, and implement pilot programs. Incentives such as density bonuses may be considered. Policy 77.2.10: Development adjacent to aquatic and other nature preserves, wildlife refuges, and recreation areas shall protect the natural character and public benefit of these areas including, but not limited to, scenic values for the benefit of future generations. Policy 77.2.11: The planting of Brazilian Pepper, Melaleuca, and Australian Pine is prohibited in order to prevent the spread of these noxious species. Policy 77.2.12: Lee County shall protect its natural resources by encouraging and cooperating with the local Mosquito Control District to employ the maximum feasible use of natural biological agents to control injurious insects. Objective 77.3: WILDLIFE. Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system to which man is inexorably linked. Policy 77.3.1: Encourage upland preservation in and around preserved wetlands to provide habitat diversity, enhance edge effect, and promote wildlife conservation. Policy 77.3.2: Develop a plan to establish wildlife corridors in order to help to maintain regional species viability and diversity. Policy 77.3.3: Adequate safe passage for wildlife under or across new and reconstructed roads shall be provided where appropriate. Objective 77.4: ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN GENERAL. Lee County will continue to protect habitats of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern in order to maintain or enhance existing population numbers and distributions of listed species. * * * Policy 77.4.2: Conserve critical habitat of rare and endangered plant and animal species through development review, regulation, incentives, and acquisition. Policy 77.4.3: Require detailed inventories and assessments of the impacts of development where it threatens habitat of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. Policy 77.4.4: Restrict the use of critical habitats to that which is compatible with the requirements of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. New developments shall protect remnants of viable habitats when listed vegetative and wildlife species inhabit a tract slated for development, except where equivalent mitigation is provided. Objective 77.5: LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLES. By the beginning of the 1989 nesting season (May 1), establish a program to minimize the disorientation of hatchling sea turtles along the Gulf beaches. Policy 77.5.1: The sea turtle protection program shall include at least the following activities: Prepare a guide for homeowners and builders which explains the detrimental effects of night-time beachfront lighting on hatchling sea turtles. Examine public light sources (streetlights, security lights, beach access lights, etc.) and prepare a plan to minimize the amount of harmful light from such sources onto the beach during the nesting season. Conduct an educational program to persuade residents to reduce lighting levels on the beach and to publicize other hazards to turtles from activities of people, pets, and vehicles. Encourage electrical suppliers and lighting dealers to stock special fixtures which reduce the negative effects of beachfront lighting. Develop an ordinance which controls the installation of new light fixtures which could shine on the beach, and which encourages or requires that existing lights be shielded or turned off during the nesting season. Determine whether certain areas of the beachfront are not used by sea turtles for nesting and should therefore not be subject to the same restrictions. Objective 77.6: SOUTHERN BALD EAGLES. During 1989, amend the county's ordinance protecting southern bald eagle habitat to provide an optimum mix of incentives and regulations for protecting buffer areas around nests. Policy 77.6.l: Maintain a policy of negotiations with owners of land surrounding eagle nests to provide an optimal management plan for land subject to imminent development. Policy 77.6.2: The county Eagle Technical Advisory Committee shall complete by the end of 1989 an assessment of all eagle nests in Lee County, and shall prepare proposed guidelines for each nest. Policy 77.6.3: The Committee shall also prepare management guidelines to inform land owners and the general public of proper practices to minimize disturbances to eagle nests. Objective 77.7: WEST INDIAN MANATEES. Minimize injuries and mortality of manatees to maintain the existing population by encouraging the adoption by the state of Florida and local governments of regulations to protect the West Indian Manatee in the Caloosahatchee and elsewhere in Lee County. During 1990, manatee management plans will be prepared for other waters of Lee County also frequented by manatees. Policy 77.7.1: Characterize and map important manatee habitats; identify and evaluate potential threats to important habitats; and consider management agreements to protect such habitats. Policy 77.7.2: Identify areas of greatest actual or potential boat/barge mortality and/or injury by December 31, 1990, and establish slow or idle speed zones. Policy 77.7.3: Inform and educate the public through sign posting, lectures, and regulations about manatee protection. Policy 77.7.4: Educational materials regarding manatees should be disseminated to boaters and warning signs placed in areas where both manatees and humans congregate. Policy 77.7.5: Construction and expansion of multi-slip docking facilities and boat ramps shall be encouraged in locations where there is quick access to deep, open waters where the associated increase in boat traffic will be outside areas of high manatee concentration. Policy 77.7.6: Rezoning and DRI applications for marinas and boat ramps shall be evaluated in the context of cumulative impacts on manatees and marine resources. Policy 77.7.7: State, local, and private interests shall work in cooperation to develop and implement area-specific manatee protection plans. Policy 77.7.8: By October 1, 1991, the county shall provide a permanent funding source to assist the Florida Department of Natural Resources in enforcement of such manatee protection plans as may be adopted. Objective 77.8: GOPHER TORTOISES. During 1989, determine the suitability of publicly owned property for the relocation of gopher tortoises. Policy 77.8.1: The county's policy is to protect gopher tortoise burrows wherever they are found. However, recognizing that there occasionally are unavoidable conflicts which require the relocation of gopher tortoises, the suitability of alternate sites should be evaluated as to --physical suitability of the site for the gopher tortoises; --long-term protection of the land; --conflicts with other management objectives for the land; and --costs that would be incurred by the relocation. Objective 77.9: RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER. By 1990, county staff will prepare a list of best management practices for the red- cockaded woodpecker's habitat. Policy 77.9.1: County staff will note and document other possible red-cockaded woodpecker sites during routine site inspections. As to Issue 6, to the extent that the Plan Amendments address the identification of regulatory or management techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment on wildlife habitat, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with the criterion of a policy identifying such regulatory or management techniques. Future Land Use Map Series (Issues 3, 4, 5, 7, and 11) Issues 5, 7, and 11 As to Issue 11, the future land use map series, which includes the 2010 overlay, reflects a planning timeframe of 20 years. The schedule of capital improvements covers a five-year timeframe. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan uses inconsistent timeframes, such as those mentioned above, as well as timeframes of five years for potable water and sewer, less than 10 years of need for potable water wellfield protection, and one year for mass transit. Different timeframes may be appropriate for different projected items because of the varying amounts of available data and analysis for different items, varying planning requirements in the growth management law concerning different items, and varying degrees of predictability for different items. As to Issue 11, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the criterion of two planning timeframes. As to Issue 5, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis identifies potable water wellfields or their cones of influence. Map 8 of the Amended Plan identifies the cones of influence surrounding depicted wellfields and indicates that it was "as adopted [on] January 31, 1989." Map 8 obviously was part of the Plan and was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. The extensive amendments and revisions concerning the new 2010 overlay, the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, related Plan Amendments, and the data and analysis underlying these operative provisions do not provide a basis for Petitioner's assertion that the future land use map series fails to identify potable water wellfields permitted to pump less than one million gallons per day and their cones of influence. Issue 5 is directed toward the Plan, not the Plan Amendments. As to Issue 7, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis involves densities in the coastal high hazard area, except to the extent that the 2010 overlay may reduce such densities by limiting residential uses when compared to the original 70-year future land use map. 26/ Issue 7 is directed toward the Plan, not the Plan Amendments. Issues 3 and 4 Overview As to Issues 3 and 4, the Plan Amendments substantially changed the future land use map series by the addition of the 2010 overlay and related text. However, except for the introduction of the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, the Plan Amendments, including the 2010 overlay, did not substantially alter the types of land uses permitted by the future land use map series in the Plan. The 2010 overlay and related text address the timing of land uses by limiting the amount of land that may, prior to 2010, be devoted to the uses designated by the future land use map in the Plan. Issues 3 and 4 generally raise the issue whether the Plan Amendments, including the amended future land use map series, are supported by data and analysis. Because the Plan Amendments and the amended future land use map series do not generally change the uses that are ultimately to be allowed in an area, the Plan Amendments and amended future land use map series are not implicated by allegations that the amended future land use maps are not consistent with soils, topography, and floodplains. For the same reason, the Plan Amendments and amended future land use map series do not play a significant role in determining whether land use designations for specific areas, such as North Bonita Springs, are supported by data and analysis. However, as explained below, the Plan Amendments, including the amended future land use map series, directly affect the amount of land that will be available for designated uses by 2010. Based on the findings contained in the following sections, the designations contained in the amended future land use map series--even as limited by the 2010 overlay--lack support from data and analysis in two crucial respects. The first deficiency is that the density allocations are not supported by data and analysis. The second deficiency involves all designations, not just residential designations expressed in terms of densities. The second deficiency contains two parts. First, the existing land use baseline data are omitted from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis. Second, the County has yet to design a reliable process for updating the available baseline existing land use data. The determination whether the density allocations in the amended future land use map series are supported by data and analysis begins with consideration of the ratio of the maximum population accommodated by the Amended Plan for the planning timeframe divided by the projected population at the end of the planning timeframe. The resulting ratio is not itself determinative of the issue whether data and analysis support the density designations in a comprehensive plan. A wide range of density allocation ratios may be calculated for the same plan. There are a variety of reasonable assumptions and adjustments, especially for reducing the maximum population accommodated by the plan. Also there are a range of reasonable density allocation ratios. A density allocation ratio represents a rough calculation of the relationship between the amount of land needed for residential uses during the planning timeframe compared to the amount of land so designated during the planning timeframe. If the ratio is relatively high, there is a greater chance that the plan may not facilitate the efficient use of land or the efficient provision of public facilities, especially if the spatial distribution of densities and textual plan provisions do not tend to achieve these objectives. In any event, a density allocation ratio is an important factor in determining whether data and analysis support the density designations contained in a comprehensive plan. As explained below, the Data and Analysis contain a critical adjustment by which the maximum densities permitted in the Amended Plan are reduced to reflect historic densities--by an unstated amount and according to an incompletely described methodology. The second deficiency concerning supporting data and analysis undermines residential, commercial, industrial, and other designations. The baseline existing land use data are omitted from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis, and the process by which existing land uses will be updated is uncertain and unreliable. The 2010 overlay is meaningless without these data. As described below, the 2010 overlay divides the County into numerous subdistricts. The 2010 overlay limits development in each subdistrict to a maximum acreage for each land use category. The acreage limitations represent total acreage, which consists of the acreage of existing land uses that preexisted the implementation of the 2010 overlay and the acreage of land use authorized pursuant to, and following, the implementation of the 2010 overlay. The baseline data missing from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis are the acres of each existing land use for each subdistrict. The absence of such data from a readily available source such as the Amended Plan or Data and Analysis undermines effective implementation of each of the designations contained in the 2010 overlay. Although the evidence indicates that the County has adequate baseline existing land use data, such data, for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law, must be included in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis because of its indispensable role in the implementation of the 2010 overlay. Neither the Amended Plan nor the Data and Analysis identify the process by which Lee County will update the baseline existing land use data. Evidence at the final hearing revealed serious deficiencies in the updating process, which requires the County to extrapolate from traffic data and analysis the ongoing incremental acreage increases of land use, rather than track the increases as they are authorized in a more straightforward fashion. Thus, concerning the second deficiency, the designations contained in the 2010 overlay are supported by data and analysis only to the extent of: 1) a clearly ascertained baseline, in terms of acres of existing land uses by category for each planning subdistrict, set forth in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis and 2) the identification of a reliable means of determining the incremental acreage increases authorized by the County for each land use category for each planning district following the implementation of the 2010 overlay. 2. How the Amended Future Land Use Map Series Works The primary component of the future land use map series Map 1, which is a future land use map containing 18 future land use designations. Map 1 projects land uses through buildout of the entire County, or about 70 years. Map 1 was contained in the Plan and was not changed by the Plan Amendments, except for the addition of the 2010 overlay and the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation. The Plan Amendments added Maps 16 and 17 to the future land use map series. Maps 16 and 17 constitute the 2010 overlay. Map 16 divides the entire County, including the three municipalities, into 115 planning subdistricts. Map 17 is not a map, but is a series of bar graphs depicting acreages for seven land use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, and vacant and passive agriculture. The regulatory concept of the 2010 overlay is to prohibit, prior to 2010, the issuance of "final development orders or building permits" for any future land use designation once the subdistrict has attained the acreage specified for that type of land use by Map 17. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. This concept is implemented by Policy 1.1.1, which provides: The Future Land Use Map contained in this element is hereby adopted as the pattern for future development and substantial redevelopment within the unincorporated portion of Lee County. <<Maps 16 and 17 are an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series (see Policies 1.7.6 and 2.2.2). They depict the extent of development through the year 2010. No final development orders or building permits will be issued by Lee County which would allow the acreage totals for any land use category on these maps to be exceeded.>> The cities of Fort Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel are depicted on [[this]] <<these>> maps only to indicate the approximate intensities of development permitted under the comprehensive plans of those cities. Residential densities are described in the following policies and summarized in Table l. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that the purpose of the 2010 overlay is to make the 70-year future land use map in the Plan "even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 1. The Revised Data and Analysis elaborate: The addition of a 20-year horizon (i.e., to the year 2010) to the map series is an effort to project and monitor land development quantitatively on a small area basis and over a relatively shorter period of time, thus improving the county's ability to coordinate zoning, impact fees, and other development regulations with the planning and programming of public facilities and services. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 2. Assumptions, Data, and Methodologies Applicable to 2010 Overlay Density Allocations: Assumptions and Data Map 1 and the 2010 overlay are based on the 1987 University of Florida high-range population projections for 2010. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 4. Residential projections are based on peak or seasonal populations, which are permanent populations plus 18%. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 4, and County Exhibit 1.B, page V-7. Populations are converted to dwelling units by assuming that 2.01 persons occupy each dwelling unit. Id. The population figures typically include Ft. Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel, not merely unincorporated Lee County. 27/ Other important assumptions identified in the Revised Data and Analysis are that there will be no net loss of wetlands, the density allocations will reflect the new Groundwater Resource/Density Reduction designation with a density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres (1:10), the Mid-Point Bridge will be built by 2000, all but one of the transportation projects shown on the Interim Traffic Circulation Plan Map will be finished by 2010, and the "state road network" will be enhanced by the Traffic District Program and Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads and Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads. 28/ Joint Exhibit 10.b, pages 4-5. Another key assumption involves adjustments to the designated densities authorized in the comprehensive plans of Ft. Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel. Acknowledging that Lee County lacks planning jurisdiction over these municipalities, the Revised Data and Analysis nonetheless reveal that Lee County made "some adjustments" to their growth trends. In other words, in determining the densities to use for the 2010 population that could be accommodated by the cities' plans, Lee County chose not to rely on the maximum densities indicated by the future land use designations given vacant residential acreage on each city's future land use map. Instead, as it did for the unincorporated County, Lee County reduced the maximum densities in the cities' plans to account for historic buildout densities. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. Density Allocations: Methodology Noting that the 2010 overlay is not a "textbook planning concept," the Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge that the 2010 overlay required an "innovative methodology," which, due to time constraints, could not be fully documented in the Revised Data and Analysis. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. Instead, the Revised Data and Analysis provide only a "brief explanation" of the methodology. Id. Section III of the Revised Data and Analysis for the Future Land Use Element 29/ describes the methodology underlying the County's estimate of the builtout capacity of the land. In this analysis, the County reduces maximum densities permitted under the Amended Plan to reflect anticipated actual densities. This adjustment is intended to reflect the historic buildout factor in Lee County, which generally resulted in involved lower densities in urban areas and higher densities in rural areas than are designated in the Amended Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that the Original Data and Analysis used 1981 data and analysis of then-existing vacant land, including platted but vacant lots. The vacant acreage was then tabulated by land uses identified within the Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis add: By adding the 1981 dwelling unit count to a reasonable projection of future housing densities on the "vacant" acreage, an estimate was made of the build-out capacity of the unincorporated area as shown in the Lee Plan's land use map. The process by which vacant acreage was converted to dwelling units is partly described, at least to the extent of several assumptions. The following percentages were deducted from the vacant acreage for the following uses: commercial--8%; major collector and arterial roads--5%; educational facilities- -2%; and community and regional parks--1%. Another 10,000 acres were deducted from the vacant acreage for industrial uses. The percentage reductions for commercial and industrial future land uses were based on studies by the independent planning consultant who was involved in the preparation of Map 1 and the 2010 overlay. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 6. The deductions for commercial and industrial acreage allotments, as described in this paragraph, are reasonable and supported by data and analysis. 30/ The Revised Data and Analysis, as well as the Original Data and Analysis, mention adjustments that Lee County made to its analysis of the capacity of residential development authorized by the Amended Plan. By these adjustments, the County attempted to show where commercial and industrial uses would preempt residential uses. Although the methodology of the adjustments is not disclosed, they appear to represent a reasonable attempt to avoid the unrealistic land use planning assumption that commercial and industrial uses would be scattered equally throughout the parts of the County where they are authorized under the Amended Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis next break down the acreage of each future land use designation into 15 planning districts and 115 planning subdistricts. Table 1 (III C) beginning on page 8 of Joint Exhibit 10.b provides acreages for each of the 15 planning districts on three tables: one for Lee County in its entirety, one for unincorporated Lee County, and one for the three municipalities. Table 2 (III C) breaks down the acreages by planning subdistrict. The acreages in Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) do not correspond to the acreages shown in Map 17 and Table 3 (V G). 31/ The differences are not indicative of deficient data and analysis. Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) represent interim stages of the process by which Lee County developed the 2010 overlay and, as such, do not provide acreages on which density allocations may be calculated. However, Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) do not suggest that the final acreage figures in Map 17 and Table 3 (V G) represent the maximum densities or population allowed in the Amended Plan without reduction for historic densities. To the contrary, the Revised Data and Analysis indicate that the preparation of Table 2 (III C) allowed "the input of expected densities." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 7. Unlike Table 3 (V G) or Table 1 (III C), Table 2 (III C) contains a column entitled, "Buildout Assumptions." One part of the Buildout Assumptions column is "percent residential." The adjustment for percent residential appears to be based on the above-described deductions for commercial and industrial allotments. In any event, the adjustment represents a reasonable projection as to what portions of land designated residential will necessarily be devoted to other uses, such as commercial and industrial. The other part of the Buildout Assumptions column in Table 2 (III C) is "dwelling units per acre," which appears to represent adjusted projections based on historic buildouts. The maximum densities for each category allowed by the Amended Plan are invariably equal to or (more often) higher than the dwelling units per acre contained in the Buildout Assumptions. 32/ The Revised Data and Analysis revise Section V(G) of the Original Data and Analysis. This section is entitled "Future Land Use Needs for the Year 2010." The new section addresses exclusively residential development. Table 2 (V G) in the new section lists by planning subdistricts the number of dwelling units in 1987, the number of dwelling units projected for 2010, and the number of dwelling units projected at buildout. In introducing Table 3 (V G), the Revised Data and Analysis note that the projected number of dwelling units for 2010 (presumably from Table 2 (V G)) was translated to acreage by "taking the number of acres in each land use category in each district and allocating the residential units projected for 2010 at the density factor (number of units per acre) allowed in the land use category." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 37. However, the acreage allotments in Table 3 (V G), which are the same as those in Map 17, reflect historic density adjustments, rather than unadjusted applications of the maximum densities authorized in the Amended Plan. For the purpose of calculating density allocation ratios in determining whether the designated densities are supported by data and analysis, there is no justification for failing to disclose information necessary to calculate the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan. 33/ For the purpose of calculating density allocation ratios in determining whether the designated densities are supported by data and analysis, there is no justification for reducing the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan by an undisclosed amount to reflect historic buildout densities. The purpose of Map 1 was to depict the land uses in Lee County at buildout, which was estimated to be about 70 years. This 70-year future land use map was to facilitate end-state public facility planning by assisting the County and private utility companies in determining where to locate and how to size public facilities so as to accommodate the builtout population of Lee County. Projecting actual buildouts for end-state public facility planning requires an adjustment based on historic densities. But the present determination is whether the densities authorized by the Amended Plan are supported by data and analysis. This determination requires consideration of the effectiveness of the future land use map series as a regulatory device to assist the Amended Plan in achieving consistency with applicable criteria of the growth management law. To a large extent, any regulatory purpose for Map 1 was frustrated by the fact that, in 1989, it made available for immediate development (subject to concurrency) all of the land that would be needed for various uses by 2060. The 70-year planning timeframe meant that Map 1 designated amounts of land for various uses that were grossly in excess of that which was needed in 1989 or even 2010. To this extent, the 70-year future land use map did not facilitate effective land use planning. The sole purpose of the 2010 overlay is to shorten the planning timeframe of Map 1 from 70 year to 20 years. The shorter planning timeframe is more meaningful for land use planning, as well as facility planning in the interim. Although the 2010 overlay clearly strengthens the future land use map series as a regulatory device, the question still remains whether even the reduced densities designated by the map series are supported by data and analysis. 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 somewhere 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. Although there is some flexibility in calculating and interpreting density allocation ratios, the reduction of maximum densities allowed in the Amended Plan by an undisclosed amount and by an incompletely explained methodology frustrates the purpose of comprehensive land use planning. 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 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. By failing to disclose either the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan or even the bases upon which such maximum densities could be derived, Lee County has implicitly and--at times--explicitly demanded undue deference to its above-described density analyses. Nothing in the record warrants such deference. Although Lee County has made considerable progress in regulating land uses since first adopting zoning in 1962, sprawling, low-density residential monoliths already occupy much of the landscape in Lee County. Two such areas are Lehigh Acres and Cape Coral, the latter of which has now been incorporated. These inefficient land use patterns, which are a large part of Lee County's historic densities, generally exceed rural densities but do not attain urban densities. Lee County confronts a serious challenge from the massive tracts of prematurely (and in some cases unsuitably) platted lots, as well as the ongoing pressure to continue such inefficient and costly land use practices. The Original Data and Analysis note that "vacant zoning together with platted lands could accommodate over 218,700 units or 518,000 people in the unincorporated area alone" and that the "pace of rezoning, often with speculative intent, has not lessened appreciably since that time." County Exhibit 1.B, Future Land Use Element Data and Analysis, page V-1. The Original Data and Analysis observe that Lee County in its entirety contains 480,458 platted lots covering over 153 square miles. Although it is not entirely clear that all of these lots are vacant or preplatted, a considerable number of them are. Most of the lots are in Lehigh Acres (132,512 lots) and Cape Coral (287,869, but deed restrictions require two lots for one homesite.) Only 3768 lots are considered nondevelopable. County Exhibit 1.B, Future Land Use Element Data and Analysis, page I-1. The Revised Data and Analysis argue that Lee County should be accorded greater planning flexibility than should other local governments in Florida due in part to its "large concentrations of pre-platted lands." The other reasons cited to justify special treatment are the presence of three independent municipalities, a multiplicity of private sewer and water systems lacking centralized control, a complicated land and water configuration, a strong wetlands protection program, a large regional airport, existing and future DRI's, and an "historical pattern of decision-making that has created land use expectations which, in the aggregate, are difficult to reverse and require care and sensitivity in so doing." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 2. With the exception of the strong wetlands protection program, if one were to exist, the cited factors at best cut both ways in terms of whether, under the growth management law, a local government facing such challenges requires greater planning flexibility. The pre-platted lands factor militates against greater planning flexibility, as these vacant lots represent a potential liability that threaten the viability of a local government's comprehensive plan. Following the discussion of Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C), the Revised Data and Analysis admit: The above analysis helps to explain the inability of Lee County and private sector utility companies to provide infrastructure to all of the future urban areas shown on the future land use map. Those services that involve major expenditures for site-specific capital improvements (such as sewer lines, water lines, and major roadways) are the major components of local governments' expenses in providing for new growth; yet they are the very services which are difficult to provide economically when a large supply of land is provided for development. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 7. The Revised Data and Analysis identify several factors that militate in favor of abandoning the stricter regulatory land-use controls introduced by the 1984 comprehensive plan. 34/ These factors are the presence of numerous private utility suppliers over which Lee County has no regulatory control; the "existing pattern of development within unincorporated Lee County [involving] numerous physically scattered communities of widely varying character," which renders attempts to apply a "single concept" of urban services across a wide spectrum of communities "inappropriate" and "financially infeasible" both as to existing and future development; the unsuccessful implementation of flexible planning strategies in the 1984 plan, such as planned unit developments in which developers and landowners provide a full range of urban infrastructure without expense to Lee County; and, "[p]erhaps the most difficult issue. . . in implementing the 1984 Lee Plan," the "lack of total commitment to the policy of allowing urban-scale development [over 1:1] only where a commitment was actually being made to provide an urban level of infrastructure." Elaborating on the last factor, the Revised Data and Analysis add: "The future land use map has often been seen as just another obstacle rather than as a vehicle towards the creation of desirable development patterns." Joint Exhibit 10.b, pages 30-31. Again, the cited factors do not militate in favor of more relaxed regulatory land-use practices to achieve consistency with the criteria of the growth management law. Addressing the 2010 overlay and the projected population that it is intended to accommodate, the Revised Data and Analysis contend: [DCA] has tried to rigorously defend the concept of enforcing a future land use map having an approximate capacity equal to the projected growth of the county over a given (typically, 20-year) period. This is not possible in Lee County where existing platted and sold lots greatly exceed the 20-year period. In addition, it is also important to know where and how growth will occur well beyond the conventional timeframe of a comprehensive plan. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 31. However, the Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge the drawbacks of reliance upon a future land use map with a 70-year planning timeframe. The cited disadvantages include the increased likelihood of changes in designations over the intervening 70 years (as compared to shorter periods like 20 years); the premature conversion of agricultural and vacant land to residential uses due to designations that, in 1990, presently permit land uses that will accommodate all projected urbanization through the year 2060; and the possibility that actual population growth will not attain projected population growth, which would result in an even more scattered development pattern that would further increase the cost of servicing the scattered population with required public facilities and services. The Revised Data and Analysis frankly concede that "there is no easy way to exit from the present dilemma." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 32. A "wholesale rollback" of existing future urban areas, though simple, "would inevitably diminish development rights previously granted by Lee County." The prime examples of previously granted development rights are the "hundreds of thousands of [already-sold] platted lots" and "numerous large-scale developments which have recently been approved based on the existing Lee Plan . . .." Id. Acknowledging the obvious, the Revised Data and Analysis admit that the preceding analysis "indicates clearly that the development potential shown on the Future Land Use Map is greater than the projected population for the year 2010." Id. The Revised Data and Analysis list five steps that Lee County has taken to "bridge the gap between the adopted [70- year] future land use map and the desirability of a 20-year map." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 32. These steps are reserving about one-third of the Future Urban Areas for privately funded infrastructure; substantially reducing the total acreage of land, including coastal ares designated urban in the 1984 plan; adopting impact fees for fire protection and emergency medical services; adopting the 2010 overlay; and adopting the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to reduce densities in sensitive areas to 1:10. As noted above, the encouragement of privately funded infrastructure has not enjoyed much success in Lee County. As noted below, the adoption of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation with a low density of 1:10 over thousands of acres of the County allows a real separation of urban and rural uses. But, as noted in this section of the recommended order, data and analysis do not support the density designations in the 2010 overlay and thus the question remains open whether even the reduced densities authorized by the 2010 overlay are supported by data and analysis. Baseline and Updated Existing Land Use Data: Data, Assumptions, and Methodology Lee County possesses the baseline data for existing land uses by each land use category for each subdistrict. Lee County's Growth Management Director William Spikowski testified that the County possessed sufficient, baseline existing land use data, broken down by land use category and subdistrict, as of 1987. Tr., page 122. There is no basis in the record for discrediting the 1987 baseline data, 35/ but, for the reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the criterion of supporting data and analysis requires in this instance that such crucial baseline data be included in the Data and Analysis (or the Amended Plan, if the County prefers). For the faster-growing subdistricts, these baseline data were updated to 1990, which is when the 2010 overlay was adopted. Id. The record does not support the finding that, to the exclusion of fair debate, any problems exist with respect to the one-time 1990 update of the baseline data, which may have been produced by the independent consultant who prepared the commercial and industrial studies and initiated Map 1 and the 2010 overlay. The point at which the 2010 overlay finds no support from the data and analysis is in the updating of the existing land use data from the 1987 (or 1990, where applicable) baseline data. The 115 planning subdistricts in Map 16 are formed out of over 800 traffic analysis zones. Part of the reason for using the traffic analysis zones was the detailed data available for small areas of the County. When confronted with the necessity of calculating exactly how much land remains in a specific subdistrict for a specific use, the County has a very poorly defined process whose results are unreliable. The updating process does not involve tracking actual land areas authorized for development in a specific land use under the 2010 overlay. Instead, the County reverts to traffic data, employs undisclosed conversion factors, and reaches a result that may or may not measure the extent of the development that it has authorized in the subdistrict under the 2010 overlay. The conversion process is unreliable and, even if it were reliable, may be measuring merely actual uses, but not already-authorized uses not yet in existence. The unreliability of the updating process by which authorized development under the 2010 overlay is measured was disclosed in the testimony of Mr. Spikowski. The relevant portion of the transcript reads: Q: Okay. Where would I find the--just the vacant acreage that you're proposing to allow to be developed? A: The exact inventory is what I discussed as what we want to have--be able to take off the property appraiser's records for each parcel so that we can have a constantly updated figure. We don't have that available. . . . Tr., page 1294. After discussing a recent rezoning request that evidently involved commercial uses, possibly as part of a mixed- use project, Mr. Spikowski explained that the County elected to do a manual count of existing land uses rather than rely on the traffic data and use a conversion factor. Mr. Spikowski testified in relevant part: A: . . . instead of using the information we used, which is the 1987 inventory done for the traffic model where we had to use conversion factors to take employees back to acres, the right thing to do in that case was to do a manual count, to do what we want to do on the computer. And maybe week after next we're going to have the capability to do that. It had to be done manually. Because we had base projections in here based on the inventory for the '87 traffic model, but it was calculated for commercial based on number of employees, because that's what the traffic model wanted. For us to use it in the overlay we had to convert that back to acres using standard conversion factors, which introduces an element of error. So before you would use this overlay as a regulation of telling somebody they cannot use their land, you really would need to manually check it. Whether that goes to the property appraiser records for those sections or estimate of aerial photography with the Plan amendment, or either way would work. We tried both methods. Q: I really can't do--take the documents that are in evidence and do this calculation because I can't tell what is existing? A: You would have to--If you take the documents in evidence, I believe you'd have to assume that the conversion factors that are county-wide averages are correct for that subdistrict. And again, for general planning purposes we were comfortable doing that, also knowing that we were getting this new system to do it automatically. This is one of the regulatory flaws of the 2010 overlay and that's why it's become so hated in the development community. They say, if you can't give us the exact amount, how can you expect us to live with it? Tr, pages 1294-97. The record is otherwise devoid of evidence describing the methodology by which the acreage allotments by subdistrict will be updated. The role of Map 17, as described by Policy 1.1.1, is to ensure that the County will not authorize development that would exceed relevant acreage totals. There are absolutely no data or analysis supporting the crucial updating process. Nothing in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis prevents the County from, if it so chooses, using traffic data (which may possibly ignore authorized uses that have not yet placed vehicles on the road), converting employees to acres by some undisclosed formula (or perhaps residents to acres through the undisclosed historic density adjustment), and determining that the development would not exceed the acreage allotment. It is to the County's credit that, in the rezoning application described by Mr. Spikowski, it manually determined existing land uses in the affected subdistrict to determine if additional acreage were available. This is the "right thing to do" for using the 2010 overlay "as a regulation." But the 2010 overlay is unsupported by data and analysis unless the County restricts itself to a reliable updating process. The alternative updating process, which is based on converted traffic data, cannot be found, on basis of this record, to be any more reliable than reading owls' entrails. The Amended Plan or Data and Analysis must assure that the County will adhere to more reliable means of measuring interim increases in land uses authorized under the 2010 overlay. Even if the County implements a computer- assisted reading of updated property appraiser records, questions remain concerning, for instance, the accuracy of such records as measurements of the extent of development authorized by the County pursuant to the 2010 overlay and the frequency with which these measurements must be updated in order to ensure that acreage allotments are not exceeded. These matters must be described either in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis for the designations contained in the 2010 overlay to find support in the data and analysis. As to Issues 3 and 4, for the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the Maps 1, 16 and 17 of the amended future land use map series are not supported by data and analysis. Transportation (Issues 8 and 9) With five exceptions not material to this case, Policy 21.1.1 adopts the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) 2010 Financially Feasible Map as the Interim Traffic Circulation Plan Map. This color map is Map 3 in the Amended Plan. Policy 21.1.5 explains that the future traffic circulation map series consists of Map 3, the MPO 2010 Needs Plan (Map 4), and a map of ports, airlines, and rail lines (Map 13). The Plan Amendments completely revised Policies 21.1.1 and 70.1.3.6, which adopt minimum peak hour/peak season level of service standards 36/ for roads in Lee County. The adopted level of service standard is D for freeways, such as I-75, and principal arterials under state jurisdiction other than US 41. The Amended Plan assigns a level of service E to all other roads, which are County arterials and collectors, and state minor arterials and others, as well as US 41. Concerning constrained roads, Policy 22.1.3 provides: <<Due to scenic, historic, environmental, aesthetic, and right-of-way characteristics and considerations, Lee County has determined that certain roadway segments will not be widened. Therefore, reduced peak hour levels of service will be accepted on those constrained roads as a trade-off for the preservation of the scenic, historic, environmental, and aesthetic character of the community. These constrained roads are defined in Table 2(b). Growth on those constrained roads will be permitted only within the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios established in this plan and only if consistent with the Operational Improvement Program for those constrained roads.>> Table 2(b) identifies nine state and County road segments that are constrained. Policy 22.1.9 sets a maximum volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.85:1 and prohibits the issuance of additional permits for development affecting the constrained segment once that ratio has been reached. Policy 22.1.10 establishes an Operational Improvement Program for each constrained segment. There is no evidence that Lee County has identified as constrained road segments roadways for which capacity-enhancing projects are not appropriately limited by scenic, historic, environmental, aesthetic, or right- of-way factors. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the treatment of constrained roads in the Amended Plan is inconsistent with any of the criteria of the growth management law. Table 2(a) identifies 26 state and County road segments that are backlogged. The treatment of backlogged roads in the Amended Plan is much more elaborate. Even though these road segments do not, by definition, meet the minimum level of service standards otherwise adopted in the Amended Plan for roads of their functional classifications, the Amended Plan requires neither the addition of greater transportation capacity in the affected area nor the cessation of development impacting the affected area. Instead, the Amended Plan offers a two-part alternative. Under the Traffic District Program, a backlogged road segment may be viewed in the context of a much larger area. Pursuant to the Interim/Operational Improvement Program, interim operational improvements may be undertaken, but are not required to restore the subject road segment to its otherwise applicable level of service standard. As to Issue 8, the Traffic District Program in particular has a clear impact on the consistency of the Amended Plan and Plan Amendments with the criteria of setting level of service standards for roads, ensuring concurrency for roads, and correcting infrastructure deficiencies regarding roads. Policy 22.1.2 states: <<The minimum acceptable levels of service specified in Policy 22.1.1 shall not apply on an interim basis to the backlogged roads identified in Table 2(a). It is the County's intent that those segments will be improved to the identified standard in the shortest period possible, but no later than December 31, 1999. During that interim period, however, growth on those backlogged roads may be permitted if it is consistent with the Traffic District Program (Policy 22.1.5) and Interim/Operational Improvements Program (Policy 22.1.6).>> Policy 22.1.5 provides: <<A Traffic District Program is hereby established for purposes of determining allowable development affecting backlogged roads. On at least an annual basis, Lee County shall estimate the service volumes for all City, County and State collectors, arterials and freeways within each traffic district, and shall determine the district- wide service volume surplus or deficiency. Development permits that affect a backlogged road may still be approved provided that the surplus service volume resulting from the existing surplus service volume, any service volume increases due to committed roadway improvements, and any service volume increases due to interim improvements (reported as a percent of existing service volume on a district basis) is equal to or exceeds the annual percent increase in traffic on a traffic district basis. However, such permits will be issued only if mitigation is provided in accordance with Policy 22.1.13. In the event that the percent service volume growth identified above on a traffic district basis is less than the percent traffic growth in that district, no permits will be issued by Lee County for development that affects the backlogged segment. Such development will be permitted only if capacity enhancement and/or operational improvements are programmed for implementation within the specific District so that the total service volume growth for the District will again be equal to or greater than the District traffic growth. Growth on non-backlogged roads will not be affected. Development that does not affect the backlogged segment will still be allowed. For purposes of calculating service volumes for the Traffic District Program, the following rules apply: Constrained roads (see Table 2(b)) will not be included in the determination of traffic growth and percent service volumes. Percent traffic growth will be based on the last full year of traffic count information. Committed roadway improvements for purposes of this calculation are those improvements under a current construction contract.>> Policy 22.1.6 states: <<For the identified backlogged roads (see Table 2(a)), and as any additional backlogged roads may emerge over time, an Interim/ Operational Improvement Program will be established. The Interim/Operational Improvement Program will include the following types of improvements: Phased improvements, representing a staged implementation of the eventual improvement that is needed to return the backlogged road to the minimum acceptable level of service. Operational improvements, representing short-term measures to improve traffic operations and expand capacity prior to the eventual roadway improvement.>> <<The initial Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads is identified in Table 2(c).>> <<On an annual basis, a minimum of five backlogged roads will be studied in detail by Lee County with specific interim/operational improvements identified. Specific interim/ operational improvements shall be incorporated into the County's Capital Improvements Program. Initially, six backlogged roads have been studied in detail including portions of US 41 South, US 41 North, McGregor Boulevard, Gladiolus Drive, San Carlos Boulevard, and Metro Parkway. The selection of specific interim/operational improvements to be constructed in any given year may be adjusted as deemed necessary by Lee County to reflect developer funding opportunities, adjustments to construction schedules, other agency improvement projects and schedules, and alternative improvements of a comparable nature. Specific interim/ operational improvements shall be included in all following updates of the County's Capital Improvements Program to ensure the expeditious construction of those improvements.>> Policy 22.1.8 assures that, "[a]fter December 31, 1999, Lee County shall measure concurrency on all roads on a roadway segment-by-segment basis rather than using the Traffic District Program contained in this plan." Policy 22.1.13 provides: <<All proposed development activity, as part of the concurrency management process, will be reviewed against the Traffic District Program, the Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads and the Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads. Development activity affecting backlogged and constrained roads will be required to mitigate its traffic impacts: For that development activity determined not to affect a backlogged and/or constrained road segment, traffic mitigation will consist of payment of Roads Impact Fees and needed intersection improvements at the site entrance(s). For development activity determined to affect a backlogged and/or constrained road segment, traffic mitigation may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: Advanced, lump sum payment of Roads Impact Fees to Lee County; Developer construction or financing, with Lee County approval, of one or more of the interim or operational improvements identified in the Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads or the Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads; Developer prepares, with Lee County approval, a detailed Interim/Operational Improvement Program for the affected road(s) and funds one or more of the needed interim or operational improvements; and Developer funding of needed road improvements.>> <<Lee County's Concurrency Management Ordinance shall be amended prior to the end of 1990 to specify the impact mitigation procedure and threshold measurements for mitigation purposes.>> The establishment of the Traffic Districts for backlogged roads is left to the Revised Data and Analysis. At page VI-7 of Joint Exhibit 10.a is a map dividing Lee County into nine traffic districts. Six districts cover the entire mainland. The districts approximate the preexisting districts created by Lee County in the implementation of its traffic impact fee program. The service/traffic formula does not operate in isolation. As noted above, the Interim/Operational Improvement Program also requires developer- provided mitigation. However, the required mitigation does not require the developer to restore the road segment to its otherwise applicable adopted level of service standard and may not even affect the road segment impacted by the proposed development. More importantly, the service/traffic formula requires little of the County in addressing the problem of backlogged roads before 2000. A graph on p. VI-10 of Joint Exhibit 10.a provides the necessary data to calculate the service/traffic formula to determine if, under this formula, Lee County would likely be precluded from issuing final development orders due to the presence of backlogged roads. A sample calculation on p. VI-6 of Joint Exhibit 10.a illustrates the calculation. As noted on the graph, the service/traffic formula is inapplicable to two of the island traffic districts, which contain only constrained roads. The service/traffic formula, as a practical matter, eliminates the possibility of concurrency-imposed limitations on development due to the enforcement of level of service standards on nonconstrained roads in any of the six mainland districts. The reason is the vast difference--in each district-- between existing service volume and traffic volume. But this difference bears no relationship to the fact that many road segments are already operating below their otherwise applicable level of service standards and that, under the Traffic District Program, many more road segments, not presently backlogged, will also operate below their otherwise applicable level of service standard prior to 2000. Assuming the same annual increase in traffic volume as presently exists for each mainland district, the service/traffic formula would not require Lee County to build or commit to build any road improvements for over 10 years in Districts 1, 2, 5, and 8, six years in District 4, and seven years in District 3. In other words, the service/traffic formula allows Lee County to continue to issue final development orders impacting backlogged road segments and causing more road segments to become backlogged for at least six years anywhere on the mainland and over 10 years for most of the mainland--even in the absence of any capacity- enhancing transportation improvements. The combination of the service/traffic formula and the vast areas covered by the mainland districts allow the perpetuation of congested conditions on nonconstrained roads in Lee County. The Traffic District Program, including the service/traffic formula, renders completely meaningless the adopted level of service standards for nonconstrained roads and concurrency as it applies to nonconstrained roads. The formula and program also relieve Lee County of any obligation to correct transportation infrastructure deficiencies, or even address such deficiencies. The above-stated findings apply even if Table 2(a) and other provisions of the Amended Plan effectively limited the number and length of backlogged road segments to those listed on Table 2(a). Even worse, however, the Amended Plan does not so limit backlogged roads, and Table 2(a) is merely descriptive of road segments that were backlogged when the Plan Amendments were adopted. As contemplated by the first clause of Policy 22.1.6, "additional backlogged roads may emerge over time." This possibility is repeated in the Revised Data and Analysis, which concede that "backlogged and constrained roads may be added to the list over time." Joint Exhibit 10.a, page VIII-5. By effectively ignoring existing backlogged roads and allowing more roads to become backlogged, Lee County has deferred the adoption of level of service standards and postponed concurrency until the year 2000 when the Traffic District Program ends. When a road segment falls below its otherwise applicable standard, the effect of the Traffic District Program and Interim/Operational Improvement Program is to override concurrency by allowing development impacting the affected road segment to proceed without regard to the availability of capacity-enhancing transportation improvements sufficient to restore the affected roads to their otherwise applicable level of service standards. The short-term prospects for roads in Lee County are discussed in the Revised Data and Analysis. In its discussion of existing roads, the Revised Data and Analysis note: The rapid growth in Lee County's population during the past several years has been accompanied by even more rapid growth in traffic volumes on Lee County roads. According to the [FDOT] . . ., traffic volumes (daily vehicle miles traveled) in Lee County increased by 126 percent from 1979 to 1987, the second highest rate of growth in the State of Florida. This rapid growth in traffic is expected to continue. . . . Generally, historic road construction has not kept pace with traffic growth. However, Lee County has recently embarked on an ambitious roadway improvement program and the pace of construction has accelerated in recent years. Joint Exhibit 10.a, page IV-1. The discussion of the existing road network adds that the existing plus committed roadway network includes major roadway improvements programmed by State and local governments for construction through 1994. Addressing backlogged roads, the Revised Data and Analysis state: Despite the accelerated roadway construction activity in Lee County, many road segments are becoming increasingly congested. Several already meet or exceed the level of service standards established in the Lee Plan. . . . Joint Exhibit 10.a, page V-1. The Revised Data and Analysis describe two exhibits displaying information about traffic volumes. Exhibit V-1 analyzes 1989 traffic volumes with the existing road network. Exhibit V-3 analyzes 1994 traffic volumes with the existing plus committed road network, which reveals that several backlogged segments from Exhibit V-1 have been eliminated and several new backlogged segments have been added. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that Exhibit V- 7, which lists all of the backlogged roads on Table 2(a), shows which backlogged roads will be "relieved to some extent by committed improvements." Joint Exhibit 10.a, page V-3. The Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge that "there are no major improvements programmed for several backlogged roads in Lee County." Id. Exhibit V-1 shows that, for 1989, there were 26 backlogged road segments for a total of 27.3 miles. 37/ Of these, 18 segments for 18.2 miles were under state jurisdiction, rather than County jurisdiction. Exhibit V-3 shows that, for 1994, based on the existing plus committed road network, there will be 28 backlogged road segments for a total of 34.2 miles. The total for state backlogged roads is projected to rise even more rapidly: 22 road segments for a total of 29.4 miles. As indicated by the text, Exhibit V-7 shows that several backlogged roads listed in Table 2(a) are not scheduled to receive committed improvements (presumably through 1994). Recommended improvements to eliminate backlogged conditions (Joint Exhibit 10.a, page VII-4) are shown on Exhibit VII-7. However, nothing in the Amended Plan commits the County to undertaking these projects. The purpose of Exhibit VII-7 is to show the work needed over a ten-year period to restore backlogged roads to their otherwise applicable level of service standards. Some of the projects would be outside of the five-year period covered by the schedule of capital improvements on page VII-21 of the Amended Plan. But, in addition to the fact that Lee County does not commit itself in the Amended Plan to undertaking this work, nothing in Exhibit VII-7 addresses those road segments that become backlogged at a later date. As to Issue 8, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that, as to all nonconstrained roads not under the jurisdiction of any municipality, the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the criteria of setting level of service standards, ensuring concurrency, and correcting existing infrastructure deficiencies. As to Issue 9, Petitioner argues that the Plan Amendments regarding transportation are not financially feasible because the capital improvement schedule does not identify a current source of funding for all of the road improvements described in the Plan Amendments as "necessary or desirable." It is not entirely clear what Petitioner means by road improvements that are described as "necessary or desirable." These words correspond to the MPO Needs Plan and MPO Financially Feasible Plan. Of course, these plans, which are adopted in the Amended Plan as Maps 4 and 3 respectively, pertain to the year 2010, and the five-year capital improvements schedule properly pertains only to 1995. Petitioner may mean by "necessary and desirable" that the road projects do not adequately address backlogged roads, so as to allow the Traffic District Program to attain consistency. This issue has been addressed in connection with Issue 8. Except to the extent that the financial feasibility of transportation improvements has been addressed in connection with Issue 8, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the transportation capital projects are inconsistent with the criterion of financial feasibility. Miscellaneous Minimum Criteria (Issues 1, 10, and 12) As to Issue 1, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis addresses directly the issue of private potable water suppliers. The Plan Amendments create a new future land use category, Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource. The Revised Data and Analysis discuss four studies or reports focusing on the aquifers in Lee County and aquifer recharge areas. But the focus of these material is general and on hydrogeologic supplies, rather than on the specific entities presently involved in producing potable water. As to Issue 10, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis addresses coordination between Lee County and its Amended Plan and the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. However, the separate issue whether the Plan Amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan is addressed below. As to Issue 12, the only provisions amended by the Plan Amendments are Policies 2.2.2 (primarily third factor and flush language), 15.2.2, 38.1.6, 38.4.1, and 38.4.3, as well as the 2010 overlay. The remaining objectives and policies were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Policy 2.2.2 states: Map 1 of Tthe Future Land Use Map <<series>> indicates the uses and density ranges that will ultimately be permitted on a given parcel. However, it is not a guarantee that such densities or uses are immediately appropriate, as the map provides for the county's growth over the coming 70 years. During the rezoning process the Board of County Commissioners will balance the overall standards and policies of this plan with [[two]] <<three>> additional factors: --whether a given proposal would further burden already overwhelmed existing and committed public facilities such that the approval should be delayed until the facilities can be constructed; <<or>> <<--whether a given proposal is for land so far beyond existing development or adequate public facilities that approval should be delayed in an effort to encourage compact and efficient growth patterns.; or>> <<--whether a given proposal would result in unreasonable development expectations which may not be achievable because of acreage limitations on the "Year 2010 Overlay" (see Policy 1.7.6 and Maps 16 and 17).>> <<In all cases where rezoning is approved, such approval does not constitute a determination that the minimum acceptable levels of service (see Policy 70.1.3) will be available concurrent with the impacts of the proposed development. Such a determination must be made prior to the issuance of additional development permits, based on conditions which exist at that time, as required by Lee County's concurrency management system.>> The 2010 overlay designates the proposed location of various future land uses in Lee County. Map 1 shows where certain land uses may generally be located for the next 70 years. Maps 16 and 17 limit these land uses for the next 20 years and, to some extent, show where these land uses may be permitted during that timeframe. Although the specific locations of land uses prior to 2010 are not disclosed by Maps 16 and 17, the generalized locations are. There is nothing vague or ambiguous in Policy 2.2.2. Misciting Policy 2.1.2 as Policy 2.2.2, Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that certain language is vague, but she did not plead Policy 2.1.2, which, in any event, was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Objective 15.2 provides: COMMUNITY FACILITIES. Within funding constraints, the county shall attempt, during 1989, 1990, and 1991, to incorporate the following recommendations of the ad-hoc Bonita Study Group into the planning process for public facilities. Policy 15.2.2 states: <<IRRIGATION WELLS. Bonita Springs (as defined in this plan) is hereby declared a critical area for future potable water supply, based on evidence that withdrawals from the main potable aquifer, the lower Tamiami aquifer, are approaching or exceeding the maximum safe yield. In response to this designation, the county shall amend current regulations to provide that new irrigation well permits in Bonita Springs may not utilize the main potable water source. (Also see Policy 32.1.9 for new permit requirements for wells in Lehigh Acres, and Policy 2.4.3 for special requirements for amendments to the Future Land Use Map.)>> Policy 15.2.2 is not vague, nor does Petitioner argue grounds for vagueness as to Policy 15.2.2 in her proposed recommended order. Policy 38.1.6 provides: <<Within one year after the adoption of this policy, Lee County shall amend its land development regulations to require that proper stormwater management systems be installed when land is being redeveloped. Appropriate exemptions shall be provided to this requirement for individual residential structures and for historic districts. The regulations may also provide modified stormwater management standards for publicly sponsored projects within community redevelopment areas (as defined by Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes). However, this policy shall not be interpreted so as to waive any concurrency level-of-service standards.>> Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the words "proper," "appropriate," and "modified" lack sufficient definition so as to render Policy 38.1.6 vague and ineffective. The terms are sufficiently definite to provide enforceable guidance to the County in the adoption of implementing land development regulations. The word "proper" incorporates the stormwater level of service standards stated at Policy 38.3.1. The word "appropriate" applies to reasonable exceptions to the stormwater level of service standards for individual residences and historic districts. The word "modified" creates a reasonable exception to the stormwater level of service standards for publicly sponsored community redevelopment areas. There are communities in Lee County, such as Harlem Heights, where the housing is seriously substandard and the community is eligible for publicly sponsored redevelopment, as well as interim assistance through such projects as Habitat for Humanity. Evidently due to relatively low elevations, at least when the housing is compared to adjacent roadways, the Harlem Heights community also suffers from a seriously inadequate (and possibly nonexistent) stormwater management system. Ideally, all areas within Lee County should be subject to, and receive the benefits of, effective stormwater management. However, communities desperately in need of publicly funded redevelopment, such as Harlem Heights, present a special challenge. As a practical matter, the treatment of publicly sponsored projects within community redevelopment areas by Policy 38.1.6 represents a fair accommodation of competing policy demands in providing stormwater management and decent, affordable housing. Objective 38.4 states: <<CRITICAL AREAS. The Six Mile Cypress Basin (as defined in Ordinance #83-5 as amended) and the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category are both identified as "critical areas for surface water management." By December 31, 1990, the county shall adopt additional regulations to protect the unique environmental and water resource values of these areas.>> The policy cluster under Objective 38.4 provide: <<Policy 38.4.1: The county shall amend the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance to reduce or eliminate the exemptions allowable in the ordinance.>> <<Policy 38.4.2: The county shall conduct public hearings to consider amending the boundaries of the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance to include all land within the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category.>> <<Policy 38.4.3: The county shall amend the Wetlands Protection Ordinance (#86-31), the Tree Protection Ordinance (#86-34), and the Development Standards Ordinance (#82-42 as amended) to reduce or eliminate the exemptions for agricultural uses and small subdivisions within the "critical areas for surface water management" and shall subject these uses to an appropriate review process.>> The Revised Data and Analysis explain that Lee County has adopted over the years various environmental ordinances, including the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance, Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Tree Protection Ordinance, and Development Standards Ordinance. The Revised Data and Analysis note that exemptions have been adopted that can reduce the effectiveness of these ordinances in "'critical areas for surface water management.'" Joint Exhibit 10.c, page VI-2. Reviewing the exemptions to the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance, the Revised Data and Analysis observe that the exemptions should be revised so that, under the ordinance, the County must "consider all impacts to surface water flow." Joint Exhibit 10.c, page VI-3. As for the Wetlands Protection Ordinance, the Revised Data and Analysis conclude that its expansion "is probably necessary to limit the impact of clearing of wetlands for agricultural purposes." Id. The Revised Data and Analysis observe that amending the Tree Protection Ordinance would reduce incentives to remove trees and understory vegetation, which assist in water quality and quantity considerations in stormwater management. The Revised Data and Analysis note that the Development Standards Ordinance exempts small subdivisions, whose impervious surfaces alter surface water flow. Petitioner correctly argues in her proposed recommended order that the reduction or elimination of exemptions by an unstated amount or without regard to a stated objective is vague and ineffective. However, the assurances involve only land development regulations that, in the context of a limited plan- amendment challenge, do not play a significant role in the outcome of the case. The vagueness is thus harmless. Contrary to Petitioner's assertions, the 2010 overlay is not confusing, nor does it fail to depict the general distribution, extent, and location of the required land use categories. Although more conventional future land use maps are more precise in rendering the location of future land uses, the imprecision of the 2010 overlay is not inconsistent with the criteria of the growth management law. As noted above, the shortcomings of the 2010 overlay result from the lack of crucial supporting data and analysis. Internal Consistency (Issue 13) Issue 13 alleges that the Amended Plan is internally inconsistent. Petitioner argues that the Traffic Circulation Element and transportation improvements contained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements are inconsistent. She also argues that Goal 2, which requires financial feasibility, and the Traffic Circulation Element, including the financially feasible transportation map, are inconsistent. She asserts the same grounds as she does in connection with Issue 9, which has been discussed above. Based on the findings set forth in connection with Issue 9, and subject to the findings set forth in connection with Issue 8, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate any inconsistency between the Traffic Circulation Element and Goal 2 or the transportation improvements contained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements. As noted above, Policy 1.7.6 requires that final development orders and building permits be consistent with the 2010 overlay, including Map 17. Policy 1.7.6 does not impose this requirement upon rezonings. Petitioner asserts that Policy 1.7.6--particularly its omission of rezonings--is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2, Goal 12, and Section XIII(a) of the Amended Plan. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Policy 1.7.6 is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2 because of the emphasis on zoning in the two objectives. The objectives state: DEVELOPMENT LOCATION. Contiguous and compact growth patterns shall be promoted through the rezoning process to contain sprawl, minimize energy costs, conserve land, water and natural resources, minimize the cost of services, and reverse typical development patters where large tracts of land are bypassed in favor of development more distant from services and existing communities. DEVELOPMENT TIMING. Direct new growth through the rezoning process to those portions of the Future Urban Areas where adequate public facilities exist or are assured and where compact and contiguous development patterns can be created. Goal 12 is: "To ensure that appropriate water, sewer, traffic, and environmental review standards are considered in reviewing rezoning applications and are met prior to issuance of a county development order." Section XIII(a) of the Amended Plan adds in part: "Upon adoption of this amended plan, all development and all actions taken in regard to development orders shall be consistent with the plan as adopted." Given the subordinate role of zoning to the designations contained in the Amended Plan and future land use map series, the conflicts perceived by Petitioner either do not exist or, if they exist, are harmless. The Amended Plan governs. Zoning is of such inferior importance that any conflict will be resolved in favor of the Amended Plan. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 1.7.6 is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2, Goal 12, and Section XIII(a). Petitioner asserts that Policy 2.2.2 and Section XIII(a) are inconsistent. As noted above, Policy 2.2.2 identifies the factors that will govern rezonings. This policy explicitly subjects rezoning to the concurrency requirements of the Amended Plan. Nothing in this policy attempts to allow rezoning to override the acreage allotments contained in the 2010 overlay and implemented by Policy 1.1.1. Although it would have been preferable for Policy 2.2.2 to acknowledge the acreage allotments as limitations upon land uses that can be authorized, the subordinate role of zoning, as compared to land use designations in the comprehensive plan, emerges clearly from the Amended Plan as a whole. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 2.2.2 and Section XIII(a) are inconsistent. Petitioner alleges that the amended future land use map is inconsistent with Goals 71, 75, 77, and 79; Objectives 2.3, 74.1, 75.1, 77.3, 77.4, 79.1, and 87.1; and Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, 77.11.5, and 83.1.4. Goal 71 is to: "To protect the public from the effects of natural and technological hazards through county emergency plans and programs." Objective 74.l provides: ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS. By 1990, land within coastal area environmentally critical areas, including present Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones and Rare and Unique upland habitats, shall be regulated and managed so as to conserve and enhance the natural functions of these critical areas. Goal 75 is: "To protect human life and developed property from natural disasters." Objective 75.l adds: DEVELOPMENT IN HAZARD AREAS. Development (other than minor structures) within the V Zones shall not be allowed seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line as it exists in 1988; new development on barrier islands shall be limited to densities that meet required evacuation standards; new development requiring seawalls for protection from coastal erosion shall not be permitted; and allowable densities for undeveloped areas within A Zone areas will be considered for reduction. Goal 77, Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, and Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, and 77.11.5 have been set forth above. 38/ Goal 79 is: "To provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.l adds: EVACUATION. By 1995, evacuation times will be restored to 1987 levels using the 1987 Southwest Florida Regional Hurricane Plan Update as guidance; and by 2010, the clearance time portion of evacuation time will not exceed 18 hours. Policy 83.1.4 provides: Lee County shall protect and conserve the following environmentally sensitive coastal areas: wetlands, estuaries, mangrove stands, undeveloped barrier islands, beach and dune systems, aquatic preserves and wildlife refuges, undeveloped tidal creeks and inlets, critical wildlife habitats, benthic communities, and marine grass beds. Objective 87.1 states: WATER SUPPLIES. Insure water supplies of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the present and projected demands of all consumers and the environment, based on the capacity of the natural systems. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the future land use map series is inconsistent with Goals 71 and 75 because the Amended Plan increases densities in the hurricane vulnerability zone in the North Bonita Springs area and fails to coordinate land use designations with evacuation times and shelter space capacities. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Goals 71 and 75. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 74.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to "conserve and enhance the natural functions" of environmentally critical areas in the coastal area. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objective 74.1, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 74.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 75.1, which requires the County to consider reducing allowable densities in the hurricane vulnerability zone. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 75.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Goal 77, which requires the County to manage the County's wetland and upland ecosystems so as to maintain and enhance native habitats, floral and faunal diversity, water quality, and natural surface water characteristics. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Goal 77, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Goal 77. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, which require the County to "maintain and enhance" current fish and wildlife diversity and existing populations and distributions of listed species. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objectives 77.3 and 77.4. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, and 83.1.4, which call for the protection of unique or important natural plant communities, protection of critical habitats for the preservation of listed species, and protection of critical wildlife habitats in the coastal area, respectively. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with these policies, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by these policies. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Policy 77.11.5, which provides in part: "Corridors for regulatory and public acquisition purposes shall be designated in [black bear and Florida panther] use areas." Added by the Plan Amendments, Policy 77.11.5 is not inconsistent with the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series. The orientation of Policy 77.11.5 is prospective and does not require immediate implementation through amendment of the future land use map series to show corridors that are subject to additional regulatory controls or are eligible for public acquisition. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 79.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 1995 and to ensure a maximum clearance time of 18 hours by 2010. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 79.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 87.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to ensure sufficient quantity and quality of water to meet present and projected demands of all consumers and the environment. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objective 87.1, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 74.1. Consistency with Charlotte Harbor Management Plan (Issue 14) The Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, which was adopted June 5, 1981, is a resource management plan prepared and adopted pursuant to Section 380.045, Florida Statutes. Lee County is within the jurisdiction of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Under "regulatory actions," there are 12 objectives in the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Beneath each objective are implementation actions that pertain to specified federal, state, regional, and local agencies. Twenty-two implementation actions apply to local governments, such as Lee County. Objective 4 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "Future development in floodplain areas is to occur only in a manner consistent with the function of floodplains." In her proposed recommended order, Petitioner argues that the Amended Plan lacks specific provisions identifying the functions of floodplains and requiring new development to be consistent with floodplain functions. Petitioner also argues that the Amended Plan fails to coordinate densities and intensities with tidal floodplains. Except for the stormwater level of service standard, which is discussed below in connection with Objective 5, nothing in the Amended Plan directly addresses floodplains. The floodplain map--Map 9--was part of the future land use map series in the Plan and was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. In general, Petitioner argues only that the Amended Plan fails to deal effectively with floodplain issues. The Plan Amendments substantially change designated land uses by applying the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres in the County. The correspondingly reduced densities and restricted intensities, especially as compared to previously authorized land uses, are much more consistent with floodplain functions. Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan requires: "The stormwater and drainage systems of the Charlotte Harbor area are to function in a manner that protects and preserves the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system." The second implementation action under Objective 5 requires local governments to: establish plans and regulations requiring post development runoff conditions to approximate the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, quality, hydroperiod, and basin. The summary of the problem addressed by Objective 5 states: Improperly designed and maintained stormwater/ drainage systems have affected the quality and quantity of freshwater flowing into area water bodies. These systems have transported various pollutants, including nutrients, sediments, pesticides, heavy metals, and animal waste to local waters. While some of these waters have recognized water quality problems, most of the area's valuable water resources are still of good quality. However, with an expected doubling of population in the next twenty years, preventative action is necessary to prevent further degradation. In addition to the quality of freshwater inflows, the sufficient quantities of freshwater corresponding with the natural hydroperiod are necessary to maintain the productivity of the estuaries. While the flows necessary to meet estuarine needs are unknown, continued development of stormwater/ drainage systems which alter the rate and hydroperiod of runoff may adversely impact estuarine productivity. Petitioner Exhibit 2, page 5. Objective 38.3 of the Amended Plan is to "[r]evise by 1994 the surface water management level-of-service standards for basins and sub-basins identified in the Surface Water Management Master Plan." The Surface Water Management Master Plan was to have begun in 1989, according to Policy 38.1.1. Policy 38.3.1 of the Amended Plan provides: As an interim measure, the following surface water management standards are adopted as minimum acceptable levels of service for unincorporated Lee County . . .: <<Existing>> [[Public]] Infrastructure The [[public stormwater]] <<existing>> [[trunk]] <<surface water>> management system <<in any basin>> in the unincorporated areas of the county, [[including drainage districts]] shall be sufficient to prevent the flooding of <<designated evacuation routes (see Map 15) from the 25-year, 3-day storm event (rainfall)>> [[the public roads to a depth of 12 inches or greater]] for more than [[3 consecutive days]] <<24 hours>>. Regulation of Private <<and Public>> Development Surface water management systems in <<new>> private <<and public>> developments <<(excluding widening of existing roads)>> shall <<be designed to detain or retain excess stormwater to match the predevelopment discharge rate for>> [[meet or exceed]] the <<25-year, 3-day storm event (rainfall)>>. [[minimum standards of the South Florida Water Management District as set forth in the Permit Information Manual, Volume IV, Management and Storage of Surface Water (West Palm Beach, 1986), as may be amended from time to time, and shall meet local regulations in order]] <<This standard is designed>> to minimize <<increases of>> discharges to public water management infrastructure (or to evapotranspiration) that exceed historic <<rates>> [[natural volumes]], to minimize change to the historic [[natural]] hydroperiod of receiving waters, to maintain the quality of receiving waters, [[at or above the applicable minimum standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code ("Water Quality Standards," Florida DER)]], and to eliminate the disruption of wetlands and flow-ways, [[the]] <<whose>> preservation [[of which]] is deemed in the public interest. The implementation action requiring local governments to require that postdevelopment runoff approximate the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, quality, hydroperiod, and basin is the only implementation action involving local governments that imposes specific performance standards. The analysis contained in the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan clearly links the health of the estuarine system to preservation of natural rates and hydroperiods of runoff. Obviously, degraded water quality or alteration of drainage basin also impacts the estuarine system. Policy 38.3.1.B, which underwent substantial revisions by the Plan Amendments, imposes a single requirement upon development in terms of runoff: postdevelopment rate must match predevelopment rate for the 25-year, 3-day storm event. It is irrelevant that this is an interim level of service standard. The stormwater level of service standard contained in Policy 38.3.1.B deviates from Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan in three important respects. First, it fails to incorporate water quality, basin, and hydroperiod into the performance standards of the level of service standard. Second, it qualifies even the rate standard by a specified storm event of specified duration, even though Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan is not so limited. Regardless of the storm, Objective 5 imposes the requirement that postdevelopment conditions as to these four crucial factors approximate natural conditions. Obviously, natural conditions probably involve considerable flooding during and after the 100-year, 3-day storm; but the effect of the limitation in Policy 38.3.1.B is to allow postdevelopment conditions to exceed natural conditions once the specified storm has been exceeded. Third, the stormwater level of service standard contained in Policy 38.3.1.B ignores redevelopment, including but not limited to road-widening projects. When addressing redevelopment in particular, the postdevelopment conditions must match natural conditions, not merely predevelopment conditions. Lee County argues that Policy 38.3.1.B addresses factors in addition to runoff rate. The second sentence of Policy 38.3.1.B imposes no additional requirements; it merely explains the intent of the County in imposing the rate requirement. By regulating the runoff rate, Policy 38.3.1.B may partly address water quality and hydroperiod issues; retained or detained postdevelopment stormwater may be of higher quality and may more closely approximate natural hydroperiods than unretained or undetained postdevelopment stormwater runoff. But these are indirect benefits of a performance standard addressing exclusively postdevelopment runoff rate. The County's stormwater standard may reduce change to hydroperiods and improve water quality--over undetained or unrestrained postdevelopment stormwater--but it does not impose the performance standards of unaltered hydroperiod, water quality, and basin. Nor, more importantly, will the County's stormwater standard assist in meeting the crucial objective of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan to regulate stormwater and drainage to protect and preserve the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, which is the primary focus of the resource management plan. Petitioner has thus proved to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 38.3.1.B is inconsistent with Objective 5 and the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, construed as a whole. 39/ Objective 8 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "The barrier islands and beaches of the Charlotte Harbor area should be managed as a whole, recognizing that any developmental activity potentially affects the processes of the entire barrier beach, barrier island, and pass systems." The second implementation action under Objective 8 is for the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to discourage the dredging of new channels and addition of more passes to the existing pass maintenance program. This implementation action does not apply to local governments. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Objective 8 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Objective 10 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: Future land development decisions by local government should be in accord with the goals and objectives of the Charlotte Harbor Committee, and existing platted areas should also be encouraged to develop in accord with these goals and objectives. The third implementation action under Objective 10 requires local governments and the Florida Department of Transportation to ensure that: "Highway corridor planning for undeveloped areas . . . consider[s] suitability of adjacent land for urbanization and directing [sic] construction away from environmentally sensitive areas." Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Polices 27.2.1 and 27.2.2 of the Amended Plan are insufficient in terms of implementing the cited portion of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. However, these provisions were in the Plan and were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. For the reasons set forth in connection with Petitioner's challenge based on Objective 4 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, nothing in the Plan Amendments addresses this aspect of transportation. Objective 11 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "Mitigation and prevention of development impacts should be initiated during site planning and site alteration processes." The second implementation action requires local governments to: require site development plans, provide for the maintenance of habitats for wildlife species, as listed by the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, tree protection [sic], and prevent the introduction or spread of noxious vegetation. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Policy 77.4.1 of the Amended Plan, which was substantially amended by the Plan Amendments, fails to coordinate with the implementation action under Objective Petitioner asserts that Policy 77.4.1 is deficient because it refers only to the habitats of protected species listed by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and not those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There is no evidence of any material divergence between the state and federal lists of protected wildlife species. Specific objectives in the Amended Plan address loggerhead sea turtles, southern bald eagles, West Indian manatees, gopher tortoises, red-cockaded woodpeckers, wood storks, Florida panthers, and black bears. Without a showing of some discrepancy between the state and federal wildlife lists, especially in the face of numerous provisions in the Amended Plan explicitly addressing specific wildlife species, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Objective 11 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Consistency with Regional Plan (Issue 15) The Southwest Florida Regional Plan (Regional Plan), which covers Lee County, discusses at length the problem of platted lands. Map 3 depicts vast areas of platted lands in the Lehigh Acres area of unincorporated Lee County and Cape Coral. In relevant part, the discussion states: Southwest Florida has approximately 1.1 million existing platted lots . . .. Most of these platted and subdivided lots, although undeveloped, have been sold to individual owners who have expectations of building. Regretfully, these platted areas often have not reflected the most efficient use of land. Also, due to their location, the provision of infrastructure access and service will be prohibitively costly. Further, aging of most of these subdivisions has resulted in deterioration and dilapidation of existing roads and drainage systems. Finally, many needed urban uses are not adequately provided for within these extensive plats. * * * . . . effective concentration of development activities and providing incentives for contiguous development are alternative methods of planning which continue to be discussed and debated within the Region. Although these techniques would have a positive effect on land use patterns, they conflict with development desires of lot owners who purchased property previously reviewed and approved by the local government. Efforts have been made to ensure that development is compatible with available and planned infrastructure services. Still, the problems of previously subdivided, yet still undeveloped, land remain; such problems are particularly severe for planning activities that must meet the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements, since these developments generally do not meet current regulations. As growth continues, Southwest Florida will be under greater pressure to provide services to new homes, businesses, and service centers. These platted areas will be popular, affordable home sites. Providing services to these lots, however, will become an increasing burden. Additionally, the Region will have to consider providing alternative land use choices to current lot owners where development would not be desireable or cannot have services provided at the ultimate buildout densities. Joint Exhibit 11.b, pages 16-8 to 16-9. Regional Plan Goal 16 states: By 2010, the number of vacant platted lots in areas without adequate infrastructure or in areas not designated for urban development in Southwest Florida will be reduced by 30%. Goal 16 is an integral part of the Regional Plan. Effective land use planning may be impossible without addressing the problems presented by thousands of acres of vacant, prematurely platted lands. There is evidence that Lee County is addressing the problem. It has utilized vacant, preplatted lots to some extent in an affordable housing program. Lehigh Corporation, which is evidently a major developer in the Lehigh Acres area, has bought back some lots and/or exchanged better lots for more outlying and less developable lots. However, at the same time, Lehigh Corporation is subdividing more property in the Lehigh Acres area. It is unclear whether Lee County will find itself with more or less vacant, preplatted lots by 2010. More likely, it will be less for a variety of reasons, but how much less is left entirely to conjecture based on the present record. Petitioner's argument in her proposed recommended order is based on the acreage remaining vacant in 2010 in planning subdistricts 601- 11, 704, and 706, which constitute much if not all of Lehigh Acres. However, the record does not establish how much of this acreage is already platted or how much of the vacant acreage remaining in 2010 will by then have been platted. For these reasons, as to Issue 15, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the Regional Plan. Consistency with State Plan (Issue 16) Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2 and 12, (10)(b)10, (16)(b)2, and (18)(b)3. Section 187.201(8)(b)2 is to: "Identify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentives for their conservation. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan does not protect the functions of water recharge areas. She asserts that Policies 85.1.2 and 87.1.1, which generally require the protection of surface and groundwater quality and natural recharge systems, are vague and ineffective. The Plan Amendments did not modify Policies 85.1.2 or 87.1.1. The Plan Amendments added the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres of land, together with Policy 1.4.3, which states: <<The Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource areas include upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future well field development. These areas also are the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers. Only minimal public facilities exist or are programmed. Land uses in these areas must be compatible with maintaining surface and groundwater levels at their historic levels. Permitted land uses include agriculture, mineral and limerock extraction, conservation uses, and residential uses at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per ten acres (1 du/10 acres). Individual residential parcels may contain up to two acres of resource protection areas and transition zones without losing the right to have a dwelling unit, provided that no alterations are made to those wetland areas.>> The Plan Amendments also added Policy 39.1.4, which provides: <<The county's Surface Water Management Master Plan shall place particular emphasis on 1) routing surface water runoff from areas of excess to areas where additional subsurface storage is available; and 2) maintaining and increasing historic surface and groundwater levels in the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category.>> The Plan Amendments revised Policy 41.2.2, which states: <<A new land use category, called the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource category, shall be applied to protect the County's groundwater resources and principal recharge areas. Land use controls in the category shall be as described in Policy 1.4.3.>> Policies 15.2.2 and 32.1.9, which were added by the Plan Amendments, impose special land use restrictions in the Bonita Springs and Lehigh Acres areas, based on potable groundwater considerations. Policy 2.4.2, which was also added by the Plan Amendments, concludes by offering additional protection to these areas and all areas designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource: <<All proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map in critical areas for future potable water supply (Bonita Springs as described in Policy 15.2.2; Lehigh Acres as described in Policy 32.1.9; and all land in the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category) shall be subject to a special review by the staff of Lee County and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). This review will analyze the proposed land uses to determine the short- term and long-term availability of irrigation and domestic water sources, and will assess whether the proposed land uses would cause any significant impact on present or future water resources. If the Board of County Commissioners wishes to approve any such changes to the Future Land Use Map, it must make a formal finding that no significant impacts on present or future water resources will result from the change. (SFWMD's recommendations or findings under this policy shall not be construed to restrict or otherwise encumber their authority to issue or deny water-use permits as may be required by law.)>> The Revised Data and Analysis survey recent hydrologic investigations for all relevant aquifers. The investigations amply support the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designations. The Data and Analysis provide no basis for questioning the consistency of the provisions of the Amended Plan in protecting the functions of water recharge areas with similar provisions in the State Plan. Largely due to the adoption of the Plan Amendments, especially the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2. Section 187.201(8)(b)12 is to: "Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." This is an integral part of the State Plan and is linked to the protection of surface waters including estuaries, drainage and floodplains, and various other natural resources. For reasons already discussed in connection with Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 38.3.1.B, which sets an interim stormwater level of service standard, is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2 with respect to the omission of hydroperiod, basin, and quality performance standards; the addition of a qualifying storm event; and the exclusion of redevelopment. 40/ A level of service standard is a vital provision in a comprehensive plan because the standard is typically clear and easily enforceable. The stormwater management provisions in the State Plan play a crucial role in attaining consistency with numerous provisions of the State Plan. For these reasons, Policy 38.3.1.B represents an inconsistency with the State Plan construed as a whole. The inconsistency between Policy 38.3.1.B and the State Plan is limited to the failure of Policy 38.3.1.B: 1) to set a stormwater level of service standard throughout Lee County requiring postdevelopment conditions to be equal to or better than natural conditions in terms of water quality, hydroperiod, and basin, as well as rate; 2) to impose the stormwater level of service standard throughout Lee County regardless of the storm event; and 3) to impose the stormwater level of service standard on all development and redevelopment in Lee County. 41/ Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the inconsistency with the State Plan extends to the failure of the Amended Plan to fund fully the stormwater management plan. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that consistency with Section 187.201(8)(b)12 and the State Plan requires the above-described funding. Section 187.201(10)(b)10 is to: "Emphasize the acquisition and maintenance of ecologically intact systems in all land and water planning, management, and regulation." Petitioner argues that the Amended Plan is not consistent with the State Plan due to the failure of the future land use map series to designate rare and unique habitats for densities and intensities that are suitable for the vegetative and habitat values of certain areas, especially the North Bonita Springs area. As noted above in connection with the discussion of the 2010 overlay, the Plan Amendments do not directly reintroduce the issue of land use suitability. A timing device, the 2010 overlay is quantitatively oriented. With the exception of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which tends to enhance suitability, nothing in the Plan Amendments directly raises the suitability issue. Provisions contained in the Plan Amendments enhancing the coordination of future land use designations with valuable vegetative communities and, particularly, wildlife habitat are Objectives 77.10 and 77.11 and their policy clusters. These provisions have already been discussed. 42/ Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(10)(b)10. Section 187.201(18)(b)3 is to: "Allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents." Petitioner objects in her proposed recommended order to the sufficiency of Objective 70.3, which requires that "new development pays at least 80% of the capital costs of public infrastructure directly attributable to that new development." Petitioner argues that Policy 2.3.2 is also insufficient because it merely requires that the "cost for the provision and expansion of services and facilities that benefit new development shall be borne primarily by those who benefit." Objective 70.3 and Policy 2.3.2 were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Section 187.201(16)(b)2 is to: "Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats." The Amended Plan is no model of urban containment. Choosing a less regulatory approach to land use planning, although involving considerably more intervention than has traditionally prevailed, Lee County has repeatedly and unconvincingly argued in the Revised Data and Analysis that various conventional planning strategies are unsuitable for Lee County. Some planning alternatives proffered by Lee County have failed to achieve consistency with the growth management law. Some planning alternatives have achieved consistency, and some planning alternatives have been spared review by the focus of the present recommended order on the Plan Amendments and Revised Data and Analysis and the focus of the recommended order in DOAH Case No. 89-1843GM on the settlement agreement. It would be a daunting task to try to determine the effect of the Amended Plan upon urban sprawl. Without the density allocation ratio, it is an impossible task. If the ratio were relatively high, provisions of the Amended Plan would have to bear a greater burden in ensuring efficiency in the use of land and provision of public facilities and the protection of natural resources and agriculture. Without a density allocation ratio, relevant provisions of the Amended Plan cannot be adequately evaluated in terms of their relationship to urban sprawl. It suffices for the purpose of determining consistency with the State Plan that the Plan Amendments assigned the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres of land in Lee County and, by so doing, achieved a significant separation between urban and rural uses. For this reason, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the State Plan in terms of separating urban and rural uses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes, the Department of Community Affairs submit the recommended order to the Administration Commission for entry of a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are not in compliance for the reasons set forth above. ENTERED on January 27, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 27, 1993. NOTE: In the ACCESS document, language added to the policy is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]].
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the Metropolitan Dade County comprehensive plan adopted as Item No. 6, Ordinance No. 94-192, is "in compliance", as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Village of Key Biscayne (hereinafter referred to as the "Village"), is a local government (a municipal corporation) located within Dade County, Florida. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department, among other things, is charged with responsibility for the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Respondent, Metropolitan Dade County (hereinafter referred to as "Dade County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Dade County is responsible under the Act for the preparation, processing, and review of land use plans and amendments thereto within its jurisdiction. Intervenor, Marine Exhibition Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Marine"), is the applicant for the amendment which is at issue in this case. Marine is the owner of the Miami Seaquarium (hereinafter referred to as the "Seaquarium"), a saltwater oceanarium and tourist attraction located in Dade County, Florida. The Village's Standing. The Seaquarium is located on Virginia Key, an island located in Biscayne Bay. The Seaquarium is connected with the mainland of Dade County by the Rickenbacker Causeway. The Village is located on Key Biscayne. Key Biscayne is an island located in Biscayne Bay. Key Biscayne is connected to Virginia Key. Key Biscayne is connected with the mainland of Dade County through Virginia Key. The Rickenbacker Causeway runs through Virginia Key, past the Seaquarium, over a bridge onto Key Biscayne. The Causeway becomes Crandon Boulevard, which runs to and through the Village and ends at Cape Florida, at the southeastern corner of Key Biscayne. Virginia Key and Key Biscayne are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Dade County. The closest Village boundary to the Seaquarium is located approximately 2 and 1/4 to 2 and 1/2 miles from the Seaquarium property. The Village is located completely within Dade County's jurisdictional boundaries. The Village, therefore, owns property located in Dade County. The Village conducts all of its business within its city limits, located on Key Biscayne. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the plan amendment at issue in this proceedings will "produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure" of the Village or will create a "substantial impact on areas designed for protection or special treatment within the [Village's] jurisdiction." See Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Village raised objections by oral and written comments concerning the proposed amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Amendment"), at public hearings during the period of time commencing with the transmittal hearing and ending when the Proposed Amendment was adopted by Dade County. The Village's objections and comments did not include objections or comments concerning density and intensity standards. The Seaquarium. The Seaquarium is located on thirty-seven acres. The property is owned by Dade County and has been subject to a long-term lease to Marine. Dade County also owns all structures erected on the site and all marine mammals. The Seaquarium has been in operation at its present site since 1954. The Seaquarium has a history of providing entertainment, educational and recreational uses to residents and visitors to Dade County. Existing uses of the Seaquarium include approximately ten marine mammal exhibits and corresponding shows featuring these mammals, a marina, theme-oriented gift shops and restaurants. Educational activities at the Seaquarium include: (a) a program to train teachers in marine science and student field trips (over 75,000 students attend the past year) in cooperation with Dade County and Broward County, Florida; (b) the largest manatee rehabilitation and recapture program in the United States; (c) an internship program with the Mast Academy, a magnet school for gifted high school students; and (d) research and development exchange programs with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (hereinafter referred to as "NOAA"). Florida Quality Development Designation. Marine decided to improve its facilities at the Seaquarium through a project it labeled "Seaquarium Village." Marine initially sought and obtained a designation from the Department of the Seaquarium Village as a Florida Quality Development (hereinafter referred to as "FQD"), pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Seaquarium Village project was subsequently challenged by the Village pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. The Village alleged that Seaquarium Village was not consistent with Dade County's comprehensive plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Third District Court of Appeal entered an opinion on November 9, 1993, finding that the project was inconsistent with the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). Village of Key Biscayne v. Dade County, 627 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. den., 639 So.2d 976 (1994). The Proposed Amendment. The Plan includes a Land Use Element. The Land Use Element identifies locations in Dade County where various land uses, including intensities of use, will be allowed during the period for which the Plan applies. The land uses are also depicted on the Future Land Use Map. One of the land uses provided for in the Plan is the "Parks and Recreation" land use. The Seaquarium is located within the "Parks and Recreation" Land Use Plan map category of the Plan. The Plan includes the following descriptive text concerning the "Parks and Recreation" Land Use Plan map category: Certain commercial activities that are supportive of the recreational uses and complementary to the resources of the park, such as marine supply stores, fuel docks or tennis and golf clubhouses may be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category. Other commercial recreational, entertainment or cultural uses may also be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category where complementary to the site and its resources. Marine filed an application in November of 1993 with Dade County seeking approval of a modification of the "Parks and Recreation" land use category for the site of the Seaquarium. The proposed modification ultimately adopted by Dade County, after Dade County and Marine cooperated to agree on the proposed language, provides for the addition of the following language immediately after the descriptive text quoted in finding of fact 24: [Included in the category is the Seaquarium, a unique tourist attraction with a long history of educational, entertainment, and recreational benefit both to residents of Dade County and to visitors. Notwithstanding any other provisions in the Parks and Recreation section of the Land Use Plan Element, in order to continue and to enhance its contributions to the community, this facility may be authorized to renovate, expand, and increase the variety of its educa- tional, recreational and entertainment attractions. Accordingly, the following additional uses may be permitted at the Seaquarium site: recreational and educational uses, restaurants, gift shops, marine or water amusements, and environmentally- related theaters.] 1/ The Proposed Amendment does not apply to any Parks and Recreation site other than the Seaquarium site. Following transmittal of the Proposed Amendment to the Department, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments report (hereinafter referred to as the "ORC"), on or about September 1, 1994. In the ORC the Department objected, in relevant part, to the lack of adequate data and analysis to demonstrate the compatibility of the Proposed Amendment with the surrounding land uses and raised questions concerning whether the proposed project was in a Coastal High Hazard Area. In response to the ORC, Dade County provided the following information to the Department: (a) the record of the transmittal and adoption hearings; (b) Chapter 9J-11 deliverables; (c) information on the surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the Seaquarium; (d) the Seaquarium FQD; (d) the Seaquarium ADA; and (e) information concerning coastal high-hazard area. The proposed Seaquarium modification of the Parks and Recreation Land Use Element was adopted by Dade County on October 13, 1994, by Ordinance No. 94- 192. In December, 1994, after review of the Proposed Amendment and the additional information provided by Dade County, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Find the Proposed Amendment in Compliance. The decision of the Department was challenged by the Village on or about December 30, 1994. Intensity or Density of Use. The Act provides the following regarding the Future Land Use plan element required to be included in all comprehensive plans: . . . designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. . . . Each land use category shall be defined in terms of the types of uses included and specific standards for the density or intensity of use. . . . Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. See also Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., Florida Administrative Code. The requirement of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, concerning densities and intensities applies to all comprehensive plans and amendments thereto. "Densities" and "intensities" are objective methods of determining the extent to which land may be utilized. "Densities" are usually expressed in terms of the number of units allowed per acre of land. Rule 9J-5.003(33), Florida Administrative Code, defines "density" as "an objective measurement of the number of people or residential units allowed per unit of land, such as residents or employees per acre." This definition of "density" was first adopted by rule in 1994. Densities are usually associated with residential uses. "Density" requirements are not relevant to the Proposed Amendment because it does not involve residential use of land. "Intensities" are most often expressed in terms of spatial uses, such as the amount of allowable floor space, lot coverage, or height. Rule 9J- 5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code, defines "intensity" as "an objective measurement of the extent to which land may be developed or used, including the consumption or use of the space above, on natural resources; and the measurement of the use or demand on facilities and services." This definition of "intensity" was first adopted by rule in 1994. The purpose of requiring density and intensity standards is to promote intelligent planning which allows for the measurement of developments on natural resources and infrastructure capacity, and allows the evaluation of compatibility with surrounding land uses. Initial Approval of the Plan. The Plan was submitted to the Department for initial review in 1988. The Plan was one of the first comprehensive plans reviewed pursuant to the Act by the Department. At the time of the Department's initial review of the Plan, there was no definition of density or intensity provided by rule. The definitions of density and intensity included in Rules 9J-5.003(33) and (63), Florida Administrative Code, were not adopted until 1994. The Parks and Recreation category of the Plan, when originally submitted for review, was required to include an intensity standard. The Plan's definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category did not, however, contain a specific restriction on intensity of use such as a floor area ratio, maximum lot coverage, or height restriction. Rather than include a specific intensity restriction in the Plan, Dade County elected to describe the types of nonresidential uses which would be allowed under the Parks and Recreation land use category. Dade County restricted allowable uses to those which are complementary to the site and its natural resources. Dade County believed that its description of allowable uses constituted an adequate intensity standard, providing an objective measurement of the extent that land could be developed, the use and demand on natural resources, and the use and demand on facilities and services. Dade County is the largest county in Florida. It includes approximately 2000 to 2100 square miles. Dade County, therefore, elected to emphasize its natural resources and public service impacts on a "macromanagement" basis. The Parks and Recreation land use category included in the Plan allows a wide range of park and recreational uses, including "neighborhood parks, area parks, metropolitan parks, regional and state parks, including Everglades National Park, [and] tourist attractions such as the Seaquarium, Metro Zoo, [and] Viscaya . . . ." Transcript, Vol. III, Page 402. The Department approved the Plan without objection, recommendation or comment with regard to the definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category. The "Baby Seal Policy". The Department's policy concerning the application of the Act to growth management plans has evolved since the initial plans were reviewed. The Department has recognized that some of the plans it initially approved may be "less than perfect". In recognition of this problem, the Department found it necessary to develope a policy to deal with plans that do not comply with the Department's interpretation of the Act now that the Department has more experience interpreting and applying the Act. The Department's response to the problem of dealing with plans that may not comply with the Act, but have previously been approved, is referred to as the "Baby Seal Policy". This policy has been described as follows: Local government A's comprehensive plan provides that ten baby seals may be killed over the planning period while local government B's plan provides that no baby seals may be killed. Both plans are initially approved by the Department. Subsequently, the Department adopts a rule that prohibits the killing of baby seals. Local government A then amends its plan to allow the killing of eight baby seals rather than ten. Local government B also amends its plan to allow the killing of two baby seals. In applying the "Baby Seal Policy" the Department would approve local government's amendment because it moves local government A's plan closer to complying the prohibition against killing baby seals. Local government B's amendment would not be approved, however, because it moves its plan further from complying with the prohibition. The Department's Baby Seal Policy was developed so that the Department can comply with the requirement of Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code, that the Department consider as part of its review of plan amendments whether an amendment makes substantial progress towards consistency with applicable requirements of the rules and the Act. Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code, requires consideration during the review of a proposed plan amendment of the following: Whether the provision at issue constitutes substantial progress over existing provisions regarding consistency with and furtherance of Chapter 163, the State Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Regional Policy Plan and this Chapter, where the existing provisions are in a plan or plan amendment previously found in compliance. The Department's "Baby Seal Policy" encourages local governments to adopt amendments to previously approved plans (which may not be in compliance with all provisions of the Act and/or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code), which bring those plans closer to being in compliance with the Act and/or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. I. Application of the Baby Seal Policy to the Proposed Amendment. The Department recognizes that the Parks and Recreation land use category of the Plan may not be in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, because it does not provide for the type of intensity standard now required by Rule 9J-5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code. The Proposed Amendment, however, continues Dade County's choice of describing the Parks and Recreation land use category by specifying the types of allowable uses at the Seaquarium. There is no doubt that the Proposed Amendment includes uses allowable on the Seaquarium site which, when read alone and without regard to the Plan's overall definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category, are broad. The Proposed Amendment clearly does not include the type of intensity standard now required by Rule 9J-5.003(63), Florida Administrative Code. The Proposed Amendment does, however, provide more detail as to the allowable uses on the Seaquarium site than currently included in the Parks and Recreation land use category. Consequently, the Proposed Amendment does provide greater certainty for indentifying the potential impacts of development at the Seaquarium site than the current definition of the Parks and Recreation land use category. The Proposed Amendment does, therefore, move the Plan in the direction of compliance with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, in furtherance of the Baby Seal Policy and as required by Rule 9J-5.002(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Internal Consistency. Internal consistency between and within elements of a growth management plan is required by the Act. Internal consistency must be maintained when a plan is amended. Without consistency in the provisions of a plan, it will not be clear what actions are allowable and unallowable under a plan. The Proposed Amendment provides that certain modifications of the Seaquarium site will be allowable under the Plan "[n]otwithstanding any other provisions in the Parks and Recreation Section of the Land Use Plan Element . . . ." This language creates a clearly designated exception to, or deviation from, other requirements of the Land Use Plan Element. A clearly specified exception to, or deviation from, a provision in a plan does not create an inconsistency. The evidence failed to prove that the Proposed Amendment creates an internal inconsistency with the Plan. Data and Analysis. Plan amendments must be supported by data and analysis. Rules 9J- 5.005(2) and 9J-5.006(2), Florida Administrative Code. Dade County provided, in addition to information concerning the surrounding area and coastal high hazard areas requested by the Department, the FQD and the Application for Development Approval (hereinafter referred to as the "ADA"), to the Department in support of the Proposed Amendment. While the FQD and the ADA pertain to a specifically proposed development, these documents contain data concerning the Seaquarium site, the only site to which the Proposed Amendment applies. Although the Proposed Amendment is not limited to the project approved in the FQD or the portion of the ADA which relates expressly to the project approved in the FQD, the ADA contains information concerning the only site to which the Proposed Amendment applies. That information, or data, and the analysis thereof is relevant to a determination of whether the Proposed Amendment should be approved. The information contained in the ADA is useful in estimating the impacts of the types of development that are permissible pursuant to the Proposed Amendment and not just the impacts of the development addressed in the FQD. The FQD and the ADA also provide information concerning what type of project may reasonably be expected at the Seaquarium site. Much of the pertinent data contained in the ADA also constitutes the best information available concerning the Seaquarium site and, therefore, the subject of the Proposed Amendment. While the only expert witness called by the Village, Mr. David Russ, opined that the FQD does not constitute the data and analysis required in support of the Proposed Amendment, Mr. Russ did not give a similar opinion concerning the ADA. Nor had Mr. Russ read the ADA. Non-development specific data provided to the Department in the ADA included information concerning services and facilities related to development at the site. In particular, data is included in the ADA concerning traffic and emergency services (proposed traffic improvements, trips, the existing roadway network, the applicable level of service and projected background traffic). Data was also provided in the ADA concerning wastewater, drainage and potable water (existing water distribution and transmission systems, pervious and impervious conditions), and solid waste. Data and analysis concerning the natural resources of the Seaquarium site was also included in the ADA. Existing on-site vegetation and wildlife are inventoried and information concerning air quality and wetlands is provided. Data and analysis concerning historical and archeological resources is also provided in the ADA. Question 12 of the ADA provides information concerning the need for renovation and expansion of the Seaquarium site. Data and analysis concerning the need for redevelopment of the site was unrefuted by competent, substantial evidence. The Department was also provided with data and analysis concerning the area which surrounds the site. Surrounding uses included the University of Miami Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, the United States National Marine Fisheries Laboratory Station and offices, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration offices, the Mast Academy, the City of Miami Marine Stadium and the Metro Dade County Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Seaquarium and redevelopment which would be allowable pursuant to the Proposed Amendment are compatible with these surrounding uses. The Village's suggestion that the data and analysis provided to the Department in the FQD and the ADA (which had not been read by the Village's expert witness) was not sufficient because the FQD pertains to a specific project is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The FQD and, more importantly, the ADA contain sufficient data and analysis to support the allowable land uses of the Proposed Amendment. In addition to suggesting that the data and analysis provided to the Department is insufficient because the data and analysis relates to a specific project, the Village has argued that insufficient data and analysis has been provided with regard to intensity of use. This argument is essentially an extension of the Village's argument concerning the lack of an intensity standard. There is as much, or more, data and analysis provided with the Proposed Amendment concerning intensity of use as there is to support the existing Parks and Recreation land use category. The data and analysis to support the Parks and Recreation land use category which is presumed to exist, may also be relied upon in reviewing a plan amendment. Additionally, the data and analysis provided as a part of the ADA is sufficient to support the maximum intensity of use allowable pursuant to the Proposed Amendment. The evidence failed to prove that there was not adequate data and analysis to support a determination that the Proposed Amendment is "in compliance".
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing Pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, filed by the Village of Key Biscayne. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1996.*
The Issue The issue is whether the Land Development Code (LDC) adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-12 on August 22, 2007, as amended on February 27, 2008, is inconsistent with the effective comprehensive plan for the City of Doral (City), which is the Miami-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (County Plan).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Section 64 is a Florida corporation. The Grand is a Florida limited partnership. Both entities are owned by the same individual. On September 25, 2001, Section 7 acquired ownership of an approximate ten-acre tract of property in the County (now the City) located along the southern boundary of Northwest 82nd Street, between 109th and 112th Avenues. See Petitioners' Exhibit 416. On December 16, 2005, title in one- half of the property was conveyed to The Grand in order to divide the property into two different ownerships. Id. It was Petitioners' intent at that time to build two hotels on separate five-acre tracts, one owned by Section 7 and the other by The Grand. The City is located in the northwestern part of Dade County and was incorporated as a municipality in June 2003. At the time of incorporation, the County's Plan and Land Use Code were the legally effective comprehensive plan and land development regulations (LDRs), respectively. On April 26, 2006, the City adopted its first comprehensive plan. After the Department determined that the Plan was not in compliance, remedial amendments were adopted on January 10, 2007, pursuant to a Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Although the Department found the Plan, as remediated, to be in compliance, it was challenged by a third party, and the litigation is still pending. See DOAH Case No. 06-2417. Therefore, the County Plan is still the legally effective Plan. See § 163.3167(4), Fla. Stat. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing LDRs whenever the appeal process described in Section 163.3213, Florida Statutes, is invoked by a substantially affected person. History of the Controversy When Petitioners' property was purchased in 2001, the County zoning on the property was Light Industrial (IU-1), having been rezoned by the County to that designation on October 9, 1984. See Petitioners' Exhibit 5. One of the uses permitted under an IU-1 zoning classification is a hotel with up to 75 units per acre. See Petitioners' Exhibit 6. The land use designation on the County's LUP map for the property is Low- Density Residential (LDR), with One Density Bonus, which allows 2.5 to 6 residential units per acre with the ability for a "bump-up" in density to 5 to 13 units per acre if the development includes specific urban design characteristics according to the County urban design guide book. Language found on pages I-62 and I-63 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in effect at the time of the incorporation of the City (now found on pages I-73 and I-74 of the current version of the FLUE) provides in relevant part as follows: Uses and Zoning Not Specifically Depicted on the LUP Map. Within each map category numerous land uses, zoning classifications and housing types may occur. Many existing uses and zoning classifications are not specifically depicted on the Plan map. . . . All existing lawful uses and zoning are deemed to be consistent with the [Plan] unless such a use or zoning (a) is found through a subsequent planning study, as provided in Land Use Policy 4E, to be inconsistent with the criteria set forth below; and (b) the implementation of such a finding will not result in a temporary or permanent taking or in the abrogation of vested rights as determined by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. As noted above, if there is a concern that zoning might be inconsistent with land use, using the criteria described in the provision, the County may initiate a planning study to analyze consistency and down-zone the property to a less intense use if an inconsistency is found. Although the County initiated a number of planning studies after it adopted its Plan in 1993, and ultimately down-zoned many properties, none was ever initiated by the County for Petitioners' property. Essentially, when existing uses and zoning are not depicted on the County LUP map, the language in the FLUE operates to deem lawfully existing zoning consistent with the land use designation on the property. In this case, the parties agree that the zoning of Petitioners' property is not depicted on the County LUP map. Therefore, absent a planning study indicating an inconsistency, the zoning is deemed to be consistent with the land use category. On August 22, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2007-12, which enacted a new LDC, effective September 1, 2007, to replace the then-controlling County Land Use Code. Although the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing the new City Plan, until the new Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Amendments to the LDC were adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-1 on February 27, 2008. The LDC does not change the zoning on Petitioners' property. However, it contains a provision in Chapter 1, Section 5, known as the Zoning Compatibility Table (Table), which sets forth the new land use categories in the City Plan (which are generally similar but not identical to the County land use categories) and the zoning districts for each category. Pertinent to this dispute is an asterisk note to the Table which reads in relevant part as follows: Under no circumstances shall the density, intensity, or uses permitted be inconsistent with that allowed on the city's future land use plan. . . . Zoning districts that are inconsistent with the land use map and categories shall rezone prior to development. See Petitioners' Exhibit 27 at p. I-3. Under the Table, only residential zoning districts (with up to ten dwelling units per acre and no density bonus) are allowed in the City's proposed LDR land use category. Therefore, if or when the City Plan becomes effective, before Petitioners can develop their property, they must rezone it to a district that is consistent with the land use designation shown on the Table. There is no specific requirement in the LDC that the City conduct a planning study when it has a concern that the zoning is inconsistent with the relevant land use category in the new City Plan. Petitioners construed the asterisk note as being inconsistent with the text language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County Plan. See Finding of Fact 5, supra. Accordingly, on August 21, 2008, Petitioners submitted a Petition to the City pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging generally that they were substantially affected persons; that the LDC was inconsistent with the County Plan; that the LDC changes the regulations regarding character, density, and intensity of use permitted by the County Plan; and that the LDC was not compatible with the County Plan, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.023.2 See Petitioners' Exhibit 103. The City issued its Response to the Petition on November 20, 2008. See Petitioners' Exhibit 104. The Response generally indicated that Petitioners did not have standing to challenge the LDC; that the Petition lacked the requisite factual specificity and reasons for the challenge; that the LDC did not change the character, density, or intensity of the permitted uses under the County Plan; and the allegation concerning compatibility lacked factual support or allegations to support that claim. On December 22, 2008, Petitioners filed a Petition with the Department pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging that the LDC implements a City Plan not yet effective; that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the existing County Plan; and that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 105. After conducting an informal hearing on April 7, 2009, as authorized by Section 163.3213(4), Florida Statutes, on July 23, 2009, the Department issued a Determination of Consistency of a Land Development Regulation (Determination). See Petitioners' Exhibit 102. See also Section 7 Tract 64 Property, Inc., et al. v. The City of Doral, Fla., Case No. DCA09-LDR-270, 2009 Fla. ENV LEXIS 119 (DCA July 23, 2009). In the Determination, the Department concluded that Petitioners were substantially affected persons and had standing to file their challenge; that the provision on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE did not apply to Petitioners' property because the uses and zoning of the property are specifically designated on the LUP map; that the law does not prohibit the Department from reviewing the LDC for consistency with the not yet effective City Plan; and that because the LDC will require Petitioners to rezone their property to be consistent with the City Plan, the challenge is actually a challenge to a rezoning action and not subject to review under this administrative process. See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. On August 13, 2009, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Proceedings with DOAH raising three broad grounds: that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet effective; that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with the County Plan; and that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan and is inconsistent with that Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 39. These issues are repeated in the parties' Stipulation. As to other issues raised by Petitioners, and evidence submitted on those matters over the objection of opposing counsel, they were tried without consent of the parties, and they are deemed to be beyond the scope of this appeal. The Objections Petitioners first contend that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet in effect, in that it was specifically intended to be compatible with, further the goals or policies of, and implement the policies and objectives of, the City Plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.023. But Petitioners cited no statute or rule that prohibits a local government from adopting LDRs before a local plan is effective, or that implement another local government's plan (in this case the County Plan). While the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing a City Plan that the City believed would be in effect when the LDC was adopted, the City agrees that until the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Even though the two Plans are not identical, and may even be inconsistent with each other in certain respects, this does automatically create an inconsistency between the LDC and County Plan. Rather, it is necessary to determine consistency between those two documents, and not the City Plan. Except for testimony regarding one provision in the LDC and its alleged inconsistency with language in the County FLUE, no evidence was presented, nor was a ground raised, alleging that other inconsistencies exist. The Table note and the County Plan do not conflict. The LDC is not "inconsistent" merely because it was initially intended to implement a local plan that has not yet become effective. Petitioners next contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with that Plan. Specifically, they contend that the note following the Zoning Compatibility Table in Chapter 1, Section 5 of the LDC is inconsistent with the language on pages I-62 and 63 (now renumbered as pages I-73 and I-74) of the County Plan. In other words, they assert that an inconsistency arises because the note requires them to down- zone their property before development, while the County Plan deems their zoning to be consistent with the County LUP map unless a special planning study is undertaken. The evidence establishes that if there is a conflict between zoning and land use on property within the City, it is necessary to defer to the language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE for direction. This is because the County Plan is the effective plan for the City. Under that language, if no planning study has been conducted, the zoning would be deemed to be consistent with the land use. On the other hand, if a planning study is undertaken, and an inconsistency is found, the property can be rezoned in a manner that would make it consistent with the land use. Therefore, the LDC does not change the use, density, or intensity on Petitioners' property that is permitted under the County Plan. It is at least fairly debatable that there is no conflict between the Table note and the County Plan. Finally, Petitioners contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan because the current industrial zoning designation will be inconsistent with the LDR land use designation. Petitioners argue that once the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC requires them to down-zone their property before development. However, this concern will materialize only if or when the new City Plan, as now written, becomes effective; therefore, it is premature. Further, the definition of "land development regulation" specifically excludes "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land." See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Because the challenged regulation (the note to the Table) is "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land," the issue cannot be raised in an administrative review of land development regulations. Id. The other contentions raised by Petitioner are either new issues that go beyond the scope of the Petition filed in this case or are without merit.
Conclusions An Administrati ve Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether a small scale development amendment to the future land use map of the City of Jacksonville's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2019-750-E on February 25, 2020 (the Ordinance), is "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties and Standing Petitioner Livingston is a Florida resident, who lives at 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Livingston appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Livingston is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Petitioner Gopal is a Florida resident, who lives at 1535 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Gopal appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance, and submitted comments and objections on the record. Gopal is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Right Size is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that conducts business in the City, and its corporate address is 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. The specific purpose of Right Size, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation filed February 11, 2020, is to support, protect and preserve the historic character and beauty of San Marco, a historic residential neighborhood south of downtown Jacksonville and the St. Johns River. Officers of Right Size appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Right Size is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Respondent City is a municipal corporation of the state of Florida and is responsible for enacting and amending its comprehensive plan in accordance with Florida law. The City provided timely notice to the parties and the process followed the provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and part II of chapter 163. The Ordinance relates to 2.87 acres of property located at 2137 Hendricks Avenue and 2139 Thacker Avenue (Property). The Property is located within the City's jurisdiction. Intervenor Harbert is an Alabama limited liability company, registered to do business in Florida. Harbert is an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment and currently has the Property under a purchase contract pending the effective adoption of the Ordinance. Harbert is an affected person and intervenor under section 163.3187(5)(a). Intervenor South Jax is a Florida not-for-profit corporation and is the owner of record of the Property that is the subject of the Ordinance. South Jax is also an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment. South Jax is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Property and Surrounding Parcels The Property occupies the majority of one block in the San Marco neighborhood of the City. It is bounded on the north by Alford Place, on the east by Mango Place, on the south by Mitchell Avenue, and on the west by Hendricks Avenue (State Road 13). Hendricks Avenue is classified as an arterial road. The Property is currently home to The South Jacksonville Presbyterian Church. The southern portion of the Property, comprising 1.89 acres, is currently designated Residential Professional Institutional (RPI) on the City's Future Land Use Map series (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The northern portion of the Property, comprising 0.98 acres, is currently designated Community/General Commercial (CGC) on the FLUM. The southern portion of the Property is currently zoned Commercial Residential Office (CRO) on the City's zoning map. The northern portion of the Property is zoned Commercial Community/General-1 (CCG-1) on the City's zoning map. The FLUM shows that the Property is currently in the City's Urban Development Area (UDA), and abuts the boundary line of the City's Urban Priority Development Area (UPDA) to the north. The parcel to the north of the Property was the subject of a small scale FLUM amendment in 2014 (Ordinance 2014-130-E). It is known as East San Marco, currently has a Comp Plan FLUM designation of CGC, and is in the UPDA that permits development of up to 60 residential units per acre (ru/acre). Ordinance 2014-130-E for East San Marco included a FLUE text change, i.e., a site specific policy/text change under section 163.3187(1)(b). FLUE Policy 3.1.26 exempts East San Marco from specified UPDA characteristics. The East San Marco property was recently rezoned from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to PUD (Ordinance 2019-799-E) for a mixed-use project known as the East San Marco development. The PUD provides that the maximum height for commercial buildings is 50 feet not including non- habitable space, and 48 feet for multifamily units. Located south of the Property across Mitchell Avenue are parcels developed for single family residential use and currently designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the FLUM. These properties are zoned Residential Low Density-60 (RLD-60) on the City's zoning map. Located east of the Property across Mango Place are parcels developed with a mix of single family residential and office uses and designated as a mix of CGC and RPI on the FLUM. These properties have a mix of zoning including CCG-1, Residential Medium Density-A (RMD-A), and Commercial Office (CO). Located west of the Property at Hendricks Avenue/San Marco Boulevard are parcels developed with multifamily, restaurant and retail commercial uses and designated as a mix of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and CGC on the FLUM. These properties are zoned RMD-D and CCG-1. Intervenors intend to develop the Property with a mixed-use project that will include 133 multifamily residential units and a parking garage. The existing church sanctuary will remain in use at the northeast corner of Hendricks Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. The Ordinance On August 27, 2019, Intervenors applied for a small scale development amendment proposing to change the Property from RPI and CGC to CGC, and to extend the UPDA to include the Property. On the same date, Intervenors also filed a companion rezoning application seeking to change the zoning on the Property from CRO and CCG-1 to PUD. The rezoning application was processed concurrent with the small scale development amendment application. The City's professional planning staff collected and reviewed data and information related to the small scale development amendment application, the Property, and the surrounding areas. The staff also conducted a site visit. The staff further sought review by, and received input from, a number of different City and state agencies and organizations regarding the proposed Ordinance. On October 28, 2019, the City held a citizens' information meeting to discuss the proposed Ordinance. The meeting was attended by approximately nine residents. After reviewing and analyzing the data and information gathered, City professional planning staff determined that the Ordinance was consistent with the Comp Plan and furthers the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comp Plan. The determination was memorialized in a staff report recommending approval of the Ordinance. The staff report was prepared for consideration by the City's Planning Commission prior to its regular meeting on January 23, 2020. At its January 23, 2020, meeting, the Planning Commission held an approximately two and one-half hour hearing on both the Ordinance and the PUD. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a unanimous vote. The staff report and the Planning Commission's recommendation were forwarded to the City Council's Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) Committee. The LUZ Committee held public hearings addressing the Ordinance on December 3, 2019; January 22, 2020; February 4, 2020; and February 19, 2020. Certain concerns were raised by citizens at public hearings both before and during the February 19, 2020, LUZ Committee meeting. In response, the LUZ Committee requested that Mr. Killingsworth draft a site specific policy/text amendment to adopt limitations on the number of residential units, the non-residential floor area permitted on the Property, and the maximum height of structures on the Property, with measurable criteria for determining the height of structures within the proposed use on the Property. During the February 19, 2020, public hearing, the LUZ Committee recommended addition of FLUE Policy 4.4.16, a site specific policy/text amendment, which states: Multi-family residential uses shall be limited to 133 units. Non-residential floor area shall be limited to 96,000 square feet (garage, all floors) and 25,000 +/- square feet (existing church, all floors). To ensure compatibility with adjacent uses and to protect neighborhood scale and character through transition zones, bulk, massing, and height restrictions, new building height shall be limited to the calculated weighted average, not to exceed 35 feet, across the length of the development from Alford Place to Mitchell Avenue as follows: A sum of the height to the predominant roof line (ridge or parapet wall) of that portion of a building multiplied by the length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of permissible building within the minimum setback. After approximately six hours of testimony and discussion, the LUZ Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Ordinance with the site specific policy/text amendment. The City Council held public hearings to address the Ordinance on November 26, 2019; December 10, 2019; January 28, 2020; February 11, 2020; and February 25, 2020. After approximately five and a half hours of testimony and discussion, the City Council adopted the Ordinance on February 25, 2020, by a vote of 17 to one. There was significant citizen input regarding the Ordinance throughout the hearing process. This included emails and letters to City staff, to Planning Commissioners and City Council members, and submittal of verbal and written comments at the hearings. Petitioners' and Right Size's Objections Following their filing of the Petition and other stipulations mentioned above, Petitioners and Right Size jointly presented their case during the final hearing. They argued that the Ordinance was not "in compliance" because: (i) it created internal inconsistencies based upon Comp Plan Policies 1.1.20A, 1.1.20B, 1.1.21 and 1.1.22; (ii) it was not based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the City; (iii) it did not react to data in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance; and (iv) subsection (c) of FLUE Policy 4.4.16 related to height failed to 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 land use regulations. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the primary underlying premise of Petitioners' and Right Size's challenge was that the Ordinance would allow a density in excess of 40 ru/acre and permit a height in excess of 35 feet. Internal Consistency In the Amended Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, as modified by the Notice of Narrowing Issues for Hearing, Petitioners and Right Size identified specific policies in the Comp Plan, which they assert rendered the Ordinance inconsistent with the Comp Plan. FLUE Policy 1.1.20A states that "[e]xtensions of the Development Areas will be noted in each land use amendment where an extension is needed or requested concurrent with a Future Land Use Map Amendment. In addition, plan amendments shall meet the requirements as set forth in Policy 1.1.21 and 1.1.22." The definitional section of the FLUE explains that the City is divided into five tiers of Development Areas which include the UPDA and the UDA. These areas are depicted on the City's FLUM series and control "the density, development characteristics, and other variables within plan categories." The first sentence of Policy 1.1.20A affords applicants the ability to request an extension of a development area concurrent with a land use amendment application. Consistent with the policy, the small scale development amendment application included a request for an extension of the UPDA. The request was submitted concurrent with the request to designate the Property as CGC on the FLUM. The adopted Ordinance makes note of the extension of the UPDA as required by Policy 1.1.20A. The second sentence of Policy 1.1.20A requires that when an amendment application includes a request to extend a development area, the City must ensure consistency with Policies 1.1.21 and 1.1.22. The City's analysis is reflected in the staff report, which finds that the amendment application meets Policies 1.1.20, 1.1.20A, and 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any testimony regarding consistency with Policy 1.1.20A. Their expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that he was familiar with Policy 1.1.20A, but did not explain how or why the Ordinance was internally inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. Instead, Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis regarding Policy 1.1.21. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. FLUE Policy 1.1.20B states: Expansion of the Development Areas shall result in development that would be compatible with its surroundings. When considering land areas to add to the Development Areas, after demonstrating that a need exists in accordance with Policy 1.1.21, inclusion of the following areas is discouraged; Preservation Project Lands Conservation Lands Agricultural Lands, except when development proposals include Master Planned Communities or developments within the Multi-Use Future Land Use Category, as defined in this element. The following areas are deemed generally appropriate for inclusion in Development Areas subject to conformance with Policy 1.1.21: Land contiguous with the Development Area and which would be a logical extension of an existing urban scale and/or has a functional relationship to development within the Development Area. Locations within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Locations within one-half mile of the existing or planned JTA RTS. Locations having projected surplus service capacity where necessary facilities and services can be readily extended. Public water and sewer service exists within one-half mile of the site. Large Scale Multi-Use developments and Master Planned Communities which are designed to provide for the internal capture of daily trips for work, shopping and recreational activities. Low density residential development at locations up to three miles from the inward boundary of the preservation project lands. Inward is measured from that part of the preservation project lands closest to the existing Suburban Area such that the preservation lands serves to separate suburban from rural. The development shall be a logical extension of residential growth, which furthers the intent of the Preservation Project to provide passive recreation and low intensity land use buffers around protected areas. Such sites should be located within one- half mile of existing water and sewer, or within JEA plans for expansion. After the City makes a determination that there is a need for the expansion of a Development Area pursuant to Policy 1.1.21, the City next looks to see if the property is discouraged under Policy 1.1.20B. The subject Property does not fall into one of the discouraged lands. The City's expert, Ms. Reed, explained that if the questions of need and discouraged lands are satisfactorily answered, the Policy then describes lands that are generally deemed appropriate for inclusion in a particular Development Area. The first question is whether the Property is contiguous to the UPDA and whether the extension is logical. The staff report notes that the Property is immediately adjacent to the UPDA to the north and that an extension of the boundary is logical because it permits an infill project. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga testified that the proposed extension of the UPDA to include the Property is also logical because there is a functional relationship to the proposed mixed-use development to the north. The next question is whether the Property is within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that the Property is within a node which was confirmed by Mr. Atkins. The next criterion under Policy 1.1.20B is whether there are mass transit services available near the Property. The staff report notes that mass transit Routes 8 and 25 are available at the Property and this fact was confirmed by Ms. Reed. The fourth and fifth criteria under Policy 1.1.20B address whether there is sufficient water, sewer and other services available to serve the Property. The City requested information from various agencies and utilized the responses to analyze the impact of the Ordinance. The City sought confirmation from the Jacksonville Electric Authority, Transportation Planning, the Duval County School Board, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Concurrency and Mobility Management System Office to determine whether the systems serving the Property, i.e. water, sewer, schools, and roads, had available capacity to serve the site if the UPDA was expanded to include the Property. All the agencies consulted responded that there was sufficient capacity available. In addition, Ms. Reed testified that the Ordinance met Policy 1.1.20B because there is capacity for water and sewer, there is transit available, the area is very walkable, and there is access to a lot of neighborhood services nearby. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga persuasively testified that the Ordinance met the criteria for land deemed appropriate for inclusion in the UPDA as set forth in Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any evidence regarding the consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B and their expert did not offer any opinions or otherwise discuss consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.20B. FLUE Policy 1.1.21 requires the City to analyze need for all land use map amendments. The Policy states: Future amendments to the Future Land Use Map series (FLUMs) shall include consideration of their potential to further the goal of meeting or exceeding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area and to allow for the operation of real estate markets to provide adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents and business consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.5. The projected growth needs and population projections must be based on relevant and appropriate data which is collected pursuant to a professionally acceptable methodology. In considering the growth needs and the allocation of land, the City shall also evaluate land use need based on the characteristics and land development pattern of localized areas. Land use need identifiers include but may not be limited to, proximity to compatible uses, development scale, site limitations, and the likelihood of furthering growth management and mobility goals. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that they did not object to a density on the Property of 40 ru/acre or 114 total units, but object to the additional 19 units permitted by the Ordinance. Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that need to expand the UPDA to encompass the Property was not demonstrated, and that need for the "additional number of units" was not demonstrated. The City's experts, Ms. Reed and Mr. Killingsworth explained that Table L-20 of the FLUE identifies land use categories and their projected need at the end of the 2030 planning horizon. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 demonstrates that at the end of the planning horizon the RPI land use will be at 119 percent of need, while the CGC land use will be at 84 percent of need. This indicates a need for additional CGC designated lands by 2030, as well as an over-abundance of RPI-designated lands. Since the Ordinance includes a request to change existing RPI-designated lands to CGC, it addresses both the need to increase CGC-designated lands and to decrease RPI-designated lands. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 was prepared by the City to comply with section 163.3177(6), which requires all local governments to project need and to assure that there is market availability to respond to such need. The Table, along with the underlying data and analysis used to support it, was reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (n/k/a the Department of Economic Opportunity) and found to comply with state law. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that the City considered testimony by the San Marco Merchants Association, local residents, and the applicant presented during the hearings. The testimony demonstrates that the Ordinance would address current economic and housing needs in the area. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the testimony and Table L-20 demonstrate a need for the Ordinance to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area. With regard to the land use need identifiers of proximity, compatibility, and scale, Mr. Killingsworth testified that "compatibility" as defined in the FLUE "doesn't mean you have to have the same uses adjacent to each other, it doesn’t mean that you have to have the same density adjacent to each other." Instead it means that "those uses have to operate in conjunction with each other and there has to be [ ] some sense to the scale, the mass, and bulk of the structure." See Tr. at pg. 203, lines 11-17. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the City's analysis was that the Ordinance met the land use need identifiers, the limitations included in the site specific policy/text amendment were an additional way to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses with regard to use, scale, and height. The CGC portion of the Property is currently permitted to be developed up to 40 ru/acre. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the Property to a total of 133 residential units (or approximately 46 ru/acre), which the City Council determined is compatible, particularly given the fact that the East San Marco property directly north of the Property can be developed with up to 60 ru/acre. The Comp Plan FLUE does not establish height limitations for any of the land use categories, including CGC and RPI. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the s ite specific policy/text amendment provides for standards related to height that are otherwise not in the FLUE. The East San Marco project to the north has a height limit of 50 feet, and the low density residential neighborhood to the south has a height limit of 35 feet. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the limitation in the site specific policy/text amendment, restricting the height on the Property to an average of 35 feet, allows for an appropriate transition between the uses to the north and the uses to the south, thus ensuring compatibility. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.21. FLUE Policy 1.1.22 states: "Future development orders, development permits and plan amendments shall maintain compact and compatible land use patterns, maintain an increasingly efficient urban service delivery system and discourage urban sprawl as described in the Development Areas and the Plan Category Descriptions of the Operative Provisions." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins testified that he did not review Policy 1.1.22. However, in an abundance of caution, the City and Intervenors presented evidence to establish that the Ordinance was consistent with Policy 1.1.22. Mr. Killingsworth pointed to the definition of compact development from the FLUE, which includes the efficient use of land primarily by increasing intensity, density, and reducing surface parking. He testified that the Ordinance accomplished these criteria. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the height averaging in the site specific policy/text amendment assisted with ensuring compatibility, and that the proposed development's mix of commercial, residential, and institutional uses on a small site met the definition of compact development. Ms. Reed testified that the Property is in an area with full urban services, has access to transit, and fronts on an arterial roadway. Furthermore, it promotes a compact and compatible land use pattern through redevelopment and infill. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.22. Data and Analysis The parties agreed in the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation that the facts remaining for adjudication with regard to "data and analysis" were exclusively related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16, the site specific policy/text amendment that addressed only building height. However, Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins did not discuss data and analysis specifically related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16. Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis related to the Ordinance generally. The City addressed the data and analysis supporting the Ordinance, and the City's response to that data and analysis. The City considered data from professionally accepted sources and applied an analysis based on established procedures set forth in the Comp Plan. The process of data collection began with the submittal of the application, which included a survey, a legal description and an owner's affidavit. Mr. Killingsworth testified that chapter 640 of the City's Ordinance Code sets out the process by which FLUM amendment applications are processed and reviewed by the planning staff. Section 650.404(b) requires that the City hold a Citizens Information Meeting that allows receipt of additional data from the affected community. Ms. Reed explained that all amendments are evaluated based upon standards and methodologies established in the FLUE for the assessment of data and analysis, which includes public facilities, school impacts, population, and development impacts. The City planning staff collected background data for the initial analysis of the Ordinance. The background section of the staff report goes through an analysis of the characteristics of the site, including the location, acreage, and surrounding uses; describes the site in general; identifies the Council district; identifies the Planning District; and notes if there are any applicable vision plans. The City planning staff also did research on applications and amendments that have occurred in proximity to the Property. The background information is part of the data and analysis that the City used to determine whether the Ordinance Amendment was consistent with the City's policies. In addition, FLUE Policy 1.2.16 requires the City to assume maximum development potential when analyzing the impacts of amendments to the FLUM unless there is a site-specific policy limiting density or intensity. In this instance, the staff report was completed prior to the addition of the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance, which specifically limits the density and intensity permitted on the Property. The City's staff followed the guidelines of Policy 1.2.16 and utilized the maximum development potential for the Property in reviewing the application, i.e., 2.87 acres of CGC designated property in the UPDA. Ms. Reed testified that the site specific policy/text amendment "added parameters and limitations that were not there before, so it really lessened the impact based on what we analyzed versus what was ultimately approved." See Tr. at pg. 291, lines 8-17. Under Policy 1.2.16, the City developed a table entitled "Development Standards for Impact Assessment," which is used to collect and analyze specific impact data. The data gathered by the City for the table included the analyses provided by various advising agencies and entities. The data and analyses provided by the other agencies and entities are summarized in the table in the staff report. The table also includes a section where the City staff identifies and reviews other appropriate plans and studies. These plans and studies have not been adopted into the City's Comp Plan, but they are utilized as data and analysis when the planning staff reviews a FLUM amendment. The staff report identifies three plans applicable to the site, the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan, the North San Marco Action Plan, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Ms. Reed explained that the Ordinance was consistent with the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan which provides for new development along Hendricks Avenue compatible with existing neighborhoods. The staff report notes that design details can be addressed in the companion PUD rezoning application. Likewise, the staff report concludes that the Ordinance is generally consistent with the features of the North San Marco Action Plan and that design details would be handled through the PUD review and implementation. Finally, Ms. Reed explained that the City found that the Ordinance would achieve the Strategic Regional Policy Plan's goals of improving quality-of-life with appropriate infill and redevelopment and by providing diverse housing options. Additional evidence and testimony offered by the applicant and the citizens during the Planning Commission, LUZ Committee, and City Council hearings was collected and analyzed by the City prior to final action on the amendment application. The additional data and information gathered during the many different hearings on the Ordinance resulted in the recommendation of the LUZ Committee to add the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the site specific policy/text amendment was a direct result of the City's analysis of input from the public related to intensity, density, and compatibility. Ms. Reed testified that "all of these things were considered together as a whole in order to come up with a recommendation, both in the staff report and final approval by Council as amended." Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and that the City's response to that data and analysis was not appropriate. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) requires that a Comp Plan "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." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, opined that subsection (c) of the site specific policy/text amendment is "vague in its application and certainty in its outcome," in that "[t]here is no defined limit of what the height might be in violation of the requirements of section 163.3177(1)." Mr. Atkins acknowledged that the Comp Plan FLUE does not otherwise address height and that "[i]t all seems to be handled at the PUD or LDR level." This fact was confirmed by the City's expert, Mr. Killingsworth. Mr. Killingsworth explained that the objective of the site specific policy/text amendment, as a whole, is to establish a maximum development potential or otherwise restrict development on the Property consistent with Objective 4.4 of the FLUE. The density limitations, combined with the height limitation, restrict the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that subsection (c) represents a policy statement by the City Council that height should be no more than an average of 35 feet, and it provides guidance as to how the height is to be calculated, which will ultimately be implemented in the LDRs and the PUD. Subsection (c) provides more specificity regarding height than would otherwise be achieved through a Comp Plan land use category without a site specific policy/text amendment. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the height limitation in subsection (c) may not dictate that the higher heights should be on the northern portion of the Property and transition to the lower heights on the southern portion of the Property, the PUD and the development of the Property will need to comply with other parts of the Comp Plan that require a transition between uses. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance does not guide future development decisions in a consistent manner, and does not establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land. Ultimate Findings Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding Ordinance No. 2019-750-E "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES 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 August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 (eServed) Frank D. Upchurch, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-9066 (eServed) Emily Gardinier Pierce, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Courtney P. Gaver, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 100 Whetstone Place, Suite 200 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 (eServed) T.R. Hainline Jr., Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Jason R. Teal, Esquire Office of General Counsel City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Paul M. Harden, Esquire The Law Firm of Paul M. Harden, Esquire 501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 901 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Mohammad O. Jazil, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Craig D. Feiser, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Trisha Bowles, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5721 (eServed) Ken Lawson, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Mark Buckles, Interim General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 (Plan Amendment) adopted by Bay County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, T & P Enterprises of Bay County, Inc. (T & P), is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in this state, and operates such business at 20016 Front Beach Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, is a resident of Bay County, Florida, and is the President of T & P, which operates a seasonal resort at 20016 Beach Front Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, submitted written comments in opposition to the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment at issue before the adoption of SSA 03-07. Intervenor, Barbara S. Harmon, owns a house located at 190 16th Street in Panama City, Florida. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in 1994. The Harmon property is located in the Laguna Beach subdivision. Mrs. Harmon was one of the property owners who petitioned the County for adoption of SSA 03-07. The Property The property affected by SSA 03-07 consists of twelve separate parcels of land totaling approximately 2.35 acres located in unincorporated Bay County. The property lies within a two-block area generally situated south of First Avenue, East of Wisteria Lane, and along both sides of 16th Street, which is west of the municipal boundaries of Panama City Beach in what is commonly known as the West Beaches. Two of the parcels subject to the Plan Amendment are located on the Gulf of Mexico south of Front Beach Road. The twelve parcels are not contiguous. The predominant type of structure on these parcels are one-story housing structures used primarily for residential purposes. Some of the structures are used as short-term or long-term rentals. Others, including the Harmons' house, are used as second homes during the summer season, or on weekends. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in Bay County in 1994. They reside there six to nine months a year. They also have a residence in Gadsden, Alabama. The Harmons bought their house in Bay County because they wanted a house close to the beach in a clean, quiet neighborhood. The area affected by the Plan Amendment is predominantly residential in character. The area is generally built-out as residential land use. The area has not substantially changed since the Harmons purchased their house in 1994. Background Bay County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The 1991 existing conditions map accompanying the Comprehensive Plan shows that most of the property in the West Beaches Area was "predominantly medium density residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." Mrs. Harmon testified that her house on 16th Street was designated Residential under the County's Comprehensive Plan at the time she purchased it in 1994. In 1994-1995, as part of its Comprehensive Plan evaluation and appraisal process, Bay County's planning staff undertook a "windshield survey" of the West Beaches Area. The windshield survey indicated that Laguna Beach 1st through 7th additions were platted or developed between 1938 and 1954, and consisted primarily of a mix of older single-family houses, mobile homes, multi-family buildings, and church buildings. The windshield survey reflected seasonal resort uses on the south side of Front Beach Road on the Gulf of Mexico. The windshield survey shows that the predominate land use in the West Beaches Area in 1994-1995 continued to be residential, as it was at the time of the 1991 existing conditions map. In December 1999, Bay County adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in which it created the SR FLUM category. Under the Plan, the purpose of the SR FLUM category is "to provide areas for a functional mix of compatible seasonal/resort land uses where the clientele are predominantly seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists." The uses allowed include beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, apartments or other similar multi-family structures, motels, lodges, restaurants, convenience stores, retreats, and lounges, bars, and other similar uses and public utilities." The criteria for designating areas as SR are "areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used for non-residential, tourist-oriented purposes." The Plan further provides that "Year-round, permanent residences should not be located in this area." The County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was the data and analysis relied upon by Bay County for the 1999 plan amendments, defined these seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists as people who visit Bay County for an average 5.385 days. Terry Jernigan, the former Bay County Planning Director, testified that in developing the SR category, the County focused primarily on "typical summertime tourists" who stay for weekend, weekly, and monthly rental periods and attempted to identify areas that were tourist areas or were likely to become transient in nature in the future. Second homeowners and seasonal visitors were not considered when the SR category was developed. The SR Future Land Use Map category has also been applied in the beach areas of unincorporated Bay County located east of the municipal boundaries city of Panama City Beach. Development in that area includes large high-rise condominiums and hotels, bars, T-shirt shops, and night clubs. The SR category was also applied to a number of properties in the West Beaches Area that are indicated as residential uses in the County's official windshield survey, including the parcels that are the subject of the amendment at issue. Mr. Jernigan testified that an indicator of an area that was transient in nature was the large number of signs indicating that the properties were for rent. Mrs. Harmon testified that since she purchased her property in 1994, she had observed no signs advertising rentals in the area in which the properties subject to the amendment are located. Mrs. Harmon was motivated to seek the FLUM amendment from SR to Residential to prevent high-rise development, bars, T-shirt shops, and noise increases that she has observed in the SR category east of Panama City Beach. The applicants for the subject amendment are concerned that the SR category may adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Development of the Plan Amendment In the spring and early summer of 2002, Bay County began receiving "grass roots petitions" from property owners in the West Beaches Area requesting that either their future land use designation or zoning be changed from SR back to Residential. The petitions stated that the FLUM designations were changed without notice to the property owners. These petitions initially involved 400-500 parcels of land. In response to the grass roots petitions, the County identified several "target areas" where there were a large number of parcels generally contiguous to each other. At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, on August 28, 2002, County staff sent letters to individuals within the target areas asking them if they wanted the land use designated on their properties changed from SR to Residential and attaching a land use map application form. Allara Mills Gutcher, a County Senior Planner III, testified that the County wanted assurances that the petitioning property owners understood the nature of the change they were requesting. The County's letter directed to the property owners in the target areas not only asked if the owners wanted a land use designation change, but also indicated that a petitioning property owner would be required to pay the County a $1,100 fee to apply for the land use change. Although the letter indicated that the Board was considering waiving the fee, no evidence was presented that the Board made a decision on the waiver or that the approximately 180 property owners to whom the County had written had received further notice from the County regarding the $1,100 fee. Some County property owners, including Mrs. Harmon, complained to the County that the application fee discouraged a number of property owners from submitting FLUM amendment applications. The forms accompanying the County's August 28, 2002, letter also advised the property owners that small scale plan amendments could only be considered in connection with a specific plan of development or hardship, restrictions not contained in either the County's Plan or Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Gutcher testified that only 20 responses to the County's letter were received. The Plan Amendment Summary Sheet on the subject amendment, however, indicates that a result of the mail out was the submittal of an application to change approximately 30 properties along Front Beach Road in another area, Sunnyside Beach, from SR to Residential. This amendment is known as the Centeno amendment, and was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in December 2002. One of the target areas of the mail out was the Laguna Beach Subdivision area where Intervenor Harmon's property is located. After receiving the County's August 28, 2002, letters and learning of the Centeno/Sunnyside small scale plan amendment, Mrs. Harmon spearheaded an effort to seek the subject small plan amendment in her neighborhood. She worked with County staff on the locations of properties to be included in the proposed amendment. Erroneously included in the first proposed plan amendment was The Laguna Beach Christian Retreat property on Front Beach Road, owned by Petitioners. Mrs. Harmon brought this error to the attention of County staff, and Petitioners' property was removed from the proposed amendment, leaving 16 lots included in the amendment package. County staff initially supported the 16-lot proposed small scale plan amendment in Mrs. Harmon's neighborhood in part because it included properties adjacent to First Avenue on the north and contiguous to properties currently designated Residential on the FLUM. Prior to and at the Planning Commission meeting at which the subject amendment was considered, three individuals owning four of the 16 lots withdrew from the plan amendment application. These withdrawals included the two lots on First Avenue contiguous to the existing Residential FLUM area, a lot on 16th Street, and a lot on Front Beach Road. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested FLUM change from SR to Residential on the 12 remaining parcels. County staff did not dispute the appropriateness of the Residential FLUM designation for the subjected properties, but did not support the plan amendment for the remaining 12 lots because of the configuration of the map. Ms. Gutcher testified that her objection was not to the actual land use designation of the subject land parcels, but to the configuration of the Plan Amendment which interspersed parcels designated SR with the residential parcels. The 12 lots subject to the Plan Amendment are not contiguous to existing Residential lands and there are SR lots adjacent to lots that were changed to Residential. Ms. Gutcher, however, stated that adjacency of future land uses is not a requirement of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Gutcher further testified that although she considered the Plan Amendment "poor planning" and did not support the Plan Amendment, she did not consider the Plan Amendment violative of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On June 3, 2003, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and voted to adopt small scale amendment No. SSA 03-07 amending the FLUM designation on the 12 lots from SR to Residential. Internal Consistency Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), require that all comprehensive plan amendments, including amendments to the FLUM be consistent with the other provisions of the applicable comprehensive plan taken as a whole. Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with several discrete provisions contained in the County's Comprehensive Plan; however, when taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Because the Plan Amendment at issue here amends the FLUM designation from SR to Residential, of particular significance to the analysis of internal consistency in this case is the County Comprehensive Plan's Residential FLUM Category. Policy 3.3.1. of the Future Land Use Element in the County's Plan provides that "criteria for designating land use categories on the FLUM and attendant standards for development shall be as shown on Table 3A." Table 3A contains the following criteria and standards for the Residential FLUM category: Purpose: To provide areas for a functional, compatible mix of residential land uses, and to protect property values in viable residential neighborhoods. Designation Criteria: Existing residential areas, residential subdivisions recorded with the Clerk of the Court prior to adoption of this Plan, areas adjacent to existing residential areas, "in-fill" of vacant areas otherwise surrounded by urban development, and low density rural community development. Allowable Uses: Those land uses typically associated with residential occupancy including single-family, duplex, triplex, quadraplex, and manufactured housing. These uses are generally coded as 100 to 900 on the DOR Property Use Code Table for property tax purposes. Public utilities, recreation, conservation. Limited public institutional uses and educational facilities (Policy 2.8.1) may also be allowed. The County Comprehensive Plan does not define the terms "residential occupancy" or "residential use." Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, setting out the minimum criteria for review of comprehensive plans, defines "residential uses" as "activities within land areas used predominantly for housing." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.003(108). In its compatibility analysis, the County described the subject area as "primarily developed as a single-family use today" "similar to current uses in the area." The area is an existing residential area. The predominant type of structure in the area is one-story residential structures used for housing. Except for one vacant lot, each property that is the subject of the amendment contains a one-story single-family residence. All houses on the amendment properties are used as homes, second homes or long-term rentals. None of the houses included in the Plan Amendment are rented on a short-term basis. The evidence demonstrates that the properties included in the Plan Amendment are now used for housing. All but one of the Plan Amendment properties are coded 100 on the tax code, which is the same as the DOR Property Use Code Table referenced in the Residential FLUM category in Table 3A of the Plan. One lot included in the Plan Amendment is vacant and is coded 0000 on the tax code. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the stated purpose, designation criteria for existing residential areas, and allowable uses for the Residential FLUM designation stated in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Many properties in the West Beaches area are rented; however, according to Mrs. Harmon, most properties that are subject to the Plan Amendment are not rented or are rented on a long-term basis. Neither the provisions of Table 3A describing the Residential FLUM category, nor the definition of "residential use" in Chapter 9J-5, distinguish between owner-occupied and rental housing use. One significance of a land use designation from a planning perspective is its impact on infrastructure. That impact is the same whether a house is rented or owner-occupied. Whether the structures are owner-occupied or rented is not a land use amendment compliance issue. Wendy Grey, Petitioners' expert witness, testified that the configuration of the Plan Amendment is not consistent with those portions of the Goal Statement in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan that express the County's goals "to promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development" and "to promote compatibility between land uses and reduce the potential for nuisances." Ms. Grey opined that leaving some properties designated SR surrounded by Residential properties does not promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development. That portion of the Goal Statement referring to an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development was taken directly from the intent sections of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The language governs the overall planning process of allocation of future land uses based upon infrastructure, natural resource protection and efficiency in terms of using existing infrastructure. It is based upon the purpose of the Growth Management Act to manage the extent, distribution and timing of future growth, discourage urban sprawl, and maximize existing infrastructure. These are terms of art under the Growth Management Act, and have nothing to do with drawing the polygons on the map. Tony Arrant, the County's expert witness, testified that the predominance of the small scale amendments he has seen focus on specific areas that have other land use classifications next to the parcel amended, just as with the Plan Amendment. Further, the Goal Statement also includes a statement that the plan should "protect viable neighborhoods." The amendment is consistent with this portion of the goal statement by designating an existing residential area for residential use. When read as a whole, the Plan Amendment is consistent with this Goal Statement. Designating residential properties for residential use is also consistent with the Goal Statement in the Housing Element of the Plan and with Housing Element Objective 8.5, which requires that the County preserve and protect the character, compatibility, and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods. To make a land use amendment uniform throughout a block, connected to existing residential land uses, and following street rights-of-way helps with code enforcement issues and is easier for the public to understand. However, these are not compliance issues. The configuration of the Plan Amendment and the symmetry or lack of symmetry of the future land use map is not a compliance issue. Policy 3.2.1 of the Future Land Use Element governs amendments to the FLUM. It does not require any particular map configuration, or that FLUM boundary lines follow street rights- of-way. There is no express requirement in the Plan that FLUM boundaries must always follow roads. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 3.7.2. of the Future Land Use Element of the County's Plan. Policy 3.7.2. prescribes the general criteria for zoning districts shown on an Official Zoning District Map. This policy implements Objective 3.7, which provides that "By 2001, (the County will) adopt a zoning code to further the intent, and implement the objectives and policies of this Plan." The County has not yet adopted a zoning code. Petitioners specifically rely on the following criteria in Policy 3.7.2.: 4. District boundaries will be drawn so as to follow property lines, road rights-of way, geographic features, section lines, or other readily identifiable features. Where possible, district boundaries will be drawn so as to create buffers between potentially incompatible land uses. District boundary lines shall be drawn so as to minimize the potential for nuisances caused by incompatible land uses. Ms. Grey opined that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with Policy 3.7.2. because the FLUM boundary lines do not follow roads and other geographic features, making it difficult to implement Policy 3.7.2. when a zoning code is adopted. Ms. Grey, however, also acknowledged that it would be possible to draw a zoning map that is consistent with the Plan Amendment. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 3.9.1. which defines "compatibility" of land uses. Ms. Grey opined that interspersing SR with Residential land uses does not promote compatibility. The Plan Amendment recognizes the current use of the subject property. Under the broad categories of permissible uses for the SR designation there are many compatible uses. Moreover, Mrs. Harmon testified that she believes Petitioners are entitled to engage in their business activity, and that everyone in the West Beaches Area got along fine until the SR designation was adopted. The Plan Amendment can be viewed to support the compatibility of land uses because it is consistent with the land uses that are already there. Therefore, the Plan Amendment may serve to decrease the possibility of future incompatibility. It will provide a level of security for the areas that are residential in that any redevelopment of other developed properties will have to be reviewed in light of Comprehensive Plan policies requiring protection of viable residential areas. Additionally, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several of the many policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan to implement Objective 1.2. Policy 1.2.1.2 states that it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public interest. The subject property has historically been residential, the current use of the property is residential, and the interest of the public is served in continuing the residential nature of the property as indicated by the responses to the County's letter of August 28, 2002. Policy 1.2.1.3 states that a purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to overcome "present handicaps." Ms. Grey opined that if the SR category is a handicap, the Plan Amendment does not overcome it because there are still SR parcels around the subject property. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not define "present handicap" and there is no evidence that the SR category is a "present handicap." Policy 1.2.1.4 requires that the Plan deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land because the Plan Amendment does not address potential incompatible uses between SR and Residential. There are many permissible land uses, including beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, and apartments in the SR category that are compatible with the Plan Amendment. Moreover, Ms. Grey stated that a zoning map could be drawn consistent with the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment recognizes the land uses that currently exist on the subject property. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the land uses already there. Taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Ms. Grey opined that there was not adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that residential land use was the most appropriate or suitable for the subject property and within the public interest. Ms. Grey stated that the primary purpose for the Plan Amendment was to respond to individual requests to change the land use classification. She also believed that the lack of homestead exemptions for the majority of the area was data that supported the SR and not the Residential land use classification. Ms. Gutcher, however, testified that she reviewed appropriate data and the Plan Amendment was supported by the types of data and analysis typically provided for FLUM amendments listed in Policy 3.2.1. of the plan. These data included the national wetlands inventory, the ITE Journal for the Traffic Counts, and other data contained in the checklist in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. There was sufficient data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment, including the following: (a) the fact that the 1990 Plan designated the area as Residential; (b) the 1994 windshield survey identifying the area as residential; (c) the fact that the actual uses of the properties are for housing; (d) the existing residential character of the area; (e) the property owners' desire that their properties be designated Residential; and (f) the 1991 existing land use map identifying the area that is the subject of this case as "predominantly medium density, residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." The population projections in the County's EAR are required to include both resident and seasonal populations to arrive at a functional population. This number is then used to plan for the amount of residential, commercial land use authorized. Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, do not differentiate seasonal housing from permanent housing in forecasting future land use needs. There is adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order concluding that the FLUM Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Bay County in Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 3205 Brentwood Way Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Law Office of Robert C. Apgar 320 Johnston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Colleen M. Castille, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether the City of Fernandina Beach (“City” or “Respondent”) Future Land Use Map Amendment, adopted by Ordinance 2019-08 (“FLUM Amendment”), qualifies as a small scale development amendment to the City Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”); and, if so, whether the FLUM Amendment is “in compliance” as that term is used in section 163.3187(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing ATC is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with a substantial number of members who reside in, own property in, or operate businesses in the City. ATC is an affected person under chapter 163, part II. ATC’s Petition for Administrative Hearing was timely filed. Members of ATC submitted oral and written comments on the FLUM Amendment to the City prior to and at the adoption public hearing. Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization with 67 chapters, including the Nassau County Sierra Club Group with a substantial number of members who reside in, own property in, or operate businesses in the City. Sierra Club participates in activities and outings on the Egans Creek Greenway (“Greenway”) for its members and the general public and has organized and participated in the removal of invasive species in the Greenway. Sierra Club is an affected person under chapter 163, part II. Sierra Club’s Petition for Administrative Hearing was timely filed. Members of Sierra Club submitted oral and written comments on the FLUM Amendment to the City prior to and at the adoption public hearing. Petitioners have standing to maintain these proceedings because they are affected persons and presented (or had their attorney or representative present) comments at the adoption hearing of the proposed FLUM Amendment. The City is a municipal corporation of the State of Florida with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167. The City provided timely notice to the parties and followed the plan amendment procedures required by the City’s codes and chapter 163, part II. The subject property is located within the City’s jurisdiction. Amelia Bluff is a Florida limited liability company conducting business in the City. By virtue of its ownership of the property that is subject to the FLUM Amendment and this dispute, Amelia Bluff is affected by the challenge to the FLUM Amendment and has standing to intervene in this proceeding. The Subject Property The Property is part of a larger parcel of approximately 15.07 acres (the “School Board Property”) that was previously owned by the School Board of Nassau County (the “School Board”). The School Board Property was essentially undeveloped, though it had been used as outdoor classroom space for the high school. The School Board Property is located on the east side of Citrona Drive and is bounded on the west by Fernandina Beach High School/Middle School. The School Board Property is bounded on the south by the Hickory Street right-of-way, which is an access to the Greenway. Across from the Hickory Street right-of-way is Shell Cove, a residential subdivision that, according to the City Staff Report, is zoned R-2 with a Medium Density Residential FLUM designation. Shell Cove, which is completed, is of greater density than the proposed Amelia Bluff subdivision. The School Board Property is bounded on the north by a tract of undeveloped property. According to the City Staff Report, the property to the north is zoned R-1 with a LDR FLUM designation. The School Board Property is bounded on the east by 200 to 400 feet of publicly-owned, predominantly wetland property. That property merges into the western edge of the main channel of Egans Creek. The Egans Creek Greenway then extends eastward from the western edge of Egans Creek. The School Board Property includes a relatively steep bluff running generally from the northwest corner of the Property at Citrona Drive, diagonally to the southeast to the Hickory Street right-of-way. The elevation of the upland portion of the School Board Property, which is the portion proposed for development, is from 18 to 20 feet above sea level at its northwest corner, to 11 to 12 feet above sea level at its southeast corner. Roughly 3.76 acres of the School Board Property at and east of the toe of the bluff consists of jurisdictional wetlands, dominated by wetland vegetation, at an elevation of 1 to 2 feet above sea level. The upland portion of the School Board Property includes the 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision. Those uplands were, at the time of the June 2016 purchase by Amelia Bluff, fully wooded with predominantly hardwood species, interspersed with pine, holly and other species. The 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision are appropriately zoned R-1 for low-density residential development. The Property that is the subject of the FLUM Amendment consists of approximately 6.40 acres of uplands within the 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision. The Property is designated on the FLUM as Conservation. The remainder of the proposed subdivision is designated on the FLUM as LDR. The evidence indicates that there is no difference in the nature of the tree cover in the 6.4 acre Property and in the remaining acreage of the proposed subdivision. Maritime Forest/Maritime Hammock There was a good deal of testimony directed to the issue of whether the trees on the Property constitute a “maritime forest” or an imperiled “maritime hammock.” The tree cover on the Property, as established by the tree survey, consists largely of live oak, laurel oak, and water oak, interspersed with magnolia, pine, red maple, and other species. Ms. Jetton described the cover of the Property as maritime forest, and stated that “maritime forest” is identified as an imperiled community in the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (“FNAI”) and designated in the Egans Creek 2015 Greenway Management Plan (“Greenway Management Plan”) as such. Although a “maritime hammock” is designated as an imperiled vegetative community, a “maritime forest” is not. Ms. Jetton later clarified her testimony, stating that “I probably shouldn't have said ‘hardwood hammock.’ I'm accustomed to using that term in the Florida Keys. I know this is a maritime forest, but it is composed of hardwood trees, live oak trees, pine trees.” When asked about the terms “maritime forest” and “maritime hardwood hammock,” she stated that “it was a faulty use of my words. I should have stuck with ‘maritime forest.’” There was little to suggest that the Property contains a “maritime hammock,” which is a specific type of imperiled vegetative community identified in the FNAI and the Greenway Management Plan. Mr. Gerald indicated that it did not. Rather, Mr. Gerald indicated that the type of “maritime forest” that exists on the Property, i.e., a forest on a barrier island, is “very common throughout the mainland, throughout Nassau County, Duval County, St. Johns, Clay, all the way out through pretty much all of North Florida.” It is not an imperiled or unique community, as is a maritime hammock. The Ecological Assessment of Egans Creek Greenway indicates that maritime hammock communities associated with the Greenway “are located along the eastern part of the Greenway,” with another near an indeterminate stretch of Jasmine Street and bisected by a wide and deep canal that is not surficially connected to Egans Creek, and a third set at the southern portion of the Greenway that appear to be adjacent to a beach dune community. There is nothing in the Ecological Assessment to suggest that a maritime hammock community exists to the west of the Greenway. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the Property contains an imperiled “maritime hammock” as described in the FNAI and the Ecological Assessment of Egans Creek Greenway. There is little question that the Property is a beautifully wooded tract. However, the issue is not whether the Property merits preservation, but whether the FLUM Amendment, that will allow for the development of the Property as the Amelia Bluff subdivision, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Egans Creek Greenway The Greenway is a system of approximately 317 acres of publicly-owned waterways, marshes, and wetlands that extends in a north-south direction through Amelia Island, separating the City’s beaches from its downtown and commercial areas. Egans Creek is not an Aquatic Preserve or Outstanding Florida Water. Egans Creek flows into the Amelia River and the Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve. The Greenway is a regional drainage facility that receives untreated stormwater from areas including part of the original plat of the City. Water quality in Egans Creek is degraded, though the creek is not designated as “impaired.” The City’s Greenway Management Plan provides that “[t]he primary purposes of the project are to protect this sensitive natural area from development,” and that “[a]ll of the property encompassed in this project will be designated as recreational/wetlands and protected in the City’s future land use plan.” The Greenway extends from the western bank of the Egans Creek channel eastward. The Greenway is separated from the Property by 200 to 400 feet of publicly-owned, predominantly wetland property, the first hundred feet or so of which is dense willow/wax myrtle/Chinese tallow shrub, and then brackish march to the Egans Creek channel. Procedural History of the Amelia Bluff Subdivision In June 2016, Amelia Bluff entered into a contract to purchase the 15.07-acre School Board Property from the School Board. The School Board Property includes the 6.4-acre Property. Amelia Bluff proposed to develop the upland portion of the School Board Property, including a significant portion of the Property, for the proposed subdivision. On September 27, 2016, the School Board filed an application to vacate a 60-foot right-of-way known as Gum Street extending through the School Board Property in connection with the School Board’s intent to sell the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff, memorialized as City Planning Advisory Board (“PAB”) Resolution 2016-24. On August 10, 2017, the School Board, Amelia Bluff, and the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), which memorialized the parties’ understanding of the conditions of the City’s agreement to vacate a portion of Gum Street extending through the School Board Property. The MOU stipulated that Amelia Bluff would (i) provide access to the abutting properties owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) located on the eastern boundary of the School Board Property through the creation of a City right-of-way to connect Hickory Street to the property owned by the FDOT; (ii) transfer the wetlands portion of the School Board Property to the City for conservation; and (iii) donate $115,000 to the City for land conservation efforts, to be paid at the conclusion of all legal challenges and/or appeals for all subdivision approvals. On August 15, 2017, the City adopted: (i) Ordinance No. 2016-40, which vacated a portion of Gum Street; and (ii) Resolution 2017-123, which approved the MOU. On November 29, 2017, the School Board conveyed the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff. On February 16, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed an application for preliminary plat approval for the subdivision. On March 9, 2018, in accordance with the MOU, Amelia Bluff conveyed to the City approximately 3.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands in two parcels (3.63 acres and 0.13 acres in size) and dedicated to the City approximately 0.917 acres for the right-of-way connection between Hickory Street and the FDOT property. The City accepted the conveyance of wetlands and dedication of right-of-way on March 20, 2018, pursuant to Resolutions Nos. 2018-39 and 2018-40, respectively. On April 11, 2018, the PAB reviewed the application for preliminary plat and issued a recommendation of approval. On May 1, 2018, the Commission approved the preliminary plat for the Amelia Bluff subdivision. On May 10, 2018, the City’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) reviewed and approved the preliminary plat for technical completeness and issued a compliance letter on May 14, 2018 (SPR 2017-09), authorizing the commencement of subdivision infrastructure improvements. In August 2018, Amelia Bluff commenced work on subdivision infrastructure improvements. On October 18, 2018, Amelia Bluff applied for final subdivision plat approval. The City and Amelia Bluff determined that the Property was designated Conservation under the Comprehensive Plan and would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the FLUM designation of the Property from Conservation to LDR. On November 15, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed the application for the FLUM Amendment to change the Conservation designation of the Property. City professional staff reviewed the FLUM Amendment application and determined that the FLUM Amendment sought by Amelia Bluff was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, and furthered the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The determination was memorialized in a Staff Report prepared for consideration by the PAB prior to the PAB’s regular meeting on January 9, 2019. On January 9, 2019, the PAB reviewed the applications for the FLUM Amendment and final plat and issued recommendations of approval for the FLUM Amendment (PAB 2019-01) and final plat (PAB 2018-26). On February 19, 2019, the Commission approved the FLUM Amendment on first reading. On February 21, 2019, Amelia Bluff stopped work on the subdivision infrastructure improvements pursuant to the City’s request. On April 16, 2019, the Commission adopted: (i) Ordinance No. 2019-08, which approved the FLUM Amendment to change the FLUM designation of the Property from Conservation to LDR, allowing up to four residential dwelling units per acre; and (ii) Resolution 2019-57, which approved the final subdivision plat. Because of Petitioners’ pending challenge, the effective date of Ordinance No. 2019-08 is delayed. The Ordinance provides: “If challenged within 30 days after adoption this Ordinance may not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission, respectively, issues a final order determining that the adopted ordinance is in compliance pursuant to Section 163.3187, Fla. Stat.” Similarly, Resolution 2019-57 provides “[t]his Resolution shall become effective on the same date as Ordinance 2019-08 (a small scale Future Land Use Map Amendment that becomes effective pursuant to Section 163.3187, Fla. Stats.)” Thus, development may resume without any further action by the Fernandina City Commission if the FLUM Amendment becomes effective. Other Governmental Authorizations On December 28, 2017, the St. Johns River Water Management District (“SJRWMD”) issued Amelia Bluff an Environmental Resource Permit, No. 151737-1 (“ERP”), which notice was recorded in Official Records Book 2177, Page 1100 of the Public Records of Nassau County, Florida on February 15, 2018. On May 14, 2018, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”) issued Amelia Bluff Permit No. 0003152-107-DWC, which authorized Amelia Bluff to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system on the site, and accepted Amelia Bluff’s Notice of Intent to Use the General Permit for Construction of Water Main Extensions for PWSs. The Proposed Subdivision The proposed subdivision consists of 30 lots, designed with two entrances from Citrona Drive, and two cul-de-sacs. The legal description for the final plat approved on April 16, 2019, in Resolution 2019-57, describes the proposed subdivision as containing “10.29 acres more or less.”3/ In addition to the property conveyed to the City or dedicated to the city as right-of-way, the final plat depicts Tract “C” (0.25 acres) as a “recreation/open space tract” that is removed from development. The proposed subdivision was initially designed with stormwater detention ponds near the front of the subdivision, near Citrona Drive and away from the bluff. However, placement at that location would have required extensive grading and tree clearing to direct the flow of water against its natural flow direction. After discussion with City staff, the decision was made to reconfigure site drainage so that stormwater would be directed via overland flow and drainage structures from northwest to southeast, generally following site topography. Stormwater from lots, sidewalks, and streets will be directed to two dry detention ponds located at the southeast portion of the subdivision, and adjacent to the bluff. By allowing stormwater to follow the natural topography, grading and clearing for stormwater purposes will be minimized. The two dry detention ponds are connected by a 12-inch pipe approximately 100 feet in length that is designed to equalize water levels in the ponds. The ponds have a discharge structure in the southernmost pond that is designed to discharge treated stormwater after a 25-year storm to the bottom of the bluff. Efforts were made to design utilities, the stormwater system, and the roadways and associated structures to avoid particular specimen trees within the rights-of-way. In addition, Tract “C” located near the northwest corner of the subdivision, as well as portions of Tract “A” in the vicinity of the dry detention ponds were preserved due to an abundance of trees at those locations. The subdivision is designed with a 25-foot wetland buffer that prohibits removal of native vegetation or other disturbance within 25 linear feet of the jurisdictional wetlands. The buffer encompasses the entirety of the bluff. It was noted during the hearing that the buffer terminates near the southwest corner of the proposed subdivision. It was explained, credibly, that the 25-foot buffer is to buffer wetlands, and that there were no wetlands within 25 feet of the southwest corner that required a buffer. It was also noted that several lot lines extended into the wetland buffer. The buffer will be marked and restrictions recorded. Much of the evidence offered by Petitioners was directed to concern that the disturbance of the Property and removal of trees would destabilize the “relic dune” upon which the proposed subdivision is to be built. The testimony regarding that issue was conclusory, and not based on site- specific studies. However, Dr. McPhillips noted that there is residential development up and down the Greenway, and that the adjacent Shell Cove subdivision had experienced no evidence of dune collapse. Work Completed to Date In June 2016, after Amelia Bluff contracted to purchase the School Board Property, the owner representative, Wirt Beard, met with City planning staff to engage in preliminary discussions regarding the development of the proposed subdivision. At that time, Amelia Bluff and the City planning staff noted that the Property was subject to a Conservation designation on the FLUM. The planning director at the time, Marshall McCrary, indicated that it was his opinion that the FLUM Conservation designation was a “scrivener’s error,” and that it would be taken care of. Considerable discussions regarding the abandonment of the Gum Street right- of-way then commenced, and the Conservation designation was essentially disregarded. Nonetheless, there is no question but that Amelia Bluff knew and understood at that time that the Property was not designated for development. Amelia Bluff’s decision to proceed with development planning and construction was not taken without considerable support by the City. Despite the fundamental issue of whether the proposed subdivision could go forward in light of the unresolved Conservation designation, the City proceeded with a number of actions that would have led Amelia Bluff to the reasonable conclusion that the matter was, in fact, being “taken care of.” As set forth previously, the City entered into the MOU with Amelia Bluff and the School Board that required Amelia Bluff to establish a City right-of-way through the Property to connect Hickory Street to FDOT property and to transfer roughly 3.76 acres of wetlands on the Property to the City for conservation, upon which the City would vacate a portion of Gum Street extending through the Property. Ordinances approving the MOU and vacating the Gum Street right-of-way were adopted on August 15, 2017. The sale of the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff was then closed on November 29, 2017. On March 9, 2018, in accordance with the MOU, Amelia Bluff conveyed the 3.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands to the City, and dedicated 0.917 acres for the FDOT right-of-way. The City accepted both by resolution on March 20, 2018. On February 16, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed its application for preliminary plat approval. On April 11, 2018, the PAB reviewed the application for preliminary plat and recommended approval, which was approved by the Commission on May 1, 2018. On May 10, 2018, the TRC issued a compliance letter authorizing the commencement of subdivision infrastructure improvements. Amelia Bluff commenced work on infrastructure improvements for the Project in August 2018. When work was suspended on February 21, 2019, pursuant to the City’s request, the stormwater collection system was substantially complete, stormwater ponds had been cleared and constructed, and the stormwater collection system had been installed. In addition, roads had been cleared and curbs installed. City Commission FLUM Amendment Meetings The undersigned viewed and listened to every minute of the City Commission meetings of February 19, 2019; March 19, 2019; and April 16, 2019. The exclusive theme of those meetings was whether the Conservation designation of the Property was a “scrivener’s error.” The staff presentations were directed solely to the historic zoning and land use designations of the Property. Aerial photographs going back to 1943, and plats going back nearly as far, formed the temporal starting point of the presentations. Charts, maps, and plans were presented and discussed that showed the Property to be subject to a residential “zoning map” designation starting in 1961 and extending through the 1990 FLUM. The Property then became subject to a Wetlands Protection zoning map designation in 1993 and FLUM designation in 1997. In 2005, the Property appeared with a LDR designation in the City GIS FLUM Map. The Property was then made subject to the Conservation designation in 2006, a designation that was adopted by City ordinance. Regardless of how the Property became subject to the Conservation designation, that is its official designation, adopted by ordinance, reviewed by the state land planning agency, and not subject to any timely challenge. The staff presented little or no “data and analysis” as to the compliance of the FLUM Amendment itself with the Comprehensive Plan for consideration by the Commission. The discussion of the FLUM Amendment by the Commissioners involved the alleged “scrivener’s error,” the cost associated with litigating a Bert Harris Act “takings” claim if the FLUM Amendment was denied, the cost of acquiring the Property from Amelia Bluff and the source of funds to do so, and nothing more. Though the evidence establishes that the Commission had “data and analysis” as to the compliance of the FLUM Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, there was not a whisper of acknowledgment or direct evidence of consideration. Several Commissioners, and particularly Mr. Chapman and Mr. Kreger, made statements that their votes to approve the FLUM Amendment were driven solely by the assumption that the Conservation designation was an error, with Commissioner Chapman discussing the cost of buying the Property in lieu of other sensitive lands in the community, stating that “I cannot justify giving up . . . 452 acres of land for six, I just can’t do it,”4/ and Vice-Mayor Kreger stating explicitly at the April 16, 2019, meeting that “to me, this is a mapping error, . . . I made the motion and I will vote yes on this.”5/ The undersigned is convinced that, at least as to the public discussions of the issue, little consideration was given to whether the FLUM Amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue in this case was whether the Commission actually considered available data and analysis supporting consistency, the evidence would suggest the answer is “no.” However, the issue in this de novo proceeding is whether data and analysis that was available to the Commission at the time of the adoption of the FLUM Amendment, and whether that data and analysis, together with any subsequent analysis, establishes that the FLUM Amendment is “in compliance” with the Comprehensive Plan under a “fairly debatable” standard. Available Data and Analysis Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires all plan amendments to be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but is not limited to, surveys, studies, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. Section 163.3177(2) requires the elements of the Comprehensive Plan to be supported by data and analysis. Likewise, section 163.3177(6)(a)8. requires FLUM amendments to be based upon an analysis of data. Section 163.3178(2) states that a local government’s coastal management element of its Comprehensive Plan must be based upon studies, surveys, and data. When the application for the FLUM Amendment was filed, Amelia Bluff provided the City with a substantial volume of information for consideration by City staff, and to which the Commission had access at the time it voted to approve the FLUM Amendment. The surveys, studies, and data included: a site survey prepared by Manzie & Drake Land Surveying; engineering plans for the proposed subdivision, including water and sewer design and stormwater system design prepared by Gillette & Associates, Inc.; a wetland delineation, wetland survey, and documents conveying all wetlands to the City; a topographic survey; preliminary and final plats which include a depiction of the upland/wetland buffer; stormwater modeling data and site drainage calculations prepared by Gillette & Associates, Inc.; the SJRWMD ERP; a geotechnical and soils report for the stormwater model and roads prepared by AGES of Jax, Inc.; a tree survey with input from an arborist; and a wildlife assessment prepared by LG2 Environmental Solutions, Inc. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Small Scale Development Amendment Section 163.3187 applies to “small scale development amendments,” which may be adopted when “[t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer.” Petitioners allege that the FLUM Amendment is not a small scale development amendment since the 6.4 acre FLUM Amendment is part of a use, i.e., the proposed subdivision, that is greater than 10 acres in size. The FLUM Amendment is designed to change the land use category on the 6.4-acre Property. Both Ms. Gibson and Mr. Teeple testified credibly that the size of a FLUM amendment application is the acreage of the property on which the land use category is to be changed. Mr. Teeple testified that, in his extensive experience, he was unaware of any instance in which the 10-acre threshold was applied to the applicant’s total acreage, on the size of a “parent parcel,” or on the overall size of a development of which a FLUM amendment parcel was a part. Ms. Jetton testified on behalf of Petitioners that the Amelia Bluff subdivision is the “use,” which includes “the lots, the driveways, the stormwater ponds, the entire use,” although only the land use designation on the 6.4 acres would be amended. She asserted that the FLUM Amendment “should have been for the Conservation land with an explanation along with it that it would be part of a use that includes” the entire proposed subdivision. Her opinion as to “use” notwithstanding, Ms. Jetton testified that if the FLUM Amendment had occurred prior to the plat approval, “and they only offered the Conservation land as a small scale amendment, then that would have met the statute,” and the FLUM Amendment would properly be for the 6.4 acres for which the land use category change was being sought. Ms. Jetton, and Petitioners, rely exclusively on St. George Plantation Owners Association, Inc. v. Franklin County, Case No. 95-5124GM (Fla. DOAH Feb. 13, 1997; Fla. ACC Mar. 27, 1997). That case will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law herein. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is the established and accepted practice of the City and the regional council to base the determination of whether an amendment is a small scale amendment on the size of the property subject to modification. That determination is consistent with the plain language of the statute and is accepted as reflecting an accurate application of the standards for a small scale FLUM amendment. Internal Inconsistency In the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, Petitioners identified the specific goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that they assert render the FLUM Amendment inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Each of those goals, objectives, and policies is addressed as follows: Policy 5.07.09. The City shall prohibit any development activity that would potentially endanger lives and/or harm property, water quality, and quantity or any other valued environmental system resulting from an alteration to existing drainage structures and natural drainage patterns. Ms. Gibson testified that the City applied this policy and found that it was met as evidenced by modifications to the original stormwater system design and the permitting of the stormwater system by the city and the SJRWMD. As originally configured, the stormwater system would have required significant regrading and virtual clear-cutting of the entire Property to allow stormwater to flow against the natural topography of the land to the front of the proposed subdivision adjacent to Citrona Drive. With input and direction from the City, the system was redesigned to direct stormwater generally from the high point of the property to its low point at the southeastern corner, following the natural topography of the proposed subdivision. All stormwater is to be directed to the permitted stormwater facility. The 25-foot upland buffer is not designed or intended to treat stormwater. The stormwater system consists of dry detention ponds, which are preferred by the SJRWMD. The vertical percolation rate is calculated at 42.8 feet per day. The horizontal percolation rate was calculated at 0.6 feet per day. Mr. Gillette testified that the stormwater system was designed to manage 100 percent of the stormwater from a 25-year storm event, which exceeds the City requirement of a system capacity to handle a 10-year storm event. The treatment volume does not include infiltration and percolation of stormwater. Mr. Desilet reviewed the drainage plans and calculations and determined that they were in compliance with the City Land Development Code. He further confirmed that Amelia Bluff received a stormwater permit from the SJRWMD as required by the Local Development Order. The system is designed and engineered such that flow from the proposed subdivision in its post-development state does not exceed flow from the proposed subdivision in its pre-development state. The system is designed to hold and treat stormwater on site from a 25-year storm. After that, stormwater will be allowed to “pop-off” to the stormwater drain and culvert. Nonetheless, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that any water leaving the site will be treated stormwater, meeting both permitting and water quality standards. Mr. Gillette testified that the modeling performed in support of the stormwater system indicates that for a mean storm event (5.4 inches of rain), pre-development stormwater outfall from the proposed subdivision is 3.8 cubic feet per second (“CFS”), while post-development outfall is expected to be 0.67 CFS. For a 25-year storm event, pre-development stormwater outfall from the proposed subdivision is 16 CFS, while post- development outfall is expected to be 5.6 CFS. Mr. Desilet testified that the engineered stormwater system proposed by Amelia Bluff “addresses water quality by providing the minimum required treatment volume and infiltration under [SJRWMD] guidelines.” As such, he testified that under rules governing the SJRWMD, “[i]f the specified volume required by the pervious area of the site is provided, and it's shown that it infiltrates in the system and it meets other site criteria in the [SJRWMD] code, it is presumed to meet state water quality standards.” Consistent with Mr. Desilet’s testimony, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-40.432(2)(a), which is applicable to the SJRWMD, provides that “[w]hen a stormwater management system complies with rules establishing the design and performance criteria for such systems, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the discharge from such systems will comply with state water quality standards.”6/ The stormwater system complied with the applicable rules, thus leading the SJRWMD to issue a stormwater permit to Amelia Bluff. There was no persuasive evidence introduced to rebut the presumption that state water quality standards would be met. The City reviewed Amelia Bluff’s stormwater plans for compliance with the City’s Land Development Code and determined that water quality was addressed, and that the data and analysis regarding stormwater from the proposed subdivision was compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence offered to establish that the stormwater system designed for the proposed subdivision would “endanger lives and/or harm property, water quality, and quantity or any other valued environmental system resulting from an alteration to . . . natural drainage patterns” was not persuasive. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.07.09. Policy 5.07.12. The City shall require low-impact development strategies or conservation-based landscape planning and installation, water efficient irrigation, and appropriate measures that promote conservation of water resources and reduction of non-point source pollution as part of sustainable water management for new public and private development. New waterfront development shall be designed so that stormwater runoff and erosion are retained on-site or are channeled so as not to degrade water quality of adjacent waters. Ms. Gibson testified that the City required Amelia Bluff to apply low-impact development strategies, including its dedication of all wetlands to the City; the requirement of the 25-foot, naturally vegetated wetland buffer; modifications to the stormwater system to account for the natural topography of the land; and modification and realignment of infrastructure to preserve significant trees. Mr. Teeple testified that the proposed density of less than three units per acre is less than the four units per acre allowed under the LDR designation, thus supporting his opinion that Amelia Bluff applied a low-impact development strategy. Petitioners’ alternatives to the low-impact development strategies identified by Ms. Gibson included clustering all development onto that portion of the proposed subdivision currently designated as LDR, requiring swales in lieu of a “focused” drainage pattern, and increasing the width of the buffer. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its low-impact development policy was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. There are different ways to measure the effectiveness of low-impact development strategies, and people may -- and do -- disagree as to the appropriate means to accomplish the policy. The issue is not, however, which strategies should be implemented, but whether the City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s strategy was beyond fair debate. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.07.12. Objective 5.08. - Wetlands Protection and Preservation Petitioners assert that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 5.08. of the Comprehensive Plan, which provides as follows: The City shall direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands, and shall protect and preserve wetlands from physical and hydraulic alterations, in order to maintain the following functions: natural biological functions . . . natural drainage systems impacting sedimentation patterns, salinity distribution, flushing characteristics . . . shielding other areas from wave action, erosion, or storm damage; storage areas for stormwater and flood waters; natural recharge areas; and natural water filtration processes that serve to purify water. Objective 5.08. is implemented through the City’s wetland Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policies: Policy 5.08.05. The City shall continue to ensure the protection and mitigation of wetlands, consistent with existing state and federal regulations, and shall ensure the following: Land uses which will have little or no adverse impact on wetlands; Standards and criteria for wetlands which possess significant functional value; and Activities that would provide direct public benefits and that would exceed those benefits lost to the public as a result of the degradation or destruction of wetlands. Policy 5.08.06. The City shall protect wetlands from impacts of adjacent development, and shall ensure through regulations included in the Land Development Code: Proper siting of development structures and infrastructure, including clustering of development away from wetlands; Location of buffer zones of native vegetation around wetlands and surface water bodies to prevent erosion, retard runoff, and provide habitat; and Setback of buildings and other structures from wetlands and water bodies. Policy 5.08.08. In instances in which development is proposed that is adjacent to a wetland, the boundary of a wetland transition area shall be established by an on-site field survey . . . . The City shall maintain land development regulations which ensure that the transition area provides a buffer between wetlands and upland development. Such buffer shall ensure existing vegetation is not disturbed; where new vegetation is required, plants or ground cover native or appropriate to a wetlands transition area shall be used. The data and analysis established clearly that the Property encompassed by the FLUM Amendment includes no wetlands, and that the proposed subdivision will result in no direct degradation, destruction, or impact to wetlands. Ms. Gibson testified that the Wetlands Protection and Preservation objective and policies were advanced in several ways, including the dedication of all wetlands on the School Board Property to public ownership so as to protect and preserve the wetlands, the creation of the wetland buffer between wetlands and the upland development, and the requirement -- enforced through the plat and engineering documents, Homeowners’ Association covenants, and City code provisions -- that native vegetation be maintained in the buffer. Petitioners argued that wetlands are adjacent to the proposed subdivision, that stormwater can drain from the proposed subdivision to the wetland, and that, ipse dixit, there will be an adverse affect on the wetlands. That allegation was not proven, and is inconsistent with the SJRWMD stormwater permit creating a presumption that the stormwater system complies with water quality standards. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its wetland protection and preservation objective and policies was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 5.08., or Policies 5.08.05, 5.08.06, or 5.08.08. Objective 5.10. - Wildlife Planning. The City shall encourage development and management of resources in a manner which sustains local wildlife, their habitat and the ecological services of the land, and shall protect significant habitats of populations of threatened or endangered species in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 16 USC 1531, and Florida Administrative Code Division 68A. Objective 5.10. is implemented through the City’s wildlife management Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policies: Policy 5.10.01. When reviewing development proposals for public or private development, the City shall take into account the following strategies: * * * Preserve native vegetation and habitat types; Preserve forested areas, the understory and native soil associations; and Avoid activities that dehydrate landscape features or alter seasonal water flows or duration of inundation to wetlands, hammocks or water bodies. Policy 5.10.02. The City shall protect significant habitats for native wildlife and vegetation in areas of known environmentally sensitive habitats, including habitats of endangered species. The Land Development Code shall be updated with regulations to ensure that prior to the issuance of development permits in such areas, detailed inventories and assessments of impacts of development shall be conducted. If on-site habitat will be disturbed by new development, the habitat shall be relocated or the impacts mitigated, if viable by virtue of its size, configuration, and connecting habitat. . . . Mr. Teeple testified that the donation of wetlands and the efforts taken, as described herein, to minimize impacts to trees on the Property, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. When confronted with the fact that the proposed subdivision will not “preserve the forested areas, the understory, and the native soil associations,” Mr. Teeple testified credibly that Policy 5.10.01 “doesn't say ‘preserve all native vegetation and all habitat types.’ It's incongruous with the nature of development.” The data and analysis demonstrate that Amelia Bluff made efforts to preserve native vegetation and forested areas on the property, as described herein, though it is without question that the Property will be subject to the normal impacts of low- density development. Compliance with the stormwater standards is sufficient to demonstrate that there will be no adverse water quality or water quantity impacts from the stormwater collection and management system, and that the system will not alter seasonal water flows or duration of inundation to wetlands, hammocks, or water bodies. Dr. McPhillips testified as to her concern that the buffer vegetation on the northern -- and more elevated -- side of the proposed subdivision will be desiccated, and that the vegetation on the southern -- and lower -- side near the dry detention ponds will, from time to time, become saturated. Her concern was that trees at the buffer would not be able to generate interfacial friction between the roots and soil to stabilize them under any appreciable wind load. However, Dr. McPhillips was not familiar with the adjacent Shell Cove subdivision, which has similar characteristics, or the requirements of the SJRWMD and the calculations required for a stormwater permit. Her opinions were not supported by specific facts as to how the site will hold or drain water, and were more in the nature of “pure opinion” testimony based on her admittedly extensive professional education and experience. The data and analysis was adequate to establish that the stormwater management system would not result in adverse impacts resulting from the system, including dehydration of landscape features. As to Policy 5.10.02, the evidence indicated that the City Land Development Code required detailed inventories and assessments of impacts of development. As part of the data available to the City, Amelia Bluff provided a wildlife survey. The survey established that the Property contained no environmentally sensitive habitats, including habitats of endangered species. The known environmentally sensitive habitats in the form of wetlands have been protected through conveyance to public ownership and the establishment of naturally vegetated buffers to protect off-site habitat. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its wildlife planning objective and policies was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 5.10., or Policies 5.10.01 or 5.10.02. Objective 5.11. - Tree Preservation and Urban Forestry. The City shall commit to preservation of community trees and the urban forest to improve air quality, community health, quality of life, aesthetics, and energy conservation. Objective 5.11. cannot be read in isolation from the policies adopted to implement the objective. Those policies include Policy 5.11.09., which requires the City’s Land Development Code to “protect and retain existing trees and require replacement of trees lost to land clearing,” with the objective of “achiev[ing] no net loss of trees per development site,” as well as “[m]aintenance of a Tree Fund for payments in lieu of replanting or mitigation of protected trees.” Mr. Platt testified that the City’s objective has been met through a number of strategies and policies applied to Amelia Bluff. Mr. Platt and Ms. Gibson testified that individual lots will be required to submit a land clearing application at the time of the single-family home permit, and the lot grading and tree removal associated with each individual lot will be reviewed on a parcel-by-parcel basis at that time. The City's Land Development Code has provisions for the protection of noninvasive, healthy trees larger than five inches in diameter at breast height (“DBH”) within five feet of a home footprint. For any tree in the protected class that must be removed, the City has a mitigation and minimum planting ordinance which requires that any tree planted as part of mitigation be a noninvasive, native tree, at a minimum of two and a half inches DBH and eight feet in height. In addition to the foregoing, the City Land Development Code has a provision that allows for up to 50 percent of on-site mitigation to be accomplished through an “inch-for-inch” payment to a tree mitigation fund. That provision is, according to Mr. Platt, rarely used, though it is consistent with Policy 5.11.09 described above. As indicated previously, Amelia Bluff set aside several areas of the proposed subdivision, both within the Property and within the remaining generally indistinguishable acreage, for protection of both important specimen trees and clusters of trees, most notably Tract “C” (0.25 acres) near the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision, areas around the dry detention ponds (0.17 acres), and tree “islands” in the cul- de-sacs. In addition, Amelia Bluff worked with the City to realign roadways and utilities to avoid particular trees. Petitioners assert that Objective 5.11. has not been met because the overall forest will be altered, not only through the installation of infrastructure, but also through the clearing that will be necessary for homes and driveways. Petitioners argue that the inevitable thinning of the forest and damage caused through construction activities will weaken the remaining trees, and diminish the storm protecting qualities of an unbroken forest. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with Objective 5.11. was supported by data and analysis, including the tree survey and the retention/removal plan. It was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications, when considered in conjunction with the related policies and the City’s Land Development Code, as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. People clearly, and in good faith, disagree as to the best means of preserving the urban forest. Development, even of low density, by its very nature entails a modification of the natural state. However, the issue is whether the City’s determination that the FLUM Amendment, including protections proposed by Amelia Bluff, was, beyond fair debate, in error. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Tree Preservation and Urban Forestry Objective 5.11. Objective 6.05. - Open Space. Open spaces shall be protected within urbanized areas for their aesthetic, health, environmental, and economic benefits. The City shall continue to maintain standards in its land development regulations for the provision and maintenance of open space in the community, including in private developments and publicly owned lands. Objective 6.05. is implemented through the City’s open space Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policy: Policy 6.05.03. Privately-owned open space, such as those within subdivisions or PUD developments, which consist of a conservation future land use or contains environmentally sensitive lands, shall be protected through the acquisition of conservation easements. There was surprisingly little or no testimony offered by anyone other than Ms. Gibson and Mr. Teeple regarding the consistency of the FLUM Amendment with this objective and policy. Mr. Teeple testified to the difficulty in applying Policy 6.05.03 -- despite the provision that open space “within subdivisions or PUD developments, which consist of a conservation future land use . . . shall be protected through the acquisition of conservation easements” -- due to “the out- of-sequence process that we're going through by dealing with land use last.” Had the FLUM Amendment been considered “in- sequence,” there would have been no subdivision to which Policy 6.05.03 would have applied. Several witnesses testified that had the sequence of events not been skewed by Mr. McCrary’s ill- advised statement that the “scrivener’s error” would be taken care of, a number of issues created as a result of the amendment of the FLUM after plat approval would not have been problems. This appears to be one. It does appear that Policy 6.05.03. was designed to apply to open space lands within a developed subdivision, ensuring through a conservation easement that such designated open space lands would not be encroached upon. That scenario does not present here. The evidence establishes that all of the “environmentally sensitive lands” on the School Board Property were conveyed to the City. Though the Property is forested, it is of a nature common throughout north Florida, and not imperiled “maritime hammock.” Amelia Bluff conveyed all wetlands on the Property to the City. Amelia Bluff also placed 0.25 acres into “recreation/open space, preserved significant stands and individual trees, and donated $115,000 to the City for land conservation efforts. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with Objective 6.05. and Policy 6.05.03. was supported by data and analysis as described above. Though a facially credible argument can be made that the Property is land designated as Conservation within a “subdivision”, under the specific -- and peculiar -- facts of this case, the legislative decision to adopt the FLUM Amendment as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, when considered in conjunction with the related policies and the City’s Land Development Code, was fairly debatable. Objective 6.10. - Egans Creek Greenway. The City shall protect Egans Creek Greenway for its value as a recreational asset, for its significance as an outstanding natural resource, and for its role in providing wildlife habitat. The Amelia Bluff subdivision does not front onto the Egans Creek Greenway. Rather, the easternmost edge of the Property is from 200 to 400 feet removed from the Greenway. The Greenway was protected by the dedication of all wetlands that were part of the School Board Property to the City. The Greenway is further protected by the establishment of the 25-foot naturally vegetated upland buffer. As established herein, any stormwater discharged from the dry detention ponds is not reasonably expected to result in the violation of water quality or water quantity standards established by the SJRWMD or the City. While recognizing the value of the Egans Creek Greenway, the evidence does not demonstrate that the proposed subdivision will impair the Egans Creek Greenway’s value as a recreational asset, its significance as an outstanding natural resource, or its role in providing wildlife habitat, and does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 6.10. Policy 1.02.04. Decision on amendments to the FLUM shall be based on an analysis of the suitability and compatibility of the proposed use, based on the following factors: Type and density or intensity of surrounding uses; Zoning districts in the surrounding area; Demonstration of adequate water supply and water supply facilities; Appropriateness of the size of the parcel compared to the proposed use; Physical condition of the site, and the suitability of soils and topography for the proposed use; Suitability of the site based on the presence or absence of natural resources, environmentally sensitive lands, flood zones, or historic resources; Compatibility factors; Impact on adopted levels of service standards and quality of service standards; and Location in a Coastal Upland Protection Zone (CUPZ). Petitioners’ argument on this point is essentially that the FLUM Amendment is not supported by relevant data and analysis in the form of the assessments called for in the policy. That argument is separate and apart from the issue of whether the FLUM Amendment creates an internal inconsistency with the policy. As set forth herein, the data available to the City, and the analysis of that data, met the substantive requirements of Policy 1.02.04. Thus, the record does not support a finding that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.02.04. Data and Analysis Petitioners’ last argument is, as expressed in section II.a.(3) of the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with various provisions of section 163.3177, including that the proposed FLUM Amendment be based on “accurate” data and analysis. In that regard, section 163.3177(1)(f) provides that: All . . . plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment. (emphasis added). Section XI of the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation then identifies the following issues as remaining for disposition: Whether the [FLUM] Amendment is based upon appropriate data and analysis including the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and suitability of the property for the proposed use in accordance with Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes. Whether the development . . . ensures the protection of natural resources and the compatibility of adjacent land uses as required under Section 163.3177(3). Whether the development . . . directs future land uses that are incompatible with the protection of wetlands and wetland functions in violation of section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes. Whether the development . . . will adversely impact water, wetlands, wildlife, habitat, soils, native vegetative communities, existing natural preserve areas, and other natural and environmental resources pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), (6), Florida Statutes. (emphasis added). Ms. Gibson testified that the FLUM Amendment is supported by information described in paragraph 73, and described in further detail throughout these Findings of Fact. The availability of the data was corroborated by Mr. Platt, Mr. Desilet, Mr. Gillette, and Mr. Gerald. Though there was little evidence that the data and analysis was fully considered by the Commission,7/ the evidence established that there was substantial data “available at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment,” and that the data was, at a minimum, analyzed and considered by City staff. Consistency of the FLUM Amendment with section 163.3177(2), (3), and (6) has been addressed in conjunction with the specific Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies set forth in detail herein. Based thereon, Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis, or are otherwise inconsistent with section 163.3177(1)(f), (2), (3), and (6). Conclusion In analyzing the consistency of the FLUM Amendment with the Comprehensive Plan, the undersigned gave full attention to not only the witnesses and evidence produced by the parties, but also to the public comment taken during the evening of July 15, 2019. This project has clearly evoked a great deal of justifiable passion from people who are concerned, invested, and involved in their community. However, the burden applicable in proceedings of this nature -- beyond fair debate -- is substantial. The decision that was made by the City officials was, as discussed herein, a legislative decision. Regardless of the extent that their attention may have been misdirected to the issue of whether the adopted and valid Conservation designation was a “scrivener’s error,” the data and analysis in support of the FLUM Amendment was available. Under the specific facts of this case, the decision of the elected City officials to approve the FLUM Amendment, regardless of their publicly stated reasons, was one that reasonable persons could differ over, and was therefore “fairly debatable.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan FLUM Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2019-08 on April 16, 2019, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 16th day of September, 2019.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the petitions of Sierra Club, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Background Hillsborough County adopted its comprehensive plan on July 12, 1989. The County adopted Plan Amendments 90-I, 90-II, and 91-I on August 6, 1990, December 18, 1990, and August 28, 1991, respectively. The plan as so amended is referred to as the Plan. 3/ The Plan is the subject of these cases. The Plan is accompanied by data and analysis. The data and analysis of greatest significance are contained in the two- volume compilation of the Plan and other portions of Sierra Club Exhibit 1, which is the Plan and supporting data and analysis. Sierra Club Exhibit 1, which was prepared by Hillsborough County, includes background documents organized by elements, as well as oversized maps. Unless indicated to the contrary, the oversized maps are approximately 24" by 21" and are drawn on a scale of 1"= 2 miles. Many of the oversized maps bear numbers. Reference to such oversized maps shall be as follows: "Oversized Map [number]." Data and analysis from Sierra Club Exhibit 1 shall be referred to as "Data and Analysis." The Plan consists largely of goals, objectives, and policies. In addition to such operative provisions, Hillsborough County also adopted, as part of the operative provisions of the Plan, other sections contained in the two- volume compilation of the Plan. For example, each element of the Plan relevant to the present cases includes operative provisions under sections entitled, "Implementation" and "Definitions." Other important operative provisions are sections entitled "Land Use Plan Categories" and "Legal Status of the Plan" in the Future Land Use Element and "Costs and Revisions by Type of Public Facility," "Programs to Ensure Implementation," and "Requirements for Capital Improvements Implementation" in the Capital Improvements Element. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) filed a petition on September 20, 1989, alleging that the original plan was not in compliance with the growth management law. This petition initiated DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM. Various parties challenging the plan intervened in DOAH Case No. 89- 5157GM. The Sierra Club, Inc. (Sierra Club) filed its petition to intervene on December 8, 1989. The petition incorporates the allegations of DCA and alleges additional grounds for a determination of noncompliance. As a result of the execution of a settlement agreement, DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM was abated. After Hillsborough County adopted settlement amendments on August 6, 1990, DCA determined that the plan amendments were in compliance. On or about September 21, 1990, DCA issued a Notice of Intent, which was published on or about September 23. On October 12, 1990, Sierra Club filed a petition challenging the plan amendments adopted in connection with the settlement agreement. This petition initiated DOAH Case No. 90- 6639GM. The allegations are the same as those raised by Sierra Club in DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM in its Second Amended Petition- in-Intervention, which was filed October 17, 1990. By Order entered October 30, 1990, DOAH Case Nos. 89- 5157GM and 90- 6639GM were consolidated for hearing. On April 15, 1991, Big Bend Area Group, Inc. (Big Bend) filed a petition to intervene to challenge the plan. A Second Amended Motion for Leave to Intervene was granted. Despite the allegations of noncompliance, Big Bend's proposed recommended order requests that the Plan be determined to be in compliance. Sierra Club and Big Bend each has members who reside in Hillsborough County. Each party submitted the required oral or written objections during the relevant review and adoption period. The County conducted the required hearings, gave adequate notice of the hearings, and otherwise substantially complied with the requirements of public participation. Data and Analysis General Hillsborough County is located on the Gulf Coast. The western boundary of the County abuts Tampa Bay and Pinellas County. Pasco County and a small part of Polk County are to the north, Polk County is to the east, and Manatee County is to the south. The only incorporated municipalities in Hillsborough County are Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City. Tampa is at the north end of Tampa Bay and extends through the westcentral part of the County almost to the Pasco County line. Temple Terrace abuts the northeast boundary of Tampa. About 14 miles east of Tampa is Plant City, which is in the northeast part of Hillsborough County. The two cities are linked by Interstate (I-) 4, which runs from Daytona Beach to Tampa. In Tampa, I-4 intersects with I-275, which crosses upper Tampa Bay, runs south through Pinellas County, and spans the mouth of Tampa Bay before entering Manatee County. I-75 also runs through Hillsborough County. From the Pasco County line, where I-275 divides and proceeds southwest into downtown Tampa, I-75 runs generally due south. The path of I-75 lies just east of downtown, where the road turns southwest at a point north of the Little Manatee River. From there, I-75 parallels the shoreline of Tampa Bay until entering Manatee County. Other important roads in Hillsborough County include SR 60, which runs east-west through the center of the County and connects Tampa and Clearwater. US 301 runs along the Hillsborough River in the northeast part of the County, and then turns due south midway between Temple Terrace on the west and Lake Thonotosassa on the east. At this point, US 301 crosses I- 75 and runs due south, recrossing I-75 about three miles north of the Alafia River and just south of SR 60. US 41 runs due south from the Pasco County line into the center of Tampa and then turns east, before continuing south, parallel to the shoreline, varying from one-half to three miles inland from Tampa Bay. Natural Resources General The Data and Analysis accompanying the Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element (CARE) describe the County's natural resources, past land use practices, and planning challenges: Hillsborough County, by virtue of its subtropical climate and variable hydrology and geology, supports a rich and diverse complement of natural resources. The County borders the largest estuary in the State, Tampa Bay . . .. The County is underlain by the Floridan aquifer, the largest and highest quality potable water aquifer in the State, as well as by some of the richest phosphate deposits in the world. The karst topography of the County has created a mosaic of solution sinks and depressions which contain a wide variety of wetland flora and fauna, while the higher well-drained elevations support rare xeric hammocks and scrub habitat. Over the past century, however, development has slowly destroyed and degraded the rich natural resources of the County. The unregulated filling of wetlands, discharge of pollutants, mining of phosphate deposits, clearing of forests, dredging of bay bottoms, channelizing of streams and rivers, and overpumping of groundwater supplies has irretrievably destroyed or altered much of the original natural resource base. Environmental legislation passed at the federal, state, regional and local levels over the past two decades has done much to stem the tide of this destruction; however, advance planning and further safeguards will be needed to ensure the preservation and conservation of the County's remaining natural resources for future generations. Hillsborough County is experiencing a high rate of population growth. Between 1970 and 1980, Hillsborough County's population grew from an estimated 490,265 to 646,939, an increase of 32 percent This population size ranked fourth among counties in the state. . . . Future population projections for Hillsborough County . . . generally show that the population of Hillsborough County may continue to increase, if the high estimate occurs, or may level off if the lower estimate proves more accurate. . . . Hillsborough County's population is concentrated primarily within the cities of Tampa and Temple Terrace. However, during the five year period of 1980 through 1985, the majority of the population growth for the County has taken place away from these areas. Population has decreased in portions of the City of Tampa and increased in the previously less populated portions of the County. The Future Land Use Element of the [Plan] identifies the major center of future growth as the I-75 corridor. If the upper population projections are realized over the next 15 years, directed growth into this area will threaten the integrity of many of the County's most valuable natural resources, including the three major river corridors, areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential, and sensitive estuarine wetlands. The [CARE] is needed to identify these potential problems and to set forth a plan and policy direction for ensuring environmental protection and orderly economic growth under all projected population scenarios. CARE, pages 2-3. Acknowledging the environmental degradation that has resulted from land use planning that has traditionally ignored natural features of the land and water systems, the Data and Analysis state: In past decades, land use decisions were based primarily upon socio-economic and demographic factors, with little considera- tion given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land. As a result, urban land uses were often allowed to replace or permanently alter environmentally sensitive lands and natural systems. With a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions if the natural attributes and functions of the environment are to be maintained for future generations. Policies and regulations that appropriately preserve or conserve valuable natural resources while allowing for orderly economic growth are needed. CARE, page 73. 2. Tampa Bay Estuarine System The Tampa Bay estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water having a free connection with the Gulf of Mexico and within which sea water is measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage. ... [T]he Tampa Bay estuary is a zone of transition between fresh and salt water with unique and valuable ecological characteristics. Coastal Management and Port (Coastal) Element, page 13. The estuarine system includes tidal freshwater habitats as well as mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass meadows along the shallow bottom and estuarine fringe. The functions of the estuarine system are described as follows: Because of their unique physical and chemical properties, estuaries are among the most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems in the world. Tidal wetland vegetation at the headwaters of estuaries trap silt and absorb excess nutrients resulting from land drainage, thus buffering the coastal ecosystem somewhat from upland sources of pollution. Tidal wetland vegetation also protects upland areas by stabilizing coastal sediments and preventing erosion from storm events. The real importance of estuarine plant communities such as mangrove forests, salt marshes, and seagrass beds lies in the vital functions they perform in the aquatic ecosystem. First and foremost is their role in converting sunlight and nutrients into food usable by marine animals, thus forming the base of the aquatic food chain. . . . Although relatively little of this plant material is eaten directly by higher animals, it is broken down into detritus by micro- organisms and consumed by small crustaceans and other animals which are, in turn, eaten by larger fishes and so on up the food web . . . . In addition to serving as a food source, estuarine wetland vegetation provides shelter and nursery areas for the young of many economically important species such as shrimp, seatrout, mullet, and red drum (redfish). . . . [I]t is estimated that nearly 98% of the most economically important fisheries species taken along the Gulf of Mexico coast are directly dependent upon estuarine habitat during some portion of their life cycle. . . . Coastal Element, pages 13-14. Florida's largest open water estuary, Tampa Bay covers about 400 square miles. Coastal Element Figure 6 depicts the Tampa Bay estuary, including its subdivisions. Old Tampa Bay separates Tampa and Pinellas County and forms the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County. Hillsborough Bay extends from Tampa to Apollo Beach and forms the shoreline of central Hillsborough County, as well as the northern part of south Hillsborough County. The Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers empty into Hillsborough Bay, which joins McKay Bay at Tampa. Middle Tampa Bay, which forms the shoreline of most of south Hillsborough, runs from the southern ends of Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay down to the southern ends of Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. The Little Manatee River empties into Middle Tampa Bay. A variety of nonfish wildlife is dependent upon the waters of Tampa Bay. In addition to the 100-200 bottlenose dolphin in Tampa Bay, as many as 55 West Indian manatees reside in the bay in the winter, congregating around industrial thermal discharges. The largest group--42--was found at the mouth of the Alafia River, which is the only designated State Manatee Sanctuary in Tampa Bay. About one-third of the laughing gull population in the southeastern United States breeds in the Tampa Bay region, as does nearly one-third of the brown pelicans in Florida. McKay Bay is an important feeding area for a variety of birds. General water quality in Tampa Bay is "good to excellent," but is "declining" in Old Tampa Bay and "undesirable" in Hillsborough Bay, including McKay Bay. Coastal Element, page 15. Both Hillsborough Bay and Old Tampa Bay receive little tidal flushing due to natural conditions, so they are not "particularly well suited for the discharge of municipal and industrial wastes, and . . . the continued flow of freshwater to Tampa Bay, especially Hillsborough Bay, is essential to maintain good circulation and flushing." Coastal Element, page 19. The water quality in Middle Tampa Bay ranges from "fair to good," but is periodically influenced by water from Hillsborough Bay. Water quality in and near the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is "excellent or good," except for occasional "fair to poor" conditions due to seasonal discharges from the Little Manatee River or periodically "poor" conditions due to malfunctioning septic tanks near Cockroach Bay. Coastal Element, page 15. "One of the most pristine biologically productive areas remaining in Tampa Bay," Cockroach Bay is part of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, which is shown in Coastal Element Figure 17. Coastal Element, page 48. The only aquatic preserve in Hillsborough County, Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve runs from submerged lands along the Little Manatee River upstream to US 301. From the mouth of the Little Manatee River, the preserve runs along the Tampa Bay shoreline past Cockroach Bay, which is about three miles south of the mouth of the Little Manatee River, to the Manatee County line. Noting that the Governor and Cabinet approved the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan in 1987, the Data and Analysis acknowledge that "[s]uccessful implementation of this plan depends upon the cooperation of Hillsborough County." Coastal Element, page 48. The decline of water quality in Tampa Bay has had a predictably devastating effect upon commercially valuable fish in the area. "[O]nce the State's most productive and diverse estuarine system" with a diversity and abundance of marine life [in the 1960's] not exceeded by any other estuary between the Chesapeake Bay and the Laguna Madre of Texas, . . . [t]he productivity of Tampa Bay in terms of commercially valuable fisheries has . . . declined dramatically in recent decades due to man's influence on the Bay. Coastal Element, page 21. According to Coastal Element Figure 15, shellfish landings in Tampa Bay have declined from 20 million pounds in the mid 1950's to early 1960's to two million pounds in 1978. Finfish landings have declined from a high of 4.5 million pounds in 1964 to 1.75 million pounds in 1978. Five economically important shellfish species occur in Tampa Bay: bait shrimp, stone crab, blue crab, oysters, and quahog clams. By the mid 1950's, degraded water quality had eliminated from the estuary the bay scallop, which had formerly flourished in these estuarine waters. By 1970, degraded water quality "essentially eliminated" commercial harvesting of oysters, which had accounted for 500,000 pounds annually at the turn of last century. Coastal Element, page 22. Poor water quality has left bait shrimp and stone crabs as the only remaining commercially viable shellfish left in Tampa Bay. Areas approved for shellfishing are restricted to lower Tampa Bay where better flushing takes place. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is conditionally approved, but "has been closed periodically due to coliform contamination from nearby septic systems and is being considered for permanent closure by the Florida Department of Natural Resources." Coastal Element, page 22. The majority of the recreational fish landings in Tampa Bay consist of spotted seatrout, red drum, and snook. These fish are also declining in numbers. Many species of birds in Tampa Bay have suffered population declines due in part to red tides, parasite outbreaks, dredge and fill operations, pesticide use, and oil spills. However, the reddish egret and roseate spoonbill have recently returned to Tampa Bay. Accompanying the decline in animal species has been a decline in estuarine plant species, such as seagrass meadows. The "catastrophic loss of seagrasses in Tampa Bay," which is attributable primarily to water quality degradation, is taking place at accelerating rates. About 81% of the seagrass meadows, which once covered 76,500 acres of Tampa Bay bottom, have been lost. Coastal Element, page 20. Tampa Bay is undergoing eutrophication. The process of eutrophication, or increasing concentrations of nutrients, has already led to algal blooms, noxious odors, decreases in water clarity, declines in dissolved oxygen, and periodic fish kills. Excessive nutrient levels have resulted in phytoplankton blooms in the water column and excessive epiphytic growth of macroalgae on the leaves of seagrasses, leaving insufficient sunlight for the growth and reproduction of seagrasses that help trap nutrients. The destruction of seagrasses is further hastened by widespread increases in water column turbidity caused by harbor- and channel-deepening projects, which, with boat prop dredging, also destroy seagrass. The loss of critical nutrient-trapping vegetation has simultaneously taken place in wetlands and upland adjacent to Tampa Bay, such as in the destruction of as much as 44% of the original emergent wetlands, which comprise salt marshes and mangrove forests. In the process of development, these wetlands have been dredged and filled, thereby removing the intertidal substrata necessary for these vegetative communities. Likewise, the loss of freshwater wetlands along rivers and streams has deprived the estuarine system of useful organic matter and filtration. Dredging and filling activities have dramatically changed the features of the Tampa Bay estuarine system. The extent of the system itself has been reduced by 3.6%, or 13.15 square miles, primarily by filling shallow tidal wetlands for the development of causeways, residences, power plants, and port facilities. Port development is responsible for about 60% of the reduction of the estuary due to the construction of channels, filled sites, and disposal sites for dredged materials. Dredge and fill projects routinely permitted in the 1950's and 1960's are no longer permitted. But expansion and maintenance of the Port of Tampa will generate annually about one million cubic yards of dredged material from the channel and port. Present disposal sites may be exhausted in 25 years, and the Data and Analysis recommend that the dredged material be considered for wetlands mitigation and restoration. The primary factors contributing to the eutrophic degradation of the water quality of Tampa Bay are, in addition to dredging and filling, the discharge of inadequately treated domestic and industrial wastewater and inadequately treated urban and agricultural runoff. In 1980, point sources contributed 2.35 and 3.58 million pounds of phosphorous and nitrogen, respectively, to Tampa Bay. The Alafia River carried 75% of the water contributed by permitted point discharges because the Alafia absorbs discharges from extensive phosphate mining operations in Polk County. Not surprisingly, the highest concentrations of organic carbon and nitrogen and total phosphate are in the sediments at the mouth of the Alafia River. But domestic wastewater treatment plants discharging directly into Tampa Bay accounted for 78% and 84% of the annual phosphorous and nitrogen loadings, respectively. The degraded water quality in Old Tampa Bay and especially Hillsborough Bay is due largely to sewage and industrial wastes. Old Tampa Bay continues to suffer from the discharge of inadequately treated domestic waste. However, the water quality in Hillsborough Bay improved substantially after over $100 million was spent to upgrade Tampa's Hookers Point sewage treatment facility in 1979 from primary to advanced or tertiary treatment. Only one of the six County regional wastewater treatment facilities fails to meet advanced water treatment standards, but "numerous subregional and interim plants" fail to meet these standards. Coastal Element, page 24. According to the Data and Analysis, passage of the Grizzle-Figg bill in 1986 "currently requires that all sewage treatment plants discharging into Tampa Bay attain advanced wastewater treatment standards." Coastal Element, page 24. Upon compliance with the Grizzle-Figg law, nutrient loadings into Tampa Bay will decrease and "a net reduction . . . is possible as interim package plants are ultimately phased out or upgraded." Id. Regarding wastewater discharges generally, including industrial wastewater, a major reduction in nutrient loadings since 1980 has been realized from the use of alternative effluent disposal methods (such as spray irrigation and deep-well injection), municipal and industrial water reuse, upgrading of treatment capabilities, and phosphate land reclamation projects. Nutrient loadings from stormwater runoff will "most likely be a more intractable problem" than inadequately treated domestic wastewater. Coastal Element, page 24. Runoff from streets, parking lots, and lawns may contribute up to 25% of the biochemical oxygen demand, 35% of the suspended solids, and 15% of the nitrogen loading. Referring to state rules regulating stormwater, 4/ the Data and Analysis anticipate that the state- imposed standards on stormwater runoff will become more stringent, so there should not be significant increases in stormwater nutrient loadings into the bay. However: little can be done to reduce current loading rates, as retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities is most likely economically prohibitive. Retrofitting will probably only occur on a piecemeal basis as redevelopment occurs in previously urbanized areas. Coastal Element, page 24. Unsound land use practices introducing high levels of nutrients into Tampa Bay exacerbate background conditions that predate either all or recent development activity. The Data and Analysis caution that "there may always be a significant reservoir of nitrogen and phosphorous in Bay sediments to contribute to water quality problems in upper Tampa Bay." Coastal Element, page 16. The Data and Analysis explain: even with advanced wastewater treatment and improved stormwater management, localized pockets of polluted sediments in the Bay may still release excessive nutrients into the water column and cause water quality problems. The ultimate solution to this problem may involve the removal of excessively enriched sediments by dredging or the capping of polluted sediments with clean fill material. Coastal Element, page 24. Other unsound land use practices, such as the diversion of river flows and structural drainage improvements, greatly impact Tampa Bay in another respect not directly related to the eutrophication process. The Tampa Bay estuary and its dependent fish and shellfish rely upon the freshwater flow into the bay. Areas of the estuary with the lowest salinity, as well as low- salinity tidal marshes, are often the most productive nursery habitat for many marine and estuary species. The timing of the freshwater infusions are naturally correlated to the spawning periods of the fish. The salinity regimes of Tampa Bay may be disturbed by upstream demands for freshwater and the alternating excessive and insufficient flows of freshwater due to structural drainage improvements that hasten the natural drainage of uplands immediately following major storm events, leaving less water to drain slowly to the bay during relatively drier periods. Reviewing "numerous studies" that, for the past 30 years, "have documented the deterioration of water quality and habitat values of the estuary," the Data and Analysis attribute the environmental degradation of Tampa Bay to: direct habitat destruction from dredging and filling, and the hardening of shorelines for coastal development; degradation of water quality and eutrophication resulting from the discharge of municipal and industrial effluents, and stormwater runoff; and the reduction of natural freshwater inputs due to the impoundment and withdrawals from rivers and streams. Coastal Element, page 48. Concluding that "piecemeal urbanization" around Tampa Bay has resulted in its "broadscale environmental degradation," the Data and Analysis warn: "Without proper management and the proper balance between public and private uses, Tampa Bay could become a major liability rather than the area's main asset." Coastal Element, page 48. The Data and Analysis advise that the protection and restoration of the Tampa Bay estuary requires a "comprehensive, coordinated and holistic management approach." Id. 3. Rivers Covering 1072 square miles, Hillsborough County comprises five physiographic provinces, which reflect topography and soils. The physiographic provinces are Coastal Swamps, Gulf Coast Lowlands, Zephyrhills Gap, Polk Upland, and a small portion of the DeSoto Plain. Elevations range from sea level in the Coastal Swamps and Gulf Coast Lowlands, which separate the Polk Upland from the Tampa Bay estuary, to 160 feet above sea level in the Polk Upland at the Polk County line. CARE Figure 4 displays the topographic contours of Hillsborough County. The County's major rivers and drainage features are, from north to south, the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers. Each of these rivers empties into Tampa Bay. The three major river basins together with six smaller basins transport, on average, more than 1.2 billion gallons per day of freshwater into Tampa Bay. This is almost 80% of the freshwater flow into the bay. CARE Figure 11 shows the major rivers and drainage basins in Hillsborough County. A fourth river, the Palm River, once drained lands between the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers. Emptying into McKay Bay, the Palm River was "completely channelized and controlled" by 1970 and is now known as the Tampa Bypass Canal. Coastal Element, page 18. The Hillsborough River begins in the Green Swamp and flows southwest through Tampa and into the bay. Traveling nearly 54 miles, the river is supplied by many artesian springs, which supply the river with water from the Floridan aquifer. The natural drainage basin of the river is 690 square miles, including 120 square miles in Hillsborough County. The upper Hillsborough River is a Class I water, which means that it is suitable as a source of potable water. The lower Hillsborough River is a Class III waterbody, which means that it is suitable for propagation of fish and wildlife. The part of the river passing through the Hillsborough River State Park in the northeast area of the County is also designated as an Outstanding Florida Water. Two dams span the Hillsborough River. The upper dam is just north and east of I-75 near Fletcher Avenue. This dam, which is under the jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, is used for flood-control purposes. The lower dam is at 30th Street in Tampa and is operated by the City of Tampa to form a reservoir from which potable water is taken. Flow of the river ranges from 9.5 billion gallons per day during the wet season to under 30 million gallons per day at the end of the spring dry season. The average flow into Tampa's reservoir is 368 million gallons per day. Of the 55.5 linear miles of shoreline (both banks) along the Hillsborough River in the unincorporated County, 17.6 miles are private and 37.9 miles are public. The predominant land uses are rural, agricultural, and conservation. The riverbanks are in their native state with no seawalls and few boat docks or ramps, except for canoe access. The Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers originate in the Polk Upland and receive water from widely branching tributaries. The Alafia River begins in Polk County and runs west to Gibsonton and into the bay at a point about five miles south of Tampa. The Alafia drains a 420 square mile drainage basin. The average flow at the mouth of the river is million gallons per day. In general, the water quality of the Alafia River is "poor." CARE, page 13. A Class III waterbody, the river's entire corridor is rural or suburban, and much of its original floodplain wetlands are still intact. Phosphate mining has damaged the quality of the river's headwaters. The Little Manatee River begins in southeast Hillsborough County and flows west by Ruskin and into the bay at a point about ten miles south of Gibsonton. The Little Manatee River drains about 225 square miles. The average flow of the Little Manatee River is over 150 million gallons per day. Florida Power and Light pumps water from the river to supply an off-stream reservoir for cooling a thermonuclear power plant. The water quality of the Little Manatee River is "generally good." CARE, page 14. The river, which is a Class III waterbody, is designated an Outstanding Florida Water for its western two-thirds, with the portion of the river west of US 301 designated as an aquatic preserve. The river is more pristine than the other County rivers due to its "relatively unimpacted floodplains, swamps and tributaries." Id. However, the river is threatened by phosphate mining in its upper reaches. Rich deposits of phosphate matrix lie near the surface along the river's bed, and the easy extraction makes these areas extremely attractive for future mining. Id. In contrast to the well-developed stream systems of northeast, central, and southern Hillsborough County, northwest Hillsborough County has relatively few such streams. Rain in this area rapidly infiltrates the surficial soils through shallow creeks and solution features. The Data and Analysis concede that "surface water quality in Hillsborough County has been degraded due to a variety of unregulated water uses and adjacent land uses." CARE, page 54. The most prominent sources of water pollution have been discharges of wastewater, mining operations, and urban and agricultural runoff. The Data and Analysis recommend "[b]etter compliance with existing point and non-point source and stormwater regulations" and the consideration of "more stringent regulations for septic tank discharges." Id. 4. Floodplains and Drainage Over 30% of Hillsborough County is within the 100 year floodplain. The floodplains, which have been mapped throughout the County by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are depicted on Oversized Map 9. Major portions of the 100 year floodplain cover the coastal high hazard area 5/ and the Hillsborough River valley in northeast Hillsborough County. Floodplains cover perhaps a quarter of northwest Hillsborough County, including an extensive area north of Tampa where I-275 and I-75 join at the Pasco County line. Considerable floodplains encompass the corridors of the Alafia River and its major tributary and the Little Manatee River, all of which extend into phosphate mining areas of east- central and southeast Hillsborough County. The County has adopted a flood-control ordinance. But this ordinance "does not provide the County with a comprehensive flood plain management program . . . for maintaining wildlife habitat protection, aquifer recharge protection and water quality benefits." CARE, page 20. The Data and Analysis discuss the floodplains and their functions: Lands that are naturally subject to flooding serve valuable functions in the regional hydrologic and ecological system. Flood- prone lands provide temporary natural storage of runoff from upland areas and overflow from water bodies. By temporarily detaining surface water, flood-prone lands help to regulate the timing, velocity and levels of flood discharges and enable the recharge of groundwater resources. In addition, flood- prone lands help to maintain water quality and provide habitat that is vital to the sustenance of fish and wildlife populations. Those lands that are most frequently flooded, i.e., wetlands, are the most important in terms of providing these functions, but less frequently flooded areas are also important for handling more severe floods and providing other natural benefits. The maintenance of natural storage is extremely important for regional water management. . . . During times of abundant rainfall, . . . rivers and lakes overflow their normal banks and occupy the floodplain. The floodplain provides storage for this additional water. Even a greater volume of water is stored in areas outside of the floodplain of established lakes and rivers. Cypress heads, swamps, marshes and isolated topographic depressions provide a large portion of the natural storage in this area. . . . By temporarily storing and retarding the flow of flood waters, flood-prone lands also help to regulate the velocity and timing of flood discharges. Runoff in southwest Florida is usually intercepted by wetlands or topographic depressions. When these areas are full, the overflow moves slowly through shallow swales and linear depressions toward streams and water bodies. Obstructions to flow such as logs, rocks, trees, undergrowth and meanders in the watercourse reduce the rate of flow and thereby help to minimize the level and velocity of downstream flooding. Flood-prone areas are also important sites for groundwater recharge. The water table aquifer is directly dependent on the levels of water in such low-lying areas as cypress heads, sinkholes, swales and floodplains. When these areas are flooded, they may help recharge the water table aquifer. Then, during dry periods, the water table aquifer may provide part or all of the base flow to rivers and streams. Water stored in the water table also serves to recharge the Floridan aquifer by percolating downward through breaches in impermeable layers. ... Another important benefit of natural flood- prone lands is in the maintenance of water quality. Water tends to travel slowly across flooded lands, giving suspended sediments time to settle and thereby clarifying water before it enters or returns to a watercourse or water body. . . . The stems, leaves and branches of plants in flooded areas, together with flooded soils, provide an enormous surface area for biological and chemical processes. Micro- organisms on these surfaces initiate complex chemical reactions involving nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals and other pollutants. The roots of indigenous plants also absorb and remove nutrients from the water. Flood-prone lands, particularly wetlands, thus act like a giant biological filter. . . . Flood-prone lands also play a regional ecological role that depends upon periodic inundation. Wetlands and bottomland hardwood forest are the most biologically diverse and productive areas in Florida, other than estuaries. They support a wide variety of plants, which provide vital habitat for . . . game and fur-bearing animals . . . and for such endangered and threatened species, such as the wood stork. Much of the food for game fish comes from wetlands and floodplains along the shores of rivers and lakes. Juvenile fish, in particular, tend to hide and feed in these areas. There would be drastic reductions in the number of species, the number of fish per acre and the pounds of fish per acre if these areas were eliminated. Periodic inundation, alternating with periods of relative dryness, is vital to the maintenance of these ecological systems. Flood-prone lands tend to have rich, organic soils with a high capacity to retain water. The micro-organisms and plant communities associated with these soils support a complex food chain. High water tables and regular flooding are necessary to maintain organic soils. Regular flooding is needed to bring additional rich sediments into flooded areas and make them accessible to foraging fish. In addition, flood water transports out of flooded lands a load of detritus, nutrients, minerals and sediments that is vital to maintaining the productivity of estuarine systems. CARE, pages 14-15. Describing the consequences of poor land use planning in floodplains, the Data and Analysis continue: Improperly designed and executed land development interferes with the natural functions described above. Water resources and related land resources can thereby be degraded and unnecessary expense, loss of property, personal injury and loss of life can result. Building in flood-prone areas is particularly unwise. When floods recur, which is inevitable, considerable damage to houses, roads, utilities and other structures results. . . . Roadbeds are often weakened, undermined or washed away by flood waters. Electrical, telephone, and cable television lines are seldom designed to be submerged. Flood waters can enter sewage lines, causing them to overflow and contaminate an area or overload the capacity of treatment facilities. . . . . . . The storage and detention capacity of a watershed can also be reduced by drainage improvements, such as clearing and straightening natural watercourses, constructing new channels, and creating impervious surfaces. . . . * * * Reducing the capacity of a watershed to detain and store flood waters has several harmful effects on water and related resources, in addition to those associated with increased flooding. Variations in the flow of rivers and streams become more accentuated. Flood discharges peak more quickly and at higher elevations, but less water flows during dry periods and they extend for longer periods of time. The effects of both drought and flood are thus enhanced. Consumptive water suppliers, riverine aquatic life and estuarine processes, all of which depend on natural flow, may be disrupted. Recharge of groundwater is reduced by draining surface water from recharge areas or by covering them with impervious surfaces. The total amount of runoff discharged is thus increased and the amount of water stored in aquifers and available for consumptive use or to maintain streams flows is correspondingly diminished. Development of natural storage and detention areas also tends to cause degradation of water quality. Wetlands, vegetated swales and floodplain forests act as giant biological filters. If these filters are destroyed or bypassed, pollutants are discharged directly into open water systems. CARE, pages 15-16. As typified by its flood-control ordinance, the County has traditionally pursued the structural approach to floodplain management and drainage generally. This approach consists of building systems of channels, dams, levees, and other structures to hold back flood waters or rapidly carry them elsewhere. However, the Data and Analysis identify serious shortcomings in the structural approach to floodplain management and drainage. In addition to problems involving cost and relocating flood damage, the structural approach substantially degrades other values and functions of flood-prone lands and natural watercourses. Water quality protection, groundwater recharge, maintenance of base flows, estuarine salinity regulation, detrital production and export, fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural resource functions are frequently impaired by the construction of structural works. CARE, page 17. The Data and Analysis set forth a number of guidelines for a comprehensive floodplain management program "to prevent flood damage and minimize interference with the beneficial functioning of flood-prone lands." CARE, page 17. The first guideline to floodplain management is to avoid building in areas likely to be damaged by flooding. The Data and Analysis recommend the use of the ten year floodplain for this purpose. The second guideline to floodplain management is to avoid interfering with the beneficial functions of floodprone lands, which are "storage, conveyance, groundwater recharge, maintenance of minimum flows and levels, water quality maintenance and habitat for fish and wildlife." CARE, page 18. In a discussion not limited to the ten year floodplain, the Data and Analysis advise: Buildings, fill, roads and other structures that displace or obstruct the flow of surface waters should not be located in flood-prone areas. In addition, these areas should generally not be drained and their natural vegetation should be maintained. Id. With respect to the environmental benefits inherent in the second guideline, the Data and Analysis discuss each of the functions separately. For storage functions, the Data and Analysis note that floodwaters are stored by floodplains contiguous to water bodies and wetlands considerably removed from water bodies, but connected to them by cypress strands, marshy sloughs, and the underground water table. Thus, "[i]n order to preserve storage, it is necessary to prevent building in these storage areas, diverting [building] instead to upland sites." CARE, page 18. For conveyance functions, the Data and Analysis observe that obstructions, such as buildings and roads, to the flow of floodwater cause flooding upstream of the obstruction. Thus, "[i]n order to preserve the conveyance capacity of flood-prone lands it is necessary to restrict building in these areas." CARE, page 18-19. For groundwater recharge functions, the Data and Analysis relate recharge to storage and conveyance. If water that would otherwise percolate downward into groundwater is blocked by impervious surfaces, removed by drainage works, or displaced by fill, the water contributes to increased flooding downstream. "Filling of flood-prone lands or drainage of them should therefore be restricted." CARE, page 19. For minimum flows and levels, the Data and Analysis recognize that the management of maximum flows--i.e., floodwaters--"is integrally related to minimum flows." By increasing floodwater flows, such as by reducing natural storage and conveyance through structural flood control, "there will be less water in storage in wetlands and groundwater to supply minimum flows." The reduction of minimum flows and levels adversely impacts "navigation, recreation, water supply, dilution of pollutants, estuarine systems and fish and wildlife." CARE, page 19. For water quality, the Data and Analysis acknowledge the "major role" of frequently flooded lands in water quality. Pollutants are removed from storage waters when they are stored in natural floodplains or wetlands. "Cleaning, filling or draining these areas will cause degradation of water quality and should be restricted." CARE, page 19. For fish and wildlife habitat, the Data and Analysis note the importance of floodprone lands as habitat. Maintenance of this function "frequently depends on maintenance of the natural hydrologic regime or is consistent with maintenance of the area's hydrologic values." CARE, page 19. The third guideline to floodplain management is to avoid alterations of the natural rate, quantity, and pattern of surface waters. Applicable to both "flood-prone lands and more upland sites," this guideline advises that the "rate, volume, timing and location of discharge of surface water should generally not be altered from predevelopment conditions." In this case, surface water includes floodwater. CARE, page 19. Acknowledging the increasing stress upon wetlands and floodplains from "increased growth pressure in the more marginally developable portions of the County," the Data and Analysis advise that: [w]here wetland or floodplain encroachment is unavoidable, a scientifically defensible and effective compensatory mechanism is needed to ensure than no net loss of wetland acreage occurs. Where feasible, previously altered wetlands should be restored or recreated to increase overall viable wetland acreage. CARE, page 56. The Data and Analysis set a level of service standard for stormwater, but only in terms of existing, structural stormwater management facilities, such as channels, canals, and ditches. The standard relates to the quantity but not quality of stormwater runoff. The stormwater level of service standard thus illustrates the traditional structural approach to drainage that ignores water quality, groundwater recharge, base flow, salinity requirements, detrital food supplies, and habitat values. Dealing strictly with how fast and how much floodwater can be conveyed, ultimately to Tampa Bay, the stormwater standard describes the rainfall event that a particular stormwater facility, such as a ditch, can accommodate without causing floodwaters to rise above a specified level. The selected rainfall event is expressed in terms of frequency and duration, such as the 10 year/24 hour duration storm event. The level of flooding is expressed by degree. Level A, which is the most restrictive, means "no significant street flooding." Level B is "no major residential yard flooding." Acknowledging that the level of service standard for stormwater facilities "consists primarily of attempting to minimize and alleviate flooding . . . in developed areas . . .," the Introduction to the Stormwater Management (Stormwater) Element promises: the overall [Stormwater Management] Program will be expanded to include not only the quantity aspects, but the quality aspects of stormwater runoff. Stormwater Element, page 18. The Data and Analysis likewise agree that the qualitative aspect of stormwater runoff must be addressed: Much attention has, in recent years, been focused on the quality aspects of stormwater management regulations relative to the establishment of regulations and corresponding design criteria for new development. The application of these regulations must continue in order to minimize the potential for "new" water quality degradation, and the design criteria must be refined to increase the effectiveness of treatment systems as technology advances. However, existing water quality problems may not be correctable without the effective maintenance of existing stormwater treatment systems, and perhaps more importantly, without the retrofitting of older public and private stormwater management systems with stormwater management technologies. . . . The use of wetlands should be promoted as a natural means of providing stormwater treatment, and the direct discharge of untreated stormwater runoff to the Florida Aquifer must be minimized. Stormwater Element, page 20. 5. Soils The soils in Hillsborough County are depicted in CARE Figure 9 and Oversized Map 10. In addition to mine pits and dumps, which are located south and east of Plant City, the maps show that the County soils are poorly drained to very poorly drained, moderately well drained to poorly drained, and well drained. The largest area of well-drained soils lies east of I-75 from US 301, which is south of the Hillsborough River, to just north of the Alafia River. The two other areas of well- drained soils are an area east of Tampa and south of Temple Terrace and the Little Manatee River valley upstream to US 301. The soils surrounding the Alafia River and its major tributaries are predominantly poorly and very poorly drained, as are the soils at the upper end of the Little Manatee River. The entire coastal fringe of the County abutting the east side of Tampa Bay is also poorly and very poorly drained for a distance of about one mile inland, as is the coastal fringe between Tampa and Pinellas County. Other poor to very poorly drained areas include several areas of northwest Hillsborough County, an area in north-central Hillsborough County where I-75 and I-275 join, the Hillsborough River corridor, and an L-shaped area straddling Big Bend Road between I-75 and US 301. Except in extreme cases, such as wetland soils, soil limitations can generally be alleviated for development purposes. Moderate limitations require more extensive alterations to the soils than do minor limitations. "Severe limitations may require the removal of the natural material and replacement with a more suitable soil type." CARE, page 7. However: [t]he use of septic systems for the treatment and disposal of sewage effluent may . . . be significantly limited by site specific soil conditions. The location of septic systems in improper soils may result in several undesirable effects. If the soils have wetness and poor permeability then the discharged effluent will not percolate properly and may runoff into, and contaminate, adjacent surface waters. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve has been closed to shellfishing numerous times in recent years due to improperly sited and maintained septic tanks in the Ruskin area. CARE, page 7. Conversely, "[i]n areas of excessively well-drained sand, septic effluent can migrate too rapidly for purification processes to occur, and carry contaminants into the groundwater supply." CARE, page 8. The surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifers are all subject to contamination by this means. 6. Geology Southeast Hillsborough County contains significant phosphate deposits. This area is the northwest extent of the Central Florida Phosphate District, which is located in Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, and Hardee Counties. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 show that phosphate mines are located in southeast Hillsborough County, at the headwaters of the Little Manatee River and a major tributary of the Alafia River. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 show another phosphate mining area in eastcentral Hillsborough County adjacent to the headwaters of the Alafia River or another of its major tributaries. Providing "hundreds" of jobs in the Tampa Bay area in mining, shipping, marketing, and processing, the phosphate industry produces a "net capital inflow to Hillsborough County," although the text fails to identify what cost items associated with phosphate mining are netted. CARE, page 8. CARE Table 2 indicates that there are five major phosphate mining operations in the County involving 26,326 mineable acres and 5772 mined acres. Due to current market conditions, the only active mine accounts for 2510 mineable acres, 2890 mined acres, and 6933 total acres. The Data and Analysis warn: "phosphate mining severely complicates land use considerations in the central and southeast portions of the County. Large areas of known deposits are held by private companies for future mining." Id. In addition to the space demanded by clay settling ponds, which may consume a one square mile area for a single mine, a typically mining operation involves the "complete disruption" of up to 400 acres annually. The disruption involves the "on-site natural vegetation, drainage, and soil characteristics." Id. Mining may also result in the drawdown of groundwater supplies in the vicinity. Phosphate mining exposes the leach zone, which contains the greatest concentration of uranium. This process increases the risk that the radioactive material will enter the air or water. Heavy water demands in the mining process involve the removal of water from the surficial aquifer and return of used water, possibly with excessive radionuclides, to the Floridan aquifer. After the strip mining operations are completed: Reclamation and restoration of mined lands is extremely important for long-term land use planning in Hillsborough County. The vast acreages of mined trenches and slime ponds are virtually useless for long time periods unless effective reclamation measures are implemented. CARE, page 9. Recent reclamation techniques include surface contouring, use of original topsoil and vegetation types, and restoration of original drainage patterns. The Florida Department of Natural Resources and Hillsborough County both impose reclamation requirements. Noting the economic benefits bestowed on the Tampa Bay region from phosphate mining, the Data and Analysis nevertheless observe: the relatively unregulated mining industry of the past was also responsible for significant environmental damage, including the destruction of wetlands and floodplains, and the siltation and eutrophication of rivers and streams. In addition, large tracts of land have been committed to the maintenance of clay settling ponds and non-productive reclamation areas. Improved State and local regulation of the phosphate industry in recent years has reduced operational impacts on the environment. However, more effective and productive methods of reclamation, and greater enforcement of reclamation requirements, may be needed. CARE, page 63. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 depict the location of numerous sand mines and shell mines, as well as one peat mine. Limestone deposits in the northeast part of Hillsborough County are near the surface and may be the subject of future limestone mining for use as road base, fill, concrete, and asphalt. Another mineral present in commercially significant quantities is sand. In areas underlain by limestone deposits, sinkholes may form, especially in northern and eastern Hillsborough County. The collapse of the limestone formation, which results in the sinkhole, is associated with reduced water tables. "Sinkhole areas are generally unsuitable for development." CARE, page 6. CARE Figure 8 depicts areas of observed and potential sinkhole development. 7. Groundwater The three aquifer systems present in most of Hillsborough County are the surficial, intermediate, and Floridan. The Floridan aquifer is the most productive freshwater aquifer system in Hillsborough County. The surficial aquifer runs through most of Hillsborough County. The water table in the County generally follows the topography, and groundwater flow is west and south. The average depth to the water table is five feet. Fluctuating seasonally less than five feet, the water table is lowest in April or May and highest in September. The surficial aquifer supplies the least amount of water in the County. An intermediate aquifer system forms from the Alafia River basin south in the County. The top of the intermediate aquifer is near sea level, and the intermediate aquifer system thickens to about 200 feet near the Manatee County line. The water quality in the intermediate aquifer is generally good and is primarily used for domestic water supply in extreme south Hillsborough County. The aquifer is most productive in the east and south part of the County, although the phosphate mines in southeast Hillsborough County use the intermediate aquifer as the injection zone for dewatering surficial deposits. The most suitable areas for groundwater development are the extreme northeast and southeast areas of the County. The Floridan aquifer is the major source of groundwater in the County. About 175 million gallons per day of the total 178.2 million gallons per day of groundwater withdrawals in Hillsborough County are taken from the Floridan aquifer. The top of the aquifer ranges from near land surface in the north part of the County to about 200 feet below sea level in the south part of the County. The aquifer thickness ranges from less than 1000 feet in the north part of the County to more than 1200 feet in the south part of the County. The water of the Floridan aquifer is more mineralized than the water of the surficial or intermediate aquifer. Concentrations of chloride exceed 250 mg/l near the coast, but are less than 25 mg/l in east and southeast Hillsborough County. Of the total groundwater withdrawn in the County, about 58%, or 103.3 million gallons per day, is devoted to agriculture. Other uses include 43.7 million gallons per day for public supply, 21.2 million gallons per day for industrial use, and 6.5 million gallons per day for rural use. 8. Aquifer Recharge Aquifer recharge is the "replenishment of water in an aquifer system." CARE, page 23. Hillsborough County contains no areas of high natural aquifer recharge. Areas of high natural aquifer recharge, where annual recharge rates range from 10-20 inches per year, are rare in Florida, representing only about 15% of the entire state. In terms of natural recharge rates, the County contains areas characterized by very low and very low to moderate recharge. The areas of very low to moderate recharge, in which the annual recharge rate is from 2-10 inches, are depicted in CARE Figure 14 and cover the northwest corner of the County, smaller areas in the northcentral and northeast areas of the County, and a large area in northeast Hillsborough County. The large recharge area in the northeast part of the County corresponds to the 100 year floodplain associated with the Hillsborough River basin; this is the largest contiguous 100 year floodplain in the County. Despite the absence of high natural recharge areas, the County contains areas highly susceptible to contamination of the Floridan aquifer. CARE Figure 15 shows three highly susceptible areas. One of these areas is the north half of northwest Hillsborough County. This area contains wellfields located along Gunn Highway and SR 597. The easternmost extent of this area is just east of the intersection of I-275 and I-75. Most of the highly susceptible areas in the northwest part of the County are in areas of very low to moderate natural groundwater recharge. Another area highly susceptible to contamination of the Floridan aquifer is in northeast Hillsborough County, north of I-4 and mostly east of US 301. This area includes two mining areas, but neither is a phosphate mine. The third area of high susceptibility to contamination of the Floridan aquifer runs from an area between Lake Thonotosassa and Plant City southwest through the parcels designated Light Industrial north of Gibsonton. Although similar contamination maps for the surficial and intermediate aquifer systems were not included, the surficial aquifer is highly susceptible to contamination due largely to its proximity to the surface, and the intermediate aquifer is less susceptible to contamination. The Data and Analysis warn that "[d]evelopment in areas of high recharge/contamination potential may . . . pose unacceptable threats to the long-term water quantity and quality within the aquifer system." CARE, page 58. Potable water supplies are also threatened by "the proliferation of improperly sited, constructed and maintained septic tanks." Id. CARE Figure 16 displays potential sources of contamination of the groundwater and surface water. The only potential source of contamination in the recharge area associated with the Hillsborough River basin is an active landfill situated at the southern edge of the recharge area, just southeast of Lake Thonotosassa. However, three active landfills and seven sewage treatment plants have been situated in the large recharge area in the northwest corner of the County, although these ten sites are southwest of existing public supply wells. 9. Sanitary Sewer An unnumbered oversized map entitled Hillsborough County Wastewater Element shows existing and proposed wastewater service areas and collection lines; the projected facilities are shown as of 1994 and 2010. Oversized Map 3, which is entitled Potable Water and Wastewater Facilities, also shows existing and proposed wastewater service areas as of 1994 and 2010. Sanitary Sewerage (Sewer) Element Figure 1 depicts the same information on a smaller scale, although the earlier year of projection is 1995, not 1994. Another unnumbered oversized map accompanying the Plan shows the location of domestic wastewater treatment plants, but the date of the map is omitted. In terms of the existing collection and conveyance system, Sewer Element Figure 1 depicts a central sewer system considerably more proposed than existing in the area south of the Alafia River. No sewer lines exist south of the Alafia River except for a one-mile segment along Big Bend Road east of US and west of Balm-Riverview Road; a little more than a half-mile segment on the peninsula extending from Apollo Beach; a half- mile segment southeast of the preceding segment, about midway between the shoreline and US 41; and roughly five miles of lines along SR 674 between I-75 and just east of US 301. In contrast to the seven miles of existing sewer lines described in the preceding paragraph, Sewer Element Figure 1 indicates that the area south of the Alafia River is proposed to receive another 30 miles of lines by 1994 and another 30 miles of lines by 2010. In other words, the County intends to expand the central sewer system by almost tenfold over 20 years in the area south of the Alafia River. Four to six sewage treatment plants are operating close to the Alafia River, and two such plants are operating close to the Little Manatee River. In addition, two sewage treatment plants and an active landfill are also operating between the two rivers, located west of US 41 and east of the shore of Tampa Bay. The Data and Analysis report that one of the assumptions in the Sewer Element is that all regional and subregional wastewater treatment plants will use advanced wastewater treatment except the Van Dyke plant, which uses secondary wastewater treatment. The Data and Analysis also indicate that, as sewer connections are made, interim and private wastewater plants will be phased out. The Data and Analysis recognize the risk that septic tanks pose to potable water supplies: "As more and more quantities of potable water are needed to supply the County and as urbanization of previously rural areas occurs, the possible dangers due to septic tanks systems contaminating potable water supplies increases." Sewer Element, page 14. As noted below, the Plan distinguishes among Urban, Suburban, and Rural general service levels. 6/ For sanitary sewer, Rural services means "there would most likely be no service connection to an area treatment plant." Sewer Element, page 3. For sanitary sewer, Urban or Suburban service means "there would most likely be current or planned service connection to an area treatment plant." Sewer Element, page 4. Only in "intense urban areas" can the Plan assure "there would be service connection to an area treatment plant." Id. Sewer Element Table 1 discloses that the design capacity of wastewater treatment plants--both publicly and privately owned--is 42.163 million gallons per day with 46% of the capacity in the northwest service area, 42% of the capacity in the central service area, and 12% of the capacity in the south service area. The Data and Analysis indicate that the County has embarked on an "vigorous construction program aimed at meeting the existing commitments within its service areas and providing capacity capable of accommodating growth through 1995." Sewer Element, page 5. However, the construction of treatment facilities has proceeded faster than the construction of collection and transmission lines. 9. Potable Water Oversized Map 3 shows the location of existing water lines, proposed water lines through 1994, proposed water lines through 2010, and water service area boundaries. Potable Water Element Figure 1 depicts on a smaller scale the same information, plus the location of the water service area boundaries in 1995 and 2010. In general, water lines cover a considerable portion of the northwest and central parts of Hillsborough County, appearing in all parts of the County to serve all land that is both designated Suburban Density Residential and contiguous to areas designated for greater densities. Again, as in the case of central sewer, the part of Hillsborough County south of the Alafia River is not as well served. Twelve miles of line run along US 301, south from the Alafia River to SR 674. About seven miles of line run west on SR 674 to a point about two miles east of the mouth of the Little Manatee River. About five miles of line cover the Ruskin area directly northeast of the previously described terminus, and one mile of line proceeds south toward the Little Manatee River. Closer to Tampa Bay, about seven miles of water line run along US 41 south from the Alafia River to a point a couple of miles south of Big Bend Road, stopping about three and one- half miles north of the nearest existing line in Ruskin. About eight miles of line run just south of, and parallel to, the Alafia River. Another five miles of water line run from the Alafia River south, along the scenic corridor (evidently a railroad line to be converted into a two- lane road, at least part of which may be known as the Jim Selvey Highway) running parallel to, and about one mile west of, the boundary between Rural and Suburban designations between SR 640 and the line extending east of the end of Big Bend Road. 7/ Oversized Map 3 discloses that the County can provide central water service to relatively little of the area south of the Alafia River within the Urban and Suburban areas. As is the case with central sewer, the County's plans for new central water service project the majority of construction activity toward the end of the 20-year period. Although starting with considerably more water line mileage--about 47 miles--than sewer line mileage south of the Alafia River, the County plans only about eight new miles in this area by 1994, but over 90 new miles by 2010. For potable water service, a Rural service area "would most likely be served by a system of private wells." Potable Water Element, page 3. Urban or Suburban service means "there would most likely be current or planned service connecting to this area." Potable Water Element, page 4. Again, as in the case of sewer service, a guarantee of central water service applies only to intensive urban service, where "there would be service connecting to this area." Id. After detailed analysis, the Data and Analysis conclude that the County will require 235-318 million gallons per day of water in 2000. Responsibility in coordinating water supplies in the Tampa Bay area has been assigned to the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA). According to CARE Figure 19, Hillsborough County will run short of potable water by the early 1990's and need water supplies from the WCRWSA. CARE, page 28. Due to assumptions of increased water usage in Pasco and Pinellas Counties, "there is concern that the 'safe yield' limit of regional groundwater aquifers may be approached in the foreseeable future." Id. The Data and Analysis report that additional water for the fast-growing southcentral area will come from a "planned" wellfield in northeast Brandon. Potable Water Element, page 9. CARE Figure 18 shows the location of major public supply reservoirs and water wells of more than 100,000 gallons per day. Oversized Map 18, which is dated February, 1990, depicts a 200-foot radius for each major public supply well. The greatest concentration of public supply water wells is in northwest Hillsborough County, especially the northern half of this area. Based on rough projections, the Data and Analysis warn that there is a "need to develop and communicate accurate water supply and safe yield projections to ensure sound water use planning. In addition, [there is a] need to immediately conserve existing water supplies and to develop new supplies." Id. In the meantime, potential water sources are threatened by development: The quantity and quality of groundwater resources may also be adversely impacted by land development. Because of the dry, well- drained soils, many of the most important aquifer recharge areas in the County are considered to be the most desirable sites for development. However, the increase in impervious surface cover associated with land development may, in theory, reduce the amount of water available to recharge groundwater aquifers by increasing the amount of surface runoff and evaporation. In addition, pollution discharges to groundwater, including septic drainfields, leaking underground storage tanks, etc., percolate rapidly through the topsoil and into the underlying rock in such areas, and may pose a significant contamination threat to existing and future water supplies. CARE, page 28. Water conservation will help extend existing potable water supplies. Residential water use may be reduced by 15% to 70% by conservation measures. Agricultural water use may be reduced by better irrigation practices, reducing losses to seepage, and using the lowest quality water necessary. Only 33 of the 267 wastewater treatment plants in the County presently use direct wastewater reuse options. The Data and Analysis recommend the exploration of this option. With respect to potable water sources, the Data and Analysis also consider desalinization. About 70 such plants currently operate in Florida. The reverse osmosis method of desalinization appears to be a particularly viable alternative for Hillsborough County. Noting the inevitability of new demands for potable water from population growth, the Data and Analysis warn that "significant increases in impervious surfaces may actually decrease the recharge potential and the available water supply below historically reliable levels." CARE, page 61. Excessive groundwater withdrawals in Hillsborough County have historically dewatered wetlands and surface waters; excessive groundwater withdrawals in other coastal areas in Florida have historically resulted in saltwater intrusion. Thus, the Data and Analysis recommend the establishment of "'safe yield' groundwater withdrawal limitations." Id. Until the development of more sophisticated means, the Data and Analysis recommend the use of the "Water Budget Concept" to estimate probable limits on potable water supply and demand. Id. 10. Natural Habitats Because of the size, location, and estuarine shoreline of Hillsborough County, representatives of over half of the major plant communities in Florida are found in the County. The 14 major plant communities found in Hillsborough County are: pine flatwoods, dry prairies, sand pine scrub, sandhills, xeric hammocks, mesic hammocks, hardwood swamps, cypress swamps, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, coastal marshes, mangrove swamps, coastal strand, and marine grassbeds. With the exception of marine grassbeds, these habitats are depicted on the multicolor fold-out map entitled "Natural Systems and Land Use Cover Inventory," which is identified as CARE Figure 20 in the Plan. Coastal Figure 11 depicts the established extent of seagrass meadows in Tampa Bay. Coastal Figure 14 shows the location in Tampa Bay of different classes of waters. The waters adjacent to the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County are Class II waters that are closed to shellfish harvesting. The waters from about a mile south of Apollo Beach to Manatee County are also Class II waters with shellfish harvesting approved in the area of Cockroach Bay. The remaining waters are Class III. Coastal Figure 13 depicts the location of emergent wetlands along the fringe of Tampa Bay. Concentrations of emergent wetlands are notable south of Apollo Beach and upstream varying distances along the fringes of the three major rivers and the former Palm River. Emergent wetlands also fringe the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County. Most of the County's natural habitat has been lost to urban, agricultural, and industrial development, which has altered over half of the original freshwater wetlands and over three-quarters of the uplands. The trend of habitat destruction, though abated by wetland protection laws, continues to apply to the upland habitats of xeric and mesic hammocks. Supplementing CARE Figure 20 are Oversized Map 8, which depicts "major natural systems" based on CARE Figure 20, and CARE Table 11, which indicates where, by specific habitat, each of the endangered, threatened, or special-concern plant or animal species may be expected to occur. The Data and Analysis acknowledge that the rapidly growing human population and its associated urbanization has resulted in a substantial loss of natural wildlife habitat, especially in the coastal portions of the County, while the cumulative impacts of development continue to divide and isolate large contiguous natural areas. . . . As a result of habitat destruction and alteration, the natural populations of many wildlife species have declined dramatically. . . . comprehensive wildlife protection and management program is needed to inventory populations of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern, and to inventory significant and essential wildlife habitat and protect those areas in the future. Coastal Element, page 68. The pine flatwoods habitat is characterized by long- leaf pines on drier sites and slash pine on wetter sites. Despite overlap between the understories of the two types of pine flatwoods communities, saw palmetto predominates in slash pine flatwoods and wiregrass predominates in long-leaf pine flatwoods. Pine flatwoods depend on fire to eliminate hardwood competition. Longleaf pine flatwoods are more susceptible to lack of water than are slash pine flatwoods. In the absence of fire, the pine flatwoods community is replaced by a mixed hardwood and pine forest. Various species that are endangered, threatened, or of special concern are associated with the pine flatwoods habitat. These species include the Florida golden aster, eastern indigo snake, short-tailed snake, gopher tortoise, gopher frog, Florida pine snake, peregrine falcon, Southern bald eagle, Southeastern American kestrel, red-cockaded woodpecker, scrub jay, and Sherman's fox squirrel. Originally, 70% of Hillsborough County was vegetated by pine flatwoods, but now only 5% of the County is pine flatwoods. The level surface, thick understory, and poorly drained soils of the pine flatwoods tend to retain and slowly release surface water, so the pine flatwoods enhance surface water quality and reduce downstream flooding. Dry prairies are treeless plains, often hosting scattered bayheads, cypress ponds, freshwater marshes, and wet prairies. Dry prairies resemble pine flatwoods without the overstory and perform similar functions in terms of surface water drainage. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species using dry prairies include those using the pine flatwoods plus the Florida sandhill crane and burrowing owl. Sand pine scrub is found mostly on relict dunes or other marine features found along present and former shorelines. Sand pine forms the overstory, and scrubby oaks compose a thick, often clumped understory. Large areas of bare sand are present in the habitat of the sand pine scrub, which requires fires to release the pine seeds. Without fires, the sand pine scrub habitat evolves into a xeric oak scrub habitat. The rare sand pine scrub community hosts many of the endangered, threatened, or special-concern species found in the pine flatwoods habitat. Supporting the highest number of such species, the sand pine scrub habitat's extremely dry environment sustains highly specialized plants and animals that could survive nowhere else. The unique adaptations of species to the sand pine scrub environment generates much scientific research of this unusual habitat, which is easily disturbed by human activities. The rapid percolation typical of the deep sandy soils of the sand pine scrub makes the community an important aquifer recharge area that is also vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Featuring more organic material in its sandy soils, the sandhill community, like the sand pine scrub community, is uncommon in Hillsborough County. Longleaf pines form the overstory of the sandhill habitat, unless, due to fire suppression and logging, xeric oaks, like turkey oak and bluejack oak, have been permitted to grow sufficiently to form the overstory. In the absence of the pines, the community is known as the xeric oak scrub. Longleaf pines require frequent fires to control hardwood competition, as does wiregrass, which, when present, prevents the germination of hardwood seeds and serves to convey fires over large areas. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species of the sandhill habitat are similar to those of the pine flatwoods. The plant and animal species using the sandhill habitat are, like those using the sand pine scrub habitat, adapted to high temperatures and drought. These plant and animal species are often found nowhere else but in the sandhills, which, like the sand pine scrub community, allows rapid percolation of water. The well-drained soils render the area useful for natural recharge of the aquifer, but also vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Xeric hammocks feature live oaks in well-drained, deep sand. Providing habitat for many of the species using the pine flatwoods, the xeric hammock canopy provides a microclimate of cooler, moister conditions and supplies good natural recharge to the aquifer. Mesic hammocks are the climax community of the area and contain a wide diversity of plant species. Trees include the Southern Magnolia, laurel oak, American holly, dogwood, pignut hickory, and live oak. Endangered, threatened, or special- concern species using the habitat are Auricled Spleenwort, Eastern indigo snake, peregrine falcon, Southern bald eagle, Southeastern American kestrel, and Sherman's fox squirrel. Not dependent upon fire, mesic hammocks efficiently use solar heat and recycle nutrients. Mesic hammocks are adaptable to development if native vegetation, including groundcover, is retained. Hardwood swamps, which are also known as floodplain swamps, riverine swamps, and hydric hammocks, border rivers and lake basins where the ground is saturated or submerged during part of the year. The wettest part of these swamp forests features bald cypress or black gum trees. In higher areas, the trees typically include sweet gum, red maple, water oak, American elm, water hickory, and laurel oak. Hardwood swamps rely upon periodic flooding, absent which other communities will replace the hardwood swamps. Endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with hardwood swamps are the American alligator, Suwanee cooter, peregrine falcon, wood stork, Southern bald eagle, little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and limpkin. "The hardwood swamp is extremely important for water quality and quantity enhancement." CARE, page 38. The hardwood swamp also retains and slowly releases floodwaters, which, among other things, allows suspended material to settle out. The swamp vegetation then removes excess nutrients and produces detritus for downstream swamps, such as estuaries. Cypress swamps are found along river or lake margins or interspersed through pine flatwoods or dry prairies. Bald cypress is the dominant tree along lakes and streams, and pond cypress occurs in cypress heads or domes. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with cypress swamps are the same as those associated with hardwood swamps. Especially when found in pine flatwoods or dry prairies, cypress swamps are important to wildlife because of their cooler, wetter environment. Cypress domes function as natural retention ponds. Cypress swamps along rivers and lakes absorb nutrients and store floodwaters. Freshwater marshes and wet prairies are herbaceous plant communities on sites where the soil is saturated or covered with water for at least one month during the growing season. Wet prairies contain shallower water, more grasses, and fewer tall emergents than do marshes. Fire recycles nutrients back into the soil and removes older, less productive plant growth. Flooding also reduces competition. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species are the same as those using the cypress swamps except that the freshwater marshes and wet prairies host the Florida sandhill crane and roseate spoonbill, but not the limpkin. Freshwater marshes and wet prairies are the most important vegetative communities functioning as a natural filter for rivers and lakes. The ability to retain water allows freshwater marshes and wet prairies to moderate the severity of floods and droughts. But the freshwater marshes and wet prairies have suffered most from agricultural and urban development. Wet prairies in particular are susceptible to damage from recreation vehicle use, horseback riding, and foot traffic. Among the many species using freshwater marshes and wet prairies as habitat, the sandhill crane depends on this community for nesting habitat. Coastal marshes are located on low-energy shorelines and are interspersed with mangroves. Coastal marshes may be found along tidal rivers. Tides contribute to the high productivity of the coastal marshes, as tidal waters provide food to, and remove waste from, the organisms found in the coastal marshes. Endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with coastal marshes are the American alligator, peregrine falcon, wood stork, Southern bald eagle, redish egret, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and roseate spoonbill. With the mangrove swamp, the coastal marsh is the "key to the extremely high levels of biological productivity found in estuaries such as Tampa Bay." CARE, page 40. Marsh grasses convert sunlight and nutrients into plant tissue, which decomposes once the plant dies and becomes available to a number of detritus-feeding organisms. These organisms are themselves food for large animals. Coastal marshes also serve as nurseries for young fish, stabilize shorelines, filter out nutrients, and trap sediments. Mangrove swamps also occur along low-energy shorelines. The mangrove community "provides much of the driving force behind the productivity of bordering estuaries." CARE, page 41. Leaves from the mangroves fall into the water, supplying food to organisms as large as mullet. Mangrove swamps host the same animals as do coastal marshes except for the absence of alligators and presence of brown pelicans. The environmental values of the mangrove swamps are the same as the values of coastal marshes. The coastal strand includes beaches and coastal dunes. Prime examples of this type of habitat in Hillsborough County are Egmont Key and the larger islands in Cockroach Bay and at the mouth of the Little Manatee River. Marine grassbeds are found in estuaries and consist of vast meadows of different types of seagrasses. Having evolved from terrestrial forms, seagrasses contain roots, stems, leaves, and flowers and are able to grow in soft, sandy, or muddy sediments. Species of seagrasses found in Tampa Bay are limited to a water depth of about six feet, which is the average depth through which light can presently penetrate. Fast-growing seagrasses trap material from the land, absorb nutrients, and convey animal and plant products to the open sea. 11. Coastal Area The County's "most significant surface water resource" is Tampa Bay. CARE, page 10. In northwest Hillsborough County, the coastal area, which is also known as the coastal zone, consists of a strip of land about five miles wide running from the shoreline between Tampa and the Pinellas County line in the northwest part of the County. The coastal area for central and south Hillsborough County encompasses a band of land of about similar width running from the Tampa line south along US 301 across the Alafia River, then south from the Alafia River along I-75 to the Little Manatee River, where the boundary runs west to US 41, and then south along US 41 to the Manatee County line. Coastal Figure 16 locates coastal marine resources in and adjacent to Tampa Bay. Two locations of wading birds are in the northwest part of Hillsborough County. The only resources depicted between Tampa and the Alafia River are shorebirds in the Bay. At the Alafia River are wading birds, shorebirds, and pelicans. Wading birds and shorebirds are located in the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, as are manatee and oyster beds. The Data and Analysis describe the different land use planning challenges in the coastal area: coastal land issues are unique primarily due to the intense competing and often incompatible use demands, serious environmental constraints or impacts and the limited supply of shoreline lands. Coastal Element, page 3. The intent of the Plan is that coastal land use should be dominated by those uses which can only take place in or near the shoreline. This concept, by which water- dependent and water-related uses receive priority, stems from logic furthered by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act .. .. Coastal Element, page 2. According to Coastal Element Table 2, the coastal area comprises 20,946 acres of developed land and 54,011 acres of undeveloped land. The developed land includes 12,343 acres of residential (75% single family detached), 4638 acres of community facilities (75% utilities and recreation/open space), 2095 acres of commercial (equal amounts of heavy and light commercial), and 1870 acres of industrial. The undeveloped land includes 24,388 acres of natural land (including 16,533 acres of woodlands and wetlands), 29,025 acres of agriculture, and 598 acres of mines (consisting of 299 acres of active mines, 75 acres of reclaimed mines, and 224 acres of unreclaimed mines). Many of the residential uses in the coastal area are on floodprone lands or land formed from dredge and fill operations. Many of these residential areas are in the unincorporated areas of Town and Country, Clair Mel City, Apollo Beach, and Bahia Beach. The problems common to these areas are periodic flooding, cumulative adverse impacts to wetlands, soil erosion, non-functioning septic systems, high potential for surface water pollution, potential for salt water intrusion, and reduced public access to the shoreline. Coastal Element, page 4. Most commercial development in the coastal area is of the neighborhood, rather than regional, variety. Commercial uses have generally followed rather than preceded residential development in the coastal area. However, in the Hillsborough Avenue/Memorial Highway area, which is in the coastal area between Tampa and Pinellas County, extensive commercial activity serves Town and County and the area off SR 580 (Hillsborough Avenue) toward Pinellas County. Much of the County's heavy industry is located in the coastal area due to proximity to the port. Agriculture is treated as undeveloped land, although only one-third of agricultural uses are merely fenced pastureland. In any event, "urban growth is steadily displacing [agricultural and vacant land] uses forcing agricultural activities to move to more inland parts of the County." Coastal Element, page 5. The largest uses within the category of community facilities in the coastal area are electric power generating and transmission facilities. The next largest is recreation/open space. Both of these uses are water dependent. The coastal natural areas provide vital shoreline habitat and protect against storm surge. The Data and Analysis warn: Displacement of these natural areas by continued urban development will result in a net reduction of water quality within Tampa Bay and tidal rivers and creeks, loss of vital wildlife habitat, a diminished sense of open space, and the exposure of property and human life to the dangers of storm surge. Coastal Element, page 6. In discussing potential conflicts in potential shoreline land uses, the Data and Analysis note that more coastal areas that are vacant, recreational, or agricultural have been designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Low Density Residential, Recreation and Open Space, or Natural Preservation. The development of the coastal area has resulted in the elimination of natural shoreline vegetative communities such as mangroves and wetlands. The Data and Analysis acknowledge the "urgency to more effectively manage coastal zone natural resources and direct urban development into areas more appropriate for such growth." Coastal Element, page 7. The Data and Analysis also note that stormwater runoff into Tampa Bay and its tributaries may constitute the "greatest impact to marine habitat." Id. According to the Data and Analysis, the main uses that are neither water-dependent nor water-related are commercial and industrial uses that "could function just as well inland as in a coastal location" and "intense urban residential." Coastal Element, page 9. The Data and Analysis endorse the trend toward displacing agricultural uses in the Apollo Beach/Ruskin area west of I-75 between the Alafia River and the Manatee County line. The Data and Analysis approve of the increased concentration of development closer to the amenities of the coastal area without using the coastal zone for non-water-dependent uses. Oversized Maps 11 and 12 respectively show the location of archaeological sites and historic resources. Oversized Map 11 indicates by Florida Master Site File number the location of at least 200 archaeological sites. Due to the presence of numerous archaeological sites in the coastal area, the County "needs to establish a method to protect, preserve, and restore its historic resources." Coastal Element, page 13. Because the County has not adopted a local preservation ordinance, the Data and Analysis admit that "historic resource management efforts are not clearly defined." Coastal Element, page 60. However, the Data and Analysis indicate that provisions in the Future Land Use Element and Coastal Element will preserve the historic resources in the coastal area. 12. Coastal High Hazard Area and Hurricane Planning The entire Tampa Bay region: has been identified by the National Weather Service as one of the most hurricane- vulnerable areas of the United States, with the potential for large scale loss of life. Coastal Element, page 37. The vulnerability of the County and its residents to hurricanes is due to geography and land use. The proximity of large numbers of persons near Tampa Bay and residing in low- lying areas or mobile homes increases the risk of loss of life and property. The hurricane vulnerability analysis is based on the 100 year storm event or Category 3 hurricane, which produces winds of 111-130 miles per hour and storm surge of 12-18 feet above normal. The Data and Analysis define the hurricane vulnerability zone as the area from which persons must be evacuated in the event of a Category 3 hurricane. The Data and Analysis also identify the coastal high hazard area, which is the area from which persons must be evacuated in the event of the less intense Category 1 hurricane. The coastal high hazard area is also the velocity zone shown on maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Coastal Element Figure 18 depicts the coastal high hazard area as a strip of land fringing Tampa Bay. The northwest section of the coastal high hazard area between Pinellas County and Tampa is nearly one mile wide. The width of the coastal high hazard area from Tampa to Manatee County ranges from nonexistent to about 1.5 miles, and even more at the Little Manatee River, but averages about one mile. The Data and Analysis recognize the special planning issues that apply to the coastal high hazard area: The issue with respect to development in the coastal high hazard area is the protection of residents and the public expenditure of funds for areas that are subject to severe flooding from storm surge and rainfall and structure damage as a result of high winds. In addition to limiting development, the permitted development shall be designed to mitigate problems associated with stormwater runoff, wastewater treatment, and septic tanks. Coastal Element, page 61. Dealing with the provision of infrastructure in the coastal area, the Data and Analysis ask, but do not answer, the following questions: Does the provision of infrastructure encourage development of coastal areas? Should all citizens be required to bear the burden of increased public infrastructure cost in coastal areas? As development and redevelopment pressures continue in the coastal areas these questions and others must be answered. Coastal Element, page 64. Analysis of the County's hurricane preparedness requires consideration of the availability of shelters. The County has 46 primary shelters that, at the applicable ratio of 20 square feet per shelter resident, can accommodate about 59,000 persons. Unfortunately, about 60,000 of the 175,000 evacuees sought shelter space during Hurricane Elena, which, during the Labor Day weekend of 1985, came within 80 miles from the mouth of Tampa Bay. In any event, there is sufficient shelter space through 1995. Although secondary shelter space may be sufficient for awhile, the County will need more shelter space by 2000. Present estimated clearance times for hurricane evacuation range from 11-16 hours, depending upon the storm and evacuation conditions. After evaluating pre-landfall hazards, such as the inundation of low-lying evacuation routes, the clearance times are increased by 10 hours, so the range is 21-26 hours. Persons with special needs, which could enlarge the time needed for evacuation, have been encouraged to register with the County. The Data and Analysis inventory the hospitals and nursing homes whose occupants would need to evacuate in the event of a hurricane. Six of the 21 nursing homes and four of the 17 hospitals would be vulnerable to storm surge in a Category 3 storm. Tampa General, which is a County-operated facility, is subject to storm surge in a Category 1 storm, and the Data and Analysis warn that expansion plans should be carefully reviewed. Finding that clearance times of 11 and 16 hours are "acceptable," the Data and Analysis caution that the clearance times may increase as population increases in the Tampa Bay region. Options to be considered include exploration of vertical evacuation, discouragement of evacuation by nonvulnerable residents, expansion of road capacity, and imposition of the requirement that mobile home parks construct on-site shelter space. A variety of public infrastructure is contained in the coastal high hazard area. These public facilities include roads, bridges, and causeways; sanitary sewer facilities; potable water facilities; and shoreline protection structures. Private facilities include electric generating units and substations. The County does not own a sanitary sewer plant in the coastal high hazard area. But the County uses about 12% of the capacity of Tampa's Hookers Point plant, which is in the coastal high hazard area. The County owns three potable water facilities in the coastal high hazard area. A pump station and two elevated storage tanks are in the Apollo Beach area. In view of the vulnerability of parts of the County to a hurricane: government is responsible for ensuring that human life is protected and property damage is minimized in food-prone and coastal high hazard areas; that land use and development patterns are consistent with the vulnerable nature of the coastal high hazard and inland flood-prone areas; and that natural systems and vegetation that serve to reduce the impacts of severe weather are protected and preserved. In order to accomplish these ends, Hillsborough County must consider available options to reduce or limit exposure in the [coastal high hazard area]; develop guidelines/procedures for development in the [coastal high hazard area]; propose alternatives to reduce clearance times or reduce deficit public shelter space; and develop methods to redirect population concentrations away from the [coastal high hazard area]. Coastal Element, page 42. The Data and Analysis consider the question of post- hurricane redevelopment, which has not been an issue in the County since 1921, which marked the last time that a hurricane made landfall in Hillsborough County. After addressing the extent to which public funds might be available to assist in rebuilding infrastructure, the Data and Analysis confront the underlying issue whether infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area should be rebuilt in place or relocated outside the coastal high hazard area. The Data and Analysis conclude: A decision-making framework needs to be established by the County in order to determine if the infrastructure or facilities should be relocated, have structural modifications or be replaced. Coastal Element, page 45. The Data and Analysis recommend that decisions concerning redeveloping infrastructure be guided by the following factors: costs, environmental impacts, mitigative impacts, growth management consistency, impacts on the public, timeliness, legal issues, availability of funds, and necessity of infrastructure. 13. Air Quality The air quality in the Tampa urban area "is among the state's most polluted," but "severe conditions are often localized and short lived, due to prevailing winds and the area's non-confining topography." CARE, page 46. However, the Data and Analysis admit that "[a]ir quality in the Tampa Bay region . . . is degraded and in need of improvement relative to certain air pollutants." CARE, page 51. Of the six pollutants for which federal and state attainment standards exist, Hillsborough County is classified as non-attainment for ozone, for which automobile exhausts are indirectly responsible, and particulate matter. But point sources, especially power plants, are also responsible for air pollution. Since the mid 1970's, all criteria pollutants except ozone have decreased in the County. The Data and Analysis recommend "more stringent regulations and better compliance with existing regulations." CARE, page 52. Urban Sprawl Planning Strategy The Data and Analysis disclose that the County has adopted two major planning strategies. The Plan creates nodes and corridors and provides a range of lifestyles from the Urban to the Suburban to the Rural. The specific details of these planning strategies are found in the operative provisions of the Plan, which are set forth in the following section. However, the Data and Analysis offer a brief overview of the County's two major planning strategies. A node is a "focal point within the context of a larger, contiguous area surrounding it. It is an area of concentrated activity that attracts people from outside its boundaries for purposes of interaction within that area." Future Land Use Element (FLUE), page 8. The Data and Analysis explain that the Plan contains four types of nodes: high intensity nodes, which are for high intensity commercial uses, high density residential uses, and high concentration of government centers; mixed use regional nodes, which are for regional shopping centers, major office and employment areas, and sports and recreational complexes; community center nodes, which are focal points for surrounding neighborhoods; and neighborhood nodes, which are smaller scale community centers. Once nodes become established, "corridors" are intended to connect two or more nodes. Presently, the road network is the sole type of corridor. But mass transit may one day offer an alternative type of corridor. As part of the second major planning strategy, the Plan offers residents a variety of lifestyle options, primarily by varying residential densities. Population growth in Hillsborough County has historically radiated out from the central business district of Tampa. The emergence of nodes outside Tampa has altered this development pattern. The Plan's treatment of rural areas reflects the philosophy that "[r]ural areas need not be treated only as undeveloped lands waiting to become urban." FLUE, page 9. The Data and Analysis report that the Plan seeks to preserve the pastoral nature of the rural lifestyle by ensuring the availability of large lots for residential development. The size of the lots is in part driven by the absence of central water and sewer, so that individual wells and septic tanks will necessarily serve most rural development. In addition to providing small scale commercial uses at appropriate locations, the Data and Analysis recognize that the Plan must also ensure the preservation of unstructured open space, as well as competing rural uses, such as agriculture, that may not harmonize completely with adjacent residential development. The Data and Analysis describe the suburban residential option as part of a "gradual transition of land uses from very rural to more suburban blending into the urban environment." FLUE, page 10. Suburban areas would be accompanied by greater intensities of commercial uses and more extensive public facilities, as compared to the commercial uses and public facilities serving rural areas. The Data and Analysis describe densities of two or three dwelling units per acre on outlying suburban areas, gradually increasing to two to six dwelling units per acre on suburban areas closer to urban areas, and finally attaining even higher densities adjacent to the urban areas. Open space remains "quite important" for suburban areas and could be attained partially through clustering dwelling units. Id. The urban areas facilitate the provision of "very specialized public and private services that could not be justified anywhere else." FLUE, page 11. The Data and Analysis state: If the urban areas are permitted to increase their concentrations, it will lessen some of the development pressures in other areas of the County. One distinct advantage of intense urban development is that the potential, negative impacts of development upon the natural environment can be controlled more effectively. Additionally, the provision of public facilities is much more cost effective in the intense urban areas. Id. The Data and Analysis recognize the role of planning to ensure the attainment of the planning goals of the County: Hillsborough County has and will continue to experience a high population growth rate. Residential, commercial and industrial land development is expanding rapidly, and the County has been unable to keep pace with the demand for public facilities. The rapid rate of development has had many adverse impacts upon the environment, transportation, public facilities, historic resources and community design. . . . An overall, general guide to development outlining basic considerations during the development process is needed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Hillsborough County. FLUE, page 12. The Data and Analysis recognize that "much of the newer residential development is designed as enclaves with little or no functional linkages to the surrounding areas." FLUE, page 22. Addressing the linkage of residential to commercial uses, the Data and Analysis add: Commercial development has followed the sprawl of residential development into the County. Commercial strip development has been allowed to proceed relatively unchecked along the major arterials in the County creating undue congestion and safety hazards. A strong need was identified to develop a logical and functional method to determine the location and amount of future commercial development without interrupting the market system. FLUE, page 25. The Data and Analysis also address industrial and public facility land uses. The identification of specific areas for industrial development "will create a desirable development pattern that effectively maximizes the use of the land." FLUE, page 28. And the requirement that public facilities be available to serve new development "will create greater concentrations of land uses in the future." FLUE, page 27. 2. Existing Land Uses The Data and Analysis set forth the existing land uses by type and acreage. Using a total acreage for the County of 605,282 acres, the table of existing land uses by acreage, which is at page XVIII-B of the FLUE background document, divides developed land into four general categories: residential, commercial, industrial, and community facilities. Residential existing land uses total 73,104 acres. The total includes 55,546 acres of single family detached with an average density of 1.7 dwelling units per acre, 9709 acres of mobile home with an average density of 1.3 dwelling units per acre, 3643 acres of mobile home park with an average density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre, and 3006 acres of single family attached and multifamily with an average density of just under 12 dwelling units per acre. Commercial existing land uses total 8143 acres, consisting of 3613 acres of light commercial, 3029 acres of heavy commercial, 770 acres of transient lodging, and 731 acres of business and professional offices. Industrial existing land uses total 4122 acres, consisting of 1889 acres of heavy industrial, 1178 acres of warehouse and distribution, and 1055 acres of light industrial. Community facilities existing land uses, which consist of utilities, schools, and recreation/open space, total 19,439 acres, including 7981 acres of recreation/open space and 5200 acres of utilities. The remaining 500,474 acres in the County are divided into Natural, Agriculture, and Mining existing land uses. Natural existing land uses total 182,082 acres, consisting of 133,939 acres of woodlands and wetlands, 26,745 acres of vacant land in urban areas, and 21,398 acres of water. Agriculture existing land uses total 292,129 acres, including 104,870 acres of fenced pastureland, 103,773 acres of general agriculture, 40,600 acres of groves or orchards, and 38,867 acres of row crops. Mining existing land uses total 26,263 acres, consisting of 10,551 acres of active mines, 8655 acres of unreclaimed mined out areas, 6717 acres of reclaimed mines, and 340 acres of resource extraction. The County has prepared or obtained numerous existing land use maps (ELUM), either as small-scale maps contained in the two-volume compilation or as Oversized Maps. Most of the ELUM's have been described above. The ELUM's depict the Tampa Bay estuarine system including beaches and shores; rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, and harbors; wetlands; minerals, soils, and sinkholes; natural systems and land use cover; areas of natural aquifer recharge and potential groundwater contamination; and various public facilities. ELUM's not previously described include Oversized Map 6, which is dated September, 1988, and is entitled Major Health and Education Facilities. Another Oversized Map dated February 1, 1988, shows the same types of facilities. Existing land uses are shown by a variety of maps. CARE Figure 20, which is the color map showing vegetative cover, provides some information as to the location of disturbed and undisturbed natural areas. Coastal Figure 1 shows existing land uses, but only for the coastal area. Those parts of the coastal high hazard area shown as vacant or agricultural or that otherwise received designations allowing higher densities or intensities are identified in Paragraphs 772 et seq. Most detailed is Oversized Map 2, which is the 1985 Generalized Land Use map. Oversized Map 2 shows the location of existing land uses by the following categories: agricultural and vacant, low density residential, medium and high density residential, commercial, industrial, major public, mining, and natural. As noted above, existing, major public supply wells are depicted on CARE Figure 18 and Oversized Map 18. The latter map also depicts 200-foot radii for "well protection areas." Oversized Map 18 also appears to depicts planned water wells, such as a cluster of four wells northeast of Brandon, which were omitted from CARE Figure 18. Other wells are also depicted on Oversized Map 18, but not CARE Figure 18, which thus appears to have been limited to existing wells. 3. Future Land Uses Under Plan The Data and Analysis accompanying the FLUE acknowledge that "[t]here are very few compact centers where commercial and residential uses interact positively in unincorporated Hillsborough County." FLUE, page 7. The projected population for unincorporated Hillsborough County in 2010 is 932,800, according to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. About 458,236 persons were projected to be residing, in 2010, in housing units existing in 1988. By land use category, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, the County has 283,195 vacant acres on which residential development is permitted under the Plan. The following table sets forth, by category, the vacant acreage, permitted maximum density (expressed as a ratio of dwelling units per gross acre), and population capacity. 8/ Land Use Category Density Vacant Acres Pop. Capacity Agricultural/Mining 1:20 66,122 9,092 Agricultural 1:10 20,162 5,545 Rural Agricultural 1:5 65,115 35,813 Rural Estate 1:2.5 8,617 9,479 Rural Residential 1:1 18,533 50,968 Rural Residential Plan 1:5 7,325 4,029 Low Sub. Density Resid. 2:1 14,388 79,134 Low Sub. Density Resid. Plan 1:5 20,326 11,179 Suburban Density Resid. 4:1 24,667 271,337 Low Density Residential 6:1 10,625 175,313 Low Medium Density Resid. 9:1 945 16,755 Medium Density Residential 12:1 1,290 30,496 High Density Residential 20:1 765 30,141 Urban Level 1 12:1 17,850 421,974 Urban Level 2 20:1 4,495 177,103 Urban Level 3 50:1 1,760 173,360 TOTALS 283,195 1,501,718 Dividing the total population capacity of 1,501,718 persons by the projected population of 932,800, the Plan has overallocated density by a factor of 1.61. Nonresidential uses for which the Plan allocates land include industrial and commercial uses. The industrial uses and respective acreages in the Plan are Light Industrial (12,789), Light Industrial--Planned (746), and Heavy Industrial (4721). The commercial uses and respective acreages in the Plan are Community Commercial (5538), Regional Commercial (678), Community Office (294), and Research Corporate Park (1411). The industrial uses cover a total of 18,256 acres, or 3.04% of the total of 600,409 acres in Hillsborough County. The commercial uses cover a total of 7921 acres, or a little more than 1% of the total acreage in the County. If the acreage designated as Urban Level 1, 2, and 3 is treated as commercial, then the total commercial acreage equals 8.79% of the County. The remaining categories on the Future Land Use Map and respective acreages are: Natural Preservation--23,313 acres; Environmentally Sensitive Areas--81,880 acres; Water--6026 acres; Recreation/Open Space--2310 acres; and Public/Semi- Public--4142 acres. Excluding the Public/Semi-Public category, the remaining four categories, which by varying degrees involve open space, constitute 113,526 acres, or about 19% of the County. In addition to the matter of density allocations, the use of land involves the places where the County has chosen to locate its densities. CARE Figure 2 shows the location of the population in 1985. For unincorporated Hillsborough County, only about 45,000 persons lived south of the Alafia River with about two-thirds living west of I-75. Roughly 150,000 persons lived in northwest Hillsborough County, and another 150,000 persons lived in central Hillsborough County between the Alafia River and I-4. The remaining (as shown on Figure 2) 50,000 persons lived east of I-75 and north of I-4 in northcentral and northeast Hillsborough County. Oversized Map 14 shows areas of density changes effected by the Plan and revisions to a pre-1985 Act plan applicable to I-75 and south Hillsborough County that took place shortly before the adoption of the Plan and were incorporated into the Plan. Oversized Map 14 discloses large areas of density increases in the following locations, among others: the part of the coastal high hazard area between Cockroach Bay and the mouth of the Little Manatee River; an area immediately across US 41 from the previously described area and bounded by the Little Manatee River on the north and I-75 on the east; almost the entire I-75 corridor that is designated nearly exclusively Urban Level 1 and Urban Level 3; a large expanse of land designated mostly Low Suburban Density Residential Planned along the railroad right-of-way that is to be converted into a two-lane road, at least part of which is to be known as the Jim Selvey Highway; an area of Medium Density Residential just north of the mouth of the Little Manatee River near Ruskin; the northcentral area from I-75 and I-275 to the Hillsborough River; and relatively large portions of the north and west halves of northwest Hillsborough County, including almost the entire northwest corner of the County to Gunn Highway (east of Keystone Lake). Oversized Map 13 is the Vacant Land Suitability Analysis, which shows the location of critical lands or soils with very severe limitations, presumably with reference to the location of predominantly vacant lands. The range of soils with very severe limitations includes the entire coastal high hazard area, much of the corridors of the Little Manatee and Alafia Rivers, the Hillsborough River valley, several areas of about 1.5 square miles each in northwest Hillsborough County, much of the land north of the northernmost extent of Tampa and just east of I-275, and an L-shaped area east of I-75 and straddling Big Bend Road, as well as area just to the south of the L-shaped area. Lands of varying degrees of sensitivity are located throughout the areas of very severely limited soils. Locations of the two most critical classes of land are widely distributed among the phosphate mining area in southeast Hillsborough County and along the major southern tributary of the Alafia River, near Cockroach Bay and the mouth of the Little Manatee River, at the southeast and northwest ends of the coastal high hazard area of northwest Hillsborough County, just east of I-275 and I-75, in the Hillsborough River valley, and along the Alafia River and its northern tributary. Locations of the two less critical classes of land, but nevertheless sensitive or very sensitive, include areas along Big Bend Road at I-75, east of I-75 north of Big Bend Road, and in the northwest corner and northern half of northwest Hillsborough County. 4. Use of Public Facilities Under Plan Acknowledging that high population growth has contributed to many of Hillsborough County's problems, such as "infrastructure inadequacies," the Data and Analysis concede: The extension of public facilities has lagged behind the unincorporated County's rapid growth. One of the consequences of growth outpacing the provision of services and facilities is the development of outlying large lot residential with onsite water and sewer facilities (septic tanks, wells). The historic lack of services has continued to strain the county's fiscal ability to respond to these needs, and there will be a greater need for more intensive functional planning and action by county government. FLUE, pages 6-7. Part of the difficulty in matching population growth with public facilities has been due to historic land use patterns. The Data and Analysis note: There are very few compact centers where commercial and residential uses interact positively in unincorporated Hillsborough County. Threshold population densities needed to support many services do not exist in most parts of the County. The cost of providing services such as water, sewer, roads, mass transit, schools, fire and police protection are much higher per capita in low density areas than in more urban areas. Concentration of new development in areas with adequate levels of service for public facilities will create a more effective and efficient utilization of man-made and natural resources and encourage the full use and immediate expansion of existing public facilities while protecting large areas of the natural environment from encroachment. The concentration of new development in areas with adequate levels of service will also fulfill the requirement of subsection 9J-5.006(3)(b)7 to discourage urban sprawl. FLUE, page 7. Protection of Natural Resources Under Plan The Data and Analysis link effective land use planning with the protection of the County's natural resources and preservation of County residents' quality of life: . . . growth will continue to challenge and threaten the natural environment as daily development decisions confront the long-range need to preserve and protect irreplaceable natural environmental systems. Unplanned, rapid population growth will degrade the unincorporated county's environment. Development will encroach upon valuable wellfields and wildlife habitat and may further pollute the County's freshwater aquifers. One of the County's major needs is to assure the protection and viability of green open spaces and environmentally significant areas, which are crucial to the community's quality of life and economic health. The unincorporated County's potential to maintain and improve the quality of life for its residents will be contingent upon its ability to adequately serve existing and future demands for services. FLUE, page 7. 6. Protection of Agriculture Under Plan The Data and Analysis contain a position paper concerning agricultural issues. The paper reports that agriculture is the County's single largest industry, and Hillsborough County is the third largest agricultural county in the state. According to the position paper, the trend in agriculture in Hillsborough County has been toward increased productivity through improved technology and transition to the production of more profitable commodities. The position paper argues that the viability of agriculture is not dependent upon the maintenance of low residential densities to discourage the conversion of agricultural land to residential uses. Advocating reliance upon free-market forces to maintain the competitiveness between agricultural and residential uses, the position paper concedes that a density of one dwelling unit per five acres is "not low enough to discourage sale of the property for five acre ranchettes[, which] promote high consumption of land for housing and remove the land for agricultural production." FLUE Background Document, page XLVII. Plan Provisions The FLUM The subject cases present two problems regarding the FLUM. The first problem is to identify what constitutes the FLUM. The second problem is to determine the significance of one of the major designations on the FLUM: Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In its proposed recommended order, the County asserts that the FLUM consists of a series of maps. 9/ This assertion is groundless. Neither the Plan nor the adoption ordinance provides any basis whatsoever for finding that the FLUM comprises all of the maps and figures contained in Sierra Club Exhibit A local government must adopt operative provisions, such as a FLUM or goals, objectives, or policies. Hillsborough County did not adopt all of the Oversized Maps or the maps and figures in the two-volume compilation of the Plan. Hillsborough County adopted the Plan in Ordinance No. 89-28. The ordinance delineates the scope of the operative provisions of the Plan by noting that the Data and Analysis, or "background information," are not part of the operative provisions of the Plan: Material identified as background information in the Table of Contents for each Element, including data, analysis, surveys and studies, shall not be deemed a part of the Comprehensive Plan as provided in Subsection 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes. The Plan clearly includes among its operative provisions a FLUM. Several provisions describe the role of the FLUM and, in so doing, help identify what the County adopted as the FLUM. In the Introduction to the FLUE, the Data and Analysis state: "The policies of [the FLUE] are presented in written form, and they are graphically represented on the Future Land Use Map." FLUE, page 5. The Data and Analysis elaborate: The [FLUE] consists of two parts: Goals, Objectives and Policies; and a Future Land Use Map (Land Use Graphic), a copy of which is attached, and incorporated hereby by reference. FLUE, page 11. Operative provisions of the Plan likewise recognize the FLUM and its role as part of the operative provisions of the Plan. For instance, the Plan Implementation section of the FLUE begins: The primary tool of implementation for the [FLUE] are the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Plan Categories. These are followed by other implementation tools that further define the intent of the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Plan Categories. They include: locational criteria for neighborhood commercial uses; criteria for development within designated scenic corridors; and density credits. The Future Land Use Map is a graphic illustration of the county's policy governing the determination of its pattern of development in the unincorporated areas of Hillsborough County through the year 2010. The map is adopted for use as an integral part of the [FLUE]. It depicts, using colors, patterns, and symbols, the locations of certain land uses and man-made features and the general boundaries of major natural features. The Future Land Use Map shall be used to make an initial determination regarding the permissible locations for various land uses and the maximum possible levels of residential densities and/or non-residential intensities, subject to any special density provisions and exceptions of the [FLUE] text. Additionally, each regulation or regulatory decision and each development proposal shall comply with all applicable provisions within the . . . Plan. FLUE, page 54. The Legal Status of the Plan section of the FLUE adds: The Future Land Use Map is an integral part of this [FLUE], and it shall be used to determine the permissible locations for various land uses and the maximum possible levels of residential densities and/or non- residential intensities. The goals, objectives and policies of this [FLUE] shall provide guidance in making these determinations. FLUE, page 129. The FLUM at least includes a multicolor map entitled 2010 Land Use Plan Map. The multicolor map depicts the location of various future land uses, man-made features, and natural resources. The importance of the multicolor map is underscored by its relatively large scale of 1" = 1 mile. The only maps drawn on such a large scale are a black and white copy of the multicolor map and a green map, which is discussed below. The Oversized Maps discussed in this recommended order are drawn to a scale of 1" = 2 miles. The question remains, however, whether the FLUM includes maps or figures in addition to the multicolor map. The FLUE defines the FLUM as: The graphic aid intended to depict the spatial distribution of various uses of the land in the County by land use category, subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and the exceptions and provisions of the [FLUE] text and applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 137. Consistent with the discussion of the FLUM contained in the Plan Implementation section of the FLUE, the multicolor map is the only map that depicts future land uses by colors, patterns, and symbols. No other map uses colors except for CARE Figure 20, which is the Natural Systems and Land Use Cover Inventory. CARE Figure 20 is obviously an ELUM with no designation of future land uses. With the exception of the green map discussed below, no other map uses any color whatsoever. The above-cited Plan references to the FLUM are in the singular. The FLUM is identified in the singular throughout the Data and Analysis set forth in the two-volume compilation of the Plan. See, e.g., FLUE pages 55, 56, 69, 70, 75, 94, and 137. 10/ With one exception, operative provisions of the Plan also refer to the FLUM in the singular. See, e.g., FLUE Policies A-3.2, B- 6.2, B- 6.7, B-7.9, and C-31 and Coastal Policy 7.1. But see CARE Policy 19.8, which requires the County to identify "Resource Protection Areas" on the Future Land Use Map "series." DCA referred to a single FLUM when DCA issued the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) concerning the Plan as first transmitted. The County prepared detailed responses to the objections, recommendations, and comments. Three responses refer at length to the FLUM and refer to it in the singular, rather than as a map series. Hillsborough County Exhibit 35, responses 4, 8, and 26. Response 29 to the ORC answers the objection that the FLUM (in the singular) omits existing and planned waterwells, the cones of influence for such waterwells, and wetlands. The response states: Cones of influence have not been identified for Hillsborough County. Objective 5 of the [CARE] and its subsequent policies outline the County's strategy with regard to protecting its wellfields. Because of the multitude of wetlands in Hillsborough County and the lack of exact mapping capability, the "E" area on the land use plan map is indicative of major areas of hydric soils (per USDA Soil Conservation Services, Soil Suitability Atlas for Hillsborough County, Florida) of a scale to be seen on the map. Actual wetlands must be delineated by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County prior to site development. Minerals and Soils are indicated on Figures 9 and 10 of the [CARE] of the Plan. The rest of the parameters will all be included on the revised existing land use map. Despite the confusion in the last two sentences of the response between the nature of ELUM's and FLUM's, the response is consistent in its presumption of a single FLUM, rather than a map series. Until the commencement of Plan litigation, 11/ the County did not consider the FLUM to be more than the multicolor map. Repeatedly, the County had opportunities--outside of the Plan and adoption ordinance--to identify the FLUM. Repeatedly, the County did not confer the FLUM status upon any map other than the multicolor map. Oversized Map 18 is an important example of the Plan identifying a map, but not adopting it as part of the FLUM. Describing Oversized Map 18, CARE Policy 5.8 states: By 1993, the County shall have developed and implemented a comprehensive wellfield protection program, which includes but is not limited to the determination and mapping of zones of contribution (also known as cones of influence) surrounding public wellfields and the adoption and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance which protects these areas. In the interim, the County shall use the best available information to identify these areas. See map 18, Interim Wellfield Protection Areas . . .. CARE Policy 5.8 assigns Oversized Map 18 to the Data and Analysis, rather than the operative part of the Plan. The County's intent to relegate Oversized Map 18 to the Data and Analysis is restated in the March 14, 1990, cover letter from the County Planning Director transmitting the settlement amendments to DCA. The letter states: "The documents are incorporated by reference for background for informational purposes only." Oversized Map 18 is the first of the listed documents. The Plan deals similarly with other maps and figures; as better information becomes available, the graphic aids that are part of the Data and Analysis may change--without the requirement of a Plan amendment. For example, CARE Policy 5.2 mentions the DRASTIC maps, which indicate areas susceptible to groundwater contamination. In language similar to CARE Policy 5.8, Policy 5.2 states that the County will use the "best available information" concerning groundwater contamination areas and then mentions the graphic aid. Another possible FLUM is a black-and-white map with green and dotted green areas on a scale of 1" = 1 mile. The green colors are overlaid on a black-and-white version of the multicolor map. The green map contains a special legend for the green areas. The solid green areas depict "Environmentally Sensitive Areas." The dotted green areas depict "Environmentally Sensitive Areas Which Are Potentially Significant Wildlife Habitat." Notwithstanding the many references to the FLUM in the singular, the Plan anticipates the possible amendment of the FLUM or the addition of an overlay to show the location of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. CARE Policy 14.2 states: By 1991, the County shall identify and map natural plant communities which are determined to provide significant wildlife habitat in Hillsborough County. The natural systems and land use cover inventory map ([CARE] Figure 20), produced by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, shall serve as the basis for this effort. Areas of significant wildlife habitat shall be indicated as environmentally sensitive areas on the Future Land Use Map or map overlay. The green map may be the map or overlay promised by CARE Policy 14.2. 12/ However, for purposes of these cases, the green map is not part of the FLUM. The green map had not been adopted by August 1, 1991, or even by the time of the final hearing. Transcript, pages 1095 and 1105; County's Proposed Recommended Order, Paragraph 180. In view of the considerable confusion surrounding the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, as explained below, it would be unfair to overlook this fact and treat the green map as part of the operative provisions of the Plan. Because of the clear understanding that the Plan included only amendments through August 1, 1991, the parties presumably did not take the opportunity to litigate the significance of the designations contained on the green map. Even though the County did not adopt the green map as part of the FLUM, for the purpose of these cases, it remains necessary to consider the effect of the Environmentally Significant Areas designation. The designation is found on the multicolor map (i.e., the FLUM) as well as the green map. Also, the green map is an important part of the Data and Analysis. The problem is to determine what does it mean for an area to bear the designation of Environmentally Significant Areas. Part of the confusion surrounding the Environmentally Significant Areas designation is due to its dual nature as an overlay, like Scenic Corridors, and underlying designation, like Suburban Density Residential or Light Industrial. An overlay typically depicts an area that, notwithstanding its underlying designation, is subject to special land use conditions in the Plan. Any underlying designation may and usually is subject to other provisions of a comprehensive plan, but an overlay ensures that these conditions are not overlooked and may elevate them in importance. The Environmentally Significant Areas designation on the multicolor map is never an overlay. For each area on the multicolor map designated Environmentally Significant Areas, there is no other designation. For this reason alone, the Environmentally Significant Areas designation itself should regulate land uses in some meaningful fashion; otherwise, areas so designated would lack generally applicable guidelines concerning permissible densities and intensities. However, according to the County Planning Director, the Environmentally Significant Areas does not regulate land uses. The Planning Director prepared a cover letter dated September 4, 1991, to DCA accompanying the first round of Plan amendments in 1991. The letter explains why the County was amending the Plan to redesignate certain County-owned, environmentally sensitive land from Environmentally Significant Areas to Natural Preservation. The letter states: We still recommend that these areas be changed to Natural/Preservation, since the "E" [Environmentally Significant Areas] designation is an identification only land use category to indicate that environmentally sensitive lands may be located on site. However, that category in and of itself does not regulate land uses on a site. The Natural/Preservation category is very restrictive and does not permit development on a site. Sierra Club Exhibit 1. From the letter, it appears that the County's intent was to use the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation merely to indicate the general location of critical natural resources, rather than to assign specific densities and intensities. In other words, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation was to be merely an overlay showing some of the natural resources required by Chapter 9J-5 to be shown on the FLUM. If any land use restrictions applied to land with an Environmentally Sensitive Areas overlay, the Planning Director's letter implies that the restrictions were not imposed by textual Plan provisions defining land uses under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation. Under this interpretation, land use restrictions could be imposed by textual Plan provisions that, although never mentioning Environmentally Sensitive Areas, govern natural resources included within such areas, such as wetlands, wildlife habitat, or sand pine scrub habitat. Clearly, the Planning Director is correct in writing that one purpose of the Environmentally Significant Areas designation is to indicate the location of environmentally sensitive lands. The real question is whether the Planning Director is correct in his assertion that the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is merely locational and not regulatory. This would mean that all of the land designated Environmentally Significant Areas on the multicolor map bears only a designation indicative of the location of certain natural resources, but lacks an effective, generalized land use designation. The Plan defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas; in fact, it does so twice. The CARE defines "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" as: Lands which, by virtue of some qualifying environmental characteristic (e.g. wildlife habitat) are regulated by either the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, or any other governmental agency empowered by law for such regulation. These include Conservation and Preservation Areas as defined in the [CARE]. CARE, page 97. The CARE defines "Conservation Areas" as: Environmentally sensitive areas which include the following: --Natural shorelines (other than those included in preservation areas); --Class III Waters; --Freshwater marshes and wet prairies; --Sand-pine scrub; --Hardwood swamps; --Cypress swamps; --Significant wildlife habitat. CARE, page 96. The CARE defines "Preservation Areas" as: Environmentally sensitive areas which include the following: --Aquatic preserves; --Essential wildlife habitat; --Class I and II Waters: --Marine grassbeds; --Coastal strand; --Coastal marshes; --Mangrove swamps; and --State wilderness areas. CARE, page 99. "Significant wildlife habitat" is "[c]ontiguous stands of natural plant communities which have the potential to support healthy and diverse populations of wildlife and which have been identified on the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission natural systems and land use cover inventory map." CARE, page 100. "Essential Wildlife Habitat" is "[l]and or water bodies which, through the provision of breeding or feeding habitat, are necessary to the survival of endangered or threatened species, or species of special concern." CARE, page 97. The FLUE defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas as: This land use category is used to designate those major, privately owned lands which are environmentally sensitive. These areas include Conservation Areas and Preservation Areas, as defined in the [CARE]. Development in these areas may be is [sic] restricted by federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations. Development projects will be evaluated for compliance with the [CARE] and [Coastal Element]. The Environmentally Sensitive Area designations on the Future Land Use Plan map are very generalized, and include primarily wetland areas. The designations are not exhaustive of all sites. On-site evaluation will be necessary for specific project review. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the [FLUE], [CARE], and [Coastal Element], applicable development regulations, and established locational criteria for specific land use. FLUE, page 136-37. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE 13/ does not repeat the typographical error in the preceding Plan provision, in which the Plan warns that development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas "may be is" restricted by federal, state, or local law. The definition of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation in the Land Use Plan Categories section omits the "is," implying more strongly that some development may take place on Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE, page 126. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE equates in two respects the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation with the Natural Preservation, Scenic Corridors, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations. In each of these five designations, residential densities and commercial or industrial intensities (expressed as maximum floor area ratios) are "not applicable." For the Natural Preservation, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations, the "not applicable" statement reflects the fact that residential, commercial, and industrial uses are prohibited by the land use designation in question. However, for the Scenic Corridors designation, which operates more as an overlay, the Plan provides no such prohibition, instead requiring special attention to aesthetic features of development in these areas. Thus, the "not applicable" language applicable to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not answer the question whether the designation is regulatory or merely locational and, if the former, what land uses are thereby regulated and how. The question whether the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation operates as a locational overlay, as suggested by the Planning Director's letter of September 4, 1991, seems to be answered by the Table of Residential Densities in the Implementation section of the FLUE. For the Scenic Corridor designation, the Table of Residential Densities indicates that the maximum residential density allowed is, instead of a ratio, "Overlay--Scaled to Area." But for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the Table of Residential Densities states that "no residential uses [are] allowed" for Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE, page 62. The Table of Residential Densities gives the same response for the Natural Preservation, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations. The failure of the Table of Residential Densities to assign any residential density to Environmentally Sensitive Areas is not inadvertent. The Data and Analysis indicate that, in calculating density allocations, the vast acreage designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas was not given any residential density. In the FLUE Background Document at page XXVIII, a table listing all of the FLUM designations shows no density for the 81,880 acres of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which account for 13.64% of acreage of the County and is the second largest designation following 89,267 acres designated Agricultural/Rural. The density allocation table preceding page XXX contains no entry for Environmentally Sensitive Areas, although much if not all of the area so designated is vacant (or as the County classifies land, vacant or agricultural). The omission of residential uses in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as contained in the Table of Residential Densities, suggests that the designation carries a regulatory force beyond the locational character identified by the Planning Director in his letter of September 4, 1991. Natural resources included within the definition of Environmentally Sensitive Areas are wetlands, sand pine scrub, wildlife habitat essential for the breeding or nesting of endangered, threatened, or special-concern species, and contiguous stands of natural plant communities with the potential to support healthy and diverse communities of wildlife. Some of these natural resources are not themselves unconditionally protected by textual Plan provisions. But if the Environmentally Sensitive Areas containing these natural resources are not assigned any residential uses, as the Table of Residential Densities implies, then the designation itself must preclude the conversion of these sensitive areas to residential uses. On the other hand, the textual Plan provisions contemplate some development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas because of various provisions requiring compensatory replacement following the loss of the natural resources to development. Despite implying that development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas may be permitted, as long as it complies with Plan provisions, the Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE states that the typical use of areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas is "Conservation." Although not the same typical use as that set forth for Natural Preservation areas, which are limited to "Open space or passive nature parks," the definition of "Conservation Uses" is restrictive: Activities within land areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources of environmental quality and includes areas designated for such purposes as flood control, protection of quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, floodplain management, fisheries management, or protection of vegetative communities or wildlife habitat. FLUE, page 135. At times in the Plan, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation appears to be merely locational. At times, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation appears to be regulatory. In the latter case, portions of the Plan suggest that the designation prohibits development, and portions of the Plan suggest only that the designation, standing alone, carries with it some degree of protection from development. FLUE Policy A-8.2 says as much: "Development shall be required to protect the Conservation and Preservation areas " But even if the Plan were interpreted to impose a regulatory functional upon the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the failure of the Plan to specify clearly the land use restrictions generally applicable to the designation leaves open to doubt the land uses permitted on over 13% of Hillsborough County. And if some residential development were permitted in areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, then the density allocation ratios have been calculated without regard to the density-bearing capacity of over 13% of the County. The FLUE definition of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which states that development "may be is" restricted in such areas, may represent a unique, though inadvertent, disclosure of the County's ambivalence toward the degree of protection to extend to Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Perhaps in the belief that land use restrictions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas would emanate from federal, state, regional, or even other local governmental entities, 14/ the County has left to speculation the meaning of the critically important Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation. The only clear significance of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is the role of areas bearing such a designation in calculating residential densities or commercial or industrial intensities. The acreage on which residential densities are calculated does not generally include Conservation or Preservation Areas or water bodies. (As noted above, Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation "include[s]" Conservation and Preservation Areas.) But the calculation of gross residential density may include acreage consisting of certain man-made waterbodies and certain Conservation and Preservation Areas. The qualification for Conservation and Preservation Areas is that the maximum area of such land (or wetland) is 25% of the total residential acreage. FLUE, pages 64-66. A similar provision applies for the calculation of floor area ratios or gross nonresidential intensity. FLUE, pages 67- 68. Illustrations in the FLUE apply the density formula described in the preceding paragraph. For example, if the proposed project consists of 80 acres, including 20 acres of land (or wetland) designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the total acreage upon which residential densities could be calculated would be 75 acres. This result is reached by starting with the 60 acres of proposed residential use that are not designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Twenty-five percent of 60 acres is 15 acres, which is the maximum acreage designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas that is eligible to be included in the calculation of gross residential density. The designation given the 60 acres would allow a density, such as 4:1, which, when applied to 75 acres, yields 300 dwelling units. The implied presumption of the density formula--stated nowhere in the Plan--is that areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas acquire their actual land use restrictions, in terms of densities or intensities, from the adjoining lands. The intent of the density credit allowed for areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas is to protect the subject natural resources. FLUE Policy A-8.4 provides for density credits for development that is "sensitive to, preserves and maintains the integrity of wetlands [and] significant wildlife habitat." Again, though, the degree and type of protection are unclear. The density formula may be interpreted to prohibit inferentially any disturbance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In other words, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas acreage used in calculating the density bonus or perhaps the entire Environmentally Sensitive Areas acreage (even if some acreage were excluded from the calculation due to the 25% limitation) could not be disturbed by development. However, another interpretation is possible. The density formula, which is mandatorily imposed on all proposed projects containing Environmentally Sensitive Areas, does not, by its terms, prescribe where the resulting development is to be located. In the example above, the density formula effectively reduced the density of a project by 20 dwelling units (80 acres X 4 vs. 75 acres X 4). But the formula does not explicitly prohibit the location of some of the 300 permitted units in areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 15/ If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not prohibit development, some degree of protection would be theoretically possible by reducing the actual density occupying the parcel containing Environmentally Sensitive Areas while still not actually prohibiting the location of dwelling units on all Environmentally Sensitive Areas. It is difficult to infer from the density formula whether the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is intended to prohibit the development of areas so designated or, if not, to what extent the designation restricts development of such areas. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not regulate land uses so as to prohibit the development of areas so designated, the formula provides some protection to Environmentally Sensitive Areas by increasing the chance that such areas may be less densely populated, but also supplies the basis on which densities or intensities for areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas are to be inferred. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation regulates land uses so as to prohibit the development of areas so designated, the formula can be interpreted as providing some compensation by allowing the use of some of the foregone development rights in adjoining areas under common ownership that are not designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The question whether the density formula, as well as the closely related intensity formula, prohibit the development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas can be approached by considering another density formula. The upland forest density credit incentive, which is identified in FLUE Policy A-8.3, is described in detail in the Implementation section of the FLUE. The failure of the density formula, as well as the intensity formula, to prohibit the disturbance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas stands in contrast to the protection extended by the upland forest density credit incentive. The upland forest density credit incentive provides a bonus of 25% more density than otherwise allowed by a specific designation to the extent of the upland forest 16/ acreage preserved by the project. In other words, a 100-acre parcel designated at 1:1 might include 25 acres of upland forests within the single residential designation covering the entire 100 acres. If the proposed project preserved the 25 acres of upland forest from development, the 25 dwelling units attributable to the 25 acres are increased to 31.25 dwelling units and raise the total number of dwelling units to 106.25. Unlike the density and intensity formulas, the upland forest density credit incentive requires the landowner to record a conservation easement for the 25 acres of upland forest, so that this land may never be developed. FLUE, pages 71-73. The different approaches of the density and intensity formulas, on the one hand, and the upland forest density credit incentive, on the other hand, may arise partly from the fact that the latter formula is an incentive for which a landowner may qualify voluntarily. Upland forests would generally not be preserved by the Plan in the absence of the utilization of the upland forest density credit incentive. Regardless of their effect in preserving Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the density and intensity formulas are not optional; they are imposed whenever a proposed development contains Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Part of the discussion of the upland forest density incentive credit may shed some light on the meaning of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, especially as it concerns the density and intensity formulas. The upland forest density incentive credit repeatedly refers to the density formula as involving wetlands or the protection of wetlands. Although wetlands make up a substantial part of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, numerous uplands also qualify as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Qualifying uplands include significant and essential wildlife habitat, as well as sand pine scrub (which is also included as an upland forest). Possibly the County incorrectly assumed that the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation was limited to wetlands, or perhaps the designation was so limited in an earlier draft of the Plan. In either event, the County may have assumed that federal, state, regional, and other local restrictions against disturbing wetlands would effectively prevent the development of such Environmentally Sensitive Areas, or at least clearly regulate the extent to which such areas could be disturbed. As noted above, however, the Plan itself must supply such regulation through a generalized land use designation. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is poorly integrated into the Plan. Plan provisions, including the density and intensity formulas, repeatedly address "wetlands" or "Conservation" or "Preservation" Areas, rather than Environmentally Sensitive Areas. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation were not intended to regulate land uses and prohibit all development, but were merely locational as indicated by the Planning Director, then the Plan is deficient in failing to assign a regulatory land use designation to over 80,000 acres, or 13.64%, of the County. For these vast areas, in any event, the Plan provides no direct, and arguably not even any indirect, guidance as to what densities or intensities are permitted on Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from the Plan concerning that Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is that it is, at least, locational. The designation shows where Conservation and Preservation Areas are located. The designation also serves to provide some protection to Environmentally Sensitive Areas through the density and intensity formulas. However, it may not be reasonably concluded that the density and intensity formulas prohibit the destruction of Environmentally Sensitive Areas by development. Nor can it be reasonably concluded that other provisions of the Plan preserve Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as such, from destruction or alteration by development. The full extent of the meaning of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is lost in ambiguity. The FLUM does not identify existing and future potable water wellfields. The FLUM fails even to show the location of existing major public supply wellfields, as depicted in CARE Figure 18 and Oversized Map 18. The FLUM does not identify cones of influence for the existing wellfields to the extent known. Figures 32 and 33 of Sierra Club Exhibit 12 pertain to four wellfields located entirely in Hillsborough County and two wellfields located partly in the County. For these wellfields, which are located in the northern part of the County, Figures 32 and 33 respectively portray a wide-ranging decline in water table elevations and potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer due to wellfield pumpage. This information corresponds to drawdown depth of the source from which each wellfield draws its water. Even if these data sources are rejected in favor of the much more limited 200-foot protection zones outlined in Oversized Map 18, the County has failed to adopt Oversized Map 18 as part of the FLUM, as described in the preceding section. The FLUM does not identify historic resources or historically significant properties meriting protection. Oversized Maps 11 and 12 depict respectively Archaeological Sites and Historic Resources. However, these maps are not part of the FLUM. The FLUM does not depict the 100 year floodplain. Oversized Map 9 depicts the 100 year floodplain, massive amounts of which lie outside the future land use designations of Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Natural Preservation. But Oversized Map 9 is not part of the FLUM. The FLUM does not depict the minerals and soils of the County, except to the extent that minerals are contained in a general land use designation. CARE Figure 9 depicts soils and mine pits. Oversized Maps 8 and 10 also depict soils and mine lands. However, these maps are not part of the FLUM. The FLUM depicts wetlands. The designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the FLUM (i.e., the multicolor map) includes wetlands. The FLUM depicts public facilities under the category of Major Public/Semi-Public and Electric Power Generating Facilities. The former category shows the location of, among other things, "churches, hospitals, schools, clubs and utility and transportation facilities." FLUE, page 122. The Plan Natural Resources CARE Objective 2 is: By 1995, the water quality of natural surface water bodies in Hillsborough County which do not meet or exceed state water quality standards for their designated use shall be improved or restored. CARE Policy 2.1 provides: The County shall not support the reclassification of any surface water body within County boundaries to acknowledge lower water quality conditions, unless necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. Where economically feasible, the County shall support the reclassification of surface water bodies to accommodate higher standards, where it can be demonstrated that improved water quality conditions will prevail in the future. The CARE defines "economically feasible" as follows: "Where the benefit to the public outweighs the cost of the action, and is within the County's capability to fund." CARE, page 96. CARE Policy 2.2 addresses the problem of wastewater discharges: The County shall require that all domestic wastewater treatment plans discharging effluent into Tampa Bay or its tributaries provide advanced wastewater treatment, or if specific alternative criteria developed by the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program can only be met by removing a surface water discharge, such a program shall be implemented, where economically feasible and in accordance with Policy 2.3 below. CARE Policy 2.3 requires the County to "continue to develop and promote environmentally acceptable effluent disposal alternatives to surface water discharge, including, but not limited to, reuse for irrigation and industrial purposes." Dealing with the problem of short-term solutions to sewage disposal, CARE Policy 2.4 states: To reduce the need for interim domestic wastewater treatment plants, the County shall plan for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities to serve areas designated for higher densities in the . . . Plan. CARE Policy 2.6 provides that, "where economically feasible," the County "shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to developed areas where persistent water quality problems are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic treatment systems." CARE Policy 2.7 further addresses the issue of septic tanks by providing that, by 1990, the County shall "request or initiate" agreements with third parties to develop "scientifically defensible siting criteria, performance standards, and density limitations for septic systems, to ensure protection of surface water quality." The policy adds that the County shall "request . . . special criteria and standards . . . for those septic systems to be located in areas adjacent to Class I and Class II Waters and Outstanding Florida Waters." The policy concludes with the promise that, within one year after the development of the criteria and standards, the County "shall amend appropriate development regulations" accordingly. CARE Policy 2.8 provides in part: Where economically and environmentally feasible, [a nutrient monitoring and control program for agriculture to be developed after 1995] shall require the implementation of Best Management Practices for controlling nutrient loadings, including retrofitting if needed to meet specific alternative criteria as established by the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program. The CARE defines "environmentally feasible" as follows: "Where the physical conditions or the necessity to protect natural resources do not preclude the action." CARE, page 97. CARE Policy 2.10 states: By 1991, the County shall require that existing developments planned for expansion, modification or replacement provide or support stormwater treatment improvements within the affected drainage basin where treatment facilities are lacking. Where economically and environmentally feasible, the County shall require retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities in urbanized areas lacking such facilities. CARE Objective 3 is "no net loss of wetland acreage." The objective requires the County to "seek to achieve a measurable annual increase in restored wetland acreage," which shall be achieved by 1995 "through the restoration of degraded natural wetlands, until all economically and environmentally feasible wetland restoration is accomplished." CARE Policy 3.1 states that the County shall "continue to conserve and protect wetlands from detrimental physical and hydrological alteration and shall continue to allow wetland encroachment only as a last resort when reasonable use of the property is otherwise unavailable." CARE Policy 3.2 provides in part: Channelization or hardening (e.g., paving, piping) of natural streamcourses shall be prohibited except in cases of overriding public interest. The CARE defines "overriding public interest" as: "Actions required by local, state, or federal government, necessary for the promotion of public safety, health or general welfare." CARE, page 99. CARE Policy 3.6 is for the County to continue to promote through the development review process the use of desirable native wetland habitat species for the creation of wetland habitat and for biologically enhancing filtration and treatment of pollutants in newly constructed stormwater retention and detention ponds. CARE Objective 4 is: The County shall continue to prevent net loss of 100-year floodplain storage volume in Hillsborough County. By 1995, the County shall protect and conserve natural wildlife habitat attributes where they exist within the 100-year floodplains of major rivers and streams. CARE Policy 4.1 is for the County to amend its floodplain management regulations to "protect natural floodwater assimilating capacity [and] also protect fish and wildlife attributes where they exist within the 100-year floodplains of riverine systems." CARE Objective 5 is for the County to ensure compliance with state groundwater standards. CARE Policy 5.2 provides that, until the Southwest Florida Water Management District maps high aquifer recharge/contamination potential areas at a sufficient resolution, the County shall consider the best available hydrogeological information (e.g. SWFWMD DRASTIC maps), and may require the collection of site specific hydrogeologic data, such as soils borings and differences in head between the upper aquifers, when assessing the impacts of proposed land use changes and developments in areas of suspected high aquifer recharge/contamination potential. When required, this information shall be used in the determination of land use decisions, on a case-by-case basis. CARE Policy 5.5 refers to the high resolution mapping of recharge/contamination areas, as well as a study that the County will request the Southwest Florida Water Management District to conduct as to the effect of impervious surfaces on recharge. The policy states that, within one year after these tasks are completed: The County shall develop a comprehensive set of land use development regulations and performance standards for development activities proposed within areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential. Such regulations and performance standards may include, but not be limited to, control of land use type and densities, impervious surface limitations, and discharge to groundwater controls. CARE Policy 5.8 focuses on a wellfield protection program, which shall be "developed and implemented" by 1993. The task shall include the "determination and mapping of zones of contribution (also known as cones of influence) surrounding public wellfields and the adoption and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance which protects these areas." In the meantime, CARE Policy 5.8 requires the County to use the best available information to identify these areas [cones of influence]. See map 18, Interim Wellfield Protection Areas for Public Water Supply Wells in Unincorporated Hillsborough County, Florida (Zones of Contribution Map). The County shall also adopt and implement an interim ordinance which sets forth a procedure, using the best available information, for reviewing development proposals which might adversely impact the zones of contribution surrounding public wellfields. CARE Policy 5.9 states: Through the land development review process, the County shall continue to regulate activities which would breach the confining layers of the Floridan aquifer by prohibiting land excavations that would breach the confining layers. CARE Policy 5.11 is identical to CARE Policy 2.7 except that CARE Policy 5.11 deals with groundwater pollution, rather than surface water pollution, and CARE Policy 5.11 provides that the County shall request the development of special septic-tank siting criteria and standards for areas of "demonstrated high recharge/contamination potential." CARE Policy 5.13 is for the County to "increase requested assistance" from the Southwest Florida Water Management District to ensure that excessive consumptive use of groundwater or excessive drainage does not "significantly lower water tables or surface water levels, reduce base flows, or increase current levels of saltwater intrusion." CARE Policy 5.15 prohibits the County from supporting the use of deep-well injection of effluent or waste disposal "except where it can be demonstrated that the capacity for receiving injection is sufficiently large and that such disposal will have no adverse effect upon existing or potential potable water aquifers." CARE Objective 6 is for the County to meet future water needs through the "conservation, reuse, and enhancement of groundwater and surface water supplies, and shall prevent significant environmental degradation due to excessive groundwater withdrawals." CARE Policy 6.1 is for the County to request that the Southwest Florida Water Management District and WCRWSA develop a regional water budget to calculate more accurately water supplies and demands. CARE Policy 6.2 is for the County, by 1992, to "adopt and implement a Water Reuse Ordinance which maximizes the use of treated sewage effluent for residential and recreational irrigation purposes, where such reuse can be demonstrated to be environmentally acceptable and no threat to public health." CARE Policy 6.4 is: The County shall require the use of the lowest quality water reasonably and feasibly available, which is safe for public health and the environment and suitable to a given use, in order to reduce the unnecessary use of potable water. CARE Policy 6.8 is for the County, by 1992, to develop, in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, a water conservation program, including enforcement of specific building code requirements for water saving devices. CARE Policy 6.9 is for the County, by 1992, to evaluate the implementation of a user fee rate for potable water in order to discourage nonessential uses of potable water. CARE Policy 6.10 requires that the County, "through the land development review process, restrict the substantial lowering of the water table to meet stormwater treatment or storage requirements." CARE 6.11 requires that the County, "through the land development review process, . . . promote the use of xeriscape landscaping and low-volume irrigation " CARE Policy 6.12 is for the County, by 1995, to develop legal and financial mechanisms "to purchase, to the extent reasonably feasible, development or mineral rights, easements and partial or complete title to lands necessary to safeguard the public water supply." Suggested mechanisms include the transfer of development rights and tax benefits. CARE Policy 6.13 addresses groundwater recharge and stormwater management: By 1992, a program to improve groundwater recharge through the use of private and public stormwater management facilities will be developed and implemented. This program may require, among other things, that predevelopment groundwater recharge volumes and rates be maintained on site after development, if the site is located in an area of known or identified average annual aquifer recharge potential of at least two surface inches of water; and will include restrictions on the lowering of groundwater levels to meet stormwater management regulations. In the interim, where practical, and where feasible from a water quality standpoint, new development will be encouraged to consider retention of stormwater rather than stormwater detention in these areas. CARE Objective 7 is for the County to "continue to provide opportunity for and require the prudent operation of mining activities " CARE Policy 7.1 requires "sequential land use" in mineral-rich areas. The CARE defines "sequential land use" as "[a] practice whereby lands overlaying valuable mineral resources are protected from intensive urban development until such minerals can be mined, and that land reclaimed for a viable economic use." CARE Policy 7.2 requires the "phasing of mineral extraction to ensure that limited land areas are affected by excavation and settling ponds at one time and that reclamation occurs in the most effective manner." CARE Policy 8.1 requires the County, by 1991, to "identify environmentally sensitive areas which are not capable of being effectively restored following mineral extraction." CARE Policy 8.2 provides: The County shall restrict mining in areas which are ecologically unsuitable for the extraction of minerals, as identified in the natural systems and land use cover inventory, unless it can be demonstrated that such areas can be effectively restored utilizing the best available technology. CARE Policy 8.3 states: The County shall continue to prohibit mineral extraction within the 25-year floodplain, and shall restrict mining activities in the 100- year floodplain, of rivers and streams. CARE Policy 8.4 is: By 1992, the County shall prohibit mineral extraction in essential wildlife habitats which are documented, in accordance with the terms of Objective 14 and related policies thereunder, to support threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern, and from which such species cannot be effectively relocated. CARE Policies 8.5 and 8.6 require the use of the best available technology in restoring natural land forms and vegetative communities and minimizing natural resource impacts. CARE Policy 8.8 provides that the County shall continue to require proof of "long-term financial responsibility for the reclamation of mined lands." CARE Objective 9 requires the County to "protect the public health, safety and welfare from the adverse impacts of mining activities." CARE Policy 9.1 is for the continued requirement of "appropriate setbacks" between mining and adjacent land uses. CARE Objective 10 is for the County to "continue to regulate the location and operation of land excavation to minimize negative impacts on surrounding properties, ensure that land excavations are appropriately reclaimed, and encourage the productive reuse of such areas." CARE Policy 10.1 is for the County to "continue to prohibit land excavation activities which adversely impact surface or groundwater levels on surrounding property." CARE Policy 10.2 states that the County "shall require reclamation and reuse plans to ensure environmentally acceptable and economically viable reuses of land excavations." CARE Policy 10.3 demands that the County, by 1993, require the "preparation of wetland/lake management plans for the reclamation of land excavation projects to be reclaimed as lakes to ensure that such areas become viable and productive aquatic systems." CARE Policy 10.4 is for the County to "encourage" recreational development of reclaimed land excavations. CARE Policy 10.6 states that the County shall require setbacks between land excavations and adjacent land uses to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. CARE Policy 10.7 provides that, by 1992, the County shall prohibit land excavations in "essential wildlife habitats documented in accordance with the provisions of Objective 14 as supporting endangered, threatened, [or special- concern] species and from which such species cannot be effectively relocated." CARE Objective 11 is that the County shall "continue to require soil conservation and protection during land alteration and development activities." CARE Policy 11.1 provides that, during the land development review process, the County shall "recommend" the appropriate use of soils and shall require site-specific analyses when the use appears to be incompatible with the soils. CARE Policy 11.3 states that, during the land development review process, the County shall "continue to evaluate and utilize, where appropriate, soil capability analyses for flood hazard, stability, permeability, and other relevant soil characteristics when permitting new development." CARE Objective 14 is for the County to "protect significant wildlife habitat, and . . . prevent any further net loss of essential wildlife habitat . . .." CARE Policy 14.1 promises the initiation of the development and implementation of a wildlife and wildlife habitat protection and management program. CARE Policy 14.3 requires the County, by 1993, in consultation with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, to "identify and map areas of essential wildlife habitat." CARE Policy 14.5 compels the County, by 1991, to develop and implement a program to "conserve and protect significant wildlife habitat from development activities." The program may include transfers of development rights, clustering and setback requirements, conservation easements, leaseback operations, fee simple purchases, land or mitigation banking, and tax incentives. CARE Policy 14.6 states: By 1992, the County shall restrict development activities which adversely affect areas identified and mapped as essential wildlife habitat. Where development activities are proposed in such areas the County may require site-specific wildlife surveys and other field documentation, as needed, to assess potential impacts. CARE Policy 14.7 provides: During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall consider the effects of development on significant wildlife habitat, to protect wildlife corridors from fragmentation. Where necessary to prevent fragmentation of wildlife corridors, the County shall require the preservation of wildlife corridors within developments. CARE Objective 15 states: Populations of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern occurring within Hillsborough County shall be maintained. Where feasible and appropriate, the abundance and distribution of populations of such species shall be increased. CARE Policy 15.1 is for the County, by 1991, to consult with and consider the recommendations of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in determining whether to issue development orders and, if so, what conditions to impose where development would impact endangered, threatened, or special- concern species. Conditions "shall ensure the maintenance and, where environmentally and economically feasible, increase the abundance and distribution of populations of such species." CARE Objective 16 is to "continue existing programs to minimize the spread of exotic nuisance species" and implement management plans for newly acquired natural preserve lands to reduce by 90% the extent of exotic nuisance plants. The objective requires the County to "conserve and use and continue to require the conservation and use of native plant species in the developed landscape." The objective adds that the County shall "continue to protect Conservation and Preservation Areas." CARE Policy 16.2 is for the County to "continue to require the use of native plant species in the landscaping of new development projects." Respectively addressing Conservation and Preservation Areas, CARE Policies 16.5 and 16.6 provide that, "except in cases of overriding public interest," the County shall, in the land use planning and development review processes, "protect [Conservation/Preservation] Areas from activities that would significantly damage the natural integrity, character, or ecological balance of said areas." CARE Objective 17 states: By 1995, the acreage of publicly owned or otherwise protected (through private ownership) natural preserve lands in the County shall be increased by at least 15,000 acres (which is approximately 50% more than 1988 acreage). The County shall seek to continue increasing the acreage of natural preserve lands and to ensure their protection and proper use. CARE Policy 17.1 is for the County, by 1990, to seek public approval by referendum to continue to levy an ad valorem tax for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. CARE Policy 17.6 requires the County to provide multiple-use opportunities for County-owned natural reserve lands so as to protect and conserve natural resources. CARE Policy 17.8 requires the County, during the land use planning and development review processes, to "restrict incompatible development activities adjacent to publicly owned or managed natural preserves." CARE Objective 18 provides: The County shall seek to measurably improve the management of all natural preserves within County boundaries by implementing the following policies[.] CARE Policy 18.2 is for the County to initiate with the Florida Department of Natural Resources an agreement "to ensure that the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is maintained in its essentially natural condition and protected from development that would adversely affect the environmental integrity of the Preserve." CARE Policy 18.3 is for the County to "establish a scientifically defensible protective buffer zone between the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and adjacent upland land uses to prevent degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetative habitats." CARE Policy 18.8 requires the County to "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to "fully implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan " CARE Objective 19 states: The County shall continue to amend land development regulations which ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment under all projected growth scenarios. CARE Policy 19.1 is for the County, by 1991, to initiate agreements with the Southwest Florida Water Management District or appropriate university to scientifically determine environmentally safe construction setback and buffer distances from wetlands, floodplains and water bodies (e.g. SJRWMD Wekiva River study). Within one year after completion of this study, the County shall use the results of the study to amend the County's Land Alteration and Landscaping Ordinance and Zoning Code, if such setbacks and buffer distances are determined to be warranted by the study. Until such study is completed and used to amend County ordinances, all current setbacks shall remain in effect. CARE Policy 19.2 states: By 1992, the County shall develop a comprehensive program, which may include tax incentives and transfer of development rights, to encourage the clustering of development away from environmentally sensitive areas, essential wildlife habitat or economically important agricultural or mineral resources. CARE Policy 19.3 provides: During the development review process, the County shall promote the preservation of representative examples of upland native plant communities by encouraging the use of the upland forest density credit incentive provision of the [FLUE]. CARE Policy 19.4 states that the County will consider developing a review process to provide incentives for planned unit developments that provide environmental benefits beyond what are required by law. CARE Policy 19.5 provides that the County will review its land development regulations to "better address the cumulative impact [of development] on the environment." CARE Policy 19.6 is: The County shall continue to encourage infilling and growth within identified and environmentally acceptable "activity centers," and shall discourage urban sprawl. CARE Policy 19.7 is for the County, in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, to consider adopting appropriate modifications to current land development regulations which will reduce the removal of natural upland vegetation caused by site filling and will maintain natural drainage patterns and water table levels, where feasible. CARE Policy 19.8 states: The County shall identify Resource Protection Areas on the Future Land Use Map series. Specific policy directives which provide for special protective measures for all Resource Protection Areas, except Lake Thonotosassa, are located in one or more of the following elements: [CARE], Coastal . . ., and [FLUE]. See the definition of Resource Protection areas for both general and specific policy references. Policies which provide for special protective measures specially for Lake Thonotosassa shall be developed and included in the [Plan] after completion and approval of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan for Lake Thonotosassa by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The CARE defines "Resource Protection Areas" as: Land or water bodies which are ecologically or economically significant natural resources for which special protective measures have been, or need to be established. Resource Protection Areas include the following [in each case, general citations to applicable elements of the Plan have been omitted]: --Hillsborough River and major tributaries; --Alafia River and major tributaries; --Little Manatee River and major tributaries; --Tampa Bay and associated tidal wetlands; --Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve; --Lake Thonotosassa; --Significant and essential wildlife habitat; --Areas of high aquifer recharge/ contamination potential; --Public potable water wellfields and their cones of influence; --Areas of major phosphate deposits. CARE, pages 99-100. Goal A of the Stormwater Element is to "[m]inimize the hazards of flooding attributable to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 1 is to "[e]valuate the storage and discharge characteristics of existing stormwater conveyance, detention and retention systems, and identify existing and potential future flooding concerns." Stormwater Element Policy 1.1 is to complete, by 1996, a comprehensive stormwater management master plan. Stormwater Element Objective 2 is to "[d]evelop and implement programs to control flooding attributable to, and to maximize the usefulness of, stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Policy 2.8 states: Total flood volume compensation will continue to be required for new developments which encroach into and displace 100-year flood storage or floodplain areas. Further, by [fiscal year 19]91, a program to control encroachment within 100-year flood conveyance areas will be developed and implemented. Stormwater Element Policy 2.10 provides that, by 1992, the County shall develop and implement a program to "improve groundwater recharge through the use of private and public stormwater management facilities." Stormwater Element Policy 2.11 states that new development will continue to be encouraged, through application of existing local regulations, to maintain, with minimal disturbance to natural characteristics, those streams, lakes wetlands, and estuaries for which stormwater conveyance and/or attenuation potential is significant. Stormwater Element Policy 2.15 provides: The use of detention facilities will be the preferred alternative to improving conveyance to alleviate flooding problems, where physically and environmentally practical and economically feasible. All flood control projects will seek to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, impacts to wetland habitat, water quality and groundwater recharge functions. Where impacts are unavoidable, the projects will include measures to compensate for these lost functions. Goal B of the Stormwater Element is to "[m]inimize the degradation of water quality attributed to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 4 is to "[i]dentify and evaluate the sources of water quality degradation which are related to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 5 is to "[i]mplement programs that will maintain or improve the quality of stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Policy 5.1 is to develop and begin to implement, by 1995, a program "to improve, "where economically feasible, the problem areas identified" in stormwater data- collection projects. The County will then require the use of Best Management Practices for "minimizing contributions of poor quality stormwater runoff to both groundwater and surface water bodies." Stormwater Element Policy 5.5 provides for the use of wetlands for stormwater treatment when effective pretreatment can ensure that the use of the wetlands will maintain or restore their long-term natural viability. Stormwater Element Policy 5.6 states that new stormwater management facilities may not discharge untreated stormwater runoff into the Floridan aquifer and that existing facilities that do so discharge into the Floridan aquifer will be modified where "economically feasible and physically practical." The goal of the Sewer Element is to "[p]rotect the [public] health, safety and welfare" and "protect and conserve the natural resources of Hillsborough County." Sewer Element Policy 1.1 is: Wastewater treatment facilities, prior to discharging to surface waters or natural wetlands, shall meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards. "Advanced Waste Treatment" is defined in the Sewer Element as "defined in Chapter 403.086, Florida Statutes or as amended in the future." Sewer Element, page 26. Sewer Element Policy 1.2 requires that "[w]astewater treatment facilities, prior to discharging to a managed artificial wetland or an irrigation system, shall meet or exceed Advanced Secondary Treatment Standards." "Advanced Secondary Treatment Standards" are defined as "[s]econdary waste treatment plus deep-bed dual media filtration." Sewer Element Objective 2 is to "[p]rotect and conserve the potable water resources, both groundwater and surface water, of Hillsborough County and continue to utilize and expand, where viable, existing recovered water reuse systems." Sewer Element Policy 2.1 requires later phases of developments with recovered water systems to use such systems. Sewer Element Policy 2.3 requires that, by 1992, the County implement by ordinance "mandatory recovered water reuse." Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility of existing and future sources of wastewater adversely impacting groundwater, surface waters and quality of life." Sewer Element Policy 7.1 is to "[c]ontinue to require that septic tank systems connect to the County system where a County system is available unless undue hardship is proven." Sewer Element Policy 7.2 is to "re-examine the maximum allowable density for septic tank systems within various areas of Hillsborough County" not later than one year following completion of a study presently underway pursuant to the Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983. In the same timeframe, Sewer Element Policy 7.3 requires that the County develop a "program to identify existing septic tank systems . . . that have a high potential for contaminating groundwater or the aquifer." The first goal of the FLUE is to: Ensure that the character and location of land uses optimizes the combined potentials for economic benefit and the enjoyment and the protection of natural resources while minimizing the threat to health, safety and welfare posed by hazards, nuisances, incompatible land uses, and environmental degradation. FLUE Objective A-1 is: Development orders shall not be issued unless development is compatible with the physical conditions of the land, including, but not limited to, topographical and soil conditions, and development mitigates those adverse impacts that it creates upon the physical conditions of the land that may affect the health, safety and/or welfare of the people who live and work within those particular areas. FLUE Policy A-1.2 states that "[s]oil capability analyses for flood hazards, stability, permeability and other relevant soil characteristics shall be considered when planning for new development." FLUE Policy A-1.3 adds: "Development shall be prohibited in areas where the on-site sewage disposal facilities would be located on soils unsuitable for such uses, unless the soils on the site can be altered to meet state and local environmental land use regulations." FLUE Policy A-1.4 provides that development within areas designated as "volume or peak sensitive" shall be subject to "higher performance standards to mitigate stormwater runoff." The Plan defines "Peak Sensitive Lands" as "[l]and that is prone to flooding because the outfall is inadequate to handle the water flow." FLUE, page 142. The Plan defines "Volume Sensitive Lands" as: Lands that drain into areas that do not have a positive outfall. Positive outfall is the condition when the natural or man-made stormwater conveyance system that drains the land is functioning adequately. This includes man-made swales, waterways or other means of conveyance systems. This does not include sheet flow. FLUE, page 147. FLUE Policy A-1.5 requires: "All development within the 100 year floodplain shall be in strict conformance with all development regulations that have jurisdiction development regulations." Certain future land use designations bear directly upon the natural resources of the County. Other future land use designations, although affecting natural resources, will be addressed in the following sections concerning urban sprawl and the coastal high hazard area. Three designations are especially important in protecting natural resources. They are Natural Preservation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Major Recreation and Open Space. The Natural Preservation designation is used to designate major publicly owned or managed lands for primarily conservation purposes. Typically, these lands are environmentally unique, irreplaceable or valued ecological resources. Some of these lands may be suitable for compatible recreational use. FLUE, page 142. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Natural Preservation designation as follows: To recognize public lands of significant environmental importance set aside for primarily conservation purposes. No residential is permitted except for county facilities determined necessary to serve as a caretaker of the recreational or environmental property. All other development is prohibited in these areas except for compatible recreational development. Educational uses shall be limited to those which utilize the natural amenities found on the site, i.e., the study of flora [or] fauna . . .. FLUE, page 125. FLUE Policy A-3.1 promises that the County will study the possibility of adopting land development regulations providing for a transfer of development rights from land that is under consideration for Natural Preservation designation, as well as land under a Rural designation that is in long-term agricultural use. FLUE Policy A-3.2 prohibits, in Natural Preservation designations, any "new development [or] expansion [or] replacement of existing development[,] unless development is undertaken by federal, State or local government in the public interest, and the impacts are mitigated." The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation has been discussed at length in the preceding section. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation as follows: To designate those privately owned lands that are environmentally sensitive and classified as Conservation or Preservation Areas as defined in the [CARE]. Development in these areas may be restricted by federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations. Development projects will be evaluated for compliance with the [CARE] and Coastal [Element]. The use of Environmentally Sensitive Areas for residential density credits is described in the [FLUE]. The Environmentally Sensitive Area designations on the Land Use Plan Map are very generalized and may not be exhaustive of all sites. On- site evaluation will be necessary for specific project review. FLUE, page 126. The Major Recreation and Open Space designation is used to designate, geographically on the Future Land Use Plan Map and/or textually in the [FLUE], those major existing park, recreation, and/or open space facilities available for public use, including those which may be privately owned, and for which the primary purpose is not conservation. This land use category is not intended for use in designating those lands used for calculating densities for residential projects as described in the "Density Credits" provision in the "Implementation Section["] of the [FLUE] or in designating those similarly used lands that are accessory to non-residential projects. This future land use plan classification is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies and the exceptions and provisions of the [FLUE], each of the other elements in the [Plan], and to all applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 143. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Recreation and Open Space designation as follows: To designate major existing parks and recreational facilities (regional, district, or community level), for which the primary purpose is not conservation. A more complete mapping of existing and proposed or needed parks is a function of the Recreation and Open Space Element. No residential is permitted except for county facilities determined necessary to serve as an employee serving the function of a caretaker of the property. FLUE, page 123. FLUE Policy A-3.4 states that "[r]ecreational development must be compatible with and sensitive to the surrounding natural systems." Numerous provisions in the FLUE address natural resources, without referring to the Natural Preservation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Major Recreation and Open Space designations. FLUE Objective A-8 provides: Development must mitigate the adverse impacts upon the natural, environmental systems as described and required within the [CARE] and [Coastal Element]. FLUE Policy A-8.1 states: "The natural environment shall be protected, in part, by encouraging future population growth into existing urbanized areas." FLUE Policies A-8.2, A- 8.3, and A-8.4, which have been discussed above, provide for the protection of Conservation and Preservation Areas and describe the upland forest density credit incentive and density formulas regarding Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE Policies A-8.5 and A-8.6 promise protection, "by a system of performance standards" left undefined in the Plan, for areas with "high potential for groundwater contamination" and "high aquifer recharge," respectively. FLUE Policy A-8.8 is to [r]equire that the littoral zones and photic zones of man-made stormwater management systems be designed to provide physical and chemical filtration of stormwater consistent with adopted levels in the [Plan] and subsequently adopted development regulations, [as well as] provide for wildlife habitat (primarily wading birds). FLUE Policy A-8.9 offers the use of publicly owned land designated as Major Public/Semi-Public for "appropriate multiple uses, such as parks, stormwater management systems and preservation of natural habitats." FLUE Policy A-8.10 is to "[e]ncourage the use of pervious pavement" through land development regulations. FLUE Policy A-8.11 requires the County to identify, during the rezoning process, any land that has been identified for possible acquisition by the Environmental Land Acquisition and Protection Program. FLUE Policy A-8.12 states the County "shall protect significant wildlife habitat." FLUE Policy A-8.13 provides that the County will "[p]reserve wetlands by discouraging the use of mitigation, dredge and fill and similar development activities by revising the development regulations to strictly limit such practices." FLUE Objective B-9 is to "[p]rotect environmentally sensitive areas from degradation or damage from agricultural activities by establishing regulatory activities." FLUE Policy B-9.2 is to "[e]stablish protective controls, which could include animal 'density' limits[,] on those grazing lands having environmentally sensitive areas subject to damage or degradation from over-grazing by pre- identified grazing species." FLUE Objective B-10 is to "[p]rotect the water supply needed by agriculture through regulatory mechanisms." FLUE Policy B-10.1 is to "[r]equire adoption or conversion to water conservation techniques that are beneficial for aquifer recharge and the maintenance of near normal water tables." FLUE Policy B-10.2 is to establish a phased-in program of water conservation. Addressing the County's rivers, the second goal of the FLUE, which appears at the beginning of the River Resources section, is: To make the rivers of Hillsborough County cleaner, safer and more attractive, protect the natural functions and wildlife habitats in the river corridors and promote the economic and recreational benefits provided by these water bodies. FLUE Objective C-1 is, by 1995, to "maintain or improve the quality of water in [County] rivers where the water quality does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for [their] designated use." FLUE Policy C-1.1 states: The developer of any project along the rivers shall provide stormwater management systems which filter out pollutants before the stormwater enters the rivers, in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the Southwest Florida Water Management District rules including the exemption provisions of these rules. New drainage outfalls along the rivers shall be designed with stormwater treatment facilities rather than discharging stormwater directly into the rivers. Where environmentally feasible, the stormwater discharge from a detention pond shall flow into the rivers through a vegetated swale. FLUE Policy C-1.2 "[p]rohibit[s] discharges of raw sewage to the rivers and tributaries." FLUE Policy C-1.3 "[p]rohibit[s] any solid waste landfills and hazardous material facilities in unincorporated Hillsborough County that may adversely affect the rivers and tributaries." FLUE Objective C-2 is: By 1990, the County will require the preservation of natural shorelines and reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization. . . . FLUE Policy C-2.1 states: "Shore alteration which would harden riverbanks shall be prohibited, except in cases of overriding public interest." FLUE Policy C-2.2 requires the improvement of publicly owned or controlled lands by the "restoration of vegetated riverbanks." FLUE Policy C-2.3 requires the conservation and preservation of natural riverbanks and natural levees, except in cases of overriding public interest. FLUE Objective C-4 provides that, by 1992, the County will "establish standards for development in river corridors." FLUE Policy C-4.1 prohibits the construction of new overhead utilities within 250 feet of the rivers unless underground placement is environmentally or technically unsound. FLUE Objective C-5 provides that, by 1991, the County will "require the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats and archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-5.4 requires the County to "restrict development activities in the river corridors which would adversely affect significant and essential wildlife habitat, in accordance with the terms of Objective 14 and related policies thereunder of the [CARE]." FLUE Policy C-6.1 prohibits the removal, within 100 feet of the rivers, of healthy, native trees of five inches diameter at breast height unless "reasonable property utilization is not possible without tree removal or in cases of overriding public interest." The third, fourth, and fifth goals in the FLUE pertain to the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers, respectively. The third goal in the FLUE is "[t]o make the Hillsborough River cleaner, safer and more attractive." FLUE Objective C-7 is, by 1995, to "improve the quality of water in the river where it does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for its designated use, and protect this major source of drinking water." FLUE Policy C-7.2 states: The construction, reconstruction, extension, or alteration of any privy, cesspool, septic tank, drain field, or other sewage disposal device within . . . 200 feet, measured from the mean annual flood line, of the Hillsborough River and its tributaries from the Pasco County line, to the city limits of the City of Tampa, shall be prohibited. This policy shall not prohibit recommended maintenance of existing septic systems if no alternative means of sewerage treatment is available. FLUE Policy C-7.3 is to "[p]revent further destruction of desirable natural vegetative buffers along the Hillsborough River and its tributaries." FLUE Policy C-7.4 is to: Prevent potential contamination by effluent disposal from a wastewater treatment plant within the drainage basin by requiring advanced treatment and viral reduction of all sewage in the drainage basin which is part of an effluent disposal program. FLUE Objective C-8 is, by 1990, to "reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization." FLUE Policy C-9.1 provides: "New marinas shall be prohibited on the upper Hillsborough River." "To prevent riverbank erosion, protect wildlife habitat, and ensure public safety," FLUE Policy C-9.6 requires that the part of the Hillsborough River north of 56th Street be posted with "idle speed, no wake" signs. FLUE Objective C-10 is, by 1992, to "establish standards for development in the river corridor." FLUE Policy C- 10.2 states: "No additional areas shall be designated with industrial land use plan categories within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-10.3 requires the County to establish a new future land use designation or zoning classification to be known as "Riverfront." Land use guidelines that "should be addressed" in the new classification include performance standards precluding uses that pollute the river or eliminate visual access by the public, lowering densities for vacant private parcels along the upper river, and prohibiting heavy activities such as parking lots, truck service roads, loading docks, warehouses, manufacturing plants, ship building and repair, and dredging equipment operators. FLUE Objective C-11 is, by 1992, to "implement construction and placement standards for ramps, docks, and seawalls." FLUE Objective C-12 is, by 1994, to "manage the Hillsborough River as an important community asset and provide appropriate public access to this valuable natural amenity." FLUE Objective C-13 is, by 1991, to "preserve and enhance wildlife habitats and preserve archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-13.1 states: "Draining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks[,] shall be prohibited within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Objective C-14 states: By 1990, preserve the rural character of the Upper Hillsborough River by discouraging additional development except for those sites improved or developed that are dedicated to passive recreational pursuits within the river corridor. . . . FLUE Policy C-14.1 states: "The upper Hillsborough River shall be managed as a wildlife habitat corridor to provide an area for wildlife passage." FLUE Policy C-14.3 prohibits in the upper Hillsborough River "additional boat docks and ramps," but not canoe launches. FLUE Policy C-14.4 prohibits, within 500 feet of the upper Hillsborough River and its tributaries, parking lots and service roads. The fourth goal in the FLUE addresses the Alafia River. The goal is: "To preserve, protect and promote the Alafia River and its natural resources and recreational benefits." FLUE Objective C-15 is: By 1995, to maintain water quality, and improve water quality where it does not meet or exceed State water quality standards for its designated use, thereby protecting and improving the habitat for marine life. . . . FLUE Objective C-16 is: "By 1991, preserve and restore natural vegetation, and wildlife habitats and preserve archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-16.1 states: Draining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks, which comprise the riverine swamp system shall be prohibited within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-16.2 provides: Encourage the reclamation of mined lands along the Alafia River with native vegetation and encourage public acquisition for wildlife corridors, where appropriate. FLUE Objective C-17 is, by 1991, to "protect terrestrial and marine wildlife and their habitats." FLUE Policy C-17.1 requires the County to post reduced speed signs in areas of known manatee habitation. FLUE Objective C-18 is, by 1995, to "minimize river use conflict and mitigate public nuisances that adversely affect inhabitants along the river." FLUE Policy C-18.1 recognizes the river as important for canoeing as well as other recreational pursuits. FLUE Objective C-19 is, by 1990, to "preserve the natural shoreline and prevent further channelization." FLUE Policy C-19.1 "[p]rohibit[s] backfilling of waterfront properties or extension of these lots through artificial means." FLUE Objective C-20 is, by 1992, to "establish standards for development within the river corridor." FLUE Policy C-20.3 states: Septic tank and drainfield installation shall be prohibited within 200 feet of the Alafia River and its tributaries except in such cases where the 200-foot criterion cannot be met because of lot size. In such cases, placement and construction of such facilities shall be in accordance with State law and shall prevent adverse impact to water quality. FLUE Policy C-20.4 states: "No additional heavy industrial land use designations shall be located within 500 feet of the river." The fifth goal in the FLUE pertains to the Little Manatee River. The goal is: "To recognize and maintain this unique water resource which provides economic and recreational opportunities as well as vital wildlife habitat." FLUE Objective C-21 states: By 1995, water quality in each appropriate water classification found in the Little Manatee River will be maintained or improved where it does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for its designated use. ... FLUE Policy C-21.1, which generally prohibits the installation of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Little Manatee River and its tributaries, is otherwise identical to FLUE Policy C-20.3, which applies to the Alafia River. FLUE Objective C-22 is, by 1991, to "preserve wildlife habitats and archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-22.1 provides that the County shall "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to "fully implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan." FLUE Policy C-22.2 prohibits "[d]raining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks, . . . within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-22.3 states that, until scientifically defensible setbacks and buffers are determined: clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 feet of the Environmental Protection Commission wetland jurisdictional line or within 100 feet of the mean and ordinary high water line, whichever is greater, shall be restricted in urban and suburban land use categories. FLUE Policy C-22.4 is to protect manatees by "posting reduced speed signs in areas of known manatee habitation." FLUE Objective C-23 is, by 1990, to: minimize urban encroachment upon the river bank by encouraging the establishment of a "green" river corridor. River corridor preservation can best be achieved through protection of the shoreline, and associated wetlands and uplands. . . . FLUE Policy C-23.1 states: "No heavy industrial land use designations shall be located within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-23.2 provides: "The Little Manatee River shall be recognized as providing important wildlife habitat and managed as a corridor for wildlife passage." FLUE Policy C-23.3 states: "The Little Manatee River shall be recognized as an important recreational resource." FLUE Policy C-23.4 adds: Recreation facilities in the Little Manatee River corridor shall be designed to minimize impacts upon essential and significant wildlife habitat. This is to be achieved by encouraging passive river corridor use, such as hiking, picnicking, nature study, photography, fishing, and canoeing. FLUE Policy C-23.5 prohibits parking lots and service roads within 500 feet of the Little Manatee River and its tributaries east of US 41. FLUE Objective C-24 is, by 1990, to "develop additional policies and strategies addressing the uniqueness and proper protection and use of the Little Manatee River." FLUE Policy C-24.2 states: "Appropriate provisions from the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan shall be considered for incorporation as policies in this plan." Policy C-24.3 promises the evaluation of the need for establishing a new land use category or zoning overlay "to ensure proper protection and use of the Little Manatee River and associated natural resources." FLUE Objective C-30 provides: Regulations and performance standards shall be developed to ensure that water quality and quantity, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitats, rivers and creeks are protected from degradation by development. FLUE Policy C-30.2 states that the County "shall require the location and design of public roads and bridges within stream riverine corridors to minimize impacts adverse to wildlife habitats and vegetative communities." FLUE Policy C-30.4 provides: Designate as River Corridor Overlay Districts, riverine corridors within the Urban Level land use categories, which meet the following criteria in addition to the policies related to River Corridor Overlay Districts under the "River Resources" section within the [FLUE]. The qualifying criteria are that the water must be of Class III standards, the water body must provide "ecological benefits," most of the part of the water body proposed for designation must have a natural shore, and a 25 year floodplain map for the part of the water body proposed for designation must be available for public inspection. FLUE Policy C-30.6 provides: Restrict clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 feet of the Environmental Protection Commission wetland jurisdictional line of rivers and creeks designated as River Corridor Overlay Districts or within 100 feet of the mean and ordinary high water line of such rivers and creeks, whichever is greater. If no beneficial use of the property is possible without clearing or filling within this area, impose conditions which will mitigate the adverse impact of these activities on wildlife habitat, native vegetation and natural stormwater filtration systems. FLUE Policy C-30.7 is to "[e]ncourage the use of stilted structures rather than fill to meet flood elevation construction requirements within the River Corridor Overlay District." FLUE Policy C-30.8 is to "[r]estrict hardened shores (seawalls) within the River Corridor Overlay district to areas threatened by severe erosion." The Coastal Element addresses natural resources in the coastal area of the County. Coastal Element Policy 1.3 requires the County to reduce the need for interim wastewater treatment plants by planning for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities to serve areas designated for higher densities. Coastal Element Policy 1.4 provides that the County shall "continue to develop and use environmentally acceptable effluent disposal alternatives to surface water discharge to Tampa Bay and its tributaries, including but not limited to reuse for irrigation and industrial purposes." Coastal Element Policy 1.7 states: Where economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to coastal areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic treatment systems. Coastal Element Policy 1.11 provides: By 1991, the County shall require that existing developments planned for expansion, modification or replacement in the coastal area provide or support stormwater treatment improvements within the affected drainage basin where treatment facilities are lacking. Where economically and environmentally feasible, the County shall require retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities in urbanized coastal areas lacking such facilities. Coastal Element Policy 1.12 states: Where economically and environmentally feasible and consistent with the Surface Water Improvement Management Plan for Tampa Bay, the County shall consider dredging and removal of polluted estuarine sediments, and clean filling deep dredged areas, as a means of improving adjacent estuarine water quality. 2. Coastal High Hazard Area and Hazard Mitigation The only FLUE provision addressing the coastal area and coastal hazards is FLUE Policy A-1.6, which promises: Performance standards for new developments shall be established within coastal areas, as identified in the [Coastal Element], in order to protect the population in the coastal areas, and to minimize property damage in the event of a hurricane. Capital Improvements Element (CIE) 1.D.2 provides that the levels of service for public facilities, as set forth in the CIE, are subject to overriding conditions and limitations contained in the Coastal Element. In addition, CIE Objective 5 states: "The County shall protect the coastline and avoid loss of life and property in coastal areas by minimizing land development and public facilities in coastal areas. [Rule] 9J- 5.016(3)(b)2." CIE Policy 5.A states: "Publicly funded infrastructure shall not be constructed within the coastal high hazard area unless the expenditure is for: 5.A.1: Restoration or enhancement of natural resources or public access; 5.A.2: Land application of treated effluent disposal (irrigation) on public and private open spaces; 5.A.3: Flood-proofing water and sanitary sewer facilities; 5.A.4: The development or improvement of public roads and bridges which are on the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization long range plan or the facility will serve a crucial need by ameliorating the evacuation time of residents of the County; 5.A.5: Reconstruction of seawalls that are essential to the protection of only existing public facilities or infrastructure; 5.A.6: A public facility of overriding public concern as determined by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners; 5.A.7: The retrofitting of stormwater management facilities for water quality enhancement of stormwater runoff; or 5.A.8: Port facilities. Coastal Element Policy 6.1 defines the coastal high hazard area as the part of the County included in the Federal Emergency Management Agency V Zone and the area requiring evacuation during a Category 1 hurricane event. A Category 1 hurricane is characterized by winds of 74-95 miles per hour, which will cause damage primarily to foliage and unanchored mobile homes; storm surge 6-8 feet above normal; and inundation of low-lying coastal roads. Coastal Element, page 85. Coastal Element Objective 6 is to: Restrict development of residential population centers in the coastal high hazard area and require all development to meet standards established for the coastal area. Coastal Element Policy 6.2 requires that "[n]ew development within the coastal high hazard area shall be subject to a formal site plan review process." The process shall require owner-supplied data as to the impact of the proposed development upon existing infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area, evacuation clearance times, and shelter space. Coastal Element Policy 6.3 states that new development or "substantial expansions" of existing uses, except for government facilities, shall be approved through "a planned unit development process" if the development consists of commercial or industrial development on more than five acres of land or residential development exceeding the requirements of a "minor subdivision," as defined in the land development regulations. Policy 6.3 adds that developments within the coastal high hazard area and the I-75 corridor shall be subject to the more restrictive requirements. Coastal Element Policy 6.5 prohibits the development of "manufactured home communities" in the coastal high hazard area unless they meet the standards of the Southern Standard Building Code. Coastal Element Policy 6.6 is that, by 1994, the County shall, by land development regulations, require the underground installation of all utility lines in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 is that, except for cases of "undue hardship," "[t]he use of septic tanks for new development shall be prohibited in the coastal high hazard area." Coastal Element Objective 7 is to ensure the "orderly development and use" of the Port of Tampa by giving "priority to locating water-dependent and water-related land uses along the shoreline of the coastal area." Coastal Element Policy 7.1 provides that the County, by 1993, will amend the "Future Land Use Element and Map" to create a new future land use designation for "marine-related land uses." The designation will include criteria for siting water-dependent and water-related land uses. Coastal Element Policy 7.5 prohibits the development of new sites for heavy industrial uses along the shoreline of the coastal area unless the uses are "water-dependent or water- related or unless an overriding public interest is demonstrated." Coastal Element Objective 10 is: "Limit public expenditures for infrastructure and facilities in the coastal high hazard area." Coastal Element Policy 10.3 provides: "Wastewater treatment facilities shall not be constructed within the coastal high hazard area unless the expenditure meets the criteria of Policy 10.2." Coastal Element Policy 10.2 is the same as CIE Policy 5.A. Coastal Element Policy 13.1 states: "Interim wastewater treatment plants shall not be permitted in the coastal high hazard area except where the County service will be available within five (5) years." Coastal Element Policy 13.2 provides that the County will not assume jurisdiction for maintaining roadways in the coastal high hazard area unless the roadway is on the future Traffic Circulation Map. Coastal Element Policy 13.3 states that, by the 1993 hurricane season, the County shall complete an inventory of existing infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area and develop a program to relocate or retrofit such facilities where feasible and as replacement becomes necessary. Coastal Element Policy 13.4 is that the County "shall ensure" that future development and redevelopment within the coastal high hazard area is "consistent with coastal resource protection and will not increase clearance times along evacuation routes." Coastal Element Policy 13.6 is that the County shall not approve any "new solid waste or hazardous waste management sites" in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 12.2 is that the County, by the 1992 hurricane season: shall prepare a post-disaster redevelopment plan which will address long-term development, repair, and redevelopment activities, and which will include measures to restrict and eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 12.5 provides that, by the 1992 hurricane season, the County "shall adopt a redevelopment decision-making matrix for deciding whether public infrastructure should be rebuilt, relocated, or structurally modified." Coastal Element Objective 11 provides: Through the year 2010 the County shall maintain the clearance times identified in the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 1988 Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Study. Any proposed development shall not increase these clearance times. Coastal Element Policy 11.2 adopts a level of service standard of 20 square feet per person for shelter space. Coastal Element Policy 11.5 states that, by 1991, the development review process shall consider the effect of a proposed development in the hurricane vulnerability zone, which includes the coastal high hazard area, on evacuation clearance times and the number of persons requiring shelter. Coastal Element Policy 11.7 provides that each new mobile home park "not located" in the hurricane vulnerability zone shall include a building for use as a hurricane shelter. 3. Urban Sprawl FLUE Policy A-2.1 states: "Development shall not exceed the densities and intensities established within the [Plan]." According to the Implementation section of the FLUE, "[i]t is the intent of the [FLUE] to permit the maximum densities allowed within each land use plan category." FLUE, page 55. Many of the future land use categories of the Plan and their densities are set forth at Paragraph 219 above. The remaining categories and any permitted residential densities (expressed as dwelling units per gross acre) are: Community Commercial (20:1); Commercial--Office (20:1); Regional Commercial (20:1); Electrical Power Generating Facility (1:5); Scenic Corridor Overlay; Research/Corporate Park; Light Industrial; Light Industrial-- Planned; Heavy Industrial; Natural Preservation; Major Recreation and Open Space; Major Public/Semi-Public; and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (uses described in preceding section). The Land Use Plan section of the FLUE discusses each of the future land use designations in terms of service level, typical uses, density (applicable to residential uses only), maximum floor area (applicable to commercial, office, and industrial uses only), and intent of designation. The densities have been set forth above. Six designations fall exclusively under the Rural service level. These are Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, Rural Residential, and Rural Residential Planned. The typical uses of Agricultural/Mining include: farms, ranches, feed lots, residential uses, rural scale neighborhood commercial uses, offices, industrial uses related to agricultural uses, and mining related activities. Non-residential uses shall meet established locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 98. The maximum floor area for Agricultural/Mining is: Rural scale neighborhood commercial, office or industrial up to 40,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, 17/ whichever is less intense. Actual space footage limit is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, page 98. The intent of Agricultural/Mining is: To designate either those areas of long term agricultural character, or those areas currently involved in agricultural productivity, or other rural uses. This category will also permit residential, rural scale neighborhood commercial, office, and industrial uses in those areas meeting established locational criteria. As long as no subdivision of land is involved, group quarters, temporary housing, rehabilitation centers and residential uses for agricultural/rural related activities can be exempt from the density limitations subject to the [FLUE] and applicable development regulations. In addition, mining activities and commercial and industrial uses directly related to or serving the local mining activities may be permitted in appropriate locations, in conformance with adopted [land development] regulations. Commercial and office above 5000 sq. ft.[,] multi-purpose projects and multi-use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 98. The typical uses, maximum floor area, and intent of Agricultural and Agricultural/Rural are the same as those stated for Agricultural/Mining. Densities are the main difference among the Agricultural/Mining (1:20), Agricultural (1:10), and Agricultural/Rural (1:5) designations. In addition to allowing a density of 1:2.5, the Rural Estate category differs in other respects from the other categories classified as rural in terms of service level. Typical uses for Rural Estate add "multi-purpose projects" and omit "feed lots," "industrial uses related to agricultural uses," and "mining related activities." Maximum floor area substitutes "multi-purpose projects" for "industrial." The intent of Rural Estate is: To designate areas that are best suited for agricultural development, usually defined as located on Short-Term Agricultural Lands, and for compatible rural residential uses. Other uses including rural scale neighborhood commercial, office and multi-purpose projects may be permitted when complying with the [FLUE] and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for specific land use. Commercial and office above 5000 sq. ft., multi-purpose projects and multi-use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 101. The typical uses and intent of Rural/Residential and Rural/Residential Planned are the same as those stated for Rural Estate, except the Rural/Residential Planned also allows community commercial uses and clustered mixed use. A planned zoning district is required for the Rural/Residential Planned designation if the proposed commercial or office use is over 3000 square feet. The densities are different among the three designations. The Rural/Residential allows 1:1. Rural/Residential Planned allows the same density if the project is a Planned Village Concept on at least 160 acres; otherwise, the allowable density is 1:5. The maximum density for Rural/Residential Planned is allowable only if clustering and mixed uses are proposed. The concepts of mixed use and clustering specified for the Rural/Residential Planned are explained as follows: Mixed use . . . must demonstrate integration, scale, diversity and internal relationships of uses on site as well as provide shopping and job opportunities, significant internal trip capture and appropriately scaled residential uses. Land development regulations shall specify the thresholds for shopping, job creation and trip capture rates for developments appropriate to the scale of the project. Clustering . . . will be demonstrated through higher than typical residential net densities. Land development regulations shall provide thresholds for net densities required relative to project size and location, and will be used to determine allowable gross density. FLUE, page 103. The Suburban service level contains two designations: Low Suburban Density Residential and Low Suburban Density Residential Planned. The typical uses of Low Suburban Density Residential are: Residential, suburban scale neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects. Non-residential uses shall meet locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 104. The typical uses of Low Suburban Density Residential Planned are the same except they include suburban scale community commercial and clustered mixed use projects. The maximum floor area of Low Suburban Density Residential is: Suburban scale neighborhood commercial, office, or multi-purpose projects limited to 110,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, whichever is less intense. Actual space footage limit is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, page 104. The maximum floor area of Low Suburban Density Residential Planned is the same except the floor area ratio is .5, which governs certain mixed use projects: Mixed use projects utilizing the Planned Village Concept are not limited by square footages but may develop up to .5 FAR. Square footages will be limited by the scale and relationship within the project. In addition, mixed use projects utilizing the Planned Village Concept shall not be limited by the locational criteria found elsewhere for neighborhood commercial uses. Mixed use projects shall demonstrate internal relationships and pedestrian integration among uses. FLUE, page 105. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential designation is: To designate areas that are best suited for non-urban density residential development requiring a limited level of urban services, including in appropriate locations lots large enough to safely accommodate private wells and septic tanks or a combination of septic tanks and public water. Some areas, because of environmental or soil conditions, would be appropriate for only public water and sewer in this designation. In addition, suburban level neighborhood commercial, office and multi-purpose projects serving the non-urban areas may be permitted, subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for such land use. Commercial and office uses above 3000 sq. ft. and all multi-purpose and mixed use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 104. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned appears erroneous, as it repeats the intent of the Rural/Residential Planned designation, including "rural residential uses" and "rural scale" commercial uses. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned should probably state: "non-urban density residential development requiring a limited level of urban services" and the "suburban scale" commercial uses, which is the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential. The Implementation section of the FLUE probably should have stated the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation is the same as the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential designation except to add "suburban level community commercial, clustered mixed use, and multi-purpose projects." The densities for Low Suburban Density Residential and Low Suburban Density Residential Planned are both 2:1. However, this density is applicable to the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned only if the proposed project is a Planned Village Concept on at least 160 acres. Otherwise, the density for Low Suburban Density Residential Planned is 1:5. The Low Suburban Density Residential Planned density contains the same description of mixed use and clustering as is found in the Rural/Residential Planned designation. There are 14 designations exclusively within the Urban service level. The two lowest densities, among categories that are predominantly residential, are Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential, which are, respectively, 4:1 and 6:1. Each density contains the following condition: This maximum residential density is provided only as a limit for application in situations which represent an ideal set of circumstances with regard to the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses, existing and/or approved, and with regard to the adequacy and availability of public facilities. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. The typical uses for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential are identical: Residential, urban scale neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose and mixed use projects. Non-residential uses shall meet established locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. Disregarding another apparent typographical error, 18/ the maximum floor area for each designation is identical: Urban scale neighborhood commercial, office, multi-purpose or mixed use projects limited to 175,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, whichever is less intense. Actual square footage limitation is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. Disregarding two more likely typographical errors, 19/ the intent for each designation is also identical, except for the bracketed notation that applies only to Low Urban Density Residential: To designate areas that are suitable for low density residential development. In addition, urban scale neighborhood commercial, office, multi-purpose and mixed use projects serving the area may be permitted subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for specific land use. Multi-purpose, mixed use projects and any development above 3.0 [5.0] dwelling units per gross acre on a site larger than 10 acres shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. The next three designations in the Urban service level are Low/Medium Density Urban Residential, Medium Density Urban Residential, and High Density Urban Residential, which provide densities, respectively, of 9:1, 12:1, and 20:1. 20/ Each density is subject to the condition quoted above for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential concerning ideally suited circumstances. Ignoring one typographical error in the case of the High Density Urban Residential designation, 21/ the typical uses for each of the three designations are also identical, except for a minor distinction in language, with those stated for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential. The maximum floor areas for each of the three designations are identical to those stated for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential except that the floor area ratio for High Density Urban Residential is 0.75, not 0.25. The intent of each of the three designations is the same as the intent of the Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential designations with a minor change in language. The only differences are that the primary intent in each case is to designate an area suitable for the type of residential development suggested by the category's name, such as low-medium density. Also, a planned zoning district is required for each of the three designations if the proposed development is denser than 8:1 for Low/Medium Density Urban Residential, 10:1 for Medium Density Urban Residential, and 16:1 for High Density Urban Residential. The last three designations exclusively within the Urban service classification that are projected to contain significant residential uses are Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3 with respective densities of 12:1, 20:1, and 50:1. Each density contains the following condition: The maximum residential density is provided only as a limit for application in situations in which all Goals, Objectives, and Policies and applicable development regulations are being complied with, especially those regarding compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses, existing and/or approved, and with regard to the adequacy and availability of public facilities. FLUE, pages 111, 112, and 113. The typical uses for Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3 are identical: Mixed use development. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 111, 112, and 113. The maximum floor area ratios are 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 for Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The intent of the Urban Level 1 designation is: The UL1 category may be located within three miles of I-75, bounded at the limits of the urban level category by existing or proposed arterial roads. This category of land use shall serve as a transitional area which emphasizes compatibility with adjacent plan categories. The UL1 area shall be more suburban in intensity and density of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities become available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for commercial uses shall be prohibited. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 111. The intent of the Urban Level 2 designation is: The UL2 category shall be compatible with adjacent urban land use categories such as UL1, UL3, research corporate park, and medium density residential. The UL2 areas shall be urban in intensity and density of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities are made available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for nonresidential uses to arterials shall be prohibited. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 112. The intent of the Urban Level 3 designation is: The UL3 category shall form a regional activity center which incorporates internal road systems, building clustering and mixing of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities are made available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for nonresidential uses to arterials shall be prohibited. The UL3 category should be surrounded by other urban level plan categories and be located at high level transit lines. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 113. Three commercial designations in the Urban service classification that are not expected to contain substantial residential development are Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Regional Commercial. Each of these designations carries a density of 20:1 and contains a condition similar to that contained in Urban Level 1, 2, and 3 regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses and availability of adequate public facilities. The typical uses of Community Commercial are: Sale of convenience goods and personal services, general merchandising, furniture, sales restaurants, bars, offices, hotels, motels, banks, theaters, auto sales, compatible residential uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 114. The maximum floor area of the Community Commercial is 300,000 square feet or .35 FAR, whichever is less intense. The intent of Community Commercial is: To designate areas typically located within low density residential, low-medium density residential, medium density residential and/ or high density residential land use categories in order to provide a variety of commercial and office uses to serve large areas and which are oriented to auto traffic. Neighborhood commercial and office activities will be allowed provided they meet the applicable development regulations. Due to potential intensity of activities, planned grouping [is] strongly encouraged. Compatible residential development up to 20.0 dwelling units per gross acre, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments may be permitted in this category in appropriate locations according to applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 114. The typical uses of Commercial Office are: Community Commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 115. The maximum floor area of Commercial Office is: General--0.75 FAR up to a maximum of 600,000 square feet, however, the commercial component cannot exceed 300,000 square feet, subject to applicable land development regulations. FLUE, page 115. The intent of Commercial Office is: "To recognize existing commercial and office centers and provide for future development opportunities." FLUE, page 115. The typical uses of Regional Commercial are: Shopping malls to include one or more major department stores. Community Commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 116. The maximum floor area of Regional Commercial is "1.0 FAR, subject to applicable land development regulations." FLUE, page 116. The intent of Regional Commercial is: "To recognize existing regional commercial centers and provide for future development opportunities." Id. The three remaining designations exclusively in the Urban service level do not permit any residential uses. They are Research/Corporate Park, Light Industrial, and Light Industrial Planned. The typical uses of Research/Corporate Park are: Research and development activities, related educational facilities, electronic components production, light restricted manufacturing and warehousing, offices, corporate headquarters, and related uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, recreational facilities, and rural scale retail establishments. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. or 20% of the project's land area. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 117. The maximum floor area of Research/Corporate Park is "1.0 FAR." The intent of Research/Corporate Park is: To provide opportunity for research and high technology and similar manufacturing and light warehousing uses to serve Hillsborough County and the Tampa Bay region. Development in this category has integrated internal and external design requirements including heavy buffering and landscaping, high visibility linear footage on arterials, interstates, and expressways, and locations adjacent to employment markets. Research/Corporate Parks will be permitted to be developed throughout the county provided they meet the requirements of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element, and applicable development regulations. Proposed developments at locations not shown on the Land Use Plan Map may be considered through the Plan amendment process. Support neighborhood commercial uses may be permitted for up to 20% of the total land area. The development of the neighborhood commercial uses shall be integrated and appropriately scaled to other project uses. All development in this category shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 117. The typical uses for Light Industrial and Light Industrial Planned are: Food products storage, furniture or apparel manufacturing (except plastics or fiberglass), packaging plants, wholesaling, storage of nonhazardous materials, offices, research/corporate parks as the predominant uses and subordinate uses or services such as hotels, motels, restaurants, rural scale retail establishments, and recreational facilities. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 118 and 119. The maximum floor area of Light Industrial and Light Industrial Planned is ".5 FAR." FLUE, pages 118 and 119. The intent of Light Industrial is: This land use category is used to designate, geographically on the Land Use Plan Map and/ or textually in the Land Use Element, those areas in the County potentially suitable for industrial activities that create a minimal degree of impact to the surrounding environment, particularly in terms of non- objection[able] levels of noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and land use category descriptions related to industrial activities. [Convenience] commercial uses shall be limited to same criteria of size and location as rural scale neighborhood commercial. Any industrial development above a .4 FAR shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 118. The intent of Light Industrial Planned restates the first sentence of the intent of the Light Industrial and adds: This land use plan category will be used in high volume transportation corridors that have high visibility where impacts to adjacent development need to be minimized. The adjacent use compatibility issues are a major concern, and new development and substantial expansion of existing uses shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 119. The remaining seven designations are in a service level identified as "Urban or Rural." Two of them involve industrial uses. They are Heavy Industrial and Electric Power Generating Facility. The Heavy Industrial designation allows no residential uses. The typical uses of Heavy Industrial are: Phosphate and other chemical plants, plastics and fiberglass products processing, port related uses, storage of hazardous materials and liquids, offices, existing electric generating plants and expansions thereof, and related uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, establishments, recreational facilities and rural scale retail establishments. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. maximum. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 120. The maximum floor area of Heavy Industrial is: .5 FAR. FAR's not to be applied to processing, storage and other uses characterized by outdoor storage. FLUE, page 120. The intent of Heavy Industrial is the same as the intent of the Light Industrial except that, in the case of Heavy Industrial, the activities "may have objectionable accompanying effects such as noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor." FLUE, page 120. The Electric Power Generating Facility designation allows a residential density of 1:5. The typical uses are: "All new Electrical Power Generating Facilities and related uses and all uses allowed in the Agricultural/Rural (A/R) land use plan classification." FLUE, page 121. The maximum floor area of the Electrical Power Generating Facility is: 0.5 FAR. FAR's not to be applied to processing, storage and other uses characterized by outdoor storage. Development permitted in this designation is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the [Plan], applicable development regulations and established locational criteria for specific land uses. FLUE, page 121. The intent of Electrical Power Generating Facility is: This land use category is used to designate geographically on the Future Land Use Map and textually in the [FLUE] those areas that are potentially suitable for the construction and operation of future electric power generating facilities consistent with the infrastructure needs of the population and subject to the requirements of the [Plan] and all other Federal, State and Local Laws, policies and permits. The uses authorized in the Agricultural/Rural (A/R) land use plan category are also authorized. New development of uses associated with an electrical power generating facility shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process. An application to rezone land for an Electrical Power Generating Facility may only be filed after submission of an application to the State under the Power Plant Siting Act. If the Siting Board denies the Siting, then the zoning shall revert to the underlying Zoning in existence at the time of application. FLUE, page 121. The five remaining designations are Major Public/Semi- Public, Major Recreation and Open Space, Scenic Corridor, Natural Preservation, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The typical uses of Major Public/Semi-Public, which is intended to "recognize major existing and programmed public facilities," are "[m]ajor government-owned facilities and other public uses [and] semi-public uses generally available for public use, [such as] churches, hospitals, schools, clubs and utility and transportation facilities." However, "[t]he Land Use Plan Map only shows major existing facilities." FLUE, page 122. The typical uses of Major Recreation and Open Space are "[m]ajor parks and recreational facilities which are publicly or privately owned and operated for recreational uses and are available to the public." However, the designation shows only "major existing parks and recreational facilities" as the Recreation and Open Space Element contains maps of "existing and proposed or needed parks." FLUE, page 123. The intent of the Scenic Corridor is to create a designation "applied to road corridors . . . determined to have scenic qualities of local or countywide significance." FLUE, page 124. In addition to preserving or enhancing the aesthetic appearance of roads through buffering, landscaping, and control of nonresidential uses, the Scenic Corridor designation is intended to preserve or expand a system of roadways that will begin to form a boulevard system to connect different communities within unincorporated Hillsborough County. The boulevard system will also form a system of connections between parks and recreational areas of the county. FLUE, page 92. The typical uses of Natural Preservation are "[o]pen space or passive nature parks." The intent of the designation is to "recognize public lands of significant environmental importance set aside for primarily conservation purposes." The Natural Preservation designation excludes other uses except residential sufficient for a caretaker, "compatible recreational development," and limited educational uses. FLUE, page 125. FLUE Policy A-3.2 states: No new development nor expansion nor replacement of existing development shall be permitted within areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as Natural Preservation Areas, unless development is undertaken by federal, State or local government in the public interest, and the impacts are mitigated. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation has been discussed above. 22/ The Implementation section of the FLUE describes the locational criteria and development standards for Rural-, Suburban-, and Urban-scale neighborhood commercial uses, which may be approved in various land use categories. Different development standards also apply for community commercial uses. The development standards for neighborhood commercial uses require, among other things, a location within a commercial node at the intersection of least one collector or higher planned roadway and maximum square footage based on a matrix focusing on land use designation and roadway classification. FLUE, pages 75- 76. Additional requirements are imposed based on whether the use is Urban-, Suburban-, or Rural-scale. The relationship of the land use categories to the FLUM is explained in the Implementation section: The land use plan categories shown on the Future Land Use Map are named according to their predominant land use or maximum level of intensity intended for that category of land use. Other uses may be permitted in any land use category as described within the individual plan category descriptions. Specific locations for other such uses are not shown graphically because to do so would predetermine locations of individual uses, particularly neighborhood-related uses, at a level of detail beyond the scope of the Future Land Use Map. All uses shall be reviewed for conformance with all applicable provisions contained within the [Plan] and with applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 55. Various policies pertain to designated densities in the Plan and FLUM. FLUE Policy A-3.3 states: "Gradual transitions of intensities and between different land uses shall be encouraged." FLUE Policy A-3.1 provides in part: "Land development regulations shall be studied to determine whether to include provisions for the transfer of development rights which ... provide for the transfer of development rights to receiving zones where infill is indicated." The Implementation section of the FLUE provides a density credit for certain in-fill development. FLUE, page 69. The Implementation section also contains various density and intensity bonuses for the development of affordable housing. FLUE, pages 73a-73b. FLUE Policy B-3.6 pursues infilling by treating as a single dwelling unit "an accessory residential unit associated with an owner occupied single family residence." Several provisions in the FLUE concern the provision of public facilities. FLUE Objective A-5 is: All new development and redevelopment shall be serviced with potable water, sewerage, stormwater management facilities, solid waste disposal and parks that meet or exceed the adopted levels of service established by Hillsborough County. FLUE Policy A-5.2 establishes the concurrency requirement as follows: The public facilities that are needed to serve future development shall be provided by the applicant seeking a development permit and/or the County, in a timely manner that is concurrent with the impacts of development as defined in the [CIE]. FLUE Objective C-29 provides: Public facilities and services that meet or exceed existing or established County levels of service shall be provided in advance of, or concurrent with, the impacts of development. FLUE Policy C-29.1 is to: Ensure that public facilities operating at adopted levels of service are available when Certificates of Occupancy are issued by: Anticipating development and planning the Capital Improvements Program accordingly; Requiring conditions on development approvals that phase development with the availability of facilities; Allowing developers to improve or provide public facilities at their own expense; Entering into public-private partnerships, when appropriate, to provide public facilities. CIE Policy 3.C states: The Board of County Commissioners find that the impacts of development on public facilities within Hillsborough County occur at the same time as development authorized by a final development order as defined in Policy 1.A.3.a. The County shall determine, prior to the issuance of final development orders, whether or not there is sufficient capacity of Category A and Category B 23/ public facilities to meet the standards for Levels of Service for existing population and the proposed development concurrent with the proposed development. For the purpose of this policy, "concurrent with" shall be defined as follows: 3.C.1: No final development order shall be issued by the County after January 31, 1990, unless there shall be sufficient capacity of Category A and Category B public facilities to meet the standards for Levels of Service for the existing population and for the proposed development according to the following deadlines: a: Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity for the following public facilities: 3.C.1.a.(1): Potable water. 3.C.1.a.(2): Sanitary sewer. 3.C.1.a.(3): Solid waste. 3.C.1.a.(4): Stormwater management. 3.C.1.b: Prior to the completion of the same County fiscal year as the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity for arterial and collector roads. 3.C.1.c: For parks and recreation facilities, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity or within a year of the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity if the necessary facilities are the subject of a binding executed contract or are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement which requires the commencement of actual construction of the facilities within one (1) year of the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity. CIE Policy 3.C.2 states that a favorable capacity determination, following mandatory review of a development order, remains valid for two years. CIE Policy 3.C.4 indicates that the levels of service determinations shall be applied on a County-wide basis for solid waste disposal and regional parks. Levels of service determinations for facilities involving arterial and collector roads and mass transit shall be made by "[a]djoining sites and areas affected by the project based on individual analysis of the proposed development." Levels of service determinations for stormwater management systems shall be by major drainage basin. Levels of service determinations for district or neighborhood parks shall be by the relevant planning area. Levels of service determinations for potable water systems and sanitary sewer systems shall be by treatment plant service area, except that individual transmission (water) or collection (sewer) system limitations shall not result in closing the entire area to development if plant capacity remains. CIE Policy 1.C.1.a adopts level of service standards for all County arterial and collector roads by listing road segments and maximum volume-to- capacity ratios. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b adopts level of service standards for stormwater management systems, which include "significant canals, channels, ditches, pipeline/culvert enclosures of open systems, and appurtenant structures at crossings/control points." CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(1) sets the adopted level of service for any existing system as the existing level of service until the system is physically upgraded and the Plan is amended to reflect the upgrade. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(2) states that the ultimate level of service for major stormwater conveyance systems is generally the 25 year/24-hour duration storm at flood level B except the more rigorous flood level A applies to new development and a less rigorous five year storm event applies for systems discharging into Tampa's stormwater conveyance system, which is designed to meet the demands of only the five year storm event. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(6) sets stormwater level of service standards based on flood capacity for other stormwater systems--i.e., sewer/swales and detention ponds/lakes/storage areas. CIE Policy 1.C.1.c sets the potable water level of service standard at 140 gallons daily per person. CIE Policy 1.C.1.d sets the sewage level of service standard at 100 gallons daily per person plus 23.8% for nonresidential sewage. CIE Policies 1.C.1.f-1.C.2 set level of service standards for solid waste, parks and recreation facilities, mass transit, and non-County maintained public facilities. FLUE Policy A-5.3 addresses the concurrency monitoring system: Areas that have excess and deficient capacities for public facilities in unincorporated Hillsborough County shall be identified, and this information shall be updated no less than once a year. Development will be encouraged in areas with excess capacities for public facilities, and discouraged in areas with deficient capacities for public facilities unless these facilities can be provided concurrently with development and consistent with the [Plan], County Regulations and adopted levels of service for public facilities. The monitoring and enforcement aspects of the concurrency management system are detailed in the CIE's Implementation section, which is part of the adopted Plan. The Implementation section assures: "no final development order shall be issued which results in a reduction in the Levels of Service below the standard adopted in Policy 1.C.1 for Category A public facilities and Policy 1.C.2 for Category B public facilities." CIE, page 25. The concurrency determination is based on a monitoring program that calls for, among other things, annual reports on the capacity and actual levels of service of public facilities for which concurrency is required. The monitoring program requires a separate record of the cumulative impacts of all development orders approved year-to-date. CIE, page 27. FLUE Policy A-5.6 states: Public facilities and utilities shall be located to consider: (a) maximizing the efficiency of services provided; (b) minimizing their cost; and (c) minimizing their impacts upon the natural environment. FLUE Policy A-5.7 identifies procedures, such as development phasing and utility oversizing, "so that the location and timing of new development can be closely coordinated with local government's ability to provide public facilities." FLUE Policy A-5.8 adds that the County shall promote partnerships among governmental and private entities "to identify and build needed public facilities among the partners in proportion to the benefits accruing to each of them." Specifically addressing transportation facilities, FLUE Objective A-6 states: All new development and redevelopment shall be serviced with roads that meet or exceed the adopted levels of service established by Hillsborough County. FLUE Policy A-6.1 is to: Coordinate land use and transportation plans to provide for locally adopted levels of service consistent with the Transportation and Capital Improvements Elements . . .. FLUE Objective A-7 is: The concept plan is the overall, conceptual basis for the long range, Comprehensive Plan, and all plan amendments must be consistent with, and further the intent of the concept plan, which advocates nodal clusters of growth connected by corridors that efficiently move goods and people between each of the nodes. FLUE Policy A-7.3 states: The development of a variety of employment centers shall be encouraged at adopted locations, as defined by the concept plan and applicable development regulations, to provide employment opportunities throughout existing and planned development areas. The Implementation section of the FLUE describes the concept plan involving nodal development. The purpose of the nodal activity centers is to "begin to form an urban structure that encourages the cohesiveness of the neighborhood unit while facilitating the connection and interdependence of the region as a whole." FLUE, page 57. The Implementation section describes four types of nodes. The most intense is the high intensity node, which is limited to the Central Business District of Tampa. The next most intense is the mixed use regional node, which designates existing and future regional shopping centers, major office and employment areas, higher education institutions, and professional sports and recreation complexes. The mixed use regional nodes include the West Shore Business District, Urban Level 3 Regional Activity Center in the I-75 corridor west of Brandon, University of South Florida area, and Tampa Palms at CR 581 and I-75. Less intense than the mixed use regional node is the community center node, which "will designate and emphasize a focal point for surrounding neighborhoods that will include a variety of public facilities and services including commercial and office development." FLUE, page 57. The community center nodes include numerous named areas. Least intense is the neighborhood node, which designates areas "appropriate for some higher intensity residential development with the density tied to a relationship with the scale of existing surrounding development." FLUE, page 58. There are numerous existing and potential neighborhood nodes. FLUE Policy A-7.6 states: Scattered, unplanned, low density development without provisions for facilities and services at levels adopted in the [Plan] in locations not consistent with the overall concepts of the [Plan] shall be prohibited. To qualify for densities in excess of 1:5 in areas designated Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned, FLUE Policy A-7.7 requires residential development to conform to the requirements contained in the FLUE Implementation section, such as clustering, on-site job opportunities, internal trip capture, and shopping opportunities. FLUE Policy A-7.8 explains that the clustering and mixed use requirements imposed upon development in areas designated Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned are intended: to prevent urban sprawl, provide for the efficient provision of infrastructure, and preservation of open space and the environment. Clustering and Mixed Use shall be encouraged in the other suburban and rural plans categories. FLUE Policy A-7.10 states that developments in areas designated as Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned and involving at least 160 acres, if proceeding under the Planned Village concept, "shall be served by a central wastewater system (i.e. franchise, interim plant, community plant, county/municipal regional or sub-regional service, or other privately owned central systems)." Housing Element Objective 1.3 states: By 1992, establish guidelines for locating low and moderate income housing accessible to employment centers, mass transit systems, shopping and cultural, educational, medical and recreational facilities. Housing Element Policy 1.3.5 provides: By 1992, proactive public land investment initiatives along with incentives for private developments shall be explored, and implemented which include but are not limited to the following: disposition of surplus public land with developer incentives, public land assembly, disposition, and developer incentives in a comprehensive redevelopment framework and/or neighborhood rehabilitation plans; supplementary public initiatives to support private land assembly and affordable housing development; and the creation of a public-private partnership corporation to undertake land investment and facilitate private development of affordable housing in desirable locations. Housing Element Policy 1.3.6 states: "The County shall pursue federal and state funding sources for infrastructure improvements and for the construction or rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing." FLUE Objective B-4 addresses the locational criteria by which commercial uses will be permitted under the Plan. The objective states: Locational criteria for neighborhood serving commercial uses shall be implemented to scale development consistent with the character of the areas and to the availability of public facilities and the market. FLUE Policy B-4.1 states that the amount of neighborhood-serving commercial uses permitted in an area shall be consistent with the table adopted in the Implementation Section of the [FLUE] relating to land use density and the functional classification of the road network. FLUE Policy B-4.6 is: "Scattered, unplanned commercial development shall be discouraged, and commercial concentration shall be encouraged." FLUE Policy B-4.7 adds: "Commercial development should be designed to decrease the need for motorized vehicle trips by designing convenient, safe, non- motorized access." FLUE Policy B-4.8 provides: The expansion of existing strip commercial areas shall be prohibited, except in accordance with infill provisions in existing neighborhood commercial areas, and office or higher density residential development shall be considered as a viable alternative when in accordance with applicable development regulations. FLUE Policy B-5.1 addresses the redevelopment of commercial areas: "The redevelopment or revitalization of rundown strip commercial areas shall be encouraged through incentives such as the use of residential density credits for infill development that could include mixed use development." Further refining the guidelines for commercial redevelopment, FLUE Policy B-5.3 states: The redevelopment of appropriate commercial areas to include residential and/or office development that will reduce the number of transportation trips by increasing a project's internal capture rate shall be encouraged through incentives such as the use of residential density credits for infill development. FLUE Objective B-6 promises ongoing studies to identify the areas suitable for different types of industrial uses. FLUE Policy B-6.2 states that light industrial uses-- specifically, research and development--shall be encouraged to locate within the I-75 corridor, adjacent to the Tampa International Airport, and within the I-4 corridor. FLUE Policy B-6.5 provides: Expansion or new development of non- industrially designated land uses in industrially designated areas shall be prohibited unless the use is determined to be an accessory and complementary use to the industrial area. Applicable development regulations shall contain standards and/or criteria for location and intensity of these types of non-industrial uses. The intent is to ensure the availability of lands for industrial development, and to ensure that such subordinate uses will be in conjunction with the surrounding industrial area, as long as the industrial uses in the area are the predominant uses. FLUE Policy B-6.7 states: "Future industrial development shall be concentrated within industrial and mixed use areas as defined on the Future Land Use Map." Addressing agriculture, FLUE Objective B-7 states: Hillsborough County shall take active measures to foster the economic viability of agricultural activities by recognizing and providing for [their] unique characteristics in land use planning and land development regulations. FLUE Policy B-7.1 is to "[p]romote the development and maintenance of Plant City and Ruskin as agricultural market centers that strengthen the agricultural economy, encouraging agricultural uses within and around both communities." FLUE Policy B-7.2 is to "[a]llow agriculture as a viable use both prior and subsequent to the mining of land designated or approved for mining purposes." FLUE Policy B-7.5 warns: Anyone seeking the maximum long-term protection for long-term agricultural activities either should locate these activities on land in the Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate and Rural Residential designated land use categories or should seek having these designations placed on their current location. FLUE Policy B-7.6 advises: "Anyone seeking to farm until it is more feasible to develop the property non- agriculturally should locate and remain in non-rural designated areas." FLUE Policy B-7.7 guarantees, for areas designated Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, and Agricultural/Rural, that minimum acreages needed for viable agriculture will remain after clustering is approved. FLUE Policy B-7.9 is to defer charging an on-going agriculturally used property designated Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, or Rural Residential for public water or sewer tie-ins until actual connections are made or the designation is changed to a non- rural land use category. FLUE Objective B-8 deals with the question of compatibility between agricultural and nonagricultural uses in areas designated other than Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, and Rural Residential. FLUE Policy B-8.4 is to "[d]iscourage the location of new non- agricultural uses adjacent to pre-existing agricultural uses in rural land use categories." FLUE Objective C-25 addresses the need for "urban level densities" to encourage single and mixed uses in the I-75 corridor. FLUE Policy C-25.2 is to: "Encourage provision of affordable housing within mixed use developments through public and private sector initiatives." FLUE Policy C-25.3 is to limit the maximum density to 8:1 in the Urban Level 1 area between Tampa and the Pasco county line. FLUE Policy C-25.5 is to encourage access to urban level development on county arterials rather than state highways. FLUE Objective C-27 states: Employment centers shall be planned throughout the I-75 corridor, and residential opportunities shall be permitted in each of the plan categories within the I-75 corridor in order to promote opportunities for all segments of the population to live and work within the corridor, regardless of age, sex, race and income. FLUE Policy C-27.2 is to: "Encourage the provision and integration of low and moderate income housing dispersed throughout the urban level categories." FLUE Objective C-28 states: "Mass transit opportunities shall be expanded within the I-75 corridor." FLUE Objective C-31 is: By 1991, the County shall pursue the Regional Activity Center designation for the area within the I-75 corridor defined as that area consisting of the Urban Level 3 land use plan category on the Future Land Use Plan Map. FLUE Policy C-31.2 is for the County to develop incentives for development to locate within the Regional Activity Center. Suggested incentives are transferable development rights, increased densities and intensities, priority public facility funding, and special taxing districts. FLUE Objectives C-32 and C-33 establish corridors for I-4 and North Dale Mabry, respectively. In the I-4 corridor, light industrial uses are encouraged. In the North Dale Mabry corridor, clustered commercial, such as shopping centers, are encouraged over "scattered unplanned commercial development." 4. Funding and Financial Feasibility 615. CIE Objective 2 is: Provide needed public facilities that are within the ability of the County to fund the facilities. . . from County revenues, development's proportionate share contributions, and grants or gift[s] from other sources. [Rule] 9J-5.016(3)(b)5. CIE Policy 2.A states: The estimated costs of all needed capital improvements shall not exceed conservative estimates of revenues from sources that are available to the County pursuant to current statutes, and which have not been rejected by referendum, if a referendum is required to enact a source of revenue. [Rule] 9J- 5.016(3)(c)1.f. CIE Policy 2.B provides: "Existing and future development shall both pay for the costs of needed public facilities." CIE Policy 2.B.1.a states: Existing development shall pay for some or all of the capital improvements that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, some or all of the replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities, and may pay a portion of the cost of capital improvements needed by future development. CIE Policy 2.B.1.b adds: "Existing development's payments may take the form of user fees, special assessments and taxes." Addressing future development, CIE Policy 2.B.2.a provides: The County will allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents so that current residents will not subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new development. CIE Policy 2.B.2.b states: Future development's payments may take the form of, but are not limited to, voluntary contributions for the benefit of any public facility, impact fees, capacity fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, and future payments of user fees, special assessments and taxes. Future development shall not pay impact fees for the portion of any capital improvement that reduces or eliminates existing deficiencies. The Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements contained in the CIE discloses planned capital expenditures, as they were known in June and July, 1989. The Five-Year Schedule indicates that, for the five-year period ending with fiscal year end 1994, the following capital costs are projected by public facility type: roads--$273,668,000; parks--$28,611,000; water--$10,798,000; sewer--$55,848,000; stormwater-- $29,345,000; and solid waste--$16,250,000. The total of these capital expenditures is $414,520,000. For each project, the Five-Year Schedule describes the general funding source. The CIE contains a section entitled Costs and Revenues by Type of Public Facility, which is an adopted part of the Plan. The Costs and Revenues section, which was prepared in December, 1990, states: The [CIE] is 100% financed by revenue sources that are available to the County under current law, therefore the Element is financially feasible, as required by the Florida Administrative Code. There is no "unfunded" portion of the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The Costs and Revenues section identifies each of the public facilities for which concurrency is required, the total expenditures planned for each public facility for the five-year capital planning period, and general sources of revenue by facility type. The costs and revenues by public facility type are: roads--$193,684,000; parks--$17,865,000; water-- $9,265,000; sewer--$76,179,000; drainage--$25,000,000; and solid waste--$16,250,000. The total of these capital expenditures is $362,097,000. Evidently, budget cutbacks took place in the 18 months between the adoption of the Five Year Schedule in mid 1989 and the adoption of the Costs and Revenues section in December, 1990. 5. Transportation Level of Service Standards Transportation Element Policy 1.1.1 sets minimum peak hour level of service standards for County roads, subject to lower standards for certain roads listed in CIE Policy 1.C.1.a. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 sets minimum peak hour level of service standards for State roads, subject to lower standards for certain roads listed in Transportation Element Table 2. 24/ Transportation Element Tables 1 and 2 show that 58 of the 147 state road segments in Hillsborough County are operating below the level of service standards generally adopted in Policy 1.1.4. These standards are D for all Urban state roads except for minor arterials, which are E, and C for all Rural state roads except for minor arterials, which are D. Table 1 shows that, by 1995, an additional 33 state road segments will be operating below the generally adopted level of service standard. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 concludes: "No development orders will be issued that would further reduce the current level of service on those roads listed in Table 2 of this element except where the development is vested under law." Transportation Element Figure 4 shows the location of all roads operating at level of service F. None is south of the Alafia River. The impaired roads are entirely in northwest and northcentral Hillsborough County. Among the road segments operating below the generally applicable level of service standards for state roads are four of the 11 segments of SR 574 (Buffalo/King), 10 of the 15 segments of SR 597 (Dale Mabry Highway), four of the five segments of SR 580 (Hillsborough Ave.), seven of the 10 segments of I- 275, seven of the eight segments of I-4, and four of the five segments of US 41 (Nebraska Ave. portion only). Much less impacted state road segments include I- 75, which has no segment operating below its adopted level of service standards; US 301, which has two of nine segments operating below its adopted level of service standards; and US 41 (southern sections), which has no segment operating below its adopted level of service standards. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 states that state roads operating below adopted level of service standards are "backlogged" or "constrained" and shall have a level of service standard established by the volume-to-capacity ratio listed for each road on Table 2. The Data and Analysis discuss the transportation problems confronting Hillsborough County. Many of the impaired road segments are scheduled for capital improvements in the Florida Department of Transportation five year work program. One key exception is Dale Mabry Highway, which will remain at level of service F even after planned work is completed. Transportation Element, page 24. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.7 promises that, within one year after adoption of the Plan, the County will enter into an agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation to identify actions that the County will take to "maintain the existing average operating conditions" on backlogged or constrained state roads. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.14 provides that Hillsborough County will, by 1990, initiate studies to identify State and County road corridors not capable of undergoing further capacity-increasing improvements and are thus suitable for designation as constrained corridors. 6. Vested Rights and Developments of Regional Impact The Legal Status of the Plan, which is part of the FLUE, addresses vested rights. The Legal Status section requires the County to develop an administrative process by which vested rights can be determined. The Legal Status section preconditions a finding of vested rights upon the following: That the person owned the parcel proposed for development at the date of the adoption of this [Plan], or the person had a contract or option to purchase the parcel on such date, or that it would be inequitable, unjust or fundamentally unfair to deny an application for vested rights where the person acquired ownership prior to February 1, 1990; and That there was a valid, unexpired act of any agency or authority of Hillsborough County government upon which the person reasonably relied in good faith; and That the person, in reliance upon this act of government, has made a substantial change in position or had incurred extensive obligations or expenses; and That it would be inequitable, unjust or fundamentally unfair to destroy the rights acquired by the person. In making this determination, the County may consider a number of factors, including but not limited to consideration of whether actual construction has commenced and whether the expense or obligation incurred is unique to the development previously approved and is not reasonably usable for a development permitted by the [Plan] and land development regulations. FLUE, page 128. Ensuing provisions of the Legal Status section identify various vested rights based on whether a development is exempted from concurrency. The Legal Status section also addresses certain development orders under developments of regional impact (DRI). Between the Plan adoption date and February 1, 1990, the County will approve buildout of not more than a "limited stage" of the total proposed DRI. Generally, the buildout approval will be limited to the part of the proposed development that has received Site Development Approval within two years following the expiration of the development order's initial appeal period. The Legal Status section authorizes the approval of additional development stages beyond the two-year limit if the development application had been received by the County prior to the Plan adoption date, the developer made substantial expenditures before Plan adoption in conducting a transportation analysis, and the transportation analysis focused on impacts occurring beyond the two-year limit. Development activity following the approved initial stage shall be subject to the Plan, including the concurrency requirements. The Legal Status section also recognizes the practice of "pipelining." The Legal Status section states: "While 'pipelining' will remain a permitted transportation mitigation option, the Board of County Commissioners will closely scrutinize its use." FLUE, page 129. Miscellaneous Intergovernmental Coordination Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) Objective 1 states: By 1990, Hillsborough County shall establish new and review existing coordination mechanisms that will evaluate and address its comprehensive plan and programs and their effects on the comprehensive plans developed for the adjacent local governments, school board, and other units of local government providing services but not having regulatory authority over use of land and the State, by an annual county-wide forum sponsored by The Planning Commission. Assistance for this effort shall be requested from regional and state agencies by The Planning Commission, as needed. ICE Objective 3 requires the County, by 1991, "to address through coordination mechanisms the impact of development proposed in the [Plan] upon development in adjacent jurisdictions, the region and the state." Dual Planning Timeframes The Plan contains dual planning timeframes. Overall, the Plan contains a 20-year planning timeframe. However, shorter planning periods are addressed, such as the five-year period covered in the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. Regional Plan Provisions The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has adopted a regional plan known as the Future of the Region: A Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region dated July 1, 1987 (Regional Plan). The Regional Plan, which applies to unincorporated Hillsborough County, is divided into goals and policies. Regional Goal 8.1 is: "By 1990, there will be an ample supply of water to meet all projected reasonable and beneficial uses in the Tampa Bay region." Policy 8.1.4 states: "Land use planning and development decisions shall consider the impact on surface and groundwater quality." Regional Goal 8.5 is: "By 1991, the region will increase the protection of major public water supplies and wellfields." Policy 8.5.1 states: "Prime groundwater recharge areas and cones of influence of existing and future major public water supplies and well fields shall be identified and mapped." Regional Goal 8.7 is: "By 1991, new developments in the region will be required to use the best management practices and/or procedures to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff." Policy 8.7.1 requires the development of programs to ensure water reclamation and reuse with respect to wastewater and stormwater. Regional Goal 8.8 is: "By 1995, existing developments will be required to make measurable progress toward meeting stormwater standards." Policy 8.8.1 provides: "Local governments should upgrade or retrofit drainage systems in urbanized areas to include stormwater treatment for water quality." Policy 8.8.4 requires that agricultural runoff "shall be handled with Best Management Practices to minimize its impact upon receiving waters." Regional Goal 8.9 is: "By 1995, there shall be an increase in the effectiveness of programs protecting or enhancing the ecological function of natural systems (aquatic, wetland and terrestrial systems)." Policy 8.9.1 is to develop regional and local programs "to identify, protect and conserve the natural character and function of area lakes, streams, estuaries, wetlands, floodplain areas, and upland areas." Policy 8.9.2 directs that local government comprehensive plans shall incorporate the following: a) adoption of criteria for work in lake, riverine and wetland systems which will protect water quality, wildlife habitat and natural hydrological functioning of these areas; b) conservation of valuable upland habitat and wetland systems; c) preservation of habitat for endangered and threatened species; d) establish ecological minimum flow criteria and hydroperiod for surface waters; e) utilization of biological treatment methods and natural areas, such as wetlands, for stormwater treatment in areas of development/redevelopment to the maximum feasible extent. Regional Goal 8.10 is: "By 1991, land use practices will reduce the disruption of natural floodplain functions." Policy 8.10.1 states: "Regulations should be developed to promote appropriate land use practices compatible with floodplain areas and provide for performance standards for these land uses." Regional Goal 9.1 is: "By 1990, coastal zone areas will have increased vegetation, enhanced beach systems and improved environmental quality." Policy 9.1.2 provides: "The protection of coastal vegetative communities, coastal wildlife habitats, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development shall be required." Regional Goal 9.3 is: "By 1995, aquatic preserves in the Tampa Bay region will be more productive than 1985 levels and have a significant improvement in quality over 1985 measurements." Policy 9.3.3 requires buffer zones or other appropriate protection "between pristine aquatic preserves and adjacent upland uses to prevent degradation of water quality, shoreline and marine habitats." Regional Goal 9.4 is: "By 1991, all marine resources will be protected from contamination from human-induced processes." Policy 9.4.1 states: To protect sensitive marine resources from immediate and near future degradation resulting from improper development practices and recreational misuse, priority shall be given to water dependent uses or other types of shoreline development such as marina, light industry, ports and shoreline compatible commerce. Policy 9.4.2 states that the exploration and development of mineral resources "shall only proceed in an ecologically sound manner which does not threaten marine, aquatic, and estuarine resources." Policy 9.4.5 provides: "Dredging or spoiling of undisturbed bay bottom shall be prohibited. " Regional Goal 9.5 is: "By 1995, there will be at least a 5 percent increase in productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources." Policy 9.5.1 states: "Long-term productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources shall be increased and restored through estuary and intertidal protection." Regional Goal 9.6 is: "By 1990, coastal area will be protected by local government controls and other building regulations that will enhance the character and function of barrier islands and other environmentally sensitive areas." Policy 9.6.1 states: "Land and water uses shall be compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources." Policy 9.6.2 provides: "The use of government funds to subsidize development should be prohibited in high-hazard coastal areas." Policy 9.6.3 is to identify coastal high hazard areas "where the expenditure of public funds to subsidize development shall be prohibited." Policy 9.6.4 states: "The use of public funds to rebuild public facilities damaged by hurricanes or other storms shall be limited to facilities essential only for public health and safety." Regional Goal 10.1 is: "By 1995, the Tampa Bay region's conservation areas will have increased environmental quality and functional characteristics that provide suitable habitat to all wildlife and flora indigenous to the region." Policy 10.1.1 states: "Protect the habitats and plant communities that tend to be least in abundance and most productive or unique." Policy 10.2.2 states: The hydrologic continuity and water quality of identified isolated wetlands shall be protected. Development activities or other land disturbances in the drainage area of the wetlands shall minimize alterations to the surface or subsurface flow of water into and from the wetland and shall not cause impairment of the water quality or the plant and wildlife habitat value of the wetland. Policy 10.2.3 requires "water users, such as agriculture and mining," to prepare mitigation plans "to minimize unavoidable impacts to nearby wetlands." Policy 10.2.4 requires: Mitigation measures shall be developed to provide water quality benefits and plant and animal habitat equivalent to the wetland destroyed or altered. Newly created wetlands should include at least 1:1 mitigation using the same type or more productive vegetation with at least an 80-85 percent natural cover rate, over a 2 to 5 year period. Regional Goal 10.3 is: "By 1993, regional preservation areas will be protected by regulations or practices from further development and will be preserved and/or restored to their natural state." Policy 10.3.1 states, in part: "Preservation areas, such as marine grass beds . . . and other vital or critical natural systems, shall be protected from any further development except in cases of overriding public interest." Policy 10.3.3 provides: "Unique upland communities and habitats in identified preservation areas should be protected from development that would significantly alter their character. Preservation and restoration of these communities shall be required." Regional Goal 10.4 is: "By 1991, development in the 100 year floodplains should be strictly regulated." Policy 10.4.1 allows new channelization only as a "last resort" in flood protection for existing development. Policy 10.4.4 prohibits channelization solely to create new lands for development. Policy 10.4.2 prohibits locating new development in river floodways (i.e., the area of highest velocity during flow) except in cases of overriding public interest. Policy 10.4.3 requires that new development in the flood fringe (i.e., the area of the floodplain outside the floodway) meet flood hazard construction requirements. Regional Goal 10.5 is: "By 1991, new or rebuilt development within the 25 year floodplain will not contribute adverse water quality impacts from stormwater runoff." Policy 10.5.2 states: "Development along all river floodplains shall be low density with adequate setbacks to maintain existing areas of natural habitat." Regional Goal 10.6 is that, by 1995, there shall be "measurable indications" of greater commitment from local governments and private parties to "conserve, protect, and enhance" populations and habitats of endangered, threatened, and special-concern species. Policy 10.6.1 recommends the adoption of incentives to encourage the preservation of native habitats. Policy 10.6.2 states: Identified areas that contain viable populations of, or suitable habitats for, species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern . . . shall be classified as environmentally sensitive, preservation, or conservation areas with future development limited to land uses compatible with the listed species. Regional Goal 10.8 is: "By 1991, there will be marked changes in land rearrangement and vegetation clearing practices that do not degrade the region's natural drainage and percolation patterns." Policy 10.8.1 requires the use of buffer zones between agricultural lands and water bodies. Regional Goal 10.9 is: "By 1995, the region's forested and woodland areas will not have decreased in size by more than 3 percent, or have any less characteristics than present in 1988." Policy 10.9.1 requires the addition to local government comprehensive plans of forest preservation plans for significant woodlands or forests. Policy 10.9.2 states that the forest preservation strategy shall consist of mapping of forests and woodlands, identifying those forest or woodland areas that are wetlands or habitat protection areas, and providing incentives for the conversion of other land uses to forested conditions. Policy 10.9.3 states that wildlife corridors should be maintained. Regional Goal 16.8 is: "As an ongoing goal, all dredge and fill activities shall be carried out only when necessary and in a manner least harmful to the surrounding environment." Policy 16.8.1 provides: Any project including unavoidable destruction of habitat shall mitigate all lost wetland habitat on a 1:1 in-kind basis, at minimum. Mitigation shall include monitoring with assurance of an 80-85% natural cover area after 2-5 years. Policy 16.8.2 states: "Unique and irreplaceable natural resources shall be protected from adverse effects." This policy is intended to apply to dredge and fill projects, as is clear from the standard by which compliance is to be measured, which is the "amount of dredging or filling within unique and irreplaceable natural resources." Regional Goal 13.6 is: "By 1995, groundwater contamination due to inappropriately located or improperly used septic tanks shall be eliminated." Policy 13.6.2 provides: "Permitting process criteria for septic tanks and their fields shall take into consideration adverse impacts on water quality and aquatic resources." Policy 13.6.4 requires a survey locating "septic tanks associated with all commercial and industrial activities" and an "evaluation . . . concerning potential adverse effects on groundwater resources, water supply wells, and ground water recharge potential." Regional Goal 13.9 is: "By 1995, water quality will be improved by the control of point and non-point discharges into surface waters." Policy 13.9.2 states: "Domestic sewage and industrial discharges shall be required to achieve best practical technological standards and to implement reuse systems to minimize pollution discharge." Regional Goal 13.10 is: "By 1995, the number of project-specific 'package plants' shall be reduced from 1988 levels." Encouraging private cost- sharing in the construction of regional wastewater facilities and the development of requirements for connecting package-plant systems to regional systems when available, Policy 13.10.1 also provides: When necessary, project-specific "package plants" shall be allowed but only where a detailed hydrogeological analysis of the site determines low potential for groundwater contamination from hazardous wastes or other pollutants. Regional Goal 14.4 is: "By 1991, mining practices will be designed to fully protect the natural environment from the adverse effects of resource extraction." Policy 14.4.1 states: "There shall be no mining in areas which are geographically or hydrologically unsuitable for the extraction of minerals or in areas which are crucial to the provision of essential public services." Policy 14.4.2 provides: "There shall be no mining in the 25-year floodplain." Policy 14.4.3 states: The mining of environmentally sensitive areas shall be avoided unless it can be demonstrated that technology associated with reclamation and restoration can restore those areas. Mining and reclamation procedures shall minimize permanent changes in natural systems and the permanent loss of environmental resources. The best available technology and practices shall be used to re-establish the land forms, land uses, and natural vegetation associations that existed prior to mining of the land to the extent feasible and desirable. Policy 14.4.4 provides that the portion of mining areas that contain endangered or threatened wildlife species shall be protected. Policy 14.4.5 states that mining and processing shall be conducted so as to "protect, manage and more efficiently utilize water resources." Regional Goal 16.1 is for ten percent of DRI's to be located in designated regional activity centers between 1986 and 1990. Regional Goal 16.2 is: "As an ongoing goal, new urban development, including in-fill, will occur on land which has the capacity to accommodate growth in terms of environmental and infrastructural impacts." Policy 16.2.1 states: "Contiguous development and the orderly extension and expansion of public facilities are necessary." Policy 16.2.2 encourages the location of higher density developments within existing urban areas where public facilities are available. Regional Goal 16.5 is: By 1991, the integrity and quality of life will be maintained in existing residential areas and will be required of new residential developments through the continued revision and adoption of local government comprehensive plans, environmental and land use regulations. Policy 16.5.1 provides that residential areas shall be located and designed to protect from "natural and manmade hazards such as flooding, excessive traffic, subsidence, noxious odors and noise." Policy 16.5.2 states: "Residential land uses shall be encouraged in a manner which is compatible with the type and scale of surrounding land uses." Policy 16.5.4 encourages local governments to locate high density residential areas near regional activity centers and reduce densities elsewhere to "facilitate the restriction of urban sprawl [and] use of mass transit." Policy 16.5.5 encourages mixed use developments with buffering of residential areas. Policy 16.5.6 recommends the location of shopping facilities, recreation areas, schools, and parks within high density residential areas. Regional Goal 16.6 is: By 1991, commercial development, compatible with environmental and economic resources, will occur in a planned and orderly fashion through the continued revision and adoption of local government comprehensive plans, environmental and land use regulations. Policy 16.6.1 states: Commercial land uses shall be located in a manner which ensures compatibility with the type and scale of surrounding land uses and where existing or programmed public facilities will not be overburdened. Policy 16.6.2 is to locate regional commercial areas in planned centers to ensure compatibility and "efficiency of economic and natural resources." Policy 16.6.3 "strongly discourage[s]" strip commercial development, which "compounds traffic and land use conflicts." Regional Goal 16.7 is the same as Regional Goal 16.6, except that Goal 16.7 applies to industrial uses. Policy 16.7.1 is to locate industrial areas near adequate transportation for materials, labor, and products. Policy 16.7.5 encourages the redevelopment of urbanized industrial locations near major transportation facilities, such as ports and airports. Regional Goal 22.1 is: "By 1991, the Tampa Bay region shall balance the needs of agricultural and nonagricultural land uses." Policy 22.1.1 encourages the "preservation and utilization of agriculture land for agriculture uses." Policy 22.1.3 provides: "The recognition of agriculture as a form of land use and a category on land use plan maps, not simply as a holding zone, is encouraged, where appropriate." Policy 22.1.6 recommends: "Agriculture should be recognized as a major contributor to the region's economic base, and should be retained where possible to maintain the diversification of the region's economy." Regional Goal 22.2 is: "By 1991, agricultural practices will be implemented to reduce the amount of pesticides and other agriculturally based pollutants in surface waters, groundwater and sediments." Policy 17.1.1 states: To relieve pressure on existing public facilities, programs such as temporary density bonuses, special zoning designations and public acquisition of tax-delinquent property should be developed to encourage infilling of vacant urban lands. Policy 17.1.5 provides: "Capital improvements programs should maximize the development of existing systems before allocating funds to support public facilities in undeveloped areas." Regional Goal 17.2 is: "By 1991, the planning of public facilities will serve as a proactive growth management tool." Policy 17.2.1 requires that the location of public facilities "shall be used to guide urban development" and the "rate of private development should be commensurate with a reasonable rate of expansion of public and semi-public facilities." Policy 17.2.2 recommends the advance acquisition of sites for potential public and semi-public facilities. Regional Goal 19.1 is: As an ongoing goal, planning for and maintenance of an integrated transportation system including highway, air, mass transit, rail, water, and pipeline systems, which efficiently services the need for movement of all people and goods within the region and between the region and outside world[,] will continue to be implemented. Policy 19.1.2 is to reduce dependency upon the private automobile by providing an adequate mass transit system. Policy 19.1.3 states: "The transportation system should promote the efficient use of energy resources and improvement of the region's air quality." Policy 19.8.8 states: An operational Level of Service (LOS) D peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in urbanized areas. An operational LOS C peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in rural areas. However, Policy 19.8.9 provides: An operation Level of Service (LOS) E peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in Special Transportation areas as agreed upon by the FDOT, the appropriate MPO, the regional planning council, and the local government. Policy 19.8.14 states: Pipelining shall be an acceptable and sufficient DRI transportation impact mitigation for existing and future DRIs provided that all the following provisions are met: Project approvals shall be phased and shall not exceed five years. Subsequent approvals shall be subject to further analysis and additional pipeline mitigation. Roadway improvement to be pipelined shall: be selected from the list of existing or proposed regional transportation facilities substantially affected by the development identified by the [regional planning council] during the DRI review. preferably be consistent with MPO and FDOT long-range plans. receive concurrence from the local government and [regional planning council] with review and comment by MPO and FDOT. The developer fair share pipeline contribution shall be equalto or exceed an amount calculated pursuant to DCA pipeline transportation policy. The developer shall receive credit against impact fees, pursuant to law. Local government, based upon traffic analysis or studies, and/or long range planning, may authorize alternative pipelining approaches and conditions, to those established in subparagraph 1 above, provided that such variations are technically appropriate and that the basis for, and the conditions of, such variations are specifically set forth in the Development Order. Regional Goal 11.1 is: "By 1995, land use-related airborne contaminants will be reduced within the region by a measurable percentage." Policy 11.1.1 is for each local government to develop procedures to assess air quality impacts from non-DRI development, such as strip shopping centers, that have a cumulative impact on traffic flow. Policy 11.1.4 is to "[i]nitiate control measures where construction, mining and other activities where heavy vehicular traffic and/or meteorological conditions result in significant air pollution." Regional Goal 11.2 is: "By 1992, the regional will maintain ambient sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, ozone, and total suspended particulate levels that are equal to or better than the state and federal standards." Regional Goal 11.6 is: "By 1992, transportation related air quality impacts that adversely impact ambient air quality will be reduced." Policy 11.6.1 states that the metropolitan planning organizations and others entities involved in transportation planning "shall give priority to traffic flow improvements that reduce air pollution, particularly in areas that exceed ambient standards." Regional Goal 12.3 is: "As an ongoing goal, the most energy efficient and economically feasible means shall be utilized in construction, operation and maintenance of the region's transportation system." Policy 12.3.1 recommends consideration of incentives such as development or expansion of mass transit, "park and ride" programs, and public awareness of mass transit options. Regional Goal 20.2 is: "By 1990, the region's governments shall increase their efficiency and effectiveness." State Plan Provisions The state comprehensive plan is set forth at Sections 187.201 et seq., Florida Statutes. Section 187.201(8)(b)12 states: "Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." Section 187.201(10)(b)5 provides: "Promote the use of agricultural practices which are compatible with the protection of wildlife and natural systems." Section 187.201(23) states the goal of agricultural policies as follows: Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Section 187.201(16) states the goal of land use policies as follows: In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Section 187.201(18)(b)1 and 3 provides: Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. Allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents. Section 187.201(16)(b)2 states: "Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats." Section 187.201(20)(b)2 provides: "Coordinate transportation investments in major travel corridors to enhance system efficiency and minimize adverse environmental impacts." Section 187.201(20)(b)9 states: "Ensure that the transportation system provides Florida's citizens and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions." Section 187.201(11) states the following goal: "Florida shall reduce its energy requirements through enhanced conservation and efficiency measures in all end-use sectors, while at the same time promoting an increased use of renewable energy resources." Section 187.201(11)(b)2 adds: "Ensure that developments and transportation systems are consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality." Section 187.201(12)(b)4 provides: "Ensure energy efficiency in transportation design and planning and increase the availability of more efficient modes of transportation." Section 187.201(12)(b)5 states: "Reduce the need for new power plants by encouraging end-use efficiency, reducing peak demand, and using cost-effective alternatives." Section 187.201(5)(b)4 states: "Reduce the cost of housing construction by eliminating unnecessary regulatory practices which add to the cost of housing." Section 187.201(21)(b)4 and 12 provides: "Eliminate regulatory activities that are not tied to specific public and natural resource protection needs" and "Discourage undue expansion of state government and make every effort to streamline state government in a cost effective-manner. Ultimate Findings of Fact Minimum Criteria of Data and Analysis Sufficiency of Data and Analysis (Issues 1-9) As to Issue 1, the ELUM's show existing and planned water wells, their cones of influence, historic resources, floodplains, wetlands, minerals, and soils. The ELUM's show many important existing public facilities, such as roads, potable water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, and schools. The depiction of power line rights of way and power generating facilities is less clear, although major public and industrial uses are indicated. As to Issues 2 and 3, the Data and Analysis describe at length the fisheries, wildlife, marine habitats, and vegetative communities that are found in Hillsborough County. The text and CARE Table 11 identify endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with each habitat. As to Issue 3, for each of the vegetative communities or habitats found in Hillsborough County, the Data and Analysis identify various uses, known pollution problems, and potential for conservation, use, or protection. As to Issue 4, the Data and Analysis discuss the suitability of soils for septic tanks. The discussion notes the problems associated with the placement of septic tanks on poorly drained soils, as well as excessively drained soils. The Data and Analysis identify the parts of the County with such soils, especially the poorly drained coastal soils of the coastal high hazard area. As to Issues 4 and 5, the Data and Analysis acknowledge that septic tank failures have adversely affected the water quality of Cockroach Bay. The discussion of the impact of septic tanks in other parts of the Tampa Bay estuary is less specific geographically. But the Data and Analysis generally recognize the role of inadequately treated domestic wastewater and inadequately treated stormwater runoff in the eutrophication of Tampa Bay. As to Issue 6, the Data and Analysis consider the potential for conservation, use, and protection of all surface waters in Hillsborough County, including Tampa Bay. As to Issue 7, the Data and Analysis identify and analyze existing and future water needs and sources and natural groundwater recharge areas. Although Hillsborough County contains no areas of prime recharge to the Floridan aquifer nor of high natural recharge to any aquifer, the Data and Analysis identify locations of very low to moderate natural aquifer recharge and areas of high susceptibility to groundwater contamination. As to Issue 8, the Data and Analysis contain land use suitability analyses in which various land uses are correlated to natural features, including natural resources. Oversized Map 13 locates very severely limited soils and critical and sensitive lands in relation to vacant lands. Other ELUM's more specifically locate and analyze vacant lands, floodplains, wetlands, historic resources, minerals, soils, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, estuarine systems, recharge areas, areas highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination, water wells, vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources appropriately considered in analyzing potential land uses for vacant land. The Data and Analysis textually analyze the suitability of various types of land for different land uses. In some cases, the analysis is incomplete, such as with respect to suitable land uses within the cones of influence of water wells or adjacent to wellfields. Even for such resources, however, the Data and Analysis support the inference that activities involving considerable water consumption or wastewater production, like traditional phosphate mining operations, should not be located in close proximity to water wellfields. The Data and Analysis explicitly identify the risk to groundwater posed by impervious surfaces and groundwater contamination such as from septic drainfields and leaking underground storage tanks. Thus, suitable land uses may at least be inferred with respect to areas of natural moderate aquifer recharge or artificially high aquifer recharge due to wellfield drawdowns. As to Issue 9, Coastal Element Figure 18 identifies the coastal high hazard area in Hillsborough County. 2. Supporting Data and Analysis (Issues 10-14) As to Issue 10, the failure of the Plan to require retrofitting of existing, deficient stormwater management systems is supported by the Data and Analysis. In the first place, the Plan addresses retrofitting to a significant extent. Coastal Element Policy 13.3, which deals with all infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area, commits the County to preparing, by the 1993 hurricane season, a program to relocate or retrofit public facilities where feasible. Where economically and environmentally feasible, CARE Policy 2.10 and Coastal Element Policy 1.11 provide for the retrofitting of urbanized areas lacking stormwater management facilities. CARE Policy 2.8 contains similar provisions regarding agricultural runoff. The Plan provisions cited in the preceding paragraph are supported by the Data and Analysis. Existing stormwater problems are sufficiently serious that the Data and Analysis question whether water quality problems can be corrected without retrofitting stormwater management systems. Stormwater Element, page 20. However, the Data and Analysis recognize that economic reality may limit retrofitting to redevelopment. The failure of the Plan to require retrofitting of stormwater systems generally is supported by the Data and Analysis, at least in the absence of stronger evidence that, without retrofitting in unincorporated Hillsborough County, the water quality problems in Tampa Bay cannot be effectively addressed. The other part of Issue 10 concerns the failure of the Plan to set a stormwater level of service standard in terms of water quality. This part of Issue 10 addresses the means by which the performance of stormwater management systems will be evaluated, regardless whether the systems are installed at the time of development or redevelopment. The failure of the Plan in this regard is dramatic. First, the Plan provides for a stormwater level of service standard strictly in terms of flood control. The stormwater level of service standard, which is stated in CIE Policy 1.C.1.b, defines storm events and their duration and then specifies the extent to which the stormwater facilities may flood in such events. Other Plan provisions address aspects of stormwater management other than mere flood control--even mentioning water quality. But these provisions lack the measurable and enforceable performance standards characteristic of level of service standards. 25/ The Data and Analysis offer no support for the Plan's preoccupation, when setting a level of service standard, with stormwater solely in terms of flood control, to the exclusion of other factors that affect the quality of receiving waters, such as runoff rate, quality, and hydroperiods. To the contrary, the stormwater level of service standard in the Plan is repugnant to the Data and Analysis. The Data and Analysis clearly identify the role of inadequately treated stormwater runoff in the eutrophication of Tampa Bay. One quarter of the biological oxygen demand and 35% of the suspended solids discharged into the bay are attributable to stormwater runoff. Important gains have been made in reducing the nutrient loading of the bay by inadequately treated domestic and industrial wastewater, such as through the enhancement of treatment levels at wastewater treatment plants or the implementation of wastewater reuse programs. But the Data and Analysis concede that nutrient loading from stormwater runoff will remain a more intractable program. Coastal Element, page 24. The problem is exacerbated by inadequate compliance with existing stormwater regulations. CARE, page 54. For areas within the substantial floodplains of Hillsborough County, and even to a certain extent for areas outside the floodplains, the stormwater issue is best approached from the perspective of floodplain management. The natural drainage of floodplains regulates the timing, velocity, and levels of flood discharges, as well as water quality through the processes of sediment detention and chemical filtration. CARE, pages 14-15. Stormwater management systems using only a structural approach to effect flood control destroy the natural drainage function of the floodplain. Structural improvements include such projects as channelizing natural watercourses (like the Palm River) and constructing new channels, dams, levees, and other structures to hold back floodwaters or rapidly convey them elsewhere. Consequently, flood discharges tend to peak more quickly. By increasing maximum flow, the flood-control structures decrease filtration, groundwater recharge, habitat maintenance, detrital production and export, maintenance of base flow (as minimum flows during later dry periods cannot draw upon water previously stored in the unaltered floodplains), and estuarine salinity regulation. CARE, pages 15-17. In short, the Data and Analysis disclose that a stormwater management program whose performance is evaluated exclusively in terms of flood control, such as that contained in the Plan, has systemic environmental implications whose economic costs are probably incalculable. The Data and Analysis identify the obvious planning considerations that underlie the establishment of a viable stormwater level of service standard. The third guideline for floodplain management is to avoid alterations to the natural rate, quality, and pattern of surface waters. Expressly applying the guideline to floodplains and "more upland sites," the Data and Analysis advise that the "rate, volume, timing and location of discharge of surface water should generally not be altered from predevelopment conditions." CARE, page 19. See also Stormwater Element, page 20. Yet, the best that the County offers, after acknowledging its preoccupation with flood control in setting the stormwater level of service standard, is to promise that a stormwater management program--deferred to land development regulations--will eventually address stormwater runoff in terms of quality, not merely quantity. Stormwater Element, page 43. As to the part of Issue 10 addressing the level of service standard, the Plan's stormwater standard is, to the exclusion of fair debate, not supported by the Data and Analysis because it fails to require that, for new development, redevelopment, and expansions of existing development, as "development" is defined in the Plan, postdevelopment stormwater urban and agricultural runoff shall be the same as (or, where appropriate, better than) predevelopment runoff in terms of volume, quality, rate, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. If the Plan fails to amend its stormwater level of service standard in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph, many future land use designations, in addition to those discussed below, are, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsuitable and lack support from the Data and Analysis. The permitted densities and intensities, especially in the 100 year floodplain, will contribute dramatically to the degradation of natural drainage patterns in the County and ultimately to the degradation of Tampa Bay. Absent modification of the stormwater level of service standard to address urban and agricultural runoff in terms of volume, quality, rate, hydroperiod, and drainage basin, the Data and Analysis would not support Plan provisions that allowed any development, as that term is defined in the Plan, in the 100 year floodplain if such development's urban or agricultural runoff altered predevelopment drainage conditions in terms of its rate, volume, quality, timing, or location of discharge. As to Issues 11-14, assuming that the Plan is amended to broaden the scope of the stormwater level of service standard in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph, the Plan is generally supported by the land use suitability analysis. However, there are 11 exceptions. First, in terms of urban sprawl, the overall densities in the Plan are supported by the Data and Analysis, at least to the extent that there is no indication of urban sprawl. The density allocation ratio of 1.61:1 is not an especially strong indicator of sprawl in this case. 26/ Several factors are important in evaluating a density allocation ratio, such as whether historic buildouts have been considered (not in this case) and the duration of the planning timeframe (20 years). Probably the most important consideration, though, is the location of the residential uses. A density allocation ratio of 3:1 generated by 100,000 acres of 1:1 residential is far more suggestive of inefficient use of land than the same ratio generated by 5000 acres of 20:1 residential in an existing or planned mixed use urban area, assuming the provision of adequate public facilities, protection of natural resources, and protection of agriculture. The Plan's two planning strategies involve the concentration of density in the I-75 corridor, with decreasing densities radiating outward, and the development of nodes where suitably scaled commercial uses are located in close proximity to residential uses. These two strategies have been effectively implemented in the Plan to counter urban sprawl. There is no plausible evidence in the record that the allocated intensities or acreage, in terms of commercial or industrial uses, are indicative of urban sprawl. As the Data and Analysis note, commercial development has historically followed residential development, not preceded it. An underallocation of commercial and industrial future land uses arguably invites sprawl by interfering with the development of functionally related land uses. There is no place for commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational land uses once residential development has consumed the entire landscape, with respect to which adequate commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses have not been timely reserved. In addition, allocation ratios for commercial and industrial uses are problematic, regardless whether expressed in acreage, which is necessarily a very gross measure of the intensity that is eventually built out, or floor area ratios, which are more precise but much more difficult to predict based on designated acreages of vacant land. Therefore, the overallocation of commercial and industrial uses does not serve as a useful beginning point for analysis, at least in the absence of proof of historic overbuilding with resulting disruption in the efficient use of land or public facilities or loss of natural resources or agriculture. As noted above, the key factor with respect to commercial and industrial uses is location. Through various devices, the Plan effectively pursues mixed land use patterns that will encourage the location of residential, commercial, and industrial, as well as institutional and recreational, uses in a functionally related manner. Notwithstanding the finding that the Plan designations are supported by the Data and Analysis in terms of urban sprawl, the Data and Analysis do not support specific designations involving considerable acreage, even assuming that the stormwater level of service standard will be broadened to include the above- cited factors in addition to flood control. The Data and Analysis recount the consequences of years of land use decisions based "primarily on socio-economic and demographic factors, with little consideration given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land." But the Data and Analysis promise that, "[w]ith a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions . . .." CARE, page 73. For the 11 areas described below, socio-economic and demographic factors have again outweighed the natural carrying capacity of the land. The 11 areas have received unsuitable designations for which the Data and Analysis offer no or inadequate support. For each of these areas, the Plan has assigned designations whose excessive densities and/or intensities generally jeopardize important natural resources or life and property in the coastal high hazard area. A future land use is suitable if the designation is supported by the Data and Analysis. For the vast majority of areas, the Data and Analysis would support designations assigning a range of densities and/or intensities. The question whether a designation is supported by the Data and Analysis requires consideration of, among other factors, the nature of the density or intensity inherent in the designation of the subject area, the data and analysis concerning the nature of the natural resources affected by the subject designation (including off-site resources), the data and analysis concerning when and what type of public facilities will be available to service the subject area, the data and analysis indicating how the designated uses may impact natural resources, and operative Plan provisions that may or may not offer protection to the natural resources in question. 27/ The Plan assigns unsuitable designations to five areas in northwest and north Hillsborough County. The Data and Analysis fail to support two of these designations to the exclusion of fair debate and three of the designations by a mere preponderance of the evidence. One relatively small area whose designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis is designated Low Suburban Density Residential (2:1) at the southeast end of Keystone Lake. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Low Suburban Density Residential on the FLUM. This area is immediately north and west of Gunn Highway at Van Dyke Road. Shown as largely agricultural or vacant on Oversized Map 2, the area received an increase in density in the Plan, according to Oversized Map 14. The only area designated at a Suburban density in the northwest corner of northwest Hillsborough County, the area is the site of one or more major public supply water wells. By contrast, areas containing groups of wells just south of Keystone Lake and at the extreme northwest corner of the County are designated Natural Preservation, as is an area at the southwest corner of SR 597 and Van Dyke Road, about four miles east of the area in question. The area designated Low Suburban Density Residential occupies an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge and is very susceptible to groundwater contamination. The subject area is included in the 1995 central water service area, but excluded from even the 2010 central sewer service area, according to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1. The absence of effective Plan provisions protecting wellfields, cones of influence, and recharge areas further undermines the Low Suburban Density Residential designation of an area in such close proximity to a major public supply water well and in an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge. The increased density for this area threatens a major wellfield with encroaching development, as predicted in the Data and Analysis. FLUE, page 7. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support the density and intensity assigned by the Plan to two, much larger areas in the northern half of northwest Hillsborough County. The extent of the subject areas corresponds to the areas whose densities were increased, according to Oversized Map 14 (excluding only the above-described Low Suburban Density Residential area). The western area of the two is a contiguous block surrounding Keystone Lake and proceeding east and west of the major public supply water wells about 1-2 miles south of Keystone Lake. This area extends to the northwest corner of Hillsborough County, except for the very corner, which is Natural Preservation. The eastern area is a contiguous block almost entirely west of SR 597, but crossing SR 597 at the southeast corner. This area abuts Pasco County on the north and an area of density decrease on the south. These two areas of increased density and intensity surround (or in some cases slightly encroach upon) the four largest collections of major public supply water wells in northwest Hillsborough County, as shown on Oversized Map Representing perhaps half of such collections of major public supply water wells in the entire County, these wells represent a very important source of potable water, especially for a County in which demand is now exceeding supply. The two areas in question are in areas of relatively good natural aquifer recharge and areas of high vulnerability to groundwater contamination. The Plan supplies no performance standards for activities that may introduce contaminants into the portion of the aquifer from which a major public supply water well draws. As the Data and Analysis note, increasing areas of impervious surface may reduce recharge and groundwater supplies. A considerable amount of the eastern area lies in the 100 year floodplain, which runs throughout both areas. The eastern area also includes a significant section of soils with very severe limitations, according to Oversized Map 13 and CARE Figure 9. The green map indicates two overlay areas of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. One of these areas is in the southwest corner of the eastern area, and the other covers the part of the eastern area designated Regional Commercial. The western area contains numerous sites described by Oversized Map 13 as Very Sensitive Lands and most of one significant section of soils with very severe limitations, according to Oversized Map 13 and CARE Figure 9. According to CARE Figure 20, the western area contains significant amounts of dry prairie and cypress swamps. According to the green map, the western areas's potentially significant wildlife habitat takes the form of two narrow corridors running east-west, although the northern one may have been excluded from the area receiving increased density. As noted above, contiguous wildlife corridors receive firm protection under the Plan. The designations are completely different for the two areas. The western area contains entirely Rural Residential (1:1) and Rural Estate Residential (1:2.5), except for small areas of Environmentally Significant Areas. The more densely designated eastern area contains mostly Low Suburban Density Residential (2:1) and smaller, but significant, amounts of Suburban Density Residential (4:1). Each of these areas would, under the Plan, host commercial uses scaled to their respective Rural and Suburban densities. But the southeast corner of the eastern area is designated Regional Commercial (20:1) and contains major natural systems according to Oversized Map 8. The natural systems appear to be dry prairie and cypress swamps on CARE Figure 20. According to Oversized Map 2, this corner is agricultural or vacant with natural area in its center. The unsuitability of the designations given both the eastern and western areas is about equal. Although the western area received less density, according to Sewer Element Figure 1, the western area is almost entirely outside the area that will be served by central sewer, even by 2010. Most of the western area will be served by central water by 2010, with a substantial area to be served by 1995, according to Potable Water Element Figure 1. By contrast, the eastern area already has some central sewer lines and what little area will not be within the 1995 central sewer boundary will be included in the 2010 boundary. The situation is identical with respect to central water. The unsuitability of the designations of the eastern and western areas is unaffected by the fact, as shown by Oversized Map 15, that the Plan brought portions of these areas into conformance with existing zoning. Zoning conforms to Plan designations. The Plan provides, where appropriate, for vested rights. The remedy for nonconforming zoning is to recognize vested rights, not to increase densities and intensities over wide areas to an extent not supported by the Data and Analysis. The key fact is that, for both the western and eastern areas, the Plan has designated excessive densities and intensities in areas containing sensitive and much-needed groundwater resources. And while increasing these densities and intensities, the County has not, at the same time, adopted effective Plan provisions ensuring the protection of wellfields, their cones of influence, natural recharge areas, and the natural functions of floodplains from the adverse impacts of development. Another area whose designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis is an area of about 2.5 square miles designated Urban Level 1 Limited (8:1) immediately east of I-275 and I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Urban Level 1 Limited on the FLUM. The 2.5 square mile area is the only Urban Level designation that is not contiguous to the Urban Level designations constituting the I-75 corridor, except for a small Urban Level-1 "island" surrounded by Natural Preservation. 28/ The 2.5 square mile area designated Urban Level 1 Limited is separated from the remainder of the I-75 corridor by several miles of area designated Natural Preservation. Nor is the 2.5 square mile area bounded by existing or proposed arterial roads, as is required of Urban Level 1 areas. According to Oversized Map 4, the only arterial or higher roads in or near the 2.5 square mile area are I-75 on the west boundary (to which access is limited) and an arterial on the east boundary. There are no roads on the north and south boundaries, nor will there be by 2010, according to Oversized Map 4. Almost the entire 2.5 square mile area is overlaid with Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to the green map. The northern half of the 2.5 square mile area is in the 100 year floodplain. The eastern and western thirds of the area consist of very poorly drained soils. The northern two-thirds of the area occupy an area of very low to moderate recharge, which is the highest recharge in Hillsborough County. Most of the western half of the area is in the area most susceptible to groundwater contamination. The eastern third appears to be entirely dry prairie and cypress swamps, through which a major tributary of the Hillsborough River runs. Oversized Map 8 shows nearly the entire parcel (less a small area at the western end) to be part of major natural systems. Oversized Map 2 shows that the 2.5 square mile areas is entirely agricultural or vacant. Despite this unusual confluence of natural features, the 2.5 square mile area, which is permanently separated from Tampa by a Natural Preserve protecting the Hillsborough River, received a density increase in connection with the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. The 2.5 square mile area is entirely omitted from even the 2010 central water and sewer service areas, according to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1. The failure of Plan provisions to ensure the protection of the natural functions of floodplains and recharge areas exacerbates the unsuitability of the Urban designation for the 2.5 square mile area. The meaning of Urban Level 1 Limited is explained by FLUE Policy C-25.3, which limits the density in the 2.5 square mile area to 8:1. But even this "reduced" density fails to indicate that this remote area will undergo development suitable for the unusual range of natural resources present in the area. The circumstances suggest that the Urban Level 1 Limited designation cannot facilitate the development in this remote area of the kind of viable mixed uses for which Urban designations are intended. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support the density assigned by the Plan to a much larger L-shaped area designated Suburban Density Residential (4:1) extending from the 2.5 square mile area to just across CR 579. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Suburban Density Residential on the FLUM. The Suburban Density Residential L-shaped area, which is about 12 square miles, contains three major public supply water wells at its southeast corner. The green map overlays more than three quarters of the 12 square mile area with Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. The 12 square mile area abuts the above- described 2.5 square mile area on the northwest, Tampa on the southwest and nearly all of the south, Pasco County and Agricultural/Rural (1:5) on the north, and Agriculture (1:10) on the east. According to CARE Figure 20, the portions of the 12 square mile area overlaid with the designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat are dry prairie and cypress swamps, as is almost two- thirds of the land south of the subject area under the jurisdiction of the City of Tampa. According to CARE Figure 14, the western half of the 12 square mile area is in an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge, but only a very small part of the subject area is in an area of high vulnerability to groundwater contamination. However, a large collection of major public supply water wells is in the Natural Preservation area just south of the extension of Tampa abutting the south boundary of the 12 square mile area. The closest wells are about one mile south of the southern boundary of the 12 square mile area. According to Oversized Map 13, the only part of the 12 square mile parcel with poor soils is the extreme northwest corner. Oversized Map 2 shows that the entire 12 square mile area that is not shown as natural areas is agricultural or vacant, as is the area of Tampa immediately south of the subject area. According to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1, the 12 square mile area is not scheduled to receive central water or sewer by 2010. The remaining areas whose designations are not supported by the Data and Analysis are in the vicinity of the coastal high hazard area in south Hillsborough County and in the Urban designations and one Light Industrial designation along the I-75 corridor south of the Alafia River. The Plan assigns designations to two areas in or near the coastal high hazard area that, to the exclusion of fair debate, are not supported by the Data and Analysis. The Plan also assigns designations to four areas in (or adjoining, in the case of the Light Industrial area) the I-75 corridor south of the Alafia River that are not supported by the Data and Analysis to the exclusion of fair debate, in one area, and by a mere preponderance of the evidence in the other three areas. The coastal high hazard area begins at the Manatee County line and runs along US 41. At a point due east of Cockroach Bay, the line turns toward the bay and continues to run in a more northerly direction until it approaches the Little Manatee River. At this point, the coastal high hazard line follows the winding river to the east, then south, crossing US 41 before proceeding again north. The line runs along US 41 until, at the north end of Ruskin, the line cuts again toward the bay. After running north again for about one mile, the line returns to US 41, then proceeds west of US 41, in a north-northeasterly direction, until it almost intersects the bay at Apollo Beach. North of Apollo Beach, the line mostly follows US 41 to the Alafia River at Gibsonton. Oversized Map 14 discloses density increases in part of the coastal high hazard area between Cockroach Bay and the Little Manatee River. Initiated by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan, an irregularly shaped area about three square miles west of US 41 received a density increase. The Plan then increased the density of a smaller portion of the eastern end of the three square mile area. The extent of the subject area, which is only partly in the coastal high hazard area, corresponds to the area whose density was increased, according to Oversized Map 14, and that is presently designated, in the FLUM, as Low Suburban Density Residential Planned (2:1 if certain clustering and mixed use requirements are met; otherwise 1:5). Oversized Map 2 shows that the entire area so designated is entirely agricultural or vacant, except for a shell mine, three small, isolated areas of low density residential, and some small commercial uses along US 41. The density increase for the portion of the three square mile area lying in the coastal high hazard area is clearly unsupported by the Data and Analysis, which acknowledge the need to reduce, not raise, densities in this critical area in order to save lives and property. However, much of the three square mile area is outside of the coastal high hazard area and the unsuitability of the designation lies in the assigned density, not in the increase of density. About a third of the three square mile area is in the 100 year floodplain. Relatively little of it contains major natural systems or Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to Oversized Map 8 and the green map. And none of the area is subject to recharge or significantly vulnerable to groundwater contamination. However, the three square mile area is bordered on three sides by three critical resources that remain in relatively pristine condition: Cockroach Bay, the Little Manatee River, and the portion of Tampa Bay connecting the river and Cockroach Bay. The entire shoreline along the three square mile area joins Hillsborough County's only aquatic preserve. Coastal Figure 11 indicates that the coast from just south of Apollo Beach to the Manatee County line, and especially from the Little Manatee River to Cockroach Bay, is the only location where seagrass meadows remain along the waters of unincorporated Hillsborough County, except for a smaller expanse of interspersed meadows along the shore of northwest Hillsborough County. These are also Class II waters. CARE Figure 9 shows that the western half of the three square mile area is dominated by very poorly drained soils. The Data and Analysis note that area septic tank failures have contributed to the pollution of Cockroach Bay and possible loss of the last shoreline location in the County at which shellfish harvesting is approved, although only conditionally. Significantly, in view of the poorly drained soils and history of septic tank failures, Sewer Element Figure 1 shows no existing or proposed sewer lines for the three square mile area, which inexplicably is nonetheless included in the 2010 central sewer service area. The area is due to receive central water lines by 2010. Given the critical and fragile nature of the area of Cockroach Bay and the Little Manatee River, as described by the Data and Analysis, the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation, which, with the I-75 and South County plan amendments, represented an increased density for the three square mile area, is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, supported by the Data and Analysis. The failure of the Plan to direct population concentrations away from the coastal high hazard area and ensure the protection of the natural functions of the 100 year floodplain exacerbates the unsuitability of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation for the three square mile area. Just north of the Little Manatee River at Ruskin, Oversized Map 14 discloses another area of density increase, again initiated by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. This area is designated Medium Density Residential (12:1) and extends two miles east-west by an average of one-half mile north-south. The southwest corner of the one square mile area abuts a portion of the Little Manatee River, and nearly the entire south boundary of the area abuts a tributary of the Little Manatee River. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Medium Density Residential on the FLUM. The entire square mile area lies west of US 41 and in the coastal high hazard area. The designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis for this reason alone. According to Oversized Map 2, the southern half of the square mile area is already in low and medium density residential, except for the western end that is agricultural or vacant. However, most of the northern half is agricultural or vacant. According to Oversized Map 13, the entire square mile area contains soils with very severe limitations and some critical lands. The entire area occupies the 100 year floodplain. And the area is not due to receive central sewer until 1995 or central water at all, although it is in the 1995 central water service area. Even absent the fact that the square mile area is in the coastal high hazard area, the Medium Density Residential designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The remaining four areas in the County whose designations are unsupported by the Data and Analysis are in the I-75 corridor, except for one of the areas that extends into an adjoining Light Industrial area. Nearly the entire contiguous corridor received higher densities as a result of the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. However, the four areas in question all lie south of the Alafia River. The first area is about 3.25 square miles at the southernmost end of the I-75 corridor, south of SR 674. Triangularly shaped, this area, which is Urban Level 1 (12:1), is bounded on the east and north by I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Urban Level 1 south of SR 674 and I-75. The southern boundary of the triangular area represents an anomaly for the I-75 corridor; it abuts Rural Residential (1:1). Except for the portion of the north end of the I-75 corridor surrounding a Rural Residential "island" and the northernmost end of the I-75 corridor, which abuts the vast Natural Preservation area of the Hillsborough River valley, no other part of the I-75 corridor abuts land that is not designated at least Suburban. Contrary to the requirements for Urban Level 1 designations, the triangular area is not bound by existing or proposed arterials. The triangular area also abuts a Natural Preservation area at its southeast corner. The Little Manatee River is less than one-half mile from the southern boundary of the subject area. The southernmost mile of the subject area encompasses tributaries of the Little Manatee River. The northern half of the subject area adjoins Suburban Density Residential (4:1) and Low Medium Density Residential (9:1) on the east and Low Urban Density Residential (6:1) and Urban Level-2 (20:1) across I-75 on the west. The northern point of the subject area is in the vicinity of the I-75/SR 674 interchange. The triangular area is free from major natural systems or Environmentally Significant Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to Oversized Map 5 and the green map. However, most of the southernmost mile of the subject area is within the 100 year floodplain. Oversized Map 2 reports that the subject area is predominantly agricultural or vacant, although it has interspersed, isolated low density and some medium density residential uses, mostly in the northeast portion. The triangular area is not scheduled for any central sewer lines until after 1995, and then the line will be limited to about one-half mile south of SR 674 along I-75. The area will be better served, by 2010, by central water. Given the Plan's failure to protect adequately floodplains and the proximity of the Little Manatee River, the evidence shows, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the Urban Level-1 designation of the southernmost mile of the triangular area is not supported by the Data and Analysis. The designation given to the remainder of the triangular area is not unsupported by the Data and Analysis. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support predominantly Urban Level 1 densities and intensities in two areas in the vicinity of I-75 and Big Bend Road. One of the areas in question is a Z-shaped linear area that largely tracks, but is not limited to, a strip of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The strip begins at US 301 and a proposed westerly extension of SR 672. The area, which is limited to the Urban I-75 corridor, proceeds in a west- northwesterly direction to just east of I-75, runs north along the east side of I-75 to a point about one mile south of the Alafia River, and, now becoming Bullfrog Creek, turns west and crosses I-75 until it leaves the I-75 Urban Level corridor. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the areas in the vicinity of the Z-shaped area that are within any of the three following categories: the 100 year floodplain according to Oversized Map 9, Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the FLUM, or Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the green map. The lower half of the Z-shaped area occupies very severely limited soils. The upper half contains critical and very sensitive lands. According to Oversized Map 14, almost the entire Z-shaped area received increased densities due to the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, existing uses of considerable portions of the Z-shaped area are natural areas and agricultural or vacant. CARE Figure 20 indicates that Bullfrog Creek is largely open water until it turns south just east of I-75, at which point a series of hardwood swamps extend through the remainder of the Z-shaped area to the south. The Z-shaped area, which runs about eight miles, has long been recognized as environmentally sensitive and generally unsuitable for development. 29/ The narrow band of Environmentally Sensitive Areas is afforded uncertain protection under the Plan. Moreover, the Urban Level 1 designation extends to portions of the Z-shaped area that are in the 100 year floodplain and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to the green map. In the absence of stronger Plan provisions protecting the 100 year floodplain, as well as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Urban Level 1 designation given the Z-shaped area is, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The unsuitability of the designation is underscored by the operation of the density and intensity formulas, which would allow even more intense and dense uses in close proximity, even assuming that development were prohibited in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas themselves. Two other areas bearing unsuitable designations are also in the vicinity of Big Bend Road and I-75. Unlike the remainder of the contiguous I-75 corridor, these areas mark significant expanses of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. One area runs from the southeast corner of the interchange along I-75 south past a proposed extension of Balm-Picnic Road or SR 672, where the area expands to an area of about one mile north-south by two miles east-west, with the western end crossing I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area shown on the green map as Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. The subject area is designated exclusively Urban Level 1 except for a small area designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The upper portion of the subject area overlaps the part of the Z- shaped area running north-south just south of Big Bend Road. According to CARE Figure 20, the remainder of the narrower part of the subject area is wetlands. The wider portion of the subject area is predominantly dry prairie. According to Oversized Map 14, the entire subject area received increased density in the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, the existing uses of the entire subject area are natural areas and agricultural or vacant. The Urban Level-1 designation given the subject area is, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The allowable densities and intensities contradict the acknowledgement in the Data and Analysis of the need to protect these natural resources and frustrate other Plan provisions that extend some protection to these natural resources. The other area extends northwest of the intersection of Big Bend Road and I-75. The subject area runs about 1.5 miles north of the intersection, then widens to the west to encompass a portion of the Light Industrial designation between the I-75 corridor on the east and, on the west, Tampa Bay and the large Heavy Industrial area north of Apollo Beach. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area shown on the green map as Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. Except for the Light Industrial designation, the entire subject area is designated Urban Level 1 with a small area of Urban Level 2. According to CARE Figure 20, almost all of the subject area is wetlands, possibly with some pine flatwoods. Part of the subject area received a density increase by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, the existing uses of all of the subject area are natural area and agricultural or vacant, with a narrow corridor of major public area. The Urban Level 1 and 2 designations assigned to the subject area are, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis for the same reasons set forth with respect to the preceding area. General Minimum Criteria Public Participation (Issue 15) As to Issue 15, the County adopted the Plan, including all amendments, in a manner consistent with the requirements of public participation. Contents of FLUM and Plan (Issues 16-36) FLUM (Issue 16) As to Issue 16, the FLUM depicts minerals in the Agricultural/Mining designation and various public uses in the Major Public/Semi-Public designation. Regardless of the ambiguity surrounding the significance of the designation, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designated on the FLUM (i.e., the multicolor map) adequately show the location of wetlands. However, to the exclusion of fair debate, the FLUM is not consistent with the criterion of the depiction of existing and planned waterwells, cones of influence, historic resources or historically significant properties meriting protection, floodplains, or soils. All of these resources are depicted on ELUM's, but the County elected not to include these resources on the FLUM as part of the operative provisions of its Plan. Plan Provisions Regarding Natural Resources (Issues 17-22) As to Issue 17, the Plan contains objectives coordinating future land uses with topography, soils, and the availability of public facilities. Regarding topography and soils, FLUE Objective A-1 prohibits the issuance of development orders unless the development is "compatible with the physical conditions of the land, including, but not limited to, topographical and soil conditions . . .." FLUE Objective A-8 requires development to mitigate adverse impacts to natural systems. Regarding topography, FLUE Objective 4 is to protect the 100 year floodplain's storage volume. Somewhat vaguely, CARE Objective 19 is to amend land development regulations to "ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment " Regarding the stormwater management aspects of topography, Stormwater Element Objective 4 is to identify and evaluate the sources of water quality degradation attributable to stormwater runoff. Stormwater Objective 5 is to maintain or improve the quality of stormwater runoff. Regarding soils, CARE Objective 11 requires soil conservation during land alteration and development activities. Although not objectives, two policies address the suitability of soils. CARE Policy 11.1 provides that, during the land development review process, the County shall "recommend" the appropriate use of soils and shall require site-specific analyses when land uses appear incompatible with soils. CARE Policy 11.3 states that, during the land development process, the County shall use soil capability analyses for flood hazard, stability, permeability, and other soil characteristics. Regarding mining, CARE Objective 7 requires the "prudent operation" of mining activities. CARE Objective 9 is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the adverse impacts of mining. CARE Objective 10 requires the County to regulate the location and operation of land excavation to minimize negative impacts on surrounding land uses and ensure the reclamation and productive reuse of excavated lands. Regarding public facilities, FLUE Objective A-5 is that all development and redevelopment shall be serviced at the adopted level of service standards by all public facilities for which concurrency is required. FLUE Objective C-29 requires that the needed public facilities be provided concurrent with the impacts of development. Although there are several instances where specific land use designations are unsuitable in terms of, among other factors, topography, soils, and the provision of public facilities, the Plan contains sufficient provisions to attain consistency with the criterion of an objective coordinating future land uses with topography, soils, and public facilities. As to Issue 18, numerous Plan provisions address numerous natural resources, as well as water sources. The rules cited in Issue 18 require one or more objectives ensuring the protection of natural resources, such as Tampa Bay and its tributaries, and one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting water sources. 30/ For the purpose of Issue 18, natural resources have been identified as Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, rivers (primarily the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers), surface waters generally, floodplains, wetlands, rare upland habitats, and wildlife habitat. Findings concerning soils are set forth above. The water sources have been divided into the following categories: wellfields and cones of influence, aquifer recharge, groundwater, water conservation, and septic tanks. Obviously, wellfields, cones of influence, and aquifer recharge areas are natural resources, and floodplains, wetlands, and the Hillsborough River (whose surface waters are an important potable water source) are related to water sources. There is thus considerable overlap in the following discussion of these categories. Regarding surface water generally, including Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, and the rivers, CARE Objective 2 promises that the water quality of natural surface water bodies shall be improved or restored if they do not at least meet state water quality standards. Unfortunately, CARE Objective 2 is not operative until 1995. If the objective had assured compliance with water quality standards, a deferred date of 1995 would have been suitable because the entire improvement cannot take place instantaneously. However, the intermediate end of CARE Objective 2 is much more modest; the water quality of substandard water bodies must only be improved. And the improvement--any improvement--is not required until 1995. The main threats to Tampa Bay also apply to surface water quality generally: inadequately treated wastewater and inadequately treated stormwater. The Plan does not generally ensure the protection of surface water through the objectives and relevant policies concerning stormwater. Stormwater Objective 5 is to implement programs to maintain or improve stormwater. The natural resources in question are not protected by maintaining the water quality of stormwater; they are not even protected by improving the water quality of stormwater absent a measurable goal. The failure of the stormwater objectives is exacerbated by the Plan's failure to set stormwater level of service standards in terms other than flood control. The Plan addresses to a much greater extent the protection of surface water through the objectives and relevant policies concerning wastewater. Sewer Element Objective 1 is for all wastewater treatment facilities to produce effluent of sufficiently high quality to meet or exceed all regulatory standards. Sewer Element Policy 1.1 requires that all wastewater discharged into surface waters or wetlands meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards. Sewer Element Objective 2 promises to assist in the wastewater problem by continuing to require the use and expansion of existing recovered water reuse systems. Sewer Element Objective 4 requires that central sewer facilities be provided to remedy current deficiencies in the system and to meet projected demands, based on the sewer level of service standard. Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility" that existing and future wastewater adversely impacts surface waters. The objective is not especially amenable to measurement. Sewer Element Policy 7.1 is useful, though, because it requires that septic tank users hook up to the County system when it becomes available, except in cases of undue hardship. Sewer Element Policy 4.8 also prohibits septic tanks in the coastal high hazard area except in cases of undue hardship. CARE Policy 2.6 promises better wastewater treatment in areas where septic tanks fail, at least where economically feasible. And CARE Policy 2.4 indicates that the County plans to supply regional wastewater treatment in the more densely populated areas. However, other policies under Sewer Element Objective 7 are less effective. Sewer Element Policy 7.2 promises that, within one year after the completion of a pending septic tank study, the County will reexamine the maximum usable density for septic tanks. Sewer Element Policy 7.3 promises, in the same timeframe, a program to identify existing septic tank systems with a high potential for contaminating groundwater. Regarding Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Objective 3 is to "maintain, and enhance where environmentally and economically feasible, the abundance and diversity of living marine resources in Tampa Bay." FLUE Objective C-30 requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that "water quality and quantity" are protected from degradation from development. CARE Objective 19 promises that the County shall continue to amend its land development regulations to "ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment." In addition to relegating the regulatory mechanism to land development regulations, CARE Objective 19 does not state a specific, measurable, intermediate end that can be achieved. Coastal Element Policy 2.1 is to conserve and protect tidal wetlands from detrimental physical and hydrological alteration and prohibit unmitigated encroachment into tidal wetlands. Coastal Element Policy 2.2 prohibits channelization or hardening of natural coastal shorelines and tidal creeks except in cases of overriding public interest. Coastal Element Policy 2.6 prohibits development activities on submerged lands containing significant seagrass habitat and seeks the restoration of seagrass coverage. Coastal Element Policy 2.7 requires land developments within the coastal area to preserve those portions of native upland plant communities necessary to provide an effective buffer for coastal wetlands. Coastal Element Policy 2.9 is to review and "restrict as appropriate" proposed development adjacent to the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to ensure that water quality, shoreline, or estuarine habitat degradation does not occur due to development. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 prohibits the use of septic tanks for new development in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 7.4 forbids the development of water- related uses by dredging and filling wetlands or the natural shoreline. CARE Policy 19.8 requires the County to identify Resource Protection Areas on the FLUM. Resource Protection Areas include Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, the three main rivers, significant and essential wildlife habitat, areas of high aquifer recharge/groundwater contamination potential, public supply wellfields and their cones of influence, and areas containing major phosphate deposits. CARE, pages 99-100. For Tampa Bay, the CARE definition of Resource Protection Areas refers the reader to the Coastal Element. Coastal Element Objective 1 is identical to CARE Objective 2. Coastal Element Objective 1 addresses only the water quality of those parts of Tampa Bay and its tributaries not meeting state standards. By 1995, these waters will be improved or restored. In addition to failing to address the protection of those parts of Tampa Bay meeting or exceeding state standards, this objective promises only, as to substandard waters, that some improvement is to take place starting in 1995. As is the case with surface waters generally, the Plan contains various provisions adequately addressing wastewater. CARE Policy 2.2 and Coastal Element Policy 1.2 require Advanced Wastewater Treatment for all surface water discharge from all domestic wastewater treatment plants discharging into Tampa Bay or any of its tributaries. Coastal Element Policy 1.4 is to continue to develop and use effluent-disposal alternatives, such as reused water for agricultural and industrial uses, rather than surface water discharge into Tampa Bay and its tributaries. Coastal Element Policy 1.7 provides that, where it is economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment in areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic tank systems. Again, the Plan offers less protection to Tampa Bay from inadequately treated stormwater runoff. However, addressing another source of excessive nutrients in Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Policy 1.12 provides for the dredging and removal of polluted estuarine sediments and their replacement with clean fill, where economically and environmentally feasible. Regarding the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers, numerous goals, objectives, and policies in the FLUE provide protection for these resources. FLUE Goal 3 is to make the Hillsborough River cleaner. FLUE Objective C-7 is to protect the Hillsborough River as a major source of drinking water. Somewhat less effective are FLUE Objectives C-10 and C-12. Objective C-10 requires the County, by 1992, to establish development standards for the river corridor. Objective C-12 requires the County, by 1994, to manage the Hillsborough River as an important community asset. FLUE Policy C-9.1 prohibits new marinas in the upper Hillsborough River. FLUE Objective C-14 is to discourage additional development on the upper Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-14.1 requires the County to manage the upper Hillsborough River as a wildlife corridor. FLUE Objective C-13 requires the County to preserve and enhance wildlife habitats associated with the Hillsborough River. Because of the Hillsborough River's status as a source of surface potable water, it receives additional protection from CARE Objective 6, which requires the conservation, reuse, and enhancement of surface water supplies. Various policies add to the protection extended the Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-7.2 prohibits new septic tanks within 200 feet of the Hillsborough River, although, unlike similar provisions concerning the Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers, this prohibition is not extended to tributaries. FLUE Policy C-7.4 requires Advanced Wastewater Treatment for wastewater treatment discharging anywhere in the Hillsborough River drainage basin. FLUE Policy C-7.3 prevents further destruction of the natural vegetative buffers along the Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-10.2 prohibits the designation of new industrial land uses within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-13.1 prohibits the alteration of wetlands within 500 feet of the river. Regarding the Alafia River, FLUE Goal 4 is to preserve, protect, and promote the Alafia River and its natural resources and recreational benefits. FLUE Objective C-15 requires the County to maintain the water quality of this already impaired waterbody, but only by 1995. FLUE Objectives C-16 and C-17 require the County, by 1991, to preserve and restore native vegetation and wildlife habitats and protect wildlife, presumably along the Alafia River. FLUE Policy C-16.1 prohibits the alteration of wetlands within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-16.2 requires the County to "encourage" the reclamation of mined lands along the river with native vegetation. FLUE Objective C-20 requires the County, by 1992, to establish development standards for the corridor of the Alafia River. FLUE Policy C-20.4 prohibits the designation of "heavy" industrial land uses within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-20.3 prohibits the location of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Alafia River or its tributaries, except when required due to lot size and adverse impacts can be prevented. Regarding the Little Manatee River, FLUE Goal 5 is to recognize and maintain the river as a unique water resource, which provides vital wildlife habitat. As in the case of FLUE Objective C-15 regarding the Alafia River, FLUE Objective C-21 defers until 1995 the objective of maintaining or improving water quality where it does not meet state standards. FLUE Objective C-22 is to preserve wildlife habitats, presumably in association with the Little Manatee River. FLUE Objective C-23 is, by 1990, to establish a green river corridor for the river, although whatever protection is to be afforded by these provisions, if adopted in the Plan, appears already to be included in the Plan, given that the deadline in Objective C-23 had already passed by the time of the final hearing. The same is true for FLUE Objective C- 24, which is, by 1990, to develop additional policies addressing the uniqueness of the Little Manatee River. FLUE Policy C-21.1 prohibits the installation of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Little Manatee River unless required due to lot size and adverse impacts to the water can be prevented. FLUE Policy C-22.2 prohibits alteration of the wetlands within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-23.1 prohibits the designation of "heavy" industrial within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-22.3 only "restricts" the clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 or 100 feet of the river in Urban or Suburban designations. However, FLUE Policy C-23.2 is to manage the Little Manatee River as a wildlife corridor. Various Plan provisions apply to rivers generally. Some of these provisions restate objectives or policies adopted for one of the three major rivers. For instance, FLUE Objective C-1 is, by 1995, to maintain or improve the water quality of rivers not meeting state standards. FLUE Objective C-4 is, by 1992, to set standards for development in river corridors. Other provisions provide additional protection. FLUE Objective C-2 is to preserve natural shorelines and reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization. FLUE Objective C-30 requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that rivers are protected from degradation from development. FLUE Policy C-30.6 is to "restrict" the clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 or 100 feet of rivers. FLUE Policy C-6.1 generally prohibits the removal, within 100 feet of rivers, of any trees of at least five inches diameter at breast height. FLUE Policy C-1.3 prohibits the siting of solid waste or hazardous landfills that would adversely affect any river. Significantly, FLUE Policy C- 1.1 requires that development along the rivers install stormwater management systems to filter pollutants, although the extent of filtration is not specified. Regarding Cockroach Bay, the Plan offers some protection because, as an aquatic preserve, the bay is an Environmentally Sensitive Area. However, regardless of the extent of protection afforded by this designation to land- based areas, it is relatively unimportant as a regulatory mechanism over a water preserve, except to the extent that the designation is extended over adjacent land areas. Much of the land around the bay is designated Natural Preservation, which is afforded effective protection, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which is not. However, as noted above, Coastal Element Objective 3 requires the County at least to maintain the abundance and diversity of living marine resources in Tampa Bay. Underscoring the relationship between Cockroach Bay and Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Policy 3.1 is for the County to resist proposals to close permanently the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to shellfishing and to improve water quality to maintain the viability of shellfishing by implementing Coastal Objective 1 and its policies. However, as noted above, Coastal Objective 1 addresses only waters not meeting state standards and requires only that, by 1995, these water be improved. Cockroach Bay may receive some protection from FLUE Objective C-30, which requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that water quality and quantity are protected from degradation from development. In somewhat vague terms, CARE Objective 18 is for the County to "seek to measurably improve" the management of natural preserves, which include Cockroach Bay. Rather than exercise its jurisdiction, however, the County, in CARE Policy 18.2, promises only to initiate an agreement with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to ensure that Cockroach Bay is maintained in its natural condition. Equally ineffective, CARE Policy 18.3 is for the County, at no specified time, to establish a scientifically defensible buffer zone to prevent degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetative habitats in Cockroach Bay. CARE Policy 18.8, FLUE Policy C-22.1, and Coastal Element Policy 4.5 promise that the County will "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Regarding floodplains, CARE Objective 4 is no "net loss of 100-year floodplain storage volume." CARE Policy 4.1 promises, by 1995, land development regulations to "not only protect natural floodwater assimilating capacity but also protect fish and wildlife attributes where they exist within the 100 year floodplains of riverine systems." CARE Policy 4.2 explains that the County shall prohibit "unmitigated" encroachment into the 100 year floodplain. CARE Policy 8.3 "prohibit[s]" mining in the 25 year floodplain and "restrict[s]" mining in the 100 year floodplain. Although still in terms of storage volume of the floodplain, Stormwater Element Policy 2.8 promises, by 1991, a "program to control encroachment into the 100 year floodplain." Regarding wetlands, CARE Objective 3 is "no net loss of wetland acreage." The objective states further that the County shall seek to achieve a "measurable annual increase in restored wetland acreage." CARE Policy 3.1 requires the County to continue to "conserve and protect" wetlands from "detrimental physical and hydrological alteration" and "allow wetland encroachment only as a last resort when reasonable use of the property is otherwise unavailable." CARE Objective 16 is to continue to protect and conserve Conservation and Preservation Areas, which include a variety of wetland habitats. Regarding rare upland habitats, CARE Objective 16 offers some protection, as sand pine scrub is a Conservation Area and significant and essential wildlife habitat are, respectively, Conservation and Preservation Areas. CARE Policies 16.5 and 16.6 are to protect Conservation and Preservation Areas, respectively, from activities that would "significantly damage the natural integrity, character or ecological balance of said areas, except in cases of overriding public interest." CARE Objective 17 is to increase the amount of acreage designated as Natural Preservation by 15,000 acres by 1995. Also, the upland forest density credit incentive assists in promoting the preservation of rare upland habitats. Despite the ambiguity surrounding the types of land uses allowed by the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the Plan protects the wetlands and rare upland habitats. Regarding wildlife habitat, CARE Objective 14 is to "prevent any further net loss of essential wildlife habitat" and to "protect significant wildlife habitat." CARE Objective 15 is to maintain existing populations of endangered, threatened, and special-concern species and, where "feasible and appropriate," to increase the "abundance and distribution" of such species. FLUE Objective C-5 is, by 1991, to "require the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats." CARE Objective 4 is, by 1995, to protect wildlife habitat in the 100 year floodplain. CARE Policy 14.7 is to require the preservation of wildlife corridors within developments when necessary to prevent fragmentation. CARE Policies 8.4 and 10.7 prohibit mining and land excavation, respectively, in essential wildlife habitats unless relocation of the affected species is feasible. On balance, despite the noted shortcomings, the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources. Regarding the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of existing and planned water sources, the resources and functions generally involve wellfields and their cones of influence, aquifers and recharge, groundwater contamination, water conservation and reuse, and wastewater discharges including septic tanks. Regarding wellfields and their cones of influence, the Plan fails to include an objective providing for the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of these water sources. CARE Policy 5.8 promises wellfield protection by 1993, and even then only through land development regulations. In the meantime, CARE Policy 5.8 provides for an interim land development regulation establishing a procedure for reviewing the impact of land development proposals on cones of influence. The policy fails even to suggest any standards to guide this procedural ordinance. The Plan contains no objectives addressing aquifers and their recharge. Stormwater Element Policy 5.6 prohibits new discharge of untreated stormwater to the Floridan aquifer, and existing stormwater facilities so discharging into the Floridan aquifer will be modified if economically feasible and physically practical. The remaining policies are largely ineffective in protecting natural aquifer recharge function. CARE Policy 6.13 suggests that, by 1992, a program will be implemented to improve groundwater recharge through stormwater management, and the program "may require" that predevelopment groundwater recharge volumes and rates be maintained postdevelopment. CARE Policy 5.2 notes the need for additional information regarding areas of relatively high natural recharge and allows the County to require developers to provide site-specific hydrogeological information. But the policy does not suggest what standards would be applied in making ensuing land use decisions on what it concedes is a "case-by-case" basis. CARE Policy 5.5 promises that, within a year after the completion of high-resolution mapping of areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential, the County will develop land development regulations and performance standards that "may include" such strategies as "control of land use types and densities, impervious surface limitations, and discharge to groundwater controls." Whatever regulation may eventually be imposed has no guidance from the Plan and will be relegated to the land development regulations. Similarly lacking regulatory provisions, Sewer Element Policy 7.3 promises that, within a year after completion of a pending study, the County will develop a "program" to identify areas with septic tanks with the potential to contaminate groundwater. CARE Policy 5.9 at least prohibits activities that would breach the confining beds of the Floridan aquifer. 31/ Though lacking as to the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of the recharge process, the Plan addresses more adequately groundwater. CARE Objective 6 is to conserve, reuse, and enhance groundwater and prevent excessive withdrawals from groundwater. CARE Objective 5 is to ensure compliance with state groundwater standards. Like CARE Policy 2.7, which applies to surface water protection, CARE Policy 5.11 says that the County will ask other agencies to develop septic tank siting criteria and then will add the criteria to County land development regulations. CARE Policy 5.15 indicates that the County will not support deep well injection of effluent unless the process will have no adverse effect upon existing or potential potable water aquifers. More effective, Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility of existing and future sources of wastewater adversely impacting groundwater." Also, Sewer Element Policy 7.1 requires septic tank users to connect to central sewer when it becomes available, in the absence of undue hardship. And FLUE Policy A-1.3 prohibits development dependent upon on-site sewage disposal systems, if the soils are unsuitable, unless the soils can be altered to comply with state law. Regarding water conservation, Sewer Element Objective 2 is to "protect and conserve the potable water resources, both groundwater and surface water" and expand recovered water reuse systems. As noted above, CARE Objective 6 requires the "conservation, reuse, and enhancement of groundwater and surface water supplies" to meet potable water demands. CARE Policies 6.2 and 6.4 require the use of recovered water under certain circumstances. FLUE Objective B-10 is to protect the agricultural water supply through regulations. As compared to whether the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources, the question is closer as to whether the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting water sources. The Hillsborough River is adequately protected. Groundwater is directly addressed, although aquifer recharge receives little direct attention. Wellfields and cones of influence are not directly addressed. However, on balance, the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources. As to Issue 19, however, the Plan is, to the exclusion of fair debate, not consistent with the criterion of one or more policies addressing implementation activities to protect water quality by restricting activities known to affect adversely the quality and quantity of identified water sources, including cones of influence, water recharge areas, and water wells. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Plan does not address in any detail water wells, cones of influence, or water recharge areas. Although the Plan is nevertheless able to attain consistency with a criterion of an objective to protect, conserve, and appropriately use water sources, the Plan's relevant provisions are too vague to attain consistency with a criterion of policies to restrict activities affecting adversely cones of influence, water wells, and aquifer recharge areas. As to Issues 20-21, the Plan contains policies addressing implementation activities restricting activities known to affect adversely the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife and protecting native vegetative communities. It is unnecessary to consider the extent to which the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation protects native vegetative communities and the habitat that some of these communities provide to endangered and threatened species. Other Plan provisions, including the density and intensity formulas and the upland forest density credit incentive, offer sufficient protection to these vegetative communities for the Plan to attain consistency with the criteria requiring specific policies. Coastal Hazards (Issues 22-23) As to Issue 22, the Plan is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, consistent with the criterion of an objective directing population concentrations away from coastal high hazard areas. Coastal Element Objective 6 is to "[r]estrict development of residential population centers" in the coastal high hazard area. CARE Objective 5 is to avoid loss of life and property by "minimizing land development" in coastal areas. As used in the Plan, "restrict" does not mean "prohibit." 32/ Restrict appears to mean merely regulate. And without standards to guide regulation, an objective to restrict, or minimize, is vague and undefined. The meaning of the criterion is clear and its importance is indisputable for one of the most hurricane vulnerable regions in the United States. Obviously, the County itself does not interpret Plan language to "restrict" and "minimize" development as synonymous with the criterion to "direct population concentrations away from." Allowing higher densities in the coastal high hazard area and new intense uses in vacant or agricultural areas within the coastal high hazard area, the Plan reflects the County's reasonable interpretation of Coastal Element Objective 6. The language of Objective 6 and the apparent interpretation of the language by the County mean that the County is required only to attempt to restrain the rate of growth in intensity and density in the coastal high hazard area. This is not tantamount to directing population concentrations away from this hazardous area. Plan provisions to maintain hurricane evacuation times may not direct population concentrations from the coastal high hazard area because evacuation times can be reduced by other means, such as road and bridge capacity improvements. The missing objective must reduce densities and labor-intensive and capital-intensive intensities in the coastal high hazard area. As to Issue 23, the Plan contains a policy identifying regulatory techniques for septic tanks as part of general hazard mitigation to reduce the exposure of life and property in part of the coastal area to natural hazards. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 prohibits, except in cases of "undue hardship," the use of septic tanks for new development in the coastal high hazard area. There is no similar provision governing septic tanks in the larger coastal area, of which the coastal high hazard area is only a part. However, Coastal Element Policy 1.3 requires the County to plan for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities for coastal areas planned for higher densities, thereby reducing the use of interim wastewater treatment alternatives. Coastal Element Policy 1.7 provides, where economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to coastal areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are attributable to malfunctioning septic tanks. Public Facilities (Issues 24-31) As to Issue 24, the Plan establishes peak hour level of service standards for state roads and explains why the adopted level of service standards for certain roads are below the generally applicable standards. As to Issue 25, the Plan appears to govern all action taken by Hillsborough County concerning development and development orders. The four major provisions concerning vesting are reasonable and do not extend unnecessarily the recognition of vested rights. As to Issue 26, the Plan contains a policy addressing programs and activities for the provision of public facilities for development authorized by development orders issued prior to the adoption of the Plan. CIE Policy 1.D.1 requires the County, in determining the scope of capital improvements needed for concurrency, to take into account "demand that is likely to occur from previously issued development orders as well as future growth." As to Issues 27 and 28, the Plan's allowance of pipelining road impact fees in connection with DRI development orders does not necessarily violate concurrency. The Regional Plan allows pipelining, although the County's Plan fails to incorporate the restrictive conditions set forth in Regional Plan Policy 19.8.14. CIE Policy 3.C.4 already provides for considerable flexibility in the selection of affected areas when making concurrency determinations for roads. Reasonable flexibility in identifying the range of roads impacted by a DRI and applying DRI road impact fees does not mean that the resulting developments will violate concurrency. Nonvested DRI's remain subject to the Plan, including the concurrency monitoring and enforcement provisions, and their failure to satisfy these provisions should result in the denial of a development order. As to Issue 29, the Plan contains policies providing for concurrency with respect to developments for which development orders were issued prior to the adoption of the Plan and new developments that are to be assessed a pro rata share of the costs of public facility improvements necessitated by the new development. As noted above, CIE Policy 1.D.1 takes into account the demand for public facilities from development orders issued before the adoption of the Plan. CIE Policy 2.B.1.a provides further that existing development shall pay for at least some of the capital improvements to reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies. CIE Objective 2 addresses the sources of funds for infrastructure, including "County revenues, development's proportionate share contributions, and grants or gift[s] from other source[s]." CIE Policy 2.B.2.a provides that the County will "allocate the cost of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents so that current residents will not subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new development." As to Issue 30, the above-described Plan provisions, together with the five year schedule of capital improvements, establish funding mechanisms to correct existing deficiencies in required public facilities. As to Issue 31, the Plan is consistent with the requirement of financial feasibility based on the schedules of capital improvements and sources of revenues. The $52.4 million discrepancy between the cost of capital improvements in the Five Year Schedule and the Table of Costs and Revenues, which were prepared 18 months apart, does not prove lack of financial feasibility. In the absence of additional evidence, it is equally likely that the County displayed financial prudence in scaling back capital outlays to meet emerging revenue shortfalls. Urban Sprawl (Issues 32-35) As to Issue 32, the FLUM generally depicts urban and rural land uses with one major exception. To the exclusion of fair debate, there is no clear indication as to what land uses are permissible on lands designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas. As to Issue 33, the Plan contains provisions to discourage urban sprawl. The Plan generally provides for a viable mixture of residential and commercial uses in the concept underlying the Plan and the use of nodes. With the exception of the areas whose designations are not supported by the Data and Analysis, urban and rural land uses are separated. Regarding urban sprawl, various Plan provisions, such as FLUE Policies A- 7.6 and B-4.6, discourage urban sprawl and encourage the efficient use of land and provision of public facilities and the protection of natural resources and agriculture. As to Issue 34, the Plan contains provisions, regarding the protection of rural and agricultural lands, designating agricultural uses on the FLUM; setting objectives to conserve, appropriately use, and protect soils and natural vegetative communities; and setting policies to protect and conserve the natural functions of soils, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, floodplains, harbors, and wetlands. The agricultural uses are primarily assigned to Rural designations, and the Rural designations generally specify densities that are low enough to promote agricultural uses. Plan provisions describe the extent to which agricultural uses may be located in Urban and Suburban designations. Some of the natural resources receive more protection than others, such as floodplains, but in general, and especially in the context of protecting rural and agricultural lands, the Plan is consistent with the cited criteria. Miscellaneous (Issues 35-36) As to Issue 35, the Plan contains provisions adequately addressing intergovernmental coordination. As to Issue 36, the Plan contains dual planning timeframes. One timeframe, as shown on the five year schedule of capital improvements, is five years, and the other, as shown on the FLUM, is 20 years. Minimum Criterion of Internal Consistency (Issues 37-38) As to Issue 37, the Plan is, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with respect to, on the one hand, Plan provisions to protect natural resources, which are identified as Conservation and Preservation Areas in the Plan, and, on the other hand, the failure to provide Environmentally Sensitive Areas with a designation that regulates land uses. The Plan is generally internally consistent with respect to the permitted densities and intensities and Plan provisions to protect natural resources. However, there are two major exceptions to this finding. First, if the stormwater level of service standard is not expanded in the manner described above, all designations allowing further development within the 100 year floodplain are, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with Plan provisions to protect natural resources, unless the development in the 100 year floodplain is prohibited from altering predevelopment drainage conditions in terms of rate, volume, quality, timing, or location of discharge. Second, even if the stormwater level of service standard is appropriately broadened, the densities and intensities determined, to the exclusion of fair debate, to be unsuitable or unsupported by the Data and Analysis are, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with Plan provisions to protect natural resources. This applies to the second and third clauses of Issue 37. The Plan is internally consistent with respect to the discouragement of urban sprawl and the adopted level of service standards for roads and the use of dual planning timeframes. As to Issue 38, the Plan is internally consistent with respect to the discouragement of urban sprawl and the Plan provisions requiring developers to pay a pro rata share of the cost of public facilities necessitated by their development. Minimum Criterion of Consistency with Regional Plan (Issue 39) As to Issue 39, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the Regional Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the Regional Plan's provisions requiring the discouragement of urban sprawl, identification of the coastal high hazard area, prohibition against publicly subsidized development in the coastal high hazard area (the Regional Plan lacks a provision requiring the direction of population away from the coastal high hazard area), adoption of road level of service standards, achievement of energy-efficient design of transportation facilities, enhancement of governmental efficiency, and attainment of compliance with national air quality standards. With respect to the Regional Plan's provisions for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, the Plan is consistent in some respects and, to the exclusion of fair debate, inconsistent in other respects. The inconsistencies have all been addressed above in connection with inconsistencies with other criteria of Chapter 9J-5. These inconsistencies are the inadequate stormwater level of service standard, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goal 8.7; in the absence of the expanded stormwater level of service standard discussed above, the inadequate protection of the 100 year floodplain, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goals 8.10, 10.4, and 10.5 and related policies; the inadequate protection extended to public supply potable water wellfields and their cones of influence and aquifer recharge, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goals 8.1 and 8.5 and related policies. Minimum Criterion of Consistency with State Plan (Issues 40-41) As to Issue 40, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the State Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the discouragement of urban sprawl, promotion of agricultural activities that are compatible with the protection of natural resources, reduction of the cost of housing construction by the elimination of costly regulatory practices, coordination of transportation improvements to enhance system efficiency and minimize environmental impacts, assurance that transportation improvements are consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality and efficient use of energy and transportation modes, elimination of regulatory activities not tied to the needs of specific public and natural resource protection, reduction of the need for new power plants by encouraging end-use energy efficiency, and attainment of compliance with all national air quality standards. With respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the elimination of the discharge of inadequately treated stormwater runoff and wastewater into the waters of the state, the Plan is consistent with respect to wastewater, but, to the exclusion of fair debate, inconsistent with respect to stormwater due to the above-noted deficiencies concerning the stormwater level of service standard. As to Issue 41, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the State Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the development of a system of incentives and disincentives to encourage a separation of urban and rural uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats (notwithstanding general shortcomings regarding the protection of water supplies and specific unsuitable designations jeopardizing potentially significant wildlife habitat), promotion of agriculture, provision of incentives for developing land so as to maximize the uses of existing public facilities, allocation of the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents, and assurance that the transportation system provides Florida's residents and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions. With respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the direction of growth into areas that already have or will soon have the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner, the Plan is generally consistent. However, the Plan is inconsistent with this provision of the State Plan, to the exclusion of fair debate, with respect to those five areas for which unsuitable designations were demonstrated to the exclusion of fair debate, and the Plan is inconsistent with this provision of the State Plan, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, with respect to those six areas for which unsuitable designations were demonstrated by a mere preponderance of the evidence..
Recommendation 317
