The Issue The issue in this case is whether Sumter County comprehensive plan amendment 94D1 adopted on September 20, 1994, by Ordinance No. 94-6 is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Sumter County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered and enforced by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto. Petitioners, T. D. Farnsworth and James E. Boyd, own property and reside within the northern part of unincorporated Sumter County. Petitioner, Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development (SCAID), is an organization founded by a small group of citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of the County, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. Farnsworth is president of the group while Boyd serves as its treasurer. By stipulation of the parties, petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. Intervenor, Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. (Villages), is a Florida corporation and the owner and developer of the Tri-County Villages development of regional impact, which is the subject property of this proceeding. Villages submitted oral and written comments during the plan amendment review and adoption proceeding and thus has standing as an affected person to participate in this proceeding. Tri-County Villages To place this dispute in proper perspective, it is necessary to trace the history of the development which has occurred in and around the subject property. As noted earlier, intervenor is the owner and developer of the Tri- County Villages development located in unincorporated Sumter County. Development which predated the existing Tri-County Villages development commenced in approximately 1968 with Orange Blossom Garden North (OBGN). OBGN was an approximately 1,000-acre project owned and operated by Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. as a mobile home retirement community located mostly in the Town of Lady Lake, Florida. That community lies in the northwestern corner of Lake County, which adjoins the northeastern corner of Sumter County. Because the development of OBGN commenced prior to July of 1973, it is vested for purposes of development of regional impact (DRI) review pursuant to Section 380.06(20), Florida Statutes. In 1987, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted an Application for Development Approval (ADA) with the Town of Lady Lake which requested authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens South (OBGS). The OBGS development was an approximately 595-acre extension of the vested OBGN retirement community and was determined by the DCA and Town of Lady Lake to be a DRI. On January 18, 1988, the Town of Lady Lake approved the proposed OBGS development. In 1989, Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. submitted to the Town of Lady Lake and the County an ADA requesting a substantial deviation from the OBGS DRI. The substantial deviation request sought authorization to develop Orange Blossom Gardens West (OBGW). OBGW was planned as an approximately 1,700-acre extension to the OBGS DRI. The Town of Lady Lake approved the substantial deviation request through the issuance of an Amended Development Order on May 7, 1990. The County approved the development within its jurisdiction on May 29, 1990. In September 1993, intervenor, as successor to Orange Blossom Hills, Inc., submitted an ADA to the County which requested a substantial deviation from the OBGS and OBGW DRI's. By submitting this latest development, intervenor sought to add approximately 1,960 acres to the existing OBGS and OBGW DRI's and modify the development already approved by adding a total of 6,250 residential units and 910,000 square feet of commercial square footage. The overall development was renamed Tri-County Villages. The development order approving the substantial deviation for Tri-County Villages was adopted by the County on September 20, 1994. The Challenged Amendment On September 20, 1994, or prior to approval of the Tri-County Villages development substantial deviation, but in conjunction with it, the County adopted plan amendment 94D1 by Ordinance No. 94-6. On November 10, 1994, the DCA determined the amendment to be in compliance. That amendment amended the plan's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 1,960 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment designated as Planned Unit Development (PUD) all areas of the approved OBGW DRI and the additional 1,960 acres referred to in Exhibit 1 of 94D1 as parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, parcels 5 and 8 had been designated predominantly as agricultural, with small pockets of rural residential. The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the urban expansion area to include all of parcels 5 and 8. Prior to the amendment, only a small section of parcel 8 was included in the urban expansion area. The plan amendment further included several textual revisions to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), including a revision to FLUE Policy 1.5.7 concerning the ratio of commercial square footage to residential units and the addition of FLUE Objective 1.14 and Policies 1.14.1 - 1.14.6, which essentially incorporated the concept of sector planning into the plan. Finally, the plan amendment revised Policy 2.1.5 of the Sanitary Sewer Element which, subject to submission of appropriate data and analysis, and Department of Environmental Protection approval, reduced the established level of service for sanitary sewer throughout the Tri-County Villages development. The Tri-County Villages DRI and ADA and plan amendment are related in that Section 380.06(6), Florida Statutes, requires that the local government's review of the DRI and corresponding comprehensive plan amendment be initiated and concluded at the same time. In the instant case, the Tri-County Villages ADA served as much of the background data and analysis for the plan amendment. The Tri-County Villages DRI also served as the sector plan for the area covered by the amendment. In addition to the voluminous data and analysis included in the Tri- County Villages ADA, the plan amendment also included detailed data and analysis. The data and analysis accompanying the amendment included a compatibility and land use suitability analysis, a soils analysis, an evaluation of urban sprawl related issues, an analysis of environmental considerations, a population and housing analysis, a concurrency analysis, and an analysis to ensure that the amendment was consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The data and analysis collectively demonstrated that the urban development proposed by the amendment was appropriate for the designated area. C. Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? In their proposed recommended order, petitioners summarize their objections to the plan amendment as follows: (a) the amendment fails to protect agricultural lands, (b) the amendment encourages urban sprawl, (c) the future land use map is internally inconsistent, (d) there is no demonstrated need for 1,960 acres of PUD land use, (e) PUD is not a valid land use category, (f) the amendment does not ensure adequate fire and emergency medical services, (g) the County failed to coordinate with the local school board, (h) there is no reasonable protection from flooding, (i) the amendment does not provide adequate parks and recreational facilities, (j) affordable housing needs are not met, and there is no requirement that the developer install water and sewer facilities at its own expense. These contentions will be discussed separately below. Protection of agricultural lands Under the amendment, 1,960 acres of agricultural land will be converted to urban type uses. Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to protect agricultural land as required by FLUE objective 7.1.2 and Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code. The cited objective "establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area" and "insures retention of agricultural activities." If the plan amendment fails to "adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas," the cited rule considers this failure to be a prime indicator that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The rule and objective do not prohibit the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Indeed, FLUE objective 1.2 and the corresponding policies allow for the conversion of suitable agricultural lands as the need for additional urban land is demonstrated. The policies also require that the conversion be done in a well planned, orderly and logical fashion based on need and suitability. The agricultural lands being converted as a result of the plan amendment are appropriate for conversion. The plans, FLUE data and analysis demonstrate that one of the best areas for urban development in the County is the northeast portion of the County which covers the agricultural lands in the plan amendment. This determination was based on an extensive analysis of various factors including soil suitability, environmental constraints, and other planning criteria such as proximity to existing urbanized areas. The evidence establishes that the conversion of agricultural land contemplated by the plan amendment was justifiable because of the extent of urban development already existing in the area and the urban infrastructure currently in place. In addition, future populations will be directed away from the remaining agricultural lands throughout the County and to the development proposed by the plan amendment. The open space required by the PUD and Tri- County Villages amended development order sector plan will also serve to buffer and ensure compatibility of land covered by the plan amendment and the adjacent agricultural and rural lands. In view of the above, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to protect agricultural land. Urban sprawl In the same vein, petitioners contend that the amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl because of the conversion of 1,960 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. In support of this contention, they cite a number of provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, all dealing with urban sprawl, and which have allegedly been violated. They also point to the fact that large portions of the existing development have not been sold or built out, only 2 percent of the 1,960 acres will be devoted to commercial land use, the multiplier for the plan amendment is in excess of 1.25, which is an indicator of urban sprawl, and no future public facilities and services are planned for the lands covered by the amendment prior to its adoption. The plan amendment includes an evaluation of urban sprawl. That evaluation references FLUE policy 1.2.5.(a), which was adopted by the County specifically as a mechanism for discouraging urban sprawl. A review of that policy indicates that, for a PUD to be allowed in an agricultural area, it must score approximately 50 points based on factors including, but not limited to, proximity to the urban expansion area, proximity to urban services, including water, sewer, and roads, and proximity to other services such as fire protection and emergency medical services. If a proposed amendment or PUD failed to score 50 points, it was deemed to encourage urban sprawl and would not be approved by the County. The plan amendment scored 130 points, well in excess of the 50 point threshold. In addition to satisfying FLUE policy 1.2.5.(a), the plan amendment is consistent with FLUM maps VII-18A and VII-18C, which are the future land use constrained area overlay and urban sprawl evaluation overlay, respectively. As the FLUE data and analysis indicate, these maps were prepared for the purpose of directing urban development into areas most suitable for such development. Map VII-18A demonstrates that the land included in the plan amendment has only slight limitations for urban development. Similarly, Map VII-18C indicates that the land has only slight limitations in regard to urban sprawl. In fact, portions of land covered by the plan amendment are already within an established urban expansion area which is the OBGW DRI. Finally, the PUD mixed land use category and sector plan concept adopted by the plan amendment are planning methods specifically recognized and encouraged by prior DCA policy as reflected in the DCA's Technical Memo Special Edition 4-4 and the urban sprawl provisions incorporated into Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code, effective May 18, 1994, as methods of discouraging urban sprawl. Indeed, the rule provides in part that mixed use development and sector planning . . . will be recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Given the above, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment encourages urban sprawl. The consistency of the future land Petitioners next argue in general terms that the FLUM does not "reflect policies which call for maintaining agricultural lands, discouraging urban sprawl, promoting land use compatibility, protection from flooding, providing for adequate public recreation facilities, and other objectives," and thus it is internally inconsistent. The FLUM series in the plan as well as the FLUM series as amended by the plan amendment is a pictorial representation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the FLUM is internally inconsistent as alleged in their petition. Demonstrated need Petitioners next allege that the plan amendment "is premature in time and fails to provide demonstrated need" as required by various provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. They further allege that the FLUM "is not based upon adequate surveys, studies, or data regarding the amount of land needed to accommodate anticipated growth." Initially, it is noted that the data and analysis in the plan are not subject to the compliance review process. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, authorizes the DCA in a compliance review to determine only if the plan or plan amendment is based on appropriate data and analysis and whether the data was collected in a professionally acceptable manner. Planning methodologies used in analysis of the data, such as the calculation of a multiplier, must also be prepared in a professionally acceptable manner. In addition, the DCA may not choose one methodology over another. At hearing, petitioners raised issues concerning the methodology used in calculating the County's residential land use allocation multiplier and contended that other factors such as mortality rates and resale figures should have been used in calculating the multiplier. The preparation of the multiplier in issue came as a result of the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments report. That report recommended that the County provide an analysis which demonstrated that the land use change requested in the plan amendment was based on the amount of additional land needed to accommodate the projected population during the planning time frame (the year 2014) established by the Tri-County Villages Amended Development Order sector plan. Based on historic data, the County calculated a multiplier which depicted the allocation of residential land countywide. The multiplier was 1.87, which means that the County allocated residential land uses approximately 87 percent above its demonstrated need for the planning period. The evidence shows that, in order to allow some degree of development flexibility, a local government will routinely allocate more land than is actually needed. Indeed, a multiplier of 1.87 is low when compared to the other multipliers found in compliance in adjacent local governments as well as in other local governments statewide. In actuality, a 1.87 multiplier is not really the most accurate depiction of the allocation of residential land county-wide because the population for OBGW and the other PUD in the County was not included in the calculation. In an effort to provide a more accurate multiplier, the County added to the equation the projected population for OBGW and the PUD. The resulting revised multiplier equalled 1.46. Petitioners developed a multiplier of their own of 1.88. However, they failed to show that the County's multiplier was not developed in a professionally acceptable manner. Moreover, petitioners' methodology was unacceptable because it did not project its population over the correct planning horizon. Petitioners failed to consider the 2014 planning horizon established by the Tri-County Villages Amended Development Order sector plan which controls the development of land covered by the plan amendment. Instead, petitioners multiplier incorrectly used the 2001 planning horizon established by the plan. In addressing the need for additional residential allocation, the amount of residential land allocated must be a reflection of the population expected through the end of the Tri-County Villages sector plan 2014 planning horizon. The type of development contemplated by the plan amendment and the additional population has not previously occurred in the County. Since development of OBGW commenced in 1992, the building permits issued in the County have increased by 94 percent. Much of this increase can be attributed to OBGW. The number of yearly certificates of occupancy for OBGW has stayed relatively constant and is expected to remain constant throughout the planning horizon. Intervenor's marketing scheme for OBGW seeks to attract retirees predominately from the northeastern part of the United States. The residents are not generally County residents prior to moving to Tri-County Villages. This same marketing scheme will be used for the future development of the Tri-County Villages. Thus, the future Tri-County Villages residents are not expected to be from the County. Tri-County Villages is a new type of development for the County. This new population was not taken into account in the original comprehensive plan which also had a low multiplier. Therefore, the need for residential allocation for this new population was not addressed. Because this new population is a reality which was not comtemplated by the plan, and the plan does not have an excess of allocated residential land, the need for the increased residential densities has been demonstrated. Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment was premature or not based on a demonstrated need. PUD as a land use category Because a planned unit development (PUD) is not "recognized" as a land use category in Rule 9J-5.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, petitioners contend that the use of that category in the plan amendment renders it not in compliance. For purposes of its compliance review, the DCA used the version of chapter 9J-5 which was in effect at the time of the submittal of the plan amendment. Then existing Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which was effective on March 23, 1994, established the generalized land uses which must be shown on the Existing Land Use Map (ELUM). Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that these same generalized land uses must be depicted on the FLUM as well. While it is true that PUD is not one of the generalized land uses listed in chapter 9J-5, the two rules cited above both allow a local government to depict other land use categories on the ELUM and FLUM. Because the plan references PUD as a mixed land use category, the County has properly depicted that category on both the ELUM and FLUM. Petitioners have failed to show that PUD as a mixed land use category is not recognized under the rules in existence when the plan amendment was reviewed. Compatibility with adjacent agricultural lands Petitioners have also alleged that the County has "not demonstrated compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses." They point to the fact that the area adjacent to and near the development is a "friendly rural community," and they allege that the development will harm this wholesome atmosphere. The plan allows for the well planned conversion of agricultural lands in the County. One of the requirements of the plan's PUD provisions is that PUD development be buffered from adjacent lands and contain open space. The purpose of this provision is to ensure compatibility. A review of the PUD application and DRI Master Development Plan, both incorporated into the plan amendment, shows that the Tri-County Villages development will provide approximately 1,100 acres of open space. Much of this open space will act as a buffer between the development and the adjacent agricultural and rural land uses. The project will also cluster its development which serves to separate the more urban development from the adjacent agricultural and rural uses. Another mechanism which ensures compatibility is the phased method of development proposed for the project. Under the phasing approach, only contiguous portions of the property will be developed at any given time during the planning period. In addition, existing agricultural uses on the property will continue until such time as the proposed development reaches that property. Given these considerations, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is incompatible with adjacent land uses. Levels of service In their amended petition, petitioners assert that the plan amendment is in violation of FLUE objective 7.1.6 and FLUE policy 7.1.6.1, objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element, Rules 9J-5.005(3), 9J- 5.011(2)2., 9J-5.015(3)(b)1., and 9J-5.016(3)(a) and (b)4., Florida Administrative Code, and Section 187.201(16)(b)6., Florida Statutes, all pertaining specifically or generally to levels of service for recreational facilities, schools, fire protection, emergency medical services and flooding. Policy 1.1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element adopts a recreational facility level of service for such facilities as softball fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, boat ramps and the like. The amount of facilities required is based on population. Under the plan, the County must take the necessary steps to insure that the availability of these facilities is addressed during the concurrency review process and not at the compliance review stage. In other words, when a proposed development reaches the stage of requesting a building permit, the County may require as a condition of the issuance of that building permit that a developer provide a certain facility. In this regard, it is noted that Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that any development comply with concurrency requirements while the Tri-County DRI Amended Development Order requires that the developer provide for adequate public facilities. Both the plan amendment and the development authorized therein generally address the recreational level of service. However, if no additional facilities are constructed in the future, the plan amendment does not provide adequate baseball fields, softball fields, boat ramps or handball courts consistent with policy 1.1.1. In addressing these potential deficiencies, intervenor represented to the County that as a retirement community, the development would not generate a demand for these types of facilities. That is to say, the retiree population inhabiting the development would be less likely to participate in activities such as baseball or softball. The population would, however, generate a need for other recreational facilities such as golf courses, swimming pools, shuffleboard courts and bocci ball facilities, all of which the development has a surplus. In response to this concern, the County concluded that it was not appropriate to require the construction of certain facilities when the project would not generate a need for them. The County indicated that, during the plan evaluation and appraisal stage required in 1998, an amendment to the plan would be transmitted which would revise the plan to take into account such situations. If such an amendment is not adopted, intervenor will need to provide additional facilities necessary to meet concurrency requirements. There is no established level of service in the plan for fire protection or emergency medical services. Intervenor has, however, addressed these services in the Amended Development Order for the development. As reflected in that order, intervenor donated a five-acre parcel and constructed a fire station adjacent to the development. The station may also be used to house emergency medical services, if needed, although an existing emergency medical service provider is located in close proximity. Intervenor also donated to the County $80,000 for the purchase of fire fighting equipment, and each household pays the County a $30 annual fee for fire protection. Therefore, fire protection and emergency medical services have been addressed. The plan establishes no level of service standard for schools. Because the development is a retirement community, children under age 19 are prohibited. As a consequence, it was determined that impacts to school facilities would be minimal. Intervenor contacted and advised the school board of its retirement community development plans and projected student impacts. In response, the school board concluded that minimal impact was expected as a result of the development. To the extent that the development in the future allows school age children to reside therein, the Amended Development Order specifically calls for a substantial deviation determination pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, to evaluate the potential impacts to school facilities. As a result of further review, intervenor may be required to provide additional school facilities. The plan establishes a level of service for stormwater drainage in terms of quantity and quality. Based on flooding which has occurred in the existing OBGW development, petitioners suggest that flooding will occur in the development proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. While such flooding has occurred in the OBGW development, there is no evidence that the flooding was caused by a reduction or violation of the stormwater drainage level of service. Indeed, the evidence shows that the flooding was caused by an unusually heavy period of rainfall in combination with debris clogging the inlets of the stormwater system. The actual stormwater system for OBGW, which was reviewed and approved in the OBGW DRI review process, was designed for and required to meet the plan's drainage level of service. As a concurrency matter, any system designed for the future development contemplated in the plan amendment will also be required to meet the stormwater drainage level of service. Accordingly, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment violates the plan's level of services standard for stormwater drainage. Affordable housing Petitioners further allege that the plan amendment "fails to provide for affordable housing as required by Objective 3.5 of the Housing Element of the (plan)" in violation of various rules and the state comprehensive plan. The rule alleged to have been violated requires a local government to analyze the affordable housing stock within the local government. The local government must then adopt comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies which establish programs to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing for the present and future residents. Housing Element objective 3.5 and the implementing policies which follow provide one of the mechanisms, coordination with the private sector, which the County uses to address the provision of affordable housing countywide. The provisions of objective 3.5 and the implementing policies place no specific requirements on the private sector. These plan provisions only require that, in addressing the provision of affordable housing, the County work with the private sector. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, neither the plan provisions nor chapter 9J-5 require the plan amendment to address the affordable housing deficiencies countywide. As a DRI requirement, however, the plan amendment does address the provision of affordable housing. A detailed housing analysis was provided in the Tri-County Villages ADA. The analysis included a review of the affordable housing stock pursuant to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's housing demand, supply and need methodology. The analysis further concluded that after phase 3, additional affordable housing may be necessary. To address this deficiency, the ADA for the development requires intervenor to reanalyze the available affordable housing consistent with objective 3.5 of the Housing Element. Thus, it is found that petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to provide affordable housing. i. Infrastructure funding Finally, petitioners allege that the plan amendment is inconsistent with FLUE policy 1.5.4. That policy provides as follows: All PUDS shall provide for central potable water and sanitary sewer facilities at the developer's expense and provide for fire hydrants and fire flow within the development in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standards. Intervenor has created community development districts as a mechanism to fund the development infrastructure. Intervenor is able to raise funds by the sale of bonds through these districts. The residents of the development will ultimately repay the bonds. Even so, petitioners allege that this funding mechanism is inconsistent with the cited policy because the infrastructure is not funded "at the developer's expense." The purpose and intent of the policy was to insure that the County not be obligated to fund infrastructure related to the PUD development. The developer, and ultimately the residents, of the project will fund the infrastructure through the community development districts. The County will not be obligated. This funding mechanism is consistent with policy 1.5.4. in that the County is not responsible for the funding of the PUD-related infrastructure. Accordingly, petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the cited policy.
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 Sumter County's comprehensive plan amendment 94D1 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1995, 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 11 day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6974GM Petitioners: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4-5. Rejected as being unnecessary. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 8-9. Rejected as being unnecessary. 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7-9. 11-14. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 19-21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 22-23. Covered in procedural statement. 24-29. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-20. 30-41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 21-25. 42. Rejected as being unnecessary. 43-77. Partially accepted in findings of fact 28-36. 78-85. Partially accepted in findings of fact 37-39. 86-95. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40-42. 96-148. Partially accepted in findings of fact 43-49. 149-162. Partially accepted in findings of fact 50-53. 163-166. Partially accepted in findings of fact 54-56. Respondents/Intervenor: With certain changes, the substance of proposed findings 1-53 has been generally incorporated into this recommended order. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Mr. T. D. Farnsworth 12364 County Road 223 Oxford, Florida 34484 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513-5928 David L. Jordan, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 R. Dewey Burnsed, Esquire Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2003-45 on September 4, 2003, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background 1. E. K. Edwards (Edwards) and Richard J. Clark (Clark), who are non-parties, own two tracts of land totaling 43.76 acres approximately four or five miles west-northwest of the City of Pensacola in unincorporated Escambia County. The larger tract (known as the Northern Parcel and owned by Edwards) consists of one parcel totaling 26.76 acres and is located at 2700 Blue Angel Parkway, also known as State Road 173. The second tract (known as the Southern Parcel and owned by Clark) consists of four contiguous parcels totaling around 17 acres and is located approximately 560 feet south of the Northern Parcel at the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of Blue Angel Parkway and Sorrento Road (intersection). The two tracts are separated by two large privately-owned lots that currently have residential uses. (However, the land use on one of those parcels, totaling almost 9 acres, was recently changed to a Commercial land use designation. See Finding of Fact 15, infra.) On July 10, 2002, a realtor (acting as agent on behalf of the two owners) filed an application with the County seeking to change the land use on the FLUM for both the Northern and Southern Parcels from LDR to Commercial. The LDR category allows residential densities ranging from one dwelling unit per five acres to 18 dwelling units per acre, as well as neighborhood commercial uses. The Commercial category would allow the owners to place a broad range of commercial uses on their property, such as shopping centers, professional offices, medical facilities, convenience retail, or other similar uses. On November 20, 2002, the County Planning Board (on which Petitioner was then a member) considered the application and voted unanimously to change the land use classification on the Southern Parcel to Commercial. It also voted to change the non-wetlands portion of the Northern Parcel to Commercial. However, the request to change the land use on the wetlands portion of the Northern Parcel was denied. This recommendation was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (Board), which modified the Planning Board's recommendation and approved the application as originally submitted. The amendment was then sent to the Department for an in compliance determination. On June 13, 2003, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report. In the ORC, the Department expressed concerns that there were insufficient "adequate data and analyses to demonstrate the suitability of the [Northern Parcel] for the proposed Future Land Use designation" because of the presence of on-site wetlands. The ORC went on to say that the County had failed to demonstrate how the proposed amendment would be consistent with four other Plan provisions that prohibit the location of commercial and industrial land uses in certain types of wetlands. The ORC recommended that the County "provide a more detailed characterization of the site and the surrounding area relative to the natural resources [wetlands] on the amendment site and the general area." After the issuance of the ORC, Mr. Edwards retained an ecological consultant, Dr. Joe A. Edmisten, to address the Department's concerns. On July 16, 2003, Dr. Edmisten submitted a 14-page Report in which he essentially concluded that while there were wetlands on the site, there were no endangered, threatened, rare, or listed plant or animal species. That Report has been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. In light of this new information, the Planning Board again considered the matter on August 20, 2003, and by a four- to-one-vote recommended that the application, as originally filed, be approved. The matter was then forwarded to the Board. In response to an inquiry by a Board member at the Board's meeting on September 4, 2003, Dr. Edmisten stated that he found a "few pitcher plants in the wetlands [on Mr. Edwards' property]," including Sarracenia leucophylla, which is on the State (but not federal) Endangered Plant List. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 5B-40.0055(1)(a)334. Even though this information had not been disclosed in the Report, by a three- to-two vote, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2003-45, which approved the change to the FLUM for both the Northern and Southern Parcels. On October 24, 2003, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to Find the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan Amendment in Compliance. On November 17, 2003, Petitioner, who resides, owns property, and operates a business within the County, and submitted written or oral comments, objections, or recommendations to the County before the amendment was adopted, filed his Petition alleging that the plan amendment was not in compliance. Petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law and has standing to file his Petition. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Petitioner contends that there is inadequate data and analyses relative to the natural environment (wetlands), traffic concurrency, and urban sprawl to support the amendment. As further clarified by Petitioner, he does not challenge the change in the FLUM for the Southern Parcel, but only contests that portion of the amendment which changes the land use on the Northern Parcel, on which wetlands are sited. In view of this, only the Northern Parcel will be considered in this Recommended Order. The Property The Northern Parcel fronts on the eastern side of Blue Angel Parkway approximately 1,400 feet north of the intersection. In broader geographic terms, the property is in western Escambia County and appears to be several miles west- northwest of the Pensacola Naval Air Station (which lies west- southwest of the City of Pensacola) and several miles south of U.S. Highway 98, which runs east-west through the southern part of the County. Blue Angel Parkway is a minor arterial roadway (at least where it runs in front of the Northern Parcel) and begins at the Pensacola Naval Air Station (to the south) and runs north to at least U.S. Highway 98. From the Naval Air Station to the intersection, Blue Angel Parkway appears to have four lanes, and from that point continuing past the Northern Parcel to U.S. Highway 98, it narrows to two undivided lanes. At the present time, an old borrow pit sits on the eastern side of the land, for which the property was given a special exception by the County's Zoning Board of Adjustments in March 1995. Also, there are at least three other ponds (or old borrow pits) formerly used by the owner for catfish farming; two large, unused metal buildings (apparently hangars) moved from the Naval Air Station to the property as military surplus; and numerous stored empty tanks in the southeastern corner of the property. The remainder of the property is vacant. When Dr. Edmisten's Report was submitted in July 2003, all of the ponds were filled with water due to recent heavy rains. Because of existing development at all corners of the intersection except the southwest corner, the intersection has been designated by the County as a commercial node, and the County considers the node to extend from the intersection northward along the eastern side of Blue Angel Parkway to the Northern Parcel. (However, on the western side of the road, the County has determined that the node terminates at the end of a parcel on which a Wal-Mart Super Center sits, and that further commercial development beyond that point would be inappropriate.) This determination is consistent with the Commercial land use classification found on the western portion of the Northern Parcel. See Finding of Fact 13, infra. The property presently carries a split future land use: an approximate 150-foot deep sliver of land which fronts on Blue Angel Parkway is classified as Commercial, while the remainder of the parcel is LDR. This dichotomy in land uses stems from a decision by the County in 1993 (when the Plan was adopted) to designate a narrow commercial strip on both sides of Blue Angel Parkway from just south of the intersection to Dog Track Road, which lies north of the Northern Parcel. The property also carries an Industrial zoning classification (presumably related to the mining activities), even though the land use on most of the parcel is residential. By his application, Edwards is seeking to "unify" the back or eastern portion of his property, which is now LDR, with the western portion fronting on Blue Angel Parkway, which is classified as Commercial. To the east of the Northern Parcel is Coral Creek, a fairly large residential subdivision platted in the 1990s. Some of the single-family lots in that subdivision back up to the eastern boundary of the property. The property to the north is vacant, is populated with some pitcher plants, and is classified as residential. Across the street and to the southwest is a new Wal-Mart Super Center which opened in the last year or so at the northwestern quadrant of the intersection. (The northern boundary of the Wal-Mart Super Center parcel is directly across the street from the southern boundary of the Northern Parcel.) The property directly across the street and extending to the north is vacant and classified as Residential. That parcel also contains pitcher plants and is informally designated as "pitcher plant prairie." The property which separates the Northern and Southern Parcels is classified as Residential, except for 8.98 acres which were recently changed from LDR to Commercial through a small-scale development amendment approved by the Department. See Gregory L. Strand v. Escambia County, DOAH Case No. 03-2980GM (DOAH Recommended Order Dec. 23, 2003; DCA Final Order Jan. 28, 2004). The Final Order in that case, however, has been appealed by Petitioner. While the precise amount of wetlands on the site is unknown, the record does indicate that wetlands exist on "approximately" one-half of the Northern Parcel, or around thirteen or so acres, leaving a like amount of uplands. (Therefore, even if the property is reclassified, the amount of development on the property will be restricted in some measure through the application of the County's Wetlands Ordinance found in the Land Development Code.) A small area of wetlands exists on the western side of the property near Blue Angel Parkway while a larger wetland system lies on the eastern side of the property and acts as a buffer with the Coral Creek subdivision. The wetlands are under the permitting jurisdiction of the United States Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the County. Petitioner's Objections Petitioner contends that the amendment is not in compliance because there is inadequate data and analyses relative to conservation (wetlands), traffic, and urban sprawl to support the change in the land use.2 These issues will be addressed separately below. Wetlands As to this objection, Petitioner's principal concern is that if the land use change is approved, there will be much more intense development on the property which will result in a loss of wetlands, even with mitigation. Citing Policy 11.A.2.6.d of the Coastal Management Element of the Plan, he contends that there is insufficient data and analyses to support the plan amendment's distribution of land uses in such a way as to minimize the effect and impact on wetlands. The cited policy contains provisions which govern the development of lands within wetland areas, including one provision which states that "commercial and industrial land uses will not be located in wetlands that have a high degree of hydrological or biological significance, including the following types of wetlands: . . . Wetlands that have a high degree of biodiversity or habitat value, based on maps prepared by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or Florida National Areas Inventory, unless a site survey demonstrates that there are no listed plant or animal species on the site." In Case No. 03-2980GM, supra, which involved a change in the FLUM on a parcel of property which separates the Northern and Southern Parcels, Petitioner contended, among other things, that the terms of Policy 11.A.2.6.d should apply whenever the FLUM is being amended, and that because there were wetlands on the parcel, along with two types of endangered plants, the policy prohibited a change from a residential to a commercial land use. In rejecting that contention, however, the Department approved and adopted language by the Administrative Law Judge which concluded, for several reasons, that "the County intended Policy 11.A.2.6.a through e to apply to decisions of the County regarding development applications and not to changes in future land use designations or categories in a FLUM." (Recommended Order, page 19). Therefore, the policy applies to development applications, and not to FLUM amendments, and does not have to be considered at this juncture. (That policy, and the County's Wetlands Ordinance, will obviously come into play at the time a site plan is filed and the owner seeks to develop the property.) As such, there is no need for data and analyses at this time to demonstrate that the policy has been satisfied. As noted above, after the Department issued its ORC, Mr. Edwards engaged the services of Dr. Edmisten, who performed a study and prepared a Report that evaluated the wetlands on the Northern Parcel. That Report constitutes much of the data and analyses which support the amendment. Despite the presence of one endangered plant species, the Report indicates that the wetlands do not have a high degree of hydrological or biological significance; that the change in the FLUM is consistent with all relevant policies in the Plan, including those cited in the ORC; that a mitigation plan will be offered prior to any development; and that all wetlands issues will be addressed during the development stage. The Report also indicates that among other things, Dr. Edmisten utilized the National Wetlands Inventory Map in reaching his conclusions. The Department reviewed the document and found that it constituted the best available data and analyses, that the data were analyzed in a professional manner, and that the County reacted to the data in an appropriate manner when it adopted the amendment. This is especially true since the County has provisions in its Plan for wetlands avoidance and fully considers these issues through the site-review process. Given these considerations, it is at least fairly debatable that there exist adequate data and analyses regarding wetlands to support the change in the land use on the property. Traffic Petitioner also contends that there is a lack of adequate data and analyses to demonstrate that the proposed change in land use will not adversely impact traffic in the area. More specifically, he contends that the County failed to perform an analysis of infrastructure capacity, and that it also failed to include information that Blue Angel Parkway is not in its five-year plan for improvements. Data and analyses were provided in the form of a spreadsheet dated November 6, 2002, and entitled Traffic Volume and Level of Service Report (Traffic Report). The Traffic Report contained several categories of information regarding traffic volume, Level of Service (LOS), and other transportation information. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The data were far more detailed than data previously used by the County on other amendments of this size and character, and they were based on Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) accepted standards of traffic calculations. The data and analyses were the best available at the time the plan amendment was adopted. The data shows that the section of Blue Angel Parkway on which the Northern Parcel fronts has an adopted LOS of "D." At the time the amendment was adopted, the service volume on that portion of the road was 74 percent, which means that the roadway was operating at 74 percent of its capacity. Therefore, when the amendment was adopted, the roadway was not failing, and it could handle additional traffic, including any that might be associated with the future development of the land. Petitioner also contends that the County's study was flawed because the County used so-called "Art Tab" software, which became outdated after September 1, 2002. (Art-Tab software has now been updated and is called Free Plan software.) He further suggests that the County should have performed a new study using updated software. Under DOT requirements set forth in its Quality/Level of Service Handbook, however, the County was not required to redo its analysis; rather, it was required to use the new software only in the event further studies were required. Because Blue Angel Parkway was not failing at the time the study was performed, it was not necessary for the County to undertake a new study. During the interagency review process, the DOT did not issue any objections, recommendations, or comments to the Department concerning the amendment. Finally, Petitioner contends that because the County did not have Blue Angel Parkway on any road improvement list at the time the amendment was adopted, its analysis of infrastructure capacity was flawed. See Section 163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires that each local government's comprehensive plan contain a capital improvements element with a component which outlines the principles for correcting public facility deficiencies covering at least a five-year period. Whether the County's Plan contains such a component is not of record. In any event, even if the County failed to consider the fact that Blue Angel Parkway was not scheduled for upgrading when the amendment was adopted, given the other data and analyses available at that time (the traffic spreadsheet), which reflected that the roadway was operating below capacity, the County had sufficient information regarding infrastructure capacity to support the amendment. Based on the foregoing, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendment has adequate data and analyses relative to traffic impacts to support the land use change. Urban sprawl Finally, Petitioner asserts that no data were gathered and no analyses were performed to demonstrate that the change in land use will discourage urban sprawl. In this case, the Department did not require that the County perform an urban sprawl analysis, given the type of surrounding land uses; the relative small size of the Northern Parcel; the absence of any land use allocation problems; the ability of the owner to now place up to 18 units per acre and/or neighborhood commercial development on the property under the current LDR classification; and the fact that the Northern Parcel is located on the edge of a rapidly urbanizing area of the County. At the same time, Petitioner presented no evidence which supported the need for such a study. The Northern (and Southern) Parcel is located in a rapidly urbanizing area of the County and is close to several other urban uses. Indeed, as noted earlier, there is a Wal- Mart Super Center across the street at the northwestern quadrant of the intersection, and a mix of commercial and residential uses abut the intersection to the southeast. All four corners of the intersection have been designated as a commercial node in the County's draft Southwest Sector Plan, and the County has determined that the node continues northward on the eastern side of the road to and including the Northern Parcel. As a general rule, the Department considers the size and shape of nodes to be a local government decision, and it found no reason here to question that determination. The Plan encourages commercial development at intersectional nodes. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.003(134), urban sprawl is defined in part as "urban development or uses which are located in predominately rural areas." Indicators of urban sprawl include "[t]he premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses," and the "creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area." The evidence does not support a finding that the amendment will result in the poorly planned conversion of rural lands, or the creation of a land use that is not functionally related to land uses that predominate the adjacent area. Given these considerations, Petitioner has not proven beyond fair debate that the plan amendment will result in urban sprawl, or that the County lacked adequate data and analyses related to urban sprawl to support the change in the land use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2003-45 on September 4, 2003, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th 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 6th day of May, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether comprehensive plan future land use map amendment (FLUMA) 07-L25, adopted by Marion County Ordinance 07-31 on November 20, 2007, which changed the FLUM designation on 378 acres of Urban Reserve and on 17.83 acres of Rural Land to Medium Density Residential, is "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The parcel that is the subject of the FLUMA at issue (the Property) is approximately 395.83 acres in size. The existing FLUM designation for 378 acres of the Property is Urban Reserve, and the remaining 17.3 acres are designated as Rural Land. Both designations allow a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. The FLUMA would change the designation of the entire parcel to Medium Density Residential (MDR). MDR generally allows up to four dwelling units per acre. However, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 12.5.k, which also was adopted as part of County Ordinance 07-31, limits the maximum density on the Property to two dwelling units per acre. FLUE Policy 12.5.k also requires: that development on the Property "be served by central potable water and central sanitary sewer services available concurrent with development" and be a Planned Unit Development "to address site design, buffering, and access issues"; and that NW 90th Avenue be reconstructed from U.S. Highway 27 north to the north-eastern corner of the Property and that all traffic facility improvements needed at the NW 90th Avenue/U.S. 27 intersection, including signalization if approved by the Florida Department of Transportation, be constructed prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the Property. Finally, with respect to the 17.3 acres formerly designated as Rural Land, FLUE Policy 12.5.k defers compliance with the County's Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program until application for assignment of a zoning classification for the land. Petitioners' Challenge Intervenors own the Property. Petitioners own property nearby in Marion County. Intervenors and Petitioners commented on the proposed FLUMA between transmittal to DCA and adoption by the County. Petitioners contend: The FLUMA is not consistent with the stormwater drainage, retention, and management policies contained in Policies 1.1.a. and 1.1.d. of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Comprehensive Plan. MDR is not suitable or compatible with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity, as required by FLUE Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of County Commissioners failed to evaluate the FLUMA's impact on “the need for the change” as provided in FLUE Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The FLUMA fails to take into account its impact on “water quality and quantity, the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands, and the potential for flooding,” as required by Section 187.201(15)(b)6., Florida Statutes. The FLUMA is not consistent with Transportation Policy 1.0 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states: "Marion County shall create and maintain transportation facilities that operate in a safe and efficient manner within an established level of service." The FLUMA is not consistent with the State's Comprehensive Plan in that it does not "ensure that new development is compatible with existing local and regional water supplies," as required by Section 187.201(7)(b)5., Florida Statutes. The FLUMA does not direct development away from areas without sediment cover that is adequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer and does not prohibit non-residential uses within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature, in violation of FLUE Policy 4.2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The FLUMA does not comply with Section 187.201(7), Florida Statutes, concerning the protection of surface and ground water quality in the State. Recharge Sub-Element Policy 1.1.a. and d. Policy 1.1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan provides in part: The County’s land development regulations shall implement the following guidelines for stormwater management consistent with accepted engineering practices by October 1, 2007: Stormwater retention/detention basin depth will be consistent with the water management district's storm water requirements for Karst Sensitive Areas so that sufficient filtration of bacteria and other pollutants will occur. Avoidance of basin collapse due to excessive hydrostatic pressure in Karst Sensitive Areas shall be given special consideration. * * * d. Require the use of swales and drainage easements, particularly for single family residential development in Karst Sensitive Areas. These are requirements for land development regulations (LDRs); they do not apply to comprehensive plan amendments. In any event, the evidence did not prove that the site is unsuitable for the density allowed under the adopted FLUMA due to karst features. The admissible evidence presented by Petitioners regarding stormwater management in karst topography generally related to flooding problems on the property contiguous to the Property, and to a karst feature referred to as the “63rd Street Sinkhole,” which is located in the general vicinity of the Property. Fay Baird, an expert hydrologist called by Petitioners, testified that the 63rd Street Sinkhole allows stormwater run- off to enter the upper aquifer. Ms. Baird testified generally of the problems and concerns regarding development and stormwater management systems in karst topography. She testified that the Property should be properly inventoried, that specific karst features should be identified, and that any stormwater system designed or developed should take into account karst features to protect against groundwater contamination and flooding. She testified that she had not been on the Property, had not seen or reviewed core borings or other data to determine the depth and nature of the sub-surface, and was not in a position to provide opinions as to whether or not a particular stormwater management system would or could adequately protect against her concerns. Intervenors’ expert, Richard Busche, testified that a stormwater management plan like the one recommended by Ms. Baird was being developed. Compatibility under FLUE Policy 12.3 FLUE Policy 12.3 provides in pertinent part: Before approval of a future land use amendment, the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed future land use is suitable, and the County will review, and make a determination that the proposed land use is compatible with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity . . . . Petitioners argued that the proposed MDR development of the Property is incompatible with surrounding agricultural uses. Actually, the Property is surrounded by a mixture of agricultural and residential uses, including residential subdivisions, a golf course, and scattered large-lot residential and equestrian uses. The properties immediately to the south and east of the Property are developed residential properties and are designated MDR. Before the FLUMA, most of the Property was designated Urban Reserve under the County's Comprehensive Plan. Such land "provides for expansion of an Urban Area in a timely manner." FLUE Policies 1.24.B and 2.18. "For an Urban Reserve Area to be designated an Urban Area, it must be compact and contiguous to an existing Urban Area, and central water and sewer must be provided concurrent with development within the expanded area." FLUE Policy 2.18. The Property is compact and is contiguous to existing Urban Area designated MDR. This indicates that the County already has planned for timely conversion of the Urban Reserve land on the Property to urban uses, including MDR. It also means that the County already has determined that at least certain urban uses, including MDR, are compatible with adjacent agricultural uses. The Property is in the receiving area under the County's Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Program in FLUE Objectives 13.0 and 13.01 and the policies under those objectives. This means that the County already has determined that residential density can be transferred to the Property from the Farmland Preservation sending areas to increase residential density up to one dwelling unit per acre. See FLUE Policy 13.6. This would constitute Low Density Residential, which is an urban use under the County's Comprehensive Plan. See FLUE Policy 1.24.A. By establishing the Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Programs, the County already has determined that Low Density Residential is compatible with adjacent Rural Land. In addition, Low Density Residential clearly is compatible with MDR. Although not raised in the Petition, Petitioners argued that the Urban Reserve and Farmland Preservation eastern boundary was improperly moved west to NW 90th Avenue. However, that change was made prior to the adoption of Ordinance 07-31 and the FLUMA at issue in this case and is not a proper subject of this proceeding. Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3 FLUE Policy 13.2 provides: The Transfer of Development Rights program shall be the required method for increasing density within receiving areas, unless, through the normal Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle, an applicant can both justify and demonstrate a need for a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment. FLUE Policy 12.3 provides: Before approval of a future land use amendment, . . . the County . . . shall evaluate its impact on: The need for the change; The availability of facilities and services; The future land use balance; and The prevention of urban sprawl as defined by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence proved that the County interprets FLUE Policy 12.3 to require need and future land use balance to be assessed within the planning districts it has established. There is no need for additional MDR in the County's Planning District 5, where the Property is located. To accommodate the projected population increase in Planning District 5 by 2010, which is the planning horizon for the County’s Comprehensive Plan, an additional 644 dwelling units are needed. There are 1,893 vacant acres of MDR available in Planning District 5. At four units per acre allowed in MDR, the County has an available supply of 7,572 MDR dwelling units in Planning District 5. In the absence of a need in Planning District 5, the County relied on a need demonstration prepared for the Intervenors by Fishkind and Associates.6 Besides being a County-wide analysis instead of a planning district analysis, the Fishkind analysis assumed a planning horizon of 2015, rather than the 2010 horizon established in the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the Fishkind analysis applied an allocation factor to the total projected need for residential use, most of which already is supplied, resulting in a projection of residential far in excess of the incremental need for additional residential land by 2015, much less by 2010. The result of the Fishkind approach was to allocate enough land for residential use to meet the County-wide projected incremental need for additional residential land use for approximately 45 years, which is five times the calculated incremental need for 2015. Even assuming that a County-wide demonstration of need complied with Marion County's Comprehensive Plan, this is much too high an allocation ratio to use to meet the incremental need projected for a 2015 plan, much less for a 2010 plan. The expert for Intervenors, Stanley Geberer, defended the Fishkind analysis in part by stating that it was comparable to demonstrations of need accepted by DCA in other cases. However, there was no evidence that the facts of those other cases were comparable to the facts of this case. Mr. Geberer also asserted that holding the County to its 2010 planning horizon would make it impossible for the County to plan for the future. However, nothing prevents the County from revising its Comprehensive Plan to plan comprehensively for a longer timeframe. There was no evidence of any other circumstances that would demonstrate a need for the FLUMA at issue in this case. State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(15)(b)6. Petitioners did not prove that the FLUMA fails to take into account its impact on "water quality and quantity, the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands, and the potential for flooding." To the contrary, the evidence was that those items were taken into account as part of the FLUMA. (However, as to the FLUMA's impact on the availability of land to meet demands, see "Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3," supra.) Transportation Element Objective 1.0 Transportation Element Objective 1.0 provides: Marion County shall create and maintain transportation facilities that operate in an efficient and safe manner within established levels of service. Petitioners presented no expert testimony or admissible evidence that the FLUMA will change established levels of service or result in transportation facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. Intervenors presented the testimony of Jonathan Thigpen, an expert traffic engineer, who prepared and submitted to the County a Traffic Impact Study and testified that the FLUMA would not change established levels of service or result in transportation facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. The ultimate need for transportation improvement, such as turn lanes and traffic lights to mitigate the impacts of development under the FLUMA, will be determined at later stages of development. Petitioners suggested that the FLUMA will result in delays caused by additional traffic, frustrate drivers waiting to turn east on U.S. 27, and induce large numbers of them to seek an alternative route to the north through agricultural areas, some of which have inadequate slag roads. However, Petitioners failed to prove that this result is likely. State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(7)(b)5 Petitioners presented no evidence that the designation of MDR on the Property is incompatible with existing local and regional water supplies. The evidence was that adequate local and regional water supplies exist. Even if they did not exist, the consequence would be less development than the maximum allowed by the FLUMA. FLUE Policy 4.2 FLUE Policy 4.2 provides in pertinent part: In order to minimize the adverse impacts of development on recharge quality and quantity in high recharge Karst sensitive and springs protection areas, design standards for all development shall be required and defined in the LDRs to address, at a minimum, the following: * * * f. Directing development away from areas with sediment cover that is inadequate to protect the Floridian [sic] Aquifer. * * * h. Prohibiting nonresidential uses within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other Karst feature. This policy sets forth requirements for the content of LDRs, not FLUMAs. Petitioners presented no evidence that sediment cover on the Property is inadequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer or that any non-residential uses would be constructed within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature under the FLUMA. Marion County has adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan to protect springs and karst features.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department determine the FLUMA at issue in this case to be not "in compliance" and take further action as required by Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 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 4th day of February, 2009.
The Issue Ultimately at issue in this case is whether certain comprehensive plan amendments, adopted by Lee County Ordinance No. 94-30, are "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, many of the subordinate issues raised by parties seeking to have the plan amendments found to be "not in compliance" have been withdrawn, and others have been stricken as not timely raised or for other reasons. The remaining issues are addressed in this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact The FLUM and the Overlay. Lee County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1984. On January 31, 1989, the County adopted an amended version of the 1984 Plan intended to plan for growth up to the year 2010 and to comply with the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements. Essentially, the 1989 Plan was very similar to that drafted in 1984. Some major differences were provision of development timing and concurrency, creation of the privately-funded infrastructure overlay, elimination of the fringe land use category, and a variety of other new goals, objectives, and policies (GOP's). Most of the land use categories in the 1984 Plan were carried forward to the 1989 Plan. Almost all of the land use categories are mixed land use categories that allow residential, commercial and in some cases also light industrial uses without any percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. The DCA took the position that the 1989 Lee Plan was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act and filed a petition under Section 163.3184(10). The Department's objection to the 1989 Plan flowed in large part from the alleged overallocation of land for development by the year 2010 that resulted from the categories in the future land use map series (FLUM). Using the County's data and analysis, the DCA concluded that the 1989 map provided for 70 years of growth, to the year 2060, instead of 20 years, to the year 2010. To resolve the 1989 Plan dispute, the County agreed to adopt a 2010 Overlay and create a Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource future land use (FLUE) category (DRGR). The 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement included the following provisions: Amend the Future Land Use Map series by designating the proposed distribution, extent, and location of the generalized land uses required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a)1.-9. for the year 2010. These designations will include acreage totals and percentage distributions (illustrated by a bar graph) for about 125 discrete sub-districts encompassing all of Lee County, which, once designated, shall be changed only by a formal amendment to the Lee Plan. The data for these designations shall be consistent with the Lee Plan's population pro- jections for the year 2010. This amendment shall be accomplished by the adoption of over- lay or sub-district maps for the entire County using the concepts developed therefor by Thomas H. Roberts of Thomas H. Roberts Associates and presented publicly to the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County on September 12, 1989, and to the Department of Community Affairs on September 22, 1989. Adopt a policy which will provide that no development approvals for any land use category will be issued in any of the sub- districts described above that would cause the acreage total set for that land use category in 2010 to be exceeded. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County created a 2010 Overlay. The County first projected future growth in Lee County to the year 2010, using a basic assumption that historic patterns of growth in Lee County, including historic densities, would continue. The County's 2010 population estimate was 757,370 for the entire unincorporated County. The County then assigned acreage allocations for different land uses allowed in each planning subdistrict. In accordance with the 1989 Plan Compliance Agreement, the County adopted the resulting 2010 Overlay, as well as a DRGR FLUE category with a density range of one unit per ten acres, as part of the 1990 remedial plan amendments. The Overlay consisted of Maps 16 and 17, which were added to the FLUM, along with implementing policies in the Future Land Use Element. The 2010 Overlay is, in the words of the 1994 Codification of the Plan, "an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series." Map 16 is a map which divides Lee County into 115 subdistricts. "Map" 17 is not a true map; it is a series of bar tables and pie charts that correspond to acreage allocations for land uses within the subdistricts. Each subdistrict is allocated a specific number of acres for each of the following land uses: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, passive agriculture and vacant. The land use acreage allocations for each Overlay subdistrict are the maximum amount of land which can be developed in that subdistrict. The intent of the 2010 Overlay was to match the amount of development that could be accommodated by the 2010 FLUM with the projected County-wide population for the year 2010. The 2010 Overlay accomplished this in part by assigning percentage distributions, in the form of acreage allocations, to the various uses in the many mixed use categories in the FLUM. Under the Overlay, once the acreage allocation for a particular land use is exhausted, no more acreage can be developed for that land use in that subdistrict unless the Lee Plan is amended. Policy 1.7.6 was adopted to establish an ongoing mandatory review procedure for evaluation and amendment of the 2010 Overlay. On September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments and officially revised the original data and analysis supporting the Plan. As the support documents for the 1990 remedial amendments stated: The future land use map series currently contained in the Future Land Use element of the Lee Plan depicts 18 land use categories and has an estimated 70-year population holding capacity. A future land use map series is re- quired by state law and is also a useful and necessary part of the plan in guiding land use and related decisions. The Year 2010 Overlay makes this map series even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon. * * * In addition to this "pure planning" function of the 2010 Overlay, a regulatory function will be added. No final development orders or building permits for any land use category will be issued in any subdistrict that would cause the acreage total for that category in 2010 to be exceeded. The Dwelling Unit Counts and Projections charts in the support documents for the 1990 amendments demonstrate that the 2010 Overlay was designed to greatly limit the number of dwelling units that could be constructed by 2010 compared to the number allowed by the 2010 FLUM without the Overlay. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments in compliance. However, a citizen challenge to the County's 1990 Remedial Plan Amendments resulted in an Administration Commission Final Order that the amendments were not in compliance and that the County had to take certain remedial actions to bring the Plan amendments into compliance. Final Order, Sheridan v. Lee Co. and DCA, 16 FALR 654 (Fla. Admin. Com. 1994)(the "Sheridan Final Order"). The Sheridan Final Order required the County to apply the 2010 Overlay at the development order stage, rather than at the building permit stage. As a result, no development order could be issued which caused the acreage allocations for any given individual subdistrict to be exceeded. The Sheridan Final Order also held that the County had not properly calculated the amount of development allowed by the 2010 Overlay and adopted the following analysis from the hearing officer's Recommended Order: The calculation of a density allocation ratio is part of the determination whether data and analysis support the residential densities in a plan. The analysis misses the point of the process if the maximum densities authorized by a plan are reduced to reflect historic densities. The question is whether the densities authorized by a plan are supported by data and analysis, not whether data and analysis support densities some- where between the maximum authorized densities and historic densities. Especially where historic densities reflect an inefficient use of land, as is clearly the case in Lee County, analysis of a plan based in part on historic densities invites the repetition of past planning failures. * * * The purpose of the density allocation calculation, as part of the process of determining if the plan is supported by data and analysis, is not to predict the actual density that will occupy the planning jurisdiction at buildout. The purpose of the density allocation calculation is to compare the maximum density allowed by the plan with the projected population, and consider the extent of the overallocation in the light of other factors in the planning jurisdiction, including plan provisions and relevant data and analysis. The ratio is not required to be 1:1 to satisfy the criterion of supporting data and analysis. But the ratio must be ascertainable in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 689. As a result, one of the remedial amendments required by the Administration Commission was: To address the density calculation issue the County shall revise the data and analysis to include the maximum allowable densities in determining the amount of development allowed by the 2010 overlay and to show that the amount of development allowed is based on the expected growth. Sheridan Final Order, 16 FALR at 661. The County adopted 2010 Overlay remedial amendments in October, 1994. In December, 1994, the DCA determined that the remedial amendments were in compliance. (The revised data and analysis were not made a part of the record in this case.) On July 1, 1994, the County adopted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for its Plan and subsequently submitted to the DCA the EAR, along with the proposed EAR-based amendments for the year 2020. Among other things, the proposed EAR-based amendments eliminated the 2010 Overlay. Among other things, the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report objected to the elimination of the 2010 Overlay, taking the position that, without the Overlay, the EAR-based plan had the same allocation-related problems that had been in the 1989 plan. On November 1, 1994, the County adopted a modified version of the EAR- based amendments--still without any Overlay--and submitted these to the DCA, together with its staff response to the DCA's ORC Report. On December 28, 1994, the DCA issued a Statement of Intent to find the EAR-based amendments not in compliance. FLUM Population Accommodation Data and Analysis. The evidence in this case includes data and several different analyses comparing the population accommodated by the plan amendments at issue--i.e., the FLUM without any Overlay--with the population projected for the year 2020. Figure 14. Lee County's proposed population accommodation data and analysis is included in the EAR in Figure 14. Based on Figure 14, the County concluded that the 2020 FLUM accommodates 802,655 persons, or 128 percent of the projected 2020 population (an accommodation ratio of 1.28). Although the FLUM's many mixed use categories do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses, Figure 14 assumes that certain percentages of the many mixed use categories will develop in residential use, based on historic growth patterns. Also based on historic growth patterns, Figure 14 assumes that residential density will be less than the maximum of the standard residential density range allowed in each category although the GOP's allow residential development at much higher densities. Since Figure 14 is based on historic patterns of growth that are expected to continue into the future, Figure 14 appears to predict future growth as accurately as is possible at this time. It probably is the best possible estimate of how Lee County will build out under the proposed amendments. However, the ability to make truely accurate predictions over such a long period of time--25 years--is questionable. Figure 14 assumes that only a fraction of the new Vested Community land use district (Lehigh Acres) will be developed by the end of the planning timeframe. Most of the Vested Community district consists of subdivisions which were approved and platted several years before the adoption of the earliest Lee Plan, and which are vested from the restrictions of the Lee Plan. The Vested Community district contains over 130,000 vested lots which can accommodate at least 271,700 residents. In addition, the Vested Community district contains some land which is not actually vested from the Lee Plan but is allowed to develop at four density units per acre (du/ac). Figure 14 assumes that 45,888 residential units accommodating 95,906 persons will be developed in Lehigh Acres by 2020. There is no goal, objective or policy in the Lee Plan which would prevent the development of more lots vested or allocated in the Vested Community district. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis assumed that the Rural and Outer Islands categories will develop at their maximum residential density of one du/ac. In fact, the Lee Plan includes a Planned Development District Option ("PDDO") which allows: landowners outside the Future Urban Areas to increase allowable densities for development that will be totally independent of county- subsidized facilities and services. (Objective 1.8) The PDDO increases the maximum theoretical residential density of the Rural and Outer Islands districts from 1 du/ac to 6 du/ac. However, due the requirements for use of the PDDO, realistically it cannot be anticipated that much Rural or Outer Islands land will utilize it. Lee County's Figure 14 analysis did not include any residential allocation for the General Interchange category. The General Interchange category allows residential development of 100 residential units at 8 du/ac for every 100,000 square feet of commercial development. If the residential option applied to all 1,436 acres of the General Interchange category, the Lee Plan would accommodate another 13,209 persons in that category. However, for the residential option, the category requires 160 acres under common ownership. Currently, there is only one case in which the requirement is met, and it is a development of regional impact (DRI) that does not allow residential at this time. Figure 14A. Figure 14A is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It was supposed to adjust Figure 14 by assuming the maximum residential density allowed by each land use category in accordance with the Sheridan Final Order. The Figure 14A accommodated population rises to 1,325,568, and the so-called allocation ratio rises to 2.11. Actually, Figure 14A does not take into account the actual maximum residential density in Intensive Development (22 du/ac), Central Urban (15 du/ac), and Urban Community (10 du/ac). Instead, it uses the top of the "standard density range" in those categories. Figure 14 B. Figure 14B also is part of the County's response to the DCA's ORC report. It adjusts the Figure 14A analysis by estimating the total residential development allowed by the Vested Community category at 170,732 dwelling units, which will accommodate 356,829 persons. Adding those Vested Community numbers to the Figure 14A numbers, Figure 14B estimates the population accommodated by the 2020 FLUM as 1,586,491 persons, or an accommodation ratio of 2.53. Maximum Theoretical Residential Potential. The DCA proposes an analysis of the data using maximum theoretical residential potential for each land use category. Under the DCA analysis, there is enough land available for residential development accommodate a population of approximately 2.5 million people--401 percent of the expected County population in 2020 or, expressed as a ratio, 4.01. In contrast to Figure 14B, the DCA's preferred analysis takes into account all of the residential development capacity in Lehigh Acres. In addition, it assumes residential development in the Vested Intensive Development part of the Lehigh Vested Community at the maximum density of 14 du/ac and in the Vested Central Urban part at the maximum density of 10 du/ac. These assumptions add to the FLUM population accommodation analysis the capacity to accommodate approximately 246,000 more people, over and above the Figure 14B capacity. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that all Rural and Outer Islands land will utilize PDDO and develop residentially at 6 du/ac. Use of this assumption more than doubles the population accommodation in those categories, adding approximately 500,000 people to the analysis. While theoretically possible, as previously stated, this assumption is unrealistic. The DCA's preferred analysis also assumes that 13,209 people are accommodated in residential development in the General Interchange category. This assumption, too, is theoretically possible but not realistic. Finally, the DCA's preferred analysis assumes that, although most of Lee County's future land use categories allow a mix of uses, the land will develop at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area--i.e., that no other type of permitted use, such as commercial, parks, schools or even roads would occur in any of the land use categories. Finally, it disregards the actual existence of non-residential uses and residential uses at lower densities; instead, it assumes redevelopment at the maximum potential residential densities over the entire land area. County's 2010 Overlay Analysis. It seems obvious that deletion of the 2010 Overlay must increase population accommodation, at least up to the year 2010. Up to the time of the final hearing, the DCA had not requested, and no party did, an allocation ratio analysis of the 2010 Overlay similar to the one the DCA prefers for the 2020 FLUM without any Overlay for purposes of making a comparison between the two. The County's chief planner testified that he performed such an analysis during the course of the final hearing using the maximum residential and maximum density assumptions. Neither the details nor the results of the analysis were clear. However, it appears to indicate that the 2010 Overlay accommodated a 2010 population of 1.06 million, apparently including 282,000 assumed to be accommodated in Lehigh Acres, an allocation ratio of 2.11. Assuming that the County's 2010 Overlay analysis included Lehigh, it can be roughly compared to the Figure 14B analysis and the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" analysis by removing the Lehigh component from each. Subtracting the Lehigh component from the County's 2010 Overlay population accommodation analysis results in a 2010 population accommodation of 778,000. Removing the Lehigh component from Figure 14B results in 2020 population accommodation of 1,229,662. Removing the Lehigh component from the DCA's analysis results in 2020 population accommodation of 2,008,927. Meanwhile, the County's projection of future increased by only about 70,000 between 2010 and 2020 for the entire unincorporated county. RGMC Alternative 2010 Overlay Accommodation Analysis and Comparision. RGMC proposes its own alternative analysis for comparing the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay to the population accommodated without it. Using the County's population projection for 2020 of 626,860 in the unincorporated county and the accepted 2.09 people per unit, it can be estimated that approximately 300,000 units will be needed in the year 2020. Subtracting the 127,000 units existing in 1990, approximately 173,000 additional units will be needed over the 30 years from 1990 to 2020 to accommodate the expected population, or approximately 5,800 additional units per year. At that average rate, 116,000 units would be added by the year 2010 (5,800 units per year times 20 years). Adding the new units to the 127,000 units existing in 1990 results in a total of approximately 244,000 units in 2010. Since it is agreed that the Overlay was designed to accommodate, and accommodated, approximately the population expected in the year 2010, it can be estimated that the Overlay accommodated approximately 244,000 units. In the sense that all units accommodated under the 2020 FLUM without the Overlay are available for development before 2010, a rough comparison can be made between the population accommodated under the 2010 Overlay and the population accommodated according to the other analysis methodologies: according to Figure 14, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 384,045 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14A, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 634,243 units for the year 2020; according to Figure 14B, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 759,086 units for the year 2020; and according to the DCA's preferred "maximum theoretical residential potential" methodology, the amended 2020 plan accommodates 1,201,973 units for the year 2020. Calculation and Use of the "Allocation Ratio". The technique of determining a residential density allocation ratio was described in an article entitled "Expanding the Overallocation of Land Use Categories," which appears in a June, 1995, publication of the Department of Community Affairs called "Community Planning." "Community Planning" is published by the Department of Community Affairs "to provide technical assistance to Florida's counties and cities and implement any requirements of Florida's growth management laws." The article announces how the Department reviews the question of "overallocation" in determining whether a plan is in compliance with statutory and rule requirements regarding urban sprawl. According to the article, the Department suggests that a comprehensive plan should allocate up to 125 percent of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected future population. The article does not explain how the "allocation ratio" should be calculated. The Sheridan Final Order seems to say that maximum densities should be assumed. See Finding 11, above. But neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order indicate what other assumptions should be made. The "Community Planning" article and the Sheridan Final Order also do not specify whether, in calculating the allocation ratio, population accommodation capacity should be compared to the total expected population or to the incremental growth expected in the population. The DCA has accepted a 1.25 allocation ratio applied to the total expected population as being reasonable. A major treatise in this area known as Urban Land Use Planning, Fourth Edition, by Kaiser, Godchalk, and Chapin, suggests that an allocation ratio of up to 2.05 can be considered reasonable; however, when doing so, the authors were evaluating plans with a closer planning horizon (one to five years), and they were comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population. When calculating an allocation ratio for a 20-year planning horizon, they suggest that a 1.20 allocation ratio that compares population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be reasonable. By accepting a 1.25 allocation ratio that compares the population accommodation capacity to the total population expected on a 25-year planning horizon, the DCA seems to have been misapplying the allocation ratio analysis. Clearly, an accommodation ratio comparing the population accommodation capacity to the incremental growth expected in the population would be much than one comparing to to the total population expected. There was no data and analysis as to exactly how much higher, and it is difficult to say based on the record in this case. However, an example of the difference between the too methodologies is suggested by one of RGMC's alternative analyses. It is known that approximately 300,000 units of residential development will be needed for the population expected in the year 2020. See Finding 36, above. The evidence was that there were approximately 143,000 units existing in 1995, so approximately 157,000 additional units will be needed by the year 2020 to accommodate the expected population. Meanwhile, using the County's Figure 14 assumptions, the FLUM without the Overlay makes 384,045 units available for development by the year 2020, or an accommodation of an additional 241,045 units over what was in existence in 1995. Comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020 would result in an "accommodation ratio" of approximately 1.54, versus the ratio of 1.28 calculated in Figure 14 comparing to total population expected. By way of further examples, using the same method of comparison: Figure 14A's 2.11 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.13, comparing incremental accommodation for growth to the incremental population growth expected by the year 2020; Figure 14B's 2.53 "accommodation ratio" would become a ratio of 3.92; and the DCA's "accommodation ratio" of 4.01 would become a ratio of 6.75. It should be noted that the Urban Land Use Planning treatise also speaks of the use of the allocation ratio as a safety factor to provide a choice of location for housing type and to avoid artificially increasing land and housing prices. Rather than being a device merely to avoid the overallocation of land, the safety factor also is said to be necessary to ensure that enough land is allocated and that the limitations of forecasting approaches do not exacerbate the need for affordable housing. It also should be noted that neither the "Community Planning" article nor the Sheridan Final Order specify that allocation and urban sprawl issues should be determined from the simple calculation of a residential density allocation. To the contrary, the Sheridan Final Order would indicate that, once the allocation ratio is obtained, full consideration should be given to all pertinent factors "in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis." Analyses Not Conducted. The plan amendments do not only eliminate the 2010 Overlay. They also decline to retain the Overlay concept and extend it another ten years to the year 2020. There is no data or analysis in this case comparing the population accommodated by the FLUM without any Overlay to the population that would be accommodated in the year 2020 if the Overlay were extended another ten years to 2020. Such data and analysis would most clearly illuminate the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay, and abandoning the Overlay concept, on the residential allocation of the plan for the year 2020. There may be tens of thousands of, up to perhaps almost a hundred thousand, residential units in DRI's that have been approved but not yet built. There was inadequate data and analysis of how many of the residential units that will be needed by the year 2020 can be supplied in these DRI's. Lehigh Acres. Clearly, Lehigh Acres presents a special problem for Lee County and the DCA. Lehigh Acres was platted in the 1950s and 1960s. It covers approximately 97 square miles, which is slightly more than 62,000 acres. Since its inception, Lehigh has had all the attributes of urban sprawl. It is a large, sprawling, almost entirely residential community that was created in an area remote from urban services. It is characterized by grid patterns of development, a poorly-designed transportation network with large numbers of small local roads and no four-lane roads, huge amounts of land allocated to residential development and a relatively small amount of land allocated to commercial development. The roads in Lehigh are built. Virtually all of Lehigh has been subdivided into relatively small single family residential homesites, and almost all of these homesites have been sold to buyers all over the world. By virtue of the platting and sale of the land into homesites, Lehigh is a vested community. Over the years, the County has considered a number of potential solutions to the Lehigh Acres dilemma. Ultimately, the County decided to take a multi-pronged approach: (1) creating restrictions on additional subdivision and attempting to reduce densities to no more than four units per acre; (2) continuing the privately-funded infrastructure overlay as the means of providing infrastructure in Lehigh; and (3) utilizing sector planning to work toward a better transportation system and larger areas of commercial allocation to create a more balanced community. Based on the new treatment of Lehigh Acres, the County engaged in different assumptions about how Lehigh will build out. In 1989, Lehigh was shown as "central urban" and "urban community," together with the rest of the Lee Plan future land use categories. Under the 2010 Overlay, the County purported to reduce acreage allocations in Lehigh, but in fact there was little impact on residential potential due to vesting. In the EAR-based amendments, Lehigh is shown under "Vested Community," a separate land use category. Through the vested community category, the County attempted to restrict additional subdividing of lots and, with a few limited exceptions, set a maximum density of four units per acre. Based on the different treatment of Lehigh in the Plan, the County projected a population for Lehigh based on the amount of growth actually expected to occur by Year 2020. To do this, the County utilized eight different methodologies and averaged the projections to come up with a 2010 population for Lehigh of 95,906. These assumptions are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Neither the Department's rules nor the "Community Planning" article provide specific guidance as to how vested areas are to be treated in making a calculation of a plan's "allocation ratio." The vast area of Lehigh has the capacity to absorb virtually all the anticipated future population growth in unincorporated Lee County through the year 2020. In fact, it may be appropriate for Lee County to increase overall density in Lehigh if necessary to support the infrastructure and transportation needed to convert Lehigh Acres into a more balanced, multi-use development. Lee County's approach to Lehigh essentially was to attempt to satisfy the Department's desire for an acceptable "allocation ratio" by estimating how many residents will actually live in Lehigh by 2020, assuming the Plan's treatment of Lehigh, and treating those estimates as Lehigh's population accommodation. By studying historic rates of growth, the Lee Planning Division believes that number will be approximately 96,000 people. No evidence was presented by the Department or any intervenor in contradiction of this estimate. The results of the County's approach to Lehigh are reflected in the County's Figures 14 and 14A. Another approach would be to attempt to reduce residential development in other parts of the County. It would be poor planning to reduce densities "across the board" throughout the County just to achieve a lower allocation ratio. Such an approach could direct population concentration away from urban areas into poorly-served rural areas, thereby discouraging the efficient use of land and encouraging sprawling uses. Depending on the densities, it could direct growth to remote areas of the county. Additionally, if Lee County attemped to limit residential growth based on incorrect assumptions regarding future densities, it could seriously underallocate land uses. Underallocation can greatly inflate land costs to the detriment of the general public. On the other hand, a better approach might be to couple sector planning in Lehigh with a reduction in densities in certain other parts of the County. If successful, such an approach could both create more balanced development in Lehigh Acres and direct future growth to Lehigh and away from coastal high hazard areas (CHHA), DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Commercial Allocations. The 2020 Lee Plan, without the 2010 Overlay, has some guidance for the location of commercial development, especially retail commercial. But it does not have percentage distributions or other objective measurement of the distribution of commercial and other uses allowed in its many mixed land use districts. Policy 6.1.2 of the 2020 Lee Plan consists of site location criteria which apply to retail commercial development, such as shopping centers, restaurants, gas stations, and other commercial development generating large volumes of traffic. Non-retail commercial development, such as office, hotel and motel or wholesale commercial development, may be developed at the identified intersections or anywhere else in the land use categories which allow commercial development. Even retail commercial can be developed at locations which do not meet the location criteria under discretion granted to the Board of County Commissioners. According to Lee County's EAR, the Commercial Site Locations Standards Map (Map 16) identifies 52 full intersections and 15 half-moon intersections which comply with the site location standards for Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. They represent 9,520 acres of land designated for retail commercial development. Using the standard planning conversion rate of 10,000 square feet per acre, average, there is room for approximately 95,000,000 square feet of commercial development in the commercial sites depicted on Map There also may be other intersections which meet the criteria for Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial but are not shown on Map 16. In addition, there are numerous intersections which meet the criteria for Minor Commercial which are not shown on Map 16. Map 16 also does not include Regional Commercial development. The report by Thomas H. Roberts & Associates on Commercial Land Use Needs In Lee County (Jan. 10, 1987), indicates that the retail space ratio in Lee County is 26 square feet per capita. Just counting the 95,000,000 square feet of retail commercial development allowed in the land shown on Map 16, the 2020 Lee Plan has enough retail commercial capacity to accommodate 3.7 million people. Without even considering the non-retail commercial uses that can be developed at any location in the several land use districts which allow commercial uses, or the unknown amount of retail commercial that can be developed at the numerous intersections which meet the Minor Commercial location criteria, the 2020 Lee Plan without the 2010 Overlay allows commercial development far in excess of the amount needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. Industrial Allocation Policy 7.1.4 in the 2020 Lee Plan provides: The [FLUM] shall designate a sufficient quantity of land to accommodate industrial development that will employ 3 percent of the county's population in manufacturing activities by the year 2010. The 2020 FLUM, without the 2010 Overlay, designates 6,062 acres in the Industrial Development category. Three percent of the 2020 County population represents approximately 19,000 people. The 1984 Roberts industrial land analysis for Lee County suggested a ratio of seven industrial workers per acre for industrial related activities. Most industrial land uses employ more workers per acre, and the national average is about 17 employees per acre. But even using the ratio suggested by the Roberts analysis, Lee County would need only approximately 3,000 acres of industrial land to accommodate three percent of the 2020 County population in industrial employment. Analysis in the EAR indicates that enough additional industrial land is needed to serve the needs of municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves and that this additional land accounts for the apparent excess in industrial lands allocated in the county. However, it is not clear from the data and analysis how this determination was made. In addition, light industrial development is permitted in several other mixed land use categories. For example, the existing approximately 2,800 acres of Airport Commerce (AC) located to the northwest of the airport is intended to include light industrial activities. There was no data or analysis as to how much additional industrial use will be made of land in those categories. There are no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution of land uses in the mixed land use districts that allow light industrial use. The Mixed Land Use Districts. As has been seen, the Lee Plan without any Overlay makes extensive use of mixed land use districts without percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses. Much of the dispute between the parties as to residential accommodation and allocations of land for commercial and industrial uses results from the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use categories. Although the County predicts development of only a percentage of these districts as residential, it remains possible for much larger percentages to be developed residential. On the other hand, it is possible for practically all of mixed land use districts to develop commercially or even industrially. The 2010 Overlay attempted to address the lack of percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses in the plan's mixed land use districts by limiting the acreage that could be developed in particular uses by the year 2010. Without the Overlay concept, no percentage distributions or other objective measurements of distribution among uses remain in the plan. Because of the plan's extensive use of mixed use districts, the County's ability to control development through the plan is seriously undermined. Other Urban Sprawl Considerations. Unincorporated Lee County contains approximately 685 square miles. Lehigh Acres and the DRGR areas, combined, are approximately 199 more square miles, 29 percent of the total area of unincorporated Lee County. Except for the growth that will occur in the Vested Community of Lehigh, much of the future growth in Lee County will occur in the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor, which is oriented in a generally North-South direction and contains most of the urbanized areas of the County, including the City of Fort Myers. Because this area is already largely urbanized, most of the growth in it will result in either the expansion of existing urbanized areas or in-fill between existing urban areas. Certificated water and sewer franchise areas also generally coincide with the north/south urban core in which growth is expected to continue. The presence of water and sewer franchise areas in the north/south urban core and in Lehigh Acres encourages utilization of these areas through the ability to provide urban services. The absence of water and sewer franchise areas in other portions of the County will act as a hindrance to development in areas which are undeveloped and either in conservation or agricultural use. A review of County DRI approvals, together with approved development orders, also appears to indicate a trend toward development in the north/south core. The absence of development orders in most of the outlying areas, indicated as either agricultural, vacant, or conservation use, indicate that probably relatively little growth will occur in those areas. Platted subdivisions also appear to show a trend toward development in the north/south urban core. In general, there also appears to be a correlation between existing land uses and those factors which can reasonably be expected to establish future growth trends in the north/south urban core. Growth in the north/south I-75, U.S. 41 corridor across the county line to the south in Collier County tends to encourage similar growth at the southern end of Lee County. Meanwhile, there are hindrances to development across the county line to the east and southeast by virtue of the presence of agricultural lands and regional wetland systems such as the Corkscrew Swamp and the Everglades. The County has also made use of sector planning. The County's sector plans represent extensive and detailed planning studies which in many cases are reflected in both the FLUM and the policies in the Plan. However, currently there is no sector plan for Lehigh Acres. Policy 1.5.5, creating the Vested Community category for Lehigh, states a sector plan for Lehigh will be developed beginning in 1996. In terms of land uses, the Plan seems to be fairly well functionally related, both in terms of what is shown on the FLUM and the relation between the FLUM and the Plan policies themselves. A good example of this is the commercial site location standards, which establish a strong functional relationship between transportation and regional commercial facilities. There is also a good functional relationship between existing land uses. The Plan mixed use categories appear to recognize and attempt to encourage sound functional relationships between home, work, and shopping. The Plan also has compatibility standards that help maintain functional relationships. However, without the Overlay, the many mixed use categories in the Plan do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts. In terms of land use suitability, the County generally appears to be designating for development those areas which are most suitable for development. However, because it allows development of all kinds throughout the County in excess of what is needed by 2020, the Plan allows development in less suitable areas. A variety of methodologies and assumptions leads to the conclusion that the Lee Plan generally is an urban development plan, not a rural development plan. For instance, under the Figure 14 methodology, 80 percent of the population is directed toward urban land uses, and 12 percent into rural. Under Figure 14B, which unrealistically assumes that all of Lehigh Acres will be built out within the planning time frame, 90 percent of the population is directed to urban areas, and only 10 percent to rural. Even assuming that 100 percent of the land will be used for residential purposes, and that all of Lehigh will build out within the planning time frame, 92 percent is directed to urban areas, and only 8 percent to rural. Finally, even assuming 100 percent of the land to residential at maximum densities, and also that all rural land uses will use the PDDO option at six units per acre, only 4 percent of the population will be directed to rural areas in the FLUM. Notwithstanding the overall patterns of growth in Lee County, it clearly is indicated in the Sheridan Final Order that land in Lee County historically has been used inefficiently and that, without the Overlay, the plan allows inefficiency to continue unabated. This is due in large part to the extensive use of mixed land use categories that do not contain a percentage distribution or other objective measurement of distribution among mixed uses within the mixed use districts, together with the overallocation of land that also results in part from their use. By comparing the FLUM's since 1984 with the current Existing Land Use Map (ELUM) (Lee 56), it is apparent that rural designations have not preserved agriculture. Significant parts of county that have been designated rural since 1984 actually have been developed residential or non-agricultural use. In Range (R) 25 East (E), Township (T) 45 South(S), Sections 31 and 32 are residential, while 33 is a golf course. Similarly, R 25 E, T 47 S, Sections 14, 15 and 23 have developed significantly residential and part of Section 14 is now designated Outlying Suburban. In addition, significant residential development has occurred in areas of Pine Island that have been designated rural since 1984. On the other side of the coin, much of the "New Community" still is in rural use (R 35 E, T 45 S, Sections 1, 2, 3, parts of 10, 11, and 12; R 26 E, Sectons 5-8, 17 and 18.) Some "Industrial Development" land is actually still in rural use or vacant--R 25 E, T 46 S, Section 3 west of I-75, and Sections 4- There is significant land that actually is rural or vacant adjacent to wetlands and Estero Bay in R 24 E, T 45 S (Sections 28, 29, and 31-35), together with Sections 3-5, 8-10, and 15 in R 24 E, T 46 S, that are designated for Suburban or Outlying Suburban uses. Land designated rural, open land or fringe in 1984 has been redesignated for urban uses over the years. A large block straddling Daniels Parkway east of the 6 Mile Cypress Strand has been designated Outlying Suburban. Approximately between Buckingham Road, Orange River Boulevard and I-75, rural land has been redesignated as Rural Community Preserve. Large blocks of land, one at the extreme north end of the county between U.S. 41 and I-75, and the other east of I-75 near the river, have gone from rural to Outlying Suburban. A large amount of what was rural and fringe between Bonita Springs and San Carlos Park, west of U.S. 41, has become Suburban and Outlying Suburban. CHHA and Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter. Objective 75.1 of the amended Lee Plan defines and delineates Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) for the first time. Previously, the plan referred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "A Zone," which encompasses somewhat more land than the new CHHA. Policy 75.1.4 of the amended Lee Plan, which formerly applied to the "A Zone," states: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within [CHHA] shall be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In this round of amendments, the County did not consider either reducing density categories, or assigning the minimum allowable densities in categories with a range of densities, in undeveloped land in the CHHA. In prior rounds of amendments, the County reduced densities in areas that would be inundated by Category 1, 2 and 3 hurricanes (which would include CHHA). Assuming maximum allowable densities together with the other Figure 14A assumptions, the density reductions reduced population accommodation by 13,000 units in those areas. Elimination of the 2010 Overlay opened additional land to immediate development in the CHHA. There was no data and analysis on the amount of new land opened to immediate development or the additional population accommodated in the CHHA that would result. Goal 79 in the Lee Plan, as amended, is to "provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.1 of the Lee Plan, as amended, is to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 2000, and to reduce the clearance time portion of evacuation time to 18 hours or less by 2010. Previously, the plan's objective was to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. Lee County has among the best hurricane planning efforts in southwest Florida. Nonetheless, as of the time of the final hearing, evacuation times still exceeded 1987 levels, and clearance times exceeded 18 hours. Little progress had been made toward the previous objective to achieve 1987 evacuation times by the year 1995. That is why the objective was extended five more years until the year 2000. It may be that the 2010 Overlay was not designed with hurricane evacuation times in mind. It also is true that the County's evacuation plans are updated every three years based on actual development data. But it also is true that additional development in the CHHA due to elimination of the 2010 Overlay may make it more difficult to achieve Objective 79.1, even as amended. Objective 79.2 of the Lee Plan is to make adequate shelter space available by the year 2010 "for the population in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone at risk under a Category 3 storm." There was no data and analysis of the impact of eliminating the 2010 Overlay on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. There also was no data and analysis of the impact of amending Objective 75.1 and 75.1.4 to reduce the size of the coastal area subject to consideration for land use density reductions on the County's ability to achieve either Objective 79.1 or Objective 79.2. Change of Alico Property from DRGR to AC. Another significant FLUM amendment in the EAR-based amendments was to change the designation of 1400 acres of property owned by Alico, Inc., from DRGR to Airport Commerce (AC). Uses allowed in the AC district include light manufacturing and assembly, warehousing, distribution facilities, ground transportation and airport related terminals or transfer facilities, and hospitality services. Suitability. Policy 1.4.5 of the plan, as amended, defines DRGR as "upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" and as "the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." Although previously designated DRGR, more recent data and analysis calls this designation into question. The amendment property does provide some recharge to both the water table (surficial) aquifer and the underlying Sandstone aquifer, but it does not provide above-average groundwater recharge for either aquifer (or any recharge to any of the deeper aquifers). In addition, it is not a good site for the development of a wellfield in either the water table or the Sandstone aquifer. The water table aquifer is not especially thick, and there are too many wetlands on the site for production from the water table aquifer. (Pumping from the water table aquifer next to the airport also could be problematic in that the stability of the soil under the airport could be affected. (Cf. Finding 100, below.) In the Sandstone aquifer, groundwater flows away from the site, making it unsuitable for production. Despite the questions raised by the new data and analysis, the amendment property may still be suitable for designation as DRGR. But that does not necessarily make it unsuitable for AC use. In terms of location, the amendment property is perfectly suited to AC use. I-75 and other AC-designated property is to the immediate west of the amendment property. The Southwest Florida International Airport is to the immediate north of the amendment property. A second runway and a new cargo handling facility are planned for construction to the south of the existing airport runway. When built, the new facilities will practically be touching the northern boundary of the amendment property, and the proposed new south airport access will cross the amendment property and intersect Alico Road, which is the southern boundary of the amendment property. Commercial and industrial use on the property would not pose an unreasonable threat to contaminate either existing or future potable water wells. Theoretically, stormwater from the amendment property could contain contaminants which could eventually migrate to a drinking water well. But the threat of such contamination is small. Permitting criteria adopted and imposed by the South Florida Water Management District will require all construction on this site to conform to surface water quality standards through Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and permitting rules of the Water Management District within Chapter 40, Florida Administrative Code. These rules will require on-site detention and retention of stormwater which will greatly reduce the threat of surface contaminants leaving the property. Additionally, all surface water runoff from the property, and most groundwater, will be intercepted by the Alico Road Canal, which drains in a westerly direction away from any existing drinking water wells. If any contaminants from the amendment property were to enter the groundwater, avoid the Alico Road Canal and leave the property, they would have to migrate a considerable distance to reach a potable water wellhead. The only wellfield pumping, or planned to pump, from the water table aquifer which contaminants possibly could reach would be the existing Gulf Utilities wellfield approximately one mile and a half southeast of the amendment property. Contaminants within the groundwater move at a slower speed than the water itself. Most contaminants move at a much slower speed than the water. Thus, the chances are very slight that contaminants from the amendment property would threaten the Gulf Utilities wellfield. Any metals in the groundwater would attach to soil particles and migrate extremely slowly. Other potential contaminants would eventually break down within the soil as they slowly migrated away from the site. It was estimated that the travel time from the closest portion of the amendment property to the Gulf Utilities well field would be in the neighborhood of 50 to 100 years. If any such contaminants did reach the wellfield they would be in such dilute concentrations that they would pose no health hazard. The only other wellfield that is reasonably close to the proposed site is the Florida Cities well field to the northeast. This wellfield taps the Sandstone aquifer. The Sandstone aquifer is separated from the water table aquifer by an approximately 40 foot thick semi-confining layer. This layer is composed of silt and clay which provides hydraulic separation between the aquifers. There are no known breaches of the semi-confining layer in this area. The direction of flow and the nature of the semi-confining layer also make it extremely unlikely that contaminants from activities on the amendment property and discharged from the site by stormwater could migrate to the Florida Cities water wellfield. The groundwater in the water table aquifer flows generally southwest, and the confining layer has low leakance values. Additionally, safety measures required for the development of the amendment property include the installation of monitoring wells and the requirement to use the best environmental management practices. The data and analysis includes panther sitings in the vicinity of the amendment property. There also is evidence that the amendment property is part of land that has been labeled as "Panther Priority 2." The significance of this label was not clear from the evidence. In any event, while part of the "Panther Priority 2" land, the amendment property clearly also is surrounded by uses not particularly suited for panthers. Currently, rock mining is occurring on property to the east and to the south of the amendment property. Rock mining on the amendment property itself also is allowed under its previous DRGR designation. The airport is immediately to the north, and both other AC property and I-75 are immediately to the west. In light of those developments, the "Panther Priority 2" designation does not make the amendment property unsuitable for AC designation. Need. The County has a legitimate need to diversify its economy so that it is not so dependent on tourism. It is the County's perogative to attempt to develop its regional airport into an international trade center. In view of the suitability of the amendment property for AC, and its projected role in furthering the County's plans to develop its regional airport into an international trade center, the amendment property should be viewed as a valuable economic resource in need of protection. It is appropriate, when trying to protect a resource, to plan for the needs of generations to come. If the amendment is not approved, there is a good chance that the land eventually will be used for a rock mine. Residential use in that location is incompatible with airport noise. A public gun range is a permissible use of DRGR property, but there are no plans for a public gun range on the amendment property, and such a use also would not be compatible so close to the airport and would be unlikely. Although agricultural use as pasture is possible, ultimate use of the property for pasture seems less likely than rock mining. As previously mentioned, the land immediately to the east of the subject parcel and to the south of the subject parcel is being utilized as rock pits. If the amendment property eventually is used for rock mining, the land would be excavated into what becomes deep lakes. In all likelihood, such a use would permanently preempt the land in question from being a commercial resource that could be utilized in conjunction with the airport. Of the 1400 acres of amendment property, approximately 800 acres are jurisdictional wetlands; only about 600 acres of uplands actually can be used for AC purposes. Meanwhile, approximately 173 acres of industrial land has been rezoned to other uses within Lee County between 1990 and the date of the hearing. Another 300 acres of AC are to be incorporated into the new airport expansion. But there was no data or analysis as to how much of those 473 acres consist of wetlands. Utilizing the 1984 Roberts methodology, the County has analyzed the need for industrial land in the County and has concluded that the addition of the amendment property is necessary to meet those requirements. However, as previously mentioned, it is not clear how the County's analysis was conducted or what the actual needs for industrial land in the County are. In addition, several mixed land use categories permit light industrial use but do not establish percentage distributions or other objective measurements of the distribution among the mixed uses within those categories. Taken as a whole the data and analysis does not establish that the AC amendment is necessary to meet the need for industrial land in the County. Adequate data and analysis to establish those needs is necessary to determine whether other land where industrial use is permitted should be redesignated if the AC amendment is to be adopted. As previously discussed, Lee County has much more land designated for commercial development than will be needed to accommodate the projected 2020 population. See Findings 58-68, above. In support of their position that the AC map amendment is needed in order to meet the demand for airport-related industrial and commercial development that will be generated by the expanding Southwest Florida International Airport, Lee County and Alico point out that international airports serve a larger area than a single County, and that a larger AC district near the Airport will serve the Southwest Florida region. With its new runway and larger terminal with new cargo handling facility, the Airport Authority intends, and the County would like to encourage, a large increase in airfreight handled by the Airport by 2020. Alico prepared a Response to DCA's ORC, which attempted to compare the acreage of approved, large-scale commercial and industrial development near the Orlando International Airport to the amount of acres proposed for Airport Commerce near the Southwest Florida International Airport. However, the Alico Response failed to take into account the amount of approved development near the Orlando Airport which is vacant. According to the Alico Response, the Orlando International Airport handled 233,587 tons of airfreight in 1994. Also according to the Alico Response, 7,152 acres of industrial and commercial development, including ten DRI's, are located near the Orlando Airport. The ten DRI's located near the Orlando Airport include 55,464,770 square feet of approved industrial and commercial development. But as of June of 1995, only 3,386,744 square feet of industrial and commercial development, or 6.11 percent of the approved industrial and commercial square footage, had been constructed. Applying the percentage of approved industrial and commercial in DRI's actually developed by 1995 (6.11 percent) to the acreage approved for industrial and commercial (7,152 acres), it can be determined that 440 acres of existing industrial and commercial development were supporting the 233,587 tons of airfreight handled by the Orlando Airport in 1994. Based upon the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that each acre of industrial and commercial development near an airport supports 534.54 tons of airfreight each year. The Southwest International Airport projects that 196,110 tons of airfreight will be handled by the Airport by 2020. Dividing the projected 2020 tonnage by the 534.54 tons of airfreight per acre from the Orlando Airport experience, it would appear that the air freight activities projected for the Southwest Florida International Airport by the year 2020 will support only about 367 acres of AC. The Lee Plan FLUM already includes approximately 2800 acres of AC located to the northwest of the Airport. (It is not clear whether the 300 acres consumed by the runway expansion should be deducted from the 2850 acres of AC said to currently exist.) The existing AC district is essentially undeveloped. The AC which already exists to the northwest of the Airport is more than sufficient to support the airfreight which the Airport expects to handle by 2020. Zemel FLUM Amendment. Background. The Zemels own approximately 8600 acres of land in northwest Lee County. The 1990 Comprehensive Plan amendments which resulted from the settlement between Lee County and DCA, designated Zemel property as DRGR with a residential density of one unit per ten acres. The DRGR designation for the Zemel property was determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Zemel v. Lee County & DCA, 15 FALR 2735 (Fla. Dept. Comm. Aff. 1993), aff'd, 642 So. 2d 1367 (Fla.1st DCA 1994). Based in part on data and analysis which were not available at the time of adoption of the DRGR category, a circuit court determined that the Zemel property did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the DRGR category. The circuit court ordered that: The property is hereby restored to the Rural land use classification on the Future Land Use Map of the Lee Plan, including restoration of the subject property's density to 1 du/acre and use of the Planned Development District Option for the property. This action shall not preclude the County from amending its plan, including the 2010 Overlay, as it pertains to the Zemel property, pursuant to Chapter 163, Fla. Stat., subject to constitutional limita- tions and other requirements of law. Placement of Zemel Property in Open Lands Classification The 1994 EAR-based amendments changed the land use designation of the Zemel property to Open Lands. Open Lands is a new category created by the EAR- based amendments in Policy 1.4.4. The residential density allowed in the Open Lands category is one unit per ten acres, except a density of one unit per five acres is permitted if the planned development process is used to prevent adverse impacts on environmentally sensitive lands (as defined in Policy 77.1.1.4). (Commercial and industrial uses are permitted in the Open Lands category in accordance with the standards in the Rural category.) Of the 8,600 acres owned by Zemel, approximately 1,900 acres are wetlands and 6,700 acres are uplands. Lee County chose the Open Lands category for the Zemel property because it was the least intensive land use category available after the circuit court determined that the DRGR category was not appropriate, and because the County did not wish to exacerbate the overallocation of the FLUM. According to new Policy 1.4.4: Open Lands are upland areas that are located north of Rural and/or sparsely developed areas in Township 43 South. These areas are extremely remote from public services and are characterized by agricultural and low-density residential uses. It was not proven that the Zemel property does not meet the Policy 1.4.4 definition of Open Lands. The Zemel property clearly is in Township 43 South. It is north of areas that can be said to be "sparsely developed." The Zemel property clearly is characterized by agricultural use. Finally, although some of the Zemel property is not "extremely remote" from some public services, all of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from at least some public services, and some of the Zemel property can be said to be "extremely remote" from all public services. Placement of the Zemel property in the Opens Lands category was based on adequate data and analysis. To the extent that data and analysis in the EAR may have been lacking, the evidence at final hearing included adequate data and analysis. Using the Figure 14 methodology, the County calculated that Open Lands category would accommodate 2,073 people, as compared to 8,293 people at the Rural density. However, assuming development of all of the Zemel property at the one du/ac standard density allowed by the Lee Plan for Rural, 14,003 people (1 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit) would be accommodated. In the case of the Zemel property, such an assumption would be less unrealistic than in many other parts of the County since it is a large, vacant tract. The evidence also was that the Zemel property is one of the few parcels of land in the County in which use of the PDDO is a realistic possibility. Assuming maximum densities under the PDDO, the Zemel property under the Rural designation could accommodate 84,018 people (6 du/ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Under the Open Lands category, even at the maximum density allowed for planned developments, the Zemel property could accommodate only 2,801 people (1 du/5 ac x 6700 upland acres x 2.09 persons/unit). Dependence of Open Lands on Deletion of Overlay Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. Although all of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires," the evidence was that one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. Specifically, there was evidence that the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," was intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay, and to either become effective together or not at all. Otherwise, there would be no development authorized in property redesignated "Open Lands" because there was no land use category called "Open Lands" at the time of adoption of the 2010 overlay, and no express authorization for development of any kind in "Open Lands." Planning Timeframe. Clearly, the EAR-based Lee Plan amendments are intended to plan through the year 2020. The year 2020 was chosen for the amendments to enable the County to make use of the best available demographic projections being generated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for that time frame. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element of the plan, as amended, retains Map 11. Map 11 depicts "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries." It is the map that was generated in 1989 and used in the 1989 and subsequent plans for the year 2010. However, it was not proven that the map does not accurately depict "Future Recreational Uses within Generalized Service Boundaries" for the year 2020. The County concedes that the Community Facilities and Services Element of the plan, as amended, projects waste generation and recycling rates only from 1991 to 2015. The County contends that these projections are easily extrapolated to the year 2020, and no party disputes this. The County's response to the DCA's ORC report indicates that the Hurricane Shelter/Deficit analysis for the Conservation and Coastal Management Element is for shelter needs to the year 2000. However, the County cannot accurately project shelter needs much further in the future. The evidence is that the better practice is to plan for shorter periods of time and continually update the projections. This is what the County does. It was not proven that the County is planning for the wrong timeframe or that its plan is defective for that reason. Other alleged uses of the wrong planning timeframe actually arise from questions as to the allocation of land to meet the needs of the County through the year 2020. There is no question whether the County's intent is to plan for the year 2020. The dispute is whether land has been overallocated. Other Alleged Internal Inconsistency. Amended Objective 100.1 in the Housing Element uses data for the County, including municipalities, in projecting the number of housing units needed for the 2020 timeframe. It is true that EAR Figures 14, 14A and 14B, which analyze the FLUM, identify the number of units which may be accommodated for the unincorporated area. But EAR Figures 12 and 13, which also analyze the FLUM, are directed to the entire county, including municipalities. Besides, it is clear that the County understands its obligation is only to implement affordable housing with respect to the unincorporated county. Water Supply. The Regional Water Supply Master Plan (RWSMP) serves as supporting data for several amended policies in the Potable Water sub-element of the Community Facilities and Services Element. The purpose of the RWSMP was to ensure an adequate, reliable and cost-efficient supply of potable water to meet the current and future needs of Lee County to the Year 2030 and beyond, considering both economic and environmental factors. The County's reliance on implementation of the RWSMP for this purpose is justified. Preparation of the plan was a very complex undertaking. In preparing the population projections on which the Regional Water Supply Master Plan relies, the County's consultant attended the technical staff meetings of the individuals with the Metropolitan Planning Association (MPO) charged with preparing the MPO population projections. The MPO Countywide population projections utilized in the RWSMP were prepared by estimating the number of permanent residents and taking into account a number of other economic characteristics and social characteristics such as the number of children per household, historic and expected natural and State trends, and the degree to which these trends will affect the future of Lee County. The Lee Plan, as well as the Comprehensive Plans of the other governmental jurisdictions in Lee County, were utilized in preparing the RWSMP. It was a plainly spelled out requirement for preparation of the Master Plan that it had to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of the County and cities in Lee County. The MPO population projections are reasonably accurate, and they are the best available data for purposes of planning water supply. The MPO projections are preferable to the "maximum theoretical" population accommodation used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis. Regardless of the appropriate analysis for purposes of determining whether a plan overallocates land, it would not be appropriate to plan water supply based on unrealistic population projections. The RWSMP uses MPO 2020 population projections that are somewhat different from, but reasonably close, to the 2020 population projections reflected in Figure 14 and used to support the FLUE of the Lee Plan. The special purposes of the RWSMP projections justify the differences. Besides, the differences are not large enough to prove beyond fair debate that the plan is not internally consistent. Wetlands Protection. Prior to the County's adoption of the EAR-based amendments, Goal 84 in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Lee Plan and its objectives and policies included guides for local land development regulations in the protection of wetlands by establishing allowable land uses and their densities, and by establishing design and performance standards for development in wetlands. The County modified Policy 84.1.2 (renumbered 84.1.1) in part by deleting a prohibition against the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or additional drainage features in wetlands. Ditches, canals and dikes could be constructed in wetlands to have beneficial effects. For example, a ditch could be built to increase the hydroperiod of a wetland and result in a benefit. A dike could enhance a mitigation area, which would also result in environmental benefits. Thus, the repeal of this prohibition could benefit wetlands. The 1984 data and analysis contained in the EAR recommended that the prohibition be deleted and instead suggested the use of performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. The EAR-based amendments to the Lee Plan do not include performance standards for the construction of ditches, canals, dikes, or other drainage features in wetlands. Instead, the County has modified Policy 84.1.1 (renumbered 84.1.2) in part by deleting the following language: Wetland regulations shall be designed to protect, conserve, restore, or preserve water resource systems and attendant biological functions, including: Preventing degradation of water quality and biological productivity. Preventing degradation of freshwater storage capabilities. Preventing damage to property and loss of life due to flooding. Preventing degradation of the viability and diversity of native plants and animals and their habitats. Assuring the conservation of irretrievable or irreversible resources. In place of those performance standards, the EAR-based Policy 84.1.2 provides: The county's wetlands protection regulations will be amended by 1995 to be consistent with the following: In accordance with F.S. 163.3184(6)(c), the county will not undertake an independent review of the impacts to wetlands resulting from development in wetlands that is specifically authorized by a DEP or SWFWMD dredge and fill permit or exemption. No development in wetlands regulated by the State of Florida will be permitted by Lee County without the appropriate state agency permit or authorization. Lee County shall incorporate the terms and conditions of state permits into county permits and shall prosecute violations of state regulations and permit conditions through its code enforcement procedures. Every reasonable effort shall be required to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on wet- lands through the clustering of development and other site planning techniques. On- or off-site mitigation shall only be permitted in accordance with applicable state standards. Mitigation banks and the issuance and use of mitigation bank credits shall be permitted to the extent authorized by applicable state agencies. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County also modified Policy 84.1.4 by deleting language that addressed permitted uses in wetlands and their densities, but that issue is now covered under renumbered Policy 84.1.1. The amendments added to Policy 84.1.4 the following provision: Land uses in uplands will be regulated through the implementation of the Land Development Code to avoid degrading the values and functions of adjoining and nearby wetlands. New Policies 84.1.2 and 84.1.4 in effect defer performance standards covering development in wetlands to the state and water management district permitting processes. The Lee amendments in part are an attempt to avoid duplicating what state agencies accomplish through their permitting programs. The evidence is that the state and water management district permitting processes include newly adopted Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) rules. These rules consider the type, value, function, size, condition and location of wetlands in determining how to protect them. The ERP rules also require proposed development to avoid or eliminate wetland impacts or, if not possible, to minimize and mitigate for them. The ERP rules also require consideration of the cumulative and long-term adverse impacts of development on wetlands in a comprehensive manner within the same water basin. The DEP and the Southwest Florida Water Management District also have adopted supplemental ERP rules covering only the jurisdiction of that water management district, which includes Lee County. By including a requirement that every state environmental permit shall be incorporated into county permits and that violations of a state permit also are violations of the county permit, the Lee Plan commits the County to assist the State in enforcing environmental permits in Lee County. Through this new emphasis on compliance and enforcement, Lee County will be providing valuable assistance to state environmental protection. Lee County's efforts will assist those agencies by devoting staff to compliance and enforcement efforts. Prior to the EAR-based amendments, the County had two wetland land use categories under the Lee Plan. These were described as the Resource Protection Areas (RPA) and Transition Zones (TZ). Guidelines and standards for permitted uses and development in the RPA and TZ were found in the policies under Objective 84.1 and 84.2, respectively. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County replaced the RPA and TZ categories with a single Wetlands category. This new Wetlands category includes all lands that are identified as wetlands under the statewide definition using the state delineation methodology. The County's definition of "wetlands" in the plan amendments covers more area than the areas previously known as "resource protection" and "transition zones." To that extent, the present amendments to the Lee Plan give greater protection to wetlands than the previous version of the Lee Plan. The Lee Plan, as amended, also contains other GOP's. Taken together, the GOP's ensure the protection of wetlands and their natural functions. Reservation of Future Road Right-of-Way. As a part of the EAR-based amendments, the County has deleted or amended certain policies in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Lee Plan regarding the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. Deleted Policy 25.1.3 provided that the County would attempt to reserve adequate rights-of-way for state and county roads consistent with state and county plans. The County also deleted Policy 21.1.7, which addressed the possibility of acquiring future rights-of-way through required dedications of land. Policy 21.1.7 provided: The previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs shall not be construed so as to prohibit the adoption of regulations requiring such dedication. However, any such regulations must provide for a rational nexus between the amount of land for which dedication is required and the impact of the development in question, and must also provide that such dedication, when combined with other means which may be used to offset the impact of development (such as, for example, the imposition of impact fees), does not exceed the total impact of the develop- ment in question upon the county's transportation network. The "previous policy encouraging the voluntary dedication of land for future right of way needs," referenced in Policy 21.1.7, above, was Policy 21.1.6, which has been renumbered 21.1.5. As modified, that policy provides: In order to acquire rights-of-way and complete the construction of all roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map, voluntary dedications of land and construction of road segments and inter- sections by developers shall be encouraged through relevant provisions in the development regulations and other ordinances as described below: Voluntary dedication of rights-of-way necessary for improvements shown on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map shall be encouraged at the time local development orders are granted. In cases where there are missing segments in the traffic circulation system, developers shall be encouraged to also construct that portion of the thoroughfare that lies within or abuts the development, with appropriate credits granted towards impact fees for roads. However, site-related improvements (see glossary) are not eligible for credits towards impact fees. Policy 21.1.7 provided policy guidance for LDRs in establishing required dedication of future rights-of-way as a means of acquisition, if the County chose to use that measure. Policy 21.1.6 (renumbered 21.1.5) provides policy guidance for LDRs in establishing voluntary dedication of future rights- of-way as another means of acquisition. By deleting Policy 21.1.7, the Lee Plan, as amended, is left with a policy that establishes only the voluntary dedication measure as a means towards acquiring future rights-of-way to facilitate the construction of roads designated on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map of the Lee Plan. The County has made these changes because legally it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option after the decision in Joint Ventures, Inc., v. Dept. of Transportation, 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1990). The County's plan does more than just encourage voluntary dedication of rights-of-way. There are numerous policies in the Lee Plan that, taken together, adequately address the acquisition and preservation of rights-of-way. The following policies relate and achieve right-of-way protection: Policy 1.3, 1.6, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 6.1.5, 16.3.5, 21.1.5, Objective 21.2, Policies 21.2.1, 21.2.3, 21.2.5, 21.2.6, 21.2.7, Policy 23.1.2, 23.1.4, 23.2.3, Policy 25.1.1, and 25.1.3. Under these policies, all new projects receive a review for voluntary dedication as against the Lee County official trafficways map and the facility need identified for the planning horizon of the future traffic circulation element and map. In addition, all new developments are required to mitigate off-site impacts through a payment of impact fees. They are also required to address and mitigate site-related impacts through the provision of site-related improvements at the developer's expense. Payment of impact fees and additional revenues generated through mitigation of site-related impacts, both generate revenues for the capital improvements programming process for purchase of rights-of-way. Accomplishing necessary site-related improvements pursuant to the Lee County program also frequently results in County acquisition of rights-of-way at the developer's expense. Mitigation of site-related impacts, as well as payment of proportional share and impact fees, are generally accomplished through Policy 1.8.3, Subsection 1, Policy 2.3.2, Objective 3.1, Policy 3.1.3, Policy 7.1.2, Policy 14.3.2, Objective 22.1, 23.1, and the policies thereunder, Policy 23.1.1, 23.1.3-.7, 23.2.6, Objective 24.2, Policy 25.1.2, Objective 28.2, and Policy 70.1.1, Subsection A-7. The County's primary method of acquisition of rights-of-way is through the Capital Improvements Element. The Capital Improvements Element does include projected costs to purchase needed rights-of-way. The Lee County Capital Improvements Program is accomplished through Goal 70 of the Lee Plan, which expressly includes acquisition of rights-of-way. Objective 77.3 - Wildlife. Before the EAR-based changes, Objective 77.3 of the Lee Plan was to: "Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system . . .." In pertinent part, the EAR-based amendment deleted the phrase "current complement of." The change does not alter the meaning of the objective. The concept of a baseline expressed by the deleted phrase also is inherent in the words "[m]aintain and enhance" and remains in the amended objective. Policy 77.11.5 - Endangered and Threatened Species. The EAR-based amendments deleted Policy 77.11.5, which stated: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for public acquisition purposes shall be identified within these use areas. The corridor boundaries shall include wetlands, upland buffers, and nearby vegetative communities which are particularly beneficial to the Florida panther and black bear (such as high palmetto and oak hammocks). Data and analysis supports the deletion of the first two sentences. The use areas and public acquisition corridors have been identified. To reflect the new data and analysis, Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2 also were amended to provide for updating of data on sitings and habitat for these species and to encourage state land acquisition programs. The last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 has been transferred and added verbatim to Policy 77.11.2. Related Policy 77.11.4 was also amended to reflect new data and analysis and to provide that, instead of just encouraging the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand, the County shall continue an acquisition that is in progress. The Adoption Ordinance. As mentioned in connection with the Zemel amendment, Section 10 of the Lee County Ordinance 94-30, which adopted the plan amendments in issue in this case, purported to defer, until after the conclusion of these proceedings, the decision as to which adopted plan amendments would become effective. All of the parties now agree that the attempted deferral of this decision was "ultra vires." All of the parties except for the Zemels agree that, under Section 8 of the ordinance, the "ultra vires" part of the adopting ordinance is severable from the rest of the ordinance, which remains valid. The Zemels take the positions (1) that the state circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the remainder of the ordinance is valid and (2) that the remainder of the ordinance is invalid. Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30 provided: [I]t is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners . . . to confer the whole or any part of the powers herein provided. If any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be held unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any remaining provision of this ordinance. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent of the Board of County Commissioners that this ordinance would have been adopted had such unconstitutional provisions not been included therein. The evidence was that, notwithstanding Section 8 of Ordinance 94-30, one purpose of Section 10 of the ordinance was to insure that intended packages of amendments would remain together and either become effective together or not at all. As discussed in connection with the Zemel amendment, the evidence was that one such package consisted of the amendments to the FLUM and to FLUE Policy 1.4.4, changing the land use designation of certain property to "Open Lands," and the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. There also was some less compelling evidence that amendments creating the Commercial Site Location Standards Map, FLUM 16, were intended to remain together with the amendments which delete the FLUM 2010 Overlay. No other examples of similar "packages" of plan amendments was shown by the evidence or argued by any party. RGMC's Standing. The Responsible Growth Management Coalition, Inc. (RGMC), was formed in 1988 to insure compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule Chapter 9J-5 and to conserve resources. RGMC has offices in Lee County and conducts educational programs in Lee. In addition, at the time of the hearing, RGMC had 157 members residing throughout Lee County, most or all of whom own property in Lee County. RGMC participated in the process leading to the adoption of the Lee plan amendments in issue in this case and submitted oral or written comments, recommendations or suggestions between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the plan amendments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding that the Lee Plan amendments are not in compliance and requiring as remedial action: That the FLUE's mixed land use categories be amended to include percentage distribution or other objective measurements of the distribution among allowed uses, whether by use of an appropriate 2020 Overlay or by other appropriate means. That a sector plan be adopted for Lehigh Acres, including appropriate plans for provision of infrastructure, to create more balanced development in Lehigh and, to the extent possible, to direct future population growth to Lehigh and away from CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. Such a sector plan could include minimum densities and target densities to support mass transit along transit corridors in Lehigh. That consideration be given to increasing densities in central urban areas and along transit corridors while at the same time reducing densities or adopting other plan provisions, such as the prohibition of certain kinds of development, to afford more protection to CHHA, DRGR and other environmentally sensitive areas, and Open Lands and Rural land (especially rural lands not situated so as to be potential future urban infill or expansion), including important wildlife habitat. One example would be the prohibition, or staging, of non-farm development in some or all rural areas. That, in accordance with Policy 75.1.4, undeveloped areas within CHHA be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where density ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. That the data and analysis supporting the remedial amendments account for units approved but not built and include both a population accommodation analysis based on maximum densities and an explanation of how the GOP's in the remedial amendments justify the resulting allocation ratio. That the remedial amendments include data and analysis of the impact of the resulting plan, as amended, on hurricane evacuation and clearance times and shelter planning, especially if, as part of remedial amendments, the 2010 Overlay is removed (or replaced). That the remedial amendments be based on data and analysis as to the need for commercial and industrial land, including the Alico amendment property. That the data and analysis extrapolate solid waste projections to 2020. That the sub-elements of the Community Facilities and Services Element (and other parts of the plan, as appropriate) be consistent with and based on data and analysis of future population predictions in light of any remedial amendments to the FLUE and FLUM. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0098GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1995), as construed by the decision in Harbor Island Beach Club, Ltd., v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: DCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-17. Accepted. 18. There is a legal issue whether Ordinance 94-30 was adopted validly; otherwise, accepted. 19.-28. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected in part: plan includes "guides" (but no "objective measurements"); and Commercial Site Location Standards Map 16 implies that other uses are required elsewhere in the districts where these sites are located. Otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, rejected. (Assumptions are in part "based on" the GOP's, but they also assume less development than permitted by the GOP's.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Characterization "conservative" rejected as argument; otherwise, accepted. 34.-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted as being theoretically possible, but not likely to happen. 37.-38. Accepted. 39. Accepted as approximation of maximum theoretical residential capacity. 40.-46. Accepted. (However, as to 45 and 46, these numbers do not take into account industrial land needed to serve municipal populations that probably cannot or will not be supplied within the cities themselves.) First sentence, conclusion of law. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. (The plan is "based on" the population projections, but allocates more land than needed to accommodate the population.) First sentence, conclusion of law; second sentence, accepted. 49.-50. Conclusions of law. 51.-52. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 53. First sentence, conclusion of law; second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; last sentence, accepted. 54.-55. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 56. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. 57.-58. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence; third, accepted (but does not prove non- compliance with the state plan.) First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 63.-64. Accepted. As to b.1. not timely raised; accepted as to b.2. (but easily extrapolated five more years to 2020); otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First two sentences of a. and b., accepted; otherwise, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (As to b., the discrepancies are not significant enough to create "internal inconsistency.") First sentence, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; rest, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that deletion of the Overlay "accelerated development." (Rather, it allows--and, under certain conditions, would result it--development of more acreage sooner.) First sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. First and third sentences, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are easonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The RWSMP population projections are reasonably close to the Figure 14 projections. See also 66., above.) First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See also 71., above. 74.-77. Accepted. 78. 2850 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); otherwise, accepted. 79.-81. Accepted. 82.-83. Accepted. However, last sentences assume: (1) accurate inventory of developed acres in Orlando comparable to the land uses in AC under the Lee Plan; (2) 2850 acres of AC; and (3) developability of all AC acreage--including wetlands--for AC use. Those assumptions are not, or may not be, reasonable. 84. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See 82.-83. 85.-87. Accepted. However, as to 87., it is noted that the words "area," "surrounded by," and "nearby" are imprecise. Accepted; however, the degree of the sandstone aquifer's "susceptibility" to impacts depends on many factors. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that existing sources cannot produce any more; however, proven that new sources will be required, and otherwise accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that groundwater moves "to" the existing and planned wellfields. Otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. Fourth sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 97.-98. Accepted. Characterization of methodology as "flawed" rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It depends on the use being made of the results of the methodology.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, legal conclusion. (Legally, it appears that reservation of future right-of-way may no longer be a viable option, and the County's amendments presume that it is not.) Rest, accepted. 102.-105. Accepted. 106. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that voluntary dedication is not "effective" as one of several policies. Otherwise, accepted. 107.-108. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second and third sentences, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the state regulations are supposed to serve as "guidelines" or "guidance" for LDR's; rather, they are to serve in the place of duplicative County LDR's on the subject. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, appropriate comprehensive planning for wetlands occurs in other parts of the plan; the state regulations take the place of performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. Rest, accepted. (However, state regulations apply to some uplands that adjoin or are near to wetlands.) First sentence, accepted. (They don't guide the establishment of design and performance standard kinds of LDR's for any development in any wetlands; the state regulations take the place of design and performance standards that would be duplicated in plan provisions and LDR's.) Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (that they are the "core wetland policies in the plan.") Third sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. RGMC's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted. 9. Conclusion of law. 10.-15. Subordinate; conclusion of law; argument. 16. Accepted but subordinate. 17.-18. Rejected as not supported by record evidence. 19.-35. Accepted. 35(a). Conclusion of law. 36.-40. Accepted. 40(a). Conclusion of law. 41. Accepted. 41(a). Conclusion of law. 42.-44. Accepted. Accepted; however, the option to consider assignment of the minimum of a range of densities is in parentheses after the primary option to consider reducing densities. Largely argument. The objective and policy is "triggered" by any plan amendment, before and after the change from "A Zone" to "CHHA." See 47. Accepted. 47(a). Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. (It is a question of internal consistency.) Accepted. 48(a). Argument and recommended remediation. Accepted. 50.-59. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 60.-62. Accepted. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) 65.-66. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The population projections are reasonably accurate and certainly more realistic than the "maximum theoretical" populations used in the DCA's residential allocation analysis.) 67.-73(a) County motion to strike granted. (Issue not raised timely.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 77.-78. 2800 rejected as somewhat high (does not take into account some acreage removed from AC); 1000 rejected as 400 low; otherwise, accepted. 79.-81(a). Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 82(a). Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Accepted but "between" is imprecise. Accepted, but not likely. Accepted that two are mutually exclusive; otherwise, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the lands are "adjacent"; otherwise, accepted. 93.-94. Accepted. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. See rulings on DCA proposed findings. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that it is "the reasonable professionally acceptable methodology." Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Whether it is appropriate to apply a safety margin factor just to projected new growth can depend on the safety margin factor used and how far out the projection.) Rejected as unclear and as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as being hypothetical argument. (Also, the ratios do not convert to percentages, i.e., 25:1 does not convert to a safety margin factor of 25 percent.) 104.-111(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that "overallocations" occur in the earlier years of the planning timeframe; the relevant inquiry relates to the planning horizon. Also, as to 111., the reference should be to the year 2020. (Also, again the ratios do not convert to percentages.) Otherwise, accepted. 112.-118. Accepted as being paraphrased from part of the Sheridan Final Order. 119.-128. Accepted as being the adjustments to Figure 14B to yield unrealistic "maximum theoretical" capacity. 129.-130. Conclusions of law. 131. Accepted. 132.-133. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The plan does not "propose development"; its projections on which the County bases its facilities and services are more realistic that the "maximum theoretical" capacity projections.) Also, these specific issues were not timely raised, and County motion to strike granted. 134. Accepted. 135.-140. Descriptions of what the various FLUM's show and what development has occurred over the years, accepted as reasonably accurate. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there were either official or unofficial "urban expansion lines." (It was not clear from the evidence whether the so-called "Proposed EAR Urban Boundary" shown on Lee Exhibit 53 was either an official or an unofficial "urban expansion line," and there was no other evidence of any "urban expansion lines.") Also, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that there was a "failure to maintain" them, or that the Southwest International Airport or the Westinghouse Gateway DRI "breached" the alleged "1988 urban expansion line." (The Westinghouse Gateway DRI was vested prior to 1984, and the regional airport development appears on FLUM's prior to 1988.) Also, development that occurred in earlier years is not particularly probative on the issues in this case (in particular, the amendment eliminating the Overlay). 141.-142. Accepted. 142(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Also, the specific issue of failure to establish an "urban expansion line" is not raised by amendments at issue in this case (in particular, the elimination of the Overlay), and was not timely raised by any party. 143.-146. Densities in land use categories, accepted as reasonably accurate. The rest is rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. The plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance. Primarily, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage of non-urban land uses prior to 2010. They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020. 147.-150. Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. 150(a). Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. Conclusion of law. In part, accepted; in part conclusion of law. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, failure of the plan to include objective measures for distribution of uses in mixed land use districts contributes to the overallocation without the Overlay. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; also, conclusion of law. 154.-160. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (It remains to be seen how effective they will be in the long term.) Accepted. For the most part, the plan provisions (or lack of them) in question have been determined to be in compliance; however, with deletion of the Overlay, the amendments at issue open up for development in accordance with these plan provisions more acreage in potential wildlife habitat and corridor areas prior to 2010. (They also do not extend the Overlay to 2020.) See rulings on DCA proposed findings. 164.-168. Rejected because issues not raised timely. 169. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence and as conclusion of law. 170.-174. County motion to strike granted. 175.-179. Accepted. 180.-182. Conclusions of law. 183.-184. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 185. Accepted. 186.-188. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 189. First clause, rejected (see 186.-188.); second clause, accepted. 190.-191. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 192.-193. Rejected as not proven beyond fair debate. 194. Conclusion of law. 195.-196. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 197.-198. Except for typographical errors, accepted. (However, the last sentence of former Policy 77.11.5 was transferred verbatim to amended Policy 77.11.2.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence to be the entire justification. (Also justified by updated data and analysis--namely, that the habitats have been identified and mapped--and by amended Policies 77.11.1 and 77.11.2, which respond to the new data and analysis.) Argument. 201.-204. Cumulative. (See 154.-157.) 205.-206. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. 207.-208. Accepted. Accepted (although not demonstrated by Lee Exhibit 49). Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not clear from the evidence that the Zemel property is connected to and part of the Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area. Otherwise, accepted. 213.-216. Accepted. 217.-218. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (which is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 219.-222. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected as not proven beyond fair debate (which, again, is not to say that it was proven that the land should be designated for higher densities, or that 1 unit per 5 acres or lower densities are not suitable.) 223. Not an issue; but, if an issue, rejected. See 217.-222. Zemels' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted; however, relatively little of the Zemel property abuts either U.S. 41 or Burnt Store Road. 2-10. Accepted. Last clause rejected as not proven beyond fair debate; another option would be to amend the definition. Otherwise, accepted. Last clause, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that they are not "sparsely developed." Otherwise, accepted. 13.-15. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence as to the south; otherwise, accepted but irrelevant to the application of the definition. Accepted; however, not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the Zemel property is not north of "sparsely developed areas." (Emphasis added.) Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rest, accepted in large part and rejected in part as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Clearly, at least a good portion of the Zemel property is "extremely remote" from all existing public services. Some portions of the Zemel property are not "extremely remote" from some public services, but not proven by a preponderance of evidence that at least some public services are not "extremely remote" from all portions of the Zemel property. Also, in addition to existing public services, c) and e) also refer to future public services. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that no agricultural activities have been profitable (only that row crop farming has not); otherwise, accepted. Last sentence, not proven by a preponderance of evidence; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence (as to second and third sentences, because of the existence of the Open Lands category.) Accepted (although there also are other data and analysis in the record). First sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (Not all of the statements are "conclusory".) Second, accepted. Third, rejected; see 21., above. 28.-29. Accepted. (However, as to 29., it refers to existing access.) First sentence, accepted. A. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "fails to recognize" the roads in northern Cape Coral (although it clearly does not mention them); otherwise, accepted. B. - rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence that the analysis "appears to ignore" the water line along U.S. 41 (although it clearly does not mention it); otherwise, accepted. C. - accepted; however, the "proximity" is to a point on the periphery of the property. Last sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence except using the County's methodology. Otherwise, accepted. 33.-34. Accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The County in effect "borrowed" the DCA's data and analysis.) Rest, accepted. Accepted, assuming the County's methodology; however, there also are other concerns. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. As to the second, there is rural land to the northwest; as to the third, there also is resource protection land in Charlotte County to the north, and the "enclave" is large; as to the fourth, no I-75 boundary would appear to apply to Township 43 even if it might appear to apply to the south. Rejected as not proven by a preponderance of evidence. (The analysis compares the costs and difficulty in Yucca Pen to Lehigh and Cape Coral; in terms of such a comparison, the differences are significant.) 40.-45. Accepted. County's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; third, accepted (assuming "actual bona fide business" means a for-profit commercial enterprise.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the DCA "agreed with and relied on" the County's analysis. (The DCA utilized the analysis for purposes of its objection.) Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the determination was "on a largely subjective basis" (although some determinations necessarily were at least partly subjective); otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay was designed "without policy considerations" or that historic growth trends were "simply extrapolated." (The policy considerations already in the plan were utilized, and an effort was made to predict growth in light of those policy considerations. It is true, however, that the Overlay was not designed to further direct growth patterns within the planning districts and subdistricts.) Accepted (but not particularly probative). 11.-14. Accepted. Rejected in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it implies that the impact of the plan was not taken into consideration in predicting future population. See 9., above. Otherwise, accepted. Firsts sentence, accepted. As to second and third, not clear from the evidence what if anything was submitted in the way of data and analysis for the remedial amendments. They were not introduced in evidence or referred to by any party. As to the last sentence, it is not clear from the evidence exactly how the 2.11 factor was derived or whether it took into account the 2010 population accommodation for Lehigh (282,000 people in this analysis). (T. 1267-1269.) If the 507,000 units of accommodation did not include Lehigh, the total accommodation of 1.06 million also could not have included Lehigh. Accepted. First three sentences, argument. Rest, accepted. 19.-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as unclear what "that allocation" refers to. (Accepted if it means "up to 125 percent"; rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence if it means "200 percent.") 22.-23. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (In addition, a more meaningful comparison would be between the adopted EAR 2020 plan without a 2010 Overlay and a 2020 plan with an overlay extending the 2010 Overlay out another ten years.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rest, accepted (as accurate recitation of testimony) but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 30.-32. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (As to first sentence, see Sheridan Final Order.) Accepted. First and last sentences, accepted. Rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Such an approach would direct population to Lehigh, which might be the best thing to do. (At this point in time, development of Lehigh under a good Sector Plan might be able to change what was classic urban sprawl under past conditions into well-planned growth under present and future conditions.) It might also direct population to other, non- urban areas if densities were not low enough in them. Finally, Nelson suggested other ways of bring the plan into compliance without the Overlay. 38.-42. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The County did not seek to "match the available land to meet that growth"; rather, it checked to see if what was on the FLUM would "accommodate" (i.e., hold) the population projected for 2020. Last sentence, rejected in that RGMC challenged the opinion in its response to this proposed finding; otherwise, accepted. Rejected that the County "cannot alter the future development" of Lehigh or that Lehigh is "beyond the reach of" the comprehensive plan; otherwise, accepted. The 199 acres is part of the 685 acre total. Otherwise, generally accepted. However, significant additional growth can be expected in coastal areas, and there is rural land both within and outside the so-called "I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; presumably, the existence of this land is the reason the finding is couched in the terms: "the remaining area . . . is largely . . . along the I-75, U.S. 41 corridor"; and "all future growth . . . will predominantly occur." First and third sentences, conclusion of law; second, accepted. Conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted but subordinate; also, the rule citation is incorrect; in addition, they testified to the effect of removing the Overlay. Second sentence, conclusion of law. Accepted. (The effect of the Overlay is in the extent of the indicators that exist.) Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted; third, conclusion of law; fourth, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. First sentence, accepted. Second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear"; also, conclusion of law. 58.-60. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (The same conditions exist without the Overlay.) Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. First sentence, rejected; second, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Overlay did not have any "true policy bias or consideration built into it"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. (However, the same conditions exist without the Overlay.) 68.-71. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that "removing Cape Coral . . . reduces the FLUM capacity"; rather, it represents a change in the methodology of evaluating the FLUM capacity. Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. 74.-78. Accepted. However, it appears that the County's treatment of Lehigh essentially was a device to enable it to have the projected population in the year 2020 treated as if it were the capacity of Lehigh in the year 2020. 79.-81. First sentence of 79, unclear; rest, accepted. However, only certain retail commercial are restricted to the locations on Map 16; others can go either there or elsewhere. 82.-85. Conclusion of law. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the ELUM "represents the growth trends" (rather, it shows what is there now) or that, except for Lehigh, growth only "is occurring in the north/south core." Otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First and last sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Barrier" is too strong; "obstacle" or "hindrance" would be accepted.) Otherwise, accepted. 91.-95. Generally, accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as conclusion of law that they are "objective measures" and "responsive to . . . 5(c)"; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, accepted (although some higher, urban densities are in coastal areas, and there remains some rural land in the so-called "north/south core"); third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that a "large impact" is "clear"; fourth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the "segmentation" is absolute but otherwise accepted. Except for Lehigh, generally accepted. (What is missing are "objective measures.") Generally, accepted. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "nearly identical." Third sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it necessarily is not excessive. The evidence was that it is not necessarily excessive, but it could be depending on many factors, including whether it was calculated based on total capacity on the planning horizon or incremental growth during the planning timeframe, and the length of the planning horizon. Otherwise, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; last two, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 107.-108. Accepted. 109. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, accepted. 110.-117. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The effect of removing the Overlay is to allow more development sooner throughout the County. The effect of the increased development would depend on how it occurs. As to 116 and 117, one purpose of the Overlay was to require a mix of uses in mixed land use districts. First sentence, rejected. See 110-117, above. Rest, accepted. Cumulative. Last sentence, subordinate argument; except for apparent typographical error in third sentence, rest accepted. Last sentence, rejected as unclear from the evidence why there has been no agricultural use; otherwise, accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. ("Significance" depends on other factors as well, including the amount of acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) Assuming that the "127 additional acres" refers to uplands, the rest is accepted. 124.-125. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and, in part, conclusion of law. There was no evidence of any serious risk of a taking. If these were legitimate reasons to redesignate the Alico property AC, it would be questionable if any DRGR would survive. First sentence, accepted (assuming the County's efforts are otherwise "in compliance"; second, subordinate argument; third, cumulative. Accepted. (However, the County's analysis does not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) First four sentences, accepted but irrelevant; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "safe to assume"; last sentence, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that mining would "permanently preempt" commercial use, but accepted that subsequent commercial use would be much less likely; fourth sentence, accepted (except for typos); last sentence, accepted. Second sentence, rejected as not clear that it "won't be available," but accepted that it may not, depending on when it is "needed." Rest, accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is "clear" but accepted that it probably "will not pose a significant threat"; third and fourth, accepted; fifth, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that there is no recharge, but accepted that recharge is not better than average; rest, accepted. Accepted (with the understanding that the last sentence refers to surface water runoff). First sentence, accepted; second and third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Gulf Utilities-San Carlos wellfield is the only wellfield in the water table aquifer (otherwise, the third sentence is accepted). 134.-136. Accepted. Accepted. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (There also were other internal consistency issues concerning the date.) Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 140.-141. Accepted. 142. Irrelevant; issue not timely raised. 143.-144. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (in that DCA and RGMC did not prove internal inconsistency beyond fair debate); second, third and fourth sentences, accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay); rest, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 147.-149. Accepted. First two sentences, argument; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; last, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that a reduction in densities is not necessarily positive; rest, accepted. 152.-155. Accepted. First sentence, accepted (assuming it refers to the deleted first sentence of former Policy 84.1.2, now 84.1.1); second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence since its context requires the opposite interpretation. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the report "specifically recommends the amendment . . . in the fashion that Lee County has done." Otherwise, accepted. 159.-160. Accepted (159, based on the plan language and Joyce testimony, as well as the Deadman testimony.) First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; conclusion of law; subordinate. Accepted; subordinate. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the circuit court judgment was based entirely on new data and analysis; otherwise, accepted. 166.-169. Accepted. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (Use of the "allocation ratio" is being determined in this case.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order can be said to be a DCA "publication." Otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Joint Exhibit 17 gives some indication of how to apply an "allocation ratio"; accepted that Joint Exhibit 17 does not fully explain how to apply the "allocation ratio." Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the Sheridan Final Order constitutes such evidence. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Atlantic Gulf's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted. 4. Accepted (but do not rule out the possibility of impacts from removal of the Overlay). 5.-7. Accepted. 8.-10. In part conclusions of law; otherwise, accepted. (The incorporation of the DEP and SWFWMD permitting requirements only replaces former County permitting requirements; other parts of the amended plan's provisions relating to wetlands protection remain in effect.) Alico's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-13. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the phrase "substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future wellfield development" may distinguish DRGR-suitable land from other land by the nature of the aquifer it recharges, not by the relative amounts of recharge. However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that it is in the "area" of "most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers." However, the suitability of the AC amendment property for DRGR is questionable, and redesignation to AC is not prohibited. 16.-19. Accepted. Accepted (assuming it refers to the DCA submitting); subordinate. Accepted. 22.-24. Subordinate argument and conclusion of law. 25.-34. Accepted. 35.-36. Accepted; subordinate. Last sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument and conclusion of law. Accepted (except, in s. and u., it should read "Six Mile Cypress Basin.") Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the list is not exhaustive ; otherwise, accepted. 40.-41. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Policy 7.1.1 just says applications are to be "reviewed and evaluated as to" these items; it does not say that "negative impacts" must be "avoided." Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that Goal 12 and Standard 12.4 under it are renumbered under the current amendments as Goal 11 and Standard 11.4; otherwise, accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that former Standard 14.1 has been transferred to Policy 7.1.1. under the current amendments. See 40 and 42, above. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that former designation as DRGR is the only reason why water quality and quantity issues arise; second, cumulative. Cumulative. First two sentences, cumulative; rest, accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, unclear which fact is "in dispute"; rest, accepted. (The AC amendment property probably would not be developed as a producing wellfield.) First sentence, accepted; second, cumulative. First two clauses of first sentence, accepted; rest, conclusion of law. First sentence, cumulative; rest, accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law. 55.-56. Cumulative. 57.-59. Accepted. First two sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. Accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second, third and fourth sentences, accepted; rest, cumulative. First sentence, argument; rest, accepted. Accepted. 65.-66. In part, cumulative; otherwise, accepted. 67.-70. Accepted. First sentence, argument; middle sentences, accepted; penultimate sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that he made no blanket concession, instead conditioning interception on water table levels; last sentence, accepted. First sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (that there's no "realistic way" "you" can do it); rest, accepted. 73.-74. Cumulative. Accepted. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. Beginning, cumulative; last sentence, subordinate argument. First sentence, accepted; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the influence of additional pumping has not been analyzed; last, accepted. Accepted. First two sentences, conclusion of law; last, accepted. Subordinate argument. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted; third, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that the "performance standards" say to maintain current protection and expand protection "to encompass the entire area." Accepted. (However, it is far from clear that the BMP's referred to in Policy 1.2.2 are the same ones referred to in this proposed finding.) Accepted. 87.-88. Subordinate argument. Cumulative or subordinate argument. Unclear what is meant by "several generations of numbers." Otherwise, cumulative. Cumulative. Accepted but subordinate. Accepted. (However, he also raised the question that the County's analysis did not include acreage in other mixed land use categories that allow light industrial.) 94.-95. Accepted. First sentence, subordinate argument; second, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that they conceded need is not based exclusively on resident and seasonal population, not that it is not based at all on it; third, accepted. First sentence, accepted; rest, subordinate argument. Accepted. Accepted. (Nor was there testimony that there is a need based on population.) Accepted. First sentence, accepted; second, conclusion of law, cumulative, and rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that there was evidence of other motivations for providing the information as well. Accepted. (However, the analysis was limited to Orlando, and Nelson's method resulted in no need found.) Subordinate argument; cumulative. Subordinate argument. Accepted. (As to third sentence, neither did any other witness.) 106.-107. Accepted. Last sentence, subordinate argument; penultimate, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (or, at least, unclear); rest accepted. Cumulative. 110.-113. Accepted. Cumulative. First sentence, conclusion of law; second, accepted as an excerpt from the dictionary, but argument and conclusion of law that it is the "plain meaning" of the word "need," as used in 9J-5. (Also, citation to Joint Exhibit 11, p. 9, is not understood.) Argument and cumulative. 117.-118. Accepted. 119.-120. Conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 121. Last sentence, accepted. (It is not clear from the evidence that the designation of the property as "Panther Priority 2" on Lee Exhibit 42, introduced by RGMC, means that the County has identified it as being "in need of conservation.") Rest, conclusion of law, argument and cumulative. 122.-126. Conclusion of law and cumulative. To the extent that accepted proposed findings are not essentially incorporated into the Findings of Fact of this Recommended Order, they were considered to be either subordinate or otherwise unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Jordan, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Bridgette Ffolkes, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Timothy Jones, Esquire Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue So. St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Connie C. Durrence, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Charles J. Basinait, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Neale Montgomery, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Steven C. Hartsell, Esquire Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Thomas B. Hart, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Post Office Box 2449 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2449 Michael J. Ciccarone, Esquire Goldberg, Goldstein, & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 2366 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Greg Smith, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capitol - Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning Administration Commission The Capitol - Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue Whether the amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-33 on December 11, 2001, which changes the future land use designation on the FLUM of an approximately 29-acre site from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial," is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frances Z. Parsons, lives at 215 Woodbury Trail, Satsuma, Putnam County, Florida, which is approximately one mile from the racetrack (on the site subject to the Amendment, see Findings of Fact 14 and 15) and has resided there for over seven years. Dr. Parsons understood at the time she purchased the house that a racetrack had been in existence, but was not operational and that no evidence of a racetrack could be seen from the road. A couple of years ago, Dr. Parsons noticed construction-type activity (e.g., earth-moving machines and erection of stadium-type bleachers and lights) occurring on the Property (racetrack site). Trees along the road were "bulldozed down," the site cleared, and a fence erected, after which, Dr. Parsons could see the racetrack from the road and racing commenced. Dr. Parsons also stated that the racetrack is operational and the noise level bothers her at her home. Dr. Parsons described Satsuma as "about a half a mile wide" and "fairly settled for a rural areas, but not for -- it's certainly not downtown." Dr. Parsons stated that the community character has not changed in the last five years. Dr. Parsons submitted oral or written comments and objections regarding the disputed Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the amendment and ending with the adoption of the amendment. Respondent, Putnam County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Section 7.54, Florida Statutes. The County is the local government that adopted the Amendment. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, which includes a determination of whether comprehensive plan amendments are "in compliance." Intervenor, Florida Racing, is a private corporation and is the owner of the approximately 29 acres that are the subject of the challenged Amendment. Oral or written comments and regarding the disputed Amendment were submitted on behalf of Florida Racing during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Amendment. Robert Joseph Potter is the Vice- President and Comptroller for Florida Racing. The Amendment In April 2001, Florida Racing submitted to the County an "Application for Amendment to the Putnam County Future Land Use Map" (Application). This Application requested that the land use designation for an approximately 29-acre site, consisting of five contiguous parcels under the same ownership, be changed from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial" on the FLUM. The Amendment was approved and transmitted to the Department for review under Section 163.3184(6)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department conducted this review, and raised no objections to the proposed FLUM change. On December 11, 2001, the Putnam County Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted the proposed Amendment by Ordinance No. 2001-33. The Department timely caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." On or about February 28, 2002, Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the Department's Notice of Intent. This Petition alleges that the Amendment should be found not "in compliance" on several grounds. This challenge involves an existing development, a racetrack, on the Property. However, the Amendment would allow commercial development on the approximately 29 acres, subject to compliance with applicable Plan and Putnam County Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordnance) provisions. (In the Application, Florida Racing advised that proposed uses included a raceway, mobile home park, restaurant, and related amenities.) The Putnam County Speedway, the Surrounding Area, and the Review Process The approximately 29-acre site (five parcels total (Property)) subject to the Amendment is the site of an existing dirt automobile racetrack with bleachers, a press box, associated structures, and a masonry building/house. A commercial mini-warehouse building (personal storage) is located on the westernmost parcel. The racetrack is currently known as the "Putnam County Speedway" (Speedway). The Property is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 17 South between the Dunn's Creek Bridge and Buffalo Bluff Road (County Road 309B). The land surrounding the Property on the west, south, and east are designated as "Rural Residential" on the FLUM, the same as the Property prior to the proposed FLUM change. The land to the north is designated as "Conservation" on the FLUM and designated as vacant and wetlands as existing land uses. The zoning is "A." See Endnote 8. The land to the east is zoned "A" and is vacant as the existing land use. The land to the north and east of the Property is part of the 1,707-acre Murphy Creek Conservation area owned and managed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. The land to the west is zoned "C-2; A" and has an existing land use of commercial, but a future land use designation on the FLUM of Rural Residential. There is also additional land to the west of the Property within the Murphy Creek Conservation Area, a couple of residences and a vacant subdivision that has been determined not to be vested for development. There is a parcel of land to the west that is also owned by Florida Racing. The land to the south is zoned "C-4, C-1, C-2, [and] A" and is designated as vacant and commercial residential as existing land uses, and has a Rural Residential future land use designation on the FLUM. See Endnote 8. The land south of the Property across U.S. 17 includes an existing commercial establishment that includes a mini-warehouse building with outside storage of equipment and semi-trailers. (The mini- warehouse was rezoned in 1986.) Also, further south and west along U.S. 17, there are two or three additional commercial businesses. Mr. Spofford referred to this area as "a commercial cluster." However, most of the uses are nonconforming uses as to the existing Rural Residential future land use, and they would not be able to change to anything more intensive or that would have more adverse impacts on the surrounding residential uses. 1 Behind the mini-warehouse building are two residential neighborhoods with two subdivisions, one with 22 lots of approximately one acre in size and the other with 19 lots, with most of the lots being significantly larger than those in the former subdivision. Another residential area further west than the two subdivisions consists of approximately 40 parcels of land which have been subdivided over time and never platted. About four of these parcels on U.S. 17 are zoned for commercial use. There is also an existing aluminum business west with a C-4 zoning. It appears that almost all of these residential lots and parcels were created after the racetrack was established. The racetrack was in operation prior to the adoption of the Plan and zoning regulations. There is evidence that a racetrack existed before 1975, but has not remained in continuous use throughout that time. The record does not detail the history of the racetrack from its initial approval some time prior to 1975 to the date of the adoption of the Amendment. There is inference that the racetrack was not actively or frequently used in the mid-1990s. (It is noted in the County Staff Report that "[a]n aerial from the Florida Department of Transportation dated February 1972 shows the subject property cleared with what appears to be an oval dirt track. A 1964 aerial photograph did not show a racetrack on the subject property. A review of property appraisal data indicate the racetrack was established around the 1970 to 1972 period.") At some point after approximately 1995, and prior to the adoption of the Amendment, racing returned to the Speedway. An automobile racetrack is not an allowable or conforming use on land designated "Rural Residential." According to the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), "[t]he Rural Residential land use category depicted on the [FLUM] consists of water front development and developed areas interspersed within the active agricultural areas. These areas are somewhat isolated from the urban areas and rural centers. The development is situated primarily on large lots in the one to five-acre range and is either a homestead or a second home for people who seek the quiet enjoyment of living in a rural environment." As a nonconforming use, the Speedway (racetrack) is subject to County land use and zoning provisions that limit or restrict the ability to undertake improvements. For example, according to the Putnam County Zoning Ordinance 88-1, as amended by Ordinance 91-31 (collectively referred to as County Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance), the racetrack, as a nonconforming use, is restricted from being extended or enlarged, and repair of its structures is limited. For example, work may be done in any 12-consecutive month period on ordinary repairs, or on repair or replacement of 15 percent of the current assessed value of the particular structure if a nonconforming structure is involved, provided the cubic content of the structure as it existed on the date it became nonconforming shall not be increased in size.2 The intent of these nonconforming use restrictions is to "permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival," and it is intended that such uses would become extinguished over time as a result of being prevented from expanding or extensively renovating their structures. See, e.g., County Zoning Ordinance, Sections 2-701-2-708. On March 20, 1998, John Salmons, the Putnam County Planner, advised Tim Keyser, Attorney, that the nonconforming status of the Speedway was still in effect. Mr. Keyser was also informed, in part, that the "Putnam County Speedway may continue to operate under the provisions of the nonconforming use section of the Zoning Ordinance." At the time Florida Racing purchased the racetrack in the 1990's (the specific date is uncertain), some of the existing structures had deteriorated and were in need of repair and/or replacement. To accommodate the renewed activity in racing and the need to upgrade the racetrack, seating at the racetrack was rearranged, new seating was added for children, and a second access driveway was installed north of the existing driveway. In 2000, in a series of letters to Mr. Potter, County staff raised concerns regarding plans to significantly upgrade the racetrack. On September 26, 2000, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter "that the current zoning status for the [S]atsuma racetrack is Nonconforming. As a nonconforming use, the zoning ordinance acknowledges their existence, but does not encourage their survival. As such, there are very strict rules for repairing or maintaining a nonconforming use." Mr. Salmons also informed Mr. Potter that the Property had been designated "Rural Residential" on the County's FLUM at some point subsequent to the racetrack's initial operation. (The racetrack on the Property pre-dates the Plan, including the FLUM land use categories, including "Rural Residential.") Mr. Salmons understood at the time that Mr. Potter had plans to "significantly upgrade the racetrack" and advised Mr. Potter that he "would not be able to proceed with [his] plans." In order to upgrade, Mr. Salmons advised Mr. Potter that he would need to have the Property rezoned and given the current land use designation for the Property, Mr. Potter would need to obtain an amendment to the FLUM to change the Property's land use designation from "Rural Residential" to "Commercial." However, Mr. Salmons further advised that without doing an analysis of the proposed change, he suspected that "it would be difficult for staff to support such a change" "based upon what Future Land Use patterns surround the property." Finally, Mr. Potter was told that he could continue operations "as they were in the past." But, he could not "add seating, restaurants, structures, pave the track or do much more than do some minor maintenance at this time." On December 27, 2000, Mr. Salmons sent Mr. Potter another letter similar in content to the September 26, 2000, letter. Apparently, Mr. Salmons was advised by Mr. Potter that he had already spent in excess of the 15 percent allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Potter was advised to stop making improvements until the land use designation was changed and rezoning approved. (There have not been any legal proceedings initiated to determine whether the 15 percent threshold was crossed.) On April 16, 2001, Florida Racing submitted the Amendment Application and requested the FLUM change suggested by County staff for the Property.3 (Florida Racing also requested rezoning of the Property which is not the subject of this proceeding.) Deficiencies in the applications were noted and additional information requested. The County's FLUE of the Plan was adopted on December 12, 1991, and amended on August 24, 1993. Policy A.1.9.3.A.5. of the FLUE describes the "Commercial" land use category and provides in part: The Commercial land use areas depicted on the [FLUM] are current locations of commercial development in the County with expansion areas provided and are intended to serve as the primary commercial locations for the next 10 years. Secondary commercial locations are provided for in the policies for development in the urban service, urban reserve and rural center land use categories. Commercial land uses include activities that are predominantly associated with the sale, rental, and distribution of products or performance of service. Future development shall be allowed as follows: The maximum permitted floor area for a site shall be 1:1. The maximum permitted impervious surface shall be 70 percent of the site.4 The Staff Report dated July 11, 2001, was prepared by Mr. Spofford, A.I.C.P., a senior planner with Putnam County. As noted in the Staff Report, the purpose of the land use "change is to bring a non-conforming automobile racetrack into compliance with the" Plan. Mr. Spofford testified that the scope of the Staff Report was broader than examining the racetrack. However, the primary focus of the Staff Report is the Property being used as a racetrack and not another commercial use. It was determined that the automobile racetrack is a commercial attraction because it attracts spectators for a fee and further noted: As such, the use is not appropriate for the Agriculture I and II and Rural Residential future land use categories. The site and surrounding area do not meet the intent and description of an Urban Service or Urban Reserve future land use category because urban type infrastructure does not currently exist and is not likely within the next 10 years. This means that the use is most appropriate for a Commercial future land use category. The subject site meets the intent of the Commercial category because it is a current location of a commercial- recreational-entertainment type use. Mr. Spofford explained that the data to support the FLUM change is set forth in the Staff Report. (Mr. Salmons, Mr. Spofford's superior, believed the data in the Staff Report was adequate to support the FLUM change.) The Application was reviewed for consistency with the Plan and various provisions of Rule 9J-5. Staff made the following recommendation: The existing automobile racetrack must go through a two step process to become compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. First, this proposed map amendment must be approved and adopted by the County, and found to be in compliance by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The purpose of this public hearing is to determine whether or not the proposed map amendment should be transmitted for state agency review. Therefore, the Planning Commission must recommend to either transmit the map amendment as proposed, transmit the amendment with recommended changes or not to transmit the map amendment. If the proposed map amendment is transmitted, then state agencies will review the proposed map amendment and return comments to the County in October. The County would then likely hold public hearing[s] to consider actual adoption of the map amendment in November and December. When these public hearings are held to consider the map amendment, a rezoning application would simultaneously be reviewed. A rezoning to Planned Unit Development is a negotiable process where the County can gain greater control of the use. If the proposed map amendment is not transmitted, the a rezoning will not be necessary and the automobile racetrack will continue to be a non-conforming use. As a non-conforming use, code enforcement action will be taken to have the improvements removed that consist of an expenditure greater than 15 percent of the assessed value of the structure(s), with the exception of the permitted work that includes the press box and new lighting. All other improvements could be subject to removal. However, as a non-conforming use, the racetrack would be allowed to continue operation so long as it does not expand. This means that the County would not have much control over the days and hours of operation and other critical site design issues. Although this is not the ideal location for a racetrack, the fact is it has existed on the subject property and has been determined to be a bona fide non- conforming use. Research of County records and other known available sources of information indicates that the racetrack was established prior to the residential development in close proximity south of the subject site. The request for a large-scale comprehensive plan map amendment from Rural Residential to Commercial appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs with a request for their review. On July 11, 2001, the Putnam County Planning Commission unanimously approved the FLUM change after receiving comments. On July 24, 2001, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Amendment and approved same. The FLUM Amendment was transmitted to the Department. Pursuant to the Department's review of the Amendment, a Memorandum dated October 4, 2001, was prepared by Russell Paul Darst, a planner with the Department, and routed to James Stansbury and Mike Sherman, the section administrator, and ultimately to Charles Gauthier, A.I.C.P., and Bureau Chief, who issued the Department's Notice of Intent. Mr. Darst, as well as others at the Department, had no objections to the Amendment. In the Memorandum, Mr. Darst concluded: "The proposed FLUM change for this 29-acre property is from Rural Residential to Commercial. The property has been used for a race track since about 1970. The amendment would change the FLUM designation for the property to reflect the actual and long-standing use of the property. This use is not allowed in the Rural Residential FLUM category." This was the crux of the data and analysis relied on by Mr. Stansbury of the Department. The Memorandum also reflected the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council comment: "Since the raceway already exists, the land use change will not create any additional impacts to regional resources. The proposed land use change may even protect regional resources in the future by granting the County the ability to regulate the property under the most appropriate zoning classification." Dr. Darst stated that in reviewing a FLUM amendment for the Department, it would be typical to examine the existing use of the land before making his recommendation. In reviewing the County's proposed FLUM change, Mr. Darst believed, based on his discussions with County staff, that the racetrack was not expected to expand (and not that it could not) and that the change in the FLUM would give the County "part of a means of gaining effective control over [the operation of the racetrack]." He reiterated that the FLUM change would reflect the actual and long-standing use of the Property as a racetrack. On December 11, 2001, during the public hearing, the Board approved the FLUM Amendment and transmitted the approval package to the Department. On February 13, 2002, the Department had published its Notice of Intent to find the Amendment "in compliance." The Challenges Petitioner alleges that the Amendment is not "in compliance" on several grounds: first, there is no "need" for additional land to be designated for a commercial use in Putnam County; second, the Amendment and proposed land use is not compatible with the community character and surrounding land uses; and, third, the Amendment is inconsistent with provisions of the Plan, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Need The term "need" as used in growth management refers to the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Local governments are to analyze by acreage how much land within each land use category5 they need to accommodate projected growth through the planning timeframe, and then base their comprehensive plan on this estimate. Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The calculus of need is rather simple and, for that reason, inexact. The calculation of how much land is needed to accommodate the projected population involves comparing what is available for development under the comprehensive plan with the projected population over the same planning timeframe applicable to the plan. An "allocation ratio" to express this need can be derived by dividing the development potential by the projected population. For example, if a comprehensive plan allocated 100 residential dwelling units over the planning timeframe and the jurisdiction's population was projected to increase by 100 over the same time, there would be an allocation ratio of 1:1. This ratio would express an exact match between supply and demand. A ratio of 2:1, on the other hand, would demonstrate that the jurisdiction had twice as much land as designated for use as the projected population is expected to need. There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans and plan amendments are judged. There is evidence that the County has more vacant land designated "Commercial" than is needed to accommodate its projected population.6 There is data and analysis which indicates an excess of vacant commercially-designation land on a County-wide basis. For example, Florida Racing Exhibit 1 is a copy of data and analysis in support of the FLUE. This data and analysis indicates that at least as of 1991, and projected to 2001, the County has an over-allocation of need for commercial land of about two times or, stated otherwise, the County has a 2:1 allocation ratio for commercial. This data is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit P. Mr. Spofford explained that the population data was compiled prior to 1991, has not been updated, is not meant to provide a "detailed analysis," and it is only useful for providing the acreage for each planning district. The population for each planning district is then compared to the acreage to determine the allocation of commercial to service that population. From a very general standpoint, Mr. Spofford analyzed the FLUM Amendment application in light of whether more commercial acreage was needed. Mr. Spofford explained that because the Property was so close to the edge of the planning district, it was difficult to compare the commercial and population need. However, Mr. Spofford opined that the Planning District 1 (which includes the Property) and the one to the northeast are not over-allocated for commercial use. He also opined that, generally, "more is needed, if -- especially if you're looking out 20, ten or twenty years." Petitioner did not come forward with any independent or up-to-date analysis to demonstrate the County is in fact over-allocated for commercial land use. On the other hand, Fred Goodrow, A.I.C.P., opined that the County was over-allocated regarding the need for more commercial in light of the data previously mentioned. The existence and extent of any commercial over- allocation in Putnam County is, at best, fairly debatable. Nonconforming Use, Inconsistency, and Incompatibility Petitioner asserts that the Amendment is not "in compliance" because it fails to eliminate or reduce a nonconforming use in violation of Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and (3)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner also argues that the Commercial land use designation which would attach to the Property is incompatible with the character of the community and adjacent land uses. Petitioner also contends that the Amendment is inconsistent with several Plan provisions. Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes; Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code. Objective A.1.3 of the FLUE requires that "[u]pon plan adoption, Putnam County shall act to eliminate or reduce uses inconsistent with the uses identified on the [FLUM] and associated adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies through implementing the following policies." Policy A.1.3.1 of the FLUE requires revision of the County's Land Development Regulations, specifically the County Zoning Code, "to reinforce its current provisions regarding the elimination of nonconforming land uses by expanding the definition of nonconforming land uses to include all uses which are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map 2001 or cannot be made compatible with adjacent land uses. The requirements of this provision shall be enforced upon application for building permits to repair or improve such structures."7 The nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance apply to and implement the FLUM. An automobile racetrack is not an appropriate use to put in a Rural Residential future land use category. In theory, one purpose of this land use designation is to protect residents from the intrusion of noisy racetracks which can impact an adjacent residential user. The dispute in this case is clearly framed. Petitioner contends that because the Property was designated "Rural Residential" when the County's Plan was adopted, the Speedway (racetrack) is a nonconforming use which must be restricted and eventually eliminated. Petitioner argues that the County lacks the authority to amend its FLUM to make the Speedway a conforming use under the Plan. Respondents and Florida Racing contend that the County has the authority to amend the FLUM, and acted properly in this instance in adopting the Amendment. The County has the authority to amend its FLUM, including the designations of properties as long as the designations are consistent with other provisions of the Plan and applicable provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The persuasive evidence indicates that an automobile racetrack is an allowable use in the Commercial future land use category as opposed to the Rural Residential category. If the Amendment is approved, the raceway would no longer be considered a nonconforming use for Plan purposes, and could undertake improvements without the restrictions that accompany such a use, subject to compliance with applicable zoning requirements. Stated otherwise, the racetrack could expand without complying with the nonconforming use restrictions, subject to compliance with the nonconforming standards in the Zoning Ordinance because the Property would remain a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance. (Of course, a zoning change for the Property, as contemplated in the County's Staff Report, would create different considerations as noted below.) The Property is currently zoned C-2 and A, with the bulk of the property zoned agriculture.8 If the Amendment is approved, the next step would be for the Property owner to apply for a zoning change, e.g., special exception, or pursue a planned unit development. Under either scenario, the County could impose conditions on the use of the Property such as the amelioration of off-site impacts. On the other hand, if the racetrack continued as a nonconforming use, the persuasive evidence indicates that the County would be limited in establishing any further limitation on the use of the Property, such as duration and frequency of use, e.g., hours of operation and other site design issues. There is no persuasive support for the proposition that all subsequent Boards of County Commissioners are bound in every instance by the decision of one Board regarding the land use of a particular parcel. There is some evidence that leads to at least a fair inference that the designation of the racetrack site as "Rural Residential" may have been in error. The data and analysis that was used to support the original designation indicates the area including the racetrack as being "woodlands." The County planner involved in the preparation of the Plan, including the FLUM, testified that he did not know there was a racetrack on the land designated "woodlands." The FLUM was based "to a great extent" on this data, and very well may have designated the Property as "Rural Residential" by "oversight" based on the incorrect representation of the area as woodlands. Several other commercial uses exist within the immediate vicinity of the site of the Property, are similarly depicted as "woodlands" by the referenced data, and are designated "Rural Residential" on the FLUM. These parcels, too, may be nonconforming by error, and not by some deliberate choice. Whether the original designation of the Property as nonconforming was erroneous or not, the true question is what is the proper standard by which to weigh a FLUM amendment when it affects a site on which there exists a nonconforming use. Neither Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, nor Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, directs the Department to review a FLUM amendment involving a nonconforming use under some specific provisions. Such an amendment must be subjected to the same standards applicable to any FLUM amendment. The Property has been used intermittently as a racetrack for approximately 30 years. A racetrack has operated on the Property as a nonconforming use, and has the right to continue do so under applicable County land use and zoning regulations. The racetrack is, in fact, eligible to expand by 15 percent under these regulations. The County would not have some absolute right to cease racetrack operations if it remained nonconforming, and would not have unlimited authority to address noise and traffic concerns. The uncontradicted testimony is that it is likely that the racetrack would continue to operate even if it remained a nonconforming use. The County does not lose any authority to address noise and traffic by virtue of the Amendment. Credible evidence in the record indicates that the County may actually have a better ability to address these concerns should the racetrack be made a conforming use. Nevertheless, the fact that the racetrack, operated as the Speedway, currently exists in the area as a nonconforming use does not mean that the use is automatically compatible with the adjacent land uses and surrounding area or is otherwise consistent with the character of the community. The nonconforming use designation only means that the racetrack can continue to operate, not that the racetrack can achieve a potentially more useful and elevated land use status by virtue of being an existing raceway and commercial use. Otherwise, an existing nonconforming use would have greater rights to a new and more permissive land use designation than a new entrant into the marketplace. Stated otherwise, the FLUM Amendment, if approved, will further and encourage the nonconforming use rather than its eventual elimination as contemplated by the Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In this case, it is beyond fair debate that if a new automobile racetrack were proposed on the Property today, it would be inconsistent with the existing residential and conservation areas surrounding the property, notwithstanding the existence of several commercial properties in the vicinity. The only reasonable conclusion to be reached is that that the Amendment is not "in compliance."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Amendment adopted by Putnam County in Ordinance No. 2001- 33 is not "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 2nd day of May, 2003.
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
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Town of Jupiter and Its Neighbors The Town of Jupiter (Town, Jupiter) is an incorporated municipality located in northeastern Palm Beach County between Interstate 95 (I-95) and the Atlantic Ocean. The Village of Tequesta, the Town of Juno Beach and Jupiter Inlet Colony are adjoining municipalities. Jupiter is also bordered by unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County. The focal point of urban activity in Palm Beach County (County) is the City of West Palm Beach. The dominant community in the County north of West Palm Beach is the City of Palm Beach Gardens, which is south of Jupiter. There is a regional mall, as well as a satellite County Courthouse, in Palm Beach Gardens, both of which are situated on PGA Boulevard. Jupiter is the major center of urban activity north of Palm Beach Gardens. Its market area is sub-regional in scope. Growth in Jupiter: A Brief History The Jupiter of today is much different than the Jupiter of only a few decades ago. In 1960, the Town's population was just 1,058. By 1970, it had increased to 3,136. During the 1970's, the Town more than tripled its population to slightly less than 10,000, but it still was a bedroom community without any significant employment opportunities. This began to change during the next decade. Small businesses, in increasing numbers, started to locate in the Town. They were followed by larger employers. The 1980's saw not only a substantial increase in employment opportunities, but a substantial increase in population as well. The Town now has a population of approximately 28,000 and is becoming a fairly self- sufficient community offering a wide variety services to its residents. There is one existing new car dealership (Dodge) in Jupiter. Two additional new car dealerships (Ford and Cadillac) have been approved and permitted. 2/ Additionally, there are a number of new car dealerships clustered together on Northlake Boulevard in the City of Palm Beach Gardens 3/ less than ten miles from Jupiter to which the Town's residents have access. 4/ There remain only a few tracts of vacant, uncommitted land within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Town. The unincorporated areas surrounding the Town, however, are largely undeveloped. A considerable amount of the growth in Jupiter since the late 1980's can be attributed to the completion of the "missing link" of I-95, a north-south roadway that is the main intra-urban route in South Florida. Until late 1987, I-95 went as far north in Palm Beach County as PGA Boulevard. In late 1987, a new stretch of I-95, from PGA Boulevard to Fort Pierce, including an interchange at Indiantown Road in Jupiter, was opened to the travelling public. The opening of the I-95 interchange at Indiantown Road has enhanced the Town's market potential and contributed significantly to the Town's integration into the broader metropolitan area of greater Palm Beach County. Jupiter does not have a traditional downtown area. Growth has generally occurred along the Town's major roadways, including Indiantown Road, a state roadway which offers the only direct access from I-95 to the Town and therefore serves as the primary gateway to the Town. In recent years, nearly 60 percent of office and other commercial projects in the Town have been located on that segment of Indiantown Road from I-95 to the roadway's eastern terminus at A1A near the coast, a distance of approximately five and a half miles. The initial impact of the fast-paced development on Indiantown Road was to increase traffic congestion and generate complaints that the roadway was becoming a visual eyesore with its "strip commercial" development. At the time, although it was the Town's primary commercial corridor, Indiantown Road had only two lanes, one going east and the other going west. It is now in the process of being widened and transformed into a six-lane, median divided, controlled access roadway. The Planning Process and the Indiantown Road Corridor Study In the fall of 1986, the Town began the laborious process that culminated in the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan more than three years later. During the planning process, the members of the Town Council, Jupiter's governing body, having heard the complaints of residents regarding the negative impact of development on Indiantown Road and the inadequacy of the Town's existing land development regulations to deal with the situation, determined that a study should be undertaken to develop a comprehensive strategy to address these problems. Of particular concern to the Council members were issues relating to traffic and aesthetics. In November, 1988, the Council retained Henry Skokowski, a planning consultant, to conduct such a study. Skokowski was specifically directed by the Council to, among other things, examine the various types of commercial land uses and determine those that should be permitted and those that should be prohibited in the Indiantown Road corridor. Skokowski's initial draft of the results of his study was submitted to the Council in February, 1989. The Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for its review and comments in April, 1989. The Council accepted Skokowski's final draft of the results of his study in the latter part of 1989. The final draft was virtually identical in substance to Skokowski's initial offering. In both, he recommended, among other things, that certain commercial land uses, including "auto . . . sales," that he reasonably felt did not mesh with the desired overall character of the corridor, be absolutely prohibited, without exception, throughout the length of the corridor. 5/ This recommendation, from the outset, was the subject of considerable public debate and discussion before the Town Council. Skokowski endorsed a nodular pattern of development for the corridor. Under his plan, the corridor would contain six urban subdistricts, each having as their focal point a major intersection, with the remaining portions of the corridor consisting of parkway subdistricts with suburban characteristics reflecting a less intensive commercial development pattern than found in the urban subdistricts. From west to east, the six urban subdistricts, which constituted nodes of development, were the Central Boulevard District, the Center Street Landmark District, the Maplewood Drive District, the Civic District, 6/ the Alternate A1A District and the US 1 District. Through the creation of a special overlay zone for the corridor and the adoption of regulations restricting the permitted uses of land 7/ and establishing design, landscaping, and signage requirements on a subdistrict by subdistrict basis, Skokowski envisioned that each subdistrict would develop an identity that was not only distinctive and unique, but compatible with, and reflective of, community values unlike the strip commercial development that then existed in the corridor. Throughout the course of his study, Skokowski met regularly with those who were responsible for drafting the Town's Comprehensive Plan. He also met with the Executive Director of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning in an effort to obtain input from the County regarding anticipated development on or around Indiantown Road. In response to Skokowski's request, the Department's Executive Director promised to provide the Town with notification of any proposed zoning actions in the unincorporated areas of the County. Skokowski did not meet with any representative of either the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization or the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council prior to the completion of his study. On January 16, 1990, the Town Council adopted the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Community Affairs has determined that the Plan is "in compliance." Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: A General Overview The Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan contains nine different elements: future land use; traffic circulation; housing; infrastructure; conservation; coastal management; recreation; intergovernmental coordination; and capital improvements. Each element has at least one goal 8/ and objective 9/ and has policies as well. 10/ Some elements also contain maps. One such element is the future land use element, which contains a future land use map. The map employs six land use classifications: residential; commercial; industrial; recreation; conservation; and public/institutional. Most of the land area in the Indiantown Road corridor is designated for commercial use on the future land use map. Approximately two-thirds of the total land area in the Town that is designated for commercial use on the future land use map is located in the Indiantown Road corridor. Each of the elements of the Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan was based upon "data inventory and analysis." The Town Council adopted this "data inventory and analysis" as part of the Plan. Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: Goals, Objectives and Policies The following is the lone goal set forth in the Plan's future land use element: Ensure that the future land use pattern maintains the existing low intensity, residential character, recognizes and protects the environmental quality of the Town, and allows the Town to become a full- service community 11/ serving Northern Palm Beach County. Objective 1.1 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "managed growth." It provides as follows: Direct future growth into areas served by urban services that have adequate capacity, as defined by the adopted level of service standards, which shall be incorporated into the Town's development regulations by May 1990. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "managed growth:" Policy 1.1.1- All development shall be approved only if the level of service standards as set forth in Policy 1.2.1 of the Capital Improvement Element are met concurrent with the impact of the proposed development. These standards shall be integrated into the land development regulations. Policy 1.1.4- Commercial shopping centers in excess of 80,000 square feet should be located only at intersections of major arterials. Policy 1.1.5- Strip or highway commercial development shall be discouraged. Policy 1.1.6- A commercial corridor study of Indiantown Road is to be undertake[n] in 1989. This will result in a coherent, comprehensive strategy for this major roadway 12/ containing streetscape guidelines and site development standards 13/ that will be integrated into the Town's land development regulations. 14/ Policy 1.1.7- Concentrations of commercial offices, and tourist related activities shall be near locations having high accessibility. Policy 1.1.8- Non-residential outdoor storage areas shall be screened and buffered from adjacent residential uses. Policy 1.1.13- The town through its Coastal Construction Code and its future land use map shall minimize the intensity and density of future development within coastal areas vulnerable to hurricane damage. Policy 1.1.14- The impact of land use on water quality and quantity shall be considered in land use planning and regulation. This shall be assured by inclusion of provisions in the Land [D]evelopment Regulations for consideration of the impacts of proposed development on water quality and quantity. These considerations shall include the provisions of Conservation Element Policies 1.4.1-13 for surface water quality, 1.3.1-13 for groundwater quality, Infrastructure Element Policies 1.1.2 for wellfield protection, 1.5.1 for protection of potable water supply and 1.6.1-5 for protection of groundwater quality and quantity. Objective 1.2 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "land use compatibility." It provides as follows: By May 1990 the land development regulations shall contain provisions and standards which ensure that future growth patterns take into consideration topography, soil and other natural and historic resources, the intensities, densities and type of land use activities and relationship to surrounding properties, as well as providing for streetscaping, proper transition of land uses, buffering, and coordination of coastal population densities with the Palm Beach County Hurricane Evacuation Plan. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "land use compatibility:" Policy 1.2.1- Where there are differences between residential uses in terms of intensity and type of units, adequate transitioning shall be accomplished through provisions such as setbacks, buffers and height limitations. The land development regulations adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan shall contain such provisions to assure adequate transitioning. Policy 1.2.3- Where existing land use conflicts exist, the Town shall incorporate into its land development regulations provisions that address noise, dust, lighting and aesthetics. The Town shall support increasing the depth of property(s) in areas where existing lots are shallow (less than 150 feet in depth), are situated adjacent to an arterial roadway, have a commercial or industrial land use designation, and abut residentially designated land; however, the land development regulations shall contain adequate buffering and performance criteria for concerns noted above. Policy 1.2.4- Existing land uses which are not compatible with adjacent land uses, the character, natural resources or the future land use plan shall be eliminated upon redevelopment, and until that time may not be expanded. This requirement shall be included in the revision to the local development regulations to be adopted by May 1990. Objective 1.3 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "land development regulations." It provides as follows: The Town shall prepare land development regulations that effectively implement all provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, contain innovative techniques for the production of affordable housing, provide a means to protect environmentally sensitive areas and maintain flexibility in site design. In addition the Town shall encourage the use of innovating land development regulations such as the Town's existing provisions for PUD and other land development techniques. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "land development regulations:" Policy 1.3.3- Adopt land development regulations that shall contain specific and detailed provisions required to implement the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and which at a minimum address: subdivision of land signage wellfield and aquifer protection drainage and stormwater management periodic flooding open space needs off-street parking environmentally sensitive areas/habitats In addition, these regulations shall ensure that development orders and permits not be issued which result in a reduction of the levels of service for the affected public facility below the adopted level of service of standards as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.3.4- The concept of an environmental[ly] sensitive area overlay zone will be incorporated into the current Zoning Ordinance. This concept will be folded into the new development code at the time the current Zoning Ordinance and other local development regulations are consolidated into one regulatory document. Policy 1.3.5- The [L]and [D]evelopment Regulation shall include the following non- residential land use categories, and shall incorporate the following location and intensity criteria: Commercial Neighborhood Commercial- Stores offering frequently needed goods and services to nearby residential areas. Typical activities include pharmacy, dry-cleaning, florist, hardware and garden supplies, professional offices, and personal services. Location Criteria: In areas accessible to immediate surrounding neighborhoods; Can be located in conjunction with groups of retail or highway commercial uses to achieve greater consumer volume and multi- purpose trips; When a part of a planned unit development must be situated in the interior of the project and not along an external roadway; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity measures: Site area- minimum 20,000 sq. ft. maximum 2 acres Site coverage maximum- 35% Height limitation- 35 feet/2 stories General Commercial- Consists of a wide range of commercial goods and services serving a community-wide market. A representative sample of activities includes personal services, banking and finance offices, retail stores, nurseries, printing and publishing, auto repair, marine facilities, and medical and dental clinics. Location Criteria: At major intersections, or existing commercial core areas; Central to and/or readily accessible from all residential areas of the community; Preferably grouped with other stores in this category to achieve a combined market draw on multi-purpose trips; Not adjacent to low density, single family neighborhoods; Adjacent to Medium Density Residential areas when proper buffering is provided; Situated preferably on an arterial roadway, but never on a local street; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Lot coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 50 feet unless parking provided under building then 60 feet. Office Commercial- Activities that generally do not entail sale or display of goods and do not require high visibility from major roadways. Typical uses include legal, financial, realty, technical and some medical service establishments. May also contain retail uses that directly serve the needs of the office businesses. Location Criteria: Location needs are often determined by type of service (attorney near courthouse, physician near hospital, etc.); Attractive or prestigious setting often desired; suitable for location near multi- family housing to serve as a transitional use between more intensive commercial and industrial uses; In some instances may locate adjacent to low density residential neighborhood only when height is limited to one story, less than 35% of project site utilized for structure(s) and adequate buffering provided; May locate in industrial park however should be located in designated tract of land in park; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Lot coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 50 feet unless parking provided under building then 60 feet. Heavy Products Commercial- Activities that sell large or bulk products or maintains large inventories of products. These usually serve a sizeable market area and are often similar to or part of industrial activities. Building materials, heavy machinery and wholesale establishments are typical heavy commercial uses. Location Criteria: Parcels should be accessible from outlying service areas and near primary routes for shipping and receiving goods (highways, rail); Should be spatially separated from residential areas; Should not be located in proximity to other commercial activities, e.g., retail stores, offices; Suitable siting is near or in industrial areas due to similar location and transportation needs; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Site coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 35 feet Industrial * * * Conservation * * * Public/Institutional * * * Objective 1.4 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "economic development." It provides as follows: To expand and diversify the economic base through the provision of adequate sites and timely provision of public utilities and services to stimulate such growth. Policy 1.4.1 is among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "economic development." It provides as follows: Higher densities and intensities of development shall be located in areas having high accessibility and a full complement of public facilities (e.g., water, sewer), that have adequate capacity to maintain the adopted levels of service. Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 of the Plan's intergovernmental coordination element each reference the Indiantown Road corridor study. They provide as follows: Policy 1.1.7- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in this study to provide input about the State's plans for the roadway, and FDOT shall formally review the resulting development strategy for compatibility with FDOT plans. Policy 1.1.8- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the study to provide input about anticipated development along and around the roadway and its impact on traffic circulation and development within Jupiter. The County and MPO shall have formal review of the resulting development strategy to ensure compatibility with County and MPO plans. Policy 1.1.9- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement of the Treasure Coast regional Planning Council in the study to provide technical assistance and informal mediation among the Town, County, MPO and FDOT, if necessary. Immediately preceding these three policies is the statement that "[a] commercial corridor study of Indiantown Road is to be undertaken by 1989 that will result in a coherent, comprehensive development strategy for this major roadway." 15/ Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: Data Inventory and Analysis The goals, objectives and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan can be better understood if they are read in conjunction with the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan. For instance, an examination of the following excerpts from the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan provides considerable assistance in understanding what the Town Council meant when it announced in the goal of the future land use element that it desired that the Town "become a full-service community serving Northern Palm Beach County:" Growth Management Philosophy Until the advent of the '80s, Jupiter was one those hidden treasures [i]n the Treasure Coast region. . . . In 1980, Jupiter was basically a "bedroom" community; however, with recent annexations, the Town now contains over 400 acres planned for industrial park usage. Therefore, Jupiter is now evolving into a "total service" community. To maintain a community that maximizes quality of life, the following growth principles and strategies will be the basis for future growth decisions: Land use decisions . . . will be made within the context of the Greater Jupiter Area 16/ since certain uses within the existing Town limits serve a "market area" that extends considerably beyond the present jurisdictional limits. It is anticipated that the Town's employment base will expand significantly in the coming years as the planned industrial parks, and office/ business centers come on line. The residential character of the Town will remain one of low intensity, a more human scale of residential living. Future residential areas will be developed only in areas with adequate human service. 17/ * * * Being the major urban hub of north county, retail and office businesses located in Jupiter depend on a population base that is considerabl[y] larger than just the existing population residing within the present Town limits. Residential areas to the north, especially along Loxahatchee River Road and to the west, primarily from the Jupiter Farms area shop and do business in Jupiter. 18/ * * * Community shopping centers require a wider market area [than neighborhood shopping centers]. 19/ The Jupiter Mall would be an example of such a retail center. Based on the Town's projected 1995 population (46,900), only one such shopping center is justified. However, because Jupiter is a commercial hub serving much of the County, north of Donald Ross Road, another such center might be justified. Prior to any approval, a market study should be required in order to avoid the problem of overcommercialization. The analysis should include all commercial development in north county, not just limited to Jupiter's corporate Town limits. Leading tenants include variety store and small department store. 20/ * * * Historically the Town has had only a minor amount of land utilized for industrial purposes. Until recent years, it has considered itself a residential, bedroom community; however, that philosophy has changed. It now sees itself as a "total" community. This means the creation of a major employment base. 21/ * * * IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES 1. Town image, e.g., bedroom community, full service town. 22/ The following references to the Indiantown Road corridor are made in the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan: Development in the Indiantown Road corridor can generally be described as uncontrolled strip commercial, often experiencing traffic congestion and presenting a poor visual image to visitors. As Jupiter has grown no definitive urban center has emerged. Growth has occurred generally along the Town's major roadways. Consider as a long-range strategy the creation of a traditional downtown. 23/ * * * Nearly 60% of the commercial/office projects have been located within the Indiantown Road corridor. . . . Over the past decade Indiantown Road (SR 706) has experienced increased periods of traffic congestion. This has occurred as commercial development along this main artery has mushroomed. Lack of lot depth as well as overall size have created a "hodgepodge" commercial development pattern along SR 706 which has lead to a traffic headache, as well as a visual eyesore. The problems of Indiantown Road are compounded since it will serve as Jupiter's major entryway once Interstate 95 is completed and the entrance on SR 706 is opened. 24/ Consideration should be given to a special overlay zone for Indiantown Road. In developing the overlay zone determining what constitutes the Indiantown Road corridor (depth of property along the roadway), establishing the desired character of the corridor, 25/ and preparing a special set of standards e.g., signage, off-street parking, buffering, to control development would be necessary. Although Indiantown Road is the most obvious example of strip commercial development other local roads are afflicted with the same problem, however maybe not to the same degree. Yet, there are several areas in and around Jupiter that are developing more in a node fashion than in a linear commercial strip. Not only is the Town beset by this commercial problem, but has been faced with possible intrusion of commercial into residential neighborhoods. Precautions need to be taken to make sure that neighborhood integrity remains intact. 26/ * * * [S]imilar to the Town's proposed land use designation within the Indiantown Road corridor, the County too, has proposed that commercial development be allowed along this roadway. A concern the Town has is the manner in which it is developed. This is especially important, because the Indiantown Road corridor is the gateway into Jupiter. To date, the development has reflected a rather non-descript, strip commercial pattern. The Town has been sufficiently concerned that it has contracted to have an urban design corridor study completed for this key roadway. 27/ Design recommendations will become a part of the Town's land development regulations. Coordination between the two governing bodies will be needed at the time the local development regulations are prepared. 28/ * * * The majority of land use conflicts occur in those areas where commercial and industrial uses abut residential neighborhoods. This has been a problem along Indiantown Road. The proposed siting of a cement batch plant in the Pennock Industrial Park created considerable controversy over the potential adverse impacts, e.g., noise, dust, light, visual image, and aesthetics. Similar concerns have been voiced over the potential negative impacts generated by strip shopping centers and car dealerships, as well. Much of the development in this major traffic corridor occurred at a time when Jupiter was a much smaller, rural community. Some of the development predates landscape and signage requirements. Because the land along Indiantown Road was subdivided over twenty years ago, many of the lots along the road are very shallow. This causes problems in providing for adequate transition and buffering from adjacent residential uses. The Town has been encouraging combining of lots to create additional depth that can allow for better site design and buffering. Also, the Town has adopted the Indiantown Road Urban Corridor Study, and will be integrating many of its recommendations into updated development regulation[s]. The study has recommended the creation of an "Indiantown Road Overlay Zone." 29 / This district will contain additional provisions related to design guidelines and streetscape standards so that development within the Town's major corridor achieves some logical, overall design. 30/ * * * IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES . . . 2. Gateway into Town; . . . Depth of commercial along Indiantown Road; Strip commercial development vs. a node policy; . . . 9. Maintaining areas in residential use by eliminating pressures of commercial development; * * * Besides the commercial demands of the local population, [with] the opening of Interstate 95 Exit on Indiantown Road in conjunction with the existing Florida Turnpike exit on Indiantown Road, it can be expected that there will be significant increased demands for interchange commercial uses to serve the traveling public. 31/ Already a number of inquiries have been made to staff regarding the Town's position relative to development around these interchange areas. This will become the gateway to Jupiter. The commercial development pattern that ultimately emerges within the corridor can visually replicate what already exists, or can become a "memorable["] entryway leading into Jupiter. The concept of an overlay zone for the Indiantown Road corridor should be considered. 32/ * * * Most neighborhood and community shopping centers are located on major roadways, primarily at the intersections of designated arterials such as Indiantown Road and Central Boulevard, Indiantown Road and U.S. 1 and Indiantown Road and Alternate A1A. Future siting of shopping centers, especially those with 100,000 leasable floor area and up should be situated at locations having good access and sufficient roadway capacity to maintain the Town's adopted level of service. Further, they should be located so that the only access is from one road. 33/ * * * The existing major roadways identified in the functional classification are shown on Exhibit 1 . . . and are summarized below. . . Principal local arterials 34/ . . . f. Indiantown Road from U.S. 1 to west town limit Collector streets 35/ Indiantown Road from County Road A1A to U.S. 1 36/ * * * The level of service analysis shown on Exhibit 1 indicates severe capacity deficiencies for east/west travel on Indiantown Road. From Center Street to U.S. 1 and west of the Turnpike, this facility operates at Level of Service "E" which is characterized by very long vehicle delay and long traffic queues such that forced vehicular flow conditions exist much of the day. . . . The five-year programs of the Florida Department of Transportation and Palm Beach County will provide relief for some of the congestion presently experienced in Jupiter. As shown on Exhibit 2 . . . , construction is planned to be undertaken within five years to improve Indiantown Road. Indiantown Road is scheduled to be widened to a six-lane cross section from east of Center Street to east of Alternate A-1-A in fiscal year 1989/1990. Indiantown Road from Florida's Turnpike west to Jupiter Farms Road is planned to be widened to four lanes in the fiscal year 1991/1992. . . . The only existing deficiencies not currently "planned" to be improved is the six-laning of Alternate A-1-A south of the Loxahatchee River Bridge to Center Street and Indiantown Road from Alternate A-1-A to U.S. 1 to six lanes. . . . Designing and obtaining right- of-way for the Indiantown Road Intracoastal crossing (Alternate A-1-A to U.S. 1) is also programmed for FY 89/90, 90/91, respectively. The responsibility for improvement of these facilities is primarily that of the Florida Department of Transportation. 37/ * * * Improvements to Indiantown Road will greatly improve the east/west access within the Town. 38/ * * * The future major streets are shown by functional classification on Exhibit 3 . . . and are summarized as follows. . . . Principal local arterials . . . g. Indiantown Road from Alternate A-1-A to I-95. . . Collector streets Indiantown Road from County Road A-1-A to U.S. 1 39/ * * * At buildout the proposed coastal population densities in the surge vulnerable areas in the Town of Jupiter will be 31,5000 residents. This represents a 230 percent increase. The evacuation routes to accommodate evacuation vehicles will have capacities as follows: -Indiantown Road at six lanes 40/ * * * The proper strategy to follow would be to conserve and maintain or in fact upgrade some of the older residential areas in the Indiantown Road/Center Street area. The Town has been implementing such a policy. The Town has had an ongoing series of drainage and road improvement projects. This effort is continuing with the present focus on the area immediately south of Indiantown Road bounded on the east by Old Dixie. . . . The Town has taken steps since the adoption of its present land use plan to eliminate those uses inconsistent with the community's character and proposed future land uses. Some methods that have been employed are the deepening of commercial frontage along Indiantown Road, adding increased depths to buffers between conflicting land uses and not allowing the re-establishment of non- conforming land uses. 41/ * * * Intergovernmental coordination is necessary in order to implement the following policies: POLICY: A commercial corridor study is to be undertaken by 1989 that will result in a coherent, comprehensive development strategy for this major roadway. Issues for coordination/cooperation: Indiantown Road (SR 706) is owned and operated by the State. It is a major arterial for the unincorporated County area west of Jupiter, and development approved along it and in its vicinity can impact traffic conditions within Jupiter to a significant degree. Agencies involved: Florida Department of Transportation Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Recommended methods for coordination/ cooperation: FDOT representatives should be involved closely in the study to provide guidance about the State's plans for the roadway, and FDOT should formally review the resultant development strategy for compatibility with FDOT plans. The Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County MPO should be involved closely in the study to provide guidance about anticipated development along and around the roadway and its impacts o[n] traffic circulation and development within Jupiter. The County should have formal review of the resultant development strategy to ensure compatibility with County plans. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council should be involved in the study to provide technical assistance and informal mediation among the Town, County, and FDOT, if necessary. 42/ The "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan indicates that the future land use plan includes "commercial uses" among its land use categories. It then goes on to give the following definition of such "commercial uses:" Commercial uses- means activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental, consumption, and distribution of products or performances of professional and non-professional services. The Town Council may approve the use of such land areas for residential purposes provided a rezoning to a residential zoning district is approved and the rezoning is implemented by a planned unit development. The following discussion appears under the subheading of "Land Use Performance Standards" in the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan: The land use classification system described allows for flexibility. Specific protection should be developed and included at the time the local development code is revised to bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. It is recommended that the following criteria serve as the basis for permitting any land use change. These along with other provisions and policies of all Comprehensive Plan elements will have to be met in order to receive a development order. The recommended performance standards are as follows: Compatibility with surrounding land uses Intensity of use Adequacy of facilities -water services -sewer services -roadway access -fire and police service Environmental impact Following the recitation of the foregoing "recommended performance standards," the statement is made that "[i]n evaluating any proposed land use change as well as any other development approval requirement the Town shall take into consideration . . . whether or not the proposed change complies with the [same] location criteria" that are set forth in Policy 1.3.5 of the future land use element. The "data inventory and analysis" portion of the plan gives the following description of the three major categories of land use problems that the Town should strive to avoid or at least minimize through the planning process: Misuse of Land Widely scattered land development results in a pattern which is more costly to provide with essential services; Construction of buildings in flood prone areas results in damage to property, danger to life and added financial burdens on the [Town] for providing flood abatement measures; Land and water resources are destroyed by scattered substandard development; and Less than adequate room for expansion of businesses and industry result in congestion and inharmonious growth. Conflicting Uses of Land Encroachment of business and industrial uses into existing or emerging residential areas results in instability of these residential neighborhoods; and Unplanned mixing of various land uses results in incompatible relationships among various activities which cause deterioration of the overall environment. Overuse of Land Inadequate provision of off-street parking causes encroachment of residential neighborhoods by traffic seeking parking; Strip development along major highways results in reduced traffic capacity and increased traffic congestion; Excessive land coverage by buildings and parking areas results in inadequate open space; and Poorly conceived site and building design standards can result in overuse of land. Ordinances Creating the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District In March, 1990, the Town Council adopted a series of ordinances that incorporated, in all respects material to the instant case, the above-described "comprehensive strategy" that Skokowski had devised for the Indiantown Road corridor. These ordinances amended the Town's zoning code by creating the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District (I.O.Z.). The I.O.Z. is codified in Section 517 of the code, which describes the I.O.Z.'s purpose and intent as follows: The purpose and intent of this specialized overlay zoning district is to encourage and provide for enhanced property development within the Indiantown Road corridor. Objectives to be attained through the establishment of this district include protection of adjacent residential land uses; enhancement of the commercial status of the corridor; reduction of visual distraction through uniform sign criteria; enhancement of physical appearance through increased landscaping of public and private property; clustering of compl[e]mentary uses throughout various locations along the corridor; provisions of architectural design guidelines within specific locations along the corridor; encourage the construction of pedestrian oriented facilities in both public and private structures; installation of special landscape and architectural features at major intersections; and establish development incentives to accomplish these objectives. Before the Town Council took final action on the matter, the Town's Director of Community Development provided the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) with a copy of what was to become Section 517 and asked DOT to favor the Town with its comments. DOT, however, declined to do so. The ordinances adopted by the Town to effectuate the creation of the I.O.Z. were Ordinances 14-90, 15-90, 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25- 90. 61. Ordinances 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25-90 divided the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District into parkway subdistricts and five urban subdistricts: the Central Boulevard District; the Center Street/Maplewood Drive District; 43/ the Civic Center District; the Alternate A1A District; and the U.S. Highway One District. Ordinance 14-90 imposed design, landscaping, and signage requirements applicable to these subdistricts. Ordinance 15-90 further restricted the land use activities permitted in these subdistricts. The underlying zoning district of most of the land area in the Indiantown Road corridor is "C-2" (Commercial, General), in which 41 commercial land use activities are permitted, 11 by right and 30, including automobile sales, by special exception. Ordinance 15-90 absolutely prohibits, without exception, anywhere from 11 to 18 of these 41 commercial land activities, depending upon the subdistrict. Automobile sales are absolutely prohibited throughout the corridor. Attachments 1-11 appended to this Final Order show each of the land use activities that were permitted, by right or special exception, in each subdistrict prior to the adoption of Ordinance 15-90 and the changes, if any, made by Ordinance 15-90 to their status as permitted activities. Relationship of the I.O.Z. to the Comprehensive Plan Section 517.3 of the Town's zoning code states that "[t]he establishment of the IOZ [as codified in Section 517] is hereby declared consistent with the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan." It has not been shown that it is beyond reasonable debate that, in making this declaration, the Town Council, which only a couple of months earlier had adopted the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan, was in error. A reasonable argument may be made that the I.O.Z (Section 517 of the Town's zoning code) and its component parts, including the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90, are compatible with the Plan and take action in the direction of realizing the Town's aspirations, as announced in the Plan, with respect to the Indiantown Road corridor. The I.O.Z. is a "coherent, comprehensive strategy" for the Indiantown Road corridor that employs "the concept of an overlay zone" and a "node policy" of development (as opposed to linear, "[s]trip commercial") and is reasonably designed to allow this roadway to "become a 'memorable' entryway leading into Jupiter." The use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90 are an integral part of this "coherent, comprehensive strategy." They play a role in "establishing the desired character of the corridor." Ordinance 15-90 is not at variance with any of the land use designations made on the Plan's future land use map, including those designating land in the Indiantown Road corridor for commercial use. While the ordinance absolutely prohibits certain land use activities, those that it allows are in keeping with the map's land use designations. For instance, the activities it permits on land designated on the map for commercial use, which is most of the land in the corridor, are indeed "commercial uses," as that term is defined on page I-30 of the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan. Because the ordinance permits these "commercial uses" throughout much of the corridor, it furthers the Plan's vision of the Indiantown Road corridor as an area where commercial development predominates. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and the goal of the future land use element of the Plan. It has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable debate that the ordinance will prevent the Town from fulfilling its desire, as expressed in the goal of the future land use element, of completing its transformation from a bedroom community to one that offers, in addition to housing, job opportunities and goods and services accommodating the needs of the residents of the Greater Jupiter area that cannot be adequately met by surrounding communities. To become a "total" or "full-service" community Jupiter need not offer every conceivable good and service in the marketplace. Accordingly, it may absolutely prohibit within its jurisdictional boundaries certain commercial land use activities that involve specialized goods and services that are available elsewhere in the region and still reach its goal of becoming a "total" or "full- service" community. Moreover, Ordinance 15-90 applies only to the land area within the Indiantown Road corridor, which, as noted above, contains approximately two- thirds of the Town's commercially designated land. The remaining land area in the Town designated for commercial use is unaffected by the ordinance and unencumbered by its land use restrictions. Therefore, even if, in order to become a "total" or "full-service" community, the Town was required to offer within its jurisdictional boundaries those goods and services that are unavailable in the Indiantown Road corridor as a result of Ordinance 15-90, the Town would still be able to meet this requirement because the ordinance does not preclude the Town from offering these goods and services in commercially designated areas in the Town that are outside of the Indiantown Road corridor. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.1.5 of the future land use element of the Plan. While the land use activities absolutely prohibited by Ordinance 15-90 tend to require larger lot sizes, have generally lower traffic generation rates and are less likely to be found in "[s]trip commercial" developments than certain land use activities permitted by the ordinance, it has not been shown that it is beyond reasonable debate that these prohibitions will likely result in the "[s]trip or highway commercial development" that Policy 1.1.5 seeks to discourage. Ordinance 15-90 renders ineffective neither the requirements of the Plan 44/ nor those of the remaining portions of the I.O.Z. designed to combat and prevent "[s]trip or highway commercial development." The ordinance works, not at cross-purposes with these requirements, but in tandem with them, imposing additional, rather than conflicting, restrictions on development in the Indiantown Road corridor. Under the regulatory framework established by the Town through the adoption of the Plan and the I.O.Z., a proposed development that meets the requirements of Ordinance 15-90, but is inconsistent with the anti-strip commercial provisions of the Plan and the remaining portions of the I.O.Z., will not be approved. Accordingly, Ordinance 15-90 will not have the effect of enhancing the potential for the occurrence of "[s]trip or highway commercial development" in the Indiantown Road corridor. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.1.6 of the future land use element of the Plan. As noted above, Policy 1.1.6 references the Indiantown Road corridor study and indicates that this study "will result in a coherent, comprehensive strategy for this major roadway containing streetscape guidelines and site development standards that will be integrated into the Town's land development regulations." While the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90 are neither "streetscape guidelines" nor "site development standards," Policy 1.1.6 does not mandate that the "coherent, comprehensive strategy" resulting from the Indiantown Road corridor study include only "streetscape guidelines" and "site development standards." Given that use restrictions are typically included in a "comprehensive strategy" for a roadway corridor and that there was considerable public debate preceding the adoption of the Plan concerning Skokowski's recommendation (which was ultimately incorporated in Ordinance 15-90) that certain use restrictions be included in a "comprehensive strategy" for the Indiantown Road corridor, it is reasonable to assume that, had the Town Council intended that such use restrictions not be a part of the "comprehensive strategy" envisioned in Policy 1.1.6, it would have so specified in that policy or elsewhere in the Plan. Its failure to have done so reflects that the Town Council had no such intention at the time it adopted the Plan. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.3.5 of the future land use element of the Plan. As mentioned above, Policy 1.3.5 directs, among other things, that the Town's land development regulations include, within a commercial land use category, the subcategories of "Neighborhood Commercial," "General Commercial," "Office Commercial," and "Heavy Products Commercial" and it gives a representative sample of activities that would fall into each of these subcategories. In addition, the policy prescribes location and intensity criteria for each of these subcategories. Policy 1.3.5 does not require the Town, in its land development regulations, to permit in areas that meet the location criteria of a particular subcategory all of the commercial land use activities that may fall within that subcategory. Accordingly, as it has done in Ordinance 15-90, the Town may prohibit some of these activities without running afoul of the mandate of Policy 1.3.5. Policy 1.3.5 does impose upon the Town the obligation to permit a "Neighborhood Commercial," "General Commercial," "Office Commercial," or "Heavy Products Commercial" land use activity only in those areas that, according to the policy's location criteria, are suitable for that particular activity. There has been no showing that the various commercial land use activities permitted by Ordinance 15-90 are allowed to take place in areas that do not meet the location criteria prescribed in Policy 1.3.5. If anything, the evidence establishes the contrary. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 of the intergovernmental coordination element of the Plan. As indicated above, Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 provide that, in the development of the Indiantown Road corridor study, the Town "shall seek the active involvement" [of] the Florida Department of Transportation" (DOT), as well as the "Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)," to provide appropriate input. In conducting his study of the Indiantown Road corridor, Skokowski sought the "active involvement" of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning. He did not seek DOT's input, 45/ but the Town's Director of Community Development, prior to the Town Council's adoption of the I.O.Z., did. Accordingly, in adopting Ordinance 15-90 and the other ordinances that were based upon Skokowski's Indiantown Road corridor study, the Town Council did not act in derogation of the requirements of either Policy 1.1.7 or Policy 1.1.8 of the intergovernmental coordination element of the Plan. Petitioner's Challenge to the I.O.Z.'s Use Restrictions Petitioner owns approximately 680 acres of land in Jupiter, including land situated in the Indiantown Road corridor that is subject to the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90. It acquired 640 of these 680 acres in 1981 and the remaining acreage in 1987. Petitioner has been developing this property since its acquisition. A golf course and residential community have already been completed. Work has begun on a 40-acre commercial project located in the Maplewood Drive/Indiantown Road area. Petitioner desires to build an auto campus as part of this project, but is unable to do so because Ordinance 15-90 absolutely prohibits automobile sales from occurring on the land. On or around December 10, 1990, Petitioner sent a petition to the Mayor of Jupiter, the body of which read as follows: This petition is submitted on behalf of Restigouche, Inc. [Petitioner] pursuant to Fla. Stat. #163.3213(3) and Rule 9J-24.007 of the Florida Administrative Code. The purpose of this Petition is to challenge the consistency of such portions of [the] Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District Ordinance, as adopted by the Town of Jupiter under Ordinance 15-90. These portions define permitted uses, uses permitted by special exception and prohibited uses within the IOZ. Section 517 of the Zoning Code was adopted by several ordinances[.] Ordinances 14-90 and 15-90 were adopted March 6, 1990. Ordinances 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25-90 were adopted March 20, 1990. Ordinance 15-90 reduces the allowable uses of the property owners within the IOZ. The underlying zoning category for Restigouche's property in the Maplewood/Center Street District is C-2. Table 1 of the IOZ contains a list of 41 uses available to property within Zoning District C-2 by right or by special exception. The table shows that the uses for property within the IOZ have been reduced to the extent that those uses designated as "X" have moved from permitted by right or special exception to prohibited uses. Ordinance 15-90, which incorporates this down zoning, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter as adopted by the Town Council January 16, 1990. The Comprehensive Plan does not allow for the creation of a district along the Indiantown Road Corridor that would limit uses from those as stated in the appropriate underlying zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that a study of the development along Indiantown Road was being undertaken at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption and acknowledges that signage, streetscape and site development criteria to enhance the visual aspects of Indiantown Road would be adopted. The Comprehensive Plan does not state that a new zoning district would be created limiting uses from those already available for the underlying zoning. Policy 1.3.5 states that land development regulation[s] shall include four designated types of commercial zoning as specified in this policy. These are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Office Commercial and Heavy Products Commercial. Specific description of policies and goals for each of these is stated. There is no policy for the recognition of a land use or zoning category specifically applicable to Indiantown Road. The Petitioner is a substantially affected person by virtue of its ownership since 1981 of property within the Maplewood/Center Street District which is part of the IOZ and is the successor developer of a previously approved Development of Regional Impact. Petitioner has expended millions of dollars in improvements to the property within the Maplewood/Center Street District in the IOZ and has contributed substantial acreage for the construction of a public school, park and fire station. The Petitioner is Restigouche, Inc., its address is 102 Nocossa Circle, Jupiter Florida 33458, telephone number (407)744-4778. The Petitioner's representative at that office is Eileen F. Letsch, Vice-President. Petitioner is represented in this matter by its counsel, Paul B. Erickson of Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, P.A., 321 Royal Poinciana Plaza, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (407)659-1770. The relief sought by Restigouche, Inc. is recognition by the Town of Jupiter that such portions of Section 517 which diminish permissible zoning uses from those allowed in the underlying C-2 Zoning District are void and unenforceable allowing the Application for Special Exception to be considered by the Town of Jupiter. The Town did not grant the relief sought by Petitioner. Accordingly, on or about March 5, 1991, Petitioner submitted a petition to the Department of Community Affairs (Department). The body of the petition read as follows: Restigouche, Inc. ("Restigouche") files this challenge to the consistency of a land development regulation of the Town of Jupiter, Florida. Restigouche is not aware of any Agency file number for this proceeding. Restigouche, Inc. is a Florida corporation. This petition is filed by Eileen F. Letsch, Executive Vice-President, 102 Nocossa Circle, Jupiter, Florida 33458, (407)744-4778. Restigouche is represented in this Petition by Paul B. Erickson, Esq. of Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, 321 Royal Poinciana Plaza, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (407)659-1770. Restigouche is the owner of property in the Town of Jupiter, Florida which is within the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District ("IOZ") created by the Town under Ordinances 14-90 and 15-90 on March 6, 1990 and applied to Restigouche's property by Ordinance 21-90 on March 20, 1990. These ordinances as enacted create Section 517 of Ordinance 10-88 which is the current zoning ordinance of the Town of Jupiter. Restigouche challenged the consistency of the IOZ with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter by letter to the chief elected official of the Town dated December 12, 1990. A copy of the petition is attached. The Town of Jupiter adopted its Comprehensive Plan January 20, 1990. The IOZ as it was enacted in part by Ordinances 15-90 and 21-90 is a down zoning regulation which reduces the number of permissible uses for Restigouche's property by right or special exception from 41 to 27. The IOZ as enacted in Ordinance 14-90 established landscaping and site development standards for property within the IOZ. The portions of the IOZ as adopted in Ordinances 15-90 and 21-90 are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter. The Comprehensive Plan refers to the IOZ as an area of landscaping and site development standards. It does not refer to the IOZ as an area where permissible uses will be down-zoned. The Comprehensive Plan establishes mandatory criteria for the development of commercial uses within the Town in Policy 1.3.5. This does not recognize or allow a separate, restrictive commercial zoning district along Indiantown Road. The IOZ as enacted in Ordinance 15-90 should be declared invalid because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Department determined that the petition substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 9J-24.007(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code, and so notified the parties. By letter dated March 22, 1991, the Department requested the Mayor of the Town to furnish it with the following materials: those portions of the Town's land development regulations which discuss or implement the IOZ; the standards for all zoning districts which underlie the IOZ; any supportive studies regarding the IOZ; and those portions of the comprehensive plan which discuss the IOZ or densities and allowable uses in the area in question. The requested materials were furnished on or about March 28, 1991. An informal hearing on Petitioner's challenge to the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions was held in Jupiter on April 12, 1991. Representatives of both Petitioner and the Town participated in the hearing. They presented information and argument for the Department's consideration. Following the informal hearing, the Department gave the parties the opportunity to supplement what they had presented at hearing. Both parties took advantage of the opportunity. In its supplemental submission, Petitioner presented additional written argument, in which it identified with specificity those provisions of the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan with which it claimed the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions were inconsistent. These specifically identified Plan provisions were Goal 1, Objectives 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4, and Policies 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.1.13, 1.1.14, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, and 1.3.5 of the future land use element and Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 of the intergovernmental coordination element. Petitioner also submitted 1) an engineer's report supporting its position that its proposed auto campus "would have significantly less impact upon public facilities" than would a 230,500 square foot retail center constructed on its property, 2) photographs of a model of the proposed auto campus, and 3) site plans of the proposed auto campus. By letter dated April 30, 1991, the Town objected to Petitioner's submission of the engineer's report and asked that it not be considered by the Department because it was generated after the informal hearing and therefore was "not available for discussion . . . at the hearing." On May 10, 1991, following its review and consideration of not only the information, argument and materials with which it had been presented, but of the entire Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan as well, which it had on file, the Department issued its written decision finding that "the provisions of the Town of Jupiter Land Development Regulations contained in the IOZ which have been challenged by Petitioners 46/ in this proceeding are consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan." The Department explained its determination as follows in Conclusions of Law 2 and 3 of its written decision: The Town of Jupiter's IOZ is not in conflict with the Comprehensive [P]lan because the IOZ is specifically authorized by the Plan, and there are no provisions in the Plan which prohibit the Town from adjusting allowable uses within underlying zoning districts. The uses permitted in the IOZ are certainly within the permissible range of uses for the designation in the plan. The plan does not guarantee a minimal zoning category for properties within the general commercial designation. It only provides that the zoning will effectively include general commercial uses. Further, the IOZ cannot accurately be referred to as a separate zoning category as argued by the Petitioners. The IOZ modifies underlying general commercial zoning districts (which the Petitioners agree are authorized by the Plan). In fact, land development regulations such as the IOZ are considered to be innovative and are encouraged in s. 163.3202(3), F.S. There are no provisions in Chapter 163, F.S., that require comprehensive plans to identify and authorize all implementing land development regulations. Although Policy 1.3.5 lists certain uses which are eliminated or limited within the IOZ, these uses are allowed in commercial zoning districts outside the IOZ. The Petitioners may have cited portions of certain policy statements that, when taken in isolation, seem to suggest potential conflicts with the IOZ. However, the IOZ serves as the implementing solution to a problem area identified in the Plan as being of significant concern. Therefore, the IOZ, on balance, takes action in [the] direction of implementing and furthering substantive portions of the Plan. Further, the lack of recognition in the comprehensive plan of implementing land development regulations does not, by itself, constitute an inconsistency. On May 31, 1991, Petitioner filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting a hearing on its consistency challenge. Petitioner did so in good faith as part of its effort to convince the Town Council that the I.O.Z. should be modified in a manner that would allow Petitioner to construct its proposed auto campus in the Maplewood Drive/Indiantown Road. Petitioner hoped that the Hearing Officer would agree with its position that the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions are inconsistent with the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan and that, after the Hearing Officer found these use restrictions to be inconsistent with the Plan, the Town Council would take action to eliminate them to avoid the sanctions it would face if it did not take such action.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the petitions of Sierra Club, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Background Hillsborough County adopted its comprehensive plan on July 12, 1989. The County adopted Plan Amendments 90-I, 90-II, and 91-I on August 6, 1990, December 18, 1990, and August 28, 1991, respectively. The plan as so amended is referred to as the Plan. 3/ The Plan is the subject of these cases. The Plan is accompanied by data and analysis. The data and analysis of greatest significance are contained in the two- volume compilation of the Plan and other portions of Sierra Club Exhibit 1, which is the Plan and supporting data and analysis. Sierra Club Exhibit 1, which was prepared by Hillsborough County, includes background documents organized by elements, as well as oversized maps. Unless indicated to the contrary, the oversized maps are approximately 24" by 21" and are drawn on a scale of 1"= 2 miles. Many of the oversized maps bear numbers. Reference to such oversized maps shall be as follows: "Oversized Map [number]." Data and analysis from Sierra Club Exhibit 1 shall be referred to as "Data and Analysis." The Plan consists largely of goals, objectives, and policies. In addition to such operative provisions, Hillsborough County also adopted, as part of the operative provisions of the Plan, other sections contained in the two- volume compilation of the Plan. For example, each element of the Plan relevant to the present cases includes operative provisions under sections entitled, "Implementation" and "Definitions." Other important operative provisions are sections entitled "Land Use Plan Categories" and "Legal Status of the Plan" in the Future Land Use Element and "Costs and Revisions by Type of Public Facility," "Programs to Ensure Implementation," and "Requirements for Capital Improvements Implementation" in the Capital Improvements Element. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) filed a petition on September 20, 1989, alleging that the original plan was not in compliance with the growth management law. This petition initiated DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM. Various parties challenging the plan intervened in DOAH Case No. 89- 5157GM. The Sierra Club, Inc. (Sierra Club) filed its petition to intervene on December 8, 1989. The petition incorporates the allegations of DCA and alleges additional grounds for a determination of noncompliance. As a result of the execution of a settlement agreement, DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM was abated. After Hillsborough County adopted settlement amendments on August 6, 1990, DCA determined that the plan amendments were in compliance. On or about September 21, 1990, DCA issued a Notice of Intent, which was published on or about September 23. On October 12, 1990, Sierra Club filed a petition challenging the plan amendments adopted in connection with the settlement agreement. This petition initiated DOAH Case No. 90- 6639GM. The allegations are the same as those raised by Sierra Club in DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM in its Second Amended Petition- in-Intervention, which was filed October 17, 1990. By Order entered October 30, 1990, DOAH Case Nos. 89- 5157GM and 90- 6639GM were consolidated for hearing. On April 15, 1991, Big Bend Area Group, Inc. (Big Bend) filed a petition to intervene to challenge the plan. A Second Amended Motion for Leave to Intervene was granted. Despite the allegations of noncompliance, Big Bend's proposed recommended order requests that the Plan be determined to be in compliance. Sierra Club and Big Bend each has members who reside in Hillsborough County. Each party submitted the required oral or written objections during the relevant review and adoption period. The County conducted the required hearings, gave adequate notice of the hearings, and otherwise substantially complied with the requirements of public participation. Data and Analysis General Hillsborough County is located on the Gulf Coast. The western boundary of the County abuts Tampa Bay and Pinellas County. Pasco County and a small part of Polk County are to the north, Polk County is to the east, and Manatee County is to the south. The only incorporated municipalities in Hillsborough County are Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City. Tampa is at the north end of Tampa Bay and extends through the westcentral part of the County almost to the Pasco County line. Temple Terrace abuts the northeast boundary of Tampa. About 14 miles east of Tampa is Plant City, which is in the northeast part of Hillsborough County. The two cities are linked by Interstate (I-) 4, which runs from Daytona Beach to Tampa. In Tampa, I-4 intersects with I-275, which crosses upper Tampa Bay, runs south through Pinellas County, and spans the mouth of Tampa Bay before entering Manatee County. I-75 also runs through Hillsborough County. From the Pasco County line, where I-275 divides and proceeds southwest into downtown Tampa, I-75 runs generally due south. The path of I-75 lies just east of downtown, where the road turns southwest at a point north of the Little Manatee River. From there, I-75 parallels the shoreline of Tampa Bay until entering Manatee County. Other important roads in Hillsborough County include SR 60, which runs east-west through the center of the County and connects Tampa and Clearwater. US 301 runs along the Hillsborough River in the northeast part of the County, and then turns due south midway between Temple Terrace on the west and Lake Thonotosassa on the east. At this point, US 301 crosses I- 75 and runs due south, recrossing I-75 about three miles north of the Alafia River and just south of SR 60. US 41 runs due south from the Pasco County line into the center of Tampa and then turns east, before continuing south, parallel to the shoreline, varying from one-half to three miles inland from Tampa Bay. Natural Resources General The Data and Analysis accompanying the Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element (CARE) describe the County's natural resources, past land use practices, and planning challenges: Hillsborough County, by virtue of its subtropical climate and variable hydrology and geology, supports a rich and diverse complement of natural resources. The County borders the largest estuary in the State, Tampa Bay . . .. The County is underlain by the Floridan aquifer, the largest and highest quality potable water aquifer in the State, as well as by some of the richest phosphate deposits in the world. The karst topography of the County has created a mosaic of solution sinks and depressions which contain a wide variety of wetland flora and fauna, while the higher well-drained elevations support rare xeric hammocks and scrub habitat. Over the past century, however, development has slowly destroyed and degraded the rich natural resources of the County. The unregulated filling of wetlands, discharge of pollutants, mining of phosphate deposits, clearing of forests, dredging of bay bottoms, channelizing of streams and rivers, and overpumping of groundwater supplies has irretrievably destroyed or altered much of the original natural resource base. Environmental legislation passed at the federal, state, regional and local levels over the past two decades has done much to stem the tide of this destruction; however, advance planning and further safeguards will be needed to ensure the preservation and conservation of the County's remaining natural resources for future generations. Hillsborough County is experiencing a high rate of population growth. Between 1970 and 1980, Hillsborough County's population grew from an estimated 490,265 to 646,939, an increase of 32 percent This population size ranked fourth among counties in the state. . . . Future population projections for Hillsborough County . . . generally show that the population of Hillsborough County may continue to increase, if the high estimate occurs, or may level off if the lower estimate proves more accurate. . . . Hillsborough County's population is concentrated primarily within the cities of Tampa and Temple Terrace. However, during the five year period of 1980 through 1985, the majority of the population growth for the County has taken place away from these areas. Population has decreased in portions of the City of Tampa and increased in the previously less populated portions of the County. The Future Land Use Element of the [Plan] identifies the major center of future growth as the I-75 corridor. If the upper population projections are realized over the next 15 years, directed growth into this area will threaten the integrity of many of the County's most valuable natural resources, including the three major river corridors, areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential, and sensitive estuarine wetlands. The [CARE] is needed to identify these potential problems and to set forth a plan and policy direction for ensuring environmental protection and orderly economic growth under all projected population scenarios. CARE, pages 2-3. Acknowledging the environmental degradation that has resulted from land use planning that has traditionally ignored natural features of the land and water systems, the Data and Analysis state: In past decades, land use decisions were based primarily upon socio-economic and demographic factors, with little considera- tion given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land. As a result, urban land uses were often allowed to replace or permanently alter environmentally sensitive lands and natural systems. With a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions if the natural attributes and functions of the environment are to be maintained for future generations. Policies and regulations that appropriately preserve or conserve valuable natural resources while allowing for orderly economic growth are needed. CARE, page 73. 2. Tampa Bay Estuarine System The Tampa Bay estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water having a free connection with the Gulf of Mexico and within which sea water is measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage. ... [T]he Tampa Bay estuary is a zone of transition between fresh and salt water with unique and valuable ecological characteristics. Coastal Management and Port (Coastal) Element, page 13. The estuarine system includes tidal freshwater habitats as well as mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass meadows along the shallow bottom and estuarine fringe. The functions of the estuarine system are described as follows: Because of their unique physical and chemical properties, estuaries are among the most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems in the world. Tidal wetland vegetation at the headwaters of estuaries trap silt and absorb excess nutrients resulting from land drainage, thus buffering the coastal ecosystem somewhat from upland sources of pollution. Tidal wetland vegetation also protects upland areas by stabilizing coastal sediments and preventing erosion from storm events. The real importance of estuarine plant communities such as mangrove forests, salt marshes, and seagrass beds lies in the vital functions they perform in the aquatic ecosystem. First and foremost is their role in converting sunlight and nutrients into food usable by marine animals, thus forming the base of the aquatic food chain. . . . Although relatively little of this plant material is eaten directly by higher animals, it is broken down into detritus by micro- organisms and consumed by small crustaceans and other animals which are, in turn, eaten by larger fishes and so on up the food web . . . . In addition to serving as a food source, estuarine wetland vegetation provides shelter and nursery areas for the young of many economically important species such as shrimp, seatrout, mullet, and red drum (redfish). . . . [I]t is estimated that nearly 98% of the most economically important fisheries species taken along the Gulf of Mexico coast are directly dependent upon estuarine habitat during some portion of their life cycle. . . . Coastal Element, pages 13-14. Florida's largest open water estuary, Tampa Bay covers about 400 square miles. Coastal Element Figure 6 depicts the Tampa Bay estuary, including its subdivisions. Old Tampa Bay separates Tampa and Pinellas County and forms the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County. Hillsborough Bay extends from Tampa to Apollo Beach and forms the shoreline of central Hillsborough County, as well as the northern part of south Hillsborough County. The Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers empty into Hillsborough Bay, which joins McKay Bay at Tampa. Middle Tampa Bay, which forms the shoreline of most of south Hillsborough, runs from the southern ends of Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay down to the southern ends of Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. The Little Manatee River empties into Middle Tampa Bay. A variety of nonfish wildlife is dependent upon the waters of Tampa Bay. In addition to the 100-200 bottlenose dolphin in Tampa Bay, as many as 55 West Indian manatees reside in the bay in the winter, congregating around industrial thermal discharges. The largest group--42--was found at the mouth of the Alafia River, which is the only designated State Manatee Sanctuary in Tampa Bay. About one-third of the laughing gull population in the southeastern United States breeds in the Tampa Bay region, as does nearly one-third of the brown pelicans in Florida. McKay Bay is an important feeding area for a variety of birds. General water quality in Tampa Bay is "good to excellent," but is "declining" in Old Tampa Bay and "undesirable" in Hillsborough Bay, including McKay Bay. Coastal Element, page 15. Both Hillsborough Bay and Old Tampa Bay receive little tidal flushing due to natural conditions, so they are not "particularly well suited for the discharge of municipal and industrial wastes, and . . . the continued flow of freshwater to Tampa Bay, especially Hillsborough Bay, is essential to maintain good circulation and flushing." Coastal Element, page 19. The water quality in Middle Tampa Bay ranges from "fair to good," but is periodically influenced by water from Hillsborough Bay. Water quality in and near the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is "excellent or good," except for occasional "fair to poor" conditions due to seasonal discharges from the Little Manatee River or periodically "poor" conditions due to malfunctioning septic tanks near Cockroach Bay. Coastal Element, page 15. "One of the most pristine biologically productive areas remaining in Tampa Bay," Cockroach Bay is part of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, which is shown in Coastal Element Figure 17. Coastal Element, page 48. The only aquatic preserve in Hillsborough County, Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve runs from submerged lands along the Little Manatee River upstream to US 301. From the mouth of the Little Manatee River, the preserve runs along the Tampa Bay shoreline past Cockroach Bay, which is about three miles south of the mouth of the Little Manatee River, to the Manatee County line. Noting that the Governor and Cabinet approved the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan in 1987, the Data and Analysis acknowledge that "[s]uccessful implementation of this plan depends upon the cooperation of Hillsborough County." Coastal Element, page 48. The decline of water quality in Tampa Bay has had a predictably devastating effect upon commercially valuable fish in the area. "[O]nce the State's most productive and diverse estuarine system" with a diversity and abundance of marine life [in the 1960's] not exceeded by any other estuary between the Chesapeake Bay and the Laguna Madre of Texas, . . . [t]he productivity of Tampa Bay in terms of commercially valuable fisheries has . . . declined dramatically in recent decades due to man's influence on the Bay. Coastal Element, page 21. According to Coastal Element Figure 15, shellfish landings in Tampa Bay have declined from 20 million pounds in the mid 1950's to early 1960's to two million pounds in 1978. Finfish landings have declined from a high of 4.5 million pounds in 1964 to 1.75 million pounds in 1978. Five economically important shellfish species occur in Tampa Bay: bait shrimp, stone crab, blue crab, oysters, and quahog clams. By the mid 1950's, degraded water quality had eliminated from the estuary the bay scallop, which had formerly flourished in these estuarine waters. By 1970, degraded water quality "essentially eliminated" commercial harvesting of oysters, which had accounted for 500,000 pounds annually at the turn of last century. Coastal Element, page 22. Poor water quality has left bait shrimp and stone crabs as the only remaining commercially viable shellfish left in Tampa Bay. Areas approved for shellfishing are restricted to lower Tampa Bay where better flushing takes place. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is conditionally approved, but "has been closed periodically due to coliform contamination from nearby septic systems and is being considered for permanent closure by the Florida Department of Natural Resources." Coastal Element, page 22. The majority of the recreational fish landings in Tampa Bay consist of spotted seatrout, red drum, and snook. These fish are also declining in numbers. Many species of birds in Tampa Bay have suffered population declines due in part to red tides, parasite outbreaks, dredge and fill operations, pesticide use, and oil spills. However, the reddish egret and roseate spoonbill have recently returned to Tampa Bay. Accompanying the decline in animal species has been a decline in estuarine plant species, such as seagrass meadows. The "catastrophic loss of seagrasses in Tampa Bay," which is attributable primarily to water quality degradation, is taking place at accelerating rates. About 81% of the seagrass meadows, which once covered 76,500 acres of Tampa Bay bottom, have been lost. Coastal Element, page 20. Tampa Bay is undergoing eutrophication. The process of eutrophication, or increasing concentrations of nutrients, has already led to algal blooms, noxious odors, decreases in water clarity, declines in dissolved oxygen, and periodic fish kills. Excessive nutrient levels have resulted in phytoplankton blooms in the water column and excessive epiphytic growth of macroalgae on the leaves of seagrasses, leaving insufficient sunlight for the growth and reproduction of seagrasses that help trap nutrients. The destruction of seagrasses is further hastened by widespread increases in water column turbidity caused by harbor- and channel-deepening projects, which, with boat prop dredging, also destroy seagrass. The loss of critical nutrient-trapping vegetation has simultaneously taken place in wetlands and upland adjacent to Tampa Bay, such as in the destruction of as much as 44% of the original emergent wetlands, which comprise salt marshes and mangrove forests. In the process of development, these wetlands have been dredged and filled, thereby removing the intertidal substrata necessary for these vegetative communities. Likewise, the loss of freshwater wetlands along rivers and streams has deprived the estuarine system of useful organic matter and filtration. Dredging and filling activities have dramatically changed the features of the Tampa Bay estuarine system. The extent of the system itself has been reduced by 3.6%, or 13.15 square miles, primarily by filling shallow tidal wetlands for the development of causeways, residences, power plants, and port facilities. Port development is responsible for about 60% of the reduction of the estuary due to the construction of channels, filled sites, and disposal sites for dredged materials. Dredge and fill projects routinely permitted in the 1950's and 1960's are no longer permitted. But expansion and maintenance of the Port of Tampa will generate annually about one million cubic yards of dredged material from the channel and port. Present disposal sites may be exhausted in 25 years, and the Data and Analysis recommend that the dredged material be considered for wetlands mitigation and restoration. The primary factors contributing to the eutrophic degradation of the water quality of Tampa Bay are, in addition to dredging and filling, the discharge of inadequately treated domestic and industrial wastewater and inadequately treated urban and agricultural runoff. In 1980, point sources contributed 2.35 and 3.58 million pounds of phosphorous and nitrogen, respectively, to Tampa Bay. The Alafia River carried 75% of the water contributed by permitted point discharges because the Alafia absorbs discharges from extensive phosphate mining operations in Polk County. Not surprisingly, the highest concentrations of organic carbon and nitrogen and total phosphate are in the sediments at the mouth of the Alafia River. But domestic wastewater treatment plants discharging directly into Tampa Bay accounted for 78% and 84% of the annual phosphorous and nitrogen loadings, respectively. The degraded water quality in Old Tampa Bay and especially Hillsborough Bay is due largely to sewage and industrial wastes. Old Tampa Bay continues to suffer from the discharge of inadequately treated domestic waste. However, the water quality in Hillsborough Bay improved substantially after over $100 million was spent to upgrade Tampa's Hookers Point sewage treatment facility in 1979 from primary to advanced or tertiary treatment. Only one of the six County regional wastewater treatment facilities fails to meet advanced water treatment standards, but "numerous subregional and interim plants" fail to meet these standards. Coastal Element, page 24. According to the Data and Analysis, passage of the Grizzle-Figg bill in 1986 "currently requires that all sewage treatment plants discharging into Tampa Bay attain advanced wastewater treatment standards." Coastal Element, page 24. Upon compliance with the Grizzle-Figg law, nutrient loadings into Tampa Bay will decrease and "a net reduction . . . is possible as interim package plants are ultimately phased out or upgraded." Id. Regarding wastewater discharges generally, including industrial wastewater, a major reduction in nutrient loadings since 1980 has been realized from the use of alternative effluent disposal methods (such as spray irrigation and deep-well injection), municipal and industrial water reuse, upgrading of treatment capabilities, and phosphate land reclamation projects. Nutrient loadings from stormwater runoff will "most likely be a more intractable problem" than inadequately treated domestic wastewater. Coastal Element, page 24. Runoff from streets, parking lots, and lawns may contribute up to 25% of the biochemical oxygen demand, 35% of the suspended solids, and 15% of the nitrogen loading. Referring to state rules regulating stormwater, 4/ the Data and Analysis anticipate that the state- imposed standards on stormwater runoff will become more stringent, so there should not be significant increases in stormwater nutrient loadings into the bay. However: little can be done to reduce current loading rates, as retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities is most likely economically prohibitive. Retrofitting will probably only occur on a piecemeal basis as redevelopment occurs in previously urbanized areas. Coastal Element, page 24. Unsound land use practices introducing high levels of nutrients into Tampa Bay exacerbate background conditions that predate either all or recent development activity. The Data and Analysis caution that "there may always be a significant reservoir of nitrogen and phosphorous in Bay sediments to contribute to water quality problems in upper Tampa Bay." Coastal Element, page 16. The Data and Analysis explain: even with advanced wastewater treatment and improved stormwater management, localized pockets of polluted sediments in the Bay may still release excessive nutrients into the water column and cause water quality problems. The ultimate solution to this problem may involve the removal of excessively enriched sediments by dredging or the capping of polluted sediments with clean fill material. Coastal Element, page 24. Other unsound land use practices, such as the diversion of river flows and structural drainage improvements, greatly impact Tampa Bay in another respect not directly related to the eutrophication process. The Tampa Bay estuary and its dependent fish and shellfish rely upon the freshwater flow into the bay. Areas of the estuary with the lowest salinity, as well as low- salinity tidal marshes, are often the most productive nursery habitat for many marine and estuary species. The timing of the freshwater infusions are naturally correlated to the spawning periods of the fish. The salinity regimes of Tampa Bay may be disturbed by upstream demands for freshwater and the alternating excessive and insufficient flows of freshwater due to structural drainage improvements that hasten the natural drainage of uplands immediately following major storm events, leaving less water to drain slowly to the bay during relatively drier periods. Reviewing "numerous studies" that, for the past 30 years, "have documented the deterioration of water quality and habitat values of the estuary," the Data and Analysis attribute the environmental degradation of Tampa Bay to: direct habitat destruction from dredging and filling, and the hardening of shorelines for coastal development; degradation of water quality and eutrophication resulting from the discharge of municipal and industrial effluents, and stormwater runoff; and the reduction of natural freshwater inputs due to the impoundment and withdrawals from rivers and streams. Coastal Element, page 48. Concluding that "piecemeal urbanization" around Tampa Bay has resulted in its "broadscale environmental degradation," the Data and Analysis warn: "Without proper management and the proper balance between public and private uses, Tampa Bay could become a major liability rather than the area's main asset." Coastal Element, page 48. The Data and Analysis advise that the protection and restoration of the Tampa Bay estuary requires a "comprehensive, coordinated and holistic management approach." Id. 3. Rivers Covering 1072 square miles, Hillsborough County comprises five physiographic provinces, which reflect topography and soils. The physiographic provinces are Coastal Swamps, Gulf Coast Lowlands, Zephyrhills Gap, Polk Upland, and a small portion of the DeSoto Plain. Elevations range from sea level in the Coastal Swamps and Gulf Coast Lowlands, which separate the Polk Upland from the Tampa Bay estuary, to 160 feet above sea level in the Polk Upland at the Polk County line. CARE Figure 4 displays the topographic contours of Hillsborough County. The County's major rivers and drainage features are, from north to south, the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers. Each of these rivers empties into Tampa Bay. The three major river basins together with six smaller basins transport, on average, more than 1.2 billion gallons per day of freshwater into Tampa Bay. This is almost 80% of the freshwater flow into the bay. CARE Figure 11 shows the major rivers and drainage basins in Hillsborough County. A fourth river, the Palm River, once drained lands between the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers. Emptying into McKay Bay, the Palm River was "completely channelized and controlled" by 1970 and is now known as the Tampa Bypass Canal. Coastal Element, page 18. The Hillsborough River begins in the Green Swamp and flows southwest through Tampa and into the bay. Traveling nearly 54 miles, the river is supplied by many artesian springs, which supply the river with water from the Floridan aquifer. The natural drainage basin of the river is 690 square miles, including 120 square miles in Hillsborough County. The upper Hillsborough River is a Class I water, which means that it is suitable as a source of potable water. The lower Hillsborough River is a Class III waterbody, which means that it is suitable for propagation of fish and wildlife. The part of the river passing through the Hillsborough River State Park in the northeast area of the County is also designated as an Outstanding Florida Water. Two dams span the Hillsborough River. The upper dam is just north and east of I-75 near Fletcher Avenue. This dam, which is under the jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, is used for flood-control purposes. The lower dam is at 30th Street in Tampa and is operated by the City of Tampa to form a reservoir from which potable water is taken. Flow of the river ranges from 9.5 billion gallons per day during the wet season to under 30 million gallons per day at the end of the spring dry season. The average flow into Tampa's reservoir is 368 million gallons per day. Of the 55.5 linear miles of shoreline (both banks) along the Hillsborough River in the unincorporated County, 17.6 miles are private and 37.9 miles are public. The predominant land uses are rural, agricultural, and conservation. The riverbanks are in their native state with no seawalls and few boat docks or ramps, except for canoe access. The Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers originate in the Polk Upland and receive water from widely branching tributaries. The Alafia River begins in Polk County and runs west to Gibsonton and into the bay at a point about five miles south of Tampa. The Alafia drains a 420 square mile drainage basin. The average flow at the mouth of the river is million gallons per day. In general, the water quality of the Alafia River is "poor." CARE, page 13. A Class III waterbody, the river's entire corridor is rural or suburban, and much of its original floodplain wetlands are still intact. Phosphate mining has damaged the quality of the river's headwaters. The Little Manatee River begins in southeast Hillsborough County and flows west by Ruskin and into the bay at a point about ten miles south of Gibsonton. The Little Manatee River drains about 225 square miles. The average flow of the Little Manatee River is over 150 million gallons per day. Florida Power and Light pumps water from the river to supply an off-stream reservoir for cooling a thermonuclear power plant. The water quality of the Little Manatee River is "generally good." CARE, page 14. The river, which is a Class III waterbody, is designated an Outstanding Florida Water for its western two-thirds, with the portion of the river west of US 301 designated as an aquatic preserve. The river is more pristine than the other County rivers due to its "relatively unimpacted floodplains, swamps and tributaries." Id. However, the river is threatened by phosphate mining in its upper reaches. Rich deposits of phosphate matrix lie near the surface along the river's bed, and the easy extraction makes these areas extremely attractive for future mining. Id. In contrast to the well-developed stream systems of northeast, central, and southern Hillsborough County, northwest Hillsborough County has relatively few such streams. Rain in this area rapidly infiltrates the surficial soils through shallow creeks and solution features. The Data and Analysis concede that "surface water quality in Hillsborough County has been degraded due to a variety of unregulated water uses and adjacent land uses." CARE, page 54. The most prominent sources of water pollution have been discharges of wastewater, mining operations, and urban and agricultural runoff. The Data and Analysis recommend "[b]etter compliance with existing point and non-point source and stormwater regulations" and the consideration of "more stringent regulations for septic tank discharges." Id. 4. Floodplains and Drainage Over 30% of Hillsborough County is within the 100 year floodplain. The floodplains, which have been mapped throughout the County by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are depicted on Oversized Map 9. Major portions of the 100 year floodplain cover the coastal high hazard area 5/ and the Hillsborough River valley in northeast Hillsborough County. Floodplains cover perhaps a quarter of northwest Hillsborough County, including an extensive area north of Tampa where I-275 and I-75 join at the Pasco County line. Considerable floodplains encompass the corridors of the Alafia River and its major tributary and the Little Manatee River, all of which extend into phosphate mining areas of east- central and southeast Hillsborough County. The County has adopted a flood-control ordinance. But this ordinance "does not provide the County with a comprehensive flood plain management program . . . for maintaining wildlife habitat protection, aquifer recharge protection and water quality benefits." CARE, page 20. The Data and Analysis discuss the floodplains and their functions: Lands that are naturally subject to flooding serve valuable functions in the regional hydrologic and ecological system. Flood- prone lands provide temporary natural storage of runoff from upland areas and overflow from water bodies. By temporarily detaining surface water, flood-prone lands help to regulate the timing, velocity and levels of flood discharges and enable the recharge of groundwater resources. In addition, flood- prone lands help to maintain water quality and provide habitat that is vital to the sustenance of fish and wildlife populations. Those lands that are most frequently flooded, i.e., wetlands, are the most important in terms of providing these functions, but less frequently flooded areas are also important for handling more severe floods and providing other natural benefits. The maintenance of natural storage is extremely important for regional water management. . . . During times of abundant rainfall, . . . rivers and lakes overflow their normal banks and occupy the floodplain. The floodplain provides storage for this additional water. Even a greater volume of water is stored in areas outside of the floodplain of established lakes and rivers. Cypress heads, swamps, marshes and isolated topographic depressions provide a large portion of the natural storage in this area. . . . By temporarily storing and retarding the flow of flood waters, flood-prone lands also help to regulate the velocity and timing of flood discharges. Runoff in southwest Florida is usually intercepted by wetlands or topographic depressions. When these areas are full, the overflow moves slowly through shallow swales and linear depressions toward streams and water bodies. Obstructions to flow such as logs, rocks, trees, undergrowth and meanders in the watercourse reduce the rate of flow and thereby help to minimize the level and velocity of downstream flooding. Flood-prone areas are also important sites for groundwater recharge. The water table aquifer is directly dependent on the levels of water in such low-lying areas as cypress heads, sinkholes, swales and floodplains. When these areas are flooded, they may help recharge the water table aquifer. Then, during dry periods, the water table aquifer may provide part or all of the base flow to rivers and streams. Water stored in the water table also serves to recharge the Floridan aquifer by percolating downward through breaches in impermeable layers. ... Another important benefit of natural flood- prone lands is in the maintenance of water quality. Water tends to travel slowly across flooded lands, giving suspended sediments time to settle and thereby clarifying water before it enters or returns to a watercourse or water body. . . . The stems, leaves and branches of plants in flooded areas, together with flooded soils, provide an enormous surface area for biological and chemical processes. Micro- organisms on these surfaces initiate complex chemical reactions involving nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals and other pollutants. The roots of indigenous plants also absorb and remove nutrients from the water. Flood-prone lands, particularly wetlands, thus act like a giant biological filter. . . . Flood-prone lands also play a regional ecological role that depends upon periodic inundation. Wetlands and bottomland hardwood forest are the most biologically diverse and productive areas in Florida, other than estuaries. They support a wide variety of plants, which provide vital habitat for . . . game and fur-bearing animals . . . and for such endangered and threatened species, such as the wood stork. Much of the food for game fish comes from wetlands and floodplains along the shores of rivers and lakes. Juvenile fish, in particular, tend to hide and feed in these areas. There would be drastic reductions in the number of species, the number of fish per acre and the pounds of fish per acre if these areas were eliminated. Periodic inundation, alternating with periods of relative dryness, is vital to the maintenance of these ecological systems. Flood-prone lands tend to have rich, organic soils with a high capacity to retain water. The micro-organisms and plant communities associated with these soils support a complex food chain. High water tables and regular flooding are necessary to maintain organic soils. Regular flooding is needed to bring additional rich sediments into flooded areas and make them accessible to foraging fish. In addition, flood water transports out of flooded lands a load of detritus, nutrients, minerals and sediments that is vital to maintaining the productivity of estuarine systems. CARE, pages 14-15. Describing the consequences of poor land use planning in floodplains, the Data and Analysis continue: Improperly designed and executed land development interferes with the natural functions described above. Water resources and related land resources can thereby be degraded and unnecessary expense, loss of property, personal injury and loss of life can result. Building in flood-prone areas is particularly unwise. When floods recur, which is inevitable, considerable damage to houses, roads, utilities and other structures results. . . . Roadbeds are often weakened, undermined or washed away by flood waters. Electrical, telephone, and cable television lines are seldom designed to be submerged. Flood waters can enter sewage lines, causing them to overflow and contaminate an area or overload the capacity of treatment facilities. . . . . . . The storage and detention capacity of a watershed can also be reduced by drainage improvements, such as clearing and straightening natural watercourses, constructing new channels, and creating impervious surfaces. . . . * * * Reducing the capacity of a watershed to detain and store flood waters has several harmful effects on water and related resources, in addition to those associated with increased flooding. Variations in the flow of rivers and streams become more accentuated. Flood discharges peak more quickly and at higher elevations, but less water flows during dry periods and they extend for longer periods of time. The effects of both drought and flood are thus enhanced. Consumptive water suppliers, riverine aquatic life and estuarine processes, all of which depend on natural flow, may be disrupted. Recharge of groundwater is reduced by draining surface water from recharge areas or by covering them with impervious surfaces. The total amount of runoff discharged is thus increased and the amount of water stored in aquifers and available for consumptive use or to maintain streams flows is correspondingly diminished. Development of natural storage and detention areas also tends to cause degradation of water quality. Wetlands, vegetated swales and floodplain forests act as giant biological filters. If these filters are destroyed or bypassed, pollutants are discharged directly into open water systems. CARE, pages 15-16. As typified by its flood-control ordinance, the County has traditionally pursued the structural approach to floodplain management and drainage generally. This approach consists of building systems of channels, dams, levees, and other structures to hold back flood waters or rapidly carry them elsewhere. However, the Data and Analysis identify serious shortcomings in the structural approach to floodplain management and drainage. In addition to problems involving cost and relocating flood damage, the structural approach substantially degrades other values and functions of flood-prone lands and natural watercourses. Water quality protection, groundwater recharge, maintenance of base flows, estuarine salinity regulation, detrital production and export, fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural resource functions are frequently impaired by the construction of structural works. CARE, page 17. The Data and Analysis set forth a number of guidelines for a comprehensive floodplain management program "to prevent flood damage and minimize interference with the beneficial functioning of flood-prone lands." CARE, page 17. The first guideline to floodplain management is to avoid building in areas likely to be damaged by flooding. The Data and Analysis recommend the use of the ten year floodplain for this purpose. The second guideline to floodplain management is to avoid interfering with the beneficial functions of floodprone lands, which are "storage, conveyance, groundwater recharge, maintenance of minimum flows and levels, water quality maintenance and habitat for fish and wildlife." CARE, page 18. In a discussion not limited to the ten year floodplain, the Data and Analysis advise: Buildings, fill, roads and other structures that displace or obstruct the flow of surface waters should not be located in flood-prone areas. In addition, these areas should generally not be drained and their natural vegetation should be maintained. Id. With respect to the environmental benefits inherent in the second guideline, the Data and Analysis discuss each of the functions separately. For storage functions, the Data and Analysis note that floodwaters are stored by floodplains contiguous to water bodies and wetlands considerably removed from water bodies, but connected to them by cypress strands, marshy sloughs, and the underground water table. Thus, "[i]n order to preserve storage, it is necessary to prevent building in these storage areas, diverting [building] instead to upland sites." CARE, page 18. For conveyance functions, the Data and Analysis observe that obstructions, such as buildings and roads, to the flow of floodwater cause flooding upstream of the obstruction. Thus, "[i]n order to preserve the conveyance capacity of flood-prone lands it is necessary to restrict building in these areas." CARE, page 18-19. For groundwater recharge functions, the Data and Analysis relate recharge to storage and conveyance. If water that would otherwise percolate downward into groundwater is blocked by impervious surfaces, removed by drainage works, or displaced by fill, the water contributes to increased flooding downstream. "Filling of flood-prone lands or drainage of them should therefore be restricted." CARE, page 19. For minimum flows and levels, the Data and Analysis recognize that the management of maximum flows--i.e., floodwaters--"is integrally related to minimum flows." By increasing floodwater flows, such as by reducing natural storage and conveyance through structural flood control, "there will be less water in storage in wetlands and groundwater to supply minimum flows." The reduction of minimum flows and levels adversely impacts "navigation, recreation, water supply, dilution of pollutants, estuarine systems and fish and wildlife." CARE, page 19. For water quality, the Data and Analysis acknowledge the "major role" of frequently flooded lands in water quality. Pollutants are removed from storage waters when they are stored in natural floodplains or wetlands. "Cleaning, filling or draining these areas will cause degradation of water quality and should be restricted." CARE, page 19. For fish and wildlife habitat, the Data and Analysis note the importance of floodprone lands as habitat. Maintenance of this function "frequently depends on maintenance of the natural hydrologic regime or is consistent with maintenance of the area's hydrologic values." CARE, page 19. The third guideline to floodplain management is to avoid alterations of the natural rate, quantity, and pattern of surface waters. Applicable to both "flood-prone lands and more upland sites," this guideline advises that the "rate, volume, timing and location of discharge of surface water should generally not be altered from predevelopment conditions." In this case, surface water includes floodwater. CARE, page 19. Acknowledging the increasing stress upon wetlands and floodplains from "increased growth pressure in the more marginally developable portions of the County," the Data and Analysis advise that: [w]here wetland or floodplain encroachment is unavoidable, a scientifically defensible and effective compensatory mechanism is needed to ensure than no net loss of wetland acreage occurs. Where feasible, previously altered wetlands should be restored or recreated to increase overall viable wetland acreage. CARE, page 56. The Data and Analysis set a level of service standard for stormwater, but only in terms of existing, structural stormwater management facilities, such as channels, canals, and ditches. The standard relates to the quantity but not quality of stormwater runoff. The stormwater level of service standard thus illustrates the traditional structural approach to drainage that ignores water quality, groundwater recharge, base flow, salinity requirements, detrital food supplies, and habitat values. Dealing strictly with how fast and how much floodwater can be conveyed, ultimately to Tampa Bay, the stormwater standard describes the rainfall event that a particular stormwater facility, such as a ditch, can accommodate without causing floodwaters to rise above a specified level. The selected rainfall event is expressed in terms of frequency and duration, such as the 10 year/24 hour duration storm event. The level of flooding is expressed by degree. Level A, which is the most restrictive, means "no significant street flooding." Level B is "no major residential yard flooding." Acknowledging that the level of service standard for stormwater facilities "consists primarily of attempting to minimize and alleviate flooding . . . in developed areas . . .," the Introduction to the Stormwater Management (Stormwater) Element promises: the overall [Stormwater Management] Program will be expanded to include not only the quantity aspects, but the quality aspects of stormwater runoff. Stormwater Element, page 18. The Data and Analysis likewise agree that the qualitative aspect of stormwater runoff must be addressed: Much attention has, in recent years, been focused on the quality aspects of stormwater management regulations relative to the establishment of regulations and corresponding design criteria for new development. The application of these regulations must continue in order to minimize the potential for "new" water quality degradation, and the design criteria must be refined to increase the effectiveness of treatment systems as technology advances. However, existing water quality problems may not be correctable without the effective maintenance of existing stormwater treatment systems, and perhaps more importantly, without the retrofitting of older public and private stormwater management systems with stormwater management technologies. . . . The use of wetlands should be promoted as a natural means of providing stormwater treatment, and the direct discharge of untreated stormwater runoff to the Florida Aquifer must be minimized. Stormwater Element, page 20. 5. Soils The soils in Hillsborough County are depicted in CARE Figure 9 and Oversized Map 10. In addition to mine pits and dumps, which are located south and east of Plant City, the maps show that the County soils are poorly drained to very poorly drained, moderately well drained to poorly drained, and well drained. The largest area of well-drained soils lies east of I-75 from US 301, which is south of the Hillsborough River, to just north of the Alafia River. The two other areas of well- drained soils are an area east of Tampa and south of Temple Terrace and the Little Manatee River valley upstream to US 301. The soils surrounding the Alafia River and its major tributaries are predominantly poorly and very poorly drained, as are the soils at the upper end of the Little Manatee River. The entire coastal fringe of the County abutting the east side of Tampa Bay is also poorly and very poorly drained for a distance of about one mile inland, as is the coastal fringe between Tampa and Pinellas County. Other poor to very poorly drained areas include several areas of northwest Hillsborough County, an area in north-central Hillsborough County where I-75 and I-275 join, the Hillsborough River corridor, and an L-shaped area straddling Big Bend Road between I-75 and US 301. Except in extreme cases, such as wetland soils, soil limitations can generally be alleviated for development purposes. Moderate limitations require more extensive alterations to the soils than do minor limitations. "Severe limitations may require the removal of the natural material and replacement with a more suitable soil type." CARE, page 7. However: [t]he use of septic systems for the treatment and disposal of sewage effluent may . . . be significantly limited by site specific soil conditions. The location of septic systems in improper soils may result in several undesirable effects. If the soils have wetness and poor permeability then the discharged effluent will not percolate properly and may runoff into, and contaminate, adjacent surface waters. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve has been closed to shellfishing numerous times in recent years due to improperly sited and maintained septic tanks in the Ruskin area. CARE, page 7. Conversely, "[i]n areas of excessively well-drained sand, septic effluent can migrate too rapidly for purification processes to occur, and carry contaminants into the groundwater supply." CARE, page 8. The surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifers are all subject to contamination by this means. 6. Geology Southeast Hillsborough County contains significant phosphate deposits. This area is the northwest extent of the Central Florida Phosphate District, which is located in Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, and Hardee Counties. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 show that phosphate mines are located in southeast Hillsborough County, at the headwaters of the Little Manatee River and a major tributary of the Alafia River. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 show another phosphate mining area in eastcentral Hillsborough County adjacent to the headwaters of the Alafia River or another of its major tributaries. Providing "hundreds" of jobs in the Tampa Bay area in mining, shipping, marketing, and processing, the phosphate industry produces a "net capital inflow to Hillsborough County," although the text fails to identify what cost items associated with phosphate mining are netted. CARE, page 8. CARE Table 2 indicates that there are five major phosphate mining operations in the County involving 26,326 mineable acres and 5772 mined acres. Due to current market conditions, the only active mine accounts for 2510 mineable acres, 2890 mined acres, and 6933 total acres. The Data and Analysis warn: "phosphate mining severely complicates land use considerations in the central and southeast portions of the County. Large areas of known deposits are held by private companies for future mining." Id. In addition to the space demanded by clay settling ponds, which may consume a one square mile area for a single mine, a typically mining operation involves the "complete disruption" of up to 400 acres annually. The disruption involves the "on-site natural vegetation, drainage, and soil characteristics." Id. Mining may also result in the drawdown of groundwater supplies in the vicinity. Phosphate mining exposes the leach zone, which contains the greatest concentration of uranium. This process increases the risk that the radioactive material will enter the air or water. Heavy water demands in the mining process involve the removal of water from the surficial aquifer and return of used water, possibly with excessive radionuclides, to the Floridan aquifer. After the strip mining operations are completed: Reclamation and restoration of mined lands is extremely important for long-term land use planning in Hillsborough County. The vast acreages of mined trenches and slime ponds are virtually useless for long time periods unless effective reclamation measures are implemented. CARE, page 9. Recent reclamation techniques include surface contouring, use of original topsoil and vegetation types, and restoration of original drainage patterns. The Florida Department of Natural Resources and Hillsborough County both impose reclamation requirements. Noting the economic benefits bestowed on the Tampa Bay region from phosphate mining, the Data and Analysis nevertheless observe: the relatively unregulated mining industry of the past was also responsible for significant environmental damage, including the destruction of wetlands and floodplains, and the siltation and eutrophication of rivers and streams. In addition, large tracts of land have been committed to the maintenance of clay settling ponds and non-productive reclamation areas. Improved State and local regulation of the phosphate industry in recent years has reduced operational impacts on the environment. However, more effective and productive methods of reclamation, and greater enforcement of reclamation requirements, may be needed. CARE, page 63. CARE Figure 10 and Oversized Map 8 depict the location of numerous sand mines and shell mines, as well as one peat mine. Limestone deposits in the northeast part of Hillsborough County are near the surface and may be the subject of future limestone mining for use as road base, fill, concrete, and asphalt. Another mineral present in commercially significant quantities is sand. In areas underlain by limestone deposits, sinkholes may form, especially in northern and eastern Hillsborough County. The collapse of the limestone formation, which results in the sinkhole, is associated with reduced water tables. "Sinkhole areas are generally unsuitable for development." CARE, page 6. CARE Figure 8 depicts areas of observed and potential sinkhole development. 7. Groundwater The three aquifer systems present in most of Hillsborough County are the surficial, intermediate, and Floridan. The Floridan aquifer is the most productive freshwater aquifer system in Hillsborough County. The surficial aquifer runs through most of Hillsborough County. The water table in the County generally follows the topography, and groundwater flow is west and south. The average depth to the water table is five feet. Fluctuating seasonally less than five feet, the water table is lowest in April or May and highest in September. The surficial aquifer supplies the least amount of water in the County. An intermediate aquifer system forms from the Alafia River basin south in the County. The top of the intermediate aquifer is near sea level, and the intermediate aquifer system thickens to about 200 feet near the Manatee County line. The water quality in the intermediate aquifer is generally good and is primarily used for domestic water supply in extreme south Hillsborough County. The aquifer is most productive in the east and south part of the County, although the phosphate mines in southeast Hillsborough County use the intermediate aquifer as the injection zone for dewatering surficial deposits. The most suitable areas for groundwater development are the extreme northeast and southeast areas of the County. The Floridan aquifer is the major source of groundwater in the County. About 175 million gallons per day of the total 178.2 million gallons per day of groundwater withdrawals in Hillsborough County are taken from the Floridan aquifer. The top of the aquifer ranges from near land surface in the north part of the County to about 200 feet below sea level in the south part of the County. The aquifer thickness ranges from less than 1000 feet in the north part of the County to more than 1200 feet in the south part of the County. The water of the Floridan aquifer is more mineralized than the water of the surficial or intermediate aquifer. Concentrations of chloride exceed 250 mg/l near the coast, but are less than 25 mg/l in east and southeast Hillsborough County. Of the total groundwater withdrawn in the County, about 58%, or 103.3 million gallons per day, is devoted to agriculture. Other uses include 43.7 million gallons per day for public supply, 21.2 million gallons per day for industrial use, and 6.5 million gallons per day for rural use. 8. Aquifer Recharge Aquifer recharge is the "replenishment of water in an aquifer system." CARE, page 23. Hillsborough County contains no areas of high natural aquifer recharge. Areas of high natural aquifer recharge, where annual recharge rates range from 10-20 inches per year, are rare in Florida, representing only about 15% of the entire state. In terms of natural recharge rates, the County contains areas characterized by very low and very low to moderate recharge. The areas of very low to moderate recharge, in which the annual recharge rate is from 2-10 inches, are depicted in CARE Figure 14 and cover the northwest corner of the County, smaller areas in the northcentral and northeast areas of the County, and a large area in northeast Hillsborough County. The large recharge area in the northeast part of the County corresponds to the 100 year floodplain associated with the Hillsborough River basin; this is the largest contiguous 100 year floodplain in the County. Despite the absence of high natural recharge areas, the County contains areas highly susceptible to contamination of the Floridan aquifer. CARE Figure 15 shows three highly susceptible areas. One of these areas is the north half of northwest Hillsborough County. This area contains wellfields located along Gunn Highway and SR 597. The easternmost extent of this area is just east of the intersection of I-275 and I-75. Most of the highly susceptible areas in the northwest part of the County are in areas of very low to moderate natural groundwater recharge. Another area highly susceptible to contamination of the Floridan aquifer is in northeast Hillsborough County, north of I-4 and mostly east of US 301. This area includes two mining areas, but neither is a phosphate mine. The third area of high susceptibility to contamination of the Floridan aquifer runs from an area between Lake Thonotosassa and Plant City southwest through the parcels designated Light Industrial north of Gibsonton. Although similar contamination maps for the surficial and intermediate aquifer systems were not included, the surficial aquifer is highly susceptible to contamination due largely to its proximity to the surface, and the intermediate aquifer is less susceptible to contamination. The Data and Analysis warn that "[d]evelopment in areas of high recharge/contamination potential may . . . pose unacceptable threats to the long-term water quantity and quality within the aquifer system." CARE, page 58. Potable water supplies are also threatened by "the proliferation of improperly sited, constructed and maintained septic tanks." Id. CARE Figure 16 displays potential sources of contamination of the groundwater and surface water. The only potential source of contamination in the recharge area associated with the Hillsborough River basin is an active landfill situated at the southern edge of the recharge area, just southeast of Lake Thonotosassa. However, three active landfills and seven sewage treatment plants have been situated in the large recharge area in the northwest corner of the County, although these ten sites are southwest of existing public supply wells. 9. Sanitary Sewer An unnumbered oversized map entitled Hillsborough County Wastewater Element shows existing and proposed wastewater service areas and collection lines; the projected facilities are shown as of 1994 and 2010. Oversized Map 3, which is entitled Potable Water and Wastewater Facilities, also shows existing and proposed wastewater service areas as of 1994 and 2010. Sanitary Sewerage (Sewer) Element Figure 1 depicts the same information on a smaller scale, although the earlier year of projection is 1995, not 1994. Another unnumbered oversized map accompanying the Plan shows the location of domestic wastewater treatment plants, but the date of the map is omitted. In terms of the existing collection and conveyance system, Sewer Element Figure 1 depicts a central sewer system considerably more proposed than existing in the area south of the Alafia River. No sewer lines exist south of the Alafia River except for a one-mile segment along Big Bend Road east of US and west of Balm-Riverview Road; a little more than a half-mile segment on the peninsula extending from Apollo Beach; a half- mile segment southeast of the preceding segment, about midway between the shoreline and US 41; and roughly five miles of lines along SR 674 between I-75 and just east of US 301. In contrast to the seven miles of existing sewer lines described in the preceding paragraph, Sewer Element Figure 1 indicates that the area south of the Alafia River is proposed to receive another 30 miles of lines by 1994 and another 30 miles of lines by 2010. In other words, the County intends to expand the central sewer system by almost tenfold over 20 years in the area south of the Alafia River. Four to six sewage treatment plants are operating close to the Alafia River, and two such plants are operating close to the Little Manatee River. In addition, two sewage treatment plants and an active landfill are also operating between the two rivers, located west of US 41 and east of the shore of Tampa Bay. The Data and Analysis report that one of the assumptions in the Sewer Element is that all regional and subregional wastewater treatment plants will use advanced wastewater treatment except the Van Dyke plant, which uses secondary wastewater treatment. The Data and Analysis also indicate that, as sewer connections are made, interim and private wastewater plants will be phased out. The Data and Analysis recognize the risk that septic tanks pose to potable water supplies: "As more and more quantities of potable water are needed to supply the County and as urbanization of previously rural areas occurs, the possible dangers due to septic tanks systems contaminating potable water supplies increases." Sewer Element, page 14. As noted below, the Plan distinguishes among Urban, Suburban, and Rural general service levels. 6/ For sanitary sewer, Rural services means "there would most likely be no service connection to an area treatment plant." Sewer Element, page 3. For sanitary sewer, Urban or Suburban service means "there would most likely be current or planned service connection to an area treatment plant." Sewer Element, page 4. Only in "intense urban areas" can the Plan assure "there would be service connection to an area treatment plant." Id. Sewer Element Table 1 discloses that the design capacity of wastewater treatment plants--both publicly and privately owned--is 42.163 million gallons per day with 46% of the capacity in the northwest service area, 42% of the capacity in the central service area, and 12% of the capacity in the south service area. The Data and Analysis indicate that the County has embarked on an "vigorous construction program aimed at meeting the existing commitments within its service areas and providing capacity capable of accommodating growth through 1995." Sewer Element, page 5. However, the construction of treatment facilities has proceeded faster than the construction of collection and transmission lines. 9. Potable Water Oversized Map 3 shows the location of existing water lines, proposed water lines through 1994, proposed water lines through 2010, and water service area boundaries. Potable Water Element Figure 1 depicts on a smaller scale the same information, plus the location of the water service area boundaries in 1995 and 2010. In general, water lines cover a considerable portion of the northwest and central parts of Hillsborough County, appearing in all parts of the County to serve all land that is both designated Suburban Density Residential and contiguous to areas designated for greater densities. Again, as in the case of central sewer, the part of Hillsborough County south of the Alafia River is not as well served. Twelve miles of line run along US 301, south from the Alafia River to SR 674. About seven miles of line run west on SR 674 to a point about two miles east of the mouth of the Little Manatee River. About five miles of line cover the Ruskin area directly northeast of the previously described terminus, and one mile of line proceeds south toward the Little Manatee River. Closer to Tampa Bay, about seven miles of water line run along US 41 south from the Alafia River to a point a couple of miles south of Big Bend Road, stopping about three and one- half miles north of the nearest existing line in Ruskin. About eight miles of line run just south of, and parallel to, the Alafia River. Another five miles of water line run from the Alafia River south, along the scenic corridor (evidently a railroad line to be converted into a two- lane road, at least part of which may be known as the Jim Selvey Highway) running parallel to, and about one mile west of, the boundary between Rural and Suburban designations between SR 640 and the line extending east of the end of Big Bend Road. 7/ Oversized Map 3 discloses that the County can provide central water service to relatively little of the area south of the Alafia River within the Urban and Suburban areas. As is the case with central sewer, the County's plans for new central water service project the majority of construction activity toward the end of the 20-year period. Although starting with considerably more water line mileage--about 47 miles--than sewer line mileage south of the Alafia River, the County plans only about eight new miles in this area by 1994, but over 90 new miles by 2010. For potable water service, a Rural service area "would most likely be served by a system of private wells." Potable Water Element, page 3. Urban or Suburban service means "there would most likely be current or planned service connecting to this area." Potable Water Element, page 4. Again, as in the case of sewer service, a guarantee of central water service applies only to intensive urban service, where "there would be service connecting to this area." Id. After detailed analysis, the Data and Analysis conclude that the County will require 235-318 million gallons per day of water in 2000. Responsibility in coordinating water supplies in the Tampa Bay area has been assigned to the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA). According to CARE Figure 19, Hillsborough County will run short of potable water by the early 1990's and need water supplies from the WCRWSA. CARE, page 28. Due to assumptions of increased water usage in Pasco and Pinellas Counties, "there is concern that the 'safe yield' limit of regional groundwater aquifers may be approached in the foreseeable future." Id. The Data and Analysis report that additional water for the fast-growing southcentral area will come from a "planned" wellfield in northeast Brandon. Potable Water Element, page 9. CARE Figure 18 shows the location of major public supply reservoirs and water wells of more than 100,000 gallons per day. Oversized Map 18, which is dated February, 1990, depicts a 200-foot radius for each major public supply well. The greatest concentration of public supply water wells is in northwest Hillsborough County, especially the northern half of this area. Based on rough projections, the Data and Analysis warn that there is a "need to develop and communicate accurate water supply and safe yield projections to ensure sound water use planning. In addition, [there is a] need to immediately conserve existing water supplies and to develop new supplies." Id. In the meantime, potential water sources are threatened by development: The quantity and quality of groundwater resources may also be adversely impacted by land development. Because of the dry, well- drained soils, many of the most important aquifer recharge areas in the County are considered to be the most desirable sites for development. However, the increase in impervious surface cover associated with land development may, in theory, reduce the amount of water available to recharge groundwater aquifers by increasing the amount of surface runoff and evaporation. In addition, pollution discharges to groundwater, including septic drainfields, leaking underground storage tanks, etc., percolate rapidly through the topsoil and into the underlying rock in such areas, and may pose a significant contamination threat to existing and future water supplies. CARE, page 28. Water conservation will help extend existing potable water supplies. Residential water use may be reduced by 15% to 70% by conservation measures. Agricultural water use may be reduced by better irrigation practices, reducing losses to seepage, and using the lowest quality water necessary. Only 33 of the 267 wastewater treatment plants in the County presently use direct wastewater reuse options. The Data and Analysis recommend the exploration of this option. With respect to potable water sources, the Data and Analysis also consider desalinization. About 70 such plants currently operate in Florida. The reverse osmosis method of desalinization appears to be a particularly viable alternative for Hillsborough County. Noting the inevitability of new demands for potable water from population growth, the Data and Analysis warn that "significant increases in impervious surfaces may actually decrease the recharge potential and the available water supply below historically reliable levels." CARE, page 61. Excessive groundwater withdrawals in Hillsborough County have historically dewatered wetlands and surface waters; excessive groundwater withdrawals in other coastal areas in Florida have historically resulted in saltwater intrusion. Thus, the Data and Analysis recommend the establishment of "'safe yield' groundwater withdrawal limitations." Id. Until the development of more sophisticated means, the Data and Analysis recommend the use of the "Water Budget Concept" to estimate probable limits on potable water supply and demand. Id. 10. Natural Habitats Because of the size, location, and estuarine shoreline of Hillsborough County, representatives of over half of the major plant communities in Florida are found in the County. The 14 major plant communities found in Hillsborough County are: pine flatwoods, dry prairies, sand pine scrub, sandhills, xeric hammocks, mesic hammocks, hardwood swamps, cypress swamps, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, coastal marshes, mangrove swamps, coastal strand, and marine grassbeds. With the exception of marine grassbeds, these habitats are depicted on the multicolor fold-out map entitled "Natural Systems and Land Use Cover Inventory," which is identified as CARE Figure 20 in the Plan. Coastal Figure 11 depicts the established extent of seagrass meadows in Tampa Bay. Coastal Figure 14 shows the location in Tampa Bay of different classes of waters. The waters adjacent to the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County are Class II waters that are closed to shellfish harvesting. The waters from about a mile south of Apollo Beach to Manatee County are also Class II waters with shellfish harvesting approved in the area of Cockroach Bay. The remaining waters are Class III. Coastal Figure 13 depicts the location of emergent wetlands along the fringe of Tampa Bay. Concentrations of emergent wetlands are notable south of Apollo Beach and upstream varying distances along the fringes of the three major rivers and the former Palm River. Emergent wetlands also fringe the shoreline of northwest Hillsborough County. Most of the County's natural habitat has been lost to urban, agricultural, and industrial development, which has altered over half of the original freshwater wetlands and over three-quarters of the uplands. The trend of habitat destruction, though abated by wetland protection laws, continues to apply to the upland habitats of xeric and mesic hammocks. Supplementing CARE Figure 20 are Oversized Map 8, which depicts "major natural systems" based on CARE Figure 20, and CARE Table 11, which indicates where, by specific habitat, each of the endangered, threatened, or special-concern plant or animal species may be expected to occur. The Data and Analysis acknowledge that the rapidly growing human population and its associated urbanization has resulted in a substantial loss of natural wildlife habitat, especially in the coastal portions of the County, while the cumulative impacts of development continue to divide and isolate large contiguous natural areas. . . . As a result of habitat destruction and alteration, the natural populations of many wildlife species have declined dramatically. . . . comprehensive wildlife protection and management program is needed to inventory populations of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern, and to inventory significant and essential wildlife habitat and protect those areas in the future. Coastal Element, page 68. The pine flatwoods habitat is characterized by long- leaf pines on drier sites and slash pine on wetter sites. Despite overlap between the understories of the two types of pine flatwoods communities, saw palmetto predominates in slash pine flatwoods and wiregrass predominates in long-leaf pine flatwoods. Pine flatwoods depend on fire to eliminate hardwood competition. Longleaf pine flatwoods are more susceptible to lack of water than are slash pine flatwoods. In the absence of fire, the pine flatwoods community is replaced by a mixed hardwood and pine forest. Various species that are endangered, threatened, or of special concern are associated with the pine flatwoods habitat. These species include the Florida golden aster, eastern indigo snake, short-tailed snake, gopher tortoise, gopher frog, Florida pine snake, peregrine falcon, Southern bald eagle, Southeastern American kestrel, red-cockaded woodpecker, scrub jay, and Sherman's fox squirrel. Originally, 70% of Hillsborough County was vegetated by pine flatwoods, but now only 5% of the County is pine flatwoods. The level surface, thick understory, and poorly drained soils of the pine flatwoods tend to retain and slowly release surface water, so the pine flatwoods enhance surface water quality and reduce downstream flooding. Dry prairies are treeless plains, often hosting scattered bayheads, cypress ponds, freshwater marshes, and wet prairies. Dry prairies resemble pine flatwoods without the overstory and perform similar functions in terms of surface water drainage. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species using dry prairies include those using the pine flatwoods plus the Florida sandhill crane and burrowing owl. Sand pine scrub is found mostly on relict dunes or other marine features found along present and former shorelines. Sand pine forms the overstory, and scrubby oaks compose a thick, often clumped understory. Large areas of bare sand are present in the habitat of the sand pine scrub, which requires fires to release the pine seeds. Without fires, the sand pine scrub habitat evolves into a xeric oak scrub habitat. The rare sand pine scrub community hosts many of the endangered, threatened, or special-concern species found in the pine flatwoods habitat. Supporting the highest number of such species, the sand pine scrub habitat's extremely dry environment sustains highly specialized plants and animals that could survive nowhere else. The unique adaptations of species to the sand pine scrub environment generates much scientific research of this unusual habitat, which is easily disturbed by human activities. The rapid percolation typical of the deep sandy soils of the sand pine scrub makes the community an important aquifer recharge area that is also vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Featuring more organic material in its sandy soils, the sandhill community, like the sand pine scrub community, is uncommon in Hillsborough County. Longleaf pines form the overstory of the sandhill habitat, unless, due to fire suppression and logging, xeric oaks, like turkey oak and bluejack oak, have been permitted to grow sufficiently to form the overstory. In the absence of the pines, the community is known as the xeric oak scrub. Longleaf pines require frequent fires to control hardwood competition, as does wiregrass, which, when present, prevents the germination of hardwood seeds and serves to convey fires over large areas. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species of the sandhill habitat are similar to those of the pine flatwoods. The plant and animal species using the sandhill habitat are, like those using the sand pine scrub habitat, adapted to high temperatures and drought. These plant and animal species are often found nowhere else but in the sandhills, which, like the sand pine scrub community, allows rapid percolation of water. The well-drained soils render the area useful for natural recharge of the aquifer, but also vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Xeric hammocks feature live oaks in well-drained, deep sand. Providing habitat for many of the species using the pine flatwoods, the xeric hammock canopy provides a microclimate of cooler, moister conditions and supplies good natural recharge to the aquifer. Mesic hammocks are the climax community of the area and contain a wide diversity of plant species. Trees include the Southern Magnolia, laurel oak, American holly, dogwood, pignut hickory, and live oak. Endangered, threatened, or special- concern species using the habitat are Auricled Spleenwort, Eastern indigo snake, peregrine falcon, Southern bald eagle, Southeastern American kestrel, and Sherman's fox squirrel. Not dependent upon fire, mesic hammocks efficiently use solar heat and recycle nutrients. Mesic hammocks are adaptable to development if native vegetation, including groundcover, is retained. Hardwood swamps, which are also known as floodplain swamps, riverine swamps, and hydric hammocks, border rivers and lake basins where the ground is saturated or submerged during part of the year. The wettest part of these swamp forests features bald cypress or black gum trees. In higher areas, the trees typically include sweet gum, red maple, water oak, American elm, water hickory, and laurel oak. Hardwood swamps rely upon periodic flooding, absent which other communities will replace the hardwood swamps. Endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with hardwood swamps are the American alligator, Suwanee cooter, peregrine falcon, wood stork, Southern bald eagle, little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and limpkin. "The hardwood swamp is extremely important for water quality and quantity enhancement." CARE, page 38. The hardwood swamp also retains and slowly releases floodwaters, which, among other things, allows suspended material to settle out. The swamp vegetation then removes excess nutrients and produces detritus for downstream swamps, such as estuaries. Cypress swamps are found along river or lake margins or interspersed through pine flatwoods or dry prairies. Bald cypress is the dominant tree along lakes and streams, and pond cypress occurs in cypress heads or domes. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with cypress swamps are the same as those associated with hardwood swamps. Especially when found in pine flatwoods or dry prairies, cypress swamps are important to wildlife because of their cooler, wetter environment. Cypress domes function as natural retention ponds. Cypress swamps along rivers and lakes absorb nutrients and store floodwaters. Freshwater marshes and wet prairies are herbaceous plant communities on sites where the soil is saturated or covered with water for at least one month during the growing season. Wet prairies contain shallower water, more grasses, and fewer tall emergents than do marshes. Fire recycles nutrients back into the soil and removes older, less productive plant growth. Flooding also reduces competition. The endangered, threatened, or special-concern species are the same as those using the cypress swamps except that the freshwater marshes and wet prairies host the Florida sandhill crane and roseate spoonbill, but not the limpkin. Freshwater marshes and wet prairies are the most important vegetative communities functioning as a natural filter for rivers and lakes. The ability to retain water allows freshwater marshes and wet prairies to moderate the severity of floods and droughts. But the freshwater marshes and wet prairies have suffered most from agricultural and urban development. Wet prairies in particular are susceptible to damage from recreation vehicle use, horseback riding, and foot traffic. Among the many species using freshwater marshes and wet prairies as habitat, the sandhill crane depends on this community for nesting habitat. Coastal marshes are located on low-energy shorelines and are interspersed with mangroves. Coastal marshes may be found along tidal rivers. Tides contribute to the high productivity of the coastal marshes, as tidal waters provide food to, and remove waste from, the organisms found in the coastal marshes. Endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with coastal marshes are the American alligator, peregrine falcon, wood stork, Southern bald eagle, redish egret, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and roseate spoonbill. With the mangrove swamp, the coastal marsh is the "key to the extremely high levels of biological productivity found in estuaries such as Tampa Bay." CARE, page 40. Marsh grasses convert sunlight and nutrients into plant tissue, which decomposes once the plant dies and becomes available to a number of detritus-feeding organisms. These organisms are themselves food for large animals. Coastal marshes also serve as nurseries for young fish, stabilize shorelines, filter out nutrients, and trap sediments. Mangrove swamps also occur along low-energy shorelines. The mangrove community "provides much of the driving force behind the productivity of bordering estuaries." CARE, page 41. Leaves from the mangroves fall into the water, supplying food to organisms as large as mullet. Mangrove swamps host the same animals as do coastal marshes except for the absence of alligators and presence of brown pelicans. The environmental values of the mangrove swamps are the same as the values of coastal marshes. The coastal strand includes beaches and coastal dunes. Prime examples of this type of habitat in Hillsborough County are Egmont Key and the larger islands in Cockroach Bay and at the mouth of the Little Manatee River. Marine grassbeds are found in estuaries and consist of vast meadows of different types of seagrasses. Having evolved from terrestrial forms, seagrasses contain roots, stems, leaves, and flowers and are able to grow in soft, sandy, or muddy sediments. Species of seagrasses found in Tampa Bay are limited to a water depth of about six feet, which is the average depth through which light can presently penetrate. Fast-growing seagrasses trap material from the land, absorb nutrients, and convey animal and plant products to the open sea. 11. Coastal Area The County's "most significant surface water resource" is Tampa Bay. CARE, page 10. In northwest Hillsborough County, the coastal area, which is also known as the coastal zone, consists of a strip of land about five miles wide running from the shoreline between Tampa and the Pinellas County line in the northwest part of the County. The coastal area for central and south Hillsborough County encompasses a band of land of about similar width running from the Tampa line south along US 301 across the Alafia River, then south from the Alafia River along I-75 to the Little Manatee River, where the boundary runs west to US 41, and then south along US 41 to the Manatee County line. Coastal Figure 16 locates coastal marine resources in and adjacent to Tampa Bay. Two locations of wading birds are in the northwest part of Hillsborough County. The only resources depicted between Tampa and the Alafia River are shorebirds in the Bay. At the Alafia River are wading birds, shorebirds, and pelicans. Wading birds and shorebirds are located in the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, as are manatee and oyster beds. The Data and Analysis describe the different land use planning challenges in the coastal area: coastal land issues are unique primarily due to the intense competing and often incompatible use demands, serious environmental constraints or impacts and the limited supply of shoreline lands. Coastal Element, page 3. The intent of the Plan is that coastal land use should be dominated by those uses which can only take place in or near the shoreline. This concept, by which water- dependent and water-related uses receive priority, stems from logic furthered by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act .. .. Coastal Element, page 2. According to Coastal Element Table 2, the coastal area comprises 20,946 acres of developed land and 54,011 acres of undeveloped land. The developed land includes 12,343 acres of residential (75% single family detached), 4638 acres of community facilities (75% utilities and recreation/open space), 2095 acres of commercial (equal amounts of heavy and light commercial), and 1870 acres of industrial. The undeveloped land includes 24,388 acres of natural land (including 16,533 acres of woodlands and wetlands), 29,025 acres of agriculture, and 598 acres of mines (consisting of 299 acres of active mines, 75 acres of reclaimed mines, and 224 acres of unreclaimed mines). Many of the residential uses in the coastal area are on floodprone lands or land formed from dredge and fill operations. Many of these residential areas are in the unincorporated areas of Town and Country, Clair Mel City, Apollo Beach, and Bahia Beach. The problems common to these areas are periodic flooding, cumulative adverse impacts to wetlands, soil erosion, non-functioning septic systems, high potential for surface water pollution, potential for salt water intrusion, and reduced public access to the shoreline. Coastal Element, page 4. Most commercial development in the coastal area is of the neighborhood, rather than regional, variety. Commercial uses have generally followed rather than preceded residential development in the coastal area. However, in the Hillsborough Avenue/Memorial Highway area, which is in the coastal area between Tampa and Pinellas County, extensive commercial activity serves Town and County and the area off SR 580 (Hillsborough Avenue) toward Pinellas County. Much of the County's heavy industry is located in the coastal area due to proximity to the port. Agriculture is treated as undeveloped land, although only one-third of agricultural uses are merely fenced pastureland. In any event, "urban growth is steadily displacing [agricultural and vacant land] uses forcing agricultural activities to move to more inland parts of the County." Coastal Element, page 5. The largest uses within the category of community facilities in the coastal area are electric power generating and transmission facilities. The next largest is recreation/open space. Both of these uses are water dependent. The coastal natural areas provide vital shoreline habitat and protect against storm surge. The Data and Analysis warn: Displacement of these natural areas by continued urban development will result in a net reduction of water quality within Tampa Bay and tidal rivers and creeks, loss of vital wildlife habitat, a diminished sense of open space, and the exposure of property and human life to the dangers of storm surge. Coastal Element, page 6. In discussing potential conflicts in potential shoreline land uses, the Data and Analysis note that more coastal areas that are vacant, recreational, or agricultural have been designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Low Density Residential, Recreation and Open Space, or Natural Preservation. The development of the coastal area has resulted in the elimination of natural shoreline vegetative communities such as mangroves and wetlands. The Data and Analysis acknowledge the "urgency to more effectively manage coastal zone natural resources and direct urban development into areas more appropriate for such growth." Coastal Element, page 7. The Data and Analysis also note that stormwater runoff into Tampa Bay and its tributaries may constitute the "greatest impact to marine habitat." Id. According to the Data and Analysis, the main uses that are neither water-dependent nor water-related are commercial and industrial uses that "could function just as well inland as in a coastal location" and "intense urban residential." Coastal Element, page 9. The Data and Analysis endorse the trend toward displacing agricultural uses in the Apollo Beach/Ruskin area west of I-75 between the Alafia River and the Manatee County line. The Data and Analysis approve of the increased concentration of development closer to the amenities of the coastal area without using the coastal zone for non-water-dependent uses. Oversized Maps 11 and 12 respectively show the location of archaeological sites and historic resources. Oversized Map 11 indicates by Florida Master Site File number the location of at least 200 archaeological sites. Due to the presence of numerous archaeological sites in the coastal area, the County "needs to establish a method to protect, preserve, and restore its historic resources." Coastal Element, page 13. Because the County has not adopted a local preservation ordinance, the Data and Analysis admit that "historic resource management efforts are not clearly defined." Coastal Element, page 60. However, the Data and Analysis indicate that provisions in the Future Land Use Element and Coastal Element will preserve the historic resources in the coastal area. 12. Coastal High Hazard Area and Hurricane Planning The entire Tampa Bay region: has been identified by the National Weather Service as one of the most hurricane- vulnerable areas of the United States, with the potential for large scale loss of life. Coastal Element, page 37. The vulnerability of the County and its residents to hurricanes is due to geography and land use. The proximity of large numbers of persons near Tampa Bay and residing in low- lying areas or mobile homes increases the risk of loss of life and property. The hurricane vulnerability analysis is based on the 100 year storm event or Category 3 hurricane, which produces winds of 111-130 miles per hour and storm surge of 12-18 feet above normal. The Data and Analysis define the hurricane vulnerability zone as the area from which persons must be evacuated in the event of a Category 3 hurricane. The Data and Analysis also identify the coastal high hazard area, which is the area from which persons must be evacuated in the event of the less intense Category 1 hurricane. The coastal high hazard area is also the velocity zone shown on maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Coastal Element Figure 18 depicts the coastal high hazard area as a strip of land fringing Tampa Bay. The northwest section of the coastal high hazard area between Pinellas County and Tampa is nearly one mile wide. The width of the coastal high hazard area from Tampa to Manatee County ranges from nonexistent to about 1.5 miles, and even more at the Little Manatee River, but averages about one mile. The Data and Analysis recognize the special planning issues that apply to the coastal high hazard area: The issue with respect to development in the coastal high hazard area is the protection of residents and the public expenditure of funds for areas that are subject to severe flooding from storm surge and rainfall and structure damage as a result of high winds. In addition to limiting development, the permitted development shall be designed to mitigate problems associated with stormwater runoff, wastewater treatment, and septic tanks. Coastal Element, page 61. Dealing with the provision of infrastructure in the coastal area, the Data and Analysis ask, but do not answer, the following questions: Does the provision of infrastructure encourage development of coastal areas? Should all citizens be required to bear the burden of increased public infrastructure cost in coastal areas? As development and redevelopment pressures continue in the coastal areas these questions and others must be answered. Coastal Element, page 64. Analysis of the County's hurricane preparedness requires consideration of the availability of shelters. The County has 46 primary shelters that, at the applicable ratio of 20 square feet per shelter resident, can accommodate about 59,000 persons. Unfortunately, about 60,000 of the 175,000 evacuees sought shelter space during Hurricane Elena, which, during the Labor Day weekend of 1985, came within 80 miles from the mouth of Tampa Bay. In any event, there is sufficient shelter space through 1995. Although secondary shelter space may be sufficient for awhile, the County will need more shelter space by 2000. Present estimated clearance times for hurricane evacuation range from 11-16 hours, depending upon the storm and evacuation conditions. After evaluating pre-landfall hazards, such as the inundation of low-lying evacuation routes, the clearance times are increased by 10 hours, so the range is 21-26 hours. Persons with special needs, which could enlarge the time needed for evacuation, have been encouraged to register with the County. The Data and Analysis inventory the hospitals and nursing homes whose occupants would need to evacuate in the event of a hurricane. Six of the 21 nursing homes and four of the 17 hospitals would be vulnerable to storm surge in a Category 3 storm. Tampa General, which is a County-operated facility, is subject to storm surge in a Category 1 storm, and the Data and Analysis warn that expansion plans should be carefully reviewed. Finding that clearance times of 11 and 16 hours are "acceptable," the Data and Analysis caution that the clearance times may increase as population increases in the Tampa Bay region. Options to be considered include exploration of vertical evacuation, discouragement of evacuation by nonvulnerable residents, expansion of road capacity, and imposition of the requirement that mobile home parks construct on-site shelter space. A variety of public infrastructure is contained in the coastal high hazard area. These public facilities include roads, bridges, and causeways; sanitary sewer facilities; potable water facilities; and shoreline protection structures. Private facilities include electric generating units and substations. The County does not own a sanitary sewer plant in the coastal high hazard area. But the County uses about 12% of the capacity of Tampa's Hookers Point plant, which is in the coastal high hazard area. The County owns three potable water facilities in the coastal high hazard area. A pump station and two elevated storage tanks are in the Apollo Beach area. In view of the vulnerability of parts of the County to a hurricane: government is responsible for ensuring that human life is protected and property damage is minimized in food-prone and coastal high hazard areas; that land use and development patterns are consistent with the vulnerable nature of the coastal high hazard and inland flood-prone areas; and that natural systems and vegetation that serve to reduce the impacts of severe weather are protected and preserved. In order to accomplish these ends, Hillsborough County must consider available options to reduce or limit exposure in the [coastal high hazard area]; develop guidelines/procedures for development in the [coastal high hazard area]; propose alternatives to reduce clearance times or reduce deficit public shelter space; and develop methods to redirect population concentrations away from the [coastal high hazard area]. Coastal Element, page 42. The Data and Analysis consider the question of post- hurricane redevelopment, which has not been an issue in the County since 1921, which marked the last time that a hurricane made landfall in Hillsborough County. After addressing the extent to which public funds might be available to assist in rebuilding infrastructure, the Data and Analysis confront the underlying issue whether infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area should be rebuilt in place or relocated outside the coastal high hazard area. The Data and Analysis conclude: A decision-making framework needs to be established by the County in order to determine if the infrastructure or facilities should be relocated, have structural modifications or be replaced. Coastal Element, page 45. The Data and Analysis recommend that decisions concerning redeveloping infrastructure be guided by the following factors: costs, environmental impacts, mitigative impacts, growth management consistency, impacts on the public, timeliness, legal issues, availability of funds, and necessity of infrastructure. 13. Air Quality The air quality in the Tampa urban area "is among the state's most polluted," but "severe conditions are often localized and short lived, due to prevailing winds and the area's non-confining topography." CARE, page 46. However, the Data and Analysis admit that "[a]ir quality in the Tampa Bay region . . . is degraded and in need of improvement relative to certain air pollutants." CARE, page 51. Of the six pollutants for which federal and state attainment standards exist, Hillsborough County is classified as non-attainment for ozone, for which automobile exhausts are indirectly responsible, and particulate matter. But point sources, especially power plants, are also responsible for air pollution. Since the mid 1970's, all criteria pollutants except ozone have decreased in the County. The Data and Analysis recommend "more stringent regulations and better compliance with existing regulations." CARE, page 52. Urban Sprawl Planning Strategy The Data and Analysis disclose that the County has adopted two major planning strategies. The Plan creates nodes and corridors and provides a range of lifestyles from the Urban to the Suburban to the Rural. The specific details of these planning strategies are found in the operative provisions of the Plan, which are set forth in the following section. However, the Data and Analysis offer a brief overview of the County's two major planning strategies. A node is a "focal point within the context of a larger, contiguous area surrounding it. It is an area of concentrated activity that attracts people from outside its boundaries for purposes of interaction within that area." Future Land Use Element (FLUE), page 8. The Data and Analysis explain that the Plan contains four types of nodes: high intensity nodes, which are for high intensity commercial uses, high density residential uses, and high concentration of government centers; mixed use regional nodes, which are for regional shopping centers, major office and employment areas, and sports and recreational complexes; community center nodes, which are focal points for surrounding neighborhoods; and neighborhood nodes, which are smaller scale community centers. Once nodes become established, "corridors" are intended to connect two or more nodes. Presently, the road network is the sole type of corridor. But mass transit may one day offer an alternative type of corridor. As part of the second major planning strategy, the Plan offers residents a variety of lifestyle options, primarily by varying residential densities. Population growth in Hillsborough County has historically radiated out from the central business district of Tampa. The emergence of nodes outside Tampa has altered this development pattern. The Plan's treatment of rural areas reflects the philosophy that "[r]ural areas need not be treated only as undeveloped lands waiting to become urban." FLUE, page 9. The Data and Analysis report that the Plan seeks to preserve the pastoral nature of the rural lifestyle by ensuring the availability of large lots for residential development. The size of the lots is in part driven by the absence of central water and sewer, so that individual wells and septic tanks will necessarily serve most rural development. In addition to providing small scale commercial uses at appropriate locations, the Data and Analysis recognize that the Plan must also ensure the preservation of unstructured open space, as well as competing rural uses, such as agriculture, that may not harmonize completely with adjacent residential development. The Data and Analysis describe the suburban residential option as part of a "gradual transition of land uses from very rural to more suburban blending into the urban environment." FLUE, page 10. Suburban areas would be accompanied by greater intensities of commercial uses and more extensive public facilities, as compared to the commercial uses and public facilities serving rural areas. The Data and Analysis describe densities of two or three dwelling units per acre on outlying suburban areas, gradually increasing to two to six dwelling units per acre on suburban areas closer to urban areas, and finally attaining even higher densities adjacent to the urban areas. Open space remains "quite important" for suburban areas and could be attained partially through clustering dwelling units. Id. The urban areas facilitate the provision of "very specialized public and private services that could not be justified anywhere else." FLUE, page 11. The Data and Analysis state: If the urban areas are permitted to increase their concentrations, it will lessen some of the development pressures in other areas of the County. One distinct advantage of intense urban development is that the potential, negative impacts of development upon the natural environment can be controlled more effectively. Additionally, the provision of public facilities is much more cost effective in the intense urban areas. Id. The Data and Analysis recognize the role of planning to ensure the attainment of the planning goals of the County: Hillsborough County has and will continue to experience a high population growth rate. Residential, commercial and industrial land development is expanding rapidly, and the County has been unable to keep pace with the demand for public facilities. The rapid rate of development has had many adverse impacts upon the environment, transportation, public facilities, historic resources and community design. . . . An overall, general guide to development outlining basic considerations during the development process is needed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Hillsborough County. FLUE, page 12. The Data and Analysis recognize that "much of the newer residential development is designed as enclaves with little or no functional linkages to the surrounding areas." FLUE, page 22. Addressing the linkage of residential to commercial uses, the Data and Analysis add: Commercial development has followed the sprawl of residential development into the County. Commercial strip development has been allowed to proceed relatively unchecked along the major arterials in the County creating undue congestion and safety hazards. A strong need was identified to develop a logical and functional method to determine the location and amount of future commercial development without interrupting the market system. FLUE, page 25. The Data and Analysis also address industrial and public facility land uses. The identification of specific areas for industrial development "will create a desirable development pattern that effectively maximizes the use of the land." FLUE, page 28. And the requirement that public facilities be available to serve new development "will create greater concentrations of land uses in the future." FLUE, page 27. 2. Existing Land Uses The Data and Analysis set forth the existing land uses by type and acreage. Using a total acreage for the County of 605,282 acres, the table of existing land uses by acreage, which is at page XVIII-B of the FLUE background document, divides developed land into four general categories: residential, commercial, industrial, and community facilities. Residential existing land uses total 73,104 acres. The total includes 55,546 acres of single family detached with an average density of 1.7 dwelling units per acre, 9709 acres of mobile home with an average density of 1.3 dwelling units per acre, 3643 acres of mobile home park with an average density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre, and 3006 acres of single family attached and multifamily with an average density of just under 12 dwelling units per acre. Commercial existing land uses total 8143 acres, consisting of 3613 acres of light commercial, 3029 acres of heavy commercial, 770 acres of transient lodging, and 731 acres of business and professional offices. Industrial existing land uses total 4122 acres, consisting of 1889 acres of heavy industrial, 1178 acres of warehouse and distribution, and 1055 acres of light industrial. Community facilities existing land uses, which consist of utilities, schools, and recreation/open space, total 19,439 acres, including 7981 acres of recreation/open space and 5200 acres of utilities. The remaining 500,474 acres in the County are divided into Natural, Agriculture, and Mining existing land uses. Natural existing land uses total 182,082 acres, consisting of 133,939 acres of woodlands and wetlands, 26,745 acres of vacant land in urban areas, and 21,398 acres of water. Agriculture existing land uses total 292,129 acres, including 104,870 acres of fenced pastureland, 103,773 acres of general agriculture, 40,600 acres of groves or orchards, and 38,867 acres of row crops. Mining existing land uses total 26,263 acres, consisting of 10,551 acres of active mines, 8655 acres of unreclaimed mined out areas, 6717 acres of reclaimed mines, and 340 acres of resource extraction. The County has prepared or obtained numerous existing land use maps (ELUM), either as small-scale maps contained in the two-volume compilation or as Oversized Maps. Most of the ELUM's have been described above. The ELUM's depict the Tampa Bay estuarine system including beaches and shores; rivers, bays, lakes, floodplains, and harbors; wetlands; minerals, soils, and sinkholes; natural systems and land use cover; areas of natural aquifer recharge and potential groundwater contamination; and various public facilities. ELUM's not previously described include Oversized Map 6, which is dated September, 1988, and is entitled Major Health and Education Facilities. Another Oversized Map dated February 1, 1988, shows the same types of facilities. Existing land uses are shown by a variety of maps. CARE Figure 20, which is the color map showing vegetative cover, provides some information as to the location of disturbed and undisturbed natural areas. Coastal Figure 1 shows existing land uses, but only for the coastal area. Those parts of the coastal high hazard area shown as vacant or agricultural or that otherwise received designations allowing higher densities or intensities are identified in Paragraphs 772 et seq. Most detailed is Oversized Map 2, which is the 1985 Generalized Land Use map. Oversized Map 2 shows the location of existing land uses by the following categories: agricultural and vacant, low density residential, medium and high density residential, commercial, industrial, major public, mining, and natural. As noted above, existing, major public supply wells are depicted on CARE Figure 18 and Oversized Map 18. The latter map also depicts 200-foot radii for "well protection areas." Oversized Map 18 also appears to depicts planned water wells, such as a cluster of four wells northeast of Brandon, which were omitted from CARE Figure 18. Other wells are also depicted on Oversized Map 18, but not CARE Figure 18, which thus appears to have been limited to existing wells. 3. Future Land Uses Under Plan The Data and Analysis accompanying the FLUE acknowledge that "[t]here are very few compact centers where commercial and residential uses interact positively in unincorporated Hillsborough County." FLUE, page 7. The projected population for unincorporated Hillsborough County in 2010 is 932,800, according to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. About 458,236 persons were projected to be residing, in 2010, in housing units existing in 1988. By land use category, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, the County has 283,195 vacant acres on which residential development is permitted under the Plan. The following table sets forth, by category, the vacant acreage, permitted maximum density (expressed as a ratio of dwelling units per gross acre), and population capacity. 8/ Land Use Category Density Vacant Acres Pop. Capacity Agricultural/Mining 1:20 66,122 9,092 Agricultural 1:10 20,162 5,545 Rural Agricultural 1:5 65,115 35,813 Rural Estate 1:2.5 8,617 9,479 Rural Residential 1:1 18,533 50,968 Rural Residential Plan 1:5 7,325 4,029 Low Sub. Density Resid. 2:1 14,388 79,134 Low Sub. Density Resid. Plan 1:5 20,326 11,179 Suburban Density Resid. 4:1 24,667 271,337 Low Density Residential 6:1 10,625 175,313 Low Medium Density Resid. 9:1 945 16,755 Medium Density Residential 12:1 1,290 30,496 High Density Residential 20:1 765 30,141 Urban Level 1 12:1 17,850 421,974 Urban Level 2 20:1 4,495 177,103 Urban Level 3 50:1 1,760 173,360 TOTALS 283,195 1,501,718 Dividing the total population capacity of 1,501,718 persons by the projected population of 932,800, the Plan has overallocated density by a factor of 1.61. Nonresidential uses for which the Plan allocates land include industrial and commercial uses. The industrial uses and respective acreages in the Plan are Light Industrial (12,789), Light Industrial--Planned (746), and Heavy Industrial (4721). The commercial uses and respective acreages in the Plan are Community Commercial (5538), Regional Commercial (678), Community Office (294), and Research Corporate Park (1411). The industrial uses cover a total of 18,256 acres, or 3.04% of the total of 600,409 acres in Hillsborough County. The commercial uses cover a total of 7921 acres, or a little more than 1% of the total acreage in the County. If the acreage designated as Urban Level 1, 2, and 3 is treated as commercial, then the total commercial acreage equals 8.79% of the County. The remaining categories on the Future Land Use Map and respective acreages are: Natural Preservation--23,313 acres; Environmentally Sensitive Areas--81,880 acres; Water--6026 acres; Recreation/Open Space--2310 acres; and Public/Semi- Public--4142 acres. Excluding the Public/Semi-Public category, the remaining four categories, which by varying degrees involve open space, constitute 113,526 acres, or about 19% of the County. In addition to the matter of density allocations, the use of land involves the places where the County has chosen to locate its densities. CARE Figure 2 shows the location of the population in 1985. For unincorporated Hillsborough County, only about 45,000 persons lived south of the Alafia River with about two-thirds living west of I-75. Roughly 150,000 persons lived in northwest Hillsborough County, and another 150,000 persons lived in central Hillsborough County between the Alafia River and I-4. The remaining (as shown on Figure 2) 50,000 persons lived east of I-75 and north of I-4 in northcentral and northeast Hillsborough County. Oversized Map 14 shows areas of density changes effected by the Plan and revisions to a pre-1985 Act plan applicable to I-75 and south Hillsborough County that took place shortly before the adoption of the Plan and were incorporated into the Plan. Oversized Map 14 discloses large areas of density increases in the following locations, among others: the part of the coastal high hazard area between Cockroach Bay and the mouth of the Little Manatee River; an area immediately across US 41 from the previously described area and bounded by the Little Manatee River on the north and I-75 on the east; almost the entire I-75 corridor that is designated nearly exclusively Urban Level 1 and Urban Level 3; a large expanse of land designated mostly Low Suburban Density Residential Planned along the railroad right-of-way that is to be converted into a two-lane road, at least part of which is to be known as the Jim Selvey Highway; an area of Medium Density Residential just north of the mouth of the Little Manatee River near Ruskin; the northcentral area from I-75 and I-275 to the Hillsborough River; and relatively large portions of the north and west halves of northwest Hillsborough County, including almost the entire northwest corner of the County to Gunn Highway (east of Keystone Lake). Oversized Map 13 is the Vacant Land Suitability Analysis, which shows the location of critical lands or soils with very severe limitations, presumably with reference to the location of predominantly vacant lands. The range of soils with very severe limitations includes the entire coastal high hazard area, much of the corridors of the Little Manatee and Alafia Rivers, the Hillsborough River valley, several areas of about 1.5 square miles each in northwest Hillsborough County, much of the land north of the northernmost extent of Tampa and just east of I-275, and an L-shaped area east of I-75 and straddling Big Bend Road, as well as area just to the south of the L-shaped area. Lands of varying degrees of sensitivity are located throughout the areas of very severely limited soils. Locations of the two most critical classes of land are widely distributed among the phosphate mining area in southeast Hillsborough County and along the major southern tributary of the Alafia River, near Cockroach Bay and the mouth of the Little Manatee River, at the southeast and northwest ends of the coastal high hazard area of northwest Hillsborough County, just east of I-275 and I-75, in the Hillsborough River valley, and along the Alafia River and its northern tributary. Locations of the two less critical classes of land, but nevertheless sensitive or very sensitive, include areas along Big Bend Road at I-75, east of I-75 north of Big Bend Road, and in the northwest corner and northern half of northwest Hillsborough County. 4. Use of Public Facilities Under Plan Acknowledging that high population growth has contributed to many of Hillsborough County's problems, such as "infrastructure inadequacies," the Data and Analysis concede: The extension of public facilities has lagged behind the unincorporated County's rapid growth. One of the consequences of growth outpacing the provision of services and facilities is the development of outlying large lot residential with onsite water and sewer facilities (septic tanks, wells). The historic lack of services has continued to strain the county's fiscal ability to respond to these needs, and there will be a greater need for more intensive functional planning and action by county government. FLUE, pages 6-7. Part of the difficulty in matching population growth with public facilities has been due to historic land use patterns. The Data and Analysis note: There are very few compact centers where commercial and residential uses interact positively in unincorporated Hillsborough County. Threshold population densities needed to support many services do not exist in most parts of the County. The cost of providing services such as water, sewer, roads, mass transit, schools, fire and police protection are much higher per capita in low density areas than in more urban areas. Concentration of new development in areas with adequate levels of service for public facilities will create a more effective and efficient utilization of man-made and natural resources and encourage the full use and immediate expansion of existing public facilities while protecting large areas of the natural environment from encroachment. The concentration of new development in areas with adequate levels of service will also fulfill the requirement of subsection 9J-5.006(3)(b)7 to discourage urban sprawl. FLUE, page 7. Protection of Natural Resources Under Plan The Data and Analysis link effective land use planning with the protection of the County's natural resources and preservation of County residents' quality of life: . . . growth will continue to challenge and threaten the natural environment as daily development decisions confront the long-range need to preserve and protect irreplaceable natural environmental systems. Unplanned, rapid population growth will degrade the unincorporated county's environment. Development will encroach upon valuable wellfields and wildlife habitat and may further pollute the County's freshwater aquifers. One of the County's major needs is to assure the protection and viability of green open spaces and environmentally significant areas, which are crucial to the community's quality of life and economic health. The unincorporated County's potential to maintain and improve the quality of life for its residents will be contingent upon its ability to adequately serve existing and future demands for services. FLUE, page 7. 6. Protection of Agriculture Under Plan The Data and Analysis contain a position paper concerning agricultural issues. The paper reports that agriculture is the County's single largest industry, and Hillsborough County is the third largest agricultural county in the state. According to the position paper, the trend in agriculture in Hillsborough County has been toward increased productivity through improved technology and transition to the production of more profitable commodities. The position paper argues that the viability of agriculture is not dependent upon the maintenance of low residential densities to discourage the conversion of agricultural land to residential uses. Advocating reliance upon free-market forces to maintain the competitiveness between agricultural and residential uses, the position paper concedes that a density of one dwelling unit per five acres is "not low enough to discourage sale of the property for five acre ranchettes[, which] promote high consumption of land for housing and remove the land for agricultural production." FLUE Background Document, page XLVII. Plan Provisions The FLUM The subject cases present two problems regarding the FLUM. The first problem is to identify what constitutes the FLUM. The second problem is to determine the significance of one of the major designations on the FLUM: Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In its proposed recommended order, the County asserts that the FLUM consists of a series of maps. 9/ This assertion is groundless. Neither the Plan nor the adoption ordinance provides any basis whatsoever for finding that the FLUM comprises all of the maps and figures contained in Sierra Club Exhibit A local government must adopt operative provisions, such as a FLUM or goals, objectives, or policies. Hillsborough County did not adopt all of the Oversized Maps or the maps and figures in the two-volume compilation of the Plan. Hillsborough County adopted the Plan in Ordinance No. 89-28. The ordinance delineates the scope of the operative provisions of the Plan by noting that the Data and Analysis, or "background information," are not part of the operative provisions of the Plan: Material identified as background information in the Table of Contents for each Element, including data, analysis, surveys and studies, shall not be deemed a part of the Comprehensive Plan as provided in Subsection 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes. The Plan clearly includes among its operative provisions a FLUM. Several provisions describe the role of the FLUM and, in so doing, help identify what the County adopted as the FLUM. In the Introduction to the FLUE, the Data and Analysis state: "The policies of [the FLUE] are presented in written form, and they are graphically represented on the Future Land Use Map." FLUE, page 5. The Data and Analysis elaborate: The [FLUE] consists of two parts: Goals, Objectives and Policies; and a Future Land Use Map (Land Use Graphic), a copy of which is attached, and incorporated hereby by reference. FLUE, page 11. Operative provisions of the Plan likewise recognize the FLUM and its role as part of the operative provisions of the Plan. For instance, the Plan Implementation section of the FLUE begins: The primary tool of implementation for the [FLUE] are the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Plan Categories. These are followed by other implementation tools that further define the intent of the Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Plan Categories. They include: locational criteria for neighborhood commercial uses; criteria for development within designated scenic corridors; and density credits. The Future Land Use Map is a graphic illustration of the county's policy governing the determination of its pattern of development in the unincorporated areas of Hillsborough County through the year 2010. The map is adopted for use as an integral part of the [FLUE]. It depicts, using colors, patterns, and symbols, the locations of certain land uses and man-made features and the general boundaries of major natural features. The Future Land Use Map shall be used to make an initial determination regarding the permissible locations for various land uses and the maximum possible levels of residential densities and/or non-residential intensities, subject to any special density provisions and exceptions of the [FLUE] text. Additionally, each regulation or regulatory decision and each development proposal shall comply with all applicable provisions within the . . . Plan. FLUE, page 54. The Legal Status of the Plan section of the FLUE adds: The Future Land Use Map is an integral part of this [FLUE], and it shall be used to determine the permissible locations for various land uses and the maximum possible levels of residential densities and/or non- residential intensities. The goals, objectives and policies of this [FLUE] shall provide guidance in making these determinations. FLUE, page 129. The FLUM at least includes a multicolor map entitled 2010 Land Use Plan Map. The multicolor map depicts the location of various future land uses, man-made features, and natural resources. The importance of the multicolor map is underscored by its relatively large scale of 1" = 1 mile. The only maps drawn on such a large scale are a black and white copy of the multicolor map and a green map, which is discussed below. The Oversized Maps discussed in this recommended order are drawn to a scale of 1" = 2 miles. The question remains, however, whether the FLUM includes maps or figures in addition to the multicolor map. The FLUE defines the FLUM as: The graphic aid intended to depict the spatial distribution of various uses of the land in the County by land use category, subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and the exceptions and provisions of the [FLUE] text and applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 137. Consistent with the discussion of the FLUM contained in the Plan Implementation section of the FLUE, the multicolor map is the only map that depicts future land uses by colors, patterns, and symbols. No other map uses colors except for CARE Figure 20, which is the Natural Systems and Land Use Cover Inventory. CARE Figure 20 is obviously an ELUM with no designation of future land uses. With the exception of the green map discussed below, no other map uses any color whatsoever. The above-cited Plan references to the FLUM are in the singular. The FLUM is identified in the singular throughout the Data and Analysis set forth in the two-volume compilation of the Plan. See, e.g., FLUE pages 55, 56, 69, 70, 75, 94, and 137. 10/ With one exception, operative provisions of the Plan also refer to the FLUM in the singular. See, e.g., FLUE Policies A-3.2, B- 6.2, B- 6.7, B-7.9, and C-31 and Coastal Policy 7.1. But see CARE Policy 19.8, which requires the County to identify "Resource Protection Areas" on the Future Land Use Map "series." DCA referred to a single FLUM when DCA issued the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) concerning the Plan as first transmitted. The County prepared detailed responses to the objections, recommendations, and comments. Three responses refer at length to the FLUM and refer to it in the singular, rather than as a map series. Hillsborough County Exhibit 35, responses 4, 8, and 26. Response 29 to the ORC answers the objection that the FLUM (in the singular) omits existing and planned waterwells, the cones of influence for such waterwells, and wetlands. The response states: Cones of influence have not been identified for Hillsborough County. Objective 5 of the [CARE] and its subsequent policies outline the County's strategy with regard to protecting its wellfields. Because of the multitude of wetlands in Hillsborough County and the lack of exact mapping capability, the "E" area on the land use plan map is indicative of major areas of hydric soils (per USDA Soil Conservation Services, Soil Suitability Atlas for Hillsborough County, Florida) of a scale to be seen on the map. Actual wetlands must be delineated by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County prior to site development. Minerals and Soils are indicated on Figures 9 and 10 of the [CARE] of the Plan. The rest of the parameters will all be included on the revised existing land use map. Despite the confusion in the last two sentences of the response between the nature of ELUM's and FLUM's, the response is consistent in its presumption of a single FLUM, rather than a map series. Until the commencement of Plan litigation, 11/ the County did not consider the FLUM to be more than the multicolor map. Repeatedly, the County had opportunities--outside of the Plan and adoption ordinance--to identify the FLUM. Repeatedly, the County did not confer the FLUM status upon any map other than the multicolor map. Oversized Map 18 is an important example of the Plan identifying a map, but not adopting it as part of the FLUM. Describing Oversized Map 18, CARE Policy 5.8 states: By 1993, the County shall have developed and implemented a comprehensive wellfield protection program, which includes but is not limited to the determination and mapping of zones of contribution (also known as cones of influence) surrounding public wellfields and the adoption and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance which protects these areas. In the interim, the County shall use the best available information to identify these areas. See map 18, Interim Wellfield Protection Areas . . .. CARE Policy 5.8 assigns Oversized Map 18 to the Data and Analysis, rather than the operative part of the Plan. The County's intent to relegate Oversized Map 18 to the Data and Analysis is restated in the March 14, 1990, cover letter from the County Planning Director transmitting the settlement amendments to DCA. The letter states: "The documents are incorporated by reference for background for informational purposes only." Oversized Map 18 is the first of the listed documents. The Plan deals similarly with other maps and figures; as better information becomes available, the graphic aids that are part of the Data and Analysis may change--without the requirement of a Plan amendment. For example, CARE Policy 5.2 mentions the DRASTIC maps, which indicate areas susceptible to groundwater contamination. In language similar to CARE Policy 5.8, Policy 5.2 states that the County will use the "best available information" concerning groundwater contamination areas and then mentions the graphic aid. Another possible FLUM is a black-and-white map with green and dotted green areas on a scale of 1" = 1 mile. The green colors are overlaid on a black-and-white version of the multicolor map. The green map contains a special legend for the green areas. The solid green areas depict "Environmentally Sensitive Areas." The dotted green areas depict "Environmentally Sensitive Areas Which Are Potentially Significant Wildlife Habitat." Notwithstanding the many references to the FLUM in the singular, the Plan anticipates the possible amendment of the FLUM or the addition of an overlay to show the location of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. CARE Policy 14.2 states: By 1991, the County shall identify and map natural plant communities which are determined to provide significant wildlife habitat in Hillsborough County. The natural systems and land use cover inventory map ([CARE] Figure 20), produced by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, shall serve as the basis for this effort. Areas of significant wildlife habitat shall be indicated as environmentally sensitive areas on the Future Land Use Map or map overlay. The green map may be the map or overlay promised by CARE Policy 14.2. 12/ However, for purposes of these cases, the green map is not part of the FLUM. The green map had not been adopted by August 1, 1991, or even by the time of the final hearing. Transcript, pages 1095 and 1105; County's Proposed Recommended Order, Paragraph 180. In view of the considerable confusion surrounding the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, as explained below, it would be unfair to overlook this fact and treat the green map as part of the operative provisions of the Plan. Because of the clear understanding that the Plan included only amendments through August 1, 1991, the parties presumably did not take the opportunity to litigate the significance of the designations contained on the green map. Even though the County did not adopt the green map as part of the FLUM, for the purpose of these cases, it remains necessary to consider the effect of the Environmentally Significant Areas designation. The designation is found on the multicolor map (i.e., the FLUM) as well as the green map. Also, the green map is an important part of the Data and Analysis. The problem is to determine what does it mean for an area to bear the designation of Environmentally Significant Areas. Part of the confusion surrounding the Environmentally Significant Areas designation is due to its dual nature as an overlay, like Scenic Corridors, and underlying designation, like Suburban Density Residential or Light Industrial. An overlay typically depicts an area that, notwithstanding its underlying designation, is subject to special land use conditions in the Plan. Any underlying designation may and usually is subject to other provisions of a comprehensive plan, but an overlay ensures that these conditions are not overlooked and may elevate them in importance. The Environmentally Significant Areas designation on the multicolor map is never an overlay. For each area on the multicolor map designated Environmentally Significant Areas, there is no other designation. For this reason alone, the Environmentally Significant Areas designation itself should regulate land uses in some meaningful fashion; otherwise, areas so designated would lack generally applicable guidelines concerning permissible densities and intensities. However, according to the County Planning Director, the Environmentally Significant Areas does not regulate land uses. The Planning Director prepared a cover letter dated September 4, 1991, to DCA accompanying the first round of Plan amendments in 1991. The letter explains why the County was amending the Plan to redesignate certain County-owned, environmentally sensitive land from Environmentally Significant Areas to Natural Preservation. The letter states: We still recommend that these areas be changed to Natural/Preservation, since the "E" [Environmentally Significant Areas] designation is an identification only land use category to indicate that environmentally sensitive lands may be located on site. However, that category in and of itself does not regulate land uses on a site. The Natural/Preservation category is very restrictive and does not permit development on a site. Sierra Club Exhibit 1. From the letter, it appears that the County's intent was to use the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation merely to indicate the general location of critical natural resources, rather than to assign specific densities and intensities. In other words, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation was to be merely an overlay showing some of the natural resources required by Chapter 9J-5 to be shown on the FLUM. If any land use restrictions applied to land with an Environmentally Sensitive Areas overlay, the Planning Director's letter implies that the restrictions were not imposed by textual Plan provisions defining land uses under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation. Under this interpretation, land use restrictions could be imposed by textual Plan provisions that, although never mentioning Environmentally Sensitive Areas, govern natural resources included within such areas, such as wetlands, wildlife habitat, or sand pine scrub habitat. Clearly, the Planning Director is correct in writing that one purpose of the Environmentally Significant Areas designation is to indicate the location of environmentally sensitive lands. The real question is whether the Planning Director is correct in his assertion that the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is merely locational and not regulatory. This would mean that all of the land designated Environmentally Significant Areas on the multicolor map bears only a designation indicative of the location of certain natural resources, but lacks an effective, generalized land use designation. The Plan defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas; in fact, it does so twice. The CARE defines "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" as: Lands which, by virtue of some qualifying environmental characteristic (e.g. wildlife habitat) are regulated by either the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, or any other governmental agency empowered by law for such regulation. These include Conservation and Preservation Areas as defined in the [CARE]. CARE, page 97. The CARE defines "Conservation Areas" as: Environmentally sensitive areas which include the following: --Natural shorelines (other than those included in preservation areas); --Class III Waters; --Freshwater marshes and wet prairies; --Sand-pine scrub; --Hardwood swamps; --Cypress swamps; --Significant wildlife habitat. CARE, page 96. The CARE defines "Preservation Areas" as: Environmentally sensitive areas which include the following: --Aquatic preserves; --Essential wildlife habitat; --Class I and II Waters: --Marine grassbeds; --Coastal strand; --Coastal marshes; --Mangrove swamps; and --State wilderness areas. CARE, page 99. "Significant wildlife habitat" is "[c]ontiguous stands of natural plant communities which have the potential to support healthy and diverse populations of wildlife and which have been identified on the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission natural systems and land use cover inventory map." CARE, page 100. "Essential Wildlife Habitat" is "[l]and or water bodies which, through the provision of breeding or feeding habitat, are necessary to the survival of endangered or threatened species, or species of special concern." CARE, page 97. The FLUE defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas as: This land use category is used to designate those major, privately owned lands which are environmentally sensitive. These areas include Conservation Areas and Preservation Areas, as defined in the [CARE]. Development in these areas may be is [sic] restricted by federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations. Development projects will be evaluated for compliance with the [CARE] and [Coastal Element]. The Environmentally Sensitive Area designations on the Future Land Use Plan map are very generalized, and include primarily wetland areas. The designations are not exhaustive of all sites. On-site evaluation will be necessary for specific project review. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the [FLUE], [CARE], and [Coastal Element], applicable development regulations, and established locational criteria for specific land use. FLUE, page 136-37. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE 13/ does not repeat the typographical error in the preceding Plan provision, in which the Plan warns that development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas "may be is" restricted by federal, state, or local law. The definition of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation in the Land Use Plan Categories section omits the "is," implying more strongly that some development may take place on Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE, page 126. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE equates in two respects the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation with the Natural Preservation, Scenic Corridors, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations. In each of these five designations, residential densities and commercial or industrial intensities (expressed as maximum floor area ratios) are "not applicable." For the Natural Preservation, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations, the "not applicable" statement reflects the fact that residential, commercial, and industrial uses are prohibited by the land use designation in question. However, for the Scenic Corridors designation, which operates more as an overlay, the Plan provides no such prohibition, instead requiring special attention to aesthetic features of development in these areas. Thus, the "not applicable" language applicable to the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not answer the question whether the designation is regulatory or merely locational and, if the former, what land uses are thereby regulated and how. The question whether the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation operates as a locational overlay, as suggested by the Planning Director's letter of September 4, 1991, seems to be answered by the Table of Residential Densities in the Implementation section of the FLUE. For the Scenic Corridor designation, the Table of Residential Densities indicates that the maximum residential density allowed is, instead of a ratio, "Overlay--Scaled to Area." But for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the Table of Residential Densities states that "no residential uses [are] allowed" for Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE, page 62. The Table of Residential Densities gives the same response for the Natural Preservation, Major Recreation and Open Space, and Major Public/Semi-Public designations. The failure of the Table of Residential Densities to assign any residential density to Environmentally Sensitive Areas is not inadvertent. The Data and Analysis indicate that, in calculating density allocations, the vast acreage designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas was not given any residential density. In the FLUE Background Document at page XXVIII, a table listing all of the FLUM designations shows no density for the 81,880 acres of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which account for 13.64% of acreage of the County and is the second largest designation following 89,267 acres designated Agricultural/Rural. The density allocation table preceding page XXX contains no entry for Environmentally Sensitive Areas, although much if not all of the area so designated is vacant (or as the County classifies land, vacant or agricultural). The omission of residential uses in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as contained in the Table of Residential Densities, suggests that the designation carries a regulatory force beyond the locational character identified by the Planning Director in his letter of September 4, 1991. Natural resources included within the definition of Environmentally Sensitive Areas are wetlands, sand pine scrub, wildlife habitat essential for the breeding or nesting of endangered, threatened, or special-concern species, and contiguous stands of natural plant communities with the potential to support healthy and diverse communities of wildlife. Some of these natural resources are not themselves unconditionally protected by textual Plan provisions. But if the Environmentally Sensitive Areas containing these natural resources are not assigned any residential uses, as the Table of Residential Densities implies, then the designation itself must preclude the conversion of these sensitive areas to residential uses. On the other hand, the textual Plan provisions contemplate some development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas because of various provisions requiring compensatory replacement following the loss of the natural resources to development. Despite implying that development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas may be permitted, as long as it complies with Plan provisions, the Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE states that the typical use of areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas is "Conservation." Although not the same typical use as that set forth for Natural Preservation areas, which are limited to "Open space or passive nature parks," the definition of "Conservation Uses" is restrictive: Activities within land areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources of environmental quality and includes areas designated for such purposes as flood control, protection of quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, floodplain management, fisheries management, or protection of vegetative communities or wildlife habitat. FLUE, page 135. At times in the Plan, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation appears to be merely locational. At times, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation appears to be regulatory. In the latter case, portions of the Plan suggest that the designation prohibits development, and portions of the Plan suggest only that the designation, standing alone, carries with it some degree of protection from development. FLUE Policy A-8.2 says as much: "Development shall be required to protect the Conservation and Preservation areas " But even if the Plan were interpreted to impose a regulatory functional upon the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the failure of the Plan to specify clearly the land use restrictions generally applicable to the designation leaves open to doubt the land uses permitted on over 13% of Hillsborough County. And if some residential development were permitted in areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, then the density allocation ratios have been calculated without regard to the density-bearing capacity of over 13% of the County. The FLUE definition of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which states that development "may be is" restricted in such areas, may represent a unique, though inadvertent, disclosure of the County's ambivalence toward the degree of protection to extend to Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Perhaps in the belief that land use restrictions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas would emanate from federal, state, regional, or even other local governmental entities, 14/ the County has left to speculation the meaning of the critically important Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation. The only clear significance of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is the role of areas bearing such a designation in calculating residential densities or commercial or industrial intensities. The acreage on which residential densities are calculated does not generally include Conservation or Preservation Areas or water bodies. (As noted above, Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation "include[s]" Conservation and Preservation Areas.) But the calculation of gross residential density may include acreage consisting of certain man-made waterbodies and certain Conservation and Preservation Areas. The qualification for Conservation and Preservation Areas is that the maximum area of such land (or wetland) is 25% of the total residential acreage. FLUE, pages 64-66. A similar provision applies for the calculation of floor area ratios or gross nonresidential intensity. FLUE, pages 67- 68. Illustrations in the FLUE apply the density formula described in the preceding paragraph. For example, if the proposed project consists of 80 acres, including 20 acres of land (or wetland) designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the total acreage upon which residential densities could be calculated would be 75 acres. This result is reached by starting with the 60 acres of proposed residential use that are not designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Twenty-five percent of 60 acres is 15 acres, which is the maximum acreage designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas that is eligible to be included in the calculation of gross residential density. The designation given the 60 acres would allow a density, such as 4:1, which, when applied to 75 acres, yields 300 dwelling units. The implied presumption of the density formula--stated nowhere in the Plan--is that areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas acquire their actual land use restrictions, in terms of densities or intensities, from the adjoining lands. The intent of the density credit allowed for areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas is to protect the subject natural resources. FLUE Policy A-8.4 provides for density credits for development that is "sensitive to, preserves and maintains the integrity of wetlands [and] significant wildlife habitat." Again, though, the degree and type of protection are unclear. The density formula may be interpreted to prohibit inferentially any disturbance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In other words, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas acreage used in calculating the density bonus or perhaps the entire Environmentally Sensitive Areas acreage (even if some acreage were excluded from the calculation due to the 25% limitation) could not be disturbed by development. However, another interpretation is possible. The density formula, which is mandatorily imposed on all proposed projects containing Environmentally Sensitive Areas, does not, by its terms, prescribe where the resulting development is to be located. In the example above, the density formula effectively reduced the density of a project by 20 dwelling units (80 acres X 4 vs. 75 acres X 4). But the formula does not explicitly prohibit the location of some of the 300 permitted units in areas designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 15/ If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not prohibit development, some degree of protection would be theoretically possible by reducing the actual density occupying the parcel containing Environmentally Sensitive Areas while still not actually prohibiting the location of dwelling units on all Environmentally Sensitive Areas. It is difficult to infer from the density formula whether the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is intended to prohibit the development of areas so designated or, if not, to what extent the designation restricts development of such areas. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation does not regulate land uses so as to prohibit the development of areas so designated, the formula provides some protection to Environmentally Sensitive Areas by increasing the chance that such areas may be less densely populated, but also supplies the basis on which densities or intensities for areas designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas are to be inferred. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation regulates land uses so as to prohibit the development of areas so designated, the formula can be interpreted as providing some compensation by allowing the use of some of the foregone development rights in adjoining areas under common ownership that are not designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The question whether the density formula, as well as the closely related intensity formula, prohibit the development of Environmentally Sensitive Areas can be approached by considering another density formula. The upland forest density credit incentive, which is identified in FLUE Policy A-8.3, is described in detail in the Implementation section of the FLUE. The failure of the density formula, as well as the intensity formula, to prohibit the disturbance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas stands in contrast to the protection extended by the upland forest density credit incentive. The upland forest density credit incentive provides a bonus of 25% more density than otherwise allowed by a specific designation to the extent of the upland forest 16/ acreage preserved by the project. In other words, a 100-acre parcel designated at 1:1 might include 25 acres of upland forests within the single residential designation covering the entire 100 acres. If the proposed project preserved the 25 acres of upland forest from development, the 25 dwelling units attributable to the 25 acres are increased to 31.25 dwelling units and raise the total number of dwelling units to 106.25. Unlike the density and intensity formulas, the upland forest density credit incentive requires the landowner to record a conservation easement for the 25 acres of upland forest, so that this land may never be developed. FLUE, pages 71-73. The different approaches of the density and intensity formulas, on the one hand, and the upland forest density credit incentive, on the other hand, may arise partly from the fact that the latter formula is an incentive for which a landowner may qualify voluntarily. Upland forests would generally not be preserved by the Plan in the absence of the utilization of the upland forest density credit incentive. Regardless of their effect in preserving Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the density and intensity formulas are not optional; they are imposed whenever a proposed development contains Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Part of the discussion of the upland forest density incentive credit may shed some light on the meaning of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, especially as it concerns the density and intensity formulas. The upland forest density incentive credit repeatedly refers to the density formula as involving wetlands or the protection of wetlands. Although wetlands make up a substantial part of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas, numerous uplands also qualify as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Qualifying uplands include significant and essential wildlife habitat, as well as sand pine scrub (which is also included as an upland forest). Possibly the County incorrectly assumed that the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation was limited to wetlands, or perhaps the designation was so limited in an earlier draft of the Plan. In either event, the County may have assumed that federal, state, regional, and other local restrictions against disturbing wetlands would effectively prevent the development of such Environmentally Sensitive Areas, or at least clearly regulate the extent to which such areas could be disturbed. As noted above, however, the Plan itself must supply such regulation through a generalized land use designation. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is poorly integrated into the Plan. Plan provisions, including the density and intensity formulas, repeatedly address "wetlands" or "Conservation" or "Preservation" Areas, rather than Environmentally Sensitive Areas. If the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation were not intended to regulate land uses and prohibit all development, but were merely locational as indicated by the Planning Director, then the Plan is deficient in failing to assign a regulatory land use designation to over 80,000 acres, or 13.64%, of the County. For these vast areas, in any event, the Plan provides no direct, and arguably not even any indirect, guidance as to what densities or intensities are permitted on Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from the Plan concerning that Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is that it is, at least, locational. The designation shows where Conservation and Preservation Areas are located. The designation also serves to provide some protection to Environmentally Sensitive Areas through the density and intensity formulas. However, it may not be reasonably concluded that the density and intensity formulas prohibit the destruction of Environmentally Sensitive Areas by development. Nor can it be reasonably concluded that other provisions of the Plan preserve Environmentally Sensitive Areas, as such, from destruction or alteration by development. The full extent of the meaning of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation is lost in ambiguity. The FLUM does not identify existing and future potable water wellfields. The FLUM fails even to show the location of existing major public supply wellfields, as depicted in CARE Figure 18 and Oversized Map 18. The FLUM does not identify cones of influence for the existing wellfields to the extent known. Figures 32 and 33 of Sierra Club Exhibit 12 pertain to four wellfields located entirely in Hillsborough County and two wellfields located partly in the County. For these wellfields, which are located in the northern part of the County, Figures 32 and 33 respectively portray a wide-ranging decline in water table elevations and potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer due to wellfield pumpage. This information corresponds to drawdown depth of the source from which each wellfield draws its water. Even if these data sources are rejected in favor of the much more limited 200-foot protection zones outlined in Oversized Map 18, the County has failed to adopt Oversized Map 18 as part of the FLUM, as described in the preceding section. The FLUM does not identify historic resources or historically significant properties meriting protection. Oversized Maps 11 and 12 depict respectively Archaeological Sites and Historic Resources. However, these maps are not part of the FLUM. The FLUM does not depict the 100 year floodplain. Oversized Map 9 depicts the 100 year floodplain, massive amounts of which lie outside the future land use designations of Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Natural Preservation. But Oversized Map 9 is not part of the FLUM. The FLUM does not depict the minerals and soils of the County, except to the extent that minerals are contained in a general land use designation. CARE Figure 9 depicts soils and mine pits. Oversized Maps 8 and 10 also depict soils and mine lands. However, these maps are not part of the FLUM. The FLUM depicts wetlands. The designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the FLUM (i.e., the multicolor map) includes wetlands. The FLUM depicts public facilities under the category of Major Public/Semi-Public and Electric Power Generating Facilities. The former category shows the location of, among other things, "churches, hospitals, schools, clubs and utility and transportation facilities." FLUE, page 122. The Plan Natural Resources CARE Objective 2 is: By 1995, the water quality of natural surface water bodies in Hillsborough County which do not meet or exceed state water quality standards for their designated use shall be improved or restored. CARE Policy 2.1 provides: The County shall not support the reclassification of any surface water body within County boundaries to acknowledge lower water quality conditions, unless necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. Where economically feasible, the County shall support the reclassification of surface water bodies to accommodate higher standards, where it can be demonstrated that improved water quality conditions will prevail in the future. The CARE defines "economically feasible" as follows: "Where the benefit to the public outweighs the cost of the action, and is within the County's capability to fund." CARE, page 96. CARE Policy 2.2 addresses the problem of wastewater discharges: The County shall require that all domestic wastewater treatment plans discharging effluent into Tampa Bay or its tributaries provide advanced wastewater treatment, or if specific alternative criteria developed by the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program can only be met by removing a surface water discharge, such a program shall be implemented, where economically feasible and in accordance with Policy 2.3 below. CARE Policy 2.3 requires the County to "continue to develop and promote environmentally acceptable effluent disposal alternatives to surface water discharge, including, but not limited to, reuse for irrigation and industrial purposes." Dealing with the problem of short-term solutions to sewage disposal, CARE Policy 2.4 states: To reduce the need for interim domestic wastewater treatment plants, the County shall plan for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities to serve areas designated for higher densities in the . . . Plan. CARE Policy 2.6 provides that, "where economically feasible," the County "shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to developed areas where persistent water quality problems are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic treatment systems." CARE Policy 2.7 further addresses the issue of septic tanks by providing that, by 1990, the County shall "request or initiate" agreements with third parties to develop "scientifically defensible siting criteria, performance standards, and density limitations for septic systems, to ensure protection of surface water quality." The policy adds that the County shall "request . . . special criteria and standards . . . for those septic systems to be located in areas adjacent to Class I and Class II Waters and Outstanding Florida Waters." The policy concludes with the promise that, within one year after the development of the criteria and standards, the County "shall amend appropriate development regulations" accordingly. CARE Policy 2.8 provides in part: Where economically and environmentally feasible, [a nutrient monitoring and control program for agriculture to be developed after 1995] shall require the implementation of Best Management Practices for controlling nutrient loadings, including retrofitting if needed to meet specific alternative criteria as established by the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program. The CARE defines "environmentally feasible" as follows: "Where the physical conditions or the necessity to protect natural resources do not preclude the action." CARE, page 97. CARE Policy 2.10 states: By 1991, the County shall require that existing developments planned for expansion, modification or replacement provide or support stormwater treatment improvements within the affected drainage basin where treatment facilities are lacking. Where economically and environmentally feasible, the County shall require retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities in urbanized areas lacking such facilities. CARE Objective 3 is "no net loss of wetland acreage." The objective requires the County to "seek to achieve a measurable annual increase in restored wetland acreage," which shall be achieved by 1995 "through the restoration of degraded natural wetlands, until all economically and environmentally feasible wetland restoration is accomplished." CARE Policy 3.1 states that the County shall "continue to conserve and protect wetlands from detrimental physical and hydrological alteration and shall continue to allow wetland encroachment only as a last resort when reasonable use of the property is otherwise unavailable." CARE Policy 3.2 provides in part: Channelization or hardening (e.g., paving, piping) of natural streamcourses shall be prohibited except in cases of overriding public interest. The CARE defines "overriding public interest" as: "Actions required by local, state, or federal government, necessary for the promotion of public safety, health or general welfare." CARE, page 99. CARE Policy 3.6 is for the County to continue to promote through the development review process the use of desirable native wetland habitat species for the creation of wetland habitat and for biologically enhancing filtration and treatment of pollutants in newly constructed stormwater retention and detention ponds. CARE Objective 4 is: The County shall continue to prevent net loss of 100-year floodplain storage volume in Hillsborough County. By 1995, the County shall protect and conserve natural wildlife habitat attributes where they exist within the 100-year floodplains of major rivers and streams. CARE Policy 4.1 is for the County to amend its floodplain management regulations to "protect natural floodwater assimilating capacity [and] also protect fish and wildlife attributes where they exist within the 100-year floodplains of riverine systems." CARE Objective 5 is for the County to ensure compliance with state groundwater standards. CARE Policy 5.2 provides that, until the Southwest Florida Water Management District maps high aquifer recharge/contamination potential areas at a sufficient resolution, the County shall consider the best available hydrogeological information (e.g. SWFWMD DRASTIC maps), and may require the collection of site specific hydrogeologic data, such as soils borings and differences in head between the upper aquifers, when assessing the impacts of proposed land use changes and developments in areas of suspected high aquifer recharge/contamination potential. When required, this information shall be used in the determination of land use decisions, on a case-by-case basis. CARE Policy 5.5 refers to the high resolution mapping of recharge/contamination areas, as well as a study that the County will request the Southwest Florida Water Management District to conduct as to the effect of impervious surfaces on recharge. The policy states that, within one year after these tasks are completed: The County shall develop a comprehensive set of land use development regulations and performance standards for development activities proposed within areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential. Such regulations and performance standards may include, but not be limited to, control of land use type and densities, impervious surface limitations, and discharge to groundwater controls. CARE Policy 5.8 focuses on a wellfield protection program, which shall be "developed and implemented" by 1993. The task shall include the "determination and mapping of zones of contribution (also known as cones of influence) surrounding public wellfields and the adoption and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance which protects these areas." In the meantime, CARE Policy 5.8 requires the County to use the best available information to identify these areas [cones of influence]. See map 18, Interim Wellfield Protection Areas for Public Water Supply Wells in Unincorporated Hillsborough County, Florida (Zones of Contribution Map). The County shall also adopt and implement an interim ordinance which sets forth a procedure, using the best available information, for reviewing development proposals which might adversely impact the zones of contribution surrounding public wellfields. CARE Policy 5.9 states: Through the land development review process, the County shall continue to regulate activities which would breach the confining layers of the Floridan aquifer by prohibiting land excavations that would breach the confining layers. CARE Policy 5.11 is identical to CARE Policy 2.7 except that CARE Policy 5.11 deals with groundwater pollution, rather than surface water pollution, and CARE Policy 5.11 provides that the County shall request the development of special septic-tank siting criteria and standards for areas of "demonstrated high recharge/contamination potential." CARE Policy 5.13 is for the County to "increase requested assistance" from the Southwest Florida Water Management District to ensure that excessive consumptive use of groundwater or excessive drainage does not "significantly lower water tables or surface water levels, reduce base flows, or increase current levels of saltwater intrusion." CARE Policy 5.15 prohibits the County from supporting the use of deep-well injection of effluent or waste disposal "except where it can be demonstrated that the capacity for receiving injection is sufficiently large and that such disposal will have no adverse effect upon existing or potential potable water aquifers." CARE Objective 6 is for the County to meet future water needs through the "conservation, reuse, and enhancement of groundwater and surface water supplies, and shall prevent significant environmental degradation due to excessive groundwater withdrawals." CARE Policy 6.1 is for the County to request that the Southwest Florida Water Management District and WCRWSA develop a regional water budget to calculate more accurately water supplies and demands. CARE Policy 6.2 is for the County, by 1992, to "adopt and implement a Water Reuse Ordinance which maximizes the use of treated sewage effluent for residential and recreational irrigation purposes, where such reuse can be demonstrated to be environmentally acceptable and no threat to public health." CARE Policy 6.4 is: The County shall require the use of the lowest quality water reasonably and feasibly available, which is safe for public health and the environment and suitable to a given use, in order to reduce the unnecessary use of potable water. CARE Policy 6.8 is for the County, by 1992, to develop, in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, a water conservation program, including enforcement of specific building code requirements for water saving devices. CARE Policy 6.9 is for the County, by 1992, to evaluate the implementation of a user fee rate for potable water in order to discourage nonessential uses of potable water. CARE Policy 6.10 requires that the County, "through the land development review process, restrict the substantial lowering of the water table to meet stormwater treatment or storage requirements." CARE 6.11 requires that the County, "through the land development review process, . . . promote the use of xeriscape landscaping and low-volume irrigation " CARE Policy 6.12 is for the County, by 1995, to develop legal and financial mechanisms "to purchase, to the extent reasonably feasible, development or mineral rights, easements and partial or complete title to lands necessary to safeguard the public water supply." Suggested mechanisms include the transfer of development rights and tax benefits. CARE Policy 6.13 addresses groundwater recharge and stormwater management: By 1992, a program to improve groundwater recharge through the use of private and public stormwater management facilities will be developed and implemented. This program may require, among other things, that predevelopment groundwater recharge volumes and rates be maintained on site after development, if the site is located in an area of known or identified average annual aquifer recharge potential of at least two surface inches of water; and will include restrictions on the lowering of groundwater levels to meet stormwater management regulations. In the interim, where practical, and where feasible from a water quality standpoint, new development will be encouraged to consider retention of stormwater rather than stormwater detention in these areas. CARE Objective 7 is for the County to "continue to provide opportunity for and require the prudent operation of mining activities " CARE Policy 7.1 requires "sequential land use" in mineral-rich areas. The CARE defines "sequential land use" as "[a] practice whereby lands overlaying valuable mineral resources are protected from intensive urban development until such minerals can be mined, and that land reclaimed for a viable economic use." CARE Policy 7.2 requires the "phasing of mineral extraction to ensure that limited land areas are affected by excavation and settling ponds at one time and that reclamation occurs in the most effective manner." CARE Policy 8.1 requires the County, by 1991, to "identify environmentally sensitive areas which are not capable of being effectively restored following mineral extraction." CARE Policy 8.2 provides: The County shall restrict mining in areas which are ecologically unsuitable for the extraction of minerals, as identified in the natural systems and land use cover inventory, unless it can be demonstrated that such areas can be effectively restored utilizing the best available technology. CARE Policy 8.3 states: The County shall continue to prohibit mineral extraction within the 25-year floodplain, and shall restrict mining activities in the 100- year floodplain, of rivers and streams. CARE Policy 8.4 is: By 1992, the County shall prohibit mineral extraction in essential wildlife habitats which are documented, in accordance with the terms of Objective 14 and related policies thereunder, to support threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern, and from which such species cannot be effectively relocated. CARE Policies 8.5 and 8.6 require the use of the best available technology in restoring natural land forms and vegetative communities and minimizing natural resource impacts. CARE Policy 8.8 provides that the County shall continue to require proof of "long-term financial responsibility for the reclamation of mined lands." CARE Objective 9 requires the County to "protect the public health, safety and welfare from the adverse impacts of mining activities." CARE Policy 9.1 is for the continued requirement of "appropriate setbacks" between mining and adjacent land uses. CARE Objective 10 is for the County to "continue to regulate the location and operation of land excavation to minimize negative impacts on surrounding properties, ensure that land excavations are appropriately reclaimed, and encourage the productive reuse of such areas." CARE Policy 10.1 is for the County to "continue to prohibit land excavation activities which adversely impact surface or groundwater levels on surrounding property." CARE Policy 10.2 states that the County "shall require reclamation and reuse plans to ensure environmentally acceptable and economically viable reuses of land excavations." CARE Policy 10.3 demands that the County, by 1993, require the "preparation of wetland/lake management plans for the reclamation of land excavation projects to be reclaimed as lakes to ensure that such areas become viable and productive aquatic systems." CARE Policy 10.4 is for the County to "encourage" recreational development of reclaimed land excavations. CARE Policy 10.6 states that the County shall require setbacks between land excavations and adjacent land uses to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. CARE Policy 10.7 provides that, by 1992, the County shall prohibit land excavations in "essential wildlife habitats documented in accordance with the provisions of Objective 14 as supporting endangered, threatened, [or special- concern] species and from which such species cannot be effectively relocated." CARE Objective 11 is that the County shall "continue to require soil conservation and protection during land alteration and development activities." CARE Policy 11.1 provides that, during the land development review process, the County shall "recommend" the appropriate use of soils and shall require site-specific analyses when the use appears to be incompatible with the soils. CARE Policy 11.3 states that, during the land development review process, the County shall "continue to evaluate and utilize, where appropriate, soil capability analyses for flood hazard, stability, permeability, and other relevant soil characteristics when permitting new development." CARE Objective 14 is for the County to "protect significant wildlife habitat, and . . . prevent any further net loss of essential wildlife habitat . . .." CARE Policy 14.1 promises the initiation of the development and implementation of a wildlife and wildlife habitat protection and management program. CARE Policy 14.3 requires the County, by 1993, in consultation with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, to "identify and map areas of essential wildlife habitat." CARE Policy 14.5 compels the County, by 1991, to develop and implement a program to "conserve and protect significant wildlife habitat from development activities." The program may include transfers of development rights, clustering and setback requirements, conservation easements, leaseback operations, fee simple purchases, land or mitigation banking, and tax incentives. CARE Policy 14.6 states: By 1992, the County shall restrict development activities which adversely affect areas identified and mapped as essential wildlife habitat. Where development activities are proposed in such areas the County may require site-specific wildlife surveys and other field documentation, as needed, to assess potential impacts. CARE Policy 14.7 provides: During the land use planning and development review processes, the County shall consider the effects of development on significant wildlife habitat, to protect wildlife corridors from fragmentation. Where necessary to prevent fragmentation of wildlife corridors, the County shall require the preservation of wildlife corridors within developments. CARE Objective 15 states: Populations of threatened or endangered species and species of special concern occurring within Hillsborough County shall be maintained. Where feasible and appropriate, the abundance and distribution of populations of such species shall be increased. CARE Policy 15.1 is for the County, by 1991, to consult with and consider the recommendations of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in determining whether to issue development orders and, if so, what conditions to impose where development would impact endangered, threatened, or special- concern species. Conditions "shall ensure the maintenance and, where environmentally and economically feasible, increase the abundance and distribution of populations of such species." CARE Objective 16 is to "continue existing programs to minimize the spread of exotic nuisance species" and implement management plans for newly acquired natural preserve lands to reduce by 90% the extent of exotic nuisance plants. The objective requires the County to "conserve and use and continue to require the conservation and use of native plant species in the developed landscape." The objective adds that the County shall "continue to protect Conservation and Preservation Areas." CARE Policy 16.2 is for the County to "continue to require the use of native plant species in the landscaping of new development projects." Respectively addressing Conservation and Preservation Areas, CARE Policies 16.5 and 16.6 provide that, "except in cases of overriding public interest," the County shall, in the land use planning and development review processes, "protect [Conservation/Preservation] Areas from activities that would significantly damage the natural integrity, character, or ecological balance of said areas." CARE Objective 17 states: By 1995, the acreage of publicly owned or otherwise protected (through private ownership) natural preserve lands in the County shall be increased by at least 15,000 acres (which is approximately 50% more than 1988 acreage). The County shall seek to continue increasing the acreage of natural preserve lands and to ensure their protection and proper use. CARE Policy 17.1 is for the County, by 1990, to seek public approval by referendum to continue to levy an ad valorem tax for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. CARE Policy 17.6 requires the County to provide multiple-use opportunities for County-owned natural reserve lands so as to protect and conserve natural resources. CARE Policy 17.8 requires the County, during the land use planning and development review processes, to "restrict incompatible development activities adjacent to publicly owned or managed natural preserves." CARE Objective 18 provides: The County shall seek to measurably improve the management of all natural preserves within County boundaries by implementing the following policies[.] CARE Policy 18.2 is for the County to initiate with the Florida Department of Natural Resources an agreement "to ensure that the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve is maintained in its essentially natural condition and protected from development that would adversely affect the environmental integrity of the Preserve." CARE Policy 18.3 is for the County to "establish a scientifically defensible protective buffer zone between the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and adjacent upland land uses to prevent degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetative habitats." CARE Policy 18.8 requires the County to "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to "fully implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan " CARE Objective 19 states: The County shall continue to amend land development regulations which ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment under all projected growth scenarios. CARE Policy 19.1 is for the County, by 1991, to initiate agreements with the Southwest Florida Water Management District or appropriate university to scientifically determine environmentally safe construction setback and buffer distances from wetlands, floodplains and water bodies (e.g. SJRWMD Wekiva River study). Within one year after completion of this study, the County shall use the results of the study to amend the County's Land Alteration and Landscaping Ordinance and Zoning Code, if such setbacks and buffer distances are determined to be warranted by the study. Until such study is completed and used to amend County ordinances, all current setbacks shall remain in effect. CARE Policy 19.2 states: By 1992, the County shall develop a comprehensive program, which may include tax incentives and transfer of development rights, to encourage the clustering of development away from environmentally sensitive areas, essential wildlife habitat or economically important agricultural or mineral resources. CARE Policy 19.3 provides: During the development review process, the County shall promote the preservation of representative examples of upland native plant communities by encouraging the use of the upland forest density credit incentive provision of the [FLUE]. CARE Policy 19.4 states that the County will consider developing a review process to provide incentives for planned unit developments that provide environmental benefits beyond what are required by law. CARE Policy 19.5 provides that the County will review its land development regulations to "better address the cumulative impact [of development] on the environment." CARE Policy 19.6 is: The County shall continue to encourage infilling and growth within identified and environmentally acceptable "activity centers," and shall discourage urban sprawl. CARE Policy 19.7 is for the County, in cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, to consider adopting appropriate modifications to current land development regulations which will reduce the removal of natural upland vegetation caused by site filling and will maintain natural drainage patterns and water table levels, where feasible. CARE Policy 19.8 states: The County shall identify Resource Protection Areas on the Future Land Use Map series. Specific policy directives which provide for special protective measures for all Resource Protection Areas, except Lake Thonotosassa, are located in one or more of the following elements: [CARE], Coastal . . ., and [FLUE]. See the definition of Resource Protection areas for both general and specific policy references. Policies which provide for special protective measures specially for Lake Thonotosassa shall be developed and included in the [Plan] after completion and approval of the Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan for Lake Thonotosassa by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The CARE defines "Resource Protection Areas" as: Land or water bodies which are ecologically or economically significant natural resources for which special protective measures have been, or need to be established. Resource Protection Areas include the following [in each case, general citations to applicable elements of the Plan have been omitted]: --Hillsborough River and major tributaries; --Alafia River and major tributaries; --Little Manatee River and major tributaries; --Tampa Bay and associated tidal wetlands; --Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve; --Lake Thonotosassa; --Significant and essential wildlife habitat; --Areas of high aquifer recharge/ contamination potential; --Public potable water wellfields and their cones of influence; --Areas of major phosphate deposits. CARE, pages 99-100. Goal A of the Stormwater Element is to "[m]inimize the hazards of flooding attributable to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 1 is to "[e]valuate the storage and discharge characteristics of existing stormwater conveyance, detention and retention systems, and identify existing and potential future flooding concerns." Stormwater Element Policy 1.1 is to complete, by 1996, a comprehensive stormwater management master plan. Stormwater Element Objective 2 is to "[d]evelop and implement programs to control flooding attributable to, and to maximize the usefulness of, stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Policy 2.8 states: Total flood volume compensation will continue to be required for new developments which encroach into and displace 100-year flood storage or floodplain areas. Further, by [fiscal year 19]91, a program to control encroachment within 100-year flood conveyance areas will be developed and implemented. Stormwater Element Policy 2.10 provides that, by 1992, the County shall develop and implement a program to "improve groundwater recharge through the use of private and public stormwater management facilities." Stormwater Element Policy 2.11 states that new development will continue to be encouraged, through application of existing local regulations, to maintain, with minimal disturbance to natural characteristics, those streams, lakes wetlands, and estuaries for which stormwater conveyance and/or attenuation potential is significant. Stormwater Element Policy 2.15 provides: The use of detention facilities will be the preferred alternative to improving conveyance to alleviate flooding problems, where physically and environmentally practical and economically feasible. All flood control projects will seek to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, impacts to wetland habitat, water quality and groundwater recharge functions. Where impacts are unavoidable, the projects will include measures to compensate for these lost functions. Goal B of the Stormwater Element is to "[m]inimize the degradation of water quality attributed to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 4 is to "[i]dentify and evaluate the sources of water quality degradation which are related to stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Objective 5 is to "[i]mplement programs that will maintain or improve the quality of stormwater runoff." Stormwater Element Policy 5.1 is to develop and begin to implement, by 1995, a program "to improve, "where economically feasible, the problem areas identified" in stormwater data- collection projects. The County will then require the use of Best Management Practices for "minimizing contributions of poor quality stormwater runoff to both groundwater and surface water bodies." Stormwater Element Policy 5.5 provides for the use of wetlands for stormwater treatment when effective pretreatment can ensure that the use of the wetlands will maintain or restore their long-term natural viability. Stormwater Element Policy 5.6 states that new stormwater management facilities may not discharge untreated stormwater runoff into the Floridan aquifer and that existing facilities that do so discharge into the Floridan aquifer will be modified where "economically feasible and physically practical." The goal of the Sewer Element is to "[p]rotect the [public] health, safety and welfare" and "protect and conserve the natural resources of Hillsborough County." Sewer Element Policy 1.1 is: Wastewater treatment facilities, prior to discharging to surface waters or natural wetlands, shall meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards. "Advanced Waste Treatment" is defined in the Sewer Element as "defined in Chapter 403.086, Florida Statutes or as amended in the future." Sewer Element, page 26. Sewer Element Policy 1.2 requires that "[w]astewater treatment facilities, prior to discharging to a managed artificial wetland or an irrigation system, shall meet or exceed Advanced Secondary Treatment Standards." "Advanced Secondary Treatment Standards" are defined as "[s]econdary waste treatment plus deep-bed dual media filtration." Sewer Element Objective 2 is to "[p]rotect and conserve the potable water resources, both groundwater and surface water, of Hillsborough County and continue to utilize and expand, where viable, existing recovered water reuse systems." Sewer Element Policy 2.1 requires later phases of developments with recovered water systems to use such systems. Sewer Element Policy 2.3 requires that, by 1992, the County implement by ordinance "mandatory recovered water reuse." Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility of existing and future sources of wastewater adversely impacting groundwater, surface waters and quality of life." Sewer Element Policy 7.1 is to "[c]ontinue to require that septic tank systems connect to the County system where a County system is available unless undue hardship is proven." Sewer Element Policy 7.2 is to "re-examine the maximum allowable density for septic tank systems within various areas of Hillsborough County" not later than one year following completion of a study presently underway pursuant to the Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983. In the same timeframe, Sewer Element Policy 7.3 requires that the County develop a "program to identify existing septic tank systems . . . that have a high potential for contaminating groundwater or the aquifer." The first goal of the FLUE is to: Ensure that the character and location of land uses optimizes the combined potentials for economic benefit and the enjoyment and the protection of natural resources while minimizing the threat to health, safety and welfare posed by hazards, nuisances, incompatible land uses, and environmental degradation. FLUE Objective A-1 is: Development orders shall not be issued unless development is compatible with the physical conditions of the land, including, but not limited to, topographical and soil conditions, and development mitigates those adverse impacts that it creates upon the physical conditions of the land that may affect the health, safety and/or welfare of the people who live and work within those particular areas. FLUE Policy A-1.2 states that "[s]oil capability analyses for flood hazards, stability, permeability and other relevant soil characteristics shall be considered when planning for new development." FLUE Policy A-1.3 adds: "Development shall be prohibited in areas where the on-site sewage disposal facilities would be located on soils unsuitable for such uses, unless the soils on the site can be altered to meet state and local environmental land use regulations." FLUE Policy A-1.4 provides that development within areas designated as "volume or peak sensitive" shall be subject to "higher performance standards to mitigate stormwater runoff." The Plan defines "Peak Sensitive Lands" as "[l]and that is prone to flooding because the outfall is inadequate to handle the water flow." FLUE, page 142. The Plan defines "Volume Sensitive Lands" as: Lands that drain into areas that do not have a positive outfall. Positive outfall is the condition when the natural or man-made stormwater conveyance system that drains the land is functioning adequately. This includes man-made swales, waterways or other means of conveyance systems. This does not include sheet flow. FLUE, page 147. FLUE Policy A-1.5 requires: "All development within the 100 year floodplain shall be in strict conformance with all development regulations that have jurisdiction development regulations." Certain future land use designations bear directly upon the natural resources of the County. Other future land use designations, although affecting natural resources, will be addressed in the following sections concerning urban sprawl and the coastal high hazard area. Three designations are especially important in protecting natural resources. They are Natural Preservation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Major Recreation and Open Space. The Natural Preservation designation is used to designate major publicly owned or managed lands for primarily conservation purposes. Typically, these lands are environmentally unique, irreplaceable or valued ecological resources. Some of these lands may be suitable for compatible recreational use. FLUE, page 142. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Natural Preservation designation as follows: To recognize public lands of significant environmental importance set aside for primarily conservation purposes. No residential is permitted except for county facilities determined necessary to serve as a caretaker of the recreational or environmental property. All other development is prohibited in these areas except for compatible recreational development. Educational uses shall be limited to those which utilize the natural amenities found on the site, i.e., the study of flora [or] fauna . . .. FLUE, page 125. FLUE Policy A-3.1 promises that the County will study the possibility of adopting land development regulations providing for a transfer of development rights from land that is under consideration for Natural Preservation designation, as well as land under a Rural designation that is in long-term agricultural use. FLUE Policy A-3.2 prohibits, in Natural Preservation designations, any "new development [or] expansion [or] replacement of existing development[,] unless development is undertaken by federal, State or local government in the public interest, and the impacts are mitigated." The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation has been discussed at length in the preceding section. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation as follows: To designate those privately owned lands that are environmentally sensitive and classified as Conservation or Preservation Areas as defined in the [CARE]. Development in these areas may be restricted by federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations. Development projects will be evaluated for compliance with the [CARE] and Coastal [Element]. The use of Environmentally Sensitive Areas for residential density credits is described in the [FLUE]. The Environmentally Sensitive Area designations on the Land Use Plan Map are very generalized and may not be exhaustive of all sites. On- site evaluation will be necessary for specific project review. FLUE, page 126. The Major Recreation and Open Space designation is used to designate, geographically on the Future Land Use Plan Map and/or textually in the [FLUE], those major existing park, recreation, and/or open space facilities available for public use, including those which may be privately owned, and for which the primary purpose is not conservation. This land use category is not intended for use in designating those lands used for calculating densities for residential projects as described in the "Density Credits" provision in the "Implementation Section["] of the [FLUE] or in designating those similarly used lands that are accessory to non-residential projects. This future land use plan classification is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies and the exceptions and provisions of the [FLUE], each of the other elements in the [Plan], and to all applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 143. The Land Use Plan Categories section of the FLUE describes the intent of the Recreation and Open Space designation as follows: To designate major existing parks and recreational facilities (regional, district, or community level), for which the primary purpose is not conservation. A more complete mapping of existing and proposed or needed parks is a function of the Recreation and Open Space Element. No residential is permitted except for county facilities determined necessary to serve as an employee serving the function of a caretaker of the property. FLUE, page 123. FLUE Policy A-3.4 states that "[r]ecreational development must be compatible with and sensitive to the surrounding natural systems." Numerous provisions in the FLUE address natural resources, without referring to the Natural Preservation, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and Major Recreation and Open Space designations. FLUE Objective A-8 provides: Development must mitigate the adverse impacts upon the natural, environmental systems as described and required within the [CARE] and [Coastal Element]. FLUE Policy A-8.1 states: "The natural environment shall be protected, in part, by encouraging future population growth into existing urbanized areas." FLUE Policies A-8.2, A- 8.3, and A-8.4, which have been discussed above, provide for the protection of Conservation and Preservation Areas and describe the upland forest density credit incentive and density formulas regarding Environmentally Sensitive Areas. FLUE Policies A-8.5 and A-8.6 promise protection, "by a system of performance standards" left undefined in the Plan, for areas with "high potential for groundwater contamination" and "high aquifer recharge," respectively. FLUE Policy A-8.8 is to [r]equire that the littoral zones and photic zones of man-made stormwater management systems be designed to provide physical and chemical filtration of stormwater consistent with adopted levels in the [Plan] and subsequently adopted development regulations, [as well as] provide for wildlife habitat (primarily wading birds). FLUE Policy A-8.9 offers the use of publicly owned land designated as Major Public/Semi-Public for "appropriate multiple uses, such as parks, stormwater management systems and preservation of natural habitats." FLUE Policy A-8.10 is to "[e]ncourage the use of pervious pavement" through land development regulations. FLUE Policy A-8.11 requires the County to identify, during the rezoning process, any land that has been identified for possible acquisition by the Environmental Land Acquisition and Protection Program. FLUE Policy A-8.12 states the County "shall protect significant wildlife habitat." FLUE Policy A-8.13 provides that the County will "[p]reserve wetlands by discouraging the use of mitigation, dredge and fill and similar development activities by revising the development regulations to strictly limit such practices." FLUE Objective B-9 is to "[p]rotect environmentally sensitive areas from degradation or damage from agricultural activities by establishing regulatory activities." FLUE Policy B-9.2 is to "[e]stablish protective controls, which could include animal 'density' limits[,] on those grazing lands having environmentally sensitive areas subject to damage or degradation from over-grazing by pre- identified grazing species." FLUE Objective B-10 is to "[p]rotect the water supply needed by agriculture through regulatory mechanisms." FLUE Policy B-10.1 is to "[r]equire adoption or conversion to water conservation techniques that are beneficial for aquifer recharge and the maintenance of near normal water tables." FLUE Policy B-10.2 is to establish a phased-in program of water conservation. Addressing the County's rivers, the second goal of the FLUE, which appears at the beginning of the River Resources section, is: To make the rivers of Hillsborough County cleaner, safer and more attractive, protect the natural functions and wildlife habitats in the river corridors and promote the economic and recreational benefits provided by these water bodies. FLUE Objective C-1 is, by 1995, to "maintain or improve the quality of water in [County] rivers where the water quality does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for [their] designated use." FLUE Policy C-1.1 states: The developer of any project along the rivers shall provide stormwater management systems which filter out pollutants before the stormwater enters the rivers, in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the Southwest Florida Water Management District rules including the exemption provisions of these rules. New drainage outfalls along the rivers shall be designed with stormwater treatment facilities rather than discharging stormwater directly into the rivers. Where environmentally feasible, the stormwater discharge from a detention pond shall flow into the rivers through a vegetated swale. FLUE Policy C-1.2 "[p]rohibit[s] discharges of raw sewage to the rivers and tributaries." FLUE Policy C-1.3 "[p]rohibit[s] any solid waste landfills and hazardous material facilities in unincorporated Hillsborough County that may adversely affect the rivers and tributaries." FLUE Objective C-2 is: By 1990, the County will require the preservation of natural shorelines and reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization. . . . FLUE Policy C-2.1 states: "Shore alteration which would harden riverbanks shall be prohibited, except in cases of overriding public interest." FLUE Policy C-2.2 requires the improvement of publicly owned or controlled lands by the "restoration of vegetated riverbanks." FLUE Policy C-2.3 requires the conservation and preservation of natural riverbanks and natural levees, except in cases of overriding public interest. FLUE Objective C-4 provides that, by 1992, the County will "establish standards for development in river corridors." FLUE Policy C-4.1 prohibits the construction of new overhead utilities within 250 feet of the rivers unless underground placement is environmentally or technically unsound. FLUE Objective C-5 provides that, by 1991, the County will "require the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats and archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-5.4 requires the County to "restrict development activities in the river corridors which would adversely affect significant and essential wildlife habitat, in accordance with the terms of Objective 14 and related policies thereunder of the [CARE]." FLUE Policy C-6.1 prohibits the removal, within 100 feet of the rivers, of healthy, native trees of five inches diameter at breast height unless "reasonable property utilization is not possible without tree removal or in cases of overriding public interest." The third, fourth, and fifth goals in the FLUE pertain to the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers, respectively. The third goal in the FLUE is "[t]o make the Hillsborough River cleaner, safer and more attractive." FLUE Objective C-7 is, by 1995, to "improve the quality of water in the river where it does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for its designated use, and protect this major source of drinking water." FLUE Policy C-7.2 states: The construction, reconstruction, extension, or alteration of any privy, cesspool, septic tank, drain field, or other sewage disposal device within . . . 200 feet, measured from the mean annual flood line, of the Hillsborough River and its tributaries from the Pasco County line, to the city limits of the City of Tampa, shall be prohibited. This policy shall not prohibit recommended maintenance of existing septic systems if no alternative means of sewerage treatment is available. FLUE Policy C-7.3 is to "[p]revent further destruction of desirable natural vegetative buffers along the Hillsborough River and its tributaries." FLUE Policy C-7.4 is to: Prevent potential contamination by effluent disposal from a wastewater treatment plant within the drainage basin by requiring advanced treatment and viral reduction of all sewage in the drainage basin which is part of an effluent disposal program. FLUE Objective C-8 is, by 1990, to "reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization." FLUE Policy C-9.1 provides: "New marinas shall be prohibited on the upper Hillsborough River." "To prevent riverbank erosion, protect wildlife habitat, and ensure public safety," FLUE Policy C-9.6 requires that the part of the Hillsborough River north of 56th Street be posted with "idle speed, no wake" signs. FLUE Objective C-10 is, by 1992, to "establish standards for development in the river corridor." FLUE Policy C- 10.2 states: "No additional areas shall be designated with industrial land use plan categories within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-10.3 requires the County to establish a new future land use designation or zoning classification to be known as "Riverfront." Land use guidelines that "should be addressed" in the new classification include performance standards precluding uses that pollute the river or eliminate visual access by the public, lowering densities for vacant private parcels along the upper river, and prohibiting heavy activities such as parking lots, truck service roads, loading docks, warehouses, manufacturing plants, ship building and repair, and dredging equipment operators. FLUE Objective C-11 is, by 1992, to "implement construction and placement standards for ramps, docks, and seawalls." FLUE Objective C-12 is, by 1994, to "manage the Hillsborough River as an important community asset and provide appropriate public access to this valuable natural amenity." FLUE Objective C-13 is, by 1991, to "preserve and enhance wildlife habitats and preserve archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-13.1 states: "Draining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks[,] shall be prohibited within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Objective C-14 states: By 1990, preserve the rural character of the Upper Hillsborough River by discouraging additional development except for those sites improved or developed that are dedicated to passive recreational pursuits within the river corridor. . . . FLUE Policy C-14.1 states: "The upper Hillsborough River shall be managed as a wildlife habitat corridor to provide an area for wildlife passage." FLUE Policy C-14.3 prohibits in the upper Hillsborough River "additional boat docks and ramps," but not canoe launches. FLUE Policy C-14.4 prohibits, within 500 feet of the upper Hillsborough River and its tributaries, parking lots and service roads. The fourth goal in the FLUE addresses the Alafia River. The goal is: "To preserve, protect and promote the Alafia River and its natural resources and recreational benefits." FLUE Objective C-15 is: By 1995, to maintain water quality, and improve water quality where it does not meet or exceed State water quality standards for its designated use, thereby protecting and improving the habitat for marine life. . . . FLUE Objective C-16 is: "By 1991, preserve and restore natural vegetation, and wildlife habitats and preserve archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-16.1 states: Draining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks, which comprise the riverine swamp system shall be prohibited within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-16.2 provides: Encourage the reclamation of mined lands along the Alafia River with native vegetation and encourage public acquisition for wildlife corridors, where appropriate. FLUE Objective C-17 is, by 1991, to "protect terrestrial and marine wildlife and their habitats." FLUE Policy C-17.1 requires the County to post reduced speed signs in areas of known manatee habitation. FLUE Objective C-18 is, by 1995, to "minimize river use conflict and mitigate public nuisances that adversely affect inhabitants along the river." FLUE Policy C-18.1 recognizes the river as important for canoeing as well as other recreational pursuits. FLUE Objective C-19 is, by 1990, to "preserve the natural shoreline and prevent further channelization." FLUE Policy C-19.1 "[p]rohibit[s] backfilling of waterfront properties or extension of these lots through artificial means." FLUE Objective C-20 is, by 1992, to "establish standards for development within the river corridor." FLUE Policy C-20.3 states: Septic tank and drainfield installation shall be prohibited within 200 feet of the Alafia River and its tributaries except in such cases where the 200-foot criterion cannot be met because of lot size. In such cases, placement and construction of such facilities shall be in accordance with State law and shall prevent adverse impact to water quality. FLUE Policy C-20.4 states: "No additional heavy industrial land use designations shall be located within 500 feet of the river." The fifth goal in the FLUE pertains to the Little Manatee River. The goal is: "To recognize and maintain this unique water resource which provides economic and recreational opportunities as well as vital wildlife habitat." FLUE Objective C-21 states: By 1995, water quality in each appropriate water classification found in the Little Manatee River will be maintained or improved where it does not meet or exceed state water quality standards for its designated use. ... FLUE Policy C-21.1, which generally prohibits the installation of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Little Manatee River and its tributaries, is otherwise identical to FLUE Policy C-20.3, which applies to the Alafia River. FLUE Objective C-22 is, by 1991, to "preserve wildlife habitats and archaeological resources." FLUE Policy C-22.1 provides that the County shall "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to "fully implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan." FLUE Policy C-22.2 prohibits "[d]raining, clearing or filling wetlands, including hydric hammocks, . . . within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-22.3 states that, until scientifically defensible setbacks and buffers are determined: clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 feet of the Environmental Protection Commission wetland jurisdictional line or within 100 feet of the mean and ordinary high water line, whichever is greater, shall be restricted in urban and suburban land use categories. FLUE Policy C-22.4 is to protect manatees by "posting reduced speed signs in areas of known manatee habitation." FLUE Objective C-23 is, by 1990, to: minimize urban encroachment upon the river bank by encouraging the establishment of a "green" river corridor. River corridor preservation can best be achieved through protection of the shoreline, and associated wetlands and uplands. . . . FLUE Policy C-23.1 states: "No heavy industrial land use designations shall be located within 500 feet of the river." FLUE Policy C-23.2 provides: "The Little Manatee River shall be recognized as providing important wildlife habitat and managed as a corridor for wildlife passage." FLUE Policy C-23.3 states: "The Little Manatee River shall be recognized as an important recreational resource." FLUE Policy C-23.4 adds: Recreation facilities in the Little Manatee River corridor shall be designed to minimize impacts upon essential and significant wildlife habitat. This is to be achieved by encouraging passive river corridor use, such as hiking, picnicking, nature study, photography, fishing, and canoeing. FLUE Policy C-23.5 prohibits parking lots and service roads within 500 feet of the Little Manatee River and its tributaries east of US 41. FLUE Objective C-24 is, by 1990, to "develop additional policies and strategies addressing the uniqueness and proper protection and use of the Little Manatee River." FLUE Policy C-24.2 states: "Appropriate provisions from the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan shall be considered for incorporation as policies in this plan." Policy C-24.3 promises the evaluation of the need for establishing a new land use category or zoning overlay "to ensure proper protection and use of the Little Manatee River and associated natural resources." FLUE Objective C-30 provides: Regulations and performance standards shall be developed to ensure that water quality and quantity, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitats, rivers and creeks are protected from degradation by development. FLUE Policy C-30.2 states that the County "shall require the location and design of public roads and bridges within stream riverine corridors to minimize impacts adverse to wildlife habitats and vegetative communities." FLUE Policy C-30.4 provides: Designate as River Corridor Overlay Districts, riverine corridors within the Urban Level land use categories, which meet the following criteria in addition to the policies related to River Corridor Overlay Districts under the "River Resources" section within the [FLUE]. The qualifying criteria are that the water must be of Class III standards, the water body must provide "ecological benefits," most of the part of the water body proposed for designation must have a natural shore, and a 25 year floodplain map for the part of the water body proposed for designation must be available for public inspection. FLUE Policy C-30.6 provides: Restrict clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 feet of the Environmental Protection Commission wetland jurisdictional line of rivers and creeks designated as River Corridor Overlay Districts or within 100 feet of the mean and ordinary high water line of such rivers and creeks, whichever is greater. If no beneficial use of the property is possible without clearing or filling within this area, impose conditions which will mitigate the adverse impact of these activities on wildlife habitat, native vegetation and natural stormwater filtration systems. FLUE Policy C-30.7 is to "[e]ncourage the use of stilted structures rather than fill to meet flood elevation construction requirements within the River Corridor Overlay District." FLUE Policy C-30.8 is to "[r]estrict hardened shores (seawalls) within the River Corridor Overlay district to areas threatened by severe erosion." The Coastal Element addresses natural resources in the coastal area of the County. Coastal Element Policy 1.3 requires the County to reduce the need for interim wastewater treatment plants by planning for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities to serve areas designated for higher densities. Coastal Element Policy 1.4 provides that the County shall "continue to develop and use environmentally acceptable effluent disposal alternatives to surface water discharge to Tampa Bay and its tributaries, including but not limited to reuse for irrigation and industrial purposes." Coastal Element Policy 1.7 states: Where economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to coastal areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic treatment systems. Coastal Element Policy 1.11 provides: By 1991, the County shall require that existing developments planned for expansion, modification or replacement in the coastal area provide or support stormwater treatment improvements within the affected drainage basin where treatment facilities are lacking. Where economically and environmentally feasible, the County shall require retrofitting of stormwater treatment facilities in urbanized coastal areas lacking such facilities. Coastal Element Policy 1.12 states: Where economically and environmentally feasible and consistent with the Surface Water Improvement Management Plan for Tampa Bay, the County shall consider dredging and removal of polluted estuarine sediments, and clean filling deep dredged areas, as a means of improving adjacent estuarine water quality. 2. Coastal High Hazard Area and Hazard Mitigation The only FLUE provision addressing the coastal area and coastal hazards is FLUE Policy A-1.6, which promises: Performance standards for new developments shall be established within coastal areas, as identified in the [Coastal Element], in order to protect the population in the coastal areas, and to minimize property damage in the event of a hurricane. Capital Improvements Element (CIE) 1.D.2 provides that the levels of service for public facilities, as set forth in the CIE, are subject to overriding conditions and limitations contained in the Coastal Element. In addition, CIE Objective 5 states: "The County shall protect the coastline and avoid loss of life and property in coastal areas by minimizing land development and public facilities in coastal areas. [Rule] 9J- 5.016(3)(b)2." CIE Policy 5.A states: "Publicly funded infrastructure shall not be constructed within the coastal high hazard area unless the expenditure is for: 5.A.1: Restoration or enhancement of natural resources or public access; 5.A.2: Land application of treated effluent disposal (irrigation) on public and private open spaces; 5.A.3: Flood-proofing water and sanitary sewer facilities; 5.A.4: The development or improvement of public roads and bridges which are on the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization long range plan or the facility will serve a crucial need by ameliorating the evacuation time of residents of the County; 5.A.5: Reconstruction of seawalls that are essential to the protection of only existing public facilities or infrastructure; 5.A.6: A public facility of overriding public concern as determined by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners; 5.A.7: The retrofitting of stormwater management facilities for water quality enhancement of stormwater runoff; or 5.A.8: Port facilities. Coastal Element Policy 6.1 defines the coastal high hazard area as the part of the County included in the Federal Emergency Management Agency V Zone and the area requiring evacuation during a Category 1 hurricane event. A Category 1 hurricane is characterized by winds of 74-95 miles per hour, which will cause damage primarily to foliage and unanchored mobile homes; storm surge 6-8 feet above normal; and inundation of low-lying coastal roads. Coastal Element, page 85. Coastal Element Objective 6 is to: Restrict development of residential population centers in the coastal high hazard area and require all development to meet standards established for the coastal area. Coastal Element Policy 6.2 requires that "[n]ew development within the coastal high hazard area shall be subject to a formal site plan review process." The process shall require owner-supplied data as to the impact of the proposed development upon existing infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area, evacuation clearance times, and shelter space. Coastal Element Policy 6.3 states that new development or "substantial expansions" of existing uses, except for government facilities, shall be approved through "a planned unit development process" if the development consists of commercial or industrial development on more than five acres of land or residential development exceeding the requirements of a "minor subdivision," as defined in the land development regulations. Policy 6.3 adds that developments within the coastal high hazard area and the I-75 corridor shall be subject to the more restrictive requirements. Coastal Element Policy 6.5 prohibits the development of "manufactured home communities" in the coastal high hazard area unless they meet the standards of the Southern Standard Building Code. Coastal Element Policy 6.6 is that, by 1994, the County shall, by land development regulations, require the underground installation of all utility lines in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 is that, except for cases of "undue hardship," "[t]he use of septic tanks for new development shall be prohibited in the coastal high hazard area." Coastal Element Objective 7 is to ensure the "orderly development and use" of the Port of Tampa by giving "priority to locating water-dependent and water-related land uses along the shoreline of the coastal area." Coastal Element Policy 7.1 provides that the County, by 1993, will amend the "Future Land Use Element and Map" to create a new future land use designation for "marine-related land uses." The designation will include criteria for siting water-dependent and water-related land uses. Coastal Element Policy 7.5 prohibits the development of new sites for heavy industrial uses along the shoreline of the coastal area unless the uses are "water-dependent or water- related or unless an overriding public interest is demonstrated." Coastal Element Objective 10 is: "Limit public expenditures for infrastructure and facilities in the coastal high hazard area." Coastal Element Policy 10.3 provides: "Wastewater treatment facilities shall not be constructed within the coastal high hazard area unless the expenditure meets the criteria of Policy 10.2." Coastal Element Policy 10.2 is the same as CIE Policy 5.A. Coastal Element Policy 13.1 states: "Interim wastewater treatment plants shall not be permitted in the coastal high hazard area except where the County service will be available within five (5) years." Coastal Element Policy 13.2 provides that the County will not assume jurisdiction for maintaining roadways in the coastal high hazard area unless the roadway is on the future Traffic Circulation Map. Coastal Element Policy 13.3 states that, by the 1993 hurricane season, the County shall complete an inventory of existing infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area and develop a program to relocate or retrofit such facilities where feasible and as replacement becomes necessary. Coastal Element Policy 13.4 is that the County "shall ensure" that future development and redevelopment within the coastal high hazard area is "consistent with coastal resource protection and will not increase clearance times along evacuation routes." Coastal Element Policy 13.6 is that the County shall not approve any "new solid waste or hazardous waste management sites" in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 12.2 is that the County, by the 1992 hurricane season: shall prepare a post-disaster redevelopment plan which will address long-term development, repair, and redevelopment activities, and which will include measures to restrict and eliminate inappropriate and unsafe development in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 12.5 provides that, by the 1992 hurricane season, the County "shall adopt a redevelopment decision-making matrix for deciding whether public infrastructure should be rebuilt, relocated, or structurally modified." Coastal Element Objective 11 provides: Through the year 2010 the County shall maintain the clearance times identified in the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 1988 Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Study. Any proposed development shall not increase these clearance times. Coastal Element Policy 11.2 adopts a level of service standard of 20 square feet per person for shelter space. Coastal Element Policy 11.5 states that, by 1991, the development review process shall consider the effect of a proposed development in the hurricane vulnerability zone, which includes the coastal high hazard area, on evacuation clearance times and the number of persons requiring shelter. Coastal Element Policy 11.7 provides that each new mobile home park "not located" in the hurricane vulnerability zone shall include a building for use as a hurricane shelter. 3. Urban Sprawl FLUE Policy A-2.1 states: "Development shall not exceed the densities and intensities established within the [Plan]." According to the Implementation section of the FLUE, "[i]t is the intent of the [FLUE] to permit the maximum densities allowed within each land use plan category." FLUE, page 55. Many of the future land use categories of the Plan and their densities are set forth at Paragraph 219 above. The remaining categories and any permitted residential densities (expressed as dwelling units per gross acre) are: Community Commercial (20:1); Commercial--Office (20:1); Regional Commercial (20:1); Electrical Power Generating Facility (1:5); Scenic Corridor Overlay; Research/Corporate Park; Light Industrial; Light Industrial-- Planned; Heavy Industrial; Natural Preservation; Major Recreation and Open Space; Major Public/Semi-Public; and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (uses described in preceding section). The Land Use Plan section of the FLUE discusses each of the future land use designations in terms of service level, typical uses, density (applicable to residential uses only), maximum floor area (applicable to commercial, office, and industrial uses only), and intent of designation. The densities have been set forth above. Six designations fall exclusively under the Rural service level. These are Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, Rural Residential, and Rural Residential Planned. The typical uses of Agricultural/Mining include: farms, ranches, feed lots, residential uses, rural scale neighborhood commercial uses, offices, industrial uses related to agricultural uses, and mining related activities. Non-residential uses shall meet established locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 98. The maximum floor area for Agricultural/Mining is: Rural scale neighborhood commercial, office or industrial up to 40,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, 17/ whichever is less intense. Actual space footage limit is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, page 98. The intent of Agricultural/Mining is: To designate either those areas of long term agricultural character, or those areas currently involved in agricultural productivity, or other rural uses. This category will also permit residential, rural scale neighborhood commercial, office, and industrial uses in those areas meeting established locational criteria. As long as no subdivision of land is involved, group quarters, temporary housing, rehabilitation centers and residential uses for agricultural/rural related activities can be exempt from the density limitations subject to the [FLUE] and applicable development regulations. In addition, mining activities and commercial and industrial uses directly related to or serving the local mining activities may be permitted in appropriate locations, in conformance with adopted [land development] regulations. Commercial and office above 5000 sq. ft.[,] multi-purpose projects and multi-use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 98. The typical uses, maximum floor area, and intent of Agricultural and Agricultural/Rural are the same as those stated for Agricultural/Mining. Densities are the main difference among the Agricultural/Mining (1:20), Agricultural (1:10), and Agricultural/Rural (1:5) designations. In addition to allowing a density of 1:2.5, the Rural Estate category differs in other respects from the other categories classified as rural in terms of service level. Typical uses for Rural Estate add "multi-purpose projects" and omit "feed lots," "industrial uses related to agricultural uses," and "mining related activities." Maximum floor area substitutes "multi-purpose projects" for "industrial." The intent of Rural Estate is: To designate areas that are best suited for agricultural development, usually defined as located on Short-Term Agricultural Lands, and for compatible rural residential uses. Other uses including rural scale neighborhood commercial, office and multi-purpose projects may be permitted when complying with the [FLUE] and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for specific land use. Commercial and office above 5000 sq. ft., multi-purpose projects and multi-use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 101. The typical uses and intent of Rural/Residential and Rural/Residential Planned are the same as those stated for Rural Estate, except the Rural/Residential Planned also allows community commercial uses and clustered mixed use. A planned zoning district is required for the Rural/Residential Planned designation if the proposed commercial or office use is over 3000 square feet. The densities are different among the three designations. The Rural/Residential allows 1:1. Rural/Residential Planned allows the same density if the project is a Planned Village Concept on at least 160 acres; otherwise, the allowable density is 1:5. The maximum density for Rural/Residential Planned is allowable only if clustering and mixed uses are proposed. The concepts of mixed use and clustering specified for the Rural/Residential Planned are explained as follows: Mixed use . . . must demonstrate integration, scale, diversity and internal relationships of uses on site as well as provide shopping and job opportunities, significant internal trip capture and appropriately scaled residential uses. Land development regulations shall specify the thresholds for shopping, job creation and trip capture rates for developments appropriate to the scale of the project. Clustering . . . will be demonstrated through higher than typical residential net densities. Land development regulations shall provide thresholds for net densities required relative to project size and location, and will be used to determine allowable gross density. FLUE, page 103. The Suburban service level contains two designations: Low Suburban Density Residential and Low Suburban Density Residential Planned. The typical uses of Low Suburban Density Residential are: Residential, suburban scale neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects. Non-residential uses shall meet locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 104. The typical uses of Low Suburban Density Residential Planned are the same except they include suburban scale community commercial and clustered mixed use projects. The maximum floor area of Low Suburban Density Residential is: Suburban scale neighborhood commercial, office, or multi-purpose projects limited to 110,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, whichever is less intense. Actual space footage limit is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, page 104. The maximum floor area of Low Suburban Density Residential Planned is the same except the floor area ratio is .5, which governs certain mixed use projects: Mixed use projects utilizing the Planned Village Concept are not limited by square footages but may develop up to .5 FAR. Square footages will be limited by the scale and relationship within the project. In addition, mixed use projects utilizing the Planned Village Concept shall not be limited by the locational criteria found elsewhere for neighborhood commercial uses. Mixed use projects shall demonstrate internal relationships and pedestrian integration among uses. FLUE, page 105. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential designation is: To designate areas that are best suited for non-urban density residential development requiring a limited level of urban services, including in appropriate locations lots large enough to safely accommodate private wells and septic tanks or a combination of septic tanks and public water. Some areas, because of environmental or soil conditions, would be appropriate for only public water and sewer in this designation. In addition, suburban level neighborhood commercial, office and multi-purpose projects serving the non-urban areas may be permitted, subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for such land use. Commercial and office uses above 3000 sq. ft. and all multi-purpose and mixed use projects shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 104. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned appears erroneous, as it repeats the intent of the Rural/Residential Planned designation, including "rural residential uses" and "rural scale" commercial uses. The intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned should probably state: "non-urban density residential development requiring a limited level of urban services" and the "suburban scale" commercial uses, which is the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential. The Implementation section of the FLUE probably should have stated the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation is the same as the intent of the Low Suburban Density Residential designation except to add "suburban level community commercial, clustered mixed use, and multi-purpose projects." The densities for Low Suburban Density Residential and Low Suburban Density Residential Planned are both 2:1. However, this density is applicable to the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned only if the proposed project is a Planned Village Concept on at least 160 acres. Otherwise, the density for Low Suburban Density Residential Planned is 1:5. The Low Suburban Density Residential Planned density contains the same description of mixed use and clustering as is found in the Rural/Residential Planned designation. There are 14 designations exclusively within the Urban service level. The two lowest densities, among categories that are predominantly residential, are Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential, which are, respectively, 4:1 and 6:1. Each density contains the following condition: This maximum residential density is provided only as a limit for application in situations which represent an ideal set of circumstances with regard to the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses, existing and/or approved, and with regard to the adequacy and availability of public facilities. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. The typical uses for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential are identical: Residential, urban scale neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose and mixed use projects. Non-residential uses shall meet established locational criteria for specific land use. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. Disregarding another apparent typographical error, 18/ the maximum floor area for each designation is identical: Urban scale neighborhood commercial, office, multi-purpose or mixed use projects limited to 175,000 sq. ft. or .25 FAR, whichever is less intense. Actual square footage limitation is dependent on functional classification of roadway intersection where project is located. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. Disregarding two more likely typographical errors, 19/ the intent for each designation is also identical, except for the bracketed notation that applies only to Low Urban Density Residential: To designate areas that are suitable for low density residential development. In addition, urban scale neighborhood commercial, office, multi-purpose and mixed use projects serving the area may be permitted subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element and applicable development regulations and conforming to established locational criteria for specific land use. Multi-purpose, mixed use projects and any development above 3.0 [5.0] dwelling units per gross acre on a site larger than 10 acres shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, pages 106 and 107. The next three designations in the Urban service level are Low/Medium Density Urban Residential, Medium Density Urban Residential, and High Density Urban Residential, which provide densities, respectively, of 9:1, 12:1, and 20:1. 20/ Each density is subject to the condition quoted above for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential concerning ideally suited circumstances. Ignoring one typographical error in the case of the High Density Urban Residential designation, 21/ the typical uses for each of the three designations are also identical, except for a minor distinction in language, with those stated for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential. The maximum floor areas for each of the three designations are identical to those stated for Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential except that the floor area ratio for High Density Urban Residential is 0.75, not 0.25. The intent of each of the three designations is the same as the intent of the Suburban Density Residential and Low Urban Density Residential designations with a minor change in language. The only differences are that the primary intent in each case is to designate an area suitable for the type of residential development suggested by the category's name, such as low-medium density. Also, a planned zoning district is required for each of the three designations if the proposed development is denser than 8:1 for Low/Medium Density Urban Residential, 10:1 for Medium Density Urban Residential, and 16:1 for High Density Urban Residential. The last three designations exclusively within the Urban service classification that are projected to contain significant residential uses are Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3 with respective densities of 12:1, 20:1, and 50:1. Each density contains the following condition: The maximum residential density is provided only as a limit for application in situations in which all Goals, Objectives, and Policies and applicable development regulations are being complied with, especially those regarding compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses, existing and/or approved, and with regard to the adequacy and availability of public facilities. FLUE, pages 111, 112, and 113. The typical uses for Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3 are identical: Mixed use development. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 111, 112, and 113. The maximum floor area ratios are 0.5, 1.0, and 2.5 for Urban Levels 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The intent of the Urban Level 1 designation is: The UL1 category may be located within three miles of I-75, bounded at the limits of the urban level category by existing or proposed arterial roads. This category of land use shall serve as a transitional area which emphasizes compatibility with adjacent plan categories. The UL1 area shall be more suburban in intensity and density of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities become available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for commercial uses shall be prohibited. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 111. The intent of the Urban Level 2 designation is: The UL2 category shall be compatible with adjacent urban land use categories such as UL1, UL3, research corporate park, and medium density residential. The UL2 areas shall be urban in intensity and density of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities are made available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for nonresidential uses to arterials shall be prohibited. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 112. The intent of the Urban Level 3 designation is: The UL3 category shall form a regional activity center which incorporates internal road systems, building clustering and mixing of uses, with development occurring as the provision and timing of transportation and public facility services necessary to support these intensities and densities are made available. Commercial uses shall be clustered at arterial and collector intersections. Strip development with separate driveway access for nonresidential uses to arterials shall be prohibited. The UL3 category should be surrounded by other urban level plan categories and be located at high level transit lines. Rezonings shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 113. Three commercial designations in the Urban service classification that are not expected to contain substantial residential development are Community Commercial, Commercial Office, and Regional Commercial. Each of these designations carries a density of 20:1 and contains a condition similar to that contained in Urban Level 1, 2, and 3 regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses and availability of adequate public facilities. The typical uses of Community Commercial are: Sale of convenience goods and personal services, general merchandising, furniture, sales restaurants, bars, offices, hotels, motels, banks, theaters, auto sales, compatible residential uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 114. The maximum floor area of the Community Commercial is 300,000 square feet or .35 FAR, whichever is less intense. The intent of Community Commercial is: To designate areas typically located within low density residential, low-medium density residential, medium density residential and/ or high density residential land use categories in order to provide a variety of commercial and office uses to serve large areas and which are oriented to auto traffic. Neighborhood commercial and office activities will be allowed provided they meet the applicable development regulations. Due to potential intensity of activities, planned grouping [is] strongly encouraged. Compatible residential development up to 20.0 dwelling units per gross acre, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments may be permitted in this category in appropriate locations according to applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 114. The typical uses of Commercial Office are: Community Commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 115. The maximum floor area of Commercial Office is: General--0.75 FAR up to a maximum of 600,000 square feet, however, the commercial component cannot exceed 300,000 square feet, subject to applicable land development regulations. FLUE, page 115. The intent of Commercial Office is: "To recognize existing commercial and office centers and provide for future development opportunities." FLUE, page 115. The typical uses of Regional Commercial are: Shopping malls to include one or more major department stores. Community Commercial type uses, office uses, mixed use developments, and compatible residential uses. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 116. The maximum floor area of Regional Commercial is "1.0 FAR, subject to applicable land development regulations." FLUE, page 116. The intent of Regional Commercial is: "To recognize existing regional commercial centers and provide for future development opportunities." Id. The three remaining designations exclusively in the Urban service level do not permit any residential uses. They are Research/Corporate Park, Light Industrial, and Light Industrial Planned. The typical uses of Research/Corporate Park are: Research and development activities, related educational facilities, electronic components production, light restricted manufacturing and warehousing, offices, corporate headquarters, and related uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, recreational facilities, and rural scale retail establishments. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. or 20% of the project's land area. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 117. The maximum floor area of Research/Corporate Park is "1.0 FAR." The intent of Research/Corporate Park is: To provide opportunity for research and high technology and similar manufacturing and light warehousing uses to serve Hillsborough County and the Tampa Bay region. Development in this category has integrated internal and external design requirements including heavy buffering and landscaping, high visibility linear footage on arterials, interstates, and expressways, and locations adjacent to employment markets. Research/Corporate Parks will be permitted to be developed throughout the county provided they meet the requirements of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Land Use Element, and applicable development regulations. Proposed developments at locations not shown on the Land Use Plan Map may be considered through the Plan amendment process. Support neighborhood commercial uses may be permitted for up to 20% of the total land area. The development of the neighborhood commercial uses shall be integrated and appropriately scaled to other project uses. All development in this category shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 117. The typical uses for Light Industrial and Light Industrial Planned are: Food products storage, furniture or apparel manufacturing (except plastics or fiberglass), packaging plants, wholesaling, storage of nonhazardous materials, offices, research/corporate parks as the predominant uses and subordinate uses or services such as hotels, motels, restaurants, rural scale retail establishments, and recreational facilities. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, pages 118 and 119. The maximum floor area of Light Industrial and Light Industrial Planned is ".5 FAR." FLUE, pages 118 and 119. The intent of Light Industrial is: This land use category is used to designate, geographically on the Land Use Plan Map and/ or textually in the Land Use Element, those areas in the County potentially suitable for industrial activities that create a minimal degree of impact to the surrounding environment, particularly in terms of non- objection[able] levels of noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and land use category descriptions related to industrial activities. [Convenience] commercial uses shall be limited to same criteria of size and location as rural scale neighborhood commercial. Any industrial development above a .4 FAR shall require a planned zoning district. FLUE, page 118. The intent of Light Industrial Planned restates the first sentence of the intent of the Light Industrial and adds: This land use plan category will be used in high volume transportation corridors that have high visibility where impacts to adjacent development need to be minimized. The adjacent use compatibility issues are a major concern, and new development and substantial expansion of existing uses shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process which requires, at a minimum, integrated site plans controlled through performance standards to achieve developments which are compatible with surrounding land use patterns and the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Land Use Plan. FLUE, page 119. The remaining seven designations are in a service level identified as "Urban or Rural." Two of them involve industrial uses. They are Heavy Industrial and Electric Power Generating Facility. The Heavy Industrial designation allows no residential uses. The typical uses of Heavy Industrial are: Phosphate and other chemical plants, plastics and fiberglass products processing, port related uses, storage of hazardous materials and liquids, offices, existing electric generating plants and expansions thereof, and related uses such as hotels, motels, restaurants, establishments, recreational facilities and rural scale retail establishments. Rural scale neighborhood commercial uses limited to 30,000 sq. ft. maximum. Agricultural uses may be permitted pursuant to policies in the agricultural objective areas of the [FLUE]. FLUE, page 120. The maximum floor area of Heavy Industrial is: .5 FAR. FAR's not to be applied to processing, storage and other uses characterized by outdoor storage. FLUE, page 120. The intent of Heavy Industrial is the same as the intent of the Light Industrial except that, in the case of Heavy Industrial, the activities "may have objectionable accompanying effects such as noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor." FLUE, page 120. The Electric Power Generating Facility designation allows a residential density of 1:5. The typical uses are: "All new Electrical Power Generating Facilities and related uses and all uses allowed in the Agricultural/Rural (A/R) land use plan classification." FLUE, page 121. The maximum floor area of the Electrical Power Generating Facility is: 0.5 FAR. FAR's not to be applied to processing, storage and other uses characterized by outdoor storage. Development permitted in this designation is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the [Plan], applicable development regulations and established locational criteria for specific land uses. FLUE, page 121. The intent of Electrical Power Generating Facility is: This land use category is used to designate geographically on the Future Land Use Map and textually in the [FLUE] those areas that are potentially suitable for the construction and operation of future electric power generating facilities consistent with the infrastructure needs of the population and subject to the requirements of the [Plan] and all other Federal, State and Local Laws, policies and permits. The uses authorized in the Agricultural/Rural (A/R) land use plan category are also authorized. New development of uses associated with an electrical power generating facility shall be approved through a planned unit development rezoning process. An application to rezone land for an Electrical Power Generating Facility may only be filed after submission of an application to the State under the Power Plant Siting Act. If the Siting Board denies the Siting, then the zoning shall revert to the underlying Zoning in existence at the time of application. FLUE, page 121. The five remaining designations are Major Public/Semi- Public, Major Recreation and Open Space, Scenic Corridor, Natural Preservation, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The typical uses of Major Public/Semi-Public, which is intended to "recognize major existing and programmed public facilities," are "[m]ajor government-owned facilities and other public uses [and] semi-public uses generally available for public use, [such as] churches, hospitals, schools, clubs and utility and transportation facilities." However, "[t]he Land Use Plan Map only shows major existing facilities." FLUE, page 122. The typical uses of Major Recreation and Open Space are "[m]ajor parks and recreational facilities which are publicly or privately owned and operated for recreational uses and are available to the public." However, the designation shows only "major existing parks and recreational facilities" as the Recreation and Open Space Element contains maps of "existing and proposed or needed parks." FLUE, page 123. The intent of the Scenic Corridor is to create a designation "applied to road corridors . . . determined to have scenic qualities of local or countywide significance." FLUE, page 124. In addition to preserving or enhancing the aesthetic appearance of roads through buffering, landscaping, and control of nonresidential uses, the Scenic Corridor designation is intended to preserve or expand a system of roadways that will begin to form a boulevard system to connect different communities within unincorporated Hillsborough County. The boulevard system will also form a system of connections between parks and recreational areas of the county. FLUE, page 92. The typical uses of Natural Preservation are "[o]pen space or passive nature parks." The intent of the designation is to "recognize public lands of significant environmental importance set aside for primarily conservation purposes." The Natural Preservation designation excludes other uses except residential sufficient for a caretaker, "compatible recreational development," and limited educational uses. FLUE, page 125. FLUE Policy A-3.2 states: No new development nor expansion nor replacement of existing development shall be permitted within areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as Natural Preservation Areas, unless development is undertaken by federal, State or local government in the public interest, and the impacts are mitigated. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation has been discussed above. 22/ The Implementation section of the FLUE describes the locational criteria and development standards for Rural-, Suburban-, and Urban-scale neighborhood commercial uses, which may be approved in various land use categories. Different development standards also apply for community commercial uses. The development standards for neighborhood commercial uses require, among other things, a location within a commercial node at the intersection of least one collector or higher planned roadway and maximum square footage based on a matrix focusing on land use designation and roadway classification. FLUE, pages 75- 76. Additional requirements are imposed based on whether the use is Urban-, Suburban-, or Rural-scale. The relationship of the land use categories to the FLUM is explained in the Implementation section: The land use plan categories shown on the Future Land Use Map are named according to their predominant land use or maximum level of intensity intended for that category of land use. Other uses may be permitted in any land use category as described within the individual plan category descriptions. Specific locations for other such uses are not shown graphically because to do so would predetermine locations of individual uses, particularly neighborhood-related uses, at a level of detail beyond the scope of the Future Land Use Map. All uses shall be reviewed for conformance with all applicable provisions contained within the [Plan] and with applicable development regulations. FLUE, page 55. Various policies pertain to designated densities in the Plan and FLUM. FLUE Policy A-3.3 states: "Gradual transitions of intensities and between different land uses shall be encouraged." FLUE Policy A-3.1 provides in part: "Land development regulations shall be studied to determine whether to include provisions for the transfer of development rights which ... provide for the transfer of development rights to receiving zones where infill is indicated." The Implementation section of the FLUE provides a density credit for certain in-fill development. FLUE, page 69. The Implementation section also contains various density and intensity bonuses for the development of affordable housing. FLUE, pages 73a-73b. FLUE Policy B-3.6 pursues infilling by treating as a single dwelling unit "an accessory residential unit associated with an owner occupied single family residence." Several provisions in the FLUE concern the provision of public facilities. FLUE Objective A-5 is: All new development and redevelopment shall be serviced with potable water, sewerage, stormwater management facilities, solid waste disposal and parks that meet or exceed the adopted levels of service established by Hillsborough County. FLUE Policy A-5.2 establishes the concurrency requirement as follows: The public facilities that are needed to serve future development shall be provided by the applicant seeking a development permit and/or the County, in a timely manner that is concurrent with the impacts of development as defined in the [CIE]. FLUE Objective C-29 provides: Public facilities and services that meet or exceed existing or established County levels of service shall be provided in advance of, or concurrent with, the impacts of development. FLUE Policy C-29.1 is to: Ensure that public facilities operating at adopted levels of service are available when Certificates of Occupancy are issued by: Anticipating development and planning the Capital Improvements Program accordingly; Requiring conditions on development approvals that phase development with the availability of facilities; Allowing developers to improve or provide public facilities at their own expense; Entering into public-private partnerships, when appropriate, to provide public facilities. CIE Policy 3.C states: The Board of County Commissioners find that the impacts of development on public facilities within Hillsborough County occur at the same time as development authorized by a final development order as defined in Policy 1.A.3.a. The County shall determine, prior to the issuance of final development orders, whether or not there is sufficient capacity of Category A and Category B 23/ public facilities to meet the standards for Levels of Service for existing population and the proposed development concurrent with the proposed development. For the purpose of this policy, "concurrent with" shall be defined as follows: 3.C.1: No final development order shall be issued by the County after January 31, 1990, unless there shall be sufficient capacity of Category A and Category B public facilities to meet the standards for Levels of Service for the existing population and for the proposed development according to the following deadlines: a: Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity for the following public facilities: 3.C.1.a.(1): Potable water. 3.C.1.a.(2): Sanitary sewer. 3.C.1.a.(3): Solid waste. 3.C.1.a.(4): Stormwater management. 3.C.1.b: Prior to the completion of the same County fiscal year as the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity for arterial and collector roads. 3.C.1.c: For parks and recreation facilities, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity or within a year of the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity if the necessary facilities are the subject of a binding executed contract or are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement which requires the commencement of actual construction of the facilities within one (1) year of the issuance of the Certificate of Capacity. CIE Policy 3.C.2 states that a favorable capacity determination, following mandatory review of a development order, remains valid for two years. CIE Policy 3.C.4 indicates that the levels of service determinations shall be applied on a County-wide basis for solid waste disposal and regional parks. Levels of service determinations for facilities involving arterial and collector roads and mass transit shall be made by "[a]djoining sites and areas affected by the project based on individual analysis of the proposed development." Levels of service determinations for stormwater management systems shall be by major drainage basin. Levels of service determinations for district or neighborhood parks shall be by the relevant planning area. Levels of service determinations for potable water systems and sanitary sewer systems shall be by treatment plant service area, except that individual transmission (water) or collection (sewer) system limitations shall not result in closing the entire area to development if plant capacity remains. CIE Policy 1.C.1.a adopts level of service standards for all County arterial and collector roads by listing road segments and maximum volume-to- capacity ratios. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b adopts level of service standards for stormwater management systems, which include "significant canals, channels, ditches, pipeline/culvert enclosures of open systems, and appurtenant structures at crossings/control points." CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(1) sets the adopted level of service for any existing system as the existing level of service until the system is physically upgraded and the Plan is amended to reflect the upgrade. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(2) states that the ultimate level of service for major stormwater conveyance systems is generally the 25 year/24-hour duration storm at flood level B except the more rigorous flood level A applies to new development and a less rigorous five year storm event applies for systems discharging into Tampa's stormwater conveyance system, which is designed to meet the demands of only the five year storm event. CIE Policy 1.C.1.b.(6) sets stormwater level of service standards based on flood capacity for other stormwater systems--i.e., sewer/swales and detention ponds/lakes/storage areas. CIE Policy 1.C.1.c sets the potable water level of service standard at 140 gallons daily per person. CIE Policy 1.C.1.d sets the sewage level of service standard at 100 gallons daily per person plus 23.8% for nonresidential sewage. CIE Policies 1.C.1.f-1.C.2 set level of service standards for solid waste, parks and recreation facilities, mass transit, and non-County maintained public facilities. FLUE Policy A-5.3 addresses the concurrency monitoring system: Areas that have excess and deficient capacities for public facilities in unincorporated Hillsborough County shall be identified, and this information shall be updated no less than once a year. Development will be encouraged in areas with excess capacities for public facilities, and discouraged in areas with deficient capacities for public facilities unless these facilities can be provided concurrently with development and consistent with the [Plan], County Regulations and adopted levels of service for public facilities. The monitoring and enforcement aspects of the concurrency management system are detailed in the CIE's Implementation section, which is part of the adopted Plan. The Implementation section assures: "no final development order shall be issued which results in a reduction in the Levels of Service below the standard adopted in Policy 1.C.1 for Category A public facilities and Policy 1.C.2 for Category B public facilities." CIE, page 25. The concurrency determination is based on a monitoring program that calls for, among other things, annual reports on the capacity and actual levels of service of public facilities for which concurrency is required. The monitoring program requires a separate record of the cumulative impacts of all development orders approved year-to-date. CIE, page 27. FLUE Policy A-5.6 states: Public facilities and utilities shall be located to consider: (a) maximizing the efficiency of services provided; (b) minimizing their cost; and (c) minimizing their impacts upon the natural environment. FLUE Policy A-5.7 identifies procedures, such as development phasing and utility oversizing, "so that the location and timing of new development can be closely coordinated with local government's ability to provide public facilities." FLUE Policy A-5.8 adds that the County shall promote partnerships among governmental and private entities "to identify and build needed public facilities among the partners in proportion to the benefits accruing to each of them." Specifically addressing transportation facilities, FLUE Objective A-6 states: All new development and redevelopment shall be serviced with roads that meet or exceed the adopted levels of service established by Hillsborough County. FLUE Policy A-6.1 is to: Coordinate land use and transportation plans to provide for locally adopted levels of service consistent with the Transportation and Capital Improvements Elements . . .. FLUE Objective A-7 is: The concept plan is the overall, conceptual basis for the long range, Comprehensive Plan, and all plan amendments must be consistent with, and further the intent of the concept plan, which advocates nodal clusters of growth connected by corridors that efficiently move goods and people between each of the nodes. FLUE Policy A-7.3 states: The development of a variety of employment centers shall be encouraged at adopted locations, as defined by the concept plan and applicable development regulations, to provide employment opportunities throughout existing and planned development areas. The Implementation section of the FLUE describes the concept plan involving nodal development. The purpose of the nodal activity centers is to "begin to form an urban structure that encourages the cohesiveness of the neighborhood unit while facilitating the connection and interdependence of the region as a whole." FLUE, page 57. The Implementation section describes four types of nodes. The most intense is the high intensity node, which is limited to the Central Business District of Tampa. The next most intense is the mixed use regional node, which designates existing and future regional shopping centers, major office and employment areas, higher education institutions, and professional sports and recreation complexes. The mixed use regional nodes include the West Shore Business District, Urban Level 3 Regional Activity Center in the I-75 corridor west of Brandon, University of South Florida area, and Tampa Palms at CR 581 and I-75. Less intense than the mixed use regional node is the community center node, which "will designate and emphasize a focal point for surrounding neighborhoods that will include a variety of public facilities and services including commercial and office development." FLUE, page 57. The community center nodes include numerous named areas. Least intense is the neighborhood node, which designates areas "appropriate for some higher intensity residential development with the density tied to a relationship with the scale of existing surrounding development." FLUE, page 58. There are numerous existing and potential neighborhood nodes. FLUE Policy A-7.6 states: Scattered, unplanned, low density development without provisions for facilities and services at levels adopted in the [Plan] in locations not consistent with the overall concepts of the [Plan] shall be prohibited. To qualify for densities in excess of 1:5 in areas designated Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned, FLUE Policy A-7.7 requires residential development to conform to the requirements contained in the FLUE Implementation section, such as clustering, on-site job opportunities, internal trip capture, and shopping opportunities. FLUE Policy A-7.8 explains that the clustering and mixed use requirements imposed upon development in areas designated Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned are intended: to prevent urban sprawl, provide for the efficient provision of infrastructure, and preservation of open space and the environment. Clustering and Mixed Use shall be encouraged in the other suburban and rural plans categories. FLUE Policy A-7.10 states that developments in areas designated as Low Suburban Density Residential Planned and Rural Residential Planned and involving at least 160 acres, if proceeding under the Planned Village concept, "shall be served by a central wastewater system (i.e. franchise, interim plant, community plant, county/municipal regional or sub-regional service, or other privately owned central systems)." Housing Element Objective 1.3 states: By 1992, establish guidelines for locating low and moderate income housing accessible to employment centers, mass transit systems, shopping and cultural, educational, medical and recreational facilities. Housing Element Policy 1.3.5 provides: By 1992, proactive public land investment initiatives along with incentives for private developments shall be explored, and implemented which include but are not limited to the following: disposition of surplus public land with developer incentives, public land assembly, disposition, and developer incentives in a comprehensive redevelopment framework and/or neighborhood rehabilitation plans; supplementary public initiatives to support private land assembly and affordable housing development; and the creation of a public-private partnership corporation to undertake land investment and facilitate private development of affordable housing in desirable locations. Housing Element Policy 1.3.6 states: "The County shall pursue federal and state funding sources for infrastructure improvements and for the construction or rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing." FLUE Objective B-4 addresses the locational criteria by which commercial uses will be permitted under the Plan. The objective states: Locational criteria for neighborhood serving commercial uses shall be implemented to scale development consistent with the character of the areas and to the availability of public facilities and the market. FLUE Policy B-4.1 states that the amount of neighborhood-serving commercial uses permitted in an area shall be consistent with the table adopted in the Implementation Section of the [FLUE] relating to land use density and the functional classification of the road network. FLUE Policy B-4.6 is: "Scattered, unplanned commercial development shall be discouraged, and commercial concentration shall be encouraged." FLUE Policy B-4.7 adds: "Commercial development should be designed to decrease the need for motorized vehicle trips by designing convenient, safe, non- motorized access." FLUE Policy B-4.8 provides: The expansion of existing strip commercial areas shall be prohibited, except in accordance with infill provisions in existing neighborhood commercial areas, and office or higher density residential development shall be considered as a viable alternative when in accordance with applicable development regulations. FLUE Policy B-5.1 addresses the redevelopment of commercial areas: "The redevelopment or revitalization of rundown strip commercial areas shall be encouraged through incentives such as the use of residential density credits for infill development that could include mixed use development." Further refining the guidelines for commercial redevelopment, FLUE Policy B-5.3 states: The redevelopment of appropriate commercial areas to include residential and/or office development that will reduce the number of transportation trips by increasing a project's internal capture rate shall be encouraged through incentives such as the use of residential density credits for infill development. FLUE Objective B-6 promises ongoing studies to identify the areas suitable for different types of industrial uses. FLUE Policy B-6.2 states that light industrial uses-- specifically, research and development--shall be encouraged to locate within the I-75 corridor, adjacent to the Tampa International Airport, and within the I-4 corridor. FLUE Policy B-6.5 provides: Expansion or new development of non- industrially designated land uses in industrially designated areas shall be prohibited unless the use is determined to be an accessory and complementary use to the industrial area. Applicable development regulations shall contain standards and/or criteria for location and intensity of these types of non-industrial uses. The intent is to ensure the availability of lands for industrial development, and to ensure that such subordinate uses will be in conjunction with the surrounding industrial area, as long as the industrial uses in the area are the predominant uses. FLUE Policy B-6.7 states: "Future industrial development shall be concentrated within industrial and mixed use areas as defined on the Future Land Use Map." Addressing agriculture, FLUE Objective B-7 states: Hillsborough County shall take active measures to foster the economic viability of agricultural activities by recognizing and providing for [their] unique characteristics in land use planning and land development regulations. FLUE Policy B-7.1 is to "[p]romote the development and maintenance of Plant City and Ruskin as agricultural market centers that strengthen the agricultural economy, encouraging agricultural uses within and around both communities." FLUE Policy B-7.2 is to "[a]llow agriculture as a viable use both prior and subsequent to the mining of land designated or approved for mining purposes." FLUE Policy B-7.5 warns: Anyone seeking the maximum long-term protection for long-term agricultural activities either should locate these activities on land in the Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate and Rural Residential designated land use categories or should seek having these designations placed on their current location. FLUE Policy B-7.6 advises: "Anyone seeking to farm until it is more feasible to develop the property non- agriculturally should locate and remain in non-rural designated areas." FLUE Policy B-7.7 guarantees, for areas designated Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, and Agricultural/Rural, that minimum acreages needed for viable agriculture will remain after clustering is approved. FLUE Policy B-7.9 is to defer charging an on-going agriculturally used property designated Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, or Rural Residential for public water or sewer tie-ins until actual connections are made or the designation is changed to a non- rural land use category. FLUE Objective B-8 deals with the question of compatibility between agricultural and nonagricultural uses in areas designated other than Agricultural, Agricultural/Mining, Agricultural/Rural, Rural Estate, and Rural Residential. FLUE Policy B-8.4 is to "[d]iscourage the location of new non- agricultural uses adjacent to pre-existing agricultural uses in rural land use categories." FLUE Objective C-25 addresses the need for "urban level densities" to encourage single and mixed uses in the I-75 corridor. FLUE Policy C-25.2 is to: "Encourage provision of affordable housing within mixed use developments through public and private sector initiatives." FLUE Policy C-25.3 is to limit the maximum density to 8:1 in the Urban Level 1 area between Tampa and the Pasco county line. FLUE Policy C-25.5 is to encourage access to urban level development on county arterials rather than state highways. FLUE Objective C-27 states: Employment centers shall be planned throughout the I-75 corridor, and residential opportunities shall be permitted in each of the plan categories within the I-75 corridor in order to promote opportunities for all segments of the population to live and work within the corridor, regardless of age, sex, race and income. FLUE Policy C-27.2 is to: "Encourage the provision and integration of low and moderate income housing dispersed throughout the urban level categories." FLUE Objective C-28 states: "Mass transit opportunities shall be expanded within the I-75 corridor." FLUE Objective C-31 is: By 1991, the County shall pursue the Regional Activity Center designation for the area within the I-75 corridor defined as that area consisting of the Urban Level 3 land use plan category on the Future Land Use Plan Map. FLUE Policy C-31.2 is for the County to develop incentives for development to locate within the Regional Activity Center. Suggested incentives are transferable development rights, increased densities and intensities, priority public facility funding, and special taxing districts. FLUE Objectives C-32 and C-33 establish corridors for I-4 and North Dale Mabry, respectively. In the I-4 corridor, light industrial uses are encouraged. In the North Dale Mabry corridor, clustered commercial, such as shopping centers, are encouraged over "scattered unplanned commercial development." 4. Funding and Financial Feasibility 615. CIE Objective 2 is: Provide needed public facilities that are within the ability of the County to fund the facilities. . . from County revenues, development's proportionate share contributions, and grants or gift[s] from other sources. [Rule] 9J-5.016(3)(b)5. CIE Policy 2.A states: The estimated costs of all needed capital improvements shall not exceed conservative estimates of revenues from sources that are available to the County pursuant to current statutes, and which have not been rejected by referendum, if a referendum is required to enact a source of revenue. [Rule] 9J- 5.016(3)(c)1.f. CIE Policy 2.B provides: "Existing and future development shall both pay for the costs of needed public facilities." CIE Policy 2.B.1.a states: Existing development shall pay for some or all of the capital improvements that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, some or all of the replacement of obsolete or worn out facilities, and may pay a portion of the cost of capital improvements needed by future development. CIE Policy 2.B.1.b adds: "Existing development's payments may take the form of user fees, special assessments and taxes." Addressing future development, CIE Policy 2.B.2.a provides: The County will allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents so that current residents will not subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new development. CIE Policy 2.B.2.b states: Future development's payments may take the form of, but are not limited to, voluntary contributions for the benefit of any public facility, impact fees, capacity fees, dedications of land, provision of public facilities, and future payments of user fees, special assessments and taxes. Future development shall not pay impact fees for the portion of any capital improvement that reduces or eliminates existing deficiencies. The Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements contained in the CIE discloses planned capital expenditures, as they were known in June and July, 1989. The Five-Year Schedule indicates that, for the five-year period ending with fiscal year end 1994, the following capital costs are projected by public facility type: roads--$273,668,000; parks--$28,611,000; water--$10,798,000; sewer--$55,848,000; stormwater-- $29,345,000; and solid waste--$16,250,000. The total of these capital expenditures is $414,520,000. For each project, the Five-Year Schedule describes the general funding source. The CIE contains a section entitled Costs and Revenues by Type of Public Facility, which is an adopted part of the Plan. The Costs and Revenues section, which was prepared in December, 1990, states: The [CIE] is 100% financed by revenue sources that are available to the County under current law, therefore the Element is financially feasible, as required by the Florida Administrative Code. There is no "unfunded" portion of the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The Costs and Revenues section identifies each of the public facilities for which concurrency is required, the total expenditures planned for each public facility for the five-year capital planning period, and general sources of revenue by facility type. The costs and revenues by public facility type are: roads--$193,684,000; parks--$17,865,000; water-- $9,265,000; sewer--$76,179,000; drainage--$25,000,000; and solid waste--$16,250,000. The total of these capital expenditures is $362,097,000. Evidently, budget cutbacks took place in the 18 months between the adoption of the Five Year Schedule in mid 1989 and the adoption of the Costs and Revenues section in December, 1990. 5. Transportation Level of Service Standards Transportation Element Policy 1.1.1 sets minimum peak hour level of service standards for County roads, subject to lower standards for certain roads listed in CIE Policy 1.C.1.a. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 sets minimum peak hour level of service standards for State roads, subject to lower standards for certain roads listed in Transportation Element Table 2. 24/ Transportation Element Tables 1 and 2 show that 58 of the 147 state road segments in Hillsborough County are operating below the level of service standards generally adopted in Policy 1.1.4. These standards are D for all Urban state roads except for minor arterials, which are E, and C for all Rural state roads except for minor arterials, which are D. Table 1 shows that, by 1995, an additional 33 state road segments will be operating below the generally adopted level of service standard. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 concludes: "No development orders will be issued that would further reduce the current level of service on those roads listed in Table 2 of this element except where the development is vested under law." Transportation Element Figure 4 shows the location of all roads operating at level of service F. None is south of the Alafia River. The impaired roads are entirely in northwest and northcentral Hillsborough County. Among the road segments operating below the generally applicable level of service standards for state roads are four of the 11 segments of SR 574 (Buffalo/King), 10 of the 15 segments of SR 597 (Dale Mabry Highway), four of the five segments of SR 580 (Hillsborough Ave.), seven of the 10 segments of I- 275, seven of the eight segments of I-4, and four of the five segments of US 41 (Nebraska Ave. portion only). Much less impacted state road segments include I- 75, which has no segment operating below its adopted level of service standards; US 301, which has two of nine segments operating below its adopted level of service standards; and US 41 (southern sections), which has no segment operating below its adopted level of service standards. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.4 states that state roads operating below adopted level of service standards are "backlogged" or "constrained" and shall have a level of service standard established by the volume-to-capacity ratio listed for each road on Table 2. The Data and Analysis discuss the transportation problems confronting Hillsborough County. Many of the impaired road segments are scheduled for capital improvements in the Florida Department of Transportation five year work program. One key exception is Dale Mabry Highway, which will remain at level of service F even after planned work is completed. Transportation Element, page 24. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.7 promises that, within one year after adoption of the Plan, the County will enter into an agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation to identify actions that the County will take to "maintain the existing average operating conditions" on backlogged or constrained state roads. Transportation Element Policy 1.1.14 provides that Hillsborough County will, by 1990, initiate studies to identify State and County road corridors not capable of undergoing further capacity-increasing improvements and are thus suitable for designation as constrained corridors. 6. Vested Rights and Developments of Regional Impact The Legal Status of the Plan, which is part of the FLUE, addresses vested rights. The Legal Status section requires the County to develop an administrative process by which vested rights can be determined. The Legal Status section preconditions a finding of vested rights upon the following: That the person owned the parcel proposed for development at the date of the adoption of this [Plan], or the person had a contract or option to purchase the parcel on such date, or that it would be inequitable, unjust or fundamentally unfair to deny an application for vested rights where the person acquired ownership prior to February 1, 1990; and That there was a valid, unexpired act of any agency or authority of Hillsborough County government upon which the person reasonably relied in good faith; and That the person, in reliance upon this act of government, has made a substantial change in position or had incurred extensive obligations or expenses; and That it would be inequitable, unjust or fundamentally unfair to destroy the rights acquired by the person. In making this determination, the County may consider a number of factors, including but not limited to consideration of whether actual construction has commenced and whether the expense or obligation incurred is unique to the development previously approved and is not reasonably usable for a development permitted by the [Plan] and land development regulations. FLUE, page 128. Ensuing provisions of the Legal Status section identify various vested rights based on whether a development is exempted from concurrency. The Legal Status section also addresses certain development orders under developments of regional impact (DRI). Between the Plan adoption date and February 1, 1990, the County will approve buildout of not more than a "limited stage" of the total proposed DRI. Generally, the buildout approval will be limited to the part of the proposed development that has received Site Development Approval within two years following the expiration of the development order's initial appeal period. The Legal Status section authorizes the approval of additional development stages beyond the two-year limit if the development application had been received by the County prior to the Plan adoption date, the developer made substantial expenditures before Plan adoption in conducting a transportation analysis, and the transportation analysis focused on impacts occurring beyond the two-year limit. Development activity following the approved initial stage shall be subject to the Plan, including the concurrency requirements. The Legal Status section also recognizes the practice of "pipelining." The Legal Status section states: "While 'pipelining' will remain a permitted transportation mitigation option, the Board of County Commissioners will closely scrutinize its use." FLUE, page 129. Miscellaneous Intergovernmental Coordination Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) Objective 1 states: By 1990, Hillsborough County shall establish new and review existing coordination mechanisms that will evaluate and address its comprehensive plan and programs and their effects on the comprehensive plans developed for the adjacent local governments, school board, and other units of local government providing services but not having regulatory authority over use of land and the State, by an annual county-wide forum sponsored by The Planning Commission. Assistance for this effort shall be requested from regional and state agencies by The Planning Commission, as needed. ICE Objective 3 requires the County, by 1991, "to address through coordination mechanisms the impact of development proposed in the [Plan] upon development in adjacent jurisdictions, the region and the state." Dual Planning Timeframes The Plan contains dual planning timeframes. Overall, the Plan contains a 20-year planning timeframe. However, shorter planning periods are addressed, such as the five-year period covered in the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. Regional Plan Provisions The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has adopted a regional plan known as the Future of the Region: A Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region dated July 1, 1987 (Regional Plan). The Regional Plan, which applies to unincorporated Hillsborough County, is divided into goals and policies. Regional Goal 8.1 is: "By 1990, there will be an ample supply of water to meet all projected reasonable and beneficial uses in the Tampa Bay region." Policy 8.1.4 states: "Land use planning and development decisions shall consider the impact on surface and groundwater quality." Regional Goal 8.5 is: "By 1991, the region will increase the protection of major public water supplies and wellfields." Policy 8.5.1 states: "Prime groundwater recharge areas and cones of influence of existing and future major public water supplies and well fields shall be identified and mapped." Regional Goal 8.7 is: "By 1991, new developments in the region will be required to use the best management practices and/or procedures to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff." Policy 8.7.1 requires the development of programs to ensure water reclamation and reuse with respect to wastewater and stormwater. Regional Goal 8.8 is: "By 1995, existing developments will be required to make measurable progress toward meeting stormwater standards." Policy 8.8.1 provides: "Local governments should upgrade or retrofit drainage systems in urbanized areas to include stormwater treatment for water quality." Policy 8.8.4 requires that agricultural runoff "shall be handled with Best Management Practices to minimize its impact upon receiving waters." Regional Goal 8.9 is: "By 1995, there shall be an increase in the effectiveness of programs protecting or enhancing the ecological function of natural systems (aquatic, wetland and terrestrial systems)." Policy 8.9.1 is to develop regional and local programs "to identify, protect and conserve the natural character and function of area lakes, streams, estuaries, wetlands, floodplain areas, and upland areas." Policy 8.9.2 directs that local government comprehensive plans shall incorporate the following: a) adoption of criteria for work in lake, riverine and wetland systems which will protect water quality, wildlife habitat and natural hydrological functioning of these areas; b) conservation of valuable upland habitat and wetland systems; c) preservation of habitat for endangered and threatened species; d) establish ecological minimum flow criteria and hydroperiod for surface waters; e) utilization of biological treatment methods and natural areas, such as wetlands, for stormwater treatment in areas of development/redevelopment to the maximum feasible extent. Regional Goal 8.10 is: "By 1991, land use practices will reduce the disruption of natural floodplain functions." Policy 8.10.1 states: "Regulations should be developed to promote appropriate land use practices compatible with floodplain areas and provide for performance standards for these land uses." Regional Goal 9.1 is: "By 1990, coastal zone areas will have increased vegetation, enhanced beach systems and improved environmental quality." Policy 9.1.2 provides: "The protection of coastal vegetative communities, coastal wildlife habitats, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development shall be required." Regional Goal 9.3 is: "By 1995, aquatic preserves in the Tampa Bay region will be more productive than 1985 levels and have a significant improvement in quality over 1985 measurements." Policy 9.3.3 requires buffer zones or other appropriate protection "between pristine aquatic preserves and adjacent upland uses to prevent degradation of water quality, shoreline and marine habitats." Regional Goal 9.4 is: "By 1991, all marine resources will be protected from contamination from human-induced processes." Policy 9.4.1 states: To protect sensitive marine resources from immediate and near future degradation resulting from improper development practices and recreational misuse, priority shall be given to water dependent uses or other types of shoreline development such as marina, light industry, ports and shoreline compatible commerce. Policy 9.4.2 states that the exploration and development of mineral resources "shall only proceed in an ecologically sound manner which does not threaten marine, aquatic, and estuarine resources." Policy 9.4.5 provides: "Dredging or spoiling of undisturbed bay bottom shall be prohibited. " Regional Goal 9.5 is: "By 1995, there will be at least a 5 percent increase in productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources." Policy 9.5.1 states: "Long-term productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources shall be increased and restored through estuary and intertidal protection." Regional Goal 9.6 is: "By 1990, coastal area will be protected by local government controls and other building regulations that will enhance the character and function of barrier islands and other environmentally sensitive areas." Policy 9.6.1 states: "Land and water uses shall be compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources." Policy 9.6.2 provides: "The use of government funds to subsidize development should be prohibited in high-hazard coastal areas." Policy 9.6.3 is to identify coastal high hazard areas "where the expenditure of public funds to subsidize development shall be prohibited." Policy 9.6.4 states: "The use of public funds to rebuild public facilities damaged by hurricanes or other storms shall be limited to facilities essential only for public health and safety." Regional Goal 10.1 is: "By 1995, the Tampa Bay region's conservation areas will have increased environmental quality and functional characteristics that provide suitable habitat to all wildlife and flora indigenous to the region." Policy 10.1.1 states: "Protect the habitats and plant communities that tend to be least in abundance and most productive or unique." Policy 10.2.2 states: The hydrologic continuity and water quality of identified isolated wetlands shall be protected. Development activities or other land disturbances in the drainage area of the wetlands shall minimize alterations to the surface or subsurface flow of water into and from the wetland and shall not cause impairment of the water quality or the plant and wildlife habitat value of the wetland. Policy 10.2.3 requires "water users, such as agriculture and mining," to prepare mitigation plans "to minimize unavoidable impacts to nearby wetlands." Policy 10.2.4 requires: Mitigation measures shall be developed to provide water quality benefits and plant and animal habitat equivalent to the wetland destroyed or altered. Newly created wetlands should include at least 1:1 mitigation using the same type or more productive vegetation with at least an 80-85 percent natural cover rate, over a 2 to 5 year period. Regional Goal 10.3 is: "By 1993, regional preservation areas will be protected by regulations or practices from further development and will be preserved and/or restored to their natural state." Policy 10.3.1 states, in part: "Preservation areas, such as marine grass beds . . . and other vital or critical natural systems, shall be protected from any further development except in cases of overriding public interest." Policy 10.3.3 provides: "Unique upland communities and habitats in identified preservation areas should be protected from development that would significantly alter their character. Preservation and restoration of these communities shall be required." Regional Goal 10.4 is: "By 1991, development in the 100 year floodplains should be strictly regulated." Policy 10.4.1 allows new channelization only as a "last resort" in flood protection for existing development. Policy 10.4.4 prohibits channelization solely to create new lands for development. Policy 10.4.2 prohibits locating new development in river floodways (i.e., the area of highest velocity during flow) except in cases of overriding public interest. Policy 10.4.3 requires that new development in the flood fringe (i.e., the area of the floodplain outside the floodway) meet flood hazard construction requirements. Regional Goal 10.5 is: "By 1991, new or rebuilt development within the 25 year floodplain will not contribute adverse water quality impacts from stormwater runoff." Policy 10.5.2 states: "Development along all river floodplains shall be low density with adequate setbacks to maintain existing areas of natural habitat." Regional Goal 10.6 is that, by 1995, there shall be "measurable indications" of greater commitment from local governments and private parties to "conserve, protect, and enhance" populations and habitats of endangered, threatened, and special-concern species. Policy 10.6.1 recommends the adoption of incentives to encourage the preservation of native habitats. Policy 10.6.2 states: Identified areas that contain viable populations of, or suitable habitats for, species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern . . . shall be classified as environmentally sensitive, preservation, or conservation areas with future development limited to land uses compatible with the listed species. Regional Goal 10.8 is: "By 1991, there will be marked changes in land rearrangement and vegetation clearing practices that do not degrade the region's natural drainage and percolation patterns." Policy 10.8.1 requires the use of buffer zones between agricultural lands and water bodies. Regional Goal 10.9 is: "By 1995, the region's forested and woodland areas will not have decreased in size by more than 3 percent, or have any less characteristics than present in 1988." Policy 10.9.1 requires the addition to local government comprehensive plans of forest preservation plans for significant woodlands or forests. Policy 10.9.2 states that the forest preservation strategy shall consist of mapping of forests and woodlands, identifying those forest or woodland areas that are wetlands or habitat protection areas, and providing incentives for the conversion of other land uses to forested conditions. Policy 10.9.3 states that wildlife corridors should be maintained. Regional Goal 16.8 is: "As an ongoing goal, all dredge and fill activities shall be carried out only when necessary and in a manner least harmful to the surrounding environment." Policy 16.8.1 provides: Any project including unavoidable destruction of habitat shall mitigate all lost wetland habitat on a 1:1 in-kind basis, at minimum. Mitigation shall include monitoring with assurance of an 80-85% natural cover area after 2-5 years. Policy 16.8.2 states: "Unique and irreplaceable natural resources shall be protected from adverse effects." This policy is intended to apply to dredge and fill projects, as is clear from the standard by which compliance is to be measured, which is the "amount of dredging or filling within unique and irreplaceable natural resources." Regional Goal 13.6 is: "By 1995, groundwater contamination due to inappropriately located or improperly used septic tanks shall be eliminated." Policy 13.6.2 provides: "Permitting process criteria for septic tanks and their fields shall take into consideration adverse impacts on water quality and aquatic resources." Policy 13.6.4 requires a survey locating "septic tanks associated with all commercial and industrial activities" and an "evaluation . . . concerning potential adverse effects on groundwater resources, water supply wells, and ground water recharge potential." Regional Goal 13.9 is: "By 1995, water quality will be improved by the control of point and non-point discharges into surface waters." Policy 13.9.2 states: "Domestic sewage and industrial discharges shall be required to achieve best practical technological standards and to implement reuse systems to minimize pollution discharge." Regional Goal 13.10 is: "By 1995, the number of project-specific 'package plants' shall be reduced from 1988 levels." Encouraging private cost- sharing in the construction of regional wastewater facilities and the development of requirements for connecting package-plant systems to regional systems when available, Policy 13.10.1 also provides: When necessary, project-specific "package plants" shall be allowed but only where a detailed hydrogeological analysis of the site determines low potential for groundwater contamination from hazardous wastes or other pollutants. Regional Goal 14.4 is: "By 1991, mining practices will be designed to fully protect the natural environment from the adverse effects of resource extraction." Policy 14.4.1 states: "There shall be no mining in areas which are geographically or hydrologically unsuitable for the extraction of minerals or in areas which are crucial to the provision of essential public services." Policy 14.4.2 provides: "There shall be no mining in the 25-year floodplain." Policy 14.4.3 states: The mining of environmentally sensitive areas shall be avoided unless it can be demonstrated that technology associated with reclamation and restoration can restore those areas. Mining and reclamation procedures shall minimize permanent changes in natural systems and the permanent loss of environmental resources. The best available technology and practices shall be used to re-establish the land forms, land uses, and natural vegetation associations that existed prior to mining of the land to the extent feasible and desirable. Policy 14.4.4 provides that the portion of mining areas that contain endangered or threatened wildlife species shall be protected. Policy 14.4.5 states that mining and processing shall be conducted so as to "protect, manage and more efficiently utilize water resources." Regional Goal 16.1 is for ten percent of DRI's to be located in designated regional activity centers between 1986 and 1990. Regional Goal 16.2 is: "As an ongoing goal, new urban development, including in-fill, will occur on land which has the capacity to accommodate growth in terms of environmental and infrastructural impacts." Policy 16.2.1 states: "Contiguous development and the orderly extension and expansion of public facilities are necessary." Policy 16.2.2 encourages the location of higher density developments within existing urban areas where public facilities are available. Regional Goal 16.5 is: By 1991, the integrity and quality of life will be maintained in existing residential areas and will be required of new residential developments through the continued revision and adoption of local government comprehensive plans, environmental and land use regulations. Policy 16.5.1 provides that residential areas shall be located and designed to protect from "natural and manmade hazards such as flooding, excessive traffic, subsidence, noxious odors and noise." Policy 16.5.2 states: "Residential land uses shall be encouraged in a manner which is compatible with the type and scale of surrounding land uses." Policy 16.5.4 encourages local governments to locate high density residential areas near regional activity centers and reduce densities elsewhere to "facilitate the restriction of urban sprawl [and] use of mass transit." Policy 16.5.5 encourages mixed use developments with buffering of residential areas. Policy 16.5.6 recommends the location of shopping facilities, recreation areas, schools, and parks within high density residential areas. Regional Goal 16.6 is: By 1991, commercial development, compatible with environmental and economic resources, will occur in a planned and orderly fashion through the continued revision and adoption of local government comprehensive plans, environmental and land use regulations. Policy 16.6.1 states: Commercial land uses shall be located in a manner which ensures compatibility with the type and scale of surrounding land uses and where existing or programmed public facilities will not be overburdened. Policy 16.6.2 is to locate regional commercial areas in planned centers to ensure compatibility and "efficiency of economic and natural resources." Policy 16.6.3 "strongly discourage[s]" strip commercial development, which "compounds traffic and land use conflicts." Regional Goal 16.7 is the same as Regional Goal 16.6, except that Goal 16.7 applies to industrial uses. Policy 16.7.1 is to locate industrial areas near adequate transportation for materials, labor, and products. Policy 16.7.5 encourages the redevelopment of urbanized industrial locations near major transportation facilities, such as ports and airports. Regional Goal 22.1 is: "By 1991, the Tampa Bay region shall balance the needs of agricultural and nonagricultural land uses." Policy 22.1.1 encourages the "preservation and utilization of agriculture land for agriculture uses." Policy 22.1.3 provides: "The recognition of agriculture as a form of land use and a category on land use plan maps, not simply as a holding zone, is encouraged, where appropriate." Policy 22.1.6 recommends: "Agriculture should be recognized as a major contributor to the region's economic base, and should be retained where possible to maintain the diversification of the region's economy." Regional Goal 22.2 is: "By 1991, agricultural practices will be implemented to reduce the amount of pesticides and other agriculturally based pollutants in surface waters, groundwater and sediments." Policy 17.1.1 states: To relieve pressure on existing public facilities, programs such as temporary density bonuses, special zoning designations and public acquisition of tax-delinquent property should be developed to encourage infilling of vacant urban lands. Policy 17.1.5 provides: "Capital improvements programs should maximize the development of existing systems before allocating funds to support public facilities in undeveloped areas." Regional Goal 17.2 is: "By 1991, the planning of public facilities will serve as a proactive growth management tool." Policy 17.2.1 requires that the location of public facilities "shall be used to guide urban development" and the "rate of private development should be commensurate with a reasonable rate of expansion of public and semi-public facilities." Policy 17.2.2 recommends the advance acquisition of sites for potential public and semi-public facilities. Regional Goal 19.1 is: As an ongoing goal, planning for and maintenance of an integrated transportation system including highway, air, mass transit, rail, water, and pipeline systems, which efficiently services the need for movement of all people and goods within the region and between the region and outside world[,] will continue to be implemented. Policy 19.1.2 is to reduce dependency upon the private automobile by providing an adequate mass transit system. Policy 19.1.3 states: "The transportation system should promote the efficient use of energy resources and improvement of the region's air quality." Policy 19.8.8 states: An operational Level of Service (LOS) D peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in urbanized areas. An operational LOS C peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in rural areas. However, Policy 19.8.9 provides: An operation Level of Service (LOS) E peak hour shall be maintained on all regionally significant roadways in Special Transportation areas as agreed upon by the FDOT, the appropriate MPO, the regional planning council, and the local government. Policy 19.8.14 states: Pipelining shall be an acceptable and sufficient DRI transportation impact mitigation for existing and future DRIs provided that all the following provisions are met: Project approvals shall be phased and shall not exceed five years. Subsequent approvals shall be subject to further analysis and additional pipeline mitigation. Roadway improvement to be pipelined shall: be selected from the list of existing or proposed regional transportation facilities substantially affected by the development identified by the [regional planning council] during the DRI review. preferably be consistent with MPO and FDOT long-range plans. receive concurrence from the local government and [regional planning council] with review and comment by MPO and FDOT. The developer fair share pipeline contribution shall be equalto or exceed an amount calculated pursuant to DCA pipeline transportation policy. The developer shall receive credit against impact fees, pursuant to law. Local government, based upon traffic analysis or studies, and/or long range planning, may authorize alternative pipelining approaches and conditions, to those established in subparagraph 1 above, provided that such variations are technically appropriate and that the basis for, and the conditions of, such variations are specifically set forth in the Development Order. Regional Goal 11.1 is: "By 1995, land use-related airborne contaminants will be reduced within the region by a measurable percentage." Policy 11.1.1 is for each local government to develop procedures to assess air quality impacts from non-DRI development, such as strip shopping centers, that have a cumulative impact on traffic flow. Policy 11.1.4 is to "[i]nitiate control measures where construction, mining and other activities where heavy vehicular traffic and/or meteorological conditions result in significant air pollution." Regional Goal 11.2 is: "By 1992, the regional will maintain ambient sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, ozone, and total suspended particulate levels that are equal to or better than the state and federal standards." Regional Goal 11.6 is: "By 1992, transportation related air quality impacts that adversely impact ambient air quality will be reduced." Policy 11.6.1 states that the metropolitan planning organizations and others entities involved in transportation planning "shall give priority to traffic flow improvements that reduce air pollution, particularly in areas that exceed ambient standards." Regional Goal 12.3 is: "As an ongoing goal, the most energy efficient and economically feasible means shall be utilized in construction, operation and maintenance of the region's transportation system." Policy 12.3.1 recommends consideration of incentives such as development or expansion of mass transit, "park and ride" programs, and public awareness of mass transit options. Regional Goal 20.2 is: "By 1990, the region's governments shall increase their efficiency and effectiveness." State Plan Provisions The state comprehensive plan is set forth at Sections 187.201 et seq., Florida Statutes. Section 187.201(8)(b)12 states: "Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." Section 187.201(10)(b)5 provides: "Promote the use of agricultural practices which are compatible with the protection of wildlife and natural systems." Section 187.201(23) states the goal of agricultural policies as follows: Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Section 187.201(16) states the goal of land use policies as follows: In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Section 187.201(18)(b)1 and 3 provides: Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. Allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents. Section 187.201(16)(b)2 states: "Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats." Section 187.201(20)(b)2 provides: "Coordinate transportation investments in major travel corridors to enhance system efficiency and minimize adverse environmental impacts." Section 187.201(20)(b)9 states: "Ensure that the transportation system provides Florida's citizens and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions." Section 187.201(11) states the following goal: "Florida shall reduce its energy requirements through enhanced conservation and efficiency measures in all end-use sectors, while at the same time promoting an increased use of renewable energy resources." Section 187.201(11)(b)2 adds: "Ensure that developments and transportation systems are consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality." Section 187.201(12)(b)4 provides: "Ensure energy efficiency in transportation design and planning and increase the availability of more efficient modes of transportation." Section 187.201(12)(b)5 states: "Reduce the need for new power plants by encouraging end-use efficiency, reducing peak demand, and using cost-effective alternatives." Section 187.201(5)(b)4 states: "Reduce the cost of housing construction by eliminating unnecessary regulatory practices which add to the cost of housing." Section 187.201(21)(b)4 and 12 provides: "Eliminate regulatory activities that are not tied to specific public and natural resource protection needs" and "Discourage undue expansion of state government and make every effort to streamline state government in a cost effective-manner. Ultimate Findings of Fact Minimum Criteria of Data and Analysis Sufficiency of Data and Analysis (Issues 1-9) As to Issue 1, the ELUM's show existing and planned water wells, their cones of influence, historic resources, floodplains, wetlands, minerals, and soils. The ELUM's show many important existing public facilities, such as roads, potable water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, and schools. The depiction of power line rights of way and power generating facilities is less clear, although major public and industrial uses are indicated. As to Issues 2 and 3, the Data and Analysis describe at length the fisheries, wildlife, marine habitats, and vegetative communities that are found in Hillsborough County. The text and CARE Table 11 identify endangered, threatened, or special-concern species associated with each habitat. As to Issue 3, for each of the vegetative communities or habitats found in Hillsborough County, the Data and Analysis identify various uses, known pollution problems, and potential for conservation, use, or protection. As to Issue 4, the Data and Analysis discuss the suitability of soils for septic tanks. The discussion notes the problems associated with the placement of septic tanks on poorly drained soils, as well as excessively drained soils. The Data and Analysis identify the parts of the County with such soils, especially the poorly drained coastal soils of the coastal high hazard area. As to Issues 4 and 5, the Data and Analysis acknowledge that septic tank failures have adversely affected the water quality of Cockroach Bay. The discussion of the impact of septic tanks in other parts of the Tampa Bay estuary is less specific geographically. But the Data and Analysis generally recognize the role of inadequately treated domestic wastewater and inadequately treated stormwater runoff in the eutrophication of Tampa Bay. As to Issue 6, the Data and Analysis consider the potential for conservation, use, and protection of all surface waters in Hillsborough County, including Tampa Bay. As to Issue 7, the Data and Analysis identify and analyze existing and future water needs and sources and natural groundwater recharge areas. Although Hillsborough County contains no areas of prime recharge to the Floridan aquifer nor of high natural recharge to any aquifer, the Data and Analysis identify locations of very low to moderate natural aquifer recharge and areas of high susceptibility to groundwater contamination. As to Issue 8, the Data and Analysis contain land use suitability analyses in which various land uses are correlated to natural features, including natural resources. Oversized Map 13 locates very severely limited soils and critical and sensitive lands in relation to vacant lands. Other ELUM's more specifically locate and analyze vacant lands, floodplains, wetlands, historic resources, minerals, soils, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, estuarine systems, recharge areas, areas highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination, water wells, vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources appropriately considered in analyzing potential land uses for vacant land. The Data and Analysis textually analyze the suitability of various types of land for different land uses. In some cases, the analysis is incomplete, such as with respect to suitable land uses within the cones of influence of water wells or adjacent to wellfields. Even for such resources, however, the Data and Analysis support the inference that activities involving considerable water consumption or wastewater production, like traditional phosphate mining operations, should not be located in close proximity to water wellfields. The Data and Analysis explicitly identify the risk to groundwater posed by impervious surfaces and groundwater contamination such as from septic drainfields and leaking underground storage tanks. Thus, suitable land uses may at least be inferred with respect to areas of natural moderate aquifer recharge or artificially high aquifer recharge due to wellfield drawdowns. As to Issue 9, Coastal Element Figure 18 identifies the coastal high hazard area in Hillsborough County. 2. Supporting Data and Analysis (Issues 10-14) As to Issue 10, the failure of the Plan to require retrofitting of existing, deficient stormwater management systems is supported by the Data and Analysis. In the first place, the Plan addresses retrofitting to a significant extent. Coastal Element Policy 13.3, which deals with all infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area, commits the County to preparing, by the 1993 hurricane season, a program to relocate or retrofit public facilities where feasible. Where economically and environmentally feasible, CARE Policy 2.10 and Coastal Element Policy 1.11 provide for the retrofitting of urbanized areas lacking stormwater management facilities. CARE Policy 2.8 contains similar provisions regarding agricultural runoff. The Plan provisions cited in the preceding paragraph are supported by the Data and Analysis. Existing stormwater problems are sufficiently serious that the Data and Analysis question whether water quality problems can be corrected without retrofitting stormwater management systems. Stormwater Element, page 20. However, the Data and Analysis recognize that economic reality may limit retrofitting to redevelopment. The failure of the Plan to require retrofitting of stormwater systems generally is supported by the Data and Analysis, at least in the absence of stronger evidence that, without retrofitting in unincorporated Hillsborough County, the water quality problems in Tampa Bay cannot be effectively addressed. The other part of Issue 10 concerns the failure of the Plan to set a stormwater level of service standard in terms of water quality. This part of Issue 10 addresses the means by which the performance of stormwater management systems will be evaluated, regardless whether the systems are installed at the time of development or redevelopment. The failure of the Plan in this regard is dramatic. First, the Plan provides for a stormwater level of service standard strictly in terms of flood control. The stormwater level of service standard, which is stated in CIE Policy 1.C.1.b, defines storm events and their duration and then specifies the extent to which the stormwater facilities may flood in such events. Other Plan provisions address aspects of stormwater management other than mere flood control--even mentioning water quality. But these provisions lack the measurable and enforceable performance standards characteristic of level of service standards. 25/ The Data and Analysis offer no support for the Plan's preoccupation, when setting a level of service standard, with stormwater solely in terms of flood control, to the exclusion of other factors that affect the quality of receiving waters, such as runoff rate, quality, and hydroperiods. To the contrary, the stormwater level of service standard in the Plan is repugnant to the Data and Analysis. The Data and Analysis clearly identify the role of inadequately treated stormwater runoff in the eutrophication of Tampa Bay. One quarter of the biological oxygen demand and 35% of the suspended solids discharged into the bay are attributable to stormwater runoff. Important gains have been made in reducing the nutrient loading of the bay by inadequately treated domestic and industrial wastewater, such as through the enhancement of treatment levels at wastewater treatment plants or the implementation of wastewater reuse programs. But the Data and Analysis concede that nutrient loading from stormwater runoff will remain a more intractable program. Coastal Element, page 24. The problem is exacerbated by inadequate compliance with existing stormwater regulations. CARE, page 54. For areas within the substantial floodplains of Hillsborough County, and even to a certain extent for areas outside the floodplains, the stormwater issue is best approached from the perspective of floodplain management. The natural drainage of floodplains regulates the timing, velocity, and levels of flood discharges, as well as water quality through the processes of sediment detention and chemical filtration. CARE, pages 14-15. Stormwater management systems using only a structural approach to effect flood control destroy the natural drainage function of the floodplain. Structural improvements include such projects as channelizing natural watercourses (like the Palm River) and constructing new channels, dams, levees, and other structures to hold back floodwaters or rapidly convey them elsewhere. Consequently, flood discharges tend to peak more quickly. By increasing maximum flow, the flood-control structures decrease filtration, groundwater recharge, habitat maintenance, detrital production and export, maintenance of base flow (as minimum flows during later dry periods cannot draw upon water previously stored in the unaltered floodplains), and estuarine salinity regulation. CARE, pages 15-17. In short, the Data and Analysis disclose that a stormwater management program whose performance is evaluated exclusively in terms of flood control, such as that contained in the Plan, has systemic environmental implications whose economic costs are probably incalculable. The Data and Analysis identify the obvious planning considerations that underlie the establishment of a viable stormwater level of service standard. The third guideline for floodplain management is to avoid alterations to the natural rate, quality, and pattern of surface waters. Expressly applying the guideline to floodplains and "more upland sites," the Data and Analysis advise that the "rate, volume, timing and location of discharge of surface water should generally not be altered from predevelopment conditions." CARE, page 19. See also Stormwater Element, page 20. Yet, the best that the County offers, after acknowledging its preoccupation with flood control in setting the stormwater level of service standard, is to promise that a stormwater management program--deferred to land development regulations--will eventually address stormwater runoff in terms of quality, not merely quantity. Stormwater Element, page 43. As to the part of Issue 10 addressing the level of service standard, the Plan's stormwater standard is, to the exclusion of fair debate, not supported by the Data and Analysis because it fails to require that, for new development, redevelopment, and expansions of existing development, as "development" is defined in the Plan, postdevelopment stormwater urban and agricultural runoff shall be the same as (or, where appropriate, better than) predevelopment runoff in terms of volume, quality, rate, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. If the Plan fails to amend its stormwater level of service standard in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph, many future land use designations, in addition to those discussed below, are, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsuitable and lack support from the Data and Analysis. The permitted densities and intensities, especially in the 100 year floodplain, will contribute dramatically to the degradation of natural drainage patterns in the County and ultimately to the degradation of Tampa Bay. Absent modification of the stormwater level of service standard to address urban and agricultural runoff in terms of volume, quality, rate, hydroperiod, and drainage basin, the Data and Analysis would not support Plan provisions that allowed any development, as that term is defined in the Plan, in the 100 year floodplain if such development's urban or agricultural runoff altered predevelopment drainage conditions in terms of its rate, volume, quality, timing, or location of discharge. As to Issues 11-14, assuming that the Plan is amended to broaden the scope of the stormwater level of service standard in the manner set forth in the preceding paragraph, the Plan is generally supported by the land use suitability analysis. However, there are 11 exceptions. First, in terms of urban sprawl, the overall densities in the Plan are supported by the Data and Analysis, at least to the extent that there is no indication of urban sprawl. The density allocation ratio of 1.61:1 is not an especially strong indicator of sprawl in this case. 26/ Several factors are important in evaluating a density allocation ratio, such as whether historic buildouts have been considered (not in this case) and the duration of the planning timeframe (20 years). Probably the most important consideration, though, is the location of the residential uses. A density allocation ratio of 3:1 generated by 100,000 acres of 1:1 residential is far more suggestive of inefficient use of land than the same ratio generated by 5000 acres of 20:1 residential in an existing or planned mixed use urban area, assuming the provision of adequate public facilities, protection of natural resources, and protection of agriculture. The Plan's two planning strategies involve the concentration of density in the I-75 corridor, with decreasing densities radiating outward, and the development of nodes where suitably scaled commercial uses are located in close proximity to residential uses. These two strategies have been effectively implemented in the Plan to counter urban sprawl. There is no plausible evidence in the record that the allocated intensities or acreage, in terms of commercial or industrial uses, are indicative of urban sprawl. As the Data and Analysis note, commercial development has historically followed residential development, not preceded it. An underallocation of commercial and industrial future land uses arguably invites sprawl by interfering with the development of functionally related land uses. There is no place for commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational land uses once residential development has consumed the entire landscape, with respect to which adequate commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses have not been timely reserved. In addition, allocation ratios for commercial and industrial uses are problematic, regardless whether expressed in acreage, which is necessarily a very gross measure of the intensity that is eventually built out, or floor area ratios, which are more precise but much more difficult to predict based on designated acreages of vacant land. Therefore, the overallocation of commercial and industrial uses does not serve as a useful beginning point for analysis, at least in the absence of proof of historic overbuilding with resulting disruption in the efficient use of land or public facilities or loss of natural resources or agriculture. As noted above, the key factor with respect to commercial and industrial uses is location. Through various devices, the Plan effectively pursues mixed land use patterns that will encourage the location of residential, commercial, and industrial, as well as institutional and recreational, uses in a functionally related manner. Notwithstanding the finding that the Plan designations are supported by the Data and Analysis in terms of urban sprawl, the Data and Analysis do not support specific designations involving considerable acreage, even assuming that the stormwater level of service standard will be broadened to include the above- cited factors in addition to flood control. The Data and Analysis recount the consequences of years of land use decisions based "primarily on socio-economic and demographic factors, with little consideration given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land." But the Data and Analysis promise that, "[w]ith a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions . . .." CARE, page 73. For the 11 areas described below, socio-economic and demographic factors have again outweighed the natural carrying capacity of the land. The 11 areas have received unsuitable designations for which the Data and Analysis offer no or inadequate support. For each of these areas, the Plan has assigned designations whose excessive densities and/or intensities generally jeopardize important natural resources or life and property in the coastal high hazard area. A future land use is suitable if the designation is supported by the Data and Analysis. For the vast majority of areas, the Data and Analysis would support designations assigning a range of densities and/or intensities. The question whether a designation is supported by the Data and Analysis requires consideration of, among other factors, the nature of the density or intensity inherent in the designation of the subject area, the data and analysis concerning the nature of the natural resources affected by the subject designation (including off-site resources), the data and analysis concerning when and what type of public facilities will be available to service the subject area, the data and analysis indicating how the designated uses may impact natural resources, and operative Plan provisions that may or may not offer protection to the natural resources in question. 27/ The Plan assigns unsuitable designations to five areas in northwest and north Hillsborough County. The Data and Analysis fail to support two of these designations to the exclusion of fair debate and three of the designations by a mere preponderance of the evidence. One relatively small area whose designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis is designated Low Suburban Density Residential (2:1) at the southeast end of Keystone Lake. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Low Suburban Density Residential on the FLUM. This area is immediately north and west of Gunn Highway at Van Dyke Road. Shown as largely agricultural or vacant on Oversized Map 2, the area received an increase in density in the Plan, according to Oversized Map 14. The only area designated at a Suburban density in the northwest corner of northwest Hillsborough County, the area is the site of one or more major public supply water wells. By contrast, areas containing groups of wells just south of Keystone Lake and at the extreme northwest corner of the County are designated Natural Preservation, as is an area at the southwest corner of SR 597 and Van Dyke Road, about four miles east of the area in question. The area designated Low Suburban Density Residential occupies an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge and is very susceptible to groundwater contamination. The subject area is included in the 1995 central water service area, but excluded from even the 2010 central sewer service area, according to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1. The absence of effective Plan provisions protecting wellfields, cones of influence, and recharge areas further undermines the Low Suburban Density Residential designation of an area in such close proximity to a major public supply water well and in an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge. The increased density for this area threatens a major wellfield with encroaching development, as predicted in the Data and Analysis. FLUE, page 7. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support the density and intensity assigned by the Plan to two, much larger areas in the northern half of northwest Hillsborough County. The extent of the subject areas corresponds to the areas whose densities were increased, according to Oversized Map 14 (excluding only the above-described Low Suburban Density Residential area). The western area of the two is a contiguous block surrounding Keystone Lake and proceeding east and west of the major public supply water wells about 1-2 miles south of Keystone Lake. This area extends to the northwest corner of Hillsborough County, except for the very corner, which is Natural Preservation. The eastern area is a contiguous block almost entirely west of SR 597, but crossing SR 597 at the southeast corner. This area abuts Pasco County on the north and an area of density decrease on the south. These two areas of increased density and intensity surround (or in some cases slightly encroach upon) the four largest collections of major public supply water wells in northwest Hillsborough County, as shown on Oversized Map Representing perhaps half of such collections of major public supply water wells in the entire County, these wells represent a very important source of potable water, especially for a County in which demand is now exceeding supply. The two areas in question are in areas of relatively good natural aquifer recharge and areas of high vulnerability to groundwater contamination. The Plan supplies no performance standards for activities that may introduce contaminants into the portion of the aquifer from which a major public supply water well draws. As the Data and Analysis note, increasing areas of impervious surface may reduce recharge and groundwater supplies. A considerable amount of the eastern area lies in the 100 year floodplain, which runs throughout both areas. The eastern area also includes a significant section of soils with very severe limitations, according to Oversized Map 13 and CARE Figure 9. The green map indicates two overlay areas of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. One of these areas is in the southwest corner of the eastern area, and the other covers the part of the eastern area designated Regional Commercial. The western area contains numerous sites described by Oversized Map 13 as Very Sensitive Lands and most of one significant section of soils with very severe limitations, according to Oversized Map 13 and CARE Figure 9. According to CARE Figure 20, the western area contains significant amounts of dry prairie and cypress swamps. According to the green map, the western areas's potentially significant wildlife habitat takes the form of two narrow corridors running east-west, although the northern one may have been excluded from the area receiving increased density. As noted above, contiguous wildlife corridors receive firm protection under the Plan. The designations are completely different for the two areas. The western area contains entirely Rural Residential (1:1) and Rural Estate Residential (1:2.5), except for small areas of Environmentally Significant Areas. The more densely designated eastern area contains mostly Low Suburban Density Residential (2:1) and smaller, but significant, amounts of Suburban Density Residential (4:1). Each of these areas would, under the Plan, host commercial uses scaled to their respective Rural and Suburban densities. But the southeast corner of the eastern area is designated Regional Commercial (20:1) and contains major natural systems according to Oversized Map 8. The natural systems appear to be dry prairie and cypress swamps on CARE Figure 20. According to Oversized Map 2, this corner is agricultural or vacant with natural area in its center. The unsuitability of the designations given both the eastern and western areas is about equal. Although the western area received less density, according to Sewer Element Figure 1, the western area is almost entirely outside the area that will be served by central sewer, even by 2010. Most of the western area will be served by central water by 2010, with a substantial area to be served by 1995, according to Potable Water Element Figure 1. By contrast, the eastern area already has some central sewer lines and what little area will not be within the 1995 central sewer boundary will be included in the 2010 boundary. The situation is identical with respect to central water. The unsuitability of the designations of the eastern and western areas is unaffected by the fact, as shown by Oversized Map 15, that the Plan brought portions of these areas into conformance with existing zoning. Zoning conforms to Plan designations. The Plan provides, where appropriate, for vested rights. The remedy for nonconforming zoning is to recognize vested rights, not to increase densities and intensities over wide areas to an extent not supported by the Data and Analysis. The key fact is that, for both the western and eastern areas, the Plan has designated excessive densities and intensities in areas containing sensitive and much-needed groundwater resources. And while increasing these densities and intensities, the County has not, at the same time, adopted effective Plan provisions ensuring the protection of wellfields, their cones of influence, natural recharge areas, and the natural functions of floodplains from the adverse impacts of development. Another area whose designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis is an area of about 2.5 square miles designated Urban Level 1 Limited (8:1) immediately east of I-275 and I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Urban Level 1 Limited on the FLUM. The 2.5 square mile area is the only Urban Level designation that is not contiguous to the Urban Level designations constituting the I-75 corridor, except for a small Urban Level-1 "island" surrounded by Natural Preservation. 28/ The 2.5 square mile area designated Urban Level 1 Limited is separated from the remainder of the I-75 corridor by several miles of area designated Natural Preservation. Nor is the 2.5 square mile area bounded by existing or proposed arterial roads, as is required of Urban Level 1 areas. According to Oversized Map 4, the only arterial or higher roads in or near the 2.5 square mile area are I-75 on the west boundary (to which access is limited) and an arterial on the east boundary. There are no roads on the north and south boundaries, nor will there be by 2010, according to Oversized Map 4. Almost the entire 2.5 square mile area is overlaid with Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to the green map. The northern half of the 2.5 square mile area is in the 100 year floodplain. The eastern and western thirds of the area consist of very poorly drained soils. The northern two-thirds of the area occupy an area of very low to moderate recharge, which is the highest recharge in Hillsborough County. Most of the western half of the area is in the area most susceptible to groundwater contamination. The eastern third appears to be entirely dry prairie and cypress swamps, through which a major tributary of the Hillsborough River runs. Oversized Map 8 shows nearly the entire parcel (less a small area at the western end) to be part of major natural systems. Oversized Map 2 shows that the 2.5 square mile areas is entirely agricultural or vacant. Despite this unusual confluence of natural features, the 2.5 square mile area, which is permanently separated from Tampa by a Natural Preserve protecting the Hillsborough River, received a density increase in connection with the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. The 2.5 square mile area is entirely omitted from even the 2010 central water and sewer service areas, according to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1. The failure of Plan provisions to ensure the protection of the natural functions of floodplains and recharge areas exacerbates the unsuitability of the Urban designation for the 2.5 square mile area. The meaning of Urban Level 1 Limited is explained by FLUE Policy C-25.3, which limits the density in the 2.5 square mile area to 8:1. But even this "reduced" density fails to indicate that this remote area will undergo development suitable for the unusual range of natural resources present in the area. The circumstances suggest that the Urban Level 1 Limited designation cannot facilitate the development in this remote area of the kind of viable mixed uses for which Urban designations are intended. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support the density assigned by the Plan to a much larger L-shaped area designated Suburban Density Residential (4:1) extending from the 2.5 square mile area to just across CR 579. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Suburban Density Residential on the FLUM. The Suburban Density Residential L-shaped area, which is about 12 square miles, contains three major public supply water wells at its southeast corner. The green map overlays more than three quarters of the 12 square mile area with Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. The 12 square mile area abuts the above- described 2.5 square mile area on the northwest, Tampa on the southwest and nearly all of the south, Pasco County and Agricultural/Rural (1:5) on the north, and Agriculture (1:10) on the east. According to CARE Figure 20, the portions of the 12 square mile area overlaid with the designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat are dry prairie and cypress swamps, as is almost two- thirds of the land south of the subject area under the jurisdiction of the City of Tampa. According to CARE Figure 14, the western half of the 12 square mile area is in an area of relatively good natural aquifer recharge, but only a very small part of the subject area is in an area of high vulnerability to groundwater contamination. However, a large collection of major public supply water wells is in the Natural Preservation area just south of the extension of Tampa abutting the south boundary of the 12 square mile area. The closest wells are about one mile south of the southern boundary of the 12 square mile area. According to Oversized Map 13, the only part of the 12 square mile parcel with poor soils is the extreme northwest corner. Oversized Map 2 shows that the entire 12 square mile area that is not shown as natural areas is agricultural or vacant, as is the area of Tampa immediately south of the subject area. According to Sewer Element Figure 1 and Potable Water Element Figure 1, the 12 square mile area is not scheduled to receive central water or sewer by 2010. The remaining areas whose designations are not supported by the Data and Analysis are in the vicinity of the coastal high hazard area in south Hillsborough County and in the Urban designations and one Light Industrial designation along the I-75 corridor south of the Alafia River. The Plan assigns designations to two areas in or near the coastal high hazard area that, to the exclusion of fair debate, are not supported by the Data and Analysis. The Plan also assigns designations to four areas in (or adjoining, in the case of the Light Industrial area) the I-75 corridor south of the Alafia River that are not supported by the Data and Analysis to the exclusion of fair debate, in one area, and by a mere preponderance of the evidence in the other three areas. The coastal high hazard area begins at the Manatee County line and runs along US 41. At a point due east of Cockroach Bay, the line turns toward the bay and continues to run in a more northerly direction until it approaches the Little Manatee River. At this point, the coastal high hazard line follows the winding river to the east, then south, crossing US 41 before proceeding again north. The line runs along US 41 until, at the north end of Ruskin, the line cuts again toward the bay. After running north again for about one mile, the line returns to US 41, then proceeds west of US 41, in a north-northeasterly direction, until it almost intersects the bay at Apollo Beach. North of Apollo Beach, the line mostly follows US 41 to the Alafia River at Gibsonton. Oversized Map 14 discloses density increases in part of the coastal high hazard area between Cockroach Bay and the Little Manatee River. Initiated by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan, an irregularly shaped area about three square miles west of US 41 received a density increase. The Plan then increased the density of a smaller portion of the eastern end of the three square mile area. The extent of the subject area, which is only partly in the coastal high hazard area, corresponds to the area whose density was increased, according to Oversized Map 14, and that is presently designated, in the FLUM, as Low Suburban Density Residential Planned (2:1 if certain clustering and mixed use requirements are met; otherwise 1:5). Oversized Map 2 shows that the entire area so designated is entirely agricultural or vacant, except for a shell mine, three small, isolated areas of low density residential, and some small commercial uses along US 41. The density increase for the portion of the three square mile area lying in the coastal high hazard area is clearly unsupported by the Data and Analysis, which acknowledge the need to reduce, not raise, densities in this critical area in order to save lives and property. However, much of the three square mile area is outside of the coastal high hazard area and the unsuitability of the designation lies in the assigned density, not in the increase of density. About a third of the three square mile area is in the 100 year floodplain. Relatively little of it contains major natural systems or Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to Oversized Map 8 and the green map. And none of the area is subject to recharge or significantly vulnerable to groundwater contamination. However, the three square mile area is bordered on three sides by three critical resources that remain in relatively pristine condition: Cockroach Bay, the Little Manatee River, and the portion of Tampa Bay connecting the river and Cockroach Bay. The entire shoreline along the three square mile area joins Hillsborough County's only aquatic preserve. Coastal Figure 11 indicates that the coast from just south of Apollo Beach to the Manatee County line, and especially from the Little Manatee River to Cockroach Bay, is the only location where seagrass meadows remain along the waters of unincorporated Hillsborough County, except for a smaller expanse of interspersed meadows along the shore of northwest Hillsborough County. These are also Class II waters. CARE Figure 9 shows that the western half of the three square mile area is dominated by very poorly drained soils. The Data and Analysis note that area septic tank failures have contributed to the pollution of Cockroach Bay and possible loss of the last shoreline location in the County at which shellfish harvesting is approved, although only conditionally. Significantly, in view of the poorly drained soils and history of septic tank failures, Sewer Element Figure 1 shows no existing or proposed sewer lines for the three square mile area, which inexplicably is nonetheless included in the 2010 central sewer service area. The area is due to receive central water lines by 2010. Given the critical and fragile nature of the area of Cockroach Bay and the Little Manatee River, as described by the Data and Analysis, the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation, which, with the I-75 and South County plan amendments, represented an increased density for the three square mile area, is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, supported by the Data and Analysis. The failure of the Plan to direct population concentrations away from the coastal high hazard area and ensure the protection of the natural functions of the 100 year floodplain exacerbates the unsuitability of the Low Suburban Density Residential Planned designation for the three square mile area. Just north of the Little Manatee River at Ruskin, Oversized Map 14 discloses another area of density increase, again initiated by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. This area is designated Medium Density Residential (12:1) and extends two miles east-west by an average of one-half mile north-south. The southwest corner of the one square mile area abuts a portion of the Little Manatee River, and nearly the entire south boundary of the area abuts a tributary of the Little Manatee River. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Medium Density Residential on the FLUM. The entire square mile area lies west of US 41 and in the coastal high hazard area. The designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis for this reason alone. According to Oversized Map 2, the southern half of the square mile area is already in low and medium density residential, except for the western end that is agricultural or vacant. However, most of the northern half is agricultural or vacant. According to Oversized Map 13, the entire square mile area contains soils with very severe limitations and some critical lands. The entire area occupies the 100 year floodplain. And the area is not due to receive central sewer until 1995 or central water at all, although it is in the 1995 central water service area. Even absent the fact that the square mile area is in the coastal high hazard area, the Medium Density Residential designation is, to the exclusion of fair debate, unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The remaining four areas in the County whose designations are unsupported by the Data and Analysis are in the I-75 corridor, except for one of the areas that extends into an adjoining Light Industrial area. Nearly the entire contiguous corridor received higher densities as a result of the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. However, the four areas in question all lie south of the Alafia River. The first area is about 3.25 square miles at the southernmost end of the I-75 corridor, south of SR 674. Triangularly shaped, this area, which is Urban Level 1 (12:1), is bounded on the east and north by I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area designated Urban Level 1 south of SR 674 and I-75. The southern boundary of the triangular area represents an anomaly for the I-75 corridor; it abuts Rural Residential (1:1). Except for the portion of the north end of the I-75 corridor surrounding a Rural Residential "island" and the northernmost end of the I-75 corridor, which abuts the vast Natural Preservation area of the Hillsborough River valley, no other part of the I-75 corridor abuts land that is not designated at least Suburban. Contrary to the requirements for Urban Level 1 designations, the triangular area is not bound by existing or proposed arterials. The triangular area also abuts a Natural Preservation area at its southeast corner. The Little Manatee River is less than one-half mile from the southern boundary of the subject area. The southernmost mile of the subject area encompasses tributaries of the Little Manatee River. The northern half of the subject area adjoins Suburban Density Residential (4:1) and Low Medium Density Residential (9:1) on the east and Low Urban Density Residential (6:1) and Urban Level-2 (20:1) across I-75 on the west. The northern point of the subject area is in the vicinity of the I-75/SR 674 interchange. The triangular area is free from major natural systems or Environmentally Significant Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to Oversized Map 5 and the green map. However, most of the southernmost mile of the subject area is within the 100 year floodplain. Oversized Map 2 reports that the subject area is predominantly agricultural or vacant, although it has interspersed, isolated low density and some medium density residential uses, mostly in the northeast portion. The triangular area is not scheduled for any central sewer lines until after 1995, and then the line will be limited to about one-half mile south of SR 674 along I-75. The area will be better served, by 2010, by central water. Given the Plan's failure to protect adequately floodplains and the proximity of the Little Manatee River, the evidence shows, to the exclusion of fair debate, that the Urban Level-1 designation of the southernmost mile of the triangular area is not supported by the Data and Analysis. The designation given to the remainder of the triangular area is not unsupported by the Data and Analysis. A mere preponderance of the evidence shows that the Data and Analysis do not support predominantly Urban Level 1 densities and intensities in two areas in the vicinity of I-75 and Big Bend Road. One of the areas in question is a Z-shaped linear area that largely tracks, but is not limited to, a strip of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The strip begins at US 301 and a proposed westerly extension of SR 672. The area, which is limited to the Urban I-75 corridor, proceeds in a west- northwesterly direction to just east of I-75, runs north along the east side of I-75 to a point about one mile south of the Alafia River, and, now becoming Bullfrog Creek, turns west and crosses I-75 until it leaves the I-75 Urban Level corridor. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the areas in the vicinity of the Z-shaped area that are within any of the three following categories: the 100 year floodplain according to Oversized Map 9, Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the FLUM, or Environmentally Sensitive Areas on the green map. The lower half of the Z-shaped area occupies very severely limited soils. The upper half contains critical and very sensitive lands. According to Oversized Map 14, almost the entire Z-shaped area received increased densities due to the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, existing uses of considerable portions of the Z-shaped area are natural areas and agricultural or vacant. CARE Figure 20 indicates that Bullfrog Creek is largely open water until it turns south just east of I-75, at which point a series of hardwood swamps extend through the remainder of the Z-shaped area to the south. The Z-shaped area, which runs about eight miles, has long been recognized as environmentally sensitive and generally unsuitable for development. 29/ The narrow band of Environmentally Sensitive Areas is afforded uncertain protection under the Plan. Moreover, the Urban Level 1 designation extends to portions of the Z-shaped area that are in the 100 year floodplain and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat, according to the green map. In the absence of stronger Plan provisions protecting the 100 year floodplain, as well as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Urban Level 1 designation given the Z-shaped area is, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The unsuitability of the designation is underscored by the operation of the density and intensity formulas, which would allow even more intense and dense uses in close proximity, even assuming that development were prohibited in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas themselves. Two other areas bearing unsuitable designations are also in the vicinity of Big Bend Road and I-75. Unlike the remainder of the contiguous I-75 corridor, these areas mark significant expanses of Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. One area runs from the southeast corner of the interchange along I-75 south past a proposed extension of Balm-Picnic Road or SR 672, where the area expands to an area of about one mile north-south by two miles east-west, with the western end crossing I-75. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area shown on the green map as Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. The subject area is designated exclusively Urban Level 1 except for a small area designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The upper portion of the subject area overlaps the part of the Z- shaped area running north-south just south of Big Bend Road. According to CARE Figure 20, the remainder of the narrower part of the subject area is wetlands. The wider portion of the subject area is predominantly dry prairie. According to Oversized Map 14, the entire subject area received increased density in the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, the existing uses of the entire subject area are natural areas and agricultural or vacant. The Urban Level-1 designation given the subject area is, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis. The allowable densities and intensities contradict the acknowledgement in the Data and Analysis of the need to protect these natural resources and frustrate other Plan provisions that extend some protection to these natural resources. The other area extends northwest of the intersection of Big Bend Road and I-75. The subject area runs about 1.5 miles north of the intersection, then widens to the west to encompass a portion of the Light Industrial designation between the I-75 corridor on the east and, on the west, Tampa Bay and the large Heavy Industrial area north of Apollo Beach. The extent of the subject area corresponds to the area shown on the green map as Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are potentially significant wildlife habitat. Except for the Light Industrial designation, the entire subject area is designated Urban Level 1 with a small area of Urban Level 2. According to CARE Figure 20, almost all of the subject area is wetlands, possibly with some pine flatwoods. Part of the subject area received a density increase by the I-75 and South County plan amendments that were incorporated into the Plan. According to Oversized Map 2, the existing uses of all of the subject area are natural area and agricultural or vacant, with a narrow corridor of major public area. The Urban Level 1 and 2 designations assigned to the subject area are, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, unsuitable and unsupported by the Data and Analysis for the same reasons set forth with respect to the preceding area. General Minimum Criteria Public Participation (Issue 15) As to Issue 15, the County adopted the Plan, including all amendments, in a manner consistent with the requirements of public participation. Contents of FLUM and Plan (Issues 16-36) FLUM (Issue 16) As to Issue 16, the FLUM depicts minerals in the Agricultural/Mining designation and various public uses in the Major Public/Semi-Public designation. Regardless of the ambiguity surrounding the significance of the designation, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designated on the FLUM (i.e., the multicolor map) adequately show the location of wetlands. However, to the exclusion of fair debate, the FLUM is not consistent with the criterion of the depiction of existing and planned waterwells, cones of influence, historic resources or historically significant properties meriting protection, floodplains, or soils. All of these resources are depicted on ELUM's, but the County elected not to include these resources on the FLUM as part of the operative provisions of its Plan. Plan Provisions Regarding Natural Resources (Issues 17-22) As to Issue 17, the Plan contains objectives coordinating future land uses with topography, soils, and the availability of public facilities. Regarding topography and soils, FLUE Objective A-1 prohibits the issuance of development orders unless the development is "compatible with the physical conditions of the land, including, but not limited to, topographical and soil conditions . . .." FLUE Objective A-8 requires development to mitigate adverse impacts to natural systems. Regarding topography, FLUE Objective 4 is to protect the 100 year floodplain's storage volume. Somewhat vaguely, CARE Objective 19 is to amend land development regulations to "ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment " Regarding the stormwater management aspects of topography, Stormwater Element Objective 4 is to identify and evaluate the sources of water quality degradation attributable to stormwater runoff. Stormwater Objective 5 is to maintain or improve the quality of stormwater runoff. Regarding soils, CARE Objective 11 requires soil conservation during land alteration and development activities. Although not objectives, two policies address the suitability of soils. CARE Policy 11.1 provides that, during the land development review process, the County shall "recommend" the appropriate use of soils and shall require site-specific analyses when land uses appear incompatible with soils. CARE Policy 11.3 states that, during the land development process, the County shall use soil capability analyses for flood hazard, stability, permeability, and other soil characteristics. Regarding mining, CARE Objective 7 requires the "prudent operation" of mining activities. CARE Objective 9 is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the adverse impacts of mining. CARE Objective 10 requires the County to regulate the location and operation of land excavation to minimize negative impacts on surrounding land uses and ensure the reclamation and productive reuse of excavated lands. Regarding public facilities, FLUE Objective A-5 is that all development and redevelopment shall be serviced at the adopted level of service standards by all public facilities for which concurrency is required. FLUE Objective C-29 requires that the needed public facilities be provided concurrent with the impacts of development. Although there are several instances where specific land use designations are unsuitable in terms of, among other factors, topography, soils, and the provision of public facilities, the Plan contains sufficient provisions to attain consistency with the criterion of an objective coordinating future land uses with topography, soils, and public facilities. As to Issue 18, numerous Plan provisions address numerous natural resources, as well as water sources. The rules cited in Issue 18 require one or more objectives ensuring the protection of natural resources, such as Tampa Bay and its tributaries, and one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting water sources. 30/ For the purpose of Issue 18, natural resources have been identified as Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, rivers (primarily the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers), surface waters generally, floodplains, wetlands, rare upland habitats, and wildlife habitat. Findings concerning soils are set forth above. The water sources have been divided into the following categories: wellfields and cones of influence, aquifer recharge, groundwater, water conservation, and septic tanks. Obviously, wellfields, cones of influence, and aquifer recharge areas are natural resources, and floodplains, wetlands, and the Hillsborough River (whose surface waters are an important potable water source) are related to water sources. There is thus considerable overlap in the following discussion of these categories. Regarding surface water generally, including Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, and the rivers, CARE Objective 2 promises that the water quality of natural surface water bodies shall be improved or restored if they do not at least meet state water quality standards. Unfortunately, CARE Objective 2 is not operative until 1995. If the objective had assured compliance with water quality standards, a deferred date of 1995 would have been suitable because the entire improvement cannot take place instantaneously. However, the intermediate end of CARE Objective 2 is much more modest; the water quality of substandard water bodies must only be improved. And the improvement--any improvement--is not required until 1995. The main threats to Tampa Bay also apply to surface water quality generally: inadequately treated wastewater and inadequately treated stormwater. The Plan does not generally ensure the protection of surface water through the objectives and relevant policies concerning stormwater. Stormwater Objective 5 is to implement programs to maintain or improve stormwater. The natural resources in question are not protected by maintaining the water quality of stormwater; they are not even protected by improving the water quality of stormwater absent a measurable goal. The failure of the stormwater objectives is exacerbated by the Plan's failure to set stormwater level of service standards in terms other than flood control. The Plan addresses to a much greater extent the protection of surface water through the objectives and relevant policies concerning wastewater. Sewer Element Objective 1 is for all wastewater treatment facilities to produce effluent of sufficiently high quality to meet or exceed all regulatory standards. Sewer Element Policy 1.1 requires that all wastewater discharged into surface waters or wetlands meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards. Sewer Element Objective 2 promises to assist in the wastewater problem by continuing to require the use and expansion of existing recovered water reuse systems. Sewer Element Objective 4 requires that central sewer facilities be provided to remedy current deficiencies in the system and to meet projected demands, based on the sewer level of service standard. Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility" that existing and future wastewater adversely impacts surface waters. The objective is not especially amenable to measurement. Sewer Element Policy 7.1 is useful, though, because it requires that septic tank users hook up to the County system when it becomes available, except in cases of undue hardship. Sewer Element Policy 4.8 also prohibits septic tanks in the coastal high hazard area except in cases of undue hardship. CARE Policy 2.6 promises better wastewater treatment in areas where septic tanks fail, at least where economically feasible. And CARE Policy 2.4 indicates that the County plans to supply regional wastewater treatment in the more densely populated areas. However, other policies under Sewer Element Objective 7 are less effective. Sewer Element Policy 7.2 promises that, within one year after the completion of a pending septic tank study, the County will reexamine the maximum usable density for septic tanks. Sewer Element Policy 7.3 promises, in the same timeframe, a program to identify existing septic tank systems with a high potential for contaminating groundwater. Regarding Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Objective 3 is to "maintain, and enhance where environmentally and economically feasible, the abundance and diversity of living marine resources in Tampa Bay." FLUE Objective C-30 requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that "water quality and quantity" are protected from degradation from development. CARE Objective 19 promises that the County shall continue to amend its land development regulations to "ensure the protection of the attributes, functions and amenities of the natural environment." In addition to relegating the regulatory mechanism to land development regulations, CARE Objective 19 does not state a specific, measurable, intermediate end that can be achieved. Coastal Element Policy 2.1 is to conserve and protect tidal wetlands from detrimental physical and hydrological alteration and prohibit unmitigated encroachment into tidal wetlands. Coastal Element Policy 2.2 prohibits channelization or hardening of natural coastal shorelines and tidal creeks except in cases of overriding public interest. Coastal Element Policy 2.6 prohibits development activities on submerged lands containing significant seagrass habitat and seeks the restoration of seagrass coverage. Coastal Element Policy 2.7 requires land developments within the coastal area to preserve those portions of native upland plant communities necessary to provide an effective buffer for coastal wetlands. Coastal Element Policy 2.9 is to review and "restrict as appropriate" proposed development adjacent to the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to ensure that water quality, shoreline, or estuarine habitat degradation does not occur due to development. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 prohibits the use of septic tanks for new development in the coastal high hazard area. Coastal Element Policy 7.4 forbids the development of water- related uses by dredging and filling wetlands or the natural shoreline. CARE Policy 19.8 requires the County to identify Resource Protection Areas on the FLUM. Resource Protection Areas include Tampa Bay, Cockroach Bay, the three main rivers, significant and essential wildlife habitat, areas of high aquifer recharge/groundwater contamination potential, public supply wellfields and their cones of influence, and areas containing major phosphate deposits. CARE, pages 99-100. For Tampa Bay, the CARE definition of Resource Protection Areas refers the reader to the Coastal Element. Coastal Element Objective 1 is identical to CARE Objective 2. Coastal Element Objective 1 addresses only the water quality of those parts of Tampa Bay and its tributaries not meeting state standards. By 1995, these waters will be improved or restored. In addition to failing to address the protection of those parts of Tampa Bay meeting or exceeding state standards, this objective promises only, as to substandard waters, that some improvement is to take place starting in 1995. As is the case with surface waters generally, the Plan contains various provisions adequately addressing wastewater. CARE Policy 2.2 and Coastal Element Policy 1.2 require Advanced Wastewater Treatment for all surface water discharge from all domestic wastewater treatment plants discharging into Tampa Bay or any of its tributaries. Coastal Element Policy 1.4 is to continue to develop and use effluent-disposal alternatives, such as reused water for agricultural and industrial uses, rather than surface water discharge into Tampa Bay and its tributaries. Coastal Element Policy 1.7 provides that, where it is economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment in areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are clearly attributable to poorly functioning septic tank systems. Again, the Plan offers less protection to Tampa Bay from inadequately treated stormwater runoff. However, addressing another source of excessive nutrients in Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Policy 1.12 provides for the dredging and removal of polluted estuarine sediments and their replacement with clean fill, where economically and environmentally feasible. Regarding the Hillsborough, Alafia, and Little Manatee Rivers, numerous goals, objectives, and policies in the FLUE provide protection for these resources. FLUE Goal 3 is to make the Hillsborough River cleaner. FLUE Objective C-7 is to protect the Hillsborough River as a major source of drinking water. Somewhat less effective are FLUE Objectives C-10 and C-12. Objective C-10 requires the County, by 1992, to establish development standards for the river corridor. Objective C-12 requires the County, by 1994, to manage the Hillsborough River as an important community asset. FLUE Policy C-9.1 prohibits new marinas in the upper Hillsborough River. FLUE Objective C-14 is to discourage additional development on the upper Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-14.1 requires the County to manage the upper Hillsborough River as a wildlife corridor. FLUE Objective C-13 requires the County to preserve and enhance wildlife habitats associated with the Hillsborough River. Because of the Hillsborough River's status as a source of surface potable water, it receives additional protection from CARE Objective 6, which requires the conservation, reuse, and enhancement of surface water supplies. Various policies add to the protection extended the Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-7.2 prohibits new septic tanks within 200 feet of the Hillsborough River, although, unlike similar provisions concerning the Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers, this prohibition is not extended to tributaries. FLUE Policy C-7.4 requires Advanced Wastewater Treatment for wastewater treatment discharging anywhere in the Hillsborough River drainage basin. FLUE Policy C-7.3 prevents further destruction of the natural vegetative buffers along the Hillsborough River. FLUE Policy C-10.2 prohibits the designation of new industrial land uses within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-13.1 prohibits the alteration of wetlands within 500 feet of the river. Regarding the Alafia River, FLUE Goal 4 is to preserve, protect, and promote the Alafia River and its natural resources and recreational benefits. FLUE Objective C-15 requires the County to maintain the water quality of this already impaired waterbody, but only by 1995. FLUE Objectives C-16 and C-17 require the County, by 1991, to preserve and restore native vegetation and wildlife habitats and protect wildlife, presumably along the Alafia River. FLUE Policy C-16.1 prohibits the alteration of wetlands within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-16.2 requires the County to "encourage" the reclamation of mined lands along the river with native vegetation. FLUE Objective C-20 requires the County, by 1992, to establish development standards for the corridor of the Alafia River. FLUE Policy C-20.4 prohibits the designation of "heavy" industrial land uses within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-20.3 prohibits the location of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Alafia River or its tributaries, except when required due to lot size and adverse impacts can be prevented. Regarding the Little Manatee River, FLUE Goal 5 is to recognize and maintain the river as a unique water resource, which provides vital wildlife habitat. As in the case of FLUE Objective C-15 regarding the Alafia River, FLUE Objective C-21 defers until 1995 the objective of maintaining or improving water quality where it does not meet state standards. FLUE Objective C-22 is to preserve wildlife habitats, presumably in association with the Little Manatee River. FLUE Objective C-23 is, by 1990, to establish a green river corridor for the river, although whatever protection is to be afforded by these provisions, if adopted in the Plan, appears already to be included in the Plan, given that the deadline in Objective C-23 had already passed by the time of the final hearing. The same is true for FLUE Objective C- 24, which is, by 1990, to develop additional policies addressing the uniqueness of the Little Manatee River. FLUE Policy C-21.1 prohibits the installation of septic tanks within 200 feet of the Little Manatee River unless required due to lot size and adverse impacts to the water can be prevented. FLUE Policy C-22.2 prohibits alteration of the wetlands within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-23.1 prohibits the designation of "heavy" industrial within 500 feet of the river. FLUE Policy C-22.3 only "restricts" the clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 or 100 feet of the river in Urban or Suburban designations. However, FLUE Policy C-23.2 is to manage the Little Manatee River as a wildlife corridor. Various Plan provisions apply to rivers generally. Some of these provisions restate objectives or policies adopted for one of the three major rivers. For instance, FLUE Objective C-1 is, by 1995, to maintain or improve the water quality of rivers not meeting state standards. FLUE Objective C-4 is, by 1992, to set standards for development in river corridors. Other provisions provide additional protection. FLUE Objective C-2 is to preserve natural shorelines and reverse the trend toward hardened shores and channelization. FLUE Objective C-30 requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that rivers are protected from degradation from development. FLUE Policy C-30.6 is to "restrict" the clearing or filling of natural plant communities within 50 or 100 feet of rivers. FLUE Policy C-6.1 generally prohibits the removal, within 100 feet of rivers, of any trees of at least five inches diameter at breast height. FLUE Policy C-1.3 prohibits the siting of solid waste or hazardous landfills that would adversely affect any river. Significantly, FLUE Policy C- 1.1 requires that development along the rivers install stormwater management systems to filter pollutants, although the extent of filtration is not specified. Regarding Cockroach Bay, the Plan offers some protection because, as an aquatic preserve, the bay is an Environmentally Sensitive Area. However, regardless of the extent of protection afforded by this designation to land- based areas, it is relatively unimportant as a regulatory mechanism over a water preserve, except to the extent that the designation is extended over adjacent land areas. Much of the land around the bay is designated Natural Preservation, which is afforded effective protection, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which is not. However, as noted above, Coastal Element Objective 3 requires the County at least to maintain the abundance and diversity of living marine resources in Tampa Bay. Underscoring the relationship between Cockroach Bay and Tampa Bay, Coastal Element Policy 3.1 is for the County to resist proposals to close permanently the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to shellfishing and to improve water quality to maintain the viability of shellfishing by implementing Coastal Objective 1 and its policies. However, as noted above, Coastal Objective 1 addresses only waters not meeting state standards and requires only that, by 1995, these water be improved. Cockroach Bay may receive some protection from FLUE Objective C-30, which requires the County to adopt land development regulations and unspecified performance standards to ensure that water quality and quantity are protected from degradation from development. In somewhat vague terms, CARE Objective 18 is for the County to "seek to measurably improve" the management of natural preserves, which include Cockroach Bay. Rather than exercise its jurisdiction, however, the County, in CARE Policy 18.2, promises only to initiate an agreement with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to ensure that Cockroach Bay is maintained in its natural condition. Equally ineffective, CARE Policy 18.3 is for the County, at no specified time, to establish a scientifically defensible buffer zone to prevent degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetative habitats in Cockroach Bay. CARE Policy 18.8, FLUE Policy C-22.1, and Coastal Element Policy 4.5 promise that the County will "participate" with the Florida Department of Natural Resources to implement the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Regarding floodplains, CARE Objective 4 is no "net loss of 100-year floodplain storage volume." CARE Policy 4.1 promises, by 1995, land development regulations to "not only protect natural floodwater assimilating capacity but also protect fish and wildlife attributes where they exist within the 100 year floodplains of riverine systems." CARE Policy 4.2 explains that the County shall prohibit "unmitigated" encroachment into the 100 year floodplain. CARE Policy 8.3 "prohibit[s]" mining in the 25 year floodplain and "restrict[s]" mining in the 100 year floodplain. Although still in terms of storage volume of the floodplain, Stormwater Element Policy 2.8 promises, by 1991, a "program to control encroachment into the 100 year floodplain." Regarding wetlands, CARE Objective 3 is "no net loss of wetland acreage." The objective states further that the County shall seek to achieve a "measurable annual increase in restored wetland acreage." CARE Policy 3.1 requires the County to continue to "conserve and protect" wetlands from "detrimental physical and hydrological alteration" and "allow wetland encroachment only as a last resort when reasonable use of the property is otherwise unavailable." CARE Objective 16 is to continue to protect and conserve Conservation and Preservation Areas, which include a variety of wetland habitats. Regarding rare upland habitats, CARE Objective 16 offers some protection, as sand pine scrub is a Conservation Area and significant and essential wildlife habitat are, respectively, Conservation and Preservation Areas. CARE Policies 16.5 and 16.6 are to protect Conservation and Preservation Areas, respectively, from activities that would "significantly damage the natural integrity, character or ecological balance of said areas, except in cases of overriding public interest." CARE Objective 17 is to increase the amount of acreage designated as Natural Preservation by 15,000 acres by 1995. Also, the upland forest density credit incentive assists in promoting the preservation of rare upland habitats. Despite the ambiguity surrounding the types of land uses allowed by the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation, the Plan protects the wetlands and rare upland habitats. Regarding wildlife habitat, CARE Objective 14 is to "prevent any further net loss of essential wildlife habitat" and to "protect significant wildlife habitat." CARE Objective 15 is to maintain existing populations of endangered, threatened, and special-concern species and, where "feasible and appropriate," to increase the "abundance and distribution" of such species. FLUE Objective C-5 is, by 1991, to "require the preservation and enhancement of wildlife habitats." CARE Objective 4 is, by 1995, to protect wildlife habitat in the 100 year floodplain. CARE Policy 14.7 is to require the preservation of wildlife corridors within developments when necessary to prevent fragmentation. CARE Policies 8.4 and 10.7 prohibit mining and land excavation, respectively, in essential wildlife habitats unless relocation of the affected species is feasible. On balance, despite the noted shortcomings, the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources. Regarding the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of existing and planned water sources, the resources and functions generally involve wellfields and their cones of influence, aquifers and recharge, groundwater contamination, water conservation and reuse, and wastewater discharges including septic tanks. Regarding wellfields and their cones of influence, the Plan fails to include an objective providing for the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of these water sources. CARE Policy 5.8 promises wellfield protection by 1993, and even then only through land development regulations. In the meantime, CARE Policy 5.8 provides for an interim land development regulation establishing a procedure for reviewing the impact of land development proposals on cones of influence. The policy fails even to suggest any standards to guide this procedural ordinance. The Plan contains no objectives addressing aquifers and their recharge. Stormwater Element Policy 5.6 prohibits new discharge of untreated stormwater to the Floridan aquifer, and existing stormwater facilities so discharging into the Floridan aquifer will be modified if economically feasible and physically practical. The remaining policies are largely ineffective in protecting natural aquifer recharge function. CARE Policy 6.13 suggests that, by 1992, a program will be implemented to improve groundwater recharge through stormwater management, and the program "may require" that predevelopment groundwater recharge volumes and rates be maintained postdevelopment. CARE Policy 5.2 notes the need for additional information regarding areas of relatively high natural recharge and allows the County to require developers to provide site-specific hydrogeological information. But the policy does not suggest what standards would be applied in making ensuing land use decisions on what it concedes is a "case-by-case" basis. CARE Policy 5.5 promises that, within a year after the completion of high-resolution mapping of areas of high aquifer recharge/contamination potential, the County will develop land development regulations and performance standards that "may include" such strategies as "control of land use types and densities, impervious surface limitations, and discharge to groundwater controls." Whatever regulation may eventually be imposed has no guidance from the Plan and will be relegated to the land development regulations. Similarly lacking regulatory provisions, Sewer Element Policy 7.3 promises that, within a year after completion of a pending study, the County will develop a "program" to identify areas with septic tanks with the potential to contaminate groundwater. CARE Policy 5.9 at least prohibits activities that would breach the confining beds of the Floridan aquifer. 31/ Though lacking as to the conservation, appropriate use, and protection of the recharge process, the Plan addresses more adequately groundwater. CARE Objective 6 is to conserve, reuse, and enhance groundwater and prevent excessive withdrawals from groundwater. CARE Objective 5 is to ensure compliance with state groundwater standards. Like CARE Policy 2.7, which applies to surface water protection, CARE Policy 5.11 says that the County will ask other agencies to develop septic tank siting criteria and then will add the criteria to County land development regulations. CARE Policy 5.15 indicates that the County will not support deep well injection of effluent unless the process will have no adverse effect upon existing or potential potable water aquifers. More effective, Sewer Element Objective 7 is to "[m]inimize the possibility of existing and future sources of wastewater adversely impacting groundwater." Also, Sewer Element Policy 7.1 requires septic tank users to connect to central sewer when it becomes available, in the absence of undue hardship. And FLUE Policy A-1.3 prohibits development dependent upon on-site sewage disposal systems, if the soils are unsuitable, unless the soils can be altered to comply with state law. Regarding water conservation, Sewer Element Objective 2 is to "protect and conserve the potable water resources, both groundwater and surface water" and expand recovered water reuse systems. As noted above, CARE Objective 6 requires the "conservation, reuse, and enhancement of groundwater and surface water supplies" to meet potable water demands. CARE Policies 6.2 and 6.4 require the use of recovered water under certain circumstances. FLUE Objective B-10 is to protect the agricultural water supply through regulations. As compared to whether the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources, the question is closer as to whether the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting water sources. The Hillsborough River is adequately protected. Groundwater is directly addressed, although aquifer recharge receives little direct attention. Wellfields and cones of influence are not directly addressed. However, on balance, the Plan is consistent with the criterion of one or more objectives conserving, appropriately using, and protecting the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources. As to Issue 19, however, the Plan is, to the exclusion of fair debate, not consistent with the criterion of one or more policies addressing implementation activities to protect water quality by restricting activities known to affect adversely the quality and quantity of identified water sources, including cones of influence, water recharge areas, and water wells. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Plan does not address in any detail water wells, cones of influence, or water recharge areas. Although the Plan is nevertheless able to attain consistency with a criterion of an objective to protect, conserve, and appropriately use water sources, the Plan's relevant provisions are too vague to attain consistency with a criterion of policies to restrict activities affecting adversely cones of influence, water wells, and aquifer recharge areas. As to Issues 20-21, the Plan contains policies addressing implementation activities restricting activities known to affect adversely the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife and protecting native vegetative communities. It is unnecessary to consider the extent to which the Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation protects native vegetative communities and the habitat that some of these communities provide to endangered and threatened species. Other Plan provisions, including the density and intensity formulas and the upland forest density credit incentive, offer sufficient protection to these vegetative communities for the Plan to attain consistency with the criteria requiring specific policies. Coastal Hazards (Issues 22-23) As to Issue 22, the Plan is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, consistent with the criterion of an objective directing population concentrations away from coastal high hazard areas. Coastal Element Objective 6 is to "[r]estrict development of residential population centers" in the coastal high hazard area. CARE Objective 5 is to avoid loss of life and property by "minimizing land development" in coastal areas. As used in the Plan, "restrict" does not mean "prohibit." 32/ Restrict appears to mean merely regulate. And without standards to guide regulation, an objective to restrict, or minimize, is vague and undefined. The meaning of the criterion is clear and its importance is indisputable for one of the most hurricane vulnerable regions in the United States. Obviously, the County itself does not interpret Plan language to "restrict" and "minimize" development as synonymous with the criterion to "direct population concentrations away from." Allowing higher densities in the coastal high hazard area and new intense uses in vacant or agricultural areas within the coastal high hazard area, the Plan reflects the County's reasonable interpretation of Coastal Element Objective 6. The language of Objective 6 and the apparent interpretation of the language by the County mean that the County is required only to attempt to restrain the rate of growth in intensity and density in the coastal high hazard area. This is not tantamount to directing population concentrations away from this hazardous area. Plan provisions to maintain hurricane evacuation times may not direct population concentrations from the coastal high hazard area because evacuation times can be reduced by other means, such as road and bridge capacity improvements. The missing objective must reduce densities and labor-intensive and capital-intensive intensities in the coastal high hazard area. As to Issue 23, the Plan contains a policy identifying regulatory techniques for septic tanks as part of general hazard mitigation to reduce the exposure of life and property in part of the coastal area to natural hazards. Coastal Element Policy 6.7 prohibits, except in cases of "undue hardship," the use of septic tanks for new development in the coastal high hazard area. There is no similar provision governing septic tanks in the larger coastal area, of which the coastal high hazard area is only a part. However, Coastal Element Policy 1.3 requires the County to plan for the construction of regional wastewater treatment facilities for coastal areas planned for higher densities, thereby reducing the use of interim wastewater treatment alternatives. Coastal Element Policy 1.7 provides, where economically feasible, the County shall provide improved domestic wastewater treatment service to coastal areas where persistent water quality problems in Tampa Bay are attributable to malfunctioning septic tanks. Public Facilities (Issues 24-31) As to Issue 24, the Plan establishes peak hour level of service standards for state roads and explains why the adopted level of service standards for certain roads are below the generally applicable standards. As to Issue 25, the Plan appears to govern all action taken by Hillsborough County concerning development and development orders. The four major provisions concerning vesting are reasonable and do not extend unnecessarily the recognition of vested rights. As to Issue 26, the Plan contains a policy addressing programs and activities for the provision of public facilities for development authorized by development orders issued prior to the adoption of the Plan. CIE Policy 1.D.1 requires the County, in determining the scope of capital improvements needed for concurrency, to take into account "demand that is likely to occur from previously issued development orders as well as future growth." As to Issues 27 and 28, the Plan's allowance of pipelining road impact fees in connection with DRI development orders does not necessarily violate concurrency. The Regional Plan allows pipelining, although the County's Plan fails to incorporate the restrictive conditions set forth in Regional Plan Policy 19.8.14. CIE Policy 3.C.4 already provides for considerable flexibility in the selection of affected areas when making concurrency determinations for roads. Reasonable flexibility in identifying the range of roads impacted by a DRI and applying DRI road impact fees does not mean that the resulting developments will violate concurrency. Nonvested DRI's remain subject to the Plan, including the concurrency monitoring and enforcement provisions, and their failure to satisfy these provisions should result in the denial of a development order. As to Issue 29, the Plan contains policies providing for concurrency with respect to developments for which development orders were issued prior to the adoption of the Plan and new developments that are to be assessed a pro rata share of the costs of public facility improvements necessitated by the new development. As noted above, CIE Policy 1.D.1 takes into account the demand for public facilities from development orders issued before the adoption of the Plan. CIE Policy 2.B.1.a provides further that existing development shall pay for at least some of the capital improvements to reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies. CIE Objective 2 addresses the sources of funds for infrastructure, including "County revenues, development's proportionate share contributions, and grants or gift[s] from other source[s]." CIE Policy 2.B.2.a provides that the County will "allocate the cost of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents so that current residents will not subsidize an urban sprawl pattern of new development." As to Issue 30, the above-described Plan provisions, together with the five year schedule of capital improvements, establish funding mechanisms to correct existing deficiencies in required public facilities. As to Issue 31, the Plan is consistent with the requirement of financial feasibility based on the schedules of capital improvements and sources of revenues. The $52.4 million discrepancy between the cost of capital improvements in the Five Year Schedule and the Table of Costs and Revenues, which were prepared 18 months apart, does not prove lack of financial feasibility. In the absence of additional evidence, it is equally likely that the County displayed financial prudence in scaling back capital outlays to meet emerging revenue shortfalls. Urban Sprawl (Issues 32-35) As to Issue 32, the FLUM generally depicts urban and rural land uses with one major exception. To the exclusion of fair debate, there is no clear indication as to what land uses are permissible on lands designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas. As to Issue 33, the Plan contains provisions to discourage urban sprawl. The Plan generally provides for a viable mixture of residential and commercial uses in the concept underlying the Plan and the use of nodes. With the exception of the areas whose designations are not supported by the Data and Analysis, urban and rural land uses are separated. Regarding urban sprawl, various Plan provisions, such as FLUE Policies A- 7.6 and B-4.6, discourage urban sprawl and encourage the efficient use of land and provision of public facilities and the protection of natural resources and agriculture. As to Issue 34, the Plan contains provisions, regarding the protection of rural and agricultural lands, designating agricultural uses on the FLUM; setting objectives to conserve, appropriately use, and protect soils and natural vegetative communities; and setting policies to protect and conserve the natural functions of soils, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, floodplains, harbors, and wetlands. The agricultural uses are primarily assigned to Rural designations, and the Rural designations generally specify densities that are low enough to promote agricultural uses. Plan provisions describe the extent to which agricultural uses may be located in Urban and Suburban designations. Some of the natural resources receive more protection than others, such as floodplains, but in general, and especially in the context of protecting rural and agricultural lands, the Plan is consistent with the cited criteria. Miscellaneous (Issues 35-36) As to Issue 35, the Plan contains provisions adequately addressing intergovernmental coordination. As to Issue 36, the Plan contains dual planning timeframes. One timeframe, as shown on the five year schedule of capital improvements, is five years, and the other, as shown on the FLUM, is 20 years. Minimum Criterion of Internal Consistency (Issues 37-38) As to Issue 37, the Plan is, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with respect to, on the one hand, Plan provisions to protect natural resources, which are identified as Conservation and Preservation Areas in the Plan, and, on the other hand, the failure to provide Environmentally Sensitive Areas with a designation that regulates land uses. The Plan is generally internally consistent with respect to the permitted densities and intensities and Plan provisions to protect natural resources. However, there are two major exceptions to this finding. First, if the stormwater level of service standard is not expanded in the manner described above, all designations allowing further development within the 100 year floodplain are, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with Plan provisions to protect natural resources, unless the development in the 100 year floodplain is prohibited from altering predevelopment drainage conditions in terms of rate, volume, quality, timing, or location of discharge. Second, even if the stormwater level of service standard is appropriately broadened, the densities and intensities determined, to the exclusion of fair debate, to be unsuitable or unsupported by the Data and Analysis are, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with Plan provisions to protect natural resources. This applies to the second and third clauses of Issue 37. The Plan is internally consistent with respect to the discouragement of urban sprawl and the adopted level of service standards for roads and the use of dual planning timeframes. As to Issue 38, the Plan is internally consistent with respect to the discouragement of urban sprawl and the Plan provisions requiring developers to pay a pro rata share of the cost of public facilities necessitated by their development. Minimum Criterion of Consistency with Regional Plan (Issue 39) As to Issue 39, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the Regional Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the Regional Plan's provisions requiring the discouragement of urban sprawl, identification of the coastal high hazard area, prohibition against publicly subsidized development in the coastal high hazard area (the Regional Plan lacks a provision requiring the direction of population away from the coastal high hazard area), adoption of road level of service standards, achievement of energy-efficient design of transportation facilities, enhancement of governmental efficiency, and attainment of compliance with national air quality standards. With respect to the Regional Plan's provisions for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, the Plan is consistent in some respects and, to the exclusion of fair debate, inconsistent in other respects. The inconsistencies have all been addressed above in connection with inconsistencies with other criteria of Chapter 9J-5. These inconsistencies are the inadequate stormwater level of service standard, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goal 8.7; in the absence of the expanded stormwater level of service standard discussed above, the inadequate protection of the 100 year floodplain, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goals 8.10, 10.4, and 10.5 and related policies; the inadequate protection extended to public supply potable water wellfields and their cones of influence and aquifer recharge, which conflicts with Regional Plan Goals 8.1 and 8.5 and related policies. Minimum Criterion of Consistency with State Plan (Issues 40-41) As to Issue 40, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the State Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the discouragement of urban sprawl, promotion of agricultural activities that are compatible with the protection of natural resources, reduction of the cost of housing construction by the elimination of costly regulatory practices, coordination of transportation improvements to enhance system efficiency and minimize environmental impacts, assurance that transportation improvements are consistent with the maintenance of optimum air quality and efficient use of energy and transportation modes, elimination of regulatory activities not tied to the needs of specific public and natural resource protection, reduction of the need for new power plants by encouraging end-use energy efficiency, and attainment of compliance with all national air quality standards. With respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the elimination of the discharge of inadequately treated stormwater runoff and wastewater into the waters of the state, the Plan is consistent with respect to wastewater, but, to the exclusion of fair debate, inconsistent with respect to stormwater due to the above-noted deficiencies concerning the stormwater level of service standard. As to Issue 41, the Plan is consistent, under either evidentiary standard, with the State Plan, construed as a whole, with respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the development of a system of incentives and disincentives to encourage a separation of urban and rural uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats (notwithstanding general shortcomings regarding the protection of water supplies and specific unsuitable designations jeopardizing potentially significant wildlife habitat), promotion of agriculture, provision of incentives for developing land so as to maximize the uses of existing public facilities, allocation of the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents, and assurance that the transportation system provides Florida's residents and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions. With respect to the State Plan's provisions as to the direction of growth into areas that already have or will soon have the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner, the Plan is generally consistent. However, the Plan is inconsistent with this provision of the State Plan, to the exclusion of fair debate, with respect to those five areas for which unsuitable designations were demonstrated to the exclusion of fair debate, and the Plan is inconsistent with this provision of the State Plan, by a mere preponderance of the evidence, with respect to those six areas for which unsuitable designations were demonstrated by a mere preponderance of the evidence..
Recommendation 317
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Ordinance 679-L of the City of St. Petersburg ("City"), which amended the Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) of the City's Comprehensive Plan on certain property generally located at the northeast corner of 9th Avenue North and 66th Street North within the boundaries of the City (the "Subject Property") from Institutional to Residential Office Retail (R/O/R) land use on 2.98 acres, Residential Office General (R/OG) on 2.98 acres, and Residential Urban (RU) on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”), is "in compliance" as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,i notwithstanding Petitioners' contentions that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent and not based on data and analysis.
Findings Of Fact Parties Each Petitioner submitted oral and/or written comments, recommendations and/or objections to the City regarding the disputed land use amendments that are the subject of this case between the day of the transmittal hearing (July 18, 2006) and the day of the adoption hearing (February 15, 2007). Each individual Petitioner owns and/or resides on property within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., f/k/a Eagle Crest Neighborhood Association, Inc., is a Florida not-for- profit corporation conducting business within the boundaries of the City. The Eagle Crest Civic Association, Inc., collects dues from membership, conducts monthly business and informational meetings at the St. Petersburg College Gibbs Campus Library in the City, and advocates interests on behalf of its membership before the St. Petersburg Council of Neighborhood Associations and various City and County governmental boards, commissions and councils. The Department is the state land planning agency that is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The City is a municipality and political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Sembler is a Florida corporation headquartered and conducting business in the City; by virtue of a contract for the purchase of the property that is the subject of this dispute, Sembler is an equitable owner of the property that is affected by the challenged FLUM Amendment in this case. Background The Subject Property has been owned by the Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg since 1952. Notre Dame High School, a Catholic girls-only high school, was constructed on the Subject Property in the early 1960’s. In 1977, Notre Dame High School merged with Bishop Barry High School (a Catholic boys-only high school to the east of the Subject Property) and the improvements on the Subject Property were used for various Catholic diocesan offices and other administrative purposes. Notre Dame High School was eventually demolished, and the only improvements remaining on the Subject Property are a former field house used for storage purposes and a former convent used for a multi-purpose building. The Subject Property is otherwise currently completely vacant. Since 1977 the Subject Property has had a FLUM designation of Institutional. In January of 2006, Sembler applied to the City for a change in the FLUM designation on the Subject Property from Institutional to Commercial General for an approximately 13.25 acre portion of the Subject Property fronting predominately along the west side 66th Street North between 9th Avenue North and 13th Avenue North. On March 7, 2006, Sembler requested a deferral of its pending application to consider a modification of the development plan to less intensive commercial uses. The deferral was granted by the City Planning Commission. On March 29, 2006, Sembler submitted a new application, abandoning the prior request to change the FLUM designation for the approximately 13.25-acre portion from Institutional to Commercial General. The new application (March 29, 2006) by Sembler requested a change to the Future Land Use designation for an approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property from its existing Institutional designation to Residential Office Retail ("R/O/R"). This new application was assigned City File Number PC-700 (“PC-700”). The intention of the PC-700 application was to develop multifamily residential units on approximately 11.8 acres of the Subject Property and to develop neighborhood commercial uses on the approximate 6.19-acre portion of the Subject Property. The PC-700 application included a Development Agreement proposed by Sembler which, among other things, limited the actual commercial development of the 6.19 acre portion to 26,000 square feet of space, and required that a quarter, or 25 percent, of that space be developed under the zoning regulations for Residential Office General ("R/OG"), instead of R/O/R. On May 2, 2006, the City’s Planning Commission (the “LPA”) conducted a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Application, and voted 6-2 to recommend approval of the PC-700 application to the St. Petersburg City Council (the “City Council”). On July 18, 2006, the City Council conducted a public hearing for the First Reading of the PC-700 application, and unanimously adopted a resolution approving the transmittal of a proposed ordinance adopting PC-700 to the Department, among others, for review and comment pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On September 29, 2006, the Department published its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (“ORC”) Report on the Plan Amendment contained in PC-700. The Department raised no objections to the proposed Plan Amendment. Sometime between September 29, 2006, and December 14, 2006, Sembler modified its application PC-700. The modified application was intended to address some of the concerns raised by neighborhood associations representing citizens who owned property and resided in areas adjacent to the Subject Property. The modified PC-700 application requested a FLUM amendment for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/O/R, for 2.98 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to R/OG, and for 12.02 acres of the Subject Property to be changed from Institutional to RU (“PC-700 Modified”). The PC- 700 Modified application also included a proposed Development Agreement which, among other things, limited the actual development of the R/O/R acreage to a maximum of 13,000 square feet, and limited the total combined development of the R/O/R and ROG acreage to 26,000 square feet. On December 14, 2006, the City Council conducted its First Reading of the PC-700 Modified application, approving the application and setting the Second Hearing for the application for February 15, 2006. On February 6, 2006, the Pinellas County Commission, meeting as the County Planning Authority (the “CPA”), held a public hearing to consider the PC-700 Modified application. The CPA approved the PC-700 Modified application. On February 15, 2007, the City Council conducted its Second Reading public hearing of the PC-700 Modified application and voted to adopt Ordinance 679-L, amending the FLUM designation of the Subject Property from Institutional to R/O/R on 2.98 acres, R/OG on 2.98 acres, and RU on 12.02 acres (the “Plan Amendment”). Petitioners do not challenge the FLUM amendment for the RU portion of the Subject Property. On February 23, 2007, the City transmitted the adopted Ordinance 679-L, together with staff reports from the December 14, 2006, and February 15, 2007, public hearings and certain other pertinent information, to the Department for its review pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On April 16, 2007, the Department published in the St. Petersburg Times newspaper its NOI to find the City’s Plan Amendment “in compliance.” Petitioners' Challenge The Petitioners assert that the FLUM amendment adopted by the City in Ordinance 679-L is not “in compliance” pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, because: (1) the FLUM amendment is not based on adequate data and analysis as required by Section 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) iii; and (2) the FLUM amendment is not internally consistent with specific objectives and policies of the City’s Plan as required by Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a) and (b). The Petitioners’ challenge is centered on three specific objectives and policies contained in the Future Land Use Element ("FLUE") of the City’s Plan: Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4(2), and Objective LU18.iv The Petitioners assert that the challenged Plan Amendment is inconsistent with those objectives and policies and is not based on data and analysis. The Department and the Intervenors assert that those objectives and policies are not applicable, that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with those objectives and policies, and that the Plan Amendment is based on data and analysis. The Intervenors also assert that, even if the Plan Amendment were inconsistent with those objectives and policies, consistency with other goals, objectives, and policies in the plan should be "balanced" against the inconsistency and that the consistencies outweigh the inconsistencies, so that the Plan Amendment still would be "in compliance." The Petitioners and the Department do not subscribe to such a balancing of consistencies and inconsistencies, citing Dept. of Community Affairs v. Lee County and Leeward Yacht Club, LLC, AC-06-006, DOAH Case No. 06-0049GM, 2006 Fla. ENV LEXIS 158 (Admin. Comm'n Nov. 15, 2006). Pertinent City Comprehensive Plan Provisions The City's FLUE Policy LU3.17 states: The City has an adequate supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs. Future expansion of commercial uses shall be restricted to infilling into existing commercial areas and activity centers, except where a need can be clearly identified. The City's FLUE Objective LU4 states in pertinent part: The Future Land Use Plan and Map shall provide for the future land use needs identified in this Element: * * * Commercial – additional commercial acreage is not required to serve the future needs of St. Petersburg. An oversupply exists based upon the standard of 1 acre of commercial land for every 150 persons in the community. * * * 4. Mixed Use – developments are encouraged in appropriate locations to foster a land use pattern that results in fewer and shorter automobile trips and vibrant walkable communities. The City's FLUE Objective LU18 states: Commercial development along the City’s major corridors shall be limited to infilling and redevelopment of existing commercially designated frontages. Section 1.2.2 of the General Introduction to the City’s Plan describes the format of the elements of the Plan and includes the following pertinent sub-headings and language: 1.2.2.3 Goals, Objectives, and Policies The Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been developed in response to and in accordance with the needs and directions of growth and determined levels of service requirements as identified within the Inventory and Analysis which can be found in the accompanying 1989 Technical Support Documents [TSDs] and the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR]. All objectives are designed to identify the measurable achievements necessary to support the related goal. In those cases, where the Objective is not specific and/or measurable, but rather, the actual specificity and measurability is found in the supporting policy(ies), the policy(ies) shall be used for the purposes of monitoring and evaluation. The policies are intended to act as implementation mechanisms identifying programs and procedures to be used to accomplish the related objective. This Comprehensive Plan is intended to be utilized as a document in its entirety. It shall hereby be established that no single goal, objective or policy or minor group of goals, objectives or policies, be interpreted in isolation of the entire plan. 1.2.2.5 Status and Use of the TSD and the EAR . . . . The 1989 TSD and the 1996 EAR are hereby referenced and established as the supporting data and analysis for this Comprehensive Plan. The TSD and the EAR may be used to assist in the interpretation of this comprehensive plan and to aid in the review of proposed changes to this plan. It should be updated as necessary to maintain the usability of the data and analysis as an interpretive and advisory aid. * * * 1.3.1.2 Competing Policies Where two or more policies are competing when applied to a particular set of factual circumstances, such conflict shall be resolved first by administrative interpretation of the Comprehensive plan policies. The objective of any such interpretation shall be to obtain a result which maximizes the degree of consistency between the proposed development or public sector activity and this Comprehensive Plan considered as a whole. The City’s Plan also includes the following pertinent definitions in Section 1.7: Commercial Uses - Activities within land areas which are predominately connected with the sale, rental, and distribution of products, or performance of services. * * * Mixed Use - A site that has a combination of different land uses, such as residential, office and retail. In addition, Policy LU3.1(B) of the City’s FLUE defines "Commercial and Mixed Use Categories" to include: Residential/Office General (R/OG) - allowing mixed use office, office park and medium density residential up to a floor area ratio of 0.5 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Commercial General (CG) - allowing the full range of commercial uses including retail, office, and service uses up to a floor area ratio of 0.55. . . . Retail/Office/Residential (R/O/R) - allowing mixed use retail, office, service, and medium density residential uses generally up to a floor are ratio of 0.4 and a net residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. . . . Finally, FLUE Policy LU3.1(D) defines "Public/Semi- Public Categories" to include: 2. Institutional (I) - Limited to designation of federal, state and local public buildings and grounds, cemeteries, hospitals, churches, and religious institutions and educational uses. Residential uses having a density not to exceed 12.5 dwelling units per acre, are also allowed. Residential equivalency uses are not to exceed 3 beds per dwelling unit. Non-residential uses permitted in the land development regulations are not to exceed a floor area ratio of 0.55. Consistency with Commercial Use Restrictions The Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment at issue increases "the supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs." FLUE Policy LU3.17. This is clear not only from the potential for commercial use in the mixed use R/O/R and R/OG future land use categories, but also from the City's inclusion of nine-tenths of the former's and one-tenth of the latter's acreage in the inventory of commercial land use for purposes of determining the "supply of commercial land use to meet existing and future needs" in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and the ratio described in FLUE Objective LU4.2. The question is whether the restrictions on commercial future land uses reflected in those Plan provisions apply to the mixed use categories of R/O/R and R/OG. Prior to adoption, the City's staff reports stated that the commercial restrictions do apply, and that the Plan Amendment at issue was inconsistent with those restrictions, but that the Plan Amendment was consistent with several other Plan provisions and "on balance, consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan." However, in this de novo proceeding, the staff reports are not controlling on the applicability of the commercial restrictions and the consistency of the FLUM amendments at issue with those restrictions. In the first place, in light of the contrary testimony of staff during the final hearing, the intent of staff in using the language in the reports is fairly debatable. Second, after the staff reports were prepared, significant testimony on need and demand for commercial land use at the particular location of the FLUM amendments at issue was presented during the final public hearing on the PC-700 Modified application on February 15, 2007, which could have changed staff's mind on at least some of the issues. Finally, the extent to which the City Council may have relied on the staff reports in determining that the Plan Amendment was "in compliance" is not clear from the evidence and is fairly debatable. The City now takes the position, along with the Department, that the restrictions on commercial future land use in FLUE Policy LU3.17 and Objective LU4.2 do not apply to R/O/R and R/OG because they are mixed use future land use categories, not commercial future land use categories. In support of this position, they point out that Objective LU4 treats "Mixed Use" and "Commercial" "future land use needs" differently and applies the restriction only to "Commercial" "future land use needs," while encouraging mixed use developments in appropriate locations. Several of the specific Plan provisions cited in the staff reports as being consistent with the Plan Amendment addressed the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location, including: FLUE Policy LU3.18, which states that "retail and office activities shall be located, designed and regulated so as to benefit from the access afforded by major streets without impairing the efficiency of operation of these streets or lowering the LOS [level of service] below adopted standards, and with proper facilities for pedestrian convenience and safety"; FLUE Policy LU3.4, which states that "[t]he Land Use Plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement, proper buffering, and the use of physical and natural separators"; FLUE Policy LU3.6, which states that "[l]and use planning decisions shall weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas where changes of use or intensity of development are contemplated"; FLUE Policy LU3.8, which seeks to "protect existing and future residential uses from incompatible uses, noise, traffic and other intrusions that detract from the long term desirability of an area through appropriate land development regulations"; and FLUE Policy LU3.5, which states that "[t]he tax base will be maintained and improved by encouraging the appropriate use of properties based on their locational characteristics and the goals, objectives and policies within this Comprehensive Plan." There also was considerable testimony at the hearing concerning the appropriateness of a mixed use development at the proposed location.v Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objective LU18 concerning commercial development along major corridors. In favor of Petitioners' position, 66th Street North, where the Subject Property is located, is a major north-south corridor in the City. However, the Department and the Intervenors argue that the objective does not apply because the policies under it only specify 4th Street and Central Avenue and do not mention 66th Street. Taking all of the evidence and the City's Plan into consideration, including Sections 1.2.2.3, 1.2.2.5, and 1.3.1.2 of the General Introduction, it is found that Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that FLUE Policy LU3.17, Objective LU4.2, or Objective LU18 apply to the FLUM amendments at issue; even if those Plan provisions applied, Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM amendments at issue do not constitute "infilling into existing commercial areas" or "infilling . . . of existing commercially designated frontages," or that "a need can[not] be clearly identified."vi All but one witness testified that, if those Plan provisions applied, the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill under the pertinent Plan provisions; the lone dissenter was using what he called a "narrow definition" of infill and agreed that the FLUM amendments would constitute commercial infill using the broader definition held by the majority view. There also was ample evidence that there was a clearly identified need for the FLUM amendments at issue, especially when considered along with the unchallenged RU FLUM amendment. Based on the foregoing findings on internal consistency, which is the context of Petitioners' data and analysis argument, Petitioners also did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment was not based on data and analysis.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the City's Ordinance 679- L is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The Department as the State Land Planning Agency is charged with the responsibility of reviewing the Comprehensive Plans submitted by local governments. Following such review conducted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Department is to determine whether the plan submitted is "in compliance" or "not in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules employed in the review process. McIntosh is a local government which adopted its Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The McIntosh Comprehensive Plan was adopted was received by the Department on July 24, 1992. On September 4, 1992, the Department published Notice of Intent to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules. McIntosh is a town of approximately 450 acres in size, which had a residential population in 1990 of 411 and was projected to increase population by the year 2000 to 418 people. Single family residential and agricultural land uses are the predominant land uses in the community. Petitioner Harris owns property within the incorporated limits of McIntosh. He owns and operates Sportsman Cove, a business located on Orange Lake. Portions of Orange Lake are found within the corporate limits of McIntosh where Harris conducts his business. Harris owns blocks 35 and 36 and portions of blocks 37, 53 and 54 within the corporate limits. His business involves 49 licensed mobile home sites and a number of "RV" sites located on approximately 4.648 acres along the shore of Orange Lake. He also operates a fish camp there. When the Comprehensive Plan was being prepared Harris submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations pertaining to the plan. He is a person affected by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Colwell owns property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh. She owns and operates the McIntosh Fish Camp which has 8 mobile home sites and 5 "RV" sites along the shore line of Orange Lake within the town limits. Colwell submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the process of review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Colwell is a person affected by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The fish camp operations and "RV" sites of Harris and Colwell are classified in the Comprehensive Plan as lakefront commercial. The Stott's own property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh. That ownership includes blocks 1, 2, 13, 14 and 15 constituted of 13.6 acres, a portion of which is located on the shore of Orange Lake. In 1986 part of their property was used as a restaurant for about a year. The Stott's engaged in a bait business for approximately a year beyond that point. In the past prior to the plan adoption, there had been a fish camp located at blocks 1 and 15 with cabins and camper sites. These blocks are located adjacent to Orange Lake and are classified lake front residential in the Comprehensive Plan. At the time of hearing the property was not being operated as a fish camp. In the past lots 2, 13 and 14 had been used by the Stott's for unspecified light industry. The Stotts submitted written and oral comments, objections and recommendations during the plan review and adoption process. The Stotts are persons affected by the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The notice that was provided on September 4, 1992 concerning the intent to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance" made mention that the adopted plan would be available for public inspection Monday through Friday, with the exception of legal holidays. The location contemplated for inspection was the McIntosh Town Hall, Clerk's Office, at 5975 Avenue G, McIntosh, Florida. A problem arose concerning the opportunity to inspect the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The problem was occasioned by an illness to the Town Clerk. This influenced petitioners' ability to review the adopted plan and to timely submit their challenges to the decision to find the Plan in compliance. Under the circumstances a slight delay in conforming to the 21 day requirement for filing the petitions in challenge to the Comprehensive Plan is acceptable. With some inconvenience to Petitioners, persons other than the Town Clerk offered assistance in making the adopted plan available for inspection. Nonetheless, petitioners were afforded sufficient opportunity to apprise themselves concerning the contents of the adopted plan when considered in the context of their participation in the overall process for adopting the McIntosh Comprehensive Plan. The complications experienced in reviewing the adopted Comprehensive Plan did not compromise the ability of these petitioners to advance their claims in a setting in which other procedural requirements for plan adoption, review and approval have been met. The inconvenience experienced by the petitioners in reviewing the adopted plan do not evidence a quality of prejudice that should form the basis for deciding that the plan is not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. When the Town Council adopted the plan and established Policy 2.1.4.5 it intended to use the word "abandonment" where the written text found within the adopted plan at Page 2-23 uses the word "suspension." This mistake is evidenced by the minutes of the meeting for adoption where a motion was made to change the word "suspension" to "abandonment." In the course of the hearing the attorney for McIntosh stipulated that this was an error and that the written text would be changed to reflect the proper wording. With that change Policy 2.1.4.5 would read: Provisions in the Land Development Regulations shall discourage the continuance of existing inconsistent land uses within designated land uses. These provisions shall limit the expansion of inconsistent land usage and, upon a 90 days abandonment of the incompatible land use, require reversion to designated land uses. Petitioner Harris is not satisfied that the Figure 2-6, Page 2-11, which is a map of the wetlands within the incorporated town limits, in the Comprehensive Plan, is accurate. He claims that a lobe, which is an RV site on his property known as site 9C is not within the wetlands as shown on that map. He also takes issue with the designation in Figure 2-9, page 2-17, of the future land map which shows this lobe of property as conservation/open space. He perceives this property at site 9C to be uplands. By virtue of his own activities in May 1991 in which he arranged to have a survey performed on his property in the incorporated limits of McIntosh, Harris asserts that site 9C was not found to be wetlands then and is not wetlands now. When McIntosh designated the wetlands in the community through the use of the wetlands map and identified conservation/open space in the future land use map it was acting in accordance with legal requirements incumbent upon it in adopting the Comprehensive Plan. The specific designations of wetlands and conservation/open space areas are based upon appropriate data and analysis. The data was taken from a professionally accepted existing source and was the best available data. The work that was done in preparing the wetland mapping requirements was done by the same consulting firm which Harris had employed in May 1991, that is to say Environmental Service and Permitting, Inc. In preparing the wetlands survey for McIntosh the private consulting firm used ground-truthing, as well as a review of wetland mapping data sources to delineate the wetlands. The data consulted included the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Marion County, U.S.G.S. Quadrangle maps for the Town of McIntosh, as well as a review of the McIntosh Land Planning Agency Drainage Map. Although Harris takes issue with the clarity of some of the maps depicting the lobe of property for his site 9C, the adopted plan is acceptable as it describes wetlands and conservation/open space to include his site 9C. Objective 7.1.1 at Page 7.4 establishes wetland setbacks within the town where it states: The Town of McIntosh shall protect the natural drainage features within and adjacent to the Town limits, by the establishment of the wetland setbacks, and compliance with State Water Quality standards, to be a part of the Land Development Regulation. In furtherance of this Objective, Policy 7.1.1.1 is set out at page 7- 4 where it states: Setbacks shall be established from the limit of wetlands landward to buildings, septic tanks and land coverage. The following setbacks shall be a part of the Land Development Regulations. Buildings shall be set back at a minimum of 75 feet. Septic tanks and drain fields shall be set back at a minimum of 200 feet. Impervious areas shall be set back at a minimum of 50 feet. Drainage Retention Areas shall be set back 25 feet. These set backs were arrived at by the Town Council having heard from the petitioners. In the face of remarks by the petitioners made in the adoption process the council reduced the set backs. While no specific data and analysis was offered to support the set backs, they are within limits which would be recommended by the Department to protect the wetlands resources. According to the Department, from a planning viewpoint, the mere existence of wetlands is sufficient to promote protections through the use of set backs. The set backs found within this Comprehensive Plan are appropriate. Moreover, the set backs associated with the protections of wetlands have the additional benefit of protecting Orange Lake, a Class III Outstanding Florida Water Body, entitled to special water quality protection. Protection of that water body is the responsibility of McIntosh in its comprehensive planning, together with other local governments and environmental regulators. Future land use classifications in the Comprehensive Plan are set out at Page 2-14. Property which abuts Lake Orange is classified as lake front residential and lake front commercial. Lake front residential is defined as: [T]his category allows a maximum of 2 units per acre. Dwelling units includes: single family houses and mobile homes. Maximum coverage of 35% and maximum building height of 35 feet. Lake front commercial is defined as: this category allows fish camps, marinas, and recreational vehicle parks. Maximum coverage of 50% and a maximum building height of 35 feet." These classifications and densities protect natural resources to include the wetlands and Orange Lake and are appropriate. Petitioners Harris and Colwell may take advantage of the lake front commercial for their fish camp operations and "RV" sites. Stott is not entitled to take advantage of the lake front commercial classification in that her property did not include a fish camp and recreational vehicle operations at the time the plan was adopted. Petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the adopted Comprehensive Plan is not "in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules concerning the issues raised in the challenges to the determination to find the Comprehensive Plan "in compliance."
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which finds the Town of McIntosh Comprehensive Plan to be "in compliance" and dismisses the petitions. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 30th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Harris' Facts: This paragraph is not relevant in that it was not alleged in the petition. This paragraph in its various parts concerning available low and moderate income housing and the densities is rejected in its suggestion that the Comprehensive Plan is not acceptable. This paragraph is rejected in its suggestion that the seasonal population for dwelling units affiliated with fish camp operations should cause a reconsideration of the classifications and densities for land use. This paragraph is ejected in its legal conclusion. 5-8 These paragraphs are not relevant in that these issues were not set out in the petition. 9, 10 To the extent that paragraphs 9 and 10 describe concerns about the treatment in the Comprehensive Plan of wetlands and comment critically on wetlands protections, the proposed findings of facts are rejected. Colwell's Facts: The unnumbered facts proposed are subordinate to facts found, with the exception that the changes in Orange Lake described even if true do not persuade that the wetlands protection of Orange Lake contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan is inappropriate. Stott's Facts: 1-2 Paragraphs 1 and 2 are subordinate to facts found. 3-5 Constitute legal argument. 6 It is acknowledged that the Orange Lake is used for fishing. 7-11 To the extent that paragraphs 7 through 11 suggest inappropriate identification and protection of the wetlands through the adopted Comprehensive Plan, the proposed facts are rejected. McIntosh's Facts: A-E, A-C, A-E Are subordinate to facts found with exception that the word "increase" in fact should be "decrease" when describing residential density. Department's Facts: 1, 2 Subordinate to facts found. Subordinate to facts found with exception that the reference to the property being within "unincorporated" limits should read "incorporated" limits. - 6 Subordinate to facts found. Subordinate to facts found with exception to the suggestion that the petitioners had to contact city council members to obtain a copy of the adopted plan in the absence of the clerk. - 20 Subordinate to facts found. Not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. - 26 Subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Jerry Harris P. O. Box 107 McIntosh, FL 32664 Anna Colwell P. O. Box 135 McIntosh, FL 32664 Thomas C. Stott Marie Stott P. O. Box 551 McIntosh, FL 32664 David Wilcox, Esquire 425 Pleasant Grove Road Inverness, FL 32652 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
