The Issue The issue is whether the small scale development amendment adopted by Respondent, Santa Rosa County (County), by Ordinance No. 2005-R-70 on February 23, 2006, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The record in this case is extremely brief, thus accounting for the brevity of this Recommended Order. Petitioners, Larry Seal and Michelle Seal, reside at 7564 East Bay Boulevard, Navarre, Florida, an unincorporated community within the County. Although Boardwalk did not present any evidence at the hearing, for background purposes only, the parties' pleadings show that Boardwalk is a limited liability corporation which owns a 1.15-acre parcel in Navarre, Florida, and is seeking to have the land use designation on that property changed from Single-Family Residential to Commercial. The pleadings also show that the amendment was adopted by the County on February 23, 2006. Mr. Seal resides within the County. Also, he attended the County meeting on February 23, 2006, and offered comments in opposition to the amendment. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. Mrs. Seal did not attend the final hearing. However, Mrs. Seal's interests are represented by her husband. See Petitioners' Exhibit 1. Whether she owns property adjacent to Intervenor's parcel, as alleged in the Petition, and whether Mr. Seal made comments on her behalf at the County meeting, was not established through Mr. Seal's testimony. Without citing specific portions of the Plan, in their Petition, Petitioners alleged only that the small scale development amendment adopted by the County is internally inconsistent with the Plan.2 Despite this lack of specificity, no discovery was taken by the parties prior to the hearing. At the hearing, Mr. Seal, who is a lay person, asserted that the amendment was inconsistent with Housing Element Policies 51B4 and 51B5 and with undisclosed portions of the Future Land Use Element. (Copies of the Plan itself were not introduced into evidence.) However, it became evident that the two cited policies in the Housing Element relate to land development regulations and are therefore irrelevant.3 See, e.g., Brevard County v. Dept. of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case Nos. 00- 1956GM and 02-0391GM (DOAH Dec. 16, 2002; DCA Feb. 25, 2003) 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 20 at *7 (consistency with land development regulations is not a compliance criterion); Robbins et al. v. Dept. of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 97-0754GM (DOAH Oct. 30, 1997; DCA Dec. 9, 1997) 1997 Fla. ENV LEXIS 231 at *18 (land development regulations are not relevant to a plan or plan amendment compliance determination). Mr. Seal also asserted that the amendment contravened a resource extraction policy in the Conservation Element but later withdrew that assertion. That policy also appears to have no application to the map amendment. After the County's objection to testimony regarding land development regulations was sustained, Mr. Seal indicated that he did not intend to present any other evidence since the remainder of his prepared testimony related to that subject. Although he was given an opportunity to present further relevant evidence, he rested his case. The County and Boardwalk elected not to offer any evidence in response to Mr. Seal's testimony. Except for a Special Power of Attorney executed by Mr. Seal's wife, no documentary evidence, such as copies of relevant portions of the Plan, the existing and proposed FLUM, drawings or aerial photographs of the property and adjacent area, the application, or the Ordinance which adopted the amendment, was offered into evidence by any party.4 Because Boardwalk did not present any evidence, there is no basis upon which to determine whether it presented written or oral comments, recommendations, or objections to the County during the adoption of the amendment. (In its Motion to Intervene, Boardwalk did allege that such comments were made.) Therefore, there is no evidence to establish that Intervenor is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the small scale plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-R-070 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2006, 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 6th day of June, 2006.
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 [[]].
Findings Of Fact Sarasota County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment RU-5 was adopted, as Sarasota County Ordinance No. 91-41, on July 3, 1991. RU-5 amends the 1989 "Revised and Updated Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan," which is also known as "Apoxsee." Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel.-- The 1989 plan, Apoxsee, is the subject of the Final Order, Hiss v. Sarasota County, ACC 90-014, DOAH Case No. 89-3380GM (the Hiss Final Order). The Hiss Final Order resulted from the Section 163.3184(9) formal administrative proceeding Hiss initiated after notice by the Department of Community Affairs (the DCA) of its determination that the adopted Sarasota County comprehensive plan was "in compliance." After a final hearing, a Division of Administrative Hearings hearing officer entered a Recommended Order on August 14, 1990, recommending that, for certain specified reasons, the plan be found to be not "in compliance." After consideration of the Recommended Order and exceptions to it filed by Hiss, by the County and by the intervenors, the DCA determined that the plan was not in compliance, concluded that, with the exception of the remedial actions recommended by the hearing officer, the Recommended Order should be adopted. The DCA submitted the Recommended Order to the Administration Commission for final agency action (the Hiss Final Order), which was taken on June 4, 1991. The Hiss Final Order recited in part 4/: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT * * * The Recommended Order divides Hiss' numerous allegations for the plan's noncompliance into four categories: the first alleging adoption in a manner inconsistent with the minimum criteria regarding public participation, the second involving the Recreation and Open Spaces Element, the third involving the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map, and the fourth involving urban sprawl. The Hearing Officer concluded that the plan was in compliance with regard to the first, second and fourth of these categories. But, with regard to the third category, the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map, the Hearing Officer concluded that the plan was not in compliance for a number of reasons. * * * ACTION ON THE RECOMMENDED ORDER Pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes, the Commission accepts the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law contained in the Recommended Order . . . with the exception of the recommended Remedial Action to the extent inconsistent with the Remedial Action ordered below. The Sarasota County comprehensive plan, therefore, is determined to be not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Order and the following remedial action is ordered. REMEDIAL ACTION The following remedial action pursuant to the schedule in paragraph 15, below, is hereby ordered to bring the comprehensive plan of Sarasota County into compliance: * * * a. Plan amendments ordered herein shall be prepared by the County and transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs by September 30, 1991. DCA by October 15, 1991 shall certify to the Commission that the plan amendments have been received. In the event the plan amendments are not received by that date the DCA shall notify the Commission by October 31, 1991 and the Commission shall review the matter as to the appropriate action to be taken. DCA shall report to the Commission on the progress of its review of the plan amendments by February 15, 1992. DCA shall forward a recommendation to the Commission regarding the County's conformance with the remedial action ordered herein no later than June 1, 1992. SANCTIONS Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission exercises its discretion to impose no sanctions on the County at this time. The Commission retains jurisdiction, however, to consider sanctions available under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and to impose sanctions in the future if the County fails to comply with the remedial actions of this order. Paragraph 10 of the "Remedial Actions" portion of the Final Order, which required the County to amend Policy 1.1.2 and add or amend other appropriate objectives and policies in the Public Facilities Plan as described therein, contained the following footnote: "Clarifica- tion of the language in the amendments ordered by Remedial Action 10, so long as they do not depart from the purposes of the remedial actions ordered, may be made by the County subject to review and compliance determinations by the Department of Community Affairs and this Commission." The Walton Tract. The Walton Tract is approximately 6,151 acres of land in south central Sarasota County. It is about a mile east of Interstate 75 and is presently undeveloped with vegetation typical of the pine flatwood community. At the time Apoxsee was adopted, the County was in the process of planning for a solid waste disposal complex on the Walton Tract but had not yet identified an exact landfill site on the tract. In Apoxsee, the entire Walton Tract was identifed as the general area for the proposed Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex, and the entire Walton Tract was designated as "Public Resource Lands." Prior Proceeding.-- In part, the Recommended Order adopted in the Hiss Final Order found: Neither the FLUM nor the FLUE designates a category of land devoted to conservation use. Designations tending to include conservation uses are Public Resource . . .. The Public Resource Lands designation is assigned to, among other parcels, the Walton Tract where any preservation or conservation uses will be subjected to the use of a part of the tract as a landfill, as discussed in Paragraphs 246 et seq. The primary provision in the plan describing the uses associated with Public Resource Lands is Policy 1.2 of the FLUE, which is "[t]o acquire and protect Public Resource Lands." In addition, FLUE Policy 1.2.3 permits environmental management practices on such lands, including controlled burning. These provisions are readily applicable to the other three parcels designated as Public Resource Lands and the part of the Walton Tract undisturbed by the landfill. However, these provisions are inconsistent with the portion of the Walton Tract proposed for use as a major landfill and other areas affected by this intensive use. * * * The inclusion of the entire Walton Tract in the Public Resource Lands is inconsistent with the proposed use of a substantial part of the tract as a major landfill. If the County eliminates this inconsistency by designating the actual landfill area and other affected areas as institutional or other public facilities, the Public Resource Lands designation would be consistent with the conservation designation. If the actual landfill area remains designated as Public Resource Lands, the designation of the Walton Tract as Public Resource Lands precludes, to the exclusion of fair debate, a finding that the Public Resource Lands designation is consistent with the criterion of a conservation designation. * * * It is fairly debatable that the plan is consistent with the criterion of a policy addressing intergovernmental coordination with respect to the conservation, protection, and appropriate use of interjurisdictional vegetative communities. With one exception, it is fairly debatable that the plan is consistent with criteria of policies addressing the protection of natural reservations and the designation of environmentally sensitive lands. [F.A.C. Rule 9J-5.013(2)(b)7. and 9.] To the exclusion of fair debate, the plan is not consistent with the latter two criteria as applied to the designation of the entire Walton Tract as Public Resource Lands, despite the intended use of part of the tract as a major landfill. The early stages of planning for the landfill may prevent the plan from dealing specifically with the likely environmental impacts of a landfill yet to be designed or sited. However, the plan should contain many of the provisions of the management plan promised for the Walton Tract. If, as the Supportive Material indicates, the landfill disturbs one-third of the Walton Tract, siting the landfill among the important environmental resources in the area is a critical task requiring more from the plan than inaccurately designating the entire tract as Public Resource Lands or promising the issuance of a management plan at some point in the future. The plan fails to provide guidelines for a detailed management plan, and guidelines are especially critical for the coordination of a major landfill with sensitive natural resources in the area. Detailed and effective safeguards in the plan for the Walton Tract and surrounding natural resources would require that the landfill project conform to these requirements. If some aspect of the landfill design prevents conformance with such plan provisions, the County may amend the plan with in [sic] compliance with all procedural requirements of the Act, including public participation and review by DCA. Absent effective provisions concerning the landfill to be placed in the Walton Tract, it is impossible to find that the plan contains policies addressing implementation activities for the protection of existing natural reservations. The Walton Tract is designated in its entirety as Public Resource Lands, and the conversion of part of this land to a landfill is not consistent with the protection of the entire tract. The same findings apply with respect to the designation of environmentally sensitive land because the Walton Tract is the site of critical natural resources, including various types of wetlands, part of Cow Pen Slough, and part of the Myakka River floodplain, as well as a bank of part of the Myakka River. * * * 402. To the exclusion of fair debate, the FLUM is not consistent with provisions to protect and acquire environmentally sensitive lands due to the conflict between the Public Resource Lands designation of the Walton Tract on the FLUM and the proposed use of part of the tract as a major landfill . . .. In part, the Recommended Order adopted in the Hiss Final Order concluded: 76. Based on the ultimate findings of fact contained in Paragraphs 366 and 367, the plan . . . is consistent with the criterion of the designation on the FLUM of proposed conservation land uses, if the designation of the part of the Walton Tract proposed for actual landfill use and any other affected area are redesignated from Public Resource Lands to another designation such as institutional or other public facilities. Otherwise, the plan is not in compliance with the Act and Chapter 9J-5 because it is not consistent with the criterion of the designation on the FLUM of proposed conservation land uses. * * * Based on the ultimate findings of fact contained in Paragraphs 376 et seq., the plan is consistent with these [9J-5.013(2)(c)7.-9.] criteria with one exception. The plan is not in compliance with the Act and Chapter 9J-5 because the treatment of the entire Walton Tract is not consistent with criteria of the protection of existing natural reservations and designation of environmentally sensitive land for protection. The designation of the Walton Tract as Public Resource Lands despite the proposed use of part of the tract as a landfill demands, to the exclusion of fair debate, more specificity in the plan coordinating the land uses that will be permitted on the tract with the sensitive natural resources already there. Because of the intense use proposed for part of the tract and the proximity of important natural resources, the promise to adopt later a management plan for the Walton Tract is insufficient. . . . The proposed uses and special features of the Walton Tract require that, regardless of its future land use designation, the plan provide details of the management plan, if the plan is to contain policies addressing implementation activities for the protection of environmentally sensitive lands and existing natural reservations. [Fn. 43.--This determination remains applicable even if the County redesignates the Walton Tract as institutional or other public facilities. Although arguably redesignation could result in the tract losing its status as an existing natural reservation, the tract, or at least parts of it, would continue to represent environmentally sensitive lands, whose status is unaffected by any change in designation.] * * * 109. Based on the ultimate findings of fact contained in Paragraph 402, the plan is not in compliance with the Act and Chapter 9J-5 because the FLUM is not consistent with FLUE objectives and policies to protect and acquire environmentally sensitive lands with respect to the designation of the entire Walton Tract . . .. The Hiss Final Order required the following Remedial Action pertinent solely to the Walton Tract: 5. The County shall revise the section in the solid waste portion of the Public Facilities chapter that refers to "landfill Site Feasibility Report: Walton Tract and Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex - Preliminary Cost Estimate" to reflect that the Walton Tract is currently only one potential location for the proposed landfill, subject to additional study. The County shall also adopt a policy requiring that at such time as a final decision is made on the location and type of solid waste treatment facility to be developed, the Future Land Use Plan Map Series and Public Facilities chapter will be amended accordingly to reflect that decision. The RU-5 Walton Tract Amendments.-- In part, RU-5 amends Figure 23, a part of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Series, to delineate 2,972 acres of the Walton Tract as "Public Resource Lands" and 3,179 acres of the Walton Tract as "Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex and other Government Use." RU-5 specifically locates a proposed solid waste disposal complex on 550 acres of the 3,179 acres designated as "Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex and other Government Use." The 2,972 acres in the Walton Tract designated as "Public Resource Lands" were zoned Open Use Conservation (OUC) by Sarasota County Ordinance 90-54. RU-5 also amends the Public Facilities Element of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan (Apoxsee) by adding Objective 2.6 and Policy 2.6.1. Objective 2.6 is: To develop a solid waste disposal complex and site which is economically feasible and which has minimal environmental impacts. Policy 2.6.1 states: The Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex shall minimize, to the greatest extent possible, potential environmental impacts consistent with the adopted stipulations contained within Ordinance No. 90-54 and Resolution No. 91-149. Prior to development of the Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex a resource based Land Management Program shall be adopted consistent with the "Principles for Evaluating Development Proposals in Native Habitats" and all other relevant policies in the Environment Chapter. The Public Facilities Supportive Material adopted as part of RU-5 states: The Board also approved a special exception for a 550 acre parcel for the Solid Waste Disposal Complex including a sanitary landfill and other uses associated with the landfill operations. * * * In order to minimize potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible, stipulations in the special exception approval include requirements for submission of studies such as the completion of a background Water Quality Monitoring Plan and a resource based Land Management Program, prior to the development of the landfill or other associated operations. Data and Analysis.-- The RU-5 amendments relating to the use of a portion of the Walton Tract for the Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex are supported by the best available data and by appropriate analysis of the data. The County utilized all the appropriate data available at the time of the adoption of RU-5. All analysis required to be performed on the data through the time of the final hearing was performed and taken into consideration. Both the data and the analysis of the data through the time of the final hearing support the selection of the Walton Tract site for the Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex. The total functional population of Sarasota County is projected to increase from 337,471 in 1990 to 475,353 in 2010. Meanwhile, with the closure of numerous unlicensed dump sites in the early 1970s, the County began operating the Bee Ridge Landfill in 1972. Although two of the County's four municipalities formerly operated landfills, those facilities have been closed due to environmental problems. Bee Ridge currently is relied on to serve all the municipalities as well as the entire unincorporated area of Sarasota County. Bee Ridge receives an average of 1,400 tons of solid waste per day (511,000 tons a year). Even assuming a 50% reduction in solid waste disposal through recycling, the County is projected to require solid waste disposal facilities capable of land filling over 850,000 tons per year. A County study entitled Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Plan, completed in 1980, indicated that landfilling would likely remain an essential means of managing the County's solid waste stream for the foreseeable future and that it would be necessary to obtain a replacement facility for the Bee Ridge Landfill. The Bee Ridge Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) permit expires in 1995. Bee Ridge was not constructed with liners meeting current DER permit requirements. Although the County has installed an underground "slurry wall" at the perimeter to attempt to prevent contamination from leaching out, there is no assurance that DER will renew the permit. In any event, Bee Ridge is projected to reach its maximum height by the mid-1990s. In addition, the ability to expand Bee Ridge is not assured, due to strong opposition from neighboring property owners. In 1986, the opportunity arose to acquire the Walton Tract without the use of condemnation, and the County authorized a specific feasibility study performed on the 6,151 acre tract. The study examined the parcel in terms of Florida statutory landfill requirements, physical characteristics of the site, hydrogeology and soils, landfill block configurations, environmental considerations, and regulatory agency comments. Although the study indicated that only 3,600 acres would be required for a landfill, the entire tract was purchased on advice of professional staff to maximize siting flexibility and ensure sufficient areas for perimeter buffers, wetland mitigation, and wildlife conservation areas. The purchase price was $8.6 million, paid out of the proceeds of an $80 million Solid Waste System Revenue Bond Issue. Preliminary cost estimates were prepared for the initial 20 years of the life of a landfill on the site. The estimate came to $39 million. At the time the Revised and Updated Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan was being compiled in the years prior to its adoption in 1989, the County had not yet identified an exact landfill site on the Walton Tract. Accordingly, Apoxsee identified the entire Walton Tract was identified as the general area for the proposed Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex. The Walton Tract was also designated entirely as "Public Resource Lands" since the County regarded the "Public Resource Lands" use designation to permit public facilities in careful conjunction with large conservation areas of important native habitat, e.g., a potable water wellfield and water treatment plant on the Carlton Reserve; a solid waste disposal complex on the Walton Tract; and RV parks, campsites and active recreation facilities at Oscar Scherer State Recreation Area and Myakka River State Park. In the spring and summer of 1991, after entry of the Hiss Final Order, the Board of County Commissioners held public hearings to determine whether the Walton Tract should once again be designated as the site for the Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex to accommodate a Class I landfill, composting areas for yard waste and yard waste/sludge recycling, and a Class III landfill for construction debris, and, if so, to determine the specific location and extent of the Complex, in the context of a rezoning and special exception proceeding. During the course of the hearings the County Commission considered detailed presentations by the county professional staff, expert consultants and the public concerning the suitability of the Walton Tract site, as well as other sites, for a solid waste disposal complex. The Commission also considered, as part of the evidence, a Draft Alternative Siting Study prepared by the engineering firm Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) to meet the regulatory requirements of the EPA and Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the requirements of the Recycle Now! Chapter Amendment. At the conclusion of the hearings, the County Commission, by Ordinance 90-54 rezoned 3,179 acres of the Walton Tract to Government Use (GU) and 2,972 acres to Open Use Conservation (OUC). The Commission, by Resolution 91-149 also designated a reduced 550 acre site (instead of a 1,187 acre site) for the Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex subject to final action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment RU-5, which was adopted by Ordinance 91-41 on July 23, 1991, after another public hearing at which all the evidence from the rezoning and special exception hearings was received into the record. (a.) Economic Feasibility.-- The Walton Tract site is centrally located in the County, between what are planned to be the County's major population concentrations, and close to the Laurel Road interchange with I-75 which is committed to be constructed by FDOT in 1993 under an agreement with the County. This location provides efficient transportation access to the rest of the County. The trend in solid waste management is toward centralizing solid waste disposal facilities due to the cost of the facilities, including the cost of permitting; the ability to achieve economies of scale; the increased reliability inherent in operating a limited number of facilities; and the advantages of focusing budget-limited management and regulatory compliance resources. Transportation costs with a centralized facility are offset by the use of transfer stations which greatly compress the solid waste to reduce the number of trips from the transfer station to the central facility. Sarasota County is already successfully using this system. The Draft Alternative Siting Study identifies three other properties besides the Walton Tract as suitable. During the public hearings before the County Commission, however, two of the sites (D and E) were strongly opposed by citizens living around those potential sites and the third site (G) was closer to the Myakka River and could be in conflict with the Myakka River Wild and Scenic Management Plan. From the standpoint of economic feasibility, the County Commission was advised: The County has certain bond obligations due to the purchase of site F [the Walton Tract] to provide a solid waste disposal facility. The legal and future bond financing issues must be considered against the potential benefits of selecting another site. The County's bond counsel also advised the County Commission that, if the County elected not to locate the solid waste disposal complex on the Walton Tract, the County would have to pay back to the Solid Waste System Revenue Bond enterprise fund the fair market value of the Walton Tract from some other revenue source. (b.) Adjacent Property.-- In contrast to the other suitable sites, the property owners closest to the proposed site on the Walton Tract are not opposed to the solid waste disposal complex in light of the County's ability to provide 1,000 foot buffers and avoid access conflicts due to the size and location of the Walton Tract. Due to the 6,151 acre size of the Walton Tract, the solid waste disposal complex, as approved by the County Commission, including all borrow pits, is located more than 8,000 feet from the closest point on the Myakka River, a designated Wild and Scenic River, and the testimony indicates that heavy equipment would not be heard on the river. Due to the flexibility in siting the solid waste disposal complex, and the 100 foot height limitation placed on the landfill by the County Commission, the landfill will not be seen on Lower Myakka Lake or the Myakka River. Due to the location of the solid waste disposal complex on the Walton Tract, together with the hydrogeologic characteristics of the site, no adverse impact on the Carlton (Ringling MacArthur) Reserve potable water wellfield located several miles to the east across the Myakka River is to be anticipated. The restriction of the solid waste disposal complex and associated borrow pits to the northwest portion of the Walton Tract and the designation by the County Commission of the remainder of the property as Public Resource Lands results in approximately 3,000 acres of the Walton Tract, contiguous to Myakka River State Park and the Carlton Reserve to the east, being placed in a conservation land use designation, linking these natural areas into a contiguous system of 55,000 acres of high quality native habitat in protected public ownership. (c.) Character of the Walton Tract.-- Hundreds of hours over a period of approximately five years were spend on-site at the Walton Tract by experts in environmental, engineering and other scientific disciplines to collect and analyze data on soils; topography; natural resources, including habitats, flora, and fauna; and historic resources to determine whether, and where, a solid waste disposal complex should be sited on the tract that would be economically feasible and minimize environmental impacts. Every wetland and upland habitat on the Walton Tract as well as likely ecological corridors and preservation areas, including the Myakka River 100 year floodplain and mesic hammocks, have been identified and verified in the field. The methods that were used to identify habitats, including likely habitats of threatened and endangered species, met professionally accepted standards, particularly for planning purposes. Environmental constraints were identified at the beginning of the assessment of the Walton Tract and drove or determined the siting process. Over the course of a five year period, there were no sightings of threatened or endangered species that would render the designated site of the complex or the borrow pits unsuitable for the proposed use. The designated site was suitable from the standpoint of minimizing environmental impacts. The pine flatwoods and isolated wetlands within the solid waste disposal complex footprint are neither rare nor endangered, constituting 57% and 17% of the area of the County, respectively, and there are suitable formerly improved pasture areas on the site to mitigate these wetlands on a type-for- type, one-for-one ratio. There is also a large 300 acre area adjacent to Cow Pen Slough suitable for mitigation by rehydrating wetlands previously impacted by the channelization of Cow Pen Slough in the 1960's. The proposed location of the landfill on the site is the most appropriate from the context of habitat, wetlands and wildlife. The complex and borrow pits protect water resources by being located outside the watershed of the Myakka River and outside the 100 year floodplain of Cow Pen Slough. Also, the Class I landfill will be elevated approximately three feet above grade, and the entire solid waste disposal complex will be surrounded with a bermed stormwater management system at least five feet above grade that will not only treat the stormwater to required standards but also provide additional protection against flooding beyond a 100 year flood event. The reduced 550 acre size of the solid waste disposal site is reasonable for meeting the solid waste recycling and disposal needs of the County for a 20 year planning period. CDM used the best available data, including the Federal Emergency Managment Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), in siting the complex out of the 100 year floodplain. (The U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1985 Flood Plain Management Study of the Cow Pen Slough is not reliable data with respect to the extent of the 100 year floodplain.) The site designated for the landfill on the Walton Tract has no geotechnical or water resource factors that would preclude it from being suitable for a landfill. There is no realistic danger of groundwater contamination of either the surficial or the deeper Floridan aquifer beneath the landfill in light of the required multiple liners and the required leachate collection and treatment systems. A modern landfill operation is not necessarily incompatible with surrounding wildlife. The landfill would be limited to an exposed working face of solid waste no more than 100 feet by 200 feet which must be covered daily. This reduces the landfill's attactiveness to seagulls and other scavengers. Many species of birds, including sandhill cranes, woodstorks, and bald eagles, continue to be seen within several hundred yards of the working face of the Bee Ridge landfill and its heavy equipment. Over the 12 year existence of the Bee Ridge landfill, there has been no quantifiable decline in such wildlife. The herd of deer adjacent to the landfill had increased substantially over that period. Internal Consistency.-- It was not the intent of RU-5's Public Facilities Objective 2.6 and Policy 2.6.1 that the specifically designated site for the solid waste disposal complex on the Walton Tract would be invalidated if any other possible site were found to have even marginally less environmental impact. Although there are other sites arguably with less environmental impacts, according to a rating system developed for evaluating the suitability of potential sites, other factors also went into the selection of the Walton Tract site. Both Public Facilities Objective 2.6 and Policy 2.6.1 contemplate the development of a solid waste disposal complex and site. They mean that the designated site should be developed in a manner which reduces environmmental impacts as much as possible. It certainly is at least fairly debatable that they contemplate the development of the Walton Tract site as a landfill. RU-5's amended "Principles for Evaluating Development Proposals in Native Habitats," Section VI.A.2.e., provides in part: In cases where a wetland is no longer capable of performing defined environmental functions and providing defined environmental values, or in cases where no other reasonable alternative exists other than disrupting a wetland, some alteration may be allowed. As amended by RU-5, this portion of the "Principles for Evaluating Development Proposals in Native Habitats" focuses on wetland mitigation requirements on other portions of a landowner's property, when a wetland must be altered to allow reasonable, beneficial use of the property. Section VI.A.2.e. of these principles does not require the County, or any other property owner, to demonstate, prior to developing their property, that there is "no reasonable alternative location in the County which impacts less wetlands or an equivalent acreage of wetlands of less environmental value." It certainly is at least fairly debatable that they do not. The Supportive Material for Apoxsee's Recreation and Open Space Element states: "Large portions of the Walton Tract cannot be used for landfill purposes because they are in the floodplain of either the Myakka River or the Cow Pen Slough." Nothing in RU-5 is inconsistent with this data and analysis. The acreage being used for the landfill and associated uses are not in the floodplain. Through RU-5, Recreation Policy 1.1.4 of Apoxsee provided: "Ecologically benign, non-consumptive, resource-based uses shall be implemented at the Walton Tract and the Ringling-MacArthur Reserve." On March 10, 1992, RU- 6 was adopted and amended Recreation Policy to provide: "Recreational uses implemented on the Walton Tract and the T. Mabry Carlton, Jr., Memorial Reserve [formerly known as the Ringling-MacArthur Reserve] shall be limited to activities which are ecologically benign, non-consumptive and resource based." It is at least fairly debatable that this policy does not refer to the portion of the Walton Tract designated for use as a landfill. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Objective 1.1, as amended through RU-5, restricts land uses on Public Resources Lands by requiring the County: "To protect environmentally sensitive lands, conserve natural resources, protect floodplains, maintain water quality, and maintain open space." FLUE Objective 1.2 is: "To acquire and protect Public Resource Lands." The implementing policies under FLUE Objective 1.2 include: Policy 1.2.1 -- Sarasota County shall attempt to coordinate efforts to acquire public lands for conservation, preservation and open space. Policy 1.2.2 -- Provide adequate buffering of Public Resource Lands for potentially incompatible adjacent land uses. Policy 1.2.3 -- Permit normal management practices associated with native habitats. Again, it is at least fairly debatable that these objectives and policies do not preclude the designation of a part of the Walton Tract for use as a landfill. The Supportive Material for Apoxsee's FLUE states that the County will adopt "detailed management plans" for the Walton Tract (and the Ringling- MacArthur Reserve) and adds: In conjunction with the development of a portion of these two County-owned properties as a waste disposal complex and potable water supply, respectively, subtantial acreage is to be preserved to provide for wildlife corridors, wetlands protection, buffering zones, recreation, education, and open space uses. It is critical that any development within, and adjacent to, these Public Resource Lands be compatible with their inherent environmental values as well as the public values ascribed to them. The management plans . . . will address this issue. The County has not yet adopted a management plan for the Walton Tract landfill. But Public Facilities Policy 2.6.1 incorporates the detailed protective stipulations contained in Ordinance 90-54, which zoned the Walton Tract "Government Use" and "Open Use, Conservation," and in Resolution 91-149, which designated the site of the Central County Solid Waste Disposal Complex. These stipulations: require submission of a background water quality monitoring plan for review and approval by the County Natural Resources Department; require a preapplication meeting with the Stormwater Management, Natural Sciences, and Pollution Control Divisions prior to submission of a Master Stormwater Management Plan; limit post development runoff volumes to predevelopment volumes for storm events up to the mean annual (2.33-year) storm; require design and planting of littoral zones in all stormwater detention lakes in accordance with the County Land Development Regulations; require design and planting of littoral zones in all borrow lakes in accordance with the County's Earthmoving Ordinance; require submission of a final mitigation plan, including engineer drawings and plans for creating and maintaining adequate hydroperiods in created wetlands for review and approval by the Natural Sciences Division; require clear delineation and, during construction, marking of Preservation/Conservation areas; require appropriate sediment control devices around buffers of all wetlands within 500 feet of construction; prohibit disturbances in any Perservation/Conservation area except in approved construction areas or to provide approved access roads, fire lanes, utility transmission lines or nature trails; require notification to the Natural Sciences Division for determination of appropriate remedial action in the event listed species are observed; prohibits development of the solid waste disposal complex until a resource-based Land Management Program is prepared, approved and adopted; and limits the height of the landfill to 100 feet. In addition, Public Facilities Policy 2.6.1 prohibits development of the solid waste disposal complex until a resource-based Land Management Program is adopted consistent with the detailed requirements of the "Principles for Evaluating Development Proposals in Native Habitats" and the policies of the Environment Chapter of Apoxsee, e.g., Environment Policy 5.5.13, as well as Recreation Policy 1.1.4 and Future Land Use Policies 1.2.2 and 1.2.3. The Hiss Final Order does not require that a detailed management plan be adopted as part of RU-5 in order for RU-5 to amend the FLUM Series to designate a portion of the Walton Tract as the new County landfill. Rather, it was critical that the 1989 "plan fails to provide guidelines for a detailed management plan, and guidelines are especially critical for the coordination of a major landfill with sensitive natural resources in the area." (Emphasis added.) Recommended Order, Finding of Fact 378. It stated that "the plan should contain many of the provisions of the management plan promised for the Walton Tract." (Emphasis added.) Recommended Order, Finding of Fact 377. While not specifying the management plan guidelines believed to be necessary, the Hiss Final Order found that the plan was not "consistent with criteria of policies addressing the protection of natural reservations and the designation of environmentally sensitive lands [referring to F.A.C. Rule 9J-5.013(2)(b)7. and 9.]." (Emphasis added.) Recommended Order, Finding of Fact 376. Elsewhere, it found it "impossible to find that the plan contains policies addressing implementation activities for the protection of existing natural reservations." (Emphasis added.) Recommended Order, Finding of Fact 379. F.A.C. Rule 9J-5.013(2)(b)7. and 9. require objectives that "[protect] existing natural reservations identified in the recreation and open space element" and "[designate] environmentally sensitive lands for protection based on locally determined criteria which further the goals and objectives of the conservation element." The plan, as amended through RU-5, contains guidelines for a management plan for the Walton Tract that are sufficiently detailed to meet the requirements of F.A.C. Rule 9J-5.013(2)(b)7. and 9. RU-5 is not inconsistent with the Support Material referred to in Finding 49, above. The final version of the management plan is not data or analysis that must precede the amendment of the FLUM Series. RU-6 amended Environment Policy 5.5.3 to read: By July 1, 1992, the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners shall have adopted criteria for conducting and staff shall have conducted an analysis to identify habitats of high ecological values and strategies to physically link natural areas into a contiguous system. The criteria for identifying these areas should consider several major factors including the presence of endangered species, outstanding water resources, high quality natural habitat, and value as a wildlife corridor. The Future Land Use Map Series shall be revised to show the location of these areas of high quality ecological value. This provision is not inconsistent with RU-5. The portion of the Walton Tract designated for development as a landfill is made up of pine flatwoods and isolated, seasonal wetlands which are neither rare nor endangered habitats. Except for a minor portion of the westernmost borrow pit, it is outside the 100-year floodplain. 5/ It is outside the watershed of the Myakka River. It is set back from habitats of threatened or endangered species, as well as surrounding property owners. It is reasonably sized to meet the solid waste recycling and disposal needs of the County for the 20-year planning period. Consistent with Environment Policy 5.5.3, the 2,971 acres of the Walton Tract which RU-5 leaves designated Public Resource Land includes those areas which are contiguous to Myakka River State Park and the Carlton Reserve to the east, linking natural areas into a contiguous system, and providing protection to the outstanding water resources and high quality habitat in the Myakka River watershed and in the Cow Pen Slough watershed in the southernmost portion of the Tract. Historic and Archaeological Preservation.-- In part, the Recommended Order adopted in the Hiss Final Order found: 362. To the exclusion of fair debate, the plan is not consistent with the criterion of the depiction on the ELUM of historic resources. The depicted archaeological sensitivity zones, which represent projections of possible sites, do not purport to represent the location of, for example, the 78 or 79 sites on the Florida Master Site Plan and other historical resources, which are concededly vulnerable to development. In part, the Recommended Order adopted in the Hiss Final Order concluded: As relevant to the determinations contained in this section, . . . Rule 9J- 5.006(1)(a)(11), . . . requires that the "following generalized land uses shall be shown on the existing land use map or map series: . . . Historic resources." Rule 9J-5.003(35) defines "historic resources" to mean: all areas, districts or sites containing properties listed on the Florida Master Site File, the National Register of Historic Places, or designated by the local government as historically, architecturally, or archaeologically significant. Based on the ultimate findings of fact contained in Paragraph 362, the plan is not in compliance with the Act and Chapter 9J-5 because it is not consistent with the criterion of showing historic resources on the ELUM. For instance, there are 78 or 79 sites in the Florida Master Site File that are, by definition, historic resources, but are not shown on any ELUM. The Hiss Final Order required the following Remedial Action pertinent to historic and archeological preservation: 2. The County shall revise its existing land use map to show the location of historic resources, including the generalized location of sites listed in the Florida Master Site File or National Register of Historic Places or otherwise designated by the County as historically, architecturally or archaeologically significant. * * * 4. The County shall revise its Future Land Use Plan Map Series to include the historic resources mentioned in paragraph 2 above. RU-5 amends the Historic Preservation Chapter of Apoxsee to indicate that the map provided in Figure 3 in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Series shows the location of "National Register sites and other historically significant sites in Sarasota County." It also amends Figure 3 to identify 78 National Register sites from the Florida Master Site File. Appendix A to "Section 3: Sites in Unincorporated Sarasota County Listed in the Florida Master Site File" also is amended to list these sites. In essence, RU-5 follows from the updating of the supporting documentation to Apoxsee by adding to the Existing Land Use Map (ELUM) Series and the FLUM Series verified historically significant sites in Sarasota County, namely the sites found on the National Register and on the Florida Master Site File List. The County also has performed extensive study of portions of the County in an effort to locate significant historic and archaeological sites. The study has located many potential sites. However, the sites have not yet been fully evaluated to determine if they are historically, architecturally or archaeologically significant. Therefore, they have not yet been added, or proposed to be added, to the National Register or the Florida Master Site File List, and they do not appear in Apoxsee, as amended by RU-5. The County's determination not to identify and depict more sites on RU-5 is supported by the best available data and analysis. In addition, RU-5 adopted Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 1.13.1 which provides for the coordination of land uses with the protection of historical resources. As part of the process for issuing development orders, the County has incorporated review by the County Historian to determine the likelihood of the site being historically significant, and the County places conditions on various development permits to protect historically significant sites. Except for the failure of Apoxsee, before RU-5, to depict the locations of, "for example, the 78 or 79 sites on the Florida Master Site Plan and other historical resources, which are concededly vulnerable to development," the Historic Preservation Chapter of Apoxsee already has been exhaustively scrutinized and found to be internally consistent and in compliance. See Hiss Final Order. Floodplain Delineation and Protection.-- In part, the Recommended Order adopted in the Hiss Final Order found: To the exclusion of fair debate, the FLUM is not consistent with criteria of the depiction of floodplains; Big Slough, whether it is classified as a river, floodplain, or wetland; and minerals and soils. . . .. The omission of floodplains is complete. Nothing in FLUM-2 corresponds to the floodprone areas shown in Figure 27 in the Supportive Material. For example, the Conservation/Preservation areas surrounding the Myakka River are not coextensive with the larger floodplain of the Myakka River depicted in Figure 27. The omission of floodplains is exacerbated by the absence of plan provisions providing effective protection for these critical natural drainage features, except for the Myakka River floodplain. * * * To the exclusion of fair debate, the plan is not consistent with criteria of objectives to ensure the protection of floodplains (other than that of the Myakka River), floodplain- associated soils, and wetlands (due to the inadequacy of the mitigation provision). Policy 5.5.8 of the Environment Element promises to adopt land development regulations to regulate develop- ment and specify necessary design standards for floodplains. In the absence of any undertaking in the plan to require that land uses in the floodplains be consistent with their function, Policy 5.5.8 does not resemble an objective ensuring the protection of floodplains. To the exclusion of fair debate, the plan is not consistent with criteria of objectives to coordinate the future land uses with topography, soil conditions, and availability of facilities and services, with respect to floodplains and the unrestricted use of septic tanks 6/ in the Urban area. The Supportive Material advises that future land uses in the floodplains must be less intensive than in the past. Except for the Myakka River floodplain, the plan fails to coordinate future land uses with the unique topography and soil conditions of the floodplains because the plan does not require that any development in the floodplains be consistent with their functions. In part, the Recommended Order adopted in the Hiss Final Order concluded: 83. Based on the ultimate findings of fact contained in Paragraphs 372 et seq., the plan is not in compliance with the Act and Chapter 9J-5 because it is not consistent with criteria of the depiction on the FLUM of floodplains, Big Slough (regardless of its classification as a river, wetland, or floodplain), and minerals and soils. * * * 96. Based on the ultimate findings of fact contained in Paragraph 388, the plan is not in compliance with the Act and Chapter 9J-5 because it is not consistent with criteria of objectives to ensure the protection of flood- plains other than that of the Myakka River, floodplain-associated soils, and wetlands due to the inadequacy of the mitigation provisions. 7/ The Hiss Final Order required the following Remedial Action pertinent to floodplain delineation and protection: The County shall amend "Figure 27: 100-year Floodprone Areas" to depict the location of all 100-year floodplains . . . and adopt Figure 27, as amended, as an addition to the Future Land Use Map Series. The county shall amend "Figure 5: General Soil Associations in Sarasota County" to indicate general locations of known sand and gravel deposits, and adopt Figure 5, as amended, as an addition to the Future Land Use Map Series. * * * 9. The County shall adopt a new policy in the Future Land Use Plan, to provide that no development order shall be issued which would permit development in floodplains or on floodplain- associated soils that would adversely affect the function of the floodplain, or that would degrade the water quality of water bodies associated with the floodplains in violation of any local, state or federal regulation, including water quality regulations. In part, RU-5 amends FLUE Objective 1.1 to state: "To protect environmentally sensitive lands, conserve natural resources, protect floodplains, maintain water quality, and maintain open space." RU-5 also adds the following policies: Policy 1.1.5: "All future development shall be consistent with the detailed master plans for each drainage basin as they are adopted through the Basin Master Planning Program." [Revision of Environment Policy 2.1.8.] Policy 1.1.6: "No development order shall be issued which would permit development in 100-year floodplains, as designated on Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] Flood Insurance Rate Maps [FIRM] or adopted County flood studies, or on floodplain associated soils, defined as Soils of Coastal Islands, Soils of the Hammocks, Soils of Depressions and Sloughs, and Soils of the Floodplains and shown in figure 5, that would adversely affect the function of the floodplains or that would degrade the water quality of waterbodies associated with said floodplains in violation of any local, State, or federal regulation, including water quality regulations." Policy 1.1.8: "'Figure 27: 100 - Year Floodprone Areas' shall be adopted as Future Land Use Plan Map 5." Policy 1.3.2: "'Figure 5: General Soil Associations In Sarasota County' shall be adopted as Future Land Use Plan Map 4." RU-5 also adds Environment Policy 5.8.2: Floodplain functions shall be protected by application of the Land Development Regulations (Ordinance No. 81-12, as amended) and Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Public Facilities and Future Land Use Plans. RU-5 adds Public Facilities Policy 3.2.8: New development in the 100-year floodplains shall be consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Environment, Public Facilities, and Future Land Use Plans. By virtue of the RU-5 amendments, which use the best available data (the FEMA FIRM) and appropriate analysis, the Apoxsee now depicts the floodprone areas in the County and plans appropriately for their protection. It is at least fairly debatable that the plan provisions are internally consistent. Septic Tanks.-- In part, the Recommended Order adopted in the Hiss Final Order found: A similar lack of coordination exists with respect to the unrestricted use of septic tanks in Urban areas. The Supportive Material discloses "chronic" septic tank failures in areas south of the City of Sarasota, south of Venice, and in the Englewood area at the southern tip of the County on the coast. The last area is one of the few areas remaining near the coast with significant amounts of vacant, unplatted land. Each of the three areas is adjacent to estuarine waters. The Supportive Material cautions that, without centralized sewer in the Englewood area, the County's last remaining shellfish harvesting area, which is in Lemon Bay, is threatened. The Englewood area also includes wellfields that draw upon the surficial aquifer, which is highly susceptible to contamination in this region. Failing to coordinate future land uses with topography, soil conditions, and availability of facilities and services, the plan allows the unrestricted use of septic tanks in these critical Urban areas. Promises to study the problem, prioritize areas for centralized hookup, and in the meantime "discourage" the use of on-site sewage disposal systems offer little in the face of chronic failures of on-site sewage disposal systems and the absence from Table 80 of any expenditures for a centralized wastewater treatment system. Sarasota Exhibit 38, which is the 1986 Englewood Sector Plan, illustrates, in its discussion of septic tanks, the historic lack of coordination between future land uses and topography, soil conditions, and the availability of facilities and services. The Sector Plan notes that the soils of the majority of undeveloped lands in the Englewood area are poorly drained with less than two feet between the surface level and the groundwater table. A 1970 study by the County Health Department concluded: "Based on test results it would appear that Englewood has already reached the point where further development without adequate centralized sewerage facilities will lead to increased problems with regard to fecal pollution of ditches and waterways." [Fn. 30--The Sector Plan mentions various requirements imposed by the County that, if incorporated into the plan, would help coordinate future land uses with topography, soil conditions, and availability of facilities and services. County Ordinance 81-12 prohibits septic tanks within 100 feet of a 25-year floodplain unless the lot is at least five acres. The same ordinance reportedly requires that "the groundwater table be maintained at not less than forty-eight (48 inches) [apparently from the bottom of the drainfield]." Sector Plan, p. VI-4. Also, the County requires hookup to centralized wastewater systems for all new residential subdivisions within one-quarter mile of an existing sewer line, although this requirement can be waived. Id. at pp. VI-4 and VI-5. Finding insufficient septic-tank restrictions imposed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the County has adopted several ordinances regulating on-site sewage disposal systems. Plan, p. 166. Ordinances 83-14, 83-83, and 86-03 detail these requirements, but Appendix D, 2 does not describe them in much detail. More important, the restrictions contained in all of these ordinances did not find their way into the operative provisions of the plan.] Sector Plan, p. VI-4. In the context of a plan that allows unrestricted use of septic tanks anywhere in the Urban area, coordination is not achieved by a plan provision requiring "reasonable assurance" that development proposals within the watersheds of existing public potable surface waters (i.e., the upper Myakka River, both Myakka Lakes, and Big Slough) will not "degrade the quality of such water." Nor is coordination achieved by a provision offering the general assurance of protection and conservation of surface water and groundwater resources, or another provision promising the adoption of land development regulations to specify "design standards" in environmentally significant/sensitive areas like watersheds and water recharge areas. No plan provisions guide the review of specific development proposals. The plan contains no performance or design standards or any requirements to guide the preparation of such standards. [Fn. omitted.] The vague provisions governing the use of septic tanks in the Urban area do not provide, in the plan, a meaningful basis upon which to coordinate, in the plan, future land uses with topography, soil conditions, and availability of facilities and services. In part, the Recommended Order adopted in the Hiss Final Order concluded: 97. Based on the ultimate findings of fact contained in Paragraphs 390 et seq., the plan is not in compliance with the Act and Chapter 9J-5 because it is not consistent with the criterion of an objective to coordinate future land uses with topography, soil conditions, and the availability of facilities and services, with respect to floodplains and the unrestricted use of septic tanks in the Urban area. Besides the provisions already mentioned in connection with floodplain delineation and protection, the Hiss Final Order required the following Remedial Action pertinent to septic tanks: . . .. The Public Facilities Element, Future Land Use Element, and other appropriate elements must contain objectives, with principles, guidelines and standards, to coordinate future land uses with topography, soil conditions, and available facilites and services, with respect to both floodplain protection and the use of septic tanks. The County shall amend Policy 1.1.2 and add or amend other appropriate objectives and policies in the Public Facilities Plan, as follows 8/: * * * Policy 3.2.2 The County shall prohibit the installation of septic tanks in areas designated urban on the Future Land Use Plan Map Series, unless the installation and use shall not adversely affect the quality of groundwater or surface water or adversely affect the natural function of floodplains; further, the County shall adopt regulations which, to the maximum extent permitted by law, mandate hookup of existing as well as new development to a centralized wastewater treatment system. RU-5 amends Public Facilities Policy 3.2.2 to provide: The County shall prohibit the installation of septic tanks in areas designated Urban and Barrier Island on the Future Land Use Plan Map Series, unless the installation and use shall not adversely affect the quality of groundwater or surface water or adversely affect the natural function of floodplains as required by the provisions of the County Land Development Regulations (Ordinance No. 81-12, as amended); Ordinance No. 83-83, regulating design, construction, installation, utilization, operation, maintenance and repair of individual on-site sewage disposal systems, as amended; and any more stringent regulations applicable. Further, the County shall revise as necessary or adopt regulations which, to the maximum extent permitted by law, mandate hookup of existing as well as new development to a centralized wastewater treatment system, when available. The County has admitted, for purposes of effectuating a settlement, that Public Facilities Policy 3.1.2 is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the settlement Stipulation between the Department and the County. By the Stipulation, the County agrees to further amend Public Facilities Policy 3.2.2 by amending the last sentence to read: Further, the County shall require that all buildings served by on-site sewage disposal systems, except approved on-site greywater systems, connect to a publicly owned or investor-owned sewerage system within one year of notification by the County that such a system is available as defined in Chapter 10D-6.042(7), F.A.C. The County shall establish procedures for the notification of sewer availability. RU-5 also amends Public Facilities Policy 3.2.5 to make clear that the requirement for compliance with federal, state and local permit laws extends to individual on-site systems. It also provides: Soil surveys shall be required for septic tank permits. No individual on-site systems shall be permitted where soil conditions indicate that the system would not function without degrading water quality or where land alterations necessary to accommodate the system would interfere with drainage or floodplain functions. RU-5 also amends Public Facilities Policy 3.2.9 to provide: By 1994, the County shall begin implementation of its wastewater resource management program to be completed by 2020. The comprehensive plan, including the Captial Improvements Element, shall be amended by 1994 to reflect implementation of the program. Priority shall be given to providing centralized service to areas experiencing septic tank failure and areas where water quality has been adversely affected by current disposal methods. RU-5 added Environment Policy 5.8.3: Septic tanks shall not adversely affect water quality in accordance with Ordinance No. 83-83 and goals, objectives and policies of the Public Facilities and Future Land Use Plans. The vast majority of septic tanks in the County were installed prior to the adoption of increasingly stringent County regulations during the 1970s and 1980s. Since the early 1980s, there have been virtually no subdivisions approved for septic tanks in urban areas. With one seldom-used exception, all urban subdivisions (densities greater than one dwelling unit per acre) are required to have central sewerage facilities. (The exception, for subdivisions of half-acre lots where central water is provided, has proven not to be economically feasible for the developer in most cases.) Virtually all new subdivisions are being connected to large franchised systems. Consistent with Public Facilities Policies 3.2.2 and 3.2.5 and FLUE Policy 1.1.6, current regulations already provide that no septic tanks or drainfields are permitted within 100 feet of the 25-year portion of the 100-year floodplain. Under current County regulations, all lots are required to meet the County standards. When a septic tank system fails, the property owner is required to upgrade the system to the current county standards to the maximum extent physically possible on the property. Apoxsee's Capital Improvements Element provides for the expenditure of $3,403,000 for expansion of the County-owned centralized sewerage system. The County Health Department is currently developing a priority list for the extension of central sewerage systems into the older subdivisions in the County which are experienceing septic tank system failures due to the age of the systems. Funding for the extension of central sewerage into septic tank subdivisions is awaiting completion and approval of the priority list and an estimate of the costs. The timing of funding and implementation under RU-5 is reasonable and is supported by the best available data and appropriate analysis. Apoxsee specifically coordinates the density of urban development with central water and sewer service through FLUE Policies 1.7.2 and 1.7.3, as well as the application of the Urban Area Residential Checklist and the Urban Area Residential Density Matrix, which substantially reduces urban density when central water and sewer service are not provided. Potable Water Wellfields.-- In part, the Recommended Order adopted in the Hiss Final Order found: 242. The plan contains provisions conserving potable water and recharge areas. In the Public Facilities Element, for instance, Objective 3.1 is "[t]o establish a program of identifying and protecting existing and potential potable water supply sources." Policy 3.1.1 speaks of the adoption of a wellhead protection program by 1990, although this promise is nullified by the condition that the adoption of such a program is "subject to engineering studies and future deliberations and considerations." * * * Wellfields receive little direct protection in the plan. Objective 3.1 of the Public Facilities Element is "[t]o establish a program of identifying and protecting existing and potential potable water supply sources." As the language of this objective suggests, no such program exists, and the ensuing policies do little, if anything, in identifying implementation activities designed to achieve this objective. As already noted, Policy 3.1.1 states that the County will "ensure adequate protection for potable water supply systems," as well as recharge areas, "by initiating efforts to prepare and implement a wellhead protection program by 1990, subject to engineering studies and future deliberations and considerations." * * * Important protection of waterwells is derived from general provisions applicable to groundwater and potable water. Provisions governing groundwater have been discussed in connection with groundwater recharge. Provisions protecting potable water protect wellfields to the extent that groundwater provides potable water. For instance, Policy 5.3.2 of the Environment Element provides that the County shall implement water conservation measures. Measures to conserve water include the use of wastewater or stormwater runoff as a potable water source, as envisioned by Policies 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 of the Public Facilities Element. Likewise, Policy 1.2.6 promises that the County "will continue to explore ... water conservation strategies in cooperation with regional water supply authorities and other local entities." Water conservation measures will obviously protect wellfields by reducing demand and the possibility of overpumping. * * * 371. It is fairly debatable that the FLUM is consistent with criteria of the depiction of waterwells . . .. * * * It is fairly debatable that the plan is consistent with criteria of objectives and policies addressing the conservation of potable water, protection of natural groundwater recharge, and protection of waterwells. . . . . . .. With one exception, it is fairly debatable that the plan is consistent with criteria of policies addressing the protection of natural reservations and the designation of environmentally sensitive lands. To the exclusion of fair debate, the plan is not consistent with the latter two criteria as applied to the designation of the entire Walton Tract as Public Resource Lands, despite the intended use of part of the tract as a major landfill. * * * 385. It is fairly debatable that the plan is consistent with the criterion of an objective addressing the protection of water quality by the restriction of activities known to affect adversely the quality and quantity of identified water sources, including waterwells. The requisite protection is attained by policies protecting surface water and groundwater and conserving potable water, such as by investigating the use of treated wastewater effluent and stormwater runoff as potable water sources. * * * 387. It is fairly debatable that the plan is consistent with criteria of objectives to ensure the protection of waterwells . . .. In part, the Recommended Order adopted in the Hiss Final Order concluded: Based on the ultimate findings of fact contained in Paragraph 371, the plan is consistent with criteria of the depiction on the FLUM of waterwells . . .. There are no cones of influence that are required to be depicted on the FLUM because the Southwest Florida Water Management District has not identified any cones of influence in the County. According to Rule 9J-5.003(18), a "cone of influence" is "an area around one or more major waterwells the boundary of which is determined by the government agency having specific statutory authority to make such a determination based on groundwater travel or drawdown depth." * * * 91. Rule 9J-5.013(2)(c)1. requires that the plan contain "policies address[ing] implementation activities for the": 1. Protection of water quality by restriction of activities known to adversely affect the quality and quantity of identified water sources including existing cones of influence, water recharge areas, and waterwells[.] 92. Based on the ultimate findings of fact contained in Paragraphs 380 and 385-386, the plan is consistent with criteria of objectives addressing the conservation of potable water and protection of natural groundwater recharge areas and policies addressing implementation activities for the protection of water quality by restricting activities known to affect adversely sources of potable water. * * * 95. Based on the ultimate findings of fact contained in Paragraph 387, the plan is consistent with criteria of objectives to ensure the protection of waterwells . . .. The only pertinent thing RU-5 did with respect to potable waterwells was to amend Public Facilities Policy 3.1.1 to indicate that, whereas the 1989 plan stated that County was "initiating efforts to prepare and implement a wellhead protection program by 1990," by the time of RU-5, the plans were to "continu[e] efforts to immediately implement a wellhead protection program." The delay in implementation of the program was predicated on County staff's advice: The extension of the deadline . . . allows for the need to establish base line data and because of the extensive requirements for monitoring such a program. . . . In the face of this explanation, the intervenors did not prove that the extension of the deadline was not supported by the best available data and appropriate analysis. RU-5 also added Public Facilities Policy 3.1.2 Sarasota County will continue working in close cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District and other professional regulatory agencies to develop and evaluate the feasibility of adopting a model wellhead protection ordinance for major public supply wells and well fields shown on the Future Land Use Map Series. This effort may include requests to the SWFWMD for cooperative funding or technical assistance to conduct an inventory and assessment of existing and potential public supply wells areas and conditions. and Public Facilities Policy 3.1.3 For existing and proposed public supply wells shown on the Future Land Use Map or Map Series, a zone of protection shall be delineated within which land use will be regulated to protect public water supply resources, consistent with the wellhead protection program. Where cones of influence have been delineated, the zone of protection shall be consistent therewith. Where cones of influence have not been determined, Sarasota County shall use its best available data to consider delineating interim protection zones of between 200 feet to 400 feet in radius, depending on variables including, but not limited to, soil characteristics and surrounding uses. When DCA found fault with the absence of an explicit time frame for implementation of the wellhead protection program in Public Facilities Policy 3.1.2, the County admitted, for purposes of effectuating a settlement, that Public Facilities Policy 3.1.2 was not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the settlement Stipulation between the Department and the County. The settlement Stipulation amends the first sentence of Public Facilities Policies 3.1.2 as follows: Sarasota County will continue working in close cooperation with the Southwest Flroida Water Management District and other professional regulatory agencies to develop a model wellhead protection ordinance, culminating in Sarasota County adopting a wellhead protection ordinance during fiscal year 1992 for major public supply wells and well fields shown on the Future Land Use Map Series. The Department agrees that this amendment would bring RU-5 into compliance. The balance of the intervenors' criticism of the potable waterwell protection amendments in RU-5 are foreclosed by the Hiss Final Order, as recited above. Wetlands Mitigation.-- In part, the Recommended Order adopted in the Hiss Final Order found: 266. The mitigation requirement applicable to Marshes, Sloughs, or Wet Prairies addresses the habitat function of these wetlands. However, this requirement does not address the critical drainage function of those wetlands altered because "no other reasonable alternative exists." The drainage function is especially pertinent to Marshes and Sloughs, which are contiguous wetlands. Additional findings concerning the treatment of wetlands are at Paragraph 315 below. [Fn. 17 omitted.] * * * 315. Ignoring alterations to wetlands causing the loss of drainage functions, the mitigation requirement fails even to ensure the protection of the habitat function of wetlands, whose loss triggers the obligation to mitigate. The mitigation provision leaves to the developer the task of monitoring the success of the artificial wetlands created to replace converted wetlands. Assuming that developer monitoring may suffice with County supervision, the plan supplies no standards by which to evaluate a mitigation project or sanctions by which to enforce a mitigation agreement. These short- comings undermine the protection afforded Swamps, Marshes, and Wet Prairies. Testimony established that many wetland-mitigation projects fail, largely due to the absence of performance standards and failure to monitor. The Hiss Final Order contains no conclusions of law regarding wetlands mitigation. However, for reasons not readily apparent from the Final Order, the Remedial Action 13 does address wetland mitigation by requiring the County to "amend the Freshwater Wetlands section 'Principles for Development Proposals in Native Habitats.'" In most respects, RU-5 follows the specified remedial action. In those respects, the intervenors are foreclosed from challenging RU-5's amendment to the "Principles for Evaluating Development Proposals in Native Habitats." In some respects, there are difference between the specified remedial action and RU-5. The Remedial Action in the Hiss Final Order requires that the "Principles for Development Proposals in Native Habitats," Section VI.A.2.e., be amended to read: All alterations in wetlands which result in a loss of wetlands shall be mitigated on at least a two-to-one basis for wooded wetlands. Mitigated wetlands shall restore the type, nature and function of the altered wetland. A wetland mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring plan based on best available technology shall be submitted for review and approval by the County prior to or concurrent with the preliminary plan or site and development plan development review process. The success of mitgation shall be monitored by the applicant or his designees and shall also be subject to monitoring and enforcement by the County. Except as otherwise authorized herein, wetlands shall not be filled, drained, dredged, or converted to lakes or borrow pits. Instead, RU-5 amends the "Principles for Evaluating Development Proposals in Native Habitats," Section VI.A.2.e., to read: All alterations in wetlands which result in a loss of habitat, shall be mitigated in accordance with performance standards adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. These performance standards shall ensure that the recreated wetlands provide values and functions equal to or, particularly in the case of an impacted or degraded wetland, greater than those of the wetland qualifying for alteration. Reasonable assurance shall be provided such that the recreated wetland will exhibit the defined environmental function, nature, and, where hydrologically feasible, similar type of the altered wetland. Mitigation ratios shall be as follows: One-to-one for herbaceous wetlands and two-to-one for wooded wetlands, in accordance with Level I performance standards; or Two-to-one for herbaceous wetlands and four-to-one for wooded wetlands in accordance with Level II performance standards. General Requirements for Level I and Level II Performance Standards: For all projects, a wetland mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring plan based on best available technology shall be submitted for review and approval by the County prior to or concurrent with the preliminary plan or site and development plan development review process. All federally listed threatened and endangered plant species shall be preserved, protected or relocated pursuant to a transplantation program to be implemented prior to construction authorization. The success of mitgation shall be monitored by the Applicant or his designees and shall also be subject to monitoring and enforcement by the County. Except as otherwise authorized herein, wetlands shall not be filled, drained, dredged, or converted to lakes or borrow pits. Specific performance standards shall be contained in the County's Land Development Regulations (Ord. 81-12, as amended). Criteria for Level I Performance Standards: Level I standards shall include the following: the diversity of plants in the wetlands to be impacted shall be approximated in the recreated wetland; the habitat value of the recreated wetland shall approximate or exceed that of the wetland to be impacted; similar substrate shall be provided in the recreated wetland; success criteria (e.g., plant survival, animal diversity, hydroperiods) shall be established based on the best availabale technology, and shall be met before monitoring can be completed; and a hydroperiod maintenance plan, acceptable to the County, shall be prepared. Mitigation at ratios as described in (1), above, and based on success criteria for Level I performance standards may be provided prior to the alteration of any wetland qualifying for alteration. Mitigation with Level I performance standards may be provided in a defined area that is part of an environmental system or corridor that can enhance wildlife values and functions. Off-site wetland mitigation shall be allowed only where on-site mitigation or preservation is not feasible, as determined by the County. Criteria for Level II Performance Standards: Level II standards shall include the following: recreated wetlands shall be planted with at least three different native species at specific distances between plants; mulching may be used in lieu of planting; a hydroperiod maintenance plan, acceptable to the County, shall be prepared; and monitoring of success shall be required for at least three years. The County has admitted, for purposes of effectuating a settlement, that Section VI.A.2.e. of the "Principles for Evaluating Development Proposals in Native Habitats" is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the settlement Stipulation between the Department and the County. Under the settlement Stipulation, the County has agreed to revise Section VI.A.2.e. to specify that the "federally listed threatened and endangered plant species" to be preserved includes "those species that are listed or are C1 candidates for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; listed as threatened or endangered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and [C]onsumer [S]ervices pursuant to the Preservation of Native Flora Act, Section 581.185, Floirida Statutes; and listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora." There is no basis in the record for the intervenors contentions that RU-5, as amended by settlement Stipulation between the DCA and the County, is contrary to the required Remedial Action or inconsistent with the Growth Management Act. 9/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order that: (1) Sarasota County's RU-5 amendments to its comprehensive plan are not in compliance, but only for the reasons set out in the settlement Stipulation between the County and the DCA; (2) that the RU-5 amendments are otherwise in compliance; and (3) that the County be required to take the remedial action agreed to in the settlement Stipulation. RECOMMENDED this 31 day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31 day of August, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the City of Hallandale's comprehensive plan adopted in Ordinance No. 1999-12 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Mickey Biss, is an individual who resides in Miami, Dade County, Florida. Respondent, City of Hallandale (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipal corporation located within Broward County, Florida. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Respondents, Ocean Marine Yacht Club, Inc. and Security Management Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Ocean Marine"), are corporations organized under the laws of Florida and Maryland, respectively. Intervenor, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Standing. Mr. Biss owns a condominium, unit No. 2109, located at 2030 South Ocean Drive, Hallandale, Broward County, Florida. Mr. Biss' parents reside in the condominium unit. Mr. Biss made oral and written comments to the City during the adoption of the amendment at issue in this case. Ocean Marine and Security Management own parcels of property located at 1935 and 1945 South Ocean Drive, Hallandale, Broward County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is the subject of the plan amendment at issue in this proceeding. All of the parties proved that they are "affected persons" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. All of the Parties have standing to participate in this proceeding. The City and Its Comprehensive Plan. General The City is located in Broward County, Florida. Broward County is a charter county with county-wide powers over land use planning. The City has adopted the City of Hallandale Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan"). The City's Plan has been determined to be "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act. The City's Plan includes a Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE") and Future Land Use Maps (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"), a Coastal Management Element, a Capital Improvements Element, and other elements required by the Act. Among the land use categories allowed pursuant to the FLUE are residential "High Density" and residential "High Density-2." Residential property designated High Density is subject to a "maximum density of twenty-five (25) dwelling units per net acre." The residential High Density-2 land use category was created by an amendment to the City's Plan adopted by the City on February 5, 1998, through Ordinance No. 1998-3. Residential property designated High Density-2 is subject to a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. This new land use category was also added to the FLUM. The amendment to the City's Plan to add High Density-2 as a land use category was found to be "in compliance" by the Department. It was also found to be consistent with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. The High Density-2 land use category is subject to the following limitation: Dwelling units and accessory structures subject to a maximum density of fifty (50) dwelling units per net acre, provided however that any density over 25 dwelling units per net ace may only be permitted by the City Commission on site specific properties by assignment of Flexibility Units in accordance with the Flexibility Rules of the Administrative Rules Document, Broward County Land Use Plan. The High Density-2 land use category of the City's Plan is consistent with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, which contains a "High (50) Residential" land use category allowing up to 50 dwelling units per acre. The City's Urban Infill Area and Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas The FLUE of the City's Plan establishes an Urban Infill Area in the City. The Urban Infill Area is delineated on the FLUM. The following Objective and Policies concerning the Urban Infill Area are included in the City's Plan: OBJECTIVE 1.17: Establish criteria which encourage development of urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s) to promote economic development, increase housing opportunities, and maximize the use of existing public facilities and services. POLICY 1.17.1: Increase economic development and employment opportunities within urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s). POLICY 1.17.2: Adequate housing opportunities necessary to accommodate all segments of present and future residents shall be provided within urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s). The City's Plan also designates Urban Infill Areas as Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas. FLUE Policy 1.17.4 of the City's Plan provides the following: Designated urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s) shall be excepted from transportation facilities concurrency requirements consistent with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; however, application will be subject to providing a traffic analysis consistent with the Traffic Circulation Element and potential improvements to minimize impacts. Coastal High Hazard Area The City's Plan includes a Coastal Management Element addressing, among other things, hurricane evacuation from the City's coastal high-hazard area and participation in the development of evacuation plans by Broward County. The FLUE of the City's Plan also includes Policies providing for protection of the City's coastal high-hazard area. The City's Plan, prior to the adoption of the Challenged Amendment, allowed the designation of property located anywhere in the City, including the coastal high-hazard area, as High Density-2. This fact must be considered in interpreting the provisions of the Coastal Management Element and the FLUE of the City's Plan dealing with development within the coastal high hazard area. Flexibility Units. The Broward County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "County's Plan") includes an Administrative Rules Document. The Administrative Rules Document was adopted to assist local governments, among others, in interpreting the County's Plan. The FLUE of the City's Plan adopts by reference the Administrative Rules Document as they relate to flexibility units. The Future Land Use Maps of the County's Plan divide Broward County into 125 geographic areas designated as "flexibility zones." The number of flexibility units available within each zone is determined by subtracting the number of dwelling units permitted within a flexibility zone by a local government's plan from the number of dwelling units permitted within the same flexibility zone by the County's Plan. Local governments are allowed to, within certain specified limits, rearrange land uses, including residential densities, within flexibility zones located within the local government's jurisdiction. The City is divided into two flexibility zones: Flex Zones Nos. 93 and 94. The FLUE of the City's Plan contains a table on pages 2-28 and 2-32 which sets out the number of flexibility units available in Flex Zone Nos. 93 and 94. The City's Plan allows the use of flexibility units anywhere within either Flex Zone of the City, including areas within the coastal high hazard area. A "Summary" included with the table provides, in pertinent part, that flexibility units may be "assigned to any particular site within the Flexibility Zone to allow for increased residential densities above the amount permitted under the Hallandale Land Use Plan map. . . ." The flexibility units are available for transfer without the need to amend the City's Plan. At the time that the Challenged Amendment was adopted, there were a total of 2,429 flexibility units available within Flex Zone No. 93. The Subject Property. The Subject Property consists of approximately 5.75 acres of land. The parcel of the Subject Property located at 1935 Ocean Drive is vacant. The parcel of the Subject Property located at 1945 Ocean Drive is developed. The developed parcel has an 80-unit motel on it. The motel located on the Subject Property was constructed in 1956. The buildings on the Subject Property are in substantial decay. The Subject Property is surrounded on three sides by property used for high density multi-family residences. The property to the north, Chelsea Hall, has been developed at a density of 54 units per acre. The properties to the east, Malage Towers, Biltmore Mansions, Taromina Apartments, and Hemispheres Ocean, have been developed at densities of 75, 19, 45, and 117 units per acre, respectively. The property to the south, Hemispheres, has been developed at a density of 85 units per acre. Densities in the area surrounding the Subject Property averaged approximately 86 units per acre. The Subject Property lies totally within the City's Urban Infill Area. The Subject Property is, therefore, also considered to be located totally within a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. The Subject Property also lies within the coastal high-hazard area. The Subject Property is located within the City's Flex Zone No. 93. The Subject Amendment. On June 1, 1999, the City passed Ordinance No. 1999-12, amending the City's Plan by changing the FLUM land use designation for the Subject Property (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Amendment"). The Challenged Amendment changed the land use designation of the Subject property from residential High Density to residential High Density-2. The Challenged Amendment was adopted pursuant to the procedures allowed for "small scale" development amendments set forth in Section 163.3187 of the Act. Pursuant to this provision, the City decided that it would elect to have the Department review the Challenged Amendment. The change in land use designation on the Subject Property increased the allowable development of the Subject Property from a maximum of 25 units per acre to a maximum of 50 units per acre through the use of "flexibility units." The Challenged Amendment assigns 143 flexibility units out of the 2,429 available within Flex Zone No. 93 to the Subject Property and specifically provides " . . . the applicant agrees the assignment of 143 Flexibility Units to the parcel is a maximum and agrees the use of density above 25 units per acre will be determined by the City Commission upon review of a future major development plan." Mr. Biss' Challenge. Mr. Biss filed a Petition for Hearing to Challenge Compliance of a Small Scale Development Amendment with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Biss alleged generally that the Challenged Amendment is not "in compliance" for the following reasons: The Challenged Amendment is not a small scale amendment pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c) of the Act because the density of the Subject Property is more than ten units per acre and the Subject Property is not vacant; The Challenged Amendment is contrary to the State Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1997). In particular, Mr. Biss alleged that the Challenged Amendment is contrary to Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997), which requires the following: 22. Require local governments, in cooperation with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance plans for the safe evacuation of coastal residents. The Challenged Amendment, by increasing densities in the coastal high-hazard area, increases the dangers from hurricanes contrary to Coastal Element Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, and FLUE Policies 1.9.5 and 2.7.2 of the City's Plan; The Challenged Amendment degrades the level of service standard of Hallandale Beach Boulevard contrary to FLUE Element Policy 1.12.4 and Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan; There is insufficient data and analysis to demonstrate that the possible additional 143 residential units in the coastal high-hazard zone will not negatively impact the City's ability to evacuate the coastal high-hazard area; and The Challenged Amendment fails to consider the impacts on public schools contrary to the County's Plan. Qualification as a Small Scale Amendment. The Subject Property is located within the Urban Infill Area and a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. Therefore, the Challenged Amendment may involve a residential use with a density of more than ten units per acre and still qualify as a small scale amendment. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is not a small scale amendment pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c) of the Act. I. The State Comprehensive Plan. The City has prepared plans for evacuation of coastal residents as required by Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Biss failed to prove that the requirements of Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997), concerning the preparation of evacuation plans, apply to the Challenged Amendment. Density Increase in the High-Hazard Area; Coastal Management Element Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, and FLUE Policies 1.9.5 and 2.7.2 of the City's Plan. The Coastal Element of the City's Plan includes Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 pertaining to the City's high hazard area: GOAL 2: The City of Hallandale Shall Protect Human Health and Safety in the Coastal Area. . . . . OBJECTIVE 2.2: The City shall direct populations away from High-Hazard Areas in concert with the established hazard mitigation strategies developed by Broward County . . . . GOAL 3: The City Shall Discourage or Limit Development in Areas Subject to Destruction by Natural Disasters. The evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with these Goals or the Objective of the Coastal Management Element of the City's Plan. These Goals and the Objective were intended to provide broad planning guidelines and were not intended to apply specifically to a small scale amendment such as the Challenged Amendment. The Goals and the Objective of the Coastal Management Element relied upon by Mr. Biss must be evaluated with other provisions of the City's Plan. In particular, those provisions which allow the transfer of residential dwelling unit densities through flexibility units anywhere within the City, including the coastal high-hazard area. Because of these existing provisions the Challenged Amendment does not increase densities within the coastal high-hazard area or increase the danger from hurricanes anymore than already allowed by the City's Plan. Although not required by Coastal Management Element Goals 2 or 3, or Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, even a consideration of the impact of the Challenged Amendment on actual hurricane evacuation times does not support Ms. Biss' challenge. The City's projected hurricane evacuation time for roads which would be impacted by increased density on the Subject Property are less than seven hours. The addition of up to 143 dwelling units will not significantly impact that evacuation time. Ongoing road improvements will even mitigate any such impacts. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the Coastal Management Element of the City's Plan. FLUE Policy 1.9.5 of the City's Plan provides: POLICY 1.9.5: The City shall direct populations away from High-Hazard Areas, to the extent legally feasible, through the establishment of redevelopment regulations for High-Hazard Areas by 1998. The City has complied with this Policy by adopting redevelopment regulations. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with this Policy. FLUE Policy 1.9.3 of the City's Plan provides the following: POLICY 1.9.3: Encourage development and redevelopment in the coastal high hazard area to include hazard mitigation measures for beach and beachfront property protection to minimize loss of life and property against beach erosion. This Policy has no relevance to the Challenged Amendment. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the Policy. The City's Plan does not include a Policy 2.7.2. The FLUE of the City's Plan includes a "Section 2.7.2" which describes the following "Natural Conditions Affecting Development" as part of the description of the dangers from flooding in the City: The danger from hurricanes can be somewhat controlled by limiting future allowable densities in high hazard areas. This subject is more fully addressed in the Coastal Management and Conservation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with Section 2.7.2 of the City's Plan. Impacts on Traffic. FLUE Element 1.12.4 of the City's Plan establishes a level of service standard "D" for City roads. Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan recognizes existing traffic circulation problems within the City, including roads impacted by the Challenged Amendment. This Section is not, however, a goal, objective, or policy of the City's Plan. Mr. Biss has argued that the Challenged Amendment degrades the level of service standard for the City on roads which may be impacted by the Challenged Amendment and further exacerbates the traffic circulation problems recognized by Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan. The evidence failed to support this argument. While the addition of 143 dwelling units will naturally increase traffic in the area surrounding the Subject Property, Mr. Biss failed to prove the extent of that impact. More importantly, Mr. Biss failed to prove that the impact will be so great as to be considered inconsistent with the City's Plan. Data and Analysis. Mr. Biss has argued that the City did not have sufficient data and analysis to demonstrate that an additional 143 residential units will not negatively impact the City's ability to evacuate the coastal high hazard area. Mr. Biss failed to prove this allegation. Hurricane evacuation times for roads which may be impacted by the Challenged Amendment are well below acceptable hurricane evacuation time standards. An additional 143 dwelling units will not significantly impact those evacuation times. Data relied upon by the City indicated that, after ongoing road improvements, hurricane evacuation times, even with the Challenged Amendment, will decrease. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the City did not have adequate data and analysis to support the Challenged Amendment. Impacts on Public Schools. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment did not consider the impacts on public schools contrary to the County's Plan. The Challenged Amendment is not required to be consistent with County's Plan until it is reviewed for "recertification" by the Broward County Planning Council. At the time of recertification, the Challenged Amendment will likely be considered exempt from school concurrency pursuant to Policy 13.01.10 of the County's Plan. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with any provision of the City's Plan dealing with public schools. Mr. Biss also failed to prove that the impact on public schools by the Challenged Amendment will be more than the addition of nine students. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with Coastal Management Element Policy 3.1.1 of the City's Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the Challenged Amendment to be a small scale amendment and that it is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 19th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kent Harrison Robbins, Esquire 1224 Washington Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Clifford R. Steele, Esquire John C. Hanson, II, Esquire Steele & Hanson, P.A. Museum Tower, Penthouse 150 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Barbara Hall, Esquire Greenberg, Taurig, et al 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Richard Kane, City Attorney City of Hallandale 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale, Florida 33009 Karen A. Brodeen, Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Arnold Lanner, Mayor City of Hallandale City Hall 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale, Florida 33009 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Meridian Place Limited Partition meets all criteria for a limited partition under the City of Tallahassee law.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Respondent, T.S. Builders, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "T.S."), is a Florida corporation located at 2700 Hadley Place, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent, City of Tallahassee (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida. Petitioner, Jacob D. Varn, is a resident of the City. Mr. Varn resides in a small subdivision located on Meridian Place near the property which is the subject of this case. The subdivision in which Mr. Varn resides consists of approximately 5 or 6 lots. The evidence failed to prove who John and Nancy Fruin, Francis C. and Karen W. Skilling, Thomas J. Bixler, Sheila S. Varn, and Naomi S. Perkins are. The evidence also failed to prove where they reside. The Subject Property. T.S. owns a 1.385 acre unrecorded residential parcel of real property (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") located at the southeast corner of Meridian Road and Meridian Place. Approximately 170 feet of the Subject Property fronts on Meridian Place and 356 feet fronts on Meridian Road. Meridian Road is a two-lane public street with a center turning lane. Meridian Road runs north-south. Meridian Road has been designated as a "canopy road." As a consequence, Meridian Road is subject to a canopy road protection setback: no construction is allowed within 100 feet from the centerline of Meridian Road. Meridian Place is a two-lane, dead-end, City-maintained residential public street. Meridian Place runs east-west. Meridian Place is not classified as a major or minor arterial or major collector roadway. The Subject Property is located within an unrecorded residential subdivision known as "Meridian Place." The Subject Property has not been previously subdivided. The Subject Property is located in an area designated as a Residential Preservation I zoning district. The maximum density allowed in Residential Preservation I zoning districts is 3.6 single-family dwelling units per acre. Land uses in the area immediately surrounding the Subject Property are limited to low-density, single-family residences. Certificate of Land Use Compliance and Concurrency Certification. On July 28, 1997, T.S. obtained a land use compliance certificate (hereinafter referred to as an "LUCC"), for the Subject Property from the City. The City identified the Subject Property in the LUCC as parcel I.D. No. 11-18-206-01-0000. Through the LUCC the City concluded that the Subject Property was eligible for subdivision into 5 single-family lots, as long as density did not exceed 3.6 dwelling units per acre, the allowable density for the zoning district within which the Subject Property is located. The LUCC indicated that access to the lots would have to be limited to Meridian Place. The City also concluded in the LUCC that any proposed subdivision of the Subject Property would be limited to subdivision as a "limited partition," that it would be reviewed under applicable canopy road requirements, and that it would require a concurrency certificate, an environmental permit, building permits, and certificates of occupancy. A certificate of concurrency for 3 single-family detached dwellings on the Subject Property was issued by the City to T.S. on September 16, 1998. The other permits must be obtained at a later date. T.S.'s Application for Limited Partition. On or about September 10, 1998, T.S. filed a City of Tallahassee Limited Partition Application (hereinafter referred to as the "Partition Application"), with supporting documents. The Partition Application was filed pursuant to Section 20.1, Article XX, Chapter 27 of the City's Code, the City's Zoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Regulations (Chapter 27 of the City's Code will hereinafter be referred to as the "Zoning Regulations"). The Partition Application filed by T.S. included the following: A completed City of Tallahassee Limited Partition Application; A Limited Partition Checklist indicating that all items, except an 8 1/2 X 14-inch document to be recorded in the Official Records Book, had been filed. The 8 1/2 x 14-inch document to be recorded in an official records book was required to include a boundary survey, the signature and seal of a surveyor, existing structures, date of preparation, total acreage, lot and block numbers, easements, a statement concerning future subdivisions, and a scale of plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Recordable Plan"); A vicinity map indicating the location of the Subject Property in relation to adjacent streets and properties; A Project Narrative, describing the proposed project; A completed Applicant's Affidavit of Ownership & Designation of Agent; A sketch of the Subject Property indicating the location of water and sewer connections to be serviced by the City; A 100-year flood frequency hazard area map for the area, including the Subject Property; and A copy of the Preliminary Certificate of Concurrency for the Subject Property. Although the Recordable Plan required by Section 20.1(3), Article XX, Chapter 27 of the Zoning Regulations was not provided with the Partition Application, consistent with City policy of requiring that the Recordable Plan be provided at the time of final approval of the limited partition, the City accepted T.S.'s Partition Application as complete. The document provided with the Partition Application by S., an 8 1/2 x 11 document, complied with the substantive requirements for the Recordable Plan. At the formal hearing, T.S. presented a Recordable Plan in substantial compliance with Section 20.1(3), Article XX, Chapter 27 of the Zoning Regulations. T.S. Exhibit 15. T.S.'s Proposed Limited Partition of the Subject Property. During the summer of 1998, T.S. submitted a proposal for development of the Subject Property to the City for a pre-application review. Comments concerning that proposal were provided to T.S. by the City in July 1998. T.S. modified its planned development and proposed the subdivision of the Subject Property into 3 single-family residential lots. The proposed density for the subdivision is 2.2 dwelling units per acre, which is within the allowable density for the zoning district in which the Subject Property is located. No new streets are to be created by the proposed partition and access will be limited to Meridian Place, an existing public street. City water and sewer are available to the Subject Property. T.S. has proposed the division of the Subject Property as follows (a copy of T.S. Builders' Exhibit 15 depicting the proposed division of the Subject Property is attached to this Recommended Order and is hereby incorporated herein; the copy of the exhibit will hereinafter be referred to as the "Attached Partition Plan"): Lot 1: Lot 1 will be located closest to Meridian Place. Lot 1 is shaded blue on the Attached Partition Plan. Lot 1 is rectangular in shape. Lot 1 will consist of approximately .391 acres or 17,041 square feet. Lot 1 will have 139.65 feet fronting on Meridian Place and 122.01 feet fronting on Meridian Road. Access from Lot 1 will be directly onto Meridian Place. The westernmost 50 feet of Lot 1 will be placed in an easement because it is located within the canopy road protection zone. Lot 2: Lot 2 will be located adjacent to the southern edge of Lot 1. Lot 2 is shaded yellow on the Attached Partition Plan. Lot 2 is rectangular in shape except for the easternmost boundary, which extends almost 15 feet further to the east on the northern boundary (154.74 feet) than on the southern boundary (139.78 feet). Lot 2 will consist of approximately .460 acres or 18,179 square feet, plus a driveway which will be shared with Lot 3. Lot 2 will have approximately 139.74 feet adjacent to the southern boundary of Lot 1 and 123.50 feet fronting on Meridian Road. Access from Lot 2 will be by a driveway along the eastern boundary of the Subject Property. The distance from Meridian Place to the southeastern corner of Lot 1 is 122.01 feet. The westernmost 50 feet of Lot 2 will also be part of the canopy road protection zone. Lot 3: Lot 3 will be located adjacent to the southern edge of Lot 2. Lot 3 is shaded orange and purple on the Attached Partition Plan. Lot 3 is rectangular in shape except for a portion of the lot that extends along the eastern boundary of Lot 2. This extension is shaded purple on the Attached Partition Plan. The purple-shaded portion of Lot 3 is 15 feet on the north, 123.50 feet on the east, 124.41 feet on the west, and approximately 30 feet on the south. Lot 3 will consist of approximately .534 acres or 18,619 square feet, plus a driveway which will be shared with Lot 2. Lot 3 will have approximately 139.78 feet adjacent to the southern boundary of Lot 2 and 109.65 feet fronting on Meridian Road. Access from Lot 3 will be by a driveway along the eastern boundary of the Subject Property. The western-most 50 feet of Lot 3 will also be part of the canopy road protection zone. Review and Approval of the Partition Application. The preliminary decision to approve the Partition Application was made after review by employees of the City from various interested City departments. The approval decision was made at a meeting held on September 17, 1998. No formal notice of the meeting was given to the public. Although the meeting was open to the public, no public participation was allowed. Mr. Varn was aware of the meeting and attended it. Gordon H. Hansen, a land use planner in the City's Growth Management Department, informed T.S. of the initial decision by letter dated September 17, 1998. The decision of the City was to conditionally approve the Partition Application. T.S. was informed of additional conditions by letter dated September 22, 1998, from the Land Use and Environmental Services Division of the City's Growth Management Department. Approval was conditioned upon T.S. accepting the conditions and submitting revised plans reflecting the acceptance of the conditions. T.S. accepted those conditions on September 17, 1998, September 28, 1998, and at the formal hearing of this case. The conditional approval was not final until the time allowed for a request for hearing challenging the approval had expired. Petitioners filed a challenge to the conditional approval resulting in the abeyance of the final decision until completion of the review process. Petitioners were given a full opportunity to be heard and to participate in the City's decision process during the hearing of this case. The conditional approval of the Partition Application was not given prior to the formal hearing of this case by the Director of the City's Growth Management Department. At the time of approval of the Partition Application, Rhett Miler was the Director of the Growth Management Department. During the hearing of this case the current Director of the City's Growth Management Department, Mr. Robert L. Herman, approved the Partition Application. This approval was obviously given more than ten days after the Partition Application was filed. Proposed Flag Lots. Lots 2 and 3 are irregularly shaped or "stem" lots. The main body of these lots does not abut any road. Proposed access to Lots 2 and 3 will by a narrow extension, or "stem," which will connect the main body of the lots to Meridian Place. Because Lot 1 is located between Meridian Place and Lots 2 and 3, a narrow arm of land is required to provide access to Meridian Place for Lots 2 and 3. As a consequence, Lots 2 and 3 constitute residential "flag lots" as defined in Section 2.1(33), Article II, Chapter 27 of the Zoning Regulations. Access to Meridian Place from Lot 2 as originally proposed by T.S. was to be by way of a 15-foot wide driveway running 122.01 feet from the northeast corner of Lot 2 to the boundary of the Subject Property on Meridian Place. This original driveway is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of Lot 1. The originally proposed driveway for Lot 2 is shaded green on the Attached Partition Plan. Access to Meridian Place from Lot 3 as originally proposed by T.S. was to be by way of another 15-foot wide driveway also running 122.01 feet from what is considered the northeast corner of Lot 3 to the boundary of the Subject Property on Meridian Place. This original driveway is located immediately adjacent to the eastern edge of the driveway for Lot 2. The originally proposed driveway for Lot 3 is shaded red on the Attached Partition Plan. One of the conditions for approval of the Partition Application imposed by the City on T.S. was that the proposed driveways for Lots 2 and 3 be combined to create one driveway to be used for both lots. T.S. agreed to this condition. The proposed driveways for Lots 2 and 3 will, therefore, have a combined total width of 30 feet. As a result of T.S.'s agreement, the proposed driveways will have a minimum of 20 feet of frontage to accommodate utility placement and easement within the driveway. The length of the driveway for Lot 2 will be less than 150 feet from Meridian Place. The length of the driveway for Lot 3 will also be less than 150 feet from Meridian Place if the irregularly shaped configuration of Lot 3 proposed by T.S. is accepted. The combined length of the proposed driveway for Lot 3 and the purple-shaded portion of Lot 3, however, is approximately 245.51 feet. The purple-shaded portion of Lot 3 was identified on T.S. Builders' Exhibit 13 as "access." That exhibit, however, was prepared to address environmental impacts, canopy zone protection, and slopes on the Subject Property. The evidence at hearing proved that T.S. is proposing the subdivision of the Subject Property with the purple-shaded area be included as part of Lot 3 and not merely as "access." The City considers the purple-shaded area of Lot 3 to be part of the "buildable area" of Lot 3. The City also considers the purple-shaded area to be a part of the lot and not the driveway because the driveway is considered to end where the driveway is no longer straight. Due to setback requirements, there is virtually no actual space in the purple-shaded area of Lot 3 which can be built within 160 feet from Meridian Place. See Section 10.6.Y, Article X, Chapter 27 of the Zoning Regulations. Although the odd shape of Lot 3 has obviously been proposed in order for the Subject Property to be subdivided into three, rather than two, lots which will meet the requirements of the Zoning Regulations for lot configuration applicable to flag lots, the City has consistently found similar lot configurations to be in compliance with the Zoning Regulations. The City has consistently concluded that "driveways" end where the width of property used for the driveway expands beyond the minimum width required for the driveway. In this case, the driveway for Lot 3 ends where the purple-shaded portion of Lot 3 begins. Even though the eventual owner of Lot 3 may not be able to place any construction on portions of the purple-shaded area of the lot, T.S. is proposing that Lot 2 and Lot 3 be legally subdivided as depicted on the Attached Partition Plan. As a consequence, the ultimate owner of Lot 3 may use the purple- shaded portion of Lot 3 in the same manner that the orange-shaded portion of the lot may be used. Based upon the City's policy concerning flag lots and the fact that Lot 3 will be legally configured as depicted on the Attached Partition Plan, Lot 3's driveway will consist of the area shaded red and green and will be less than 150 feet from Meridian Place. The Canopy Road Protection Area. In response to the determination that the Subject Property was adjacent to a canopy road, T.S. agreed to comply with the 100 feet from the center line of Meridian Road setback. That setback extends 50 feet into the Subject Property. That 50- foot portion of the Subject Property located within the setback area will serve as the boundary of a conservation easement. The conservation easement will be recorded by T.S. after the limited partition is approved. Section 2.1(13), Article II, Chapter 27 of the Zoning Regulations defines "development" for purposes of the Zoning Regulations to include the "dividing of land into two (2) or more parcels." The City interprets the prohibition of "development" within a canopy road protection area to apply to actual construction or other alteration of the land. The City does not consider that its approval of the mere legal division of property into parcels to be allowing "development to occur within" the canopy road protection area. The City's policy is reasonable. The canopy road protection setback is intended to protect canopy roads from intrusion and disturbance to the canopy. The legal subdividing of property involves no such intrusion or disturbance within the area required to be protected. This conclusion is also supported by other provisions in the Zoning Regulations and the City's Environmental Management Ordinance, Chapter 28 of the Zoning Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "Environmental Management Ordinance"), that specifically recognize that some actual development is allowed within the canopy protection area. See Section 10.4.A, Article X, Chapter 27 of the Zoning Regulations, and Section 3.1(1)(h), Article 3 of the Environmental Management Ordinance. The Environmental Management Ordinance. On or about May 5, 1998, T.S. submitted a completed Tallahassee-Leon County Natural Features Inventory (hereinafter referred to as the "Natural Features Inventory") for the Subject Property. The Natural Features Inventory indicated the extent to which slopes exist on the Subject Property, identified the canopy road setback and, by an attached letter, demonstrated that a cultural resource assessment had been performed. According to the Natural Features Inventory, it was concluded that there were "severe" grades on .024 acres of the Subject Property or 1.74% of the Subject Property. It was also concluded that there were "significant" grades on .415 acres of the Subject Property or 29.9% of the Subject Property. A natural features analysis of the Subject Property was also conducted by Susan Tanski, a Staff Biologist for the City. Ms. Tanski found that the Subject Property impacted a canopy road. She also found "severe" and "significant" grades on the Subject Property. By letter dated May 7, 1998, the City approved the Natural Features Inventory and indicated that the Meridian Road Canopy Road and the severe and significant slopes on the Subject Property would have to be addressed. Severe grades or slopes are considered "preservation" areas under the Environmental Management Ordinance and significant slopes and canopy roads are considered "conservation" areas. Although the Natural Features Inventory was submitted as part of T.S.'s original proposed project, the conclusions reached in the Natural Features Inventory of T.S. and Ms. Tanski's conclusions based thereon did not change as a result of the proposed subdivision of the Subject Property ultimately approved by the City and at issue in this proceeding. When the City initially approved the Partition Application, it informed T.S. that the approval was conditioned upon the submission of an environmental impact analysis to Ms. Tanski for review. In September 1998 T.S. submitted an environmental impact analysis of the Subject Property. Although no easement recording any preservation or conservation areas has been recorded by T.S.; yet, it has agreed to do so when the Partition Application is approved. No environmental management permit has been obtained by T.S. for the Subject Property. Significant and Sever Slopes. The Environmental Management Ordinance provides that grades of greater than 20%, or "severe" slopes, are considered "preservation" areas and that grades of between 10 and 20%, or "significant" slopes, are considered "conservation" areas. The City's policies for the treatment of significant and severe slopes is set out in Policy 601GM. Pursuant to Section 601.06 of Policy 601GM, significant slopes are subject to regulation unless they have a "minimum width or length of 80 feet at some point . . . " and " . . . the area must be at least one- quarter acre (10,890 square feet)." All severe slopes are subject to regulation regardless of size or dimension. There are four significant slopes on the Subject Property identified by T.S. as slopes A, B, C, and D. T.S. Exhibit 7. Slopes A, B, and C are all slopes that are of a size that do not require regulation. Slope D, which is approximately 11,813 square feet in area, is subject to regulation. Therefore, a minimum of 50% of slope D must be placed in a conservation easement. An area located adjacent to slope D has been identified as slope E. Slope E, which consists of 922 square feet, is a severe slope, subject to regulation and preservation. Slope E, when considered as a part of slope D, is less than 25% of the total area of the combined slopes. Therefore, slope E may be considered as a significant slope for purposes of regulation in this case. Rather than being subject to total preservation, all that is required is that 50% of the combined area of slopes D and E be placed in a conservation easement. The 50% preserved area may be made up totally of slope D, totally of slope E, or partly of slopes D and E. T.S. submitted documents to the City in May 1998 which included different measurements for the amount of significant and severe slopes on the Subject Property. See T.S. Exhibit 4. T.S. submitted updated data, however, with its environmental impact analysis submitted in September 1998. See T. S. Exhibit 7. The later information concerning the area of significant and severe slopes is the more accurate information relied upon the City in this proceeding. T.S. also represented in May 1998 that it did not intend to disturb slope E. As a result of this representation, the City informed T.S. that it would not be necessary to deregulate slope E (treat it as a significant slope) because of this representation. In September, and at the formal hearing of this case, the City and T.S. agreed that, due to the size of slope E and its proximity to slope D, slope E should be deregulated and slope E would be treated as a part of a single significant slope subject to 50% protection of the total area of slopes D and E. As a result, the City informed T.S. by letter dated September 30, 1998, that its request to deregulate (treat it as a significant slope) slope E was approved. The total combined area of slopes D and E is 12,735 square feet. Therefore, a minimum of 6,375.5 square feet must be preserved by placement in a conservation easement. T.S.'s written representations concerning how the required area will be preserved were not precise. In a letter dated June 5, 1998, from the Project Manager for T.S. to a City representative it was represented that "approximately 54% [of slopes D and E] is to be contained within the protected canopy zone and other undeveloped portions of the site." (Emphases added). In T.S.'s environmental impact analysis it was represented that "over 50% of the fourth [significant slope] lies within natural areas." (Emphasis added). At hearing, Ms. Tanski testified about the area of slope D to be included in a conservation easement according to what T.S. has depicted on site plans submitted to the City. According to Ms. Tanski, T.S. has depicted the inclusion of at least 50% of slopes D and E in the proposed canopy road conservation area. Evidence in rebuttal of Ms. Tanski's testimony was offered by Petitioners, but only after the formal hearing had concluded. Petitioners included calculations of the percentage of slopes D and E shown in the conservation easement area as part of their proposed order. Those calculations were not testified about during the formal hearing and do not appear to be the types of simple mathematical calculations that can be made from the evidence presented at hearing, especially in light of the failure to offer any to-scale drawings of the site into evidence during the hearing. The calculations offered by Petitioners in their proposed order were made by Mr. Varn, a licensed surveyor, after the formal hearing had ended. The calculations were the subject of Petitioners' first motion to reopen this case. That motion was denied and, therefore, the calculations should not have been relied upon by Petitioners in their proposed order. Even without the calculations and evidence Petitioners attempted to offer after the hearing of this case, Ms. Tanski's testimony concerning whether T.S. has depicted at least 50% of slopes D and E to be part of the canopy protection zone easement area cannot be accepted. A simple visual review of T.S. Exhibit 7, the document that Ms. Tanski relied upon in determining the percentage of slopes D and E included within the conservation easement, does not support a finding that T.S. has visually depicted how it will ensure that the condition concerning the percentage of slopes D and E to be included in a conservation easement will be met. Even though Ms. Tanski's conclusion concerning the percentage of slope D and E depicted to be in the conservation easement were not clear,is incorrect, T.S. has agreed that it will provide a conservation easement for recording that includes a minimum of 50% of the combined area of slopes D and E upon approval of its Partition Application. In summary, although some of T. S.'s representations concerning the extent of slopes D and E which will be subject to a conservation easement were not clear, T.S. has agreed to all conditions placed on the approval of its Partition Application, including the regulation of severe and significant slopes. T.S. has, therefore, agreed to ultimately record a conservation easement covering at least 50% of the combined area of slopes D and E upon approval of the Partition Application. There are no active karst features on the Subject Property. Compatibility. T.S.'s proposed use of the Subject Property is residential. Residential use of the Subject Property is consistent with the land uses in the surrounding area. T.S. has proposed a density of 2.2 residential units per acre for the Subject Property. This density, while greater than the immediately surrounding neighborhood density, is within the 3.6 residential units per acre density approved for the zoning district in which the Subject Property is located. While the proposed use of the Subject Property is more intense than the surrounding neighborhood, the weight of the evidence proved that there is nothing incompatible about the proposed use of the Subject Property. Miscellaneous Notice Requirements of the Tallahassee- Leon County Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.3.6 of the Conservation Element of the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan") provides the following: A site plan review will be required for all projects which have 40% or more of their acreage located in the preservation or conservation overlay districts. The land development code shall include procedures for public notification and comment on such development plans. Objective 1.5 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the City's Plan provides, in part, the following: On a continuing basis, local government shall promote awareness and involvement of citizens of Tallahassee-Leon County in the comprehensive planning and plan implementation process. Specifically, the . . . City . . . shall make full use of the local media, and shall conduct public workshops, meetings, and hearings tailored to achieve broad public knowledge of planning issues and to solicit public involvement in local decision making. . . . Petitioners' reliance on Policy 1.3.6 of the Conservation Application Element and Objective 1.5 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the City's Plan is misplaced. Neither of these provisions requires that notice of any meetings involved in this case be given to the public or that the public be allowed to actively participate in the meeting at which the Partition Application was considered by the City. The City's Plan provides the broad framework for the management of growth within the City over a long planning period. The details of that management system are set out in the City's land development regulations. The land development regulations govern the everyday decisions the City must make, not the City's Plan. If Petitioners' argument concerning the applicability of these provisions of the City's Plan to this matter were accepted, those provisions would also apply to practically every decision made by City staff. To interpret the City's Plan; Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; or Chapter 286, Florida Statutes, to require such public participation would cause an absurd result. Finally, Petitioners raised the alleged violation of Policy 1.3.6 of the Conservation Element and Objective 1.5 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the City's Plan for the first time in their proposed recommended order. Petitioners did not allege any violation of this Policy or Objective in their petition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Planning Commission dismissing all Petitioners except Jacob D. Varn and finding that the Partition Application is approved with the conditions imposed upon, and agreed to by, T.S. Builders, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 10th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: David W.Moye, Esquire Jacob D. Varn, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna S. Biggins, Esquire Ronald A. Mowrey, Esquire Mowrey & Minacci, P.A. 515 North Adans Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda R. Hurst, Assistant City Attorney City of Tallahasee City Hall 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan S. Thompson, Esquire Smith, Thompson & Shaw 3520 Thomasville Road, 4th Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jean Gregory, Clerk Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission City Hall, 4th Floor 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The main issue in this case is whether the Town of Marineland's Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinance 2005-1 on August 18, 2005,1 are "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3194(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005).2 Another issue is whether Petitioners have standing.3
Findings Of Fact Background The Town of Marineland is unique. Its history is not only interesting but helpful to an understanding of why the Plan Amendments may or may not be "in compliance," and also why Petitioners may or may not have standing. Marineland originated as the Marine Studios, which was created so that oceanic life would exhibit natural behavior that could be filmed for feature Hollywood films. The Marineland Attraction (Attraction) followed, and the new word "Oceanarium" was coined. The Attraction was the first marine theme park and served as the model for those that followed. The Town of Marineland was created in 1940 essentially to provide support services for the Attraction. Eventually, the Attraction's founding members died, and the property was sold to a group of St. Augustine investors, with the new entity being called Marineland, Inc. The investors looked at the property as a real estate investment, and the 1992/2005 Plan reflects this vision, calling for a community of 1500 persons and 600 dwelling units. The Town and the Attraction remained interdependent, with the Attraction being the entity that generated revenue and provided for most of the financial needs of the Town. As the face of Florida tourism changed during the 1970's and 1980's, fewer and fewer people came to Marineland, opting instead for the high profile attractions in the Orlando area. Rather than being a profit center for the investors that allowed them leisure to develop the rest of the land at their convenience, the Attraction became a money sink and required the investors to put money in each year to keep the facility going. This was an untenable situation in the long run and ultimately Marineland, Inc., sold its holdings to Marineland Ocean Resort (MOR), which split off another entity, the Marineland Foundation, to manage the Attraction. The Marineland Foundation operated under the umbrella of the Town of Marineland and not specifically as part of MOR. As this was happening, the Town of Marineland found itself having to be self-sufficient for the first time in 55 years. It needed to assume all the trappings of a municipal government and deal with matters that had previously been handled in whole or part by Marineland, Inc. During all these changes various attorneys examined different aspects of the Town's operation and found certain deficiencies. The most serious for land use planning was that the Town had not followed through after adoption of the 1992/2005 Plan and adopted any sort of land development regulations (LDRs). Simultaneously, MOR was considering how to develop the land it had bought. Its model was timeshares, and it considered turning the two oceanfront hotels into timeshare units, building an additional oceanfront timeshare hotel, selling timeshare campground slots, selling timeshare marine slips, and building timeshare units along the riverfront in the maritime hammock. Since the town had no LDRs, MOR would have had a free hand to build anything it pleased. To remedy this deficiency as quickly as possible the Town passed: Ordinance 97-1, which adopted the Flagler County development code provisions for signage, storm water and drainage, wetlands, tree protection, road construction and coastal construction; Ordinance 97-2 to adopt various standard codes relating to amusement devices, buildings, fire prevention, gas, grading, housing, mechanical, plumbing and swimming pools; and Ordinance 97-3 establishing zoning districts and providing for zoning regulations. Ordinance 97- 3 allowed for medium-density housing at four units per acre in the disturbed and cleared areas and at two units per acre in the the partially-disturbed maritime hammock. The intention was to prevent the rest of the maritime hammock, a rapidly disappearing environment throughout Florida and an environment of special concern, from being cleared for river-view timeshare units along the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). The Town wished to balance the need to preserve important lands with the need to rebuild the town and regain lost population. It was not clear from the evidence how many units of residential development would be allowed under Ordinance 97-3, but it would be less that under the 1992/2005 Plan or under the Plan Amendments. Shortly after these ordinances were passed, MOR, which had been struggling financially and unable to realize any of its development plans, filed for bankruptcy and sale of their holdings. Its attorneys expressed great concern about the effect of the town ordinances on the pending bankruptcy and sale, and pointed out that when MOR filed, the court froze the status quo, preventing the Town from amending the 1992/2005 Plan's future land use map (FLUM) to reflect Ordinance 97-3. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) was successful in purchasing the MOR holdings from the bankruptcy proceedings. The result was a substantial reshaping of the land ownership within the Town. Approximately 90 acres of the most vulnerable lands were purchased from TPL with grant money from Florida Communities Trust (FCT)and set aside for conservation. The University of Florida's Whitney Marine Lab purchased additional land to double its holdings, and Jacoby Development, Inc. purchased about 40 acres of the disturbed lands for development. Concurrent with these activities, DCA awarded two planning grants to the Town under the Remarkable Coastal Place Program. The purpose of the grants was to enable the Town to take advantage of state experts in various aspects of community planning who could help the Town reorganize itself, recover its lost population, and rebuild itself from the ground up. It became apparent during this work that the Town would need a new comprehensive plan, not simply an update to the existing plan, in order to reflect the different structure of land ownership and to support the vision that the stakeholders had created during the planning process of a sustainable community that would be a center of science, education, recreation, and ecotourism. This was begun while state expertise was still available to the town, and once again incorporation of Ordinances 97-1, 97-2, and 97-3 into the existing comprehensive plan and FLUM was put on the back burner, since a new set of LDRs would have to be written to support the new comprehensive plan work in progress. Existing Uses The Town's existing land uses are distributed into two major categories: those found within and those found outside the River-to-Sea Preserve. The Preserve Approximately 89 acres of the total 151+ acres of the Town is off-limits to development through protection in the River-to-Sea Preserve. The River-to-Sea Preserve is undeveloped and vegetated with maritime hammock, coastal strand, beaches, dunes, and approximately eight acres of salt marsh within the Town's boundaries. The land has experienced significant disturbance in some areas. However, the majority of the site consists of native forested and non-forested vegetative communities. Lands covered with coastal scrub growth dominated by saw palmetto are located along the barrier dunes and to some extent to the west along the southern border of the Town but mostly seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line regulated by Florida Department of Environmental Protection. This is a rapidly-disappearing community, and some sites harbor numerous endangered species. For that reason, it is one of three which has been designated by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) as a "Rare and Unique Upland Community" within Florida. Development to the south of the Town has left these scrublands as an isolated remnant of the former community. The Preserve protects approximately seven acres of the coastal scrub community located in the Town. The Preserve protects three-fourths (32.6 acres) of the coastal hammock community located in the Town. The coastal hammock community also has been designated as a "Rare and Unique Upland Community" by the FFWCC. This community provides valuable cover and feeding areas for migratory songbirds in fall and spring as they migrate down the Atlantic Coast. Running the length of the Town along the Atlantic Ocean are 8.9 acres of beach area, an area of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean low water line to the primary dune system. The north and south ends of the beach are in the Preserve. Outside the Preserve Development in the Town, outside the Preserve, includes the existing Oceanarium facilities, the Whitney Lab, and the presently closed marina facility. Approximately 2.2 acres in the northeastern portion of the Town between A1A and the Atlantic Ocean contain the two original Oceanarium tanks of Marineland and has been included in The National Register of Historic Places. The Marine Park of Flagler has purchased the MOR property and intends to revitalize these areas. The Whitney Lab consists of the Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience and the Marine Education Building, all operated by the University of Florida. These facilities occupy approximately 10 acres and are used for educational and research purposes. The Whitney Lab has broken ground on a new Center for Marine Studies and has plans for a Center for Marine Animal Health. The marina facility is located in the northwestern part of the Town adjacent to the ICW. It is 3.4 acres in size. The marina has been closed due to the deteriorating facilities. There is a plan to redevelop the Marina as a "Clean Marina." A smaller (0.74 acre) parcel is located adjacent to the Preserve on the west side of A1A and is the location of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTMNERR) Administrative Offices, classroom, lab, and research facilities. Besides the beach, undeveloped urban lands outside the Preserve consist primarily of an approximately 47-acre, privately-owned parcel located in the center of the Town west of A1A. It is surrounded on three sides by already-developed areas within the Town. It includes approximately 10.3 acres of the Temperate Hardwood Hammock. Adjacent Lands The Flagler County/St. Johns County line passes through the northern tip of the Town so that the Town is primarily located in Flagler County. Flagler County is a fast-growing county having five incorporated municipalities. Land to the north of the Town, located in St. Johns County, consists of undeveloped coastal scrub and dune, saltwater marshes, and single-family houses along the barrier dune and in the vicinity of Summer Haven, a small unincorporated community located on the south side of the Matanzas Inlet. To the south, in Flagler County, there are large areas of coastal scrub and temperate hammock. A residential development called Matanzas Shores is being constructed. This development was permitted by Flagler County after Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review by the RPC. Immediately to the south of this development is the Washington Oaks Gardens State Park. To the west of the Town are saltwater marshes associated with Pellicer Creek, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), and the Matanzas River, which is part of the ICW. Pine flatwoods and temperate hammock are on the mainland shore. The Princes Place Preserve, Faver Dykes State Park, and St. Johns River Water Management District lands along Pellicer Creek serve as a 19,000-acre buffer between the ICW and the U.S. 1/I-95 corridor to the west. Two islands located in the Matanzas River estuary have been purchased through the FCT program and are owned by the Town. The southern island is located directly across from the Marineland marina on the west bank of the ICW and on the Flagler/St. Johns County boundary. The north island is on the west side of the ICW just south of the Matanzas Inlet in St. Johns County. The Florida Park Service will manage the islands. Although owned by the Town, these islands have not been annexed into the Town boundaries. It is the intent of the Town to annex these islands and incorporate them into long-term research, education and protection. Density8 On several fronts, Petitioners take issue with the density of development allowed by the Plan Amendments. They point to the designation of the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), as well as data and analysis concerning erosion, topography (ground elevations), hurricane frequency and severity (or intensity), hurricane evacuation and shelter concerns, and effects on the sensitive environment of the Town and vicinity. CHHA In accordance with the law at the time, the Town's 1992/2005 Plan designated the CHHA to be seaward of the Town's coastal dune. In compliance with Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6., which required (and still requires) coastal management elements of plans to contain one or more specific objectives which "[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas," the Town's 1992/2005 Plan included Coastal/Conservation Element (C/CE) Objective E.1.6, which provided: Marineland shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted high-hazard areas and shall ensure that building and development activities outside high-hazard areas are carried out in a manner which minimizes the danger to life and property from hurricanes. Development within Coastal High-Hazard Areas shall be restricted and public funding for facilities with[in] Coastal High-Hazard Areas shall be curtailed. Marineland shall provide a timely review of the hazard mitigation and evacuation implications of applications for rezoning, zoning variances or subdivision approvals for all new development in areas subject to coastal flooding. In addition, the Town's 1992/2005 Plan did not allow residential (or any other) development in the designated CHHA. In 1993 the Florida Legislature amended the definition of the CHHA mean the Category 1 hurricane evacuation zone. See Section 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. See also Rule 9J-5.003(17) (defining the CHHA to mean the evacuation zone for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study). Rule 9J-5.002(8) requires a local government to "address" rule changes in the next cycle of amendments. Since the entire Town is in the evacuation zone for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study, the Plan Amendments designate the entire Town as the CHHA. The Plan Amendments allow residential development west of the ocean dune in what is now the CHHA. The Plan Amendments also replace Objective E.1.6 with a new C/CE Objective E.1.6, Hazard Mitigation, which requires the Town to "ensure that building and development activities areas [sic] are carried out in a manner which minimizes the danger to life and property" and "provide a timely review of the hazard mitigation and evacuation implications of applications for rezoning, zoning variances or subdivision approvals for all new development in areas subject to coastal flooding." A series of policies follow the new objective. The question under these circumstances is whether the Plan Amendments adequately address the change in CHHA definition and comply with Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. As the following findings explain, it is found that they do. Petitioners contend that they do not and that the Town was required to keep the 1992/2005 C/CE Objective E.1.6, which arguably would prohibit any residential development in the Town. This also would be the result if Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(b)6. were construed to require the Town to direct all population away from the CHHA. At least some Petitioners candidly would prefer that result, and Petitioners make a seemingly half-hearted initial argument that allowing any residential development in the Town (i.e., in the CHHA) would be inappropriate and not "in compliance." But it is clear that such a result is not mandated by the statute or rules. To the contrary, DCA interprets the statutes and rules as not even requiring a re-evaluation or "down-planning" of land uses (in particular, a reduction in residential densities) allowed under an existing comprehensive plan when a local government "addresses" the change in definition of the CHHA by increasing its size. DCA has not required such a re- evaluation anywhere in the State. Rather, DCA interprets the statutes and rules to prohibit the local government from increasing density in the CHHA above the density authorized by its existing comprehensive plan. In this case, the Town not only has designated the new CHHA but also has conducted a re-evaluation and revised its comprehensive plan. Under the rather unusual circumstances here, where the CHHA covers the entire Town, changing residential densities in various parts of the Town is not significant in determining whether population concentrations are directed away from the CHHA. Rather, what is important is the total residential development allowed in the Town as a whole. The Town contends, along with DCA and Centex, that the Plan Amendments reduce residential density in the Town. Petitioners, on the other hand, contend first of all that the density allowed by the Plan Amendments cannot be compared to the 1992/2005 Plan because the existing plan did not establish residential density standards, as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes ("[e]ach future land use category must be defined in terms of uses included, and must include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities"). Instead, Petitioners contend that the 1992/2005 Plan was written in terms of "vague and standardless" design criteria and a policy direction for the Town to adopt LDRs consistent with the design criteria. Primarily for that reason, Petitioners contended that the density allowed by the Plan Amendments had to be compared to the residential density established by Ordinance 97-3 to determine whether the Plan Amendments increased residential density. Regardless of the way it was written, the 1992/2005 Plan was found to be "in compliance." In addition, while the policies in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the 1992/2005 Plan were written in terms of average gross acre lot sizes, maximum lot coverage, and maximum floor area ratios characteristic of design criteria, it is nonetheless possible to calculate (albeit not without difficulty and with room for minor differences in results depending on the approach taken and assumptions made) the residential density allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. The adopted FLUM depicted the various residential land use categories, as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a)("[t]he proposed distribution, location, and extent of the various categories of land use shall be shown on a land use map or map series"), and a summary of the total allowable residential land uses was included in data and analysis that accompanied the 1992/2005 Plan,9 making it possible to calculate residential density. Contrary to Petitioners' argument, it is not necessary to use Ordinance 97-3 to determine the residential density allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan, and there is no other plausible reason, or any precedent, for using land development regulations in that manner. As represented in the data and analysis summary for purposes of calculating the land requirements for housing, the 1992/2005 Plan allowed a maximum of 427 residential dwelling units on 37.7 acres, including apartments above retail uses, which are not depicted on the FLUM but are allowed under Housing Element (HE) Policy C.1.1.2 to provide affordable housing. This maximum of 427 assumed 98 apartments above retail uses although more arguably would be allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. In addition, the 1992/2005 Plan's HE Policy C.1.1.1 allowed "out-buildings" as "ancillary structures to the rear of lots containing single family dwellings." Like the apartments over retail, these dwelling units are not depicted on the FLUM but are allowed as of right and theoretically could result in 176 additional dwelling units on a total of 37.6 acres. To arrive at the residential density allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan, DCA's expert added 12 of the approximately 12-20 dwelling units not shown in the summary but mentioned in the data and analysis of the 1992/2005 Plan as being either existing or allowed on the Whitney Lab's 5.4 acres, bringing the total theoretical maximum under the 1992/2005 Plan to 615 residential units on 43 of the Town's 151 acres, at various densities ranging from 2.2 units per acre at the Whitney Lab to 28.8 units per acre for apartments above retail uses, for an average residential density of 14.3 units per acre.10 Centex's expert took a different tack. First, for the apartments over retail uses, he assumed two units per retail use, for a total of 198 units (while also pointing out that there was no cap on these units in the 1992/2005 Plan). Second, he did not include any units for the Whitney Lab because they were not grounded in Plan policies. Using this approach, he arrived at a total of 704 residential units allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. While he maintained the validity of that calculation, he pointed out that eliminating the units (both residential units and associated "out- buildings") allowed on land now included in the River-to-Sea Preserve would lower the total to 611 units. The Town's expert did not count apartments above retail uses or the units at the Whitney Lab and arrived at a total of approximately 421-425 dwelling units allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. When he eliminated the units (residential units with associated "out-buildings") allowed on land now included in the River-to-Sea Preserve, he decreased his total to 275 units. The reason for the differences in his calculation was not clear from the record. Turning to the Plan Amendments, although more typical residential density standards are used, the experts still disagree on exactly what residential density the Plan Amendments allow and achieve. Most development under the Plan Amendments will occur in the Sustainable Mixed Use (SMU) future land use category, which allows a maximum of 241 residential units, a maximum of 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, and accessory residential units for affordable housing. Centex's expert determined that, under the Plan Amendments, the maximum theoretical number of dwelling units that could be developed in the Town, including the SMU category, is 565 units. It is not reasonable to conclude that 565 dwelling units would actually be developed, because this number includes 241 affordable accessory units, one for each residential unit. However, the Town concluded there is only a need for 39 such units. Centex's expert found that 13 of the 39 affordable housing units needed in the Town will be provided in FLUM categories other than SMU--namely, Institution Research (the Whitney Lab) and Conservation. It is more reasonable to expect that only the remaining 26 accessory units needed to address affordable housing will be developed in the SMU category to meet the 39-unit affordable housing need, instead of 241, and that 350 units actually will be built under the Plan Amendments. In his analysis, DCA's expert did not count any affordable housing units in the SMU category in reaching the conclusion that a 315 residential units are allowed under the Plan Amendments. Adding the theoretical maximum of 241, his total maximum theoretical number of residential units would be 553. The record is not clear as to why his numbers differ somewhat from the Centex expert's. The Town's expert somehow arrived at the conclusion that the Plan Amendments allow a total of 279 residential units. Like the DCA expert, he apparently did not count affordable housing units in the SMU category. The reason for other differences in his calculation are not clear from the record. It may be that he did not count residential units in the Tourist/Commercial category, while the others counted 35 units because there is a possibility that 35 condominium units could be developed there instead of 70 hotel rooms. Differences may also involve how he assessed and counted the possibility for residential units in the Institutional Research and Conservation categories. Despite these computational differences, it is clear that the Plan Amendments allow fewer residential units in the Town than the 1992/2005 Plan did, even assuming no residential development under the 1992/2005 Plan in what became the River- to-Sea Preserve. The density allowed under the Plan Amendments is comparable to densities authorized by comprehensive plans north and south of the Town, as well as the actual development that has occurred and is occurring in those areas. Since the entire Town is within the new CHHA, the Plan Amendments can be said to result in a reduction in population concentration within the CHHA by comparison to the 1992/2005 Plan. This also is reflected in the population projections on which the two plans were based. The 1992/2005 Plan was based on a projected total 2005 population of 1,551 people, including 900 permanent and 651 seasonal. The Plan Amendments are based on a projected 2015 population of 630, including 386 permanent residents and 244 seasonal residents and university students living in dormitories at the Whitney Lab. While reluctantly conceding that some residential growth in the Town (i.e., in the CHHA) is appropriate, Petitioners contend that growth must be limited to what is allowed under Ordinance 97-3 because any more growth than that would increase residential density in the CHHA. They argue that Ordinance 97-3 should be the benchmark because the 1992/2005 Plan did not establish residential density but instead relied on Ordinance 97-3 to do so. However, as reflected above, this argument was not supported by the evidence. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, while the Plan Amendments do not include an objective that parrots the words in Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6.--"[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high- hazard areas"--they do have goals, objectives, and policies which do so, as well adequately address the new CHHA definition. Data and Analysis Under the proposed findings in the section of their PRO entitled "Data and Analysis," Petitioners argue that there was a: "Failure to prove need for proposed density." The basis for the argument appears to be that: "[n]o professional methodology was utilized"; that the Town's population estimate was based on the "desires of the stakeholders," i.e., the "property owner investors"; and that the "desire of the stakeholders was for 'approximately 241 dwelling units,' not the at least 565 dwelling units authorized by the Amendments." Petitioners' PRO, at ¶61. But Petitioners did not prove that no professional methodology was used or that the population estimate was based solely on the "desires of the stakeholders." In addition, while the Plan Amendments state that the visioning effort undertaken by the Town for developing the Town's Master Plan under Florida's Remarkable Coastal Place program identified "approximately 241 dwelling units . . . as a target for meeting the permanent residential population of the Town," it also stated that "approximately 315 dwelling units were identified as a target for meeting the sustainability goal of the Town." Joint Exhibit 2, pp. A-14, C-11. Finally, there is no requirement that data and analysis "prove need for proposed density," but only that they support allocations of land for various uses. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. ("future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth"). Accommodating need for affordable housing on the same land allocated for other residential and commercial development does not run afoul of this data and analysis requirement. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(2)(c). No witness for Petitioners opined that the population projection for the Plan Amendments was not supported by data and analysis. To the contrary, several witnesses for the other parties opined that the data and analyses supporting the Plan Amendments were surprisingly comprehensive for a local government the size of the Town and were more than adequate. Land Use Suitability Petitioners' PRO contends: "The data and analysis concerning Town erosion, the low elevation of the Town, increased hurricane frequency and severity, inadequacy of hurricane evacuation time and shelter capacity, the adverse impacts of the land use designations on shellfish beds, estuarine nursery areas, the Tropical Hardwood Hammock, the designation of domestic waste water treatment and discharge facilities in the River to Sea Preserve, and water pollution resulting from foreseeable flooding establishes that the density of the Amendments is unsuitable for the Town land." Petitioners' PRO, ¶63. Erosion and Elevation It is clear that the Town of Marineland, due to its location and low elevation (generally 5-6 feet NGVD west of A1A), has been, is, and will continue to be vulnerable to beach erosion and flood damage from a major hurricane. Several hundred years ago, there was a navigable tidal pass north of the Town. The pass closed naturally through sand and sediment accretion but in recent years the area has been suffering significant erosion, resulting in State Road A1A having to be rerouted and access to homes along the old A1A being severely limited. In 1999, when Hurricane Floyd was 100-150 miles east of the Town in the Atlantic Ocean, significant erosion occurred within the Town, including the waters and sand of the Atlantic Ocean overtopping A1A in the north end of the Town, along with flooding the Town. As a result, the Town was a declared a disaster zone, and FEMA awarded two separate redevelopment grants. The Town's shoreline has been critically eroded, but is stable at this time. Notwithstanding these characteristics of the Town, which contribute to its designation as a CHHA, and as previously discussed, the evidence is clear that the Town is not considered unsuitable for development. To the contrary, the development allowed by the Plan Amendments is considered acceptable. Petitioners also cite evidence that sea level is expected by some to rise approximately 20 inches in the next 100 years. But no qualified witness opined that, for planning purposes, the Town should be considered unsuitable for development for that reason. Hurricane Frequency and Intensity Petitioners also contend that the Town is unsuitable for development in light of data and analysis concerning hurricane frequency and intensity. Indeed, there is persuasive evidence that hurricane frequency and intensity is cyclical and that in about 1995 a period of heightened hurricane frequency and intensity that usually lasts 10-20 years probably began. The evidence was clear that DCA does not consider the frequency and intensity of hurricanes to be relevant data and analysis in evaluating whether comprehensive plan development density and intensity are "in compliance." Rather, this is considered to be a matter to be addressed by the Legislature. So far, there has been no legislation to either further enlarge the CHHA or further restrict development in the CHHA.11 Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter Study Petitioners allege that the Town did not undertake adequate hurricane evacuation planning in connection with the Plan Amendments. Specifically, their PRO cites Section 163.3178(2)(d), Florida Statutes, which requires a comprehensive plan's coastal management element to include: "A component which outlines principles for hazard mitigation and protection of human life against the effects of natural disaster, including population evacuation, which take into consideration the capability to safely evacuate the density of coastal population proposed in the future land use plan element in the event of an impending natural disaster." They also cite Rule 9J-5.012(2), which addresses the requirement that the coastal element be based on the following data and analysis, among others: (e) The following natural disaster planning concerns shall be inventoried or analyzed: 1. Hurricane evacuation planning based on the hurricane evacuation plan contained in the local peacetime emergency plan shall be analyzed and shall consider the hurricane vulnerability zone, the number of persons requiring evacuation, the number of persons requiring public hurricane shelter, the number of hurricane shelter spaces available, evacuation routes, transportation and hazard constraints on the evacuation routes, and evacuation times. The projected impact of the anticipated population density proposed in the future land use element and any special needs of the elderly, handicapped, hospitalized, or other special needs of the existing and anticipated populations on the above items shall be estimated. The analysis shall also consider measures that the local government could adopt to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times. They point out that Rule 9J-5.003(57) defines Hurricane Vulnerability Zone (HVZ) as "the areas delineated by the regional or local hurricane evacuation plan as requiring evacuation" and that it also requires the HVZ to "include areas requiring evacuation in the event of a 100-year storm or Category 3 storm event." Finally, they cite Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(b)7., which requires one or more specific Coastal Element objectives which: “Maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times.” The evidence was that these planning requirements were met. There are no mandatory state, regional, or local evacuation clearance times. The 1992/2005 Plan included C/CE Objective E.1.5., which provided: "The time period required to complete the evacuation of people from flooding of vulnerable coastal areas prior to the arrival of sustained gale force winds shall be maintained at less than 12 hours." The Plan Amendments replaced that objective with C/CE E.1.5., which now provides: "Evacuation clearance time should be maintained or reduced to less than 12 hours." This complies with Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)7. The Plan Amendments were based on appropriate data and analysis. Because the entire Town is in the CHHA, the Town population must evacuate in a Category 1 and all higher storm categories. Evacuation routes for the Town are S.R. A1A north to S.R. 206 in St. Johns County, and S.R. A1A south to Palm Coast Parkway in Flagler County. The best and most current evidence, based on a 2005 update to the RPC's 1998 Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study, indicates that evacuation clearance times for St. Johns County are estimated to be 11 hours for Category 1 hurricanes, 14 for Category 2 hurricanes, 16 hours for Category 3 hurricanes, and 16.75 hours for Category 4 through 5 hurricanes; evacuation clearance times for Flagler County are estimated to be 7.75 hours for Category 1 and 2 hurricanes and 12 hours for Category 3 through 5 hurricanes. The Flagler clearance times are lower than those estimated in a 1998 version of the study, even though based on a higher population, primarily because the widening of the Palm Coast Parkway to four-lanes has been completed. The evidence does not demonstrate that the evacuation clearance times in St. Johns County increased under the 2005 Study. Clearance times are based on the worst bottleneck in a county, where traffic is metered to derive the actual clearance times. Evacuation of Town residents under the Plan Amendments will not impact the bottlenecks in either St. Johns County or Flagler County. For that reason, evacuation of Town population would be expected to be take less time than the clearance times calculated for those counties in the RPC's 2005 study; conversely, evacuation of Town residents under the Plan Amendments will have no effect on the overall clearance times in either St. Johns County or Flagler County. Assuming a maximum additional population (resulting from the addition of 829 dwelling units) under the Plan Amendments, 652 cars would be added to an evacuation during high tourist occupancy season (which includes the summer tourist season, which generally corresponds to hurricane season). This would increase traffic during the worst theoretical hour of the Town's evacuation (i.e., during which 30 percent of the Town's traffic would try to enter the evacuation road network) by 8.7 percent heading north from the Town on A1A and by 13 percent heading south of the Town on A1A. Based on a comparison of maximum theoretical densities under the 1992/2005 Plan and under the Plan Amendments, the number of evacuating vehicles added to the road network is reduced under the Plan Amendments. By comparison, assuming a maximum additional population (resulting from the addition of 565 dwelling units) under the 1992/2005 Plan, 922 cars would be added to an evacuation during high tourist occupancy season. This would increase traffic during the worst theoretical hour of the Town's evacuation by 12.3 percent heading north from the Town on A1A and by 18.4 percent heading south of the Town on A1A. Likewise, based on a comparison of maximum densities under the 1992/2005 Plan and the Plan Amendments, the Plan Amendments result in a reduced demand for shelter space. Obviously, since the entire Town is in the CHHA and must evacuate in a Category 1 and all higher storm categories, there is no requirement for the Town itself to provide hurricane shelter. Similar to most Florida counties, St. Johns and Flagler Counties have deficits in shelter space that are expected to increase as the population increases. According to DCA's Division of Emergency Management (DEM), in 2004 Flagler County had hurricane shelter spaces for 4,267 persons and a deficiency of 2,401 shelter spaces. This deficiency is expected to almost double (be 4,020) by 2008. According to DCA's DEM, in 2004 St. Johns County had hurricane shelter capacity for 7,320 persons, and a hurricane shelter demand of 9,829 people, resulting in a deficiency of 2,509 spaces. In 2009, the St. Johns County shelter demand is projected to be 11,564, “leaving an anticipated shelter deficit of 4,244.” However, the evidence was not clear that the shelters to which Town residents would be assigned are either over capacity or under capacity. In addition, it was not clear that future development would not include the construction of facilities that may serve as shelters. Finally, there was no clear evidence why these anticipated shelter deficits should restrict development in either county, or in the Town, so as to make the Plan Amendments not "in compliance." Natural Resources Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" because of effects on various natural resources in the Town and vicinity, including shellfish harvesting areas, important estuarine nursery for juvenile fish and invertebrates, and the Town's high-quality oak hammock area (also referred to as a maritime hammock, a coastal temperate hammock, or a tropical hardwood hammock.) Petitioners' main argument regarding adverse effects on shellfish harvesting and nursery areas was that flooding during hurricane events will cause household chemicals and other pollutants stored inappropriately at ground level to be released into the environment, probably at a time when juvenile fish are present in the estuarine nursery areas. But there also was persuasive evidence that chemicals released during these kinds of flood events would be substantially diluted by the massive volume of water associated with them, which would greatly reduces any deleterious effects on nursery and shellfish areas. Through C/CE Policies E.1.3.4 and E.1.3.5 in the Plan Amendments, the Town has chosen to impose OFW standards that substantially exceed those that would otherwise be imposed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. OFW standards prohibit degradation of water below ambient conditions and typically require the design of stormwater systems that provide 1.5 times the level of treatment that otherwise would be provided for stormwater. There was evidence that shellfish harvesting has declined in the waters of the GTMNEER to the north of the Town over the recent past as the land near these waters has been developed. The evidence was not comprehensive as to the reason(s) for the decline, but poorer water quality generally is thought to be the primary cause. Some shellfish harvesting areas still are productive, including some near the Town where Mr. Cubbedge has an oyster and clam lease. Petitioners presented no testimony related to the temperate hardwood hammock. Centex's expert in environmental analysis observed that portions of the hammock areas have been altered or disturbed and that the higher-quality areas have been placed in the River-to-Sea Preserve where they are protected from development. Much of the natural vegetative communities in the Town are within the Conservation future land use category and not subject to development. To protect 10.3 acres of oak hammock located on land that is subject to development, the Plan Amendments impose a Maritime Hammock Overlay. In addition to otherwise applicable density and intensity standards, development within the Overlay is subject to numerous restrictions on adverse impacts on natural vegetation. Amendment FLUE Policies A.1.8.3. and A.1.8.4. allow only 50 percent of single-family and multi- family parcels to be cleared of trees, understory, and groundcover, and only 25 percent of the tree canopy to be removed. Petitioners also argue that the designation of the "Public Facilities" future land use category in the River-to- Sea Preserve in Amendment Policy A.1.4.2 is unsupported by data and analysis and "fairs [sic] to show the extend [sic] of the category as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat., and it does not estimate the gross acreage of the category as required by Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c)." Actually, the statute cited requires the FLUE to designate the "extent of the uses of land," and the rule requires an "analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including: . . . 2. The estimated gross acreage needed by category . . . ." There was no testimony or other adequate evidence to support these arguments, and it was not proven that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" for any of these reasons. Conclusion It was not proven that data and analysis concerning the above matters establish that the density of the Plan Amendments is unsuitable for the Town land. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Similar to the Amended Petition and Petitioners' Statement of Position in the Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners' PRO lists numerous objectives and policies in the Plan Amendments and contends that they are not "in compliance" because they do not provide meaningful and predictable standards. One expert called by Petitioners (Ms. Owen) testified in general that the Plan Amendments contain objectives and policies "which do not contain meaningful and predictable standards" or "that are not measurable or provide any standards or specificity." (T. 359). She also initially testified that the Plan Amendments (at her request) incorporated into data and analysis OFW water quality standards for discharges into the ICW but that "their goals, objectives and policies, as drafted, do not provide specific enough standards to be able to measure that"; later, she conceded that C/CE Policy E.3.5 incorporated OFW water quality standards. Another expert for Petitioners (Mr. Johnson) testified, "I think there's not enough detail in these policies and standards by which somebody could measurably allow growth to occur and measurably predict that it's not going to have an effect, a negative effect, on the environment." Otherwise, Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the objectives and policies in the Plan Amendments do not provide meaningful or predictable standards, and they put on no expert testimony that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance" for that reason. Meanwhile, experts for the Town (Mr. Brown), Centex (Dr. Pennock), and DCA (Dr. Addai-Mensa) testified in general terms that the Plan Amendments were "in compliance." Another expert for Centex (Dr. Dennis) testified specifically that incorporation of the OFW standards in the C/CE and other goals, objectives, and policies were adequate to protect the waters of the ICW and its natural resources and the River-to- Sea Preserve even with the development allowed by the Plan Amendments. Rule 9J-5.005(6) provides in pertinent part: "Goals, objectives and policies shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. This chapter does not mandate the creation, limitation, or elimination of regulatory authority for other agencies nor does it authorize the adoption or require the repeal of any rules, criteria, or standards of any local, regional, or state agency." Rule 9J-5.003 sets out definitions, including: (52) "Goal" means the long-term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed. (82) "Objective" means a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. (90) "Policy" means the way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal. Properly understood, these Rules require that an objective's "intermediate end" be specific and measurable in the sense that it can be determined when the "intermediate end" is reached. They do not mean that objectives must eliminate all possibility ambiguity or be amenable to quantitative measurement. They only require that objectives provide "meaningful guidance" and be enforceable in that sense. All of the objectives and policies listed by Petitioners have been reviewed. The evidence does not prove beyond fair debate that any of the listed objectives and policies are inconsistent with the cited Rule provisions, properly understood. Petitioners complain that several of the listed objectives and policies require the adoption of LDRs without including meaningful and predictable standards. In some cases, the objectives and policies themselves provide meaningful and predictable standards. But it is not necessary for comprehensive standards to be included in each such objective or policy. Rather, when required, meaningful and predictable standards to guide the LDR adoption process can be placed elsewhere in the comprehensive plan, as is often the case with the Plan Amendments. (In addition, not all plan directions to adopt LDRs are required by statutory and rule mandatory criteria, and it is possible that all of them may not be required to include meaningful and predictable standards if superfluous.) As they did elsewhere in their PRO, Petitioners contend that FLUE Policy A.1.4.2 does not "state what is the areal extent of the 'Public Facilities' land use category as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. or estimate the gross acreage of the 'Public Facilities' land use category as required by Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c)." They also characterize the alleged failing as a lack of meaningful and predictable standards. But as previously mentioned, the Plan Amendments are not inconsistent with that statute and rule. See Finding 73, supra. Petitioners also argue that a listed objective and several listed policies fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards because they do not contain a percentage distribution of mixed uses.12 Actually, these are two different issues. As already indicated, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the objectives and policies fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards. As for the separate issue of percentage distribution of mixed uses, Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c) provides: Mixed use categories of land use are encouraged. If used, policies for the implementation of such mixed uses shall be included in the comprehensive plan, including the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, and the density or intensity of each use. (Emphasis added.) Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the objective and policies in the Plan Amendments do not meet the requirements of this Rule, and they put on no expert testimony that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance" for that reason. Meanwhile, as already mentioned, experts for the Town (Mr. Brown), Centex (Dr. Pennock), and DCA (Dr. Addai-Mensa) testified in general terms that the Plan Amendments were "in compliance." On the evidence presented, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments do not contain policies with "[an]other objective measurement" of the distribution among the mix of uses in the SMU, General Commercial, and Tourist Commercial land use categories established in FLUE Policy A.1.4.2. H. Petitioners' Other Issues The Amended Petition and Prehearing Stipulation raised other issues that were not included in Petitioners' PRO. Some of these were addressed in the parts of Centex's PRO, which the Town and DCA joined, including financial feasibility, planning timeframes, and deletion of a policy requiring habitats of listed species to be designated Conservation. To the extent that these other issues have not been abandoned by Petitioners, it is found that they were not proven. Petitioners' Standing All of the Petitioners submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the Town during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments on March 31, 2005, and ending with their adoption on August 18, 2006. None of the Petitioners own property or reside in the Town or own real property abutting real property in the Town. The Hamilton Brothers Brothers George William (Bill) Hamilton, III, and Patrick S. Hamilton live in Crescent Beach, which is four to five miles north of the Town in St. Johns County. Together (along with their wives), they own and operate Homecomers, Inc., which does business as Southern Realty of St. Augustine and Crescent Beach (Southern Realty), and as Southern Horticulture, which is located in Crescent Beach or St. Augustine (the evidence was not clear which). Patrick operates the real estate brokerage, which has offices in St. Augustine and in Crescent Beach, and Bill operates the retail garden and landscaping business. The brothers also own part of Coastal Outdoor Center, which is located in Crescent Beach at S.R. 206 and features kayak tours of the Matanzas River, mostly south to Pellicer Creek. The Hamilton family also has oyster and clam leases in St. Johns County. It appears that the vast majority of the brothers' business activities are conducted in St. Johns County north of the Town. However, over the years, some limited business has been conducted in the Town. In 1993 Patrick Hamilton twice brokered the sale of land from Marineland, Inc., one parcel to an private individual and the other to the Whitney Lab. In 1995 he procured a contract for the sale of Marineland, Inc. (and, with it, essentially the entire Town) for a fish farm operation for approximately $10 million; when the contract was breached, Southern Realty got part of the forfeited $100,000 binder. In 1998 Hamilton was authorized by MOR to sell its holdings in the Town for a ten percent commission. Hamilton was successful in efforts to arrange for it to be purchased by FCT and the Trust for Public Lands (TPL) through the bankruptcy court in Jacksonville, and some of the land was immediately resold at a profit to Mr. Jacoby. When Hamilton pursued payment of Southern Realty's brokerage commission through the bankruptcy court, he learned that TPL had indemnified MOR for the brokerage commission. At that point, Southern agreed to accept an $18,000 fee from TPL and drop its bankruptcy claim for ten percent on the overall purchase. In 2002, Hamilton paid for and prepared grant applications for the Town's purchase of two islands that were outside the Town's municipal boundaries but which the Town intends to annex. In September 2004 he wrote an offer on behalf of a trustee of the Whitney Lab to purchase a small parcel of land TPL still owned in the Town and donate it to the Lab. However, no contract was reached, and Southern Realty received no commission. In 2005 Phil Cubbedge asked Hamilton to represent him in the sale of his oyster and clam lease to Centex but then backed out when Centex proposed to deal directly with Cubbedge without Southern Realty's involvement. Southern Horticulture used to do business with the Marineland Attraction but has not done any business in the Town in nine years, since the Attraction went into receivership and did not pay a Southern Horticulture bill in full. The Town never has required the Hamiltons or their businesses to obtain and maintain an occupational license, and none was obtained prior to 2004. In 2004 and 2005 Southern Realty applied and paid for and obtained an occupational license to "engage in the business of real estate." This was done in response to a finding in the Recommended Order in a previous administrative challenge to St. Johns County plan amendments by FWF and FOM that neither had an occupational license in the County. On several occasions over the years, the Hamilton brothers have engaged in various civic activities pertaining to the Town. Most of these activities have been Patrick's. These have included: participation on the management advisory group for the GTMNERR and efforts in the early to mid-1990s to have its Administrative Office established in the Town; efforts in 2000 or 2001 related to the designation of A1A as a scenic highway in St. Johns County, with a segment being in the Town; subsequent work to persuade the Florida Department of Transportation to construct a bike path along A1A in St. Johns County; advocacy related to the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan; service on the Board of Trustees of the Whitney Lab; and financial contributions to and fund-raising for the Whitney Lab. The brothers do these things out of a sense of civic duty and for the good of the community and their vision for it. However, they also believe these activities provide a benefit for their business, particularly the real estate and outfitting businesses. It is found, based primarily on the activities of Southern Realty, that the Hamilton brothers own or operate a business within the Town. Florida Wildlife Federation FWF is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with approximately 50,000 members and supporters. No FWF members reside or own property in the Town, and FWF does not have an office in the Town. One member (Mr. Cubbedge) has an oyster and clam lease in the Town. Cubbedge, the Hamilton brothers, and Dr. Michael Greenberg, who works and has his office at the Whitney Lab in the Town, are the only members who have a connection to the Town, according to the evidence. In April 2004, FWF established a regional office in St. Johns County outside the Town for the primary purpose of reviewing comprehensive plan amendments, focusing on natural resource protection. FWF monitors growth management and habitat protection during the development stages of the Town, focusing on the draft of the goals, objectives and policies for the comprehensive plan. In furtherance of this effort, FWF’s planning advocate (Ms. Owen) has attended and participated in meetings of the Remarkable Coastal Place work group stakeholder meetings, where they reviewed drafts of comprehensive plan amendments; has talked with elected officials to educate them on FWF (and FOM) concerns; and has attended meetings of and made presentations to the South Anastasia Community Association, a civic organization that holds its meetings in the Town. Through the Post Office and its website, FWF publishes a newsletter with information about FWF’s activities in the state, including fundraising. No evidence was presented that the newsletter is distributed in the Town. FWF’s regional office held a fundraiser in St. Augustine in February 2006 to raise money to pay attorney’s fees and expert witness fees for this proceeding. The Town never has required FWF to obtain and maintain an occupational license, and none was obtained prior to 2004. In 2004 and 2005 FWF applied and paid for and obtained an occupational license "to engage in the business of monitoring growth management and habitat protection." As with Southern Realty, this was done in response to a finding in the Recommended Order in a previous administrative challenge to St. Johns County plan amendments by FWF and FOM that neither had an occupational license in the County. Based on the evidence, it is found that FWF owns or operates a business within the Town. Friends of Matanzas FOM is a not-for-profit Florida corporation established in 2001 to preserve and protect the estuary and its watershed, and to maintain the rural beach community, particularly on South Anastasia Island and in southern St. Johns County to Marineland. FOM has 34-44 members. No FOM members reside in the Town, but at least two of them--its current president, Dr. Greenberg, and Maureen Welsh--work at the Whitney Lab. The Hamilton brothers also are members. FOM itself does not have an office in the Town. However, Dr. Greenberg is its president, and he may keep some FOM records and documents in his office at the Whitney Lab. There was no evidence that FOM ever has had a Town occupational license, or that the Town ever has required it to have one. In part (if not primarily) through the activities of the Hamilton brothers, FOM has been involved in: efforts in the mid-1990s to have the Administrative Office of GTMNERR established in the Town; efforts, including production of a video in 2000 or 2001, related to the designation of A1A in St. Johns County, including within the Town, as a scenic highway; and work to persuade the Florida Department of Transportation to construct a bike path along A1A in St. Johns County, including within the Town. There also was evidence that FOM holds annual meetings in the Town. Based on the evidence, it is found that FOM does not own or operate a business within the Town.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that DCA enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: The City of Oakland Park and Its Roadways The City of Oakland Park is an incorporated municipality located in Broward County, Florida. It is situated in the geographic center of the County. A six-lane divided expressway, I-95, runs north/south through the middle of the City. Among the major east/west thoroughfares in the City is Oakland Park Boulevard. It is a six-lane divided roadway that is functionally classified by the Florida Department of Transportation as an urban principal arterial. The roadway is lined almost exclusively with commercial development. I-95 can be accessed at Oakland Park Boulevard. The Stroks' Property and Its Surroundings Mr. and Mrs. Strok own 20.709 acres of contiguous land in the City. The land is among the few remaining undeveloped properties in the City. The Stroks' property abuts Oakland Park Boulevard to the south. Its southernmost point is a relatively short distance to the west of the Oakland Park Boulevard/I-95 interchange. At present, Oakland Park Boulevard provides the only vehicular access to the Stroks' property. Commercial development lies immediately to the east and to the west of that portion of the Stroks' property fronting on Oakland Park Boulevard. Further north on the property's western boundary is a residential neighborhood of single family homes. Single family homes also lie to the east of the Stroks' property north of Oakland Park Boulevard, but they are separated from the property by a canal. Oakland Park Boulevard, in the vicinity of the Stroks' property (Segment 366), is heavily travelled. Currently, it is operating well over its capacity and therefore, according to standards utilized by the Florida Department of Transportation, is providing a Level of Service (LOS) of "F." There are no formal plans at the moment to expend public funds on capital improvements that would increase the capacity of Oakland Park Boulevard. Whether the Stroks' property is ultimately used primarily for commercial purposes or for single family residential purposes, the development of the property will increase the traffic volume on this segment of Oakland Park Boulevard, as well as other roadway segments in the County that are now operating over capacity, but are not programmed for any capital improvements. As a general rule, however, commercial development generates more traffic than single family residential development. The City's 1989 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map The City adopted its 1989 comprehensive plan on April 5, 1989. Adopted as part of the plan was a Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which was based upon appropriate surveys, studies and data concerning the area. Over Petitioners' objections, all but a small portion of the Stroks' property was designated for commercial use on the FLUM. 1/ Under the City's two prior comprehensive plans, the Stroks' entire property was designated for commercial use. "Commercial uses" are defined in Chapter IV, Section 1.32 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan as "activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental and distribution of products, or performance of services." Furthermore, Chapter IV, Section 3.02(C) of the plan provides as follows with respect to lands designated for commercial use on the FLUM: Each parcel of land within an area designated in a commercial land use category by the City's land Use Plan Map must be zoned in a zoning district which permits any one or more of the following uses, but no other uses: Retail uses. Office and business uses. Wholesale, storage, light fabricating and warehouses uses, if deemed appropriate by the City. Hotels, motels and similar lodging. Recreation and open space, cemeteries, and commercial recreation uses. Community facilities and utilities. a. Special Residential Facility Category (2) development . . . . b. Special Residential Facility Category (3) development . . . . Non-residential agriculture uses. Residential uses are permitted in the same structure as a commercial use provided that the local government entity applies flexibility and reserve units to the parcel and: The residential floor area does not exceed 50% of the total floor area of the building; or The first floor is totally confined to commercial uses. Recreational vehicle park sites at a maximum density of ten (10) sites per gross acre if permanent location of recreational vehicles on the site is permitted by the City land development regulations, or twenty (20) sites per gross acre if such permanent location is prohibited by the local land development regulations, subject to allocation by the City government entity of available flexibility or reserve units. Transportation and communication facilities. The decision to designate in the City's 1989 comprehensive plan almost all of the Stroks' property for commercial use was not made without consideration of the adverse impact commercial development would have on traffic in the vicinity of the Stroks' property. Although it was recognized that such development would add more traffic to the already congested roadways in the area than would single family residential development, the prevailing view was that the additional traffic that would be generated by commercial development, as compared to that which would be generated by single family residential development, would be relatively insignificant. The designation of the major portion of the Stroks' property for commercial use is not inherently incompatible with the designations assigned other parcels of property in the surrounding area. The Stroks' property was designated for commercial use under Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan. The Broward County Charter mandates that the land use plans of the County's incorporated municipalities be in substantial conformity with the County's land use plan. Goals, Objectives and Policies The City's 1989 comprehensive plan also includes various goals, objectives and policies. Those of particular significance to the instant case provide in pertinent part as follows: Goal 1- Protect and enhance the single family residential, multiple-family residential, non-residential and natural resource areas of Oakland Park. Objective 1.1- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, revise the development code to assure that all new development . . . avoids traffic problems now impacting the City . . . . Policy 1.1.5- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the development code shall be amended to specify that no development permit shall be issued unless assurance is given that the public facilities necessitated by the project (in order to meet level of service standards specified in the Traffic Circulation, Recreation and Infrastructure policies) will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development. A concurrency management system shall be included that specifies the latest DCA and City criteria for what constitutes "assurance" in addition to budgeted projects or signed development agreements. Goal 2- To develop an overall transportation circulation system which will provide for the transportation needs of all sectors of the community in a safe, efficient, cost effective and aesthetically pleasing manner. Objective 2.1- Provide for a safe, convenient and efficient motorized and non-motorized transportation system. Policy 2.1.1- Monitor annual traffic accident frequencies by location. Policy 2.2.2- Improve selective enforcement at high accident locations. Policy 2.1.4- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, provide safe and convenient on-site traffic flow through development review procedures. Policy 2.1.7- Reduce the amount of through traffic on local streets and collectors through the implementation, within three years of plan adoption, of a Local Area Traffic Management Program (LATMP) . . . . Policy 2.1.11- Improve the efficiency of traffic flow on existing roadways by implementing the policies of Objective 2.1. Objective 2.2- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, coordinate the traffic circulation system with existing and future land uses as shown on the Future Land Use Map. Policy 2.2.1- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide a Development Management System that will allow development to occur in concurrence with the Future Land Use Map and in concert with development of the traffic circulation system. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "D" on all arterial and collector roadways where existing plus committed traffic allows, and maintain traffic conditions on all other roadways segments. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "C" on all local roadways. LOS shall be based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and the FDOT Generalized Daily and Peak Hour Level of Service Maximum Volumes. Other methods may be utilized but are subject to technical review and acceptance by the City. Policy 2.2.2- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of local roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "C" or better. This list may be based on the February 21,1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development or other sources as appropriate. Policy 2.2.3- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.4- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "D" or better. This list shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. Policy 2.2.5- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.6- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is a scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Planned Improvement Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.7- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.3, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions and the scheduled 2010 improvement will be able to operate at LOS "D" once constructed. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.8- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is no scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. 2/ Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Constrained Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.9- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.5, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. Policy 2.2.10- The City will annually update existing traffic counts and review updated Broward County Trips assignments. Based on the update the City may reclassify any roadway segment within the City. The City may also reclassify a roadway segment if development from outside the City has effected traffic conditions within the City. Policy 2.2.11- Subsequent to plan adoption, modify the land development regulations such that after 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, require trip generation studies from all proposed development within the City and traffic impact studies for developments generating more than 10% of adjacent roadway capacity and allow development contingent upon the provision of LOS Standards. Objective 2.4- Provide for the protection of existing and future rights of way from building encroachment. Policy 2.4.2- Modify land development regulations to ensure consistency with the Broward County Trafficways Plan right-of-way requirements during development review activities. Goal 9- To ensure the orderly and efficient provision of all public services and facilities necessary to serve existing and future local population needs. Objective 9.2- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that development or redevelopment proposals are approved consistent with existing service availability or coincident with the programmed provision of additional services at the adopted level of service standards and meets existing and future facility needs. Policy 9.2.1- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, revise development procedures to review development proposals cognizant of the City's adopted level of service standards, existing levels of service and where appropriate, the timeframe for implementation of additional facility improvements. Policy 9.2.2- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, condition the approval of proposed development or redevelopment projects on the basis of project related needs being concurrently available at the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Policy 9.2.3- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, allow for phasing of development related infrastructure improvements concurrently with project impacts on public facilities. Policy 9.2.4- The Level of Service (LOS) for capital facilities shall be: * * * for Arterials and Collectors- LOS "D" or "Maintain" for Local Roadways- LOS "C" ADT, PSDT and PKHR Objective 9.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that private developers participate on a proportionate share basis in any facility improvement costs necessary to maintain LOS standards. Policy 9.3.2- Establish a preference for the actual construction of adjacent site road improvements in lieu of impact fee payments. Policy 9.3.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, establish in the land development regulations a process for assessing new development on a pro rata share of the costs necessary to finance public facility improvements in order to maintain the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Development Review Requirements Chapter IV, Section 4 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan prescribes development review requirements. It provides in pertinent part as follows: Following the effective date of the Land Use Plan, the City shall not grant a permit for a proposed development unless the City has determined that public facilities are adequate to serve the needs of the proposed development or unless the developer agrees in writing that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the proposed development until public facilities are adequate to serve its needs. Public facilities may be determined to be adequate to serve the needs of a proposed development when the following conditions are met. Traffic circulation . . . public facilities and services will be available to meet established level of service standards, consistent with Chapter 163.3203(g) Florida Statutes and the concurrence management policies included within this Plan. Local streets and roads will provide safe, adequate access between buildings within the proposed development and the trafficways identified on the Broward County Trafficways Plan prior to occupancy. Capital Improvements Implementation Chapter VII of the plan deals with the subject of capital improvements implementation. It contains a section which addresses the matter of level of service standards. This section provides in pertinent part as follows: The minimum criteria for Comprehensive Plans requires that Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park be included for public facilities described in the plan. The Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park are provided in the following Table 2. Subsequent to the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, all future development approvals will be conditioned upon the provision of services at the local level of service standards. Table 2 sets forth the following level of service standards for roadways: Principal Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Minor Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Collectors- LOS "C"- AADT, 3/ PSDT 4/ PKHR 5/ Submission and Approval of the Stroks' Plat On June 6, 1989, the Stroks submitted to the County Commission for its approval a final plat of their property. The plat reflected the Stroks' plan to have 15 single family dwelling units, 180,000 square feet of office space and 36,000 square feet of commercial space constructed on the property. County staff analyzed the plat to ascertain the impact that the proposed development would have on traffic. In performing their analysis, they relied on the County's TRIPS computer model. Broward County assesses impact fees against a developer where it is projected that a development will add traffic to road segments in the County that are over-capacity, but are planned for improvement. The TRIPS computer model is used to determine the amount of the assessment. County staff did a TRIPS run on the Stroks' plat on September 13, 1989 and determined that the development proposed in the plat would generate a total of 6,879 trips on road segments throughout the County, including over-capacity road segments that were not planned for improvement, as well as over-capacity road segments that were planned for improvement. 6/ The County Commission approved the Stroks' plat on September 19, 1989. A short time earlier, the City Council had also approved the plat. Petitioners' Motives Petitioners are all residents of the City of Oakland Park. In filing their petitions challenging the City's 1989 comprehensive plan, they were motivated only by a desire to improve the quality of life in their city. They had no ulterior motive. They filed the petitions because they felt that it was in the best interest of the City that they do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs issue a final order finding that the City of Oakland Park's 1989 comprehensive plan is "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of th Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1990.
The Issue Whether the FLP is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact Background Miami Corporation, the applicant for the Volusia County Farmton Local Plan, owns two contiguous and sizable tracts of land in Brevard County and Volusia County. Together they comprise the company's Farmton property (the "Farmton Site"). The portion of the Farmton Site in Brevard County is approximately 11,000 acres. The portion in Volusia County is approximately 47,000 acres. Miami Corporation has owned the property since the 1920's. It began silviculture operations onsite in 1952. The Farmton Site continues today to be used mainly for silviculture. In 2003, Miami Corporation began exploring long-term options for alternative uses. One option was bulk sales of large lot tracts, such as 100-acre tracts, to developers to build homes on the lots. Another option was a comprehensive plan amendment applying "smart growth" principles. The company opted for the latter approach. The smart growth comprehensive plan amendment eventually pursued included the creation of a regional wildlife corridor that extends from the headwaters of the St. Johns River to the Ocala National Forest. Before filing the application for the Original Amendment, Miami Corporation organized meetings of private and public stakeholders to gain input. Representatives from Brevard and Volusia Counties, affected municipalities, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWCC"), St. Johns River Water Management District ("SJRWMD"), East Central Florida Regional Planning Council ("ECFRPC"), and conservation organizations participated. After the application of Miami Corporation was filed, the County convened a Peer Review Panel. Chaired by two former Department Secretaries, the panel included nine experts in planning and natural resources fields. The panel made various recommendations that were incorporated into the Farmton Local Plan. Specific recommendations included the creation of a Community Stewardship Organization to protect the most sensitive natural resources. Florida Audubon made additional recommendations to strengthen the conservation measures consistent with mechanisms that experience in other areas of the state had taught Audubon were necessary to achieve conservation measures protective of the area's natural resources that would be perpetual. Due to the scale of the proposed amendment, the County hired an outside transportation engineering firm to review the Farmton Local Plan. In addition, the local plan's natural resource mapping and policies were subjected to two other peer reviews convened by the ECFRPC and University of Florida GeoPlan Center. These reviews included the participation of resource agencies, conservation organizations, and scientists. The County worked closely with Miami Corporation in revising the substantive content of the Farmton Local Plan through over 30 iterations to incorporate recommendations from the peer review process, the Volusia County Growth Management Commission, various County divisions, local governments, state agencies, and conservation organizations. The Brevard County Portion of the Farmton Site The Brevard County portion of the Farmton Site is immediately adjacent to the Volusia County portion of the site. Brevard County adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan regarding the portion of the Farmton Site in Brevard County. The amendment allows urban development. The amendment was challenged followed by a settlement of the case through the adoption of a remedial amendment. Subsequent to the filing of Case No. 10-2419, the amendment and the remedial amendment to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan led to a determination that the Brevard Farmton amendments were in compliance. The amendment as remediated became effective with no further challenges. The effectiveness of the amendment to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan which allows urban-type development was one of several significant events that took place between the 2010 Hearing and the 2011 Hearing. Significant Events Following the filing of proposed recommended orders in Case No. 10-2419, the Department, the County, VGMC, and Miami Corporation moved that the case be placed in abeyance so that settlement discussion could take place. The motion was granted over the objections of the Petitioners in Case No. 10-2419. The settlement discussions led to the Remedial Amendments adopted by the County in April 2011. The Original Amendments and the Remedial Amendments (the "FLP") were determined by the Department to be in compliance. The "in compliance" determination was challenged in a petition filed at the Department on May 16, 2011, by the Petitioners in Case No. 11-2527. The petition was forwarded to DOAH and the case was consolidated with Case No. 10-2419. In the meantime, the Florida Legislature passed chapter 2011-39, Laws of Florida (the "New Law"). The New Law substantially amends chapter 163, including the definition of "in compliance" in section 163.3184(1)(b). It took effect on May 17, 2011, when it was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State's office. The New Law was determined to be fully applicable to the consolidated cases. Prior to the Brevard County amendments taking effect, the Department regarded the Volusia portion of the Farmton Site as isolated and removed from other urban areas. Once the Brevard County Comprehensive amendments allowing urban development were determined to be in compliance and became effective, the Volusia portion of the Farmton Site became adjacent to "an urban area that is its match to the south." Petitioners' Ex. 6, Deposition of Michael McDaniel, at 14. The effectiveness of the Brevard County plan amendments that place an urban area adjacent to the Volusia Farmton Site was significant to the Department in its determination in 2011 that the FLP is in compliance. The Volusia Farmton Site The FLP applies to 46,597 acres in southern Volusia County. The Volusia Farmton Site is rural and much of it is classified as wetlands. No services or public facilities currently exist on the site. It contains abundant habitat for both upland and wetland dependent species. Within the site there are several outparcels owned by other persons or entities on which low density residential development is allowed by the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. More significant to the issues in this proceeding, the Comprehensive Plan allows low density residential development on the remainder of the site as well. The site includes approximately 260 miles of dirt roads that are maintained by Miami Corporation. In good condition, the roads are acceptable for ordinary passenger cars. The Current Plan Prior to the adoption of the FLP by the Original Amendment, the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1990 had been updated twice through the Evaluation and Appraisal Process. The first update occurred in 1998 and the second in 2007. (The updated plan was referred to in hearing as the "Current Plan" and was admitted into evidence as Joint Ex. 1.) The intent of the updates "is to take into account changes to state law and to reflect changing conditions within the community." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 3 of 5. Chapters 1 through 18 of the Current Plan contain elements and sub-elements "which are the basic building blocks of the Plan." Id. There are eleven required elements, the first of which is the Future Land Use Element (the "FLUE"). FLUE Overview Section A. of Chapter 1 of the Current Plan entitled, "Overview," states the following: The Future Land Use Element . . . ensures that physical expansion of the urban areas are managed (1) at a rate to support projected population and economic growth; (2) in a contiguous pattern centered around existing urban areas; and (3) in locations which optimize efficiency in public service delivery and conservation of valuable natural resources. * * * [W]hile it reflects existing urban services capacities and constraints, it also establishes locations where future service improvements will follow. It also reflects and promotes . . . activity in the private land market. * * * New urban growth, predicated on appropriate population projections, environmental suitability, and fiscal feasibility will be encouraged adjacent to the major cities that have a full range of urban services or inside County service areas. County service areas may include undeveloped land inside or near existing unincorporated urban areas where the developer agrees to provide necessary urban services through private means. * * * Regarding public systems, the major assumption is that the area adjacent to existing public infrastructure will be the primary areas for future infrastructure extension. Expansion of existing facilities in a fiscally and environmentally appropriate manner will be the primary option. The intent of this concept is to maximize efficiency of urban services through compact development otherwise consistent with the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. Planned developments include large scale, mixed-use, integrated, compact and distinct urban developments under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. * * * [A]reas that are outside the proposed development areas or contain environmentally sensitive features will receive special attention to ensure proper management of the County's natural resources. In order to further protect the County's natural resources and promote sustainability, the following will be included in the County mission statement: To balance development and the environment through innovative practices that lessen the impact of the development while preserving natural resources and improving the quality of life for present and future generations. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 1, pages 2-3 of 109 (emphasis added). Future Land Use Overlays and Designations Future land use overlays and designations are part of the adopted Future Land Use Policies. Id. at page 4 of 109. The entire Volusia Farmton Site is located within the Comprehensive Plan's overlay area of Natural Resources Management Area ("NRMA"). Approximately 11,000 acres of the site lie within the Environmental Core Overlay ("ECO"). There are three land uses on the Volusia Farmton Site under the Current Plan: Forestry Resources ("FR"), 22,294 acres (approximately); Environmental Systems Corridor ("ESC"), 22,344 acres (approximately); and Agricultural Resources ("AR"), 2,309 acres (approximately). Residential densities on the Farmton Site are different for the three land uses allowed on site but all are "low-density" and all have the same floor area ratio ("FAR"): 0.10. The AR land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per ten acres. The FR land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per twenty acres or one unit per five acres with clustering. The ESC land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 25 acres. The Current Plan would allow 4,692 residential units: 228 in AR; 706 in ESC; and 3,758 in FR. The land designated AR would allow 100,580 square feet of nonresidential development and the land designated FR would allow 719,637 square feet, for a total of 820,217 square feet of non-residential development. Types of Amendments The Current Plan allows four types of amendments: "Mandated," "Administrative," "Development," and "Small Scale." See Joint Ex. 1, 2010 Hearing, Tab 21, p. 5 of 7. The Farmton Local Plan is categorized as a "Development Amendment." A "Development Amendment" is defined by Chapter 21, Section (C)1.c. of the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan" or the "Comprehensive Plan") as: An Amendment which is initiated by the property owner(s) to change the Plan so that a particular development type or land use not otherwise consistent with the Plan, would become consistent following adoption of the amendment. Applicants may be private individuals or a public agency sponsoring an amendment subject to the Comprehensive Plan. Id. Local Plans The FLP is included in the Local Plan section of the Plan's Future Land Use Element. Local Plans in the Comprehensive Plan apply to specific geographic areas and provide a greater level of detail than the Plan in general. The Current Plan includes 13 other Local Plans. Once enacted, "the most detailed portion of the Volusia Comprehensive Plan," tr. 458, will be the FLP. The FLP The Original Amendment The Original Amendment includes one goal, eight related objectives and numerous policies under each of the eight objectives. The Amendment depicts on the Future Land Use Map two new future land use designations: "GreenKey" and "Sustainable Development Area" ("SDA"). The entire site is designated as either GreenKey or SDA. Objective FG 2 in the Amendment states: GreenKey and designated Resource Open Based Space shall be managed for natural resource protection and preservation of interconnected regional wildlife corridors, and conserved in perpetuity. "Resource Based Open Space" ("RBOS") is governed by Policy FG 2.4 of the Original Amendment: Resource Based Open Space. Resource Based Open Space shall be designed within Sustainable Development Area districts to protect and enhance environmental systems. Resource Based Open Space shall not include parcels identified for development (including, but not limited to individual yards), active open space, or civic open space. Resource Based Open Space lands may include areas set aside for ecological preservation, enhancement and restoration, nature trails, conservation education programs, observation decks and similar facilities including lakes used for detention and retention of surface water. Resources [sic] Based Open Space may include, flood plains, wetlands, mitigation areas, vegetative buffers, specialized habitat for flora or fauna, passive recreation areas, water resource development areas, and shall be designed during the development review process. All such lands shall be subject to a conservation management plan, as set forth in FG 2.10 and FG 2.11, and protected in perpetuity by conservation easements. At least 25% of each SDA district shall be Resource Based Open Space. Joint Ex. 7, 2010 Hearing, Tab D-2, pgs. 9 and 10 of 49. The SDAs are primarily altered pine plantation lands. They total approximately 15,000 acres. Within the 15,000 acres of SDA land "are four land use districts which define the uses, densities, and intensities planned for each district." Id. at p. 4 of 49. The four are the Gateway District, Work Place District, Town Center District, and the Villages District. Within GreenKey, the Farmton Local Plan allows the continuation of agricultural uses employing practices regarded as "Best Management Practices" and prohibits residential and nonresidential development. There are two areas in GreenKey with additional natural resource protection standards. They are the Deep Creek Conservation Area which will be conveyed to a Community Stewardship Organization and managed in a primarily natural state and the Southwest Wildlife Corridor which will be managed to maintain habitat for wildlife, particularly for the Florida Black Bear. The FLP includes two long-range planning horizons. The "initial planning horizon" is 2025; "[t]he second planning horizon . . . shall be from 2026 to 2060." Policy FG 1.1, 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, p. 7 of 49. Through 2025, residential and nonresidential development may only occur within the Gateway District, "a distinct geographic area of approximately 821 acres at the northern end of the Farmton Local Plan near SR 442 and I-95." 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, 4 of 49. The development in the Gateway District is limited to a maximum under any circumstances of 4,692 residential units and 820,217 square feet of nonresidential development. See Policies FG 1.1, 1.4. "However, in order to plan for school capacity, there shall be no more than 2,287 dwelling units [in the Gateway District] unless there is a finding of school adequacy issued by the school district." Policy FG 3.4. Through 2060, the Amendment allows a total of 23,100 residential units and 4.7 million square feet of nonresidential development, excluding educational facilities and other institutional uses, within the various SDAs. With the exception of the Gateway District, which is in phase one of development, Policy FG 3.10 requires the development and implementation of a program designed to ensure an adequate number of jobs per residential dwelling unit exists in the SDAs. In phase two and subsequent phases, the development order shall require milestones for achieving the jobs-to-housing ratio target. In the event that the jobs-to-housing ratio drops below 0.65, residential development approvals shall be suspended until a remedial plan can be developed and approved as set forth in an accompanying development order. Policy FG 3.10. Prior to the FLP, the site had been subdivided into approximately 1,700 vested lots pursuant to existing exempt subdivision policies in the Volusia Land Development Code. The Original Amendment extinguished the vested exempt subdivisions as of the effective date of Ordinance 2009-34. The Original Amendment requires all lands designated GreenKey to be placed either in a conservation easement or a conservation covenant. A conservation covenant "is similar to an easement" 2010 Hearing, tr. 1077, "except that its term shall run with the land for an initial term of ten years, which shall automatically be renewed every ten years thereafter so long as the maximum densities and intensities established in the Farmton Local Plan Objective 3 shall remain in effect . . . ." Policy FG 2.15. For example, "Density and Intensity" for the WorkPlace District is described in Policy FG 3.5: "The WorkPlace district shall have a minimum density of eight units per acre and a target density of 18 units per acre. The minimum floor area ratio (FAR) for the nonresidential uses shall be 0.3 FAR." Joint Ex. 7, p. 22 of 49. A covenant under the FLP is converted to a perpetual conservation easement as prescribed in Policy FG 2.15: "At such time as the Master Development of Regional Impact equivalent Master Plan as provided in Objective 8 is approved consistent with the densities and intensities as set forth in Objective 3 in effect [when the FLP is adopted] . . ., a perpetual easement shall be recorded within 60 days." Joint Ex. 7, p. 15 of 49. The FLP requires a minimum amount of land to be set aside for conservation purposes as RBOS. Policy FG 2.4, quoted above, requires that a minimum of 25 percent of SDA land be set aside as RBOS. The RBOS lands will be placed in conservation covenants or easements. Policy FG 2.5 b. requires that a Black Bear Management Plan be developed in consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission consistent with the Commission's Black Bear Habitat Management Guidelines and best available science. The Black Bear Management Plan applies to the Southwest Wildlife Corridor, part of which is on the site in Volusia County and part of which is in Brevard County. GreenKey and RBOS are subject to a mandatory conservation management plan ("CMP") to be funded by the landowner or its successors in interest. The CMP is to be developed by the owner through a task force appointed by the county within one year of the recording of the conservation easement. The CMP is to be "incorporated into the conservation covenants and easement and made enforceable." Policy FG 2.11, 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, p. 12 of 49. Under the FLP, protected wetlands within the SDA will be afforded a wider buffer than was required under Plan prior to the FLP. Through the RBOS designation, additional lands will be preserved and protected by what is in essence a secondary buffer. Under Policy FG 3.2, the footprint of SDAs is "designed to shrink." Tr. 1078. The policy provides: "For the purposes of calculating residential density and . . . FAR within the SDA districts, the density and FAR provision provided in the policies of Objective 3 of this Local Plan shall be calculated based on net SDA Buildable Area. Net SDA Buildable Area shall equal the total SDA district reduced by the minimum 25 percent [RBOS] area and by the minimum 40 percent mandatory Civic Space. Civic Space includes streets, stormwater systems, parks, buffers, water, access easements and other public infrastructure. . . ." Joint Ex. 7, p. 19 of 49. Policy FG 1.6c requires the SDAs to contain RBOS "such that when combined with GreenKey lands more than 36,000 acres or 75 percent of the area with the Farmton Local Plan shall be preserved." Joint Ex. 7, p. 8 of 49. Based on the acreage in GreenKey, RBOS, and buffers required by FG Policy 2.19 for SDA boundaries, wetlands, trails and roads, Sharon Collins, a private biological consultant for Miami Corporation and the primary field biologist onsite, estimated that the minimum amount to be protected under the FLP is 39,265 acres, which equals 80 percent of the total acreage subject to the FLP. b. The Remedial Amendments The County Council of Volusia County's Ordinance 2011- 10 (the "2011 Ordinance") which adopts the Remedial Amendments describes their substance in three sections. See 2011 Joint Ex. 10, page 2 of 3. Section I of the 2011 Ordinance consists of text amendments to: "Chapter 1 Future Land Use Element, Farmton Local Plan, Policies FG 2.4, FG 2.56, FG 2.18, FG 4.14, FG 4.15, FG 4.18, FG 4.20, FG 4.21, FG 5.7, FG 5.8, FG 5.16, and FG 8.1 . . . ." Id. The language of the text amendments referred to in Section I is contained in Exhibit A to the 2011 Ordinance. Sections II and III of the 2011 Ordinance refer to amendments to maps and figures. In Section II, the "Farmton Local Plan-Future Land Use Map" is amended "to include new land use of Mandatory Resource Based Open Space and by expanding the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to include additional lands." Id. Section III adds the "Farmton Local Plan Spine Transportation Network" to the Comprehensive Plan "as a new Figure 2-10 to the transportation map series." Id. The lands under the new land use of Mandatory Resource Based Open Space ("MRBOS") count toward the calculation of the requirement that at least 25 percent of the SDAs taken as a whole be RBOS. The location of all of the RBOS lands have not been determined. They are not shown, therefore, on the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") series. The revised FLUM, however, delineates where the MRBOS lands are located. The MRBOS will be subject to a Black Bear Management Plan. Policy FG 2.5b sets forth that it is to be developed in consultation with the FFWCC consistent with its Black Bear Habitat Management Guidelines and best available science. The Parties Petitioners Petitioner Barbara Herrin is a resident and owner of real property in Volusia County. She submitted comments regarding the Original Amendment during the time period between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. She submitted comments about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. ECARD, one of two Petitioners in Case No. 10-2419 (with Ms. Herrin), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with a membership of approximately 60 members, of which at least 50 are residents of Volusia County. ECARD submitted comments about the Original Amendment during the period of time between the transmittal and final adoption hearings for Ordinance 2009-34. It provided oral comments through counsel at the adoption hearing for Ordinance 2011-10. Sierra Club, one of the two Petitioners in Case No. 11-2527, is a California not-for-profit corporation registered in Florida with approximately 90,000-100,000 members. It has unincorporated state and local chapters. The Florida Chapter has approximately 29,000-30,000 members and the local Volusia County Chapter has approximately 820 members. Three letters containing comments about the Remedial Amendment were submitted to the Volusia County Council by the "Volusia/Flagler Group of Sierra Club and the Northeast Florida Group of Sierra Club," tr. 27, and by the Sierra Club Florida at the public hearing on the Remedial Amendment held in April 2011. All three letters were presented on behalf of Sierra Club. In addition, "[t]he Sierra Club Florida presented comments [at] the same public hearing." Tr. 28. Sierra Club does not own land in Volusia County. It does not own or operate a business in Volusia County. "The Volusia/Flagler Group has [its] own bank account." Tr. 39. Sierra Club has general meetings "in the area" id., to which the public is invited. The Club conducts outings to parks and natural areas "in the area" id., and members appear in public hearings where they speak. Members engage in letter-writing and "various other civic activities." Id. b. Respondents Volusia County (the "County"), a political subdivision of the State, adopted the FLP. Miami Corporation is a Delaware corporation registered in the State of Florida. It is the owner of the property that is the subject of the FLP and was the applicant for the text and map amendments that make up the FLP. Through its representatives, Miami Corporation submitted comments to the County about the Original Amendment during the period of time beginning with its application and through the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. It submitted comments to the County about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. Volusia Growth Management Commission ("VGMC") is a dependent special district of the County created pursuant to Volusia County Charter Section 202.3. Its duties include the review of amendments to local comprehensive plans. VGMC submitted comments to the County about the Original Amendment during the period of time between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. It submitted comments to the County about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. Suitability The Community Planning Act defines "suitability" as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." § 163.3164(45), Fla. Stat. "Compatibility" is defined 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. Future land use map amendments are required to be based upon several analyses. One of them is "[a]n analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site." § 163.3177(6)(a)8.b., Fla. Stat. The future land use plan element is required to include criteria to be used to ensure the protection of natural and historic resources and to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses. See § 163.3177(6)(a)3.f. and g., Fla. Stat. Suitability: Petitioners' Evidence Mr. Pelham, Secretary of the Department at the time the Original Amendment was found by the Department to be not in compliance, testified at the 2011 Hearing that the site of the FLP is not suitable for development of the magnitude and nature allowed by the FLP. Consistent with the definition of suitability, the testimony of Mr. Pelham addressed both land and water. Commencing with water, he described the property as "extremely wet [and] dominated by an extensive system of sloughs, marshes, creeks, [and] swamps . . . ." 2011 Hearing, tr. 249. The property is an important state and regional resource that contains a variety of important wildlife habitats. Much of the property and substantial parts of the SDAs are in the 100-year flood plain. The property is extremely significant to the area's watershed as an area of recharge and a "high aquifer vulnerability area." 2011 Hearing, tr. 249. Mr. Pelham drew support for his opinion on suitability from the Comprehensive Plan. The County finds in the Plan that the lands subject to the FLP consist of "large, relatively uninterrupted expanses of rich natural resource areas." Tr. 250. The County gave the lands the NRMA designation precisely because they should "be protected and maintained because they serve a variety of functions, water-related, habitat area, a source of water, the open space and rural character, . . . [all] very important to Volusia County " Id. Mr. McDaniel testified as to the official position of the Department in 2010: that the property is not suitable for the FLP. Mr. Pelham's testimony in the 2011 hearing echoes and amplifies Mr. McDaniel's testimony. Dr. Smith testified in both the 2010 Hearing and the 2011 Hearing that development at the scale and intensity of the FLP is not suitable for the site for the same reasons given by Mr. Pelham and Mr. McDaniel. Other Analysis of the Character of the Land The FLP is based on an ecological evaluation that uses GIS-based decision support models and is supported by field work of biologist Sharon Collins. The ecological evaluation was reviewed by scientists from state agencies, universities, and conservation organizations. Ms. Collins provided 15 years' worth of data collection and field work on the site. Her first field assessment of the entire site took place between 1995 and 1998, and included wetlands delineation, evaluations of vegetative communities, habitats, historic natural conditions, hydrology, and listed species. Ms. Collins began remapping and reevaluating toward an ecological evaluation in 2005. The efforts led to the issuance of a report prepared for Miami Corporation and submitted in November 2008. The report was revised in July 2009. It is entitled, "GreenKey Project, Ecological Evaluation Assessment Methods" (the "EEAM Report"). See 2011 Hearing, Joint Ex. 5, Tab 10. Section 1.3 of the EEAM Report, entitled "Resource Identification," describes Ms. Collins' collection of data she used to identify habitat on the site. Among the data sources are the "'Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida' (FNAI, 1990)," id. at 3, and the "Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) produced by the Florida Department of Transportation." Id. Other data used in support of the EEAM Report include soils surveys, historic aerial photographs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ("USFWS") and Florida Fish and Wildlife listed species databases, a SJRWMD GIS FLUCCS map and an "exhaustive list" which Ms. Collins detailed at hearing. See 2011 Hearing tr. 1314. After evaluation of the data, Ms. Collins conducted "ground-truthing" or work in the field. Armed with the FLUCCS Map and the infrared aerials, she "went out in the field and did a comprehensive field analysis . . . and ground-truthed what [she] saw in the field with the [data] . . . ." 2010 Hearing tr. 1309. In order to evaluate and rank the various habitats on site, Ms. Collins designed a methodology using seven metrics that target the protection of regionally significant landscapes. She then assigned "ecological value ratings" and groupings of the habitats based on value as described in Section 1.5 of the EEAM Report: The habitat values ranged from a score of 7 to 1, as shown below from highest to lowest value: Crane Swamp and Spruce Creek Swamp (A & B) Buck Lake and Buck Lake Marsh (C) Cow and Deep Creek (D) Large Sloughs--forested and herbaceous E & F) Scrub Uplands (H) Smaller Wetlands--forested and herbaceous (J & K) Salt March (G) Oak and Hardwood Hammocks (I) Natural Pine Flatwoods (L) Harvested Wetlands (O) Hydric Pine Plantation (M) Pine Plantation (N) To provide a simple yet comprehensively applicable natural resource rating that applies and transfers value to the Farmton landscape, the habitats were further reduced to four groups of comparable ecological value and function. Therefore, Habitats A-D were grouped as one, Habitats E&F another, Habitats G-L as one, and the silvicultural habitats--Habitats M-O--as the fourth group. * * * The habitat types with natural resource rating scores around 7.0 (6.93 to 7.0) include Crane/Spruce Creek Swamps, Buck Lake and Marshes, and Cow and Deep Creeks. They are classified as "Regionally Significant Conservation Habitat Areas." They are regionally situated, extending beyond the boundaries of Farmton. The habitat types with natural resource rating values of around 6.0 include the larger sloughs and swamps. They are classified a s "Significant Conservation Habitat Areas." They are generally greater than 100 acres in size, make up a significant portion of the Farmton landscape, provide an interconnected network of wetlands across the property, but remain mostly onsite. The habitat types with natural resource rating values that are midrange around 3 (2.7-3.7) include the scrub uplands, oak and hardwood forests, salt marshes, natural pine flatwoods, and the smaller swamps and sloughs that have been generally embedded within pine plantations onsite. They are classified as "Conservation Habitat Areas." The fourth habitat types are with natural resource rating values of less than 3, with a range from 21.4 to 1.0, include the silvicultural habitats of the hydric and upland plantations as well as the harvested wetlands. They are classified as "Silvicultural Habitat Areas." These habitats are located onsite and are managed for timber, with varying degrees of tree ages, tree densities and site preparation stages, and/or harvesting disturbances. Joint Ex. 5, Tab 10 at 7-8. The EEAM's rankings were used as a basis for the Farmton Plan's design. The most significant natural resources and environmentally sensitive lands according to the EEAM rankings were designated GreenKey to be subject to permanent conservation. Areas which were disturbed or the least environmentally sensitive lands were deemed more suitable for future development and designated as SDA. The FFWCC used its own data to review the Farmton Local Plan. It was the first comprehensive plan amendment (or project) reviewed under the Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project ("CLIP"). In the opinion of Dr. Walsh, a biological administrator with the FFWCC who supervises FFWCC land use consultations with external entities such as local governments and private land owners, the Farmton Local Plan is based on the best available science. In Dr. Walsh's opinion, the FLP provides for the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat and conserves and appropriately plans for protection of endangered and threatened wildlife. Land Use Protections The environmental evaluations are reflected in the FLP policies that require at least 67 percent of the site be designated as GreenKey and 75 percent or at least 36,000 acres of the site be preserved as GreenKey and RBOS. See Policies FG 1.3 and 1.6c, 2010 Hearing, Joint Ex. 7 at pages 7 and 8. Furthermore, Policy FG 2.6 states: As Sustainable Development Area districts are planned for future development, they shall employ Greenprinting decision support models to identify wetlands, flood plains, mitigation areas, vegetative buffers, specialized habitat for flora and fauna, and under-represented natural communities, water resources development areas and trails. Joint Ex. 7, page 11 of 49. The FLP provides additional conservation measures for the most environmentally significant areas. Policy FG 2.5 establishes the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. Policy FG 2.5a establishes the Deep Creek Conservation Area with special levels of protection. The Remedial Amendment creates MRBOS lands and designates them on the Future Land Use Map. The result is that 33,665 acres of the site will be placed into conservation. With RBOS, wetland protections, and associated buffers, 80 percent of the site or 39,265 acres ultimately will be conserved. All lands placed in GreenKey, MRBOS, and RBOS are subject to the CMP approved by the Volusia County Council and ultimately subject to a conservation easement that perpetually protects the lands. See Policy FG 2.10, Joint Ex. 7. Policy FG 8.1 provides: No building permit shall be issued for new development within the SDA districts within five (5) years of the effective date of the Farmton Local Plan. No development order for new construction shall be issued prior to the approval by the county council of the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) described in policies FG 2.10 and 2.11 and the recording of a perpetual conservation easement over all Green Key lands as set forth in policy FG 2.15 with the specific exception of essential public utilities or communication structures. Joint Ex. 10, page 7 of 7. The Council has appointed a CMP Task Force to develop the plan. Natural Resource Management Area The NRMA overlay covers the entire site. It does not prohibit development but subjects it to scrutiny by the County. The NRMA overlay has not successfully prevented habitat fragmentation. Prevention of habitat fragmentation is a basis for the "layered additional protections," 2010 Hearing tr. 1167, of the FLP, including the Environmental Core Overlay Areas ("ECO"). Areas that must be protected are covered by the ECO, which receive the greatest protection in the Current Plan. The ECO covers approximately 11,000 acres of the site. The FLP adds 20,900 acres to the ECO. Without the FLP, and in spite of the NRMA and ECO overlays, existing Current Plan policies allow the Farmton property to be subdivided into approximately 1,700 lots. Significant habitat fragmentation is a potential result. The FR portion of the site, moreover, may develop in a clustered pattern at a density of one unit per 5 acres, as opposed to one unit per 20 acres under Future Land Use Policy 1.2.3.2. There are ranchette subdivisions in the site's vicinity and ranchettes are a feasible development option for the site. The FLP provides stronger natural resource protection than existing policies for the resources it protects. Its more restrictive standards eliminate the potential for development of the most sensitive areas and eliminate vesting of previously vested lots. Policy FG2.1 provides that the FLP is supplemental to NRMA and ECO. If the FLP conflicts with NRMA, the more specific or restrictive policies apply. The FLP is consistent with the current Plan provisions for the NRMA, Environmental Systems Corridor, and ECO. The Florida Black Bear and Regional Wildlife Corridor The Florida Black Bear is a State-designated Threatened Species. See chapter 68A-27. The purpose of the FFWCC in promulgating rules relating to endangered or threatened species is stated at the outset of chapter 68A-27: The purpose . . . is to conserve or improve the status of endangered and threatened species in Florida to effectively reduce the risk of extinction through the use of a science-informed process that is objective and quantifiable, that accurately identifies endangered and threatened species that are in need of special actions to prevent further imperilment, that identifies a framework for developing management strategies and interventions to reduce threats causing imperilment, and that will prevent species from being threatened to such an extent that they become regulated and managed under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. Fla. Admin. Code R. 68A-27.001(1). In June 2010, the FFWCC accepted recommendations of bear experts that it find there is "not a high risk of extinction," 2011 Hearing tr. 626, for the Florida Black Bear. Acceptance of the recommendation was accompanied by the commencement of the adoption of a management plan for the Black Bear. Upon the adoption of such a plan, the FFWCC is expected to de-list the Florida Black Bear from the threatened and endangered species lists. See id. Policy FG 2.5b requires the CMP within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to address habitat requirements for the Florida Black Bear in consultation with FFWCC. The FLP provides for the protection of regional wildlife corridors. Objective FG 2 of the FLP reads: "GreenKey and other Resource Based Open Space shall be managed for natural resource protection and preservation of interconnected regional wildlife corridors, and conserved in perpetuity." Joint Ex. 5, Tab 3 at 8. Nearly the entire Farmton Site constitutes Bear Potential Habitat. See DCA Ex. 4F. The entire site has been identified as Secondary Bear Range, see DCA Ex. 4G, and is roughly within 10 miles of an area of Primary Bear Range to its north and 20 miles of the same area of Primary Bear Range to its west. The area of Secondary Bear Range that includes the Farmton Site also includes urban areas such as the cities of Deland, Orange City, Deltona, and Sanford. Several hundred thousand people live in the secondary range that includes the Farmton site. The area of Secondary Bear Range in which the Farmton Site is located is habitat for the Ocala and St. Johns subpopulations of the Black Bear. While Dr. Hoctor considers the Ocala and St. Johns subpopulations to be separate, David Telesco, the Black Bear Management Program Coordinator for the FFWCC, described them as one subpopulation of bears that range over the Farmton Site, the Secondary Bear Range in which it is located, and nearby Primary Bear Range: This is our largest population of bears, estimated as potentially 1,200 animals. It's also the most densely populated, which means it's the highest quality habitat we have in the state. And our habitat models that we have are showing it as a stable subpopulation. 2011 Hearing, Tr. 625. Bear ranges do not coincide perfectly with bear habitat. Bears may range in areas that are not habitat. Just as in the case of ranges, bear habitats are classified as primary and secondary. Primary and Secondary Bear Habitats are both present on the Farmton Site. In Dr. Hoctor's opinion, to view Secondary Bear Habitat composed of pine plantation (as is the secondary habitat on the Farmton Site), to be more suitable for development would not be accurate or scientifically defensible. "[P]ine plantations are important habitat in and of themselves, plus they're important for . . . connecting all of [the] forested wetlands on [the Farmton] site . . . ." Tr. 475. An array of expert testimony was presented at the 2010 Hearing by Petitioners, the County, and Miami Corporation as to whether the FLP provided adequate wildlife corridors and protection of bear habitat. Dr. Hoctor testified that the Farmton Site is "particularly significant for potentially supporting . . . functional connectivity between the Ocala and Saint Johns [Black Bear] [sub]populations to those that are further south, the Highlands/Glades [sub]populations and Big Cypress [sub]population." Tr. 463. In the past, Florida's Black Bear population was integrated. There was "one [Black Bear] population . . . that occurred throughout the State of Florida." Tr. 465. The several Black Bear populations identified in the state now, however, are genetically distinct due to isolation caused by habitat loss, hunting and poaching. Re-integration will promote genetically healthy populations. Genetically healthy populations are more likely to adapt to future environmental changes and maintenance of connectivity between the subpopulations will promote a genetically healthy population of the Black Bear. A primary method of promoting a genetically healthy population is maintenance or restoration of functional corridors that connect sub-populations of the Black Bear in the state. Functional corridors are necessary to restore a single Black Bear population in the state or a "metapopulation . . . a set of subpopulations that are interacting through disbursal [sic] of individuals between . . . [the] various populations." Tr. 468. Dr. Hoctor opined, "If we're going to have a functional corridor between the populations to the south [south of northern Brevard and southern Volusia Counties] and to the Saint Johns and Ocala populations [to the north], it's more than likely going to have to occur through the Farmton Property." Tr. 467. It is Dr. Hoctor's opinion that functional corridors through the Farmton Property are particularly important to maintenance of the St. Johns subpopulation which consists of only 96 to 170 bears when a viable sub-population of bears is at least 200. Dr. Hoctor regards the wildlife corridors provided by the FLP, both for the Black Bear and other species, to be insufficient to offer adequate protection. They are not wide enough nor do they encompass enough acreage, in his opinion, to provide an adequate home range for a female Black Bear. The FLP allows too many significant road crossings. With regard to the Black Bear and other species, moreover, the FLP, in his opinion, does not sufficiently counter negative edge effects, that is, "negative impacts on natural areas or protected lands . . . from adjacent intensive land uses." Tr. 483. Consistent with action taken in June 2010, the Commission is in the process of adopting a Black Bear Management Plan for Florida. On May 19, 2010, the FFWCC issued a "Draft Black Bear Management Plan for Florida" (the "Draft Plan") which has been up-dated but remains in draft form. The Draft Plan opens with an executive summary, the first paragraph of which follows: The long-term future of Black Bears in Florida currently is uncertain because of their large spatial requirements, the fragmented nature of remaining populations, and increasing human development and activity leading to conflicts. A statewide management plan is needed to conserve this valued wildlife species. * * * This management plan is not intended to set all policies and operations for bears, rather it is intended to form a platform from which policies can be updated and operations can be based. While this plan will set clear guidance and structure for bear conservation in Florida, it will not be a panacea or silver bullet for current issues. In fact, this plan may create more work as key challenges are addressed in implementation. VC/MC Ex. 49. The Draft Plan does not contain any reference to Dr. Hoctor's opinion that the Farmton Site is a critical linkage between the Ocala and St. John's subpopulations and the subpopulations of Black Bear to the south. Randy Kautz, a supervisor of the nongame habitat protection planning section at the FFWCC and its predecessor agency for 20 years, testified that he knew of no agency recommendation to establish a corridor for Black Bears between the Ocala/St. Johns subpopulations and subpopulations of Black Bear to the south. Furthermore, he thought it very unlikely that the subpopulations would become connected if an adequate Black Bear corridor existed on the Farmton Site. He gave several reasons that included man-made disruptions between the subpopulations (such as pasture lands) and natural barriers posed by the St. Johns River, Lake Harney and marshes to the southwest of the Farmton Site over which Black Bears are not likely to traverse. Under the Original Amendment, the Southwest Wildlife Corridor ensures a wildlife corridor approximately one mile in width in the areas closest to the St. Johns River because the science indicated that was the primary regional wildlife corridor for the region. Within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor is the Deep Creek Conservation Area. It is the site's most significant area for regional movement of wildlife and will contribute to a corridor spanning as wide as three miles near the St. Johns River. The Remedial Amendment increases the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to establish a minimum of a one-mile buffer outside the areas planned for development. There are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes a functional wildlife corridor. The Cow Creek Corridor, Southwest Wildlife Corridor, and the corridor along the Volusia-Brevard border exceed a 10:1 ratio of length to width, a favorable ratio for wildlife, and each is a minimum of 900 meters in width. The Southwest Wildlife Corridor, which is 11.81 miles in length, was expanded by the Remedial Amendments to a minimum width of one mile, an average width of 2.26 miles, and a maximum width of 5.3 miles, and has a reduced length-to-width ratio of 5.2:1. The Cow Creek Corridor, which is not a regional wildlife corridor, was increased to 3.86 miles in length, a maximum width of 1.07 miles, a minimum width of 0.63 of a mile, and has a length-to- width ratio of 4.73:1. Respondents provided expert opinions that the FLP's provision of wildlife corridors is consistent with regional long range conservation planning and fits into an ecosystem pattern with wildlife corridors, linkages, and a variety of habitats. Respondents also presented expert opinion that FLP's proposed conservation areas are consistent with Florida wildlife conservation strategy. Other Listed Species and Wildlife Habitat Petitioners allege that the amendment fails to protect native vegetative communities, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and threatened and endangered species. The SOI lists several federally listed species within USFWS consultation areas for the Crested Caracara, the Florida Scrub Jay, and the Everglades Snail Kite. A consultation area includes the bird's dispersal range. Ms. Collins has never seen one of these three bird species on the property during her 15 years onsite, which she attributes to the site's inappropriate habitat for the species. Dr. Smith and Dr. Walsh also testified that it was highly unlikely to find these species on site. If a project is located within a listed species consultation area, the developer is required to meet with the USFWS to address the issue further during the permit process. Other listed species are found or are likely to be found on the site. However, there will be adequate habitat and conservation areas to support them. Gopher tortoises, for example, found within an SDA will be protected by existing County policies. The FLP provides a higher level of protection for listed species and other wildlife than if the site were developed under the current land uses. No development may take place, moreover, until the CMP is approved and incorporated in the development order. Policy FG 2.11 lists numerous minimum criteria for the CMP, including the identification of USFWS consultation areas and known onsite threatened and endangered plants and animals, the protection of habitats of species that are listed, imperiled, and otherwise in need of special protection, and coordination with management plans of adjacent conservation areas. Farmton contains native vegetative communities including mesic flatwoods, scrub flatwoods, and pine flatwoods. These native vegetative communities are predominantly present in the GreenKey conservation areas and will be protected. FAVA and Site-specific Data A Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment Map (the FAVA Floridan Map) for the Floridan Aquifer of the Farmton Site depicts three levels of vulnerability: "More Vulnerable," "Vulnerable," and "Less Vulnerable." See DCA Ex. 4D. Most of the Farmton Site is in the area depicted by the FAVA Floridan Map as "More Vulnerable." All of the SDAs allowed by the FLP to be developed as Gateway, Town Center and Work Place subareas, for example, are depicted as "More Vulnerable." Most of the SDAs allowed by the FLP to be developed as Village subareas are depicted as "More Vulnerable" and the remainder is depicted as "Vulnerable." The FAVA Floridan Map depicts none of the SDAs as "Less Vulnerable." See DCA Ex. 4-D. The FAVA maps supported the Department's determination that the Original Amendment was not in compliance. FAVA maps are used as data by the Department because they depict areas where the aquifer is susceptible to contamination from surface contaminants. In that they "cover broad swaths of the State of Florida, [however] . . . they are not meant to supersede site-specific data." Tr. 1942. Dr. Seereeram, on behalf of Miami Corporation, gathered data specific to the Farmton site. The data included "detailed soil profiles every six inches vertically . . . [to] depths . . . over 100 feet . . . ." Tr. 1941. His site- specific data showed that there are confining layers between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan aquifer that prevent "rapid movement of groundwater from [the surficial] aquifer into the underlying Florida[n] aquifer." Tr. 1941. The site-specific data led Dr. Seereeram to conclude that the Department's concern for contamination potential to the Floridan Aquifer based on the FAVA is misplaced. In light of his site-specific data, Dr. Seereeram's opinion is that the development of the Farmton property will not "pose a threat to the aquifer." Tr. 1942. Dr. Seereeram's opinion, based on the question from counsel, is expressed in terms of "the aquifer." See id. Based on the FAVA maps and the entirely to his testimony with regard to site-specific data, the opinion does not apply to the Surficial Aquifer but only the Floridan Aquifer. The development of the Farmton Site in Volusia County does not pose a threat to contaminate the Floridan Aquifer. Floodplains, Wetlands, and Soil The Farmton Site in Volusia County is predominantly floodplains and wetlands. Petitioners allege that the land uses proposed by the FLP are incompatible with wetland protection and conservation. The Comprehensive Plan's map series depicts a large portion of the County as being located within the 100-year floodplain. A significant part of the SDAs are within the 100- year floodplain. There is no state or federal prohibition of development in a floodplain. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLP describe the floodplain. The Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit development in the 100-year floodplain. The FLP, however, "advises development away from the floodplain, specifically as it relates to schools in the Farmton Local Plan." Tr. 1095-6. Development in floodplains has been allowed by the County subject to elevation of construction to be flood-free upon completion and mitigation via on-site flood storage. The Plan's floodplain policies would apply to development under the FLP and the FLP has policies which relate to floodplains. Policy FG 2.21 in the FLP, for example, requires the following: Floodplains. Impact to the 100-year floodplain shall be minimized. Any impacts must be fully mitigated by providing compensatory storage on-site. Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-3 at 17 of 46. As a result of changes made by the Remedial Amendment, the majority of developable lands within the SDAs are uplands not wetlands. Based on a review of aerial photography, soil surveys, and other data, combined with field work, Ms. Collins concluded that approximately 29 percent of the total SDA acreage can be identified generally as wetlands. The dominant soils in the SDAs are Smyrna fine sand, Immokalee fine sand, Eau Gallie fine sand, and Myakka fine sand. Myakka soil, the soil of the flatwoods, is the most common soil in the state and has been designated as the "state soil." Tr. 1358. There are similar soils on adjacent properties. They are soils "that have had development occur on them." Tr. 1097. All of the soils in the SDAs are suitable for development. Wetlands delineation is not required at the comprehensive plan stage. It will be required prior to approval of development plans or issuance of a development order. The buildable areas within the SDAs will be determined with input from environmental regulation agencies prior to development order approvals. Without the FLP, preserved wetlands would be protected by a fifty-foot buffer. In contrast, Policy FG 2.19d requires all preserved wetland areas within an SDA to be protected by a buffer that averages 75 feet in width and is no less than 50 feet in width. See Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 17 of 49. On GreenKey land, the policy provides enhanced wetland buffer widths of an average of 100 feet with a minimum buffer of 75 feet. See id. "If different buffer widths are required by a permitting agency, the wider buffer shall apply." Id. Policy FG 2.20 states that activities within the FLP "shall be planned to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and the required buffers as described in FG 2.19(d)." Id. No less than 25 percent of each SDA as a whole must be set aside as RBOS, which may include wetlands. See Policies FG2.4 in Joint Ex. 10, Exhibit A, page 1 of 7; and 3.2 in Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2. Per Policy FG 2.8, those open space areas will be determined in consultation with regulatory agencies, Volusia Forever and entities that are parties to the conservation easements required by Policy FG 2.12. See Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2. Policy FG 2.6 requires that, when establishing RBOS, priority "be given to lands on the perimeter of the SDA, which are contiguous to GreenKey lands." Id. at page 11 of 49. In accordance with Policies FG 2.10 and 2.11, those RBOS areas will be added to the conservation easement and be incorporated in the CMP. Policy FG 2.11h requires the CMP to contain "[p]rovisions for significant water resources (such as streams, creeks, natural drainage ways, floodplains, and wetlands) protection, enhancement, and restoration and planned hydrological restoration." Joint Ex. 7, Tab 2-D, page 13 of 49. Wetlands Mitigation Bank In 2000, after a two-year permitting process, approximately 16,337 acres of the Volusia Farmton site was approved for use as a mitigation bank. Of that approved acreage, only 7,030 acres have been placed under a conservation easement and are required to be maintained in perpetuity for conservation purposes. Those 7,030 acres will continue to be preserved under the FLP. The portions of the mitigation bank that have not been placed under conservation easement may not remain within the mitigation bank and may be withdrawn. At the time of the final hearing, an application filed by Miami Corporation was pending before the SJRWMD to modify the mitigation bank permit to withdraw approximately 1,100 acres from areas within the mitigation bank that have not been placed in conservation easement. The lands proposed for removal from the permit are located within the SDA areas. The remaining portions of the mitigation bank would be protected from SDA uses through the 200 foot SDA perimeter buffer and wetland buffer requirements in Policy FG 2.19. Conservation Management Plans Within one year of the effective date of the FLP, the Deep Creek Conservation Area and the permitted Mitigation Bank lands will be placed into permanent conservation easement. Within two years, a CMP will be developed and enforced through the conservation easements. Remaining lands will be protected through a conservation covenant as well as the CMP. The covenant will have a ten-year term and automatically renew until the initial development plan is approved. Upon approval of a development plan consistent with the densities and intensities of the comprehensive plan, those lands will also be converted to a permanent conservation easement. The Remedial Amendment requires that no development can take place until the CMP plan is established and perpetual easements are recorded. Urban Sprawl The Thirteen Statutory Indicators Section 163.3177(6)(a)9 mandates that an amendment to the future land use element discourage urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a provides 13 "primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl . . . ." Evaluation of the indicators "consists of analysis of the plan or plan amendment within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality " See section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a. The 13 indicators are listed in the statute under roman numerals "I" through "XIII." I. The first indicator is promoting, allowing or designating "for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses." The current Plan (without the FLP) allows the site to develop as single residential uses at low densities. The pre- FLP densities allowed on the Farmton Site are one unit per 10 acres, one unit per 20 acres, or one unit per 25 acres depending on the three designations on the site: Agricultural Resource, Forestry Resource or Environmental Systems Corridor. Mixed use is not required, nor is clustering required. The result is a "ranchette pattern of land use." 2010 Hearing, Tr. 1817. Mr. Ivey at the 2010 Hearing described ranchette- style development and the use to which a ranchette would typically be put. He depicted a development pattern dominated by owners of property who want to be in the country to enjoy a country lifestyle. After purchase of the property, the owner typically builds a house, frequently clears the land, constructs a number of outbuildings and grows grass to support cows or goats. In Mr. Ivey's opinion, "if your goal is to protect the environment, [the ranchette pattern of development] does not do it." Tr. 1720. Mr. Pelham opined that, despite the current Plan's allowance of a ranchette style of development on the Farmton Site, the indicator is triggered because the FLP disperses so much low density development over the landscape and in development nodes. Such a pattern, in his opinion, "does result in a significant amount of low density sprawl, compounded by the fact that it's fragmented and distributed out rather than being in a very compact fashion." Tr. 280. In comparison to the ranchette style of development, however, the FLP calls for a mixed-use development much more concentrated than a ranchette type of development and, on balance, more protective of natural resources. The current land uses allow nonresidential development at a floor area ratio of 0.10 but non-residential uses are not required to be included so as to ensure a mix of uses. The current land use could result in an inefficient land use pattern of more than 4,600 residential units, each of which would be entitled to use a septic tank and potable water well. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.2.5 requires either clustering or open space for developments that contain environmentally sensitive lands or critical habitats but includes no minimum standards. The FLP removes residential entitlements from the GreenKey area and clusters residential development into the SDA areas. Since development is not allowed in GreenKey, it is reasonable to evaluate the FLP's density in terms of "net density" rather than "gross density." It is also appropriate to evaluate density based on the various SDAs. Each Village has a minimum density of 3 units per acre and a target density of 10 units per acre. The Town Center has a minimum density of 8 units per acre, a target density of 15 units per acre, and a center town square required density of 24 units per acre. Work Place has a minimum density of 8 units per and a target density of 18 units per acre. Finally, Gateway has a minimum density of 4 units per acre and a target density of 12 units per acre. The weighted average of the minimum densities throughout the SDAs is 3.3 units per acre and their weighted target density is 6.8 units per acre. This density is relatively high compared with developed portions of cities in Volusia County. The City of DeBary has a weighted average density of less than 2 units per acre. The City of Deltona has a weighted average density of 2.68 units per acre, and the City of Edgewater has a weighted average density of 4.89 units per acre. The weighted average maximum density for the residential land use categories in the unincorporated County is only 2.36 units per acre. The FLP also includes requirements for a mix of uses in the Gateway, Town Center, and Village districts. The jobs- to-housing ratio in Policy FG 3.10 also will ensure that development will contain a mix of uses. II. The second indicator is promoting, allowing or designating "significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development." Mr. Pelham found the indicator to be triggered because it designates over 12,000 acres of urban development in a rural area at a significant distance from existing urban development and leapfrogs over undeveloped urban-designated lands. Mr. Pelham holds the opinion despite the match of the FLP by the development that will be allowed under the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan on the Brevard County Farmton Property immediately adjacent to the Farmton Site in Volusia County. In addition to abutting the Brevard County Farmton Property, the Farmton Site abuts the City of Edgewater, and the approved Restoration DRI and Reflections PUD. There are undeveloped publicly managed lands and conservation easements in the vicinity of the Site. In contrast to Mr. Pelham, Mr. Metcalf does not think the indicator is triggered. He sees the FLP with its requirement of a greenbelt designated as GreenKey and RBOS and MRBOS to contain the essential components of an innovative development type known as "urban village." An urban village has the following characteristics: an area with urban density, a mix of uses including all major land use types in a self-contained, clustered, compact form that is transit-supportive and has a grid or modified grid street network and a walkable, unified design, with a defined edge separating urban rural uses. The FLP contains all the components required it to be considered to contain an "urban village" development pattern. III. Mr. Pelham concluded that the third indicator is triggered by the FLP's "fragmented development pattern . . . [with] ribbon strips of nodes, five or six of them, . . . in an isolated area." Tr. 281. In contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the FLP's "node" development pattern does not trigger the indicator. The nodes of development are not in a radial, strip or ribbon pattern. They do not, moreover, emanate from urban development. IV. Mr. Pelham's view that the FLP triggers the Indicator IV focuses on the 12,000 acres of NRMA land, a substantial portion of which will be converted to urban-type development. In contrast, witnesses for Miami Corporation cast the FLP as providing for the conversion of rural lands in a way that protects and conserves a range of natural resources, including wetlands and upland habitats. The indicator, moreover, does not require protection or conservation through preservation. Therefore, it is not triggered in all cases in which there is some use of the resource. GreenKey and MRBOS keep development out of the most environmentally sensitive wetlands and confines development to the SDAs so that wetland encroachment occurs only in wetlands of lower value than others in the area. Designation of areas as RBOS will also conserve natural resources. V. Indicator V refers to failure to adequately protect "adjacent agricultural areas and activities." Petitioners criticize FLP for failure to protect agricultural and forestry areas and activities within the SDAs. The Department of Community Affairs, however, has never applied the indicator to lands internal to an amendment. Policy FG 2.2 allows agricultural activities to continue in the GreenKey using Best Management Practices. Existing agricultural areas adjacent to the Farmton Site are mainly to the west. The FLP includes provision to adequately protect activities within those areas. Policy FG 2.19, for example, requires a minimum buffer of 200 feet around each SDA. Protection of adjacent areas and activities in the areas means Indicator V is not triggered by the FLP. VI. Mr. Pelham offered the opinion that the FLP fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services by allowing a large urban development in a rural area that has no public facilities and services and no plan to provide them. Mr. Metcalf testified that the services to be considered would be law enforcement, fire, emergency medical treatment and solid waste. In assessing Indicator VI, Mr. Metcalf began with the assumption that development under the FLP will increase the population in the service district. He opined that the indicator is not triggered because "[t]he higher [the] population in that service district, the higher the maximum usage of that service." Tr. 808. VII. Mr. Pelham believed the FLP fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services because, whether the developer makes significant payment for them or not, the remote location and type of the development will keep it from benefiting from the efficiencies and advantages of scale it would enjoy if it were more proximate to urban development and more compact. Policy FG 3.6d requires the Town Center to house a majority of civic uses, including public safety facilities. The Spine Transportation Network and its related policies provide a network of roads that disperses traffic designed to avoid overloading with local trips. Water service in Gateway will be provided by extension of infrastructure from the Restoration site. "The extension of those lines would be closer than would be many neighborhoods within existing urban areas." Tr. 809. School capacity for the initial 2,287 units will be concentrated in Gateway. The critical mass that can be achieved through the urban village form of development will support onsite facilities needed by schools, law enforcement and fire departments. The location of the facilities will serve development on the Farmton Site and also nearby ranchettes and all of South Volusia County. Mr. Metcalf's opinion is that that the indicator is not triggered by the FLP. VIII. Mr. Pelham's opinion is that Indicator VIII is triggered. "Many studies have shown that allowing urban development far distances from existing urban development drive up the cost of providing infrastructure." 2011 Hearing, tr. 285. Policies FG 7.1 and 5.13 require development within SDAs to provide infrastructure, including onsite roads, and government services that are fiscally neutral. They also require the developer to pay for its share of off-site transportation impacts on a pro rata basis. Construction of the Spine Transportation Network is required by Policy FG 5.7 to be funded solely by the owner/developer. These policies together with the urban village development pattern led Mr. Metcalf to the opinion that the FLP will not disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services. IX. By establishing SDA areas and buffer requirements in Policy FG 2.19 for perimeter boundaries and wetlands, the FLP establishes clear separations between rural and urban areas. X. The FLP would discourage and inhibit the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities, in Mr. Pelham's opinion, because it will compete with all other urban areas for residential and nonresidential growth. Joel Ivey, who has worked on many amendments to the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan, testified that he was not aware of any areas in the County in need of re-development or any infill areas with which the FLP would interfere. The Petitioners did not identify any areas in which the FLP will discourage development opportunities covered by the indicator. XI. Indicator XI is not triggered. The FLP encourages a functional and attractive mix of uses. It requires a mix of residential and nonresidential uses in the SDA districts, a jobs-to-housing ratio, placing lands in conservation easements, walk-ability, compact development, and a hierarchy of street systems to foster connectivity and pedestrian mobility. XII. Indicator XII is not triggered. The FLP promotes accessibility among linked and related land uses with interlinked multimodal roadways and paths, including the Spine Transportation System, walkways and bike paths. XIII. The FLP preserves significant areas of functional open space. It provides for passive recreation open space in RBOS areas. It provides expanses of functional open space areas for wildlife habitat. The Farmton Site, currently private property used primarily for silviculture that can be developed with more than 4,600 homes, under the FLP will place at least 36,000 acres in functional open space in perpetuity. It will conserve the site's most environmentally-sensitive lands and establish a network of wildlife corridors. Development Patterns and Urban Forms Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b declares that a future land use element or plan amendment "shall be determined" to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that incorporates four or more factors listed in the statute. The development patterns or urban forms are listed by roman numerals, I through VIII. I. The FLP promotes conservation and avoids adverse impacts to the most significant natural resources on site. It does so by placing the most significant natural resources in GreenKey and MRBOS, locating development in the SDAs so as to keep it out of the most ecologically significant areas on the Farmton Site, providing protections to the Southwest Wildlife Corridor, and deeding the Deep Creek Conservation area for permanent preservation. Any development within an SDA will be subject to development controls that first require impacts to wetlands to be avoided. If impacts cannot be avoided, only wetlands of lower ecological significance may be impacted, and the impacts must be mitigated to achieve no net loss in function and value. Policy FG 2.19 includes several buffer requirements. Other natural resource protection mechanisms include Policy FG 2.7 which promotes habitat connectivity and requires RBOS to minimize habitat fragmentation. Policies FG 2.10 and 2.11 require a conservation management plan. Policy FG 2.5 and 2.5b. require a forestry management plan and a bear management plan. II. The FLP promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services based upon findings above. III. The third development pattern is present. The FLP includes several provisions that promote walk-ability and connected communities, including Policies FG 3.1; 3.4g; 3.6e; 3.7a-d, h, and j; 5.1;, 5.3; 5.5; 5.6; and 5.7; and, the Spine Network Map. The SDA district policies provide for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that support a range of housing options and transit options. The FLP requires park-and-ride lots for bus stops, which supports a form of mass transit, and requires multimodal options, such as sidewalks, bike paths and multi-use paths that accommodate different transportation options such as golf carts and bicycles. Policies FG 3.1e (applicable to all SDA districts), 3.4 (Gateway) and 3.7k (Villages) require housing diversity and choice through a mixture of housing types and price points. IV. The fourth development pattern is present as the FLP promotes water and energy conservation. Policy FG 4.2c requires various conservation measures and water neutrality. The multimodal components and employment centers required by the FLP will reduce vehicles miles and promote energy conservation. V. The fifth development pattern is present if the word "preserve" is interpreted to allow agricultural and silviculture activities to continue, rather than mandate that they continue. Policy FG 2.2 allows agriculture activities to continue, but does not require or guarantee that they will continue in perpetuity. Id. Policies 2.2, 2.5a, 2.11g, 2.12f, 2.23, and 3.13 ensure that agriculture may continue. The timberland soils in GreenKey and MRBOS will be preserved. VI. The sixth development pattern is present. Policies 1.3, 1.7, 2.10, 2.11, 2.15, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.8, 2.5, and 2.16 preserve open space and natural lands. The conservation easements for GreenKey will preserve open space in natural lands. MRBOS and RBOS will provide open space areas in natural lands. Parks in RBOS will provide public open space and passive recreational areas. The SDA parks also will provide active recreational areas. VII. The seventh development pattern is present. The residential and non-residential allocations are balanced and are comparable to those in other master-planned communities. The jobs-to-housing ratio requirement in Policy FG 3.10 ensures a 1:1 balance at build-out and provides a mechanism to ensure that the balance does not drop below 0.65 during development. Gateway Policy FG 3.4d appropriately targets interstate commerce given its proximity to the I-95 and State Road 442 Interchange. VIII. The eighth development pattern is present. The FLP remediates the ranchette pattern allowed under the current Plan over the site. It also provides an innovative urban village development pattern, as well as transit oriented development. Internal Inconsistency Future Land Use Element Future Land Use Objective 1.1.3 in the Current Plan states: "Volusia County shall limit urban sprawl by directing urban growth to those areas where public facilities and services are available inside designated service areas and within urban areas." Joint Ex. 1, page 29 of 109. Future Land Use Policy 1.1.3.5 in the current Plan provides that: New urban development shall be located inside an urban designated area where a full range of urban services exist or are planned and with direct access to arterials and mass transit routes sufficient to handle existing and future development. Joint Ex. 1, page 30 of 109. Policy 1.1.3.6 provides: Id. Requests for land use map amendments will be reviewed using the urban sprawl indicators contained in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g). Requests that exhibit a presence of a majority of the indicators shall be concluded as to encourage urban sprawl. Mr. Pelham concluded the FLP was inconsistent with these two policies because the Farmton Site is in a remote, rural area outside of urban areas and away from existing or planned urban services. The basis of the opinion is contradicted by the Farmton amendments to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan now in effect. While rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) no longer exists, Mr. Pelham testified as to why the FLP constitutes urban sprawl. When evaluating whether a plan amendment is consistent with a provision in the plan, including a policy, the plan should be considered "as a whole." Tr. 222. As Mr. Pelham testified, "a common mistake in interpreting comprehensive plans is that policies are lifted out of context, considered in a vacuum without regard to the plan as a whole . . . ." Id. Mr. Pelham's approach is sanctioned by the Current Plan's provision that governs "Plan Interpretation" found in Chapter 21 of the Current Plan entitled "Administration and Interpretation." In particular, it is consistent with a statement that appears in the Introduction of the Current Plan as one of three guidelines or "statements which represent the underlying assumptions which support the Plan preparation." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 3 of 5. That statement is "Guideline Three: The Comprehensive Plan will be construed as a complete document and no specific goal, objective, policy or recommendation shall be used independently." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 4 of 5. Guideline Three is emphasized by its restatement in a quote from the Current Plan's Introduction in the provision governing "Plan Interpretation." See Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 21, page 2 of 7. The Current Plan does not prohibit urban development activities within NRMA. To the contrary, the Current Plan allows "Low Impact Urban," as defined in Policy 12.2.2.1c on lands within NRMA. See Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 12, page 8 of 16. The FLP directs development to certain areas within NRMA and away from the most environmentally sensitive lands in NRMA. There is a fair argument advanced by Miami Corporation, the County and VGMC that the FLP is coordinated with NRMA, is consistent with its objectives as to the bulk of the site and does not conflict with the Current Plan's Objective 12.2.1: "To provide for the protection of areas determined to be environmentally sensitive, and to direct growth away from such areas." Policy 12.2.1.2 requires the County to promote land use activities compatible with NRMA. The policy discusses the land use categories of ESC, FR and Low Impact Urban, among others. The County's planning and development services director for the County construes the uses under ESC, FR, and Low Urban Impact as not the only land uses allowed within NRMA. The critical determination is whether a land use is NRMA-compatible. Consistent with the Current Plan, Policy FG 2.1 states that the whole site is located within NRMA and the NRMA policies apply if they are more protective or stringent than the FLP's policies. The FLP provides more protection for the most environmentally sensitive areas on the Farmton Site than is provided under NRMA. Examples are the FLP requirement for a wider buffer and a minimum of 75 percent open space. Policy 1.3.1.28 forbids amendment of the FLUM not adopted in conjunction with the required Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR") except under five conditions expressed in the policy. The FLUM amendment by the FLP was not in conjunction with an EAR. The five conditions, all of which must be met, therefore, are: Population projections have been revised, and accepted by the County and FDCA; Justification is provided for the expansion of the urban boundary; Compatibility with the character of the area; Availability of the full range of all urban services, including adequate potable water supply and facilities, to accommodate inclusion in an urban area; and, Documentation is provided that urban expansion will not be in conflict with the intent of the Natural Resource Management Area and Environmental Core Overlay. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 1, page 41 of 109. Testimony at the 2010 Hearing established that the County's population projections were rejected by DCA because they were not based on a professional methodology. The projections were not accepted by the Department in the interim between the 2010 and 2011 Hearing. Mr. Pelham testified that "[t]he Department has never accepted them." 2011 Hearing, tr. 242. The Department's planning function, including review of comprehensive plan amendments and compliance determinations, was transferred by the 2011 Legislature to the Department of Economic Opportunity. The Current Plan does not establish an urban service boundary. Mr. Ivey opined that the FLP is compatible with the character of the area because of the 200-foot wide buffers that exist between the SDA and GreenKey areas. The FLP provides for the City of Edgewater and Farmton Water Resources to provide central water and sewer, and there is adequate water supply. The FLP is consistent with NRMA and ECO because it achieves permanent protection of the key ecological resources on-site. The 11,000 acres of land on the Farmton Site under the ECO are entirely preserved. Conservation Element Policies Petitioners allege that the FLP is inconsistent with Conservation Element Policies 12.2.1.1, 12.2.1.2, 12.2.2.5, 12.2.2.7 and 12.2.3.2. The "Overview" section of the Conservation Element opens with the following paragraph: The Conservation Element provides the framework for the preservation, protection, and enhancement, of the County's natural resources. As such, the goals, objectives and policies outlined in this Element are strongly intertwined with other elements in the Comprehensive Plan relating to land use, utilities, recreation and open space, transportation and coastal management. It is the intent of this Element to provide a basis for responsible decision making for the appropriate use of natural resources when confronted by growth and corresponding development, as well as the identification and preservation of ecologically irreplaceable resources. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 12, at page 2 of 16. Objective 12.2.1 is: "To provide for the protection of areas determined to be environmentally sensitive, and direct growth away from such areas." Id. at page 7 of 16. Policy 12.2.1.1, in pertinent part, provides that "existing, relatively uninterrupted expanses of natural resources contained within the County shall be managed as an individual unit, providing natural resources the highest degree of protection in land development decisions and planning. These lands shall comprise the NRMA established in the Future Land Use Element. Mr. Pelham views the FLP as not managing the natural resources on the Farmton Site as a unit because it allows development to occur in eight different nodes of development spread out across the property. The development that is allowed, therefore, is fragmented. Mr. Pelham, moreover, sees the FLP as far less protective than the Current Plan because it does not retain protection of the NRMA. By eliminating low-density land use classifications in the SDAs, and replacing it with a large city, the effect on the more protective NRMA designation in his view, is that the FLP "retains the shell and takes out the meat." Tr. 271. In contrast, experts for the County and Miami Corporation see just the opposite. By confining development in the SDAs, which have additional internal protections provided by RBOS and MRBOS designations, and preserving in perpetuity up to 80 percent of the Farmton Site with special protections for wildlife corridors, the FLP provides permanent protection for the most environmentally-sensitive land on site. Policy 12.2.1.2 establishes the three low-density categories that currently apply in the NRMA area: ESC, FR and Low Impact Urban. Replacing the low density use classifications with the FLP has the benefit of protecting the Farmton Site from ranchette-type development with the urban village development pattern that provides the conservation benefit of permanent protection of the most environmentally sensitive lands on site. Objective 12.2.2 is "[t]o minimize, and eliminate where reasonably achievable, impacts to ecological communities which degrade their natural physical and biological functions as a result of land development activities." Id. at page 8 of 16. Policy 12.2.2.5 provides, "The County shall require clustering of dwelling units and/or open space for land development projects which contain environmentally sensitive lands and critical habitats within its project boundaries, in order to preserve these resources." Id. The policy is the most detailed rural clustering plan in Florida. The FLP is viewed by Mr. Pelham as inconsistent with the policy because of the allocation of multiple development nodes spread out over the Farmton Site. Ms. McGee sees a distinction in the language of the policy when compared to the FLP. "The important distinction is that this policy specifically refers to land development projects versus land planning projects." (emphasis added). Tr. 445. Petitioners contend there is no inconsistency because the aim of the policy is achieved since the most environmentally sensitive land is preserved in perpetuity by the FLP, functional and natural open space is set aside, and wetland buffers are provided in the FLP. Policy 12.2.2.7 requires the County to coordinate with appropriate governmental entities to protect environmentally sensitive lands that extend into adjacent counties and municipalities. Michael McDaniel testified at the 2010 hearing that the FLP allows the Gateway development to be adjacent to a 3,500 acre conservation area designated by the City of Edgewater as part of the Restoration DRI. Development allowed by the FLP in the Gateway SDA was determined by DCA initially to be not compatible with the resources in the conservation area and the designation of the area by the City of Edgewater. The Original Amendment, therefore, failed to reflect the intergovernmental coordination required by the policy in his view. At his deposition conducted prior to the 2011 Hearing, Mr. McDaniel testified that after the Remedial Amendments the Gateway Project would still be just south of the conservation land designated by the City and that nothing specific had been done in the Remedial Amendments to address the inconsistency with the policy. Policy FG 3.4 in the FLP includes several provisions relating to coordination with adjacent jurisdictions, two of which specifically refer to the Restoration DRI. Policy FG 2.11q requires the Farmton conservation management plan to be coordinated with the natural resource protection measures within the RBOS and Conservation Areas of Restoration. This requirement will ensure maximum open space connectivity between the Restoration development and any development in the northern portions of the Farmton site. On the southern end of the Restoration site (just to the north of the Farmton Site) is an area designated to be used for utilities. That area directly adjoins one of the three Gateway SDAs. The Restoration site includes a significant amount of degraded areas in need of restoration. East and west of the Gateway SDAs, there will be broad corridors that connect with the Restoration site. The Restoration DRI is subject to a conservation management plan requirement that can be coordinated with the FLP's CMP. During the Original Amendment process, the County coordinated with the City of Edgewater. As a result of discussions between the County and the City, the FLP incorporates policies to address common water supply issues and future coordination. The City has no objection to the FLP. The Amendment is internally consistent with Conservation Policy 12.2.2.7. Objective 12.2.3 is "[t]o eliminate any net loss of wetlands and prevent the functional values of such wetlands to be degraded as a result of land development decisions." Policy 12.2.3.2, in pertinent part, provides that "[p]roposed activities within the NRMA . . . shall avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and their associated natural, physical and biological functions, except in cases where it can be demonstrated to be in the overriding public interest." The policy also calls for mitigation in cases of overriding public interest. Wetland features are present in abundance and interspersed throughout the Farmton Site. Respondents contend that a reasonable interpretation of the policy is that it applies to projects at the time of decisions on applications for development orders rather than planning decisions such as adoption of the FLP. Since the policy, under the interpretation, does not apply to the FLP, the policy cannot be inconsistent with it. Public School Facilities Public School Facilities Element Policy 3.1.4.3 requires a finding by the School Board that adequate school capacity will either be timely planned or constructed if there is inadequate capacity at the time of a land use change. Petitioners contend that FLP Policies FG 6.1 and 6.2 are inconsistent with Public School Facilities Element 3.1.4.3. The FLP was coordinated with the Volusia County School District ("School Board"). The School Board reviewed the proposed FLP and revised its school provisions. At the time of the Original Amendment, the School Board, based on its independent data and analysis, determined that there is adequate school capacity for a maximum of 2,287 residential units through 2025. Based on school capacity, Policy FG 1.4 limits residential development through 2025 to 2,287 units in the Gateway district. The policy further restricts residential density in the Gateway district to a maximum of 4,692 units. "[A]ny increase in the density of the Gateway district above the 2,287 units [for which there is adequate school capacity now] and up to 4,692 units [the number of units allowed] shall not be effective until such time as the school district has issued a finding of school adequacy." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, at page 7 of 49. Policies FG 6.1 and 6.2 reiterate the 2,287 unit cap and do not allow additional residential units until the School Board finds adequate capacity to provide for additional units. Other FLP Policies "Fiscal neutrality means the costs of additional school district and local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the SDA districts shall be funded by properties within the approved SDA districts." Joint Ex. 7, Policy FG 7.1, page 42 of 49. Policy FG 7.1 requires each development within an SDA to provide adequate infrastructure that meets or improves level of service standards or will result in a fiscal benefit to the County and its municipalities. Policy FG 5.13 authorizes mitigation for offsite transportation impacts through proportionate fair-share or proportionate share payments. The policy requires proportionate fair-share or proportionate share payments to mitigate the offsite transportation impacts. State law authorizes proportionate-share contributions or construction to satisfy transportation concurrency requirements of a local comprehensive plan under certain circumstances. See § 163.3180(5)(h)3. There is no definition in chapter 163 of "fiscal neutrality." Nor is there a requirement that a developer pay for more than its pro rata share of impacts. Capital Improvements Element/Public Facilities With regard to "capital improvements and public facilities," Petitioners make three allegations that the FLP is not in compliance. First, Petitioners allege the FLP fails to demonstrate the availability of public facilities and services, as required by sections 163.3177(3)(a), 163.3177(6)(a)2.d., and 163.3177(6)(a)8.a. Second, pointing to sections 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. and 163.3177(6)(a)3.e., they allege that the FLP improperly defers data and analysis on which to base the adequacy of public facilities and services. Third, they allege the revised water supply data and analysis used to support the Remedial Amendments do not demonstrate the availability of sufficient water supplies. The term "public facilities" is defined in section 163.3164(38). It "means major capital improvements, including transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational facilities." Section 163.3177(1)(f), requires all mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments to be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. requires the future land use element and plan amendments to be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area as applicable including the availability of water supplies, public facilities and services. FLUM amendments are required by section 163.317(6)(a)8.a. to be based on an analysis of the availability of facilities and services. The FLP is supported by adequate public facility data and analysis. The data and analysis supporting the Original Amendment includes transportation network maps that generally depict and project external roadways and transportation improvements that will need to be built to serve development under the Amendment through 2025 and through 2060. It also includes an evaluation of current and future roadway level of service standards. The Original Amendment includes data and analysis that evaluate potable water and sanitary sewer demand. The water and sewer analysis includes separate charts for build-out in 2025 and in 2060 which assume maximum residential potential and expected nonresidential development types. The data and analysis evaluate impacts of development under the FLP in the short term and in the long term. A transportation analysis was submitted as part of the proposed Amendment package that evaluates impacts on the level of service standards of roadways through 2014 (5 years from the submission of the original Amendment) and 2025. Tables 12 and 13 of the analysis identify roadway improvements needed to maintain level of service standards in 2014 and 2025, respectively, assuming maximum development under the existing land uses and under the Amendment. The transportation analysis assumes full maximum development potential under the Amendment, not realistic growth projections. The analysis therefore evaluates 4,692 residential units and 820,217 square feet of nonresidential development, the maximum development potential under the current land uses. The original water demand analysis applies the Amendment's water conservation policies, as encouraged by the SJRWMD. That analysis estimates a water demand of 1.36 million GPD in 2025 and 6.714 million GPD in 2060. Another water demand analysis compares onsite development scenarios for ranchettes, a commercial nursery, and development under the FLP. The analysis demonstrates development under the FLP would use substantially less water than would development of ranchettes and a commercial nursery. The Remedial Amendments include revised water supply data and analysis that was requested by, and coordinated with, the SJRWD to more closely reflect the water conservation policies in the FLP. The Original Amendment's water supply analysis assumes usage of 250 GPD per residential unit, whereas the Remedial Amendments' revised water supply data and analysis assume a reduced usage of 175 GPD per residential unit. The SJRWMD accepted the revised data and analysis. Petitioners dispute the data and analysis' use of 175 GPD as underestimating demand, but they do not dispute the data and analysis' nonresidential usage rates. The use of 175 GPD is professionally accepted and the data and analysis demonstrate the availability of adequate potable water supplies. The estimated usage of 175 GPD is achievable under the FLP's conservation measures and is a conservative rate based on the FLP's provision for many multi- family units which have a lower GPD than single family units. Applying either 250 GPD or 175 GPD, the site's groundwater source of potable water, estimated to be 9.6 million GPD, will be adequate to provide potable water for maximum residential and nonresidential development under the Amendment while meeting the contractual obligation to provide 2.75 million GPD to the city of Titusville. Petitioners also dispute the reclaimed water analysis assumption in the revised water supply data and analysis that 20 percent of the SDAs will be covered with stormwater facilities. "Twenty percent of the developed landscaped is a lot of land devoted to stormwater treatment." Tr. 142. Mr. Diamond, Petitioners' expert, suggested an assumption of seven to eight percent of the SDAs devoted to stormwater treatment is more appropriate. Civil engineer Mark Dowst, however, demonstrated the 20 percent assumption is based on his experience designing hundreds of stormwater systems and is professionally acceptable. The general range, in his opinion, is 12 to 15 percent. In areas with flood plains or a high water table, such as the Farmton Site, the amount of land devoted to stormwater treatment must be more than the general range. The School District determined there was adequate school capacity through 2025 for a maximum of 2,287 residential units authorized under the current land uses. The School District also found the Amendment addresses and protects the School District's interests. Based on the School District's finding, Policy FG 1.4 limits residential development through 2025 to 2,287 units within the Gateway district until the School District issues a finding there is additional capacity. Policy FG 6.2 recognizes the School Board has not determined there is capacity for more than 2,287 units and therefore "no finding of school adequacy can be issued until and unless the Interlocal Agreement is amended to allow school capacity to be provided within the concurrency service area in which the Farmton Local Plan is located." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 40 of 49. The Amendment reacts appropriately to relevant school capacity data and analysis. Petitioners did not demonstrate how the FLP is inconsistent with applicable public facility requirements. They did not demonstrate that the FLP triggers a need under the New Act to amend the Capital Improvements Element. In order to encourage the efficient use of public facilities, section 163.3177(3)(a) mandates that the comprehensive plan contain a capital improvements element designed to consider the location of public facilities that covers at least a 5-year period and that sets forth: "A schedule of capital improvements [the "CIS"] which includes any publicly funded projects of federal, state or local government, and which may include privately funded projects for which the local government has no fiscal responsibility. Projects necessary to ensure that any adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained for the 5-year period must be identified as either funded or unfunded and given a level of priority for funding." § 163.3177(3)(a)4. Policy FG 8.1 prohibits the issuance of any building permit within five years of the Amendment's effective date. This provision clarifies that the Capital Improvement Schedule ("CIS") need not be amended yet. There is no requirement the CIS include public facilities that are privately owned or operated, or are owned or operated by a different local government. None of the infrastructure to be provided by Farmton Water Resources LLC or the City of Edgewater under the numerous policies under Objective 4 need be included in the CIS. The evidence shows it is not realistic to expect development impacts to occur within five years from the adoption of the Remedial Amendments on February 18, 2011. Section 163.3177(3)(b) requires that the capital improvements element be reviewed annually. The CIS will be amended in the future as needed based on projected public facility impacts of future development proposals. Section 163.3177(3)(a) requires less detail for long-range public facility planning than for the five year CIS. The Amendment includes an adequate amount of detail for long range planning for public facilities. Policy FG 4.14 authorizes Farmton Water Resources, LLC, and the City of Edgewater to provide water to the site. Policy FG 4.19 identifies the City of Edgewater as the provider of potable water and wastewater for Gateway. The data and analysis include a utility service area map showing the service area. Policy FG 4.18 requires Farmton Water Resources, LLC, to provide off-site and on-site potable water, nonpotable water, and wastewater. That policy and Policy FG 4.21j list various infrastructure improvements that will be needed to provide those services. At this time, it is not possible to identify where public facilities will be located or their costs. Policy FG 8.3 requires all SDA development to undergo master development-of-regional impact review process, which will ensure infrastructure, including transportation, schools, stormwater, and water supply, to be a condition of the master DRI development order. Policy FG 8.7 includes a requirement that each increment of development address the adequacy of public facilities and services such that they are available to accommodate development and maintain or improve level of service standards. The master DRI requirement is a reasonable strategy to ensure infrastructure will keep pace with development. Water Supply Petitioners contend that the increased development allowed under the FLP was not anticipated by the water supply plan of the SJRWMD, or of any local government, and that a concurrent water supply plan amendment is required. They further argue this omission demonstrates the FLP is not based on the availability of water supplies. Petitioners also allege the Amendment is inconsistent with the Plan’s Potable Water Sub- Element Policies 7.1.3.1 and 7.1.3.3. Those issues were raised by the Department and SJRWMD, but were resolved to their satisfaction in the Remedial Amendments. SJRWMD proposed Remedial Policies FG 4.14, 4.15, 4.18, and 4.21. The Remedial Amendments also included additional data and analysis, which was accepted by SJRWMD. The Original Amendment is supported by data and analysis demonstrating there is a new source of potable water located on the site. The new water source is groundwater contained within the Upper Floridan aquifer and is of potable water quality. The potable water supply analysis demonstrates the new source of potable water is adequate to supply more than enough potable water to supply development under the FLP. The supply is conservatively estimated to be able to produce a sustainable 9.6 million GPD, while the projected demand for development under the FLP is estimated to be 6.76 million GPD. Future land use plan amendments must be based on data regarding the area including "[t]he availability of water supplies . . . ." see § 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. Adequate potable water supply must be shown to be available but need not yet be a permitted source. Regardless of whether the new groundwater source is identified in a regional or local water supply plan, the FLP is supported by a demonstration of an adequate water supply, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. Non-inclusion in a water supply plan does not negate the fact that a new source of potable water has been discovered and demonstrated to be available. Section 163.3177(6)(c) requires each water management district to adopt a regional water supply plan every five years and for each local government to incorporate relevant facilities contained in the regional plan into its comprehensive plan by adopting a local water supply plan within eighteen months after the regional water supply is adopted. The FLP was adopted between updates of the SJRWMD regional water supply plan and local water supply plan updates. The SJRWMD plan was required to be adopted in 2005, but was not adopted until February 2006. The mandatory five-year update for the SJRWMD was due in the fall of 2010, but has been delayed. The County’s required water supply facilities work plan was adopted on June 8, 2009. There is no requirement for the county to amend its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan before the SJRWMD amends its regional water supply plan. Potable Water Sub-Element Policy 7.1.3.3 requires the County to review its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan annually and update it as necessary. The FLP recognizes the County’s obligation to later amend its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and is consistent with it. Policy FG 4.15 requires Farmton Water Resources, LLC, to coordinate with the County, municipalities and the SJRWMD to propose additions to their applicable water supply work plans. The unchanged portion of revised Policy FG 4.18 expressly requires projects to be included in the annual updates as those projects are identified and approved. There is no statutory requirement that such availability be included in a water supply project list until the county and regional water supply plans are updated. Nonetheless, the report prepared by Dr. Seereeram demonstrated through data and analysis that sufficient on-site water will be available. Potable Water Sub-Element Policy 7.1.3.1 requires the County to maintain a Water Supply Facilities Work Plan that is coordinated with the SJRWMD water supply plan. The FLP is consistent with this policy because Policy 7.1.3.1 does not address the situation posed in this case by the delay of the update to the SJRWMD water supply plan. Policy FG 4.18, moreover, requires coordination after that update is made. Section 163.3177(6)(c) is silent as to the need to identify potable water projects between water supply amendment cycles, and as to the format a local government must use to identify water supply projects. Petitioners did not demonstrate the FLP is required to include amendments to the water supply plan, as opposed to a later update of the water supply plan, as required by Policy FG 4.18. They also did not demonstrate what legal requirement necessitates additional information, beyond the identity of the water source and its demonstrated adequacy, in order for the Amendment to be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis to demonstrate the availability of a water supply. Public Schools The County is required by section 163.3177(6)(a)7 to identify the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use. The School District is responsible for identifying sites for future schools. In keeping with its responsibility, the School District has mapped future school sites needed through 2025. It has not planned, however, for new school sites needed through 2060. Objective 3.2.2 governs and requires establishment of "School Concurrency Service Areas," Joint Ex. 1, ch. 3, page 6 of 12. They are areas "within which an evaluation is made of whether adequate school capacity is available based on the adopted level of service standard." Id. Policy 3.2.2.8 requires "[r]equests to develop properties within the central school concurrency service areas at residential densities and intensities greater than the current land use or zoning designations . . . . [to] be done via a comprehensive plan amendment consistent with the Volusia County Charter provision 206 regarding school planning." Id. at page 7 of 12. Section 206 required the county council not later than September 30, 2007, to adopt an ordinance to the effect that any plan amendment allowing increased residential density "may be effective only if adequate public schools can be timely planned and constructed to serve the projected increase in school population." DCA Ex. 10. The policy further requires the amendment to demonstrate how school capacity will be met consistent with the terms of the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning, effective July 2007, and Section 206 of the Volusia County Charter. The FLP is consistent with Public Schools Policy 3.2.2.8 because it limits residential development to 2,287 units until there is a School District finding of additional capacity. Policy FG 8.3g. requires each increment of development in the master development order to include provision for schools, thus further ensuring adequate public schools will be timely built and available to serve all future development. The use of a plan amendment to include limitations on development based upon the availability of public facilities has been accepted by the Department. Policy FG 6.2 requires an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement before the School District can find there is additional capacity. This policy is coordinated and consistent with Policy FG 3.2.2.8's requirement that plan amendments be consistent with the Interlocal Agreement. A plan amendment creates an internal inconsistency when it has the effect of conflicting with an existing provision of the comprehensive plan, but if an amendment expressly creates an exception or waiver to a general rule set forth in the plan, it does not create an internal inconsistency. Related school concurrency Public Schools Objective 3.2.1 requires the County to "ensure that the capacity of schools is sufficient to support residential subdivisions and site plans at the adopted level of service standard within the period covered by the five-year schedule of capital improvements." Joint Ex. 1, ch. 3, page 5 of 12. Since school concurrency is a five-year planning concern and no development should occur within the next five years, there is no inconsistency between the FLP and Policy FG 3.2.2.8. Policy FG 3.1.4.1 requires the County to "take into consideration" School District comments and findings on the availability of adequate school capacity in its evaluation of plan amendments. The FLP is consistent with this policy. The County not only took the School District's comments and findings into consideration, but the FLP limits development to current and future findings of adequate school capacity made by the School District through Policy FG 1.4. Objective FG 6 in the FLP governs "School Planning and Concurrency." It states: "The Sustainable Development Area districts shall be designed and planned to ensure that the educational facilities are integral components within the community and that adequate school capacity can be timely planned and constructed to serve the anticipated population." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 39 of 49. The school policies that implement Objective FG 6, Policies FG 6.1 through 6.8, were drafted by the School District and are based on the best available data and analysis about future school sites, which currently is available from the School District only through 2025. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners contend that Policies FG 2.16 and FG 3.10 (untouched after the Original Amendment), and Policies FG 2.4, 2.5, and 2.18 (as revised by the Remedial Amendments) fail to establish the meaningful and predictable standards required by section 163.3177 (1). The statute, in pertinent part, provides: The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. Policy FG 2.16 requires a Community Stewardship Organization ("CSO") to be established and governed by seven directors. The policy provides the CSO's governance board of directors is to be composed of seven members, four of whom must be representative of statewide or national non-profit environmental/conservation organizations in existence at the time of the adoption of the FLP such as the Nature Conservancy, Florida Audubon Society, Trust for Public Lands, and the Florida Wildlife Federation. The owner shall be represented on the board, and the other two members may include representatives of public agencies, stakeholders and public citizens who participated in the development of the FLP. The policy also lists various functions the CSO may or must perform, including taking title to the GreenKey and RBOS areas or co-holding a conservation easement. The CSO is mandated to participate in development of the CMP. The policy also requires all current and future deeds of the Deep Creek Conservation Area, which is within the West Mitigation Bank, to be conveyed to the CSO. Policy FG 2.16 identifies specific activities for the CSO to undertake, and contains meaningful and predictable standards to guide the CSO's composition and actions. Policy FG 3.10 requires a jobs-to-housing ratio of one job per one residential unit. The policy also states Gateway development shall be Phase One and is exempt from the ratio requirement. Development orders for subsequent phases must include milestones for achieving the ratio. The ratio must be monitored at least annually. If the ratio falls below 0.65 (0.65 job for each housing unit), the policy requires development approvals to cease until a remedial plan is developed and approved. Policies FG 8.3j and Policy FG 8.4j require any development orders to include provisions to implement the jobs to housing ratio. Policy FG 3.10 does not allow the remedial plan to achieve any other ratio. A plain reading of Policy FG 3.10 as a whole, including the requirement to monitor compliance with the ratio, reveals it to be a remedial plan that must achieve the 1:1 ratio referred to in the policy. Policy FG 3.10 identifies specific strategies to achieve a balance of housing and employment opportunities, and contains meaningful and predictable standards to guide its implementation. There is no requirement for a CSO and there are no compliance criteria to guide the composition and roles of entities such as the CSO, nor does the law require or provide criteria for jobs to housing ratio. Policy FG 2.4 was revised by the Remedial Amendment to create MRBOS areas and depict them on Map Figure 1-12N so as to provide certainty as to where certain portions of RBOS lands will be located. MRBOS lands have the effect of expanding the GreenKey designated areas for the Cow Creek Corridor and the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. The Policy states MRBOS lands will not be subject to the RBOS public access plan, but will be subject to the Black Bear management plan. The Remedial Amendment's details for the new MRBOS areas are predictable and meaningful. The changes to Policy FG 2.5 clarify that the Southwest Wildlife Corridor must be "consistent with a forestry management plan designed to provide prescribed fire, promote dense understory vegetation such as palmetto and [be] consistent with the Black Bear Management Plan" as required in original Policy 2.5b. Petitioners did not present any competent substantial evidence that this guidance for the forestry management plan does not provide adequate meaningful and predictable standards. Policy FG 2.18, "Transportations Policies and Natural Resource Protection," addresses the arterial roads that traverse the GreenKey lands and provides design guidance to avoid and minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and the movement of wildlife. Section "a" of the policy, which was unchanged by the Remedial Amendment, includes the following non-exhaustive list of tools to minimize this conflict: landscaping techniques, fencing, speed limits, wildlife overpasses or underpasses, bridges, and elevating roadways. This section applies to the three arterial roads shown on the Spine Network Map; Williamson Boulevard, Maytown Road, and Arterial A. The proposed general alignment of Williamson Boulevard does not intrude into the boundaries of the Deep Creek Conservation Area, the Cow Creek Corridor, the Power Line corridor, or the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. Williamson Boulevard runs through, and connects, the largest Gateway SDA and the Work Place, Town Center, and the easternmost village. The Remedial Amendment revises Policy FG 2.18 by creating Sections "b" and "c." Section "b" provides mandatory guidelines that apply only to Maytown Road and Arterial A and requires their design to be based on "best available science" as determined by the FFWCC. Section "c" encourages additional guidelines for Maytown Road and Arterial A subject to the discretion of the roadway designers. As a whole, Policy FG 2.18 provides meaningful and predictable guidance for the designers of the roadways. There are no minimum standards in the New Law for the design of roadways to minimize conflicts with wildlife. With proper implementation, the guidelines in Policy FG 2.18 are reasonably expected to produce the defined outcome of a roadway network that will minimize conflict with wildlife. Audubon’s Charles Lee testified the policies were based on the model policies in the Wekiva Parkway Plan. Mr. Telesco of the FFWCC testified the policies were in line with FDOT policies. Further, the phrase "to the extent practicable" is a known conservation standard taken from the Endangered Species Act. Policies FG 2.4, 2.5, 2.16, 2.18, and 3.10 provide an adequate amount detail for a comprehensive plan amendment, as required by section 163.3177(1).
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 that determines the Farmton Local Plan incorporated into the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan through amendments adopted by Volusia County Council Ordinance Nos. 2009-34 and 2011-10 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 24th day of January, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether the land development regulations (LDRs) adopted by Respondent, Monroe County (County), by Ordinance Nos. 008-2006, 009-2006, 010-2006, 011-2006, and 013- 2006, and which were approved (with one minor exception) by five Final Orders issued by Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (Department) on June 5, 2006, are consistent with Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes (2006)1.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: Parties The County is a non-chartered county and a political subdivision of the State. Because the County is located within the Florida Keys Area, which is a statutorily designated Area of Critical State Concern, all LDRs adopted by the County must be approved by the Department. §§ 380.05(6) and 380.0552(9), Fla. Stat. The LDRs are codified in the Monroe County Code. The Department is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to exercise general supervision of the administration and enforcement of the Area of Critical State Concern program, and to approve or reject LDRs adopted by local governments within an Area of Critical State Concern. Petitioner, Florida Keys Citizens Coalition, Inc., is a not-for-profit Florida corporation whose address is 10800 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. The parties have stipulated that there are sufficient facts to establish that the substantial interests of FKCC could be adversely affected by the LDRs being challenged and thus FLCC has standing to initiate this action. Petitioner, Protect Key West and the Florida Keys, Inc., d/b/a Last Stand, is a not-for-profit Florida corporation whose address is Post Office Box 146, Key West, Florida. The parties have stipulated that there exists a sufficient factual basis to demonstrate that its substantial interests may be affected by this proceeding, and thus it also has standing to bring this action. Background This case involves a challenge to five Final Orders (DCA06-0R-123, DCA06-0R-124, DCA06-OR-125, DCA06-OR-126, and DCA-0R-127) entered by the Department on June 6, 2006, under the authority of Sections 380.05(6) and 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes. Those Orders approved, with one minor exception, five County Ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 008-2006, 009-2006, 010-2006, 011-2006, and 013-2006), which adopted LDRs implementing a so- called "Tier System" in order to meet natural habitat protection requirements. In essence, the LDRs place all undeveloped parcels of land in the unincorporated County into one of three categories, and then adopt development standards applicable to each category. Petitioners have challenged ninety of the tier maps (which contain the tier designations of multiple parcels in those maps) and many of the related development standards. In addition, the Ordinances allow the issuance of certain residential allocations for building permits in excess of previously established annual caps, for up to five years into the future for affordable units. The Keys were originally designated an Area of Critical State Concern by the Administration Commission in 1975 and re- designated by the Legislature in 1986. See § 380.0552, Fla. Stat. The Legislative Intent section and the Principles for Guiding Development codified in Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes, together require an effective land use management system that protects the natural environment and character of the Keys, maintains acceptable water quality conditions, ensures adequate public facility capacity and services, provides adequate affordable housing, supports a sound economic base, protects constitutional property rights, and requires adequate emergency and post-disaster planning to ensure public safety. Approximately sixty to seventy percent of the land in the Florida Keys is owned by the public, fifteen percent is already developed, and only fifteen to twenty percent is privately owned and not developed. If the mainland portion of the County (which includes a portion of the Everglades National Park) is excluded, over ninety-nine percent of land is in public ownership. The Florida Keys are a long arc of islands extending more than one hundred miles from just north of Key Largo to Key West. Excluding the City of Key West, the mainland portion of the Keys is approximately 80,000 to 100,000 acres. The Keys differ in size, type of plant communities, and geological characteristics and are generally divided into the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys. A County staff report describes the Upper Keys as extending from Mile Marker 91 (Tavernier Creek Bridge) northward to Mile Marker 112, excluding the Ocean Reef subdivision; the Middle Keys as the unincorporated area stretching from Mile Marker 60 (Duck Key) through Mile Marker 71 (Long Key); and the Lower Keys as including all of the islands from Mile Marker 4 (Stock Island) to Mile Marker 40 (Little Duck Key), excluding Big Pine and No Name Keys. See Respondents' Exhibit 9, pages 11-16. Most of the parcels in dispute here are in the Upper Keys. The Upper and Middle Keys are the product of an old coral reef formation, while the Lower Keys consist of solidified limestone sand. The coral reef formation extends like a spine much of its way down the Keys. At the higher elevations in the Upper and Middle Keys (which approach five to ten feet above sea level) are uplands, consisting of tropical hardwood hammocks. As the elevation drops, different habitat occur, including transitional wetlands, salt marshes, mangroves, and eventually shallow water seagrass beds. (Surprisingly, the highest elevation in the Keys is Solares Hill in Key West, which is eighteen feet above sea level.) Upland plant communities in the Keys include a variety of hardwood trees, including gumbo-limbo, mahogany, mastic, dogwood, and tararind, and specialized shrubs, vines, and ground cover. Tall or high hammocks occur on the connected islands, mostly in the Upper Keys, and on offshore mangrove-fringed islands that provide habitat to a wide range of wildlife and maintain water quality and other functions. Shorter, denser low hammocks are found in the Lower Keys. Regardless of size, though, hammocks in one part of the Keys are important to hammocks in other parts of the Keys due to the seed dispersal role played by neo-tropical birds, which migrate every year from North America through the Keys and into the Caribbean and Central and South America. The Keys host a vast array of unique endemic animal and plant communities, over one hundred of which are listed by the federal and state governments as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Among these are the Florida Key deer, marsh rabbit, silver rice rat, Key Largo woodrat, and Key Largo cotton mouse. In addition, the American crocodile inhabits the Keys, and the tree snail is now confined to just ten or twelve small hammocks. Also, the white crowned pigeon is a migratory bird that uses the Keys in the summertime as a migratory stopping point and is listed as a species "of concern" by the State. The Current Regulations The current version of the LDRs includes a residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) found in Sections 9.5-120 through 9.5-123, a non-residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) in Section 9.5-124, and environmental standards which focus on a Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) codified in Sections 9.5-335 through 9.5-349. A building permit for a residential dwelling unit cannot be issued unless the dwelling unit has received a ROGO allocation. § 9.5-120.1. A building permit for non-residential floor area cannot be issued without an NROGO allocation. § 9.5- 124.1(a). The ROGO and NROGO allocations are issued based upon a competitive point system, with the applicants who receive the most points receiving the limited number of annual permit allocations. §§ 9.5-122(a), 9.5-122.2, 9.5-124.4, and 9.5- 124.6. The ROGO point system consists of eighteen evaluation criteria, which assign positive points for factors such as infrastructure availability, lot aggregation, density reduction, land dedication, affordable housing, and water and energy conservation. They also assign negative points for factors such as the presence of significant or critical habitat, threatened or endangered species, and coastal high hazard area. § 9.5-122.3. For example, ten negative points are assigned for federal coastal barrier resource system lands due to the environmental importance of coastal resources, while all offshore islands and conservation land protection areas receive ten negative points. NROGO utilizes a similar point system with thirteen evaluation criteria. § 9.5-124.8. The habitat protection criterion of ROGO and NROGO is based upon the type and quality of habitat on the parcel proposed for development. §§ 9.5-122.3(a)(7) and 9.5-124.8(a)(4). If a development permit is sought for land classified on the existing conditions map as slash pineland or tropical hardwood hammock, the habitat must be analyzed under the HEI system. §§ 9.5-336 through 339.1. (The existing conditions map is a map reflecting the "conditions legally in existence on February 28, 1986" and consists of 1985 Florida Department of Transportation aerial photographs at a scale of one inch equal two hundred feet depicting habitat types coded according to the system set forth in the Comprehensive Plan (Plan). It is intended to serve only as a general guide to habitat types "for the purpose of preliminary determination of regulatory requirements." § 9.5- 336.) The HEI consists of an elaborate point system covering nineteen pages in the LDRs and requires a site visit to each parcel by a qualified biologist. §§ 9.5-339.1 through 9.5-343. Through experience and the passage of time, the County and Department have become aware of deficiencies in the ROGO- NROGO-HEI point systems. The existing conditions map is based on more than 20-year-old data, and some areas that did not have valuable habitat at that time have regrown into valuable hammock. The HEI criteria are complicated and difficult to apply consistently. The HEI evaluates the habitat parcel-by-parcel and allows scattered development within large patches of habitat. The HEI criteria are also subject to varied interpretations by individual biologists. The Work Program and Carrying Capacity Study The current Plan is a result of a series of plan amendments made in order to bring the Plan into compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. After a lengthy review and hearing process that lasted a number of years, the Department found the County's initial comprehensive plan out of compliance, entered into a compliance agreement with the County requiring a complete rewrite based upon an overall carrying capacity approach, and then found the rewritten plan out of compliance. Eventually, a Final Order requiring that the County adopt additional remedial amendments was entered by the Administration Commission in 1995. See Department of Community Affairs v. Monroe County et al., DOAH Case No. 91-1932GM (DOAH July 17, 1995, Admin. Comm. Dec. 12, 1995), 1995 Fla. ENV LEXIS 129. Under the authority of Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes, the Administration Commission has promulgated parts of the County's Plan through the adoption of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 28-20. One of those provisions is the Work Program in Policy 101.2.13, which includes, among others, tasks regarding preservation of upland habitat and affordable housing. These tasks are enumerated on a year-by-year basis, beginning with Year One, which ended on December 31, 1997, and continuing through Year Ten, which runs from July 13, 2006, through July 12, 2007. The Annual Work Program is a central component of the Plan's remedial amendments (required by the Administration Commission in 1995) and requires the County to implement the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS) with appropriate Plan and LDR changes. The purpose was to ensure that the zoning map maintained the carrying capacity of the Keys in perpetuity. The FKCCS was completed over a period of six years at a cost of six million dollars. The contractor, URS Corporation, completed the FKCCS and the Carrying Capacity/Impact Assessment Model (CCIAM), a separate component to be used in forecasting land use scenarios. A panel of external experts was used to peer review the scope of work. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the CCIAM and FKCCS and, as a result of its review, adjustments were made to the CCIAM. The Council's review concluded that overall, due to data constraints and other issues in certain portions of the CCIAM, the model proved insufficient to develop a comprehensive carrying capacity framework that would allow for undisputable determinations of whether future development scenarios fall within the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys. The marine module, the most data deficient, was subsequently removed from the CCIAM. The study was completed in September 2002. The FKCCS' chief findings were that: Development in the Keys has surpassed the capacity of the upland habitats to withstand further development; Any further encroachment into areas dominated by native vegetation would exacerbate habitat loss and fragmentation. The lower Keys marsh rabbit and silver rice rat are highly restricted and likely could not withstand further habitat loss without facing extinction. Development in the Keys has surpassed the capacity of upland habitats to withstand further development. The secondary and indirect effects of development further contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation. Any further development in the Keys would exacerbate secondary and indirect impacts to remaining habitat. Virtually every native area in the Keys is potential habitat for one or more protected species. The FKCCS suggested four main guidelines for future development in the Keys: Prevent encroachment into native habitat. A wealth of evidence shows that terrestrial habitats and species have been severely affected by development and further impacts would only exacerbate an already untenable condition. Continue and intensify existing programs. Many initiatives to improve environmental conditions and quality of life exist in the Florida Keys. They include land acquisition programs, the wastewater and stormwater master plans, ongoing research and management activities in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and restoration efforts throughout the Florida Keys. If further development is to occur, focus on redevelopment and infill. Opportunities for additional growth with small, potentially acceptable, additional environmental impacts may occur in areas ripe for redevelopment or already disturbed. Increase efforts to manage the resources. Habitat management efforts in the Keys could increase to effectively preserve and improve the ecological values of remaining terrestrial ecosystems. The FKCCS also considered a fiscal analysis. The fiscal module predicted that the programs needed to protect the Keys would be very expensive, with a disproportionate increase in government expenditures compared to the increase in population. The very high per capita costs of the needed programs is one factor to be considered as the County implements the FKCCS. The FKCCS recognizes that development pursuant to the then-existing comprehensive plan and LDRs is already extremely restricted. It also recognizes that additional growth with some associated environmental impact would be acceptable in areas that are already disturbed or ripe for redevelopment. In 2001, the County adopted Goal 105 of the Plan (also known as the Smart Growth Goal) to provide a framework within the 2010 Plan to implement the FKCCS and a 20-year land acquisition program. The initial phase of implementing this Goal called for the drafting and adoption of "Tier maps" to be used as guidance for the County's land acquisition program. The Goal contemplates that the Tier maps would designate and map properties into one of three general categories: Conservation and Natural Area (Tier I), Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II), and Infill Area (Tier III). Additional work tasks contemplated in the implementation of Goal 105 (and thus the FKCCS) included amendment of the zoning map with a tier overlay and supporting text amendments to the LDRs, revising the permit allocation system, developing a land acquisition strategy, and a land maintenance program. These tasks are more specifically identified in a series of policies adopted at the same time to assist in the implementation of Goal 105. According to the Department, if the regulations at issue here are found to be consistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the requirements of the FKCSS will be satisfied, and there is no further requirement to make any further changes to the Plan or LDRs to implement the FKCSS. In 2004, the Administration Commission began the process for adopting a new rule, which later became effective in 2005 as Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-20.110,4 to add the following tasks to the existing Work Program in Policy 101.2.13 of the Plan related to habitat protection: In Year 8: Review and revise (as necessary) the Conservation and Natural Areas Map, Initiate acquisition strategy for lands identified outside the Conservation and Natural Areas identified as worthy of protection, Begin public hearings for Conservation and Natural Areas boundaries, Conclude public hearings for the adoption of the amended Conservation and Natural Areas Boundaries, Adopt an ordinance to implement a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications that involves the clearing of any portion of an upland tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat contained in a tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands patch of two or more acres in size located within a Conservation and Natural Area, Adopt amendments to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations to enact overlay designations, and eliminate or revise the Habitat Evaluation Index, and modify the ROGO/NROGO system to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands, Amend land development regulations to prohibit the designation of Conservation and Natural Areas (Tier I) as a receiver site for ROGO exempt development from sender sites; and to further limit clearing of upland native habitat that may occur in the Natural Areas (Tier I) and the Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II) upon designation by the County, and Develop Land Acquisition and Management Master Plan and address both funding and management strategies. In 2005, the County adopted the plan amendments contemplated by Year 8 of the Work Program. These plan amendments delete the requirements for the HEI, simplify ROGO and NROGO, and adopt the Tier designation criteria. Relevant to this proceeding are Goal 205, Objective 205.1, and Policy which read as follows: GOAL 205 The health and integrity of Monroe County's native upland vegetation shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced. Objective 205.1 Monroe County shall utilize the computerized geographical information system (GIS) and the data, analysis and mapping generated in the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS), FMRI, habitat maps and field evaluation to identify and map areas of upland vegetation in the Florida Keys and to prepare Tier Overlay District Maps as required in Policy 105.2.2. Policy 205.1.1 The County shall establish the following criteria at a minimum to use when designating Tiers: Land located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be designated as Tier I based on the following criteria: Natural areas including old and new growth upland native vegetated areas, above 4 acres in area. Vacant land which can be restored to connect upland native habitat patches and reduce further fragmentation of upland native habitat. Lands required to provide an undeveloped buffer, up to 500 feet in depth, if indicated by appropriate special species studies, between natural areas and development to reduce secondary impacts; canals or roadways, depending on size may form a boundary that removes the need for the buffer or reduces its depth. Lands designated for acquisition by public agencies for conservation and natural resource protection. Known locations of threatened and endangered species. Lands designated as Conservation and Residential Conservation on the Future Land Use Map or within a buffer/restoration area as appropriate. Areas with minimal existing development and infrastructure. Lands on Big Pine Key and No Name Key designated as Tier I, II, or III shall be in accordance with the wildlife habitat quality criteria as defined in the Habitat Conservation Plan for those islands. Lands located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key that are not designated Tier I shall be designated Tier III. Designated Tier III lands located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key with tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands of one acre or greater in area shall be designated as Special Protection Areas. Lands within the Ocean Reef planned development shall be excluded from any Tier designation. These plan amendments were found in compliance by the Department, were not challenged, and are part of the presently effective Plan. Year 8 of the Work Program also required that the County amend its LDRs to implement the Tier system. The LDRs being challenged here are intended to meet that requirement. The Challenged Ordinances After a series of eight public hearings that took place between December 2004 and March 2006, the County adopted four Ordinances on March 15, 2006, and a fifth Ordinance on March 21, 2006. Those Ordinances amended the LDRs. More specifically, on March 15, 2006, the County adopted Ordinance No. 008-2006, which deleted requirements for the preparation of the HEI for properties containing hammock, requires an existing conditions report, vegetation survey, and grants of conservation easements, and limits clearing of native upland vegetation dependent on the tier system designation. It also proposed to delete Section 9.5-342, which establishes when a hammock is classified as a Palm Hammock. In a Final Order dated June 5, 2006, the Department determined that with the exception of the proposed deletion of Section 9.5-342, the Ordinance was consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole, and was therefore approved. The County has not challenged that portion of the Final Order which disapproved the deletion of Section 9.5-342. On March 15, 2006, the County also adopted Ordinance No. 009-2006, which implements Goal 105 of the Plan by utilizing tier overlay maps as a basis for the County's competitive point system; providing revised criteria for the building permit allocation system; allowing the transfer of development exempt from the Residential ROGO provided the receiver site is located in Tier 3, is not in a velocity zone, and requires no clearing; and creating an appeal process. On June 5, 2006, the Department issued a Final Order finding that the Ordinance was consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development and was therefore approved. On March 15, 2006, the County adopted Ordinance No. 010-2006, which implemented Goal 105 of the Plan by providing criteria for the designation of the tier boundaries, excluding Ocean Reef, a vested subdivision; prioritizes land for public acquisition; and contains a mechanism for property owners to obtain due process by requesting an amendment based on specific criteria. By Final Order dated June 5, 2006, the Department determined that the Ordinance was consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development was therefore approved. On March 15, 2006, the County adopted Ordinance No. 011-2006, which implemented Goal 105 of the Plan by revising the NROGO in the unincorporated part of the County between Key West and Ocean Reef, and designating the boundaries of Tiers I, II, and III and Tier III Special Protection Areas (SPA). By a Final Order dated June 5, 2006, the Department determined that the Ordinance should be approved. Finally, on March 21, 2006, the County adopted Ordinance No. 013-2006, which implemented Goal 105 of the Plan by utilizing the tier overlay maps for all land in unincorporated Monroe County between Key West and Ocean Reef, and designating the tier boundaries of Tiers I, II, and III and Tier III SPAs. By a Final Order dated June 5, 2006, the Department approved the Ordinance. On July 7, 2006, Petitioners filed their initial Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings challenging each of the Final Orders. On September 7, 2006, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition which made minor changes to their original Petition. The substantive allegations at issue here are found in paragraphs 26 through 31 and challenge each of the Ordinances in various respects as well as the designations given to a large number of parcels of land on ninety sheets of the Tier Overlay Maps. Just prior to hearing, Petitioners voluntarily dismissed paragraphs 26(b), 26(c), and 27(d) of the Amended Petition and therefore those allegations need not be addressed. The LDRs at issue delete the HEI system, adopt the Tier System, and simplify the ROGO and NROGO point systems. The HEI system called for lot-by-lot evaluations, which failed to take into account secondary impacts of development and resulted in loss of valuable habitat. The Tier system consists of maps which designate all areas outside of mainland Monroe County (except Ocean Reef, Big Pine Key and No Name Key) as either Tier I, SPA, or Tier III.5 The Tier designations now constitute the only habitat suitability determination, replacing all HEI and other habitat qualitative analysis. Under the new simplified ROGO point system the major points are based on the Tier designation. An application for development of a parcel in Tier I receives 10 points, in a SPA receives 20 points, and in Tier III receives 30 points. The simplified NROGO has a similar point spread. These points are intended to discourage development in environmentally sensitive areas and to direct and encourage development in appropriate infill areas, while recognizing that any development has an impact on the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys. § 9.5-122.4(a). Similar language regarding the NROGO point system is found in Section 9.5-124.7(a)(1). Tier I is assigned to parcels which are not suitable for development and are suitable for acquisition to protect native upland habitat. Tier III is assigned to parcels which are suitable for development. The SPA designation is assigned to parcels in Tier III which are part of areas of tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands of greater than one acre. Because of the point differential between Tier I, SPA, and Tier III, development will be guided towards areas suitable for development. The simplified ROGO system also awards points for lot aggregation (where the owner of multiple lots preserves all, except the lot to be developed), land dedication, affordable housing, flood hazard area, service by central wastewater system, payment to the land acquisition fund, and perseverance points. However, the major points are awarded based upon the Tier designation. The points awarded by the new LDRs are consistent with the point system already adopted in the Plan. See Policy 101.5.4., which requires the County to "implement the residential Permit Allocation and Point System through its [LDRs] based primarily on the Tier system of land classifications as set forth under Goal 105." Under both the old and the new ROGO/NROGO systems, it is possible that an applicant will never receive enough points to get an allocation since a low-scoring application always competes against all other applications for the limited number of allocations. The points for dedication of land encourage applicants to donate environmentally sensitive land to the County and assist the County to avoid inverse condemnation claims. The Tier system is easy to understand and easy to implement. The Tier system will not protect every piece of valuable habitat, but does preserve ninety-nine percent of the habitat value. The Tier system (with the changes recommended below) takes simple steps to make great gains in the preservation of habitat and thus implements the recommendations of the FKCCS. Petitioners' Challenge Prioritization Within Tiers As noted above, all parcels designated Tier I receive 10 points, and all parcels designated SPA receive 20 points. Paragraph 27f of the Amended Petition alleges that these Tier points "fail to prioritize the protection of protected species based upon their status or habitat based upon its quality within each Tier." Paragraph 27a of the Amended Petition also alleges that the Tier points "fail to assign negative points for endangered species and habitat quality to direct development in Tier I away from the most important natural areas." Petitioners are correct that the Tier system avoids the fine gradations that they describe. The County has deliberately avoided a complex point system in favor of protection for all important upland habitat. The Tier system avoids individual site assessments and designates the Tiers with a meaningful spread of points to target development to Tier III instead of environmentally sensitive land. The Tier point awards adopted in the challenged LDRs are consistent with the standards of the Plan. See Policy 101.5.4. Adjacent Projects Paragraph 27h of the Amended Petition alleges that Ordinance 009-2006, which includes the ROGO point allocations, allows the granting of 30 ROGO points to projects adjacent to native vegetation in Tier I or an SPA, as long as there is no clearing. This is arbitrary as it allows the type of indirect impact which the Carrying Capacity Study determined should no longer be allowed. Recommendation 3 of the FKCCS focuses on redevelopment and infill and recognizes that there may be some minor impacts that will be acceptable in these areas. Where existing development is already causing secondary impacts, the line between Tier I and Tier III could have been drawn further into the natural area, because the edge has already been impacted. The Tier system conservatively includes the undeveloped areas already suffering from secondary impacts in Tier I. Parcel Boundaries One of the new Tier designation criteria is found in Section 9.5-256(b) (in Ordinance No. 010-2006) and reads as follows: (b) Tier boundaries: Tier boundaries shall follow property lines whenever possible, except where a parcel line or distinct geographical feature, such as a canal or roadway, may be more appropriate. Paragraphs 28a and 28b of the Amended Petition allege that Section 9.5-256(b) is "arbitrary" and that given the underlying science concerning the need to protect all remaining natural areas, it is arbitrary and capricious for the LDR to fail to require the designation in the most protective Tier for lands that meet or potentially meet criteria for more than one Tier. The parcel-based information from the local Property Appraiser is commonly utilized as a base layer of the geographical information system (GIS) data. One goal of the Tier system is to render the permit allocation system transparent to the citizens. Assigning two Tier designations to the same parcel would create confusion, since the Tier system is designed to allocate development to parcels. For those parcels which include developed or scarified (lacking vegetation) areas and habitat suitable for Tier I designation, the County properly took into account the context of the parcel and whether the LDR development standards would allow further encroachment into the habitat. The Property Appraiser's data layer assigns a parcel number to all land that is known to be owned. Some areas of the County that appear to be land on aerial photographs are not owned by taxpayers and have not been assigned a parcel number. Since the adopted Tier Maps are based on the Property Appraiser's data layer, those areas that were not assigned parcel numbers by the Property Appraiser did not receive a Tier designation.6 If an error is discovered in the Property Appraiser's data layer and an owner of an undesignated piece of land seeks a development permit, the permit cannot be issued until the error is corrected. The LDRs apply to all land in the County, and no development can be undertaken without a development permit. § 9.5-2(a). As noted above, a development permit cannot be issued without a ROGO or NROGO allocation, or an exemption. §§ 9.5-120.1(a), 9.5-120.2, 9.5-124.1, and 9.5-124.2(a). Also, a ROGO or NROGO allocation cannot be awarded without an evaluation of the number of points assigned to an application, and points cannot be assigned without a Tier designation for the parcel. §§ 9.5-122.4 and 9.5-124.7. The following land areas challenged by Petitioners were appropriately not assigned a Tier designation because the land areas are not presently recognized as parcels on the Property Appraiser's data layer: 103 (outside parcel lines); 109 (outside parcel lines); 110; 116A and 116; 117A (outside rectangular parcel); 117; 118 and 119 (near U.S. Highway 1); 120 and 121; K146e; 154, 155, and 156; 507; K546; and 568. Tier I: Wetlands Paragraph 28e of the Amended Petition alleges that "the definition of Tier I [in Ordinance 010-2006] is arbitrarily vague in that it does not specify whether wetland native vegetated areas are to be included." Paragraph 28k of the Amended Petition alleges that the same LDR "provides inadequate protection for transitional wetlands and 'disturbed' salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands." The criteria for designation of Tier I are not vague. The criteria clearly do not include wetland native vegetated areas. The criteria "are used to evaluate upland habitats." § 9.5-256(c). The term "upland native habitat" is used throughout the criteria; the term "wetland" does not appear in the criteria. Although some wetland areas have been included in Tier I if part of a larger natural area, the focus of the Tier system is on uplands. The focus of the LDR Tier criteria on uplands is consistent with the Plan. Goal 205 states that "[t]he health and integrity of Monroe County's native upland vegetation shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced." Objective 205.1 requires the County to use various data sources "to identify and map areas of upland vegetation in the Florida Keys and to prepare Tier Overlay District Maps." Policy 205.1.1 requires the County to establish criteria for designation of Tier I. These Plan criteria refer to "upland native vegetation" and "upland native habitat" and do not refer to wetlands. The fact that the Tier I criteria are focused on uplands, and not on wetlands, does not mean that wetlands are unprotected. Section 9.5-338 of the new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 008-2006) provides that No development activity, except as provided in this division, are permitted in mangroves, freshwater wetlands and in disturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is one hundred (100) percent. The one hundred percent open space ratio for mangrove, freshwater wetlands, saltmarsh, and buttonwood wetlands is repeated in existing Section 9.5-347(b), which provides that "[n]o land shall be developed, used or occupied such that the amount of open space on the parcel proposed for development is less than the open space ratio listed below for each habitat." Only limited water-related development is allowed in undisturbed wetlands. §§ 9.5-347(c)(3) and 9.5-348(d). Disturbed wetlands are protected based on their evaluation under the Keys Wetlands Evaluation Procedure. § 9.5-348(d)(6). These wetland protections are adequate, and there is no need to require that all wetlands be designated as Tier I. Also, while some parcels designated as Tier I are surrounded in part by land that appears to be submerged, the absence of a Tier I designation on the surrounding land does not render the provision arbitrary since the new LDRs establish a process whereby a County biologist makes a site visit before the land gets scored for development. Finally, Petitioners' unsubstantiated fear that federal and state agencies may not adequately enforce their regulatory authority over future wetland development in the Keys, thus requiring a further strengthening of the County's proposed LDRs, is an insufficient basis upon which to invalidate the regulation. The following parcels challenged by Petitioners were correctly designated because the parcels are submerged lands or wetlands that are not part of a larger natural area: K105a; K112d and e; K113a; K125b; K134b; K137a and b; K145b; 148 and 148/151; K250a and b; K387a; K441b; K467b and c; K538a; K538/546a; K553; K575d; K579; K581; and K581/582a. Tier I: Natural Areas Above Four Acres One of the designation criteria for Tier I boundary criteria is found in Section 9.5-256(c)(1)a. (in Ordinance No. 010-2006) and reads as follows: Natural areas including old growth as depicted on the 1985 Existing Conditions Map and new growth of upland native vegetation areas identified by up-to-date aerials and site surveys above four (4) acres in area. Paragraph 28c of the Amended Petition alleges that this criterion "is arbitrary and capricious in that the relevant science does not support a categorical determination that natural areas below that size threshold require less protection than those at or above that threshold." The existing Plan (upon which the language in Section 9.5-256(c)(1)a. is obviously patterned) provides that one criterion for Tier I designation is "natural areas including old and new growth upland native vegetated areas, above 4 acres in area." Policy 205.1.1. In this respect, the new LDR is consistent with and implements Policy 205.1.1 and adds detail concerning sources of information. However, this policy merely establishes the "minimum" standard which the County must follow in establishing the Tier I boundary designation and does not bar a smaller size threshold, if appropriate. There are no scientific studies of record which support a particular number of acres when designating natural areas for levels of protection. Studies do show, however, that as patches of habitat become smaller, the ecological function of the patch deteriorates. Given these considerations, the County points out that in order to prioritize ecological and fiscal resources, a policy decision (with respect to the size of Tier I parcels) had to be made in order to create a system that could be administered. It also points out that the Florida Forever Program seeks to purchase "large" parcels of hardwood hammock in the Keys, presumably greater in size than four acres. (The Florida Forever Program is a land acquisition program administered by the Department of Environmental Protection.) Four-acre tracts of "natural areas" are not insignificant or common; they are "huge" by Keys standards. Simply because larger parcels have more value than smaller ones does not mean that smaller hammocks in the unique, small-island geography of the Keys are unimportant. Neither the FKCSS, nor the expert panel or peer reviews related to the study, support the use of four acres as a threshold for hammock importance. Indeed, the FKCSS and the best available science support the importance of preserving as much native hammock as possible. The scientific evidence also shows that areas less than four acres serve an important biological function for wildlife in the Keys. On the other hand, there is no relevant science that supports the claim that hardwood hammocks of less than four acres are not ecologically important or require less protection than do larger hammocks. Smaller hammocks are important for the unique plant communities they contain, regardless of their importance to wildlife. Finally, it is fair to infer from the evidence that the County's "policy" decision to use a four-acre threshold was not based on scientific considerations but, in the words of one County witness, was simply a number the County Commissioners "became comfortable with." (In fact, a January 19, 2004 memorandum by the County's outside consultant, which supports the four-acre threshold, was prepared after he knew that the County had decided to use that size threshold. See Respondents' Exhibit 5.) Because there is insufficient evidence to support the four-acre size limitation used in Section 9.5- 256(c)(1)a., that provision, as now written, should not be validated. Therefore, the following parcels were placed in an incorrect category because of the arbitrary four-acre size limitation and should be re-evaluated by the County after the Tier I regulation is revised: 91 (triangle) Ranger Station; K105c; K106a and b; K113c; K124/114; K125a; K126; K135a; K135b; K139a; K141; K142b and d; K142/144/145; K145c; K146b and c; K147b; K150; K151d; K151/152; K281a; K371a, b and c; K372a; K387b and c; K400a; 439a and b; K441a; K450/457; K468 (orange area); K482; K538b; K538/546; K548/549/540; K547; K553; K553/554; K554b; K575a; K575c; and K576. Tier I: Known Locations of Threatened and Endangered Species Another designation criterion for Tier I is found in Section 9.5-256(c)(1)e. (in Ordinance No. 010-2006) and provides as follows: Known locations of threatened and endangered species as defined in section 9.5-4, identified on the Threatened and Endangered Plant and Animal Maps or the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, or identified in on-site surveys. Paragraph 28d of the Amended Petition alleges that limiting Tier I protections to known locations identified on the Threatened and Endangered Plant and Animal Map is contrary to the science as the referenced maps are not the best available science and limiting protection to "known locations" of such species arbitrarily fails to protect locations which have not yet been verified as "known" locations, but which may or are likely to be important to protected species. The Plan already provides that one criterion for Tier I designation is "known locations of threatened and endangered species." See Policy 205.1.1. This new LDR is consistent with and implements Policy 205.1.1 and adds detail concerning sources of information. In addition to consistency with the Plan, the known locations of threatened and endangered species criterion is a rational standard. Contrary to the allegations in the Amended Petition, the criterion is not limited to known locations as shown on the Threatened and Endangered Plant and Animal Maps. Known locations as identified in the FKCCS maps, and as identified in on-site surveys, also meet this criterion for inclusion in Tier I. The thrust of Petitioners' allegation is that the criterion ought to include suitable or potential habitat in Tier I, rather than known locations. "Known locations" means a location where the threatened or endangered species has actually been observed. "Potential habitat" or "suitable habitat" includes areas where the species has not been observed, but the habitat is similar to areas where the species has been seen. With the amendment of Tier I boundaries to an area of less than four acres, the vast majority of suitable habitat will be included in that Tier. See Finding of Fact 65, supra. Petitioners also contend that the Tier system should be based on the latest protected species maps, and that those used by the County are outdated and flawed. (Some of the data and imagery used by the County are several years old. This is presumably due in part to the fact that the process of formally adopting these LDRs began several years ago, and the County used data existing at that time.) There are now available United States Fish and Wildlife Service habitat maps reflecting 2006 conditions, which would obviously be more desirable to use. At some point in time, however, the process must come to an end; otherwise, the mapping studies would be constantly changing as new data became available, new site visits and re-evaluation of the parcels would be required each time the data were revised, and there would be no finality to the process. Tier I: Roads Paragraph 28e of the Amended Petition alleges that the Tier I designation criteria are arbitrarily vague because the criteria do not "specify . . . how roads will impact the determination of the relevant 'size area.'" The failure to address every conceivable factor does not render the Tier I designation criteria arbitrary or vague. The Tier I designation is intended to focus on larger areas, and the larger roads such as U.S. Highway 1 would have been considered a break between natural areas. However, this regulation should be distinguished from the determinations in Finding of Fact 95, infra, which relate to a lack of standards when constructing roads in the much smaller SPA areas. Tier I: Request for Designation Section 9.5-256(e) (in Ordinance No. 010-2006) provides that any individual may submit an application that an area meets the Tier I criteria, that a special master shall hold a public hearing on the application, and that the special master will render a written opinion to the planning commission and board of county commissioners either that the application meets the criteria for designating the lands as Tier I or that the documentation is insufficient to warrant a map amendment. Paragraph 28j of the Amended Petition alleges that Section 9.5-256(e) "grants the County Commission unfettered discretion to adopt or not adopt a special master recommendation to change a parcel's Tier designation." Subsection (e) of Section 9.5-256 was not changed by the new LDRs; therefore, the new LDR grants nothing that is not already in the LDRs. Moreover, subsection (e) provides a standard for the Commission's decision, that is, whether "the application meets the criteria for designating the lands as Tier I." Tier I: Six Annual Allocations Section 9.5-122(a)(6) of the new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 009-2006) provides as follows: Limit on number of Allocation Awards in Tier I: Except for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, the annual number of allocation awards in Tier I shall be limited to no more than three (3) in the Upper Keys and three (3) in the Lower Keys. Paragraph 27a of the Amended Petition alleges that Section 9.5-122(a)(6) is vague, arbitrary, and capricious because it does not specify how the six allocations will be determined. Section 9.5-122(a)(6) does not over-ride the rest of the Tier system. Each application must still garner enough points to out-compete the other applications. Section 9.5- 122(a)(6) provides a further layer of protection for Tier I parcels by specifying that, even if a larger number of Tier I parcels have enough points for a ROGO or NROGO allocation, no more than six may receive allocations in each year. Tier I: Off-Shore Islands Section 9.5-256(c)(1)f. of the new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 010-2006) provides that one criterion for designation as Tier I is "Conservation, Native Area, Sparsely Settled, and Off- Shore Island Land Use Districts." The adopted Tier Maps show some off-shore islands without a Tier designation. The County and Department have agreed with Petitioners that the Tier Maps should show the following off-shore islands as Tier I: K250c; 251; 252; 256; 390 (three islands); 4151 (two islands); K546a; 567; and K582. SPA: One Acre of Hardwood Hammock or Pinelands Section 9.5-256(c)(3) of the new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 010-2006) establishes that the fundamental criterion for designation as a SPA is as follows: Designated Tier III lands located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key with tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands of greater than one acre shall be designated as Special Protection Areas. Paragraph 28f of the Amended Petition alleges that the one-acre criterion for SPA is inconsistent with the best available science, which does not support a categorical conclusion that habitat patches of one acre or less is size require less protection than those placed in the SPA category. The existing Plan provides that at a minimum, "[d]esignated Tier III lands located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key with tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands of one acre of greater shall be designated as Special Protection Areas." Paragraph 4, Policy 205.1.1. In this respect, the new LDR is consistent with and implements that provision. As noted above, however, this does not bar the County from using a smaller acreage threshold, if appropriate. Like the four-acre threshold for Tier I parcels, a fair inference to be drawn from the evidence is that the establishment of a one-acre threshold for SPA parcels with tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands was a "policy" decision by the County Commissioners, was simply a number they felt "comfortable" with, was not based on the best available science, and is therefore arbitrary. Indeed, this "policy" decision was inconsistent with a staff recommendation made in 2004 that Tier III include "isolated upland habitat fragments of less than half an acre." See Petitioners' Exhibit 29, page 8; Respondents' Exhibit 9, page 8. The County acknowledges that current regulations that govern site visits for the HEI are based on valid science appropriate to the Keys. Under that system, the County considers only those hammock patches less than .37 of an acre to have no ecological value. Further, the County now awards positive points to patches of slightly more than one- third of an acre for having ecological value. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that patches greater than one-third of an acre have ecological value and should be afforded more protection than now provided. Given the lack of scientific evidence to support the one-acre threshold, the validity of Section 9.5-256(c)(3), as now written, cannot be sustained. To support the one-acre threshold, the County points out that its staff performed site visits to the parcels in question to determine whether a potential SPA was really composed of hammock or pinelands and whether it was an acre or greater in size. However, this type of field work does not address the issue of whether the one-acre threshold is supported by the best available science. Accordingly, the following parcels were incorrectly placed in another category because of the arbitrary one-acre size limitation and should be re-evaluated after the SPA regulation is revised: K105b; K105/106; K106c and d; K112a, b, c and f; K113b, d and e; K114; K124/125; K125b, c and e; K133a, b, c, d, K133/134, K134a, c and d; K134a; K139b; K142a and c; K144/145 and 145a, d and e; K146a and d; K147a and c; K151a, b and c; K152a and b; K370-371; K371d; K372b; K385; K400b; K412b; K413a and b; K414b; K425; K441b; K450a, b and d; K467a, d and e; K549; K554a; K575/576; and K581/582. SPA: 40 percent Invasives Section 9.5-256(c)(3)a. of the new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 010-2006) provides conditions which "constitute a break in pinelands or tropical hardwood hammock for calculating the one- acre minimum patch size for designation" as a SPA. One of these conditions is "[a]ny disturbed pinelands or hardwood hammock with invasive coverage of forty (40) percent or more." § 9.5- 256(c)(3)a.2. Paragraph 28g of the Amended Petition alleges that Section 9.5-256(c)(3)a.2. "is contrary to the science, which calls for the removal of exotic vegetation to restore habitat and re-establish contiguity." Taking invasive infestation into account in determining whether a patch is large enough to qualify as a SPA is consistent with the FKCSS, which states Successful restoration of lands to create large patches of terrestrial habitats and to reestablish connectivity seems improbable. Restoration would require the conversion of large developed areas to native habitat, a goal that would face legal constraints, as well as high costs, uncertain probability of success, and a long timeframe for execution. Continuing and intensifying vacant land acquisition and restoration programs may provide more and faster returns in terms of consolidating protection of habitats in the Florida Keys. Since the resources to address these issues are not infinite, money is better spent acquiring larger patches in Tier I than in trying to restore the smaller patches with exotic vegetation. SPA: Central Sewer Section 9.5-256(c)(3)b.1. of the new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 010-2006) provides that the owners of lots designated as SPA may petition for a rezoning to Tier III if [t]he lot will be served by a central sewer and the wastewater collection system has an approved permit that was effective 3/21/06 to construct the system on file from the Department of Environmental Protection; Paragraph 28h of the Amended Petition alleges that Section 9.5-256(c)(3)b.1. is arbitrary because it "allows for the removal of parcels from the SPA Tier for [a reason] unrelated to their habitat value, such as service by central sewer " The March 21, 2006 date in Section 9.5-256(c)(3)b.1. means that this condition for removal from SPA applies only in the service area of the North Key Largo sewage treatment plant. The County and Department determined that development should be encouraged in the area served by the North Key Largo sewer plant, even though habitat that otherwise qualified for designation as SPA existed in that service area. The Principles for Guiding Development require the County and Department to improve nearshore water quality, and the best way to accomplish this goal is to construct central sewer systems to replace septic tanks. The Work Program adopted by the Administration Commission requires the County to fund and construct the North Key Largo central sewer system, which cannot be financed or operated without a customer base. Designating parcels as SPA in the North Key Largo service area would discourage development in that service area. In adopting and approving this regulation, the County and the Department appropriately balanced the competing goals of the Principles for Guiding Development. Given these unique circumstances, the LDR is not arbitrary. SPA: Sixteen Foot Road Section 9.5-256(c)(3)b.2. of the new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 010-2006) provides that owners of lots designated as SPA may petition for a rezoning to Tier III if [t]he lot is located within a one acre patch of hammock that is divided from the other lots that make up the one acre or more patch by a paved road that is at least 16 feet wide. Paragraph 28h of the Amended Petition alleges that this provision is arbitrary because it "allows for the removal of parcels from the SPA Tier for [a reason] unrelated to their habitat value, . . . [such as] the existence of a paved road at least 16' wide." The new regulation provides that if the owner of an undeveloped parcel designated as SPA constructs a sixteen-foot wide paved road through his property, he may then petition the County to rezone the property as Tier III simply because a paved road has been built. In providing this opportunity to rezone and develop a SPA parcel, however, the County failed to impose a corresponding requirement that the owner demonstrate that the functionality of the existing hammocks has been compromised by the road. By omitting this requirement, or imposing any other reasonable constraint, Section 9.5-256(c)(3)b.2. is arbitrary because it allows a property owner to circumvent a SPA designation by merely building a paved road. SPA: Survey Section 9.5-256(c)(3)c. of the new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 010-2006) provides that [a]ny hammock identified in the County's data base and aerial surveys as 1.00 to 1.09 acres in area shall be verified by survey prior to its designation as Tier III-A. A hammock that is deemed by survey and a field review by County Biologists to fail the minimum size criteria shall have the Special Protection Area designation removed from the subject parcel. Paragraph 28i of the Amended Petition alleges that Section 9.5-256(c)(3)c. is arbitrary because it requires a survey of any hammock less than 1.09 acres before designating it Tier III-A, while the balance of this LDR fails to require a survey of parcels below the size threshold set for Tier I before concluding that a parcel should not be placed in Tier I. The Tier designations were accomplished primarily by using GIS mapping data. When applied to the larger Tier I areas, a tenth of an acre is a small error. However, when applied to the much smaller SPA, a tenth of an acre error can be significant. The County's choice of surveying the smaller SPAs, while not treating the Tier I areas in the same manner, was not arbitrary. It is also reasonable to assume that in administering this regulation, the County will require a landowner to use a qualified surveyor to guarantee accuracy of the survey, and not allow the landowner to submit a survey that is self-serving and inaccurate. SPA: Development Standards Paragraph 28l of the Amended Petition alleges that "[t]he development standards for Tier III-A (SPA) are inadequate to protect the natural areas placed in that Tier." The development standards which apply specifically to parcels designated as SPA are Residential development is discouraged in SPAs, which receive 20 points towards a ROGO application, while Tier III parcels receive 30 points. § 9.5-122.4(a). Non-residential development is discouraged in SPAs, which receive 10 points towards an NROGO application, while Tier III parcels receive 20 points. § 9.5- 124.7(a)(1). No points are awarded for lot aggregation for a ROGO application which proposes clearing of any native upland vegetation in a SPA. § 9.5-122.4(c). No more than 40 percent of native upland vegetation, up to a maximum of 7,500 square feet, may be cleared in Tier III, including SPAs. § 9.5-347(b). For applications under consideration for sixteen consecutive quarters, the preferred County action is purchase for SPA, while an allocation award is available for Tier III that is not suitable for affordable housing. §§ 9.5-122.3(f) and 9.5-124.7(f). All generally applicable development standards also apply to SPAs, such as the environmental design criteria in Section 9.5-348; the density and intensity limitations in Sections 9.5-261, 9.5-262, 9.5-267, and 9.5-269; the shoreline setback requirement in Section 9.5-249; and the scenic corridor and bufferyard requirements in Sections 9.5-375 through 9.5-381. These development standards applicable in SPAs are adequate to protect these natural areas. Clearing on Aggregated Lots Section 9.5-347(e) of the new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 008-2006) establishes clearing percentages within the Tiers. For example, forty percent of native upland vegetation, up to a maximum of 7,500 square feet, may be cleared on a Tier III lot. Under Section 9.5-122.4(c) of the new Tier System, an applicant can receive four additional points by aggregating a contiguous vacant, legally platted lot within Tier III. Lot aggregation is "intended to encourage the voluntary reduction of density " Paragraph 26e of the Amended Petition (as orally modified at the hearing) alleges that new Section 9.5-347(e) "allows clearing on lots that receive points for aggregation, thus failing to protect the natural areas that aggregation is designed to protect." However, Section 9.5-122.4(c) provides that No points for aggregation shall be awarded for any application that proposes the clearing of any native upland habitat in a Tier III-A (Special Protection Area) area. No aggregation of lots will be permitted in Tier I. Therefore, applications which receive points for aggregation will not fail to protect natural areas because of clearing. Not-For-Profit NROGO Exemption in Tier III Section 9.5-124.3(a) provides that certain types of nonresidential development do not need an NROGO allocation. The exemptions include such uses as public/government uses, certain industrial uses, and agriculture uses. For example, Section 9.5-124.3(a)(4) of the new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 011-2006) makes the following changes to one such exemption: Development activity for certain not-for- profit organizations: Except for the non- public institutional uses on Big Pine Key and No Name Key pursuant to section 9.5- 124.2, non-residential development activity within Tier III designated areas by federally tax exempt not-for-profit educational, scientific, religious, social, cultural and recreational organizations, which predominately serve the county’s permanent population, if approved by the planning commission after review and recommendation by the planning director. This exemption is subject to the condition that a restrictive covenant be placed on the property prior to the issuance of a building permit. The restrictive covenant shall run in favor of Monroe County for a period of at least twenty (20) years. Any change in the use or ownership of the property subject to this restrictive covenant shall require prior approval of the planning commission, unless the total floor area exempted by the planning commission is obtained through an off-site transfer of floor area and/or non residential floor area allocation pursuant to this chapter. If the total amount of floor area that is transferred and/or allocated meets or exceeds the total amount of floor area exempted, the restrictive covenant shall be vacated by the County. This not-for-profit exemption is not applicable to non-residential development proposed within a Tier I designated area. those areas proposed for acquisition by government agencies for the purpose of resource protection. Non residential development approved under this section may not be changed to a for-profit use without permit approvals and a NROGO application for and receipt of a floor area allocation. (Underscored portions represent new language while the strike-through language represents deleted portions) Paragraph 29a of the Amended Petition alleges that new Section 9.5-124.3(a)(4) "arbitrarily allows a 'not-for- profit' NROGO exemption in the SPA that is not allowed in Tier I." The not-for-profit NROGO exemption is not created by the new LDRs; the new LDRs adopt new restrictions for the existing exemption. Moreover, there is nothing arbitrary about treating SPA differently than Tier I; the two designations are treated differently throughout the Tier system. The Tier I areas receive greater protection than the SPA areas as a matter of design. Existing Conditions Report The LDRs at issue in this case delete language in old Section 9.5-336, which references an "Existing Conditions Map," and create a new Section 9.5-336, which references an "Existing Conditions Report." (See Ordinance No. 008-2006). The new section requires that an application for land containing upland native vegetation communities must include a report that "identifies the distribution and quality of native habitat and any observed endangered/threatened or protected species within the parcel proposed for development." Paragraph 26a of the Amended Petition alleges that new Section 9.5-336 "provides inadequate protection for endangered/threatened or protected species that are not observed on the surveyed parcel, and does not require the use of the most current state and federal protected species lists." Paragraph 26d of the Amended Petition also alleges that new Section 9.5- 336 "fails to require the identification of potential habitat of protected species." Petitioners have mistaken the significance of the existing conditions report in the Tier System. Under the old HEI system, the habitat analysis required by old Section 9.5-337 was used to determine the quality of habitat on the surveyed parcel for the purpose of assigning points. Under the Tier System, each parcel has already been assigned to a Tier. The existing conditions report is used for the purpose of locating development on the parcel that avoids the most valuable habitat. There is nothing in new Section 9.5-336 that suggests that the most current state and federal lists will not be used in the preparation of the existing conditions report. Affordable Housing At least twenty percent of the ROGO allocations can only be used for affordable housing. See old § 9.5-122(b)(1)a.; new § 9.5-122(a)(3)a.; Policy 101.2.4. Approximately 7,000 families in Monroe County are "cost burdened," in that they pay more than thirty percent of their income for housing, which is part of the affordable housing crisis in the County. Section 9.5-266 of the old LDRs provides standards for affordable housing and grants an increase of density in some land use districts if the density is used for affordable housing. The new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 009-2006) make the following minor changes to Section 9.5-266(a)(8): (8) If an affordable or employee housing project or an eligible commercial apartment(s) designated for employee housing contain(s) at least five (5) dwelling units, a maximum of twenty (20) percent of these units may be developed as market rate housing dwelling units. The owner of a parcel of land must develop the market rate housing dwelling units as an integral part of an affordable or employee housing project. In order for the market rate housing dwelling units to be eligible for incentives outlined in this section, the owner must ensure that The use of the market rate housing dwelling unit is restricted for a period of at least fifty (50) thirty (30) years to households that derive at least seventy (70) percent of their household income from gainful employment in Monroe County; and Tourist housing use and vacation rental use of the market rate housing dwelling unit is prohibited. Paragraph 27g of the Amended Petition alleges that Section 9.5-266(a)(8) "allows housing units permitted as 'affordable or employee housing' to be used for market rate housing." The amendments to Section 9.5-266(a)(8) make only a minor adjustment in the existing incentive to include affordable or employee housing in market rate projects. Moreover, neither the old nor the new Section 9.5-266(a)(8) allows affordable housing ROGO allocations to be used for market rate housing. This section allows a developer to use market rate ROGO allocations together with affordable housing ROGO allocations to take advantage of the increased density available to affordable housing projects, while also providing an economic incentive to construct affordable housing. The new LDRs also address affordable housing by increasing the density for affordable housing in the Suburban Commercial district from fifteen dwelling units per acre to eighteen, see Section 9.5-266(a)(1)b., and increasing the length of time that an affordable housing unit must remain affordable from thirty years to privately financed projects and fifty years for publicly financed projects to ninety-nine years for all affordable housing projects. § 9.5-266(f)(1). Market Rate Housing Awards from Future Allocation Periods Section 9.5-122.1 (in Ordinance No. 009-2006) provides the application procedure for residential ROGO allocations. Subsection (h) in the old LDRs, which has been renumbered and amended as subsection (g) in the new LDRs, authorizes borrowing from future ROGO allocations in limited circumstances. Paragraph 27b of the Amended Petition alleges that new Section 9.5-122.1(g)(1), which allows the Planning Commission to award additional dwelling units from future annual allocations to complete projects, "is arbitrary and capricious as it provides no standards or limits on whether or to what extent, such additional allocations can be awarded." Among other things, Ordinance No. 009-2006 makes the following changes to Section 9.5-122.1, which pertains to the authority of the Planning Commission to award units from future allocations: ((h) (g) Borrowing from future housing allocations: ((1) Subject to approval by the board, t The planning commission may award additional units from future quarterly annual dwelling unit allocations periods to fully grant an application for multi-family residential units, if such an application receives an allocation award for some, but not all, of the units requested because the applicant seeks more units than are available during the allocation period. * * * * (3) The planning commission shall not reduce any future market rate quarterly allocation by more than twenty (20) percent, but may apply the reduction over any number of future quarterly allocation periods and shall not apply these reductions to more than the next five (5) annual allocations or twenty (20) quarterly allocations. The amendments to the LDRs do not create the authority of the Planning Commission to award future allocations to complete projects; such authority already existed. The amendments to Section 9.5-122.1 limit the extent of the additional allocations. In addition, the Plan contemplates that residential allocations can be borrowed from future quarters. See Policy 101.2.3, which provides procedures for the annual adjustment of the number of permits. Affordable Housing Awards from Future Allocation Periods The old LDRs provided the following guidance to the Planning Commission for awarding future allocations: "Multi- family affordable housing or elderly housing projects shall be given priority." Section 9.5-122.1(g)(4) of the new LDRs (in Ordinance No. 009-2006) provides that [t]he board of county commissioners, upon recommendation of the planning commission, may make available for award up to one- hundred (100) percent of the affordable housing allocations available over the next five annual allocations or twenty (20) quarterly allocations. Paragraph 27c of the Amended Petition alleges that new Section 9.5-122.1(g)(4) is arbitrary and capricious and inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, which does not allow for allocations beyond the annual caps. In addition, this allowance may result in unacceptable evacuation and environmental impacts. As stated above, the Plan contemplates that residential allocations can be borrowed from future quarters. See Policy 101.2.3, which provides that one of the factors to be considered in the annual adjustment of the number of permits is the "number of allocations borrowed from future quarters." The borrowing forward for affordable housing projects will assist the County in addressing the affordable housing crisis. As noted above, approximately 7,000 families in the County are "cost-burdened" by paying more than thirty percent of their income for housing. See Finding of Fact 111, supra. The annual permit caps are the result of a determination that there is a finite amount of development that can be allowed in the Keys without exceeding a 24-hour evacuation time (in the event of hurricanes). While County witness Conaway believes that the regulation is subject to the 24-hour evacuation cap, she acknowledged that it does not specifically say that. Even so, in making its annual evaluation, the County (and its planning staff) will know what the clearance time is from a particular area of the Keys and the amount of future allocations that can be issued without exceeding the 24-hour evacuation cap. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the new LDR will not result in unacceptable evacuation impacts. Administrative Relief Both the old and the new LDRs provide administrative relief for residential applications which have been unsuccessful in seeking a ROGO application. See old § 9.5-122.2(f) and new § 9.5-122.3. The administrative relief available under both the old and the new sections is a grant of a ROGO allocation, an offer to purchase the parcel at fair market value, or such other relief as appropriate. The old section provides administrative relief if the application has been considered for at least three consecutive annual allocation periods, and the new section if the application has been considered for sixteen consecutive quarterly allocation periods. The old and new NROGO sections have a similar provision. See old § 9.5-124.7 and new § 9.5- 124.7(f). Paragraphs 27e and 29b of the Amended Petition allege that new Sections 9.5-122.3(f) and 9.5-124.7(f) fail "to establish any required facts or findings as a condition precedent before the County can provide a form of administrative relief other than an offer to purchase." However, the new sections provide more guidance than the old LDRs because they specify that an offer to purchase at fair market value shall be the preferred action for Tier I parcels, SPA parcels, and Tier III parcels suitable for affordable housing. Also, the new LDR sections are consistent with Plan provisions regarding administrative relief. See Policies 101.6.1, 101.6.5, and 105.2.12. Protection of Listed Species Paragraph 28m of the Amended Petition alleges that Ordinance 010-2006, which adopts changes to Section 9.5-256, "provides inadequate protections for threatened or endangered species or species of special concern." Besides the thresholds used for Tier I and SPA habitat patches (which presumably will be changed to smaller areas in the future), the system uses other elements to place lands in Tier I or SPA and adequately protects the majority of undeveloped upland habitat in the Keys. The Tier system is robust, easy to administer, and implements the guidelines of the FKCCS. Protection of Habitat Paragraph 31 of the Amended Petition, as an ultimate fact, alleges that "[t]he land development regulations approved by the Final Orders are inadequate to protect the tropical hardwood hammock, pine rockland, and transitional wetland communities in the Keys." The Tier system is not intended to protect wetland communities; that is accomplished by other provisions in the LDRs. (The tier designation is primarily designed to protect upland native habitat.) The new LDRs strongly discourage development in tropical hardwood hammock and pine rockland communities. The 20-point spread between Tier I and Tier III and the 10-point spread between SPA and Tier III make it very difficult to develop in SPA and especially in Tier I. Mapping Errors As might be expected, any county-wide mapping exercise of this magnitude will inevitably include some errors. The County and Department agree with Petitioners that the following parcels were incorrectly designated: 71 (Tier III rectangle) should be Tier I; 91 (2 small lots) should be Tier I; 101 (2 small lots) should be Tier I; 102&103 (Tier 0 parcel) should be Tier I; 109 (lower right corner) should be Tier I; 117A (rectangle) should be Tier I; K124a should be SPA; K125d should be Tier I; K140/141 should be Tier I; K251/252 should be Tier I; K281b should be Tier I; K400b should be SPA; K401b should be Tier I; K412a should be Tier I; K413b and c should be Tier I; K414a should be Tier I; K450c and e should be Tier I; 526 (peninsula north of US 1) should be Tier I; K554c and d should be Tier I; K566/567 should be Tier I; K575b (except for 1 developed lot) should be Tier I; and K581 (portion drawn by Trivette) should be Tier I. aa. Big Pine Key Tier Maps 334, 344, and 345 are included in the Amended Petition and in Petitioners' Exhibits 67 and 68, both entitled "Parcels Where Tier Designation Changes Recommended." However, Petitioners offered no testimony concerning these maps. Tier Maps 334, 344, and 345 are located on Big Pine Key. The Tier Overlay Maps for Big Pine Key and No Name Key were adopted by a separate Ordinance which is not at issue in this case. bb. Consistency with the Principles for Guiding Development The Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern are found in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, and are the benchmark by which to measure the validity of the LDRs. They read as follows: To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. To protect the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. Except for those portions of new Sections 9.5- 256(c)(4)a., 9.5-256(c)(3), and 9.5-256(c)(3)b.2, which relate to the threshold sizes for Tier I and SPA natural areas, and the rezoning of SPA parcels based upon the construction of a road, and the parcels identified in Findings of Fact 65, 80, 86, and 132, which were incorrectly designated, the new LDRs are consistent with, and implement, the Plan. Also, with the same exceptions, the new LDRs strengthen the County's capability for managing land use and development by providing a transparent, easily implemented ROGO system that can be understood by the citizens of the County. The new Tier system avoids reliance on the varied HEI interpretations of individual biologists and simplifies implementation for County planning staff. The new LDRs are not intended to protect shoreline and marine resources, which are protected by other provisions in the LDRs. However, as development is curtailed in the upland areas, the downstream effects of runoff will be limited. The new LDRs are not intended to protect freshwater wetlands or dune ridges and beaches; these are protected elsewhere in the LDRs. Except for those provisions and parcels described in Finding of Fact 135, the new LDRs protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, and native tropical vegetation by awarding fewer points to these sensitive upland areas and directing development to scarified and infill areas. The new LDRs do not address sound economic development. The new LDRs are not intended to address quality of water, although they do promote good water quality to some extent by preserving natural habitat and open space, and thus reducing runoff. With the same exceptions identified in Finding of Fact 135, by protecting the vast majority of the upland habitat and directing development to scarified and infill areas, the new LDRs will help maintain the scenic value and the historic character of the Keys. With the same exceptions, the new LDRs also protect the small patches of hammock that contribute to the community character of the Keys. The new LDRs do not protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys, but also do nothing to harm the historical heritage. The new LDRs encourage the public purchase of lands within the wildlife refuges and thus protect the value and efficiency of those refuges. The new LDRs also encourage the cost-effective installation of central sewer collection and disposal facilities by directing development to subdivisions which are fifty percent built-out. By directing growth to Tier III areas, the Tier system allows the County to avoid the construction of public infrastructure to serve Tier I areas. The new LDRs increase the density for affordable housing in the suburban commercial areas and double the length of time that an affordable unit must remain affordable. The new LDRs also take steps to make adequate affordable housing available in the Keys by providing that a developer may receive a density bonus by building some market rate housing as part of an affordable project. The new LDRs maintain the limitation on the annual number of development allocations and allow the County to maintain its ability to evacuate during a hurricane. With the exception of those regulations and parcels identified in Finding of Fact 135, the new LDRs designate the majority of the Keys as Tier I, which is intended for public purchase. The only way to maintain the hurricane evacuation time is to purchase developable property and retire the development rights. Except as to those LDRs and parcels identified in Finding of Fact 135, the remaining LDRs are consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole.
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 approving Ordinance No. 008-2006, except for the deletion of Section 9.5-342; Ordinance No. 009-2006; Ordinance No. 010-2006, except for Sections 9.5-256(c)(4)a., 9.5- 256(c)(3), and 9.5-256(c)(3)b.2.; Ordinance No. 011-2006; and Ordinance No. 013-2006, except for the parcels identified in Findings of Fact 65, 80, 86, and 132. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2007, 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 26th day of June, 2007.
The Issue Whether an amendment to the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, PC-92-20, which was adopted by ordinance number 92-50 rendered the Broward County Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance", within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is a state agency. The Department is charged pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), with responsibility for, among other things, the review of comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. The Respondent, Broward County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the local government charged with the responsibility pursuant to the Act for developing a comprehensive plan for future development in the unincorporated areas of the County and the approval of amendments to the County's comprehensive plan. The Intervenor, Susan Edn, is a resident of, and owns real property located in, Broward County, Florida. Ms. Edn submitted written and oral comments to the County concerning the plan amendment at issue in this proceeding. General Description of the County. The County is a generally rectangular-shaped area located on the southeastern coast of Florida. The County is bounded on the north by Palm Beach County, on the south by Dade County, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by Collier and Hendry Counties. The County's Comprehensive Plan. The County adopted a comprehensive plan as required by the Act on March 1, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "County Plan"). Volume 1 of the County Plan includes the Broward County Land Use Plan, which applies to, and governs, future land use throughout the County, including the unincorporated areas of the County. The Future Land Use Element. The County Plan includes a Future Unincorporated Area Land Use Element dealing with future land use in the unincorporated areas of the County. See Volume 2 of the County Plan, Edn exhibit 15. The Future Land Use Element of the County Plan required by the Act consists of the Broward County Land Use Plan and the Future Unincorporated Area Land Use Element. The Future Land Use Element identifies a number of land-use categories, including a "residential" category. Densities of development on land designated "residential" are also established. There are eight designated residential future land uses identified and defined in the Future Land Use Element of the County Plan. Those designations and densities are as follows: Estate (1) Residential: up to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. Low (2) Residential: up to 2 dwelling units per gross acre. Low (3) Residential: up to 3 dwelling units per gross acre. Low (5) Residential: up to 5 dwelling units per gross acre. Low-Medium (10) Residential: up to 10 dwelling units per gross acre. Medium (16) Residential: up to 16 dwelling units per gross acre. Medium-High (25) Residential: up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. High (50) Residential: up to 50 dwelling units per gross acre. The density of development for the Rural Estate category is up to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. The density for the Rural Ranch category is up to 1 dwelling unit per 2.5 gross acres or up to 1 dwelling unit per 2 net acres. The County Plan includes Goal 08.00.00, titled Public Facilities and Phased Growth, and Objective 08.01.00, which provide: GOAL 08.00.00 PHASE GROWTH CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES. OBJECTIVE 08.01.00 COORDINATE FUTURE LAND USES WITH AVAILABLE REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Coordinate future land uses with the availability of regional and community facilities and services sufficient to meet the current and future needs of Broward County's population and economy without endangering its environmental resources. The following policies related to Goal 08.00.00 and Objective 08.01.00 are included in the County Plan: POLICY 08.01.04 In order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Broward County's residents, development should not be permitted in those portions of Broward County with inadequate potable water and wastewater treatment facilities. . . . . POLICY 08.01.09 Private septic tanks and wells in Broward County should be phased out and replaced with centralized water and wastewater systems, where necessary, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Broward County's residents. POLICY 08.01.10 Local government entities shall require existing development on septic tanks and private wells to hook up to centralized sewer and water facilities as they become available. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment which is the subject of this proceeding is inconsistent with the policies quoted in finding of fact 14 or any other goal, objective or policy of the County Plan. The Subject Amendment: PC-92-20. The Board of County Commissioners of the County adopted Ordinance 92- 50 on December 9, 1992. Ordinance 92-50 included nineteen amendments to the County Plan, including amendment PC-92-20. PC-92-20 (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Amendment"), is the amendment to the County Plan challenged in this proceeding by Ms. Edn. The Challenged Amendment amends the land use designation of approximately 2,453 acres of land. Of the 2,453 total acres, the designation of 2,272 acres is changed from Estate (1) Residential to Rural Ranch and the designation of the remaining 180.7 acres of land is changed to Rural Estate. Pursuant to the Challenged Amendment the change in designation also results in a change in density from one dwelling unit per acre to a density of one dwelling unit per two and one-half acres for the Rural Ranch and a density of one dwelling unit per two net acres for the Rural Estate. The Subject Property. The 2,453 acres of land which are the subject of the Challenged Amendment are located in the unincorporated area of the County, east of Southwest 148th Avenue, south of Griffin Road, west of Flamingo Road and north of Sheridan Street. Dwellings currently exist on approximately 85 percent to 90 percent of the subject property. Existing dwellings are served by septic tanks and wells. Pursuant to the County Plan, without the Challenged Amendment, the 10 percent to 15 percent of the subject property not yet developed may be developed at a higher density using septic tanks and individual wells. The subject property is not currently serviced by a sewer service provider or a water service provider. The County Plan recognizes and accepts the foregoing existing conditions. See Map 12-1 of the County Plan Map Series titled "Existing and Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Area", and Map 14-1 of the County Plan Map Series, titled "Existing and Proposed Potable Water Service Area." The Challenged Amendment does not modify the existing conditions of the subject property except to decrease the density of development allowed on the property. The subject property is not located within a public wellfield zone of influence. See County Plan Land Use Plan Natural Resource Map Series, titled "Existing and Planned Waterwells & Zones of Influence." The Department's Review of the Challenged Amendment. The Department reviewed the Challenged Amendment as originated by the Act. After review of the Challenged Amendment, the Department raised no objections. As part of the Department's initial review of the Challenged Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), the Department considered comments of various entities, including the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the South Florida Water Management District and others concerning the Challenged Amendment. Some of those comments were critical. The critical comments concerning the Challenged Amendment pertain to the use of wells for potable water and the use of septic tanks in the effected area. Those concerns were considered by the Department and ultimately determined to be insufficient to find the Challenged Amendment not "in compliance." The Department's conclusion was based, in part, upon the fact that the Challenged Amendment will reduce the demand on sewer by 477,400 gallons per day and the demand on water by 380,800 gallons per day. The Department's conclusion was also based upon the fact that the majority of the area effected has already been built-out. Ms. Edn offered the critical comments of various governmental entities who provided comments to the Department pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), into evidence. Evidently, Ms. Edn believes that those comments were not adequately considered by the Department or that they prove that the Challenged Amendment is not "in compliance." The evidence failed to prove either suggestion. The evidence failed to prove that the Department's consideration of critical comments about the Challenged Amendment was not adequate or that the Department's conclusions concerning those comments were not reasonable and proper. On the contrary, the evidence proved that the Department did consider all comments and decided that the Challenged Amendment was "in compliance" despite the critical comments. The evidence also proved that the Department's rationale for still finding the Challenged Amendment in compliance was reasonable. Additionally, Ms. Edn failed to present evidence to support a finding that the entities that made critical comments concerning the Challenged Amendment during the initial review of the Challenged Amendment still believe those comments are valid. Therefore, the evidence failed to prove that the critical comments concerning the Challenged Amendment were still valid as of the date of the final hearing of this matter. Data and Analysis-Sewer and Potable Water Services. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on sewer and potable water services. Facility and service capacity data and analyses concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on the availability of, and the demand for, sewer and potable water services was provided to the Department by the County. Based upon the data and analysis provided, the Challenged Amendment will tend to reduce the demand on sewer and potable water services. The evidence failed to prove that the data and analysis provided was inadequate. Data and Analysis-Soil Suitability. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning soil suitability. The County submitted data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on soil and natural resources, including waterwells and zones of influence, to the Department. The County concluded that the Challenged Amendment would preserve the natural function of soils in the area and Ms. Edn failed to prove the inaccuracy of the County's conclusion. See the County Land Use Plan Natural Resource Map Services titled "Soils." Data and Analysis-Wellfield Protection. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on wellfield protection. The County relied upon the County Land Use Plan natural Resource Map Series titled "Existing and Planned Waterwells and Zones of Influence" and concluded that the area impacted by the Challenged Amendment is not located within a public wellfield zone of influence. The evidence failed to prove the inaccuracy of the County's conclusion. Data and Analysis-Biscayne Aquifer. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on the Biscayne Aquifer. The South Florida Water Management District has not designated the area of the County impacted by the Challenged Amendment to be a "prime groundwater recharge area" for the Biscayne Aquifer. Proliferation of Urban Sprawl. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, (1992 Supp.) and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)7, Florida Administrative Code, comprehensive plans are required to discourage the proliferation of "urban sprawl". The Department has provided a definition of "urban sprawl" in a November 1989 Technical Memorandum: . . . scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density single- dimensional development. The evidence failed to prove that the foregoing definition or any other pronouncement in the Technical Memorandum constitutes policy of the Department. The evidence also failed to prove that the reduced densities allowed by the Challenged Amendment constitute "urban sprawl." The State Comprehensive Plan. The State Comprehensive Plan is contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Goals and Policies of the State Comprehensive Plan are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with any provision of the State Comprehensive Plan. The Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. The South Florida Planning Council has adopted the Regional Plan for South Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Regional Plan"). The Regional Plan was adopted pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, to provide regional planning objectives for the County, Dade County and Monroe County. In the petition filed in this case, Ms. Edn alleged that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with Goal 13.4.10 of the Regional Plan. Goal 13.4.10 of the Regional Plan provides the following: Within the study area of the Southwest Broward/Northwest Dade Subregional Study, any existing or new user of on-site disposal systems in Broward County and within the Dade County urban development boundary should be required to hook up to a centralized wastewater collection when available. The evidence failed to prove that centralized wastewater collection is "available" to require existing or new users of on-site disposal systems in the area of the Challenged Amendment to hook up to. The evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the Regional Plan.
