The Issue Ultimately at issue in this case is whether certain comprehensive plan amendments, adopted by Lee County Ordinance No. 94-30, are "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, many of the subordinate issues raised by parties seeking to have the plan amendments found to be "not in compliance" have been withdrawn, and others have been stricken as not timely raised or for other reasons. The remaining issues are addressed in this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact The FLUM and the Overlay. Lee County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1984. On January 31, 1989, the County adopted an amended version of the 1984 Plan intended to plan for growth up to the year 2010 and to comply with the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements. Essentially, the 1989 Plan was very similar to that drafted in 1984. Some major differences were provision of development timing and concurrency, creation of the privately-funded infrastructure overlay, elimination of the fringe land use category, and a variety of other new goals, objectives, and policies (GOP's). Most of the land use categories in the 1984 Plan were carried forward to the 1989 Plan. Almost all of the land use categories are mixed land use categories that allow residential, commercial and in some cases also light industrial uses without any percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. The DCA took the position that the 1989 Lee Plan was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act and filed a petition under Section 163.3184(10). The Department's objection to the 1989 Plan flowed in large part from the alleged overallocation of land for development by the year 2010 that resulted from the categories in the future land use map series (FLUM). Using the County's data and analysis, the DCA concluded that the 1989 map provided for 70 years of growth, to the year 2060, instead of 20 years, to the year 2010. To resolve the 1989 Plan dispute, the County agreed to adopt a 2010 Overlay and create a Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource future land use (FLUE) category (DRGR). The 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement included the following provisions: Amend the Future Land Use Map series by designating the proposed distribution, extent, and location of the generalized land uses required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a)1.-9. for the year 2010. These designations will include acreage totals and percentage distributions (illustrated by a bar graph) for about 125 discrete sub-districts encompassing all of Lee County, which, once designated, shall be changed only by a formal amendment to the Lee Plan. The data for these designations shall be consistent with the Lee Plan's population pro- jections for the year 2010. This amendment shall be accomplished by the adoption of over- lay or sub-district maps for the entire County using the concepts developed therefor by Thomas H. Roberts of Thomas H. Roberts Associates and presented publicly to the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County on September 12, 1989, and to the Department of Community Affairs on September 22, 1989. Adopt a policy which will provide that no development approvals for any land use category will be issued in any of the sub- districts described above that would cause the acreage total set for that land use category in 2010 to be exceeded. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County created a 2010 Overlay. The County first projected future growth in Lee County to the year 2010, using a basic assumption that historic patterns of growth in Lee County, including historic densities, would continue. The County's 2010 population estimate was 757,370 for the entire unincorporated County. The County then assigned acreage allocations for different land uses allowed in each planning subdistrict. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County adopted the resulting 2010 Overlay, as well as a DRGR FLUE category with a density range of one unit per ten acres, as part of the 1990 remedial plan amendments. The Overlay consisted of Maps 16 and 17, which were added to the FLUM, along with implementing policies in the Future Land Use Element. The 2010 Overlay is, in the words of the 1994 Codification of the Plan, "an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series." Map 16 is a map which divides Lee County into 115 subdistricts. "Map" 17 is not a true map; it is a series of bar tables and pie charts that correspond to acreage allocations for land uses within the subdistricts. Each subdistrict is allocated a specific number of acres for each of the following land uses: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, passive agriculture and vacant. The land use acreage allocations for each Overlay subdistrict are the maximum amount of land which can be developed in that subdistrict. The intent of the 2010 Overlay was to match the amount of development that could be accommodated by the 2010 FLUM with the projected County-wide population for the year 2010. The 2010 Overlay accomplished this in part by assigning percentage distributions, in the form of acreage allocations, to the various uses in the many mixed use categories in the FLUM. Under the Overlay, once the acreage allocation for a particular land use is exhausted, no more acreage can be developed for that land use in that subdistrict unless the Lee Plan is amended. Policy 1.7.6 was adopted to establish an ongoing mandatory review procedure for evaluation and amendment of the 2010 Overlay. On September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments and officially revised the original data and analysis supporting the Plan. As the support documents for the 1990 remedial amendments stated: The future land use map series currently contained in the Future Land Use element of the Lee Plan depicts 18 land use categories and has an estimated 70-year population holding capacity. A future land use map series is re- quired by state law and is also a useful and necessary part of the plan in guiding land use and related decisions. The Year 2010 Overlay makes this map series even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon. * * * In addition to this "pure planning" function of the 2010 Overlay, a regulatory function will be added. No final development orders or building permits for any land use category will be issued in any subdistrict that would cause the acreage total for that category in 2010 to be exceeded. The Dwelling Unit Counts and Projections charts in the support documents for the 1990 amendments demonstrate that the 2010 Overlay was designed to greatly limit the number of dwelling units that could be constructed by 2010 compared to the number allowed by the 2010 FLUM without the Overlay. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments in compliance. However, a citizen challenge to the County's 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments resulted in an Administration Commission Final Order that the amendments were not in compliance and that the County had to take certain remedial actions to bring the Plan amendments into compliance. Final Order, Sheridan v. Lee Co. and DCA, 16 FALR 654 (Fla. Admin. Com. 1994)(the "Sheridan Final Order"). The Sheridan Final Order required the County to apply the 2010 Overlay at the development order stage, rather than at the building permit stage. As a result, no development order could be issued which caused the acreage allocations for any given individual subdistrict to be exceeded. The Sheridan Final Order also held that the County had not properly calculated the amount of development allowed by the 2010 Overlay and adopted the following analysis from the hearing officer's Recommended Order: The calculation of a density allocation ratio is part of the determination whether data and analysis support the residential densities in a plan. The analysis misses the point of the process if the maximum densities authorized by a plan are reduced to reflect historic densities. The question is whether the densities authorized by a plan are supported by data and analysis, not whether data and analysis support densities some- where between the maximum authorized densities and historic densities. Especially where historic densities reflect an inefficient use of land, as is clearly the case in Lee County, analysis of a plan based in part on historic densities invites the repetition of past planning failures. * * * The purpose of the density allocation calculation, as part of the process of determining if the plan is supported by data and analysis, is not to predict the actual density that will occupy the planning jurisdiction at buildout. The purpose of the density allocation calculation is to compare the maximum density allowed by the plan with the projected population, and consider the extent of the overallocation in the light of other factors in the planning jurisdiction, including plan provisions and relevant data and analysis. The ratio is not required to be 1:1 to satisfy the criterion of supporting data and analysis. But the ratio must be ascertainable in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 689. As a result, one of the remedial amendments required by the Administration Commission was: To address the density calculation issue the County shall revise the data and analysis to include the maximum allowable densities in determining the amount of development allowed by the 2010 overlay and to show that the amount of development allowed is based on the expected growth. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 661. The County adopted 2010 Overlay remedial amendments in October, 1994. In December, 1994, the DCA determined that the remedial amendments were in compliance. (The revised data and analysis were not made a part of the record in this case.) On July 1, 1994, the County adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for its Plan and subsequently submitted to the DCA the EAR, along with the proposed EAR-based amendments for the year 2020. Among other things, the proposed EAR-based amendments eliminated the 2010 Overlay. Among other things, the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report objected to the elimination of the 2010 Overlay, taking the position that, without the Overlay, the EAR-based plan had the same allocation-related problems that had been in the 1989 plan. On November 1, 1994, the County adopted a modified version of the EAR- based amendments--still without any Overlay--and submitted these to the DCA, together with its staff response to the DCA's ORC Report. On December 28, 1994, the DCA issued a Statement of Intent to find the EAR-based amendments not in compliance. FLUM Population Accommodation Data and Analysis. The evidence in this case includes data and several different analyses comparing the population accommodated by the plan amendments at issue--i.e., the FLUM without any Overlay--with the population projected for the year 2020. Figure 14. Lee County's proposed population accommodation data and analysis is included in the EAR in Figure 14. Based on Figure 14, the County concluded that the 2020 FLUM accommodates 802,655 persons, or 128 percent of the projected 2020 population (an accommodation ratio of 1.28). Although the FLUM's many mixed use categories do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses, Figure 14 assumes that certain percentages of the many mixed use categories will develop in residential use, based on historic growth patterns. Also based on historic growth patterns, Figure 14 assumes that residential density will be less than the maximum of the standard residential density range allowed in each category although the GOP's allow residential development at much higher densities. Since Figure 14 is based on historic patterns of growth that are expected to continue into the future, Figure 14 appears to predict future growth as accurately as is possible at this time. It probably is the best possible estimate of how Lee County will build out under the proposed amendments. However, the ability to make truely accurate predictions over such a long period of time--25 years--is questionable. Figure 14 assumes that only a fraction of the new Vested Community land use district (Lehigh Acres) will be developed by the end of the planning timeframe. Most of the Vested Community district consists of subdivisions which were approved and platted several years before the adoption of the earliest Lee Plan, and which are vested from the restrictions of the Lee Plan. The Vested Community district contains over 130,000 vested lots which can accommodate at least 271,700 residents. In addition, the Vested Community district contains some land which is not actually vested from the Lee Plan but is allowed to develop at four density units per acre (du/ac). Figure 14 assumes that 45,888 residential units accommodating 95,906 persons will be developed in Lehigh Acres by 2020. There is no goal, objective or policy in the Lee Plan which would prevent the development of more lots vested or allocated in the Vested Community district. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis assumed that the Rural and Outer Islands categories will develop at their maximum residential density of one du/ac. In fact, the Lee Plan includes a Planned Development District Option ("PDDO") which allows: landowners outside the Future Urban Areas to increase allowable densities for development that will be totally independent of county- subsidized facilities and services. (Objective 1.8) The PDDO increases the maximum theoretical residential density of the Rural and Outer Islands districts from 1 du/ac to 6 du/ac. However, due the requirements for use of the PDDO, realistically it cannot be anticipated that much Rural or Outer Islands land will utilize it. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis did not include any residential allocation for the General Interchange category. The General Interchange category allows residential development of 100 residential units at 8 du/ac for every 100,000 square feet of commercial development. If the residential option applied to all 1,436 acres of the General Interchange category, the Lee Plan would accommodate another 13,209 persons in that category. However, for the residential option, the category requires 160 acres under common ownership. Currently, there is only one case in which the requirement is met, and it is a development of regional impact (DRI) that does not allow residential at this time. Figure 14A. Figure 14A is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It was supposed to adjust Figure 14 by assuming the maximum residential density allowed by each land use category in accordance with the Sheridan Final Order. The Figure 14A accommodated population rises to 1,325,568, and the so-called allocation ratio rises to 2.11. Actually, Figure 14A does not take into account the actual maximum residential density in Intensive Development (22 du/ac), Central Urban (15 du/ac), and Urban Community (10 du/ac). Instead, it uses the top of the "standard density range" in those categories. Figure 14 B. Figure 14B also is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It adjusts the Figure 14A analysis by estimating the total residential development allowed by the Vested Community category at 170,732 dwelling units, which will accommodate 356,829 persons. Adding those Vested Community numbers to the Figure 14A numbers, Figure 14B estimates the population accommodated by the 2020 FLUM as 1,586,491 persons, or an accommodation ratio of 2.53. Maximum Theoretical Residential Potential. The DCA proposes an analysis of the data using maximum theoretical residential potential for each land use category. Under the DCA analysis, there is enough land available for residential development accommodate a population of approximately 2.5 million people--401 percent of the expected County population in 2020 or, expressed as a ratio, 4.01. In contrast to Figure 14B, the DCA's preferred analysis takes into account all of the residential development capacity in Lehigh Acres. In addition, it assumes residential development in the Vested Intensive Development part of the Lehigh Vested Community at the maximum density of 14 du/ac and in the Vested Central Urban part at the maximum density of 10 du/ac. These assumptions add to the FLUM population accommodation analysis the capacity to accommodate approximately 246,000 more people, over and above the Figure 14B capacity. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that all Rural and Outer Islands land will utilize PDDO and develop residentially at 6 du/ac. Use of this assumption more than doubles the population accommodation in those categories, adding approximately 500,000 people to the analysis. While theoretically possible, as previously stated, this assumption is unrealistic. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that 13,209 people are accommodated in residential development in the General Interchange category. This assumption, too, is theoretically possible but not realistic. Finally, the DCA's preferred analysis assumes that, although most of Lee County's future land use categories allow a mix of uses, the land will develop at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area--i.e., that no other type of permitted use, such as commercial, parks, schools or even roads would occur in any of the land use categories. Finally, it disregards the actual existence of non-residential uses and residential uses at lower densities; instead, it assumes redevelopment at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area. County's 2010 Overlay Analysis. It seems obvious that deletion of the 2010 Overlay must increase population accommodation, at least up to the year 2010. Up to the time of the final hearing, the DCA had not requested, and no party did, an allocation ratio analysis of the 2010 Overlay similar to the one the DCA prefers for the 2020 FLUM without any Overlay for purposes of making a comparison between the two. The County's chief planner testified that he performed such an analysis during the course of the final hearing using the maximum residential and maximum density assumptions. Neither the details nor the results of the analysis were clear. However, it appears to indicate that the 2010 Overlay accommodated a 2010 population of 1.06 million, apparently including 282,000 assumed to be accommodated in Lehigh Acres, an allocation ratio of 2.11. Assuming that the County's 2010 Overlay analysis included Lehigh, it can be roughly compared to the Figure 14B analysis and the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" analysis by removing the Lehigh component from each. Subtracting the Lehigh component from the County's 2010 Overlay population accommodation analysis results in a 2010 population accommodation of 778,000. Removing the Lehigh component from Figure 14B results in 2020 population accommodation of 1,229,662. Removing the Lehigh component from the DCA's analysis results in 2020 population accommodation of 2,008,927. Meanwhile, the County's projection of future increased by only about 70,000 between 2010 and 2020 for the entire unincorporated county. RGMC Alternative 2010 Overlay Accommodation Analysis and Comparision. RGMC proposes its own alternative analysis for comparing the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay to the population accommodated without it. Using the County's population projection for 2020 of 626,860 in the unincorporated county and the accepted 2.09 people per unit, it can be estimated that approximately 300,000 units will be needed in the year 2020. Subtracting the 127,000 units existing in 1990, approximately 173,000 additional units will be needed over the 30 years from 1990 to 2020 to accommodate the expected population, or approximately 5,800 additional units per year. At that average rate, 116,000 units would be added by the year 2010 (5,800 units per year times 20 years). Adding the new units to the 127,000 units existing in 1990 results in a total of approximately 244,000 units in 2010. Since it is agreed that the Overlay was designed to accommodate, and accommodated, approximately the population expected in the year 2010, it can be estimated that the Overlay accommodated approximately 244,000 units. In the sense that all units accommodated under the 2020 FLUM without the Overlay are available for development before 2010, a rough comparison can be made between the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay and the population accommodated according to the other analysis methodologies: according to Figure 14, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 384,045 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14A, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 634,243 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14B, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 759,086 units for the year 2020; and according to the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" methodology, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 1,201,973 units for the year 2020. Calculation and Use of the "Allocation Ratio". The technique of determining a residential density allocation ratio was described in an article entitled "Expanding the Overallocation of Land Use Categories," which appears in a June, 1995, publication of the Department of Community Affairs called "Community Planning." "Community Planning" is published by the Department of Community Affairs "to provide technical assistance to Florida's counties and cities and implement any requirements of Florida's growth management laws." The article announces how the Department reviews the question of "overallocation" in determining whether a plan is in compliance with statutory and rule requirements regarding urban sprawl. According to the article, the Department suggests that a comprehensive plan should allocate up to 125 percent of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected future population. The article does not explain how the "allocation ratio" should be calculated. The Sheridan Final Order seems to say that maximum densities should be assumed. See Finding 11, above. But neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order indicate what other assumptions should be made. The "Community Planning" article and the Sheridan Final Order also do not specify whether, in calculating the allocation ratio, population accommodation capacity should be compared to the total expected population or to the incremental growth expected in the population. The DCA has accepted a 1.25 allocation ratio applied to the total expected population as being reasonable. A major treatise in this area known as Urban Land Use Planning, Fourth Edition, by Kaiser, Godchalk, and Chapin, suggests that an allocation ratio of up to 2.05 can be considered reasonable; however, when doing so, the authors were evaluating plans with a closer planning horizon (one to five years), and they were comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population. When calculating an allocation ratio for a 20-year planning horizon, they suggest that a 1.20 allocation ratio that compares population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be reasonable. By accepting a 1.25 allocation ratio that compares the population accommodation capacity to the total population expected on a 25-year planning horizon, the DCA seems to have been misapplying the allocation ratio analysis. Clearly, an accommodation ratio comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be much than one comparing to to the total population expected. There was no data and analysis as to exactly how much higher, and it is difficult to say based on the record in this case. However, an example of the difference between the too methodologies is suggested by one of RGMC's alternative analyses. It is known that approximately 300,000 units of residential development will be needed for the population expected in the year 2020. See Finding 36, above. The evidence was that there were approximately 143,000 units existing in 1995, so approximately 157,000 additional units will be needed by the year 2020 to accommodate the expected population. Meanwhile, using the County's Figure 14 assumptions, the FLUM without the Overlay makes 384,045 units available for development by the year 2020, or an accommodation of an additional 241,045 units over what was in existence in 1995. Comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020 would result in an "accommodation ratio" of approximately 1.54, versus the ratio of 1.28 calculated in Figure 14 comparing to total population expected. By way of further examples, using the same method of comparison: Figure 14A's 2.11 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.13, comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020; Figure 14B's 2.53 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.92; and the DCA's "accommodation ratio" of 4.01 would become a ratio of 6.75. It should be noted that the Urban Land Use Planning treatise also speaks of the use of the allocation ratio as a safety factor to provide a choice of location for housing type and to avoid artificially increasing land and housing prices. Rather than being a device merely to avoid the overallocation of land, the safety factor also is said to be necessary to ensure that enough land is allocated and that the limitations of forecasting approaches do not exacerbate the need for affordable housing. It also should be noted that neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order specify that allocation and urban sprawl issues should be determined from the simple calculation of a residential density allocation. To the contrary, the Sheridan Final Order would indicate that, once the allocation ratio is obtained, full consideration should be given to all pertinent factors "in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis." Analyses Not Conducted. The plan amendments do not only eliminate the 2010 Overlay. They also decline to retain the Overlay concept and extend it another ten years to the year 2020. There is no data or analysis in this case comparing the population accommodated by the FLUM without any Overlay to the population that would be accommodated in the year 2020 if the Overlay were extended another ten years to 2020. Such data and analysis would most clearly illuminate the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay, and abandoning the Overlay concept, on the residential allocation of the plan for the year 2020. There may be tens of thousands of, up to perhaps almost a hundred thousand, residential units in DRI's that have been approved but not yet built. There was inadequate data and analysis of how many of the residential units that will be needed by the year 2020 can be supplied in these DRI's. Lehigh Acres. Clearly, Lehigh Acres presents a special problem for Lee County and the DCA. Lehigh Acres was platted in the 1950s and 1960s. It covers approximately 97 square miles, which is slightly more than 62,000 acres. Since its inception, Lehigh has had all the attributes of urban sprawl. It is a large, sprawling, almost entirely residential community that was created in an area remote from urban services. It is characterized by grid patterns of development, a poorly-designed transportation network with large numbers of small local roads and no four-lane roads, huge amounts of land allocated to residential development and a relatively small amount of land allocated to commercial development. The roads in Lehigh are built. Virtually all of Lehigh has been subdivided into relatively small single family residential homesites, and almost all of these homesites have been sold to buyers all over the world. By virtue of the platting and sale of the land into homesites, Lehigh is a vested community. Over the years, the County has considered a number of potential solutions to the Lehigh Acres dilemma. Ultimately, the County decided to take a multi-pronged approach: (1) creating restrictions on additional subdivision and attempting to reduce densities to no more than four units per acre; (2) continuing the privately-funded infrastructure overlay as the means of providing infrastructure in Lehigh; and (3) utilizing sector planning to work toward a better transportation system and larger areas of commercial allocation to create a more balanced community. Based on the new treatment of Lehigh Acres, the County engaged in different assumptions about how Lehigh will build out. In 1989, Lehigh was shown as "central urban" and "urban community," together with the rest of the Lee Plan future land use categories. Under the 2010 Overlay, the County purported to reduce acreage allocations in Lehigh, but in fact there was little impact on residential potential due to vesting. In the EAR-based amendments, Lehigh is shown under "Vested Community," a separate land use category. Through the vested community category, the County attempted to restrict additional subdividing of lots and, with a few limited exceptions, set a maximum density of four units per acre. Based on the different treatment of Lehigh in the Plan, the County projected a population for Lehigh based on the amount of growth actually expected to occur by Year 2020. To do this, the County utilized eight different methodologies and averaged the projections to come up with a 2010 population for Lehigh of 95,906. These assumptions are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Neither the Department's rules nor the "Community Planning" article provide specific guidance as to how vested areas are to be treated in making a calculation of a plan's "allocation ratio." The vast area of Lehigh has the capacity to absorb virtually all the anticipated future population growth in unincorporated Lee County through the year 2020. In fact, it may be appropriate for Lee County to increase overall density in Lehigh if necessary to support the infrastructure and transportation needed to convert Lehigh Acres into a more balanced, multi-use development. Lee County's approach to Lehigh essentially was to attempt to satisfy the Department's desire for an acceptable "allocation ratio" by estimating how many residents will actually live in Lehigh by 2020, assuming the Plan's treatment of Lehigh, and treating those estimates as Lehigh's population accommodation. By studying historic rates of growth, the Lee Planning Division believes that number will be approximately 96,000 people. No evidence was presented by the Department or any intervenor in contradiction of this estimate. The results of the County's approach to Lehigh are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Another approach would be to attempt to reduce residential development in other parts of the County. It would be poor planning to reduce densities "across the board" throughout the County just to achieve a lower allocation ratio. Such an approach could direct population concentration away from urban areas into poorly-served rural areas, thereby discouraging the efficient use of land and encouraging sprawling uses. Depending on the densities, it could direct growth to remote areas of the county. Additionally, if Lee County attemped to limit residential growth based on incorrect assumptions regarding future densities, it could seriously underallocate land uses. Underallocation can greatly inflate land costs to the detriment of the general public. On the other hand, a better approach might be to couple sector planning in Lehigh with a reduction in densities in certain other parts of the County. If successful, such an approach could both create more balanced development in Lehigh Acres and direct future growth to Lehigh and away from coastal high hazard areas (CHHA), DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Commercial Allocations. The 2020 Lee Plan, without the 2010 Overlay, has some guidance for the location of commercial development, especially retail commercial. But it does not have percentage distributions or other objective measurement of the distribution of commercial and other uses allowed in its many mixed land use districts. Policy 6.1.2 of the 2020 Lee Plan consists of site location criteria which apply to retail commercial development, such as shopping centers, restaurants, gas stations, and other commercial development generating large volumes of traffic. Non-retail commercial development, such as office, hotel and motel or wholesale commercial development, may be developed at the identified intersections or anywhere else in the land use categories which allow commercial development. Even retail commercial can be developed at locations which do not meet the location criteria under discretion granted to the Board of County Commissioners. According to Lee County's EAR, the Commercial Site Locations Standards Map (Map 16) identifies 52 full intersections and 15 half-moon intersections which comply with the site location standards for Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. They represent 9,520 acres of land designated for retail commercial development. Using the standard planning conversion rate of 10,000 square feet per acre, average, there is room for approximately 95,000,000 square feet of commercial development in the commercial sites depicted on Map There also may be other intersections which meet the criteria for Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial but are not shown on Map 16. In addition, there are numerous intersections which meet the criteria for Minor Commercial which are not shown on Map 16. Map 16 also does not include Regional Commercial development. The report by Thomas H. Roberts & Associates on Commercial Land Use Needs In Lee County (Jan. 10, 1987), indicates that the retail space ratio in Lee County is 26 square feet per capita. Just counting the 95,000,000 square feet of retail commercial development allowed in the land shown on Map 16, the 2020 Lee Plan has enough retail commercial capacity to accommodate 3.7 million people. Without even considering the non-retail commercial uses that can be developed at any location in the several land use districts which allow commercial uses, or the unknown amount of retail commercial that can be developed at the numerous intersections which meet the Minor Commercial location criteria, the 2020 Lee Plan without the 2010 Overlay allows commercial development far in excess of the amount needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. Industrial Allocation Policy 7.1.4 in the 2020 Lee Plan provides: The [FLUM] shall designate a sufficient quantity of land to accommodate industrial development that will employ 3 percent of the county's population in manufacturing activities by the year 2010. The 2020 FLUM, without the 2010 Overlay, designates 6,062 acres in the Industrial Development category. Three percent of the 2020 County population represents approximately 19,000 people. The 1984 Roberts industrial land analysis for Lee County suggested a ratio of seven industrial workers per acre for industrial related activities. Most industrial land uses employ more workers per acre, and the national average is about 17 employees per acre. But even using the ratio suggested by the Roberts analysis, Lee County would need only approximately 3,000 acres of industrial land to accommodate three percent of the 2020 County population in industrial employment. Analysis in the EAR indicates that enough additional industrial land is needed to serve the needs of municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves and that this additional land accounts for the apparent excess in industrial lands allocated in the county. However, it is not clear from the data and analysis how this determination was made. In addition, light industrial development is permitted in several other mixed land use categories. For example, the existing approximately 2,800 acres of Airport Commerce (AC) located to the northwest of the airport is intended to include light industrial activities. There was no data or analysis as to how much additional industrial use will be made of land in those categories. There are no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution of land uses in the mixed land use districts that allow light industrial use. The Mixed Land Use Districts. As has been seen, the Lee Plan without any Overlay makes extensive use of mixed land use districts without percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. Much of the dispute between the parties as to residential accommodation and allocations of land for commercial and industrial uses results from the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use categories. Although the County predicts development of only a percentage of these districts as residential, it remains possible for much larger percentages to be developed residential. On the other hand, it is possible for practically all of mixed land use districts to develop commercially or even industrially. The 2010 Overlay attempted to address the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use districts by limiting the acreage that could be developed in particular uses by the year 2010. Without the Overlay concept, no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses remain in the plan. Because of the plan's extensive use of mixed use districts, the County's ability to control development through the plan is seriously undermined. Other Urban Sprawl Considerations. Unincorporated Lee County contains approximately 685 square miles. Lehigh Acres and the DRGR areas, combined, are approximately 199 more square miles, 29 percent of the total area of unincorporated Lee County. Except for the growth that will occur in the Vested Community of Lehigh, much of the future growth in Lee County will occur in the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor, which is oriented in a generally North-South direction and contains most of the urbanized areas of the County, including the City of Fort Myers. Because this area is already largely urbanized, most of the growth in it will result in either the expansion of existing urbanized areas or in-fill between existing urban areas. Certificated water and sewer franchise areas also generally coincide with the north/south urban core in which growth is expected to continue. The presence of water and sewer franchise areas in the north/south urban core and in Lehigh Acres encourages utilization of these areas through the ability to provide urban services. The absence of water and sewer franchise areas in other portions of the County will act as a hindrance to development in areas which are undeveloped and either in conservation or agricultural use. A review of County DRI approvals, together with approved development orders, also appears to indicate a trend toward development in the north/south core. The absence of development orders in most of the outlying areas, indicated as either agricultural, vacant, or conservation use, indicate that probably relatively little growth will occur in those areas. Platted subdivisions also appear to show a trend toward development in the north/south urban core. In general, there also appears to be a correlation between existing land uses and those factors which can reasonably be expected to establish future growth trends in the north/south urban core. Growth in the north/south I-75, U.S. 41 corridor across the county line to the south in Collier County tends to encourage similar growth at the southern end of Lee County. Meanwhile, there are hindrances to development across the county line to the east and southeast by virtue of the presence of agricultural lands and regional wetland systems such as the Corkscrew Swamp and the Everglades. The County has also made use of sector planning. The County's sector plans represent extensive and detailed planning studies which in many cases are reflected in both the FLUM and the policies in the Plan. However, currently there is no sector plan for Lehigh Acres. Policy 1.5.5, creating the Vested Community category for Lehigh, states a sector plan for Lehigh will be developed beginning in 1996. In terms of land uses, the Plan seems to be fairly well functionally related, both in terms of what is shown on the FLUM and the relation between the FLUM and the Plan policies themselves. A good example of this is the commercial site location standards, which establish a strong functional relationship between transportation and regional commercial facilities. There is also a good functional relationship between existing land uses. The Plan mixed use categories appear to recognize and attempt to encourage sound functional relationships between home, work, and shopping. The Plan also has compatibility standards that help maintain functional relationships. However, without the Overlay, the many mixed use categories in the Plan do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts. In terms of land use suitability, the County generally appears to be designating for development those areas which are most suitable for development. However, because it allows development of all kinds throughout the County in excess of what is needed by 2020, the Plan allows development in less suitable areas. A variety of methodologies and assumptions leads to the conclusion that the Lee Plan generally is an urban development plan, not a rural development plan. For instance, under the Figure 14 methodology, 80 percent of the population is directed toward urban land uses, and 12 percent into rural. Under Figure 14B, which unrealistically assumes that all of Lehigh Acres will be built out within the planning time frame, 90 percent of the population is directed to urban areas, and only 10 percent to rural. Even assuming that 100 percent of the land will be used for residential purposes, and that all of Lehigh will build out within the planning time frame, 92 percent is directed to urban areas, and only 8 percent to rural. Finally, even assuming 100 percent of the land to residential at maximum densities, and also that all rural land uses will use the PDDO option at six units per acre, only 4 percent of the population will be directed to rural areas in the FLUM. Notwithstanding the overall patterns of growth in Lee County, it clearly is indicated in the Sheridan Final Order that land in Lee County historically has been used inefficiently and that, without the Overlay, the plan allows inefficiency to continue unabated. This is due in large part to the extensive use of mixed land use categories that do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts, together with the overallocation of land that also results in part from their use. By comparing the FLUM's since 1984 with the current Existing Land Use Map (ELUM) (Lee 56), it is apparent that rural designations have not preserved agriculture. Significant parts of county that have been designated rural since 1984 actually have been developed residential or non-agricultural use. In Range (R) 25 East (E), Township (T) 45 South(S), Sections 31 and 32 are residential, while 33 is a golf course. Similarly, R 25 E, T 47 S, Sections 14, 15 and 23 have developed significantly residential and part of Section 14 is now designated Outlying Suburban. In addition, significant residential development has occurred in areas of Pine Island that have been designated rural since 1984. On the other side of the coin, much of the "New Community" still is in rural use (R 35 E, T 45 S, Sections 1, 2, 3, parts of 10, 11, and 12; R 26 E, Sectons 5-8, 17 and 18.) Some "Industrial Development" land is actually still in rural use or vacant--R 25 E, T 46 S, Section 3 west of I-75, and Sections 4- There is significant land that actually is rural or vacant adjacent to wetlands and Estero Bay in R 24 E, T 45 S (Sections 28, 29, and 31-35), together with Sections 3-5, 8-10, and 15 in R 24 E, T 46 S, that are designated for Suburban or Outlying Suburban uses. Land designated rural, open land or fringe in 1984 has been redesignated for urban uses over the years. A large block straddling Daniels Parkway east of the 6 Mile Cypress Strand has been designated Outlying Suburban. Approximately between Buckingham Road, Orange River Boulevard and I-75, rural land has been redesignated as Rural Community Preserve. Large blocks of land, one at the extreme north end of the county between U.S. 41 and I-75, and the other east of I-75 near the river, have gone from rural to Outlying Suburban. A large amount of what was rural and fringe between Bonita Springs and San Carlos Park, west of U.S. 41, has become Suburban and Outlying Suburban. CHHA and Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter. Objective 75.1 of the amended Lee Plan defines and delineates Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) for the first time. Previously, the plan referred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "A Zone," which encompasses somewhat more land than the new CHHA. Policy 75.1.4 of the amended Lee Plan, which formerly applied to the "A Zone," states: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within [CHHA] shall be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In this round of amendments, the County did not consider either reducing density categories, or assigning the minimum allowable densities in categories with a range of densities, in undeveloped land in the CHHA. In prior rounds of amendments, the County reduced densities in areas that would be inundated by Category 1, 2 and 3 hurricanes (which would include CHHA). Assuming maximum allowable densities together with the other Figure 14A assumptions, the density reductions reduced population accommodation by 13,000 units in those areas. Elimination of the 2010 Overlay opened additional land to immediate development in the CHHA. There was no data and analysis on the amount of new land opened to immediate development or the additional population accommodated in the CHHA that would result. Goal 79 in the Lee Plan, as amended, is to "provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.1 of the Lee Plan, as amended, is to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 2000, and to reduce the clearance time portion of evacuation time to 18 hours or less by 2010. Previously, the plan's objective was to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. Lee County has among the best hurricane planning efforts in southwest Florida. Nonetheless, as of the time of the final hearing, evacuation times still exceeded 1987 levels, and clearance times exceeded 18 hours. Little progress had been made toward the previous objective to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. That is why the objective was extended five more years until the year 2000. It may be that the 2010 Overlay was not designed with hurricane evacuation times in mind. It also is true that the County's evacuation plans are updated every three years based on actual development data. But it also is true that additional development in the CHHA due to elimination of the 2010 Overlay may make it more difficult to achieve Objective 79.1, even as amended. Objective 79.2 of the Lee Plan is to make adequate shelter space available by the year 2010 "for the population in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone at risk under a Category 3 storm." There was no data and analysis of the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. There also was no data and analysis of the impact of amending Objective 75.1 and 75.1.4 to reduce the size of the coastal area subject to consideration for land use density reductions on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. Change of Alico Property from DRGR to AC. Another significant FLUM amendment in the EAR-based amendments was to change the designation of 1400 acres of property owned by Alico, Inc., from DRGR to Airport Commerce (AC). Uses allowed in the AC district include light manufacturing and assembly, warehousing, distribution facilities, ground transportation and airport related terminals or transfer facilities, and hospitality services. Suitability. Policy 1.4.5 of the plan, as amended, defines DRGR as "upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" and as "the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." Although previously designated DRGR, more recent data and analysis calls this designation into question. The amendment property does provide some recharge to both the water table (surficial) aquifer and the underlying Sandstone aquifer, but it does not provide above-average groundwater recharge for either aquifer (or any recharge to any of the deeper aquifers). In addition, it is not a good site for the development of a wellfield in either the water table or the Sandstone aquifer. The water table aquifer is not especially thick, and there are too many wetlands on the site for production from the water table aquifer. (Pumping from the water table aquifer next to the airport also could be problematic in that the stability of the soil under the airport could be affected. (Cf. Finding 100, below.) In the Sandstone aquifer, groundwater flows away from the site, making it unsuitable for production. Despite the questions raised by the new data and analysis, the amendment property may still be suitable for designation as DRGR. But that does not necessarily make it unsuitable for AC use. In terms of location, the amendment property is perfectly suited to AC use. I-75 and other AC-designated property is to the immediate west of the amendment property. The Southwest Florida International Airport is to the immediate north of the amendment property. A second runway and a new cargo handling facility are planned for construction to the south of the existing airport runway. When built, the new facilities will practically be touching the northern boundary of the amendment property, and the proposed new south airport access will cross the amendment property and intersect Alico Road, which is the southern boundary of the amendment property. Commercial and industrial use on the property would not pose an unreasonable threat to contaminate either existing or future potable water wells. Theoretically, stormwater from the amendment property could contain contaminants which could eventually migrate to a drinking water well. But the threat of such contamination is small. Permitting criteria adopted and imposed by the South Florida Water Management District will require all construction on this site to conform to surface water quality standards through Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and permitting rules of the Water Management District within Chapter 40, Florida Administrative Code. These rules will require on-site detention and retention of stormwater which will greatly reduce the threat of surface contaminants leaving the property. Additionally, all surface water runoff from the property, and most groundwater, will be intercepted by the Alico Road Canal, which drains in a westerly direction away from any existing drinking water wells. If any contaminants from the amendment property were to enter the groundwater, avoid the Alico Road Canal and leave the property, they would have to migrate a considerable distance to reach a potable water wellhead. The only wellfield pumping, or planned to pump, from the water table aquifer which contaminants possibly could reach would be the existing Gulf Utilities wellfield approximately one mile and a half southeast of the amendment property. Contaminants within the groundwater move at a slower speed than the water itself. Most contaminants move at a much slower speed than the water. Thus, the chances are very slight that contaminants from the amendment property would threaten the Gulf Utilities wellfield. Any metals in the groundwater would attach to soil particles and migrate extremely slowly. Other potential contaminants would eventually break down within the soil as they slowly migrated away from the site. It was estimated that the travel time from the closest portion of the amendment property to the Gulf Utilities well field would be in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 years. If any such contaminants did reach the wellfield they would be in such dilute concentrations that they would pose no health hazard. The only other wellfield that is reasonably close to the proposed site is the Florida Cities well field to the northeast. This wellfield taps the Sandstone aquifer. The Sandstone aquifer is separated from the water table aquifer by an approximately 40 foot thick semi-confining layer. This layer is composed of silt and clay which provides hydraulic separation between the aquifers. There are no known breaches of the semi-confining layer in this area. The direction of flow and the nature of the semi-confining layer also make it extremely unlikely that contaminants from activities on the amendment property and discharged from the site by stormwater could migrate to the Florida Cities water wellfield. The groundwater in the water table aquifer flows generally southwest, and the confining layer has low leakance values. Additionally, safety measures required for the development of the amendment property include the installation of monitoring wells and the requirement to use the best environmental management practices. The data and analysis includes panther sitings in the vicinity of the amendment property. There also is evidence that the amendment property is part of land that has been labeled as "Panther Priority 2." The significance of this label was not clear from the evidence. In any event, while part of the "Panther Priority 2" land, the amendment property clearly also is surrounded by uses not particularly suited for panthers. Currently, rock mining is occurring on property to the east and to the south of the amendment property. Rock mining on the amendment property itself also is allowed under its previous DRGR designation. The airport is immediately to the north, and both other AC property and I-75 are immediately to the west. In light of those developments, the "Panther Priority 2" designation does not make the amendment property unsuitable for AC designation. Need. The County has a legitimate need to diversify its economy so that it is not so dependent on tourism. It is the County's perogative to attempt to develop its regional airport into an international trade center. In view of the suitability of the amendment property for AC, and its projected role in furthering the County's plans to develop its regional airport into an international trade center, the amendment property should be viewed as a valuable economic resource in need of protection. It is appropriate, when trying to protect a resource, to plan for the needs of generations to come. If the amendment is not approved, there is a good chance that the land eventually will be used for a rock mine. Residential use in that location is incompatible with airport noise. A public gun range is a permissible use of DRGR property, but there are no plans for a public gun range on the amendment property, and such a use also would not be compatible so close to the airport and would be unlikely. Although agricultural use as pasture is possible, ultimate use of the property for pasture seems less likely than rock mining. As previously mentioned, the land immediately to the east of the subject parcel and to the south of the subject parcel is being utilized as rock pits. If the amendment property eventually is used for rock mining, the land would be excavated into what becomes deep lakes. In all likelihood, such a use would permanently preempt the land in question from being a commercial resource that could be utilized in conjunction with the airport. Of the 1400 acres of amendment property, approximately 800 acres are jurisdictional wetlands; only about 600 acres of uplands actually can be used for AC purposes. Meanwhile, approximately 173 acres of industrial land has been rezoned to other uses within Lee County between 1990 and the date of the hearing. Another 300 acres of AC are to be incorporated into the new airport expansion. But there was no data or analysis as to how much of those 473 acres consist of wetlands. Utilizing the 1984 Roberts methodology, the County has analyzed the need for industrial land in the County and has concluded that the addition of the amendment property is necessary to meet those requirements. However, as previously mentioned, it is not clear how the County's analysis was conducted or what the actual needs for industrial land in the County are. In addition, several mixed land use categories permit light industrial use but do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution among the mixed uses within those categories. Taken as a whole the data and analysis does not establish that the AC amendment is necessary to meet the need for industrial land in the County. Adequate data and analysis to establish those needs is necessary to determine whether other land where industrial use is permitted should be redesignated if the AC amendment is to be adopted. As previously discussed, Lee County has much more land designated for commercial development than will be needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. See Findings 58-68, above. In support of their position that the AC map amendment is needed in order to meet the demand for airport-related industrial and commercial development that will be generated by the expanding Southwest Florida International Airport, Lee County and Alico point out that international airports serve a larger area than a single County, and that a larger AC district near the Airport will serve the Southwest Florida region. With its new runway and larger terminal with new cargo handling facility, the Airport Authority intends, and the County would like to encourage, a large increase in airfreight handled by the Airport by 2020. Alico prepared a Response to DCA's ORC, which attempted to compare the acreage of approved, large-scale commercial and industrial development near the Orlando International Airport to the amount of acres proposed for Airport Commerce near the Southwest Florida International Airport. However, the Alico Response failed to take into account the amount of approved development near the Orlando Airport which is vacant. According to the Alico Response, the Orlando International Airport handled 233,587 tons of airfreight in 1994. Also according to the Alico Response, 7,152 acres of industrial and commercial development, including ten DRI's, are located near the Orlando Airport. The ten DRI's located near the Orlando Airport include 55,464,770 square feet of approved industrial and commercial development. But as of June of 1995, only 3,386,744 square feet of industrial and commercial development, or 6.11 percent of the approved industrial and commercial square footage, had been constructed. Applying the percentage of approved industrial and commercial in DRI's actually developed by 1995 (6.11 percent) to the acreage approved for industrial and commercial (7,152 acres), it can be determined that 440 acres of existing industrial and commercial development were supporting the 233,587 tons of airfreight handled by the Orlando Airport in 1994. Based upon the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that each acre of industrial and commercial development near an airport supports 534.54 tons of airfreight each year. The Southwest International Airport projects that 196,110 tons of airfreight will be handled by the Airport by 2020. Dividing the projected 2020 tonnage by the 534.54 tons of airfreight per acre from the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that the air freight activities projected for the Southwest Florida International Airport by the year 2020 will support only about 367 acres of AC. The Lee Plan FLUM already includes approximately 2800 acres of AC located to the northwest of the Airport. (It is not clear whether the 300 acres consumed by the runway expansion should be deducted from the 2850 acres of AC said to currently exist.) The existing AC district is essentially undeveloped. The AC which already exists to the northwest of the Airport is more than sufficient to support the airfreight which the Airport expects to handle by 2020. Zemel FLUM Amendment. Background. The Zemels own approximately 8600 acres of land in northwest Lee County. The 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendments which resulted from the settlement between Lee County and DCA, designated Zemel property as DRGR with a residential density of one unit per ten acres. The DRGR designation for the Zemel property was determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Zemel v. Lee County & DCA, 15 FALR 2735 (Fla. Dept. Comm. Aff. 1993), aff'd, 642 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1st DCA 1994). Based in part on data and analysis which were not available at the time of adoption of the DRGR category, a circuit court determined that the Zemel property did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the DRGR category. The circuit court ordered that: The property is hereby restored to the Rural land use classification on the Future Land Use Map of the Lee Plan, including restoration of the subject property's density to 1 du/acre and use of the Planned Development District Option for the property. This action shall not preclude the County from amending its plan, including the 2010 Overlay, as it pertains to the Zemel property, pursuant to Chapter 163, Fla. Stat., subject to constitutional limita- tions and other requirements of law. Placement of Zemel Property in Open Lands Classification The 1994 EAR-based amendments changed the land use designation of the Zemel property to Open Lands. Open Lands is a new category created by the EAR- based amendments in Policy 1.4.4. The residential density allowed in the Open Lands category is one unit per ten acres, except a density of one unit per five acres is permitted if the planned development process is used to prevent adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands (as defined in Policy 77.1.1.4). (Commercial and industrial uses are permitted in the Open Lands category in accordance with the standards in the Rural category.) Of the 8,600 acres owned by Zemel, approximately 1,900 acres are wetlands and 6,700 acres are uplands. Lee County chose the Open Lands category for the Zemel property because it was the least intensive land use category available after the circuit court determined that the DRGR category was not appropriate, and because the County did not wish to exacerbate the overallocation of the FLUM. According to new Policy 1.4.4: Open Lands are upland areas that are located north of Rural and/or sparsely developed areas in Township 43 South. These areas are extremely remote from public services and are characterized by agricultural and low-density residential uses. It was not proven that the Zemel property does not meet the Policy 1.4.4 definition of Open Lands. The Zemel property clearly is in Township 43 South. It is north of areas that can be said to be "sparsely developed." The Zemel property clearly is characterized by agricultural use. Finally, although some of the Zemel property is not "extremely remote" from some public services, all of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from at least some public services, and some of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from all public services. Placement of the Zemel property in the Opens Lands category was based on adequate data and analysis. To the extent that data and analysis in the EAR may have been lacking, the evidence at final hearing included adequate data and analysis. Using the Figure 14 methodology, the County calculated that Open Lands category would accommodate 2,073 people, as compared to 8,293 people at the Rural density. However, assuming development of all of the Zemel property at the one du/ac standard density allowed by the Lee Plan for Rural, 14,003 people (1 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit) would be accommodated. In the case of the Zemel property, such an assumption would be less unrealistic than in many other parts of the County since it is a large, vacant tract. The evidence also was that the Zemel property is one of the few parcels of land in the County in which use of the PDDO is a realistic possibility. Assuming maximum densities under the PDDO, the Zemel property under the Rural designation could accommodate 84,018 people (6 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Under the Open Lands category, even at the maximum density allowed for planned developments, the Zemel property could accommodate only 2,801 people (1 du/5 ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Dependence of Open Lands on Deletion of Overlay Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. Although all of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires," the evidence was that one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. Specifically, there was evidence that the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," was intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay, and to either become effective together or not at all. Otherwise, there would be no development authorized in property redesignated "Open Lands" because there was no land use category called "Open Lands" at the time of adoption of the 2010 overlay, and no express authorization for development of any kind in "Open Lands." Planning Timeframe. Clearly, the EAR-based Lee Plan amendments are intended to plan through the year 2020. The year 2020 was chosen for the amendments to enable the County to make use of the best available demographic projections being generated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for that time frame. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the plan, as amended, retains Map 11. Map 11 depicts "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries." It is the map that was generated in 1989 and used in the 1989 and subsequent plans for the year 2010. However, it was not proven that the map does not accurately depict "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries" for the year 2020. The County concedes that the Community Facilities and Services Element of the plan, as amended, projects waste generation and recycling rates only from 1991 to 2015. The County contends that these projections are easily extrapolated to the year 2020, and no party disputes this. The County's response to the DCA's ORC report indicates that the Hurricane Shelter/Deficit analysis for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element is for shelter needs to the year 2000. However, the County cannot accurately project shelter needs much further in the future. The evidence is that the better practice is to plan for shorter periods of time and continually update the projections. This is what the County does. It was not proven that the County is planning for the wrong timeframe or that its plan is defective for that reason. Other alleged uses of the wrong planning timeframe actually arise from questions as to the allocation of land to meet the needs of the County through the year 2020. There is no question whether the County's intent is to plan for the year 2020. The dispute is whether land has been overallocated. Other Alleged Internal Inconsistency. Amended Objective 100.1 in the Housing Element uses data for the County, including municipalities, in projecting the number of housing units needed for the 2020 timeframe. It is true that EAR Figures 14, 14A and 14B, which analyze the FLUM, identify the number of units which may be accommodated for the unincorporated area. But EAR Figures 12 and 13, which also analyze the FLUM, are directed to the entire county, including municipalities. Besides, it is clear that the County understands its obligation is only to implement affordable housing with respect to the unincorporated county. Water Supply. The Regional Water Supply Master Plan (RWSMP) serves as supporting data for several amended policies in the Potable Water sub-element of the Community Facilities and Services Element. The purpose of the RWSMP was to ensure an adequate, reliable and cost-efficient supply of potable water to meet the current and future needs of Lee County to the Year 2030 and beyond, considering both economic and environmental factors. The County's reliance on implementation of the RWSMP for this purpose is justified. Preparation of the plan was a very complex undertaking. In preparing the population projections on which the Regional Water Supply Master Plan relies, the County's consultant attended the technical staff meetings of the individuals with the Metropolitan Planning Association (MPO) charged with preparing the MPO population projections. The MPO Countywide population projections utilized in the RWSMP were prepared by estimating the number of permanent residents and taking into account a number of other economic characteristics and social characteristics such as the number of children per household, historic and expected natural and State trends, and the degree to which these trends will affect the future of Lee County. The Lee Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plans of the other governmental jurisdictions in Lee County, were utilized in preparing the RWSMP. It was a plainly spelled out requirement for preparation of the Master Plan that it had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of the County and cities in Lee County. The MPO population projections are reasonably accurate, and they are the best available data for purposes of planning water supply. The MPO projections are preferable to the "maximum theoretical" population accommodation used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis. Regardless of the appropriate analysis for purposes of determining whether a plan overallocates land, it would not be appropriate to plan water supply based on unrealistic population projections. The RWSMP uses MPO 2020 population projections that are somewhat different from, but reasonably close, to the 2020 population projections reflected in Figure 14 and used to support the FLUE of the Lee Plan. The special purposes of the RWSMP projections justify the differences. Besides, the differences are not large enough to prove beyond fair debate that the plan is not internally consistent. Wetlands Protection. Prior to the County's adoption of the EAR-based amendments, Goal 84 in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Lee Plan and its objectives and policies included guides for local land development regulations in the protection of wetlands by establishing allowable land uses and their densities, and by establishing design and performance standards for development in wetlands. The County modified Policy 84.1.2 (renumbered 84.1.1) in part by deleting a prohibition against the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or additional drainage features in wetlands. Ditches, canals and dikes could be constructed in wetlands to have beneficial effects. For example, a ditch could be built to increase the hydroperiod of a wetland and result in a benefit. A dike could enhance a mitigation area, which would also result in environmental benefits. Thus, the repeal of this prohibition could benefit wetlands. The 1984 data and analysis contained in the EAR recommended that the prohibition be deleted and instead suggested the use of performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. The EAR-based amendments to the Lee Plan do not include performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. Instead, the County has modified Policy 84.1.1 (renumbered 84.1.2) in part by deleting the following language: Wetland regulations shall be designed to protect, conserve, restore, or preserve water resource systems and attendant biological functions, including: Preventing degradation of water quality and biological productivity. Preventing degradation of freshwater storage capabilities. Preventing damage to property and loss of life due to flooding. Preventing degradation of the viability and diversity of native plants and animals and their habitats. Assuring the conservation of irretrievable or irreversible resources. In place of those performance standards, the EAR-based Policy 84.1.2 provides: The county's wetlands protection regulations will be amended by 1995 to be consistent with the following: In accordance with F.S. 163.3184(6)(c), the county will not undertake an independent review of the impacts to wetlands resulting from development in wetlands that is specifically authorized by a DEP or SWFWMD dredge and fill permit or exemption. No development in wetlands regulated by the State of Florida will be permitted by Lee County without the appropriate state agency permit or authorization. Lee County shall incorporate the terms and conditions of state permits into county permits and shall prosecute violations of state regulations and permit conditions through its code enforcement procedures. Every reasonable effort shall be required to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on wet- lands through the clustering of development and other site planning techniques. On- or off-site mitigation shall only be permitted in accordance with applicable state standards. Mitigation banks and the issuance and use of mitigation bank credits shall be permitted to the extent authorized by applicable state agencies. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County also modified Policy 84.1.4 by deleting language that addressed permitted uses in wetlands and their densities, but that issue is now covered under renumbered Policy 84.1.1. The amendments added to Policy 84.1.4 the following provision: Land uses in uplands will be regulated through the implementation of the Land Development Code to avoid degrading the values and functions of adjoining and nearby wetlands. New Policies 84.1.2 and 84.1.4 in effect defer performance standards covering development in wetlands to the state and water management district permitting processes. The Lee amendments in part are an attempt to avoid duplicating what state agencies accomplish through their permitting programs. The evidence is that the state and water management district permitting processes include newly adopted Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules. These rules consider the type, value, function, size, condition and location of wetlands in determining how to protect them. The ERP rules also require proposed development to avoid or eliminate wetland impacts or, if not possible, to minimize and mitigate for them. The ERP rules also require consideration of the cumulative and long-term adverse impacts of development on wetlands in a comprehensive manner within the same water basin. The DEP and the Southwest Florida Water Management District also have adopted supplemental ERP rules covering only the jurisdiction of that water management district, which includes Lee County. By including a requirement that every state environmental permit shall be incorporated into county permits and that violations of a state permit also are violations of the county permit, the Lee Plan commits the County to assist the State in enforcing environmental permits in Lee County. Through this new emphasis on compliance and enforcement, Lee County will be providing valuable assistance to state environmental protection. Lee County's efforts will assist those agencies by devoting staff to compliance and enforcement efforts. Prior to the EAR-based amendments, the County had two wetland land use categories under the Lee Plan. These were described as the Resource Protection Areas (RPA) and Transition Zones (TZ). Guidelines and standards for permitted uses and development in the RPA and TZ were found in the policies under Objective 84.1 and 84.2, respectively. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County replaced the RPA and TZ categories with a single Wetlands category. This new Wetlands category includes all lands that are identified as wetlands under the statewide definition using the state delineation methodology. The County's definition of "wetlands" in the plan amendments covers more area than the areas previously known as "resource protection" and "transition zones." To that extent, the present amendments to the Lee Plan give greater protection to wetlands than the previous version of the Lee Plan. The Lee Plan, as amended, also contains other GOP's. Taken together, the GOP's ensure the protection of wetlands and their natural functions. Reservation of Future Road Right-of-Way. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County has deleted or amended certain policies in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Lee Plan regarding the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. Deleted Policy 25.1.3 provided that the County would attempt to reserve adequate rights-of-way for state and county roads consistent with state and county plans. The County also deleted Policy 21.1.7, which addressed the possibility of acquiring future rights-of-way through required dedications of land. Policy 21.1.7 provided: The previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs shall not be construed so as to prohibit the adoption of regulations requiring such dedication. However, any such regulations must provide for a rational nexus between the amount of land for which dedication is required and the impact of the development in question, and must also provide that such dedication, when combined with other means which may be used to offset the impact of development (such as, for example, the imposition of impact fees), does not exceed the total impact of the develop- ment in question upon the county's transportation network. The "previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs," referenced in Policy 21.1.7, above, was Policy 21.1.6, which has been renumbered 21.1.5. As modified, that policy provides: In order to acquire rights-of-way and complete the construction of all roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map, voluntary dedications of land and construction of road segments and inter- sections by developers shall be encouraged through relevant provisions in the development regulations and other ordinances as described below: Voluntary dedication of rights-of-way necessary for improvements shown on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map shall be encouraged at the time local development orders are granted. In cases where there are missing segments in the traffic circulation system, developers shall be encouraged to also construct that portion of the thoroughfare that lies within or abuts the development, with appropriate credits granted towards impact fees for roads. However, site-related improvements (see glossary) are not eligible for credits towards impact fees. Policy 21.1.7 provided policy guidance for LDRs in establishing required dedication of future rights-of-way as a means of acquisition, if the County chose to use that measure. Policy 21.1.6 (renumbered 21.1.5) provides policy guidance for LDRs in establishing voluntary dedication of future rights- of-way as another means of acquisition. By deleting Policy 21.1.7, the Lee Plan, as amended, is left with a policy that establishes only the voluntary dedication measure as a means towards acquiring future rights-of-way to facilitate the construction of roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map of the Lee Plan. The County has made these changes because legally it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option after the decision in Joint Ventures, Inc., v. Dept. of Transportation, 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1990). The County's plan does more than just encourage voluntary dedication of rights-of-way. There are numerous policies in the Lee Plan that, taken together, adequately address the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. The following policies relate and achieve right-of-way protection: Policy 1.3, 1.6, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 6.1.5, 16.3.5, 21.1.5, Objective 21.2, Policies 21.2.1, 21.2.3, 21.2.5, 21.2.6, 21.2.7, Policy 23.1.2, 23.1.4, 23.2.3, Policy 25.1.1, and 25.1.3. Under these policies, all new projects receive a review for voluntary dedication as against the Lee County official trafficways map and the facility need identified for the planning horizon of the future traffic circulation element and map. In addition, all new developments are required to mitigate off-site impacts through a payment of impact fees. They are also required to address and mitigate site-related impacts through the provision of site-related improvements at the developer's expense. Payment of impact fees and additional revenues generated through mitigation of site-related impacts, both generate revenues for the capital improvements programming process for purchase of rights-of-way. Accomplishing necessary site-related improvements pursuant to the Lee County program also frequently results in County acquisition of rights-of-way at the developer's expense. Mitigation of site-related impacts, as well as payment of proportional share and impact fees, are generally accomplished through Policy 1.8.3, Subsection 1, Policy 2.3.2, Objective 3.1, Policy 3.1.3, Policy 7.1.2, Policy 14.3.2, Objective 22.1, 23.1, and the policies thereunder, Policy 23.1.1, 23.1.3-.7, 23.2.6, Objective 24.2, Policy 25.1.2, Objective 28.2, and Policy 70.1.1, Subsection A-7. The County's primary method of acquisition of rights-of-way is through the Capital Improvements Element. The Capital Improvements Element does include projected costs to purchase needed rights-of-way. The Lee County Capital Improvements Program is accomplished through Goal 70 of the Lee Plan, which expressly includes acquisition of rights-of-way. Objective 77.3 - Wildlife. Before the EAR-based changes, Objective 77.3 of the Lee Plan was to: "Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system . . .." In pertinent part, the EAR-based amendment deleted the phrase "current complement of." The change does not alter the meaning of the objective. The concept of a baseline expressed by the deleted phrase also is inherent in the words "[m]aintain and enhance" and remains in the amended objective. Policy 77.11.5 - Endangered and Threatened Species. The EAR-based amendments deleted Policy 77.11.5, which stated: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for public acquisition purposes shall be identified within these use areas. The corridor boundaries shall include wetlands, upland buffers, and nearby vegetative communities which are particularly beneficial to the Florida panther and black bear (such as high palmetto and oak hammocks). Data and analysis supports the deletion of the first two sentences. The use areas and public acquisition corridors have been identified. To reflect the new data and analysis, Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2 also were amended to provide for updating of data on sitings and habitat for these species and to encourage state land acquisition programs. The last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 has been transferred and added verbatim to Policy 77.11.2. Related Policy 77.11.4 was also amended to reflect new data and analysis and to provide that, instead of just encouraging the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand, the County shall continue an acquisition that is in progress. The Adoption Ordinance. As mentioned in connection with the Zemel amendment, Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. All of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires." All of the parties except for the Zemels agree that, under Section 8 of the ordinance, the "ultra vires" part of the adopting ordinance is severable from the rest of the ordinance, which remains valid. The Zemels take the positions (1) that the state circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the remainder of the ordinance is valid and (2) that the remainder of the ordinance is invalid. Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30 provided: [I]t is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners . . . to confer the whole or any part of the powers herein provided. If any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any remaining provision of this ordinance. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners that this ordinance would have been adopted had such unconstitutional provisions not been included therein. The evidence was that, notwithstanding Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30, one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. As discussed in connection with the Zemel amendment, the evidence was that one such package consisted of the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," and the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. There also was some less compelling evidence that amendments creating the Commercial Site Location Standards Map, FLUM 16, were intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. No other examples of similar "packages" of plan amendments was shown by the evidence or argued by any party. RGMC's Standing. The Responsible Growth Management Coalition, Inc. (RGMC), was formed in 1988 to insure compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule Chapter 9J-5 and to conserve resources. RGMC has offices in Lee County and conducts educational programs in Lee. In addition, at the time of the hearing, RGMC had 157 members residing throughout Lee County, most or all of whom own property in Lee County. RGMC participated in the process leading to the adoption of the Lee plan amendments in issue in this case and submitted oral or written comments, recommendations or suggestions between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the plan amendments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding that the Lee Plan amendments are not in compliance and requiring as remedial action: That the FLUE's mixed land use categories be amended to include percentage distribution or other objective measurements of the distribution among allowed uses, whether by use of an appropriate 2020 Overlay or by other appropriate means. That a sector plan be adopted for Lehigh Acres, including appropriate plans for provision of infrastructure, to create more balanced development in Lehigh and, to the extent possible, to direct future population growth to Lehigh and away from CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Such a sector plan could include minimum densities and target densities to support mass transit along transit corridors in Lehigh. That consideration be given to increasing densities in central urban areas and along transit corridors while at the same time reducing densities or adopting other plan provisions, such as the prohibition of certain kinds of development, to afford more protection to CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. One example would be the prohibition, or staging, of non-farm development in some or all rural areas. That, in accordance with Policy 75.1.4, undeveloped areas within CHHA be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. That the data and analysis supporting the remedial amendments account for units approved but not built and include both a population accommodation analysis based on maximum densities and an explanation of how the GOP's in the remedial amendments justify the resulting allocation ratio. That the remedial amendments include data and analysis of the impact of the resulting plan, as amended, on hurricane evacuation and clearance times and shelter planning, especially if, as part of remedial amendments, the 2010 Overlay is removed (or replaced). That the remedial amendments be based on data and analysis as to the need for commercial and industrial land, including the Alico amendment property. That the data and analysis extrapolate solid waste projections to 2020. That the sub-elements of the Community Facilities and Services Element (and other parts of the plan, as appropriate) be consistent with and based on data and analysis of future population predictions in light of any remedial amendments to the FLUE and FLUM. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0098GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1995), as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, Ltd., v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: DCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-17. Accepted. 18. There is a legal issue whether Ordinance 94-30 was adopted validly; otherwise, accepted. 19.-28. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected in part: plan includes "guides" (but no "objective measurements"); and Commercial Site Location Standards Map 16 implies that other uses are required elsewhere in the districts where these sites are located. Otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, rejected. (Assumptions are in part "based on" the GOP's, but they also assume less development than permitted by the GOP's.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Characterization "conservative" rejected as argument; otherwise, accepted. 34.-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted as being theoretically possible, but not likely to happen. 37.-38. Accepted. 39. Accepted as approximation of maximum theoretical residential capacity. 40.-46. Accepted. (However, as to 45 and 46, these numbers do not take into account industrial land needed to serve municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves.) First sentence, conclusion of law. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (The plan is "based on" the population projections, but allocates more land than needed to accommodate the population.) First sentence, conclusion of law; second sentence, accepted. 49.-50. Conclusions of law. 51.-52. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 53. First sentence, conclusion of law; second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; last sentence, accepted. 54.-55. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 56. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 57.-58. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; third, accepted (but does not prove non- compliance with the state plan.) First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 63.-64. Accepted. As to b.1. not timely raised; accepted as to b.2. (but easily extrapolated five more years to 2020); otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First two sentences of a. and b., accepted; otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (As to b., the discrepancies are not significant enough to create "internal inconsistency.") First sentence, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; rest, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that deletion of the Overlay "accelerated development." (Rather, it allows--and, under certain conditions, would result it--development of more acreage sooner.) First sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First and third sentences, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are easonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The RWSMP population projections are reasonably close to the Figure 14 projections. See also 66., above.) First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See also 71., above. 74.-77. Accepted. 78. 2850 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); otherwise, accepted. 79.-81. Accepted. 82.-83. Accepted. However, last sentences assume: (1) accurate inventory of developed acres in Orlando comparable to the land uses in AC under the Lee Plan; (2) 2850 acres of AC; and (3) developability of all AC acreage--including wetlands--for AC use. Those assumptions are not, or may not be, reasonable. 84. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See 82.-83. 85.-87. Accepted. However, as to 87., it is noted that the words "area," "surrounded by," and "nearby" are imprecise. Accepted; however, the degree of the sandstone aquifer's "susceptibility" to impacts depends on many factors. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that existing sources cannot produce any more; however, proven that new sources will be required, and otherwise accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that groundwater moves "to" the existing and planned wellfields. Otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. Fourth sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 97.-98. Accepted. Characterization of methodology as "flawed" rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It depends on the use being made of the results of the methodology.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, legal conclusion. (Legally, it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option, and the County's amendments presume that it is not.) Rest, accepted. 102.-105. Accepted. 106. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that voluntary dedication is not "effective" as one of several policies. Otherwise, accepted. 107.-108. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the state regulations are supposed to serve as "guidelines" or "guidance" for LDR's; rather, they are to serve in the place of duplicative County LDR's on the subject. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, appropriate comprehensive planning for wetlands occurs in other parts of the plan; the state regulations take the place of performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. Rest, accepted. (However, state regulations apply to some uplands that adjoin or are near to wetlands.) First sentence, accepted. (They don't guide the establishment of design and performance standard kinds of LDR's for any development in any wetlands; the state regulations take the place of design and performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (that they are the "core wetland policies in the plan.") Third sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. RGMC's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted. 9. Conclusion of law. 10.-15. Subordinate; conclusion of law; argument. 16. Accepted but subordinate. 17.-18. Rejected as not supported by record evidence. 19.-35. Accepted. 35(a). Conclusion of law. 36.-40. Accepted. 40(a). Conclusion of law. 41. Accepted. 41(a). Conclusion of law. 42.-44. Accepted. Accepted; however, the option to consider assignment of the minimum of a range of densities is in parentheses after the primary option to consider reducing densities. Largely argument. The objective and policy is "triggered" by any plan amendment, before and after the change from "A Zone" to "CHHA." See 47. Accepted. 47(a). Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (It is a question of internal consistency.) Accepted. 48(a). Argument and recommended remediation. Accepted. 50.-59. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 60.-62. Accepted. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 65.-66. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are reasonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) 67.-73(a) County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 77.-78. 2800 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); 1000 rejected as 400 low; otherwise, accepted. 79.-81(a). Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 82(a). Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Accepted but "between" is imprecise. Accepted, but not likely. Accepted that two are mutually exclusive; otherwise, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the lands are "adjacent"; otherwise, accepted. 93.-94. Accepted. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that it is "the reasonable professionally acceptable methodology." Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Whether it is appropriate to apply a safety margin factor just to projected new growth can depend on the safety margin factor used and how far out the projection.) Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as being hypothetical argument. (Also, the ratios do not convert to percentages, i.e., 25:1 does not convert to a safety margin factor of 25 percent.) 104.-111(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that "overallocations" occur in the earlier years of the planning timeframe; the relevant inquiry relates to the planning horizon. Also, as to 111., the reference should be to the year 2020. (Also, again the ratios do not convert to percentages.) Otherwise, accepted. 112.-118. Accepted as being paraphrased from part of the Sheridan Final Order. 119.-128. Accepted as being the adjustments to Figure 14B to yield unrealistic "maximum theoretical" capacity. 129.-130. Conclusions of law. 131. Accepted. 132.-133. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The plan does not "propose development"; its projections on which the County bases its facilities and services are more realistic that the "maximum theoretical" capacity projections.) Also, these specific issues were not timely raised, and County motion to strike granted. 134. Accepted. 135.-140. Descriptions of what the various FLUM's show and what development has occurred over the years, accepted as reasonably accurate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there were either official or unofficial "urban expansion lines." (It was not clear from the evidence whether the so-called "Proposed EAR Urban Boundary" shown on Lee Exhibit 53 was either an official or an unofficial "urban expansion line," and there was no other evidence of any "urban expansion lines.") Also, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there was a "failure to maintain" them, or that the Southwest International Airport or the Westinghouse Gateway DRI "breached" the alleged "1988 urban expansion line." (The Westinghouse Gateway DRI was vested prior to 1984, and the regional airport development appears on FLUM's prior to 1988.) Also, development that occurred in earlier years is not particularly probative on the issues in this case (in particular, the amendment eliminating the Overlay). 141.-142. Accepted. 142(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Also, the specific issue of failure to establish an "urban expansion line" is not raised by amendments at issue in this case (in particular, the elimination of the Overlay), and was not timely raised by any party. 143.-146. Densities in land use categories, accepted as reasonably accurate. The rest is rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. The plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance. Primarily, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage of non-urban land uses prior to 2010. They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020. 147.-150. Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. 150(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. Conclusion of law. In part, accepted; in part conclusion of law. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. 154.-160. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It remains to be seen how effective they will be in the long term.) Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage in potential wildlife habitat and corridor areas prior to 2010. (They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. 164.-168. Rejected because issues not raised timely. 169. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. 170.-174. County motion to strike granted. 175.-179. Accepted. 180.-182. Conclusions of law. 183.-184. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 185. Accepted. 186.-188. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 189. First clause, rejected (see 186.-188.); second clause, accepted. 190.-191. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 192.-193. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 194. Conclusion of law. 195.-196. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 197.-198. Except for typographical errors, accepted. (However, the last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 was transferred verbatim to amended Policy 77.11.2.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence to be the entire justification. (Also justified by updated data and analysis--namely, that the habitats have been identified and mapped--and by amended Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2, which respond to the new data and analysis.) Argument. 201.-204. Cumulative. (See 154.-157.) 205.-206. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 207.-208. Accepted. Accepted (although not demonstrated by Lee Exhibit 49). Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not clear from the evidence that the Zemel property is connected to and part of the Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area. Otherwise, accepted. 213.-216. Accepted. 217.-218. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (which is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 219.-222. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate (which, again, is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 223. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected. See 217.-222. Zemels' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted; however, relatively little of the Zemel property abuts either U.S. 41 or Burnt Store Road. 2-10. Accepted. Last clause rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; another option would be to amend the definition. Otherwise, accepted. Last clause, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that they are not "sparsely developed." Otherwise, accepted. 13.-15. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence as to the south; otherwise, accepted but irrelevant to the application of the definition. Accepted; however, not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Zemel property is not north of "sparsely developed areas." (Emphasis added.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rest, accepted in large part and rejected in part as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Clearly, at least a good portion of the Zemel property is "extremely remote" from all existing public services. Some portions of the Zemel property are not "extremely remote" from some public services, but not proven by a preponderance of evidence that at least some public services are not "extremely remote" from all portions of the Zemel property. Also, in addition to existing public services, c) and e) also refer to future public services. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that no agricultural activities have been profitable (only that row crop farming has not); otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (as to second and third sentences, because of the existence of the Open Lands category.) Accepted (although there also are other data and analysis in the record). First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Not all of the statements are "conclusory".) Second, accepted. Third, rejected; see 21., above. 28.-29. Accepted. (However, as to 29., it refers to existing access.) First sentence, accepted. A. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "fails to recognize" the roads in northern Cape Coral (although it clearly does not mention them); otherwise, accepted. B. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "appears to ignore" the water line along U.S. 41 (although it clearly does not mention it); otherwise, accepted. C. - accepted; however, the "proximity" is to a point on the periphery of the property. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence except using the County's methodology. Otherwise, accepted. 33.-34. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The County in effect "borrowed" the DCA's data and analysis.) Rest, accepted. Accepted, assuming the County's methodology; however, there also are other concerns. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. As to the second, there is rural land to the northwest; as to the third, there also is resource protection land in Charlotte County to the north, and the "enclave" is large; as to the fourth, no I-75 boundary would appear to apply to Township 43 even if it might appear to apply to the south. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The analysis compares the costs and difficulty in Yucca Pen to Lehigh and Cape Coral; in terms of such a comparison, the differences are significant.) 40.-45. Accepted. County's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; third, accepted (assuming "actual bona fide business" means a for-profit commercial enterprise.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the DCA "agreed with and relied on" the County's analysis. (The DCA utilized the analysis for purposes of its objection.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the determination was "on a largely subjective basis" (although some determinations necessarily were at least partly subjective); otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay was designed "without policy considerations" or that historic growth trends were "simply extrapolated." (The policy considerations already in the plan were utilized, and an effort was made to predict growth in light of those policy considerations. It is true, however, that the Overlay was not designed to further direct growth patterns within the planning districts and subdistricts.) Accepted (but not particularly probative). 11.-14. Accepted. Rejected in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it implies that the impact of the plan was not taken into consideration in predicting future population. See 9., above. Otherwise, accepted. Firsts sentence, accepted. As to second and third, not clear from the evidence what if anything was submitted in the way of data and analysis for the remedial amendments. They were not introduced in evidence or referred to by any party. As to the last sentence, it is not clear from the evidence exactly how the 2.11 factor was derived or whether it took into account the 2010 population accommodation for Lehigh (282,000 people in this analysis). (T. 1267-1269.) If the 507,000 units of accommodation did not include Lehigh, the total accommodation of 1.06 million also could not have included Lehigh. Accepted. First three sentences, argument. Rest, accepted. 19.-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as unclear what "that allocation" refers to. (Accepted if it means "up to 125 percent"; rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence if it means "200 percent.") 22.-23. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (In addition, a more meaningful comparison would be between the adopted EAR 2020 plan without a 2010 Overlay and a 2020 plan with an overlay extending the 2010 Overlay out another ten years.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rest, accepted (as accurate recitation of testimony) but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 30.-32. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to first sentence, see Sheridan Final Order.) Accepted. First and last sentences, accepted. Rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Such an approach would direct population to Lehigh, which might be the best thing to do. (At this point in time, development of Lehigh under a good Sector Plan might be able to change what was classic urban sprawl under past conditions into well-planned growth under present and future conditions.) It might also direct population to other, non- urban areas if densities were not low enough in them. Finally, Nelson suggested other ways of bring the plan into compliance without the Overlay. 38.-42. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The County did not seek to "match the available land to meet that growth"; rather, it checked to see if what was on the FLUM would "accommodate" (i.e., hold) the population projected for 2020. Last sentence, rejected in that RGMC challenged the opinion in its response to this proposed finding; otherwise, accepted. Rejected that the County "cannot alter the future development" of Lehigh or that Lehigh is "beyond the reach of" the comprehensive plan; otherwise, accepted. The 199 acres is part of the 685 acre total. Otherwise, generally accepted. However, significant additional growth can be expected in coastal areas, and there is rural land both within and outside the so-called "I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; presumably, the existence of this land is the reason the finding is couched in the terms: "the remaining area . . . is largely . . . along the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; and "all future growth . . . will predominantly occur." First and third sentences, conclusion of law; second, accepted. Conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted but subordinate; also, the rule citation is incorrect; in addition, they testified to the effect of removing the Overlay. Second sentence, conclusion of law. Accepted. (The effect of the Overlay is in the extent of the indicators that exist.) Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted; third, conclusion of law; fourth, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear"; also, conclusion of law. 58.-60. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The same conditions exist without the Overlay.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay did not have any "true policy bias or consideration built into it"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, the same conditions exist without the Overlay.) 68.-71. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "removing Cape Coral . . . reduces the FLUM capacity"; rather, it represents a change in the methodology of evaluating the FLUM capacity. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. 74.-78. Accepted. However, it appears that the County's treatment of Lehigh essentially was a device to enable it to have the projected population in the year 2020 treated as if it were the capacity of Lehigh in the year 2020. 79.-81. First sentence of 79, unclear; rest, accepted. However, only certain retail commercial are restricted to the locations on Map 16; others can go either there or elsewhere. 82.-85. Conclusion of law. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the ELUM "represents the growth trends" (rather, it shows what is there now) or that, except for Lehigh, growth only "is occurring in the north/south core." Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First and last sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Barrier" is too strong; "obstacle" or "hindrance" would be accepted.) Otherwise, accepted. 91.-95. Generally, accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as conclusion of law that they are "objective measures" and "responsive to . . . 5(c)"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, accepted (although some higher, urban densities are in coastal areas, and there remains some rural land in the so-called "north/south core"); third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that a "large impact" is "clear"; fourth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the "segmentation" is absolute but otherwise accepted. Except for Lehigh, generally accepted. (What is missing are "objective measures.") Generally, accepted. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "nearly identical." Third sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it necessarily is not excessive. The evidence was that it is not necessarily excessive, but it could be depending on many factors, including whether it was calculated based on total capacity on the planning horizon or incremental growth during the planning timeframe, and the length of the planning horizon. Otherwise, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; last two, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 107.-108. Accepted. 109. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. 110.-117. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The effect of removing the Overlay is to allow more development sooner throughout the County. The effect of the increased development would depend on how it occurs. As to 116 and 117, one purpose of the Overlay was to require a mix of uses in mixed land use districts. First sentence, rejected. See 110-117, above. Rest, accepted. Cumulative. Last sentence, subordinate argument; except for apparent typographical error in third sentence, rest accepted. Last sentence, rejected as unclear from the evidence why there has been no agricultural use; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Significance" depends on other factors as well, including the amount of acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) Assuming that the "127 additional acres" refers to uplands, the rest is accepted. 124.-125. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and, in part, conclusion of law. There was no evidence of any serious risk of a taking. If these were legitimate reasons to redesignate the Alico property AC, it would be questionable if any DRGR would survive. First sentence, accepted (assuming the County's efforts are otherwise "in compliance"; second, subordinate argument; third, cumulative. Accepted. (However, the County's analysis does not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) First four sentences, accepted but irrelevant; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "safe to assume"; last sentence, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that mining would "permanently preempt" commercial use, but accepted that subsequent commercial use would be much less likely; fourth sentence, accepted (except for typos); last sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not clear that it "won't be available," but accepted that it may not, depending on when it is "needed." Rest, accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear" but accepted that it probably "will not pose a significant threat"; third and fourth, accepted; fifth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that there is no recharge, but accepted that recharge is not better than average; rest, accepted. Accepted (with the understanding that the last sentence refers to surface water runoff). First sentence, accepted; second and third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Gulf Utilities-San Carlos wellfield is the only wellfield in the water table aquifer (otherwise, the third sentence is accepted). 134.-136. Accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There also were other internal consistency issues concerning the date.) Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 140.-141. Accepted. 142. Irrelevant; issue not timely raised. 143.-144. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (in that DCA and RGMC did not prove internal inconsistency beyond fair debate); second, third and fourth sentences, accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay); rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 147.-149. Accepted. First two sentences, argument; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; last, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that a reduction in densities is not necessarily positive; rest, accepted. 152.-155. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (assuming it refers to the deleted first sentence of former Policy 84.1.2, now 84.1.1); second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence since its context requires the opposite interpretation. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the report "specifically recommends the amendment . . . in the fashion that Lee County has done." Otherwise, accepted. 159.-160. Accepted (159, based on the plan language and Joyce testimony, as well as the Deadman testimony.) First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; conclusion of law; subordinate. Accepted; subordinate. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 166.-169. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Use of the "allocation ratio" is being determined in this case.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order can be said to be a DCA "publication." Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Joint Exhibit 17 gives some indication of how to apply an "allocation ratio"; accepted that Joint Exhibit 17 does not fully explain how to apply the "allocation ratio." Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order constitutes such evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Atlantic Gulf's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted. 4. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 5.-7. Accepted. 8.-10. In part conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. (The incorporation of the DEP and SWFWMD permitting requirements only replaces former County permitting requirements; other parts of the amended plan's provisions relating to wetlands protection remain in effect.) Alico's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-13. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the phrase "substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" may distinguish DRGR-suitable land from other land by the nature of the aquifer it recharges, not by the relative amounts of recharge. However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that it is in the "area" of "most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. 16.-19. Accepted. Accepted (assuming it refers to the DCA submitting); subordinate. Accepted. 22.-24. Subordinate argument and conclusion of law. 25.-34. Accepted. 35.-36. Accepted; subordinate. Last sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument and conclusion of law. Accepted (except, in s. and u., it should read "Six Mile Cypress Basin.") Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the list is not exhaustive ; otherwise, accepted. 40.-41. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Policy 7.1.1 just says applications are to be "reviewed and evaluated as to" these items; it does not say that "negative impacts" must be "avoided." Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Goal 12 and Standard 12.4 under it are renumbered under the current amendments as Goal 11 and Standard 11.4; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that former Standard 14.1 has been transferred to Policy 7.1.1. under the current amendments. See 40 and 42, above. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that former designation as DRGR is the only reason why water quality and quantity issues arise; second, cumulative. Cumulative. First two sentences, cumulative; rest, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, unclear which fact is "in dispute"; rest, accepted. (The AC amendment property probably would not be developed as a producing wellfield.) First sentence, accepted; second, cumulative. First two clauses of first sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, cumulative; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. 55.-56. Cumulative. 57.-59. Accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, third and fourth sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, argument; rest, accepted. Accepted. 65.-66. In part, cumulative; otherwise, accepted. 67.-70. Accepted. First sentence, argument; middle sentences, accepted; penultimate sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that he made no blanket concession, instead conditioning interception on water table levels; last sentence, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that there's no "realistic way" "you" can do it); rest, accepted. 73.-74. Cumulative. Accepted. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. Beginning, cumulative; last sentence, subordinate argument. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the influence of additional pumping has not been analyzed; last, accepted. Accepted. First two sentences, conclusion of law; last, accepted. Subordinate argument. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the "performance standards" say to maintain current protection and expand protection "to encompass the entire area." Accepted. (However, it is far from clear that the BMP's referred to in Policy 1.2.2 are the same ones referred to in this proposed finding.) Accepted. 87.-88. Subordinate argument. Cumulative or subordinate argument. Unclear what is meant by "several generations of numbers." Otherwise, cumulative. Cumulative. Accepted but subordinate. Accepted. (However, he also raised the question that the County's analysis did not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) 94.-95. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that they conceded need is not based exclusively on resident and seasonal population, not that it is not based at all on it; third, accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument. Accepted. Accepted. (Nor was there testimony that there is a need based on population.) Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law, cumulative, and rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that there was evidence of other motivations for providing the information as well. Accepted. (However, the analysis was limited to Orlando, and Nelson's method resulted in no need found.) Subordinate argument; cumulative. Subordinate argument. Accepted. (As to third sentence, neither did any other witness.) 106.-107. Accepted. Last sentence, subordinate argument; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (or, at least, unclear); rest accepted. Cumulative. 110.-113. Accepted. Cumulative. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted as an excerpt from the dictionary, but argument and conclusion of law that it is the "plain meaning" of the word "need," as used in 9J-5. (Also, citation to Joint Exhibit 11, p. 9, is not understood.) Argument and cumulative. 117.-118. Accepted. 119.-120. Conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 121. Last sentence, accepted. (It is not clear from the evidence that the designation of the property as "Panther Priority 2" on Lee Exhibit 42, introduced by RGMC, means that the County has identified it as being "in need of conservation.") Rest, conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 122.-126. Conclusion of law and cumulative. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not essentially incorporated into the Findings of Fact of this Recommended Order, they were considered to be either subordinate or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jordan, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Bridgette Ffolkes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Timothy Jones, Esquire Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue So. St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Connie C. Durrence, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Charles J. Basinait, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Steven C. Hartsell, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Thomas B. Hart, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Post Office Box 2449 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2449 Michael J. Ciccarone, Esquire Goldberg, Goldstein, & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Greg Smith, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capitol - Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning Administration Commission The Capitol - Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the amendment of the Town of Eatonville Comprehensive Plan adopted through Ordinance 2014-2 (“Plan Amendment”) is “in compliance” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Town of Eatonville is a municipality in Orange County with a comprehensive plan which it amends from time to time pursuant to chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Intervenor Lake Weston, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company whose sole member is Clayton Investments, Ltd. It owns approximately 49 acres of land along Lake Weston on West Kennedy Boulevard in Eatonville (“the Property”), which is the subject of the Plan Amendment. Petitioners Sharon Leichering, Lori Erlacher, George Perantoni, Valerie Perantoni, and Doreen Maroth own or reside in unincorporated Orange County near Lake Weston. The record does not establish whether Dale Dunn lives or owns property in the area. Petitioner Kingswood Manor Association, Inc., is a non- profit corporation whose members are residents of Kingswood Manor, a residential subdivision near the Property. Petitioner Friends of Lake Weston and Adjacent Canals, Inc., is a non-profit corporation whose objective is to protect these waters. Standing Petitioners Sharon Leichering and George Perantoni submitted comments to the Eatonville Town Council on their own behalves and on behalf of the Kingswood Manor Association and Friends of Lake Weston, respectively, regarding the Plan Amendment. Petitioner Valerie Perantoni is the wife of Petitioner George Perantoni. She did not submit comments regarding the Plan Amendment to the Town Council. Petitioner Dale Dunn did not appear at the final hearing. There is no evidence Mr. Dunn submitted oral or written comments to the Town Council regarding the Plan Amendment. Petitioner Doreen Maroth did not appear at the final hearing for medical reasons. Ms. Maroth submitted oral comments to the Town Council regarding the Plan Amendment. Respondent and Intervenor contend there is no evidence that Lori Erlacher appeared and gave comments to the Town Council, but the Town Clerk testified that Petitioner Leichering was granted an extension of time “to speak for others” and Petitioner Leichering testified that the “others” were Lori Erlacher and Carla McMullen. The Plan Amendment The Property is zoned “Industrial” in the Town’s Land Development Code, but is designated “Commercial” on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The Town adopted the Plan Amendment to make the zoning and future land use designations consistent with each other. The Plan Amendment attempts to resolve the inconsistency by designating the Property as the “Lake Weston Subarea” within the Commercial land use category. The designation would appear on the Future Land Use Map and a new policy is made applicable to the Subarea, allowing both industrial and commercial uses: 1.6.10. Lake Weston Subarea Policy. Notwithstanding the provisions of Policy 1.6.9, within the Lake Weston Subarea Policy boundaries as shown on the Future Land Use Map, light industrial uses may be allowed in addition to commercial uses. The specific permitted uses and development standards shall be established by the Lake Weston Overlay District, which shall be adopted as a zoning overlay district in the Land Development Code; however, the wetlands adjacent to Lake Weston within the Lake Weston Subarea Policy boundaries are hereby designated as a Class I Conservation Area pursuant to Section 13-5.3 of the Town of Eatonville Land Development Code and shall be subject to the applicable provisions of Section 13-5 of the Land Development Code. The intent of this subarea policy and related Lake Weston Overlay District is to allow a range of commercial and industrial uses on the subject property with appropriate development standards, protect environmental resources, mitigate negative impacts and promote compatibility with surrounding properties. Subject to requirements of this subarea policy and of the Lake Weston Overlay district, the current industrial zoning of the property is hereby deemed consistent with the Commercial Future Land Use designation of the area within the boundaries of this subarea policy. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Relatively little data and analysis were needed to address the inconsistency between the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan or to address the protection of Lake Weston and adjacent land uses. The need to protect environmental resources, to mitigate negative impacts of development, and to promote compatibility with surrounding land uses was based on general principles of land planning, the report of a planning consultant, as well as public comment from Petitioners and others. A wetland map, survey, and delineation were submitted to the Town. The effect of the Class I Conservation Area designation is described in the Land Development Code. The availability of public infrastructure and services was not questioned by Petitioners. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Plan Amendment is based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Meaningful Standards Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment does not establish meaningful and predictable standards for the future use of the Property. It is common for comprehensive plans to assign a general land use category to a parcel, such as Residential, Commercial, or Industrial, and then to list the types of uses allowed in that category. The Plan amendment does not alter the Comprehensive Plan’s current listing of Commercial and Industrial uses. The Plan Amendment designates the wetlands adjacent to Lake Weston as a Class I Conservation Area subject to the provisions of the Eatonville Wetlands Ordinance in the Land Development Code. This designation means the littoral zone of the lake and associated wetlands would be placed under a conservation easement. This is meaningful guidance related to the future use of the Property. The Plan Amendment directs the Land Development Code to be amended to create a Lake Weston Overlay District with the expressed intent to “protect environmental resources, mitigate negative impacts and promote compatibility with surrounding properties.” This direction in the Plan Amendment is guidance for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. Contemporaneous with the adoption of the Plan Amendment, the Eatonville Land Development Code was amended to establish the Lake Weston Overlay District, which has the same boundaries as the Property. The Land Development Code describes in greater detail the allowed uses and development standards applicable to the Property. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Plan Amendment establishes meaningful and predictable standards. Internal Consistency Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the relatively recent Wekiva Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, but Petitioners failed to show how the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with any provision of the Wekiva Amendments. Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that require development to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. Compatibility is largely a matter of the distribution of land uses within a parcel and measures used to create natural and artificial buffers. These are matters usually addressed when a landowner applies for site development approval. Protection is provided in the Plan Amendment for Lake Weston and its wetlands. Petitioners did not show there are other factors that make it impossible to make light industrial uses on the Property compatible with adjacent residential uses. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Plan Amendment is consistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment promotes urban sprawl based on the potential for more impervious surfaces and less open space. However, this potential does not automatically mean the Plan Amendment promotes urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9. sets forth thirteen factors to be considered in determining whether a plan amendment discourages the proliferation of urban sprawl, such as failing to maximize the use of existing public facilities. The Plan Amendment does not “trigger” any of the listed factors. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Plan does not promote the proliferation of urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendment adopted by Eatonville Ordinance No. 2014-02 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 3rd day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: George Anthony Perantoni Friends of Lake Weston and Adjacent Canals, Inc. 5800 Shasta Drive Orlando, Florida (eServed) 32810 Dale Dunn 5726 Shasta Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 Lori A. Erlacher 1620 Mosher Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Sharon R. Leichering Kingswood Manor Association, Inc. 5623 Stull Avenue Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Doreen Lynne Maroth 5736 Satel Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Valerie Lolita Perantoni 5800 Shasta Drive Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Debbie Franklin, City Clerk Town of Eatonville, Florida 307 East Kennedy Boulevard Eatonville, Florida 32751 Joseph Morrell, Esquire Town of Eatonville 1310 West Colonial Drive, Suite 28 Orlando, Florida 32804 (eServed) William Clay Henderson, Esquire Holland and Knight, LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2600 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Mail Stop Code 110, Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Jesse Panuccio, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Mail Stop Code 110, Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Katie Zimmer, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Mail Stop Code 110, Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether a text amendment to the general description of the Commercial land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) of Respondent, City of Jacksonville (City), adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-401-E on June 22, 2010, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipal entity and is responsible for enacting and amending its Plan. Since 2007, the City has participated in the Pilot Program for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. Except for amendments based on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report or amendments based on new statutory requirements that specifically require that they be adopted under the "traditional" procedure described in section 163.3184, and small-scale amendments, all other amendments must be adopted under that process. Under the Pilot Program, municipalities have "reduced state oversight of local comprehensive planning," and plan amendments may be enacted in "an alternative, expedited plan amendment adoption and review process." § 163.32465, Fla. Stat. Although the City must send a transmittal package to the Department of Community Affairs (Department) and other designated agencies for their preliminary review, the Department does not issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report or a notice of intent. Instead, the Department "may provide comments regarding the amendment or amendments to the local government." Id. It may also initiate an administrative proceeding to challenge whether an amendment is in compliance. Id. In this case, the Department did not file adverse comments or initiate a challenge to the City's amendment. Clifton Curtis Horton owns real property located at 7175 Blanding Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Horton Enterprises, Inc., is a Florida corporation that owns and operates a "strip club" known as "New Solid Gold" located on Mr. Horton's property. The club is an "adult entertainment establishment" as defined by the Jacksonville Municipal Code (JMC). See §§ 150.103(c) and 656.1101, JMC. History Preceding the Amendment In order to operate an adult entertainment facility within the City, the facility must have both a correct land use and zoning classification. The location must also satisfy certain distance limitations from schools (2,500 feet), other adult entertainment businesses (1,000 feet), churches (1,000 feet), residences (500 feet), and businesses selling alcohol (500 feet). See § 656.1103(a)(1)-(4), JMC; § 847.0134, Fla. Stat. Prior to 2005, adult entertainment facilities were an authorized use in the Heavy Industrial (HI) land use category. In 2005, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2005-1240-E, which approved a text amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's 2010 Plan adding the following language to the Community/General Commercial (C/GC) land use category: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right only in Zoning District CCG-2." See Respondent's Exhibit D. That classification is the primary zoning district within the C/GC land use category. The Ordinance also deleted the following language from the HI land use category: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right." Id. The purpose of the amendment was to change the permissible land use designation for adult entertainment facilities from HI to C/GC with a further condition that the property must also have a CCG-2 zoning classification. At the same time, the City enacted Ordinance No. 2005-743-E, which adopted a new zoning requirement that any adult entertainment facility whose location was not in conformity with the revised land use/zoning scheme must close or relocate within five years, or no later than November 10, 2010. See § 656.725(k), JMC. Because New Solid Gold did not conform to these new requirements, it would have to close or relocate within the five-year timeframe. On an undisclosed date, Horton Enterprises, Inc., and two other plaintiffs (one who operated another adult entertainment facility in the City and one who wished to open a new facility) filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the City's adult zoning scheme and seeking to enjoin the five-year amortization requirement, as applied to them. See Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n v. City of Jacksonville, Case No. 3:05-cv-1267-J-34JRK (U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Fla.). On September 30, 2009, the United States District Court entered a 33-page Order generally determining that, with one exception not relevant here, the City's zoning and land use scheme was permissible. See Petitioners' Exhibit V. On November 3, 2009, that Order was appealed by Petitioners to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit where the case remains pending at this time. The parties' Stipulation indicates that oral argument before that Court was scheduled during the week of December 13, 2010. An Order of the lower court memorialized an agreement by the parties that the five- year time period for complying with the new requirements are stayed until the federal litigation is concluded. See Petitioners' Exhibit JJ. The Court's Order also noted that an "ambiguity" in the Plan arose because the City failed to "remove the language in the general description of the Commercial land use designations acknowledging its intention to locate adult entertainment facilities in the HI category." Id. at 19. This occurred because when adopting the new amendments, the City overlooked conflicting language in the general description of the Commercial land use designations in the FLUE. However, the Court resolved the ambiguity in favor of the City on the theory that the conflicting language was contrary to the City's overall legislative intent in adopting the new land use/zoning scheme and could be disregarded. Id. Thereafter, a new amendment process was begun by the City to delete the conflicting language. This culminated in the present dispute. The Transmittal Amendment - 2010-35-E To eliminate the ambiguity, the City proposed to amend the FLUE by deleting the following language from the general description of the Commercial land use designations: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right in the heavy industrial land use category, but not in commercial." This amendment was numbered as Ordinance No. 2010-35-E. A public workshop was conducted by the City's Planning and Development Department on December 14, 2009. Thereafter, public hearings were conducted by the City Planning Commission on February 11, 2010; by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on February 17, 2010; and by the full City Council on February 9 and 23, 2010. It became effective upon the Mayor signing the Ordinance on February 26, 2010. Although the Ordinance inadvertently referenced section 163.3184 as the statutory authority for its adoption, it also stated that the amendment was being transmitted for review "through the State's Pilot Program." See Petitioners' Exhibit E. As required by the Pilot Program, copies of the amendment were then transmitted to the Department and seven other agencies. No adverse comments were received from any agency. It is undisputed that Petitioners did not attend the the workshop or any hearing, and they did not submit written or oral comments concerning the proposed amendment. When the process for adopting Ordinance No. 2010-35-E began, the City's 2030 Plan was still being reviewed by the Department and had not yet become effective. Consequently, at the Department's direction, the Ordinance referenced the City's then-effective 2010 Plan as the Plan being amended. On February 3, 2010, the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan became effective, replacing the 2010 Plan. However, the 2030 Plan contained the same conflicting language. Notice of the public hearings for Ordinance No. 2010- 35-E (and other plan amendments adopted at the same time) was published in the Daily Record on January 29, 2010, a local newspaper that the City has used for advertising plan amendments since at least 2003. The parties agree that the legal advertisements complied with the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. Besides the above notice, an additional notice regarding Ordinance No. 2010-35-E was published in the Florida Times Union on January 31, 2010. The parties agree that this advertisement did not meet the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. but was published by the City for the purpose of providing additional public notice and to broaden the coverage of the plan amendment. The Adoption Amendment - 2010-401-E Because the 2030 Plan contained the same conflicting language in the Commercial land use descriptions, on May 25, 2010, a draft of Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was introduced at City Council for the purpose of deleting this language. Except for referencing the latest Plan, the language in Ordinance Nos. 2010-35-E and 2010-401-E was identical. While somewhat unusual, this procedure was authorized by the Department because the 2030 Plan became effective during the middle of the amendment process. A copy of the draft Ordinance and schedule for the upcoming hearings on that Ordinance was emailed by the City's counsel to Petitioners' counsel on June 4, 2010. See Petitioners' Exhibit FF. Public hearings on Ordinance No. 2010-401-E were conducted by the Planning Commission on June 10, 2010; by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on June 15, 2010; and by the full City Council on June 8 and 22, 2010. All of the meetings occurred after Petitioners' counsel was given a schedule of the hearings. The amendment became effective upon the Mayor signing the Ordinance on June 24, 2010. Notice of the public hearings for Ordinance No. 2010- 401-E was published in the Daily Record on May 28, 2010. The parties agree that the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. were met. An additional notice of the public hearings was published in the Florida Times Union on May 30, 2010. The parties agree that this legal advertisement did not meet the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., but was published by the City for the purpose of providing additional public notice and to broaden the coverage of the plan amendment. Ordinance No. 2010-401-E, as originally proposed, incorrectly referenced section 163.3184, rather than the Pilot Program, as the statutory authority for adopting the amendment. During the hearing conducted by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on June 15, 2010, an amendment to Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was proposed changing the statutory authority to section 163.32465. The City proposed the same amendment for 19 other plan amendments being considered at the same hearing. The amendment was minor in nature and had no effect on the substance of the Ordinance. It is undisputed that Petitioners did not appear or submit written or oral comments at any public hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2010-401-E. On July 21, 2010, Petitioners timely filed their Petition with DOAH challenging Ordinance No. 2010-401-E. Their objections, as later refined in the Stipulation, are both procedural and substantive in nature and are discussed separately below. Petitioners' Objections Substantive Objections As stated in the Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the amendment is not in compliance because it "is inconsistent with the balance of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and underlying municipal policies, since it forces adult uses into zones which permit residential and educational uses." To support this claim, Petitioners point out that the C/GC land use category permits a wide range of uses, including commercial uses in close proximity to sensitive uses, such as schools, churches, and residential areas. Petitioners characterize the current range of uses in C/GC as "an excellent planning approach to downtown Jacksonville" and one that promotes a well-reasoned, mixed-use development in the urban area. Because Ordinance No. 2010-401-E "forces" adult uses into the C/GC category where, despite the distance limitations, they will have to co-exist with sensitive uses, Petitioners contend the amendment is inconsistent with Policy (15)(b)3. and Goal (16) of the State Comprehensive Plan, which generally encourage orderly, efficient, and functional development in the urban areas of the City. Further, they assert it would contradict the City's "policy" of separating adult uses from residences, businesses, and schools. Petitioners' primary fear is that if they are required to relocate from HI to C/GC where sensitive uses are allowed, this will generate more complaints from schools, churches, and residents, and result in further zoning changes by the City and more forced relocations. As explained by Mr. Killingsworth, Director of the City's Planning and Development Department, Ordinance No. 2010- 401-E does not change the permitted uses in the Commercial or HI land use categories. Those changes in permitted uses were made by Ordinance No. 2005-1240-E in 2005 and are now being litigated in federal court. The purpose of the new amendment is simply "to clear up an inconsistency [noted by the federal court but told that it could be disregarded] that existed in the comprehensive plan." Mr. Killingsworth added that even if the language remained in the Plan, it would have no regulatory weight since the actual language in the C/GC and HI categories, and not the "header" or general description that precedes the category, governs the uses allowed in those designations. Assuming arguendo that the new amendment constitutes a change in permitted uses, the City established that from a use standpoint, adult entertainment facilities (like businesses selling alcohol) are more consistent with the C/GC land use category with the appropriate distance limitations from schools, churches, and residential areas. Further, the placement of adult entertainment facilities on property with a C/GC designation will not necessarily result in their being closer to residential property, as the City currently has a "great deal" of HI land directly adjacent to residential properties, as well as grandfathered enclaves of residential areas within the HI category. The City also established that the HI category is set aside for uses that generate physical or environmental impacts, which are significantly different from the "impacts" of a strip club. Finally, while a plan amendment compliance determination does not turn on zoning issues, it is noteworthy that the CCG-2 zoning district is the City's most intensive commercial district, and that very few schools (all grandfathered) remain within that zoning classification. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the amendment is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and internally consistent with the "balance of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan." Procedural Objections Petitioners' principal argument is that the City did not publish a notice for either Ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation, as described in section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., or in the proper location of the newspaper; that these deficiencies violate both state law and a Department rule regarding notice for the adoption of this type of plan amendment; and that these procedural errors require a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. They also contend that because the legal notice did not strictly comply with sections 163.3184(15)(e) and 166.041(3)(c)2.b., both Ordinances are void ab initio.2 As noted above, the City has published legal notices for plan amendments in the Daily Record since at least 2003. The newspaper is published daily Monday through Friday; it has been published continuously for 98 years; it is published wholly in English; it is mailed to 37 zip codes throughout the City and around 20 zip codes outside the City; most of its revenue is derived from classified and legal advertisements; it is considered by the United States Postal Service to be a general circulation newspaper; it is available in newsstands throughout the City; and although much of the newspaper is directed to the business, legal, and financial communities, the newspaper also routinely contains articles and editorial content regarding special events, sporting news, political news, educational programs, and other matters of general interest pertaining to the City that would be of interest to the general public and not just one professional or occupational group. Its publisher acknowledges that the newspaper is a "Chapter 50 periodical," referring to chapter 50 and specifically section 50.031, which describes the minimum standards for newspapers that can be utilized for publishing certain legal notices. Also, its website states that it covers political, business, and legal news and developments in the greater Jacksonville area with an emphasis on downtown. Although Petitioners contend that the legal notice was published in a portion of the Daily Record where other legal notices and classified advertisements appear, as proscribed by section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., and is thus defective, this allegation was not raised in the Petition or specifically in the parties' Stipulation. Therefore, the issue has been waived. Both proposed recommended orders are largely devoted to the issue of whether the Daily Record is a newspaper of general paid circulation as defined in section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. For the reasons expressed in the Conclusions of Law, it is unnecessary to decide that question in order to resolve the notice issue. Petitioners received written notice that the City intended to adopt Ordinance No. 2010-401-E prior to the public hearings, along with a copy of the draft Ordinance and "everything" in the City's file. They also received a copy of all scheduled hearings during the adoption process. See Petitioners' Exhibits EE and FF. Therefore, notwithstanding any alleged deficiency in the published legal notice, they were on notice that the City intended to adopt the plan amendment; they were aware of the dates on which public hearings would be conducted; and they had an opportunity to submit oral or written comments in opposition to the amendment and to otherwise participate in the adoption process. Given these facts, even assuming arguendo that the publication of the legal notice in the Daily Record constitutes a procedural error, there is no evidence that Petitioners were substantially prejudiced in any way. Petitioners also contend that reference by the City to section 163.3184, rather than the Pilot Program, in the draft ordinance during the preliminary stages of the amendment process is a procedural error that rises to the level of requiring a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. This argument is rejected as the error was minor in nature, it was corrected shortly after Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was introduced, it did not affect the substance of the amendment, and it would not confuse a member of the public who was tracking the amendment as to the timing and forum in which to file a challenge. In Petitioners' case, they cannot claim to be confused since they timely filed a Petition with DOAH, as required by section 163.32465(6)(a). Finally, intertwined with the procedural arguments is the issue of whether Petitioners are affected persons and thus have standing to challenge the plan amendment. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners (or their representative) did not attend any meeting regarding the adoption of either Ordinance. Petitioners argue, however, that emails between the parties in May and June 2010, and a telephone conference call on June 3, 2010, involving Petitioners' counsel and the City's then Deputy General Counsel, equate to the submission of written and oral comments regarding the amendment. The parties have stipulated that the following written communications between Petitioners and the City occurred in May and June 2010: Petitioners made a public records request regarding the amendment on May 21, 2010, to Cheryl Brown, Council Secretary/Director, seeking various public documents relating to Ordinance No. 2010-35-E, transmitted by electronic mail and facsimile. On May 27, 2010, counsel for Petitioners exchanged emails with Assistant General Counsel Dylan Reingold regarding pending document requests relating to Ordinance No. 2010-35-E, and Mr. Reingold provided a number of responsive documents. On June 3, 2010, Cindy A. Laquidara, then Deputy General Counsel (but now General Counsel), sent an email to Petitioners' counsel stating: "Below please find the schedule for the passage of the comp plan changes. Call me with questions or to discuss. Take care." On June 4, 2010, counsel for Petitioners exchanged a series of emails with Assistant General Counsel Reingold regarding the status of Ordinance Nos. 2010-35-E and 2010-401-E, as well as the review of the proposed plan amendment by the Department of Community Affairs. On June 4, 2010, Jessica Aponte, a legal assistant with counsel for Petitioners' office, exchanged emails with Jessica Stephens, legislative assistant, regarding the proofs of publication for the legal advertisements relating to Ordinance No. 2010- 35-E. The affidavits of Petitioners' counsel (Petitioners' Exhibits KK and LL) regarding a conversation with the City's then Deputy General Counsel would normally be treated as hearsay and could not, by themselves, be used as a basis for a finding of fact. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. However, the parties have stipulated that they may be used in lieu of live testimony by Petitioners' counsel. See Stipulation, p. 17. The affidavits indicate that the reason for the conference call was "that [Petitioners] were trying to reach a mutually acceptable approach with the City by which enforcement of the City of Jacksonville's amortization ordinance against [them] . . . would be deferred pending the outcome of the appeal to the Eleventh Circuit." Petitioners' Exhibits KK and LL. During that call, counsel also advised the City's counsel that "there were [procedural] problems with the enactment of the subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that they would likely be filing challenges to its enactment." Id.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-401-E is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Crestview's (City's) small-scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 1370 on November 26, 2007, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background B & H is a Florida corporation which owns and operates a number of concrete batch plants and a surveying and engineering company known as Integrated Engineering Solutions, LLC. The parties have stipulated that B & H is the owner of property within the City and submitted comments to the City in support of the change in the land use prior to the adoption of the plan amendment. As such, B & H is an affected person and has standing to participate in this matter. In 2005, B & H purchased a 75.56-acre tract of vacant, undeveloped land in the unincorporated part of Okaloosa County (County), just southwest of the City. The parcel is generally bounded on its northern side by Interstate 10 (I-10) and by a 150-foot wide Gulf Power Company easement on its southern boundary. All of the property carried a County land use designation of RR, which limits development to one residential unit per five acres. See Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 10.1.e. (Petitioner's Exhibit A). After B & H purchased the property, it applied for development approval (including a land use change from RR to an industrial) from the County. In the face of substantial public opposition, and a negative staff recommendation, B & H withdrew its application during a County Planning Commission hearing on April 12, 2007. (The County staff noted that the property "is located in the immediate vicinity of . . . a residential subdivision"; that a wide range of industrial uses would be allowed on the property if it was changed to IN; that the requested action would have the effect of "spot zoning"; that there is no shortage of industrial-zoned lands in other areas of the County; and that "the requested action is not compatible with the proximate residential subdivision and does not result in an appropriate transition of uses, densities, and intensities as expressed in [FLUE] Policy 4.4.") Shortly thereafter, B & H filed a petition for voluntary annexation with the City. On August 27, 2007, the City annexed a 9.98-acre parcel of B & H's land lying in the eastern half of the larger parcel. (The remainder of the larger parcel remains in the County.) B & H then filed an application in the form of a small-scale development amendment seeking a change in the land use on the property from RR to IN. Because the size of the parcel was less than 10 acres, the change in land use was accomplished by this type of amendment, which is not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (Department). See § 163.3187(1)(c)1. and (3)(a), Fla. Stat. According to FLUE Policy 7.A.3.4.f. in the City's Plan, the IN category is designed to protect lands for production and distribution of goods and for other industrial activities. A wide range of industrial uses and commercial uses are allowed in this category. Specific uses include light and heavy manufacturing, assembly, training facilities, vehicle repair (including body work and painting), packaging, processing, wholesale business and warehousing, truck terminals, borrow pits, asphalt/concrete plants, heavy equipment sales, service and/or rentals, and other uses similar to those listed herein. Residential uses are prohibited except as an accessory to a permitted use. In addition to the application for a change in the FLUM, B & H submitted an application for site plan approval for a concrete batch plant to be located on the southern end of the subject property. This use would be consistent with the IN category. However, until this proceeding is concluded, the site plan will not be reviewed, modified, or approved by the City, and therefore any development provisions incorporated therein are not final. Further, the proposed use (a concrete batch plant) requires the issuance of a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). On September 9, 2007, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the amendment and voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the application to the City Council. On October 8, 2007, a first reading of Ordinance No. 1370 implementing the amendment occurred at the City Council meeting. On October 22, 2007, a public hearing was held before the City Council. The City Council voted 3-2 to deny the amendment. On November 13, 2007, the City Council conducted another public hearing for the first reading of the amendment. On November 26, 2007, the City Council conducted a second public hearing on the amendment and adopted Ordinance No. 1370 enacting the amendment. (New zoning on the land will not be imposed until or unless the plan amendment here is found to be in compliance.) Although not subject to review by the Department, the following day the City sent a copy of the adopted Ordinance to the Department. On December 24, 2007, Petitioner, who resides in Antioch Estates, a nearby residential subdivision located within the City, filed her Petition with DOAH. On February 7, 2008, she moved to amend the Petition and authorization to do so was granted by Order dated February 8, 2008. In her Amended Petition, she generally contended that the amendment is not in compliance because it is internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions in several respects; the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis; the property being reclassified is greater than 10 acres in size and therefore cannot qualify as a small-scale development amendment; the City did not analyze the financial feasibility of the amendment; and the City failed to conduct the necessary intergovernmental coordination and review. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner resides within the City and offered comments in opposition to the amendment prior to its adoption. As such, she is an affected person and has standing to challenge the amendment. At the hearing, Petitioner, who is a planner for the City of Destin but resides in Crestview, acknowledged that before she filed her initial Petition, her husband was contacted by a representative of Couch Ready Mix USA (Couch), a non-party who operates a concrete batch plant 0.8 miles southeast of Antioch Estates on Old Antioch Road, and with whom B & H would compete if the application is approved and a new concrete batch plant constructed on the site. However, Petitioner stated that she would have filed a petition even if her husband had not been contacted by Couch. Even so, it is fair to infer from the evidence that funding for Petitioner's counsel and two experts was provided by Couch. The Subject Property The subject property is a 9.98-acre parcel bordered on the north by I-10 and on the east, west, and south by property owned by B & H, all of which is designated RR and zoned Agricultural. Directly to the east of the larger B & H parcel is a 70-foot strip of vacant land owned by Rhett Enzor, a non- party whose land stretches from I-10 southward to the Gulf Power easement. The Enzor property also carries a RR land use designation and Agricultural zoning. Besides the 70-foot strip on the eastern side, Mr. Enzor owns the other property that surrounds the larger parcel to the south and west; however, the extent of that property is not of record. Just to the east-northeast and adjacent to the Enzor property is a residential subdivision (Antioch Estates) comprised of around 125 homes. The subdivision is divided into two sections - the larger section lying north of I-10 and the smaller section located just south of I-10. It is unclear whether the entire subdivision has 125 units, or if the southern portion alone has that number. In any event, Petitioner and members of the public who offered comments at the hearing reside in the southern portion of the subdivision and oppose the application. At its closest point, the western boundary of the subdivision (particularly lots 51-55) appears to be slightly more than 600 feet from the 9.98-acre parcel, but no more than 70 feet or so from the eastern boundary of the larger parcel. The distance to the proposed concrete batch plant, which will lie in the south-southwest end of the subject property, is slightly less than one-quarter mile. An elementary school (Antioch Elementary School) with an enrollment of around 800 students and 100 staff, built sometime after 1996, is located just east of Antioch Estates. A former borrow pit, Blocker Pit, lies south of the subdivision, while an active borrow pit, Garret Pit, lies around one-half mile or so southeast of the subdivision. Antioch Estates is classified by the City as Low Density Residential (LDR), while the school is in the Public Use land use category. Under FLUE Policy 7.A.3.4.a., the LDR category "is limited to residential uses, customary accessory uses, recreation uses, churches and places of worship and planned unit developments. Non-profit and civic organizations may be permitted by special exception. This category is intended for single family homes which may be developed with up to six (6) units per gross acre." Antioch Road appears to be a major arterial road running in a northwest-southeast direction (crossing over or under I-10) just east of the elementary school. (Less than a mile southeast of the school, Antioch Road becomes P.J. Adams Parkway.) All vehicles wishing to access the school, Antioch Estates, or the 9.98-parcel (as well as the larger B & H parcel) must do so by turning off of Antioch Road onto Garret Pit Road, a County-maintained road which intersects with Antioch Road just south of I-10. Within a short distance, Garret Pit Road intersects with Whitehurst Lane, a paved road which runs in a northwest direction from Garret Pit Road to the school and eventually makes a loop in the subdivision. At the Whitehurst Lane intersection, Garret Pit Road turns into a dirt road. Vehicles traveling to B & H's property continue south on Garret Pit Road for 300 feet or so until it intersects with Point Center Road, a privately-owned, unplatted and undedicated dirt road which runs directly west from Garrett Pit Road (and roughly parallel to I-10) through the Enzor strip and into the eastern side of the B & H property. From there, it appears that vehicles would turn south for a short distance on Borrow Pit Road (also referred to as Barrow Pit Road on certain map exhibits), another dirt road which eventually turns westward when it reaches the southern boundary of B & H property. The 9.98-acre parcel is around 66 feet north of Borrow Point Road. According to a B & H witness, Point Center Road and Borrow Pit Road are not actually roads, but are more akin to dirt trails which trucks now use to reach the excavating and land fill sites. Finally, Point Center Road passes approximately 140 feet south of, and parallel to, the southern boundary of Antioch Estates. When the subject property was annexed into the City, it retained the County FLUM designation of RR and zoning of Agricultural. The FLUM and zoning designations are retained until a plan amendment and rezoning is approved by the City. Under the County's Plan, residential uses in RR must not exceed one unit per five acres. There is currently an inactive borrow pit (covering around six acres) on the southern part of the 9.98-acre parcel, which extends westward into the larger parcel. B & H says it has no intention of resuming this operation. A small storage facility with "manholes," "pipe," and other "equipment" sits on the southwestern corner of the property, while a small wetlands area of less than an acre occupies the northwestern corner. To the west of the subject parcel on the northwestern corner of the larger parcel is an active, permitted 7.5-acre Construction & Demolition (C & D) landfill. There is some ambiguity in the testimony over the actual size of the landfill; however, in DEP's letter of intent dated March 17, 2006, which transferred Permit No. 0002800-002-SO from the original owner (Point Center, Inc.) to B & H, it stated that B & H is authorized to operate a 7.5-acre disposal unit until March 17, 2010. See Petitioner's Exhibit B. Although the useful life of the existing C & D landfill will eventually run out, at the hearing B & H's Project Manager stated that the company has an application pending with DEP to expand the landfill. The status of that matter is unknown. Expansion of a non-conforming land use, however, may be problematic. See Finding of Fact 21, infra. Besides the active C & D landfill, B & H is also periodically retrieving fill dirt from the larger parcel for site work operations, using up to 30 dump trucks for this work. According to a witness, the larger parcel still has around 3,000,000 cubic yards of usable dirt. Whether B & H is authorized to conduct borrow pit operations on the larger parcel is not of record. More than likely, once the landfill is used up (or no later than March 2010 when the permit expires unless it is renewed), the non-conforming use will have run its course, and the RR designation will apply to all future activities on the larger parcel. Although the entire B & H parcel was classified as RR, the borrow pit and C & D landfill are non-conforming uses under the County's Plan, presumably having been in existence before the County's Plan was adopted. A non-conforming use is one where the actual use of the property is not consistent with the future land use of the comprehensive plan or not consistent with the zoning of the property. There are very strict parameters as to whether or not you can change or modify a non-conforming use. Normally, changes to non-conforming uses are not allowed. A non-conforming use can not be expanded. B & H has acknowledged that it intends to seek annexation of the entire larger parcel into the City. With the exception of the C & D landfill, it is also planning to request a FLUM amendment from RR to IN for the remainder of the larger parcel. Thus, if the instant application is approved, it is fair to say that this action will be the forerunner of an effort to reclassify the entire 75.56 acres (except the 7.5-acre landfill) as industrial property, leaving only the 70-foot strip of Enzor property as a RR buffer between the industrial land and the subdivision. Petitioner's Objections Ten-Acre Maximum Petitioner's first objection is that the amendment does not meet the statutory criteria for a small-scale development amendment because the use involves more than 10 acres. See § 163.3187(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. ("[t]he proposed amendment [must involve] a use of 10 acres or fewer"). Petitioner argues that parcel size is not the only determinant of what must be included in the amendment, and that any acreage that is integral to the design and operation of the proposed use is considered in determining whether the small scale development amendment criteria are met. Petitioner argues that B & H failed to include in the amendment all acreage that is integral to the design and operation of the proposed use. It is undisputed that the subject parcel is 9.98 acres, as determined by Kermit George, who sealed the property's survey for B & H, and as confirmed by City employee Teresa Gaillard by using the Autocad software program. Relying primarily upon site plans for the concrete batch plant filed by B & H with the City, however, Petitioner contends that the acreage (.0604 acres) related to a 66-foot driveway which will access the south side of the property from Borrow Pit Road, the acreage (1.607 acres) related to the use of Borrow Pit Road after turning off of Point Center Road, the acreage (.052 acres) for an easement necessary to run a County water line from B & H's southern property line to the smaller parcel, and the 150-foot buffer on the east side of the site (which will be required by the City when or if a concrete batch plant is permitted and built) must be included in the total amount of acreage. Excluding the buffer, Petitioner has calculated this additional land to total 1.7194 acres. Petitioner argues that even if only one of the above items is included, it would cause the size of the amendment to exceed ten acres and lose its status as a small-scale development amendment. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the dirt trail that makes up Borrow Pit Road, as well as the 66-foot trail from Borrow Pit Road to the subject property, are already being used by B & H trucks or other vehicles to access the landfill and borrow pit area. Therefore, this "infrastructure" will be used for other purposes, irrespective of whether development on the 9.98-acre parcel occurs. At the same time, the City's planning expert noted that good planning practices do not require that the land necessary to access a parcel with roads or utilities, and off-site buffering, be included in calculating whether the "use" of the parcel exceeds 10 acres. Except as to the buffering issue, this interpretation of the statutory language is more logical and reasonable than Petitioner's approach and is hereby accepted. Compare Parker v. St. Johns County et al., DOAH Case No. 02-2658, 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 34 at *12 (DOAH Dec. 17, 2002, DCA Feb. 27, 2003)("[i]t would be unreasonable to construe Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes, as requiring local governments and applicants to calculate pro rata share impacts of off-site utilities, determine proportionate acreage based on those impacts, and apply those figures to the small scale acreage calculations"). The issue of whether the acreage related to the off- site buffering should be included as a use is not so clear cut. The City Land Development Code (LDC) requires that there be appropriate buffering between industrial and residential land uses. While the pertinent portion of the LDC is not of record, the evidence submitted by B & H and the City shows that an approximate 150-foot buffer will be necessary on the eastern side of the parcel. A City witness testified that the buffering "would normally take place upon the property being developed." However, because the use will occur in an existing borrow pit (which is 20 feet below the surface of the adjacent land), the City concluded that it would be more appropriate to place any required vegetative buffer and fencing off-site on the edge of the larger parcel, also owned by B & H. The buffering is an integral part of the project being placed on the parcel. In other words, the plant cannot be built without the required buffering. Therefore, the land on which the buffer and fence will be placed should be included as an integral part of the property's use. Compare St. George Plantation Owners' Association, Inc. v. Franklin County et al., DOAH Case No. 96- 5124GM, 1997 Fla. ENV LEXIS 37 at *18-20 (DOAH Feb. 16, 1997, Admin. Comm. Mar. 25, 1997) where three off-site absorption beds required to serve a wastewater treatment plant were considered an integral part of the facility, thereby increasing the size of the amendment's "use" from 9.6 to 14.6 acres. By adding the acreage for the 150-foot off-site buffer and fencing to the 9.98 acres, the use of the property that is the subject of the amendment clearly involves more than 10 acres and cannot qualify as a small-scale development amendment. Data and Analysis Petitioner also objects to the amendment as not being supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, as required by Section 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). Paragraph (2)(a) of the rule requires that "plan amendments . . . shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element." To be based on data "means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of the adoption of the . . . plan amendment at issue." Id. Petitioner points out that B & H has acknowledged (by way of answers to Requests for Admissions and stipulated facts in its Motion in Limine) that it did not present to the City any studies or data related to noise, traffic, property values, air pollution, or protected natural resources that may be impacted by, or attributable to, a concrete batch plant being placed on the subject property. She also argues that to the extent an analysis was made in the City's staff report (as to infrastructure demands, protection of wetlands and natural resources, traffic, financial feasibility, and compatibility), it was based on incorrect data or was otherwise insufficient. The City's planning consultant prepared the staff report for the City, which summarizes the data and analysis supporting the amendment. See § 1, Joint Exhibit E, which is a six and one-half page staff report. The analysis was performed on the premise that a concrete batch plant would be located on the subject property. The staff report indicates that "[t]he purpose of the amendment is to provide for the development of a concrete batch plant." See page 1, § 1, Joint Exhibit E. The staff report contains in summary form the data and analysis supporting the amendment. Section 1 reflects that the City relied upon (a) FLUM map sheet 7-5, which indicated that all adjacent lands except I-10 on the north side are in the RR land use category while lands in the vicinity are classified as LDR, MDR, Conservation, Public Lands, Industrial, and Commercial; (b) data reflecting that the existing use of land on the subject property is vacant and undeveloped; the larger B & H parcel contains a C & D landfill and is otherwise vacant; adjacent properties include numerous single-family homes and subdivisions, existing and planned multi-family projects, planned commercial uses, and a school; and wetlands are located in the northwest corner of the subject property; (c) data showing that the type of development on the property will be a concrete batch plant; (d) data showing that the amendment will "result in a significant decrease in potential demands on all City infrastructure systems" (potable water, sewer, solid waste, recreation/open space, drainage, and traffic) because it will eliminate potential future demands for residential units that would otherwise be allowed on the RR property; (e) data reflecting that the change in land use is compatible and suitable with adjacent lands because the proposed facility is "not adjacent to any homes, schools or other similar uses," and the adjacent properties are owned by B & H; (f) data showing that the site is generally level with an average elevation of 100 feet; (g) data in the Soil Survey of Okaloosa County, Florida indicating that the soil "is suited for the planned use and development of the subject property"; (h) data reflecting that there is "a small area with wetland soils" in the northwest corner of the property which will not be developed; and (i) data indicating that there are no historic and archeological resources on the property. The consultant also reviewed the current Plan to determine if the plan amendment was consistent with all relevant provisions and concluded that the "amendment is consistent with and furthers the adopted Comprehensive Plan." He added that at the same time the small-scale amendment was being considered, the City was also considering a set of large-scale amendments to its Plan (presumably to the FLUM), and the data and analysis used for those amendments provide further support for the amendment being challenged. However, the nature of the large- scale amendments, and their underlying data and analysis, are not of record or otherwise identified. Finally, the City did not perform a concurrency analysis since it says that the Department no longer requires one at the amendment stage and instead defers that task until the development process begins. Whether the City specifically considered the concerns noted in the County's staff report recommending a denial of the land use change is not clear. However, the staff report discounted the notion that the amendment would encourage urban sprawl (or "spot zoning" in the words of the County staff report) since it promotes urban infill development. In response to a criticism by Petitioner, at hearing the City's consultant utilized further data from City sources, presumably available at the time the amendment was adopted, which indicate that the total available capacity for new customer usage from the City's water system is 3.2 million gallons per day, or far more than is necessary to meet the water requirements related to the proposed industrial usage. Without providing specifics, the consultant also opined that if the County is called upon to provide water to the site, as B & H now intends, it likewise has sufficient capacity to do so. In analyzing the impacts on infrastructure, the City assumed that a change from RR to IN, and the placement of a concrete batch plant on the property, would "result in a significant decrease in potential demands on all City infrastructure systems." The more persuasive evidence shows, however, that when comparing the new traffic that would be generated by potential residential units on the property versus a concrete batch plan, the latter would probably generate an increase of at least 110 vehicle trips per day, most by heavy trucks, which is more than five times the number of trips used in the City's analysis. In contrast, the staff report stated that the projected demands from development of the plant "[i]n theory, [could result in] up to 20 trucks trips per day" but this high a number was "not likely." In this respect, the data being used and analyzed were not correct or were incomplete, and the City's assumptions drawn from that data were flawed. Thus, as to these impacts, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Although the staff report also failed to reflect the increased water usage that would be generated by the concrete batch plant, at hearing the City relied upon available data to show that both the City and County had sufficient capacity to provide water service for the plant. To a certain degree, compatibility and suitability overlap one another. "Compatibility" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) 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." This criterion is used to evaluate whether the proposed industrial land use is compatible with the uses on nearby or adjacent properties. On the other hand, subsection (128) of the rule defines "suitability" as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." This criterion requires a determination of whether the industrial land use category is suitable in this particular area, given the existing characteristics of the land. After reviewing and analyzing data on the issue of suitability and compatibility, the City concluded that because B & H owned all the lands around the site (except on the northern boundary which adjoined I-10), "adverse issues [not otherwise identified in the report] associated with compatibility should be minimized." To further support its finding of suitability and compatibility, the report went on to state that the subject property "is not adjacent to any homes, schools or other similar uses." While the data used by the City (such as the FLUM map) were adequate, the City did not react to it in an appropriate manner. The City is correct in concluding that a change to an industrial land use category may be suitable on land where a non-conforming borrow pit already exists. However, because the proposed industrial use is in "relative proximity" to rural residential land on three of its sides, a large residential subdivision that begins no more than 200 yards away, an access road used by numerous heavy trucks which lies only 140 feet south of the subdivision, and a single outlet for all traffic exiting the subdivision, school, and B & H property, it is fair to infer that there will be a direct or indirect negative impact on those adjacent or nearby uses in contravention of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(123). In this respect, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. The City's recognition of the wetlands area on the subject property, and its finding in the report that such lands would be protected if development occurs, constitutes sufficient data and analysis and appropriate reaction thereto to satisfy the statute and rule. Petitioner also contends there was no analysis related to the fact that Point Center Road, the private road used to access the parcel, crosses wetlands "at the bottom of the hills," and the wetlands will be impacted by the change. As pointed out at hearing, however, the road has been there "forever," and filling of the adjacent wetlands occurred many years ago, or long before B & H acquired the property. Other than paving the road if the land change is approved, no other "filling" will occur, and the City's assessment of this matter was sufficient. All other contentions by Petitioner regarding the lack of sufficient data and analysis to support the amendment have been considered and rejected. Financial Feasibility Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, requires that "the comprehensive plan shall be financially feasible." Relying upon this statute, Petitioner contends that the City failed to analyze whether the amendment was financially feasible. According to Petitioner's expert, when a FLUM change is made, a financial feasibility analysis must be made, which requires that the local government make a facility-based analysis to demonstrate whether the local government has sufficient capacity for the change. Specifically, she argues that there is no commitment from the County to provide water, and that the City did not analyze whether the City or County has the capacity to provide sufficient water to serve a concrete batch plant. Although the staff report addresses this issue in summary fashion and without specifics, at hearing the City's planning consultant testified, without contradiction, that the total available capacity from the City's water system is 3.2 million gallons per day, or far more than is necessary to meet the potential water requirements of a concrete batch plant on the site. He also opined, without contradiction, that if the County is called upon to provide the water, it likewise has sufficient capacity to do so. Based upon this analysis of available data, it is found that financial feasibility was adequately addressed by the city. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioner next contends that the City did not evaluate and coordinate the amendment with the County, as required by Section 163.3177(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015, and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of the City's Plan. The statute provides in part that "[c]oordination of the local comprehensive plan with the comprehensive plans of . . . the county . . . shall be a major objective of the comprehensive planning process." The two most relevant provisions in the Plan on this subject, both very general in nature, are ICE Goal 13.A., which states that a goal of the Plan is to "[p]rovide coordination of this plan (ordinance) with Okaloosa County, other local governments (as appropriate) and other governmental agencies providing services within the City[,]" and ICE Objective 13.A.1., which provides that the City shall "review, on an annual basis, actions that have taken place to coordinate the Comprehensive Plan of Crestview with the Plans of other units of government and the Okaloosa County School Board." Although the County was given constructive notice of B & H's annexation request through the publication of a notice in a local newspaper on July 7, 2007, there is no evidence that the County was given specific notice that an application for a change in the FLUM had been filed by B & H and was being processed by the City, or that the County was afforded an opportunity to provide input into that process, if it chose to do so. Given the unique circumstances here, coordination is especially important since the subject property is surrounded on three sides by County land designated as RR with Agricultural zoning, the requested change would create a small industrial pocket in the middle of County RR land, and the County staff had just prepared a report recommending denial of the same change before the City annexed the property. While the cited statute, rule, and Plan provisions clearly do not contemplate that adjacent local governments have veto power over the City's ability to enact plan amendments, or that the City is required to accept alternative suggestions proposed by other entities, at a minimum they contemplate that notice of changes be given to adjacent local governments, and that those local governments be afforded the right to offer input, if any, prior to consideration of the amendment. See, e.g., City of West Palm Beach et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case Nos. 04-4336GM, 04-4337GM, and 04-4650GM, 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 192 at *34-35 (DOAH July 18, 2005, DCA Oct. 21, 2005). Because there was no coordination here, even minimal, the adoption of the plan amendment contravened the cited statute, rule, and ICE Goal 13.A. Internal Consistency Petitioner next argues that, contrary to the requirement in Section 163.3187(2), Florida Statutes, that there be "internal consistency" within a plan, the amendment is inconsistent with the Plan in the following respects: quality of life (Legal Element Section 1.04); compatibility (FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c.); school siting (FLUE Policy 7.A.9.1.); and wetlands impacts (Conservation Element Goal 11.A and Objective 11.A.2.). Petitioner first contends that the amendment is inconsistent with the stated general intent and purpose of the Plan, which is found in Section 1.04 of the Plan's Legal Element. That Element contains a "whereas" clause, the Plan's title, jurisdiction for adopting the Plan, the City Council's intent in adopting the Plan, and its effective date. The Element indicates that it is intended to implement Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.001, which sets forth the broad purposes of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5. Section 1.04 provides in relevant part that the Plan is intended to "maintain and improve the quality of life for all citizens of the City" and to protect and promote the "public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens." This salutary language is so broad and aspirational in nature that the undersigned does not construe it, or other provisions in the Legal Element, as an appropriate basis for finding an amendment not in compliance. Petitioner's argument is accordingly rejected. Petitioner also argues that the amendment is inconsistent with the Plan's requirement that compatibility of adjacent land uses be ensured. FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c. appears to be the only Plan provision specifically dealing with this issue and it provides that the LDC shall contain detailed provisions to "ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses." B & H and the City take the position that during the zoning and development phase of the process (rather than during the plan amendment stage) the LDC would be used to ensure compatibility, as required by the Plan. However, the issue of compatibility was analyzed by the City and presented to the City Council, and the staff report contains an entire section on compatibility and suitability. See Finding of Fact 30, supra; § 1, pages 3-4, Joint Exhibit E. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider at the plan amendment stage whether the change in land use is compatible with adjacent or nearby properties. As noted earlier, Antioch Estates is a low-density residential subdivision directly to the east of the B & H parcel. At its closest point, the subject property is around 200 yards from the subdivision. The distance from the subdivision to the proposed concrete batch plant is less than a quarter-mile. At the same time, the road over which the heavy trucks will travel to and from the industrial site is no more than 140 feet south of the southern boundary of the subdivision, and the connecting road eventually terminates at an outlet onto Antioch Road shared by traffic from the subdivision and school. Finally, B & H acknowledges that the proposed change here is a precursor to a request for annexation of the larger parcel into the City and a change in the land use on the larger parcel (except for the land fill) to industrial. This would leave the Enzor property (which is only 70 feet wide) as the sole remaining RR buffer with Antioch Estates. Given these considerations, the change in land use will not "[e]nsure compatibility of adjacent land uses," as required by FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2. Finally, Petitioner contends that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 7.A.9.1.1., which provides that a "proposed school location shall be compatible with existing and projected uses of adjacent property." (Emphasis added). Since the Antioch Elementary School already exists, it appears that this provision has no application. For the same reason, Petitioner's contention that the amendment contravenes Section 1013.36(3), Florida Statutes, is also rejected. That statute requires that a new school should not be sited adjacent to factories or other properties from which noise, odors, or other disturbances would be likely to interfere with the educational program. While compatibility issues with existing schools are relevant when a map change is being made, they can only be considered in the context of Plan provisions which directly apply to those issues. Summary In summary, because the amendment involves a use of more than 10 acres, it does not meet the criteria in Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes; the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis with respect to impacts on infrastructure (traffic) and compatibility; the amendment contravenes the statutory, rule, and Plan requirement that it be coordinated with other local governments; and it is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c., which requires compatibility of adjacent uses. All other contentions raised by Petitioner have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the small-scale development amendment adopted by the City by Ordinance No. 1370 on November 26, 2007, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2008, 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 21st day of April, 2008.
The Issue At issue in these proceedings is the validity of respondent's proposed rules 9J-5.003(140) and 9J-5.006(6).
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, St. Joe Paper Company, is a Florida corporation which owns either directly or through its subsidiaries approximately 1,500,000 acres of land in Florida. Petitioner, Florida East Coast Industries, Inc., is also a Florida corporation which owns either directly or through its subsidiaries approximately 17,500 acres of land along the east and west coast of Florida. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (Department or DCA), is the state land planning agency under the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, [the "Local Governmental Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act" (the "Act")]. As the state land planning agency under the Act, the Department is charged by law with the duty to provide technical assistance to local governments in preparing comprehensive plans and with the duty to ascertain whether local comprehensive plans or plan amendments are in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners, St. Joe Paper Company and Florida East Coast Industries, Inc., as well as their subsidiaries, and intervenors, Florida League of Cities, 1000 Friends of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Association of Realtors, R. J. Collins, Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, and Florida Association of Counties, have standing. No such stipulation was, however, accorded intervenors Florida Land Council, Inc., Florida Farm Bureau Federation, Highlands County Farm Bureau, and Claude E. Smoak, Jr., and they offered no proof at hearing to demonstrate standing. Notwithstanding, the Department raised no objection and its post hearing submittal does not contest their standing. Publication of notice and the economic impact statement On October 2, 1992, the Department first published notice of the proposed revisions to Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, in volume 18, number 40, of the Florida Administrative Weekly. Such publication contained the following statement regarding the economic impact of the proposed rules: SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED RULES: The estimated agency cost to be incurred by this action is $3,627, which is the cost of promulgating the rule amendment . . . It is not anticipated that the amendment will generate additional costs to local governments and other affected persons above and beyond those attributable to existing rules and statutes. Ultimately, it is believed that this amendment will result in more efficient patterns of development which allow services and facilities to be provided more cost efficiently . . . to local governments. The procedures required by the proposed amendments have no significant impact on competition and the open market for employment. There is no impact on small or minority business as defined by the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. On October 23, 1992, petitioners filed their initial petition for an administrative determination of the invalidity of the proposed rules. Such petition contended, inter alia, that the proposed rules were invalid for the agency's failure to prepare an economic impact statement that complied with the provisions of Section 120.54(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioners did not, however, at any time, file a request for the preparation of an economic impact statement with the agency. 1/ Background of the rules Pursuant to Section 163.3184(8)(a), Florida Statutes, the Department is obligated to review each adopted local plan or plan amendment and determine if it is in compliance with the Act. Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, defines "in compliance" as: . . . consistent with the requirements of ss. 163.3177, 163.3178, and 163.3191, the state comprehensive plan, the appropriate regional policy plan, and rule 9J-5, F.A.C., where such rule is not inconsistent with chapter 163, part II. In 1985 the Legislature directed the Department to develop Chapter 9J- 5, Florida Administrative Code, and apply it to the review of local plans. The Legislature has reviewed the rule, as adopted, and given it special legal protection from rule challenges. Section 163.3177(10), Florida Statutes. Among the rules so approved, was Rule 9J-5.006 which provided that "the purpose of the future land use element is the designation of future land use patterns as reflected in the goals, objectives and policies of the local government comprehensive plan elements." Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)7 provides that the future land use element shall contain specific goals, objectives and policies which discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, and Rule 9J-5.011(2)(b)3 provides that the general sanitary sewer, soiled waste, drainage, potable water and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element shall contain objectives and policies which address the use of existing facilities and the discouragment of urban sprawl. The Department has, since approximately 1988, developed, refined and explicated its policy regarding the discouragement of urban sprawl in local government comprehensive plans. In a technical memo issued in 1989, the Department observed: If the goals and objectives of Florida's growth management laws are to be achieved, local plans must effectively deal with urban sprawl and the closely related issues of conservation, natural resource protection, and efficient use of public facilities and services. [DCA Exhibit 12] That publication further set forth the Department's definition of urban sprawl, and discussed the various provisions in the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, Florida Statutes), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J- 5, Florida Administrative Code, which related to the discouragement of urban sprawl. As for the term "urban sprawl," the technical memo provided: The term "urban sprawl" as it is applied by the DCA in its review of local plans is used to describe certain kinds of growth or development patterns. It refers to 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. Leapfrog development occurs when new development is sited away from an existing urban area, bypassing vacant parcels located in or closer to the urban area that are suitable for development. It typically results in scattered, discontinuous growth patterns in rural areas which are frequently not appropriate for urban development. * * * Leapfrog development commonly occurs in areas where infrastructure and services do not already exist to serve it; thus, it requires additional utility extensions and involves higher public capital costs if complete urban services are to be provided at the time of development. If complete urban services, such as connection to central water and sewer systems, are not required, leapfrog development can result in increased risks to water supplies and sensitive environmental areas. * * * Strip or ribbon development involves the location of high amounts of commercial, retail, office and often multi-family residential development in a linear pattern along both sides of major arterial roadways. Strip development is generally dependent on direct access to the arterial roadway and typically reduces the efficiency of the roadway for moving through traffic due to the high number of crub and median cuts and access points permitted. Strip development frequently overburdens arterial roadways with local trips because local road networks are poorly developed or nonexistent. Unsightly strip development can extend for miles along arterials into rural, previously undeveloped areas, and sometimes encroach on environmentally sensitive lands or important natural resource areas. Large land areas behind and between strip developments are commonly left undeveloped. Low-density, single-dimensional development consists of single land uses, typically low- density residential, spread over large land areas. Frequently, the land is in rural, forestry, agricultural, or environmentally sensitive areas that should be protected from urban development. This land-intensive development pattern, stemming from uncontrolled, poorly planned, and premature development, tends to place an undue burden on external infrastructure and major transportation connectors by not providing a complementary mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Sprawling single-use development hinders the evolution of vibrant communities, reinforces dependence upon personal automobile use, generates higher public costs for facilities and services, promotes an inefficient and unattractive use of developable land, and frequently destroys significant environmental and natural resources. * * * In other words, urban sprawl is the epitome of bad land use planning. It adversely impacts and often destroys precious natural resources. It promotes inefficient use of land resources and existing public facilities and services, and makes it difficult or impossible to provide new infrastructure and services efficiently to new development. It produces development that is typically unsightly and not aesthetically pleasing. It produces sterile, one-dimensional urban environments which are not convenient, enjoyable or healthy for their residents. Successfully discouraging urban sprawl through local comprehensive planning is not a mystical art. It requires rigorous data collection, thorough analyses of current and future needs, effective planning, and responsible decision making. . . . Also pertinent to the Department's policy on urban sprawl, and an assessment of the propriety of the proposed rules, the State Comprehensive Plan contains a number of goals and policies which both individually and collectively address the issue of urban sprawl. Some of these goals and policies are as follows: (5) HOUSING-- Goal.--The public and private sectors shall increase the affordability and availability of housing for low-income and moderate-income persons, including citizens in rural areas, while at the same time encouraging self-sufficiency of the individual and assuring environmental and structural quality and cost- effective operations. Policies-- * * * 3. Increase the supply of safe, affordable, and sanitary housing for low-income and moderate-income persons and elderly persons by alleviating housing shortages, recycling older houses and redeveloping residential neighborhoods, identifying housing needs, providing incentives to the private sector to build affordable housing, encouraging public- private partnerships to maximize the creation of affordable housing, and encouraging research into low-cost housing construction techniques, considering life-cycle operating costs. * * * (8) WATER RESOURCES.-- Goal.--Florida shall assure the availability of an adequate supply of water for all competing uses deemed reasonable and beneficial and shall maintain the functions of natural systems and the overall present level of surface and ground water quality. Florida shall improve and restore the quality of waters not presently meeting water quality standards. Policies.-- * * * 2. Identify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentives for their conservation. * * * 5. Ensure that new development is compatible with existing local and regional water supplies. * * * Encourage the development of a strict floodplain management program by state and local governments designed to preserve hydrologically significant wetlands and other natural floodplain features. Protect aquifers from depletion and contamination through appropriate regulatory programs and through incentives. Protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity in the state. * * * Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state. NATURAL SYSTEMS AND RECREATIONAL LANDS-- Goal.--Florida shall protect and acquire unique natural habitats and ecological systems, such as wetlands, tropical hardwood hammocks, palm hammocks, and virgin longleaf pine forests, and restore degraded natural systems to a functional condition. Policies.-- Conserve forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife to maintain their environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values. Acquire, retain, manage, and inventory public lands to provide recreation, conservation, and related public benefits. Prohibit the destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats. * * * 7. Protect and restore the ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic and recreational value. Develop and implement a comprehensive planning, management, and acquisition program to ensure the integrity of Florida's river systems. Emphasize the acquisition and maintenance of ecologically intact systems in all land and water planning, management, and regulation. Expand state and local efforts to provide recreational opportunities to urban areas, including the development of activity- based parks. * * * 13. Encourage the use of public and private financial and other resources for the development of recreational opportunities at the state and local levels. AIR QUALITY.-- Goal.--Florida shall comply with all national air quality standards by 1987, and by 1992 meet standards which are more stringent than 1985 state standards. Policies.-- * * * 2. Ensure that developments and transportation systems are consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality. * * * ENERGY-- Goal.--Florida shall reduce its energy requirements through enhanced conservation and efficiency measures in all end-use sectors, while at the same time promoting an increased use of renewable energy resources. Policies-- 1. Continue to reduce per capita energy consumption. * * * Improve the efficiency of traffic flow on existing roads. Ensure energy efficiency in transportation design and planning and increase the availability of more efficient modes of transportation. * * * HAZARDOUS AND NONHAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE.-- Goal.--All solid waste, including hazardous waste, wastewater, and all hazardous materials shall be properly managed, and the use of landfills shall be eventually eliminated. Policies-- * * * 11. Identify, develop, and encourage environmentally sound wastewater treatment and disposal methods. * * * LAND USE.-- Goal.--In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Policies-- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new popu- lation and commerce. 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. Enhance the livability and character of urban areas through the encouragement of an attractive and functional mix of living, working, shopping, and recreational activities. * * * 6. Consider, in land use planning and regulation, the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water, and other natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. * * * DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.-- Goal.--In recognition of the importance of Florida's developing and redeveloping downtowns to the state's ability to use existing infrastructure and to accommodate growth in an orderly, efficient, and environmentally acceptable manner, Florida shall encourage the centralization of commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and cultural activities within downtown areas. Policies.-- Provide incentives to encourage private sector investment in the preservation and enhancement of downtown areas. Assist local governments in the planning, financing, and implementation of development efforts aimed at revitalizing distress downtown areas. Promote state programs and investments which encourage redevelopment of downtown areas. PUBLIC FACILITIES.-- Goal.--Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Policies.-- Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. Promote rehabilitation and reuse of existing facilities, structures, and buildings as an alterna- tive to new construction. Allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents. * * * (20) TRANSPORTATION-- Goal.--Florida shall direct future transport- ation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass transit, and other transportation modes. Policies.-- * * * 2. Coordinate transportation investments in major travel corridors to enhance system efficiency and minimize adverse environmental impacts. * * * Encourage the construction and utilization of a public transit system, including, but not limited to, a high-speed rail system, in lieu of the expansion of the highway system, where appropriate. Ensure that the transportation system provides Florida's citizens and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions. * * * (23) AGRICULTURE.-- Goal.--Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Policies. * * * 9. Conserve soil resources to maintain the economic value of land for agricultural pursuits and to prevent sedimentation in state waters. The technical memo, heretofore discussed, addressed in significant detail how some of these goals and policies impact the issue of urban sprawl. The Department has also explicated its policy definition of urban sprawl, as well as the significance of urban sprawl to the state comprehensive plan, in a number of cases where, under the provisions of Section 120.57, a hearing was held to determine whether a plan was in compliance. [See, e.g., Department Exhibits 4-6]. More recently, a challenge to the Department's nonrule policy was rejected by a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. Home Builders and Contractors Association of Brevard, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, 585 So.2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In that case, at page 968, the court observed: . . . The hearing officer found that indeed, there was a consensus on the meaning of urban sprawl and that urban sprawl is: [T]he extension of urban-type development into rural, agricultural, or other undeveloped or sparsely developed lands in a haphazard develop- ment pattern in which land uses are not functionally related to each other. Common patterns of urban sprawl are the ribbon pattern, leapfrog pattern, and concentric circle pattern. In the ribbon pattern, development not functionally or proximately related to other non- urban development in the area extends in ribbons or strips along certain roads and away from urban development. In the leapfrog pattern, development not functionally or proximately related to other non- urban development in the area leaps from urban development so as to leave significant amounts of rural, agricultural, or other undeveloped or sparsely developed land between existing urban development and the scattered leapfrog development. The concentric circle pattern is similar except that the development not functionally or proximately related to other non-urban development in the area assumes the pattern of concentric circles, such as along rural roads bypassing an urban area, and is characteristically more exclusively low-density residential. Next, and more importantly, the hearing officer found that DCA does not have any policies of general applicability concerning the application of the urban sprawl rules which it consistently applies to individual plans. The DCA has yet to crystallize any urban sprawl policies which it intends to apply to individual plans. He noted that the application process, which is by nature adjudicatory, demands a through understanding of each plan, including the data and analysis describing the characteristics of the land and existing land uses; the goals, objectives and policies prescribing proposed land uses; and the future land use map. Indeed, he recognized that the myriad of details involved in applying the urban sprawl rules to an individual plan may preclude rulemaking, but even if theoretically possible, rulemaking in the area of application is not now practicable. In short, the alleged nonrule policies do not meet the definition of a rule, Section 102.52(16). These findings, which are conclusive of the outcome of the rule challenge, are based upon competent substantial evidence in the record. Adam Smith Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 553 So.2d 1260, 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The purpose of Chapter 9J-5 and the proposed rules The purpose of Chapter 9J-5, as stated in 9J-5.001, is to "establish minimum criteria for the preparation, review, and determination of compliance of comprehensive plans" pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. "Criterion " is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1974) as "a standard on which a judgment or decision may be based." Consistent with such purpose, Chapter 9J-5 has heretofore established the general requirements for local comprehensive plans, including format (elements), data and analysis requirements, level of service standards, planning time frames, and monitoring and evaluation requirements. Rule 9J-5.005, Florida Administrative Code. The chapter also includes standards for the adoption of concurrency management systems to ensure that adopted level of service standards required for roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, parks and recreation, and mass transit, if applicable, will be maintained. Rules 9J- 5.0055 and 9J-5.0057, Florida Administrative Code. Finally, the chapter includes the minimum requirements for the future land use element; traffic circulation element; mass transit element; ports, aviation and related facilities element; housing element; sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element; coastal management element; conservation element; recreation and open space element; intergovernmental coordination element; and capital improvement element. Common to each of these elements is the requirement that the local government assess current conditions and needs, and project future growth based on appropriate and relevant data and analysis. Rules 9J-5.006-5.016, Florida Administrative Code. Here, the Department is proposing to define the term "urban sprawl" for purposes of Chapter 9J-5 and to establish a methodology or standard for the review of local comprehensive plans or plan amendments for the discouragement of urban sprawl. By so doing, the Department is seeking to codify in rule form the policies it has previously explicated on the subject. In gauging the propriety or sufficiency of the proposed rules, it is important to recognize that an analysis of urban sprawl is but one aspect of a complicated evaluation of a particular plan or plan amendment for consistency, and that such analysis is peculiarly dependent upon an evaluation of the specific plan or plan amendment and its supporting data and analysis. Concomitantly, an analysis of a plan or plan amendment to discern whether it discourages urban sprawl is site or community specific, and no single formula could address the myriad of growth patterns existent within the diverse communities of the State of Florida with mathematical certainty. The proposed rules The rules challenged in these proceedings are proposed rule 9J- 5.003(140), which defines "urban sprawl," and proposed rule 9J-5.006(6), which establishes a process for the review of plans for discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Proposed rule 9J-5.003(140), defines "urban sprawl" as follows: "Urban sprawl" means urban development or uses which are located in predominantly rural areas, or rural areas interspersed with generally low-intensity or low-density urban uses, and which are characterized by one or more of the following conditions: The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses. The creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area. The creation of areas of urban development or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public services are currently provided. Urban sprawl is typically manifested in one or more of the following land use or development patterns: (1) Leapfrog or scattered development; ribbon or strip commercial or other development; or (3) large expanses of predominantly low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development. This definition of urban sprawl includes terms which also have proposed definitions in Rule 9J-5.003, and are not the subject of challenge. These provisions are as follows: (35) "Density" means an objective measurement of the number of people or residential units allowed per unit of land, such as residents or employees per acre. * * * (37) "Development" has the meaning described in s. 380.04, F.S. * * * (55) "Functional relationship" means a complementary and interactive relationship among land uses or development, including at a minimum a substantial and positive exchange of human interaction, goods, resources, institutions, services, jobs or workers between land uses or developments. * * * (64) "Intensity" means an objective measurement of the extent to which land may be developed or used, including the consumption or use of the space above, on or below ground; the measurement of the use of or demand on natural resources; and the measurement of the use of or demand on facilities and services. * * * (116) "Rural areas" means low density areas characterized by social, economic and institutional activities which may be largely based on agricultural uses or the extraction of natural resources in unprocessed form, or areas containing large proportions of undeveloped, unimproved, or low density property. The definition of urban sprawl proposed by the Department is a sound generic definition that finds support in the literature and among professional planners. Indeed, urban sprawl is generally conceived as an extension of urban- type development into rural or sparsely developed lands in a haphazard development pattern in which land uses are not functionally or proximately related to each other. Such development may be reasonably described as uncontrolled, poorly planned and premature since it commonly occurs in areas where infrastructure and services do not already exist to serve it and where the urban development or uses are not functionally related to the uses which predominate the area. Moreover, the proof supports the conclusion that, as observed in the proposed rule, the three patterns in which urban sprawl commonly manifests itself are leapfrog or scattered development, ribbon or strip commercial or other development (i.e., retail, office and multifamily residential development), and large expanses of predominately low-intensity, low density, or single-use development. While the proposed rule is sound in a generic sense, that does not suggest that the exercise of professional planning judgment is not required for its application. Indeed, whether the land area at issue in a comprehensive plan or plan amendment is a rural area interspersed with generally "low-intensity or low-density urban uses," and whether such uses or planned uses may be reasonably characterized as the "premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses," the "creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area," or the "creation of areas of urban development or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public services are currently provided," certainly involve the exercise of professional judgment in any analysis of a comprehensive plan or plan amendment. Such analysis is not, however, bereft of objective factors to guide it or to test its ultimate conclusions. Indeed, any such analysis is dependent upon the specific comprehensive plan or plan amendment under review, which would include the future land use element, as well as the local government's specific data and analysis which support it. The other rule under challenge, proposed rule 9J-5.006(6), establishes a process for the review of comprehensive plans or plan amendments for discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. It is organized into twelve paragraphs, with paragraphs (g)-(j) being the focus of the subject challenge. The purpose or function of paragraphs (g)-(j) are described in the proposed rule as follows: Use of indicators. Paragraph (6)(g) describes those aspects or attributes of a plan or plan amendment which, when present, indicate that the plan or plan amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. For purposes of reviewing the plan for discouragement of urban sprawl, an evaluation shall be made whether any of these indicators is present in a plan or plan amendment. If an indicator is present, the extent, amount or frequency of that indicator shall be considered. The presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl. Methodology for determining indicators. Paragraphs (6)(h) through (6)(j) describe the three major components of a methodology to determine the presence of urban sprawl indicators. Paragraph (6)(h) describes how land use aspects of a plan shall be analyzed. The land use element, including both the future land use map and associated objectives and policies, represents the focal point of the local government's planning effort. Paragraph (6)(i) describes the unique features and characteristics of each jurisdiction which provide the context of the analysis and which are needed to evaluate the extent, amount or frequency of an indicator and the significance of an indicator for a specific jurisdiction. Paragraph (6)(j) recognizes that land use plans generally may be significantly affected by other development policies in a plan which may serve to mitigate the presence of urban sprawl indicators based on the land use plan alone. Paragraph (6)(j) describes development controls which may be used by a local government to mitigate the presence of sprawl. Simply stated, paragraphs (h)-(j) are the components for an analysis of a plan or plan amendment to discern whether any of the indicators of urban sprawl, specified in paragraph (g), are present. If present, "the extent, amount or frequency of that indicator . . . [or] multiple indicators" must "be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Proposed rule 9J-5.006(6)(d). The primary indicators, established by proposed rule 9J-5.006(6)(g), that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, are stated to be: Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development. Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. Discourages or inhibits in fill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among liked or related land uses. Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. As heretofore found, urban sprawl is typically manifested by leapfrog or scattered development, ribbon or strip commercial or other development, and large expanses of predominantly low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development. Indicators 1-3 are appropriate indicators of urban sprawl as they reflect the three typical ways in which it is manifested. Moreover, a plan or plan amendment that evidenced such characteristics might reasonably be found not in compliance with the mandates of Sections 163.3177(1) and (6)(a), Florida Statutes; the State Comprehensive Plan, Section 187.201(16) and (18), Florida Statutes; and, the provisions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, relating to, inter alia, the minimum criteria required of local government plans relating to the future land use element, and such provisions of law may be reasonably read to speak to the issue of discouraging urban sprawl. Indicator 4 is also an appropriate indicator of urban sprawl since the premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses frequently intrudes on, or fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers and shorelines. As with other indicators, this indicator finds support in, and furthers, existent law which speaks to the adoption of standards for the orderly and balanced growth of an area, including the conservation and protection of natural resources. See Section 163.3177(1) and (6)(d) and (g), Florida Statutes, Section 187.201(9), (10) and (16), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J- 5.006, 9J-5.011, 9J-5.012, and 9J-5.013, Florida Administrative Code. Indicators 5 and 9 are also appropriate indicators of urban sprawl since the intrusion of urban activities into rural areas frequently has negative impacts on rural uses such as logging, farming and mining. As with the previous indicators, these indicators are supported by, and further, existent law, which addresses the orderly and balanced development of the area, the control and distribution of population densities, the conservation of soil resources to maintain viable agricultural pursuits, and the separation of rural and urban uses. See Section 163.3177(1), and (6)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes, Section 187.201(16)(a), 16(b)2, (23)(a) and (23)(b)9, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J- 5.006, Florida Administrative Code. Indicators 6 and 7 are also appropriate indicators of urban sprawl since a failure to utilize existing and future capacity of public facilities and services often evidences a failure to guide development into areas with existent infrastructure appropriate for development. These indicators are consistent with, and further, current comprehensive planning laws which favor orderly and balanced development, encourage efficient development, and maximize the use of existing public facilities. See Section 163.3177(1) and (6)(a), Florida Statutes, Section 187.201(16)(a) and (b)1, (17)(a), (18)(a), and (18)(b) 1 and 2, Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.006, 9J-5.011, and 9J-5.016, Florida Administrative Code. Indicator 8 is an appropriate indication of urban sprawl for the same reasons addressed as to indicators 6 and 7, and because such premature expansion of land uses requires the extension of public facilities and services at disproportionate costs. This indicator is also consistent with, and furthers, the comprehensive planning laws addressed as to indicators 6 and 7. Indicator 10 is an appropriate indication of urban sprawl since a failure to encourage infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities is consistent with failing to discourage urban sprawl. This indicator is consistent with, and furthers, the comprehensive planning laws which favor orderly and balanced growth, maximizing the use of existing facilities, the renewal of blighted areas and the revitalization of downtown areas. See Section 163.3177(1) and 6(a), Florida Statutes, Section 187.201(16)(a), (16)(b)1-3, 17(a), 17(b)2, (18)(a) and (18)(b)1 and 2, Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.006, 9J-5.011, and 9J-5.016, Florida Administrative Code. Indicator 11 is an appropriate indication of urban sprawl for the same reasons addressed as to indicator 10, and is consistent with and furthers the comprehensive planning laws supporting that indicator. See also Rule 9J-5.010, Florida Administrative Code. Moreover, the encouragement of an attractive and functional mix of living, working, shopping and recreational activities in an urban area is the antithesis of urban sprawl. Indicator 12 is an appropriate indication of urban sprawl since urban sprawl patterns often result in poor accessibility among related land uses and increase the cost of transportation between related uses. This indicator is consistent with and furthers the comprehensive planning laws which favor orderly, balanced and efficient development, which includes timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets and attractions. See Section 163.3177(1) and 6(a), Florida Statutes, Section 187.201(16)(b)1 and 3, and (20)(b)9, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J5-5.006, Florida Administrative Code. Finally, indicator 13 is an appropriate indication of urban sprawl since urban sprawl patterns often result in the loss of significant amounts of functional open spaces ("undeveloped lands suitable for passive recreation or conservation"). This indicator is consistent with and furthers the comprehensive planning laws which address orderly and balanced growth, conservation of natural resources, and the need for recreational and open space. See Section 163.3177(1) and (6)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes, Section 187.201(10) and (16)(b)2, Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.006, 9J-5.013, and 9J-5.014, Florida Administrative Code. While the indicators are reasonable in a generic sense, their existence or significance in any given case is wholly dependent upon an analysis of the specific plan or plan amendment and the local government's specific data and analysis which support it. Notably, these are the factors contemplated by the provisions of paragraphs (h)-(j) of the proposed rule which, when analyzed, presume to provide the insight necessary to render such a conclusion as to whether any indicators of urban sprawl are present. The first step in the analysis is an evaluation of land uses, as prescribed by paragraph (h). Under such provision, a land use analysis is the focus of the review of the plan or plan amendment when determining whether it discourages urban sprawl. The rule provides a list of ten factors by which each land use type (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural), included within the plan or amendment, will be evaluated. These factors are: extent, location, distribution, density, intensity, compatibility, suitability, functional relationship, land use combinations, and demonstrated need over the planning period. "Extent," "distribution," "density," "intensity," "compatibility," "suitability," and "functional relationship" are defined by proposed rule 9J- 5.003(50), (39), (35), (64), (28), (131) and (55), respectively. The term "demonstrated need over the planning period" is a term described in existing Rule 9J-5.006, which requires an analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including the categories of land use and their densities or intensities of use. Petitioners did not challenge any of these rule definitions. The terms "location" and "land use combinations," while not defined in the rules, have a commonly understood meaning among professional planners. "Location" means the situs or relationship of any one land use to any other land use or geographic feature. "Land use combinations" means the different types of land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural) on a land use map. Paragraph (i) of the proposed rule specifies the local conditions against which each of the land use factors described in paragraph (h) is to be evaluated. The paragraph lists ten features or characteristics to be used in this evaluation which, like the analysis in paragraph (h), is based on the plan or plan amendment and its underlying data and analysis. These factors are: Size of developable area. Projected growth rate (including population, commerce, industry, and agriculture). Projected growth amounts (acres per land use category). Facility availability (existing and committed). Existing pattern of development (built and vested), including an analysis of the extent to which the existing pattern of development reflects urban sprawl. Projected growth trends over the planning period, including the change in the overall density or intensity of urban development throughout the jurisdiction. Costs of facilities and services, such as per capita cost over the planning period in terms of resources and energy. Extra-jurisdictional and regional growth characteristics. Transportation networks and use characteristics (existing and committed). Geography, topography and various natural features of the jurisdiction. Petitioners offered no proof at hearing directly challenging the propriety or reasonableness of any of the factors listed in this paragraph. Moreover, one would expect a plan or plan amendment, together with its data and analysis, to address these factors. Paragraph (j) of the proposed rule sets forth a list of development controls which, to the extent they are included in a local plan, will be evaluated to determine their impact on the land uses at issue and, therefore, the ultimate issue of whether the plan or amendment discourages urban sprawl. A local government is not required to adopt any of the development controls, but if they elect to include them in their plan or plan amendment, the controls, which may mitigate or obviate an urban sprawl issue, are pertinent to the urban sprawl question. Indeed, each of the development controls is an accepted planning technique to control or discourage urban sprawl, and a professional planner should be familiar with such controls and their implications. Viewing the provisions of paragraphs (g)-(j) as a whole, the gist of petitioners' challenge appears to be that, while the purpose of the rule is to discourage urban sprawl, the rule fails to indicate "how much sprawl is acceptable and how much sprawl is too much," that the various indicators and criteria have no established weighting, and the terms used lack definition. Under such circumstances, petitioners argue the rules are vague or vest unbridled discretion in the agency. [See Petitioners' proposed recommended order, paragraphs 27-29.] Such concerns are not however, supported by the proof. As heretofore noted, the meaning applied to the terms used in the rules at issue is contained in other proposed rules, the existing rule, or the terms are commonly understood among professional planners. Moreover, in most cases, the terms used are identical to those employed by the Legislature in the enactment of Chapter 163, Part II, and Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the provisions of existing Rule 9J-5, which has been accorded special status by the Legislature under Section 163.3177(9), Florida Statutes. Under such circumstances, these terms have been routinely applied for a significant period of time in the preparation and review of local plans, and are presumably understood by professional planners. In concluding that the indicators and criteria are reasonable, it has not been overlooked that they do not have an established weighting, nor that professional planners could reasonably disagree in their application to a particular circumstance. As to establishing a weighting for each indicator or criteria, the variety of circumstances among local governments and their plans or proposed amendments would foreclose such an approach. As to disagreements among professional planners, such is not a failing of the rule, but the consequence of the diversity or vagary among local plans or amendments, data and analyses and local conditions. Notwithstanding, the plans or amendments, data and analyses, and local conditions provide an objective basis upon which an evaluation can be made and, if necessary, challenged and tested. Finally, as to the rule's failure to prescribe "how much sprawl is acceptable and how much sprawl is too much" the same conclusion must prevail, since it is the plan or amendment, data and analysis, and local conditions that will derive that answer and not the rule. Indeed, the benchmark adopted by the Department to "discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl" is not unreasonable under the circumstances. The common meaning of "discourage" and "proliferation" used in the Department's mandate provide a reasonable benchmark for addressing a problem that cannot be quantified. The word "discourage" means "To dissuade or deter . . . To hamper; hinder . . . To try to prevent," and the word "proliferation" means "To increase or spread at a rapid rate." The American Heritage Dictionary, New College Edition (1979). In reviewing plans or plan amendments as required by the Act, it is presumed that the Department's planners will exercise sound planning judgment and will conform their conduct to existent law. See e.g., Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mack, 57 So.2d 447 (Fla. 1952). Should the Department fail to do so, or should there be a divergence of opinion among the parties or professional planners, the statutory framework provided by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, which establishes the procedures for adoption of comprehensive plans and plan amendments, provides a review process to test, if necessary, the sufficiency and consistency of any Departmental determination regarding urban sprawl or any other planning issue. Moreover, during the course of such review, deference is accorded the decision of the local government, not the Department. Regarding the review process, Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, provides for initial review of proposed comprehensive plans and plan amendments by the Department, and the rendering of an "Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report" (ORC Report) by the Department to the local government. The local government, upon receipt of the ORC report, may then adopt or adopt with changes the proposed plan or plan amendment. If adopted, a copy of the adopted plan or plan amendment is filed with the Department, which has 45 days to review it and determine if the plan or amendment is in compliance with the Act. The Department's determination of compliance can only be based upon one or both of the following: The state land planning agency's [Department's] written comments to the local government . . .; and Any changes made by the local government to the comprehensive plan or plan amendment as adopted. Section 163.3184(8)(a), Florida Statutes. If the Department issues a notice of intent to find the plan in compliance, any affected person is accorded an opportunity to file a petition for review pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. "In this proceeding the local plan or plan amendment shall be determined to be in compliance if the local government's determination of compliance is fairly debatable." Section 163.3184(9)(a), Florida Statutes. Should the Department issue a notice of intent to find the comprehensive plan or plan amendment not in compliance, the notice is forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for review pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In such proceeding, . . . the local government's determination that the comprehensive plan or plan amendment is in compliance is presumed to be correct. The local government's determination shall be sustained unless it is shown by a prepond- erance of the evidence that the comprehensive plan or plan amendment is not in compliance. The local government's determination that elements of its plans are related to and consistent with each other shall be sustained if the determination is fairly debatable. Section 163.3184(10)(a), Florida Statutes. In either case, the recommended order rendered by DOAH is subject to final agency action by the Department or the Administrative Commission, as appropriate, and ultimately judicial review. Sections 120.68 and 163.3184(9), (10) and (11), Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether amendments to the Palm Beach County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2004-34 through 2004-39, 2004-63 and 2004-64 (Amendments) to accommodate the County's development of a biotechnology research park on 1,900 acres known as the Mecca site are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Overview of the County's Pre-Scripps Plan The County's first Plan was adopted in 1980. Its 1989 Plan, the first adopted under the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (also known as the 1985 Growth Management Act, or GMA) built upon the strengths of the first Plan. In 1995, the County evaluated and appraised its 1989 Plan, completed an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), and subsequently adopted a substantially-amended EAR-based Plan. In 1999, the Plan again was amended by the addition of a Managed Growth Tier System (MGTS) as a new growth management tool.2 The County's Plan recognizes that development in the County has generally moved from eastern coastal areas to the west and from the southern part of the County to the north. Generally, the Plan has attempted to direct growth towards the eastern part of the County and to encourage infill and redevelopment in that part of the County. Redevelopment is underway in older areas, usually under the auspices of local governments. At the same time, the Plan now recognizes that another growth corridor is located along SR 7 and US 441. Even with the efforts to encourage infill and redevelopment in the eastern part of the County, growth pressures have led to 18,000 acres of new land use approvals in the County north of Lake Worth Boulevard in the last 10 years. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the County's Plan contains County Directions, GOPs (i.e., Goals, Objectives, and Policies), the MGTS Map, and the Future Land Use Atlas. The County Directions "provide the basis for preparation of the [GOPs]." The GOPs "provide the framework for decisions that direct the location, pattern, character, interrelationships and timing of development, which ultimately affects the distribution of facilities and services to support it." The MGTS Map "defines distinct geographical areas within the County that currently either support or are anticipated to accommodate various types of development patterns and service delivery provisions that, together, allow for a diverse range of lifestyle choices, and livable, sustainable communities." The Atlas "graphically depicts the future distribution, general use and densities and intensities of [land use] within each tier." (FLUE Introduction, pp. 1-2) The County also routinely employs geographic-specific planning tools. The Plan creates at least 15 overlays to meet planning challenges for specific areas. It also recognizes 10 neighborhood plans. Optional sector planning for a large part of the Central-Western Communities of the County also is underway. The FLUE's County Directions include: Livable Communities (with "a balance of land uses and [other features]"); Growth Management (to "provide for sustainable urban, suburban, exurban and rural communities and lifestyle choices by: (a) directing . . . development that respects the characteristics of a particular geographic area; (b) ensuring smart growth . . . ; and (c) providing for facilities and services in a cost efficient timely manner"); Infill Development (to increase efficiency); Land Use Compatibility; Neighborhood Integrity; Economic Diversity and Prosperity (to promote the growth of industries that are high-wage and diversify the economic base); Housing Opportunity ("by providing an adequate distribution of very-low and low-income housing, Countywide"); Economic Activity Centers (to encourage manufacturing and other value-added activities); Level of Service Standards ("to accommodate an optimal level . . . needed as a result of growth"); Linear Open Space and Park Systems; Environmental Integrity (to "[e]ncourage restoration and protection of viable, native ecosystems and endangered and threatened wildlife by limiting the impacts of growth on those systems; direct incompatible growth away from them; encourage environmentally sound land use planning and development and recognize the carrying capacity and/or limits of stress upon these fragile areas"); Design; A Strong Sense of Community; and Externalities (placing "major negative" ones "away from neighborhoods"). (Id. at pp. 5-6) FLUE Goal 1 is to establish the MGTS. Objective 1.1 recognizes five geographic regions (tiers) of land with "distinctive physical development patterns with different needs for services to ensure a diversity of lifestyle choices": Urban/Suburban (land within the Urban Service Area (USA), generally along the east coast but also along the southeast shore of Lake Okeechobee in the extreme west of the County, having urban or suburban density and intensity and afforded urban levels of service); Exurban (land outside the USA and generally between the Urban and Rural Tiers, platted prior to the 1989 Plan and developed at densities greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (du/ac); Rural (land outside the USA and east of the Water Conservation Areas, Twenty Mile Bend, and the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area (Corbet WMA), including large tracts of land, as well as lands platted prior to the 1989 Plan, that had a predominant density of 1 du/10 ac, but less than 1 du/5 ac, and afforded rural levels of service); Agricultural Reserve (primarily for agricultural use, reflecting the unique farmlands and wetlands within it, to be either preserved or developed only at low residential density); and Glades (all land west of the Water Conservation Areas, Twenty Mile Bend, and Corbett WMA, predominantly supporting large-scale agricultural operations, and afforded rural levels of service.) The five tiers are depicted graphically in Map LU 1.1, MGTS, of the Map Series. Conservation lands are also depicted on Map LU 1.1 but are not assigned to a tier. The Map also depicts the United Technologies (Pratt-Whitney) (UT) Overlay and the North County General Aviation Airport (North County Airport), neither one which appears from Map LU 1.1 to lie within a tier. The UT Overlay is in the north-central part of the County, sandwiched between Rural Tier on the north, east, and southeast and Conservation land, including Corbett WMA on the west and southwest, and roughly bisected by the Beeline Highway (Beeline), which runs diagonally through the overlay between its northwest and southeast extremes. The Airport lies farther to the southeast along the Beeline, essentially surrounded by Rural Tier land, except for relatively small pieces of Conservation land contiguous to it along its western boundary and at its southeast corner (the North County Airport Preserve.) Notwithstanding the possible appearance from the depictions on Map LU 1.1, the County has no general planning jurisdiction in any of the incorporated areas of the County.3 Map LU 2.1 depicts the three service areas to guide delivery of public services that are established under FLUE Goal 3. These are the Urban Service Area (USA), the Rural Service Area (RSA), and the Limited Urban Service Areas (LUSA). The USA essentially follows the boundaries of the Urban/Suburban Tier. The LUSA is relatively limited geographically and includes the Agricultural Reserve Tier, the UT Overlay, and the North County Airport (with contiguous Conservation lands). The rest of the County is in the RSA. The verbiage of Goal 3, its Objectives and Policies and other parts of the Plan, gives the impression that provision of services is fine-tuned to the character and needs of a particular locale. For example, Goal 3 is "to define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost- effective manner, reflective of the quality of life associated with each respective Tier." But actually the Plan assigns countywide level-of-service standards (LOSS's) to seven of nine types of facilities. All urban services can be provided in all areas of the County except that County centralized water and sewer services cannot be provided in the RSA. While theoretically intended to be geographically limited, the main difference between the USA and the LUSA is that the LUSA is outside the USA. The Agricultural Reserve part of the LUSA is actually a westerly extension of the USA. The North County Airport part of the LUSA is surrounded by Rural Tier land; the UT part of the LUSA is surrounded by Rural Tier and Conservation lands, the same as the UT Overlay. The County has re-examined its policy decision not to provide centralized water and sewer services in the RSA because it has resulted in various municipalities and utilities special districts and perhaps private alternative providers extending services while the County excludes itself. The County has adopted plan amendments to change this to allow the County to provide such services and to exclude others. Those plan amendments are under administrative challenge at this time and are not yet in effect. The County has three priorities for extending services. One is to encourage development of basic industry to further the Economic Element. The County Plan's Economic Element is optional. It reflects a concerted effort to diversify the economy of the County by encouraging growth in cluster industries, including medical products. Taken together, the Plan reflects a desire to accommodate growth in the Urban/Suburban Tier, especially in the eastern part of the County. Many GOPs in the Plan promote and encourage infill and redevelopment. However, pressure to grow in other parts of the County are undeniable. It appears that, under the Plan, the County will be completely built-out within 30 years. The County's current Plan is detailed and complicated. Many other parts of it, some of which will be addressed later in this Recommended Order, also are implicated in some manner and in different degrees by the Amendments at issue. Scripps Florida In the early 1990s, a County study indicated concern about the three main elements of the local economy: tourism was low-paying; agriculture was low-paying and a declining sector; and construction and development would decline as the County built out. In 1998, a consulting firm (SRI) proposed an action plan for the County to develop economic clusters. The action plan addressed several industry clusters, including medical/pharmaceuticals. SRI recommended, among other things, attracting a biomedical park development, a satellite campus of a medical school, venture capital providers, and a medical research institute. Meanwhile, in the same general time frame, the State’s economic development arm, Enterprise Florida, Inc., targeted the biomedical industry for development in Florida. The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California (Scripps), is the largest not-for-profit biotechnology research organization of its kind in the world. In 2003, Scripps decided to expand its operations. Florida Governor Bush, along with several Florida legislators, personally and through Enterprise Florida and OTTED, actively pursued Scripps to locate in Florida. During the same timeframe, the Federal Government made funds available to Florida under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, for the essential governmental service of improving economic opportunities available to the people of this state by attracting new or expanding businesses to, and retaining businesses in, the State. It was decided to use $310,000,000 of these funds in the pursuit of Scripps and hoped-for related economic and other benefits. By October 2003, Scripps agreed to negotiate expansion to Florida and chose Palm Beach County as its preferred location in the State. Also in October 2003, the Florida Legislature met in special session and, on November 3, 2003, enacted Chapter 2003-420, Laws of Florida, which created the Scripps Florida Funding Corporation to facilitate establishment and operation of a biomedical research institution for the purposes of enhancing education and research and promoting economic development and diversity. The Funding Corporation was required by the law to negotiate a contract with the Scripps Research Institute of La Jolla, California, for Scripps to establish a state-of-the-art biomedical research institution and campus in Florida. After disbursement of $300,000 to OTTED to cover staffing and administration expenses of the Funding Corporation, and upon execution of the contract with Scripps, the balance of the $310,000,000 was to be disbursed to the Funding Corporation subject to the terms of the contract. The Scripps Grant Agreement Scripps Florida and the County entered into a Grant Agreement on February 9, 2004, with a term of 30 years. In the Grant Agreement, the County agreed to pay for or provide: a 100-acre campus for Scripps Florida in the 1,919-acre site at Mecca Farms (Mecca), with a funding limitation of $60,000,000; the construction of initial temporary facilities for Scripps Florida at the Florida Atlantic University (FAU) campus in Jupiter, with a funding limitation of $12,000,000; the construction of permanent facilities for Scripps Florida at the Mecca site, with a funding limitation of $137,000,000; 400 adjacent acres for development of “related uses”; and applications for approvals for Scripps Florida to develop 2 million square feet at Mecca. The Grant Agreement’s definition of “related uses” was intended to be broad so that the County can open the 400 acres to computer research, telecommunications and other economic clusters if not enough pharmaceutical or life-science research firms are attracted. The Grant Agreement requires Scripps Florida to create or relocate at least 545 new jobs to the Mecca site; to strive to create 2,777 new or relocated jobs; and to work with the County to create a total 6,500 jobs. In the Grant Agreement, the County expressly reserves all legislative and quasi-judicial powers, acting only in its proprietary capacity. The County's Purchase of Mecca Site In accordance with the Grant Agreement, the County proceeded with the purchase of the Mecca site. In October 2003, the Business Development Board (BDB), a non- profit organization that is funded primarily by and reports to the County, already had obtained an option to purchase the site for $60,000,000, if certain government approvals could be obtained. In February 2004, the County acquired the option on the Mecca property from the BDB and exercised it. Including the cost of some "oral add-ons," the purchase price for Mecca was approximately $60,500,000. Characteristics of the Mecca and Surroundings The Mecca site is in the shape of a rectangle located in the north-central part of the County. It is designated in the Rural Tier. For approximately 50 years, most of the site has been used as a citrus grove with trees grown in rows 15 feet apart, 73-acres of agricultural ditches, and a 272-acre above-ground water impoundment area in the northeast quadrant of the site used for irrigation. There also is a 30-acre sand mine operation in the southwestern quadrant. At this time, the Mecca site is accessible by road only by Seminole Pratt-Whitney Road (SPW), a two-lane paved road from the south. When SPW reaches the southwest corner of Mecca, it becomes a dirt road as it continues along the west side of the property. While Mecca itself is in the Rural Tier, it is not surrounded by Rural Tier land. The land to the west is designated Conservation, and the land to the north and south is designated Exurban Tier. The land to the east is designated Rural Tier, but it actually is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The area around Mecca is a “mosaic” of uses, including undeveloped agricultural lands, conservation lands, and lands developed predominantly as undesirable residential sprawl with limited employment and shopping. The nearby Beeline, part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), is classified by the State as “urban” to the east and “transitional” to the west of SPW. Significant among the developed areas near Mecca is The Acreage, abutting Mecca to the south. The County designated The Acreage as part of the Exurban Tier. It is a large, 76 percent built-out, antiquated subdivision with a density of 1 du/1.25 ac and a population of approximately 42,000. As such, it can be characterized as either urban or suburban, but not rural. To the south and west of The Acreage are large citrus groves in the Rural Tier. Farther south and west of The Acreage is Loxahatchee Groves, another antiquated subdivision in the Exurban Tier, with a density of 1 du/5 ac that is just 18 percent built-ut with 1,216 homes built. Farther south, just south of Southern Boulevard, is the Village of Wellington, which is a municipality located within the boundaries of the Urban/Suburban Tier. South and east of The Acreage is the Village of Royal Palm Beach, also a municipality within the Urban/Suburban Tier. The 60,288-acre Corbett WMA is located immediately west of Mecca and is owned and managed by the State as a hunting preserve. It has no tier designation. Corbett has a variety of habitats for endangered or threatened species (wood storks, eagles, red-cockaded woodpeckers, gopher tortoises and indigo snakes), including wet prairie, freshwater marsh and pine flatwoods. Corbett could provide habitat for Florida panthers although there have been no confirmed panther sightings in the area in a number of years. Immediately north of Mecca is another antiquated subdivision, Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District (Unit 11). The County is buying Unit 11 for preservation as Hungryland Slough, a regional off-site mitigation area. Unit 11 is designated in the Exurban Tier. Hungryland contains habitat similar to that found in Corbett WMA. North of Hungryland, and south of the Beeline, is a small triangle of Rural Tier land, which is just south and south east of the UT Overlay, which includes the Park of Commerce (a/k/a Florida Research Park). The Rural Tier land to the northeast of Hungryland, across the Beeline, is Caloosa, a large-lot residential development with a density of 1 du/5 ac. To the northeast of Caloosa is Jupiter Farms, another large, 81 percent built-out antiquated residential subdivision with a density of 1 du/2 ac and a population of about 12,600. Jupiter Farms is designated in the Rural Tier although it also seems to fit the criteria for the Exurban Tier. The Vavrus Ranch, a 4,600-acre landholding, is located immediately east of Mecca. Approximately half of Vavrus Ranch is wetlands, and the remainder is improved pasture. The Vavrus Ranch appears to be designated in the Rural Tier, but it actually is in the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Existing urban-scale public facilities between Mecca and Southern Boulevard to serve the suburbs include five fire stations, two post offices, eight elementary schools, two middle schools and two branch libraries, with one high school and one middle school planned or under construction. Existing public facilities north of Mecca in Caloosa include one fire station and one elementary school. East of Mecca and the Vavrus Ranch is the North County General Aviation Airport. To address land use deficiencies in this area, the County has agreed with DCA to prepare a plan for a 52,000-acre sector, which originally included Mecca. Current development has committed approximately two- thirds of lands in the sector to an inefficient pattern that is not “sustainable.” This pattern increases reliance on the automobile; may not be served long-term by private wells and septic tanks; and does not pay for itself, requiring substantial taxpayer subsidies. The sector has a serious jobs/housing imbalance, resulting in more congestion and longer commutes for residents. The County’s sector planning consultants identified Mecca as an appropriate site for an intensive employment center in two out of three initial scenarios. Subsequent studies identified Mecca for other uses, and the site was deleted from the sector planning area in 2004 when the Scripps Florida opportunity arose at Mecca. Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Plan Amendments Since the Scripps opportunity arose, the County's primary vision for Mecca has been to transform its 1,919 acres into a very special place that would be able not only to satisfy the needs of Scripps, but also would have all of the essential elements and many extra amenities so as to enable the County to compete with other areas of the country (and, indeed, the world) to attract related research and development (R&D) and, especially commercial activity in order to reap the maximum possible economic benefits of a biotechnology cluster. This vision included not only onsite opportunities for development of related biotechnology R&D and related commercial ventures, but also a university campus, a hospital/clinic, expansive green spaces and water features, onsite residential opportunities, including affordable housing, and onsite commercial and retail uses, including a town center. The County prepared plans by first reviewing and considering other R&D complexes, companies potentially interested in new locations, views of university officials, the Scripps experience at La Jolla, employees per square foot per industry type, and its own allowable floor area ratios (FARs) in order to identify the developable square footage for R&D at Mecca. As applicant for the necessary DRI approval and Plan amendments, the County’s staff and consultants initially requested approval of 10.5 million square feet for R&D use after balancing space needs, traffic impacts, environmental needs, buffering and other factors. The County’s real estate consultant concluded that a minimum of 2 to 3 million square feet of R&D space would be necessary for the venture to be successful, and that the absorption of 8 to 8.5 million square feet over a long-term build-out period of 30 years was a reasonable expectation. That view was bolstered by the potential establishment of other R&D users, if biotechnology firms do not absorb the entire capacity of the project. Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved a development of regional impact (DRI) for 8 to 8.5 million square feet of R&D, including the 2 million square feet for Scripps Florida, in order to provide economic opportunities while avoiding the need for eight-lane roads in the area. In order to accommodate this project, amendments to the County's Plan were necessary. Changes to the Plan adopted October 13, 2004, included Ordinance Nos. 2004-34 through 2004-39. Changes to the Plan adopted December 14, 2004, included Ordinance Nos. 2004-63 and 2004-64. Ordinance No. 2004-34 removes the 1,919-acre Mecca site from the Rural Tier; creates a scientific community overlay (SCO) on Mecca; establishes its allowed uses; imposes controls to balance residential and non-residential uses by phase; sets design principles; designates Mecca as a LUSA; and makes related changes to the FLUE and Economic Element and the FLUE Map Series. Ordinance No. 2004-35 modifies FLUE Policy 3.5-d to exempt the SCO from a County-imposed limitation on allowed land use changes expected to generate significant impacts on any roadway segment projected to fail to operate at LOSS "D" based on the adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan. Ordinance No. 2004-36 amends the FLUE Atlas to change the land use on Mecca from Rural Residential with a density of 1 du/10 ac (RR-10) to Economic Development Center with an underlying density of 2 du/ac (EDC/2). This amendment also sets minimum and maximum amounts of each use and incorporates by reference the land use conversion matrix in the DRI development order (DO). Ordinance No. 2004-37 amends the FLUE Atlas to change the land use on a 28-acre Accessory Site obtained from Corbett WMA from Conservation to Transportation and Utilities Facilities. Ordinance No. 2004-38 amends the Transportation Element (TE) to lower the adopted LOSS on 37 road segments and 6 intersections from the generally applicable standard of “D” to “Constrained Roadway at Lower Level of Service” (CRALLS). Ordinance No. 2004-39 amends the Thoroughfare Right- of-Way (ROW) Identification Map (TIM) and the 2020 Roadway System Map to reflect certain road improvements to accommodate SCO-generated traffic. Ordinance No. 2004-63 updates Tables 1 through 16 of the 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Schedule (CIS), and includes road, water, and sewer facilities to serve the SCO. Ordinance No. 2004-64 updates Table 17 of the CIS, which addresses schools. g. The Petitioners, Their Burden, and Their Issues DCA’s notices of intent to find the Amendments in compliance were challenged by four not-for-profit organizations and one resident of Palm Beach County. All of the Petitioners timely commented, orally or in writing, to the County regarding the Amendments. Additional standing evidence was presented as to each Petitioner. Standing as an "affected person" under Section 163.3184(1)(a) was disputed as to all but one Petitioner. As to Petitioner, Maria Wise-Miller, it was undisputed that she is an "affected person" under Section 163.3184(1)(a). It was Petitioners' burden to prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance." See Conclusions 210-211, infra. Essentially, Petitioners are concerned that development of the SCO on Mecca's 1,919 acres is poor planning because of its present agricultural use, its location in relation to nearby natural areas and rural areas, and its distance from more urban areas and transportation facilities. More specifically, the issues raised by Petitioners as reasons why the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" are framed in their Amended Petition.4 Implicating numerous applicable statutory and rule provisions, Petitioners' issues involve: urban sprawl; capital improvements (infrastructure); transportation concurrency; data and analysis; internal consistency; natural resources; community character and compatibility with adjacent uses; the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC's) Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP); and State Comprehensive Plan (SCP). No other issues have been added by further amendment, and no additional issues were heard by consent of the parties. See Conclusion 212, infra. H. Urban Sprawl Whether the Plan Amendments are consistent with relevant provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, the GMA, and Rule Chapter 9J-5 regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources, is determined by application of Rule 9J-5.006(5).5 Exceedingly detailed and complex, Rule 9J-5.006(5) provides in pertinent part: (d) Paragraph (5)(g) describes those aspects or attributes of a plan or plan amendment which, when present, indicate that the plan or plan amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. For purposes of reviewing the plan for discouragement of urban sprawl, an evaluation shall be made whether any of these indicators is present in a plan or plan amendment. If an indicator is present, the extent, amount or frequency of that indicator shall be considered. The presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl. * * * Primary indicators. The primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl are listed below. The evaluation of the presence of these indicators shall consist of an analysis of the plan or plan amendment within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality in order to determine whether the plan or plan amendment: Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development. Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Evaluation of land uses. The comprehensive plan must be reviewed in its entirety to make the determinations in (5)(g) above. Plan amendments must be reviewed individually and for their impact on the remainder of the plan. However, in either case, a land use analysis will be the focus of the review and constitute the primary factor for making the determinations. Land use types cumulatively (within the entire jurisdiction and areas less than the entire jurisdiction, and in proximate areas outside the jurisdiction) will be evaluated based on density, intensity, distribution and functional relationship, including an analysis of the distribution of urban and rural land uses. Each land use type will be evaluated based on: Extent. Location. Distribution. Density. Intensity. Compatibility. Suitability. Functional relationship. Land use combinations. Demonstrated need over the planning period. Local conditions. Each of the land use factors in (5)(h) above will be evaluated within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality. These include: Size of developable area. Projected growth rate (including population, commerce, industry, and agriculture). Projected growth amounts (acres per land use category). Facility availability (existing and committed). Existing pattern of development (built and vested), including an analysis of the extent to which the existing pattern of development reflects urban sprawl. Projected growth trends over the planning period, including the change in the overall density or intensity of urban development throughout the jurisdiction. Costs of facilities and services, such as per capita cost over the planning period in terms of resources and energy. Extra-jurisdictional and regional growth characteristics. Transportation networks and use characteristics (existing and committed). Geography, topography and various natural features of the jurisdiction. Development controls. Development controls in the comprehensive plan may affect the determinations in (5)(g) above. The following development controls, to the extent they are included in the comprehensive plan, will be evaluated to determine how they discourage urban sprawl: Open space requirements. Development clustering requirements. Other planning strategies, including the establishment of minimum development density and intensity, affecting the pattern and character of development. Phasing of urban land use types, densities, intensities, extent, locations, and distribution over time, as measured through the permitted changes in land use within each urban land use category in the plan, and the timing and location of those changes. Land use locational criteria related to the existing development pattern, natural resources and facilities and services. Infrastructure extension controls, and infrastructure maximization requirements and incentives. Allocation of the costs of future development based on the benefits received. The extent to which new development pays for itself. Transfer of development rights. Purchase of development rights. Planned unit development requirements. Traditional neighborhood developments. Land use functional relationship linkages and mixed land uses. Jobs-to-housing balance requirements. Policies specifying the circumstances under which future amendments could designate new lands for the urbanizing area. Provision for new towns, rural villages or rural activity centers. Effective functional buffering requirements. Restriction on expansion of urban areas. Planning strategies and incentives which promote the continuation of productive agricultural areas and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands. Urban service areas. Urban growth boundaries. Access management controls. Evaluation of factors. Each of the land use types and land use combinations analyzed in paragraph (5)(h) above will be evaluated within the context of the features and characteristics of the locality, individually and together (as appropriate), as listed in paragraph (5)(i). If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. Innovative and flexible planning and development strategies. Notwithstanding and as a means of addressing any provisions contained in Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)8., 9J- 5.011(2)(b)3., 9J-5.003(140), F.A.C., and this subsection, the Department encourages innovative and flexible planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques in local plans. Planning strategies and techniques such as urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed-use development and sector planning that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost- efficient delivery of public facilities and services, will be recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Of the 13 urban sprawl indicators in Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g), Petitioners alleged the existence of only 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. While there was evidence from which Petitioners reasonably could argue that the Plan Amendments promote urban sprawl, all of the Rule's indicators are at least fairly debatable. Indicator 2 As to Indicator 2, Petitioners' arguments on urban sprawl hinge in large part on characterization of Mecca as being rural land in the midst of likewise rural and conservation land far distant from any land use that could be characterized as urban or suburban. But while Mecca is distant from most of the Urban/Suburban Tier, neither the Village of Wellington nor Royal Palm Beach, both in the Urban/Suburban Tier, is very far away. The Acreage to Mecca's south, moreover, can be characterized as either urbanizing or suburban, but not rural. To the extent that Mecca is separated from other urban or suburban uses to the east by conservation lands (namely, the Loxahatchee Slough and Grassy Waters Preserve, a/k/a the West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area), no urban, suburban or even rural development of those conservation lands should be expected, making it fairly debatable whether "leaping over" those undeveloped lands should be considered an indicator of sprawl. In that sense, those conservation lands are similar to bodies of water. The “patchwork” pattern of developed, rural, and conservation uses near Mecca, including the adjacency of extensive residential development in The Acreage, also is significant. Nearby subdivisions including Jupiter Farms and Caloosa add further context for the sprawl analysis. The multi-use development at the SCO allowed by the Amendments may remediate the existing sprawl pattern near Mecca. Indicator 4 As to Indicator 4, it is at least fairly debatable whether conversion of rural land to urban uses on Mecca is premature in light of the Scripps opportunity and existing development pressures in the area. According to expert planning testimony for DCA and the County, the County is obliged to plan for growth in accordance with GMA and Rule 9J-5 up to its "sustainable carrying capacity," which has not been reached. Whether or not they believe the County has the option to plan to slow or stop growth before reaching "sustainable carrying capacity," it is clear from the evidence that the County is not doing so, but instead is planning for continued growth within the framework of its Plan until reaching what it considers to be "build-out" conditions. Given the County's basic growth policy, the County’s analysis of population projections for the next 20 years, compared to available vacant lands planned for residential use, shows the County has a “tight” plan with a restricted supply of land for development. This land use needs analysis shows that the eastern half of Palm Beach County (which includes Mecca) is experiencing intensive growth pressures due to the restricted supply of developable land, and that it will likely build out in approximately 20 years. Conservative assumptions in the County’s analysis suggest build-out in this area could occur even sooner. In its 1997 EAR, the County also concluded that eastern Palm Beach County would build out in approximately 20 years. The report noted that the approaching build-out of Dade and Broward counties to the south in the near future would further exacerbate growth pressures in Palm Beach County. Industrial lands in eastern Palm Beach County are expected to be exhausted by 2026. Because communities typically need greater locational variety for industrial uses compared to other uses, and in light of the many different activities that constitute an industrial use, the amount of land in eastern Palm Beach County designated for industrial use may be adequate but is not excessive. Besides, a numeric analysis is not necessary to justify industrial uses since they may be goal-based and aspirational. Seeking to diversify the local economy is an appropriate goal to support additional industrial land. Having a committed end-user for an industrial site is appropriate data to consider in evaluating such a land use change. Onsite residential and commercial uses will support the industrial use and better achieve a balance of uses, which will relieve the necessity to be evaluated against a numeric need test. Likelihood of Economic Benefits Petitioners argue that the proposed development at Mecca is not needed because significant economic benefits are so unlikely that the costly planned use of Mecca's 1,919 acres cannot be justified. Ordinarily, the likelihood of success of planned land uses would not be relevant to the compliance of a comprehensive plan or plan amendment. In this case, however, the County's vision for a Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster at Mecca was the impetus for the major and important changes embodied in the Plan Amendments and is part of the demonstration of need. For that reason, consideration of the issue is appropriate in this case. The evidence is clear that the County's vision is not guaranteed success as planned and that there are significant risks involved. To maximize economic benefits, the County will have to not only attract R&D but also generate commercial spin-offs, where maximum economic benefits result. R&D requires research funding, and commercial spin-offs require venture capital. It also is essential to establish relationships with hospitals or clinics where clinical trials can take place. The predominant source of biotech research funding has been the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In the mid- 1990s, NIH funding increased dramatically, but significant increases in the coming years cannot be counted on, and other sources of research funding will have to replace the deficit. To the extent that pharmaceutical companies are resorted to for this purpose, they may require participation in any resulting commercialization, which could reduce local economic benefits if the funding source is not local. The evidence was that, over the last 30 years or so, significant economic benefits from biotechnology clusters achieving effective commercialization have been concentrated in just nine areas of the country. One is San Diego, California; none are in Florida. These nine areas also have garnered a disproportionate share of NIH research funding (although the percentage has declined a little in the last few years.) They also tend to have scientists inclined towards commercialization of the results of research and businessmen having the special abilities needed in the unique world of biotech, where years can pass before a business begins to see profits, and many start-ups fail. These nine areas also have access to venture capital, a good percentage of which has tended to be local, since many venture capitalists also want to be more active in monitoring and participating in the businesses they fund than most other investors. On the other hand, there was evidence acknowledging that at least some venture capital will seek out and follow good opportunities for profit wherever they may exist. Historically, at least through 2001, the biotech industry has become increasingly concentrated in these nine areas of the country, and they continue to have competitive advantages that the County's vision for the SCO would have to overcome. (On the other hand, several of these nine areas also have competitive disadvantage in the form of high taxes, high real estate costs, high cost-of-living, and less-than- ideal quality of life. So far, however, their advantages have surpassed their disadvantages.) There also is competition from many other cities and counties throughout the country desiring, like Florida and the County, to develop a biotechnology cluster. Recognizing the intense competition, the County's vision is to create a world-class setting for its effort at Mecca. Allowable facilities at the SCO include not just R&D space, but also a clinical hospital of up to 300 beds, a university campus of up to 2,000 college and university students, public facilities supporting environmental amenities, community facilities and retail facilities in a “town center,” and 2,000 or more housing units, including affordable housing. The SCO contemplates a mixture of uses that is hoped will lead to synergistic relationships and exchange of “tacit knowledge,” which are important to the success of a biotechnology cluster. Scripps Florida, as the anchor institution, will bring critical world renown and credibility. The principles of adjacency within the SCO are intended to promote synergy that transcends local competition and attracts regional and national users. In planning the SCO, Scripps’ experience in La Jolla and the views of Scripps officials were taken into account. Scripps’ campus at Torrey Pines Mesa has been in existence for almost 30 years, and has worked well. Scripps attempts to keep its buildings close to one another and has met with difficulty finding scientists willing to fill workspace four miles from the main Scripps campus. The FAR for the 500 acres of R&D use at the SCO is very low, at 0.39.6 By comparison, there was evidence that the FAR of the 900-acre University of Florida campus in Gainesville, Florida, is 2.00. Petitioners contend that much less than 500 acres is needed for the 8.5 million square feet of R&D provided in the SCO. However, the County found that Scripps’ buildings in California are constructed in horizontal fashion, with three, four and rarely five stories. Taller buildings have lower net-to-gross floor area, so they have significant added cost. Scripps considers close-by affordable housing desirable, especially for graduate and post-doctoral students. For other occupants of the SCO, low-rise construction makes it easier for companies to add space as they grow. High-rise construction is more expensive, harder to finance because of pre-leasing requirements, and less efficient. Based on the evidence, the FAR is fairly debatable. Venture capital from within and outside Florida is growing, as is capital interest in the Scripps initiative in Florida. Four clinical hospitals have expressed interest in participating in the SCO. In the year after announcement of Scripps Florida, the number of new life-science projects announced in Florida quadrupled in comparison to recent years. Workforce training and educational improvement are contemplated as support for and results of the SCO. The State has implemented and funded workforce programs in the life sciences, including in the County. The County has participated in the development of a consortium of Florida institutions of higher learning aimed at creating a specialized campus in the SCO. Scripps Florida is obligated to establish accredited science degree programs and internship programs for educators and secondary, post- secondary, graduate and post-doctoral students. Petitioners’ economic witness testified that the County lacks key competitive ingredients for developing a successful biotechnology cluster. Other witnesses, however, explained the level of efforts that the State, the County, and Scripps Florida are making to bring those ingredients to fruition. In addition, while Petitioners’ economic witness recited past experience of the biotechnology industry and forecast limited success for Scripps Florida primarily based on year seven, the last year of presently-committed State funding, he acknowledged that biotechnology research parks tend to experience a slow ramp-up, and the County anticipates a 30-year build-out. Of course, other sources of needed funding would have to be found after year seven. The evidence was that the chances for successful development of a biotechnology cluster at Mecca will decrease if no universities or hospitals are established onsite at Mecca and will decrease the longer it takes to establish them. If the planned biotechnology cluster does not succeed as well as planned, the SCO incorporates flexibility for absorption of R&D floor space by other types of research and development occupants. Often, when a large development project does not succeed as planned, pressures develop for investors to change the project's characteristics in an attempt to cut losses and increase profitability by selling land more quickly. In the case of the SCO, the investors are the taxpayers of Palm Beach County. It cannot be predicted what kind of pressures the County would feel, or what changes to the planned build-out would occur, if the SCO does not succeed as planned. Based on all the evidence, it is fairly debatable whether the likelihood of economic benefit is enough to justify the planned use of Mecca's 1,919 acres. Other Alternatives Petitioners also contend that the proposed development at Mecca is not needed because better alternatives exist. Specifically, they contend that the Scripps project could be sited: on the Briger site adjacent to the Florida Turnpike on its west and straddling I-95 in the City of Palm Beach Gardens; on Parcel 19 just west of I-95 and the Florida Turnpike, straddling Indiantown Road in the Town of Jupiter; or in the Park of Commerce (a/k/a Florida Research Park) in the unincorporated County near Mecca in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of the Beeline and SPW. Although the County had a contract with Scripps Florida to be located at Mecca, during the review process the BCC requested a study of possible alternative sites. The number of sites reduced rather quickly to three: Briger; Parcel 19; and the Park of Commerce. Data and analysis at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendments indicated that each of these alternative sites had flaws and risk factors, making it fairly debatable whether Scripps should be sited at any one of them instead of at Mecca. All three proposed alternatives have less acreage than Mecca and do not provide the same opportunities for affordable housing, open space, or flexibility of design, so as to be able to be developed in accordance with the vision the County has for development on its own 1,919 acres at Mecca. The Park of Commerce has limited opportunity for affordable housing, is limited in permitted uses, and is limited in flexibility by existing and platted infrastructure and industrial uses. It is now being used for industrial purposes--a railroad, a General Motors distribution facility, and a Walgreen's distribution facility--not considered to be consistent with the County's vision for a biotechnology research park. In addition, it may become necessary in the future to construct an overpass at the Beeline and SPW directly over the only suitable location for construction of the Scripps facilities at that site. Parcel 19 cannot accommodate affordable housing and would require $75 million in construction of major interchanges at I-95 and Indiantown Road, after which Indiantown Road still would be seriously over capacity, creating great traffic problems. In addition, it would be difficult to achieve the County’s targeted development program of 8 to 8.5 million square feet of R&D uses. The 682-acre Briger site favored by the Petitioners is bisected by I-95 into two triangular pieces. It would not meet the acreage requirements of the County’s contract with Scripps Florida unless the City of Palm Beach Gardens waives certain upland preservation requirements. In addition, at this time Briger remains on the County’s list of properties for acquisition for preservation (although its placement on the list may be out-of-date since Briger's hydrologic connection to the Loxahatchee River Slough has been more disrupted by development since its listing). Even if the Scripps contract requirements could be met, it would require higher vertical construction, which would be less compatible with surrounding residential uses, would provide less open space, and would have reduced flexibility. The County's complete vision for onsite incorporation of uses and amenities would not fit on Briger. For example, the university tie-in, the hospital, and residential features would have to be offsite. Briger might have a short-term marketing advantage over Mecca (in part because hospitals and FAU's Jupiter campus already exist in close enough proximity). Briger also would be closer to major transportation facilities, but that advantage would not necessarily offset Briger's deficiencies. It is fairly debatable whether long-term success would be more likely at Mecca or at Briger. All four sites–-Mecca, Briger, Parcel 19, and the Park of Commerce-–are located in the eastern half of Palm Beach County, where growth pressures are strong, the County’s Plan is "tight," and build-out is anticipated within the next 30 years, even without the SCO, based on County data compilations for land use need purposes. Natural Resources Protection and Conservation While they may not protect and conserve natural resources in an absolute sense (as is rarely if ever possible when development takes place near natural areas), it is at least fairly debatable whether measures in the Plan and Plan Amendments to protect and conserve natural resources are adequate. See Findings 146-182, infra. Indicator 6 As to Indicator 6, significant new infrastructure will have to be extended to Mecca under the Plan Amendments. Development closer to existing roads and, to a lesser extent, the existing USA and LUSA might make more use of existing facilities and services possible. But the evidence was that most of the $15 million of centralized water and sewer lines that will serve the SCO at Mecca already are planned for extension of service to the UT Overlay. Many of the road improvements planned for the SCO at Mecca also are already planned. See Findings 116-117 and 152-155, infra. In addition, it is at least fairly debatable whether and to what extent greater use could be made of existing public facilities and services by locating the Scripps elsewhere in the County, or whether location elsewhere in the County would be better or even possible, especially given the County's complete vision for development of the SCO at Mecca. See Findings 85-92, supra. Given the decision to develop at Mecca, there was no evidence that existing public facilities and services will not be used to the maximum extent possible. Indicator 7 As to Indicator 7, there is no reason to believe that the development at Mecca resulting from the Plan Amendments will not maximize the use of future public facilities and services. (The County has not planned to provide centralized water and sewer service to the Vavrus property because it does not have the legal right or ability to provide services within the boundaries of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.) Indicator 8 As to Indicator 8, a disproportionate increase in the cost in time, money, and energy may result from providing and maintaining facilities and services to the SCO. However, while this indicator may be in evidence short-term due to the cost of constructing facilities to the SCO, over time these costs would be ameliorated as more development occurs in the area. Indicator 9 As to Indicator 9, as depicted on Map H of the DRI application, which is referenced in new Policy 1.2-f as a “land use/site planning measure,” it is at least fairly debatable whether the Plan Amendments provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The only rural uses adjacent to Mecca are the Vavrus land to the east, and Map H depicts a 50-foot buffer there. There was evidence that the 50-foot buffer on the east is sufficient for the current use and the rural residential land use designation (1 du/10ac) placed on the Vavrus site at this time by the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The Mecca project has been designed so that, if there are changes in the future in the land use on the Vavrus property, those buffers would continue to provide compatibility. Indicator 10 As to Indicator 10, no language contained in the Plan Amendments discourages or inhibits infill or redevelopment, and the Plan still contains several provisions encouraging infill and redevelopment. On the other hand, development occurring at Mecca obviously will not result in infill or redevelopment. To the extent that the availability of economic incentives for infill and redevelopment is limited, the significant economic incentives committed to the Mecca project will not be available for infill and redevelopment. However, it is at least fairly debatable whether the infill and redevelopment measures in the Plan will be compromised by the Amendments in view of the increasing growth pressures in the County and the “tight” supply of land for development. The Plan Amendments include numerous anti-sprawl development controls that also are considered in the urban sprawl analysis. The principal controls are in the structure of the Plan Amendments, primarily the minimum and maximum amounts established for specific uses, a requirement for phasing, and a required balance of residential and non- residential uses for each phase. To mitigate sprawl, development controls should be meaningful and predictable, but also flexible. They need not include numeric setbacks and building spacing requirements, or a site plan. It is at least fairly debatable that the controls in the Amendments satisfy the State’s criteria. Cf. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(j). Petitioners' Evidence One planning witness for Petitioners who opined that the Amendments constitute sprawl did not consider the extent, amount or frequency of any indicator, contrary to Rule 9J-5.006(5)(d). He also opined there is no need for the Amendments. However, in analyzing this issue, he only reviewed portions of the Plan and a six-page summary of the EAR prepared by Petitioners’ counsel. He did not examine the 2003 Population Allocation Model or the County’s population projections and land use need analysis.7 Another planning witness for Petitioners rendered opinions about the interpretation of several indicators in the urban sprawl rule, but his testimony did not constitute expert opinions as to whether the Amendments constitute sprawl, or are "in compliance." A third planning witness for Petitioners, from the TCRPC, opined that the Amendments are sprawl, as is the existing development near Mecca. However, he admitted the definition of “sprawl” in the TCRPC's SRPP is not the same as the definition in Rule 9J-5. Urban Sprawl Summary Based on the foregoing, the determinations by the County and DCA in this case that the Plan Amendments are consistent with the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, the GMA, and Rule Chapter 9J-5 regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources are subject to fair debate. Capital Improvements In this category, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Section 163.3177(3)(a) and Rule 9J-5.016(2) and (3)(b). The statute provides: The comprehensive plan shall contain a capital improvements element designed to consider the need for and the location of public facilities in order to encourage the efficient utilization of such facilities and set forth: A component which outlines principles for construction, extension, or increase in capacity of public facilities, as well as a component which outlines principles for correcting existing public facility deficiencies, which are necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. The components shall cover at least a 5-year period. Estimated public facility costs, including a delineation of when facilities will be needed, the general location of the facilities, and projected revenue sources to fund the facilities. Standards to ensure the availability of public facilities and the adequacy of those facilities including acceptable levels of service. Standards for the management of debt. The Rule provides: Capital Improvements Analysis Requirements. The element shall be based upon the following analyses which support the comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection 9J-5.005(2), F.A.C. Current local practices that guide the timing and location of construction, extension or increases in capacity of each public facility; The general fiscal implications of the existing deficiencies and future needs for each type of public facility. This analysis shall be based on the needed improvements, as identified in the other local government comprehensive plan elements, and shall address the relative priority of need among facility types, and shall support the future land use element; The costs of needed capital improvements for mitigation of existing deficiencies, replacement and new growth needs pursuant to the future land use element and shall explain the basis of cost estimates; The impact of new or improved public educational and public health care systems and facilities on the provision of infrastructure; The use of timing and location of capital improvements to public facilities to support efficient land development and goals, objectives, and policies in the future land use element. This analysis must take into consideration plans of state agencies and water management districts that provide public facilities within the local government jurisdiction; and An assessment of the local government's ability to finance capital improvements based upon anticipated population and revenues including: Forecasting of revenues and expenditures for five years; Projections of debt service obligations for currently outstanding bond issues; Projection of ad valorem tax base, assessment ratio and millage rate; Projections of other tax bases and other revenue sources such as impact and user fees; Projection of operating cost considerations; and Projection of debt capacity. Requirements for Capital Improvements Goals, Objectives, and Policies. * * * (b) The element shall contain one or more objectives for each goal and shall address: The use of the capital improvements element as a means to meet the needs of the local government for the construction of capital facilities necessary to meet existing deficiencies, to accommodate desired future growth and to replace obsolete or worn-out facilities; The limitation of public expenditures that subsidize development in high hazard coastal areas; The coordination of land use decisions and available or projected fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements which maintains adopted level of service standards and meets the existing and future facility needs; The extent to which future development will bear a proportionate cost of facility improvements necessitated by the development in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards; and The demonstration of the local government's ability to provide or require provision of the needed improvements identified in the other local government comprehensive plan elements and to manage the land development process so that public facility needs created by previously issued development orders or future development do not exceed the ability of the local government to fund and provide or require provision of the needed capital improvements. There was no evidence that the Plan does not contain a CIE meeting these requirements or, more germane to this case, that the Plan Amendments undo the Plan's CIE, which already has been determined to be "in compliance." Actually, while seemingly focusing here on capital improvements other than those related to traffic circulation, Petitioners attempt to use these requirements primarily as additional bases for their urban sprawl arguments, supra, and their transportation concurrency and data and analysis arguments, infra. Chapter 2003-420, Laws of Florida, provides that the County in which Scripps is located shall have the exclusive right to provide central water and sewer service to the project. The County intends to provide such service to the SCO via lines extending from Okeechobee Boulevard and SR 7 about 12.5 miles away. The County has enough plant capacity to serve the SCO through build-out. Assuming Scripps Florida is located at the SCO, it would be expected to pay guaranteed revenue fees, connection fees, and on-line rates (which could be special rates set for Scripps and Mecca.) The evidence was that the total cost of construction for the lines to serve the SCO, while substantial at approximately $15 million (some of which would be expended with or without the SCO), is a relatively small percentage (5-6 percent) of the County's overall capital improvements budget, is relatively minor in light of the County’s strong financial condition, will enhance the use of existing assets and rate stability for customers, represents a least-cost and efficient approach for the area to be served, and will not cause other water and sewer needs to go unmet. The County’s 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Schedule (CIS) is financially feasible, as are each year’s program in the CIS. The CIS is based on best available data. Capital outlays to support the SCO will not deprive the County of money for other needed projects or distort the County’s fiscal priorities. Transportation Concurrency The Petitioners' focus here is on the CRALLS designations. CRALLS designations have been assigned to 37 different road segments and 6 intersections, not only near Mecca but also as far north as Indiantown Road, as far south as Okeechobee Boulevard, and as far east as I-95. They are set at vehicle loadings that match the traffic loads expected with development of the SCO. They only apply to the SCO. Other developments cannot rely on them but must use an applicable LOSS. In part, Petitioners frame their arguments on inconsistency with statutes and rules governing interim LOSS designed to correct existing deficiencies and set priorities for addressing backlogged facilities; Transportation Concurrency Management Areas used to promote infill and redevelopment; and Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas used to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on urban infill and redevelopment and to achieve other goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan, such as promoting the development of public transportation. See Section 163.3180(9) and Rule 9J-5.0055(4)-(6). However, DCA and the County have made no effort to defend its CRALLS under those provisions.8 Rather, their position is that a CRALLS designation is a specialized LOSS that is "in compliance" without resort to those provisions of the law. DCA and the County seemed to come close to defending the CRALLS in part on the ground that the County has absolute discretion to establish these CRALLS and that they are not even subject to review for adequacy. Such a legal position would be untenable. Cf. Conclusion 217, infra. Assessment of the adequacy of the CRALLS is required. The transportation issues associated with the SCO are unprecedented in the County because of its size, location, and 30-year build-out. To address the challenges posed by these factors, the County relied on a combination of strategies to address transportation, including road improvements, CRALLS, adopting development controls for the SCO, and requiring mitigation. The initial transportation issue for the SCO was posed by FLUE Policy 3.5-d. This policy prohibits land use changes expected to generate significant impacts on any roadway segment projected to fail to operate at LOSS "D" based on the adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan. This policy is self-imposed and not required by the State. The SCO would generate trips beyond the significance thresholds in FLUE Policy 3.5-d. The County Engineer supported an exemption from this policy for the SCO because traffic considerations should not outweigh the economic and other land use goals the County is pursuing with the SCO. The first traffic analysis for the SCO was included in the DRI application, and was predicated on 10.5 million square feet of R&D. Later, in conjunction with re-zoning, the County’s consultants prepared a concurrency analysis for 8.5 million square feet of R&D, reflecting the maximum allowed by the Plan Amendments. All traffic analyses were performed as they would have been for a private developer, with methodologies approved by the County in collaboration with FDOT, TCRPC and Martin County. Assumptions were conservative, representing a worst- case scenario. SCO-related road improvements approved by the County in its five-year road program for 2005-2009 included 18 segments and three intersections at a total cost of $179.7 million. Of these, eight projects totaling $64.8 million were not new or changed in their amount of funding. The SCO-related improvements in the five-year road program were incorporated into the CIS for 2005-2010. An additional $26 million for these projects was included for 2010. Approximately 70 percent of the improvements needed for the SCO was previously identified on the 2020 Roadway System Map. In addition to these construction projects, the County also lowered the LOSS on some roads and intersections that would be impacted by the SCO over the next 30 years. In doing so, the County utilized its long-standing policy of establishing a CRALLS designation for each such road segment or intersection. The County is authorized under its charter to set LOSS's for all major roadways in unincorporated areas and municipalities except for the FIHS. The State sets the LOSS on roads in the FIHS. The County's generally applicable LOSS is LOSS “D”. Since 1989, the County has utilized the CRALLS strategy to establish an alternative LOSS on some roads due to physical or policy constraints. Examples of physical constraints include natural features, waterways, right-of-way limitations, and other roads; neighborhood opposition to a wider road would be an example of a policy constraint. CRALLS designations are not limited to the Urban/Suburban Tier; they may be adopted for land in any tier. Under TE Policy 1.2-f, CRALLS designations by the BCC must be based on data and analysis. These data and analysis must address 11 criteria in the County’s Unified Land Development Code (ULDC). CRALLS standards typically are expressed as a numeric limit on trip loadings on the road segment or intersection in question, rather than reliance upon the conventional, generalized “A”-“F” standards used by transportation engineers. Since 1993, Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5 have granted a local government discretion to adopt LOSS for seven types of public facilities, including roads other than FIHS roads. The only State requirements are that LOSS's must be adequate, based on data and analysis, and established for each facility type. Local governments are not prohibited from adopting LOSS's for different facilities within a service type or even project-specific LOSS's that overlay the more generally applicable LOSS for a facility or facility type. Of the 37 road segments and six intersections given project-specific CRALLS designations in the Amendments, the designations on nine road segments will become ineffective when the roads are widened as planned. Another seven segments may eventually have their CRALLS designations repealed as unneeded. These segments are projected to be no more than 12 percent over generalized LOS “D”, and the County’s experience is that a detailed arterial analysis generally will show such a segment actually operating at LOS “D” when site-specific factors are considered. Seven segments and one intersection already had CRALLS designations, but the CRALLS was changed to accommodate the SCO. An additional nine segments and four intersections were expected to have a CRALLS designation even without the SCO, due to pre-existing conditions. On all but two of these, the SCO accounted for 5% or less of the trip loadings. Five segments and one intersection received a CRALLS designation solely because of the SCO. These include three segments of PGA Boulevard, two segments of SPW, and the Northlake Boulevard to Orange Boulevard intersection. In analyzing an LOSS for adequacy, a local government should consider both technical and policy issues. Technical issues for roads include the actual amount of traffic to be allowed on a road segment or intersection at the peak hour in the peak season. Policy issues involve comparing increased congestion to other planning principles, such as preventing sprawl, promoting economic development, and neighborhood opposition to wider roads. There is not a limiting list of planning principles to consider in evaluating adequacy. The County Engineer concluded that these CRALLS designations were appropriate and adequate LOSS's. He based his opinion on the amount of traffic on each segment or intersection, how the road would function, fiscal issues, his knowledge of the area, residents’ opinions, and other factors. He noted that the maximum trips in each CRALLS designation are for the peak hour in the peak season; the peak season represents a 15 percent increase over the off-peak season. The CRALLS determinations were supported by the best available data. Among other things, the data and analysis addressed the 11 criteria identified in the ULDC. As transmitted, the Amendments included a number of temporary CRALLS designations. In its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC), DCA objected that temporary CRALLS designations without an accompanying long- range CIS were inconsistent with Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5. DCA suggested the County identify improvements for those CRALLS that were indeed temporary, and assign permanent CRALLS to those segments for which no improvements were planned. Of the 43 CRALLS designations in the Amendments as adopted, all but two were permanent. The CRALLS designations on two segments of Northlake Boulevard were to be “no longer in effect” after the extension of PGA Boulevard. These CRALLS designations are supported by a fully-funded extension of PGA Boulevard from SPW to the Beeline in the CIS. Considering the road improvements in the adopted CIS and the CRALLS designations adopted in the Amendments, the County will achieve and maintain the LOSS's on roads affected by the Amendments through 2009. In addition to road improvements and adopting CRALLS, the County adopted “best planning practices” for transportation in the Amendments. These included a variety of requirements in FLUE Policy 2.8-c, 1.-3., emphasizing bicycle and pedestrian mobility, project design measures like slip roads, and mixing uses to enhance internal trip capture. Policy 2.8-c, 9., included several requirements intended to foster public transportation at the SCO. Policy 2.8-d required a balance of residential and non-residential uses in each five-year project phase. Finally, the Amendments include required mitigation measures in conjunction with the CRALLS designations, including road construction and design principles for the SCO. Petitioners’ transportation witness opined that the CRALLS designations were not adequate and, in some cases, not feasible. But for several reasons, his opinions were not beyond fair debate. First, he based his opinion on the traffic analysis of 10.5 million square feet of development in the DRI application, which was later reduced to a maximum of 8.5 million, unbeknownst to the witness. Second, his technical analysis was general and did not take into account the County’s actual experience, which is not professionally acceptable data and analysis for purposes of a plan amendment. For example, some CRALLS loadings he said were impossible to achieve are already being met or exceeded in the County on actual roads, and traffic on some roads flows at speeds equivalent to LOS “D” even though trip loadings greatly exceed the LOS "D" numbers on the generalized LOS tables. Third, his opinion did not take into account the possibility that required on-site affordable housing and CRALLS mitigation measures in the Plan Amendments might increase internal trip capture and reduce trips on the external roadway system. Fourth, he assumed that the only policies the County could consider when evaluating the adequacy of a CRALLS designation are infill, redevelopment, and promotion of “forgotten modes” of transportation like bicycles; he did not consider economic development, urban sprawl, growth pressures, and other planning principles. Data and Analysis Paragraph 75 of the Amended Petition, labeled "Data and Analysis," alleges that the Plan Amendments are: not clearly based on the relevant and appropriate and professionally-accepted data and analysis regarding: impacts to adjacent natural areas; compatibility with adjacent land uses; impacts to the Loxahatchee River and restoration thereof; the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan [CERP] and components thereof; impacts to rural communities; the availability and necessity of infrastructure and the provision thereof to support the project; the necessity for and the amount of land needed to accommodate the project; the availability and suitability of alternative sites for the project; the character of the undeveloped land and the surrounding community; the economic impacts of the proposed plan amendments; [and]9 the likelihood of developing an economically significant biotech industry as [a] result of the plan amendments . . . as required by sections 163.3177(6)(a), (8) and (10)(e), Fla. Stat. and Rule 9J-5.005(2) and (5)10 and 9J-5.006(2) and 9J-5.013(1) F.A.C.11 Section 163.3177(6)(a) requires that the future land use plan be based on appropriate data and analysis. Section 163.3177(8) requires all elements of comprehensive plans to be "based upon data appropriate to the element involved." Section 163.3177(10)(e) states the Legislature's intent that goals and policies be "clearly based on appropriate data"; states that DCA "may evaluate the application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted"; and states that DCA "shall not evaluate whether one accepted methodology is better than another." Rule 9J-5.005(2) states in pertinent part: (a) All goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. Rule 9J-5.006(2) describes the Land Use Analysis Requirements for the FLUE. It should be noted that new FLUE Policy 2.8-f in the Plan Amendments provides: "If the Scripps Research Institute does not move forward on the Mecca site, Staff shall bring to the BCC for initiation proposed amendments to consider removing any text and maps related to the [SCO] from the Comprehensive Plan." While Petitioners characterize this Policy as an admission that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance," the Policy actually is prudent and would allow reconsideration of planning for Mecca and vicinity with a Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster effort located elsewhere in the County (or even without any Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster effort in the County, if that were to occur) as part of the EAR-based and sector planning efforts of the County. Some parts of the data and analysis would not be "professionally accepted" and, standing alone, would not be adequate to support the Plan Amendments. For example, the Washington Economic Group report is not "professionally accepted" because: it does not explain its methodology; it is based on an erroneous assumption that the plan for Scripps Florida, which is planned to be smaller than Scripps California, will generate the level of biotechnical industry found in all of San Diego, which includes not only Scripps, but also the University of California at San Diego and the Salk Institute in its cluster; it overestimates the importance of Scripps' role in the San Diego cluster; and it double- counts Scripps employment in its employment estimates. But other data and analysis corrected these errors. The amount of data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendments is voluminous. Petitioners' data and analysis arguments essentially are that the same evidence they presented as to the substantive areas of concern proves alleged failures of data and analysis to be "professionally accepted" and adequate. As indicated elsewhere in this RO, Petitioners' evidence did not prove their case as to substantive areas of concern beyond fair debate; likewise, they did not prove beyond fair debate that the totality of the data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendments were not "professionally accepted" or were inadequate. Internal Consistency The Amended Petition alleges numerous internal inconsistencies. Section 163.3177(2) requires: "The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent . . . ." Rule 9J-5.005(5) repeats this admonition in subparagraph (a), and subparagraph (b) adds: "Each map depicting future conditions must reflect goals, objectives, and policies within all elements and each such map must be contained within the comprehensive plan." Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following statements in section B., the Assessment and Conclusions section of the Introduction to the FLUE, that the updated 1989 Plan implements the direction provided by the BCC to: strengthen and facilitate revitalization and redevelopment and infill development programs; protect agricultural land and equestrian based industries; balance growth through the County; * * * 8. establish a timing and phasing program to provide for orderly growth; * * * coordinate growth with the provision of infrastructure; define how growth/services will be managed in rural residential areas; define service areas and the type of services to be provided within each service area; and provide criteria for expanding the Urban/Suburban Tier. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following GOPs of the FLUE: Goal 1, to establish the Tier System. Policy 1.1-b, establishing criteria for redesignation of a Tier. Policy 1.1-d, not to modify the Tier System if redesignation would exhibit the characteristics of urban sprawl, as defined by Rule 9J-5.006. Objective 1.4, for a Rural Tier to protect and maintain rural residential, equestrian, and agricultural areas. Policy 1.4-k, not to make future land use decisions that increase density and/or intensity requiring major new public investments in capital facilities and related services in the Rural Tier. Objective 2.1, to designate sufficient land area in each land use designation to manage and direct future development to appropriate locations to achieve balanced growth. Policy 2.1-f, not to exceed the natural or manmade constraints of an area considering assessment of soil types, wetlands, flood plains, wellfield zones, aquifer recharge areas, committed residential development, the transportation network, and available facilities and services; and not to underutilize existing or planned capacities of urban services. Policy 2.2-b, requiring: an adequate justification and a demonstrated need for proposed future land use; for residential density increases to demonstrate that the current land use is inappropriate; for a review and determination of compatibility with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity; and an evaluation of impacts on the natural environment, availability of facilities and services, adjacent and surrounding development, future land use balance, prevention of urban sprawl as defined by Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g), Community Plans and/or recognized Planning Area Special Studies, and municipalities in accordance with Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective 1.1. Policy 2.2-d, to ensure consistency of the County's ULDC with the appropriate elements of the Plan. Objective 2.6, to establish a transfer of development rights (TDR) program. Policy 2.6-b, requiring the TDR program to be the method for increasing density within the County unless an applicant can justify and demonstrate need and that the current designation is inappropriate, or is using the Voluntary Density Bonus program, as outlined in the Housing Element and the ULDC. Policy 2.6-f, limiting potential TDR receiving areas to the Urban/Suburban Tier, Planned Development Districts and Traditional Development Districts requesting a density increase, and subdivisions requesting a bonus density above the standard density. Policy 2.6-h, prohibiting designation of receiving areas which would result in a significant negative impact upon adjacent Environmentally Sensitive Land. Policy 2.6-i, prohibiting designation of receiving areas which would be incompatible with surrounding existing and future land uses. Goal 3, to define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost-effective manner. Objective 3.1, to establish graduated service areas to distinguish levels and types of services needed in a Tier. Policy 3.1-a, to establish the USA, LUSA, and RSA considering: the density and intensity of land uses depicted in the FLUE Atlas; the cost and feasibility of extending services; the necessity to protect natural resources; and the objective of encouraging reinvestment in the Revitalization and Redevelopment Overlay. Objective 3.4, to require a RSA which meets the needs of rural development and use without encouraging the conversion of rural areas to more intense uses. Policy 3.4-a, for the RSA to include those areas of the County where the extension of urban LOS's is neither foreseen during the long range planning horizon nor warranted by development patterns or densities and intensities allowed. Policy 3.4-c, not to provide or subsidize centralized potable water or sanitary sewer in the RSA unless: required to correct an existing problem; required to prevent a projected public health hazard; required to prevent significant environmental degradation; or required by the Public Health Department for development in the Rural Tier adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to adoption of the Plan in 1989. Objective 3.5, to require availability of services concurrent with impacts of development, to ensure consistency of decisions regarding location, extent, and intensity of future land use (particularly urban expansion), with types of land use and development established in each Tier. Objective 4.1, to develop and implement a Community Planning and Neighborhood Planning program, consider the program's plans for more livable communities with a strong sense of place and identity for the various regions in the County. Policy 4.1-c, to consider the objectives and recommendations of all Community and Neighborhood Plans, including recognized Planning Area Special Studies, prior to extending utilities or services, approving land use amendments, or issuing development orders for rezoning, conditional use, or Development Review Committee approval. Goal 5, to provide for the continual protection, preservation, and enhancement of the County's various high quality environmental communities. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following parts of the Conservation Element (CE): Objective 2.1, to preserve and protect native communities and ecosystems to ensure that representative communities remain intact, giving priority to significant native vegetation. Policy 2.1-g, to ensure that management plans are developed for County-owned or County-managed natural areas and that uses allowed on these lands are compatible with them and preserve their natural character. Objective 2.4, to protect and preserve endangered and threatened species, species of special concern, and their associated habitats. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following GOPs of the CIE: Objective 1.1, to maintain minimum LOSS's for various facilities, including traffic circulation, and to issue development approvals based on ability to maintain those LOSS's. Objective 1.4, to identify and fund services and capital improvements required by the Plan. Policy 1.4-a, to fund projects and programs to (not in order of importance): correct public hazards; eliminate existing deficiencies in LOS's; provide capacity for projects in the USA approved through development orders; provide for renewal and replacement of, and improvement to, existing public infrastructure and physical assets; maintain LOS's as new growth occurs; increase existing LOS's to desired LOS's; and implement the GOPs in the Plan. Policy 1.5-c, not to provide urban LOS's in the RSA except where allowed under CIE Objective 1.1, required to correct a public health hazard, or required by the Public Health Department for development in the Rural Tier adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to adoption of the Plan in 1989. (Other internal consistencies mentioned in Petitioners' PRO were not alleged or heard by consent and may not be considered. See Conclusion 212, infra.) The evidence did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments cause the elements of the Plan to be internally inconsistent, or cause the depictions of future conditions in the FLUE Atlas not to reflect the GOPs within all elements of the Plan. Natural Resources Impacts on the Mecca Site As a result of its use for citrus growing and mining, Mecca itself is devoid of significant environmental value. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has found no jurisdictional wetlands on it. There are no native plant communities; in fact, there is virtually no native vegetation anywhere on the site. Mecca is used by wildlife in limited and intermittent ways. The main wildlife use is localized foraging by species such as sandhill cranes and wood storks in the impoundment and irrigation ditches. Mecca does not provide suitable habitat for nesting or denning. A listed species survey revealed no gopher tortoises or snail kites. The surface water management system for the first 535 acres of the SCO has received a construction permit, and the system for the total site was conceptually approved based on water quantity and water quality compliance. See Florida Wildlife Federation, et al., v. SFWMD, et al., SFWMD Order No. 2004-208 FOF ERP, DOAH Case Nos. 04-3064 and 04-3084, 2004 WL 2770101 (DOAH December 3, 2004; SFWMD Final Order December 8, 2004). No significant adverse impacts to natural resources on Mecca itself would result from development of the SCO on Mecca. Impacts of Development on Mecca on Natural Areas Surrounding Mecca The lands surrounding Mecca are more significant environmentally. They include Corbett WMA to the west, Hungryland Slough to the north and northeast, the Vavrus property to the east, and the North County Airport Preserve (Conservation lands to the west, south, and southeast of that Airport) east of the Vavrus property. Farther away to the east and northeast is the Loxahatchee Slough and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, including its federally- designated Wild and Scenic and Outstanding Florida Water portion. Farther away to the southeast is the Grassy Waters Water Preserve Area, which is both a high quality natural wetlands area and an important source of drinking water for the City of West Palm Beach. New FLUE Policy 2.8-c requires the adoption of design standards for the SCO which, among other things, will at a minimum address: 4. Protection of conservation lands to the north and west of the SCO and include a passive recreational wetland system to enhance the quality of surrounding areas of environmentally sensitive lands. In accordance with this Policy, Map H designates a 247-acre, 500-1,000 foot wide flow-way along the entire north and west sides of Mecca. The flow-way will consist of braided channels through a freshwater marsh, as well as forested wetland and upland tree islands. These wetlands will enhance recreation and wildlife use. The mining lake and a new, separate lake on the south end of the site will have littoral shelves and plantings conducive to wildlife use. In addition to providing onsite environmental benefits, the flow-way will help protect adjacent environmental lands to the west and north from the effects of development on Mecca itself. Impacts of Road Construction on Natural Areas Surrounding Mecca SPW as currently depicted in the Plan runs directly along the western border of Mecca immediately adjacent to Corbett WMA. By virtue of the Amendments, the road alignment has been moved eastward onto Mecca, with the flow-way on its west as a buffer between the actual road and Corbett. This road alignment and buffer can be expected to have less of an impact on Corbett than would an alignment without a buffer. In addition to the impacts of development on Mecca itself, the Plan Amendments also affect road construction offsite that have environmental impacts. The extension of SPW from south of Mecca north to the Beeline through the Hungryland Slough was planned and included in the Plan's 2020 Roadway System Map before the Amendments were adopted, but was not in the County's five-year road program through 2009. The Amendments enlarged the planned roadway from four to six lanes and accelerated its construction to 2007. The extension of PGA Boulevard west from the Beeline to Mecca was not depicted in the Plan prior to the Amendments. The Plan Amendments identify a new 260-foot wide ROW on the new TIM; although the ROW could accommodate ten lanes of roadway, a six-lane road is depicted on the new 2020 Roadway System Map. The new road construction is expected to impact a number of wetlands on private property, but the exact extent of this impact is not known as its precise alignment has not been selected, and the general alignment depicted in Ordinance No. 2004-39 does not allow an exact assessment of potential environmental impacts. In order to examine potential impacts of the PGA Boulevard Extension, the County studied the “worst case scenario” for the extension if it were completed in a straight-line from the Beeline to Mecca. A road constructed on this alignment would directly impact over 45 acres of wetlands, and have an indirect impact upon another 56 acres of wetlands. SFWMD considered this “worst case scenario” as part of its review of secondary impacts for purposes of the conceptual permit it issued for the SCO, which assumed that impacts will be lessened during subsequent permitting as a result of SFWMD's avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements. See Florida Wildlife Federation, et al., v. SFWMD, et al., SFWMD Order No. 2004-208 FOF ERP, supra. Habitat Fragmentation The integrity of natural areas is very important to wildlife. For one thing, the ability of wildlife to move around and mix to enlarge the gene pool increases the structural stability of wildlife populations. Loss of enough integrated habitat can be very damaging to particular species of wildlife. As habitat becomes further and further fragmented by development, the remaining connections among areas of quality habitat become increasingly important in general and especially for particular species of wildlife. Development and roads built through natural areas result in road kill and habitat fragmentation, which compromises the quality of the natural areas. Before the Plan Amendments, through at least 2009, wildlife would have had the ability to use Mecca and especially Hungryland to move between Corbett, Vavrus, the North County Airport Preserve, without having to cross any major roads until coming to the Beeline and Northlake Boulevard, which separate those areas from the Loxahatchee Slough northeast of the Beeline and north and south of existing PGA Boulevard, and from the Grassy Waters Preserve south of Northlake Boulevard. At some point between 2009 and 2020, a four-lane extension of SPW was planned to be added. As a result of the Plan Amendments, the SPW extension will be accelerated to 2007 and constructed with two additional lanes. As a result, the Plan Amendments will tend to reduce connectivity, increase fragmentation of natural habitats, and probably increase road kill of deer, alligators, various kinds of turtles, otters, and snakes. While not part of the Plan Amendments, planned protection measures include fencing to separate Corbett from the Mecca project and wildlife crossings and bridging installed along with the widening of SPW north of Mecca and the extension of PGA Boulevard to Mecca in an attempt to retain the linkage of open wetland and upland areas to the west, north and east, consistent with CE Objective 5.1. Unfortunately, even if the fencing and wildlife crossings and bridging are 100 percent effective for larger animals (which they probably will not be), it should be recognized that many smaller animals will benefit little from them if at all. In particular, increased road kills of listed indigo snakes should be expected due to their large habitat home range (200-acre home range for males). Fire Management Virtually all plant communities in the vicinity of Mecca are fire dependent--in order to be maintained in their natural state, they must be burned approximately every three years, or they will be invaded by exotic species, and their habitat values will be reduced. The inability to maintain a regular burn schedule also poses a public safety threat due to the increased risk of wildfires. Fire management is compromised near roadways and developed areas due to health concerns, reduced visibility, and increased wildfire threat. Caution is used when burning near roadways so as not to cause (traffic accidents,) or to be blamed unfairly for causing them, which can be just as bad for the public relations that have to be maintained to successfully fire-manage natural lands. If an airport, hospital, school, or community is within two miles of a burn area, it is considered a smoke-critical area. If Mecca is developed as proposed, it will be considered a smoke-critical area for many burns in Corbett, which will not be able to be burned if the wind is blowing from the west. In Corbett, which has a lot of lighter wood, fires often smolder for weeks, further constraining fire management. For these reasons, the development allowed by the Plan Amendments will negatively impact the management of Corbett. However, there are alternative fire-management techniques that can be used, if necessary, in natural areas adjacent to Mecca. In addition, with or without the SCO, the County was planning a four-lane extension of SPW along the eastern boundary of Corbett, which would be a constraint on fire management. Light Impacts The proposed development on Mecca will add light sources that will alter the nighttime sky viewable from Corbett, Hungryland, and the Loxahatchee Slough. Depending on the extent, such an alteration would reduce recreational values of Corbett. Lights also can interrupt bird migration and be harmful to migratory birds. The area surrounding Mecca is important for migratory birds because the lack of lighting provides a dark sky and safe route for migration. Special downward-directed lighting that can reduce the adverse impacts from lighting is intended to be used on the Mecca project although a clear requirement to use them is not included in the Plan Amendments. Noise, Pollution, and Mosquito Control Noise and other roadway disturbance cause behavioral problems in wildlife, disrupt bird-nesting for considerable distances, and negatively impact prey and predator by interfering with offensive and defensive mechanisms. However, it should not be anticipated that these kinds of impacts will be significant. In most cases, they probably will disturb the human recreational users of these public lands more than the wildlife. Fertilizer and pesticide use on Mecca may be harmful to wildlife on adjacent properties. But there are ways to control their ill effects through land development regulation consistent with provision in the CE of the Plan. Mosquito control is typically required in urban developments, and is accomplished through the use of pesticides that are not only targeted towards mosquitoes, which are an important part of the food chain, but also kill a wide variety of insects, spiders, and invertebrates. This reduces the populations of these species, negatively impacts species that rely on them for food, can be expected to result in less food for birds such as tree swallows, which feed heavily on mosquitoes, as well as dragonflies, and numerous species that rely on mosquito larvae in the aquatic environment. Loxahatchee River Basin Petitioners contend that it is unacceptably poor planning to develop the SCO on Mecca at this time and eliminate it as an option for use for water storage as part of efforts to restore the Loxahatchee River. The Loxahatchee River has been negatively impacted by development in its basin. Such development has resulted in several changes, including the redirection of water discharge to other basins and an unnatural increase in stormwater drainage. These changes to the drainage patterns have resulted in several problems, including excessively high flows in the river following rainfall events, and reduced base flows during the dry season. Excessive flows during the wet season have resulted in erosion of the stream bed, sedimentation blocking the channel at times, and sometimes water quality problems and fish kills. Reduced base flows during the dry season have contributed to allowing saltwater intrusion up the river channel. (Other contributing factors include straightening and stabilization of the inlet to reduce the need for maintenance dredging and the removal of a large oyster bar from the riverbed for navigation purposes.) Saltwater intrusion has altered aquatic ecosystems and caused a change in the vegetation along the riverbanks. Specifically, freshwater cypress-dominated wetlands used to occur as far seaward as 6.2 miles from the river mouth; now mangroves have replaced the cypress swamps as far inland as river mile 9.2, and the cypress wetlands to river mile 10.2 are stressed. Restoration of the Loxahatchee River is an objective of CERP, North Palm Beach County Part One. One component of North Palm Beach County Part One was for SFWMD to acquire rock mine pits for water storage from Palm Beach Aggregates near where the L-8 canal meets the C-51 canal. SFWMD plans to channel water through canals into these pits during wet season or high rainfall events, then discharge the water from the pits back through the canals during dry season. One destination for this fresh water during the dry season would be the Loxahatchee River. Until recently, prior to the Scripps opportunity, the North Palm Beach County Part One CERP team also was considering use of Mecca for water storage as a possible management measure in the overall CERP strategy for restoration of the Loxahatchee River. Mecca was considered for two main reasons. One was its location on the west leg of the C-18 canal, which receives discharges from the C-18 basin and flows into the Loxahatchee River. Water could be fairly easily stored there during the wet season and released to the river during the dry season. The other was its disturbed condition, being an orange grove and sand mine. The only other potential water storage sites near the C-18 canal without pristine wetlands that would be unsuitable and undesirable sites for a water storage facility is approximately 1,500 acres of disturbed agricultural land on Vavrus. (The other two-thirds of the Vavrus property has high-quality wetlands habitat.) However, Mecca was not specifically mentioned in any component of CERP, North Palm Beach County Part One, and consideration also was being given to restoring the Loxahatchee River without using Mecca for water storage. No decision was made to use Mecca for water storage, and no steps were taken to purchase Mecca for this purpose. When the Scripps opportunity arose, the County purchased the property for development of a biotechnology research park and applied to SRWMD for a surface water storage and management system and environmental resource permit. One issue was whether the permit would be consistent with the objectives of SFWMD, including CERP. SFWMD did a preliminary study, which included modeling, and determined that Mecca would not be needed for water storage, finding that water storage capacity available in the Palm Beach Aggregates rock mine pits was sufficient, given the pits’ location, depth, and access to nearby canals. SFWMD already had a contract for use of 48,000 acre-feet feet of storage capacity, which is more than seven times the achievable storage at Mecca. In addition, SFWMD was negotiating to acquire the right to double that storage capacity at Palm Beach Aggregates. Based on the County's plans to develop the SCO on Mecca, and the options available for restoring the Loxahatchee without water storage on Mecca, the CERP team eliminated the Mecca option. Instead, SFWMD and the County coordinated on the role the SCO might play in the recovery effort. SFWMD concluded that Mecca could be used to advantage as part of the water conveyance system between the rock mine pits and environmental areas, including the Loxahatchee River. Establishing a flow-way from the south to north of Mecca would give SFWMD another route with which to move water, would reduce dependence on Lake Okeechobee for fresh water, and would provide greater base flows to the Loxahatchee. Based on SFWMD input, the County designed for Mecca a flow-way that will allow flow up to 1,000 cubic feet of water per second (cfs) to assist recovery efforts for the Loxahatchee. Construction at Mecca is phased to assure that the existing onsite impoundment will be in place until the flow-way is functioning. This conveyance system will benefit offsite resources and improve water quality, and is consistent with and complementary to SFWMD’s CERP implementation. Petitioners' witnesses criticized the decision to proceed with development of the SCO on Mecca at this time on the ground that CERP's implementation report (a/k/a "tentatively selected plan") has yet to be approved. However, approval requires not only agreement by the State and federal agencies involved but also a vote of the United States Congress, which may not occur until 2008. It is a fairly debatable policy question whether to postpone a decision on developing the SCO at Mecca until Congress approves an ultimate CERP implementation plan. Petitioners' witnesses also criticized the modeling relied on by SFWMD to eliminate the Mecca option. They pointed out that the modeling was not peer-reviewed and that it assumed 80,000 to 100,000 acre-feet of storage at the rock mine pits. But this point, too, is fairly debatable. First, while peer-review is required in the CERP planning process, it is not required of data and analysis under the GMA. See Finding 136, supra. Second, the purpose of the modeling was to supplement modeling already done assuming 48,000 acre-feet of storage for comparison purposes. It was not intended to answer the ultimate question of CERP planning process--whether the CERP implementation plan will meet CERP objectives, including restoration of the Loxahatchee. In addition, based on the evidence, prospects for obtaining the additional storage seem reasonably good. Third, water from the rock mine pits is only one of four sources of flow needed for restoration of the Loxahatchee. The combination of sources CERP will use has not been determined yet. Preliminarily, it is estimated that base flows from the south will be required to maintain 65 cfs minimum flows at the Lainhart Dam. Based on the evidence, the prospects for being able to maintain those flows using water from the rock mine pits are reasonably good. Other necessary flow will be sought from the Palmar/Cypress Creek and Kitchen Creek areas to the north. Fourth, as for reducing high flows during the wet season, it is fairly debatable whether the plan to use the Palm Beach Aggregates rock mine pits alone for water storage will work well enough. It could be that, despite capacity limitations on storage potential in the C-18 basin, some storage there may prove beneficial, perhaps in conjunction with aquifer storage and recovery wells (ASRs), along with the rock mine pits. Even with the Plan Amendments, there remains some potential at this time that a limited portion of Mecca and disturbed portions of Vavrus could be used for this purpose if needed. Petitioners' witnesses also complained that use of the rock mine pits along with a flow-way through Mecca will require potentially costly land acquisition and permitting and modification of existing canals and construction of new canals, as well as larger pumps, and that water will be lost in transit between the rock mine pits and Mecca through evaporation. But there was no evidence that those factors will in fact harm or jeopardize restoration of the Loxahatchee River. Meanwhile, it is significant that the flow-way on Mecca will be provided by the County and will not cost SFWMD or CERP anything. Natural Resources Summary As can be seen, development of the SCO at Mecca will not be without some adverse impacts to natural resources and the environment. However, the County's determination that the benefits of the SCO outweigh the harm of those impacts, so as not to cause the Plan Amendments to be "in compliance," is a policy decision that is at least fairly debatable. Community Character and Compatibility It is obvious that the Plan Amendments will result in a complete change in the character and use of the Mecca site. Without question, development of the SCO at Mecca will impact adjacent lands and the character of the nearest communities. The question raised, however, is whether the changes at Mecca are compatible with the character and uses of the surrounding lands. New FLUE Policy 2.8-c requires, among other things: urban uses allowed by the SCO to have a defined edge; protection of conservation lands to the north and west by a passive recreational wetland system to enhance the quality of surrounding environmentally sensitive lands; and compatibility with and minimization of impacts on land uses adjacent to the SCO. Map H of the DRI application shows wetland and other buffers on the north, west, and south sides of the SCO, and a 50-foot upland buffer along the Vavrus property to the east. There was evidence that the 50-foot buffer on the east is sufficient for the current use and the rural residential land use designation (1 du/10ac) placed on the Vavrus site at this time by the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The Mecca project has been designed so that, if there are changes in the future in the land use on the Vavrus property, those buffers would continue to provide compatibility. Corbett WMA and the Hungryland preservation lands in Unit 11 will be buffered by passive recreational wetlands 500 to 1,000 feet wide, based on Map H. Corbett WMA will be benefited by moving Seminole Pratt-Whitney (SPW) Road to the east of the SCO westerly buffer and converting the existing roadbed to an equestrian trail.12 To the south, The Acreage is an example of urban or suburban sprawl. A residential development platted in 1.25- acre lots, it has all internal roads in place and in use. There was ample evidence that development of the SCO can be compatible with The Acreage. The southerly buffer between the nearest residence in The Acreage and development in the SCO would be about 800 feet. SPW already is in the 2020 TIM and Roadway System Map as a four-lane paved road through The Acreage and north past Mecca and the Beeline to Indiantown Road. However, SPW Road already has a 120-foot-wide ROW, which can accommodate a six- lane road, and The Acreage Neighborhood Plan calls for construction of this road from Northlake to the Beeline Highway, as well as extension of SR 7 north from Okeechobee Boulevard to Northlake. There is already heavy traffic on the few major through-roads in The Acreage, and that will increase incrementally. At the same time, some work trips from The Acreage to areas of the County farther east could be offset by employment opportunities in the SCO. The North County Airport has a five-mile runway buffer zone precluding educational uses. That buffer zone was accommodated on the SCO by the arrangement of uses on Map H. The new extension of PGA Boulevard from the SCO to the Beeline Highway will be subject to FAA setback requirements, but there are options for addressing that issue when an alignment is selected. The 28-acre Accessory Site is located on the west side of SPW Road just south of the SCO. Its use for construction of SPW Road, a connector canal, and an FPL substation is compatible with the existing FPL transmission line on the property. The substation will be sufficiently buffered by canals and SPW Road from The Acreage to its east and south. Many residents in the communities in the vicinity of Mecca desire to preserve the character of their communities or, it seems, even restore it to what it was before the growth the County has seen in this area over the last several years. Several own horses and desire to continue to ride their horses along the roads in the area. However, as indicated, with or without the Plan Amendments, growth in the area was expected, the County was planning to build roads in the area, and traffic was expected to increase. Based on the foregoing, it is fairly debatable whether the Plan Amendments are compatible with community character and surrounding land uses. Regional and State Plans Section 163.3177(10) states in pertinent part: for the purpose of determining whether local comprehensive plans are consistent with the state comprehensive plan and the appropriate regional policy plan, a local plan shall be consistent with such plans if the local plan is "compatible with" and "furthers" such plans. The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in conflict with the state comprehensive plan or appropriate regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan. For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with the state comprehensive plan or the appropriate regional policy plan, the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans. Treasure Coast Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) In the Amended Petition, the Petitioners did not allege the Amendments are inconsistent with the SRPP, as a whole. Only allegations in the Amended Petition may be considered. See Conclusion 212, infra. Notwithstanding testimony from Petitioners’ TCRPC witness that the Plan Amendments were not consistent with some provisions of the SRPP, he did not testify that they were inconsistent with the SRPP as a whole. The Amendments further some parts of the SRPP. These include SRPP Goal 3.6 and SRPP Goal 3.7 of the Economic Development element, and their supporting strategies and policies. Petitioners' TCRPC witness testified there were five inconsistencies between the Amendments and the SRPP. However, he admitted that he did not recommend that TCRPC file formal objections to the Amendments with DCA on three grounds he cited for inconsistency at hearing --proximity to the Corbett WMA and other natural resources, the CRALLS designations, and proximity to the North County Airport. In discussing some provisions, this witness failed to give the SRPP its proper context. Many goals, strategies, and policies in the SRPP use directive verbs intended to be recommendations to a local government, not requirements. As one of his five grounds of inconsistency with the SRPP, Petitioners' TCRPC witness opined that Regional Goal 4.1 and its supporting measures require the County to prepare a regional plan before urban development may be allowed at Mecca, and to ensure such development meets the SRPP’s definition of a new town, village or city. However, this goal and its key provisions use the verb “should” and therefore are not mandates. Further, a plain reading of these provisions shows no requirement for the County to complete a regional plan as a pre-requisite for urban development. Also, the TCRPC witness opined that SRRP Policies 9.1.1.1 and 7.1.3.1 prohibit CRALLS designations outside urban areas. However, a plain reading of these policies shows no basis for such an assertion, and the witness later admitted the SRPP does not prohibit CRALLS designations in rural areas. Moreover, his testimony on this point was contradicted by his testimony that the SRPP is only “advisory.” State Comprehensive Plan The State Comprehensive Plan (SCP) is a very broad, direction-setting document. The SCP provides over-arching policy guidance, and does not impose or authorize the creation of regulatory authority. The Amended Petition alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the goals of the SCP regarding Land Use, Water Resources, Natural Systems and Recreational Lands, Transportation, and Urban and Downtown Revitalization, as well as numerous policies under these goals. Based on these allegations, Petitioners alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the SCP as a whole. To the contrary, the record evidence demonstrates that all relevant issues regarding water and other natural resources, land use, and transportation were taken into account by the County and are addressed in the Amendments. Additionally, the Amendments are consistent with and further numerous goals of the SCP not mentioned in the Amended Petition. The Amendments contain a commitment that each phase of development must contain affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate income households. This commitment furthers the SCP goal to “increase the affordability and availability of housing for low-income and moderate-income persons ” § 187.201(4), Fla. Stat. The Amendments have as their principal focus the creation of quality employment opportunities with Scripps Florida as anchor tenant. This purpose is consistent with and furthers the SCP policy to “[a]ttract new job-producing industries, corporate headquarters, distribution and service centers, regional offices, and research and development facilities to provide quality employment for the residents of Florida.” § 187.201(21)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. Summary Using the statutory definition of internal consistency, it is not beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with either the TCRPC's SRRP or the SCP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DCA enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2005, 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, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether the Land Development Code (LDC) adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-12 on August 22, 2007, as amended on February 27, 2008, is inconsistent with the effective comprehensive plan for the City of Doral (City), which is the Miami-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (County Plan).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Section 64 is a Florida corporation. The Grand is a Florida limited partnership. Both entities are owned by the same individual. On September 25, 2001, Section 7 acquired ownership of an approximate ten-acre tract of property in the County (now the City) located along the southern boundary of Northwest 82nd Street, between 109th and 112th Avenues. See Petitioners' Exhibit 416. On December 16, 2005, title in one- half of the property was conveyed to The Grand in order to divide the property into two different ownerships. Id. It was Petitioners' intent at that time to build two hotels on separate five-acre tracts, one owned by Section 7 and the other by The Grand. The City is located in the northwestern part of Dade County and was incorporated as a municipality in June 2003. At the time of incorporation, the County's Plan and Land Use Code were the legally effective comprehensive plan and land development regulations (LDRs), respectively. On April 26, 2006, the City adopted its first comprehensive plan. After the Department determined that the Plan was not in compliance, remedial amendments were adopted on January 10, 2007, pursuant to a Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Although the Department found the Plan, as remediated, to be in compliance, it was challenged by a third party, and the litigation is still pending. See DOAH Case No. 06-2417. Therefore, the County Plan is still the legally effective Plan. See § 163.3167(4), Fla. Stat. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing LDRs whenever the appeal process described in Section 163.3213, Florida Statutes, is invoked by a substantially affected person. History of the Controversy When Petitioners' property was purchased in 2001, the County zoning on the property was Light Industrial (IU-1), having been rezoned by the County to that designation on October 9, 1984. See Petitioners' Exhibit 5. One of the uses permitted under an IU-1 zoning classification is a hotel with up to 75 units per acre. See Petitioners' Exhibit 6. The land use designation on the County's LUP map for the property is Low- Density Residential (LDR), with One Density Bonus, which allows 2.5 to 6 residential units per acre with the ability for a "bump-up" in density to 5 to 13 units per acre if the development includes specific urban design characteristics according to the County urban design guide book. Language found on pages I-62 and I-63 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in effect at the time of the incorporation of the City (now found on pages I-73 and I-74 of the current version of the FLUE) provides in relevant part as follows: Uses and Zoning Not Specifically Depicted on the LUP Map. Within each map category numerous land uses, zoning classifications and housing types may occur. Many existing uses and zoning classifications are not specifically depicted on the Plan map. . . . All existing lawful uses and zoning are deemed to be consistent with the [Plan] unless such a use or zoning (a) is found through a subsequent planning study, as provided in Land Use Policy 4E, to be inconsistent with the criteria set forth below; and (b) the implementation of such a finding will not result in a temporary or permanent taking or in the abrogation of vested rights as determined by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. As noted above, if there is a concern that zoning might be inconsistent with land use, using the criteria described in the provision, the County may initiate a planning study to analyze consistency and down-zone the property to a less intense use if an inconsistency is found. Although the County initiated a number of planning studies after it adopted its Plan in 1993, and ultimately down-zoned many properties, none was ever initiated by the County for Petitioners' property. Essentially, when existing uses and zoning are not depicted on the County LUP map, the language in the FLUE operates to deem lawfully existing zoning consistent with the land use designation on the property. In this case, the parties agree that the zoning of Petitioners' property is not depicted on the County LUP map. Therefore, absent a planning study indicating an inconsistency, the zoning is deemed to be consistent with the land use category. On August 22, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2007-12, which enacted a new LDC, effective September 1, 2007, to replace the then-controlling County Land Use Code. Although the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing the new City Plan, until the new Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Amendments to the LDC were adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-1 on February 27, 2008. The LDC does not change the zoning on Petitioners' property. However, it contains a provision in Chapter 1, Section 5, known as the Zoning Compatibility Table (Table), which sets forth the new land use categories in the City Plan (which are generally similar but not identical to the County land use categories) and the zoning districts for each category. Pertinent to this dispute is an asterisk note to the Table which reads in relevant part as follows: Under no circumstances shall the density, intensity, or uses permitted be inconsistent with that allowed on the city's future land use plan. . . . Zoning districts that are inconsistent with the land use map and categories shall rezone prior to development. See Petitioners' Exhibit 27 at p. I-3. Under the Table, only residential zoning districts (with up to ten dwelling units per acre and no density bonus) are allowed in the City's proposed LDR land use category. Therefore, if or when the City Plan becomes effective, before Petitioners can develop their property, they must rezone it to a district that is consistent with the land use designation shown on the Table. There is no specific requirement in the LDC that the City conduct a planning study when it has a concern that the zoning is inconsistent with the relevant land use category in the new City Plan. Petitioners construed the asterisk note as being inconsistent with the text language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County Plan. See Finding of Fact 5, supra. Accordingly, on August 21, 2008, Petitioners submitted a Petition to the City pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging generally that they were substantially affected persons; that the LDC was inconsistent with the County Plan; that the LDC changes the regulations regarding character, density, and intensity of use permitted by the County Plan; and that the LDC was not compatible with the County Plan, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.023.2 See Petitioners' Exhibit 103. The City issued its Response to the Petition on November 20, 2008. See Petitioners' Exhibit 104. The Response generally indicated that Petitioners did not have standing to challenge the LDC; that the Petition lacked the requisite factual specificity and reasons for the challenge; that the LDC did not change the character, density, or intensity of the permitted uses under the County Plan; and the allegation concerning compatibility lacked factual support or allegations to support that claim. On December 22, 2008, Petitioners filed a Petition with the Department pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging that the LDC implements a City Plan not yet effective; that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the existing County Plan; and that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 105. After conducting an informal hearing on April 7, 2009, as authorized by Section 163.3213(4), Florida Statutes, on July 23, 2009, the Department issued a Determination of Consistency of a Land Development Regulation (Determination). See Petitioners' Exhibit 102. See also Section 7 Tract 64 Property, Inc., et al. v. The City of Doral, Fla., Case No. DCA09-LDR-270, 2009 Fla. ENV LEXIS 119 (DCA July 23, 2009). In the Determination, the Department concluded that Petitioners were substantially affected persons and had standing to file their challenge; that the provision on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE did not apply to Petitioners' property because the uses and zoning of the property are specifically designated on the LUP map; that the law does not prohibit the Department from reviewing the LDC for consistency with the not yet effective City Plan; and that because the LDC will require Petitioners to rezone their property to be consistent with the City Plan, the challenge is actually a challenge to a rezoning action and not subject to review under this administrative process. See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. On August 13, 2009, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Proceedings with DOAH raising three broad grounds: that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet effective; that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with the County Plan; and that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan and is inconsistent with that Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 39. These issues are repeated in the parties' Stipulation. As to other issues raised by Petitioners, and evidence submitted on those matters over the objection of opposing counsel, they were tried without consent of the parties, and they are deemed to be beyond the scope of this appeal. The Objections Petitioners first contend that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet in effect, in that it was specifically intended to be compatible with, further the goals or policies of, and implement the policies and objectives of, the City Plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.023. But Petitioners cited no statute or rule that prohibits a local government from adopting LDRs before a local plan is effective, or that implement another local government's plan (in this case the County Plan). While the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing a City Plan that the City believed would be in effect when the LDC was adopted, the City agrees that until the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Even though the two Plans are not identical, and may even be inconsistent with each other in certain respects, this does automatically create an inconsistency between the LDC and County Plan. Rather, it is necessary to determine consistency between those two documents, and not the City Plan. Except for testimony regarding one provision in the LDC and its alleged inconsistency with language in the County FLUE, no evidence was presented, nor was a ground raised, alleging that other inconsistencies exist. The Table note and the County Plan do not conflict. The LDC is not "inconsistent" merely because it was initially intended to implement a local plan that has not yet become effective. Petitioners next contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with that Plan. Specifically, they contend that the note following the Zoning Compatibility Table in Chapter 1, Section 5 of the LDC is inconsistent with the language on pages I-62 and 63 (now renumbered as pages I-73 and I-74) of the County Plan. In other words, they assert that an inconsistency arises because the note requires them to down- zone their property before development, while the County Plan deems their zoning to be consistent with the County LUP map unless a special planning study is undertaken. The evidence establishes that if there is a conflict between zoning and land use on property within the City, it is necessary to defer to the language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE for direction. This is because the County Plan is the effective plan for the City. Under that language, if no planning study has been conducted, the zoning would be deemed to be consistent with the land use. On the other hand, if a planning study is undertaken, and an inconsistency is found, the property can be rezoned in a manner that would make it consistent with the land use. Therefore, the LDC does not change the use, density, or intensity on Petitioners' property that is permitted under the County Plan. It is at least fairly debatable that there is no conflict between the Table note and the County Plan. Finally, Petitioners contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan because the current industrial zoning designation will be inconsistent with the LDR land use designation. Petitioners argue that once the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC requires them to down-zone their property before development. However, this concern will materialize only if or when the new City Plan, as now written, becomes effective; therefore, it is premature. Further, the definition of "land development regulation" specifically excludes "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land." See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Because the challenged regulation (the note to the Table) is "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land," the issue cannot be raised in an administrative review of land development regulations. Id. The other contentions raised by Petitioner are either new issues that go beyond the scope of the Petition filed in this case or are without merit.
The Issue The issue in Case 08-1144GM is whether Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP or Plan) Amendment 7-20, called the "Land Protection Incentives" (LPI) Amendment (LPIA), which was adopted by Ordinance 777 on December 11, 2007, and amended by Ordinance 795 on April 29, 2008, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1 The issue in Case 08-1465GM is whether Martin County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 7-22, called the "Secondary Urban Service District" (SUSD) Amendment (SUSDA), which was adopted by Ordinance 781 on December 11, 2007, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners' Standing FOF and MCCA objected to the LPIA and the SUSDA during the time period from transmittal to adoption of those amendments.3 FOF FOF is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1986, shortly after Florida’s Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation (Growth Management) Act was enacted to monitor the Act's implementation. FOF engages in legislative, legal, and grassroots advocacy for sustainable comprehensive land use planning in Florida. It conducts membership meetings, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings open to the general public, and initiates or participates in litigation or administrative proceedings concerning amendments to local comprehensive plans. Its main office is in Tallahassee, where several employees work. It also has a branch office in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, where one employee works. It has no office or employees in Martin County. There was no evidence that FOF has applied for or obtained any license or permit to operate a business in Martin County; nor was there any evidence as to the requirements for obtaining such a license or permit. FOF has approximately 3,500 members; approximately 550 members live or own property in Martin County. FOF does not have a continuous presence in Martin County, other than its members who live and own property there, but it continuously monitors comprehensive planning and related growth management issues in Martin County and from time to time engages in activities in Martin County. Since 1990, FOF was involved in the Loxahatchee Greenways project, a major river corridor running through Martin County; was involved in the protection of Jonathan Dickinson State Park, which is in Martin County; undertook its Palm Beach and Martin County Green Initiative (which addressed housing, legal, transportation, and other planning issues in Martin County and resulted in the distribution of educational materials on Martin County planning issues); opposed specific local development proposals; supported a sales tax referendum to buy and preserve environmentally- sensitive lands; collaborated with the County planning department to update the housing element of the County Comprehensive Plan; assisted with a local affordable housing initiative; published a booklet on comprehensive planning in the County; and conducted a public survey of County residents assessing attitudes about planning. FOF staff members speak at and participate in annual growth management forums in Martin County, which are attended by a substantial number of its members. FOF has regularly commented in person and in writing to the Martin County Commission on proposed CGMP changes. FOF also has previously participated as a party in administrative hearings conducted in the County concerning the CGMP, during which its president has testified as an expert planner. The relief requested by FOF in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. MCCA MCCA is a Florida not-for-profit corporation created in 1997. It is a membership-based organization of 120 individuals and 14 other organizations. MCCA itself does not own real property in Martin County. However, at least 38 individual members reside and own real property in the County, and at least one organizational member (Audubon of Martin County) owns real property in the County. MCCA does not maintain an office or have paid employees. It operates through its members, who volunteer. MCCA's Articles of Incorporation state that it was formed "to conserve the natural resources of Martin County, to protect the native flora and fauna of Martin County, [and] to maintain and improve the quality of life for all of the residents of Martin County." It engages in various forms of lobbying and advocacy for or against amendments to Martin County's Comprehensive Plan, including initiation or participation in litigation and administrative proceedings. It conducts membership meetings in the County, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings in the County that are open to the general public (including an annual growth management meeting with FOF and an annual awards luncheon with local conservation groups), and works with member organizations on issues relating to the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), including petition drives. The relief requested by MCCA in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan The CGMP establishes two "urban service districts" in the County, a Primary Urban Service District (PUSD) and a Secondary Urban Service District (SUSD). See CGMP, § 4.4.G. The PUSD has been part of the Plan since it was first adopted in 1982, while the SUSD was added during the major revision of the Plan in 1990. Approximately 65,702 acres (101 square miles) are located within the PUSD. The PUSD encompasses most of the eastern coastal area of the County surrounding four incorporated municipalities, (Stuart, Sewall's Point, Jupiter Island, and Ocean Breeze Park), plus an isolated inland area known as Indiantown. Approximately 9,621 acres (14 square miles) are located within the SUSD. All land within the SUSD is immediately adjacent to land within the PUSD, but is split into several discontinuous sections so that some of the land along the western border of the PUSD abuts land outside the urban service districts. The County's purpose for having urban service districts is to "regulate urban sprawl tendencies by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available, or are programmed to be available at the levels of service adopted in [the Plan]." CGMP, § 4.4.G. The Plan further provides: Objective: Martin County shall concentrate higher densities and intensities of development within the strategically located [PUSDs], as delineated, including commercial or industrial uses as well as residential development exceeding a density of two units per acre . . . . * * * b. Policy: Martin County shall require that new residential development containing one-half acre or smaller lots, commercial uses, and industrial uses shall be located within the [PUSD]. * * * Objective 2. Martin County shall concentrate rural and estate densities not exceeding one unit per gross acre within the [SUSDs] where a reduced level of public facility needs are programmed to be available at the base level of service adopted in the Capital Improvements Element. a. Policy: Martin County shall designate land uses within the [SUSD] in order to provide for the use and extension of urban services in an efficient and economical manner, and consistent with the reduced intensity of urban services normally associated with densities of one unit per gross acre (Estate Density RE-1A) and one unit per two gross acres (Rural Density). . . . * * * f. Policy: In areas designated as [SUSD], where development is proposed that would contain one- half acre lots, or commercial and industrial uses, a change to a [PUSD] designation must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a land use amendment . . . . The Plan thus generally establishes residential density for land within the PUSD at 2 or more dwelling units per acre, and for land within the SUSD at 1 dwelling unit per acre to 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. The remaining land within the County that is not within the PUSD or SUSD is generally referred to as "outside" the urban service districts. There are approximately 269,034 acres of such land. The vast majority of such land (approximately 210,379 acres) is designated in the Plan for "agricultural" use. Most of the other land outside the urban service districts is designated for either "public conservation" or "public utilities" See CGMP, § 4.4.L., § 4.4.M.1.a., i., and j. The Plan currently allows residential use of land outside the urban service boundaries that is designated for agricultural use but limits it to either 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, known as "agricultural ranchette," or 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. See CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.& c. The Plan further specifies for the latter that: Residential development in the agricultural area is restricted to one-single family residence per gross 20-acre tract. [N]o development shall be permitted which divides landholdings into lots, parcels or other units of less than 20 gross acres. Acreage may be split for bona fide agricultural uses into parcels no smaller than 20 gross acres. . . . Residential subdivisions at a density or intensity or greater than one single- family dwelling unit per 20 gross acre lot shall not be allowed. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.) Throughout the Plan, residential development on lots of 2 acres or more is consistently referred to as "rural" development (even within the SUSD), while residential development on smaller lots is consistently referred to as "urban" and must be in either the PUSD or SUSD. It was undisputed that the County's adoption of such a distinction between urban and rural residential lots was a professionally acceptable planning practice. Preservation of the County's agricultural lands is a goal of the Plan. See CGMP, § 4.4.L.1. It is also later stated in a policy related to the allocation of land: Through its planning, capital improvements, cooperative extension, regulatory and intergovernmental coordination activities, Martin County shall continue to protect agriculture as a viable economic use of land. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.b.) Preservation of conservation and open space areas within the County is the subject of an entire element of the Plan. See CGMP, Chap. 9.4 The County's goal is "to effectively manage, conserve, and preserve the natural resources of Martin County, giving consideration to an equitable balance of public and private property rights. These resources include air, water, soils, habitat, fisheries, and wildlife, with special emphasis on restoring the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon." CGMP, § 9.4.A. Preservation of conservation and open space areas is also addressed in numerous other objectives and policies throughout the several elements of the Plan and is a predominant theme of the entire Plan. The provision of "urban public facilities and services" is expressly limited by a policy to the County's urban service districts "in order to preserve agricultural lands and provide maximum protection to the farmer from encroachment by urban uses." CGMP, § 4.4.L.1.a. The Plan defines the term "public urban facilities and services" as "regional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network." CGMP, § 4.1.B.4. However, the term is often used in the Plan in a rearranged or abbreviated manner, such as "urban public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G.1.f.(7)), "public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G and § 4.4.G.1.f.), "public services and facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.c.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), or merely "public facilities (§ 4.4.G.1.) or "urban services " (§ 4.4.G.2.a.). LPIA Provisions The LPIA adds a new objective and new policies under the Future Land Use Element goal addressing "natural resource protection," which provides: Martin County shall protect all the natural resource systems of the County from the adverse impacts of development, provide for continued growth in population and economy and recognize the inter-relationship between the maintenance of urban support infrastructure in waste management, air and water quality, and the coastal zone environmental quality. (CGMP, § 4.4.E.) To the existing 6 objectives under that goal, the LPIA adds a seventh which states: Martin County shall create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007. For the purposes of Section 4.4.E.7., and supporting paragraphs, the definition of open space, found in Section 9.4.A.11., CGMP, shall not include roads, highways and their median strips and berms. This objective is intended to encourage the conveyance of fee simple title of land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local environmental or governmental agencies or land trusts. Lands listed for acquisition include, but are not be limited to [sic], land designated for public acquisition under the Save Our Rivers program, the Indian River Lagoon, North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program. The overall purpose of the LPIA is to encourage the owners of tracts of land outside the urban service districts that are at least 500 acres to choose a different pattern of development than the Plan now allows, by allowing a substantial reduction in the minimum lot size so that the development may be "clustered" on a smaller "footprint" within the overall tract of land, but only if at least 50% of the entire tract is "set aside" permanently for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and stripped of its potential for future development. This approach, it is hoped, will make it easier and cheaper for the County and other governmental entities to acquire the large tracts of land they desire to use for the CERP and other conservation projects. The LPIA does not allow for more development than is allowed under the Plan currently. It allows the same amount of development to be arranged on a tract of land in a different pattern than is currently allowed. It accomplishes this primarily through the combination of a change in the minimum lot size from "20 acres" to "over 2 acres" with a new allowance for "clustering" the smaller lots on a portion of an overall tract of land rather than having an equal number of larger lots spread throughout the entire tract of land. The LPIA adopts six policies to accomplish the new objective: Policy (7)a. provides for the protection of the land "set aside" to be conveyed or subject to an easement in favor of a combination of the County, the South Florida Water Management District, and a third entity, chosen from among the other governmental or not-for-profit conservation- oriented organizational entities listed in the policy. Policy (7)b. requires that a combination of a comprehensive plan amendment and a PUD agreement be used for the change in the development characteristics of the land. The PUD agreement would address the portion of the tract subject to development and not "set aside," while the plan amendment would address (at a minimum) the remaining portion of the tract which is permanently "set aside" for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and would no longer have any potential for residential development. Policy (7)c. provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the comprehensive plan amendment, such as any required change in land use designation for the set-aside portion of the tract of land, and if it remains designated for agricultural use, the removal of any potential for development. Policy (7)d. primarily provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the PUD agreement, setting minimum requirements to be met such as the tract having to be a minimum of 500 acres in size; the development being "fiscally neutral to existing taxpayers"; the lots having to be more than 2 acres in size; the inability to develop in environmentally sensitive areas on the tract; and the acknowledgment of a permanent restriction against any future increase of density on the tract. The policy also essentially repeats some of the requirements enunciated in the second and third policies regarding the conveyance of title or easement and the required comprehensive plan amendment, and addresses who pays the closing costs for the set-aside portion of the tract. Policy (7)e. establishes additional requirements specifically applicable to land that has been "listed for acquisition by state, regional, or local agencies as part of an established conservation program." Policy (7)f. enumerates the "site specific benefits" that the second policy states the County must consider when deciding whether to approve an application for development under the optional pattern allowed by the LPIA, such as whether more than the minimum 50% of the tract will be "set aside" permanently, whether the location fills "gaps in natural systems, wildlife corridors, greenways and trails," or whether buffers are provided along roads "to limit access and to protect vistas." The LPIA requirement for at least 50% of an entire tract being set aside for one of the three public purposes, when coupled with other requirements of the Plan such as establishment of construction setback distances, preservation of wetlands and creation of buffers around wetlands, preservation of certain uplands, would result in more than 50% of an undeveloped tract of land remaining in an undeveloped state and at least 50% of agricultural land remaining in agricultural use. Meaning and Predictability of LPIA Standards Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards in numerous respects. No Guide to Location and Pattern of Development Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards essentially because it does not identify the lands to be preserved and developed, leaving the results up to the choice of landowners to make proposals and Martin County's case-by-case decisions on future development proposals. See PPRO, ¶¶52-53. However, the goals of the LPIA are quite clear, and there is no basis to speculate that Martin County will make decisions contrary to those goals--for example, by approving PUDs or agricultural uses on the most environmentally-sensitive part of tract, ignoring the importance of environmentally-sensitive and agricultural lands and the impact of development patterns on them, and ignoring the impact of the pattern of development under the LPIA on rural character. Petitioners also criticize the LPIA for not being clear "whether a subject property must be in single ownership." (PPRO, ¶61.) However, it is not clear why that omission would be pertinent. Undefined Increase in Maximum Density Petitioners contend that, in four ways, the LPIA increases maximum density in the Agricultural category without defining the amount of the increase. Waiver of Density Limits Clearly, the LPIA exempts the PUD option from "the agricultural land use policies in Section 4.4.M.1.a. pertaining to the 20 acre lot size . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(8). Contrary to Petitioners' contention, that does not eliminate density standards. Residential lots must be greater than two acres. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(3). Maintenance of Residential Capacity Petitioners contend the LPIA increases density because its objective is to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. (Emphasis added.) Petitioners complain that County-wide residential capacity on that date is not identified and that the objective requires residential capacity in Agricultural lands to increase as it decreases elsewhere in the County. This interpretation is unreasonable. The County's interpretation, that residential units lost by preservation are to be maintained by clustering on the remaining Agricultural lands, is more reasonable. Transfer of Wetland Density Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by allowing transfer of wetland density in the Agricultural future land use category. See LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). Under the Plan before the LPIA, up to half of wetland density can be transferred to uplands in a PUD. See CGMP § 9.4A7.b.(8). PUDs were not allowed in Agricultural lands before the LPIA. But Petitioners did not prove that allowing the transfer and clustering of residential units into a PUD on Agricultural lands under the LPIA would change the total number of residential units already allowed in Agricultural lands (at one unit per 20 acres). Alleged Failure to Remove Density from All Non-PUD Land Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by not stripping residential units from all so-called non-PUD land. Contrary to this contention, the more reasonable interpretation is that land not set aside for permanent preservation in a proposal made under the LPIA must be part of the proposed PUD. In any event, even if an LPIA proposal could include land that is neither set aside for preservation nor part of the PUD land, no residential units is such land would be transferred to the PUD, and failure to strip such land of its residential units would not affect the total number of units associated with the LPIA proposal. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA allows text amendments to increase density on land set aside for preservation under the LPIA because it specifies that such land must be changed on the FLUM and will not be eligible for "any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. Even if text amendments are not prohibited, they would apply to all land in a particular land use category, not just to land set aside under the LPIA. Subsequent Plan Amendments Not Required for PUD Petitioners contend that the LPIA "is unclear as to whether a PUD can be approved without a subsequent plan amendment specifically authorizing the two-acre lot subdivision site plan." PPRO, ¶80. This contention supposedly arises from the language of LPIA § 4.4.E.7.c.: "The Comprehensive Plan amendment that is part of a joint Plan Amendment and concurrent PUD application submitted under this objective must address the land use designation on the land set aside in perpetuity as contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and/or agricultural land uses in the following manner: . . . ." (Emphasis added in PPRO, ¶82.) The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. It ignores LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7): "The Comprehensive Plan amendment filed concurrently with the PUD application shall allow the site-specific clustering of density in one portion of the total subject site, including the transfer of full density of any wetlands on the site, at a density that shall not exceed one unit per twenty acres for the total site prior to conveyance. . . . The Plan amendment shall further specify that neither the land conveyed nor the land controlled by the PUD agreement shall be eligible for any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." While LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7) discusses land that is conveyed, it is reasonably clear that a Plan amendment addressing the PUD also would be required for lands that are set aside using one of the other mechanisms specified in the LPIA. Public Benefit Criteria Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.b. and f. gives the County "unfettered discretion to reject or approve a PUD 'for any reason.'" PPRO, ¶90. Those sections provide that approval of a PUD will be based on consideration of "significant site-specific public benefits," some of which are listed. While it is true that the LPIA gives the County discretion to grant or approve a PUD based on its consideration of those factors, Petitioners did not prove "unfettered discretion." First, minimum requirements under the LPIA first must be met. Second, the list of public benefits gives some guidance as to the kinds of additional public benefits that will justify approval of a PUD. Petitioners did not prove that a comprehensive plan provision allowing for PUD zoning need be any more specific to be implemented in a consistent manner. Protection of Land Set Aside Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to protect land set aside under the LPIA because it does not identify the land most appropriate for preservation or require that it be set aside. This contention ignores the objective to encourage conveyance of "land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of established conservation programs" which "include, but are not be [sic] limited to land designated for public acquisition under" several named public acquisition programs. LPIA § 4.4.E.7. It also ignores the policy: "No development in the PUD shall be allowed on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(4). It also ignores the policy that "PUDs that include land listed for acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of an established conservation program shall be subject to . . . additional requirements": including fee simple conveyance of at least half of such land; and no development in the PUD on such land "unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities and the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.e.(1)-(2). In addition, various means of protecting such lands are several of the listed "additional significant site-specific benefits" of a PUD proposal to be considered in the approval process. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.f. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to "require set-aside lands to be contiguous to other farmland, open space, or natural lands" and "contiguous, functional, and connected to adjacent and regional systems." PPRO, ¶¶102-98 [sic]. These contentions ignore the objective to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses. . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. They also ignore that land in public acquisition programs ideally is contiguous to other open space and natural lands. Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶97 [sic] that it is necessary to specify the public acquisition programs for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to define the "perpetual easement" mechanism allowed in LPIA Section 4.E.7.a. for setting aside land in lieu of fee simple conveyance. See PPRO, ¶103. This contention ignores the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(5) to use perpetual easements as a means of enforcing the prohibition against increasing residential density or intensity of use by FLUM amendments, as well as the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(6) to use perpetual easements "to restrict future uses and ensure the government agencies or other entities holding fee simple title do not sell or develop the property inconsistent with this policy or the approved uses within the PUD Agreement." Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶103 that it is necessary to further define "perpetual easement" for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend in PPRO ¶¶105 and 107 that the LPIA fails to define the "agricultural uses" to be preserved in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) and allows the County to "specify allowed uses" without limitation and with "no certainty that farmland will be protected as farmland by easement." (Emphasis in PPRO ¶105.) Petitioners contend that everything allowed in the Agricultural category under the Plan will be allowed. See PPRO ¶107. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, it is reasonably clear that, while the language of LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) contains a typographical error, the policy clearly is to maintain existing agricultural uses, not to allow intensification of agricultural use or expansion into "non-farm" uses that might be allowed in the Agricultural category. Alleged Threat to IRL and CERP Lands Petitioners contend that, by making development under its PUD option more marketable, the LPIA will encourage PUDs that do not protect and that fragment IRL and CERP lands. Petitioners did not prove that such a result is likely. Petitioners contend that the adverse impacts on IRL and CERP lands is more than speculation in part because of the wording of the policy in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(2), which is misstated in PPRO ¶114 and actually states: "If the land to be protected and maintained in perpetuity is land that is part of the North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program, the plan amendment must include a future land use amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation to Institutional-Public Conservation." The language used in the policy is poor. But Petitioners' interpretation--that only land set aside for protection that is part of all of the described CERP projects will be protected--is absurd since no such land exists. That interpretation and Petitioners' interpretation that no IRL lands are protected under the LPIA ignore and are contrary to the language and intent of the objective stated in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7. and of the policies stated in Section 4.4.E.7.a., c.(1), and d.(5). The County's interpretation, that CERP and IRL lands are eligible for protection, is more reasonable. Definition of Critical Habitat Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) does not provide a meaningful or predictable standard because the term "critical to the support of listed plant or animal species" is not better defined. Actually, PUD development is prohibited "on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species." While the policy could have been better defined, Petitioners did not prove that a better definition is necessary for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that, regardless of the "critical habitat" definition, the policy language in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) by prohibiting PUD development "on land listed for acquisition . . . unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities " Actually, the policy continues to state that the exception only applies if "the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." Petitioners' interpretation, that the policy allows PUD development on virtually all Agricultural lands, is unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the LPIA. The County's interpretation is more reasonable and is reasonably clear. It allows for distinctions among the various kinds of agricultural activities, which the Plan already recognizes. See, e.g., CGMP § 4.2.A.6.b.(8) ("Many low intensity agricultural uses such as range (pasture) land can be compatible with environmentally significant resource areas.") For these reasons, Petitioners did not prove that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4), or that the LPIA cannot be implemented in a consistent manner. LPIA and Urban Sprawl In part based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA's objective and policy language, Petitioners contend that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the LPIA no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the LPIA encourages urban sprawl. In part because the interpretations were unreasonable, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. Even if the LPIA results in a proliferation of PUDs with clusters of residences on lots slightly larger than two acres, which is the minimum lot size, it would not equate to urban (or suburban) sprawl. Assuming PUDs based on 500-acre tracts, it would result in a cluster of 25 homes within a 500-acre rural area. The LPIA does not plan for the extension of urban services to those homes and does not provide for or allow any new commercial or industrial development. Both the LPIA and the rest of the CGMP include provisions, most notably those related to the urban service districts, to reasonably ensure that urban sprawl will not result. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the first primary indicator of urban sprawl in Florida Administrative Code Rule5 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction for low-intensity, low density or single use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the second primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[p]romotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development"). The development promoted, allowed, or designated by the LPIA is not "urban" and does not "leap over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." It allowed for development already promoted, allowed, and designated to arrange itself differently in a rural area. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the third primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (designation of urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fourth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (promotes premature conversion of rural land to other uses, thereby failing to adequately protect and conserve natural resources). To the contrary, its primary purpose is to protect and conserve natural resources and rural land. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fifth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to adequately protect "adjacent agricultural areas" as well as "passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers either the sixth or seventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to maximize use of existing and future public facilities and services). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the eighth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[a]llows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the ninth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the tenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[d]iscourages or inhibits infill development or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities"). Although LPIA PUDs obviously would not be infill or redevelopment, it was not proven that they will discourage or inhibit infill and redevelopment. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the eleventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the twelfth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in poor accessibility among linked or related uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the thirteenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space"). The LPIA does not exacerbate the two already-existing indicators of urban sprawl, but Petitioners still contend that the indicators are triggered by the LPIA essentially because development will proceed more quickly under the LPIA. This contention was not proven. Even if it were, Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl or that the CGMP, as amended by the LPIA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. LPIA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis because the County explained it as a necessary response to the proliferation of 20-acre ranchette developments whereas only 75 have been built and only 15 have certificates of occupancy. Actually, the ranchette developments were only one reason for the LPIA, and the data and analysis showed 13 approved developments as of mid-September 2007, and three more approvals plus two pending applications for approval a year later. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA implements some but not all of the recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA does not conform to some recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. However, Petitioners base their contentions largely on unreasonable interpretations of the language of the objective and policies of the LPIA. In addition, the data and analysis they point to essentially reflect merely that planners disagree on the best plan for the Agricultural lands. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA is not identical to the Atlantic Ridge project amendment. While all agree that the Atlantic Ridge project is a resounding success story, it is unique. The obvious and understandable inability to instantaneously duplicate Atlantic Ridge to the greatest extent possible in the Agricultural lands should not prevent the County from taking any action in its direction, such as the LPIA. Taken together, the data and analysis are adequate to support the LPIA. LPIA and TCRPC Regional Policy Plan Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). The TCRPC's SRPP was not introduced in evidence, but the TCRPC's Executive Director testified and sponsored the TCRPC's report on the LPIA and the SUSDA. The TCRPC's findings on consistency with its SRPP were not contradicted. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2, which are to determine areas that are environmentally significant and to map, acquire, and manage them. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Goal 1.1, which requires sustainable countryside development in urban enclaves, such as towns and villages, with mixed-use and appropriate densities between 4-10 units per acre, on strategically selected locations while preserving contiguous, targeted land identified through SRPP Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1, which is to increase the clarity of local land use plans so that preferred forms of development can be pre-approved. Instead, the LPIA uses the case-by-case PUD approval process to determine the ultimate development patterns for the Agricultural lands. The inconsistency with SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1 is the only LPIA inconsistency not already equally present in the existing CGMP. The TCRPC's concern as to the other inconsistencies is that the LPIA will make residential development in the Agricultural lands more marketable and increase the rate of residential growth in a manner inconsistent with SRPP Goal 1.1 and Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. Internal Consistency of the LPIA Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Sections 1.6 and 1.11.A. for being inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP. CGMP Section 1.6 states that "elements of the [CGMP] shall be consistent and coordinated with policies of [various entities, including the TCRPC]. Petitioners did not prove that the County does not interpret that provision to require internal consistency and coordination with the other entities' policies, or that such an interpretation would be incorrect. CGMP Section 1.11.A. refers to amendment procedures. Essentially, it states that plan amendments must be "in compliance." There was no evidence that the County intended it to require strict and absolute consistency with the TCRPC's SRPP, or any evidence to prove that it would be incorrect for the County to interpret it not to. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K., which also refers to amendment procedure. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K. for not having concurrently-processed land development regulations (LDRs) since concurrently-processed LDRs are only required "[t]o the extent necessary to implement a proposed amendment," and Petitioners did not prove that concurrently-processed LDRs are necessary. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with numerous other provisions of the CGMP. These contentions were not proven. Most, if not all, were based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA. SUSDA Provisions The SUSDA amends the text of the future land use element, the sanitary sewer services element, and the potable water services element of the Plan. As amended, the Plan would allow owners of real property within the SUSD to apply for connection to regional water and sewer service rather than be limited to using individual potable water wells and individual septic tanks, provided all costs of connection to the public services would be paid by the owner. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.g. expressly states: The County Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Martin County that regional water and sewer services be made available to properties within the [SUSD], in order to: (1) Protect our natural resources . . . from the negative impacts of onsite sewage disposal (septic) systems and private wells to serve individual residential units; (2) Provide fire protection; [and] (3) Provide safe drinking water. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.h. requires that the extension of any such services to properties within the SUSD must have Board approval, which cannot occur unless the Board finds that certain enumerated criteria have been met, including: Regional utility services may be provided to properties within the [SUSD] upon the request of the affected property owner, and upon payment of the required costs for connection to the regional system. Such services may only be provided by a regional utility, public or private, within a service area shown on Figure 11-2. Package plants for the provision of utility service are prohibited except under the provisions of the [CGMP]. The regional utility must demonstrate the treatment facility has capacity for the proposed connection and priority has been given to projects within the [PUSD]. Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in the residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]. Property lying outside the Urban Service Districts . . . shall not receive utility service from a regional wastewater system. Extension of utility service outside the Urban Service Districts shall be prohibited. Development within the [SUSD] shall maintain lot sizes that exceed one-half acres. The SUSDA also contains new charts added to both the sanitary sewer services element and the potable water services element that display the numerical capacity of the regional water and sewer systems to handle additional customers upon extension of lines to the SUSD. See SUSDA Tables 10-3 through 10-6 and 11- 12 through 11-15. There was no credible evidence of any likelihood that the adoption of the SUSDA would allow the further extensions of water and sewer lines from the SUSD to properties outside the urban service districts. The testimony offered by Petitioners was speculative at best and depended upon an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting such extension of services. See SUSDA §§ 4.4.G.2.h.(6)-(7) and 4.5.H. Meaning and Predictability of SUSDA Standards Petitioners contend that the SUSDA's standards are not meaningful or predictable because of the undefined term "central water and sewer" in the policy in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a. Petitioners contend that "central water and sewer" can be interpreted to mean something other than a regional utility, and that the SUSDA can be interpreted to allow regional utility, package plant, and other similar types of utility systems serving two or more houses outside the urban services districts. Petitioners' interpretations are unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the SUSDA. Petitioners' evidence was speculative and depended on an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting package treatment plants in the SUSD. See SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(3) and § 4.5.H. In addition, the evidence was that package treatment plants may no longer be economically feasible. The County's interpretation is more reasonable--"central water and sewer," as used in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., means the provision of regional utility services by Martin County in the SUSD, and no such facilities may be provided outside the urban service districts. SUSDA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the data and analysis do not support the SUSDA essentially because they do not establish "any actual health, safety, or welfare problems." PPRO, ¶208. The absence of proof of actual health, safety, or welfare problems is not fatal in view of the rest of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA. Since the creation of the SUSD in 1992, development in the PUSD has resulted in the extension of water and sewer lines up to the border between the PUSD and the SUSD. In effect, the intended SUSD transition area has transitioned. Meanwhile, the regional water and sewer utilities serving the County now have the necessary capacity to serve the PUSD and the SUSD. Improved fire protection in the SUSD is a benefit of regional water service, allowing installation of community fire hydrants. Without it, developers in the SUSD must rely on installed sprinklers and emergency generators and water drawn from nearby lakes or installed water tanks. While regional water service can fail temporarily in major storms, and the data and analysis did not include actual instances of fire damage cause by the lack of regional water service in the SUSD, regional water service generally provides more reliable and less costly fire protection. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit potable water wells, regional water service generally is better, more reliable, and less costly. The data and analysis did include actual instances of home owners having to install expensive water treatment systems due to increasing chloride levels in their potable water wells. Connection to regional water service would eliminate those costs and concerns. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit septic tanks systems for onsite sewage treatment (i.e., systems that meet environmental and health standards), such systems can fail if improperly installed, maintained, and repaired. If they fail, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can leach into and harm the groundwater and nearby surface waters. The North Fork of the Loxahatchee River, which is nutrient-impaired, probably would benefit from elimination of septic tanks. Regional sewer service generally is better for the environmental and public health. The data and analysis suggest that allowing regional water and sewer service in the SUSD, with the SUSDA's requirement for developers to pay the cost of installation, probably will save the County money in the long run. It will be a significant cost to the County if it has to install water and sewer lines post-development. Petitioners attack the credibility of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA because regional water and sewer service is optional in the SUSD. But there were data and analysis that, even if regional water and sewer service in the SUSD is preferable, there are valid reasons to make it optional at this time. Alleged Environmental Impact of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part from a proliferation of package treatment plants in the SUSD, which is discouraged in CGMP Section 4.4. See PPRO, ¶¶221, 223. This contention is based on Petitioners' unreasonable interpretations of two sentences of the SUSDA. SUSDA Section 4.5.G. prohibits interim water systems outside the urban service districts and allows them, with conditions, in the PUSD where connection to a regional utility is not feasible. Petitioners interpret these two sentences to mean that interim water systems are allowed, without conditions, in the SUSD. The County's interpretation is more reasonable. Since the SUSDA makes connection to the regional utilities optional, there is no need for interim water systems in the SUSDA, and the SUSDA should not be construed to allow them there. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part essentially because increased development results in increased pollution. See PPRO, ¶228. To the extent true, it would be equally or more true of similar development without regional water and sewer services. SUSDA and Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend, in part due to their unreasonable interpretations of the objective in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the SUSDA, no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. In part due to the unreasonableness of Petitioners' interpretation of the SUSDA, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. It is unlikely that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl. Petitioners also contend that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl simply by allowing denser development in the 5,000- 6,000 acres of the SUSDA not yet developed. This contention is contrary to the SUSDA policy: "Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]." SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(5). Even if the SUSDA increased density in the SUSDA, increase in density itself does not promote urban sprawl. To the contrary, it is possible for increased density to discourage urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that increasing density in the SUSDA itself encourages urban sprawl or that, with the SUSDA, the CGMP will discourage urban sprawl less. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will create pressures to develop areas that border the SUSD, leaping over areas suitable for urban development. See PPRO, ¶¶236-237. This contention actually devalues the very urban service district concept Petitioners seek to defend and can be said about any urban district boundary. Currently, there are many places where the PUSD borders the Agricultural lands. The pressures created by the SUSDA will be no greater than the pressures that have existed in those places all along. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will increase costs to the County essentially because, notwithstanding SUSDA's requirement that developers pay the cost of connection, development will not pay for itself in the long run (taking into account costs of operations, maintenance, and repair.) To the extent true, it can be said of all development and does not prove that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that the SUSDA triggers any of the indicators of urban sprawl; did not prove that the SUSDA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl; and did not prove that the CGMP, as amended by the SUSDA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Internal Consistency of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA is internally inconsistent with CGMP Section 4.4.G.1.i., which gives priority in the provision and funding of water and sewer services to the PUSD, essentially because the data and analysis ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met through 2025. The lack of data and analysis at present to ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met beyond 2025 does not prove that priority will not be given to the needs of the PUSD.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the LPIA and the SUSDA are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2009.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Madeira Community Development District (Petition). The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.
