The Issue The issue is whether a Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan, known as Apoxsee,2 was adopted in 1981. In 1989, the County adopted a revised and updated version of that Plan. The current Plan was adopted in 1997 and is based on an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) approved by the County on February 20, 1996. After a lengthy process which began several years earlier, included input from all segments of the community, and involved thousands of hours of community service, on February 28, 2002, the County submitted to the Department a package of amendments comprised of an overlay system (with associated goals, objectives, and policies) based on fifty- year projections of growth. The amendments were in response to Future Land Use Policy 4.7 which mandated the preparation of a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, which had served as an urban growth boundary in the County since the mid-1970s. Through the overlays, the amendments generally established areas in the County for the location of villages, hamlets, greenways, and conservation subdivisions. On May 10, 2002, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC). In response to the ORC, on July 10, 2002, the County enacted Ordinance No. 2001-76, which included various changes to the earlier amendment package and generally established six geographic overlay areas in the County, called Resource Management Areas (RMAs), with associated goals, objectives, and policies in the Future Land Use Chapter. The RMAs include an Urban/Suburban RMA, an Economic Development RMA, a Rural Heritage/Estate RMA, a Village/Estate/Open Space RMA, a Greenway RMA, and an Agriculture/Reserve RMA. The amendments are more commonly known as Sarasota 2050. The revised amendment package was transmitted to the Department on July 24, 2002. On September 5, 2002, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. On September 26, 2002, Manasota-88, Compton, and Ayech (and four large landowners who subsequently voluntarily dismissed their Petitions) filed their Petitions challenging the new amendments. In their Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Manasota-88 and Compton contend that the amendments are not in compliance for the following reasons: vagueness and uncertainties of policies; an inconsistent, absent or flawed population demand and urban capacity allocation methodology; inconsistent planning time frames; overallocation of urban capacity; urban sprawl; failure to coordinate future land uses with planned, adequate and financially feasible facilities and services; failure to protect wetlands, wildlife and other natural resources; failure to meet requirements for multimodal and area-wide concurrency standards; failure to provide affordable housing; land use incompatibility of land uses and conditions; indefinite mixed uses and standards; lack of intergovernmental coordination; and inadequate opportunities for public participation the Amendment is internally inconsistent within itself and with other provisions of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, is not supported by appropriate data and analysis and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Regional Policy [P]lan of the Southwest Regional Planning Council. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Ayech has relied on the same grounds as Manasota-88 and Compton (except for the allegation that the amendments lack intergovernmental coordination). In addition, she has added an allegation that the amendments fail to adequately plan "for hurricane evacuation." The Parties The Department is the state planning agency responsible for review and approval of comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto. The County adopted the amendments being challenged here. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that Petitioners either reside, own property, or own or operate a business within the County, and that they made comments, objections, or recommendations to the County prior to the adoption of the Amendment. These stipulated facts establish that Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to initiate this action. Given the above stipulation, there was no testimony presented by Manasota-88 describing that organization's activities or purpose, or by Compton individually. As to Ayech, however, she is a resident of the County who lives on a 5-acre farm in the "Old Miakka" area east of Interstate 75, zoned OUE, which is designated as a rural classification under the Plan. The activities on her farm are regulated through County zoning ordinances. The Amendment Generally Under the current Plan, the County uses a number of growth management strategies including, but not limited to: an urban services area (USA) boundary; a minimum residential capacity "trigger" mechanism, that is, a minimum dwelling unit capacity of 133 percent of housing demand projected for a ten- year plan period following each EAR, to determine when the USA boundary may need to be moved; a future urban area; and concurrency requirements. Outside the USA, development is generally limited to no greater than one residential unit per five acres in rural designated areas or one unit per two acres in semi-rural areas. The current Plan also includes a Capital Improvement Element incorporating a five-year and a twenty-plus-year planning period. The five-year list of infrastructure projects is costed and prioritized. In the twenty-plus-year list, infrastructure projects are listed in alphabetical order by type of facility and are not costed or prioritized. The construction of infrastructure projects is implemented through an annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with projects generally being moved between the twenty-plus-year time frame and the five-year time frame and then into the CIP. All of the County's future urban capacity outside the USA and the majority of capacity remaining inside the USA are in the southern part of the County (south of Preymore Street extended, and south of Sarasota Square Mall). As the northern part of the County's urban capacity nears buildout, the County has experienced considerable market pressure to create more urban designated land in the northern part of the County and/or to convert undeveloped rural land into large lot, ranchette subdivisions. Because of the foregoing conditions, and the requirement in Future Land Use Policy 4.1.7 that it prepare a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, the County began seeking ways to encourage what it considers to be a "more livable, sustainable form of development." This led to the adoption of Sarasota 2050. As noted above, Sarasota 2050 consists of six geographic overlay areas in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), called RMAs, with associated goals, objectives, and policies. As described in the Plan, the purpose and objective of the Amendment is as follows: The Sarasota County Resource Management Area (RMA) Goal, Objectives and Policies are designed as a supplement to the Future Land Use Chapter of Apoxsee. The RMAs function as an overlay to the adopted Future Land Use Map and do not affect any rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or the Land Development Regulations of Sarasota County or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that Policy TDR 2.2 shall apply to land located within the Rural/Heritage Estate, Village/ Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. To accomplish this purpose and objective, the RMAs and their associated policies are expressly designed to preserve and strengthen existing communities; provide for a variety of land uses and lifestyles to support diverse ages, incomes, and family sizes; preserve environmental systems; direct population growth away from floodplains; avoid urban sprawl; reduce automobile trips; create efficiency in planning and provision of infrastructure; provide County central utilities; conserve water and energy; allocate development costs appropriately; preserve rural character, including opportunities for agriculture; and balance jobs and housing. The Amendment creates an optional, alternative land use policy program in the Plan. To take advantage of the benefits and incentives of this alternative program, a property owner must be bound by the terms and conditions in the goal, objectives, and policies. Policy RMA1.1 explains it this way: The additional development opportunities afforded by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies are provided on the condition that they are implemented and can be enforced as an entire package. For example, the densities and intensities of land use made available by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies may not be approved for use outside the policy framework and implementing regulatory framework set forth herein. Policy RMA1.3 expresses the Amendment’s optional, alternative relationship to the existing Plan as follows: The Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall not affect the existing rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Development Regulations or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that TDR 2.2 [relating to transfer of development rights] shall apply to land located within the Rural Heritage/ Estate, Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. Therefore, if a landowner chooses to pursue the alternative development opportunities, he essentially forfeits his current development rights and accepts the terms and conditions of Sarasota 2050. The RMAs The RMAs were drawn in a series of overlays to the FLUM based on the unique characteristics of different areas of the County, and they result in apportioning the entire County into six RMAs. They are designed to identify, maintain, and enhance the diversity of urban and rural land uses in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Urban/Suburban RMA is an overlay of the USA and is comparable to the growth and development pattern defined by the Plan. Policies for this RMA call for neighborhood planning, providing resources for infrastructure, and encouraging development (or urban infill) in a portion of the Future USA identified in the Amendment as the Settlement Area. The Economic Development RMA consists of land inside the USA that is located along existing commercial corridors and at the interchanges of Interstate 75. In this RMA, the policies in the Amendment provide for facilitating economic development and redevelopment by preparing critical area plans, encouraging mixed uses, providing for multi-modal transportation opportunities, creating land development regulations to encourage economic development, and providing more innovative level of service standards that are in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Greenway RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are of special environmental value or are important for environmental connectivity. Generally, the Greenway RMA is comprised of public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, existing preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands adjacent to the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow- ways and wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Priority Protection Program (ESLPPP), and lands deemed to be of high ecological value. This RMA is accompanied by a map depicting the general location of the features sought to be protected. The Rural/Heritage Estate Resource Management RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are presently rural and very low density residential in character and development and are planned to remain in that form. In other words, the RMA's focus is on protecting the existing rural character of this area. To accomplish this objective, and to discourage inefficient use of land in the area, the Amendment contains policies that will create and implement neighborhood plans focusing on strategies and measures to preserve the historic rural character of the RMA. It also provides incentives to encourage the protection of agricultural uses and natural resources through measures such as the creation of land development regulations for a Conservation Subdivision form of use and development in the area. The Agricultural Reserve RMA is made up of the existing agricultural areas in the eastern and southeastern portions of the County. The Amendment contains policies that call for the amendment of the County’s Zoning and Land Development Regulations to support, preserve, protect, and encourage agricultural and ranching uses and activities in the area. Finally, the Village/Open Space RMA is the centerpiece of the RMA program. It consists of land outside the USA that is planned to be the location of mixed-use developments called Villages and Hamlets. The Village/Open Space RMA is primarily the area where the increment of growth and development associated with the longer, 2050 planning horizon will be accommodated. Villages and Hamlets are form-specific, using connected neighborhoods as basic structural units that form compact, mixed-use, master-planned communities. Neighborhoods provide for a broad range and variety of housing types to accommodate a wide range of family sizes and incomes. Neighborhoods are characterized by a fully connected system of streets and roads that encourage alternative means of transportation such as walking, bicycle, or transit. Permanently dedicated open space is also an important element of the neighborhood form. Neighborhoods are to be designed so that a majority of the housing units are within walking distance of a Neighborhood Center and are collectively served by Village Centers. Village Centers are characterized by being internally designed to the surrounding neighborhoods and provide mixed uses. They are designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental use and service needs of the residents of the Village. Densities and intensities in Village Centers are higher than in neighborhoods to achieve a critical mass capable of serving as the economic nucleus of the Village. Villages must be surrounded by large expanses of open space to protect the character of the rural landscape and to provide a noticeable separation between Villages and rural areas. Hamlets are intended to be designed as collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around crossroads that may include small-scale commercial developments with up to 20,000 square feet of space, as well as civic buildings or shared amenities. Each Hamlet is required to have a public/civic focal point, such as a public park. By clustering and focusing development and population in the Village and Hamlet forms, less land is needed to accommodate the projected population and more land is devoted to open space. The Village/Open Space RMA is an overlay and includes FLUM designations. According to the Amendment, the designations become effective if and when a development master plan for a Village or Hamlet is approved for the property. The Urban/Suburban, Agricultural Reserve, Rural Heritage/Estate, Greenway, and Economic Development RMAs are overlays only and do not include or affect FLUM designations. For these five RMAs, the FLUM designation controls land use, and any changes in use that could be made by using the overlay policies of the Amendment that are not consistent with the land's future land use designation would require a land use redesignation amendment to the Plan before such use could be allowed. Data and analysis in support of the amendment The County did an extensive collection and review of data in connection with the Amendment. In addition to its own data, data on wetlands, soils, habitats, water supplies, and drainage with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) were reviewed. Data from the BEBR were used in deriving population and housing demand forecasts for the 2050 planning period. Transportation system modeling was performed using data from the local Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPA). The MPA uses the Florida State Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS), which is commonly used throughout the State for transportation modeling and planning purposes. Expert technical assistance was also provided by various consulting firms, including the Urban Land Institute, Analytica, Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., Urban Strategies, Inc., Duany-Plater-Zyberk, Glatting Jackson, Fishkind & Associates, Stansbury Resolutions by Design, and Kumpe & Associates. In addition, the Urban Land Institute prepared a comprehensive report on the benefits of moving towards new urbanist and smart growth forms east of Interstate 75 and a build-out 2050 planning horizon. Finally, topical reports were prepared on each of the RMAs, as well as on public participation, financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality, market analysis, and infrastructure analysis. In sum, the data gathered, analyzed, and used by the County were the best available data; the analyses were done in a professionally acceptable manner; and for reasons more fully explained below, the County reacted appropriately to such data. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners have raised a wide range of objections to the Amendment, including a lack of data and analyses to support many parts of the Amendment; flawed or professionally unacceptable population and housing projections; a lack of need; the encouragement of urban sprawl; a lack of coordination between the future land uses associated with the Amendment and the availability of capital facilities; a flawed transportation model; a lack of meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines; internal inconsistency; a failure to protect natural resources; a lack of economic feasibility and fiscal neutrality; and inadequate public participation and intergovernmental coordination. Use of a 50-year planning horizon Petitioners first contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because it has a fifty-year planning time frame rather than a five or ten-year time frame, and because it does not have the same time frame as the Plan itself. Section 163.3177(5)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan must include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period occurring after the plan's adoption and one covering at least a 10-year period." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(4). However, nothing in the statute or rule prohibits a plan from containing more than two planning horizons, or for an amendment to add an additional fifty-year planning period. Therefore, the objection is without merit. Population and housing need projections For a fifty-year plan, the County had to undertake an independent analysis and projection of future population in the County. In doing so, the County extrapolated from BEBR medium range 2030 projections and calculated a need for 82,000 new homes over the 2050 period. Examining building permit trends over the prior ten years, the County calculated a high- end projection of 110,000 new homes. The County developed two sets of estimates since it is reasonable and appropriate to use more than one approach to produce a range of future projections. The County based its planning on the lower number, but also assessed water needs relative to the higher number. The data and sources used by the County in making the population and housing need projections are data and sources commonly used by local governments in making such projections. The County's expert demographer, Dr. Fishkind, independently evaluated the methodologies used by the County and pointed out that the projections came from the BEBR mid- range population projections for the County and that, over the years, these projections have been shown to be reliably accurate. The projections were then extended by linear extrapolation and converted to a housing demand in a series of steps which conformed with good planning practices. The projections were also double-checked by looking at the projected levels of building permits based on historical trends in the previous ten years' time. These two sets of calculations were fairly consistent given the lengthy time frame and the inherent difficulty in making long-range forecasts. Dr. Fishkind also found the extrapolation from 2030 to 2050 using a linear approach to be appropriate. This is because medium-term population projections are linear, and extrapolation under this approach is both reasonable and proper. Likewise, Dr. Fishkind concluded that comparing the projections to the projected level of building permits based on historical trends is also a reasonable and acceptable methodology and offers another perspective. Manasota-88's and Compton's expert demographer, Dr. Smith, disagreed that the County’s methodology was professionally acceptable and opined instead that the mid- range 2050 housing need was 76,800 units. He evidently accepted the BEBR mid-range extrapolation done by the County for the year-round resident population of the County through 2050, but disagreed on the number of people associated with the functional population of the County. To calculate the actual number of persons in the County and the number of homes necessary to accommodate those persons, it is necessary to add the persons who reside in the County year-round (the "resident population") to the number of people who live in the County for only a portion of the year (the "seasonal population"). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(2)(e)("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") The BEBR projections are based on only the resident population. The County’s demographer assigned a 20 percent multiplier to the resident population to account for the seasonal population. This multiplier has been in the Plan for many years, and it has been used by the County (with the Department's approval) in calculating seasonal population for comprehensive planning purposes since at least 1982. Rather than use a 20 percent multiplier, Dr. Smith extrapolated the seasonal population trend between the 1990 census and the 2000 census and arrived at a different number for total county housing demand. Even so, based on the fifty- year time frame of the Amendment, the 2050 housing demand number estimated by Dr. Smith (76,800 units) is for all practical purposes identical to the number projected by the County (82,000). Indeed, Dr. Fishkind opined that there is no statistically significant difference between the County's and Dr. Smith's projections. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area." The "need" issue is also a factor to be considered in an urban sprawl analysis. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans are judged. The County's evidence established that the allocation ratio of housing supply to housing need associated with the best-case scenario, that is, a buildout of existing areas and the maximum possible number of units being approved in the Villages, was nearly 1:1. Adding the total number of remaining potential dwelling units in the County at the time of the Amendment, the total amount of potential supply for the 2050 period was 82,500 units. This ratio is more conservative than the ratios found in other comprehensive plans determined to be in compliance by the Department. In those plans, the ratios tend to be much greater than 1:1. Petitioners objected to the amount of allocation, but offered no independent allocation ratio that should have been followed. Instead, Manasota-88's and Compton's expert undertook an independent calculation of potential units which resulted in a number of units in excess of 100,000 for the next twenty years. However, the witness was not capable of recalling, defending, or explaining these calculations on cross-examination, and therefore they have been given very little weight. Moreover, the witness clearly did not factor the transfer of density units or the limitations associated with the transfer of such units required by the policies in the Amendment for assembling units in the Villages. Given these considerations, it is at least fairly debatable that Sarasota 2050 is based on relevant and appropriate population and housing need projections that were prepared in a professionally acceptable manner using professionally acceptable methodologies. Land use suitability Petitioners next contend that the identification of the RMAs is not based on adequate data and analyses of land use suitability. In this regard, Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that future land use plans be based, in part, on surveys, studies, and data regarding "the character of undeveloped land." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(2), which sets forth the factors that are to be evaluated when formulating future land use designations. The Amendment was based upon a land use suitability analysis which considered soils, wetlands, vegetation, and archeological sites. There is appropriate data and analyses in the record related to such topics as "vegetation and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The data were collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner, and the identification of the RMAs reacts appropriately to that data and analyses. The County's evidence demonstrated that the locations chosen for the particular RMAs are appropriate both as to location and suitability for development. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment is supported by adequate data and analyses establishing land use suitability. Urban sprawl and need Petitioners further contend that the Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5), and that it is not supported by an appropriate demonstration of need. Need is, of course, a component of the overall goal of planning to avoid urban sprawl. The emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County tends toward large-lot development. Here, the RMA concept offers a mixture of uses and requires an overall residential density range of three to six units per net developable Village acre, whereas most of the same residential areas of the County presently appear to have residential densities of one unit per five acres or one unit per ten acres. If the Villages (and Hamlets) are developed according to Plan, they will be a more desirable and useful tool to fight this large-lot land use pattern of current development and constitute an effective anti-urban sprawl alternative. Petitioners also allege that the Amendment will allow urban sprawl for essentially three reasons: first, there is no "need" for the RMA plan; second, there are insufficient guarantees that any future Village or Hamlet will actually be built as a Village or similar new urbanist-type development; and third, the Amendment will result in accelerated and unchecked growth in the County. The more persuasive evidence showed that none of these concerns are justified, or that the concerns are beyond fair debate. The Amendment is crafted with a level of detail to ensure that a specific new urbanist form of development occurs on land designated as Village/Open Space land use. (The "new urbanistic form" of development is characterized by walkable neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing for a range of ages and family sizes; provide civic, commercial, and office opportunities; and facilitate open space and conservation of natural environments.) The compact, mixed-use land use pattern of the Villages and Hamlets is regarded as Urban Villages, a development form designed and recognized as a tool to combat urban sprawl. "New town" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(80) as follows: "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. . The Village/Open Space RMA is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, that is, the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development. Urban Villages referenced in the Rule are also a category and development form expressly recognized to combat urban sprawl. The Village/Open Space RMA policies include the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, and the density or intensity of each use. Villages must include a mix of uses, as well as a range of housing types capable of accommodating a broad range of family sizes and incomes. The non-residential uses in the Village, such as commercial, office, public/civic, educational, and recreational uses, must be capable of providing for most of the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental needs of the residents, and must be phased concurrently with the residential development of the Village. The policies set the minimum and maximum size for any Village development. Other policies establish standards for the minimum open space outside the developed area in the Village. The minimum density of a Village is three dwelling units per acre, the maximum density is six dwelling units per acre, and the target density is five dwelling units per acre. An adequate mix of non-residential uses must be phased with each phase or subphase of development. The maximum amount of commercial space in Neighborhood Centers is 20,000 square feet. Village Centers can be no more than 100 acres, the maximum amount of commercial space is 300,000 square feet, and the minimum size is 50,000 square feet. The Town Center may have between 150,000 and 425,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Villages must have sufficient amounts of non-residential space to satisfy the daily and weekly needs of the residents for such uses. Percentage minimums and maximums for the land area associated with uses in Village Centers and the Town Center are also expressed in the policies. Hamlets have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre and a minimum density of .4 dwelling unit per acre. The maximum amount of commercial space allowed in a Hamlet is 10,000 square feet. The number of potential dwelling units in the Village/Open Space RMA is limited to the total number of acres of land in the Village/Open Space and Greenway RMAs that are capable of transferring development rights. Calculations in the data and analyses submitted to the Department, as well as testimony at the hearing, set this number at 47,000-47,500 units once lands designated for public acquisition under the County’s ESLPPP are properly subtracted. To take advantage of the Village option and the allowable densities associated with Villages, property owners in the Village/Open Space RMA must assemble units above those allowed by the Plan's FLUM designation by acquiring and transferring development rights from the open space, the associated greenbelt and Greenway, the Village Master Plan, and other properties outside the Village. The means and strategy by which transfer sending and receiving areas are identified and density credits are acquired are specified in the Amendment. There are three village areas (South, Central, and North) in the Village/Open Space RMA, and the amendment limits the number of Villages that may be approved in each of the areas. In the South and Central Village areas, a second village cannot be approved for fifteen years after the first village is approved. The amount of village development in the South Village must also be phased to the construction of an interchange at Interstate 75 and Central Sarasota Parkway. In the North Village area, only one village may be approved. In addition, to further limit the amount and rate of approvals and development of Villages, village rezonings and master plans cannot be approved if the approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban residential development within the unincorporated county to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period. To evaluate the housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period, among other things, Policy VOS2.1(a)2. sets forth the following items to be considered in determining housing demand: Housing demand shall be calculated by the County and shall consider the medium range population projections of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research for Sarasota County, projected growth in the Municipalities and residential building permit activity in the Municipalities and unincorporated County. Petitioners contend that Policy VOS2.1 is an illegal population methodology. However, the County established that the Policy merely sets forth factors to be considered and does not express a specific methodology. The County’s position is consistent with the language in the policy. Petitioners also contend that the policy is vague and ambiguous because the outcome of the application of the factors is not ordained (since weights are not assigned to each factor), and because building permit activity is not a valid or proper factor to consider in making housing demand projections. The evidence establishes, however, that the factors are all proper criteria to consider in making housing projections, and that a fixed assignment of weights for each item would be inappropriate. In fact, even though Manasota- 88's and Compton's demographer stated that building permit activity is not an appropriate factor to consider, he has written articles that state just the opposite. The County also established that Sumter County (in central Florida) had examined and used building permit activity in projecting population in connection with their comprehensive plan, and had done so after consulting with BEBR and receiving confirmation that this factor was appropriate. That building permit activity demonstrated that population projections and housing demand were higher in Sumter County than BEBR was projecting at the time, and that Sumter County’s own projections were more accurate than BEBR's projections. Petitioners essentially claim that the County should only use BEBR's medium range projections in calculating future housing needs. However, the evidence does not support this contention. Future housing need is determined by dividing future population by average household size. Because BEBR's medium population projections for a county include all municipalities in the county, they must always be modified to reflect the unincorporated county. Moreover, BEBR's projections are the result of a methodology that first extrapolates for counties, but then adjusts upward or downward to match the state population projection. A projection based on this medium range projection, but adjusted by local data, local information, and local trends, is a more accurate indicator of population, and therefore housing need, than simply the BEBR county-wide medium range projection. At the same time, future conditions are fluid rather than static, and the clear objective of Policy VOS2.1 is to project housing demand as accurately as possible. Assigning fixed weights to each factor would not account for changing conditions and data at particular points in time and would be more likely to lead to inaccurate projections. As specified in Policy VOS2.1, the factors can properly serve as checks or balances on the accuracy of the projections. Given that the clear intent of Policy VOS2.1 is to limit housing capacity and supply, accurately determining the housing demand is the object of the policy, and it is evident that the factors should be flexibly applied rather than fixed as to value, weight, or significance. There is also persuasive evidence that the RMA amendments can be reasonably expected to improve the Plan by providing an anti-sprawl alternative. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) directly addresses this situation in the following manner: 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. (emphasis added) Petitioners did not offer persuasive evidence to refute the fact that the RMAs would improve the existing development pattern in the County. While Petitioners alleged that the Amendment allows for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development, the evidence shows, for example, that the County's current development pattern in the USA has an overall residential density between two and three units per acre. The Rural Heritage/Estate and Agricultural Reserve RMAs may maintain or reduce the existing density found in the Plan by the transfer of development rights. The three to six dwelling units per net developable residential acre required for Village development in the Village/Open Space RMA, coupled with the Amendment's specific policies directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl land use form. They also provide a density of focused development that diminishes, rather than exacerbates, the existing potential for sprawl found in the Plan. In reaching his opinions on urban sprawl, Manasota- 88's and Compton's expert indicated that he only assessed the question of sprawl in light of the thirteen primary indicators of sprawl identified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g). Unlike that limited analysis, the County's and the Department's witnesses considered the sprawl question under all of the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and concluded that the Amendment did not violate the urban sprawl prohibition. As they correctly observed, there are other portions of the law that are critically relevant to the analysis of sprawl in the context of this Amendment. Urban villages described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.003(80) are a category and development form expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. In addition, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) recognizes urban villages and new towns as two "innovative and flexible" ways in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the Village form contained in the Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. The types and mix of land uses in the amendment are consistent with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the County and serves to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. It is also beyond fair debate that the Amendment describes an innovative and flexible planning and development strategy that is expressly encouraged and recognized by Section 163.3177(11), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) as a means to avoid and prevent sprawl. Natural resource protection and wetlands impacts Petitioners next allege that the Amendment fails to protect natural resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. and 9J-5.013(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (b). At a minimum, by providing for a Greenway area, clustering of development, large open space requirements, wildlife crossings, floodplain preservation and protection, greenbelts and buffers, transfers of development rights placing higher value on natural resources, best management practices, and the encouragement of development in the RMA pattern, the RMA plan creates a level of natural resource protection greater than the County’s existing Plan. Though Petitioners disagreed with the extent and breadth of the protections afforded by the Amendment, they could only point to one area where protections may not be as significant as in the Plan: wetland impacts in Villages where the Village Center is involved. On this issue, Policy VOS1.5 provides that: The County recognizes that prevention of urban sprawl and the creation of compact, mixed-use development support an important public purpose. Therefore, the approval of a Master Development Plan for a Village may permit impacts to wetlands within the Village Center itself only when it is determined that the proposed wetland impact is unavoidable to achieve this public purpose and only the minimum wetland impact is proposed. Such approval does not eliminate the need to comply with the other wetland mitigation requirements of the Environmental Technical Manual of the Land Development Regulations, including the requirement for suitable mitigation. The Board of County Commissioners will review such proposals on a case-by-case basis as part of the Master Development Plan review process. Contrary to Petitioners' claims, the Policy does not encourage wetland destruction. Impacts to wetlands with appropriate mitigation are allowed under this policy only when the impact is "unavoidable" and "the minimum impact is proposed." The term "unavoidable impact" is not an ambiguous term in the area of wetland regulation. It is not unbridled in the context of the policy, nor is it ambiguous when properly viewed in the context of the overriding concern of the amendment to "preserve environmental systems." The term "unavoidable impact" is used and has application and meaning in other wetland regulatory programs, such as the federal Clean Water Act and the regulations implementing that law. Regulations based on "unavoidable impacts," both in this policy as well as in the state and federal regulations, can be applied in a lawfully meaningful way. Considering the policies regarding environmental systems, habitats, wildlife, and their protection, especially when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan, the Amendment as a whole reacts appropriately to the data and can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The Greenway RMA was based on data and analyses that generated a series of environmental resource overlays, that when completed, comprised the Greenway RMA. The overlays layered public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands associated with the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow-ways, wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s ESLPPP, lands deemed to be of high ecological value, and appropriate connections. The evidence establishes that the staff and consultants reviewed and consulted a wide range of professionally appropriate resources in analyzing and designating the Greenway RMA. Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Greenway RMA is inadequate in the sense that the RMA does not include all appropriate areas of the County. This claim was based on testimony that the Greenway did not include certain areas west and south of Interstate 75 in the Urban/Suburban and Economic Development RMAs, as well as a few conservation habitats (preserve areas) set aside by Development of Regional Impacts or restricted by conservation easements. However, the preserve areas and conservation easement properties will be preserved and maintained in the same fashion as the Greenway, so for all practical purposes their non-inclusion in the Greenway is not significant. The area located south of Interstate 75 was found to be the Myakka State Forest, which is in the planning jurisdiction of the City of North Port. Manasota-88's and Compton's witness (an employee of the FFWCC) also advocated a slightly different greenway plan for fish and wildlife resources, which he considered to be a better alternative than the one selected by the County. The witness conceded, however, that his alternative was only one of several alternative plans that the County could properly consider. In this regard, the County’s Greenway RMA reacts to data on a number of factors, only one of which is fish and wildlife. One important factor disregarded by the witness was the influence of private property rights on the designation of areas as greenway. While the FFWCC does not factor the rights of property owners in its identification of greenways, it is certainly reasonable and prudent for the County to do so. This is because the County’s regulatory actions may be the subject of takings claims and damages, and its planning actions are expected to avoid such occurrences. See § 163.3161(9), Fla. Stat. Petitioners also alleged that the lack of specific inclusion of the term "A-E Flood Zone" in the Greenway designation criteria of Policy GS1.1 does not properly react to the data and analyses provided in the Greenway Final Support Document. (That policy enumerates the component parts of the Greenway RMA.) Any such omission is insignificant, however, because in the Greenway RMA areas, the A-E Flood Zone and the areas associated with the other criteria already in Policy GS1.1 are 90 percent coterminous. In addition, when an application for a master plan for a Village is filed, the master plan must specifically identify and protect flood plain areas. At the same time, through fine tuning, the development review process, the open space requirements, and the negotiation of the planned unit development master plan, the remaining 10 percent of the A-E Flood Zone will be protected like a greenway. Greenway crossings The Greenway RMA is designed in part to provide habitat and corridors for movement of wildlife. In the initial drafts of the Amendment, future road crossings of the Greenway were located to minimize the amount of Greenway traversed by roads. After further review by the County, and consultation with a FFWCC representative, the number of crossings was reduced to eleven. The road crossings in the Amendment are not great in length, nor do they bisect wide expanses of the Greenway. All of the proposed crossings traverse the Greenway in areas where the Greenway is relatively narrow. Of the eleven crossings in the Greenway, three crossings presently exist, and these crossings will gain greater protection for wildlife through the design requirements of Policy GS2.4 than they would under the current Plan. Petitioners also expressed concerns with the wording of Policy GS2.4 and contended that the policy was not specific enough with regard to how wildlife would be protected at the crossings. The policy provides that Crossings of the Greenway RMA by roads or utilities are discouraged. When necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry, however, transportation corridors within the Greenway RMA shall be designed as limited access facilities that include multi-use trails and prohibit non- emergency stopping except at designated scenic viewpoints. Roadway and associated utility corridors shall be designed to have minimal adverse impacts to the environment, including provisions for wildlife crossings based on accepted standards and including consideration of appropriate speed limits. Accordingly, under the policy, wildlife crossings must be designed to facilitate minimal adverse impacts on wildlife, and such designs must be "based on accepted standards." While Petitioners contended that what is required by "accepted standards" is vague and ambiguous, the County established that this language, taken individually or in the context of the policies of the Amendment, is specific and clear enough to establish that a crossing must be properly and professionally designed for the target species that can be expected to cross the Greenway at the particular location. It was also appropriate to design the crossing at the time of the construction of the crossing to best react to the species that will be expected to cross. Although Petitioners disagreed that the policy was acceptable, their witness agreed that it is essential to know what species are inhabiting a particular area before one can design a wildlife crossing that will protect the wildlife using the crossing. He further acknowledged that he typically designs crossings for the largest traveling species that his data indicates will cross the roadway. In deciding where to locate roads, as well as how they should be designed, crossings for wildlife are not the only matter with which the local government must be concerned. Indeed, if it were, presumably there would likely be no roads, or certainly far fewer places where automobiles could travel. To reflect legitimate planning, and to reasonably react to the data gathered by the local government, the County’s road network should reflect recognition of the data and an effort to balance the need for roads with the impacts of them on wildlife. The Amendment achieves this purpose. In summary, Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the crossings of the Greenway do not react appropriately to the data and analyses, or that the policies of the crossings are so inadequate as to violate the statute or rule. Transportation planning Manasota-88 and Compton next contend that the data and analyses for the transportation planning omit trips, overstate the potential intensity and density of land uses, and understate trips captured in the Villages. The transportation plan was based on use of the FSUTMS, a model recommended by the State and widely used by transportation planners for trip generation and modeling for comprehensive plan purposes. In developing the transportation plan, the County relied upon resources from the Highway Capacity Manual, the Transportation Research Board, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It also reviewed the data and analyses based on the modeling performed in September 2001 in the Infrastructure Corridor Plan, an earlier transportation plan used by the County. To ensure that the 2001 model was still appropriate for the Amendment, the County conducted further review and analyses and determined that the modeling was reasonable for use in connection with the Amendment even though the intensity of development eventually provided for in the Villages was less than had been analyzed in the model. The evidence supports a finding that the data was the best available, and that they were evaluated in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence further shows that the Amendment identifies transportation system needs, and that the Amendment provides for transportation capital facilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. Transportation network modeling was performed for the County both with and without the 2050 Amendment. Based on the modeling, a table of road improvements needed to support the Amendment was made a part of the Amendment as Table RMA-1. Because the modeling factored more residential and non- residential development than was ultimately authorized by the Amendment, the identification of the level of transportation impacts was conservative, as were the improvements that would be needed. Manasota-88 and Compton correctly point out that the improvements contained in the Amendment are not funded for construction. Even so, this is not a defect in the Amendment because the improvements are not needed unless property owners choose to avail themselves of the 2050 options; if they do, they will be required to build the improvements themselves under the fiscal neutrality provisions of the Amendment. Further, the County’s CIP process moves improvements from the five-to-fifteen year horizon to the five-year CIP as the need arises. Thus, as development proposals for Villages or Hamlets are received and approved in the areas east of I-75, specific improvements would be identified and provided for in the development order, or could be placed in the County’s appropriate CIPs, as needed. The improvements necessary under the Amendment can be accommodated in the County’s normal capital improvements planning, and the transportation system associated with the Amendment can be coordinated with development under the Amendment in a manner that will assure that the impacts of development on the transportation system are addressed. It is noted that the Amendment requires additional transportation impact and improvement analysis at the time of master plan submittal and prior to approval of that plan. Accordingly, the Amendment satisfies the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 for transportation planning. The County used the best available data and reacted to that data in a professionally appropriate way and to the extent necessary as indicated by the data. As noted above, the transportation impacts and needs were conservatively projected, and the County was likely planning for more facilities than would be needed. It is beyond fair debate that the Amendment is supported by data and analyses. Utilities Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because the policies relating to capital facilities are not supported by data and analyses, and that there is a lack of available capital facilities to meet the demand. The County analyzed data on water supplies and demands and central wastewater facilities needs under the Amendment. The data on water supplies and demands were the best available data and included the District water supply plan as well as the County's water supply master plan. The data were analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner and the conclusions reached and incorporated into the Amendment are supported by the analyses. The utilities system for water and wastewater has been coordinated in the Amendment with the County’s CIP in a manner that will ensure that impacts on the utilities are addressed. The County established that there are more than adequate permittable sources of potable water to serve the needs associated with the Amendment, and that the needed capital facilities for water and wastewater can reasonably be provided through the policies of the Amendment. The evidence showed that the Amendment provides for capital facilities for utilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. The total water needs for the County through the year 2050 cannot be permitted at this time because the District, which is the permitting state agency, does not issue permits for periods greater than twenty years. Also, there must be a demonstrated demand for the resources within a 20- year time frame before a permit will issue. Nonetheless, the County is part of a multi-jurisdictional alliance that is planning for long-term water supplies and permitting well into the future. It has also merged its stormwater, utilities, and natural resources activities to integrate their goals, policies, and objectives for long-term water supply and conservation purposes. No specific CIP for water or wastewater supplies and facilities was adopted in the Amendment. The County currently has water and wastewater plans in its Capital Improvement Element that will accommodate growth and development under the land use policies of the Plan. From the list contained in the Capital Improvement Element an improvement schedule is developed, as well as a more specific five-year CIP. Only the latter, five-year program identifies funding and construction of projects, and the only projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element are projects that the County must fund and construct. Because of the optional nature of the Amendment, supplies and facilities needed for its implementation will only be capable of being defined if and when development under the Amendment is requested. At that time, the specific capital facility needs for the development can be assessed and provided for, and they can be made a part of the County’s normal capital facilities planning under the Plan's Capital Facilities Chapter and its related policies. Policy VOS 2.1 conditions approval of Village development on demonstrating the availability and permitability of water and other public facilities and services to serve the development. Further, the Amendment provides for timing and phasing of both Villages and development in Villages to assure that capital facilities planning, permitting, and construction are gradual and can be accommodated in the County's typical capital improvement plan programs. Most importantly, the fiscal neutrality policies of the Amendment assure that the County will not bear financial responsibility for the provision of water or the construction of water and wastewater capital facilities in the Village/Open Space RMA. Supplies and facilities are the responsibility of the developers of the Villages and Hamlets that will be served. Additionally, Policy VOS3.6 requires that all irrigation in the Village/Open Space RMA (which therefore would include Villages and Hamlets) cannot be by wells or potable water sources and shall be by non-potable water sources such as stormwater and reuse water. The supplies and improvements that will be associated with the optional development allowed by the Amendment have been coordinated with the Plan and can be accommodated in the County's normal capital improvement planning. Through the policies in the Amendment, the water and wastewater facility impacts of the Amendment are addressed. Indeed, due to the fiscal neutrality policies in the Amendment, the County now has a financial tool that will make it easier to fund and provide water and wastewater facilities than it currently has under the Plan. Finally, to ensure that capital facilities are properly programmed and planned, the Amendment also contains Policy VOS2.2, which provides in pertinent part: To ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure, the County shall annually monitor the actual growth within Sarasota County, including development within the Village/Open Space RMA, and adopt any necessary amendments to APOXSEE in conjunction with the update of the Capital Improvements Program. It is beyond fair debate that the capital facilities provisions within the Amendment are supported by adequate data and analyses, and that they are otherwise in compliance. Financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality The Capital Improvement Element identifies facilities for which a local government has financial responsibility, and for which adopted levels of service are required, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. Manasota-88 and Compton challenge the "financial feasibility" of the Amendment. As noted above, there is significant data and analyses of existing and future public facility needs. The data collection and analyses were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence shows that as part of its analyses, the County conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Village development and determined that Village and Hamlet development can be fiscally neutral and financially feasible. Dr. Fishkind also opined that, based upon his review of the Amendment, it is financially feasible as required by the Act. Policy VOS2.9 of the Amendment provides in part: Each Village and each Hamlet development within the Village/Open Space RMA shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the levels of service standards adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County Government, the School Board, and residents outside that development. The intent of Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the Villages or Hamlets shall be funded by properties within the approved Villages and Hamlets. Policies VOS2.1, VOS2.4, and VOS2.9 provide that facility capacity and fiscal neutrality must be demonstrated, and that a Fiscal Neutrality Plan and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality must be approved at the time of the master plan and again for each phase of development. In addition, under Policy VOS2.9, an applicant's fiscal neutrality analysis and plan must be reviewed and approved by independent economic advisors retained by the County. Monitoring of fiscal neutrality is also provided for in Policy VOS2.2. Finally, Policy VOS2.10 identifies community development districts as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs associated with Villages and Hamlets. The evidence establishes beyond fair debate that the policies in the Amendment will result in a system of regulations that will ensure that fiscal neutrality will be accomplished. Internal inconsistencies Manasota-88 and Compton further contend that there are inconsistencies between certain policies of the Amendment and other provisions in the Plan. If the policies do not conflict with other provisions of the Plan, they are considered to be coordinated, related, and consistent. Conflict between the Amendment and the Plan is avoided by inclusion of the following language in Policy RMA1.3: If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. As to this Policy, Manasota-88's and Compton's claim is really nothing more than a preference that the Plan policies should also have been amended at the same time to expressly state that where there was a conflict between themselves and the new Amendment policies, the new Amendment would apply. Such a stylistic difference does not amount to the Amendment's not being in compliance. Therefore, it is fairly debatable that the Amendment is internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Public participation and intergovernmental coordination Petitioners next contend that there was inadequate public participation during the adoption of the Amendment as well as a lack of coordination with other governmental bodies. Ayech also asserted that there were inadequate procedures adopted by the County which resulted in less than full participation by the public. However, public participation is not a proper consideration in an in-compliance determination. In addition, the County has adopted all required procedures to ensure public participation in the amendment process. The County had numerous meetings with the municipalities in the County, the Council of Governments (of which the County is a member), and meetings and correspondence by and between the respective professional staffs of those local governments. The County also met with the Hospital Board and the School Board. The evidence is overwhelming that the County provided an adequate level of intergovernmental coordination. Regional and state comprehensive plans Petitioners have alleged violations of the state and regional policy plans. On this issue, Michael D. McDaniel, State Initiatives Administrator for the Department, established that the Amendment was not in inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. His testimony was not impeached or refuted. Petitioners' claim that the Amendment is not consistent with the regional policy plan is based only on a report prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) at the Amendment’s transmittal stage. There was no evidence (by SWFRPC representatives or others) that the report raised actual inconsistencies with the SWFRPC regional policy plan, nor was any evidence presented that the SWFRPC has found the amendment, as adopted, to be inconsistent with its regional plan. There was no persuasive evidence that the Amendment is either in conflict with, or fails to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies in, either the state or regional policy plan. Other objections Finally, all other objections raised by Petitioners and not specifically discussed herein have been considered and found to be without merit. County's Request for Attorney's Fees and Sanctions On April 5, 2004, the County filed a Motion for Attorneys Fees and Sanctions Pursuant to F.S. § 120.595 (Motion). The Motion is directed primarily against Ayech and contends that her "claims and evidence were without foundation or relevance," and that her "participation in the proceeding was 'primarily to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose.'" The Motion also alleges that Manasota-88 and Compton "participated in this proceeding with an intent to harass and delay the Amendment from taking effect." Replies in opposition to the Motion were filed by Petitioners on April 12, 2004. The record shows that Ayech aligned herself (in terms of issues identified in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation) with Manasota-88 and Compton. While her evidentiary presentation was remarkably short (in contrast to the other Petitioners and the County), virtually all of the issues identified in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation were addressed in some fashion or another by one of Petitioners' witnesses, or through Petitioners' cross-examination of opposing witnesses. Even though every issue has been resolved in favor of Respondents (and therefore found to be either fairly debatable or beyond fair debate), the undersigned cannot find from the record that the issues were so irrelevant or without some evidentiary foundation as to fall to the level of constituting frivolous claims. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
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 Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 2004.
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 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 this case is whether Brevard County's 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments B.12, B.13, and B.14 (the Plan Amendments) are "in compliance."
Findings Of Fact General Besides the introduction of the Plan Amendments themselves and a few other documents, Petitioners case-in-chief consisted of examination of Susan Poplin, a Planning Manager for DCA, as an adverse witness, and the testimony of Petitioner, Charles F. Moehle. Most of Poplin's testimony was directly contrary to the positions Petitioners were seeking to prove. Moehle's testimony consisted primarily of conclusions and statements disagreeing with the Plan Amendments. Petitioners provided no data or analysis in support of Moehle's statements and conclusions. Often, Moehle's testimony did not identify specific errors allegedly made by the County. Much of Moehle's presentation was disjointed and difficult to understand. Petitioners also challenged several items which should have been challenged following prior amendments to the County's Plan. For example, Poplin testified that all of the wetland provisions in the challenged Conservation Element B.12 amendments were part of a prior plan amendment and were not changed by the Plan Amendments. See Findings of Fact 7-8, infra. Standing Petitioners' allegations of standing are in paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition for Formal Review: EFFECT ON PETITIONERS' SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS Petitioner, MODERN owns property in Brevard County, the value of which will be reduced by THE AMENDMENT. Additionally, petitioners MODERN and MOEHLE own property in Brevard County and pay property taxes in Brevard County. Additionally, THE AMENDMENT will cause property tax receipt's of Brevard County to decline because of the reduction in value caused to MODERN'S, MOEHLE'S, and other similarly situated property in the county. Additionally, THE AMENDMENT will cause MODERN'S and MOEHLE'S property taxes to increase due to the additional government employees required to implement and enforce THE AMENDMENT and due to the fact that the property taxes imposed upon property which are not effected [sic] by THE AMENDMENT will necessarily increase in order to offset the loss of property tax revenue from private property which is devalued as a result of THE AMENDMENT. MOEHLE and MODERN have appeared before the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners at public meetings and hearings as well as communicating (verbally and in writing) with their growth Management/Planning & Zoning Departments concerning these matters for several years. In an attempt to prove Petitioners' standing, Moehle testified that he has been a resident of Brevard County since 1958. He also testified that he is President of and owns a substantial interest in Petitioner, Modern, Inc. He testified that both he himself and Modern own real property in Brevard County, and that, as such, both are taxpayers. Moehle also testified that he is "affected by these regulations." He gave no specifics as to how he is affected. He also did not testify that Modern was affected. Before concluding his brief testimony on standing, Moehle asked the ALJ if he had to "ramble on some more" about standing and was asked whether he submitted "oral or written comments, comments, recommendations or objections to the County between the time of the transmittal hearing for the Plan amendment and the adoption of the Plan amendment." Moehle answered: I submitted during the whole period of this - I attended a number of hearings that I knew about during this whole process and I would say that, yes, I did, but not all hearings. Some were questionable - some of my problems or some of the meetings that the action was taken on. So they do have my comments, they've had my comments from me on various issues complete back before and including the Settlement Agreement. The evidence was that all hearings and meetings relating to the "Settlement Agreement" to which Moehle referred in his testimony occurred prior to the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments at issue in this case on November 30, 1999. The referenced "Settlement Agreement" was the Stipulated Settlement Agreement entered into in May 1997 to resolve DOAH Case No. 96-2174GM. The County amended its Comprehensive Plan to implement the Stipulated Settlement Agreement on August 24, 1999, by Ordinance 99-48. By Ordinance 99-52, adopted October 7, 1999, the remedial amendments were clarified to include the correct Forested Wetlands Location Map. Ordinance 99-49 and 99-52 both state that the plan amendments adopted by them "shall become effective once the state planning agency issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 163.3184(9), or until the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 163.3184(10)." The stated "Justification" for Policy 5.2 of the B.12 Plan Amendments at issue in this case was: "The above language was part of a stipulated settlement agreement between DCA and the County. This agreement became effective after the transmittal of the 99B Plan Amendments." Apparently for that reason, the B.12 Plan Amendments at issue in this case, specifically under Objective 5 and Policies 5.1 and 5.2, underlined the wetland provisions previously adopted by Ordinance 99-48. This underlining may give the misimpression that these wetlands provisions were being amended through adoption of Ordinance 2000-33. To the contrary, those amendments already had been adopted, and all hearings on those amendments already had occurred prior to transmittal of the Plan Amendments at issue in this case. Other than testifying that he attended hearings and made submittals "before and including the Settlement Agreement," Moehle did not specify when he attended, or what if anything he said or submitted. Nor did he offer any testimony or evidence that he appeared on behalf of Modern. No minutes or other evidence were produced for the record showing his appearance or comments, recommendations or objections. To the contrary, Petitioners' evidence indicates that Moehle was not one of the individuals who offered public comment at either the transmittal hearing on November 30, 1999; the Land Use Citizens Resource Group meeting on November 4, 1999; or the Local Planning Agency Adoption Meeting on May 15, 2000. Paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition, also alleged: that the value of property owned by Modern will be reduced; that the Plan Amendments will cause property tax receipts to decline because of a reduction in the value caused to Petitioners' property; and 3) that the Plan Amendments will cause Petitioners' property taxes to increase due to additional government employees required to implement and enforce the Plan Amendments and due to an increase in taxes for properties not directly affected by the Plan Amendments. None of these allegations were supported by record evidence. Notice Petitioners' allegation of improper notice is contained in paragraph 7.I. of the Amended Petition: Petitioners allege that THE AMENDMENT is subject to the notice requirements of Florida Statute subsections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2), and or 125.66(4) and that Respondent COUNTY has failed to comply with said statutes. (Several other paragraphs of the Amended Petition also allege inadequate notice. See Findings of Fact 19, 28, 44, 50, 54, 63, 65, and 76, infra.) Petitioners filed copies of the applicable advertisements. Moehle testified that the type was "wrong" and the size was "wrong" - the exact nature of the alleged error was not stated. But review of the advertisements for the transmittal and adoption hearings reveals that both are two columns wide, and the headline appears to be in a very large, bold type. Other than Moehle's general complaint about the type being "wrong," there was no testimony or other evidence that the type is not 18-point. Other aspects of the advertisements do not appear to be challenged by Petitioners. The advertisements themselves show that the transmittal hearing was held on November 30, 1999 (a Tuesday) and that the advertisement was run on November 22, 1999, eight days prior to the day of the hearing. They also show that the adoption hearing was on May 16, 2000 (a Tuesday). The advertisement for the adoption hearing was run on May 10, 2000, six days prior to the meeting. The proof of publication shows that the advertisements were not in a portion of the newspaper where legal notices or classified ads appear and that the Florida Today is a newspaper of general circulation. The evidence also included advertisements for local planning agency hearings and meetings relating to the Plan Amendments other than the transmittal and adoption hearings. These other advertisements appear to have been published in legal ad sections, and the type is smaller than that used for the transmittal and adoption hearings. It appears that Moehle was referring to these advertisements when he said the type and size was "wrong." Species and Wetlands Preservation Versus Promoting Infill Development Paragraph 7.IV. of the Amended Petition alleges: The challenged provisions of the THE AMENDMENT, as set forth herein below, violate the legislative intent and spirit of Fl. Stat. Ch. 163, Part II because they place species and wetland preservations over the stated policy goal of promoting infill and development in areas which have concurrency and infrastructure available. The challenged provisions promote leap frog development by making the development of parcels of private property which have concurrency and appropriate infrastructure but also have any quantity of listed species habitat or wetlands unusable. Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3177(10)(h), 163.3177(11). No evidence was offered supporting the claim that species and wetland preservation were "placed over" the goal of promoting infill. Nor was there any evidence provided by Petitioners to show that leapfrog development or urban sprawl was caused by protecting wetlands. To the contrary, Poplin's testimony discussed urban sprawl and leapfrog development in terms of impacts to services and facilities. She clearly stated: "[T]here are no set priorities. We look at each individual local government on a case by case basis. . . . So . . . [it] depends on the context in which its based [sic] in the plan." Poplin also testified that the County had levels of service in place for facilities and services pursuant to Rule 9J-5.0055(1)(a), and that the County's Plan and the subject Plan Amendments have level of service standards which meet the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.0055(2). Poplin also testified that the County had a Capital Improvements Element which was in compliance with Rule 9J- 5.0055(1)(b). She also testified that there was coordination of the various comprehensive plan elements as required by Section 163.3177. Thus, she concluded, the conservation and capital improvements (infrastructure) elements interacted properly. There was no evidence to the contrary. Section 163.3177(10)(h) states that it is the intent of the Legislature to provide public services concurrently with development. Section 163.3177(11) discusses the legislative intent to have innovative planning to address urbanization, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, land use efficiencies in urban areas and conversion of rural land uses. No evidence of any kind was presented regarding these provisions. Certainly, no data and analysis showing failure to meet these statutory provisions were presented by Petitioners. Listed Species Definition Paragraph 8.I.A.2 of the Amendment Petition states: Listed Species definition - pg 11. This change should not be made because the updated Glossary of the Comprehensive Plan was not made available timely for public review and public comments per the hearing and notice requirements of Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2) and or 125.66(4). Prior to the Plan Amendments, the Conservation Element had a Directive entitled "Wildlife." The "Wildlife" directive stated in part: "Development projects should avoid adverse impacts to species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern." The directive also included a definition of the term "listed species": "those species which are listed as either endangered, threatened or as species of special concern." The Plan Amendments deleted these provisions. The stated Justification for deleting the first provision was: "Objective 9 embodies the intent of this directive." The stated Justification for deleting second provision was: "'Listed species' have been defined in the updated Glossary of the Comprehensive Plan." As in several other places in the Amended Petition, Petitioners complain about lack of notice and an opportunity for a hearing as to the updated Glossary. Actually, it appears that the Glossary was not updated along with the Plan Amendments. For that reason, there were no Glossary changes to be noticed. Although the Glossary was not updated to provide the definition of the phrase "listed species," as indicated in the Justification for deleting it from the Directives, the phrase is commonly used to refer to species are listed as threatened or endangered under various state and federal regulations. Rule 9J-5.013(1)(a)5. requires identification and analysis of natural resources including "species listed by federal, state, or local government agencies as endangered, threatened or species of special concern." Species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened (50 C.F.R., Section 17.11) fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with the Endangered Species act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. Section 1531, et. seq.). Listed and unlisted bird species, other than waterfowl and game birds, are also federally protected by the Migratory Bird Act (16 U.S.C. Section 703 et. seq.). The bald eagle has additional federal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. Section 668- 668d). Marine animals (including whales, dolphins, and the West Indian Manatee) are also protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Section 1361 et. seq.) In addition, 24 species of vertebrates are listed by the State as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and are under the jurisdiction of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Chapter 39, Florida Administrative Code. Both snook and Atlantic sturgeon receive further state protection under Chapter 46, Florida Administrative Code. The Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act, 1977, also protects species listed as endangered, threatened or species of special concern under Chapter 372, Florida Statutes (2000). Chapter 372, Florida Statutes (2000), provides additional protection for the American alligator as defined in the Alligators/Crocodilla Protection Act. Sea turtles and the West Indian manatee are further protected by the State through the Marine Turtles Protection Act (Chapter 327, Florida Statutes (2000)) and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act (Chapter 327, Florida Statutes (2000)). Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the phrase "listed species" cannot be understood without a specific definition within the comprehensive plan. Conservation Element Policy 8.5, Protection Of Vegetative Communities Paragraph 8.I.B. of the Amended Petition states: Policy 8.5 - pg 41. This change should not be made because the justification is not correct. These referenced lists were not made available to the public at the relevant public hearing for review and comment in violation of the requirements of Fl. Stat. Section 163.3184. The modification goes beyond the stated intent to merely improve readability and clarify the existing policy in that it actually modifies existing policy. . . . (The last clause was stricken. See Preliminary Statement.) Again, there were no changes to the Glossary to be noticed for hearing. Before the Plan Amendments, Policy 8.9 of the Conservation Element provided that the County would develop a program for the protection of vegetative communities from inappropriate development by 1992. The former provision was replaced with Policy 8.5, which revises the action date to 2002 and states that the County shall protect vegetative communities from inappropriate development. G1 and G2 vegetative communities, as contained in the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, were added to S1 and S2 communities (which were already in the Plan) for consideration for protection. Poplin testified that the G1 and G2 categories were defined by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and were synonymous with the S1 and S2 categories which were already defined in the Plan. The adopted "Justification" for new Policy 8.5 itself indicates that the addition of the G1 and G2 categories "did not add additional vegetative communities that may be considered for protection." In other words, nothing actually changed as to the vegetation (or types of vegetation); only the nomenclature or titles of categories changed. Conservation Element, Objective 9 and Policy 9 Species of Special Concern, Crucial/Critical Habitat Paragraph 8.I.C.,D., and E. of the Amended Petition states: Objective 9 and Policy 9, including sub- sections A, B, C, D, E, of 9.2 (species of special concern, crucial/critical habitat) - pg 43. Species of special concern should not be added. It was discussed at a properly advertised public hearing and its addition was rejected. It was added back at a subsequent and not properly noticed workshop meeting and did not allow proper public input. It is unjustifiably onerous to the regulated public as added, in violation of Fl. Stat. 120.52(8)(g). Crucial habitat should not be allowed to [be] substituted for critical habitat because the new glossary of definitions was not completed timely to allow public review and comment. The resource maps to be used are not identified or indicated that they have been created beyond "draft" status or had proper notice, public review or comment. The reduction from 5 acres to 1 acre in 9.2.C was improperly added at a workshop subsequent to the properly noticed public hearing at which this item was disposed of with public hearing and comment and leaving the size of 5 acres. The provision that the "acquisition of land by the Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program shall be voluntary, and shall not include the use of eminent domain" should not be removed in Policy 9.4 (pg. 45). These new provisions do not meet the requirements of Fl. Stat. Sections 120.58(8) and 120.525, Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3161(18), Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3181, Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3184(15), Fl. Stat. Sections 125.66(2), and or Fl. Stat. Sections 125.66(4). (The identified sentence and references were stricken. See Preliminary Statement.) Again, there were no changes to the Glossary to be noticed for hearing. As to "crucial habitat," amended Policy 9.2 of the Conservation Element requires that an ordinance be developed by 2002 requiring a "crucial habitat" review at the pre-application stage of certain projects. Previously, the plan required development of an ordinance in 2004 requiring a "critical habitat" review in those situations. Apparently, "critical habitat" was defined in the pre-amendment Glossary. (Neither the Glossary nor the rest of the County's Comprehensive Plan prior to the Plan Amendments was put in evidence.) No regulations regarding "crucial habitat" were in effect as of final hearing. A definition of the term "crucial habitat" might well be desirable. (Apparently, an amendment to the Glossary to include such a definition is being considered by someone--it is not clear from the evidence by whom.) But it is possible to use dictionary definitions of "crucial" and "habitat" to derive a useful meaning of the term "crucial habitat" used in Policy 9.2 of the Conservation Element. Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the term "crucial habitat" cannot be adequately understood without a specific definition in the comprehensive plan. "Species of special concern" is a phrase used by Rule 9J-5.013(1)(a)5. in describing natural resources to be identified and analyzed in a local government's conservation element. The "resource maps" mentioned in paragraph 8.I.C., D., and E. of the Amended Petition are not new to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the Plan Amendments, Policy 10.2.A. stated that the County's Office of Natural Resources Management must "develop resource maps showing potential areas for critical wildlife habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species." Amended Policy 9.2.A. requires that Office to "use resource maps which show potential areas of crucial wildlife habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species and species of special concern." While the descriptions of these maps were changed by the amendment, the general manner in which they are identified is the same. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the amendments cannot be adequately understood without identification in a more specific manner or reference to maps already completed. Petitioners' next complaint in paragraph 8.I.C., D., and E. of the Amended Petition was that the threshold for required crucial habitat review in Policy 9.2.C. of the Conservation Element should not have been changed from five-acre projects to one-acre projects. Petitioners' primary argument was that the County discussed this change at a workshop. The only evidence in support of this argument was Moehle's testimony: "[T]he changes that show up in here were rejected in those previous hearings so the public has the impression well, that item is done and settled. Then all of a sudden at a workshop it shows up when nobody - they are not necessarily -- you can't obtain the advance agenda for that and you find a notice in the paper from time to time." In fact, the workshops were noticed in the newspapers. In addition, the transmittal and adoption hearings were noticed. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. As for Petitioners' request for reinstatement of the language regarding voluntary acquisition of environmentally endangered lands, former Policy 10.4 addressed development of an acquisition program; amended Policy 9.4 addresses a continuation of that program. The Justification explains that the amendments were "intended to reflect the achievement of this policy as a result of the EELs [Environmentally Endangered Lands] Program." There was no evidence to support the argument that removal of the voluntary acquisition language in any way changes the EELs Program or creates a compliance issue. Conservation Element Policy 9.13, Species of Special Concern Paragraph 8.I.G. of the Amended Petition stated: Policy 9.13 - species of special concern, habitat rarity, pg 48. This change is inconsistent with the same Florida Statutes and for the same reasons as I.C, I.D, I.E (A, B, C, E, E) and I.F above. Policy 9.13 contains a requirement to develop model management plans for species of special concern dependent on habitat rarity and loss rates. The amendment to former Policy 10.13 merely changes the target date (from 1990 to 2002) and adds "species of special concern" to the other resources sought to be addressed by the model management plans. The provision does not establish new regulations. It merely calls for future action in the development of model management plans. Again, there was no evidence to support the argument that these changes created a compliance issue. See Findings of Fact 32-33, supra. Scrub Habitat Map Paragraph 8.I.H. of the Amended Petition stated: Appendix - List of Maps, pg 52. The Scrub Habitat Map should not be included because it is part of the Scrub Habitat Study done in Brevard County which was not adopted/accepted as a final map by the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. The map is a "draft" map done over 5 years ago, not finalized, and not accurate. Objections at public meetings, with Brevard County Staff, and with the outside consultants preparing the map have never been addressed on the map. Among the inaccuracies are hundreds (maybe thousands) of acres on government lands. The map is wholly deficient and incorrect to become an official map representing the scrub habitat of Brevard County. It doesn't come close to accurately depicting the scrub situation of Brevard County. The map is not supported by competent substantial evidence, has not been officially adopted by the County Commission, the requisite public notices have not been held. Any policy or regulation based upon the map would be equally erroneous and would result in unnecessary regulatory costs, and would be arbitrary or capricious and would be based upon inadequate standards. At final hearing, Moehle testified: "The scrub habitat map as included in the amendments does not include the best available information which information has been available for a number of years." But the Scrub Jay Habitat map Petitioners sought to use to prove this contention (Petitioners' Exhibit 6) was not admitted into evidence because it was not authenticated. The Scrub Habitat Map apparently added to the Appendix of Conservation Element maps through the B.12 Plan Amendments does not appear to map scrub on federal lands. (At least, no scrub is indicated in the extensive federal lands on the map.) But there was no competent evidence as to the significance of the failure to map scrub habitat on federal lands. (Nor did Petitioners cite to any authority for the proposition that excluding federal lands outside the County's jurisdiction is a violation of Chapter 163 or Rule 9J-5.) While Petitioners never clearly articulated their concerns about the Scrub Habitat Map, it appeared that they might have had concerns about the impact of the map on protection of scrub jays. Specifically, Petitioners seem to contend that some scrub jays will not be protected as a result of the map's omission of scrub on federal lands. But, in that regard, amended Conservation Element Policy 9.2. in the B.12 Plan Amendments provides for the development of an ordinance by 2002 that would provide, among other things, that if any endangered or threatened species or species of special concern are found on a project site, or there is evidence that such a species is onsite, the relevant state and federal agency permits would have to be obtained and documented prior to issuance of a building or construction permit. Once adopted, these regulations would protect scrub jays wherever the birds exist. Another apparent concern was that the Scrub Habitat Map allegedly was over 5 years old. Meanwhile, other maps allegedly have been or are in the process of being developed. But Petitioners' evidence was insufficient to prove beyond fair debate that the Scrub Habitat Map was not the best available data at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendments. Land Use Element, Administrative Policies Paragraph 8.II. of the Amended Petition states: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1999B.13 The Administrative Policies 1 thru 8 (pg iv) which have been proposed for inclusion in the future Land Use Element by the County Attorney and added by a April 29, 2000 workshop were not timely provided for public review and comment by a properly noticed hearing in violation of the notice requirements of Florida Statutes subsections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2) and 125.66(4). They are over- broad, too general in nature, vague, and fail to establish adequate standards for county staff decisions, and vest unbridled discretion in the county staff in violation of Florida Statute 120.54(8). Detailed examples of this include: In Administrative Policy 1 - Brevard County zoning officials, planners and the director of planning and zoning should not be arbitrarily, capriciously, and without adequate defined standards be recognized as expert witnesses. Standards with detailed qualifications should be developed and included for each category of expert before this provision is considered for adoption. In Policy 2 (page iv) county staff recommendation should not automatically be considered expert testimony without qualifications. Page 1 under DIRECTIVES. The Future Land Use paragraph should not be deleted until sufficient emphasis has been placed in the requirement to ensure that sufficient land uses are available to support the anticipated population. It has not been at this time, in violation of Florida Statutes subsections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(3)(a), 163.3177(6)(a) and 163.3177(6)(f). As to 8.II.A., the evidence indicated that the advertisements were published in the time frames required and according to the standards set out by statute. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Furthermore, Petitioners failed to establish that the Administrative Policies 1-8 were unavailable at the public hearing or that the Board of County Commissioners was not authorized to consider those policies. The language of the last sentence of paragraph 8.II. should have been stricken with similar provisions at the beginning of the final hearing because of its reliance on Section 120.54(8), which addresses rulemaking activities and not the compliance requirements of Chapter 163. There was no competent, substantial evidence to support any of the other allegations in paragraph 8.II.A. As to 8.II.A.(iii), there was only Moehle's statement regarding the lack of land availability while he was questioning Poplin. Poplin testified that the County should provide an adequate amount of different land uses to accommodate a variety of people and activities. She also testified that the County had provided more than enough residential land to accommodate projected populations. Poplin noted that the County's EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) included or referenced several sources indicating that the County has more than enough land to meet their residential and non-residential needs through the planning time frame. In fact, she testified that land allocated for residential use is over 170 percent of the land necessary for the County's projected population. In explaining the "right-sizing" undertaken in the Plan Amendment, Poplin testified that two major changes have occurred since the adoption of the original County Plan. First, the County sold a substantial amount of land to the water management district; this land is now designated as Conservation. Secondly, some developments have been built to less than their full potential. Poplin testified: "My understanding of the County's actions is that this right sizing is to recognize areas that have developed and maybe have developed at lower densities. So by revising the densities on the map, they're recognizing this." Finally, Poplin testified that the future land use map (FLUM) and the policies proposed in the subject Plan Amendment are consistent with previous actions, previous development patterns, and previous purchases that have occurred within the County. As for Section 163.3177(2), cited by Petitioners at the end of paragraph 8.II.A.(iii) of the Amended Petition, the statute requires coordination of the land use elements. Poplin testified that the County has adequate facilities and services to provide for the land use plan proposed in its FLUM. Section 163.3177(6)(f) requires a housing element. There was no evidence that these elements do not exist in the County's comprehensive plan. Land Use Element Policy 1.1, Residential Land Use Designations Almost all of Paragraph 8.II.B. of the Amended Petition was stricken. See Preliminary Statement. Only the title and last sentence remained: Residential Land Use Designations, Policy 1.1 (reduced densities - pg 14). Property owners (including PETITIONERS) whose land use/zoning classification is no longer in compliance with the comprehensive plan amendment have not been notified as required by Florida Statutes subsection 125.66. Petitioners themselves provided evidence establishing that the statutory notice was properly given. See Findings of Fact 12- 14, supra. Land Use Element Policy 1.2, Public Facilities and Services The last sentence of Paragraph 8.II.C. of the Amended Petition was stricken. See Preliminary Statement. The remaining allegation was: Public Facilities and Services Requirements, Policy 1.2 (page 15). In subsection E, the prohibition by use of the words "shall not" are too harsh, restrictive, and confiscatory and should be replaced "shall not be required at the expense of the County." But the language of Criterion F under Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 1.2 already states what Petitioners seek. Simply stated, Petitioners want the policy to state that private parties were not prohibited from building additional public facilities. The second sentence of the policy states: "This criterion is not intended to preclude acceptance of dedicated facilities and services by the county through . . . other means through which the recipients pay for the service or facility." Finally, the language of Criterion F under Policy 1.2 existed elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan prior to the Plan Amendments; it is not new. The Plan Amendments simply changed the location of the language in the Plan. Land Use Policies 1.31 and 1.4 Paragraph 8.II.D. of the Amended Petition stated: Residential 30, Policy 1.31 and Residential 15, Policy 1.4 (pgs. 16, 18). In subsections 1.31.A.1.3 and 1.4.A. respectively, the limitation of this designation to east of Interstate 95 is arbitrary, capricious and is not supported by substantial evidence. It imposes excessive regulatory costs upon regulated property owners. It is confiscatory and fails to recognize the vested rights of property owners. There are areas west of Interstate 95 just as suitable and qualifying as areas east of Interstate 95. This policy fails to recognize existing or new infrastructure which services areas west of I-95 and is therefore inconsistent with other policies. New policy 1.4 is similar and related and also limits densities west of Interstate 95 under all circumstances. This change and any other related restrictions to all areas west of I-95 should be eliminated. FLUE Policies 1.3 (the proper number, not 1.31) and 1.4 deal with residential densities. Pertinent to Petitioners' complaint, Residential 30, allowing up to 30 units per acre, is located east of Interstate 95; generally, maximum residential density west of Interstate 95 is 15 units per acre in Residential 15, except where "adjacent to existing or designated residential densities of an equal or higher density allowance." Petitioners presented no evidence in opposition to these residential densities or designations or the data and analysis supporting them. To the contrary, Poplin testified that there was adequate data and analysis to support the changes. See Finding of Fact 47, supra. The other issues raised, such as excessive regulatory costs, relate to Section 120.52, Florida Statutes (2000), standards and are not at issue in the proceeding. Land Use Policy 2.8, Community Commercial Designation Paragraph 8.II.E. of the Amended Petition stated: Locational and Development Criteria for Community Commercial Uses, Policy 2.8 (pg 38). Subsection B regarding community commercial complexes should not be limited to 40 acres at an intersection for properties that have existing land use or zoning designations compatible to the new Community Commercial designation. The same is true for the limitations of subsections, C, D, and E. These new limitations are confiscatory, fail to recognize existing land use and zoning and vested rights of property owners, are arbitrary, capricious, are not supported by competent substantial evidence, enlarge existing regulations without justification. They impose additional regulatory costs on regulated property owners when the goal of Florida Statutes Chapter 163 could be met by less restrictive and costly regulatory alternatives. Other provisions of Policy 2.8, Table 2.2, Policy 2.9, Policy 2.10 that exceed the present regulation of properties having existing land use or zoning designations or actual use should not be allowed for the same reasons. Additionally, many of these amendments were added at a April 29, 2000 workshop without complying with applicable public notice requirements. Public review and input as to these elements was therefore lacking. The plain language of Criterion B under FLUE Policy 2.8 demonstrates that the restrictions have been relaxed, not increased. Previously, Criterion C under Policy 2.8 stated: "Sites for community commercial complexes should not exceed 20 acres." The letter designation of the criterion was changed, and the criterion was amended to read: "Community commercial complexes should not exceed 40 acres at an intersection." The Justification for the change states: "Site size has been enlarged to 40 acres maximum at an intersection. Previously, this criterion could be interpreted to permit a maximum of 80 acres at an intersection (20 acres at each corner). Forty acres has been chosen as this is the DRI threshold for commercial development." On its face, the purpose of amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 was twofold: to enlarge the site size restriction from 20 to 40 acres; and to clarify that the restriction (now 40 acres) was meant to apply to all community commercial regardless whether they are located at intersections; locating a project on different sides of the street at an intersection was not supposed to double, triple, or even quadruple the maximum site size. Petitioners' position that amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 shrinks maximum allowable the site size is based on Moehle's assumption that 80-acre projects were permitted at intersections under prior to amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8. But there was no competent, substantial evidence to support Moehle's assumption. Petitioners also seem to contend that the phrase "at an intersection" is imprecise, leading to uncertainty that undermines the required residential allocation analysis. But it is at least fairly debatable that no more precise definition is necessary. Contrary to Moehle's speculation, it is not reasonable to construe the phrase "at an intersection" to also mean "at an indeterminate distance away from an intersection." Petitioners also took the position that "folding" previous land use classifications into Community Commercial greatly expanded the practical effect of the acreage limitation in amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8. Petitioners' evidence did not explain their position in any detail or specificity. It is possible that they had reference to Criterion D under Policy 4.5 prior to the Plan Amendment, which allowed "regional commercial centers to incorporate up to 100 acres." If so, under the B.13 Plan Amendments, amended Policy 2.12 addresses regional commercial centers by requiring their location in a new Development of Regional Impact (DRI) future land use designation. The Justification for this change was: "With the proposed establishment of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) land use category, regional uses will no longer be permitted in a commercial future land use designation. Review in accordance with Chapter 380, F.S. standards is intended to simplify readability and maintain consistency with state statutes." Reading amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 together with amended Policy 2.12, commercial complexes larger than 40 acres are not prohibited under the Plan Amendment; they just have to be developed in a DRI land use category under Chapter 380 DRI standards. The reasonableness of these amendments is at least fairly debatable. Meanwhile, Poplin specifically testified that the data and analysis provided by the County were adequate to support the residential and nonresidential changes, including Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial changes. No contrary evidence was provided. Policies 2.9 and 2.10 allow minimal extensions of commercial boundaries. No evidence was presented addressing these items. The clear evidence was contrary to Petitioners' claim of notice violations. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Transitional Commercial Activities Paragraph 8.II.F. of the Amended Petition states: Transitional Commercial Activities - Community Commercial - General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) - Highway Transient Tourist (TU-2). Existing properties with Mixed Use Land Use Designations and General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) and Highway Transient Tourist (TU-2) zoning classifications have not been protected with their existing regulation constraint in the transformation into the new Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial Regulations as has been asserted by the COUNTY in the revised objective and policies in the provisions covering these classifications as asserted by the COUNTY. Either proposed changes should conform or the changes should not be made. The same objections and changes are made for the new confiscatory provisions of the COUNTY for existing Industrial Land Use Designations and Zoning classifications under Industrial Land Uses (Objective 3, Policy 3, pg 55). The same objections and challenges are made for new confiscatory provisions of Agricultural Land Uses (pg 67) for existing Land Use Designations and densities of lands including reductions of densities to 1 unit per 5 acres by changes from a residential classification (including existing recorded subdivision plats). Many new items of the above were made at the April 29, 2000 workshop and proper public notices, review, and comment was not available. Petitioners failed to demonstrate any impact on actual development as a result of these future land use designation changes. No defect in notice was established by the evidence. Rather, the evidence indicated that all advertising requirements were met. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Finally, Poplin testified that the majority of land uses remained the same based on existing uses, and that all changes were supported by data and analysis. Future Land Use Maps Update Paragraph 8.III.A. of the Amended Petition states: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1999 B.14. The Future Land Use Maps Update Report - The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps are not consistent with the existing FLUM and RDG maps. There are corrections and amplifications needed before they are acceptable. The COUNTY did not either have available or make available to the public for review and comment the map(s) as transmitted to DCA at any properly noticed Public Hearing. It was asserted by the COUNTY that no Land Use Designations, Zoning, or Density Allocation changes, were being made to property owners. That is not true. Some specific examples are Sections 3 & 15, located within Township 22 South, Range 34 East, which were changed from Residential to Agriculture Use (density from 1 unit per acre to 1 unit per 5 acres) and Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 within Township 22 South, Range 34 East, from density of 1 unit per acre to 1 acre per 2.5 acres. The FLUM Report explains that the FLUM series was converted from graphic format to computerized geographic information system (GIS) format; as a result, the Residential Density Guidelines (RDG) map series could be combined with the FLUM series. Petitioners failed to establish any facts demonstrating that the new GIS FLUM series was not available or discussed at properly noticed public hearings. As to notice, see Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. There was no evidence of errors on the GIS maps. Petitioners complained that the GIS maps are unusable because they are too hard to read, especially because they were black and white. But actually the FLUM series is in color. There was no competent, substantial evidence that the color maps were too hard to read or unusable. Petitioners generally complained about residential density reductions but failed to present any competent, substantial evidence as to what supposedly was wrong with those reductions. Petitioners seem to believe that they should be able to obtain all information regarding their property from the Comprehensive Plan. There is no regulation cited by Petitioners requiring that the maps be of sufficient detail to enable someone to determine all possible uses of property based solely on a review of the maps. As a practical matter, additional site-specific information is nearly always necessary. In addition, GIS maps are computerized maps which are merely referenced by the Plan. The GIS system must ultimately be consulted regarding site-specific information. Poplin testified that the GIS updating of the FLUM and RDG map series was done primarily to streamline and consolidate the two previously separate maps. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, Poplin testified that the conversion from two graphic maps to the GIS maps was a very positive change. Mixed Use District Conversion Paragraph 8.III.B. of the Amended Petition stated: Under the MIXED USE DISTRICT CONVERSION (pg 1) - Mixed Use District (MUD) land use designation and zoning classification of General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) or Highway Tourist Commercial (TU-2) existing classifications were not listed as being reclassified (to be designated as Community Commercial). Petitioners base this contention solely on the FLUM Update in the B.14 Plan Amendments. Petitioners' contention ignores FLUE Policy 2.7 in the B.13 Plan Amendments, one of the operative policies relating to the conversion from MUD. Policy 2.7 states which uses are allowed under the Community Commercial designation. Subparagraph "c" lists "Tourist Commercial uses" as being a use under Community Commercial. In their response to the motion for involuntary dismissal, Petitioners finally acknowledged Policy 2.7 but still maintain that it cannot be determined whether TU-1 and TU-2 zoning will be classified as Community Commercial or as Neighborhood Commercial. In making this argument, Petitioners ignore FLUE Policy 2.5, another operative policy in the B.13 section of the Plan Amendment, relating to the conversion from MUD. Policy 2.5 lists "[d]evelopment activities which may be considered within Neighborhood Commercial" and omits any "tourist commercial" development activities. Based on the evidence, it seems clear that both TU-1 and TU-2 zoning will be classified as Community Commercial, and not as Neighborhood Commercial. Petitioners' allegations that they were omitted from the MUD conversion are incorrect. More About the Glossary Paragraph 8.I.V. of the Amended Petition stated: Glossary, Definitions, Thresholds, Maps relating to Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1999 B.12, 1999 B.13 and 1999 B.14. Revised Glossary. A new Glossary and definitions was never completed and made available to the public before any properly noticed Public Hearing to properly allow public review, input, comment, etc. Incomplete or inaccurate data on thresholds and maps relating to Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1999 B.12, 1999 B.13 and 1999 B.14 were also not available. As previously found, the Glossary was not amended, and it would be inappropriate to advertise the Glossary for changes. There is no requirement that a glossary be included in a comprehensive plan. When a glossary is included, not every word in a comprehensive plan must be included. Forested Wetlands Location Map At final hearing, Petitioners asserted that the Forested Wetlands Location Map referred to and incorporated by reference in Policy 5.2.F.3. of the Conservation Element was not the best available data. This issue was not raised in the Amended Petition, and consideration of the merits of the assertion has been waived. In addition, as previously found, the language of Policy 5.2.F.3. was adopted prior to the Plan Amendments at issue in this case. See Finding of Fact 8, supra. On the merits of the argument, three forested wetlands maps were offered into evidence (as Petitioners' Exhibits 2, 3, and 4.) Only Petitioners' Exhibit 2 was admitted into evidence. Petitioners' Exhibit 2 reflects the Forested Wetlands Location Map incorporated by reference as part of the County's comprehensive plan. Without Petitioners' Exhibits 3 or 4 being in evidence, or any other evidence on the issue, Moehle's testimony was insufficient to prove beyond fair debate that the Forested Wetlands Location Map incorporated by reference as part of the County's comprehensive plan was not the best available data at the time of incorporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition and finding that Brevard County's Plan Amendments B.12, B.13, and B.14 are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 21st day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Eden Bentley, Esquire Brevard County Attorney's Office 2725 St. Johns Street Viera, Florida 32940 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Charles F. Moehle Modern, Inc. Post Office Box 321417 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32932 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether the City of Miramar Comprehensive Plan Amendment, adopted by Ordinance No. 1901 on October 17, 2018, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioners own and reside on property located at 17428 Southwest 36th Street in Miramar, Florida. Petitioners submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, or objections to the City during the period of time between, and including appearances at, the transmittal hearing and the adoption of the Plan Amendment. Petitioners’ house is approximately 430 feet north of the property subject to the Plan Amendment (the “Subject Property”). Petitioners’ property is separated from the Subject Property by a residential canal, approximately 100 feet of wetland or marsh area, and a City street right-of-way. The residential canal is owned and controlled by Petitioners’ homeowner’s association. From the backyard of their home, Petitioners enjoy observing and photographing birds and wildlife that utilize the canal, including birds that can be seen from Petitioners’ property in the trees on the Subject Property and flying between the properties. The City is a Florida municipal corporation with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167. Univision is a Delaware limited liability company authorized to transact business in Florida. Its principal business address is 500 Frank West Burr Boulevard, Teaneck, New Jersey 07666. Univision is the owner of the Subject Property. Lennar is a Florida limited liability company, whose principal business address is 700 Northwest 107th Avenue, Suite 400, Miami, Florida 33172. Lennar is under contract to purchase the Subject Property. Existing Conditions The Subject Property is approximately 120 gross acres of mostly undeveloped property. The Subject Property contains 102.2 acres of wetlands and 15.5 acres of uplands. At least 80 percent of the wetlands are covered by Melaleuca trees, which is an invasive species. Melaleuca is listed by federal and state agencies as a noxious weed, making it illegal to possess, sell, cultivate, or transport in Florida. The uplands on the Subject Property are limited to areas previously developed with radio transmission towers, a control room, and filled roadways connecting the on-site improvements. The improvements, with the exception of the fill roads, were removed in approximately 2017. The radio towers were secured by guy wires anchored by concrete blocks. The areas of the Subject Property underneath the guy wires were maintained to prevent vegetation from growing up into the guy wires. The areas where the concrete supports have been removed are wet, and the areas that were beneath the former guy wires contain fewer Melaleuca and some native vegetation, like sawgrass and ferns. However, the upland areas are also currently growing exotic grasses and Australian Pine, which are also invasive species. The Subject Property is currently designated on the City’s Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) as “Rural.” Pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Rural land use category allows the following types of development: (1) residential development at a density of one dwelling unit per 2.5 gross acres (1du/2.5 acres); (2) agricultural and related uses, including crops, groves, horse and cattle ranches, private game preserves, fish breeding areas, and tree and plant nurseries; (3) parks; (4) police and fire stations, libraries, and civic centers; (5) special residential facilities, such as group homes; and (6) public utilities, including wastewater pumping stations, electrical utility substations, and telecommunications transmission facilities. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Rural to “Irregular (3.21) Residential,” which allows residential development at a density of 3.21du/acre.4/ Lennar proposes to develop 385 units on the property-- the maximum allowable under the Plan Amendment. Under Lennar’s development proposal, all of the on- site wetlands will be impacted. The Plan Amendment Process Broward County municipalities have a unique plan amendment review process. Each amendment to a municipal comprehensive plan must be consistent with, and incorporated into, the Broward County Land Use Plan (“BCLUP”). This Plan Amendment, as with all other municipal amendments, was reviewed and approved through both the County’s and City’s approval process. The Board of County Commissioners held an adoption public hearing on March 20, 2018, and approved Ordinance No. 2018-12, amending the BCLUP to change the County FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Agriculture to Irregular (3.21) Residential. On October 17, 2018, the City Commission held a duly advertised second public hearing, wherein the City voted to adopt the Plan Amendment. Lennar Permitting Lennar pursued permitting of its proposed development of the Subject Property during the Plan Amendment review process. On or about September 11, 2018, the Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department (“EPGMD”) issued an environmental resource license (“ERL”) for the proposed development. The ERL is based on Lennar’s site plan for the site, not the Plan Amendment. The ERL recognizes that the impacts on the Subject Property wetlands are unavoidable and determines that off-site mitigation is required to address any impacts on those wetlands. On or about September 11, 2018, the South Florida Water Management District issued an environmental resource permit (“ERP”) for the proposed development. The ERP is based on Lennar’s site plan and other required documents, not the Plan Amendment. The ERP provides that off-site mitigation is required to address any impacts on the Subject Property wetlands. On or about December 14, 2018, the Army Corps of Engineers (“ACOE”) issued a permit for the development proposed, based upon Lennar’s site plan and other required documents. The ACOE permit provides that off-site mitigation is required to address any impacts on the Subject Property wetlands. Petitioners’ Challenge Section 163.3177(2) directs that “the several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent,” in furtherance of the major objective of the planning process to coordinate the elements of the local comprehensive plan. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is not “in compliance” because it creates internal inconsistencies with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners’ challenge rests on four provisions of the Comprehensive Plan: Future Land Use Element (“FLUE”) Goal (unnumbered), FLUE Policies 3.5 and 6.10, and Conservation Element Policy 7.3 (“CE Policy 7.3”). FLUE Goal (unnumbered) The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains one overarching goal for the FLUE, which reads as follows: Maintain a long-range future land use pattern which promotes orderly and well- managed growth and development of the community, producing quality neighborhoods, enhancing the city’s aesthetic appeal, conserving the natural environment and open space, supporting a vibrant economic tax base, and minimizing risks to the public’s health, safety, and welfare. (emphasis added). The goal is the singular goal for the overall FLUE, which includes 12 different objectives and many more policies for each objective. The purpose of the goal is to set the initial framework; it is a very broad statement setting the direction for the City’s long-term goals, but does not provide any measurable standards or specifics regarding implementation. Petitioners’ challenge focuses on the underlined phrase, and argues that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with the goal’s direction to “conserv[e] the natural environment and open space.” The Subject Property is not currently designated as either “Recreation and Open Space” or “Conservation.” The Subject Property is private property that, by virtue of its land use designation, has always been intended for development as one of the uses allowable within the Rural land use category. Further, Eric Silva, the Director of the City’s Community and Economic Development Department, testified that the goal’s direction of “conserving the natural environment and open space” relates only to those areas that have been designated by the City, or another agency, for protection. The Recreation and Open Space Element (“ROS Element”) sets forth the specific objectives and policies to accomplish the City’s goal to “[p]rovide adequate and accessible parks and facilities to meet the recreation needs of all current and future Miramar residents.” In the ROS Element, the City has established a level of service standard of four acres of park and open space for each 1,000 City residents. Petitioners introduced no evidence that the Plan Amendment would diminish the amount of land designated for open space in the City, or otherwise impede the City’s progress toward the adopted standard. To the contrary, Mr. Silva testified that the City has over 300 extra acres of park space and that this Plan Amendment will not impact the City’s adopted level of service for parks and open space. Likewise, Petitioners introduced no evidence to support a finding that the Plan Amendment would reduce the amount of land designated for “Conservation” in the City. Rather, Petitioners argue that the Subject Property should be converted to a nature preserve, or otherwise placed in conservation use. The issue in this case is not whether the City should designate the Subject Property for a different use, but whether the designation the City proposes is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the FLUE Goal. FLUE Policy 3.5 Petitioners next contend the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 3.5, which directs the City to “[c]onsider the cumulative and long-term effects of decisions regarding amendments to the Land Use Plan Map and revisions to the Future Land Use Element.” Petitioners’ concerns here are similar to those with the FLUE Goal--the Plan Amendment will reduce green space and open space, which could be preserved under the existing Rural designation. Petitioners’ expert witness conceded that it is impossible to determine that the City did not consider the cumulative and long-term effects of the Plan Amendment. Moreover, the City introduced abundant evidence that it considered, during the lengthy Plan Amendment process, all impacts of the Plan Amendment on the City’s resources and infrastructure. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 3.5. FLUE Policy 6.10 Next, Petitioners argue the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.10, which states, “The City shall consider the impacts of land use plan amendments on wetland and native upland resources, and minimize those impacts to the maximum extent practicable.” Here, Petitioners focus on the density allowed under the Plan Amendment. Petitioners argue that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this policy because it allows development of 385 units, which will maximize, rather than minimize, impacts to the on-site wetlands. Petitioners argue that the residential density allowed under the existing Rural designation would yield development of only 48 units, which would provide for conservation of at least some of the wetlands on site, thereby minimizing the wetland impact. Petitioners’ argument ignores the fact that the Rural designation allows other types of non-residential development that may be as intense as residential, such as a civic center or fire station, or uses that require fewer improvements, but have a destructive effect on wetlands, such as horse or cattle ranches. The issue of whether the Plan Amendment minimizes impacts to wetlands is not determined by the mathematical function 48 units < 385 units. Instead, the determination hinges on the meaning of “minimizing impacts” in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Under the City’s Comprehensive Plan, impact of development on wetlands must be considered in partnership with the County, and is dependent upon the value assigned to those wetlands, pursuant to the wetlands benefit index (“WBI”), as set forth in the Conservation Element. Based on the following relevant analysis, the Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 6.10. CE Policy 7.3 Finally, Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendment as internally inconsistent with CE Policy 7.3, which reads as follows: The City shall distribute land uses in a manner that avoids or minimizes to the greatest degree practicable, the effect and impact on wetlands in coordination with Broward County. Those land uses identified below as being incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland functions shall be directed away from wetlands, or when compatible land uses are allowed to occur, shall be mitigated or enhanced, or both, to compensate for loss of wetland functions in accordance with Broward County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27, Article XI, Aquatic and Wetland Resource Protection. Compatibility of Land UsesRelative to the Wetland Benefit Index (WBI) Wetland Benefit Index Land Use Compatibility 1. Wetlands with a WBI value greater than or equal to 0.80 1. There is a rebuttable presumption that all land uses except for conservation uses are incompatible. 2. Wetlands with a WBI value less than 0.80 2. All land uses are compatible, provided that the wetland impact compensation requirements of Chapter 27, Article XI, are satisfied. Source: Broward County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27, Article XI, Aquatic and Wetland Resource Protection CE Policy 7.3 is more specific than FLUE Policy 6.10 regarding the City’s direction to minimize impacts of development on wetlands. Petitioners’ planning expert opined that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this policy because it does not “avoid or minimize” the impact of wetlands at all, much less “to the greatest degree practicable,” as directed by the policy. Petitioners’ expert based his entire argument solely on the first sentence of the policy. Petitioners’ planning expert explained, incredulously, that, in his opinion, the rest of the policy “doesn’t matter.”5/ The opinion of Petitioners’ expert was not persuasive. The Policy must be read in its entirety; and, when read as such, the Plan Amendment is consistent with the policy. The first sentence of the policy is precatory and direction-setting. It states the City’s intent to distribute land uses in a way that minimizes wetland impacts. The following sentences describe in more detail how that direction will be accomplished, and specifically reference the incorporated chart. The policy provides that land uses identified in the chart as incompatible with wetland protection “shall be directed away from wetlands.” By contrast, the policy provides that for land uses identified as compatible, wetland impacts “shall be mitigated . . . in accordance with the Broward County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27.” It is undisputed that the wetlands on the Subject Property have a WBI value of less than .80. Pursuant to the chart, then, all uses of the Subject Property are compatible with the wetlands on-site, as long as the wetland impact compensation requirements of the Broward County Code are followed. The policy clearly provides that no development, regardless of density or intensity, must be directed away from the wetlands on the Subject Property. If the WBI value of the on-site wetlands was .80 or higher, pursuant to this policy, Petitioners’ position that the Subject Property should be placed in Conservation use would be presumed correct, although rebuttable. To that end, Petitioners introduced expert opinion testimony as to the quality of the wetland areas on-site which were previously maintained by the property owner--namely the areas under the guy wires. In the opinion of Petitioners’ wetlands expert, the on-site wetlands could be restored to higher quality if the Melaleuca trees were removed and the stumps sprayed to prevent regrowth. Petitioners’ argument is irrelevant to a determination of whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with this policy. Having established that the WBI value of the on-site wetlands is below .80, the issue of whether the on-site wetlands could be restored is irrelevant. Chapter 27 of the Broward County Code governs application for, and issuance of, an ERL for wetland alteration. On September 11, 2018, Broward County issued an ERL to Lennar for its proposed development of the Subject Property. Petitioner introduced no evidence to support a finding that the provisions of Chapter 27 were not satisfied by the County in issuing the ERL. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with CE Policy 7.3.
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 City of Miramar Ordinance 1901, on October 7, 2018, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 2019.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether City of Miami Ordinance 12911, which amends the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), is a small-scale development amendment, as defined by Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) whether Ordinance 12911 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (Statutes refer to the 2007 codification.)
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following facts are determined: The Property Subject to the FLUM Amendment TRG-MH Venture, LTD. (TRG-MH), is a Florida limited partnership formed for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of property in the southeast corner of a larger, 40- acre parcel owned by Mercy Hospital, Inc. (Mercy). TRG-MH and Mercy have executed a purchase and sale agreement for this corner parcel, which is located at approximately 3663 South Bayshore Drive in the Coconut Grove area of Miami, Florida (the Site). TRG-MH hired an architectural firm, Arquitectonica, to design on the Site a proposed residential development named 300 Grove Bay Residences (the Project). The Site, which currently serves as a paved parking lot for Mercy Hospital employees, measures 6.72 acres. The Site is abutted on the north, northwest, and northeast by the rest of the 40-acre parcel owned by Mercy and used for its hospital, professional offices, and patient and visitor parking. The tallest of these buildings is 146 feet. To the north of Mercy's property and medical complex is another 30-plus acre parcel owned by the Catholic Diocese of Miami and used for La Salle High School and a religious facility, Ermita de la Caridad. Abutting the northern boundary of the La Salle High School property is Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. To the west of the Site are a small convent, an administration building, and a modest-sized assisted living facility. To the west of these buildings is South Bayshore Drive, which is a four-lane road. Single-family residential neighborhoods are west of South Bayshore Drive. The Site is abutted on the southwest, south, southeast and east by Biscayne Bay. Grove Isle, a three-building, 18- story condominium/hotel/marina complex, is located on a small, man-made island (Fair Isle) in the Bay to the south of the Site. It is located approximately 1,300 feet from the Site and is separated from the Site by Bay water. Grove Isle has a future land use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential (M/D Residential) and is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-3). However, Grove Isle is a legal nonconformity because it exceeds the densities allowed in M/D Residential and R-3. To the southwest of the Site, but separated from the Site by Bay water, are single-family and medium-density dwellings, including several multifamily structures. Petitioners Bloch and Steen reside in this neighborhood. No property zoned single-family residential (R-1) abuts the Site. Currently a paved parking lot, the Site has no archeological, environmental, or historical significance. Miami-Dade County had designated all of the City as an "Urban Infill Area." This designation is made in the County's Comprehensive Plan and is implemented in Policy LU-1.1.11 of the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The Parties The Vizcayans, Inc. (The Vizcayans), is a not-for- profit Florida corporation of volunteer members and a paid staff consisting of: an executive director, a membership director, and a controller. The purpose of the organization is to support the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens (Vizcaya), a publicly-owned and operated museum, through contributions and fundraising events. The Vizcayans' office at 3251 South Miami Avenue is located on the grounds of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM Amendment and appeared in person and through lawyers at the City Commission hearings. The Respondent and Intervenors stipulated that The Vizcayans have standing as affected persons under Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to challenge the small-scale development amendment in this proceeding based on allegations that The Vizcayans operate a business in the City. Miami-Dade County owns Vizcaya. By contract, The Vizcayans provides funds annually to Miami-Dade County for use in maintaining Vizcaya's properties and conducting educational programs. Any funds in excess of those owed to the County under the contract are used to pay staff and host fundraisers or are invested for future use. Vizcaya is governed by the County through the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, which is an agency of Miami-Dade County. Jason Bloch and Constance Steen reside in the City and own properties to the southwest of the Site. Glencoe is a not- for-profit corporation of homeowners in the Glencoe neighborhood to the southwest of the Site. Mr. Bloch formed the corporation during the pendency of the application proceedings for the primary purpose of opposing the proposed development of the Site. Bloch, Steen, and Glencoe submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. Grove Isle is a not-for-profit Florida corporation of condominium owners. Grove Isle submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City and Intervenors stipulated to Grove Isle's standing in these proceedings. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City adopted its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, including its FLUM, in 1989. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM have been amended from time to time as allowed by law. TRG-MH is a joint venture limited partnership. Its direct and indirect participants include Ocean Land Equities, Ltd., and The Related Group. TRG-MH contracted to purchase the Site from Mercy and applied to the City for the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. TRG-MH also submitted applications for a change of zoning and MUSP on the Site. The zoning and MUSP applications, and the resulting City ordinance and resolution arising from their approval, are not at issue in this proceeding. Mercy is a not-for-profit Florida corporation that owns and operates Mercy Hospital. Mercy has contracted to sell the Site to TRG-MH. The FLUM Amendment In June 2007, TRG-MH applied to the City for a small- scale development amendment to change the Site's land use designation on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities (M/I) to High Density Multifamily Residential (H/D). TRG-MH submitted its application concurrently with its applications for a zoning change from G/I to R-4 and for a MUSP. According to the FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH was seeking a map amendment for a 6.723-acre parcel of real property. With its FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH submitted a survey prepared and certified by surveyors Fortin, Leavy & Skiles. The survey depicted: the Site, as a parcel with a "net lot area" of 6.723 acres; a Proposed Road, measuring 1.39 acres, that wrapped around the Site on its west and north sides (the Perimeter Road); and a Private Road, also known as Tract "C" or Halissee Street, measuring .95 acres, which accesses the Site and Perimeter Road from South Bayshore Drive. Accompanying the survey was a legal description for the Site, which included a description for the proposed new Perimeter Road abutting the Site. The legal description covered an area comprising 8.11 acres. Also accompanying the application was a traffic analysis showing the impact to existing road networks of traffic resulting from the proposed MUSP application, which sought to build 300 residential units on property currently having no existing residential units. TRG-MH's applications were reviewed by the City's Planning Department and its Planning Advisory Board (PAB). The City's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use designation change. The PAB's 3-3 tie vote operated as to deny the request for a change of the land use designation recommendation. On April 26, 2007, the City Commission voted to approve the FLUM amendment application and, with modifications, the accompanying zoning and MUSP applications. (The City Commission approved the zoning change and MUSP subject to the condition that the size and scale of the Project be reduced by 25 percent across the board. Thus, for example, the height of the tallest of the three condominium buildings was reduced from approximately 411 feet to 310 feet.) The FLUM change was adopted by Ordinance 12911, which the Mayor signed on May 7, 2007. Ordinance 12911 amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation "for the property located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated." Exhibit A to the ordinance was the legal description included on the Fortin, Leavy, Skiles survey. The section of the MCNP entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various future land use categories in the Plan. It describes the Major Institutional future land use category as follows: Major Institutional Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) at 21 (June 2006). The same section describes the H/D Residential, in pertinent part, as follows: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" allow residential structures to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. MCNP at 20 (June 2006). (By way of comparison, M/D Residential is described similarly except that the maximum density is 65 dwelling units per acre.) According to the MCNP, the FLUM land use designations "are arranged following the 'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion, whereby subsequent categories are inclusive of those listed previously, except as otherwise noted." Ordinance 12911 was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required for text changes and large- scale FLUM changes to a comprehensive plan. On June 4 and 6, 2007, Petitioners filed their petitions challenging the FLUM Amendment. Generally, the Petitioners alleged that the FLUM Amendment did not qualify for treatment as a "small-scale" development amendment; was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; was not supported by adequate data and analysis; and was not "in compliance" with Florida's Growth Management Act and its implementing regulations. Scale of the FLUM Amendment A small-scale development amendment may be adopted if the "proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." § 163.3187(1)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. According to the survey and architectural plans on file with the City, the "net lot area" of the Site measures 6.72 acres. The City Zoning Code defines "net lot area" as "[t]he total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights-of- way or other required dedications." § 2502, City Zoning Code. In determining how large (in square feet of floor area) the planned Project could be, the architects were permitted, under the City's zoning regulations, to multiply the "floor area ratio" (FAR) for the High Density Multifamily Residential zoning classification by an area larger than the "net lot area." See § 401, City Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows the maximum square footage to be calculated using the Site's "gross lot area." Id. The City Zoning Code defines "gross lot area," in pertinent part, as "[t]he net area of the lot, as defined herein, plus half of adjoining street rights-of-way and seventy (70) feet of any other public open space such as parks, lakes, rivers, bays, public transit right-of-way and the like." § 2502, City Zoning Code. If the "gross lot area" to be used to calculate the maximum square footage involves properties under different ownership, either the owners must apply jointly for a MUSP, or they must enter a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title. Properties joined by a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title need not have the same land use designation or zoning classification. If a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title is required, it need not be submitted to the City until building permits are sought. At present, no covenant-in-lieu of unity of title has been prepared or executed for the Site. The "gross lot area" used to calculate the Project's maximum square footage of floor area measured 11.44 acres. Thus, the Petitioners argued that the FLUM Amendment "involved a use" of more than 10 acres. But the application requested a land use designation change on only 6.72 acres of land. Because High-Density Multifamily Residential use will not be made of the proposed Perimeter Road, the access road known as Halissee Street, or the proposed Bay Walk, a land use designation change was not required for that acreage. Indeed, according to the amended FLUM, there is no land use designation applied to Halissee or to the northern part of the Perimeter Road. Moreover, use of Halissee Street, the Perimeter Road, and the Bay Walk is not exclusive to the 6.72 acres but will remain shared with Mercy Hospital, its patients and employees, as well as with the public. The Petitioners attempted to prove that a marina was planned to serve the development, which would involve a total use of more than ten acres for residential purposes. Even if a marina was initially contemplated, the application on file with the City does not include one, and there are no approved plans for a marina to be incorporated into the proposed residential development. No marina is required to be developed in connection with the 300 Grove Bay project. Moreover, there was unrebutted evidence that it is highly unlikely that a marina would ever be permitted under the statutes now regulating Biscayne Bay. There is no evidentiary support for including any part of Biscayne Bay in the acreage subject to the small-scale FLUM Amendment because of a possible marina so as to support the Petitioners' claim that Ordinance 12911 should not have been processed as a small-scale amendment. Suitability and Compatibility of FLUM Amendment The Site is a parking lot. It is not environmentally sensitive and has no significant natural or archeological resources that would make it unsuitable for High Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Major Institutional accommodates the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the Mercy Hospital complex, which are compatible with and actually part of Coconut Grove. However, as pointed out by the City and the Intervenors, Major Institutional also allows future land uses that could be less compatible with the surrounding land uses, including the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the residential neighborhoods of Coconut Grove. While a lower density residential future land use would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding uses, the issue in this case is the density allowed by H/D Residential--up to 150 residential units per acre, which Petitioners contend is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and inconsistent with previous efforts to protect Vizcaya and Coconut Grove from the intrusion of high- density residential development. The Petitioners also contend that the FLUM Amendment is not suitable on the bayfront. Suitability on the Bayfront The Petitioners contend that H/D Residential is not suitable on the bayfront for reasons related mostly to aesthetics and views. While it certainly would be possible and reasonable for a community to decide not to allow dense and intense development on significant water bodies, it was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the City has done so, or that H/D Residential is unsuitable on the Site for that reason. 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report The City's 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("2005 EAR") focused on two citywide issues relevant here: (1) the preservation and enhancement of historic and similar resources; and (2) neighborhood integrity and the need to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development. Vizcaya Museum Gardens Industrialist James Deering built Vizcaya in 1916 as a winter home. The land Deering purchased in the early 1900s was developed into a 180-acre estate that included his Mediterranean-style home, Italianate gardens, farms, orchards, and lagoons. The mansion and gardens were designed by three well-known architects and designers and constructed using local materials. When Deering died nine years later in 1925, Vizcaya was left to his heirs, who eventually sold the south gardens and western agricultural fields to the Catholic Diocese. The southern acreage (which included the Site) was later developed into a church (Ermita de la Caridad), a school (La Salle), and medical and hospital facilities (Mercy). The Diocese sold the western acreage, which was eventually developed into single- family-home subdivisions. In the 1950s, the Deering heirs sold the remaining property, consisting of the mansion, gardens, and farm buildings, to Dade County. In 1952, Dade County opened Vizcaya to the public. Since then, the County has operated Vizcaya as a museum, which has welcomed thousands of visitors annually and is a popular site for tourists, social functions, and photo shoots. The Vizcaya mansion and gardens have historical, architectural, and botanical significance. The mansion is an "architectural masterpiece" and an "outstanding example of Italian Renaissance Revival architecture." Vizcaya has been on the National Register of Historical Places since 1977; it was designated as a City Heritage Conservation District in 1984; and, in 1994, it was designated a National Historical Landmark-- one of only three in Miami-Dade County. The southernmost part of Vizcaya's gardens is approximately 1,600 feet from the FLUM Amendment Site, and the mansion is approximately 2,300 feet from the Site. For the specific purpose of objecting to the 300 Grove Bay project, The Vizcayans commissioned the Vizcaya Viewshed Impact Assessment, which is referred to as the "balloon" study, and the Vizcaya View Corridor Study. According to the balloon study, the 300 Grove Bay condominiums would be visible from the balcony on the south side of the mansion. Although the balloon study was based on the original Project building heights and not re-done using the reduced heights in the zoning and MUSP approvals, the Petitioners' witnesses said that the Project would still be visible through the existing landscape, even at the reduced height. The Petitioners' witnesses opined that the development of 300 Grove Bay would "overpower and overshadow" the gardens on the south side of the mansion. No federal, state, or local statutes, rules or ordinances, including those relevant to this proceeding, protect the view corridors of Vizcaya's gardens. Coconut Grove The area known as Coconut Grove was settled in the late 1800s and was considered "off the beaten path" from the City which was incorporated in 1896. Coconut Grove was incorporated as a separate municipality in 1919, but in 1925 it was annexed to the City, as were five other municipalities. Petitioners' witnesses observed that Coconut Grove is the only one of these towns that has continued to retain a unique and recognizable character. Vizcaya and Mercy Hospital, including the parking lot site, are located in the northern area of Coconut Grove. Coconut Grove is primarily, but not entirely, a residential community. Coconut Grove has an active "downtown" business, commercial, and hotel district. The Petitioners maintained that the northern area of Coconut Grove is primarily single-family residential. However, it also includes a non- conforming high-density development (Grove Isle), medium-density residential, Mercy Hospital and its professional buildings, an assisted living facility, a school, a church, and governmental office buildings, as well as two museums (Vizcaya and the Museum of Science). A Coconut Grove Planning Study was commissioned and printed in 1974, but the City never adopted it; therefore, it has no official status. The Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District In 2005, the City adopted by ordinance the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3). See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. According to the Code, a Neighborhood Conservation District is an "umbrella land use designation overlay," which allows for the tailoring of a master plan or of design guidelines for any area that meets certain criteria. See § 800, City Zoning Code. The intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District is to "[p]reserve the historic, heavily landscaped character of Coconut Grove's residential areas and enhance and protect Coconut Grove's natural features such as tree canopy and green space." § 803.1, City Zoning Code. NCD-3 does not specify the High-Density, Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning classification. But that does not mean that NCD-3 does not allow R-4. NCD-3 is enabling legislation that imposes greater restrictions within a geographic "overlay" for the zoning classifications addressed in Section 803.3. So far, NCD-3 has not addressed G/I and R-4 but only Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial Districts. See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. For that reason, the ordinance does not apply to the Site. The "Grovenor Ordinance" The so-called Grovenor Ordinance was the City's response in July 2004 to the construction of a high-density residential project on property in Coconut Grove zoned "G/I Government and Institutional." The Grovenor Ordinance amended subsection of Section 401 of the City's Zoning Code to provide in pertinent part: G/I Government and Institutional Intent and Scale: The government/institutional category allows the development of facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious, or educational activities, major transportation facilities, public utilities, and public and private cemeteries. Uses ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, subject to the same limiting conditions. Intensity: For residential uses: As for the least intense abutting zoning district. . . . * * * Permitted Principal Uses: Governmental and institutional uses as described in the City of Miami Comprehensive Development Plan designation of "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities", however for accessory non-governmental or institutional uses-only such uses as may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abutting zoning district . . . . § 401, City Zoning Code. The Grovenor Ordinance applies to property that is zoned G/I. The City's and Intervenors' witnesses testified that it applies only if G/I-zoned property ceases to be used for governmental or institutional purposes and is used instead for residential purposes. However, from the language of the ordinance itself, it is beyond fair debate that it also applies to G/I-zoned property that is used both for government or institutional uses and for ancillary residential uses. Clearly, without a FLUM change to a higher-density residential zoning category, in Coconut Grove the residential use on the Site would be restricted to the zoning classification of the "least intense abutting zoning district." Since it pertains to zoning, the Grovenor Ordinance does not directly apply to the issue of whether a FLUM amendment is "in compliance." However, it has some bearing on the proper interpretation and application of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP's future land use designations, which is important to the issues for determination in this case. The Pyramid Concept The City and the Intervenors rely heavily on their interpretation of the MCNP's pyramid concept of cumulative future land use designations to support the FLUM Amendment in this case. According to them, the FLUM Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses because high-density multi-family residential use already is a permitted use as a matter of right for land designated "Major Institutional." Similarly, they maintain that, under the "pyramid" concept, high-density multi- family residential use is permitted as a matter of right in all of the commercially designated land in Coconut Grove. But it is beyond fair debate that their interpretation of the "pyramid concept" is incorrect. As indicated, the "'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion" applies "except as otherwise noted." In the Major Institutional future land use category, it is noted that residential facilities with densities equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" (i.e., up to 150 units per acre) are permitted only if "ancillary" to the listed major institutional uses. Similarly, in the General Commercial future land use category, it is noted that high-density residential uses "are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents." If the "pyramid concept" authorized high- density multi-family residential use as a matter of right on land designated either Major Institutional or General Commercial, there would be no reason to limit those uses by notation. Under the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, free-standing high-density multi-family residential use of up to 150 units per acre is not already permitted as of right in either the Major Institutional or the General Commercial land use categories. Compatibility Notwithstanding the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that High Density Multi Family Residential future land use on the Site is incompatible with the surrounding uses or is inappropriate. The lower density residential and other less intense future land uses in the MCNP are buffered from the Site by Biscayne Bay and by Medium Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Vizcaya is buffered from the Site by Mercy Hospital and related medical facilities and by La Salle High School. The compatibility of a specific density of residential development on the Site with less dense residential use in Coconut Grove and with Vizcaya, including issues regarding building height and intrusion into Vizcaya's view corridors, can be addressed through zoning and MUSP proceedings. Data and Analysis Data and analysis is another matter. Because of their incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the City and the Intervenors took the position that the FLUM Amendment constitutes "down-planning" and that the City was not required to perform the same level of analysis as it would have if the amendment sought a designation that permitted uses of greater impact, density, and/or intensity. The experts disagreed on whether "down-planning" is a concept in land use planning that can eliminate or minimize the requirement for data and analysis. In any event, the FLUM Amendment in this case could not be characterized as "down- planning." See Findings 57-59, supra. The MCNP's pyramid concept does not dispense with the need for data and analysis, and the data and analysis in this case was minimal and inadequate. The primary data and analysis in this case was the "Analysis for Land Use Change Request" (Analysis) that resulted from the City staff's review. After identifying the proposed land use designation and the uses permitted on it the Analysis recommended "Approval" of the FLUM Amendment and made four findings in support of "the position that the existing land use pattern in this neighborhood should be changed. These findings are as follows: It is found that the subject property is part of the Mercy Hospital and do [sic] not front South Miami Avenue. It is found that the "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation & Utilities" category allows 150 residential units per acre and the requested "High Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow a maximum density of 150 residential units per acre. It is found that the requested change to "High-Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the property at the above described location and therefore should be changed as part of the MUSP. It is found that MCNP Goal LU-1 maintains a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods, and (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts. Id. (Emphasis in original.) As to the City’s third finding, a particular developer's flexibility is irrelevant to the determination of whether the land use change is consistent with the MCNP. To the extent that flexibility in general could be relevant to the inquiry, the finding was incorrect. While allowing a free- standing high-density residential project that would not otherwise be possible, the FLUM Amendment eliminates all of the non-residential uses permitted within the "Major Institutional" category. The second finding was based on the City's incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP, which led the City to wrongly equate a primary use with an ancillary use and to simply assume no population increase would result from the FLUM Amendment, and that the FLUM Amendment would result in "down-planning." Attached to the City's Analysis was a separate "Concurrency Management Analysis," which addressed in summary form the data and analysis generated by the applicant and by the City's staff to address the "impact of [the] proposed amendment to land use map within a transportation corridor." The "Concurrency Management Analysis" also was predicated on the assumption that the FLUM change to HD Residential would not increase population. Essentially, it assumed without any data or analysis that infrastructure was available for 1,008 people living on the Site, even though the Site is being used as a parking lot at this time. This data and analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. As to transportation, there was additional evidence of a traffic analysis performed by the City in support of the Project’s MUSP. This MUSP traffic analysis utilized a proper starting point of zero population on the Site at this time. It then projected the impact of the addition of 300 units. This was more than the 225 units ultimately approved in the MUSP but did not analyze the much larger potential increases in traffic that would be allowed under the FLUM Amendment, which is not limited to 300 units. There also was no data or analysis to show that limiting the analysis to 300 units was reasonable. It also only looked two years into the future. The MUSP traffic analysis also did not address the 2005 EAR finding that Bayshore Drive will be at level of service F by year 2025, without even any development on the Site. In short, the MUSP traffic analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. The City and Intervenor took the position that the designation of the entire City as an urban infill area meant that every parcel is appropriate for high-density multi-family residential development. This is not correct. It is still necessary to look at comprehensive plan to determine which areas are appropriate for that kind of future land use and to have data and analysis to support it. See Payne et al. v. City of Miami et al., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, *10-13 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007) (on motion for rehearing). For these reasons, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment were inadequate. Inconsistency with City's Comprehensive Plan The Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with any MCNP goals, objectives, or policies. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners did not prove that the FLUM Amendment at issue is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order that the FLUM Amendment adopted by City of Miami Ordinance 12911 is not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2008, 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 10th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jason Gonzalez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney City of Miami Miami Riverside Center, Suite 945 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Patrick J. Goggins, Esquire Patrick J. Goggins, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2811 John Charles Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A. 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6616 H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Stephen J. Darmody, Esquire Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Miami Center - Suite 2400 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4339 Lewis W. Fishman, Esquire Lewis W. Fishman, P.A. Two Datran Center, Suite 1121 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7848 John K. Shubin, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 Southwest First Street, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1610
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn all reside in the City of Cocoa (Cocoa or City). Petitioners Hendry both reside in Cocoa. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (the Act). Cocoa is located entirely within Brevard County, which is within the jurisdiction of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (the Regional Planning Council). The resident population of Cocoa is presently about 18,000 persons. The City encompasses over 4500 acres and abuts the Indian River, which is also identified as the Indian River Lagoon. Preparation of Proposed Plan By Ordinance 6-86, which was adopted on March 25, 1986, the Cocoa City Council designated the Cocoa Planning and Zoning Board as the local planning agency under the Act. The Planning and Zoning Board thereby became responsible for preparing the Cocoa comprehensive plan required by the Act (the Plan), conducting public hearings on the Plan, and recommending the Plan to City Council for adoption. In February, 1987, Cocoa entered into a contract with the Regional Planning Council for assistance in preparing the Plan. Pursuant to the contract, the Regional Planning Council drafted all elements of the Plan except the Potable Water Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and related portions of the Capital Improvements Element, which CH2M Hill prepared; the Wastewater Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and related portions of the Capital Improvements Element, which Camp, Dresser and McKee prepared; and the Solid Waste Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and related portions of the Capital Improvements Element, which the City prepared. On November 7, 1987, a 4 1/4" by 3" display advertisement in the Florida Today newspaper announced that Cocoa had begun to prepare an update of its comprehensive plan in conformance with the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act. The advertisement stated that the preparation of the update "will have the effect of regulating the use of lands within the municipal limits of the City of Cocoa." The advertisement advised that copies of documents prepared during the updating process would be on file in the City's Community Improvement Department. The advertisement added that the public would be informed of public meetings through the news media and bulletins posted at City Hall. The Florida Today newspaper is a standard-sized newspaper of general paid circulation in Brevard County and of general interest and readership in Cocoa. The newspaper is published at least five times a week. All advertisements described herein appeared in the Florida Today newspaper and adequately identified the location of the advertised meeting or documents. On November 17, 1987, a 1 1/4" by 2 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on November 18, 1987, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing preliminary drafts of the Traffic Circulation and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Plan. The advertisement stated that copies of the relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. On November 18, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the Traffic Circulation and Recreation and Open Space Elements. On November 28, 1987, a 1 1/4" by 2 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on December 2, 1987, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing preliminary drafts of the Housing and Conservation Elements of the Plan. The advertisement stated that copies of the relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. On December 2, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the Housing and Conservation Elements. There is some evidence to suggest that discussion of the Conservation Element was carried over to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on December 9, 1987. On January 9, 1988, a 1 1/4" by 2 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on January 13, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and the Coastal Management Element. The advertisement stated that copies of the relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. On January 13, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and the Coastal Management Element. On February 25, 1988, a 1 1/4" by 5 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced meetings of the Planning and Zoning Board on March 9, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. and the City Council on March 22, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of hearing all interested persons on the Future Land Use and Capital Improvements Elements of the Plan. The advertisement stated that copies of relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. The record is unclear as to whether these meetings took place, although the Planning and Zoning Board met on March 23, 1988, and discussed the Future Land Use, Intergovernmental, and "Capital Facilities" Elements, as well as the "Sanitary Sewer" Subelement of the Public Facilities Element. On March 28, 1988, a 4 1/4" by 3" display advertisement described the planning process in the same manner as did the November 7 display advertisement. The March 28 advertisement announced that the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council would hold joint workshops on March 29, 30, and 31, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. to discuss "public facilities, coastal management, housing, transportation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental coordination, capital improvement and future land use elements." The advertisement stated that copies of relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. The record is unclear as to whether these meetings took place as scheduled, although, at minimum, it appears that the March 29 meeting took place. On April 23, 1988, at 5:15 p.m., the Planning and Zoning Board commenced a special meeting with the following persons present: six members and the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board, four members of the City Council and the Mayor, the City Manager and Assistant City Manager, the Community Improvement Administrator, a City planner, and four representatives of the Regional Planning Council. The purpose of the meeting was to consider the Future Land Use, Traffic Circulation, Housing, Public Facilities, Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and Open Space, Intergovernmental Coordination, and Capital Improvements Elements of the Plan. The Future Land Use Element was unavailable, so the City Council postponed the discussion of this element until a later date. At the April 13 meeting, Rochelle Lawandales, the Community Improvement Administrator, stated that no formal action would be taken at the workshop, but that the Plan would go before the City Council on April 26, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. during a public hearing. At the conclusion of the April 26 hearing, the City Council would be expected to authorize staff to submit the Plan to DCA. The April 13 meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. On April 19, 1988, at 5:15 p.m., the Planning and Zoning Board began a special meeting with largely the same persons who attended the April 13 meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map. The discussion culminated in the consensus that the Planning and Zoning Board would recommend that the City Council transmit the Plan to DCA. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Transmittal of Proposed Plan to DCA On April 19, 1988, a 6 1/2" by 10 1/2" display advertisement with a large-type headline appeared on page 5 of Section B of the newspaper. The advertisement, which was in the form prescribed by Section 163.3184(15)(c), Florida Statutes, announced that the City Council proposed to change the use of land within the City and that on April 26, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. the City Council would conduct a public hearing on the Plan proposed to be sent to DCA (Proposed Plan). The advertisement contained a large map of Cocoa with major street names indicated, listed the nine major elements of the Proposed Plan, and advised that interested persons could submit written comments or attend the public hearing to be heard regarding the transmittal of the Proposed Plan to DCA. The advertisement stated that the City Council would not give final approval to changes proposed at the hearing, which was described as part of the process designed to lead to the eventual adoption of the Plan. On April 26, 1988, the City Council conducted a public hearing. Following receipt of public comment, which was relatively limited, Mayor Dollye Robinson closed the public hearing, and the City Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 88-17, which authorizes the transmittal of the Proposed Plan to DCA. On May 1, 1988, DCA received the City of Cocoa-- Comprehensive Plan, which consists of two volumes. Volume I is Background Analysis. Volume II is Goals, Objectives, and Policies. DCA also received a document containing population estimates for Cocoa and an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), dated April, 1988, assessing the performance of the Cocoa comprehensive plan adopted under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. (The Proposed Plan and Plan are unrelated to the comprehensive plan assessed in the EAR.) On May 8, 1988, a 4 1/4" by 3" display advertisement announced that the Proposed Plan and supporting documentation were available for review at the public library and city hall. Proposed Plan: Goals, Objectives, and Policies General The Act requires that each comprehensive plan contain eight or nine major elements: Capital Improvements; Future Land Use; Traffic Circulation; Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge (identified as the Public Facilities Element in the Proposed Plan and Plan); Conservation; Recreation and Open Space; Housing; Intergovernmental Coordination; and, if applicable, Coastal Management. Each element comprises goals, objectives, and policies, which respectively represent long-term ends, criteria by which progress toward the goals can be measured, and programs and activities by which the goals are to be achieved. The goals, objectives, and policies in the Proposed Plan are largely carried over to the Plan. Future Land Use Element and Map The Proposed Plan contains two objectives under the Future Land Use Element. They are: Objective 1.1: Future growth and development will be managed through the preparation, adop- tion, implementation and enforcement of land development regulations. Objective 1.2: Future development and redevel- opment activities shall be directed in appro- priate areas as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, consistent with sound planning principles, minimal natural constraints, and the goals, objectives, and policies provided in the . . . Plan. Policy 1.1 of the Future Land Use Element provides in part: The City will adopt land development regula- tions that shall contain specific and detailed provisions required to implement the . . . Plan and which: * * * Regulate the use of land and water consis- tent with this element and ensure the compati- bility of adjacent land uses and provide for open space; Protect the wetland areas identified in the conservation element and future land use element; Regulate areas subject to seasonal and periodic flooding and provide for drainage and stormwater management; * * * H) Provide that development orders and permits shall not be issued which would result in a reduction of the adopted level of service standards. The Future Land Use Map, which is part of the Proposed Plan, depicts eight land use categories: low-, medium-, and high-density residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, open space and recreational, and activity center. Policy 1.2 specifies a maximum density of seven units per acre for low- density residential and 15 units per acre for medium-density residential. The Future Land Use Map in the Proposed Plan depicts four large parcels as open space. These are north of Michigan Avenue, just west of U.S. Route 1; south of Michigan Avenue, just west of U.S. Route 1; north and west of the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Range Road; and east of the north end of Range Road and west of the largest unincorporated enclave surrounded by the City. According to the two Existing Land Use Maps contained in the Background Analysis, which is described in Paragraphs 47-67 below, the four large parcels designated as open space on the Future Land Use Map are wetlands, except for a small strip that is probably a park and is described further in Paragraph 127 below. The four open spaces constitute nearly all of the existing wetlands in the City. Neither the Future Land Use Map in the Proposed Plan nor either of the Existing Land Use Maps in the Background Analysis depicts any historical resources. Housing Element The Housing Element of the Proposed Plan contains the following provisions with respect to historic properties: Objective 3.1.4: Housing designated histori- cally significant will continue to be preserved and protected, and the quality of existing homes and neighborhoods will be maintained or improved. Policy 3.1.4.4: Assist owners of designated historically significant housing to apply for and utilize state and federal assistance programs. Policy 3.1.4.7: The City will aid in the identification of historically significant housing and structures. Public Facilities Element The Public Facilities Element of the Proposed Plan provides the following level of service standards for drainage: design storm event--five year frequency/24-hour duration event; on-site stormwater management--retention of first one inch of rainfall runoff or, with respect to drainage areas under 100 acres with under 80% impervious surface, retention of first one-half inch of runoff; stormwater quantity--no greater than pre-development stormwater runoff flow rates, quantities, peaks, and velocities; and stormwater quality--no degradation of existing water quality condition in receiving water bodies. The Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element of the Proposed Plan contains seven objectives. Three of the objectives focus upon floodplains and wetlands: Objective 4.3.5: To reduce existing flooding problems and to prevent additional flooding problems from being created as a result of future development. Objective 4.3.6: To ensure the protection and preservation of existing wetlands as viable components of the City's surface water management systems, to include the establish- ment or maintenance of desirable hydroperiods, water quality conditions, and natural ecosystems. Objective 4.3.7: To ensure that proper and adequate surface water management facilities are provided in response to identified needs. Several policies under Objectives 4.3.5, 4.3.6, and 4.3.7 describe the data still needed by the City to determine its drainage needs and the means by which Cocoa intends to attain the overall goals of the subelement: Policy 4.3.2.5: Efforts will be undertaken to eliminate existing points of direct stormwater discharge into receiving surface waterbodies, where possible, based on the following procedure: engineering studies will be initiated for the purpose of identifying the comparative nonpoint pollution impacts of each direct discharge point, and determining relative priorities for corrective actions (or "retrofit" projects) to be undertaken, based on the extent of-- --adverse impacts on entire receiving waterbody --system retrofitting required to eliminate or minimize the adverse impacts --projected benefits to be accomplished --overall implementation feasibility facility design studies will be initiated for those direct discharge points determined to have the highest priority. The estimated costs of individual corrective action projects will be included as components of the Capital Improvements Program. Policy 4.3.5.2: Drainage needs assessment investigations will be initiated for areas within the City which have been identified as experiencing flooding problems, for the purpose of identifying actions necessary to alleviate the problems. Policy 4.3.5.3: Based on the findings of the drainage needs assessment investigations, engineering studies will be initiated to develop solutions to the identified flooding problems, with the cost estimates being included in the Capital Improvements Program. Policy 4.3.6.1: Public infrastructure improvements that encourage the development of wetlands will be avoided except in the case of overriding public interest, with appropriate measures being taken to discourage development in affected wetland areas. Policy 4.3.6.2: The City will review its land development and zoning ordinances, regulations and standards with the intent being to remove any requirements which might encourage develop- ment in wetland areas. Policies 4.3.7.1 and 4.3.7.2 promise an inventory of Cocoa's surface water management system followed by an engineering study of the system components to identify the extent of excess or deficient surface water flow or storage capacity. The final policy in this subelement states: Policy 4.3.7.9: Flood control for new develop- ment will be accomplished through the limita- tion of fill in the 100-year floodplain. In cases where there are no alternatives to fill in the floodplain, compensatory storage for such fill will be provided through excavation in adjacent upland areas (above the 100-year floodplain) of a volume equivalent to the loss of storage within the 100-year floodplain resulting from the placement of fill, where such compensatory storage can be accomplished in an environmentally sound and economically feasible manner. Coastal Management Element The Coastal Management Element of the Proposed Plan does not refer to coastal wetlands or historic resources. It does not contain any analysis of the effects on estuarine water quality of existing drainage systems and nonpoint source pollution such as that carried by stormwater runoff. Conservation Element The Conservation Element of the Proposed Plan contains nine subelements. Several of these subelements contain objectives or policies addressing wetlands, floodplains, and stormwater drainage. The Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Subelement of the Conservation Element provides: Policy 6.4.2: Areas of natural habitat within the 100 year floodplain shall be given priority consideration in the identification of lands which address passive recreational demand and open space objectives. Policy 6.4.3: In order to reduce the adverse consequences of floodplain development and simultaneously encourage the conservation of natural habitat, the City's Flood Damage Prevention ordinance shall be amended to discourage construction in the floodplain by requiring the provision of compensatory storage for fill placed within the floodplain. Policy 6.4.7: The City shall not approve any development which would significantly and adversely alter the ecological functions of freshwater wetlands or deepwater habitat. Ecological functions include: (a) provision of wildlife and fisheries habitat; (b) main- tenance of in-stream flows and lake levels during periods of high and/or low rainfall; (c) erosion control; and (d) water quality enhancement. The Fisheries and Estuarine Habitat Subelement of the Conservation Element provides: Objective 6.5: The City shall protect the ecological well being of the Indian River Lagoon from adverse activities or impacts, so as to maintain or enhance the abundance and diversity of estuarine habitat and species. Policy 6.5.2: The city shall establish site design standards and regulations for the control of stormwater runoff to insure the adequate treatment of stormwater from all new development or redevelopment prior to its discharge to surface waters. Policy 6.5.3: The City shall take steps to identify means for reducing the volume of untreated stormwater discharged to surface waters, and shall develop a program to take corrective action, to the greatest extent feasible. The Water Quality Protection Subelement of the Conservation Element contains similar provisions with respect to the control of stormwater runoff and development of corrective programs. The Floodplain Management Subelement of the Conservation Element states: Objective 6.8: The City shall protect the flood storage and conveyance functions of the 100 year floodplain. Policy 6.8.1: In order to reduce the adverse consequences of floodplain development and simultaneously encourage the conservation of natural habitat, the City's Flood Damage Prevention ordinance shall be amended to discourage construction in the floodplain by requiring the provision of compensatory storage for fill placed within the floodplain. Policy 6.8.2: Developers shall be encouraged to incorporate those portions of sites which are within the 100 year floodplain as open space preservation. Policy 6.8.3: The City shall promote wetlands preservation and non-structural floodplain management by encouraging the use of isolated wetlands as detention areas, where such use is consistent with good engineering practice and does not significantly degrade the ecological value of wetlands. Pre-treatment of stormwater runoff by diversion of the "first flush" shall be required prior to discharge to wetland detention areas. Policy 6.8.4: The City shall encourage public and private agencies . . . in acquiring floodplains. Recreation and Open Space Element The Recreation and Open Space Element of the Proposed Plan provides: Goal 7.2: Ensure the conservation of open space areas in the City to provide aesthe- tically pleasing buffer areas, to serve as wildlife habitats, to act as groundwater recharge areas, to give definition to the urban area, and to enhance and promote natural resources. Policy 7.2.1.2: Designate conservation areas within the City as part of the future land use map in order to preserve open space and fulfill objectives discussed in this element and the Conservation Element. Capital Improvements Element The Capital Improvements Element of the Proposed Plan provides: Objective 9.1: The Capital Improvements Element will establish adopted levels of service for public facilities and capital improvement projects which the City will undertake. The Five-Year Schedule of Improvements will identify projects which a) meet existing deficiencies; b) provide repair or replacement of existing facilities; [and] c) accommodate desired future growth. Objective 9.2: All land use decisions which impact the Capital Improvements Element or Future Land Use Element will be coordinated by the City Manager, or his designee, in conjunction with the City's Planning and Zoning Board, and approved by City Council. Objective 9.3: Annual review of the Capital Improvements Element will be included in the City's budget process. As part of this review the Finance Department shall be responsible for: (1) addressing the fiscal impact of capital improvement projects on revenue and expenditures, and (2) updating the fiscal assessment section of the Capital Improvements Element. Objective 9.4: Public facility improvements that are needed to support new growth will maintain adopted levels of service. Improve- ments to public facilities which result from the impact of new development will require equitable cost participation by the developer. Policy 9.4.1: The City Manager shall initiate impact analysis of proposed development projects to determine the impact of the development on the City's fiscal operations and LOS [i.e., levels of service] for public facilities. Objective 9.5: The City will not approve development which requires public facility improvements that exceed the City's ability to provide these in accordance with the adopted LOS standards. Policy 9.5.1: Before a development is approved, the City Manager or his designee will determine that any needed public facility improvements do not exceed the City's funding capacity. Policy 9.5.2: Development approved prior to the adoption of this Plan which requires improvements to public facilities will be included in the Five-Year Schedule of Improvements with a funding priority designation. The Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements in the Proposed Plan includes only four projects: ongoing resurfacing and repair of roads, possible four-laning one specific road, expanding the wastewater treatment plant, and extensive, detailed work to the potable water system. I. Monitoring and Evaluation Provisions regarding Monitoring and Evaluation follow the goals, objectives, and policies in Volume II of the City of Cocoa--Comprehensive Plan. Concerning the public participation requirement, this section states in relevant part: In cases in which the proposed ordinance deals with more than five percent (5%) of the total land area of the municipality the council shall provide for public notice and hearings as follows: The council shall hold two (2) advertised public hearings on the proposed ordinance. Both hearings shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday and the first shall be held approxi- mately seven (7) days after the day that the first advertisement is published. The second hearing shall be held approximately two (2) weeks after the first hearing and shall be advertised approximately five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The day, time and place at which the second public hearing will be held shall be announced at the first public hearing. [This section is virtually identical to the language contained in Section 163.3184(15)(c), Florida Statutes.] [This section allows notice by mailing instead of advertising.] (Laws of Fla., Ch. 59-1186, Art. V, Section 9; Ord. No. 4-80, Section, [sic] 4-8-80) Proposed Plan: Background Analysis Future Land Use Element and Map The Future Land Use Element of the Background Analysis explains the purpose of the Future Land Use Map: The future location and distribution of land use are shown on the Future Land Use map. This map identifies appropriate types of land uses if all vacant land were to be utilized within the ten year planning horizon. Once the Future Land Use map is adopted, all development regulations in effect subsequent to its adoption must be consistent with it. Land development regulations in particular, shall rely on the map for their rational basis. (Future Land Use Element, Background Analysis, p. 1-3.) The Future Land Use Element of the Background Analysis states that the existing land use in Cocoa in 1987 includes about 389 acres of wetlands, or 8.6%, out of a total of 4520 acres. (Future Land Use Element, Background Analysis, Table 1-2.) Public Facilities Element The Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element of the Background Analysis describes Cocoa's drainage as flowing equally into two waterbodies: the Indian River Lagoon on the east and the St. Johns River on the west. Of the five main drainage areas within Cocoa, three are part of the Indian River Lagoon Watershed and two are part of the St. Johns River Watershed. The map of Drainage Areas/Facilities, which is part of the Drainage Subelement, depicts each of the five drainage areas. Drainage Area III is bounded on the east by the high relict dune line just east of U.S. Route 1, on the west by Clearlake Road, on the south by Dixon Boulevard, and on the north by a low ridgeline in the vicinity of Industrial Park Road. Drainage Area III encompasses the wetlands bisected by Michigan Avenue, just west of U.S. Route 1. These wetlands, which are about 3000 feet from the Indian River, are part of a series of linear marshes running north-south and representing the "major repository" of stormwater drainage from contributing portions of Drainage Area The Background Analysis reports that these marshes function effectively as a surface water management area. Although on the landward side of the dune line, Drainage Area III is within the Indian River Lagoon Watershed because excess water in the area reverse flows into the lagoon during periods of very wet weather. According to the map of Vegetative Cover and Wildlife in the Background Analysis, seagrasses cover either the southeastern portion of the open space/wetlands south of Michigan Avenue or the adjacent land designated as medium-density residential. Noting historical encroachment on these wetlands, the Background Analysis concludes that continued encroachment will reduce the size of the storage capacity and increase the likelihood of outflow into the Indian River Lagoon. Drainage Area IV includes the wetlands found between the north end of Range Road and the largest unincorporated enclave within the City. These wetlands, which drain into the St. Johns River, are the site of Little Mud Lake. According to the Water Quality Protection Subelement of the Background Analysis, Little Mud Lake is largely a willow marsh with little or no open water. What water remains is probably of poor quality. However, the Background Analysis observes that the lack of adequate water quality data for all waterbodies in the City is itself a problem. Drainage Area V includes the largest contiguous wetlands within the City, which is the area north and west of the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Range Road. This area, which drains into the St. Johns River, surrounds Big Mud Lake, whose water quality is probably in poor condition, according to the Background Analysis. The Drainage Subelement of the Background Analysis acknowledges that the surface drainage systems for Cocoa have not been comprehensively inventoried since June, 1968. However, Drainage Area III is known to contribute about 29% of the stormwater runoff-generated pollutant loadings from the City to the Indian River Lagoon in the vicinity of the City. Although the wetlands serve as natural treatment and storage units, "[t]he continued loss of wetland areas will result in a corresponding decline in the overall effectiveness of the remaining wetlands to remove pollutants." (Drainage Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 4-30.) By way of comparison, Drainage III loads the Indian River Lagoon in the vicinity of the City with more than double the poundage of suspended solids than does the Jerry Sellers wastewater treatment plant in Cocoa. As to Drainage Area V, the Drainage Subelement warns that the salutary effect of Big Mud Lake, which serves as a natural treatment unit for stormwater pollutants, will be lost once the lake reaches its assimilative capacity to absorb or fix incoming loads of pollutants. According to the Water Quality Subelement of the Background Analysis, Big Mud Lake is probably eutrophic and "reduction of stormwater pollution . . . is probably the only means to restore [it]." (Water Quality Protection Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-62.) The Drainage Subelement concludes, however, that the impact of stormwater runoff-generated loadings is not expected to increase significantly and may even be reduced due to stormwater treatment requirements and stormwater retrofitting projects. However, existing stormwater treatment facilities serve only about 5.5% of the land area within the City, which depends heavily upon existing natural treatment systems for the management and control of stormwater problems. The Drainage Subelement offers 13 recommendations. Four of the first five recommendations suggest an inventory of existing stormwater drainage systems, evaluation of the effectiveness of current strategies, and projection of the impact of future growth on flow volumes. The fourth recommendation reads: Efforts should be undertaken to ensure the protection and preservation of existing wetlands in Drainage Areas #3, 4 and 5, with a priority being placed on the wetlands in Drainage Area #3. Applicable actions include modifications to existing zoning classifica- tions and provisions, land development regu- lations, stormwater, runoff treatment requirements, and other regulatory measures, as well as the possible acquisition of conservation or drainage easements in the wetland areas. (Drainage Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 4-37 and 4-38.) The Floodplain Management Subelement of the Conservation Element of the Background Analysis defines floodplains as those areas that become inundated by water on a recurring basis. The 100 year floodplain is an area that stands a 1% chance in any year that it will be subject to such inundation. The subelement notes that the addition of fill in the floodplains may raise flood elevations to an extent that flooding results to structures previously thought to be outside the floodplain. According to the Floodplain Management Subelement, 745 acres or 16% of the area of the City is located within the 100 year floodplain. Only 66 acres or about 9% of these floodplains are currently developed. Wetlands occupy 120 acres or 16.1% of the 100 year floodplain in the City. In assessing the future needs of Cocoa with respect to floodplains, the Floodplain Management Subelement expressly assumes that the "areas currently supporting open water or wetlands are clearly safe from development." (Floodplain Management Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-72.) This subelement concerns itself with the "several adverse consequences" of the development of the remaining 510 acres of undeveloped wetland upland within the 100 year floodplain. The Background Analysis warns that development within the 100 year floodplain "would be dependent upon the proper functioning of all drainage systems needed to overcome soils limitations" or else less severe storm events might result in recurrent flooding. Id. The Floodplains Subelement concludes that adverse consequences, such as flooding existing homes, can best be avoided by "limiting any development which requires the placement of fill" and encouraging the use of nonwetland upland floodplains as open space. Again concerning itself exclusively with nonwetland uplands within the 100 year floodplain, the subelement recommends "minimal development, such as very low density single family homes," to avoid future infrastructure problems due to flooding existing structures. (Floodplain Management Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-73.) Recreation and Open Space Element The Recreation and Open Space Element of the Background Analysis acknowledges that lands designated as open space may include wetlands. Conservation Element The Fisheries and Estuarine Subelement of the Conservation Element describes the Indian River Lagoon as a tidal estuary, whose brackish waters are an important resource for commercial and recreational fishing. The subelement notes that considerable amounts of seagrass cover have been lost, presumably due to human-induced environmental changes. One of the causes of the loss of seagrasses, which are a crucial component in the ecological food web of the estuary, is the discharge of inadequately treated stormwater. The Fisheries and Estuarine Subelement concludes that the pollutant discharges, which include stormwater, must be "reversed" if the estuarine resources are to be "maintained." The subelement contains a recommendation that existing drainage systems be improved and projects feasible only through dredging and filling of wetlands be prohibited, except for projects of overriding public interest. (Fisheries and Estuarine Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-50.) Coastal Management Element The Coastal Resources Subelement of the Coastal Management Element of the Background Analysis defines the coastal area for the subelement as the entire City. (Coastal Resources Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 5-5.) The subelement reports that shellfish were once harvested commercially through the entire Indian River Lagoon. However, due to the effects of urban and agricultural development, shellfish harvesting in the lagoonal waters adjacent to Cocoa is either restricted or prohibited. The subelement notes that the manatee, which is the only endangered mammal regularly inhabiting the Indian River, suffers from the loss of seagrasses, upon which the manatee grazes. The Coastal Resources Subelement states that the Indian River Lagoon receives little tidal flushing due to its distance from Sebastian Inlet. Thus, whatever pollutants are discharged into the lagoon remain indefinitely. In general, the water quality of the lagoon, according to one source cited in the Background Analysis, ranges from fair to poor. According to another source cited in the Background Analysis, the water quality is poor. The subelement reports that, by November, 1988, Cocoa was projected to complete the expansion of the Jerry Sellers wastewater treatment plant, whose effluent flows into the lagoon. The expansion was to increase the capacity of the plant by 80% of its present capacity. (Coastal Resources Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 5-10.) The Coastal Resources Subelement discloses that the Indian River Lagoons Field Committee was commissioned in 1985 to assist in the preparation of an integrated management plan for the lagoon, which extends over 156 miles through five counties and 40 municipalities. One of the committee's general recommendations is that local governments should include in their comprehensive plans the committee's recommendations for floodplain and critical area protection. (Coastal Resources Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 5-34.) Objections, Recommendations, and Comments of DCA Findings of Other Agencies Upon receipt of the Proposed Plan and supporting documents, DCA distributed them to various state, regional, and local agencies for comment, as part of the intergovernmental review process mandated by Section 163.3184(4) and (5), Florida Statutes. The Act gives these agencies 45 days within which to send their comments to DCA, which has an additional 45 days within which to transmit its objections, recommendations, and comments (ORC) to the local government submitting the plan. In the present case, DCA received responses from the Divisions of State Lands and Resource Management of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR); Comprehensive Planning Division of Brevard County; Regional Planning Council; Bureau of Historic Preservation of the Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State (the Department of State); Planning Department of the St. Johns River Water Management District (the Water Management District); Bureaus of Air Quality, Wastewater Management and Grants, Groundwater Protection, and Waste Planning and Regulation and Sections of Coastal Management and Drinking Water of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER); Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; and District 5-- Division of Planning and Programming of the Department of Transportation. DNR commented upon Policy 1.1.C, which as noted above in Paragraph 28 above provides that the City will adopt land development regulations to protect the wetlands identified in the Conservation and Future Land Use Elements. DNR stated that the policy "needs to project a long-term land use program to insure the protection of natural resources." DNR objected that the Coastal Management Element "contains no goal or objective addressing the protection, conservation, or enhancement of remaining coastal wetlands, living marine resources, . . . wildlife habitat, or the maintenance or improvement of estuarine environmental quality." The Regional Planning Council reported that Objective 6.4 in the Conservation Element lacks policies addressing the need to protect upland habitat adjacent to regionally significant wetlands, as required by Policy 43.8 in the plan of the Regional Planning Council. In a letter signed by Secretary of State Jim Smith, the Department of State determined that the Proposed Plan was inconsistent with the historic preservation aspects of the state comprehensive plan and failed to meet the requirements of the Act "regarding the identification of known historical resources . . . and . . . establishment of policies, goals, and objectives for historic preservation." The Department of State stated that Objective 3.1.4 of the Housing Element, which is quoted in Paragraph 33 above, lacks a specific plan of action for achieving its stated goal of preserving housing designated as historically significant. The Department of State faulted the Coastal Management Element for its failure to mention historical structures or archaeological sites and the Future Land Use Element and Map for their omission of known historical resources. The Water Management District stated that the Proposed Plan is "deficient with respect to water-related goals, objectives and policies required by Chapter 9J-5." With respect to the Future Land Use Element, the Water Management District noted the absence of objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources and policies to provide for drainage and stormwater management. The Water Management District found several items missing from the Coastal Management Element. These items included an inventory of the effect of the future land uses on natural resources; objectives protecting coastal wetlands, resources, and habitats; objectives addressing estuarine environmental quality; policies limiting the impacts of development upon wetlands; and policies identifying techniques for the protection of the Indian River Lagoon. The Water Management District concluded that this element did not appear to follow the requirements of Chapter 9J-5 as closely as did the other elements of the Proposed Plan. The Water Management District also objected to the Conservation Element on the grounds that it lacked specificity for the protection of existing natural resources and time frames for the treatment of untreated stormwater discharges, fisheries, wildlife, and wildlife habitats. DER commented generally that the Proposed Plan "appears to have important weaknesses." Referring to the Future Land Use and Capital Improvements Elements, DER noted the need for a number of studies regarding drainage, but the absence of any funds allocated for this purpose. DER also commented generally that "much of the work that identified potential areas for conservation, such as mapping the areas subject to flooding and areas with poor soil suitability or wetlands, was not carefully incorporated into the Future Land Use Element." DER objected that the Future Land Use Element is not based upon analyses of the effect of development and redevelopment of flood-prone areas and the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land to determine its suitability for use. DER stated that the Future Land Use Element insufficiently analyzes the wetlands and floodplains identified elsewhere in the Proposed Plan. Findings of DCA General On August 5, 1988, DCA mailed to Cocoa the ORC, which contained 139 objections, the above-described objections and comments of the other state, regional, and local agencies, and general background information concerning the Act and the planning process. The ORC explains that objections relate to specific requirements of the Act or Chapter 9J-5. Each objection includes a recommendation of "one approach that might be taken" to address the objection. A comment is advisory in nature and does not form the basis of a determination of noncompliance. The ORC states that the City's public participation procedures are in violation of Rule 9J-5.004(2)(c) and (e). The objections states that the procedures lack provisions to assure that the public has opportunities to provide written comments and would receive responses to their comments. The ORC recommends that the City revise the procedures to include the necessary provisions. The ORC states that the format of the goals, objectives, and policies are in violation of Rules 9J-5.003(32), (57), and (64) and 9J-5.005(6). The objection states: Goals which do not state a long-term end towards which programs or activities are directed are not acceptable. Objectives which are not measurable, not supported by the data and analysis and are stated in an unspecific, tentative and/or conditional manner are unacceptable. Policies which are tentative or conditional, or do not describe the activities, programs and land development regulations which will implement the plan, are unacceptable. The accompanying recommendation adds: A goal must be written to state a long-term desired result [citation omitted]. Objectives must be written in a way that provides specific measurable intermediate ends that mark progress toward a goal [citation omitted]. A measure such as a quantity, percentage, etc. and a definite time period for its accomplishment should be included in the objectives. Policies answer the question of "how" by specifying the clearly defined actions (programs and activities) local governments will take to achieve each objective and ultimately the identified goal [citation omitted]. If desired, local governments may choose to assign the measurability to a policy . . .. [DCA] is primarily concerned that local governments provide the basis for assessing the effectiveness of their plan. When writing objectives and policies, avoid vague words and phrases (e.g., "adequate," "sufficient," "minimize," and "adverse impacts"), terms which nullify the strength of the statement (e.g., "consider" or "encourage"), or advisory words. "Should" implies an advisory statement which is inappropriate in an adopted portion of the plan. Using the term "shall" provides direction in implementing the plan and will make later evaluation and update of the plan an effective process. . . . The use of words like "ensure" and "encourage" leaves the what and how questions unanswered. [A]n objective cannot be phrased to "maintain or improve," one or the other actions might be set as an objective, but not both. Objectives and policies which are written using phrases such as "if needed," "whenever possible" and "where feasible and appropriate," or other vague words or phrases make the statements unacceptable because the conditional criteria making them specifically operational, have not been stated. 2. Future Land Use Element and Map Included in the background information accompanying the ORC is the following statement from DCA concerning the purpose of the future land use element: 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 all the comprehensive plan elements. Depicting the future land use patterns on the future land use map serves to (1) anticipate and resolve land use compatibility issues, and (2) provide the information necessary to determine the needed location and capacity of public facilities. (Major Issues--Local Government Comprehensive Planning, p. 3.) The ORC contains three objections and recommendations with respect to the data and four objections and recommendations with respect to the analysis contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Background Analysis. These objections cover the failure of both Existing Land Use Maps to depict natural and historic resources, which is in violation of Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a)6. and 11. The ORC contains seven objections and recommendations with respect to the goals, objectives, and policies under the Future Land Use Element of the Proposed Plan and three objections and a comment with respect to the Future Land Use Map. Two of the objections pertain to the two objectives of the Future Land Use Element. These objections, which are recited above in Paragraph 27, generally provide for the management of future growth through the implementation of unspecified land development regulations and require the direction of future development and redevelopment into appropriate areas as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. The ORC states that these objectives are unmeasurable and unsupported by the data and analysis in the Background Analysis, which is in violation of Rule 9J-5.005(3)(b). Another objection is that the Future Land Use Element of the Proposed Plan lacks objectives addressing the requirements set forth in the following rules: Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)1.-8. These rules require, among other things, the coordination of future land uses with the appropriate topography, soil, conditions, and availability of facilities and services; and the protection of natural and historic resources. DCA also objects in the ORC to Policy 1.1, which is recited at Paragraph 28 above and calls for land development regulations protecting wetlands and regulating areas subject to flooding, among other items. The ORC states that Policy 1.1 fails to satisfy the definition of a policy set forth in Rule 9J-5.003(64) because it fails to specify how the programs and implementation activities would be conducted. The ORC asserts that Policy 1.1 is unsupported by the necessary data and analysis, in violation of Rules 9J-5.005(1)(a)6. and 10., 9J-5.005(1)((b)3. and 4., and 9J-5.005(2)(a). The missing data and analysis include: the uses of conservation and undeveloped land; the presence on existing land use maps of wetlands and floodplains; and the availability of any facilities and services, as identified in the Drainage Subelement, to serve existing land uses. The ORC states that the Future Land Use Element lacks policies addressing the requirements set forth in Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)3. and 8. The former subsection requires a policy addressing implementation activities directed toward providing facilities and services to meet locally established level of service standards concurrent with the impacts of development. The latter subsection requires a policy addressing implementation activities directed toward identifying, designating, and protecting historically significant properties. As to the Future Land Use Map, the ORC identifies deficiencies similar to those cited regarding the Future Land Use Element with respect to a lack of support by the data and analysis. The deficiencies in the data and analysis include the failure to show all required land use categories, including conservation and historic resources, which are required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a); failure to show one land use category, the redevelopment area, that is described in the text; and omission of all required natural resources, such as floodplains and wetlands, which is in violation of Rule 9J-5.006(4)(b). Noting that the legend on the Future Land Use Map states that the map is intended as an adjunct to the Plan, DCA comments that the legend should reflect that the map will be adopted as part of the Plan. 3. Housing Element One of the objections to the data underlying the Housing Element in the Background Analysis is that they do not include an inventory of historically significant housing listed in the Florida Master Site File, housing designated as historically significant by a City ordinance, or the location of the single house that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. All of this information is required by Rule 9J-5.010(1)(g). The ORC contains an objection to Objective 3.1.4, which is set forth in Paragraph 33 above. The ORC states that this objective, which promises the preservation of historically significant property, is unmeasurable. 4. Public Facilities Element The ORC sets forth six objections to the data and analysis underlying the Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element of the Background Analysis. These objections point out the absence of data and analysis concerning the following items: the design capacity of the drainage facilities, which information is required by Rule 9J-5.011(1)(e)3.; the existing level of service standard provided by the drainage facilities, which information is required by Rule 9J-5.011(1)(e)5.; and the projected facility capacity, including surpluses and deficiencies, for the second increment of the planning period, which information is required by Rule 9J-5.011(1)(f)3. The ORC states that Objectives 4.3.5, 4.3.6, and 4.3.7 are unmeasurable and, as to Objectives 4.3.6 and 4.3.7, unspecific. These objectives, which are quoted in Paragraph 35 above, respectively deal with flood control, wetlands protection, and adequate surface water management facilities. The ORC is also critical of Policy 4.3.6.1, which is set forth in Paragraph 36 above and promises that the City will avoid infrastructure improvements that encourage wetlands development. DCA recommends that the Drainage Subelement show how the City will conduct the programs and implementing activities to avoid such infrastructure improvements. 5. Coastal Management Element Among the objections to the data underlying the Coastal Management Element of the Background Analysis is that the element lacks any inventory, analysis, or mapping of historic resources, which are required by Rule 9J- 5.012(2)(c). The ORC cites the failure of the Coastal Management Element to include policies addressing the requirements of Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1.-3., 8.-10., 13., and 14. These subsections require policies that, among other things, limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitat, and living marine resources; restore or enhance disturbed or degraded natural resources, including wetlands, estuaries, and drainage systems; regulate floodplains, stormwater management, and land use to reduce the risk of loss of human life and property as a result of natural hazards; protect historic resources by, among other things, identifying historic sites and establishing performance standards for the development and sensitive reuse of historic resources; and generally establish priorities for shoreline land uses. 6. Conservation Element The ORC contains an objection to Objective 6.5 of the Fisheries and Estuarine Habitat Subelement of the Conservation Element of the Proposed Plan. DCA finds this objective, which is cited in Paragraph 40 above and requires the protection of the Indian River Lagoon, to be unmeasurable and unspecific. The ORC states that the Conservation Element lacks policies to protect existing natural resources and designate environmentally sensitive lands for protection, which are required by Rule 9J-5.013(2)(c)7. and 9. 7. Capital Improvements Element The ORC notes one objection and recommendation to the data underlying the Capital Improvements Element of the Background Analysis. The objection states: Because data and analysis requirements were missing in the Drainage . . . Subelement, capital improvement needs cannot be adequately evaluated. Capital improvement needs for [this subelement] cannot be assumed to be nonexistent. The ORC states seven objections and recommendations to the analysis underlying the Capital Improvements Element of the Background Analysis. These objections generally concern a lack of information about costs and revenues. The ORC contains objections to Objectives 9.1, 9.2, and 9.7 as unmeasurable and, with respect to Objectives 9.2 and 9.7, unspecific. These objectives, which are quoted at Paragraph 44 above, deal generally with funding capital improvements required by level of service standards. The ORC cites the absence of an objective addressing the requirements of Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)5. This rule requires an objective showing the local government's ability to provide or require the provision of the needed improvements identified in the Plan's other elements. The rule also requires an objective showing the local government's ability to manage the land development process so that the public facility needs created by previously issued development orders do not exceed the ability of the local government to fund or require the funding of capital improvements. DCA also objects to numerous policies in the Capital Improvements Element on the grounds that they are not measurable. 8. Miscellaneous DCA objects in the ORC that the Proposed Plan lacks goals, objectives, and policies that further numerous policies of the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan of the Regional Planning Council. Review of ORC and Adoption of Plan Review of ORC Within a few days after receiving the ORC from DCA, Cocoa forwarded the relevant portions of the Proposed Plan to the consultants who had prepared them for the preparation of responses and revisions. On or about August 31, Cocoa received the responses and revisions from the consultants. As noted in Paragraph 46 above, the procedures in effect at this time were those contained in Ordinance No. 4-80. On August 23, 1988, the City Council postponed until its next meeting consideration of a new ordinance establishing procedures for adopting amendments to the Proposed Plan. On August 31, 1988, a 1 1/4" by 8 1/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on September 14, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose, among other things, of recommending to the City Council changes to the nine elements of the Proposed Plan. The advertisement stated that the City Council will consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board during its regularly scheduled meeting on September 27, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. The advertisement advised that the Plan documents, including the Future Land Use Map, were available for public inspection at the Community Improvement "Office." On September 1, 1988, a 6 1/2" by 10 1/2" display advertisement provided the same information as that contained in the advertisement published the prior day. The display advertisement stated: The City urges any citizen to review the Plan documents and submit written or oral comments at any time during the process. Such comments will be presented during the hearing along with response as appropriate. All citizens will be given the opportunity to review the documents, have legal notification, submit written or oral comments, and receive appropriate responses to items related to elements to be adopted by the City as the City's Comprehensive Plan. The display advertisement bore a large, boldface headline in block print, stating: "NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE." The advertisement contained a large map of the City. A 6 1/2" by 4" version of the same advertisement appeared elsewhere in the same edition of the newspaper. At the regular meeting of the City Council on September 13, 1988, Ms. Koons, on behalf of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn, complained about the limited opportunities for public participation, in part caused by the lack of current information available to the public. In response, the City Council announced the dates of September 27 and October 4, 5, or 6 for the adoption hearings for the Plan. Richard Amari, the City Attorney, reminded everyone that the Act gives local governments only 60 days following the issuance of the ORC within which to adopt the Plan. He said that Cocoa was not trying to bypass public participation, but had to comply with the law. At the September 13 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-31, which became effective the same date. The resolution provides in relevant part: Section 1. The City will advertise pursuant to Florida State Statutes and Department of Community Affairs Rule 9J-5. Section 2. The City will post notices of its public hearings in City Hall, Library and Police Department regarding consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 3. The City will provide in its ads encouragement for written and oral comments by the public which written comment will be made part of the public record. Section 4. The City Manager or his designee will assure that responses to written comments received during the process will be given either at the public hearings as appropriate or written responses may be given upon request. Section 5. The plan documents are available for public inspection at City Hall in Rooms 208 & 202, and the Cocoa Public Library during normal business hours. Section 6. This Resolution shall govern activities engaged in by the Planning and Zoning Board acting as the Local Planning Agency during its public hearing on September 14, 1988, and continued from time to time; and by the City Council at its Public Hearing on September 27 as may be continued from time to time. On September 14, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing concerning, among other items, the Plan. The scarcity of Plan documents, especially the Future Land Use Map, limited the amount of meaningful participation by members of the audience and, to a lesser extent, the Board. The Future Land Use Map is a color-coded document. A black and white photocopy of the map incompletely depicts the various land uses shown on the map. An ongoing problem through the planning process was that these color maps, which were prepared for the City by the Regional Planning Council, were not generally available to the public. However, during most if not all of the process, Ms. Lawandales maintained in the Community Improvement Department a large color map, which was generally current. Part of the problem was the City's inability or unwillingness to incur the cost and suffer the inconvenience of printing new maps every time that there was a change in the use assigned to a parcel. Such changes were frequent in the final weeks before adoption of the Plan. At the September 14 meeting, for instance, there was already a handwritten list of 20 numbered proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map. Item 10 of the proposed changes converts from open space to medium- density residential most of the southeast quarter of the open area located north of Michigan Avenue and west of U.S. Route 1, which is part of the linear marsh wetlands within Drainage Area III. The September 14 meeting was a scene of some confusion due to the above-described documents. One Board member moved that the public be given at least those documents that the Board had. The motion failed. In part due to time constraints and limited staff resources, the Board decided instead to copy for the public only the maps and revisions and responses to the goals, objectives, and policies. The meeting adjourned by a 4-2 vote before considering the Future Land Use Map. Two Board members remained after the meeting to share their Future Land Use Maps with the audience. A few days later, City staff persons compiled a large notebook with a complete set of documents related to the Plan and distributed these notebooks to the members of the City Council. These documents consisted of the goals, objectives, and policies of the Proposed Plan; the unrevised Background Analysis; the responses and revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies as a result of the ORC; the EAR; and possibly other documents. On September 18, 1988, a 10 1/2" by 6 1/2" display advertisement announced three workshops and two public hearings to be held by the City Council. The workshops were set for September 19 at 7:00 p.m., September 20 at 5:00 p.m., and September 22 at 6:30 p.m. The first workshop would cover the Public Facilities, "Transportation" (i.e., Traffic Circulation), and Capital Improvements Elements. The second workshop would cover the Coastal Management, Conservation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements. The third workshop would cover the Future Land Use, Housing, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. The advertisement stated: "The general purpose of the workshops is to receive public comments and review the Comprehensive Plan." Some local residents were aware of the three workshops at least one day prior to the publication of the advertisement. The same advertisement announced that the public hearings would take place on September 27, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. and October 4, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. The advertisement stated: The purpose of these hearings is to receive public comments and recommendations on a Comprehensive Plan, and to review and adopt an ordinance adopting the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the requirements of growth management and land development legislation adopted by the Florida Legislature in 1985 and 1986. On September 19, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council jointly conducted a workshop on the Public Facilities, Traffic Circulation, and Capital Improvements Elements. Mayor Robinson acknowledged the receipt of a petition of residents from two subdivisions in opposition to changes to their neighborhoods by the Plan. Mayor Robinson informed the audience that the Future Land Use Map would be discussed at the September 22 meeting. The format of the September 19 workshop, as well as the two other workshops, was that City staff would first address an issue, followed, in order, by City Council members, Planning and Zoning Board members, and lastly the audience. City staffpersons at the September 19 workshop identified a list of 38 recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. Item 10 from the September 14 list was renumbered as Item 7. Item 6 on the September 19 list encompasses what remained of the eastern half the open space north of Michigan Avenue. The recommendation is to designate this wetlands area commercial. The northern tip of the linear marsh wetlands area south of Michigan Avenue and west of U.S. Route 1 is proposed to be redesignated commercial in new Item 10. Item 11 proposes that the remainder of this open space/wetlands be redesignated medium- density residential. The recommended changes appearing at the September 19 workshop substantially eliminate the two other open space/wetlands, as well. Item 33 recommends low-density residential for most of the southern half of the open space/wetlands located between Range Road and the largest unincorporated enclave within the City. Item 34 recommends medium-density residential for most of the northern half of the same open space/wetlands. According to the Soils Map contained in the Background Analysis, the northern portion of Little Mud Lake is in the medium-density residential area and the southern portion of the lake is in the low-density residential area. After these two changes, about one quarter of the original open space/wetlands between Range Road and the unincorporated enclave retains the originally proposed designation as open space. The remaining open space is an L-shaped strip immediately adjacent to the unincorporated area within the City. According to the Existing Land Use Map in the Background Analysis, the portion of the L-shaped strip running north-south is devoted to recreational uses, such as a park. Items 37 and 38 recommend the complete elimination of the largest open space/wetlands, which is located north and west of the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Range Road and is within Drainage Area IV. Item 37 proposes that nearly all of this open space/wetlands, including Big Mud Lake, be redesignated low-density residential. Item 38 proposes that the western portion of this open space/wetlands be redesignated medium-density residential. On September 20, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council jointly conducted a workshop on the Coastal Management, Conservation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements. Discussion included the redesignation of the open space/wetlands in the vicinity of Michigan Avenue from open space to medium-density residential and commercial. At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council agreed to add another parcel to the list of recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. On September 22, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council jointly conducted a workshop on the Housing, Future Land Use, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. Ms. Koons, on behalf of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn, objected at this workshop to the Future Land Use Element, as well as other matters. Petitioner Houston herself spoke against the Future Land Use Map. A Future Land Use Map was present at this workshop. This map, reflecting the latest addition, showed 39 numbered areas marked in black. The numbers corresponded to the list of recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. The City Council authorized during the workshop the addition of two more proposed changes. The September 22 workshop marked the last involvement of the Planning and Zoning Board in the planning process. The Board never formally recommended the Plan and supporting documents to the City Council for adoption. However, by the end of the meeting, none of the Board members expressed any remaining objections to the Plan and supporting documents, and most if not all Board members had no serious objections to the Plan. A formal recommendation was therefore unnecessary. Adoption Hearings On September 23, 1988, a display advertisement nearly identical in size and content to that published on September 18 stated that the City Council would conduct public hearings on September 27, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. and October 4, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. on changes in the use of land within the City limits. A similar display advertisement on September 29, 1988, announced the October 4 public hearing. The City Council received a list of 41 proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map at the September 27 hearing and approved the addition of a another property, as well as unrelated revisions to the Wastewater Element. In a presentation to the City Council, Ms. Lawandales referred to a set of revisions to the Future Land Use Element. These revisions were not the same as those prepared by the Regional Planning Council. Ms. Lawandales referred in her presentation to a set of revisions that add only two short clauses to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element. At the October 4, 1988, public hearing, the City Council received written objections from Ms. Koons, on behalf of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn, in the form of an eight-page letter. Given the detail and scope of the letter and lack of time, the City Council and staff were justifiably unable to offer a response until after the hearing, which concluded with the adoption of the Plan. During the hearing, the City Council approved the addition of five more properties to the list of 42 recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. At the conclusion of the October 4 hearing, the City Council adopted the Plan by adopting Ordinance No. 20-88, which in relevant part provides: Whereas, after months of careful review and a public hearing the Planning and Zoning Board sitting as the Local Planning Agency has recommended adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan in substantially the form presented; and Whereas, the City Council has received objections, recommendations, and comments from the [Regional Planning Council, DCA], and various other agencies; and * * * Whereas, the City Council has made certain amendments in the proposed new Comprehensive Plan in light of [public comments], as well as the comments, recommendations, and objections of the [Regional Planning Council, DCA], and various other State agencies; * * * Now, therefore, be it enacted by the City Council of the City of Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida, that: Section 1. That Section 15-4 of the City Code of Cocoa is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-4 Adoption of Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan consists of the one (1) volume book entitled Comprehensive Plan--City of Cocoa, Volume II, April 1988, which Comprehensive Plan consists of (i) Goals, Objectives and Policies for nine (9) elements, including Future Land Use, Traffic Circulation, Housing, Public Facilities, Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and Open Space, Intergovernmental Coordination and Capital Improvements, (ii) Procedures of Monitoring and Evaluation, (iii) Requirements for Consistency of the Local Comprehensive Plan, and (iv) Population estimates and projections utilized as basis for the plan documents, plus the Evaluation and Appraisal Report dated April, 1988. Section 2. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference is the City's Comprehensive Plan as referenced in Section 1 of this Ordinance, which Comprehensive Plan is hereby adopted as the official comprehensive plan for and of the City. * * * Section 4. Ordinances and Resolutions in Conflict. All Ordinances or Resolutions or parts thereof that may be determined to be in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. The City's Comprehensive Plan approved with the adoption of Ordinance No. 11-80 of July 8, 1980, all as the same may have been amended from time to time, be and the same is hereby repealed. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. Adopted by the Council of the City of Cocoa, in regular meeting assembled, on the 4th day of October, 1988. The ordinance is signed by Mayor Robinson, whose signature is attested by the City Clerk. The review and adoption proceedings ended with the October 4 hearing. At no time during these proceedings did Petitioner David P. Hendry, Sr. or Loula P. Hendry submit oral or written objections to the Plan or Proposed Plan. On or about August 13, 1988, Petitioner David P. Hendry, Sr. sent a letter dated July 31, 1988, to Cocoa and numerous other state and local officials. In the letter, he objected to a marina project that was under consideration. However, these comments did not constitute objections to the Plan or Proposed Plan, of which Petitioners Hendry were unaware until after it had been adopted by the City and determined to be in compliance by DCA. The Contents of the Plan General Besides the goals, objectives, and policies, the Plan consists of the EAR (described in Paragraphs 157-169), Resolution No. 88-31 (described in Paragraph 115), population data (described in Paragraph 170), a section entitled "Consistency of the Local Plan with the State Comprehensive Plan" (described in Paragraph 171), and a section entitled "Monitoring and Evaluation (described in Paragraph 46). The Plan is also supported by the data and analysis contained in the Background Analysis, portions of which are described in Paragraphs 47-67 above. The City submitted revisions to the Background Analysis, portions of which are described in Paragraphs 172-180 below. Goals, Objectives, and Policies The goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan are those of the Proposed Plan, as revised by the City Council. The revisions are as follows: 47 changes to the Future Land Use Map, as identified in Austin Exhibit 10; numerous revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Proposed Plan, as identified in Austin Exhibit 10; two revisions to the proposed Future Land Use Element, as identified in Cocoa Exhibit 4; and revisions to the Solid Waste and "Sanitary Sewer" (i.e., Wastewater) Subelements of the Public Facilities Element, as identified in Cocoa Exhibit 4. There are no other revisions, additions or deletions affecting the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan. The revisions described in Paragraph 181 below were never adopted by the City and are not part of the Plan. Responses, which are set forth in Austin Exhibit 10, are explanations offered by the City in response to objections and recommendations of DCA; responses do not contain any goals, objectives, or policies. Future Land Use Element and Map One response concerning the Future Land Use Element explains that objections in the ORC to missing data have been satisfied by a revision of the underlying data and analysis. However, as to objections with respect to the failure of the Future Land Use Map to depict conservation and natural resources, the response is that "no . . . conservation or historic resource land use categories are applicable for the city." However, the revised analysis underlying the Future Land Use Element includes a map of the Cocoa Historic District. The response to the objection that the Future Land Use Map fails to show all required natural resources is: "Wetlands are not a designated future land use." The revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element include revised Objectives 1.1 and 1.2, which are set forth in their proposed form in Paragraph 27 above. These revisions require that the City accomplish the tasks described in the two objectives within one year of Plan submittal. The revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element contain four new objectives. Objectives 1.3 and 1.4 respectively deal with the elimination by the year 2000 of blight and existing land uses that are inconsistent with the Future Land Use "Plan." Objective 1.5 states that within one year of Plan submittal all development activities "will be consistent with and supportive of the Plan's objectives for protecting natural and historic resources." Objective 1.6 states that within one year of Plan submission land development regulations will provide for the availability of sufficient land area for the siting of public facilities. The revisions contain several new policies. New Policy 1.1.3 allows the City to issue development orders only if the necessary public facilities, operating at the adopted levels of service, are available concurrent with the impacts of the development. New Policy 1.5.1 states that the City will identify its historical resources and maintain an updated file of historically significant properties. New Policy 1.5.3 provides that the City will protect its cultural, historic, and archaeological resources by helping to educate the public of the value of such resources, considering the establishment of a historic district, and purchasing development rights to preserve historically significant properties. Revisions also clarify that open space/residential areas on the Future Land Use Map will be used for park, recreational, and ancillary uses, except as required for other public purposes. 2. Housing Element The City Council adopted several revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Housing Element. Objective 3.1.4, which in its original form is set forth in Paragraph 33 above, is revised to provide that the quality of existing homes and neighborhoods will, at a minimum, be maintained, rather than maintained or improved. Policy 3.1.4.7, which is also set forth in Paragraph 33, is revised to add that the City will perform an annual review of historically significant housing units in order, as previously provided, to aid in the identification of historically significant housing and structures. 3. Public Facilities Element Objectives 4.3.5, 4.3.6, and 4.3.7 are revised as follows with the new language underlined: Objective 4.3.5: To reduce existing flooding problems and to prevent additional flooding problems from being created as a result of future development through actions identified in needs assessments and engineering studies, with the actions being undertaken on a priority basis as determined in the engineering studies, with individual prioritized actions being initiated no later than one year following the completion of the engineering studies, consistent with the schedule of actions contained in the Comprehensive Improvements Plan [sic]. Objective 4.3.6: To ensure the protection and preservation of existing wetlands as viable components of the City's surface water management systems, to include the establishment or maintenance of desirable hydroperiods, water quality conditions, and natural ecosystems applicable ordinances (including design criteria and standards) will be submitted for adoption consideration no later than October 1, 1990, with final adoption within one year following the initial submittal. Objective 4.3.7: To ensure the proper and adequate surface water management facilities are provided in response to identified needs existing deficiencies and needs will be determined, cost and time requirements of corrective actions will be identified, and alternative sources of revenue will be evaluated, with the above information being compiled into a Surface Water Management Plan for the entire City and any external service areas by October 1, 1995. The revision of another objective reiterates the intention of the City to perform engineering studies in the future to gain information necessary to drainage planning: Objective 4.3.2: To protect, preserve or improve the quality of surface drainage waters being discharged from existing and future drainage systems in the City so that such discharges do not contribute to the degradation of water quality conditions in receiving waterbodies or prevent the improvement of degraded conditions, and promote the continuance or establishment of healthy, balanced natural environments through the implementation of ordinances, engineering studies, inspection programs, and coordinative actions with regulatory agencies, with such activities being initiated no later than October 1, 1992. Revisions to several policies show an increasing recognition of the need to plan for drainage and the role of wetlands in such a plan: Policy 4.3.2.6: Proposed development plans will be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that new development does not adversely impact surrounding properties by altering drainage patterns and water storage capabilities so that increased volumes of water are discharged onto the properties or that surface drainage flows from the properties are not impeded or retarded so as to create or contribute to flooding or diminished land usage, unless such lands have been purchased or designated by the City for surface water storage purposes. Policy 4.3.4.3: The City will actively participate in the preparation and implementa- tion of applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plans being undertaken by the [Water Management District] which will [replacing "would"] involve or include land areas in the City or waterbodies affected by drainage from the City. Policy 4.3.6.1: Public infrastructure improvements that encourage the development of wetlands will be avoided except in the case of overriding public interest, for the purpose of protecting and preserving wetland areas with appropriate measures such as ordinances and development standards being used [replacing "taken"] to control [replacing "discourage"] development in affected wetland areas. Policy 4.3.6.3: The City will review its existing land development design criteria, and revise if necessary, to provide for and encourage the incorporation of existing wetlands into land development plans for the use of "free services" offered by the natural areas provided that: --intrinsic natural wetland values, functions and hydroperiods are not adversely affected, --the wetland is maintained in its natural condition, and --the wetland is protected from future development. 4. Coastal Management Element The revisions add a new goal, objective, and policies that provide: Goal 5.3: The natural resources of the City's coastal area shall be preserved, protected or enhanced to provide the highest possible environmental quality for recreation and the propagation of fisheries and wildlife. Objective 5.3.1: The City shall protect, and restore where necessary, the following natural resources and environmental attributes within its control: air quality, endangered species and their habitat, native vegetation and wildlife, fisheries and estuarine habitat, water quality, and floodplains. New Policy 5.3.1.1 incorporates Objectives 6.1 and 6.2-6.9 and the policies thereunder. The revisions contain another new objective and policies under the new goal described above. Policy 5.3.2.3 states that the City will conform its plan and development criteria to the guidelines set forth in yet-to-be identified resource protection plans to the extent "legally permissible." Policy 5.3.2.4 states that the City shall notify the Resources Council of East Florida and the Indian River Aquatic Preserve of all proposed activities that the City Council considers will directly affect the coastal zone, including changes in stormwater discharge, vegetation removal, or dredge and fill operations. 5. Conservation Element Objective 6.5 of the Fisheries and Estuarine Habitat Subelement, which is quoted in its original form in Paragraph 40 above, is revised as follows: Objective 6.5: By 1993, the abundance and diversity of submerged aquatic vegetation and fish species found in the City's lakes, and in the Indian River within the zone between the Cocoa shoreline and the Intracoastal Waterway, shall be as great, or greater, than they were in 1988. The City cites eight policies under Objectives 6.4 and 6.8 in response to the objection that the Proposed Plan lacks policies addressing the protection of existing natural resources and designating for protection environmentally sensitive land. 6. Recreation and Open Space Element The revisions to the Recreation and Open Space Element contain a new objective concerning open space: Objective 7.2.1: Within one year of Plan submittal the land development regulations will include provisions for addressing the open space needs of the City. 7. Capital Improvements Element The revisions to the Capital Improvements Element include requirements that the City satisfy the requirements of Objectives 9.1 and 9.2, which are set forth in Paragraph 44 above, by 1989 and 1990, respectively. The City revised Objective 9.1 to require, by 1989, the incorporation of levels of service standards into land development regulations. Also, the City added the following language to Objective 9.5, which is quoted in its original form at Paragraph 44 above: "Public Facility needs created by development orders issued prior to Plan adoption will not exceed the ability of the City to fund or provide needed capital improvements." Evaluation and Appraisal Report The EAR, which is referenced in Paragraph 24 above, evaluates the success of an earlier, unrelated comprehensive plan previously adopted by the City. The EAR begins with an introductory section commenting about the area and problems facing the City. The introduction notes that the City has significant undeveloped lands, especially in the northwest section of Cocoa. A large part of these lands is the single open space/wetlands north of Michigan Avenue and west of Range Road. The EAR states: "Much of the land is not developable due to natural constraints; however, primary residential growth will occur in this area in the future." The introduction also recognizes that "drainage is still a major concern" due to the "extensive amount of new development and alteration of some natural drainage systems, as well as continued drainage problems from older development." Among the solutions noted in the introduction are the requirement of retention and detention areas in new developments. Concerning conservation and protection of the coastal zone, the introduction states: The City of Cocoa has continued to seek to protect the integrity of the flood hazard areas as significant development has not occurred in these areas as of this date. Maintaining these areas for natural functions, it will decrease the possibility of flooding and associated problems during heavy cycles of rain. This also adds to the water quality of the area. The major portion of the EAR is devoted to an evaluation of the success of the prior comprehensive plan. Several relevant portions of this self-assessment, which was updated on September 27, 1988, are set forth in the following paragraphs. Objective 2 under Open Space was to "develop flood plain controls which will allow for the protection of some open space around Cocoa's lakes and low areas in the event of development." The result: not accomplished. Objectives 2 and 3 under the Conservation/Coastal Element were to use the City's water retention ordinance to control surface drainage from new developments and continue to make needed drainage improvements. The results: the first objective was accomplished and the second objective was not accomplished as of April, 1988. However, as to the second objective, as of September 27, 1988, "a drainage improvement program has been initiated." Objective 3 under the Land and Vegetation Resources was to control the amount of filling that could occur in new development to ensure proper drainage in surrounding areas. The result: not accomplished in April, 1988, and partly accomplished by September 27, 1988. Objective 1 under Drainage was to develop a citywide Master Drainage Plan with priorities and cost estimates for drainage improvements needed in Cocoa. The result: not accomplished. Objective 3 under Drainage was to control activities in flood prone areas in an effort to prevent a detrimental impact on areawide drainage patterns. The result: not accomplished. Objective 4 was to encourage, as feasible, the use of natural filtration, detention, and retention to reduce runoff-associated drainage problems. The result: accomplished. Objective 11 under Intergovernmental Coordination was to adhere to statewide plans and programs designed to control nonpoint sources of water pollution and prevent alteration of areawide drainage patterns. Result: not accomplished. Miscellaneous The Plan includes the population history and estimates that had been provided with the transmittal of the Proposed Plan in April, 1988. This document is included in Cocoa Exhibit 4. The Plan includes the Consistency of the Local Comprehensive Plan with the State Comprehensive Plan that had been provided in April, 1988, at the end of the City of Cocoa--Comprehensive Plan, Volume II . This document is a cross-index between provisions of the Plan and the state comprehensive plan. Background Analysis In reply to objections and recommendations in the ORC pertaining to the Background Analysis, the City supplemented its data and analysis through revisions. Shortly after the Plan had been adopted and transmitted, the City sent to DCA the revisions to the data and analysis and responses to the objections and recommendations concerning data and analysis. Future Land Use Element and Map In response to the objection that the data omitted conservation uses and historic resources, the City states that there are "no conservation uses" and supplies a map depicting existing historic resources. Elaborating upon the historic resources, the City mentions a survey of historic structures that took place in November, 1987. The resulting list of 72 structures is depicted on a map, which is included in the response and entitled, "Cocoa Historic District." An inventory of the properties is included. In a narrative response to an objection to the absence of an analysis of the need for redevelopment, the City describes its earlier redevelopment efforts, which include the adoption of a redevelopment plan, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes. Noting the objectives of the redevelopment plan as to the elimination of slums and blighted conditions, the narrative concludes: "These goals should be retained and reiterated in the goals, objectives and policies section of the Comprehensive Plan." 2. Housing Element The revised Background Analysis contains a long narrative concerning housing. At the end, the City states that it should take "appropriate measures" to preserve and protect the Porcher House, which is the only structure in the City listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and maintain the quality of older neighborhoods in order to preserve other potentially significant property. 3. Drainage Subelement Responding to an objection that the data and analysis fail to include the capacity allocated to meet the City's drainage needs for the ten-year planning horizon, the City added the following language: However, information is not currently available for future allocation and usage during the ten-year planning period. The available information is insufficient to accurately determine the proportion of design capacities currently being used to handle runoff and groundwater flows in the drainage system components. 4. Capital Improvements Element Elaborating upon its earlier responses to the objections to the Drainage Subelement of the Background Analysis, the City states that "[t]here are no planned capital improvements for the drainage system." The City refers to attached materials in response to numerous objections to the omission from the analysis of future revenue and expenditures available for needed capital improvements. However, such material was not included with the revisions and responses. 5. Coastal Management Element The glossary added to the Background Analysis by the revisions reiterates the statement in the original Background Analysis, noted at Paragraph 65 above, that the coastal area for the Coastal Resources Subelement is the entire City. (The reference to "Rockledge" is a typographical error; the Regional Planning Council, which drafted the Background Analysis and revisions, was working at the same time on the Rockledge comprehensive plan.) (Responses to DCA Comments, p. 12-6.) 6. Miscellaneous In responding to objections to the data and analysis concerning the consistency of the Plan with the plan of the Regional Planning Council, the City cites a new Objective 6.3 with new Policies 6.3.1-6.3.5 and 6.4.9. These items, which generally deal with ensuring the persistence through 1998 of the 1990- level distribution and abundance of endangered and threatened species and their habitats in the City, were neither considered nor adopted by the City Council. Objective 6.3 and Policies 6.3.1-6.3.5 and 6.4.9 are therefore not part of the Plan. Determination of Compliance by DCA After receiving the Plan and supporting documents shortly after October 4, 1988, DCA analyzed the revisions and responses in light of the 139 objections and recommendations contained in the ORC. At the conclusion of the analysis, DCA found that 28 of the revisions and responses were inadequate. These findings are set forth in the Preliminary Findings on the Cocoa Comprehensive Plan, which is dated November 16, 1988. On November 26, 1988, DCA published, by way of a 10 1/2" by 6 1/2" advertisement, its Notice of Intent to Find the City of Cocoa Comprehensive Plan in Compliance. The advertisement complies with the statutory requirements. Ultimate Findings as to Public Participation The public participated in the comprehensive planning process to the fullest extent possible. The City Council adopted procedures to provide effective public participation, including notice to real property owners of all official action affecting the use of their property. Any deficiency in the procedures is immaterial. The Planning and Zoning Board duly discharged its responsibilities as the local planning agency under the Act. The City Council and Planning and Zoning Board amply advertised their many public hearings and provided reasonable opportunity for written comments and open discussion. Comments from the public appear to have received fair consideration. The City disseminated proposals and other information as broadly as possible, although certain materials were available at times only to staff and not the City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, or public. The City was confronted with a substantial task involving the identification, consideration, and resolution of complex technical and legal questions. The City prudently delegated much of the work to City staff and outside consultants. The Act generates severe time pressures, especially on the local government, which has only 60 days to digest the ORC and adopt a plan. Once the City received the ORC, about half of the 60 days was spent by the staff and outside consultants in drafting proposed revisions and responses. Neither City Council or the Planning and Zoning Board could realistically commence public meetings until the members had reviewed the work of the consultants and staff. Critical land use decisions such as those involved in the adoption of a comprehensive plan are politically sensitive. The land use decisions in this case generated considerable controversy in the community. Members of the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Board could not reasonably be expected to commence public meetings before they were aware of what revisions and responses were being proposed by their experts. The greatest shortcoming in the public participation process involved the ongoing proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map and the inability or unwillingness of the City to disseminate in a timely manner updated maps reflecting these proposed changes. Broader and more timely dissemination of the proposed changes would have facilitated more careful consideration of the effects of redesignating the uses of large parcels of land. However, the real target of the frustrations expressed with the public participation process is with the resulting land use decisions, not the process itself. Even in light of the shortcomings with respect to the revisions to the Future Land Use Map, the public participated in the process to the fullest extent possible under the circumstances described above. Ultimate Findings as to Consistency Drainage, Wetlands, and Floodplains Internal Consistency The Plan is internally inconsistent with respect to drainage, wetlands, and floodplains. These inconsistencies render the Plan inconsistent in the related matters of protecting the estuarine waters of the Indian River Lagoon; fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation habitat; and general water quality. In general, the inconsistencies result from the conflict between Plan provisions protecting wetlands, restricting floodplain development, and ensuring adequate drainage, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the elimination of nearly all of the existing open space/wetlands from, and the failure to depict wetlands as a natural resource on, the Future Land Use Map. Many Plan provisions assure the protection of wetlands, adequacy of drainage, and restriction of development in the floodplains, as well as the protection of the estuarine waters of the Indian River, various habitats, and general water quality. For instance, Policy 1.1.B protects the wetlands identified in the Conservation and Future Land Use Elements. Objective 1.5 requires that development activities will be consistent with and supportive of the Plan's objectives for protecting natural resources. Objective 4.3.6 promises ordinances to ensure the protection of wetlands. Policy 4.3.6.1 restricts public infrastructure funds that encourage the development of the wetlands. Goal 5.3 and Objective 5.3.1 provide for the protection and restoration of estuarine habitats and floodplains. Policy 6.4.7 prohibits any development that significantly and adversely alters the function of the wetlands. Objective 6.5 requires that the condition of the Indian River, in terms of its ability to support numbers and types of aquatic vegetation and fish, be maintained or improved between now and 1993. Policy 6.5.3 requires that the City take steps to reduce the volume of untreated stormwater. Objective 6.8 ensures the protection of the flood storage and conveyance capacities of the 100 year floodplain. However, the protection guaranteed wetlands, floodplains, and drainage is contradicted by the treatment of wetlands in The Future Land Use Map. The map is a critical component of the Plan. According to both Objective 1.2 and the Background Analysis, the Future Land Use Map will provide the rationale for all future land use decisions when the City implements the Plan with land development regulations. The Future Land Use Map is at least as important as goals, objectives, or policies in setting the course for future development and redevelopment in Cocoa. The Future Land Use Map subordinates all but a small section of the wetlands in the City to residential and commercial land uses. The City could have extended effective protection to the wetlands by reserving them a place in Cocoa's future. First, the City could have shown them as a natural resource on the Future Land Use Map. Second, the City could have shown them as a conservation land use on the Future Land Use Map. The failure to take these steps was not inadvertent. The ORC pointed out both of these omissions. In the Proposed Plan, the City chose to designate the wetlands as open space, which provided some protection. Even so, DCA objected to the omission of a conservation land use category from the Future Land Use Map, as required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a). The City's response: "No . . . conservation . . .land use categories are applicable for the city." DCA also objected to the failure to show on the Future Land Use Map all required natural resources, which include wetlands under Rule 9J-5.006(4)(b). The City's response, which betrays a failure to comprehend the difference between a land use category and a natural resource: "Wetlands are not a designated future land use." These "explanations" are hardly consistent with overall protection of the wetlands or, specifically, with such provisions as are contained in Policy 7.2.1.2, which provides that the City will "[d]esignate conservation areas . . . as part of the future land use map in order to preserve open space and fulfill . . . [Conservation Element] objectives." As the Future Land Use Map presently stands, the City will soon adopt land development regulations consistent with the use of nearly all of its wetlands for low- and medium-density residential and commercial purposes. Following the adoption of these land development regulations, it will be too late to protect the wetlands as a system, which is how they function in providing drainage, habitat, and water filtration. Absent designation as a conservation area or open space, the wetlands can be preserved, at most, as isolated, poorly functioning remnants carved out of large-scale development plans. Wetlands are vital to the efforts of the City in the areas of drainage, flood control, and water quality. Two factors exacerbate the above- described inconsistencies in the Plan. First, the drainage system suffers from known deficiencies, and, at the same time, the City has failed to achieve certain significant objectives of its prior comprehensive plan with respect to drainage, flood control, and nonpoint sources of water pollution, such as stormwater runoff. Second, the data are inadequate concerning the City's drainage needs and capacity, as well as the precise role of the wetlands as to drainage and conservation. Although eliminating open space/wetlands as a land use category and declining to depict wetlands and floodplains as a natural resource, the City acknowledges several significant shortcomings in its drainage system and efforts to protect floodplains and wetlands. The City has failed to accomplish goals of earlier comprehensive plans to adopt a citywide Master Drainage Plan and obtain cost estimates for drainage improvements. It has even failed to adhere to statewide plans to control nonpoint sources of water pollution and prevent alteration of drainage patterns. A drainage improvement program, initiated between April and October, 1988, begins on an inauspicious note with the elimination of nearly all of the open space/wetlands from the Future Land Use Map. There are signs that the natural drainage system offered by local waterbodies and wetlands may be reaching or exceeding its capacity. There is clear evidence of at least isolated failures of vital parts of the natural drainage system. For example, Big Mud Lake has been exploited to its limit as a receptacle for untreated stormwater and is probably eutrophic. Suffering from untreated stormwater runoff, the Indian River has lost the vitality needed to maintain a harvestable shellfish population. The water quality of both of these waterbodies is not good. It is difficult to correlate Plan provisions protecting wetlands, ensuring adequate drainage, and preserving water quality with the nonrecognition of wetlands in the Future Land Use Map, especially in view of the City's admitted lack of knowledge concerning the needs and capacities of its drainage system. Besides repeated references in the Background Analysis to a lack of data concerning important aspects of the drainage system, the goals, objectives, and policies reflect the need for considerably more information in this area. For instance, Objectives 4.3.2 and 4.3.5 identify "needs assessments," "engineering studies," and "inspection programs" with respect to flooding and drainage that will be conducted in the future. Objective 4.3.7 ties in this work with the promise of the preparation of a surface water management plan, by October 1, 1995, to determine "existing deficiencies and needs," "cost and time requirements of corrective actions," and "sources of revenue." Policies 4.3.2.5, 4.3.5.2, 4.3.5.3, 4.3.7.1, and 4.3.7.2 also promise engineering studies to take place in the future in order to gather more information concerning drainage and the effect of stormwater on receiving waterbodies. The Background Analysis notes that no complete inventory of the drainage system has taken place for 20 years. The City requires these studies in order to determine what to do about a deficient drainage system for which no improvements are presently planned. Objective 4.3.7 acknowledges that the City has not included any improvements to its drainage or stormwater management systems for at least the initial five-year planning timeframe covered by the Plan. The Five Year Schedule of Improvements reflects no such expenditures, and the Background Analysis states that no such expenditures are planned for the next five years. As a result of the elimination of the open space/wetlands, many provisions concerning drainage and floodplain are no longer supported by the data and analysis in material respects. The data reveal the critical role of the wetlands and 100 year floodplain in the present performance of the drainage system. However, as noted above, the data also reveal that insufficient information is presently available upon which to justify the residential and commercial development of the wetlands, especially in the face of ongoing development in the 100 year floodplain. The broad promises of adequate drainage, floodplain protection, and maintenance or enhancement of the estuarine waters of the Indian River are inconsistent with the elimination of nearly all of the open space/wetlands from the Future Land Use Map and even the presence of significant development of wetlands and vacant floodplains. Under the circumstances, the Plan is internally inconsistent in its treatment of wetlands, drainage, and floodplains and, as a result of these inconsistencies, in its treatment of estuarine waters, the above-described habitats, and general water quality. The elimination from the Future Land Use Map of the open spaces hosting nearly all of the wetlands, coupled with the refusal to designate the wetlands and floodplains as natural resources on the map, are not merely inconsistent but mutually exclusive with Plan provisions protecting the above-named resources and ensuring adequate drainage. These Plan provisions lack support by the data and analysis contained in the Background Analysis. Under these conditions and in view of the failure of the City to allocate funds for improvements in the drainage system, including stormwater runoff, the Plan also lacks economic feasibility with respect to drainage and stormwater treatment. 2. Consistency with the Regional Plan Several "issues" identified in the plan of the Regional Planning Council are devoted to wetlands, drainage, and floodplains. Each of these issues contains a goal, background summary, and policies. Issue 38 of the regional plan deals with the protection of water resources. After acknowledging that stormwater runoff may be the largest surface water quality problem facing the region, Policies 38.3 and 38.5 urge local governments to divert the "first flush" of stormwater to retention facilities. The policies recommend that the local governments employ the most efficient and cost-effective pollutant control techniques available and wet detention facilities, including isolated wetlands. The goal of Issue 39 is to reduce dependence on structural means of floodplain management and optimize maintenance of water-dependent natural systems. The regional plan states that wetlands assimilate nutrients and trap sediment from stormwater, as well as physically retard the movement of surface water. Policy 39.7 advises that "[n]atural, isolated wetlands should be incorporated in surface water management systems as detention facilities, where . . . practical and appropriate, as an alternative to filling or excavating such wetlands." Policy 39.8 adds: "Floodplains which are relatively undisturbed should be protected and preserved " The goal of Issue 40 is the protection and preservation of the region's coastal areas. The regional plan defines the "coastal zone" as "within the watersheds of coastal estuaries," including the Indian River. The background summary recognizes the adverse effects of stormwater runoff on the Indian River, which is one of two major estuaries draining the region's coastal zone. These effects include the introduction of fresh water, which kills sensitive aquatic organisms like clams and oysters, and heavy metals and other pollutants. Policy 40.1 states in part: Proposed activities which would destroy or degrade the function of coastal wetlands . . . should not be permitted except where such activities are clearly in the public interest and there is no practical alternative which reduces or avoids impacts to wetlands. The redesignation of the four open spaces and the elimination of wetlands as a future land use is inconsistent with Policy 40.1. The use of the advisory word "should" in Policies 38.3, 38.5, 39.7, and 39.8 militates against a finding of inconsistency based upon a small number of specific provisions containing little more than recommendations. On balance, the Plan is not inconsistent with the policies of the regional plan. 3. Consistency with the State Plan Under the category of water resources, the state plan includes the following policies at Section 187.201(8)(b), Florida Statutes: 2. Identify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentive for their conservation. 4. Protect and use natural water systems in lieu of structural alternatives and restore modified systems. 8. 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. 10. Protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity in the state. 12. Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated . . . stormwater runoff into the waters of the state. Under the category of natural systems and recreational lands, the state plan includes the following policies at Section 187.201(10)(b), Florida Statutes: Conserve . . . wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife to maintain their environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values. 7. Protect and restore the ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic, and recreational value. The above-cited policies are clear and specific. On balance, the Plan's treatment of wetlands, drainage, and floodplains, as well as estuarine waters, fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation habitats, and water quality, is inconsistent with the above-described policies of the state plan. On balance, the Plan is incompatible with and fails to further the state plan. The Plan is therefore inconsistent with the state plan. Historic Resources Internal Consistency The Plan is internally consistent with respect to historic resources. No material inconsistency exists with respect to the identification and protection afforded historic resources by the Plan. All relevant provisions of the Plan are oriented toward the protection of historic resources. Objective 3.1.4 promises the protection and preservation of historically significant housing. Policy 3.1.4.7 states that the City will identify historically significant housing and structures annually. Policy 1.5.3 provides that the City will protect historic resources by the education of the public, consideration of the establishment of an historic district, and purchase of development rights. Objective 1.5 states that in one year all development must be consistent with the Plan's objectives for the protection of historic resources. The above-described objectives and policies are supported by the data and analysis. As revised, the Background Analysis contains a map entitled the Cocoa historic district and an inventory of the 72 properties depicted on the map. Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a)10., Florida Administrative Code, requires the inclusion in the Future Land Use Map of historically significant properties meriting protection and the boundaries of any historic district. In the responses to the ORC, the City states that "no . . . historic resource land use categories are applicable for the city." There is some conflict between the acknowledgement of an historic district and claim that no historic resource land use categories are applicable for the city. However, on balance, the inconsistency is immaterial. Unlike the situation with respect to wetlands, drainage, and floodplains, the Plan provisions protecting historic resources can be carried out without the designation of an historic district on the Future Land Use Map. 2. Consistency with the Regional Plan Two "issues" of the plan of the Regional Planning Council are devoted to historic resources. Issue 61 concerns access to cultural and historical resources. Issue 62 concerns the development of cultural and historical programs. Policy 61.1 states that historical resources "shall" be properly identified and evaluated and "should" be protected and preserved. Policy 61.3 states that local governments should adhere to the requirements of the Act regarding the inclusion of known historically sensitive resources in existing and future land use maps and the treatment of historical resources in the coastal management element, where applicable. Policy 61.5 provides that the local government "shall," "to the maximum practical extent," avoid or reduce adverse impacts of adjacent land uses on historical sites listed or eligible for listing on the Florida Master Site File or National Register of Historic Places. Policy 62.5 states that historic resources listed or eligible for listing on the Florida Master Site File or National Register of Historic Places "shall be taken into consideration" in all capital improvement projects. The Plan could have gone farther to promote the preservation of historic resources, especially from the adverse impact of nearby development and redevelopment. The most obvious way in which to achieve this goal would be through the designation of an historic land use category. However, on balance, the Plan is not inconsistent with the policies of the regional plan. 3. Consistency with the State Plan Under the category of cultural and historical resources, the state plan includes the following policies under Section 187.201(19)(b), Florida Statutes: 3. Ensure the identification, evaluation, and protection of archaeological folk heritage and historic resources properties of the state's diverse ethnic population. Encourage the rehabilitation and sensitive, adaptive use of historic properties through technical assistance and economic incentive programs. Ensure that historic resources are taken into consideration in the planning of all capital programs and projects at all level of government and that such programs and projects are carried out in a manner which recognizes the preservation of historic resources. The Plan's treatment of historic resources is consistent with the above-described policies of the state plan. Redevelopment Plan The omission of the redevelopment plan earlier adopted by the City, the failure to describe in the Plan redevelopment programs, activities, and land development regulations, and the exclusion from the Coastal Management Element of a redevelopment component did not render the Plan inconsistent internally or with the regional or state plans.
Conclusions Jurisdiction 86 Standing 88 The Act 91 Public Participation 91 Elements Required of All Plans 94 General 94 Future Land Use Element and Map 96 Public Facilities Element 97 Conservation Element 99 Housing Element 100 Capital Improvements Element 100 Coastal Management Element 101 Miscellaneous Elements 104 Determination of Noncompliance 105 General 105 Wetlands, Drainage, and Floodplains 106 Historic Resources 108 Remedial Action 108 RECOMMENDATION 108
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Community Affairs determine that the Plan is not in compliance and, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes, submit this Recommended Order to the Administration Commission for entry of an appropriate final order. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 1989. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-6338GM AND 89-0291GM Treatment Accorded the Proposed Findings of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn 1-16 Adopted. 17 Adopted in substance. However, Ms. Lawandales maintained in her office a color-coded map through much, if not all, of the planning process. 18-19 Rejected as subordinate. 20-21 Adopted. Rejected to the extent that the finding suggests that the Planning and Zoning Board did not intend that the City Council adopt the Plan. Although the Planning and Zoning Board did not formally recommend adoption by the City Council, the Board intended that the City Council adopt the Plan. Adopted. Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. First four sentences adopted or adopted in substance. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. 26-27 Adopted in substance. 28-30 Rejected as subordinate. 31-33 Adopted in substance. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in substance. 38-40 Rejected as irrelevant. 41 Rejected as subordinate. 42-43 Adopted. 44-46 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted. Adopted in substance. 49-51 Rejected as irrelevant. 52 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 53-54 Rejected as recitation of testimony. 55 Adopted. 56-58 Rejected as irrelevant, except that the proposed finding that DCA found the Plan to be in compliance after using a balancing test is adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 61-62 Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. 65-66 Rejected as irrelevant. 67-69 and 71 Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not finding of fact. 72-83 Rejected as irrelevant and against the greater weight of the evidence. 84-86 Rejected as irrelevant. Specific objectives and policies are insufficiently specific and, in certain respects, various Plan provisions represent nothing more than an intent to plan at a later date. However, such deficiencies must be evaluated in the context of all of the provisions of the entire Plan. After doing so, the only places at which the lack of specificity and deferral of planning are generate unlawful inconsistencies have been described in the recommended order. 87-91 Adopted or adopted in substance except that last sentence of Paragraph 91 is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 92-93 Rejected as irrelevant. 94 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 95-98 Rejected as irrelevant. 99 and 111 Rejected as recitation of evidence. 100-110 and 112 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence. 113 Rejected as not finding of fact as to the expertise of the witness. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence as to the inconsistency in the Plan's treatment of historic resources. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioners Hendry There are no rulings on the proposed findings of Petitioners Hendry due to the fact that it has been determined that they lack standing. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of DCA 1-4 Adopted. 5-18 Rejected as legal argument. 19-40 Adopted. 41 Rejected as irrelevant. 42-56 Adopted. 57 First sentence rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence adopted. 58-69 Adopted. 70 Adopted in substance. 71-72 Adopted. 73 First sentence adopted. Second sentence rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 74-75 Adopted in substance. Adopted. Rejected as legal argument. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Cocoa I-IV Adopted or adopted in substance. Adopted except that Paragraphs B and C are rejected as legal argument. Adopted except that Paragraphs B.5, B.7, B.13, and B.14 are rejected as irrelevant and Paragraph B.8.f is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Adopted or adopted in substance except that Paragraph G is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Judith E. Koons Attorney at Law Central Florida Legal Services, Inc. 1149 Lake Drive, Suite 201 Cocoa, FL 32922 David P. Hendry, pro se 17 Riverside Drive, #2 Cocoa, FL 32922 David J. Russ, Senior Attorney Rhoda P. Glasco, Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Bradly Roger Bettin Amari, Theriac, Roberts & Runyons 96 Willard Street, Suite 302 Cocoa, FL 32922 Thomas G. Pelham Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Laurence Keesey General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDERS ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION OMEGA AUSTIN, BEATRICE HOUSTON, and MARY DORN, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 89-31 DOAH CASE NO. 88-6338GM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS and CITY OF COCOA, Respondents. / DAVID P. HENDRY, SR. and LOULA P. HENDRY, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 89-31 DOAH CASE NO. 88-0291GM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS and CITY OF COCOA, Respondents. /
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.
Findings Of Fact NOTICE In compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, notice of the hearing was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on October 2, 1992. A news release containing notice of the hearing was given to the media on September 21, 1992, and October 21, 1992. A copy of the public notice was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the chief executives of the local authority responsible for zoning and land use planning in Dade County, in compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the public notice was posted at the site in compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, notice was published on September 25, 1992, in the Miami Review, a newspaper of general circulation in Dade County, in compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. LAND USE AND ZONING CONPLIANCE The proposed expansion of Dade County's Resource Recovery Facility, as set forth in its Site Certification Application, will be within the confines of the certified site of the existing resource recovery facility. Hence, that existing site carries a presumption that its current use is consistent with land use considerations. The site of the proposed expansion is consistent with the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (Dade Master Plan) pursuant to the Growth Management Act of 1985. More particularly, the site has a land use designation of "Institutional and Public Facility" on the Future Land Use Plan Map of the Dade Master Plan. The "Institutional and Public Facility" designation permits the construction and operation of a resource recovery facility. Also, the proposed expansion of Dade County's Resource Recovery Facility is consistent with: Objective 5 and Policies 5-A and 5-B as set forth in the interpretive text to the Land Use Element of the Dade Master Plan; Objective 3 and Policies 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E and 3-F of the Conservation Element of the Dade Master Plan; and Policies 1-K and 4-B of the Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Elements of the Dade Master Plan. The existing site is presently within the GU interim district. Resolution R-569-75, which granted county approval for the existing site, satisfies the need to show compliance with the zoning ordinance. The proposed expansion of the Dade County Resource Recovery Facility is consistent with the zoning code found in Chapter 33 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County as well as Resolution R-569-75.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order determining that the site of the proposed Dade County expansion of its resource recovery facility is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMNENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4672EPP The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Applicant, Dade County Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2-4(1); 5(2); 6(4); and 7(5). Proposed finding of fact 1 is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross McVoy, Attorney at Law Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash & Block 215 South Monroe, Suite 804 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1859 Stanley B. Price, Attorney at Law Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash & Block 100 Southeast 2nd Street Suite 3600 Miami, Florida 33131-2130 Representing the Applicant Richard Donelan Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Representing DER Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Office of Siting Coordination Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Gail Fels Assistant County Attorney Metro Dade Center, Suite 2800 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 Representing Dade County Lucky T. Osho Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Representing DCA William H. Roberts Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Representing DOT Toni M. Leidy Attorney at Law South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Representing SFWMD Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Representing PSC M. B. Adelson IV Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS-35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing DNR James Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 630 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director Sam Goren, Attorney at Law South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Representing South Florida Regional Planning Council David M. DeMaio Attorney at Law One Costa del Sol Boulevard Miami, Florida 33178 Representing West Dade Federation of Homeowner Associations Honorable Lawton Chiles Honorable Jim Smith Governor Secretary of State State of Florida State of Florida The Capitol The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Honorable Tom Gallagher Attorney General Treasurer and Insurance State of Florida Commissioner The Capitol State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Honorable Gerald A. Lewis State of Florida Comptroller The Capitol State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the pleadings and evidence, including the stipulation by counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Marion County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. In this case, the County has adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan, which is the subject of the dispute. Petitioners, Henry and Betty Prominski, are residents of Marion County and own a 16.5 acre tract of land on the southeast bank of Lake Weir in the southeastern portion of the County. The property is more commonly known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Until April 1994, the land was classified in the urban expansion category, which allows up to four residential units per acre. The County adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. After the plan was determined by the DCA to be not in compliance, the County eventually adopted certain remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, one of which changed the land use designation on petitioners' property from urban expansion to urban reserve. Under the new classification, only one residential unit per ten acres is allowed. A cumulative notice of intent to find the plan and remedial amendments in compliance was issued by the DCA on May 30, 1994. During the foregoing process, petitioners timely submitted oral or written objections to the County concerning the plan amendment, and thus they are affected persons within the meaning of the law. On September 14, 1994, the County, through its Staff Vesting Committee, issued Vesting Order No. 94-14, which granted petitioners' application for vesting determination on Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Among other things, the order determined that "the applicant has vested rights to complete the development (known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision) without aggregation of lots providing the applicant continues development activity in good faith." In this regard, petitioners have represented that they intend to "continue development activity in good faith," and they do not intend to vacate their plat. They also recognize that their land is vested from the plan amendment. Despite the lack of any viable issues regarding the development of their property, for the sake of "principle" only, they still wish to contest the de facto reclassification of their property. The foregoing language in the Vesting Order means that petitioners have vested rights to complete the development of their land notwithstanding the change of land use designation from urban expansion to urban reserve. The parties also agree that the effect of the Vesting Order is to vest the property from the comprehensive plan and the restrictions of the urban reserve area. Therefore, within the narrow context of the petition, the thrust of which is that the plan amendment prevents the subdivision's development, the issues raised therein are no longer viable, and petitioners do not have a cognizable interest in the outcome of this proceeding. The controversy is accordingly deemed to be moot.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the petition in this case on the ground the issues raised therein are moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 21st day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry J. Prominski, Esquire Post Office Box 540 Weirsdale, Florida 32195-0540 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether the FLP is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact Background Miami Corporation, the applicant for the Volusia County Farmton Local Plan, owns two contiguous and sizable tracts of land in Brevard County and Volusia County. Together they comprise the company's Farmton property (the "Farmton Site"). The portion of the Farmton Site in Brevard County is approximately 11,000 acres. The portion in Volusia County is approximately 47,000 acres. Miami Corporation has owned the property since the 1920's. It began silviculture operations onsite in 1952. The Farmton Site continues today to be used mainly for silviculture. In 2003, Miami Corporation began exploring long-term options for alternative uses. One option was bulk sales of large lot tracts, such as 100-acre tracts, to developers to build homes on the lots. Another option was a comprehensive plan amendment applying "smart growth" principles. The company opted for the latter approach. The smart growth comprehensive plan amendment eventually pursued included the creation of a regional wildlife corridor that extends from the headwaters of the St. Johns River to the Ocala National Forest. Before filing the application for the Original Amendment, Miami Corporation organized meetings of private and public stakeholders to gain input. Representatives from Brevard and Volusia Counties, affected municipalities, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWCC"), St. Johns River Water Management District ("SJRWMD"), East Central Florida Regional Planning Council ("ECFRPC"), and conservation organizations participated. After the application of Miami Corporation was filed, the County convened a Peer Review Panel. Chaired by two former Department Secretaries, the panel included nine experts in planning and natural resources fields. The panel made various recommendations that were incorporated into the Farmton Local Plan. Specific recommendations included the creation of a Community Stewardship Organization to protect the most sensitive natural resources. Florida Audubon made additional recommendations to strengthen the conservation measures consistent with mechanisms that experience in other areas of the state had taught Audubon were necessary to achieve conservation measures protective of the area's natural resources that would be perpetual. Due to the scale of the proposed amendment, the County hired an outside transportation engineering firm to review the Farmton Local Plan. In addition, the local plan's natural resource mapping and policies were subjected to two other peer reviews convened by the ECFRPC and University of Florida GeoPlan Center. These reviews included the participation of resource agencies, conservation organizations, and scientists. The County worked closely with Miami Corporation in revising the substantive content of the Farmton Local Plan through over 30 iterations to incorporate recommendations from the peer review process, the Volusia County Growth Management Commission, various County divisions, local governments, state agencies, and conservation organizations. The Brevard County Portion of the Farmton Site The Brevard County portion of the Farmton Site is immediately adjacent to the Volusia County portion of the site. Brevard County adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan regarding the portion of the Farmton Site in Brevard County. The amendment allows urban development. The amendment was challenged followed by a settlement of the case through the adoption of a remedial amendment. Subsequent to the filing of Case No. 10-2419, the amendment and the remedial amendment to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan led to a determination that the Brevard Farmton amendments were in compliance. The amendment as remediated became effective with no further challenges. The effectiveness of the amendment to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan which allows urban-type development was one of several significant events that took place between the 2010 Hearing and the 2011 Hearing. Significant Events Following the filing of proposed recommended orders in Case No. 10-2419, the Department, the County, VGMC, and Miami Corporation moved that the case be placed in abeyance so that settlement discussion could take place. The motion was granted over the objections of the Petitioners in Case No. 10-2419. The settlement discussions led to the Remedial Amendments adopted by the County in April 2011. The Original Amendments and the Remedial Amendments (the "FLP") were determined by the Department to be in compliance. The "in compliance" determination was challenged in a petition filed at the Department on May 16, 2011, by the Petitioners in Case No. 11-2527. The petition was forwarded to DOAH and the case was consolidated with Case No. 10-2419. In the meantime, the Florida Legislature passed chapter 2011-39, Laws of Florida (the "New Law"). The New Law substantially amends chapter 163, including the definition of "in compliance" in section 163.3184(1)(b). It took effect on May 17, 2011, when it was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State's office. The New Law was determined to be fully applicable to the consolidated cases. Prior to the Brevard County amendments taking effect, the Department regarded the Volusia portion of the Farmton Site as isolated and removed from other urban areas. Once the Brevard County Comprehensive amendments allowing urban development were determined to be in compliance and became effective, the Volusia portion of the Farmton Site became adjacent to "an urban area that is its match to the south." Petitioners' Ex. 6, Deposition of Michael McDaniel, at 14. The effectiveness of the Brevard County plan amendments that place an urban area adjacent to the Volusia Farmton Site was significant to the Department in its determination in 2011 that the FLP is in compliance. The Volusia Farmton Site The FLP applies to 46,597 acres in southern Volusia County. The Volusia Farmton Site is rural and much of it is classified as wetlands. No services or public facilities currently exist on the site. It contains abundant habitat for both upland and wetland dependent species. Within the site there are several outparcels owned by other persons or entities on which low density residential development is allowed by the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. More significant to the issues in this proceeding, the Comprehensive Plan allows low density residential development on the remainder of the site as well. The site includes approximately 260 miles of dirt roads that are maintained by Miami Corporation. In good condition, the roads are acceptable for ordinary passenger cars. The Current Plan Prior to the adoption of the FLP by the Original Amendment, the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1990 had been updated twice through the Evaluation and Appraisal Process. The first update occurred in 1998 and the second in 2007. (The updated plan was referred to in hearing as the "Current Plan" and was admitted into evidence as Joint Ex. 1.) The intent of the updates "is to take into account changes to state law and to reflect changing conditions within the community." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 3 of 5. Chapters 1 through 18 of the Current Plan contain elements and sub-elements "which are the basic building blocks of the Plan." Id. There are eleven required elements, the first of which is the Future Land Use Element (the "FLUE"). FLUE Overview Section A. of Chapter 1 of the Current Plan entitled, "Overview," states the following: The Future Land Use Element . . . ensures that physical expansion of the urban areas are managed (1) at a rate to support projected population and economic growth; (2) in a contiguous pattern centered around existing urban areas; and (3) in locations which optimize efficiency in public service delivery and conservation of valuable natural resources. * * * [W]hile it reflects existing urban services capacities and constraints, it also establishes locations where future service improvements will follow. It also reflects and promotes . . . activity in the private land market. * * * New urban growth, predicated on appropriate population projections, environmental suitability, and fiscal feasibility will be encouraged adjacent to the major cities that have a full range of urban services or inside County service areas. County service areas may include undeveloped land inside or near existing unincorporated urban areas where the developer agrees to provide necessary urban services through private means. * * * Regarding public systems, the major assumption is that the area adjacent to existing public infrastructure will be the primary areas for future infrastructure extension. Expansion of existing facilities in a fiscally and environmentally appropriate manner will be the primary option. The intent of this concept is to maximize efficiency of urban services through compact development otherwise consistent with the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan. Planned developments include large scale, mixed-use, integrated, compact and distinct urban developments under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. * * * [A]reas that are outside the proposed development areas or contain environmentally sensitive features will receive special attention to ensure proper management of the County's natural resources. In order to further protect the County's natural resources and promote sustainability, the following will be included in the County mission statement: To balance development and the environment through innovative practices that lessen the impact of the development while preserving natural resources and improving the quality of life for present and future generations. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 1, pages 2-3 of 109 (emphasis added). Future Land Use Overlays and Designations Future land use overlays and designations are part of the adopted Future Land Use Policies. Id. at page 4 of 109. The entire Volusia Farmton Site is located within the Comprehensive Plan's overlay area of Natural Resources Management Area ("NRMA"). Approximately 11,000 acres of the site lie within the Environmental Core Overlay ("ECO"). There are three land uses on the Volusia Farmton Site under the Current Plan: Forestry Resources ("FR"), 22,294 acres (approximately); Environmental Systems Corridor ("ESC"), 22,344 acres (approximately); and Agricultural Resources ("AR"), 2,309 acres (approximately). Residential densities on the Farmton Site are different for the three land uses allowed on site but all are "low-density" and all have the same floor area ratio ("FAR"): 0.10. The AR land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per ten acres. The FR land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per twenty acres or one unit per five acres with clustering. The ESC land use allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 25 acres. The Current Plan would allow 4,692 residential units: 228 in AR; 706 in ESC; and 3,758 in FR. The land designated AR would allow 100,580 square feet of nonresidential development and the land designated FR would allow 719,637 square feet, for a total of 820,217 square feet of non-residential development. Types of Amendments The Current Plan allows four types of amendments: "Mandated," "Administrative," "Development," and "Small Scale." See Joint Ex. 1, 2010 Hearing, Tab 21, p. 5 of 7. The Farmton Local Plan is categorized as a "Development Amendment." A "Development Amendment" is defined by Chapter 21, Section (C)1.c. of the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan" or the "Comprehensive Plan") as: An Amendment which is initiated by the property owner(s) to change the Plan so that a particular development type or land use not otherwise consistent with the Plan, would become consistent following adoption of the amendment. Applicants may be private individuals or a public agency sponsoring an amendment subject to the Comprehensive Plan. Id. Local Plans The FLP is included in the Local Plan section of the Plan's Future Land Use Element. Local Plans in the Comprehensive Plan apply to specific geographic areas and provide a greater level of detail than the Plan in general. The Current Plan includes 13 other Local Plans. Once enacted, "the most detailed portion of the Volusia Comprehensive Plan," tr. 458, will be the FLP. The FLP The Original Amendment The Original Amendment includes one goal, eight related objectives and numerous policies under each of the eight objectives. The Amendment depicts on the Future Land Use Map two new future land use designations: "GreenKey" and "Sustainable Development Area" ("SDA"). The entire site is designated as either GreenKey or SDA. Objective FG 2 in the Amendment states: GreenKey and designated Resource Open Based Space shall be managed for natural resource protection and preservation of interconnected regional wildlife corridors, and conserved in perpetuity. "Resource Based Open Space" ("RBOS") is governed by Policy FG 2.4 of the Original Amendment: Resource Based Open Space. Resource Based Open Space shall be designed within Sustainable Development Area districts to protect and enhance environmental systems. Resource Based Open Space shall not include parcels identified for development (including, but not limited to individual yards), active open space, or civic open space. Resource Based Open Space lands may include areas set aside for ecological preservation, enhancement and restoration, nature trails, conservation education programs, observation decks and similar facilities including lakes used for detention and retention of surface water. Resources [sic] Based Open Space may include, flood plains, wetlands, mitigation areas, vegetative buffers, specialized habitat for flora or fauna, passive recreation areas, water resource development areas, and shall be designed during the development review process. All such lands shall be subject to a conservation management plan, as set forth in FG 2.10 and FG 2.11, and protected in perpetuity by conservation easements. At least 25% of each SDA district shall be Resource Based Open Space. Joint Ex. 7, 2010 Hearing, Tab D-2, pgs. 9 and 10 of 49. The SDAs are primarily altered pine plantation lands. They total approximately 15,000 acres. Within the 15,000 acres of SDA land "are four land use districts which define the uses, densities, and intensities planned for each district." Id. at p. 4 of 49. The four are the Gateway District, Work Place District, Town Center District, and the Villages District. Within GreenKey, the Farmton Local Plan allows the continuation of agricultural uses employing practices regarded as "Best Management Practices" and prohibits residential and nonresidential development. There are two areas in GreenKey with additional natural resource protection standards. They are the Deep Creek Conservation Area which will be conveyed to a Community Stewardship Organization and managed in a primarily natural state and the Southwest Wildlife Corridor which will be managed to maintain habitat for wildlife, particularly for the Florida Black Bear. The FLP includes two long-range planning horizons. The "initial planning horizon" is 2025; "[t]he second planning horizon . . . shall be from 2026 to 2060." Policy FG 1.1, 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, p. 7 of 49. Through 2025, residential and nonresidential development may only occur within the Gateway District, "a distinct geographic area of approximately 821 acres at the northern end of the Farmton Local Plan near SR 442 and I-95." 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, 4 of 49. The development in the Gateway District is limited to a maximum under any circumstances of 4,692 residential units and 820,217 square feet of nonresidential development. See Policies FG 1.1, 1.4. "However, in order to plan for school capacity, there shall be no more than 2,287 dwelling units [in the Gateway District] unless there is a finding of school adequacy issued by the school district." Policy FG 3.4. Through 2060, the Amendment allows a total of 23,100 residential units and 4.7 million square feet of nonresidential development, excluding educational facilities and other institutional uses, within the various SDAs. With the exception of the Gateway District, which is in phase one of development, Policy FG 3.10 requires the development and implementation of a program designed to ensure an adequate number of jobs per residential dwelling unit exists in the SDAs. In phase two and subsequent phases, the development order shall require milestones for achieving the jobs-to-housing ratio target. In the event that the jobs-to-housing ratio drops below 0.65, residential development approvals shall be suspended until a remedial plan can be developed and approved as set forth in an accompanying development order. Policy FG 3.10. Prior to the FLP, the site had been subdivided into approximately 1,700 vested lots pursuant to existing exempt subdivision policies in the Volusia Land Development Code. The Original Amendment extinguished the vested exempt subdivisions as of the effective date of Ordinance 2009-34. The Original Amendment requires all lands designated GreenKey to be placed either in a conservation easement or a conservation covenant. A conservation covenant "is similar to an easement" 2010 Hearing, tr. 1077, "except that its term shall run with the land for an initial term of ten years, which shall automatically be renewed every ten years thereafter so long as the maximum densities and intensities established in the Farmton Local Plan Objective 3 shall remain in effect . . . ." Policy FG 2.15. For example, "Density and Intensity" for the WorkPlace District is described in Policy FG 3.5: "The WorkPlace district shall have a minimum density of eight units per acre and a target density of 18 units per acre. The minimum floor area ratio (FAR) for the nonresidential uses shall be 0.3 FAR." Joint Ex. 7, p. 22 of 49. A covenant under the FLP is converted to a perpetual conservation easement as prescribed in Policy FG 2.15: "At such time as the Master Development of Regional Impact equivalent Master Plan as provided in Objective 8 is approved consistent with the densities and intensities as set forth in Objective 3 in effect [when the FLP is adopted] . . ., a perpetual easement shall be recorded within 60 days." Joint Ex. 7, p. 15 of 49. The FLP requires a minimum amount of land to be set aside for conservation purposes as RBOS. Policy FG 2.4, quoted above, requires that a minimum of 25 percent of SDA land be set aside as RBOS. The RBOS lands will be placed in conservation covenants or easements. Policy FG 2.5 b. requires that a Black Bear Management Plan be developed in consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission consistent with the Commission's Black Bear Habitat Management Guidelines and best available science. The Black Bear Management Plan applies to the Southwest Wildlife Corridor, part of which is on the site in Volusia County and part of which is in Brevard County. GreenKey and RBOS are subject to a mandatory conservation management plan ("CMP") to be funded by the landowner or its successors in interest. The CMP is to be developed by the owner through a task force appointed by the county within one year of the recording of the conservation easement. The CMP is to be "incorporated into the conservation covenants and easement and made enforceable." Policy FG 2.11, 2010 Hearing Joint Ex. 7, p. 12 of 49. Under the FLP, protected wetlands within the SDA will be afforded a wider buffer than was required under Plan prior to the FLP. Through the RBOS designation, additional lands will be preserved and protected by what is in essence a secondary buffer. Under Policy FG 3.2, the footprint of SDAs is "designed to shrink." Tr. 1078. The policy provides: "For the purposes of calculating residential density and . . . FAR within the SDA districts, the density and FAR provision provided in the policies of Objective 3 of this Local Plan shall be calculated based on net SDA Buildable Area. Net SDA Buildable Area shall equal the total SDA district reduced by the minimum 25 percent [RBOS] area and by the minimum 40 percent mandatory Civic Space. Civic Space includes streets, stormwater systems, parks, buffers, water, access easements and other public infrastructure. . . ." Joint Ex. 7, p. 19 of 49. Policy FG 1.6c requires the SDAs to contain RBOS "such that when combined with GreenKey lands more than 36,000 acres or 75 percent of the area with the Farmton Local Plan shall be preserved." Joint Ex. 7, p. 8 of 49. Based on the acreage in GreenKey, RBOS, and buffers required by FG Policy 2.19 for SDA boundaries, wetlands, trails and roads, Sharon Collins, a private biological consultant for Miami Corporation and the primary field biologist onsite, estimated that the minimum amount to be protected under the FLP is 39,265 acres, which equals 80 percent of the total acreage subject to the FLP. b. The Remedial Amendments The County Council of Volusia County's Ordinance 2011- 10 (the "2011 Ordinance") which adopts the Remedial Amendments describes their substance in three sections. See 2011 Joint Ex. 10, page 2 of 3. Section I of the 2011 Ordinance consists of text amendments to: "Chapter 1 Future Land Use Element, Farmton Local Plan, Policies FG 2.4, FG 2.56, FG 2.18, FG 4.14, FG 4.15, FG 4.18, FG 4.20, FG 4.21, FG 5.7, FG 5.8, FG 5.16, and FG 8.1 . . . ." Id. The language of the text amendments referred to in Section I is contained in Exhibit A to the 2011 Ordinance. Sections II and III of the 2011 Ordinance refer to amendments to maps and figures. In Section II, the "Farmton Local Plan-Future Land Use Map" is amended "to include new land use of Mandatory Resource Based Open Space and by expanding the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to include additional lands." Id. Section III adds the "Farmton Local Plan Spine Transportation Network" to the Comprehensive Plan "as a new Figure 2-10 to the transportation map series." Id. The lands under the new land use of Mandatory Resource Based Open Space ("MRBOS") count toward the calculation of the requirement that at least 25 percent of the SDAs taken as a whole be RBOS. The location of all of the RBOS lands have not been determined. They are not shown, therefore, on the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") series. The revised FLUM, however, delineates where the MRBOS lands are located. The MRBOS will be subject to a Black Bear Management Plan. Policy FG 2.5b sets forth that it is to be developed in consultation with the FFWCC consistent with its Black Bear Habitat Management Guidelines and best available science. The Parties Petitioners Petitioner Barbara Herrin is a resident and owner of real property in Volusia County. She submitted comments regarding the Original Amendment during the time period between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. She submitted comments about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. ECARD, one of two Petitioners in Case No. 10-2419 (with Ms. Herrin), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with a membership of approximately 60 members, of which at least 50 are residents of Volusia County. ECARD submitted comments about the Original Amendment during the period of time between the transmittal and final adoption hearings for Ordinance 2009-34. It provided oral comments through counsel at the adoption hearing for Ordinance 2011-10. Sierra Club, one of the two Petitioners in Case No. 11-2527, is a California not-for-profit corporation registered in Florida with approximately 90,000-100,000 members. It has unincorporated state and local chapters. The Florida Chapter has approximately 29,000-30,000 members and the local Volusia County Chapter has approximately 820 members. Three letters containing comments about the Remedial Amendment were submitted to the Volusia County Council by the "Volusia/Flagler Group of Sierra Club and the Northeast Florida Group of Sierra Club," tr. 27, and by the Sierra Club Florida at the public hearing on the Remedial Amendment held in April 2011. All three letters were presented on behalf of Sierra Club. In addition, "[t]he Sierra Club Florida presented comments [at] the same public hearing." Tr. 28. Sierra Club does not own land in Volusia County. It does not own or operate a business in Volusia County. "The Volusia/Flagler Group has [its] own bank account." Tr. 39. Sierra Club has general meetings "in the area" id., to which the public is invited. The Club conducts outings to parks and natural areas "in the area" id., and members appear in public hearings where they speak. Members engage in letter-writing and "various other civic activities." Id. b. Respondents Volusia County (the "County"), a political subdivision of the State, adopted the FLP. Miami Corporation is a Delaware corporation registered in the State of Florida. It is the owner of the property that is the subject of the FLP and was the applicant for the text and map amendments that make up the FLP. Through its representatives, Miami Corporation submitted comments to the County about the Original Amendment during the period of time beginning with its application and through the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. It submitted comments to the County about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. Volusia Growth Management Commission ("VGMC") is a dependent special district of the County created pursuant to Volusia County Charter Section 202.3. Its duties include the review of amendments to local comprehensive plans. VGMC submitted comments to the County about the Original Amendment during the period of time between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing. It submitted comments to the County about the Remedial Amendment at the adoption hearing. Suitability The Community Planning Act defines "suitability" as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." § 163.3164(45), Fla. Stat. "Compatibility" is defined as "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." § 163.3164(9), Fla. Stat. Future land use map amendments are required to be based upon several analyses. One of them is "[a]n analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site." § 163.3177(6)(a)8.b., Fla. Stat. The future land use plan element is required to include criteria to be used to ensure the protection of natural and historic resources and to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses. See § 163.3177(6)(a)3.f. and g., Fla. Stat. Suitability: Petitioners' Evidence Mr. Pelham, Secretary of the Department at the time the Original Amendment was found by the Department to be not in compliance, testified at the 2011 Hearing that the site of the FLP is not suitable for development of the magnitude and nature allowed by the FLP. Consistent with the definition of suitability, the testimony of Mr. Pelham addressed both land and water. Commencing with water, he described the property as "extremely wet [and] dominated by an extensive system of sloughs, marshes, creeks, [and] swamps . . . ." 2011 Hearing, tr. 249. The property is an important state and regional resource that contains a variety of important wildlife habitats. Much of the property and substantial parts of the SDAs are in the 100-year flood plain. The property is extremely significant to the area's watershed as an area of recharge and a "high aquifer vulnerability area." 2011 Hearing, tr. 249. Mr. Pelham drew support for his opinion on suitability from the Comprehensive Plan. The County finds in the Plan that the lands subject to the FLP consist of "large, relatively uninterrupted expanses of rich natural resource areas." Tr. 250. The County gave the lands the NRMA designation precisely because they should "be protected and maintained because they serve a variety of functions, water-related, habitat area, a source of water, the open space and rural character, . . . [all] very important to Volusia County " Id. Mr. McDaniel testified as to the official position of the Department in 2010: that the property is not suitable for the FLP. Mr. Pelham's testimony in the 2011 hearing echoes and amplifies Mr. McDaniel's testimony. Dr. Smith testified in both the 2010 Hearing and the 2011 Hearing that development at the scale and intensity of the FLP is not suitable for the site for the same reasons given by Mr. Pelham and Mr. McDaniel. Other Analysis of the Character of the Land The FLP is based on an ecological evaluation that uses GIS-based decision support models and is supported by field work of biologist Sharon Collins. The ecological evaluation was reviewed by scientists from state agencies, universities, and conservation organizations. Ms. Collins provided 15 years' worth of data collection and field work on the site. Her first field assessment of the entire site took place between 1995 and 1998, and included wetlands delineation, evaluations of vegetative communities, habitats, historic natural conditions, hydrology, and listed species. Ms. Collins began remapping and reevaluating toward an ecological evaluation in 2005. The efforts led to the issuance of a report prepared for Miami Corporation and submitted in November 2008. The report was revised in July 2009. It is entitled, "GreenKey Project, Ecological Evaluation Assessment Methods" (the "EEAM Report"). See 2011 Hearing, Joint Ex. 5, Tab 10. Section 1.3 of the EEAM Report, entitled "Resource Identification," describes Ms. Collins' collection of data she used to identify habitat on the site. Among the data sources are the "'Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida' (FNAI, 1990)," id. at 3, and the "Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) produced by the Florida Department of Transportation." Id. Other data used in support of the EEAM Report include soils surveys, historic aerial photographs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ("USFWS") and Florida Fish and Wildlife listed species databases, a SJRWMD GIS FLUCCS map and an "exhaustive list" which Ms. Collins detailed at hearing. See 2011 Hearing tr. 1314. After evaluation of the data, Ms. Collins conducted "ground-truthing" or work in the field. Armed with the FLUCCS Map and the infrared aerials, she "went out in the field and did a comprehensive field analysis . . . and ground-truthed what [she] saw in the field with the [data] . . . ." 2010 Hearing tr. 1309. In order to evaluate and rank the various habitats on site, Ms. Collins designed a methodology using seven metrics that target the protection of regionally significant landscapes. She then assigned "ecological value ratings" and groupings of the habitats based on value as described in Section 1.5 of the EEAM Report: The habitat values ranged from a score of 7 to 1, as shown below from highest to lowest value: Crane Swamp and Spruce Creek Swamp (A & B) Buck Lake and Buck Lake Marsh (C) Cow and Deep Creek (D) Large Sloughs--forested and herbaceous E & F) Scrub Uplands (H) Smaller Wetlands--forested and herbaceous (J & K) Salt March (G) Oak and Hardwood Hammocks (I) Natural Pine Flatwoods (L) Harvested Wetlands (O) Hydric Pine Plantation (M) Pine Plantation (N) To provide a simple yet comprehensively applicable natural resource rating that applies and transfers value to the Farmton landscape, the habitats were further reduced to four groups of comparable ecological value and function. Therefore, Habitats A-D were grouped as one, Habitats E&F another, Habitats G-L as one, and the silvicultural habitats--Habitats M-O--as the fourth group. * * * The habitat types with natural resource rating scores around 7.0 (6.93 to 7.0) include Crane/Spruce Creek Swamps, Buck Lake and Marshes, and Cow and Deep Creeks. They are classified as "Regionally Significant Conservation Habitat Areas." They are regionally situated, extending beyond the boundaries of Farmton. The habitat types with natural resource rating values of around 6.0 include the larger sloughs and swamps. They are classified a s "Significant Conservation Habitat Areas." They are generally greater than 100 acres in size, make up a significant portion of the Farmton landscape, provide an interconnected network of wetlands across the property, but remain mostly onsite. The habitat types with natural resource rating values that are midrange around 3 (2.7-3.7) include the scrub uplands, oak and hardwood forests, salt marshes, natural pine flatwoods, and the smaller swamps and sloughs that have been generally embedded within pine plantations onsite. They are classified as "Conservation Habitat Areas." The fourth habitat types are with natural resource rating values of less than 3, with a range from 21.4 to 1.0, include the silvicultural habitats of the hydric and upland plantations as well as the harvested wetlands. They are classified as "Silvicultural Habitat Areas." These habitats are located onsite and are managed for timber, with varying degrees of tree ages, tree densities and site preparation stages, and/or harvesting disturbances. Joint Ex. 5, Tab 10 at 7-8. The EEAM's rankings were used as a basis for the Farmton Plan's design. The most significant natural resources and environmentally sensitive lands according to the EEAM rankings were designated GreenKey to be subject to permanent conservation. Areas which were disturbed or the least environmentally sensitive lands were deemed more suitable for future development and designated as SDA. The FFWCC used its own data to review the Farmton Local Plan. It was the first comprehensive plan amendment (or project) reviewed under the Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project ("CLIP"). In the opinion of Dr. Walsh, a biological administrator with the FFWCC who supervises FFWCC land use consultations with external entities such as local governments and private land owners, the Farmton Local Plan is based on the best available science. In Dr. Walsh's opinion, the FLP provides for the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat and conserves and appropriately plans for protection of endangered and threatened wildlife. Land Use Protections The environmental evaluations are reflected in the FLP policies that require at least 67 percent of the site be designated as GreenKey and 75 percent or at least 36,000 acres of the site be preserved as GreenKey and RBOS. See Policies FG 1.3 and 1.6c, 2010 Hearing, Joint Ex. 7 at pages 7 and 8. Furthermore, Policy FG 2.6 states: As Sustainable Development Area districts are planned for future development, they shall employ Greenprinting decision support models to identify wetlands, flood plains, mitigation areas, vegetative buffers, specialized habitat for flora and fauna, and under-represented natural communities, water resources development areas and trails. Joint Ex. 7, page 11 of 49. The FLP provides additional conservation measures for the most environmentally significant areas. Policy FG 2.5 establishes the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. Policy FG 2.5a establishes the Deep Creek Conservation Area with special levels of protection. The Remedial Amendment creates MRBOS lands and designates them on the Future Land Use Map. The result is that 33,665 acres of the site will be placed into conservation. With RBOS, wetland protections, and associated buffers, 80 percent of the site or 39,265 acres ultimately will be conserved. All lands placed in GreenKey, MRBOS, and RBOS are subject to the CMP approved by the Volusia County Council and ultimately subject to a conservation easement that perpetually protects the lands. See Policy FG 2.10, Joint Ex. 7. Policy FG 8.1 provides: No building permit shall be issued for new development within the SDA districts within five (5) years of the effective date of the Farmton Local Plan. No development order for new construction shall be issued prior to the approval by the county council of the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) described in policies FG 2.10 and 2.11 and the recording of a perpetual conservation easement over all Green Key lands as set forth in policy FG 2.15 with the specific exception of essential public utilities or communication structures. Joint Ex. 10, page 7 of 7. The Council has appointed a CMP Task Force to develop the plan. Natural Resource Management Area The NRMA overlay covers the entire site. It does not prohibit development but subjects it to scrutiny by the County. The NRMA overlay has not successfully prevented habitat fragmentation. Prevention of habitat fragmentation is a basis for the "layered additional protections," 2010 Hearing tr. 1167, of the FLP, including the Environmental Core Overlay Areas ("ECO"). Areas that must be protected are covered by the ECO, which receive the greatest protection in the Current Plan. The ECO covers approximately 11,000 acres of the site. The FLP adds 20,900 acres to the ECO. Without the FLP, and in spite of the NRMA and ECO overlays, existing Current Plan policies allow the Farmton property to be subdivided into approximately 1,700 lots. Significant habitat fragmentation is a potential result. The FR portion of the site, moreover, may develop in a clustered pattern at a density of one unit per 5 acres, as opposed to one unit per 20 acres under Future Land Use Policy 1.2.3.2. There are ranchette subdivisions in the site's vicinity and ranchettes are a feasible development option for the site. The FLP provides stronger natural resource protection than existing policies for the resources it protects. Its more restrictive standards eliminate the potential for development of the most sensitive areas and eliminate vesting of previously vested lots. Policy FG2.1 provides that the FLP is supplemental to NRMA and ECO. If the FLP conflicts with NRMA, the more specific or restrictive policies apply. The FLP is consistent with the current Plan provisions for the NRMA, Environmental Systems Corridor, and ECO. The Florida Black Bear and Regional Wildlife Corridor The Florida Black Bear is a State-designated Threatened Species. See chapter 68A-27. The purpose of the FFWCC in promulgating rules relating to endangered or threatened species is stated at the outset of chapter 68A-27: The purpose . . . is to conserve or improve the status of endangered and threatened species in Florida to effectively reduce the risk of extinction through the use of a science-informed process that is objective and quantifiable, that accurately identifies endangered and threatened species that are in need of special actions to prevent further imperilment, that identifies a framework for developing management strategies and interventions to reduce threats causing imperilment, and that will prevent species from being threatened to such an extent that they become regulated and managed under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. Fla. Admin. Code R. 68A-27.001(1). In June 2010, the FFWCC accepted recommendations of bear experts that it find there is "not a high risk of extinction," 2011 Hearing tr. 626, for the Florida Black Bear. Acceptance of the recommendation was accompanied by the commencement of the adoption of a management plan for the Black Bear. Upon the adoption of such a plan, the FFWCC is expected to de-list the Florida Black Bear from the threatened and endangered species lists. See id. Policy FG 2.5b requires the CMP within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to address habitat requirements for the Florida Black Bear in consultation with FFWCC. The FLP provides for the protection of regional wildlife corridors. Objective FG 2 of the FLP reads: "GreenKey and other Resource Based Open Space shall be managed for natural resource protection and preservation of interconnected regional wildlife corridors, and conserved in perpetuity." Joint Ex. 5, Tab 3 at 8. Nearly the entire Farmton Site constitutes Bear Potential Habitat. See DCA Ex. 4F. The entire site has been identified as Secondary Bear Range, see DCA Ex. 4G, and is roughly within 10 miles of an area of Primary Bear Range to its north and 20 miles of the same area of Primary Bear Range to its west. The area of Secondary Bear Range that includes the Farmton Site also includes urban areas such as the cities of Deland, Orange City, Deltona, and Sanford. Several hundred thousand people live in the secondary range that includes the Farmton site. The area of Secondary Bear Range in which the Farmton Site is located is habitat for the Ocala and St. Johns subpopulations of the Black Bear. While Dr. Hoctor considers the Ocala and St. Johns subpopulations to be separate, David Telesco, the Black Bear Management Program Coordinator for the FFWCC, described them as one subpopulation of bears that range over the Farmton Site, the Secondary Bear Range in which it is located, and nearby Primary Bear Range: This is our largest population of bears, estimated as potentially 1,200 animals. It's also the most densely populated, which means it's the highest quality habitat we have in the state. And our habitat models that we have are showing it as a stable subpopulation. 2011 Hearing, Tr. 625. Bear ranges do not coincide perfectly with bear habitat. Bears may range in areas that are not habitat. Just as in the case of ranges, bear habitats are classified as primary and secondary. Primary and Secondary Bear Habitats are both present on the Farmton Site. In Dr. Hoctor's opinion, to view Secondary Bear Habitat composed of pine plantation (as is the secondary habitat on the Farmton Site), to be more suitable for development would not be accurate or scientifically defensible. "[P]ine plantations are important habitat in and of themselves, plus they're important for . . . connecting all of [the] forested wetlands on [the Farmton] site . . . ." Tr. 475. An array of expert testimony was presented at the 2010 Hearing by Petitioners, the County, and Miami Corporation as to whether the FLP provided adequate wildlife corridors and protection of bear habitat. Dr. Hoctor testified that the Farmton Site is "particularly significant for potentially supporting . . . functional connectivity between the Ocala and Saint Johns [Black Bear] [sub]populations to those that are further south, the Highlands/Glades [sub]populations and Big Cypress [sub]population." Tr. 463. In the past, Florida's Black Bear population was integrated. There was "one [Black Bear] population . . . that occurred throughout the State of Florida." Tr. 465. The several Black Bear populations identified in the state now, however, are genetically distinct due to isolation caused by habitat loss, hunting and poaching. Re-integration will promote genetically healthy populations. Genetically healthy populations are more likely to adapt to future environmental changes and maintenance of connectivity between the subpopulations will promote a genetically healthy population of the Black Bear. A primary method of promoting a genetically healthy population is maintenance or restoration of functional corridors that connect sub-populations of the Black Bear in the state. Functional corridors are necessary to restore a single Black Bear population in the state or a "metapopulation . . . a set of subpopulations that are interacting through disbursal [sic] of individuals between . . . [the] various populations." Tr. 468. Dr. Hoctor opined, "If we're going to have a functional corridor between the populations to the south [south of northern Brevard and southern Volusia Counties] and to the Saint Johns and Ocala populations [to the north], it's more than likely going to have to occur through the Farmton Property." Tr. 467. It is Dr. Hoctor's opinion that functional corridors through the Farmton Property are particularly important to maintenance of the St. Johns subpopulation which consists of only 96 to 170 bears when a viable sub-population of bears is at least 200. Dr. Hoctor regards the wildlife corridors provided by the FLP, both for the Black Bear and other species, to be insufficient to offer adequate protection. They are not wide enough nor do they encompass enough acreage, in his opinion, to provide an adequate home range for a female Black Bear. The FLP allows too many significant road crossings. With regard to the Black Bear and other species, moreover, the FLP, in his opinion, does not sufficiently counter negative edge effects, that is, "negative impacts on natural areas or protected lands . . . from adjacent intensive land uses." Tr. 483. Consistent with action taken in June 2010, the Commission is in the process of adopting a Black Bear Management Plan for Florida. On May 19, 2010, the FFWCC issued a "Draft Black Bear Management Plan for Florida" (the "Draft Plan") which has been up-dated but remains in draft form. The Draft Plan opens with an executive summary, the first paragraph of which follows: The long-term future of Black Bears in Florida currently is uncertain because of their large spatial requirements, the fragmented nature of remaining populations, and increasing human development and activity leading to conflicts. A statewide management plan is needed to conserve this valued wildlife species. * * * This management plan is not intended to set all policies and operations for bears, rather it is intended to form a platform from which policies can be updated and operations can be based. While this plan will set clear guidance and structure for bear conservation in Florida, it will not be a panacea or silver bullet for current issues. In fact, this plan may create more work as key challenges are addressed in implementation. VC/MC Ex. 49. The Draft Plan does not contain any reference to Dr. Hoctor's opinion that the Farmton Site is a critical linkage between the Ocala and St. John's subpopulations and the subpopulations of Black Bear to the south. Randy Kautz, a supervisor of the nongame habitat protection planning section at the FFWCC and its predecessor agency for 20 years, testified that he knew of no agency recommendation to establish a corridor for Black Bears between the Ocala/St. Johns subpopulations and subpopulations of Black Bear to the south. Furthermore, he thought it very unlikely that the subpopulations would become connected if an adequate Black Bear corridor existed on the Farmton Site. He gave several reasons that included man-made disruptions between the subpopulations (such as pasture lands) and natural barriers posed by the St. Johns River, Lake Harney and marshes to the southwest of the Farmton Site over which Black Bears are not likely to traverse. Under the Original Amendment, the Southwest Wildlife Corridor ensures a wildlife corridor approximately one mile in width in the areas closest to the St. Johns River because the science indicated that was the primary regional wildlife corridor for the region. Within the Southwest Wildlife Corridor is the Deep Creek Conservation Area. It is the site's most significant area for regional movement of wildlife and will contribute to a corridor spanning as wide as three miles near the St. Johns River. The Remedial Amendment increases the Southwest Wildlife Corridor to establish a minimum of a one-mile buffer outside the areas planned for development. There are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes a functional wildlife corridor. The Cow Creek Corridor, Southwest Wildlife Corridor, and the corridor along the Volusia-Brevard border exceed a 10:1 ratio of length to width, a favorable ratio for wildlife, and each is a minimum of 900 meters in width. The Southwest Wildlife Corridor, which is 11.81 miles in length, was expanded by the Remedial Amendments to a minimum width of one mile, an average width of 2.26 miles, and a maximum width of 5.3 miles, and has a reduced length-to-width ratio of 5.2:1. The Cow Creek Corridor, which is not a regional wildlife corridor, was increased to 3.86 miles in length, a maximum width of 1.07 miles, a minimum width of 0.63 of a mile, and has a length-to- width ratio of 4.73:1. Respondents provided expert opinions that the FLP's provision of wildlife corridors is consistent with regional long range conservation planning and fits into an ecosystem pattern with wildlife corridors, linkages, and a variety of habitats. Respondents also presented expert opinion that FLP's proposed conservation areas are consistent with Florida wildlife conservation strategy. Other Listed Species and Wildlife Habitat Petitioners allege that the amendment fails to protect native vegetative communities, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and threatened and endangered species. The SOI lists several federally listed species within USFWS consultation areas for the Crested Caracara, the Florida Scrub Jay, and the Everglades Snail Kite. A consultation area includes the bird's dispersal range. Ms. Collins has never seen one of these three bird species on the property during her 15 years onsite, which she attributes to the site's inappropriate habitat for the species. Dr. Smith and Dr. Walsh also testified that it was highly unlikely to find these species on site. If a project is located within a listed species consultation area, the developer is required to meet with the USFWS to address the issue further during the permit process. Other listed species are found or are likely to be found on the site. However, there will be adequate habitat and conservation areas to support them. Gopher tortoises, for example, found within an SDA will be protected by existing County policies. The FLP provides a higher level of protection for listed species and other wildlife than if the site were developed under the current land uses. No development may take place, moreover, until the CMP is approved and incorporated in the development order. Policy FG 2.11 lists numerous minimum criteria for the CMP, including the identification of USFWS consultation areas and known onsite threatened and endangered plants and animals, the protection of habitats of species that are listed, imperiled, and otherwise in need of special protection, and coordination with management plans of adjacent conservation areas. Farmton contains native vegetative communities including mesic flatwoods, scrub flatwoods, and pine flatwoods. These native vegetative communities are predominantly present in the GreenKey conservation areas and will be protected. FAVA and Site-specific Data A Florida Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment Map (the FAVA Floridan Map) for the Floridan Aquifer of the Farmton Site depicts three levels of vulnerability: "More Vulnerable," "Vulnerable," and "Less Vulnerable." See DCA Ex. 4D. Most of the Farmton Site is in the area depicted by the FAVA Floridan Map as "More Vulnerable." All of the SDAs allowed by the FLP to be developed as Gateway, Town Center and Work Place subareas, for example, are depicted as "More Vulnerable." Most of the SDAs allowed by the FLP to be developed as Village subareas are depicted as "More Vulnerable" and the remainder is depicted as "Vulnerable." The FAVA Floridan Map depicts none of the SDAs as "Less Vulnerable." See DCA Ex. 4-D. The FAVA maps supported the Department's determination that the Original Amendment was not in compliance. FAVA maps are used as data by the Department because they depict areas where the aquifer is susceptible to contamination from surface contaminants. In that they "cover broad swaths of the State of Florida, [however] . . . they are not meant to supersede site-specific data." Tr. 1942. Dr. Seereeram, on behalf of Miami Corporation, gathered data specific to the Farmton site. The data included "detailed soil profiles every six inches vertically . . . [to] depths . . . over 100 feet . . . ." Tr. 1941. His site- specific data showed that there are confining layers between the surficial aquifer and the Floridan aquifer that prevent "rapid movement of groundwater from [the surficial] aquifer into the underlying Florida[n] aquifer." Tr. 1941. The site-specific data led Dr. Seereeram to conclude that the Department's concern for contamination potential to the Floridan Aquifer based on the FAVA is misplaced. In light of his site-specific data, Dr. Seereeram's opinion is that the development of the Farmton property will not "pose a threat to the aquifer." Tr. 1942. Dr. Seereeram's opinion, based on the question from counsel, is expressed in terms of "the aquifer." See id. Based on the FAVA maps and the entirely to his testimony with regard to site-specific data, the opinion does not apply to the Surficial Aquifer but only the Floridan Aquifer. The development of the Farmton Site in Volusia County does not pose a threat to contaminate the Floridan Aquifer. Floodplains, Wetlands, and Soil The Farmton Site in Volusia County is predominantly floodplains and wetlands. Petitioners allege that the land uses proposed by the FLP are incompatible with wetland protection and conservation. The Comprehensive Plan's map series depicts a large portion of the County as being located within the 100-year floodplain. A significant part of the SDAs are within the 100- year floodplain. There is no state or federal prohibition of development in a floodplain. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLP describe the floodplain. The Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit development in the 100-year floodplain. The FLP, however, "advises development away from the floodplain, specifically as it relates to schools in the Farmton Local Plan." Tr. 1095-6. Development in floodplains has been allowed by the County subject to elevation of construction to be flood-free upon completion and mitigation via on-site flood storage. The Plan's floodplain policies would apply to development under the FLP and the FLP has policies which relate to floodplains. Policy FG 2.21 in the FLP, for example, requires the following: Floodplains. Impact to the 100-year floodplain shall be minimized. Any impacts must be fully mitigated by providing compensatory storage on-site. Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-3 at 17 of 46. As a result of changes made by the Remedial Amendment, the majority of developable lands within the SDAs are uplands not wetlands. Based on a review of aerial photography, soil surveys, and other data, combined with field work, Ms. Collins concluded that approximately 29 percent of the total SDA acreage can be identified generally as wetlands. The dominant soils in the SDAs are Smyrna fine sand, Immokalee fine sand, Eau Gallie fine sand, and Myakka fine sand. Myakka soil, the soil of the flatwoods, is the most common soil in the state and has been designated as the "state soil." Tr. 1358. There are similar soils on adjacent properties. They are soils "that have had development occur on them." Tr. 1097. All of the soils in the SDAs are suitable for development. Wetlands delineation is not required at the comprehensive plan stage. It will be required prior to approval of development plans or issuance of a development order. The buildable areas within the SDAs will be determined with input from environmental regulation agencies prior to development order approvals. Without the FLP, preserved wetlands would be protected by a fifty-foot buffer. In contrast, Policy FG 2.19d requires all preserved wetland areas within an SDA to be protected by a buffer that averages 75 feet in width and is no less than 50 feet in width. See Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 17 of 49. On GreenKey land, the policy provides enhanced wetland buffer widths of an average of 100 feet with a minimum buffer of 75 feet. See id. "If different buffer widths are required by a permitting agency, the wider buffer shall apply." Id. Policy FG 2.20 states that activities within the FLP "shall be planned to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and the required buffers as described in FG 2.19(d)." Id. No less than 25 percent of each SDA as a whole must be set aside as RBOS, which may include wetlands. See Policies FG2.4 in Joint Ex. 10, Exhibit A, page 1 of 7; and 3.2 in Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2. Per Policy FG 2.8, those open space areas will be determined in consultation with regulatory agencies, Volusia Forever and entities that are parties to the conservation easements required by Policy FG 2.12. See Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2. Policy FG 2.6 requires that, when establishing RBOS, priority "be given to lands on the perimeter of the SDA, which are contiguous to GreenKey lands." Id. at page 11 of 49. In accordance with Policies FG 2.10 and 2.11, those RBOS areas will be added to the conservation easement and be incorporated in the CMP. Policy FG 2.11h requires the CMP to contain "[p]rovisions for significant water resources (such as streams, creeks, natural drainage ways, floodplains, and wetlands) protection, enhancement, and restoration and planned hydrological restoration." Joint Ex. 7, Tab 2-D, page 13 of 49. Wetlands Mitigation Bank In 2000, after a two-year permitting process, approximately 16,337 acres of the Volusia Farmton site was approved for use as a mitigation bank. Of that approved acreage, only 7,030 acres have been placed under a conservation easement and are required to be maintained in perpetuity for conservation purposes. Those 7,030 acres will continue to be preserved under the FLP. The portions of the mitigation bank that have not been placed under conservation easement may not remain within the mitigation bank and may be withdrawn. At the time of the final hearing, an application filed by Miami Corporation was pending before the SJRWMD to modify the mitigation bank permit to withdraw approximately 1,100 acres from areas within the mitigation bank that have not been placed in conservation easement. The lands proposed for removal from the permit are located within the SDA areas. The remaining portions of the mitigation bank would be protected from SDA uses through the 200 foot SDA perimeter buffer and wetland buffer requirements in Policy FG 2.19. Conservation Management Plans Within one year of the effective date of the FLP, the Deep Creek Conservation Area and the permitted Mitigation Bank lands will be placed into permanent conservation easement. Within two years, a CMP will be developed and enforced through the conservation easements. Remaining lands will be protected through a conservation covenant as well as the CMP. The covenant will have a ten-year term and automatically renew until the initial development plan is approved. Upon approval of a development plan consistent with the densities and intensities of the comprehensive plan, those lands will also be converted to a permanent conservation easement. The Remedial Amendment requires that no development can take place until the CMP plan is established and perpetual easements are recorded. Urban Sprawl The Thirteen Statutory Indicators Section 163.3177(6)(a)9 mandates that an amendment to the future land use element discourage urban sprawl. Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a provides 13 "primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl . . . ." Evaluation of the indicators "consists of analysis of the plan or plan amendment within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality " See section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a. The 13 indicators are listed in the statute under roman numerals "I" through "XIII." I. The first indicator is promoting, allowing or designating "for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses." The current Plan (without the FLP) allows the site to develop as single residential uses at low densities. The pre- FLP densities allowed on the Farmton Site are one unit per 10 acres, one unit per 20 acres, or one unit per 25 acres depending on the three designations on the site: Agricultural Resource, Forestry Resource or Environmental Systems Corridor. Mixed use is not required, nor is clustering required. The result is a "ranchette pattern of land use." 2010 Hearing, Tr. 1817. Mr. Ivey at the 2010 Hearing described ranchette- style development and the use to which a ranchette would typically be put. He depicted a development pattern dominated by owners of property who want to be in the country to enjoy a country lifestyle. After purchase of the property, the owner typically builds a house, frequently clears the land, constructs a number of outbuildings and grows grass to support cows or goats. In Mr. Ivey's opinion, "if your goal is to protect the environment, [the ranchette pattern of development] does not do it." Tr. 1720. Mr. Pelham opined that, despite the current Plan's allowance of a ranchette style of development on the Farmton Site, the indicator is triggered because the FLP disperses so much low density development over the landscape and in development nodes. Such a pattern, in his opinion, "does result in a significant amount of low density sprawl, compounded by the fact that it's fragmented and distributed out rather than being in a very compact fashion." Tr. 280. In comparison to the ranchette style of development, however, the FLP calls for a mixed-use development much more concentrated than a ranchette type of development and, on balance, more protective of natural resources. The current land uses allow nonresidential development at a floor area ratio of 0.10 but non-residential uses are not required to be included so as to ensure a mix of uses. The current land use could result in an inefficient land use pattern of more than 4,600 residential units, each of which would be entitled to use a septic tank and potable water well. Conservation Element Policy 12.2.2.5 requires either clustering or open space for developments that contain environmentally sensitive lands or critical habitats but includes no minimum standards. The FLP removes residential entitlements from the GreenKey area and clusters residential development into the SDA areas. Since development is not allowed in GreenKey, it is reasonable to evaluate the FLP's density in terms of "net density" rather than "gross density." It is also appropriate to evaluate density based on the various SDAs. Each Village has a minimum density of 3 units per acre and a target density of 10 units per acre. The Town Center has a minimum density of 8 units per acre, a target density of 15 units per acre, and a center town square required density of 24 units per acre. Work Place has a minimum density of 8 units per and a target density of 18 units per acre. Finally, Gateway has a minimum density of 4 units per acre and a target density of 12 units per acre. The weighted average of the minimum densities throughout the SDAs is 3.3 units per acre and their weighted target density is 6.8 units per acre. This density is relatively high compared with developed portions of cities in Volusia County. The City of DeBary has a weighted average density of less than 2 units per acre. The City of Deltona has a weighted average density of 2.68 units per acre, and the City of Edgewater has a weighted average density of 4.89 units per acre. The weighted average maximum density for the residential land use categories in the unincorporated County is only 2.36 units per acre. The FLP also includes requirements for a mix of uses in the Gateway, Town Center, and Village districts. The jobs- to-housing ratio in Policy FG 3.10 also will ensure that development will contain a mix of uses. II. The second indicator is promoting, allowing or designating "significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development." Mr. Pelham found the indicator to be triggered because it designates over 12,000 acres of urban development in a rural area at a significant distance from existing urban development and leapfrogs over undeveloped urban-designated lands. Mr. Pelham holds the opinion despite the match of the FLP by the development that will be allowed under the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan on the Brevard County Farmton Property immediately adjacent to the Farmton Site in Volusia County. In addition to abutting the Brevard County Farmton Property, the Farmton Site abuts the City of Edgewater, and the approved Restoration DRI and Reflections PUD. There are undeveloped publicly managed lands and conservation easements in the vicinity of the Site. In contrast to Mr. Pelham, Mr. Metcalf does not think the indicator is triggered. He sees the FLP with its requirement of a greenbelt designated as GreenKey and RBOS and MRBOS to contain the essential components of an innovative development type known as "urban village." An urban village has the following characteristics: an area with urban density, a mix of uses including all major land use types in a self-contained, clustered, compact form that is transit-supportive and has a grid or modified grid street network and a walkable, unified design, with a defined edge separating urban rural uses. The FLP contains all the components required it to be considered to contain an "urban village" development pattern. III. Mr. Pelham concluded that the third indicator is triggered by the FLP's "fragmented development pattern . . . [with] ribbon strips of nodes, five or six of them, . . . in an isolated area." Tr. 281. In contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the FLP's "node" development pattern does not trigger the indicator. The nodes of development are not in a radial, strip or ribbon pattern. They do not, moreover, emanate from urban development. IV. Mr. Pelham's view that the FLP triggers the Indicator IV focuses on the 12,000 acres of NRMA land, a substantial portion of which will be converted to urban-type development. In contrast, witnesses for Miami Corporation cast the FLP as providing for the conversion of rural lands in a way that protects and conserves a range of natural resources, including wetlands and upland habitats. The indicator, moreover, does not require protection or conservation through preservation. Therefore, it is not triggered in all cases in which there is some use of the resource. GreenKey and MRBOS keep development out of the most environmentally sensitive wetlands and confines development to the SDAs so that wetland encroachment occurs only in wetlands of lower value than others in the area. Designation of areas as RBOS will also conserve natural resources. V. Indicator V refers to failure to adequately protect "adjacent agricultural areas and activities." Petitioners criticize FLP for failure to protect agricultural and forestry areas and activities within the SDAs. The Department of Community Affairs, however, has never applied the indicator to lands internal to an amendment. Policy FG 2.2 allows agricultural activities to continue in the GreenKey using Best Management Practices. Existing agricultural areas adjacent to the Farmton Site are mainly to the west. The FLP includes provision to adequately protect activities within those areas. Policy FG 2.19, for example, requires a minimum buffer of 200 feet around each SDA. Protection of adjacent areas and activities in the areas means Indicator V is not triggered by the FLP. VI. Mr. Pelham offered the opinion that the FLP fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services by allowing a large urban development in a rural area that has no public facilities and services and no plan to provide them. Mr. Metcalf testified that the services to be considered would be law enforcement, fire, emergency medical treatment and solid waste. In assessing Indicator VI, Mr. Metcalf began with the assumption that development under the FLP will increase the population in the service district. He opined that the indicator is not triggered because "[t]he higher [the] population in that service district, the higher the maximum usage of that service." Tr. 808. VII. Mr. Pelham believed the FLP fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services because, whether the developer makes significant payment for them or not, the remote location and type of the development will keep it from benefiting from the efficiencies and advantages of scale it would enjoy if it were more proximate to urban development and more compact. Policy FG 3.6d requires the Town Center to house a majority of civic uses, including public safety facilities. The Spine Transportation Network and its related policies provide a network of roads that disperses traffic designed to avoid overloading with local trips. Water service in Gateway will be provided by extension of infrastructure from the Restoration site. "The extension of those lines would be closer than would be many neighborhoods within existing urban areas." Tr. 809. School capacity for the initial 2,287 units will be concentrated in Gateway. The critical mass that can be achieved through the urban village form of development will support onsite facilities needed by schools, law enforcement and fire departments. The location of the facilities will serve development on the Farmton Site and also nearby ranchettes and all of South Volusia County. Mr. Metcalf's opinion is that that the indicator is not triggered by the FLP. VIII. Mr. Pelham's opinion is that Indicator VIII is triggered. "Many studies have shown that allowing urban development far distances from existing urban development drive up the cost of providing infrastructure." 2011 Hearing, tr. 285. Policies FG 7.1 and 5.13 require development within SDAs to provide infrastructure, including onsite roads, and government services that are fiscally neutral. They also require the developer to pay for its share of off-site transportation impacts on a pro rata basis. Construction of the Spine Transportation Network is required by Policy FG 5.7 to be funded solely by the owner/developer. These policies together with the urban village development pattern led Mr. Metcalf to the opinion that the FLP will not disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services. IX. By establishing SDA areas and buffer requirements in Policy FG 2.19 for perimeter boundaries and wetlands, the FLP establishes clear separations between rural and urban areas. X. The FLP would discourage and inhibit the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities, in Mr. Pelham's opinion, because it will compete with all other urban areas for residential and nonresidential growth. Joel Ivey, who has worked on many amendments to the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan, testified that he was not aware of any areas in the County in need of re-development or any infill areas with which the FLP would interfere. The Petitioners did not identify any areas in which the FLP will discourage development opportunities covered by the indicator. XI. Indicator XI is not triggered. The FLP encourages a functional and attractive mix of uses. It requires a mix of residential and nonresidential uses in the SDA districts, a jobs-to-housing ratio, placing lands in conservation easements, walk-ability, compact development, and a hierarchy of street systems to foster connectivity and pedestrian mobility. XII. Indicator XII is not triggered. The FLP promotes accessibility among linked and related land uses with interlinked multimodal roadways and paths, including the Spine Transportation System, walkways and bike paths. XIII. The FLP preserves significant areas of functional open space. It provides for passive recreation open space in RBOS areas. It provides expanses of functional open space areas for wildlife habitat. The Farmton Site, currently private property used primarily for silviculture that can be developed with more than 4,600 homes, under the FLP will place at least 36,000 acres in functional open space in perpetuity. It will conserve the site's most environmentally-sensitive lands and establish a network of wildlife corridors. Development Patterns and Urban Forms Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b declares that a future land use element or plan amendment "shall be determined" to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that incorporates four or more factors listed in the statute. The development patterns or urban forms are listed by roman numerals, I through VIII. I. The FLP promotes conservation and avoids adverse impacts to the most significant natural resources on site. It does so by placing the most significant natural resources in GreenKey and MRBOS, locating development in the SDAs so as to keep it out of the most ecologically significant areas on the Farmton Site, providing protections to the Southwest Wildlife Corridor, and deeding the Deep Creek Conservation area for permanent preservation. Any development within an SDA will be subject to development controls that first require impacts to wetlands to be avoided. If impacts cannot be avoided, only wetlands of lower ecological significance may be impacted, and the impacts must be mitigated to achieve no net loss in function and value. Policy FG 2.19 includes several buffer requirements. Other natural resource protection mechanisms include Policy FG 2.7 which promotes habitat connectivity and requires RBOS to minimize habitat fragmentation. Policies FG 2.10 and 2.11 require a conservation management plan. Policy FG 2.5 and 2.5b. require a forestry management plan and a bear management plan. II. The FLP promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services based upon findings above. III. The third development pattern is present. The FLP includes several provisions that promote walk-ability and connected communities, including Policies FG 3.1; 3.4g; 3.6e; 3.7a-d, h, and j; 5.1;, 5.3; 5.5; 5.6; and 5.7; and, the Spine Network Map. The SDA district policies provide for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that support a range of housing options and transit options. The FLP requires park-and-ride lots for bus stops, which supports a form of mass transit, and requires multimodal options, such as sidewalks, bike paths and multi-use paths that accommodate different transportation options such as golf carts and bicycles. Policies FG 3.1e (applicable to all SDA districts), 3.4 (Gateway) and 3.7k (Villages) require housing diversity and choice through a mixture of housing types and price points. IV. The fourth development pattern is present as the FLP promotes water and energy conservation. Policy FG 4.2c requires various conservation measures and water neutrality. The multimodal components and employment centers required by the FLP will reduce vehicles miles and promote energy conservation. V. The fifth development pattern is present if the word "preserve" is interpreted to allow agricultural and silviculture activities to continue, rather than mandate that they continue. Policy FG 2.2 allows agriculture activities to continue, but does not require or guarantee that they will continue in perpetuity. Id. Policies 2.2, 2.5a, 2.11g, 2.12f, 2.23, and 3.13 ensure that agriculture may continue. The timberland soils in GreenKey and MRBOS will be preserved. VI. The sixth development pattern is present. Policies 1.3, 1.7, 2.10, 2.11, 2.15, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.8, 2.5, and 2.16 preserve open space and natural lands. The conservation easements for GreenKey will preserve open space in natural lands. MRBOS and RBOS will provide open space areas in natural lands. Parks in RBOS will provide public open space and passive recreational areas. The SDA parks also will provide active recreational areas. VII. The seventh development pattern is present. The residential and non-residential allocations are balanced and are comparable to those in other master-planned communities. The jobs-to-housing ratio requirement in Policy FG 3.10 ensures a 1:1 balance at build-out and provides a mechanism to ensure that the balance does not drop below 0.65 during development. Gateway Policy FG 3.4d appropriately targets interstate commerce given its proximity to the I-95 and State Road 442 Interchange. VIII. The eighth development pattern is present. The FLP remediates the ranchette pattern allowed under the current Plan over the site. It also provides an innovative urban village development pattern, as well as transit oriented development. Internal Inconsistency Future Land Use Element Future Land Use Objective 1.1.3 in the Current Plan states: "Volusia County shall limit urban sprawl by directing urban growth to those areas where public facilities and services are available inside designated service areas and within urban areas." Joint Ex. 1, page 29 of 109. Future Land Use Policy 1.1.3.5 in the current Plan provides that: New urban development shall be located inside an urban designated area where a full range of urban services exist or are planned and with direct access to arterials and mass transit routes sufficient to handle existing and future development. Joint Ex. 1, page 30 of 109. Policy 1.1.3.6 provides: Id. Requests for land use map amendments will be reviewed using the urban sprawl indicators contained in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g). Requests that exhibit a presence of a majority of the indicators shall be concluded as to encourage urban sprawl. Mr. Pelham concluded the FLP was inconsistent with these two policies because the Farmton Site is in a remote, rural area outside of urban areas and away from existing or planned urban services. The basis of the opinion is contradicted by the Farmton amendments to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan now in effect. While rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) no longer exists, Mr. Pelham testified as to why the FLP constitutes urban sprawl. When evaluating whether a plan amendment is consistent with a provision in the plan, including a policy, the plan should be considered "as a whole." Tr. 222. As Mr. Pelham testified, "a common mistake in interpreting comprehensive plans is that policies are lifted out of context, considered in a vacuum without regard to the plan as a whole . . . ." Id. Mr. Pelham's approach is sanctioned by the Current Plan's provision that governs "Plan Interpretation" found in Chapter 21 of the Current Plan entitled "Administration and Interpretation." In particular, it is consistent with a statement that appears in the Introduction of the Current Plan as one of three guidelines or "statements which represent the underlying assumptions which support the Plan preparation." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 3 of 5. That statement is "Guideline Three: The Comprehensive Plan will be construed as a complete document and no specific goal, objective, policy or recommendation shall be used independently." Joint Ex. 1, Introduction, page 4 of 5. Guideline Three is emphasized by its restatement in a quote from the Current Plan's Introduction in the provision governing "Plan Interpretation." See Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 21, page 2 of 7. The Current Plan does not prohibit urban development activities within NRMA. To the contrary, the Current Plan allows "Low Impact Urban," as defined in Policy 12.2.2.1c on lands within NRMA. See Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 12, page 8 of 16. The FLP directs development to certain areas within NRMA and away from the most environmentally sensitive lands in NRMA. There is a fair argument advanced by Miami Corporation, the County and VGMC that the FLP is coordinated with NRMA, is consistent with its objectives as to the bulk of the site and does not conflict with the Current Plan's Objective 12.2.1: "To provide for the protection of areas determined to be environmentally sensitive, and to direct growth away from such areas." Policy 12.2.1.2 requires the County to promote land use activities compatible with NRMA. The policy discusses the land use categories of ESC, FR and Low Impact Urban, among others. The County's planning and development services director for the County construes the uses under ESC, FR, and Low Urban Impact as not the only land uses allowed within NRMA. The critical determination is whether a land use is NRMA-compatible. Consistent with the Current Plan, Policy FG 2.1 states that the whole site is located within NRMA and the NRMA policies apply if they are more protective or stringent than the FLP's policies. The FLP provides more protection for the most environmentally sensitive areas on the Farmton Site than is provided under NRMA. Examples are the FLP requirement for a wider buffer and a minimum of 75 percent open space. Policy 1.3.1.28 forbids amendment of the FLUM not adopted in conjunction with the required Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("EAR") except under five conditions expressed in the policy. The FLUM amendment by the FLP was not in conjunction with an EAR. The five conditions, all of which must be met, therefore, are: Population projections have been revised, and accepted by the County and FDCA; Justification is provided for the expansion of the urban boundary; Compatibility with the character of the area; Availability of the full range of all urban services, including adequate potable water supply and facilities, to accommodate inclusion in an urban area; and, Documentation is provided that urban expansion will not be in conflict with the intent of the Natural Resource Management Area and Environmental Core Overlay. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 1, page 41 of 109. Testimony at the 2010 Hearing established that the County's population projections were rejected by DCA because they were not based on a professional methodology. The projections were not accepted by the Department in the interim between the 2010 and 2011 Hearing. Mr. Pelham testified that "[t]he Department has never accepted them." 2011 Hearing, tr. 242. The Department's planning function, including review of comprehensive plan amendments and compliance determinations, was transferred by the 2011 Legislature to the Department of Economic Opportunity. The Current Plan does not establish an urban service boundary. Mr. Ivey opined that the FLP is compatible with the character of the area because of the 200-foot wide buffers that exist between the SDA and GreenKey areas. The FLP provides for the City of Edgewater and Farmton Water Resources to provide central water and sewer, and there is adequate water supply. The FLP is consistent with NRMA and ECO because it achieves permanent protection of the key ecological resources on-site. The 11,000 acres of land on the Farmton Site under the ECO are entirely preserved. Conservation Element Policies Petitioners allege that the FLP is inconsistent with Conservation Element Policies 12.2.1.1, 12.2.1.2, 12.2.2.5, 12.2.2.7 and 12.2.3.2. The "Overview" section of the Conservation Element opens with the following paragraph: The Conservation Element provides the framework for the preservation, protection, and enhancement, of the County's natural resources. As such, the goals, objectives and policies outlined in this Element are strongly intertwined with other elements in the Comprehensive Plan relating to land use, utilities, recreation and open space, transportation and coastal management. It is the intent of this Element to provide a basis for responsible decision making for the appropriate use of natural resources when confronted by growth and corresponding development, as well as the identification and preservation of ecologically irreplaceable resources. Joint Ex. 1, Chapter 12, at page 2 of 16. Objective 12.2.1 is: "To provide for the protection of areas determined to be environmentally sensitive, and direct growth away from such areas." Id. at page 7 of 16. Policy 12.2.1.1, in pertinent part, provides that "existing, relatively uninterrupted expanses of natural resources contained within the County shall be managed as an individual unit, providing natural resources the highest degree of protection in land development decisions and planning. These lands shall comprise the NRMA established in the Future Land Use Element. Mr. Pelham views the FLP as not managing the natural resources on the Farmton Site as a unit because it allows development to occur in eight different nodes of development spread out across the property. The development that is allowed, therefore, is fragmented. Mr. Pelham, moreover, sees the FLP as far less protective than the Current Plan because it does not retain protection of the NRMA. By eliminating low-density land use classifications in the SDAs, and replacing it with a large city, the effect on the more protective NRMA designation in his view, is that the FLP "retains the shell and takes out the meat." Tr. 271. In contrast, experts for the County and Miami Corporation see just the opposite. By confining development in the SDAs, which have additional internal protections provided by RBOS and MRBOS designations, and preserving in perpetuity up to 80 percent of the Farmton Site with special protections for wildlife corridors, the FLP provides permanent protection for the most environmentally-sensitive land on site. Policy 12.2.1.2 establishes the three low-density categories that currently apply in the NRMA area: ESC, FR and Low Impact Urban. Replacing the low density use classifications with the FLP has the benefit of protecting the Farmton Site from ranchette-type development with the urban village development pattern that provides the conservation benefit of permanent protection of the most environmentally sensitive lands on site. Objective 12.2.2 is "[t]o minimize, and eliminate where reasonably achievable, impacts to ecological communities which degrade their natural physical and biological functions as a result of land development activities." Id. at page 8 of 16. Policy 12.2.2.5 provides, "The County shall require clustering of dwelling units and/or open space for land development projects which contain environmentally sensitive lands and critical habitats within its project boundaries, in order to preserve these resources." Id. The policy is the most detailed rural clustering plan in Florida. The FLP is viewed by Mr. Pelham as inconsistent with the policy because of the allocation of multiple development nodes spread out over the Farmton Site. Ms. McGee sees a distinction in the language of the policy when compared to the FLP. "The important distinction is that this policy specifically refers to land development projects versus land planning projects." (emphasis added). Tr. 445. Petitioners contend there is no inconsistency because the aim of the policy is achieved since the most environmentally sensitive land is preserved in perpetuity by the FLP, functional and natural open space is set aside, and wetland buffers are provided in the FLP. Policy 12.2.2.7 requires the County to coordinate with appropriate governmental entities to protect environmentally sensitive lands that extend into adjacent counties and municipalities. Michael McDaniel testified at the 2010 hearing that the FLP allows the Gateway development to be adjacent to a 3,500 acre conservation area designated by the City of Edgewater as part of the Restoration DRI. Development allowed by the FLP in the Gateway SDA was determined by DCA initially to be not compatible with the resources in the conservation area and the designation of the area by the City of Edgewater. The Original Amendment, therefore, failed to reflect the intergovernmental coordination required by the policy in his view. At his deposition conducted prior to the 2011 Hearing, Mr. McDaniel testified that after the Remedial Amendments the Gateway Project would still be just south of the conservation land designated by the City and that nothing specific had been done in the Remedial Amendments to address the inconsistency with the policy. Policy FG 3.4 in the FLP includes several provisions relating to coordination with adjacent jurisdictions, two of which specifically refer to the Restoration DRI. Policy FG 2.11q requires the Farmton conservation management plan to be coordinated with the natural resource protection measures within the RBOS and Conservation Areas of Restoration. This requirement will ensure maximum open space connectivity between the Restoration development and any development in the northern portions of the Farmton site. On the southern end of the Restoration site (just to the north of the Farmton Site) is an area designated to be used for utilities. That area directly adjoins one of the three Gateway SDAs. The Restoration site includes a significant amount of degraded areas in need of restoration. East and west of the Gateway SDAs, there will be broad corridors that connect with the Restoration site. The Restoration DRI is subject to a conservation management plan requirement that can be coordinated with the FLP's CMP. During the Original Amendment process, the County coordinated with the City of Edgewater. As a result of discussions between the County and the City, the FLP incorporates policies to address common water supply issues and future coordination. The City has no objection to the FLP. The Amendment is internally consistent with Conservation Policy 12.2.2.7. Objective 12.2.3 is "[t]o eliminate any net loss of wetlands and prevent the functional values of such wetlands to be degraded as a result of land development decisions." Policy 12.2.3.2, in pertinent part, provides that "[p]roposed activities within the NRMA . . . shall avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and their associated natural, physical and biological functions, except in cases where it can be demonstrated to be in the overriding public interest." The policy also calls for mitigation in cases of overriding public interest. Wetland features are present in abundance and interspersed throughout the Farmton Site. Respondents contend that a reasonable interpretation of the policy is that it applies to projects at the time of decisions on applications for development orders rather than planning decisions such as adoption of the FLP. Since the policy, under the interpretation, does not apply to the FLP, the policy cannot be inconsistent with it. Public School Facilities Public School Facilities Element Policy 3.1.4.3 requires a finding by the School Board that adequate school capacity will either be timely planned or constructed if there is inadequate capacity at the time of a land use change. Petitioners contend that FLP Policies FG 6.1 and 6.2 are inconsistent with Public School Facilities Element 3.1.4.3. The FLP was coordinated with the Volusia County School District ("School Board"). The School Board reviewed the proposed FLP and revised its school provisions. At the time of the Original Amendment, the School Board, based on its independent data and analysis, determined that there is adequate school capacity for a maximum of 2,287 residential units through 2025. Based on school capacity, Policy FG 1.4 limits residential development through 2025 to 2,287 units in the Gateway district. The policy further restricts residential density in the Gateway district to a maximum of 4,692 units. "[A]ny increase in the density of the Gateway district above the 2,287 units [for which there is adequate school capacity now] and up to 4,692 units [the number of units allowed] shall not be effective until such time as the school district has issued a finding of school adequacy." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, at page 7 of 49. Policies FG 6.1 and 6.2 reiterate the 2,287 unit cap and do not allow additional residential units until the School Board finds adequate capacity to provide for additional units. Other FLP Policies "Fiscal neutrality means the costs of additional school district and local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the SDA districts shall be funded by properties within the approved SDA districts." Joint Ex. 7, Policy FG 7.1, page 42 of 49. Policy FG 7.1 requires each development within an SDA to provide adequate infrastructure that meets or improves level of service standards or will result in a fiscal benefit to the County and its municipalities. Policy FG 5.13 authorizes mitigation for offsite transportation impacts through proportionate fair-share or proportionate share payments. The policy requires proportionate fair-share or proportionate share payments to mitigate the offsite transportation impacts. State law authorizes proportionate-share contributions or construction to satisfy transportation concurrency requirements of a local comprehensive plan under certain circumstances. See § 163.3180(5)(h)3. There is no definition in chapter 163 of "fiscal neutrality." Nor is there a requirement that a developer pay for more than its pro rata share of impacts. Capital Improvements Element/Public Facilities With regard to "capital improvements and public facilities," Petitioners make three allegations that the FLP is not in compliance. First, Petitioners allege the FLP fails to demonstrate the availability of public facilities and services, as required by sections 163.3177(3)(a), 163.3177(6)(a)2.d., and 163.3177(6)(a)8.a. Second, pointing to sections 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. and 163.3177(6)(a)3.e., they allege that the FLP improperly defers data and analysis on which to base the adequacy of public facilities and services. Third, they allege the revised water supply data and analysis used to support the Remedial Amendments do not demonstrate the availability of sufficient water supplies. The term "public facilities" is defined in section 163.3164(38). It "means major capital improvements, including transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational facilities." Section 163.3177(1)(f), requires all mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments to be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. requires the future land use element and plan amendments to be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area as applicable including the availability of water supplies, public facilities and services. FLUM amendments are required by section 163.317(6)(a)8.a. to be based on an analysis of the availability of facilities and services. The FLP is supported by adequate public facility data and analysis. The data and analysis supporting the Original Amendment includes transportation network maps that generally depict and project external roadways and transportation improvements that will need to be built to serve development under the Amendment through 2025 and through 2060. It also includes an evaluation of current and future roadway level of service standards. The Original Amendment includes data and analysis that evaluate potable water and sanitary sewer demand. The water and sewer analysis includes separate charts for build-out in 2025 and in 2060 which assume maximum residential potential and expected nonresidential development types. The data and analysis evaluate impacts of development under the FLP in the short term and in the long term. A transportation analysis was submitted as part of the proposed Amendment package that evaluates impacts on the level of service standards of roadways through 2014 (5 years from the submission of the original Amendment) and 2025. Tables 12 and 13 of the analysis identify roadway improvements needed to maintain level of service standards in 2014 and 2025, respectively, assuming maximum development under the existing land uses and under the Amendment. The transportation analysis assumes full maximum development potential under the Amendment, not realistic growth projections. The analysis therefore evaluates 4,692 residential units and 820,217 square feet of nonresidential development, the maximum development potential under the current land uses. The original water demand analysis applies the Amendment's water conservation policies, as encouraged by the SJRWMD. That analysis estimates a water demand of 1.36 million GPD in 2025 and 6.714 million GPD in 2060. Another water demand analysis compares onsite development scenarios for ranchettes, a commercial nursery, and development under the FLP. The analysis demonstrates development under the FLP would use substantially less water than would development of ranchettes and a commercial nursery. The Remedial Amendments include revised water supply data and analysis that was requested by, and coordinated with, the SJRWD to more closely reflect the water conservation policies in the FLP. The Original Amendment's water supply analysis assumes usage of 250 GPD per residential unit, whereas the Remedial Amendments' revised water supply data and analysis assume a reduced usage of 175 GPD per residential unit. The SJRWMD accepted the revised data and analysis. Petitioners dispute the data and analysis' use of 175 GPD as underestimating demand, but they do not dispute the data and analysis' nonresidential usage rates. The use of 175 GPD is professionally accepted and the data and analysis demonstrate the availability of adequate potable water supplies. The estimated usage of 175 GPD is achievable under the FLP's conservation measures and is a conservative rate based on the FLP's provision for many multi- family units which have a lower GPD than single family units. Applying either 250 GPD or 175 GPD, the site's groundwater source of potable water, estimated to be 9.6 million GPD, will be adequate to provide potable water for maximum residential and nonresidential development under the Amendment while meeting the contractual obligation to provide 2.75 million GPD to the city of Titusville. Petitioners also dispute the reclaimed water analysis assumption in the revised water supply data and analysis that 20 percent of the SDAs will be covered with stormwater facilities. "Twenty percent of the developed landscaped is a lot of land devoted to stormwater treatment." Tr. 142. Mr. Diamond, Petitioners' expert, suggested an assumption of seven to eight percent of the SDAs devoted to stormwater treatment is more appropriate. Civil engineer Mark Dowst, however, demonstrated the 20 percent assumption is based on his experience designing hundreds of stormwater systems and is professionally acceptable. The general range, in his opinion, is 12 to 15 percent. In areas with flood plains or a high water table, such as the Farmton Site, the amount of land devoted to stormwater treatment must be more than the general range. The School District determined there was adequate school capacity through 2025 for a maximum of 2,287 residential units authorized under the current land uses. The School District also found the Amendment addresses and protects the School District's interests. Based on the School District's finding, Policy FG 1.4 limits residential development through 2025 to 2,287 units within the Gateway district until the School District issues a finding there is additional capacity. Policy FG 6.2 recognizes the School Board has not determined there is capacity for more than 2,287 units and therefore "no finding of school adequacy can be issued until and unless the Interlocal Agreement is amended to allow school capacity to be provided within the concurrency service area in which the Farmton Local Plan is located." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 40 of 49. The Amendment reacts appropriately to relevant school capacity data and analysis. Petitioners did not demonstrate how the FLP is inconsistent with applicable public facility requirements. They did not demonstrate that the FLP triggers a need under the New Act to amend the Capital Improvements Element. In order to encourage the efficient use of public facilities, section 163.3177(3)(a) mandates that the comprehensive plan contain a capital improvements element designed to consider the location of public facilities that covers at least a 5-year period and that sets forth: "A schedule of capital improvements [the "CIS"] which includes any publicly funded projects of federal, state or local government, and which may include privately funded projects for which the local government has no fiscal responsibility. Projects necessary to ensure that any adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained for the 5-year period must be identified as either funded or unfunded and given a level of priority for funding." § 163.3177(3)(a)4. Policy FG 8.1 prohibits the issuance of any building permit within five years of the Amendment's effective date. This provision clarifies that the Capital Improvement Schedule ("CIS") need not be amended yet. There is no requirement the CIS include public facilities that are privately owned or operated, or are owned or operated by a different local government. None of the infrastructure to be provided by Farmton Water Resources LLC or the City of Edgewater under the numerous policies under Objective 4 need be included in the CIS. The evidence shows it is not realistic to expect development impacts to occur within five years from the adoption of the Remedial Amendments on February 18, 2011. Section 163.3177(3)(b) requires that the capital improvements element be reviewed annually. The CIS will be amended in the future as needed based on projected public facility impacts of future development proposals. Section 163.3177(3)(a) requires less detail for long-range public facility planning than for the five year CIS. The Amendment includes an adequate amount of detail for long range planning for public facilities. Policy FG 4.14 authorizes Farmton Water Resources, LLC, and the City of Edgewater to provide water to the site. Policy FG 4.19 identifies the City of Edgewater as the provider of potable water and wastewater for Gateway. The data and analysis include a utility service area map showing the service area. Policy FG 4.18 requires Farmton Water Resources, LLC, to provide off-site and on-site potable water, nonpotable water, and wastewater. That policy and Policy FG 4.21j list various infrastructure improvements that will be needed to provide those services. At this time, it is not possible to identify where public facilities will be located or their costs. Policy FG 8.3 requires all SDA development to undergo master development-of-regional impact review process, which will ensure infrastructure, including transportation, schools, stormwater, and water supply, to be a condition of the master DRI development order. Policy FG 8.7 includes a requirement that each increment of development address the adequacy of public facilities and services such that they are available to accommodate development and maintain or improve level of service standards. The master DRI requirement is a reasonable strategy to ensure infrastructure will keep pace with development. Water Supply Petitioners contend that the increased development allowed under the FLP was not anticipated by the water supply plan of the SJRWMD, or of any local government, and that a concurrent water supply plan amendment is required. They further argue this omission demonstrates the FLP is not based on the availability of water supplies. Petitioners also allege the Amendment is inconsistent with the Plan’s Potable Water Sub- Element Policies 7.1.3.1 and 7.1.3.3. Those issues were raised by the Department and SJRWMD, but were resolved to their satisfaction in the Remedial Amendments. SJRWMD proposed Remedial Policies FG 4.14, 4.15, 4.18, and 4.21. The Remedial Amendments also included additional data and analysis, which was accepted by SJRWMD. The Original Amendment is supported by data and analysis demonstrating there is a new source of potable water located on the site. The new water source is groundwater contained within the Upper Floridan aquifer and is of potable water quality. The potable water supply analysis demonstrates the new source of potable water is adequate to supply more than enough potable water to supply development under the FLP. The supply is conservatively estimated to be able to produce a sustainable 9.6 million GPD, while the projected demand for development under the FLP is estimated to be 6.76 million GPD. Future land use plan amendments must be based on data regarding the area including "[t]he availability of water supplies . . . ." see § 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. Adequate potable water supply must be shown to be available but need not yet be a permitted source. Regardless of whether the new groundwater source is identified in a regional or local water supply plan, the FLP is supported by a demonstration of an adequate water supply, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)2.d. Non-inclusion in a water supply plan does not negate the fact that a new source of potable water has been discovered and demonstrated to be available. Section 163.3177(6)(c) requires each water management district to adopt a regional water supply plan every five years and for each local government to incorporate relevant facilities contained in the regional plan into its comprehensive plan by adopting a local water supply plan within eighteen months after the regional water supply is adopted. The FLP was adopted between updates of the SJRWMD regional water supply plan and local water supply plan updates. The SJRWMD plan was required to be adopted in 2005, but was not adopted until February 2006. The mandatory five-year update for the SJRWMD was due in the fall of 2010, but has been delayed. The County’s required water supply facilities work plan was adopted on June 8, 2009. There is no requirement for the county to amend its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan before the SJRWMD amends its regional water supply plan. Potable Water Sub-Element Policy 7.1.3.3 requires the County to review its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan annually and update it as necessary. The FLP recognizes the County’s obligation to later amend its Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and is consistent with it. Policy FG 4.15 requires Farmton Water Resources, LLC, to coordinate with the County, municipalities and the SJRWMD to propose additions to their applicable water supply work plans. The unchanged portion of revised Policy FG 4.18 expressly requires projects to be included in the annual updates as those projects are identified and approved. There is no statutory requirement that such availability be included in a water supply project list until the county and regional water supply plans are updated. Nonetheless, the report prepared by Dr. Seereeram demonstrated through data and analysis that sufficient on-site water will be available. Potable Water Sub-Element Policy 7.1.3.1 requires the County to maintain a Water Supply Facilities Work Plan that is coordinated with the SJRWMD water supply plan. The FLP is consistent with this policy because Policy 7.1.3.1 does not address the situation posed in this case by the delay of the update to the SJRWMD water supply plan. Policy FG 4.18, moreover, requires coordination after that update is made. Section 163.3177(6)(c) is silent as to the need to identify potable water projects between water supply amendment cycles, and as to the format a local government must use to identify water supply projects. Petitioners did not demonstrate the FLP is required to include amendments to the water supply plan, as opposed to a later update of the water supply plan, as required by Policy FG 4.18. They also did not demonstrate what legal requirement necessitates additional information, beyond the identity of the water source and its demonstrated adequacy, in order for the Amendment to be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis to demonstrate the availability of a water supply. Public Schools The County is required by section 163.3177(6)(a)7 to identify the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use. The School District is responsible for identifying sites for future schools. In keeping with its responsibility, the School District has mapped future school sites needed through 2025. It has not planned, however, for new school sites needed through 2060. Objective 3.2.2 governs and requires establishment of "School Concurrency Service Areas," Joint Ex. 1, ch. 3, page 6 of 12. They are areas "within which an evaluation is made of whether adequate school capacity is available based on the adopted level of service standard." Id. Policy 3.2.2.8 requires "[r]equests to develop properties within the central school concurrency service areas at residential densities and intensities greater than the current land use or zoning designations . . . . [to] be done via a comprehensive plan amendment consistent with the Volusia County Charter provision 206 regarding school planning." Id. at page 7 of 12. Section 206 required the county council not later than September 30, 2007, to adopt an ordinance to the effect that any plan amendment allowing increased residential density "may be effective only if adequate public schools can be timely planned and constructed to serve the projected increase in school population." DCA Ex. 10. The policy further requires the amendment to demonstrate how school capacity will be met consistent with the terms of the First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning, effective July 2007, and Section 206 of the Volusia County Charter. The FLP is consistent with Public Schools Policy 3.2.2.8 because it limits residential development to 2,287 units until there is a School District finding of additional capacity. Policy FG 8.3g. requires each increment of development in the master development order to include provision for schools, thus further ensuring adequate public schools will be timely built and available to serve all future development. The use of a plan amendment to include limitations on development based upon the availability of public facilities has been accepted by the Department. Policy FG 6.2 requires an amendment to the Interlocal Agreement before the School District can find there is additional capacity. This policy is coordinated and consistent with Policy FG 3.2.2.8's requirement that plan amendments be consistent with the Interlocal Agreement. A plan amendment creates an internal inconsistency when it has the effect of conflicting with an existing provision of the comprehensive plan, but if an amendment expressly creates an exception or waiver to a general rule set forth in the plan, it does not create an internal inconsistency. Related school concurrency Public Schools Objective 3.2.1 requires the County to "ensure that the capacity of schools is sufficient to support residential subdivisions and site plans at the adopted level of service standard within the period covered by the five-year schedule of capital improvements." Joint Ex. 1, ch. 3, page 5 of 12. Since school concurrency is a five-year planning concern and no development should occur within the next five years, there is no inconsistency between the FLP and Policy FG 3.2.2.8. Policy FG 3.1.4.1 requires the County to "take into consideration" School District comments and findings on the availability of adequate school capacity in its evaluation of plan amendments. The FLP is consistent with this policy. The County not only took the School District's comments and findings into consideration, but the FLP limits development to current and future findings of adequate school capacity made by the School District through Policy FG 1.4. Objective FG 6 in the FLP governs "School Planning and Concurrency." It states: "The Sustainable Development Area districts shall be designed and planned to ensure that the educational facilities are integral components within the community and that adequate school capacity can be timely planned and constructed to serve the anticipated population." Joint Ex. 7, Tab D-2, page 39 of 49. The school policies that implement Objective FG 6, Policies FG 6.1 through 6.8, were drafted by the School District and are based on the best available data and analysis about future school sites, which currently is available from the School District only through 2025. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners contend that Policies FG 2.16 and FG 3.10 (untouched after the Original Amendment), and Policies FG 2.4, 2.5, and 2.18 (as revised by the Remedial Amendments) fail to establish the meaningful and predictable standards required by section 163.3177 (1). The statute, in pertinent part, provides: The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. Policy FG 2.16 requires a Community Stewardship Organization ("CSO") to be established and governed by seven directors. The policy provides the CSO's governance board of directors is to be composed of seven members, four of whom must be representative of statewide or national non-profit environmental/conservation organizations in existence at the time of the adoption of the FLP such as the Nature Conservancy, Florida Audubon Society, Trust for Public Lands, and the Florida Wildlife Federation. The owner shall be represented on the board, and the other two members may include representatives of public agencies, stakeholders and public citizens who participated in the development of the FLP. The policy also lists various functions the CSO may or must perform, including taking title to the GreenKey and RBOS areas or co-holding a conservation easement. The CSO is mandated to participate in development of the CMP. The policy also requires all current and future deeds of the Deep Creek Conservation Area, which is within the West Mitigation Bank, to be conveyed to the CSO. Policy FG 2.16 identifies specific activities for the CSO to undertake, and contains meaningful and predictable standards to guide the CSO's composition and actions. Policy FG 3.10 requires a jobs-to-housing ratio of one job per one residential unit. The policy also states Gateway development shall be Phase One and is exempt from the ratio requirement. Development orders for subsequent phases must include milestones for achieving the ratio. The ratio must be monitored at least annually. If the ratio falls below 0.65 (0.65 job for each housing unit), the policy requires development approvals to cease until a remedial plan is developed and approved. Policies FG 8.3j and Policy FG 8.4j require any development orders to include provisions to implement the jobs to housing ratio. Policy FG 3.10 does not allow the remedial plan to achieve any other ratio. A plain reading of Policy FG 3.10 as a whole, including the requirement to monitor compliance with the ratio, reveals it to be a remedial plan that must achieve the 1:1 ratio referred to in the policy. Policy FG 3.10 identifies specific strategies to achieve a balance of housing and employment opportunities, and contains meaningful and predictable standards to guide its implementation. There is no requirement for a CSO and there are no compliance criteria to guide the composition and roles of entities such as the CSO, nor does the law require or provide criteria for jobs to housing ratio. Policy FG 2.4 was revised by the Remedial Amendment to create MRBOS areas and depict them on Map Figure 1-12N so as to provide certainty as to where certain portions of RBOS lands will be located. MRBOS lands have the effect of expanding the GreenKey designated areas for the Cow Creek Corridor and the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. The Policy states MRBOS lands will not be subject to the RBOS public access plan, but will be subject to the Black Bear management plan. The Remedial Amendment's details for the new MRBOS areas are predictable and meaningful. The changes to Policy FG 2.5 clarify that the Southwest Wildlife Corridor must be "consistent with a forestry management plan designed to provide prescribed fire, promote dense understory vegetation such as palmetto and [be] consistent with the Black Bear Management Plan" as required in original Policy 2.5b. Petitioners did not present any competent substantial evidence that this guidance for the forestry management plan does not provide adequate meaningful and predictable standards. Policy FG 2.18, "Transportations Policies and Natural Resource Protection," addresses the arterial roads that traverse the GreenKey lands and provides design guidance to avoid and minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and the movement of wildlife. Section "a" of the policy, which was unchanged by the Remedial Amendment, includes the following non-exhaustive list of tools to minimize this conflict: landscaping techniques, fencing, speed limits, wildlife overpasses or underpasses, bridges, and elevating roadways. This section applies to the three arterial roads shown on the Spine Network Map; Williamson Boulevard, Maytown Road, and Arterial A. The proposed general alignment of Williamson Boulevard does not intrude into the boundaries of the Deep Creek Conservation Area, the Cow Creek Corridor, the Power Line corridor, or the Southwest Wildlife Corridor. Williamson Boulevard runs through, and connects, the largest Gateway SDA and the Work Place, Town Center, and the easternmost village. The Remedial Amendment revises Policy FG 2.18 by creating Sections "b" and "c." Section "b" provides mandatory guidelines that apply only to Maytown Road and Arterial A and requires their design to be based on "best available science" as determined by the FFWCC. Section "c" encourages additional guidelines for Maytown Road and Arterial A subject to the discretion of the roadway designers. As a whole, Policy FG 2.18 provides meaningful and predictable guidance for the designers of the roadways. There are no minimum standards in the New Law for the design of roadways to minimize conflicts with wildlife. With proper implementation, the guidelines in Policy FG 2.18 are reasonably expected to produce the defined outcome of a roadway network that will minimize conflict with wildlife. Audubon’s Charles Lee testified the policies were based on the model policies in the Wekiva Parkway Plan. Mr. Telesco of the FFWCC testified the policies were in line with FDOT policies. Further, the phrase "to the extent practicable" is a known conservation standard taken from the Endangered Species Act. Policies FG 2.4, 2.5, 2.16, 2.18, and 3.10 provide an adequate amount detail for a comprehensive plan amendment, as required by section 163.3177(1).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a Final Order that determines the Farmton Local Plan incorporated into the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan through amendments adopted by Volusia County Council Ordinance Nos. 2009-34 and 2011-10 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2012.
